The economics of Universal Income

[JoeNormal]

$1000 a month? Everybody, kids too? And would we get rid of all our entitlement programs? SS? Medicare/Medicaid? Food stamps, UE, everything? Free education too? There's a lot of places where $1000/month doesn't pay the bills, what then? If anybody wants to expound on the idea in a positive way, maybe they could also provide information about who gets it and who doesn't and how to pay for it.

It's a bad idea. I can't imagine who would support it.

Anybody who it will soon be possible to replace with a robot should support it. That includes a huge chunk of the workforce.

They should support being made a welfare recipient?

Yup, they should if they don't want to be begging on the street.

Begging your government to take from the people who own the means of production and give it to you is not substantially different from begging on the street.

They won't be begging the government. Either the government will institute some sort of a program to do it because they will understand the catastrophic outcome if they don't, or they won't do anything about it and let the shit hit the fan. The owners of the means of production won't like that, I guarantee.

 

[Tehon]

It's a bad idea. I can't imagine who would support it.

Anybody who it will soon be possible to replace with a robot should support it. That includes a huge chunk of the workforce.

They should support being made a welfare recipient?

Yup, they should if they don't want to be begging on the street.

Begging your government to take from the people who own the means of production and give it to you is not substantially different from begging on the street.

They won't be begging the government. Either the government will institute some sort of a program to do it because they will understand the catastrophic outcome if they don't, or they won't do anything about it and let the shit hit the fan. The owners of the means of production won't like that, I guarantee.

Look at India. You think the people who control the wealth give a shit about the peasants?

 

[JoeNormal]

Anybody who it will soon be possible to replace with a robot should support it. That includes a huge chunk of the workforce.

They should support being made a welfare recipient?

Yup, they should if they don't want to be begging on the street.

Begging your government to take from the people who own the means of production and give it to you is not substantially different from begging on the street.

They won't be begging the government. Either the government will institute some sort of a program to do it because they will understand the catastrophic outcome if they don't, or they won't do anything about it and let the shit hit the fan. The owners of the means of production won't like that, I guarantee.

Look at India. You think the people who control the wealth give a shit about the peasants?

Indian people are generally a little more peaceful and less well armed than Americans.

 

[Slyhunter]

It's a bad idea. I can't imagine who would support it.

Anybody who it will soon be possible to replace with a robot should support it. That includes a huge chunk of the workforce.

They should support being made a welfare recipient?

Yup, they should if they don't want to be begging on the street.

Begging your government to take from the people who own the means of production and give it to you is not substantially different from begging on the street.

They won't be begging the government. Either the government will institute some sort of a program to do it because they will understand the catastrophic outcome if they don't, or they won't do anything about it and let the shit hit the fan. The owners of the means of production won't like that, I guarantee.

Republicans only care about donors and Democrats only care about illegal immigrants low wage slaves.

 

[JoeNormal]

Anybody who it will soon be possible to replace with a robot should support it. That includes a huge chunk of the workforce.

They should support being made a welfare recipient?

Yup, they should if they don't want to be begging on the street.

Begging your government to take from the people who own the means of production and give it to you is not substantially different from begging on the street.

They won't be begging the government. Either the government will institute some sort of a program to do it because they will understand the catastrophic outcome if they don't, or they won't do anything about it and let the shit hit the fan. The owners of the means of production won't like that, I guarantee.

Republicans only care about donors and Democrats only care about illegal immigrants low wage slaves.

Pretty much true. They might begin to care when the serial killers start visiting the corporations instead of the local schools.

 

[task0778]

They should support being made a welfare recipient?

Yup, they should if they don't want to be begging on the street.

Begging your government to take from the people who own the means of production and give it to you is not substantially different from begging on the street.

They won't be begging the government. Either the government will institute some sort of a program to do it because they will understand the catastrophic outcome if they don't, or they won't do anything about it and let the shit hit the fan. The owners of the means of production won't like that, I guarantee.

Republicans only care about donors and Democrats only care about illegal immigrants low wage slaves.

Pretty much true. They might begin to care when the serial killers start visiting the corporations instead of the local schools.

Corporations have security people. With guns. And I kinda think the Dems care a lot about donors too, just as much as the Repubs do. But let's be honest, both parties have their constituents which they cater to.

It's interesting to consider abandoning every social program in favor of a UBI, but it ain't going to happen cuz there's too many people getting gov't money in one fashion or another that are going to be less well off if all they get is somewhere between $1000 - $2000 a month. Won't be anybody making millions and billions of income, everything will be socialized and gov't run. And I don't think they're going to be paying their fair share either. So, there'll be a bunch of people on the bottom end of the economic ladder getting a small boost, but at the expense of everyone else who will take it in the shorts. Except of course the well-connected. Democracy will be a thing of the past, you will still get to vote but you'll only have one choice.

 

[JoeNormal]

Yup, they should if they don't want to be begging on the street.

Begging your government to take from the people who own the means of production and give it to you is not substantially different from begging on the street.

They won't be begging the government. Either the government will institute some sort of a program to do it because they will understand the catastrophic outcome if they don't, or they won't do anything about it and let the shit hit the fan. The owners of the means of production won't like that, I guarantee.

Republicans only care about donors and Democrats only care about illegal immigrants low wage slaves.

Pretty much true. They might begin to care when the serial killers start visiting the corporations instead of the local schools.

