basic income

File: 124 KB, 645x260, basicincome2.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

basic income Anonymous Mon May 18 19:39:27 2015 No.758378 [Reply] [Original]

How would a basic income affect the economy?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_income

>>	Anonymous Mon May 18 19:57:58 2015 No.758401 Like Welfare but now everyone gets money.

>>	Anonymous Mon May 18 20:07:36 2015 No.758420 >>758401 People spend a lot of money when they get their welfare cheques. Wouldn't that be good for the economy?

>>	Anonymous Mon May 18 20:12:09 2015 No.758430 so.. op picture... here's a wild fucking idea... >we could just reduce taxes

>>	Anonymous Mon May 18 20:14:23 2015 No.758433 >>758430 Somewhat off topic for this thread. Policy discussions belong on pol.

Anonymous Mon May 18 20:14:41 2015 No.758434

>>758420
Welfare isn't good for the economy in any way. It's a humanitarian service. By all means people on welfare should be left to the vultures of capitalism in an economic sense.

It's not earned income, nobody is gaining anything out of those people having welfare. The grocery store might win because they sold an extra gallon of milk, but the gas station down the road had to pay for it in taxes. The money didn't appear out of fucking nowhere.

Anonymous Mon May 18 20:20:59 2015 No.758442
File: 48 KB, 328x500, Lights In The Tunnel.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>758434
Value is added when they spend the money instead of having it sit in corporate vaults.

>By all means people on welfare should be left to the vultures of capitalism in an economic sense.

This is bad for the economy in the long run. Pic related.

>>	Anonymous Mon May 18 20:21:41 2015 No.758444 >>758433 What the fuck are you talking about? Giving everyone a check back would have the exact effect of lowering taxes. It's the same fucking thing.

>>	Anonymous Mon May 18 20:23:04 2015 No.758446 >>758444 There are people who pay almost no tax. It's not the same thing at all.

Anonymous Mon May 18 20:26:26 2015 No.758451

>>758446

You haven't even begun to explain how the two things are different.

some people pay not tax, and probably currently get a check.

some people pay a lot of tax, and probably curently get a check.

some people pay even more tax, and probably don't get a check.

in each of these cases lowering taxes or increasing check size has the exact same affect.

it's called a progressive tax, and welfare. we already have it. if you adjusted the amount of welfare and the progressive steps of the tax code - it would be the same thing as giving everyone a check in the US.

>>	Anonymous Mon May 18 20:28:26 2015 No.758454 >>758451 Means tested welfare would not have the same economic effects as a basic income. It's not the same.

Anonymous Mon May 18 20:31:33 2015 No.758459

>>758442
That's assuming that money comes exclusively from corporate tax, or that the money taxed from them would end up in reserve funds at all.
A tiny amount of corporate profit gets pushed into reserves, most of it goes directly back into expansion, R&D, and PR.

Also, yes, if you extrapolate that idea by constantly eliminating the "weakest of the herd" it's terrible for the economy.
But we don't, because that's fucking retarded.
People on welfare have overstretched themselves and do not contribute back to the economy in a meaningful enough way to sustain themselves. I.E. They don't work enough and get paid enough to sustain their lifestyle, which is usually filled with 30 children, car loans, and expensive electronics and meals they have no ability to pay for.

So the government steps in and helps them out with a check once a month.
That check is comprised of other people who are economically successful. It is money that they would have otherwise invested or spent, or the government could have appropriated towards other services.

The money ends up back into economic circulation, but it hasn't done anything useful. Again, the grocery store got to sell a gallon of milk, but the gas station lost that value because they had to pay the tax that covered the milk. The people who got the welfare check are doing dick fuck for the economy because they haven't generated anything positive in return for the money.
Welfare at best is a slight negative on the economy, and guaranteed in come is just welfare-for-everybody, which at best would be fucking awful for the economy.

Anonymous Mon May 18 20:36:59 2015 No.758467

Basic income wouldn't be so bad if you ended all other social programs. Here is your check for "X" amount, but there are no other handouts.

The reality though is there is a lot of negative sides to it. First and foremost people are naturally greedy and stupid. The first thing they will do is setup a lifestyle that pushes thier basic income to its limits then past it and begin demanding more.

Its the same way millionaires (that is sports players, athletes, etc) can go broke. They played a game for a ton of money. They waste it as they don't have any real concept of money.

People who don't work for something and get something for free are more likely to abuse it.

Braindrain - You have someone who is intelligent but lazy. Typically some of them become lazy and good for nothings, but some of them actually put their skills to use and overcome being lazy. This is less likely if an income is provided for them.

When our economy becomes mostly automated, that is the time to start talking about basic incomes. Not before.

Anonymous Mon May 18 20:41:09 2015 No.758473

>>758459
There would be many sources of revenue, not just corporate tax.

>>758459
>They don't work enough and get paid enough to sustain their lifestyle, which is usually filled with 30 children, car loans, and expensive electronics and meals they have no ability to pay for.

It's not like that anymore. Labour just isn't as competitive as it used to be.

The share of national income and wealth going to labour is in DECLINE. This is not because a few people made bad decisions; it is a structural problem.

>dick fuck for the economy because they haven't generated anything positive in return for the money.

This isn't true. People will move out of their parents homes, pay off their debts, and buy cars.

Inequality is not good for the economy and welfare reduces inequality, so welfare is good for the economy.

>>758467
>When our economy becomes mostly automated, that is the time to start talking about basic incomes.

Our economy is already mostly automated. Agriculture and manufacturing are automated. All that's left is the service sector, which is being crept into by autos and automatic checkouts.

I think between 2020 and 2030 we could use a negative income tax, and beyond 2030 we could use basic income.

Anonymous Mon May 18 20:43:41 2015 No.758477

The only problem I see is that rental prices in areas with high housing demand would probably shoot up try to force people to spend their new money but likely not enough to expend all of it.

We would need aggressive taxation for the people profiting from it, but this is already a problem.

Anonymous Mon May 18 20:44:42 2015 No.758482

>>758473
It doesn't matter WHO the taxes come from, it matters that there is 0 net gain from it, numbnuts,
Welfare is bad for the economy because there is no generation of labor or content from it. It's just money that's been recycled through the system at pure negative cost to people who pay tax.

It is a humanitarian positive and a pure economic negative.
Jose Taco gets to feed his family because of it, but only as a result of Whiteman Inasuit giving him the money. Jose Taco never actually did anything that benefited the economy.

Anonymous Mon May 18 20:46:26 2015 No.758488

>>758482
>0 net gain from it, numbnuts,
Incorrect. Value is added.

You don't understand how value is added when money is exchanged for goods and services.

Demand is already weakened by low incomes among Millennials. Things are only going to get worse as machines get better.

Anonymous Mon May 18 20:49:12 2015 No.758493

>>758488
Incorrect, value is re-appropriated. It's not added.
It would be added if they had earned the money by providing a service. They could then take this and spend it on goods provided by a service, which could then pay the people who were employed to provide this service to go buy goods, etc the cycle continues.

When you remove the service from the equation, you're just having a company hand itself its own money back to itself.

>>	Anonymous Mon May 18 20:50:54 2015 No.758495 >>758493 No. Wrong. That is not how wealth is created. Value is not labour and labour is not value.

Anonymous Mon May 18 21:05:29 2015 No.758513

>>758459
>A tiny amount of corporate profit gets pushed into reserves, most of it goes directly back into expansion, R&D, and PR.

No. They just put it into cash.

>http://www.businessinsider.com/the-worlds-biggest-companies-have-amassed-7-trillion-in-cash-2014-8

Major US corporations currently hold around $3.5tn in cash and equivalents, against annual profits of roughly $1.5tn. Furthermore, for S&P 500 companies, more than all of their profits in 2014 went back to shareholders in dividends or stock buybacks. That's not exactly indicative of "most of it goes directly back into expansion, R&D, and PR".

>>	Anonymous Mon May 18 21:10:12 2015 No.758520 File: 647 KB, 500x289, x2sa6rB.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>758454 >being this fucking stupid

>>	Anonymous Mon May 18 21:26:38 2015 No.758548 >>758482 Ignoring the other debate this isn't necessarily correct. By removing the burden of conventional labor people can put their effort to other things, some of which may result in greater societal value than what they were doing beforehand.

Anonymous Mon May 18 21:29:23 2015 No.758550

It's a shitty idea and literally the only people I have ever seen support such a stupid idea are redditors

basic income will never ever be a thing because we will outlaw automation in certain jobs before we take jobs away. You're stupid if you think they're really going to replace all truck drivers and manual jobs without robots, the people doing those jobs will never ever stand for it

tl;dr would have a chance of happening if automation wasn't just a meme that tech nerds jack off too, but people in real life will prevent automation from happening

>>	Anonymous Mon May 18 21:30:25 2015 No.758552 with robots*

Anonymous Mon May 18 21:32:53 2015 No.758555

>People who are likely to be poor are also likely to reproduce like mad, money accelerates this
Poor people increase
>People that are likely to be well off are also less likely to reproduce as fast, taking money away from them will make this worse
Less well off people

The unproductive poor population will explode while the productive well off (not rich, the middle and upper middle class) will die out.

You're going to kill the middle class engine of your economy.

This doesn't mean you can't do it, but the question to ask at that point is.How is your country going to compete with other countries without an economic engine?

I'd imagine you'd need some sort of infinite source of scarce resources that only your country has in order to survive in a capitalist world. Either that, the entire world needs to make the transition at once and something like a star-trek like world where technology has eliminated the need for humans to work in order to simply survive.

>>	Anonymous Mon May 18 21:44:01 2015 No.758571 >>758378 >>>/reddit/

Anonymous Mon May 18 21:51:36 2015 No.758587

also I don't get the point of this

how is this any different than minimum wage laws except you don't have to work, just seems like another whiny teenager "progressive" idea tbh

every proponent of this likes to pretend their job is holding them back from reaching their true dreams and that if they could just get a basic income they would follow their dreams but I guarantee 99% of them would just shitpost on the Internet, fap, and play videogames all day

>>	Anonymous Mon May 18 22:01:06 2015 No.758601 >>758550 Lmao, what is this, the industrial revolution? >Luddite truck drivers lmao

>>	Anonymous Mon May 18 22:41:56 2015 No.758655 People who advocate basic income are financially illiterate children with a gibs me dat mentality.

Anonymous Mon May 18 22:57:01 2015 No.758681

>>758550
Capitalism loves automation because it results in higher profits.

Also, opposing an idea because it is popular on reddit is dumb.

>>758587

This is not true. People are more productive on BI, not less. It has been studied in India.

>>758655

I am not a financially illiterate child with a give me that mentality, whatever that is.

Anonymous Mon May 18 23:16:16 2015 No.758708

>>758681
>Capitalism loves automation because it results in higher profits.

Capitalism just loves return on investment. No need to go to a middle man like automation or profit. There's really no need for a product or anything. It's just ROI.

There is no ROI on giving everyone money.

There is ROI in giving everyone education and food and opportunity. That last one is tricky - but you don't need to give people a "basic income" to provide opportunity. You do need to ensure that wealth disparity is kept in check with some sort of wealth tax probably, and you do need to make sure that monopolies are kept in check. These are two huge short comings of the US government these days that is causing wide spread discontent in the country - and rightly so.

