What's your position on a universal minimum income?

[The Sage of Main Street]

It's not needed.

Survival of the fittest and natural selection will take care of everything.

A Nation Starts Dying When Dynasty Becomes Destiny

What we've been devolving under is survival of the "fatherest." No one has a right to get a dime from Daddy; that's for children. Just imagine how long pro sports would last if the players could pass on their positions to their sons.

 

[CultureCitizen]

I've always thought it was an interesting concept. Not sure if it would work in practicality. Given the rapidly increasing advances in technology more and more jobs done by humans are going to become obsolete. Down the road we may not have a choice.

This is the popular argument made by even more conservative economists but I completely disagree with the opinion. We have always had advancement in technology and man always finds new things to do with his time. You will always need people to program the machines which replace humans... or humans to program the machines that program... etc. There will always need to be engineers and technicians, people to do maintenance and installation. Perhaps we will need to become more technically trained in the future... perhaps there will be less need for menial labor. I kind of doubt it, someone will have to load the machines on trucks and put them together at some point. Or they'll have to put together the machines that put the machines together. Some human labor will always be needed.

Even if we carried this to the most extreme example, there will still be a need for humans to create. Machines don't have imaginations. The very thing that makes us humans special will require humans to continually produce and create. While it may be true that the future holds less of a place for strenuous laborious type jobs, that's not different from our past. We don't see gangs of men pounding rail spikes in to build railroads anymore, we have machines to do that now. We've not made work obsolete, we've simply found other things to do and we always will.

Wages should be determined in value by a free market operating on the principles of supply and demand. It is the most fair and equitable system we've ever created.

Hi Boss,
I am more concerned by the rate of change than by the actual change:
How many years passed between the wheel and the steam engine? Thousands.. How many passed between the steam engine and the internal combustion engine? A hundred . Then , how many passed between the mainframe and the pc? Thirty. And how many between that and the smartphones: twenty five.
Driverless vehicles and cashier free supermarkets are already here, they are not the norm, and it will still take ten years before every new car is driverless. But then the impact will be huge and sudden, it will not be a slow transition.

Nevertheless, we've always adapted. Humans always find new ways to spend their time. It's hard for us to even fathom what life for a typical housewife was just 70-80 years ago. Are housewives obsolete or did they find new things to do with their time?

I understand the argument you're making but I think humans will always find new things to do with their time, like they always have. Now, I can't tell you all about what those things are because we're not there yet. Those things haven't yet been imagined because there isn't a necessity as of yet. But, just as we found new things to do rather than take care of our horses and chop the wood... hunt for meat... sew our kid's clothing... harvest our crops... etc., etc., etc., we WILL find new things to do to replace the things we no longer have to do. Why? Because we always have.

Well, unions and communism were the answer to the industrial revolution in some countries, in other it was revolts. In light of such answers I consider a minimum income to be a mild one.

Yes changes have allways happened but not without consequences.

 

[Boss]

Well, unions and communism were the answer to the industrial revolution in some countries, in other it was revolts. In light of such answers I consider a minimum income to be a mild one.

Yes changes have allways happened but not without consequences.

Yep, there is always consequences to change. But what does that support any argument for?

Free market capitalism brings prosperity freedom and happiness.

Look... I get the concept here. But what you have to remember is, any such arbitrary value you put as your minimum will effectively cull all individuals who can't meet that value. We know this to be a fact because it's what happened when we enacted the Davis-Bacon Act. A 1931 law which established the requirement for paying the "local prevailing wages" on public works projects for laborers and mechanics.

Before this act passed, black unemployment rates were lower than whites. Blacks could always get jobs like these because they were willing to work for less and employers were willing to hire them because it was a better value. When you pass a law effectively forcing the rate of pay to be the same regardless, guess who didn't get those jobs anymore?

Now, I am not arguing this was socially right or that we should repeal this or go back to the old days... just making the point that when you set a minimum income the consequences are a detriment to those who may fall under the value line. You will eliminate jobs which might otherwise be available.

In MY opinion, it is FAR better to allow the principles of supply and demand to work in a free market nature. Employment is voluntary, no one is forced to accept a job that doesn't pay enough. Who are you to arbitrarily negotiate that rate on my behalf? I may have my own reasons for accepting a lower wage.... maybe I need experience? Maybe I have some kind of disability that prevents me from meeting this minimum value? Maybe income isn't as important to me as the benefits of the job? Why shouldn't I be able to negotiate on behalf of myself?