Corporations have security people. With guns. And I kinda think the Dems care a lot about donors too, just as much as the Repubs do. But let's be honest, both parties have their constituents which they cater to.

It's interesting to consider abandoning every social program in favor of a UBI, but it ain't going to happen cuz there's too many people getting gov't money in one fashion or another that are going to be less well off if all they get is somewhere between $1000 - $2000 a month. Won't be anybody making millions and billions of income, everything will be socialized and gov't run. And I don't think they're going to be paying their fair share either. So, there'll be a bunch of people on the bottom end of the economic ladder getting a small boost, but at the expense of everyone else who will take it in the shorts. Except of course the well-connected. Democracy will be a thing of the past, you will still get to vote but you'll only have one choice.

Kinda like it is today.

 

[task0778]

Begging your government to take from the people who own the means of production and give it to you is not substantially different from begging on the street.

They won't be begging the government. Either the government will institute some sort of a program to do it because they will understand the catastrophic outcome if they don't, or they won't do anything about it and let the shit hit the fan. The owners of the means of production won't like that, I guarantee.

Republicans only care about donors and Democrats only care about illegal immigrants low wage slaves.

Pretty much true. They might begin to care when the serial killers start visiting the corporations instead of the local schools.

Corporations have security people. With guns. And I kinda think the Dems care a lot about donors too, just as much as the Repubs do. But let's be honest, both parties have their constituents which they cater to.

It's interesting to consider abandoning every social program in favor of a UBI, but it ain't going to happen cuz there's too many people getting gov't money in one fashion or another that are going to be less well off if all they get is somewhere between $1000 - $2000 a month. Won't be anybody making millions and billions of income, everything will be socialized and gov't run. And I don't think they're going to be paying their fair share either. So, there'll be a bunch of people on the bottom end of the economic ladder getting a small boost, but at the expense of everyone else who will take it in the shorts. Except of course the well-connected. Democracy will be a thing of the past, you will still get to vote but you'll only have one choice.

Kinda like it is today.

We had nominees from the 2 major parties to choose from, no? And before that other candidates to choose from in the primaries, sooo although many people thought the 2016 presidential election was almost a forgone conclusion it actually wasn't. Not so in Russia, China, North Korea, and other places where the next leader has already been chosen in advance. Or are you suggesting that is/was the case here? I'll just politely disagree with that opinion.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Yup, they should if they don't want to be begging on the street.

Begging your government to take from the people who own the means of production and give it to you is not substantially different from begging on the street.

They won't be begging the government. Either the government will institute some sort of a program to do it because they will understand the catastrophic outcome if they don't, or they won't do anything about it and let the shit hit the fan. The owners of the means of production won't like that, I guarantee.

Republicans only care about donors and Democrats only care about illegal immigrants low wage slaves.

Pretty much true. They might begin to care when the serial killers start visiting the corporations instead of the local schools.

Corporations have security people. With guns. And I kinda think the Dems care a lot about donors too, just as much as the Repubs do. But let's be honest, both parties have their constituents which they cater to.

It's interesting to consider abandoning every social program in favor of a UBI, but it ain't going to happen cuz there's too many people getting gov't money in one fashion or another that are going to be less well off if all they get is somewhere between $1000 - $2000 a month. Won't be anybody making millions and billions of income, everything will be socialized and gov't run. And I don't think they're going to be paying their fair share either. So, there'll be a bunch of people on the bottom end of the economic ladder getting a small boost, but at the expense of everyone else who will take it in the shorts. Except of course the well-connected. Democracy will be a thing of the past, you will still get to vote but you'll only have one choice.

I feel like I'm taking it in the shorts as it is. I feel that way when I see food stamp people at my grocery store, I feel that way when I see my HUD next door neighbors--especially when they throw their BBQ parties for 30 people, I feel that way when I see my neighbor three doors down drunk at 10:00am walking to the gas station to get more beer, and he's on disability; I don't know how, he's never held a full time job for more than three weeks in his life.

 

[JoeNormal]

They won't be begging the government. Either the government will institute some sort of a program to do it because they will understand the catastrophic outcome if they don't, or they won't do anything about it and let the shit hit the fan. The owners of the means of production won't like that, I guarantee.

Republicans only care about donors and Democrats only care about illegal immigrants low wage slaves.

Pretty much true. They might begin to care when the serial killers start visiting the corporations instead of the local schools.

Corporations have security people. With guns. And I kinda think the Dems care a lot about donors too, just as much as the Repubs do. But let's be honest, both parties have their constituents which they cater to.

It's interesting to consider abandoning every social program in favor of a UBI, but it ain't going to happen cuz there's too many people getting gov't money in one fashion or another that are going to be less well off if all they get is somewhere between $1000 - $2000 a month. Won't be anybody making millions and billions of income, everything will be socialized and gov't run. And I don't think they're going to be paying their fair share either. So, there'll be a bunch of people on the bottom end of the economic ladder getting a small boost, but at the expense of everyone else who will take it in the shorts. Except of course the well-connected. Democracy will be a thing of the past, you will still get to vote but you'll only have one choice.

Kinda like it is today.

We had nominees from the 2 major parties to choose from, no? And before that other candidates to choose from in the primaries, sooo although many people thought the 2016 presidential election was almost a forgone conclusion it actually wasn't. Not so in Russia, China, North Korea, and other places where the next leader has already been chosen in advance. Or are you suggesting that is/was the case here? I'll just politely disagree with that opinion.