Anonymous Mon May 18 23:20:50 2015 No.758713

>>758708
>There is no ROI on giving everyone money.

That's not true, and it's what I've been trying to convey for the entire thread. Giving everyone money increases demand and stimulates economic growth.

All the half measures you speak of are not going to reduce inequality. We need a direct transfer of wealth.

>>	Anonymous Mon May 18 23:24:53 2015 No.758724 >>758713 Fuck off commie The second my hard earned dollars go towards paying shitheads for doing nothing is the second I move

>>	Anonymous Mon May 18 23:25:50 2015 No.758726 >>758724 >commie This is about saving capitalism from itself. The means of production will still be privately owned.

>>	Anonymous Mon May 18 23:28:13 2015 No.758729 >>758726 who do you propose pay for basic income >Inb4 dude just tax the 1% LMAO

>>	Anonymous Mon May 18 23:28:51 2015 No.758730 >>758378 It gives incentives not to work.

>>	Anonymous Mon May 18 23:29:51 2015 No.758734 >>758442 Corporations spend their money.

Anonymous Mon May 18 23:29:52 2015 No.758735
File: 178 KB, 300x300, 1422410144861.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

The whole concept is ridiculous.

Money is used to properly scale an exchange of limited goods, land, services, and resources. Basic income won't make any more of those assets, so their cost would just rise with the fact that everyone has more money. Sure, it might be even near the end, but people will always want more and work to have more than the basic income.

The exact same scenario happened with minimum wage; it was first created so a single man could afford a family, home, and car. Now it's laughed at and anyone is considered a moron if they make minimum wage as an adult. The same will happen to basic income; it'll be the tennager's bottom-of-the-barrel that you need to afford your McDonald's meals, bus fair, and 1/3 the rent for the shitty flat you split with immigrants..

Anonymous Mon May 18 23:34:12 2015 No.758744

>>758729
I propose raising taxes and getting rid of a lot of social programs to help the poor. It should start as a negative income tax, and then graduate to a basic income around 2030 or so.

>>758730

Labour participation is dropping because there are not enough jobs. No jobs is also a disincentive to work.

People will still work because living in a cell with bread, water, and a smartphone is not enough to be happy for 99% of people, aside from /a/ users.

>>758735
>everyone has more money

Not true. The rich will have less money.

>>758735
>The exact same scenario happened with minimum wage; it was first created so a single man could afford a family, home, and car. Now it's laughed at and anyone is considered a moron if they make minimum wage as an adult. The same will happen to basic income; it'll be the tennager's bottom-of-the-barrel that you need to afford your McDonald's meals, bus fair, and 1/3 the rent for the shitty flat you split with immigrants..

Most people who are on minimum wage are adults with families. You don't know the facts.

http://www.epi.org/publication/wage-workers-older-88-percent-workers-benefit/

>>	Anonymous Mon May 18 23:35:15 2015 No.758748 >>758730 Would you stop working for $1,500 a month?

>>	Anonymous Mon May 18 23:35:34 2015 No.758750 >>758734 >Corporations spend their money No. See >>758513

>>	Anonymous Mon May 18 23:37:36 2015 No.758756 >>758744 Labor participation is dropping because boomers are retiring, the recent recession, and increased welfare in response to the recession.

Lights In The Tunnel Mon May 18 23:41:27 2015 No.758764
File: 20 KB, 585x403, months for employment to recover from recessions.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>758756
That is only partially correct. The baby boomers have only been retiring recently. Lagging labour recovery is an old trend resulting from technological progress in information processing, which substitutes for human cognition.

>>	Lights In The Tunnel Mon May 18 23:42:42 2015 No.758767 >>758756 Also, labour participation for that age group is increasing, not decreasing. http://www.cbs.nl/en-GB/menu/themas/dossiers/vergrijzing/publicaties/artikelen/archief/2009/2009-2794-wm.htm

Anonymous Mon May 18 23:43:22 2015 No.758769
File: 54 KB, 475x356, 1402939913378.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>758513
> As a result, industry experts believe the wall of cash and the ongoing recovery in debt markets could mean that private equity could start to write multi-billion cheques for deals.

Anonymous Mon May 18 23:46:38 2015 No.758774

>>758744
The fundamental problem with taxing the super rich is that they're not like normal people, they don't have to give a fuck about their country and don't live within the limits of normal people.

>The USA is trying to tax them an additional 15%?
They move to any other first world country that doesn't.

>The USA tries to stop them?
They have private transportation.

>The USA tries to sue them?
They can afford the best legal team in the world for far less than 15% of their annual earnings, plus their new country wants to protect them for the increased corporate business brought to the nation.

The super rich don't have to give a fuck, you will never get a cut of their revenue.

Lights In The Tunnel Mon May 18 23:50:00 2015 No.758777

>>758774
Not all of it would come from taxing the rich. There would be cancellations of other programs to save enough funds for the basic income.

I am also very concerned about taxing the rich because of their wealth mobility, but this must happen to save the rich from the labour efficiency of capitalism. Without customers, the wealth of the rich has no value. This is the near future we are going to have to deal with.

Taxes on the rich are at a historical low and are simply unsustainable. The time has come for them to pay their fair share, lest they face complete destruction in a collapse of demand.

>>	Anonymous Mon May 18 23:51:20 2015 No.758779 >>758767 >>758764 >data for nederland Here's a look at the US data. http://www.usnews.com/news/articles/2014/07/17/baby-boomers-are-a-big-part-of-labor-participation-rate-decline

Lights In The Tunnel Mon May 18 23:57:26 2015 No.758790

>>758779
This fails to account for the lack of participation for the 16 to 20 age group and the underemployment of the young. Baby boomers are not the only reason, as I have shown. I know their retirement is part of the reason, but it is not all of it.

>Retirements account for nearly half of the fall in the participation rate

This article does not discount technological unemployment, it just masks it as "residual" and cyclical effects.

There is nothing cyclical about having high unemployment EIGHT years after a recession.

Anonymous Tue May 19 00:27:51 2015 No.758826

>>758790

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-UCScC8mjOI

"Much of the policy reaction to the Great Recession emphasized Keynesian effects on aggregate demand and downplayed individual incentives to work, produce, and invest. In contrast, Casey Mulligan's research focuses on how an expanded array of U.S. safety-net programs-food stamps, unemployment insurance, Medicaid, and housing/mortgage assistance programs-raised effective marginal income-tax rates especially for poor families. These diminished incentives to work help to explain the weakness of the U.S. economic recovery since the end of the recession in 2009 and also explain why Barack Obama is justifiably called the 'Food-Stamp President.' Hopefully, future government policymakers will deliver better results by learning from this important book." --Robert J. Barro, Paul M. Warburg Professor of Economics, Harvard University

>>	Anonymous Tue May 19 00:32:06 2015 No.758828 >>758774 people who grew up in the US want to spend the rest of their lives here. despite all of the complaints about high taxation, hardly anyone has followed through and moved away

>>	Anonymous Tue May 19 00:35:21 2015 No.758831 >>758828 >people who grew up in the US want to spend the rest of their lives here. The moment I have enough money I'm getting the fuck out.

Anonymous Tue May 19 00:44:44 2015 No.758837

>>758826
>"Much of the policy reaction to the Great Recession emphasized Keynesian effects on aggregate demand and downplayed individual incentives to work, produce, and invest. In contrast, Casey Mulligan's research focuses on how an expanded array of U.S. safety-net programs-food stamps, unemployment insurance, Medicaid, and housing/mortgage assistance programs-raised effective marginal income-tax rates especially for poor families. These diminished incentives to work help to explain the weakness of the U.S. economic recovery since the end of the recession in 2009 and also explain why Barack Obama is justifiably called the 'Food-Stamp President.' Hopefully, future government policymakers will deliver better results by learning from this important book." --Robert J. Barro, Paul M. Warburg Professor of Economics, Harvard University

Replacing this with a basic income would get rid of the disincentive to work.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-vnB16E36EQ

>>758831

Why?

>>	Anonymous Tue May 19 00:54:23 2015 No.758846 >>758774 Fundamentally there is more of us than them, if they refuse to abide by the rules we have created we could very much cut their heads off and put them on a stake.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 19 00:59:58 2015 No.758851 >>758837 There's no need to waste your time trying to convince most of these retards. You won't convince them. You're right. Basic income is imminent. Though, it'll definitely come before 2030. My guess is the mid 2020s.

Anonymous Tue May 19 01:05:13 2015 No.758857

>>758774
I don't think you know how the taxation of US citizens works. You are required to pay taxes to the IRS no matter where you work in the world if you are a US citizen. The US has treaties with some countries that reduce this burden on expats.

New York controls the flow of money through the world. The US government controls New York.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 19 01:05:38 2015 No.758858 >>758851 I agree. There are very smart, powerful people discussing it. Right now, it is in a silent, fringe phase, but its time is coming. L8er biz.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 19 01:12:22 2015 No.758864 >>758851 Why would Jamal get a job if he's living better than he ever has by doing nothing?

Anonymous Tue May 19 01:19:03 2015 No.758874

>>758864
Basic income has so many other positive benefits, and you're focusing on the fact that Jamal likely won't work at McDonalds anymore? The point is that we've shifted so far to the extreme of "more jerbs boost the economy" that it doesn't matter if we add millions of more low-skilled laborers. We're at the point where more consumers with more disposable income would be beneficial to the companies that are actually contributing to growth.

>implying the Jamals of the world contribute anything significant to GDP anyway

Anonymous Tue May 19 01:34:41 2015 No.758885

The economy isn't about money, the economy is about stuff, people making stuff and working their assess off to move that stuff around. If half the population stopped working overnight because they no longer had to, the economy would become unsustainable. We're already part way there, 2/3 of the federal budget is spent on redistribution programs, all our stuff comes from China, and most of the "work" done inside bureaucratic corporations doesn't accomplish anything tangible.

Anonymous Tue May 19 01:35:11 2015 No.758886 [DELETED]

>>758874

I think you are mistaken. The money is spent in the hands of others. Redistributive policies in which dollar for dollar, money is handed from the rich to the poor, then they have a negative net effect because they disincentive work which, all things equal, results in less product per capita because people aren't participating on the supply side.

To have a positive effect, a nation has to engage in deficit spending and tax the public later through inflation or higher tax rates. In effect, a nation prints money and hands it out, in hope that the net result outweighs the cost. Deficit spending is not favorable at the current time.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 19 01:37:52 2015 No.758888 >>758378 I don't give a shit. Fuck the economy. The world should belong to rich people, and the poor people should sit in a corner and eat their happy meals in quiet.

Anonymous Tue May 19 01:38:35 2015 No.758889

>>758874

I think you are mistaken. The money is spent in the hands of others. When dollar for dollar, money is handed from the rich to the poor, redistributive policies have a negative net effect because they disincentive work which, all things equal, results in less product per capita because people aren't participating on the supply side.

For a redistributive policy to have a positive effect, a nation has to engage in deficit spending and tax the public later through inflation or higher tax rates. In effect, a nation prints money and hands it out, in hope that the net result outweighs the cost. Deficit spending is not favorable at the current time.

