CDZ Another conversation about Universal Income

[Tehon]

What does it do to a human being to be treated like the useless pet of the government?

It destroys their will to survive and thrive.

BINGO. And that is why a universal income is a horrible idea.

One can find purpose and joy in their labor ENTIRELY INDEPENDENT OF EARNING AN INCOME.

Many priests, nuns, and volunteer free laborers know this.

Why dont we?

Socialism requires social morals for free; that is why, Only the Religious can make, "communism work".

There is no way to make Communism work. It has failed everywhere it has been tried.

Never say never.
Communism did not work in specific societies at specific points along the evolutionary process forming their productive relations.

 

[boedicca]

It destroys their will to survive and thrive.

BINGO. And that is why a universal income is a horrible idea.

One can find purpose and joy in their labor ENTIRELY INDEPENDENT OF EARNING AN INCOME.

Many priests, nuns, and volunteer free laborers know this.

Why dont we?

Socialism requires social morals for free; that is why, Only the Religious can make, "communism work".

There is no way to make Communism work. It has failed everywhere it has been tried.

Never say never.
Communism did not work in specific societies at specific points along the evolutionary process forming their productive relations.

I'll say it again quite emphatically: Communism has always ended up in failure wherever it has been tried, and it always will. The Utopia it aims for is contrary to the fundamentals of human nature. It actually augments the worst of humanity in that it enables extreme concentration of power.

 

[jillian]

Jordan Peterson is a really interesting guy, and has some fascinating thoughts on the universal income issue that seems to be popping up more often nowadays.

My position has been that productivity, income and skill sets have all become so out-of-balance that we may not be able to re-balance them, so some kind of universal income may be necessary.

Peterson disagrees, and lays it out here. By the way, this is a very smart guy who is not paralyzed by partisan thought, and likes to instead look for areas of agreement on which to build. Crazy, huh?

JimBowie1958 , I think you'd find this interesting:

"So we can have an intelligent discussion between the Left and the Right, and the discussion would go something like this - You need innovation, you pay for innovation with inequality, but you need to bind inequality because if it is too intense then things destabilize. Okay, we can agree on that, we've got the parameters set. Now we have to start thinking very carefully through how to do the re-distribution issue, we don't know how to do that. So you might say well, we'd have a guaranteed income for people, which I think is a horrible solution, by the way, but it addresses the right problem, which is we're hyper-productive, the spoils go to those at the top, and some of those resources have to be funneled down to the people who have zero, so that they can at least get to the point where they can innovate, so the whole bloody thing doesn't wobble and fall."

Why doesn't he like the idea of a Universal Income?

"I think that the idea that the solution is a basic income is not a good idea, because I think the problem is deeper than that. I don't think the fundamental problem is that people don't have enough money. I think the fundamental problem is that human beings, in some sense, are beasts of burden. And if they're not provided with a place where they can accept personal and social responsibility in an honorable manner, they degenerate and die. That's the opiate crisis in West right now."

is anyone seriously talking about "universal income"?

Very few.
.

exactly

 

[Mac1958]

There will likely be massive unemployment as automation replaces or reduces the need for humans. Maybe the answer is to provide a basic income in exchange for the individual providing useful services a few hours a week. Clearing vacant lots, planting trees etc. Then at least it isn't just a handout where someone can lay on the couch all day.

Just spit-balling here, but given human nature, something like this might require the creation of an entire new industry, some kind of professional public services area. On one hand, most people don't want handouts; on the other, they generally don't want to perform tasks that they feel are "beneath" them, and they want to progress at their job and increase their skillset.

I'm wondering if we could create some kind of professional strata that would incorporate all of the above, beginning with low-skilled capital. Otherwise this just gets worse as technology and productivity continue to displace people, higher and higher up the scale.

As I said, just spit-balling.
.

 

[MarathonMike]

There will likely be massive unemployment as automation replaces or reduces the need for humans. Maybe the answer is to provide a basic income in exchange for the individual providing useful services a few hours a week. Clearing vacant lots, planting trees etc. Then at least it isn't just a handout where someone can lay on the couch all day.

Just spit-balling here, but given human nature, something like this might require the creation of an entire new industry, some kind of professional public services area. On one hand, most people don't want handouts; on the other, they generally don't want to perform tasks that they feel are "beneath" them, and they want to progress at their job and increase their skillset.

I'm wondering if we could create some kind of professional strata that would incorporate all of the above, beginning with low-skilled capital. Otherwise this just gets worse as technology and productivity continue to displace people, higher and higher up the scale.

As I said, just spit-balling.
.

Well you had the WPA that FDR started back in the 30s. I could see unemployment being a big enough problem in the future meriting something like a WPA. Maybe we could retool the Welfare Foodstamp program and pull it under the umbrella of a modernized WPA?