What I was suggesting was that although there are always two candidates (of wildly varying quality) to choose from, whoever gets in always tows the corporatist/plutocratic line.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

3. The basic income would not be a disincentive to work, because getting a job would not cut your basic income, the way getting a job under the current system can cut income based assistance programs.

I work with companies that use temp services. When things get busy, they ask their temps to work more hours. In most cases they refuse. Why? Because more income would cut into their food stamp allowance.

So once people are on these programs, it's a deterrent to work. With UI, there would be no programs to deduct from, and those people could live a better life because of working more hours.

 

[JoeNormal]

Begging your government to take from the people who own the means of production and give it to you is not substantially different from begging on the street.

They won't be begging the government. Either the government will institute some sort of a program to do it because they will understand the catastrophic outcome if they don't, or they won't do anything about it and let the shit hit the fan. The owners of the means of production won't like that, I guarantee.

Republicans only care about donors and Democrats only care about illegal immigrants low wage slaves.

Pretty much true. They might begin to care when the serial killers start visiting the corporations instead of the local schools.

Corporations have security people. With guns. And I kinda think the Dems care a lot about donors too, just as much as the Repubs do. But let's be honest, both parties have their constituents which they cater to.

It's interesting to consider abandoning every social program in favor of a UBI, but it ain't going to happen cuz there's too many people getting gov't money in one fashion or another that are going to be less well off if all they get is somewhere between $1000 - $2000 a month. Won't be anybody making millions and billions of income, everything will be socialized and gov't run. And I don't think they're going to be paying their fair share either. So, there'll be a bunch of people on the bottom end of the economic ladder getting a small boost, but at the expense of everyone else who will take it in the shorts. Except of course the well-connected. Democracy will be a thing of the past, you will still get to vote but you'll only have one choice.

I feel like I'm taking it in the shorts as it is. I feel that way when I see food stamp people at my grocery store, I feel that way when I see my HUD next door neighbors--especially when they throw their BBQ parties for 30 people, I feel that way when I see my neighbor three doors down drunk at 10:00am walking to the gas station to get more beer, and he's on disability; I don't know how, he's never held a full time job for more than three weeks in his life.

The only poor folks in my life are the family of one of my son's best friends. They're all long term system abusers (although he's the sweetest kid you could find) and yeah, I bugs me some. However, they bother me a lot less than the upper management of the corporation I work for. They're the most self-serving bunch of parasites I've ever seen.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I can't recall the exact quote from Ben Franklin; The worst thing you can do for the poor is to make them comfortable in poverty.

Don't we do that already?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I heard on the radio today, that someone is running for congress on the issue of universal income. I'm sorry that I do not have the name. I do know he wanted to give every adult in Amreica 1000 dollars basic income. I've heard people bring this up a bunch lately, and it makes no sense to me. Wouldn't this mean that many people would just quit their jobs and raise unemployment? It also seems pretty clear that something like this couldn't be paid for. Inflation would also go crazy. Impossible spending, raised unemployment, and inflation for a country that is fast becoming Super Greece. Is there any way this makes sense economically? Is it even possible? I'm not going to laugh it off because I see big trouble coming. I had someone tell me his daughter couldn't find a job, and she was a pharmacist. They are being replaced right and left by robots. Businesses know that after an expensive 7 yr program, that these kids are desperate for work and are low balling them into 50 or 60k salaries. People are rightly concerned about robotic factories and the new kiosks in fast food places, but it is truly horrifying when you think about self driving vehicles replacing truckers. How many truckers do you think there are? That's a lot of people, and once they're replaced, they won't even be able to work at McDonald's. To me, universal income seems silly, but I really am interested in hearing the argument for it. Something inovative has to happen, because the storm is already here and it is going to get worse at an incredible rate.

Good topic.

Switzerland toyed with UI. It was voted down, but they did the calculations.

By eliminating all social programs, it would have saved the country money. In US dollars, it would be (if I remember correctly) $1,600 a month for every adult, and it could solve a lot of problems we have today.

Most would not be able to live on $1,600 a month, but some could. It would create a demand for workers because of people leaving the work force. Supply and demand dictates the less supply, the higher the price, so pay increases would certainly be on the way.

For those that want to continue to work, that $1,600 could go towards purchasing a health care plan. Another problem is college expenses. If the parents used their $1,600 for their children's college, that's a problem solved as well, because between the parents and the adult student, there is more than enough money to cover all college expenses. But even if a loan were needed, the adult student getting his or her $1,600 a month could cover dorm costs.

Welfare is a huge problem in our country. For instance I get so pissed off because I live in the suburbs, and I have HUD people living right next door. There is no equity when I have to go to work everyday to live here, and they just move in living on my tax dollars. UI would eliminate that because there would be no HUD. They would have to move somewhere else, and I could finally get some sleep at night.

Our social programs reward people for having kids they can't afford. That wouldn't happen with UI. If you can feed your family on that, fine. But raising kids is expensive, and more poor people would practice birth control. Less poor people is always a good thing because the apple usually doesn't fall far from the tree.