Anonymous Tue May 19 01:47:36 2015 No.758894

>>758828
Normal people, yes. The top 1% actually travel for kicks on weekends and understand that so many other countries are not only just as good, but better for the exceptionally rich.

Living in Italy sucks, the real estate is ridiculously overpriced and the people are dicks. Living in rich Italy is amazing, you have your own villa and your neighbors are whoever you want.

The world is entirely different to them, anon.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 19 01:51:02 2015 No.758897 >>758894 No mostly they're doctors, lawyers, and CEOs who work 80 hours a week and take a vacation once a year.

Anonymous Tue May 19 02:08:04 2015 No.758906

>>758889
>The money is spent in the hands of others.

To a lesser degree. Overall consumption of a population would increase were some income redistributed to the poor through basic income.

Take a look at the data. What percentage of income do the poor spend versus the very rich?

>For a redistributive policy to have a positive effect, a nation has to engage in deficit spending and tax the public later through inflation or higher tax rates

No. Please stop pulling false conclusions out of the air. This is simple math. Deficits are caused by a country spending more than it earns in tax revenues in a given year through debt. A nation could raise taxes slightly on the rich and redistribute the proceeds to the poor without creating a deficit.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 19 02:42:59 2015 No.758933 >>758894 What's the best country for a rich man to live in?

Anonymous Tue May 19 02:45:46 2015 No.758938

>>758378
It would kick the economy into hyperdrive.

What alk the naysayers dont seem to grasp is income elasticity of demand. If every yokel over age 21 was getting 1k a month theyd waste it on goods and services which means small business galore

You only need so many apartments or houses , and we have plenty enough so that supply and demand even with the new money wouldnt do much (as an apartment owner i would much rather raise rent 50 bucks and have all units filled than try and niggerdick people , let nigger dick properties old tenants come my way any day of the week)

"Income elasticity of demand" if you dont k ow what it is and your against basic income then you have some reading to do.

You can build a superpower off weed and videogame sales as long as unemployments almost 0 and every third man is an entrepeneur

>>	Anonymous Tue May 19 03:10:38 2015 No.758944 >>758938 >small business galore Yeah nah they'd blow it all at Walmart or Amazon not your local mom and pop store.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 19 05:59:35 2015 No.759017 People could just work for their money

Anonymous Tue May 19 06:22:46 2015 No.759031

It would be a very bad idea. Which is why to my knowledge this has never been even seriously considered. People and business would flee the country to where they are paid what they're worth instead of paying ridiculous tax rates. This would cause a massive brain drain on the country because better educated people make more money than less educated people.

For the people who stay it will be a race to the bottom. They have no incentive to try hard and every incentive to be as lazy as possible.

Anonymous Tue May 19 06:57:34 2015 No.759050

You don't have to have taxes to generate basic income. Alaska basically does it with state oil revenues. Its not enough to live off of, but the principal demonstrates that profits created by a state owned industry could be distributed to the people of the state as a whole. Similarly, that's also the whole point of tax advantaged retirement accounts: to promote public ownership of revenue/wealth generating assets in order to one day provide enough income to live off of without working.

The more immediate issue is how well state owned assets can be managed given the nature of politics and government in general. If you had a state owned Electrical utility that basically provided for all a nation's power needs, you face the issue of whether that utility is obligated to generate as much profit as possible to distribute to the people, or whether their mandate is to provide electricity as cheaply as possible.

Anonymous Tue May 19 06:59:09 2015 No.759052

>>758906
>Deficits are caused by a country spending more than it earns in tax revenues in a given year through debt. A nation could raise taxes slightly on the rich and redistribute the proceeds to the poor without creating a deficit.

Rich people invest their money. Even if thet put it in savings accounts, the fractional reserve system would ensure a good portion gets returned into the economy.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 19 07:04:48 2015 No.759054 >>759050 >You don't have to have taxes to generate basic income. Alaska basically does it with state oil revenues. You shouldn't have skipped class when they were talking about the free lunch kid.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 19 12:17:09 2015 No.759271 I wonder how this thread will do today.

Anonymous Tue May 19 12:32:35 2015 No.759281
File: 114 KB, 500x410, 1426978251668.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>758550
>we will outlaw automation in certain jobs before we take jobs away.

You must be out of your mind. Why would rich people intentionally lose money? I don't even understand what you are thinking if you aren't trolling.

I can understand the arguments against basic income but automation is coming for a shit ton of jobs. Get over it.

Anonymous Tue May 19 12:40:41 2015 No.759289

>>758729
Fuck taxing the 1%, tax the means of production.

You automated 1million jobs off the market? Well we can't let those fuckers starve.

What would you have these truckers, welders, tomato pickers, etc. do? Learn programming? kek

At some point we will HAVE to address this issue. Fuck basic income, we just have to figure out what we will do with all of these useless people.

>inb4 gas the kikes

Basic income is simply a discussion point. I don't even believe it to be realistically possible but we need to do SOMETHING.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 19 12:42:27 2015 No.759294 >>759289 How about another civil war?

>>	Anonymous Tue May 19 12:43:56 2015 No.759297 >>759294 how about we kill the niggers

>>	Anonymous Tue May 19 12:55:38 2015 No.759308 File: 30 KB, 390x470, pure-gold.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>758874 >implying the Jamals of the world contribute anything significant to GDP anyway

>>	Anonymous Tue May 19 12:56:53 2015 No.759311 its a socialist pipe dream it most likely wont happen it will create disincentives to work for the minimum wage people etc etc

Anonymous Tue May 19 13:00:11 2015 No.759315

>>758885
>The economy isn't about money, the economy is about stuff, people making stuff and working their assess off to move that stuff around.
My robot workforce and the Industrial Revolution just annihilated your bullshit.

>If half the population stopped working overnight because they no longer had to, the economy would become unsustainable.
But who will pick the cotton!? But who will buy the cotton picked by robots!? What is demand!?

>>	Anonymous Tue May 19 13:02:34 2015 No.759321 >>758888 I prefer to eat mine in the dark because I am too poor to afford electricity. I use streetlights.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 19 13:05:14 2015 No.759323 >>759031 >Which is why to my knowledge this has never been even seriously considered. It's going to be on the ballot in Switzerland if I'm not mistaken. http://www.businessinsider.com/heres-how-switzerlands-basic-income-initiative-works-2013-11

>>	Anonymous Tue May 19 13:07:11 2015 No.759325 File: 1.78 MB, 300x189, mother-fuckin-science-robot-dog.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>759294 Against skynet? Fuck that shit!

>>	Anonymous Tue May 19 13:23:36 2015 No.759341 >>759281 >>759289 Hehe. I like you

Anonymous Tue May 19 13:44:57 2015 No.759367
File: 6 KB, 152x225, 1422768488310.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>758550
I have thought your post for a while, and I realized that you are literally demanding welfare from the 1% because you would be forcing them to take a loss by hiring you instead of buying a robot slave.

Dirty socialist.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 19 13:56:55 2015 No.759384 ITT: https://youtu.be/768h3Tz4Qik

Anonymous Tue May 19 14:06:02 2015 No.759396

>>759017

But there are no jobs. You don't have basic income because it's "good for the economy", you do it so all the Tyrones of the world don't steal your shit and kill you.

BI will eventually be a necessity, but it will have to be coupled with some kind of eugenics effort, since resources are limited..

Anonymous Tue May 19 14:12:13 2015 No.759403

>>759297

I've heard that one before, but honestly it's not just niggers. Even among people that do have jobs, most of their time is spent destroying value (bureaucracy, management, etc) instead of creating it. The amount of real meaningful work being performed in the first world is abysmal.

I think you'll have an easier time getting elected if you promote basic income instead of genocide.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 19 14:21:25 2015 No.759408 >>759311 >its a socialist pipe dream It's not fucking socialism since the means of production are private. Fucking Americans and their abuse of the word "socialism."

Anonymous Tue May 19 14:32:29 2015 No.759417

>>758944
Peo0le already blow money at places like amazon. Lets look at a new market player "electronic cigarettes" , go to a search engine and look for a shop wiyh the word "vape" in it near you , all owned by folks with maybe a shitty bachelors degree. Dozens of them all around and not owned by big tobacco or any other corporate entitity. People blow silly amounts of money on that stuff , badically what they were spending on cigs.

Again "income elasticity of demand" we'd have a boom in salea of luxury goods and consumer crap much of which can be hand made by "artisans" , craft beers , eateries , night clubs / comedy clubs , cafes , organic gardeners , etc etc

When people have more disposable income the price of "needs" isn't effected largley because you need a fixed amount of a "need" (home / vehicle / insurance / food) , luxury goods would see a price increase , and whos going on vacations to vegas and eating out 5 times a week? Poor and middle class people , the consumers that drive the economy.

Anonymous Tue May 19 14:40:02 2015 No.759432
File: 117 KB, 960x376, quote14_mlk.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>759289
Thats why some UBI proponents have started calling it a "technological dividend" , when you ground it from the perspective that the point of the machines is to free up our time and make our quality of life better and understand that these millionaires arent "better humans" or somehow essential for society (theyve just accumulated currency) the argument to not do so becomes silly.

Anonymous Tue May 19 14:41:24 2015 No.759434
File: 22 KB, 331x420, john-maynard-keynes.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>759417
>the consumers that drive the economy.

This is what most people in this thread do not understand. They think, like good little Enlightenment era Protestants, that production and supply is all that matters.

When a person has disposable income, they spend more, which is good for the economy. Basic income is like a massive stimulus package.

Anonymous Tue May 19 14:44:17 2015 No.759437

>>758744
>Raising taxes to Canadian levels is about as far as it should be taken over the course of a really long time but even raising taxes that drastically only fucks over the middle class and makes them angry at the government/poor.

You underestimate the number of tax loopholes we (small to mid-sized private businesses) can exploit to dodge tax brackets. All it takes is a really good accountant. Raising taxes wont get any meaningful sum out of the top 1%. You'd just be shooting yourselves in the leg.

And for most domestic businesses, giving citizens an extra 300$ a month isn't enough to drastically change their living standards to the point where they would use and purchase so much new domestic goods and services that they would create a new target market. Poor families are not going to start renovating their homes, buying new real estate or driving the economy in any kind of meaningful way that would make up for the tax increase on the entire nation. At most, a basic income would allow poor households to buy better food, upgrade their appliances more frequently and other minor things but it will not address the core issue of infrastructure development in cities that allows a population to escape poverty (better schools, roads, more job opportunities), and you need tax dollars to do that. Therefore a massive fiscal black-hole would be counter productive.

You're also overestimating people's drive to work. If person X just has to hold a shitty retail job to subsidize his spending that isn't covered by the basic income, then more often than not he will just hold out there. This kind of dutch welfare state works in Europe because they have a tiny, well established infrastructure that can support their relatively small population. Move that system to a scale the size of America and the entire thing is likely to collapse due to the sheer size of the population.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 19 14:46:03 2015 No.759442 >>759437 >You're also overestimating people's drive to work. It's been tested in India, and people actually work more on BI than in poverty.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 19 14:51:41 2015 No.759451 >>759442 This isn't India. Do you have any idea of the sense of entitlement the people here can have. Lurking /biz/ should be enough to give you a clue.