 

[Mac1958]

There will likely be massive unemployment as automation replaces or reduces the need for humans. Maybe the answer is to provide a basic income in exchange for the individual providing useful services a few hours a week. Clearing vacant lots, planting trees etc. Then at least it isn't just a handout where someone can lay on the couch all day.

Just spit-balling here, but given human nature, something like this might require the creation of an entire new industry, some kind of professional public services area. On one hand, most people don't want handouts; on the other, they generally don't want to perform tasks that they feel are "beneath" them, and they want to progress at their job and increase their skillset.

I'm wondering if we could create some kind of professional strata that would incorporate all of the above, beginning with low-skilled capital. Otherwise this just gets worse as technology and productivity continue to displace people, higher and higher up the scale.

As I said, just spit-balling.
.

Well you had the WPA that FDR started back in the 30s. I could see unemployment being a big enough problem in the future meriting something like a WPA. Maybe we could retool the Welfare Foodstamp program and pull it under the umbrella of a modernized WPA?

Imagine the politics that would surround something like this, yikes.

Interesting.
.

 

[MarathonMike]

There will likely be massive unemployment as automation replaces or reduces the need for humans. Maybe the answer is to provide a basic income in exchange for the individual providing useful services a few hours a week. Clearing vacant lots, planting trees etc. Then at least it isn't just a handout where someone can lay on the couch all day.

Just spit-balling here, but given human nature, something like this might require the creation of an entire new industry, some kind of professional public services area. On one hand, most people don't want handouts; on the other, they generally don't want to perform tasks that they feel are "beneath" them, and they want to progress at their job and increase their skillset.

I'm wondering if we could create some kind of professional strata that would incorporate all of the above, beginning with low-skilled capital. Otherwise this just gets worse as technology and productivity continue to displace people, higher and higher up the scale.

As I said, just spit-balling.
.

Well you had the WPA that FDR started back in the 30s. I could see unemployment being a big enough problem in the future meriting something like a WPA. Maybe we could retool the Welfare Foodstamp program and pull it under the umbrella of a modernized WPA?

Imagine the politics that would surround something like this, yikes.

Interesting.
.

I'm the last guy who wants more government but I am also a pragmatist. This is huge problem and it's coming. I don't see a private sector solution. Businesses are not in business to support the unemployable and technology will be rendering a large percentage of Americans unemployable within 30 years. Maybe sooner.

 

[Mac1958]

There will likely be massive unemployment as automation replaces or reduces the need for humans. Maybe the answer is to provide a basic income in exchange for the individual providing useful services a few hours a week. Clearing vacant lots, planting trees etc. Then at least it isn't just a handout where someone can lay on the couch all day.

Just spit-balling here, but given human nature, something like this might require the creation of an entire new industry, some kind of professional public services area. On one hand, most people don't want handouts; on the other, they generally don't want to perform tasks that they feel are "beneath" them, and they want to progress at their job and increase their skillset.

I'm wondering if we could create some kind of professional strata that would incorporate all of the above, beginning with low-skilled capital. Otherwise this just gets worse as technology and productivity continue to displace people, higher and higher up the scale.

As I said, just spit-balling.
.

Well you had the WPA that FDR started back in the 30s. I could see unemployment being a big enough problem in the future meriting something like a WPA. Maybe we could retool the Welfare Foodstamp program and pull it under the umbrella of a modernized WPA?

Imagine the politics that would surround something like this, yikes.

Interesting.
.

I'm the last guy who wants more government but I am also a pragmatist. This is huge problem and it's coming. I don't see a private sector solution. Businesses are not in business to support the unemployable and technology will be rendering a large percentage of Americans unemployable within 30 years. Maybe sooner.

Wow, good to hear, thanks. My impulse is against something like this too, but I do believe this is coming, and it won't be long. We may already be seeing it in the amount of slack in the workforce - unemployment is low but wages aren't increasing much. That could easily be an indication of an unevenness in human capital.
.

 

[usmbguest5318]

FWIW, I'm not convinced of the need for a UBI, but I realized it's a potential solution to a very real problem; thus I'm not flat-out opposed to trying it.

The problem is, what happens if it doesn't work and you want to take it away? Holy crap, good luck.

I dunno. There are no easy answers here, but we do need to start talking about it.
.

How does, "ensuring full employment of capital resources", not work in any given hypothetical?

Working "in any given hypothetical" isn't ever a problem. In the minds of their creators, everything "works" in hypotheticals they create. Indeed, that everything thus "works" is among the things distinguishing hypotheticals from theory and applications of theory.

 

[usmbguest5318]

FWIW, I'm not convinced of the need for a UBI, but I realized it's a potential solution to a very real problem; thus I'm not flat-out opposed to trying it.