So often you read or hear of people complaining of food stamps. What we see these lowlifes buy in the store sickens us. UI would eliminate that because there would no longer be food stamps. Buy whatever you like in the store, because it's coming out of your $1,600 a month.

Housing, housing prices, rents are all increasing faster than income. If you continue to work, you could use your stipend to pay off your mortgage much faster. That's a hell of a lot of money you could save in interest rates.

So UI is a great idea. I would love to see it. While there are some disadvantages, there are ten times more advantages. It would eliminate the jealousy of people on social programs, it would reduce poverty, it would teach responsibility, and it would solve many financial problems most Americans currently deal with. The best part? It would be cheaper in the long run for our government.

You’re not going to do away with all the other social programs by giving people $1000 per month. Many of the people that depend on those social programs are not going to budget for food, clothing, housing, healthcare and retirement for a $1000 per month. And when they don’t have money ahalf way thru the month there will be a cry for more, more more.

They might, but they won't get that liberal support that they get now. Every time the subject of the poor comes up, liberals stick up for them, and Republicans are against what's going on now.

If you don't budget your money and plan ahead of time, then too bad. It's no different than when people gamble themselves into poverty and even out of a home. Or if you get hooked on drugs and lose everything you ever worked for.

UI woud promote personal responsibility. That would kill the Democrats who want everybody to depend on them for survival.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I heard on the radio today, that someone is running for congress on the issue of universal income. I'm sorry that I do not have the name. I do know he wanted to give every adult in Amreica 1000 dollars basic income. I've heard people bring this up a bunch lately, and it makes no sense to me. Wouldn't this mean that many people would just quit their jobs and raise unemployment? It also seems pretty clear that something like this couldn't be paid for. Inflation would also go crazy. Impossible spending, raised unemployment, and inflation for a country that is fast becoming Super Greece. Is there any way this makes sense economically? Is it even possible? I'm not going to laugh it off because I see big trouble coming. I had someone tell me his daughter couldn't find a job, and she was a pharmacist. They are being replaced right and left by robots. Businesses know that after an expensive 7 yr program, that these kids are desperate for work and are low balling them into 50 or 60k salaries. People are rightly concerned about robotic factories and the new kiosks in fast food places, but it is truly horrifying when you think about self driving vehicles replacing truckers. How many truckers do you think there are? That's a lot of people, and once they're replaced, they won't even be able to work at McDonald's. To me, universal income seems silly, but I really am interested in hearing the argument for it. Something inovative has to happen, because the storm is already here and it is going to get worse at an incredible rate.

Good topic.

Switzerland toyed with UI. It was voted down, but they did the calculations.

By eliminating all social programs, it would have saved the country money. In US dollars, it would be (if I remember correctly) $1,600 a month for every adult, and it could solve a lot of problems we have today.

Most would not be able to live on $1,600 a month, but some could. It would create a demand for workers because of people leaving the work force. Supply and demand dictates the less supply, the higher the price, so pay increases would certainly be on the way.

For those that want to continue to work, that $1,600 could go towards purchasing a health care plan. Another problem is college expenses. If the parents used their $1,600 for their children's college, that's a problem solved as well, because between the parents and the adult student, there is more than enough money to cover all college expenses. But even if a loan were needed, the adult student getting his or her $1,600 a month could cover dorm costs.

Welfare is a huge problem in our country. For instance I get so pissed off because I live in the suburbs, and I have HUD people living right next door. There is no equity when I have to go to work everyday to live here, and they just move in living on my tax dollars. UI would eliminate that because there would be no HUD. They would have to move somewhere else, and I could finally get some sleep at night.

Our social programs reward people for having kids they can't afford. That wouldn't happen with UI. If you can feed your family on that, fine. But raising kids is expensive, and more poor people would practice birth control. Less poor people is always a good thing because the apple usually doesn't fall far from the tree.

So often you read or hear of people complaining of food stamps. What we see these lowlifes buy in the store sickens us. UI would eliminate that because there would no longer be food stamps. Buy whatever you like in the store, because it's coming out of your $1,600 a month.

Housing, housing prices, rents are all increasing faster than income. If you continue to work, you could use your stipend to pay off your mortgage much faster. That's a hell of a lot of money you could save in interest rates.

So UI is a great idea. I would love to see it. While there are some disadvantages, there are ten times more advantages. It would eliminate the jealousy of people on social programs, it would reduce poverty, it would teach responsibility, and it would solve many financial problems most Americans currently deal with. The best part? It would be cheaper in the long run for our government.

If you crunch the numbers in the US, i'm guessing it is nowhere close to being paid by the elimination of welfare programs. Especially when more people drop out of the work force. Where is the money going to come from? How does encouraging able bodied people not to work teach responsibility? If welfare is a bomb, then increasing the amount of people who don't work is an atom bomb. The problem would just grow exponentially. The only way I can see universal income working is towards the very end with the complete elimination of a workforce. Sadly, that is fast approaching. The whole thing seems perverse. It relies on production increasing without a workforce. That just doesn't sound right.

To be honest, I don't know if there is much we can do about that. I believe Americans had the same concerns about the horse breeders, the horse shoe people, the vets when we came out with cars. I'm sure the same concern took place when we replaced the ice man with the refrigerator. Or perhaps natural gas furnaces that replaced the coal men. Convenient stores that replaced the milk man, chips man, juice man. The backhoe that replaced ditch diggers.