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

a universal minimum income.

a very stupid libsocialist idea of course that would cause even more liberal leeching rather than more real work thus dragging us all down further.

Of course if a free man wants to give money to another man he should be free to do so. But having a libNazi govt forcing us at gun point to be givers or takers is treasonous and perfectly liberal.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Well, unions and communism were the answer to the industrial revolution.

what????? the answer was to get rich. The industrial revolution took place because people wanted to get rich rather than to continue to live at subsistence!!!
Culture creep is so brainwashed and illilterate he has no idea he is taking the libmarxist position.

 

[gallantwarrior]

I've always thought it was an interesting concept. Not sure if it would work in practicality. Given the rapidly increasing advances in technology more and more jobs done by humans are going to become obsolete. Down the road we may not have a choice.

Perhaps we should consider a moratorium on breeding more children, or licensing people who would be required to meet some minimal standards before being permitted to engender offspring.
Imagine the exponential increase in government spending if every "poor" person was awarded a stipend from the public coffers. How long would it take for those who paid into those coffers simply gave up and put their hands out, too?
Have any of you ever read "Atlas Shrugged"? Maybe you should.

 

[CultureCitizen]

a universal minimum income.

a very stupid libsocialist idea of course that would cause even more liberal leeching rather than more real work thus dragging us all down further.

Of course if a free man wants to give money to another man he should be free to do so. But having a libNazi govt forcing us at gun point to be givers or takers is treasonous and perfectly liberal.

Libsocialist? So now you are calling Milton Friedman a Libsocialist Ed?

 

[CultureCitizen]

In MY opinion, it is FAR better to allow the principles of supply and demand to work in a free market nature. Employment is voluntary, no one is forced to accept a job that doesn't pay enough. Who are you to arbitrarily negotiate that rate on my behalf? I may have my own reasons for accepting a lower wage.... maybe I need experience? Maybe I have some kind of disability that prevents me from meeting this minimum value? Maybe income isn't as important to me as the benefits of the job? Why shouldn't I be able to negotiate on behalf of myself?

I am worried about the level of retooling required. Sure, there are tons of jobs available for people with PHD's, and there will still be ten years in the future. Now , for the sake of discussion, let's say self driving cars and trucks become a reallity , then those unemployed will now have to jump from drivers to people with a master degree as a minimum. That will take at least 7 years. Or , let's say they decide to work as nurses ( a high demand job ) that's still 4 to 5 years without a job.
I am not sure that many people are able to take that jump. Many of them just want a simple job... that's how I picture the majority of trump supporters: they think they can get their jobs back, jobs which have been wiped by automation and free trade.

 

[MaryL]

Many economists ( Steeve Keen, Milton Friedman ) as well as some institutions (singularity university) and busienssmen (Elon Musk) advocate for a universal minimum income.

What's your position regarding this policy?
References:
Universal minimum income to be above poverty line ( about $11 per day)
Minimum wage ( about $57 per day)
Median individual income ( about $88 per day)

Addendum :the singularity university is dedicated to solving big problems using AI. Elon musk is concerned about the role of man in an increasingly aoutomated world.

Basic income - Wikipedia

No, this is tied to the whole rich white liberal elitist thing. Tied to justifying illegal immigrants. I have nothing to do with that, but they hurt . Nothing will dissuade you from supporting illegal immigrants than actuality living with THEM.Do it some time, don't be afraid. They will cure all of you of that liberal well meaning supportive stuff. And then some.

 

[CultureCitizen]

Many economists ( Steeve Keen, Milton Friedman ) as well as some institutions (singularity university) and busienssmen (Elon Musk) advocate for a universal minimum income.

What's your position regarding this policy?
References:
Universal minimum income to be above poverty line ( about $11 per day)
Minimum wage ( about $57 per day)
Median individual income ( about $88 per day)

Addendum :the singularity university is dedicated to solving big problems using AI. Elon musk is concerned about the role of man in an increasingly aoutomated world.