It is a subsidy that will benefit business more than the consumers.

Well, okay....maybe so, maybe not. I don't know. I don't think the preponderance of the benefit is a determining factor for me. Maybe it should be or will eventually be, but thus far I haven't considered the matter from a normative context of the sort implied by your remark. What I've considered is what impacts it will have on me and whether I am willing to endure those impacts. I've also thought about and sought empirical measurements/analysis of the macroeconomic implications of the UBI.

The left wing of the left wing is advocating solving simple poverty on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States.

I don't see the point of that remark in what presumably is supposed to be a substantive discussion about the merits/demerits of UBI and implementing it. What anyone, including "the left wing of the left wing," advocates or doesn't is irrelevant unless the advocate is a credible expert on the matter. Quite simply, the ethicality, sagacity and efficacy of a proposal are existential.

Truth is a demure lady, much too ladylike to knock you on your head and drag you to her cave. She is there, but people must want her, and seek her out.
-- William F. Buckley, Jr.​

 

[usmbguest5318]

The left wing of the left wing is advocating solving simple poverty on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States.

Capitalism does not Care about Socialism's "work ethic from the Age of Iron". Only socialism cares. Capitalism only cares about capitalism.

Equal protection of the law for unemployment compensation purposes, is a, "flanking maneuver" of the far left.

Wow! Three successive remarks, and not one of them directly addresses the intrinsic merits/demerits of a UBI.

 

[JimBowie1958]

The left wing of the left wing is advocating solving simple poverty on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States.

Capitalism does not Care about Socialism's "work ethic from the Age of Iron". Only socialism cares. Capitalism only cares about capitalism.

Equal protection of the law for unemployment compensation purposes, is a, "flanking maneuver" of the far left.

Wow! Three successive remarks, and not one of them directly addresses the intrinsic merits/demerits of a UBI.

this is why I have so many people on ignore.

 

[usmbguest5318]

The left wing of the left wing is advocating solving simple poverty on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States.

Capitalism does not Care about Socialism's "work ethic from the Age of Iron". Only socialism cares. Capitalism only cares about capitalism.

Equal protection of the law for unemployment compensation purposes, is a, "flanking maneuver" of the far left.

Wow! Three successive remarks, and not one of them directly addresses the intrinsic merits/demerits of a UBI.

this is why I have so many people on ignore.

You and I both. LOL

 

[Tehon]

BINGO. And that is why a universal income is a horrible idea.

One can find purpose and joy in their labor ENTIRELY INDEPENDENT OF EARNING AN INCOME.

Many priests, nuns, and volunteer free laborers know this.

Why dont we?

Socialism requires social morals for free; that is why, Only the Religious can make, "communism work".

There is no way to make Communism work. It has failed everywhere it has been tried.

Never say never.
Communism did not work in specific societies at specific points along the evolutionary process forming their productive relations.

I'll say it again quite emphatically: Communism has always ended up in failure wherever it has been tried, and it always will. The Utopia it aims for is contrary to the fundamentals of human nature. It actually augments the worst of humanity in that it enables extreme concentration of power.

The breakdown of the capitalist mode of production is a historical inevitability. This thread is evidence that people are awake to the reality. Marx explained all of this that we are witnessing, and he did so scientifically by way of dialectic method. Communism is not a Utopia, it is the next step in the evolution of the social relations of production. The advanced development of our technology is going force us to make a decision, enslavement to the class that owns the technology used to produce the necessary requirements of life or freedom through a new social relationship of production.

 

[JimBowie1958]

The breakdown of the capitalist mode of production is a historical inevitability. This thread is evidence that people are awake to the reality. Marx explained all of this that we are witnessing, and he did so scientifically by way of dialectic method. Communism is not a Utopia, it is the next step in the evolution of the social relations of production. The advanced development of our technology is going force us to make a decision, enslavement to the class that owns the technology used to produce the necessary requirements of life or freedom through a new social relationship of production.

Communism is a failed philosophy that merely touched on economics and what it touched it corrupted and got wrong.

Any theory that is even partly right would produce better results that have, in the case of communism, been so disastrous that even the Chicoms abandoned it.

Marxism is not scientific at all, but is merely another philosophical informal religion that its sad devotion to a nearly 200 year old out of date theory well proves.

Once again, the only real difference between a fascist and a communist is that the fascist never says 'Fascism has never really been tried yet.'

 

[Tehon]

The breakdown of the capitalist mode of production is a historical inevitability. This thread is evidence that people are awake to the reality. Marx explained all of this that we are witnessing, and he did so scientifically by way of dialectic method. Communism is not a Utopia, it is the next step in the evolution of the social relations of production. The advanced development of our technology is going force us to make a decision, enslavement to the class that owns the technology used to produce the necessary requirements of life or freedom through a new social relationship of production.