What do we do to halt progress, and do we really want to halt it?

But as a professional driver for the last few decades, I can assure you that you won't be seeing manless semi's anytime in the near future. The only vehicles they have now cost nearly a million dollars, and you still need a licensed driver in case the unit stops. A computer cannot navigate main roads or side streets. It can't calculate turns or give emergency vehicles right of way. It can't listen to directions by a road crew worker in construction zones. A computer will never be able to back a trailer into a dock. It just isn't feasible.

It takes more than just driving to safely pilot a tractor-trailer. You need instinct and experience. For instance when I see an asshole on the highway weaving in and out of traffic, I have to back down if he gets near me because he's liable to cutoff my safety distance and hit the brakes. A computer could never calculate assholes. If I hear something fall over in the trailer, I have the ability to stop and see what happened and correct the problem. A manless truck would keep on going which would be dangerous because at times, we haul carts that are on wheels. A cart that broke free of load locks or straps could easily bust through the back doors of the trailer. And even if there was some miraculous way to address those concerns, there is an insurance issue to consider. Insurance premiums are huge for trucks unlike cars. Insurance would be unaffordable for a manless truck. But I digress:

We are not just talking about the elimination of welfare programs, but all social programs. That means no Social Security, no Medicare, No VA. Medicaid has many states in the red and costs keep rising. Even with our economy, we spend over 74 billion dollars a year on food stamps alone. Unemployment? Another program that would be eliminated.

I don't have the ability or time to run all the numbers, but I think there are too many benefits to UI to not consider it. Plus the best part is it would disable the Democrats talking points because we would create our own welfare programs based on our individual needs.

Yeah the benefits are nice, but damn we're talking about giving free money to some 160 million adults aren't we? We're talking a shit load of money here, a couple thousand a month isn't going to do it if all the social programs are gone. There's not going to be enough discretionary money around to keep our economy going and growing.

Actually I believe there would be more. Think of it: what do the poor contribute to society? Nothing really. Now imagine if the poor found real rewards for working! Eventually we would have more people contributing to the tax base.

 

[task0778]

I heard on the radio today, that someone is running for congress on the issue of universal income. I'm sorry that I do not have the name. I do know he wanted to give every adult in Amreica 1000 dollars basic income. I've heard people bring this up a bunch lately, and it makes no sense to me. Wouldn't this mean that many people would just quit their jobs and raise unemployment? It also seems pretty clear that something like this couldn't be paid for. Inflation would also go crazy. Impossible spending, raised unemployment, and inflation for a country that is fast becoming Super Greece. Is there any way this makes sense economically? Is it even possible? I'm not going to laugh it off because I see big trouble coming. I had someone tell me his daughter couldn't find a job, and she was a pharmacist. They are being replaced right and left by robots. Businesses know that after an expensive 7 yr program, that these kids are desperate for work and are low balling them into 50 or 60k salaries. People are rightly concerned about robotic factories and the new kiosks in fast food places, but it is truly horrifying when you think about self driving vehicles replacing truckers. How many truckers do you think there are? That's a lot of people, and once they're replaced, they won't even be able to work at McDonald's. To me, universal income seems silly, but I really am interested in hearing the argument for it. Something inovative has to happen, because the storm is already here and it is going to get worse at an incredible rate.

Good topic.

Switzerland toyed with UI. It was voted down, but they did the calculations.

By eliminating all social programs, it would have saved the country money. In US dollars, it would be (if I remember correctly) $1,600 a month for every adult, and it could solve a lot of problems we have today.

Most would not be able to live on $1,600 a month, but some could. It would create a demand for workers because of people leaving the work force. Supply and demand dictates the less supply, the higher the price, so pay increases would certainly be on the way.

For those that want to continue to work, that $1,600 could go towards purchasing a health care plan. Another problem is college expenses. If the parents used their $1,600 for their children's college, that's a problem solved as well, because between the parents and the adult student, there is more than enough money to cover all college expenses. But even if a loan were needed, the adult student getting his or her $1,600 a month could cover dorm costs.

Welfare is a huge problem in our country. For instance I get so pissed off because I live in the suburbs, and I have HUD people living right next door. There is no equity when I have to go to work everyday to live here, and they just move in living on my tax dollars. UI would eliminate that because there would be no HUD. They would have to move somewhere else, and I could finally get some sleep at night.

Our social programs reward people for having kids they can't afford. That wouldn't happen with UI. If you can feed your family on that, fine. But raising kids is expensive, and more poor people would practice birth control. Less poor people is always a good thing because the apple usually doesn't fall far from the tree.

So often you read or hear of people complaining of food stamps. What we see these lowlifes buy in the store sickens us. UI would eliminate that because there would no longer be food stamps. Buy whatever you like in the store, because it's coming out of your $1,600 a month.

Housing, housing prices, rents are all increasing faster than income. If you continue to work, you could use your stipend to pay off your mortgage much faster. That's a hell of a lot of money you could save in interest rates.

So UI is a great idea. I would love to see it. While there are some disadvantages, there are ten times more advantages. It would eliminate the jealousy of people on social programs, it would reduce poverty, it would teach responsibility, and it would solve many financial problems most Americans currently deal with. The best part? It would be cheaper in the long run for our government.