Anonymous Tue May 19 15:00:25 2015 No.759457

>>759396
>you do it so all the Tyrones of the world don't steal your shit and kill you.
So supplementing their incomes and eventually making the problem 100x worse over the long term is somehow more preferable?

>BI will eventually be a necessity, but it will have to be coupled with some kind of eugenics effort, since resources are limited..
We could be in space mining asteroids before that, we could be growing food in the ocean. The problem with all the long term predictions so many individuals love to make is that they can never account for technological breakthroughs that can change the game forever.

All these threads every devolve into is worthless speculation by armchair economist, and we never get anywhere.

>>759434
Consumer spending does contribute to the economy, no one would deny this, but the idea that it's so important that we must keep consumer spending up at any cost is where the disagreement lies, and I would argue that it is unsustainable.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 19 15:02:50 2015 No.759461 >>759451 They're both human. Anyway, once we have data on whether or not basic income works in developed countries, we will know if it is a good idea.

Anonymous Tue May 19 15:04:27 2015 No.759462

>>759457
>Consumer spending does contribute to the economy, no one would deny this, but the idea that it's so important that we must keep consumer spending up at any cost is where the disagreement lies, and I would argue that it is unsustainable.

Know what else is unsustainable? 25% unemployment.

>>759457
>All these threads every devolve into is worthless speculation by armchair economist, and we never get anywhere.

This is not armchair anymore. We have real data. New industries are more efficient and employ fewer people while destroying old industries.

Anonymous Tue May 19 15:11:03 2015 No.759468

>>759461

Well obviously, but the fun of it is in the speculation.
Also keep in mind that human thought and behavior changes based on societal and environmental variables that factor into an upbringing. And if I was a betting man, I'd place my american chips on lazy.

Anonymous Tue May 19 15:15:34 2015 No.759473

>everybody pays in
>everybody gets the money out
m8 but not everyone pays in the same amount, and some don't pay in at all, bloody NEET lechees
I agree it would be a better alternative if we would scrape all other welfare programs and introduced only basic income

Anonymous Tue May 19 15:15:37 2015 No.759474

>>759437

>And for most domestic businesses, giving citizens an extra 300$ a month isn't enough to drastically change their living standards to the point where they would use and purchase so much new domestic goods and services that they would create a new target market. Poor families are not going to start renovating their homes, buying new real estate or driving the economy in any kind of meaningful way that would make up for the tax increase on the entire nation.

Not the first month, sure. But that 300/mo helps put people into the black on a monthly basis, which allows them to save money, and savings IS the means to build wealth.

Anonymous Tue May 19 15:24:00 2015 No.759479

>>759462
>This is not armchair anymore. We have real data
You have data from rural areas in India, they gave people the equivalent of $24 a month. In that said study, most Indian family increased their savings as well, because it's a culture that's against frivolous spending.

So, no, this is as armchair as it possibly gets. But hey, good luck making your case that what applies to rural india can be applied to the West and the rest of the first world.

>New industries are more efficient and employ fewer people while destroying old industries.
Why do you think this is a new "problem"? We've been through this several times before.

All this thread has convinced me off is the the fact that humans are really short-sighted with a terribly short memory to boot

>>	Anonymous Tue May 19 15:24:59 2015 No.759480 >>759479 >We've been through this several times before. No. Please just stop being ignorant. Automation muscle power is not the same as automating cognition. You have so much reading to do.

Anonymous Tue May 19 15:25:56 2015 No.759481

>>759457

We're not supplementing anything, they're already getting what they need whether through crime or welfare.

These people aren't just going to fall over or go away, and there is less and less meaningful work that they are capable of doing.

How do you explain that with technology, which should have removed the need for so much human labor, we're still expected to work 40 hours a week? No, technology doesn't create as many opportunities as it takes away (muh robot maintenance xD). It's just that the work that we do is increasingly frivolous and useless.

So i guess you have two options. Either you literally have unemployed people dig holes and fill them up for a pittance, or you give them a basic income.

The former is more preferable for the rich, since it keeps the masses busy and stupid, which may be why we see an increase in make-work instead of a decrease in overall work.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 19 15:26:33 2015 No.759482 >>759311 No one would stop working for $1,500/m Everyone wants a better life, and that means working for it.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 19 15:29:00 2015 No.759486 >>759480 >your so uninformed, but I can't even tell you why though" Very convincing anon.

Anonymous Tue May 19 15:34:03 2015 No.759492
File: 13 KB, 300x271, cognition.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>759486
I just told you why.

Automating cognition is not the same as automating muscle power.

You have a brain and body, that's it. No one is going to pay you to use your body without using a lot of your brain in 2015. Once cognition is automated, what are you going to get paid to do? Even manual labour these days requires skill, like construction and landscaping. That requires a lot of visual and spatial acuity that robots do not have yet.

Read Lights In the Tunnel, The Second Machine Age, and Rise of the Robots. The first and third book are by Martin Ford and the second one is by Andrew McAffee and Eric Brynjolfson. There is a book you can download for free called "Robots Will Steal Your Job, but that's okay."

http://robotswillstealyourjob.com/

Anonymous Tue May 19 15:37:47 2015 No.759498

>>759474
Right but I should mention that a 300$/moth BI is an extremely generous estimate. And the savings that a family could get from this each year would only amount to 3.6k a year. In my opinion, if this money was instead kept by the municipal government pooled together to be spent responsibly towards the development of the local community infrastructure, the long term benefit and net gain per dollar spent would vastly outweigh a basic income. It essentially tasks the government with spending the basic income in place of people because the general population has proven time and time again that it cannot responsibly handle its own long term finances and tends to spend irresponsibly. So We have come full circle back to the idea of taxation. Now the reason that the government itself has not managed to allocate and spend funds properly and efficiently is an entirely different discussion but to take even more money out of that system and to put it in the hands of an already proven irresponsible system would just be stupid.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 19 15:52:32 2015 No.759501 >>759482 I might. I've been living on $1250 a month for a year and live pretty comfortably. Maritimes of Canada, so not exactly a metropolis but not the boonies

Anonymous Tue May 19 15:56:05 2015 No.759506

>>759481
You are supplementing something. You supplementing a income paid in a currency that can buy shit. And if you don't mind me putting it so plainly, if you make it easier for them to live there will become more of them. That is what I mean when I say unsustainable.

>>759492
But we've already automated cognition, take a dealership or a parts warehouse for example. To keep track of inventory they used to employ someone to list and record thing every night and keep track of what sold and what didn't to know what they needed to order, it used to be a several man job and there are many more like it. But you know what? We haven't seen the end to society. We haven't even seen the end to humans working in parts departments. Because the economy always develop this way since the beginning of time. Now truck drivers, pilots and accounts jobs are simply becoming obsolete and everyone fucking panics. The reality is new products/services etc. will always come to the market.

I understand your argument but I just don't think that Robots will be able to evolve quick enough to predominantly displace the human worker in such a time period where there is not enough of transitioning period for people to move elsewhere/figure something out (and no I still don't think BI would be something worth pursuing).

It would be great if we could shift to a small business oriented economy where labor and the means of production is cheap enough for the masses to own businesses,

>>	Anonymous Tue May 19 16:17:07 2015 No.759512 >>759501 You might, for how long? your whole life? As far as I'm concerned, I wouldn't want you to work if you're comfortable with $1,500 a month for the rest of your life.

Anonymous Tue May 19 16:20:49 2015 No.759513

>>758434
>>758420
empirically speaking, unconditional wealth redistribution can drive an economy...

especially if you live in a culture or rich hoarders.

Who spends 100,000 dollars faster?

100 guys with 1000 dollars?

Or one guy with 100,000 dollars?
Truth is, the guy with 100,000 dollars locks away his wealth in assets or safe (read: do nothing but keep up with inflation) investments or a tax shelter or something.

While the guys with 1000 dollars consume shit that actually drives economy and create jobs.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 19 16:20:55 2015 No.759514 >>759512 Then why give even more money to the people who have already settled for less?

Anonymous Tue May 19 16:28:11 2015 No.759519

>>759513

But the argument being made here is to give people a BI so that they can start hoarding too. Either that or your eliminating public programs in order to let the poor choose how they spend their government assistance. Do you really think they'll spend it wisely? Or is it better to keep the systems in check that give them what they should be spending the money on, and incentivising the government to use the rest to build better schools and hospitals instead of cruise missiles?

Anonymous Tue May 19 16:34:45 2015 No.759521

>>759514
People don't settle for less, they're stuck.

You only get welfare if you make less than a certain amount. Would you take a chance to better your life if you knew you would be homeless if it didn't work out? Sure you could get back on welfare, but that's not a fast process, people fall between the cracks during those times.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 19 16:49:04 2015 No.759531 >>759506 Go read one of the books, then we can talk.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 19 16:51:01 2015 No.759537 >>759531 What a shame, you would rather sling petty insults than have a discussion. Thanks for reminding me why I don't bother going on /biz/ in the day time withe the NEET kiddies.

Anonymous Tue May 19 16:54:48 2015 No.759544

>>759519
>>759519
Managing and restricting how people spend their assistance cash is inefficient, cumbersome, and inevitably makes mistakes where people slip through the regulatory cracks.

Instead of pulling people out of poverty and into the consumer class (where they generate wealth), it creates an underclass in permanent poverty, who can't ever climb without losing their assistance. It subsidizes cost of labor to corporations like walmart, but only does so at the very bottom of the socio-economic ladder, making precarious part time wages even less than livable while passing money and savings onto the consumer class and investors. It makes peoples ability to live dependent on assistance rather than augmented by it and it does so unevenly.

Basically, it's designed to keep people barely alive without actually redistributing any wealth at all.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 19 16:57:05 2015 No.759546 yo

Anonymous Tue May 19 17:07:59 2015 No.759553

>>759521
Not all people are stuck. I don't have numbers but not everyone is as driven as you are to succeed. Many are happy to settle for less as long as less is comfortable to them. But I definitely agree with you that many ARE stuck and are looking for a way out. But identifying these ppl for a BI would be logistically impossible and giving the entire country a blanket BI is also impracticable. The better solution is to create resources and environments where anyone can either afford or somehow gain access to an education for employable skills at a reasonable cost on their part. The current American post secondary education system is not designed for this, so for example free government sponsored post secondary education could work, see Germany and Iran. Take the money you were going to spend on basic incomes and invest it in something like that.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 19 17:09:01 2015 No.759554 >>759537 There were no insults in my post. I have not hurled a single insult in this thread.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 19 17:15:14 2015 No.759558 >>758420 Only if it led to long term investment (which is possible.) Otherwise it's a temporary boost in aggregate demand and rising prices.

Anonymous Tue May 19 17:15:49 2015 No.759559

>>759553
>The better solution is to create resources and environments where anyone can either afford or somehow gain access to an education for employable skills at a reasonable cost on their part.

We already educate every single person capable of getting a degree. Millennials are the most educated generation ever, but they make less than their parents. Education is not the answer. In fact, we have hit peak education.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 19 17:16:35 2015 No.759562 >>758442 Corporations invest the money. That grows the economy, not short term spending boosts.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 19 17:17:30 2015 No.759564 >>759558 BI is permanent.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 19 17:18:33 2015 No.759566 >>759562 They don't spend or invest it. >>758513

Anonymous Tue May 19 17:20:23 2015 No.759569

Well implemented BI
> replaces all social programs like food stamps
> is not given if your income exceeds a limit
> would not necessarily increase taxes at all, by redirecting from the previous social programs

The main argument presented by /biz/
> but people would stop working

To which I ask
> so what?

