CDZ Another conversation about Universal Income

[WinterBorn]

Income inequality is likely to get much worse in the West. This is due to improvements in computers, software, and robotics being employed replacing humans.

Dr Kaufman predicts in a couple decades we will be in big trouble, as so few people will have jobs available to them. Labor costs are declining as demand for labor declines. This just might result in even greater income inequality.

We are in the midst of a structural change that might be good or bad but with a corrupt government with too much power, it is likely to be bad.

Henry Kaufman - Wikipedia

A month ago, while our camping group was sitting around the fire, a friend of mine started a conversation about the next phase in socio-economics. (we had all had a few beers and a couple of shots)

As our technology gets better and better, it will take fewer and fewer people to produce what we need. At some point, barring major wars, we will have basically 2 choices. We can have the small group of people who want for nothing, and a huge population of starving people. Or we can have some sort of method of distributing assets so that the population can live at a certain standard. This will basically be a universal income without any work. The age old philosophy of working for what you have will become virtually obsolete. It goes against the grain for anyone who spent a lifetime working and sacrificing to provide for themselves and their families. But as the conversation went on, I found fewer and fewer ways to argue against it.

 

[gipper]

Income inequality is likely to get much worse in the West. This is due to improvements in computers, software, and robotics being employed replacing humans.

Dr Kaufman predicts in a couple decades we will be in big trouble, as so few people will have jobs available to them. Labor costs are declining as demand for labor declines. This just might result in even greater income inequality.

We are in the midst of a structural change that might be good or bad but with a corrupt government with too much power, it is likely to be bad.

Henry Kaufman - Wikipedia

A month ago, while our camping group was sitting around the fire, a friend of mine started a conversation about the next phase in socio-economics. (we had all had a few beers and a couple of shots)

As our technology gets better and better, it will take fewer and fewer people to produce what we need. At some point, barring major wars, we will have basically 2 choices. We can have the small group of people who want for nothing, and a huge population of starving people. Or we can have some sort of method of distributing assets so that the population can live at a certain standard. This will basically be a universal income without any work. The age old philosophy of working for what you have will become virtually obsolete. It goes against the grain for anyone who spent a lifetime working and sacrificing to provide for themselves and their families. But as the conversation went on, I found fewer and fewer ways to argue against it.

Agreed.

As the US economy picks up, labor costs have been stagnant. Usually when the economy grows, labor costs increase. This could be the beginning of a structural change, as increased use of technology replaces human labor. The impact of this on average Americans could be most distressing. We could be moving back to a system similar to that of feudalism. Where there are only two classes...rich and poor.

 

[Tehon]

Income inequality is likely to get much worse in the West. This is due to improvements in computers, software, and robotics being employed replacing humans.

Dr Kaufman predicts in a couple decades we will be in big trouble, as so few people will have jobs available to them. Labor costs are declining as demand for labor declines. This just might result in even greater income inequality.

We are in the midst of a structural change that might be good or bad but with a corrupt government with too much power, it is likely to be bad.

Henry Kaufman - Wikipedia

A month ago, while our camping group was sitting around the fire, a friend of mine started a conversation about the next phase in socio-economics. (we had all had a few beers and a couple of shots)

As our technology gets better and better, it will take fewer and fewer people to produce what we need. At some point, barring major wars, we will have basically 2 choices. We can have the small group of people who want for nothing, and a huge population of starving people. Or we can have some sort of method of distributing assets so that the population can live at a certain standard. This will basically be a universal income without any work. The age old philosophy of working for what you have will become virtually obsolete. It goes against the grain for anyone who spent a lifetime working and sacrificing to provide for themselves and their families. But as the conversation went on, I found fewer and fewer ways to argue against it.

Agreed.

As the US economy picks up, labor costs have been stagnant. Usually when the economy grows, labor costs increase. This could be the beginning of a structural change, as increased use of technology replaces human labor. The impact of this on average Americans could be most distressing. We could be moving back to a system similar to that of feudalism. Where there are only two classes...rich and poor.

You could socialize the means of production. Just saying.

 

[boedicca]

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?

I don't think a universal income is intended to support those on a spiritual path.

And note, Priests and Nuns are able to volunteer because members of their religions provide donations (voluntarily).

 

[Weatherman2020]

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."

So who gets to live in the slums?