If you crunch the numbers in the US, i'm guessing it is nowhere close to being paid by the elimination of welfare programs. Especially when more people drop out of the work force. Where is the money going to come from? How does encouraging able bodied people not to work teach responsibility? If welfare is a bomb, then increasing the amount of people who don't work is an atom bomb. The problem would just grow exponentially. The only way I can see universal income working is towards the very end with the complete elimination of a workforce. Sadly, that is fast approaching. The whole thing seems perverse. It relies on production increasing without a workforce. That just doesn't sound right.

To be honest, I don't know if there is much we can do about that. I believe Americans had the same concerns about the horse breeders, the horse shoe people, the vets when we came out with cars. I'm sure the same concern took place when we replaced the ice man with the refrigerator. Or perhaps natural gas furnaces that replaced the coal men. Convenient stores that replaced the milk man, chips man, juice man. The backhoe that replaced ditch diggers.

What do we do to halt progress, and do we really want to halt it?

But as a professional driver for the last few decades, I can assure you that you won't be seeing manless semi's anytime in the near future. The only vehicles they have now cost nearly a million dollars, and you still need a licensed driver in case the unit stops. A computer cannot navigate main roads or side streets. It can't calculate turns or give emergency vehicles right of way. It can't listen to directions by a road crew worker in construction zones. A computer will never be able to back a trailer into a dock. It just isn't feasible.

It takes more than just driving to safely pilot a tractor-trailer. You need instinct and experience. For instance when I see an asshole on the highway weaving in and out of traffic, I have to back down if he gets near me because he's liable to cutoff my safety distance and hit the brakes. A computer could never calculate assholes. If I hear something fall over in the trailer, I have the ability to stop and see what happened and correct the problem. A manless truck would keep on going which would be dangerous because at times, we haul carts that are on wheels. A cart that broke free of load locks or straps could easily bust through the back doors of the trailer. And even if there was some miraculous way to address those concerns, there is an insurance issue to consider. Insurance premiums are huge for trucks unlike cars. Insurance would be unaffordable for a manless truck. But I digress:

We are not just talking about the elimination of welfare programs, but all social programs. That means no Social Security, no Medicare, No VA. Medicaid has many states in the red and costs keep rising. Even with our economy, we spend over 74 billion dollars a year on food stamps alone. Unemployment? Another program that would be eliminated.

I don't have the ability or time to run all the numbers, but I think there are too many benefits to UI to not consider it. Plus the best part is it would disable the Democrats talking points because we would create our own welfare programs based on our individual needs.

Yeah the benefits are nice, but damn we're talking about giving free money to some 160 million adults aren't we? We're talking a shit load of money here, a couple thousand a month isn't going to do it if all the social programs are gone. There's not going to be enough discretionary money around to keep our economy going and growing.

Actually I believe there would be more. Think of it: what do the poor contribute to society? Nothing really. Now imagine if the poor found real rewards for working! Eventually we would have more people contributing to the tax base.

I thought the presumption in the OP was nobody or almost nobody would be working as the robots would be pretty much doing everything.

 

[Slyhunter]

Begging your government to take from the people who own the means of production and give it to you is not substantially different from begging on the street.

They won't be begging the government. Either the government will institute some sort of a program to do it because they will understand the catastrophic outcome if they don't, or they won't do anything about it and let the shit hit the fan. The owners of the means of production won't like that, I guarantee.

Republicans only care about donors and Democrats only care about illegal immigrants low wage slaves.

Pretty much true. They might begin to care when the serial killers start visiting the corporations instead of the local schools.

Corporations have security people. With guns. And I kinda think the Dems care a lot about donors too, just as much as the Repubs do. But let's be honest, both parties have their constituents which they cater to.

It's interesting to consider abandoning every social program in favor of a UBI, but it ain't going to happen cuz there's too many people getting gov't money in one fashion or another that are going to be less well off if all they get is somewhere between $1000 - $2000 a month. Won't be anybody making millions and billions of income, everything will be socialized and gov't run. And I don't think they're going to be paying their fair share either. So, there'll be a bunch of people on the bottom end of the economic ladder getting a small boost, but at the expense of everyone else who will take it in the shorts. Except of course the well-connected. Democracy will be a thing of the past, you will still get to vote but you'll only have one choice.

I feel like I'm taking it in the shorts as it is. I feel that way when I see food stamp people at my grocery store, I feel that way when I see my HUD next door neighbors--especially when they throw their BBQ parties for 30 people, I feel that way when I see my neighbor three doors down drunk at 10:00am walking to the gas station to get more beer, and he's on disability; I don't know how, he's never held a full time job for more than three weeks in his life.

Maybe he's bi-polar.
I can't keep a job for long. Sooner or later it gets the best of me and I either quit or get fired.

 

[Slyhunter]

3. The basic income would not be a disincentive to work, because getting a job would not cut your basic income, the way getting a job under the current system can cut income based assistance programs.

I work with companies that use temp services. When things get busy, they ask their temps to work more hours. In most cases they refuse. Why? Because more income would cut into their food stamp allowance.

So once people are on these programs, it's a deterrent to work. With UI, there would be no programs to deduct from, and those people could live a better life because of working more hours.

Working more hours for a week or two hurts you in the long run because your benefits get cut permanently.
I'm trying to get disability. I fall asleep at work. I have anger management issues. And I have anxiety issues. But because sometimes I can appear to be normal they don't want to give me disability to cover me for the times I don't.
Anyhow, if it was a permanent increase in time worked then the cuts to benefits would be easier to handle.