Why is it necessary for everyone to do their 40h/week indentured servitude producing nothing of value? Work is not a goal in and of itself. There is nothing valuable in working, at the extreme end meaningless busywork digging and filling the same ditches.

> food production: so automated one farmer can feed thousands
> transport: automated
> much of production: automated

The society would well keep running if half the people stopped working.

Anonymous Tue May 19 17:21:43 2015 No.759570

So most of this thread is a back-and-forth over whether a basic income would improve our economy. I don't care either way. I'm against it from a moral standpoint, even IF (big if) it improved our economic situation. People don't deserve anything but what they work for.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 19 17:23:33 2015 No.759572 File: 115 KB, 680x680, trashman opinion discarded.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>759570 >I'm against it from a moral standpoint Go away Republican.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 19 17:25:49 2015 No.759578 >>759572 liberal shill detected

>>	Anonymous Tue May 19 17:27:59 2015 No.759580 >>758724 >he thinks he won't also be displaced by automation >laughing_girls.jpg

>>	Anonymous Tue May 19 17:31:50 2015 No.759585 >>759559 Agreed. Look at Argentina: everyone is an unemployed doctor/ lawyer/ engineer. Free school didn't do anything for that country.

Anonymous Tue May 19 18:02:58 2015 No.759623

>>759559
Keyword is employable skills. This can be any kind of certification, not necessarily a university degree. I'm sorry that so many people decided to major in humanities or political science and are surprised that come graduation time, nobody is hiring a humanities major. I'll also say that the education system needs to take responsibility for the type on knowledge that is being put out there.

And remember that much of the labour market has become saturated by cheap Mexican workers which fudges the whole system. And devalues the cost of labour in general.

>>759544

I would still argue that trusting the poor with all of their social aid in BI form is a risk the government can't afford. At least with the current system, a financially struggling family of 3 can still create enough room through a large (some would argue unreasonable) amount of hard work in order for the one child to focus on their education and have a potential way to advance. But what system can be designed to sustain a family that continues having children they cant afford to nurture, while still supporting every other aspect of government. Again, the system is broken and inefficient but personal responsibility
and consequence for ones actions must also be kept in check.

Anonymous Tue May 19 18:10:24 2015 No.759628

>government implements basic income
>promises reduced costs due to lower use of welfare and public services as well as increased demand
>the poor squander all of their money on stupid bullshit
>all the money just goes back to the top
>"WE NEED MO MONEY FO DEM PROGRAMS"
>No cost savings at all

Anonymous Tue May 19 18:13:59 2015 No.759634

>>759623
>I'm sorry that so many people decided to major in humanities or political science and are surprised that come graduation time, nobody is hiring a humanities major. I'll also say that the education system needs to take responsibility for the type on knowledge that is being put out there.

In previous generations, these people would just have a high school diploma or trade certificate. They are not smart enough for math, science, or law, which is why they didn't go into them. It's not a matter of them "choosing the wrong major." Almost no social work majors are smart enough for computer science, math, or medicine. Their SATs are too low. People are not magical things that can just do whatever they want; they have limits, and machines can exceed those limits for many tasks.

It's not their fault. Labour is just not as valuable as it used to be.

>>759628
>>"WE NEED MO MONEY FO DEM PROGRAMS"
>>>/pol/

Pol always loses, so I am glad you are against BI.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 19 18:27:33 2015 No.759647 >>759634 >supporting the dindunuffin class ISHYGDDT

Anonymous Tue May 19 18:31:30 2015 No.759648

>>759634
But the expenses to cover those 4-5 years of useless education would equate to decades of BI. Why sink that much cash when it is common knowledge that the prospect of a job is close to zero for such education? Go learn a trade skill, fund a startup, literally go do anything other than an arts degree and just plan a bit ahead so you don't land on your ass (that means calculated risks). The system can only pick up so much of your slack. And there's always the option of moving to someplace where the cost of living is lower. There has to be some sort of compromise, not everyone can or should be able to afford to live in a major city. Not in today's economy anyways

Anonymous Tue May 19 18:40:27 2015 No.759656

>>759648
You don't understand. Labour's value is decreasing. The only difference it would make if they had no degree would be that their labour was worth even less and they would be even less competitive in the job market.

Also, there are countries where this is happening where the education is paid for by the state, so it's not a matter of accumulating debt. $100,000 represents a failure of American governance, not a failure of a student. What were they supposed to do? Get a job washing dishes out of high school and live with their parents until they are 30 to save? As for startups, those are always done by extremely intelligent people attending school who drop out or by those who already have degrees. You can't just magic a startup into existence without an education or a high IQ.

We are at a point now where a BA will get you a job at Starbucks and a high school diploma will get you a place in the unemployment line. Reducing people's education to save money is backward thinking. You don't realize the value added by education, both monetary and non-monetary.

As for trades, they suck. You are the first to get laid off if there is any kind of economic trouble. Worse yet, they require less intelligence, so they will soon be saturated and wages will crash.

>But the expenses to cover those 4-5 years of useless education would equate to decades of BI.

Actually, BI would be about 20K, so it would only be a few years of education.

Anonymous Tue May 19 18:40:42 2015 No.759658

>>759648
>Go learn a trade skill, fund a startup, literally go do anything other than an arts degree

>all useless degree holders get trade skill certs
>trades over-saturated with workers like most other industries today
>trade wages plummet
>hur dur they should have just learned programming/nursing/insert whatever other job

There simply isn't enough work, particularly with the low demand of today's economy
a UBI would increase the need for trade skills, among many other industries

Anonymous Tue May 19 19:08:26 2015 No.759687

>>759658
>>759656

You know what,you've convinced me somewhat. But a blanket bi is still outrageous. The only real way this would ever work is for it to be implemented as a application based program. Other public programs stay out and not everyone gets this aid but the standards aren't impossibly high. It's time limited, but enough to give you a real chance to somehow build a foundation if you can apply yourself. Present the panel or w/e with an actual plan on how you will use the time and money to build up your life,and as long as some minimal risk fail safes are implemented to prevent abuse of the system, I don't see why this form of government aid can't get passed at some point in the future. Think government funded scholarships for real-life. My main issue is to see tax money get pissed down the drain with nothing being accomplished. As long as there is some sort of accountability, I'm perfectly okay with an advanced more efficient form of government aid that actually achieves something.

Anonymous Tue May 19 19:14:07 2015 No.759696

>>759687
>My main issue is to see tax money get pissed down the drain with nothing being accomplished. As long as there is some sort of accountability, I'm perfectly okay with an advanced more efficient form of government aid that actually achieves something.

This is a quite normal way of thinking, but theree are many problems with means tested programs.

The most obvious problem is that people exchange their stamps/coupons for money by selling them on the black market. This is wasteful. Also, you have to pay people to figure out who the "deserving" poor are, which costs even more money.

I agree that BI might be a bit pricey given today's budget. I think a negative income tax, with the only condition being that you make less than a certain amount, be implemented. It would be graduated so there would be no disincentive to work. After 2030, we can move on to a real system of BI because society will produce unimaginable wealth from automated systems.

The money will not go to waste. It will eliminate poverty and increase growth, helping everyone.

Anonymous Tue May 19 19:23:24 2015 No.759707

>>759687
>Present the panel or w/e with an actual plan on how you will use the time and money to build up your life,and as long as some minimal risk fail safes are implemented to prevent abuse of the system,

But this is a huge advantage of an unconditional basic income, and one reason why current welfare programs are so inefficient. By forcing some kind of accountability, you will be massively increasing the costs of the program. Needing bureaucrats, managers, office space, etc. all will be a drain on the program. One of the ideas behind UBI is that individual people can better manage their finances than some government agency.

>My main issue is to see tax money get pissed down the drain with nothing being accomplished

The money isn't getting pissed down the drain, as poor people whose incomes are now tied up in debt, making just enough to pay rent/groceries/basic necessities can now help stimulate demand by buying more goods and services (new AC unit, cars, electronics, etc.)

It's true that some people will manage their money in shit ways, Jamal might blow his UBI on drugs or whatever, but since a UBI is permanent, many will get wise to the fact that if they don't want to be homeless/starving, they will either have to get a job to supplement their UBI or be more frugal

Anonymous Tue May 19 19:42:46 2015 No.759730

The reality is that the labor market is on the verge of post-scarcity.
As anons have said here >>759656 and here >>759634, it's ridiculous to assume that everyone should be employed in some sort of gainful work, when automation is obviating human labor in multiple industries. Neither can everyone aspire to become an engineer, or a programmer, or a scientist; not everyone has the mental capacity to be employed in these sectors.

Eventually, we're going to need to confront the reality that the majority of people either are or soon will become valueless labor-wise, and will become unneeded in the economy. The welfare state will unavoidably grow larger; it has to, in order to suppress civil unrest.

Anonymous Tue May 19 20:40:43 2015 No.759775

>>758513
Are you retarded? Like seriously, are you this stupid? there are so many reasons why businesses shouldn't fucking spend money right now with the wall of federal fucking regulations that are going to hike the fuck up out of everything a business needs, Now to work in certain fields you need 20 licences and you need mandatory health care and you need to tip toe around problem demographics like people who aren't straight or white or male because if you don't they'll sue you or raise hell in your HR department. ( But muh not everyones like that argument, Great you fucking man(mx)child, but that doesn't negate that fact that there are currently people in the system who are exactly like that.)

"We should issue illgotten gains to everyone lel it'll help lel it won't kill big business lel what reason do people have to work when we're just going to pay them for living lel theres no downside to draining a finite resource like our GDP for short-term gains lel" Fucking confirmed for babyboomer shitlord, fuck off back to your left winged echo chamber.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 19 21:02:48 2015 No.759806 >>759457 >All these threads every devolve into is worthless speculation by armchair economist, and we never get anywhere. >>what is "income elasticity of demand"?

Anonymous Tue May 19 21:05:35 2015 No.759812
File: 112 KB, 602x400, quote8_hayek.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>759479
Rural india

Africa

And canada

Small businesses increased. Drug use and alcoholism decreased. Violence decreased. They ate better. They were mentally more healthy...

Anonymous Tue May 19 21:14:16 2015 No.759825

>>759486
Ok lemme break it down for you.

I dustrial revolution = farm hands taught to hammer a cog into a sprocket on an assembly line.

Coming automation revolution = 10 million truck drivers plus the countless supporting jobs and millions more jobs directly (taxis and delivery personnel) will be gone in a short span (10 to 15 years) , did i mention the supporting jobs and economic ecosystems? Road maintenance? Traffic fines for counties etc?

And you're "luddite fallacy hypothesis" is that its the same thing as last time and we can just generate new industries and create jobs for these people? The truckers are goi g to what?...become programmers? AI truck mechanics?

Go look up yhe unemployment rate for 18 to 35 year olds over time. Its higher now than it was 20 or 30 years ago. If the jobs for them dont exist now how will we have jobs for them AND all the newly unemployed drivers? And thats just automating driving. Just one thing.