Basic income - Wikipedia

No, this is tied to the whole rich white liberal elitist thing. Tied to justifying illegal immigrants. I have nothing to do with that, but they hurt . Nothing will dissuade you from supporting illegal immigrants than actuality living with THEM.Do it some time, don't be afraid. They will cure all of you of that liberal well meaning supportive stuff. And then some.

I think this is unrelated. Nevertheless, I actually have a couple of friends who were illegal immigrants. One of them hosted me in his house for a week while I was in silicon valley. Very kind of his part. He works as a waste collector: a highly demanded job in the bay area.

And yes, trash collector is a job that will still exist ten years from now, I am not so sure about the truck driver though.

 

[yiostheoy]

Many economists ( Steeve Keen, Milton Friedman ) as well as some institutions (singularity university) and busienssmen (Elon Musk) advocate for a universal minimum income.

What's your position regarding this policy?
References:
Universal minimum income to be above poverty line ( about $11 per day)
Minimum wage ( about $57 per day)
Median individual income ( about $88 per day)

Addendum :the singularity university is dedicated to solving big problems using AI. Elon musk is concerned about the role of man in an increasingly aoutomated world.

Basic income - Wikipedia

The cost of living is radically different in different locations of the Nation and of the World.

Thus if the conclusion is that there should be law dictating a minimum wage, then it needs to be flexible and variable enough to fit each different location across the Country.

I do believe that employment law should dictate what the minimum hourly payment should be to a person working as an employee to someone else.

And I believe that anyone who cannot meet that requirement as an employer should not be allowed to legally employ anyone else. Instead they should be relegated to working as a self employed person, or in a partnership with other self employed persons where they then divide up their proceeds equally so that they can meet the same benchmark for the minimum wage for their given location.

All work deserves a living wage, not a starvation wage.

 

[yiostheoy]

...I actually have a couple of friends who were illegal immigrants. One of them hosted me in his house for a week while I was in silicon valley. Very kind of his part. He works as a waste collector: a highly demanded job in the bay area.

I know a person who is in business employing illegal aliens all the time.

Since he is under the radar he pays them as little as possible -- they bargain for it.

Since none of them is paying any taxes they are able to get by on less.

For them, gross equals net.

If the illegals ever get caught they would be deported.

If he himself (the "employer") ever got caught he would go to Federal prison.

There are lots of people who do this. They are all under the radar.

Once a business gets fairly large it then starts to attract Federal attention and then this crap cannot continue to go on.

But on the smaller end it happens a lot -- gardening, vegetable picking, fruit picking, janitorial, repairs, construction, etc.

 

[yiostheoy]

No, this is tied to the whole rich white liberal elitist thing. Tied to justifying illegal immigrants. I have nothing to do with that, but they hurt . Nothing will dissuade you from supporting illegal immigrants than actuality living with THEM.Do it some time, don't be afraid. They will cure all of you of that liberal well meaning supportive stuff. And then some.

You don't explain yourself very well.

You just make a vague cloaked claim.

It like any other girlie thing, where the girlie is playing the game of "maybe I will and maybe I won't".

 

[MaryL]

Many economists ( Steeve Keen, Milton Friedman ) as well as some institutions (singularity university) and busienssmen (Elon Musk) advocate for a universal minimum income.

What's your position regarding this policy?
References:
Universal minimum income to be above poverty line ( about $11 per day)
Minimum wage ( about $57 per day)
Median individual income ( about $88 per day)

Addendum :the singularity university is dedicated to solving big problems using AI. Elon musk is concerned about the role of man in an increasingly aoutomated world.

Basic income - Wikipedia

No, this is tied to the whole rich white liberal elitist thing. Tied to justifying illegal immigrants. I have nothing to do with that, but they hurt . Nothing will dissuade you from supporting illegal immigrants than actuality living with THEM.Do it some time, don't be afraid. They will cure all of you of that liberal well meaning supportive stuff. And then some.

I think this is unrelated. Nevertheless, I actually have a couple of friends who were illegal immigrants. One of them hosted me in his house for a week while I was in silicon valley. Very kind of his part. He works as a waste collector: a highly demanded job in the bay area.

And yes, trash collector is a job that will still exist ten years from now, I am not so sure about the truck driver though.

Wow, it's totally related. I live with and work with Mexican illegals. I am sorry, not feeling your pain. They trash and completely disregard American culture. If you actually HAD to be FORCED to deal with illegals, it would be a rare day anyone would idealize THEM as a victim. Good lord.