 

[Slyhunter]

I heard on the radio today, that someone is running for congress on the issue of universal income. I'm sorry that I do not have the name. I do know he wanted to give every adult in Amreica 1000 dollars basic income. I've heard people bring this up a bunch lately, and it makes no sense to me. Wouldn't this mean that many people would just quit their jobs and raise unemployment? It also seems pretty clear that something like this couldn't be paid for. Inflation would also go crazy. Impossible spending, raised unemployment, and inflation for a country that is fast becoming Super Greece. Is there any way this makes sense economically? Is it even possible? I'm not going to laugh it off because I see big trouble coming. I had someone tell me his daughter couldn't find a job, and she was a pharmacist. They are being replaced right and left by robots. Businesses know that after an expensive 7 yr program, that these kids are desperate for work and are low balling them into 50 or 60k salaries. People are rightly concerned about robotic factories and the new kiosks in fast food places, but it is truly horrifying when you think about self driving vehicles replacing truckers. How many truckers do you think there are? That's a lot of people, and once they're replaced, they won't even be able to work at McDonald's. To me, universal income seems silly, but I really am interested in hearing the argument for it. Something inovative has to happen, because the storm is already here and it is going to get worse at an incredible rate.

Good topic.

Switzerland toyed with UI. It was voted down, but they did the calculations.

By eliminating all social programs, it would have saved the country money. In US dollars, it would be (if I remember correctly) $1,600 a month for every adult, and it could solve a lot of problems we have today.

Most would not be able to live on $1,600 a month, but some could. It would create a demand for workers because of people leaving the work force. Supply and demand dictates the less supply, the higher the price, so pay increases would certainly be on the way.

For those that want to continue to work, that $1,600 could go towards purchasing a health care plan. Another problem is college expenses. If the parents used their $1,600 for their children's college, that's a problem solved as well, because between the parents and the adult student, there is more than enough money to cover all college expenses. But even if a loan were needed, the adult student getting his or her $1,600 a month could cover dorm costs.

Welfare is a huge problem in our country. For instance I get so pissed off because I live in the suburbs, and I have HUD people living right next door. There is no equity when I have to go to work everyday to live here, and they just move in living on my tax dollars. UI would eliminate that because there would be no HUD. They would have to move somewhere else, and I could finally get some sleep at night.

Our social programs reward people for having kids they can't afford. That wouldn't happen with UI. If you can feed your family on that, fine. But raising kids is expensive, and more poor people would practice birth control. Less poor people is always a good thing because the apple usually doesn't fall far from the tree.

So often you read or hear of people complaining of food stamps. What we see these lowlifes buy in the store sickens us. UI would eliminate that because there would no longer be food stamps. Buy whatever you like in the store, because it's coming out of your $1,600 a month.

Housing, housing prices, rents are all increasing faster than income. If you continue to work, you could use your stipend to pay off your mortgage much faster. That's a hell of a lot of money you could save in interest rates.

So UI is a great idea. I would love to see it. While there are some disadvantages, there are ten times more advantages. It would eliminate the jealousy of people on social programs, it would reduce poverty, it would teach responsibility, and it would solve many financial problems most Americans currently deal with. The best part? It would be cheaper in the long run for our government.

You’re not going to do away with all the other social programs by giving people $1000 per month. Many of the people that depend on those social programs are not going to budget for food, clothing, housing, healthcare and retirement for a $1000 per month. And when they don’t have money ahalf way thru the month there will be a cry for more, more more.

They might, but they won't get that liberal support that they get now. Every time the subject of the poor comes up, liberals stick up for them, and Republicans are against what's going on now.

If you don't budget your money and plan ahead of time, then too bad. It's no different than when people gamble themselves into poverty and even out of a home. Or if you get hooked on drugs and lose everything you ever worked for.

UI woud promote personal responsibility. That would kill the Democrats who want everybody to depend on them for survival.

If I made 1600 a month and inflation didn't erase that income I would still work. I'd do work I enjoy though, maybe even for free. Put time in for the Salvation Army or something, to keep me busy and give some variety to my life. I'm tired of stressing out all the time. Sometimes I just crawl into bed for 3 days and take a time out. Fighting the fight of appearing to be normal is hard.

 

[Slyhunter]

I heard on the radio today, that someone is running for congress on the issue of universal income. I'm sorry that I do not have the name. I do know he wanted to give every adult in Amreica 1000 dollars basic income. I've heard people bring this up a bunch lately, and it makes no sense to me. Wouldn't this mean that many people would just quit their jobs and raise unemployment? It also seems pretty clear that something like this couldn't be paid for. Inflation would also go crazy. Impossible spending, raised unemployment, and inflation for a country that is fast becoming Super Greece. Is there any way this makes sense economically? Is it even possible? I'm not going to laugh it off because I see big trouble coming. I had someone tell me his daughter couldn't find a job, and she was a pharmacist. They are being replaced right and left by robots. Businesses know that after an expensive 7 yr program, that these kids are desperate for work and are low balling them into 50 or 60k salaries. People are rightly concerned about robotic factories and the new kiosks in fast food places, but it is truly horrifying when you think about self driving vehicles replacing truckers. How many truckers do you think there are? That's a lot of people, and once they're replaced, they won't even be able to work at McDonald's. To me, universal income seems silly, but I really am interested in hearing the argument for it. Something inovative has to happen, because the storm is already here and it is going to get worse at an incredible rate.