The jobs dont exist. They do not NEED to exist. Huge sections of our economy (which btw became service oriented in the 80's) are just abput moving around 0's (finance and scalping fees) and supplying people with things they dont need (luxuries) whoch as ive gone on about earlier is fine and dandy , but pointless(who cares if some neet wants to get high and play vidya all day if it costs you nothing for him to get free hotpockets and a roof over his basement?)

Remember marx? LABOR is a COST it DECREASES profit. Businesses that have no need to hire people will not do so. Its econ 101

Anonymous Tue May 19 21:15:03 2015 No.759828

>>759775
Having a gigantic warchest isn't going to save you if you're slowly being bled out through operating expenses (ie additional certification, lawsuits, higher costs due to regulation, etc).

When you amass a warchest of this size, it means that either your management is incompetent, because as a CxO you should be doing everything you can to make your company more money, including spending your own money that you have earned or that there is literally nothing else you can spend your money on to make your business better.

This is just showing that corporations have been undertaxed by trillions. There is inefficiency in the private sector because where you have 3.5 trillion dollars that could be actually spent on things, instead you have numbers on a sheet of paper doing nothing for anyone. Could you imagine the things we could do if we spent even a fraction of that on infrastructure?

Anonymous Tue May 19 21:21:37 2015 No.759841

>>759570
>People don't deserve anything but what they work for.

So the government should take all inheritance. Take all money earned from stocks or dividends (that earns people who won the asset money and they can just sleep and collect checks)

Great argument. Also only doctors should get healthcare because only they understand the human body and the only people who should be allowed to use public roads are the people that made them. Only firefighters houses should ever not burn down and everyone should have to build their personnel computera from scratch , mining the metals , the whole process.

Anonymous Tue May 19 21:28:46 2015 No.759856
File: 68 KB, 620x296, mod3-john-stuart-mill-quote.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>759687
You guys are missing half the point by arguing for means testing.

Means tested welfare. Lets people fall through the cracks and COSTS MONEY.

A huge part of the savings from making it a UNIVERSAL basic income is its egalitarian. The government is great at sending checks and shit at handling means tested welfare.

You also save money by making healthcare universal. Basically just getting the governments red tape out of the way saves everyone money and trouble everytime.

We already have homeless alcoholics right now. Free money or not theyll act the same. How many picassos and such are withering aeay washing dishes?

Let me hit this note again because i think its key. People are , right now, with section 8 housing and foodstamps. Dying of starvation and overdosing on heroine. People are falling through the cracks and exercising free will and they will do this either way. People sober up when they want to. You are muddying the discussion by focusing on "what would become" of a minority of the very worst that society already ignores.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 19 21:30:31 2015 No.759862 >>759841 I don't think you understood what I was saying.

Anonymous Tue May 19 21:32:32 2015 No.759865

>>759696
>BI might be a bit pricey given today's budget.

We could give 10k cash a year to every adult over age 21 by cutting everything thats welfare but medicaid (gotta keep granny on life support until our country catches up with the rest of the first world) tommorow without raising taxes.

A 3% pollution tax on coal would bump it to 12k.

Go run the numbers yourselves. I do agree however that a negative income might be more easily established , cheaper and better off however.

Anonymous Tue May 19 21:47:35 2015 No.759896

>>759570
I guess what it comes down to is, who gets to decide what you do for a living?

Should it be the rich who decide? Or should you be able to create your own path, even if those who traditionally hold power don't see what you are doing as productive?

In a post-scarcity environment, do we need to work to live?

>>	Anonymous Tue May 19 22:13:18 2015 No.759946 >>759828 You can't fucking tax a corp you fucking moron, you can only tax those who work for it.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 19 22:35:12 2015 No.759980 File: 190 KB, 515x670, US_Corporateation_Income_Tax_Return_2011_form_1120.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>759946 Are you talking real life, or libertarian fantasy land?

Anonymous Wed May 20 00:11:24 2015 No.760081

>>759980
if i were a socialist I would assume you already know the answer to that, but as a libertarian, I won't assert that you do and will answer that question in the fashion of saying in a regular society, yes, you can't tax a corp. Its just words on a piece of paper.

What value does a corp have as a private entity? the value of everything under its banner i.e. its employees. You tax a corporation you're directly taxing those who work for it.

>>	Anonymous Wed May 20 00:18:34 2015 No.760086 >>760081 Corporations are legally people.

>>	Anonymous Wed May 20 00:23:34 2015 No.760090 >>759559 Shit, you need an associates degree in business to work in the lumber yard at lowes. Im not even fucking kidding, look it up.

>>	Anonymous Wed May 20 00:58:26 2015 No.760112 >>760086 /thread

Anonymous Wed May 20 01:01:49 2015 No.760114

>>760081
Youre first paragraph was just garbled english. Are you drunk?

To the second point. No dumbass. Not at fucking all. Its not like a corporation evenly divides all of its earnings to its employees , they get paid the lowest amount possible to keep them working. To even suggest taxing a corporation is taxing the shareholders would be patently untrue.

The ayn rand has got your brain all futzed up m'boy

Anonymous Wed May 20 01:23:13 2015 No.760132

>>760114
Nice echo chamber in here, i can really hear all the differing points of views establishing a common ground of public knowledge, Not at all a left leaning pool of like minded individuals agreeing blindly with themselves and establishing a really good group think.

If corporations paid their employees the lowest possible they could, a competitor could just come in and say ill pay you like 5% more and take a bulk of the corps employees. and this would incite a pay war in which you reach the highest possible pay before loss of profits. Mabye if you think about things in a real world context and not in a "Everyone should just get money because people are mean" way you'd understand basic free market economics.

Corp's are only people because of government force, they're not actually people, but you know there are actual people who run the corp that contribute to its monetary worth that do in fact lose money when the corp has to pay a fee to exist. the money to pay the taxes doesn't just magically appear in the corps back account people have to make that money.

Anonymous Wed May 20 01:30:14 2015 No.760140

>>760132
>a competitor could just come in and say ill pay you like 5% more and take a bulk of the corps employees
This assumes undersaturation of workforce, which is a straight up wrong assumption.

What next randoid, you gonna tell me all market participants are 100% rational beings and that's why your oh-so-logical solutions are simply best?

Anonymous Wed May 20 01:38:19 2015 No.760142

>>760140
I never said my solutions were best, I will even go as far as saying i can't possibly know whats best and the same is true for other, but that in an objective info. you see that free-er (read; less regulated/less government intervention) markets are experiencing larger and more consistent quantities of growth.

It doesn't imply under-saturation it implies greed, in a world of greed employees would be paid their maximum amount before it reaches loss of profits because if you were really greedy and wanted more money logically you would want to force out every competitor. whats the easiest way to force out a competitor? Take their workforce.

Anonymous Wed May 20 01:41:47 2015 No.760146

>>760132
>If corporations paid their employees the lowest possible they could, a competitor could just come in and say ill pay you like 5% more and take a bulk of the corps employees. and this would incite a pay war in which you reach the highest possible pay before loss of profits.

Thats...what happens. In every industry. Everyday

How can you use the phrase "free market economics" the next paragraph after this and not understand youre confused?

Anonymous Wed May 20 15:54:53 2015 No.760675

I am in favor of the idea, but I do see the transition period being rather rough.
I think the people who would work is greater than the naysayers are worrying about. But I also think the people who would just up and quit as soon as possible is pretty high as well, even if a good chunk of them do eventually do get bored/want more money and rejoin the work force

Anonymous Wed May 20 16:07:26 2015 No.760679

Fact: Surplus in labor is continuing to lower its worth it.
Fact: Labor surplus is going to continue to rise.
Fact: Eventually the large percentage of poor people are going to riot.

Even fields which are supposed in a shortage, have a huge surplus in labor. If you look at STEM statistics, there is a surplus in STEM graduates to the extent that most can't get jobs in STEM fields.

Corporations are pushing for immigration/STEM graduates to further devalue STEM wages.

Anonymous Wed May 20 16:15:11 2015 No.760682

>>760679
I am going into STEM. I know it has gone from being lucrative to mediocre, but everything is like that now. Even doctors are overworked and have to deal with people's medical bullshit.

There is nothing left for middle class people to do that is secure. Entrepreneurship is the last way, and that's what I plan on doing.

>>	Anonymous Wed May 20 16:17:23 2015 No.760683 >>760675 Right, but the increased velocity of money more than makes up for a huge portion of people leaving the workforce.

Anonymous Wed May 20 16:19:27 2015 No.760684

>>760682
electrical engineering or what?

the doctors have always been overworked its just the pay used to be good enough to make up for it, smart money goes duelie with a hospitalist job and a side job at a skilled nursing facility then you can just found a practice (not private practice but for the snf's) and then hire out nurse practitioners to do the real work, show up on fridays to hob nob and make an appearance.

Alternate for doctors nowaday is to go full private practice (see people like you or me in a non emergency setting) but offer specialized services like weight loss and sell overpriced vitamins and supplements.

Anonymous Wed May 20 16:24:33 2015 No.760687

>>760684
Computer science. I am interested in consciousness and AI.

I use a lot of medical services because of my bipolar disorder, so I have some idea of what doctors go through. I could never do that job. There is way too much interpersonal bullshit.

I live in Canada. I think doctors have it better here than in the US.

Basic income tends to improve health where it is implemented.

>>	Anonymous Wed May 20 16:24:37 2015 No.760688 Money is like blood and rich people not spending are like clogged arteries. What would jobless people be then? Sickle cell?

>>	Anonymous Wed May 20 16:25:20 2015 No.760689 >>760688 AIDS

>>	Anonymous Wed May 20 16:25:37 2015 No.760690 >>760688 No, they would be like corpses.

>>	Anonymous Wed May 20 16:47:30 2015 No.760713 >>760688 Perfectly functioning veins

>>	Anonymous Wed May 20 16:49:50 2015 No.760715 >>758378 How would this basic income be distributed? Would you have to go to the government office and register like a good citizen? What if you are le edgy libertarian like me?

>>	Anonymous Wed May 20 16:55:07 2015 No.760719 >>760715 It would be automatic and digital to save money. No bureaucracy.

>>	Anonymous Wed May 20 16:57:30 2015 No.760721 >>760719 How do they know where to put it?

>>	Anonymous Wed May 20 16:59:02 2015 No.760723 >>760721 Opening a bank account requires ID.

Anonymous Wed May 20 18:45:14 2015 No.760815

>>760715
Dude they have your name address and a thing called a social security number. It would be fucking stupid easy for them to do. You can already file taxes on irs.gov and then have them send any refund direct deposit to a checking account. same deal but monthly dispersments.

Initially use the DES to hammer out the details and then after a few months close those down and have it all online / via telephone.

the only real problem youd have to resolve would be identity theft but this is a police matter so it wouldnt drive up cost for the program.

Anonymous Wed May 20 19:41:07 2015 No.760851

ITT: Middle class/republicans make up fallacies about welfare/basic income when in reality, their argument is a thinly veiled "Those cockroaches don't work like I do, so they don't deserve nothin'!".