 

[gipper]

Income inequality is likely to get much worse in the West. This is due to improvements in computers, software, and robotics being employed replacing humans.

Dr Kaufman predicts in a couple decades we will be in big trouble, as so few people will have jobs available to them. Labor costs are declining as demand for labor declines. This just might result in even greater income inequality.

We are in the midst of a structural change that might be good or bad but with a corrupt government with too much power, it is likely to be bad.

Henry Kaufman - Wikipedia

A month ago, while our camping group was sitting around the fire, a friend of mine started a conversation about the next phase in socio-economics. (we had all had a few beers and a couple of shots)

As our technology gets better and better, it will take fewer and fewer people to produce what we need. At some point, barring major wars, we will have basically 2 choices. We can have the small group of people who want for nothing, and a huge population of starving people. Or we can have some sort of method of distributing assets so that the population can live at a certain standard. This will basically be a universal income without any work. The age old philosophy of working for what you have will become virtually obsolete. It goes against the grain for anyone who spent a lifetime working and sacrificing to provide for themselves and their families. But as the conversation went on, I found fewer and fewer ways to argue against it.

Agreed.

As the US economy picks up, labor costs have been stagnant. Usually when the economy grows, labor costs increase. This could be the beginning of a structural change, as increased use of technology replaces human labor. The impact of this on average Americans could be most distressing. We could be moving back to a system similar to that of feudalism. Where there are only two classes...rich and poor.

You could socialize the means of production. Just saying.

Yeah Stalin tried that in the Ukraine and staved millions of people to death.

How does one socialize the means of production without also committing mass murder?

 

[Tehon]

Income inequality is likely to get much worse in the West. This is due to improvements in computers, software, and robotics being employed replacing humans.

Dr Kaufman predicts in a couple decades we will be in big trouble, as so few people will have jobs available to them. Labor costs are declining as demand for labor declines. This just might result in even greater income inequality.

We are in the midst of a structural change that might be good or bad but with a corrupt government with too much power, it is likely to be bad.

Henry Kaufman - Wikipedia

A month ago, while our camping group was sitting around the fire, a friend of mine started a conversation about the next phase in socio-economics. (we had all had a few beers and a couple of shots)

As our technology gets better and better, it will take fewer and fewer people to produce what we need. At some point, barring major wars, we will have basically 2 choices. We can have the small group of people who want for nothing, and a huge population of starving people. Or we can have some sort of method of distributing assets so that the population can live at a certain standard. This will basically be a universal income without any work. The age old philosophy of working for what you have will become virtually obsolete. It goes against the grain for anyone who spent a lifetime working and sacrificing to provide for themselves and their families. But as the conversation went on, I found fewer and fewer ways to argue against it.

Agreed.

As the US economy picks up, labor costs have been stagnant. Usually when the economy grows, labor costs increase. This could be the beginning of a structural change, as increased use of technology replaces human labor. The impact of this on average Americans could be most distressing. We could be moving back to a system similar to that of feudalism. Where there are only two classes...rich and poor.

You could socialize the means of production. Just saying.

Yeah Stalin tried that in the Ukraine and staved millions of people to death.

How does one socialize the means of production without also committing mass murder?

One can't do it. It takes a society of enlightened people to accomplish. And at some point there will necessarily have to be some bloodshed, as was the case in every historical change in the social relations of production.

The first thing people will have to do is get over their ignorance and misconceptions as it relates to Karl Marx. The guy's theories are valid and worth exploring. Precisely why so many in our capitalist society have been scared off of him. He is a threat to those who would own you.

 

[gipper]

Income inequality is likely to get much worse in the West. This is due to improvements in computers, software, and robotics being employed replacing humans.

Dr Kaufman predicts in a couple decades we will be in big trouble, as so few people will have jobs available to them. Labor costs are declining as demand for labor declines. This just might result in even greater income inequality.

We are in the midst of a structural change that might be good or bad but with a corrupt government with too much power, it is likely to be bad.

Henry Kaufman - Wikipedia

A month ago, while our camping group was sitting around the fire, a friend of mine started a conversation about the next phase in socio-economics. (we had all had a few beers and a couple of shots)

As our technology gets better and better, it will take fewer and fewer people to produce what we need. At some point, barring major wars, we will have basically 2 choices. We can have the small group of people who want for nothing, and a huge population of starving people. Or we can have some sort of method of distributing assets so that the population can live at a certain standard. This will basically be a universal income without any work. The age old philosophy of working for what you have will become virtually obsolete. It goes against the grain for anyone who spent a lifetime working and sacrificing to provide for themselves and their families. But as the conversation went on, I found fewer and fewer ways to argue against it.