Good topic.

Switzerland toyed with UI. It was voted down, but they did the calculations.

By eliminating all social programs, it would have saved the country money. In US dollars, it would be (if I remember correctly) $1,600 a month for every adult, and it could solve a lot of problems we have today.

Most would not be able to live on $1,600 a month, but some could. It would create a demand for workers because of people leaving the work force. Supply and demand dictates the less supply, the higher the price, so pay increases would certainly be on the way.

For those that want to continue to work, that $1,600 could go towards purchasing a health care plan. Another problem is college expenses. If the parents used their $1,600 for their children's college, that's a problem solved as well, because between the parents and the adult student, there is more than enough money to cover all college expenses. But even if a loan were needed, the adult student getting his or her $1,600 a month could cover dorm costs.

Welfare is a huge problem in our country. For instance I get so pissed off because I live in the suburbs, and I have HUD people living right next door. There is no equity when I have to go to work everyday to live here, and they just move in living on my tax dollars. UI would eliminate that because there would be no HUD. They would have to move somewhere else, and I could finally get some sleep at night.

Our social programs reward people for having kids they can't afford. That wouldn't happen with UI. If you can feed your family on that, fine. But raising kids is expensive, and more poor people would practice birth control. Less poor people is always a good thing because the apple usually doesn't fall far from the tree.

So often you read or hear of people complaining of food stamps. What we see these lowlifes buy in the store sickens us. UI would eliminate that because there would no longer be food stamps. Buy whatever you like in the store, because it's coming out of your $1,600 a month.

Housing, housing prices, rents are all increasing faster than income. If you continue to work, you could use your stipend to pay off your mortgage much faster. That's a hell of a lot of money you could save in interest rates.

So UI is a great idea. I would love to see it. While there are some disadvantages, there are ten times more advantages. It would eliminate the jealousy of people on social programs, it would reduce poverty, it would teach responsibility, and it would solve many financial problems most Americans currently deal with. The best part? It would be cheaper in the long run for our government.

If you crunch the numbers in the US, i'm guessing it is nowhere close to being paid by the elimination of welfare programs. Especially when more people drop out of the work force. Where is the money going to come from? How does encouraging able bodied people not to work teach responsibility? If welfare is a bomb, then increasing the amount of people who don't work is an atom bomb. The problem would just grow exponentially. The only way I can see universal income working is towards the very end with the complete elimination of a workforce. Sadly, that is fast approaching. The whole thing seems perverse. It relies on production increasing without a workforce. That just doesn't sound right.

To be honest, I don't know if there is much we can do about that. I believe Americans had the same concerns about the horse breeders, the horse shoe people, the vets when we came out with cars. I'm sure the same concern took place when we replaced the ice man with the refrigerator. Or perhaps natural gas furnaces that replaced the coal men. Convenient stores that replaced the milk man, chips man, juice man. The backhoe that replaced ditch diggers.

What do we do to halt progress, and do we really want to halt it?

But as a professional driver for the last few decades, I can assure you that you won't be seeing manless semi's anytime in the near future. The only vehicles they have now cost nearly a million dollars, and you still need a licensed driver in case the unit stops. A computer cannot navigate main roads or side streets. It can't calculate turns or give emergency vehicles right of way. It can't listen to directions by a road crew worker in construction zones. A computer will never be able to back a trailer into a dock. It just isn't feasible.

It takes more than just driving to safely pilot a tractor-trailer. You need instinct and experience. For instance when I see an asshole on the highway weaving in and out of traffic, I have to back down if he gets near me because he's liable to cutoff my safety distance and hit the brakes. A computer could never calculate assholes. If I hear something fall over in the trailer, I have the ability to stop and see what happened and correct the problem. A manless truck would keep on going which would be dangerous because at times, we haul carts that are on wheels. A cart that broke free of load locks or straps could easily bust through the back doors of the trailer. And even if there was some miraculous way to address those concerns, there is an insurance issue to consider. Insurance premiums are huge for trucks unlike cars. Insurance would be unaffordable for a manless truck. But I digress:

We are not just talking about the elimination of welfare programs, but all social programs. That means no Social Security, no Medicare, No VA. Medicaid has many states in the red and costs keep rising. Even with our economy, we spend over 74 billion dollars a year on food stamps alone. Unemployment? Another program that would be eliminated.

I don't have the ability or time to run all the numbers, but I think there are too many benefits to UI to not consider it. Plus the best part is it would disable the Democrats talking points because we would create our own welfare programs based on our individual needs.

Yeah the benefits are nice, but damn we're talking about giving free money to some 160 million adults aren't we? We're talking a shit load of money here, a couple thousand a month isn't going to do it if all the social programs are gone. There's not going to be enough discretionary money around to keep our economy going and growing.

Actually I believe there would be more. Think of it: what do the poor contribute to society? Nothing really. Now imagine if the poor found real rewards for working! Eventually we would have more people contributing to the tax base.

I used to work 100 hours a week, when I was younger. I tried going to college but they kicked me out for falling asleep in class. With all the hours I worked all I had to show for it was a motorcycle. If you aren't rewarded for working hard, why work hard.