Automation is going to force a future with basic income. Like it or not, the humane thing to do is also the best thing to do for the economy. Certain people would rather give into their jealous instincts even if it meant shooting themselves in the foot in the long run. They cannot be reasoned with.

Anonymous Thu May 21 00:19:22 2015 No.761117

>>759437
>Poor families are not going to start renovating their homes, buying new real estate or driving the economy in any kind of meaningful way that would make up for the tax increase on the entire nation. At most, a basic income would allow poor households to buy better food, upgrade their appliances more frequently and other minor things but it will not address the core issue of infrastructure development in cities that allows a population to escape poverty (better schools, roads, more job opportunities), and you need tax dollars to do that. Therefore a massive fiscal black-hole would be counter productive.

Actually, I believe the partial basic income pilot program in Nambia was extremely successful.

http://www.globalincome.org/English/BI-worldwide.html

IIRC It ended up helping the poor so much it ended up impacting the entire region and poverty structure.

Granted that place is an extremely poor region so it won't be the same in a 1st world nation. But it does lend to the idea that basic income is better than subsidized programs like food stamps.

Which I personally find odd because I feel that food stamps are basically the same thing since you are paying for food which frees up money from your paycheck for other things.

What I am trying to get at is that I think you are underestimating the impact $300 or so will have an effect on society and the economy. While it may seem small, I think it has a ripple effect which gets magnified over and over. (For example, everyone goes out and buys a new laptop with their check which stimulates companies to hire more workers etc.)

>Therefore a massive fiscal black-hole would be counter productive.
You are saying that the money would go where exactly? Wouldn't taxes be collected? wouldn't our hypothetical robot army keep producing? Excluding trade which sends money out of our hypothetical country, where would all this money disappear to?

Anonymous Thu May 21 00:22:19 2015 No.761121

>>759482
I would stop working but I would also spend time learning. I think I would eventually start working on something I felt worthwhile.

I only work because I have to. If I wasn't forced to, I would focus on being happy. To me, being happy means I need to work on achieving goals. I can't achieve my goals without improving myself.

Anonymous Thu May 21 00:33:56 2015 No.761128

>>759506
>I just don't think that Robots will be able to evolve quick enough to predominantly displace the human worker in such a time period where there is not enough of transitioning period for people to move elsewhere/figure something out

No way, I don't buy the idea that you truly believe that you think every truck driver, secretary, taxi driver, dock worker, welder, farm tractor driver, produce picker, and a whole fuckton more people will suddenly "figure something out."

Millions of jobs. We are talking about tens of millions of people not having a place to get income from.

Forget basic income, where the fuck where these people work? They don't have the money to go to a 4 year college. Or are you expecting them to all suddenly get scholarships because they were all so smart in the first place!?

What jobs do you expect welders, dock workers, and produce pickers to take?

Anonymous Thu May 21 00:45:05 2015 No.761133

>>759570
>I'm against it from a moral standpoint
Into the trash it goes.

You just stated that the wealthy are obligated to give you a job even when they don't need you any longer.

OR

You just stated that once robots take over the entire production and distribution chain that all other "superfluous" humans should just die because they

>don't deserve anything but what they work for

So you are either a dirty socialist or an insane genocidal maniac.

Anonymous Thu May 21 01:21:46 2015 No.761154

>>759623
>But what system can be designed to sustain a family that continues having children they cant afford to nurture
Muh Malthusian catastrophe!

https://youtu.be/jbkSRLYSojo

>personal responsibility and consequence for ones actions must also be kept in check.
I can't handle the idea the people make rational decisions! I need to force them with laws!

Bullshit. People don't need a nanny state sitting on their wallets.

You know how people learn? They make mistakes. If you baby them with laws they won't learn shit.

Why do you think foodstamps are a failure? We have tons of idiots relying on the fact that food will always be there for them! IF THEY WERE FUCKING HUNGRY THEY WOULD LEARN NOT TO SPEND THEIR MONEY!

With your reasoning we should also steal children from their parents at birth because we can provide better care for them through government programs. While you are at it, why not stick a mandate on how many alcoholic drinks you can buy? Oh wait, that was a fucking disaster!

Wait... This might seem radical but... Maybe you could help them by helping them normally!

Can't budget correctly? We offer classes! Can't raise a kid worth beans or you have personal issues? We offer counseling! Can't stop drinking until you pass out? We offer counseling for that too!

If you were a doctor you wouldn't give someone with a broken food painkillers would you? You wouldn't tell someone with a badly infected wound to just wash it etc.

>inb4 Muh taxes

Guess what? When you finish treating these issues... THEY STOP COSTING MONEY!

Social issues cost money, stop them from being issues and they won't cost money anymore!

I hate the socialists who want everyone to keep paying for all of these fucked up people to stay fucked up. They are sick fucks and they insist it's ok because, "I'm a TRUE capitalist! I cut taxes in the short term!" These faggots are just socialists who are kicking the can down the road.

>>	Anonymous Thu May 21 01:28:58 2015 No.761159 >>759856 This.

>>	Anonymous Thu May 21 01:32:15 2015 No.761164 >>759707 >Jamal might blow his UBI on drugs or whatever FUCK YOU JAMAL! YOU ARE A JACKASS!

>>	Anonymous Thu May 21 01:35:38 2015 No.761167 >>759730 >The welfare state will unavoidably grow larger; it has to, in order to suppress civil unrest. Every dystopian scifi I've ever read/watched just came to mind. >SOYLENT GREEN IS PEOPLE!

Anonymous Thu May 21 01:50:17 2015 No.761186

>>759828
>Could you imagine the things we could do if we spent even a fraction of that on infrastructure?
Robots producing widgets and infrastructure fed by a populace which had BI? I can't even imagine it.

>>759862
Amazing comeback, very well thought out and sourced.

>>759865
That blows my mind.

>>760090
Are you for serious?

>>760815
>TFW you realize the IRS is eventually going to be giving it all back to you sometime in the future.
Dude wut.

>>	Anonymous Thu May 21 03:44:59 2015 No.761241 >>761186 >Dude wut. He was asking "how would they even send the checks?" I was pointing out that most people have addresses and such on file

>>	Anonymous Thu May 21 03:49:41 2015 No.761242 >>761186 >>761167 >>761164 >>761159 >>761154 >>761133 >>761128 >>761121 >>761117 Fucking condense your responses to a single post shithead.

>>	Anonymous Thu May 21 10:13:15 2015 No.761453 >>761242 lel u mad

>>	Anonymous Thu May 21 18:43:59 2015 No.761809 >>761242 I do wat I want! But really I realized that about here: >>761186 >>761241 Oh yes I realize, hence my facetious greentext about the IRS giving me basic income.

>>	Anonymous Thu May 21 20:21:05 2015 No.761860 File: 17 KB, 400x400, 1427485956419.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>759572 please go back to reddit

>>	Anonymous Fri May 22 03:22:29 2015 No.762245 >>761860 How about no? How about you go back to pol?

Anonymous Fri May 22 03:27:50 2015 No.762247

>hello I am widget salesman.
>I sell widgets for twenty years at $5
>everyone love widgets but not everyone can afford
>oh look. Now everyone given same income. Guaranteed to can afford widgets
>I can charge $10 for widget now everyone can easily pay for $5 widgets

>>	Anonymous Fri May 22 03:48:08 2015 No.762257 >>762247 >>what is income elasticity of demand?

>>	Anonymous Fri May 22 05:16:07 2015 No.762283 >>762247 So BI will cause inflation. Thanks.

>>	Anonymous Fri May 22 12:23:30 2015 No.762527 It's mind-boggling to see the lack of economic knowledge in this thread.

Anonymous Fri May 22 12:24:08 2015 No.762528

>>762257
A perfect example is college.

Everyone is able to get college loans backed by the full faith and credit of the United States government. Colleges know everyone can now afford it (or at least qualify for the loans. Whether or not they can pay off the loan isn't the schools problem). So they jack up tuitions and every other cost of going to school.

Anonymous Fri May 22 15:47:23 2015 No.762684

>>762528
Right. The price of "wants" can destabiluze but not the price of "needs"

A single guy doesnt need 3 apartments or 2 cars so aupply and demand takes care of that (also if his landlord raises rent but the landlord down the street doesnt he can move and landlord down the street wins because his units arent empty)

but since people are rational actors (in theory) we dont actually k ow how long it would take for interest rates to respond.

Further , you can , based on the most recent statistics and census data. Gove all adult us citizens over age 21 10k a year by simply rerouting our current means tested welfare money. That is , you dont need to create new money , you're just increasing the velocity of money. So thats another wrench in the gears for people arguing "it will cause hyperinflation"

The money already exists , its just being nickle and dimed by intermediary agencies before reaching anyone.

Anonymous Fri May 22 15:53:40 2015 No.762690

>>762247
>hello I am new widget salesman
>since that kike suddenly wants 10$ for his widget I'll sell them for 5$ to undercut him
>kike goes out of business

this is what will really happen for most industries, outside of very high-end luxury goods, actual monopolies, (that should be dismantled anyway) and real estate. (which will probably balance out as people can now afford both to move and to handle the risk that comes with it.)

>>762528
>college
>a perfect example
'no'
college costs are spiraling out of control for a large amount of different reasons, one of which is gov backed loans. More important reasons are gutting of college budgets by state governments, far too much BS classes/facilities/amenities, ridiculous administration costs, and increasing demand for education by people that previously would have gone to trade schools/apprenticeships, and immigrants.

just look at other countries, particularly european ones where the government pays for all higher ed for its citizens, but without the middlemen of the "loans industry"

Anonymous Sat May 23 23:34:21 2015 No.763971

>>758378
You would lack oilfield workers the next day if your basic income was enough for a pleasant life.

Nobody is going to work 16 hour days outside in alternating brutal heat and bitter cold if they could get by doing nothing at all and living in a pretty place (say Hawaii instead of North Dakota).

Add in every dirty, dangerous, unpleasant, and undesirable profession to the oilfield workers and you will have a complete collapse of the economy as most of your workforce either flees the country's insanely high taxation or is living off welfare.

How is this even a question?

Anonymous Sun May 24 05:30:59 2015 No.764171

>>762528

College is hardly an example of shitty government policy; you could not be more far off on the cause of college costs spiraling out of control.

Colleges across the nation have experienced a massive influx of applicants, due to the deteriorating situation of the job market in the United States. Gone are the days where a high school education was all you needed to work at the local factory; today, with technology and outsourcing ravaging the market, college is the only way to even have a chance at a job, with a high school diploma merely getting you a spot in the unemployment line. Even now, we're starting to see the effects of saturating the market with millions of college graduates. It's an employer's market, and if you aren't in the top of your field, be prepared to take that barista job at Starbucks.

The reality is this: basic income is a plan for a future in which the majority of the population is unable to procure jobs. Automation is at the cusp of eliminating the need for a vast swath of the labor force, and with only a small section of the population skilled and intelligent enough to be employed in the few jobs that are still necessary (engineers, scientists), these people will have no means of supporting themselves.

ZeroHedge always makes noise about how the unemployment rate shrinking doesn't reflect the reality of a declining labor force participation rate. The decline in the labor force is emblematic of the effects of automation and outsourcing: it has ravaged the job market, with the old concept of full employability becoming a complete fantasy.