Agreed.

As the US economy picks up, labor costs have been stagnant. Usually when the economy grows, labor costs increase. This could be the beginning of a structural change, as increased use of technology replaces human labor. The impact of this on average Americans could be most distressing. We could be moving back to a system similar to that of feudalism. Where there are only two classes...rich and poor.

You could socialize the means of production. Just saying.

Yeah Stalin tried that in the Ukraine and staved millions of people to death.

How does one socialize the means of production without also committing mass murder?

One can't do it. It takes a society of enlightened people to accomplish. And at some point there will necessarily have to be some bloodshed, as was the case in every historical change in the social relations of production.

The first thing people will have to do is get over their ignorance and misconceptions as it relates to Karl Marx. The guy's theories are valid and worth exploring. Precisely why so many in our capitalist society have been scared off of him. He is a threat to those who would own you.

I don't doubt some of his theories are valid, the problem is implementing them. In practice, it always leads to one person becoming a dictator and we all know what happens when one individual attains too much power. This unfortunately is what happens with government of all kinds.

A better solution is eliminating government, as it is practiced today.

 

[Tehon]

A month ago, while our camping group was sitting around the fire, a friend of mine started a conversation about the next phase in socio-economics. (we had all had a few beers and a couple of shots)

As our technology gets better and better, it will take fewer and fewer people to produce what we need. At some point, barring major wars, we will have basically 2 choices. We can have the small group of people who want for nothing, and a huge population of starving people. Or we can have some sort of method of distributing assets so that the population can live at a certain standard. This will basically be a universal income without any work. The age old philosophy of working for what you have will become virtually obsolete. It goes against the grain for anyone who spent a lifetime working and sacrificing to provide for themselves and their families. But as the conversation went on, I found fewer and fewer ways to argue against it.

Agreed.

As the US economy picks up, labor costs have been stagnant. Usually when the economy grows, labor costs increase. This could be the beginning of a structural change, as increased use of technology replaces human labor. The impact of this on average Americans could be most distressing. We could be moving back to a system similar to that of feudalism. Where there are only two classes...rich and poor.

You could socialize the means of production. Just saying.

Yeah Stalin tried that in the Ukraine and staved millions of people to death.

How does one socialize the means of production without also committing mass murder?

One can't do it. It takes a society of enlightened people to accomplish. And at some point there will necessarily have to be some bloodshed, as was the case in every historical change in the social relations of production.

The first thing people will have to do is get over their ignorance and misconceptions as it relates to Karl Marx. The guy's theories are valid and worth exploring. Precisely why so many in our capitalist society have been scared off of him. He is a threat to those who would own you.

I don't doubt some of his theories are valid, the problem is implementing them. In practice, it always leads to one person becoming a dictator and we all know what happens when one individual attains too much power. This unfortunately is what happens with government of all kinds.

A better solution is eliminating government, as it is practiced today.

Do you discern a difference between governance and the state? Where the state is that which you would abolish?

 

[JimBowie1958]

because some people are different than others, and most people need something tangible in return for their labor, time, or capital.
And with Priests and Nuns their basic needs are met via the voluntary giving of their sponsors, not the forceful taking of worth that a universal income would require.

Meh, most monestaries, nunneries and priestly orgs make their own money, though they also take donations.

When I was out with my bad back, I made two book cases and a desk and dining table for my two kids, and two foot stools for my wife.

I wasnt paid in money, but in affection.

People will stay busy and work on something in some capacity.

Humanity wont just turn into potatoes.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Income inequality is likely to get much worse in the West. This is due to improvements in computers, software, and robotics being employed replacing humans.

Dr Kaufman predicts in a couple decades we will be in big trouble, as so few people will have jobs available to them. Labor costs are declining as demand for labor declines. This just might result in even greater income inequality.

We are in the midst of a structural change that might be good or bad but with a corrupt government with too much power, it is likely to be bad.