Communism is a failed philosophy that merely touched on economics and what it touched it corrupted and got wrong.

Any theory that is even partly right would produce better results that have, in the case of communism, been so disastrous that even the Chicoms abandoned it.

Marxism is not scientific at all, but is merely another philosophical informal religion that its sad devotion to a nearly 200 year old out of date theory well proves.

Once again, the only real difference between a fascist and a communist is that the fascist never says 'Fascism has never really been tried yet.'

Marx broke down capitalism and explained why it would ultimately lead to another social relationship in the form of production. He did it using a dialectic method, observing the historical development of society through its various systems of production. Of course you are free to ignore it. Clearly you have never taken the time to understand Marx so your critique of his philosophy comes from a purely ignorant perspective. Your opinion is seen for what it is, empty.

 

[JimBowie1958]

[
Marx broke down capitalism and explained why it would ultimately lead to another social relationship in the form of production. He did it using a dialectic method, observing the historical development of society through its various systems of production. Of course you are free to ignore it. Clearly you have never taken the time to understand Marx so your critique of his philosophy comes from a purely ignorant perspective. Your opinion is seen for what it is, empty.

Marx failed to understand that new technologies would be developed and spun off the mature fully capitalized industries, thus creating new industries that restart the high wage slide all over again. Things are approaching a crisis today not because of anything Marx observed but because of the development of Strong AI learning capabilities being capable of enough miniaturization that such a software set could fully reside on a completely mobile and autonomous android robot. Thus this is the first tech spin off that will have zero need for human support once it matures.

And nothing Marx said would solve the problems we face either.

His philosophy is a failed old relic of an obsolete and disproven deterministic materialism that is as obsolete as the Bohr model of the atom.

Marxism is the greatest single hindrance to the development of workers rights and defense of their interests in the history of mankind.

 

[Tehon]

Marx failed to understand that new technologies would be developed and spun off the mature fully capitalized industries, thus creating new industries that restart the high wage slide all over again. Things are approaching a crisis today not because of anything Marx observed but because of the development of Strong AI learning capabilities being capable of enough miniaturization that such a software set could fully reside on a completely mobile and autonomous android robot. Thus this is the first tech spin off that will have zero need for human support once it matures.

Marx's entire economic theory rests on the revolutionizing of industrial capabilities that lead to worker alienation. Marx could not see what exact developments would take place but his theory is proving out to be true. Give credit where credit is due.

And nothing Marx said would solve the problems we face either.

He resolved the problem. The choice is yours dude. Sit back and beg for handouts in the form of a UBI from a class that owns everything, or alter our social relationship of production so that the benefits of our labor, the source of value, can be shared equitably.

 

[danielpalos]

FWIW, I'm not convinced of the need for a UBI, but I realized it's a potential solution to a very real problem; thus I'm not flat-out opposed to trying it.

The problem is, what happens if it doesn't work and you want to take it away? Holy crap, good luck.

I dunno. There are no easy answers here, but we do need to start talking about it.
.

How does, "ensuring full employment of capital resources", not work in any given hypothetical?

Working "in any given hypothetical" isn't ever a problem. In the minds of their creators, everything "works" in hypotheticals they create. Indeed, that everything thus "works" is among the things distinguishing hypotheticals from theory and applications of theory.

That is the point; full employment of resources is the objective.

Our current regime is only about trying to provide a pound of cure, so the right wing can complain about taxes.

 

[danielpalos]

FWIW, I'm not convinced of the need for a UBI, but I realized it's a potential solution to a very real problem; thus I'm not flat-out opposed to trying it.

It is a subsidy that will benefit business more than the consumers.

Well, okay....maybe so, maybe not. I don't know. I don't think the preponderance of the benefit is a determining factor for me. Maybe it should be or will eventually be, but thus far I haven't considered the matter from a normative context of the sort implied by your remark. What I've considered is what impacts it will have on me and whether I am willing to endure those impacts. I've also thought about and sought empirical measurements/analysis of the macroeconomic implications of the UBI.

The left wing of the left wing is advocating solving simple poverty on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States.

I don't see the point of that remark in what presumably is supposed to be a substantive discussion about the merits/demerits of UBI and implementing it. What anyone, including "the left wing of the left wing," advocates or doesn't is irrelevant unless the advocate is a credible expert on the matter. Quite simply, the ethicality, sagacity and efficacy of a proposal are existential.

Truth is a demure lady, much too ladylike to knock you on your head and drag you to her cave. She is there, but people must want her, and seek her out.
-- William F. Buckley, Jr.​

It would be recourse to an income on an at-will basis in our at-will employment States. It solves the UBI dilemma, in a market friendly manner using existing infrastructure.