 

[CultureCitizen]

Many economists ( Steeve Keen, Milton Friedman ) as well as some institutions (singularity university) and busienssmen (Elon Musk) advocate for a universal minimum income.

What's your position regarding this policy?
References:
Universal minimum income to be above poverty line ( about $11 per day)
Minimum wage ( about $57 per day)
Median individual income ( about $88 per day)

Addendum :the singularity university is dedicated to solving big problems using AI. Elon musk is concerned about the role of man in an increasingly aoutomated world.

Basic income - Wikipedia

No, this is tied to the whole rich white liberal elitist thing. Tied to justifying illegal immigrants. I have nothing to do with that, but they hurt . Nothing will dissuade you from supporting illegal immigrants than actuality living with THEM.Do it some time, don't be afraid. They will cure all of you of that liberal well meaning supportive stuff. And then some.

I think this is unrelated. Nevertheless, I actually have a couple of friends who were illegal immigrants. One of them hosted me in his house for a week while I was in silicon valley. Very kind of his part. He works as a waste collector: a highly demanded job in the bay area.

And yes, trash collector is a job that will still exist ten years from now, I am not so sure about the truck driver though.

Wow, it's totally related. I live with and work with Mexican illegals. I am sorry, not feeling your pain. They trash and completely disregard American culture. If you actually HAD to be FORCED to deal with illegals, it would be a rare day anyone would idealize THEM as a victim. Good lord.

1) How is this "totally related"?

2)I didn't say they were victims, those are your words, not mine... By the by the friend who hosted me is not from Mexico but from Nicaragua.

3) How do they trash American culture? Yes, my friend had a rough time learning english, but that's natural, and granted, his knowledge of American history is not one of his strong points, but I know many Americans in the same situation.

4) How would someone force me to deal with illegals? I mean, the US is a free country ( or at least it was before Trump took office). You can change your job if you don't want to work with illegals, or even better you can report them... that is unless you have no proof they are illegals and you are judging them by their appearance ( I once made the same mistake with someone with a mexican name. I asked him : "Hola , que cuentas de nuevo?", he answered : sory , I don't speak spanish ).

How to Report Illegal Immigrants

There you goe MaryL

 

[Boss]

In MY opinion, it is FAR better to allow the principles of supply and demand to work in a free market nature. Employment is voluntary, no one is forced to accept a job that doesn't pay enough. Who are you to arbitrarily negotiate that rate on my behalf? I may have my own reasons for accepting a lower wage.... maybe I need experience? Maybe I have some kind of disability that prevents me from meeting this minimum value? Maybe income isn't as important to me as the benefits of the job? Why shouldn't I be able to negotiate on behalf of myself?

I am worried about the level of retooling required. Sure, there are tons of jobs available for people with PHD's, and there will still be ten years in the future. Now , for the sake of discussion, let's say self driving cars and trucks become a reallity , then those unemployed will now have to jump from drivers to people with a master degree as a minimum. That will take at least 7 years. Or , let's say they decide to work as nurses ( a high demand job ) that's still 4 to 5 years without a job.
I am not sure that many people are able to take that jump. Many of them just want a simple job... that's how I picture the majority of trump supporters: they think they can get their jobs back, jobs which have been wiped by automation and free trade.

No new technology changes the employment landscape overnight. Just because a new tech is available doesn't mean business is ready to make the switch. It usually takes a decade or more for most major innovations to catch on. In the meantime, it is more a gradual change happening over time.

It's not like we are all going to suddenly wake up one morning and, oh my god, you need a masters degree to get a job! And not to dash any hopes, but a lot of things may depend on what your masters degree is in or how many others are in the market with that same degree. The only sure things in life are death and taxes.

Let me help you out with "what many people want" .....they want life to be a piece of cake they can have and also eat. They want Big Government taking care of them from cradle to grave and ensuring they never have to make hard choices or put forth any major effort. They can rest easy knowing they can remain fat, happy and lazy, and good old Government will be there to smooth their path.

The rest of us want to have freedom.

 

[CultureCitizen]

No new technology changes the employment landscape overnight. Just because a new tech is available doesn't mean business is ready to make the switch. It usually takes a decade or more for most major innovations to catch on. In the meantime, it is more a gradual change happening over time.