Henry Kaufman - Wikipedia

A month ago, while our camping group was sitting around the fire, a friend of mine started a conversation about the next phase in socio-economics. (we had all had a few beers and a couple of shots)

As our technology gets better and better, it will take fewer and fewer people to produce what we need. At some point, barring major wars, we will have basically 2 choices. We can have the small group of people who want for nothing, and a huge population of starving people. Or we can have some sort of method of distributing assets so that the population can live at a certain standard. This will basically be a universal income without any work. The age old philosophy of working for what you have will become virtually obsolete. It goes against the grain for anyone who spent a lifetime working and sacrificing to provide for themselves and their families. But as the conversation went on, I found fewer and fewer ways to argue against it.

People will still work because it is part of human nature to want to build/achieve/gain something and not be a lump on a log.

 

[WinterBorn]

Income inequality is likely to get much worse in the West. This is due to improvements in computers, software, and robotics being employed replacing humans.

Dr Kaufman predicts in a couple decades we will be in big trouble, as so few people will have jobs available to them. Labor costs are declining as demand for labor declines. This just might result in even greater income inequality.

We are in the midst of a structural change that might be good or bad but with a corrupt government with too much power, it is likely to be bad.

Henry Kaufman - Wikipedia

A month ago, while our camping group was sitting around the fire, a friend of mine started a conversation about the next phase in socio-economics. (we had all had a few beers and a couple of shots)

As our technology gets better and better, it will take fewer and fewer people to produce what we need. At some point, barring major wars, we will have basically 2 choices. We can have the small group of people who want for nothing, and a huge population of starving people. Or we can have some sort of method of distributing assets so that the population can live at a certain standard. This will basically be a universal income without any work. The age old philosophy of working for what you have will become virtually obsolete. It goes against the grain for anyone who spent a lifetime working and sacrificing to provide for themselves and their families. But as the conversation went on, I found fewer and fewer ways to argue against it.

People will still work because it is part of human nature to want to build/achieve/gain something and not be a lump on a log.

I agree. But the nature of work will change.

 

[gipper]

Agreed.

As the US economy picks up, labor costs have been stagnant. Usually when the economy grows, labor costs increase. This could be the beginning of a structural change, as increased use of technology replaces human labor. The impact of this on average Americans could be most distressing. We could be moving back to a system similar to that of feudalism. Where there are only two classes...rich and poor.

You could socialize the means of production. Just saying.

Yeah Stalin tried that in the Ukraine and staved millions of people to death.

How does one socialize the means of production without also committing mass murder?

One can't do it. It takes a society of enlightened people to accomplish. And at some point there will necessarily have to be some bloodshed, as was the case in every historical change in the social relations of production.

The first thing people will have to do is get over their ignorance and misconceptions as it relates to Karl Marx. The guy's theories are valid and worth exploring. Precisely why so many in our capitalist society have been scared off of him. He is a threat to those who would own you.

I don't doubt some of his theories are valid, the problem is implementing them. In practice, it always leads to one person becoming a dictator and we all know what happens when one individual attains too much power. This unfortunately is what happens with government of all kinds.

A better solution is eliminating government, as it is practiced today.

Do you discern a difference between governance and the state? Where the state is that which you would abolish?

Yes...abolish the state. Government run by the people, not the elites, and entirely voluntary is a structure that might work.

 

[JimBowie1958]

I agree. But the nature of work will change.

It will be a technological Utopia methinks, but we have to traverse some dangerous times to get there safely.

 

[WinterBorn]

I agree. But the nature of work will change.

It will be a technological Utopia methinks, but we have to traverse some dangerous times to get there safely.

Indeed we do. And those who currently hold power will resist it in every way they can.

 

[BlackSand]

What concerns me is that we're not paying much attention to this issue. If our history is any indication, we'll end up waiting until it's a full crisis, and then make some poorly-thought out snap decision to deal with it.
.

Sometimes the bigger problem is attempting to predict the future.
As an example ... Someone could have been all bent out of shape about phone service, line capabilities and availability to the masses in 1996.

There is no way they would have known that the cell phone we have today was just around the corner and in almost everyone's hands.

.

 

[Mac1958]

What concerns me is that we're not paying much attention to this issue. If our history is any indication, we'll end up waiting until it's a full crisis, and then make some poorly-thought out snap decision to deal with it.
.

Sometimes the bigger problem is attempting to predict the future.
As an example ... Someone could have been all bent out of shape about phone service, line capabilities and availability to the masses in 1996.

There is no way they would have known that the cell phone we have today was just around the corner and in almost everyone's hands.

.

That's a fair point and that certainly could be what happens. It may be that we evolve and adapt as conditions and demands change.

I guess my kneejerk reaction is that, for the most part, cell phones are not seeped in politics. In other words, if we're able to address this issue in an organic way, by introducing solutions incrementally and over time, wonderful. But if we wait until a crisis point, at which time we need significant legislative action and governmental intrusion, holy crap, I just doubt that we have the capacity to act pragmatically and cooperatively.
.

 

[Tehon]

You could socialize the means of production. Just saying.

Yeah Stalin tried that in the Ukraine and staved millions of people to death.

How does one socialize the means of production without also committing mass murder?

One can't do it. It takes a society of enlightened people to accomplish. And at some point there will necessarily have to be some bloodshed, as was the case in every historical change in the social relations of production.

The first thing people will have to do is get over their ignorance and misconceptions as it relates to Karl Marx. The guy's theories are valid and worth exploring. Precisely why so many in our capitalist society have been scared off of him. He is a threat to those who would own you.

I don't doubt some of his theories are valid, the problem is implementing them. In practice, it always leads to one person becoming a dictator and we all know what happens when one individual attains too much power. This unfortunately is what happens with government of all kinds.

A better solution is eliminating government, as it is practiced today.

Do you discern a difference between governance and the state? Where the state is that which you would abolish?

Yes...abolish the state. Government run by the people, not the elites, and entirely voluntary is a structure that might work.

We agree then.........with Karl Marx. He has been wrongly associated with the idea of state ownership of the means of production and a strong state. Like us, his interest was in suppressing the state. The state arose out of our social form of production. It was built to protect private capital. If we change the form of production the state will necessarily change along with it.

"Freedom consists in converting the state from an organ superimposed upon society into one completely subordinate to it"
Critique of the Gotha Programme-- IV

 

[BlackSand]

That's a fair point and that certainly could be what happens. It may be that we evolve and adapt as conditions and demands change.

I guess my kneejerk reaction is that, for the most part, cell phones are not seeped in politics. In other words, if we're able to address this issue in an organic way, by introducing solutions incrementally and over time, wonderful. But if we wait until a crisis point, at which time we need significant legislative action and governmental intrusion, holy crap, I just doubt that we have the capacity to act pragmatically and cooperatively.
.

But ... The Congressional Budget Office is steeped in politics and attempts to predict the future 20 years down the line all the time.
There is nothing pragmatic about that ... That is simply self serving hogwash ... They have no idea what will happen next year.

We could have another market crash ... Aliens could invade ... A nuclear reactor meltdown ... A terrorist attack on a great scale.
The numbers they give are completely false ... Misleading and unconnected to anything certain ... Yet they base legislation on them.

.

 

[gipper]

Yeah Stalin tried that in the Ukraine and staved millions of people to death.

How does one socialize the means of production without also committing mass murder?

One can't do it. It takes a society of enlightened people to accomplish. And at some point there will necessarily have to be some bloodshed, as was the case in every historical change in the social relations of production.

The first thing people will have to do is get over their ignorance and misconceptions as it relates to Karl Marx. The guy's theories are valid and worth exploring. Precisely why so many in our capitalist society have been scared off of him. He is a threat to those who would own you.

I don't doubt some of his theories are valid, the problem is implementing them. In practice, it always leads to one person becoming a dictator and we all know what happens when one individual attains too much power. This unfortunately is what happens with government of all kinds.

A better solution is eliminating government, as it is practiced today.

Do you discern a difference between governance and the state? Where the state is that which you would abolish?

Yes...abolish the state. Government run by the people, not the elites, and entirely voluntary is a structure that might work.

We agree then.........with Karl Marx. He has been wrongly associated with the idea of state ownership of the means of production and a strong state. Like us, his interest was in suppressing the state. The state arose out of our social form of production. It was built to protect private capital. If we change the form of production the state will necessarily change along with it.

"Freedom consists in converting the state from an organ superimposed upon society into one completely subordinate to it"
Critique of the Gotha Programme-- IV

The problem is always the state. The state needs to be abolished, but sadly too many think we NEED the state. They have been brainwashed in the government schools to abide by and admire the state. They can't wrap their heads around a stateless society.