Well , of course, that's why I used the self driving cars as an example.
The technology exists right now? yes
Is it business ready ? no.
Will it be business ready in ten years? yes.

This means that all those drivers should start trainning for a new job in the next five years, or else be laid off.
The problem is that I don't really see that the conditions are set for people retooling from drivers to healthcare or STEM.

Milton Friedman was a conservative economist by all measures, and yet he advocated for universal basic income. He said such income should never exceed the net minimum wage but should be enough to survive. In that way people would allways strive to get a job.

Now, per my proposal: 5,000 to every adult yields 1.2 T ( the reason to make it per adult and not per person is to avoid using kids as a source of income) currently the budget is 3.8 T, so yes this would need some sort of tax reform before before being enacted, or maybe in ten years 1.2T that amount will not be such a big percent of gdp as it is right now.

 

[yiostheoy]

Wow, it's totally related. I live with and work with Mexican illegals. I am sorry, not feeling your pain. They trash and completely disregard American culture. If you actually HAD to be FORCED to deal with illegals, it would be a rare day anyone would idealize THEM as a victim. Good lord.

Air-head warning.

Air-head detected.

Delete file immediately.

 

[Boss]

No new technology changes the employment landscape overnight. Just because a new tech is available doesn't mean business is ready to make the switch. It usually takes a decade or more for most major innovations to catch on. In the meantime, it is more a gradual change happening over time.

Well , of course, that's why I used the self driving cars as an example.
The technology exists right now? yes
Is it business ready ? no.
Will it be business ready in ten years? yes.

This means that all those drivers should start trainning for a new job in the next five years, or else be laid off.
The problem is that I don't really see that the conditions are set for people retooling from drivers to healthcare or STEM.

Milton Friedman was a conservative economist by all measures, and yet he advocated for universal basic income. He said such income should never exceed the net minimum wage but should be enough to survive. In that way people would allways strive to get a job.

Now, per my proposal: 5,000 to every adult yields 1.2 T ( the reason to make it per adult and not per person is to avoid using kids as a source of income) currently the budget is 3.8 T, so yes this would need some sort of tax reform before before being enacted, or maybe in ten years 1.2T that amount will not be such a big percent of gdp as it is right now.

Will it be business ready in ten years? yes.

It's business ready now if you want to invest in it. The problem is, it cost prohibitive. And it will probably still be cost prohibitive in ten years for most "driver" jobs because most driver jobs today consist of other things besides just driving.

Yeah, eventually most driving will be done by computers. So? Once, most driving was powered by horses. We transitioned. People had to change careers. That's progress and how it works.

I understand Milton Friedman is a conservative economist, I agree with Friedman on a lot of things. I disagree with him on this. Again... you didn't address my counter argument. Whenever you establish an arbitrary "minimum" it prices some individuals out because they don't meet the level of value you've established. What do we do about them?

Okay... let's say I have two jobs in my plant... One is for toilet cleaner and the other is for sweeper. I hire two people to do these menial jobs and they are paid a menial wage. You come along and tell me I have to increase the "minimum income" which will double the amount I currently pay. Guess what I am going to do? I'm going to fire one of them and the other will be doing both jobs.

 

[yiostheoy]

Well , of course, that's why I used the self driving cars as an example.
The technology exists right now? yes
Is it business ready ? no.
Will it be business ready in ten years? yes.

This means that all those drivers should start trainning for a new job in the next five years, or else be laid off.
The problem is that I don't really see that the conditions are set for people retooling from drivers to healthcare or STEM.

Milton Friedman was a conservative economist by all measures, and yet he advocated for universal basic income. He said such income should never exceed the net minimum wage but should be enough to survive. In that way people would allways strive to get a job.

Now, per my proposal: 5,000 to every adult yields 1.2 T ( the reason to make it per adult and not per person is to avoid using kids as a source of income) currently the budget is 3.8 T, so yes this would need some sort of tax reform before before being enacted, or maybe in ten years 1.2T that amount will not be such a big percent of gdp as it is right now.

Self-driving cars are hazardous.

Everyplace where self-driving cars have been tried they have been banned.

Think about factory robots instead.

They don't make mistakes.

They don't belong to unions.

They just cannot think.

Although factory workers don't think much anyway either.