>>	Anonymous Sun May 24 06:30:37 2015 No.764206 >>763971 Just wait for the robots

>>	Anonymous Sun May 24 08:06:45 2015 No.764269 >>758446 >hurr I have never read Friedman or know what negative taxes are

Anonymous Sun May 24 08:12:17 2015 No.764271

>>764206
That is going to be a long wait.

>>764171
How is this argument any different from one that could be made when the tractor was first invented and 1/3rd of the population was farm laborers? We have gone through continual waves of professions being made obsolete and do not have mass unemployment. Why would we suddenly have it in your dystopian future?

Anonymous Sun May 24 10:49:22 2015 No.764378

The solution is quite easy. You can allow a basic income, but you must be disabled or work in a value adding position in order to receive it.

A business can hire you and have the government pay for most of your income. The amount paid would depend on the size of the company with smaller companies having a larger percentage paid. The percentage paid is only up to what is considered a living wage. The percentage paid drops as the employee remains employed with the company.

This would primarily help small companies and people who have difficulty finding jobs.

Anonymous Sun May 24 11:58:45 2015 No.764409

>>759569
Shit I like some of your thought processes but damn if I don't find it shortsighted in others.
>>is not given if your income exceeds a limit
You just gave incentive for all people who could only work hard to make just above it and not receive it to just not work. Making it very difficult to go from BI to real wealth.
>>but people would stop working, so what?
So what: people are a resource plain and simple seen as potential growth of wealth through service/creation/innovation/etc
Yes it would be good to automate as much as possible, but only so that more meaningful work can be done. Taking half of the workforce away by replacing them with machines and not having them do anything more important only leaves the economy/technology/society in a stagnant form. If we replace them, they need to be put into more meaningful work or the whole thing is pointless and stagnant.
I would like to counter that instead of taking away BI after a certain income exceeding limit, that training/education be put in place and required for all BI recipients as well as a mandate that they either be employeed (self or otherwise) or that they be enrolled in education/training that is provided to them focusing on sectors that are least likely to be automated any time soon if at all or in sectors that would help the nation to grow such as technology. This would also remove the big problems of "what if they don't work?" and "we should put it into education instead" and several other bullshit problems in this thread.
>>inb4 socialism
The nazi regime turned the worst economy in the world at the time to one of the best in five years nigger get over it. Better socialist policies than purely communist ones. Better 6 million jews dead rather than over 100 million goys

Anonymous Sun May 24 12:16:51 2015 No.764430

>>760132
did you miss the statistics on jobs vs population?
There are too many people and not enough things for them to do to work. The corps do pay the littlest amount possible to the people they get because there are ALWAYS MORE willing to sign up so they won't starve if their current employees decide they want more than what little they get. Jesus I'm not even a liberal, use your fucking head m8 It is basic supply and demand, the workforce is oversaturated and since there is more supply of workers than demand the value of the workers is reduced immensely.

>>	Anonymous Sun May 24 12:18:30 2015 No.764431 In certain parts of Japan, you ca make more from Public Assistance than minimum wage. People stopped working and deflation has ravaged them for 20+ years.

>>	Anonymous Sun May 24 17:31:57 2015 No.764705 >>758434 >The money didn't appear out of fucking nowhere I'm recommending you a book. It's called The Creature from Jekyll Isle.

Anonymous Sun May 24 19:37:57 2015 No.764798

explain this to me BIfags:
who would do the shit jobs?

there's a FUCKTON of jobs that people literally ONLY do because they NEED the money.
if you eliminate their need for money, a massive labor shortage in certain sectors would arise overnight.
so businesses can either close down or increase wages (and thus production costs and product prices) by ludicrous amounts.

so you'll either have a massive collapse of all kinds of businesses, or you'll have a MASSIVE spike in prices for everything where shitty jobs are somehow involved (protip: they're involved pretty much everywhere)
massive price increase -> basic income is no longer sufficient to survive -> what do?

i just dont see what you want to do about this. increase the basic income? that just further disincentivizes people from doing shit jobs and thus drives up labor costs even more. vicious cycle, huh?

Anonymous Sun May 24 19:53:30 2015 No.764805

>>764409
>Taking half of the workforce away by replacing them with machines and not having them do anything more important only leaves the economy/technology/society in a stagnant form. If we replace them, they need to be put into more meaningful work or the whole thing is pointless and stagnant.

The people are consumers, with a basic income they can now actually afford to create the demand for products and services, which in turn results in more business and sales. What this does is increase the velocity of money, the government basically acts as a middleman to redistribute huge profits and hoarding by the very wealthy to common people who will spend it nearly instantly.

Technology/society will not remain stagnant as people now have the time/resources/safety from risk to innovate. Maybe they invent some new product or tech, or maybe they start a local business, maybe they get an education.

>I would like to counter that instead of taking away BI after a certain income exceeding limit, that training/education be put in place and required for all BI recipients as well as a mandate that they either be employeed (self or otherwise) or that they be enrolled in education/training that is provided to them

I think this is unnecessary, mainly because it would be expensive to implement, requiring the administration and bureaucracy of government programs that BI is trying to eliminate to remain cost-effective and efficient.

It also would likely happen naturally. Many people ITT seem to have this idea that most of the population would sit on their ass and collect their BI as neetbux, playing wow and fapping. Though some would, most would either get educated to do something they are passionate about (science, medicine, etc.) or start their own business. Also, society as a whole would benefit from intangible productivity of people. More people might be motivated to become artists, musicians, open-source software devs, vounteers, etc.

>>	Anonymous Sun May 24 19:59:07 2015 No.764808 >>758933 USA and China. Never Europoor, I hate my shithole germany

Anonymous Sun May 24 20:11:02 2015 No.764814

>>764798
>who would do the shit jobs?

depends on the job and how advanced technology and automation have improved by the time a BI is implemented. Eventually, most would be done by some time of robot, which would then employ a technician to keep things running smoothly.

>there's a FUCKTON of jobs that people literally ONLY do because they NEED the money.
sure, no one wants to clean up shit as a career, but even if robots aren't advanced enough to be janitors (to actually do it for free), you can't pretend that people would suddenly not want to afford greater luxuries than the BI would provide.

>so businesses can either close down or increase wages (and thus production costs and product prices) by ludicrous amounts.
bingo, and this is one of the benefits of basic income the way i see it. As it is now, employers have literally all the bargaining chips with regard to jobs. Low pay, low or non-existent benefits, inflexible schedules, no security or loyalty whatsoever, particularly for these "shitty jobs" that you're describing.

A BI would even the playing field of employees and employers without the need for destructive or corrupt unions. By being able to tell a shitty employer to kindly fuck off while you can remain at least not starving and homeless, you get rid of businesses that relied on exploiting labor to remain competitive. So yes, wages for people cleaning up shit will have to improve a bit, or at least improved working conditions for people to want to do these jobs. As for this making the company bankrupt or have to shut down, if they do so, then their business model wasn't sound to begin with, and a competitor can begin providing that service or product by providing decent enough wages to attract employees.

>>	Anonymous Sun May 24 20:16:21 2015 No.764819 >>764814 so you're all just fantasizing about what to do in some kind of utopian dreamworld? good. for a second i thought you guys were actually talking about reality here.

>>	Anonymous Sun May 24 20:46:14 2015 No.764839 A Job Guarantee program would be a more politically feasible way to go to get similar results See this: http://bilbo.economicoutlook.net/blog/?p=26396

Anonymous Sun May 24 20:49:42 2015 No.764843

>>764814
>not want to afford greater luxuries than the BI would provide

You are failing to take into account that the people making the most money will not simply sit buy and let you loot them. They will leave or quit working nearly as hard. Leaving you with nothing but a mob of fickle proles and nothing to redistribute.

Also if you think a welfare state will produce a populace of self driven individuals working towards the progress of all mankind you are truly lost in fantasy.

>>	Anonymous Sun May 24 21:01:20 2015 No.764865 >>764839 so instead of printing money and giving it to people the state is supposed to make up jobs out of nothing and give them to people? somehow i doubt this would yield any benefits

Anonymous Sun May 24 22:27:37 2015 No.764927

>>764271
Because this time were automating thought not brute force.

Or to put it simpler. In the 1800's you were teaching a farm hand to hammer a cog into a sprocket in an assembly line.

Today youre gping to dp what...teach all the truckers and waitresses to be programmers?

And weve already seen that when the manufacturing jobs left society became service oriebted (the replacement jpbs for a factory are barista jobs) so dont even embarass yourself with this "luddite fallacy" hypothesis bullshit. Fact of the matter is that so far weve escaped the reality of needing fewer people because weve added more "trinkets" and bs for people to consume. Were running put of people who make enough money to consume anything.

>>	Anonymous Sun May 24 22:31:01 2015 No.764930 File: 2.00 MB, 279x327, ha.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>764839 >thinks niggers and liberals have ever actually wanted to work

Anonymous Sun May 24 22:34:55 2015 No.764936

>>764798
But increased labor costs also incentivizes further automation which further demonstrates the absurdity of the entire economic system. Vicious cycle yeh?

Also google "income elasticity of demand" and try to actually think about it not read the first paragraph of the wiki.

Its telling you something. About what happens to the prices of goods when more income is given to people. Think it through.

Anonymous Mon May 25 19:11:17 2015 No.765786

>>764843
>They will leave or quit working nearly as hard. Leaving you with nothing but a mob of fickle proles and nothing to redistribute.

Well as for the mega rich leaving to avoid taxes to pay for a BI, they could very well try, and some would be successful. It honestly would depend on the regulatory teeth of the tax system in place. If the government truly wanted them to pay for a BI through higher taxes, they could ultimately coerce them to pay or lose their company. However, a majority of the money for a hypothetical BI in the US would come from redirecting all current welfare funds (social security, unemployment and disability insurance, food stamps, etc.) and possibly from lower defense spending.

>You are failing to take into account that the people making the most money will not simply sit buy and let you loot them

And you seem to think that all of the ultra rich see a BI as "looting" them. The billionaires and such are not some cohesive block that will all immediately flee if a BI is implemented, and many will see it as a good thing. The owner of a company making consumer electronics, for instance, would see a BI differently than the owner of a high rise of luxury apartments or an oil baron. The former would likely see his company's profits increase as more people can buy his products, while the latter might lose out on customers due to decreased demand

>>	Anonymous Mon May 25 22:38:26 2015 No.766022 >>758378 Bump

>>	Anonymous Tue May 26 17:54:57 2015 No.766830 >>758378 Bump

>>	Anonymous Tue May 26 17:58:49 2015 No.766833 >>764431 Blaming Japan's deflation on welfarism is fucking RETARDED.

Anonymous Tue May 26 18:06:41 2015 No.766838

>>763971
Money motivates them. Basic income would not change their lifestyle.

>>764171
>only a small section of the population skilled and intelligent enough to be employed in the few jobs that are still necessary (engineers, scientists),

Thank you for understanding this.

>>764378

Once it's means tested it does not work.

>>764798
>who would do the shit jobs?

People paid at least 15 to 20 dollars an hour. In other words, no more wage slavery jobs flipping burgers.

>>764839

Dumb idea. The jobs don't exist, and if you're creating jobs for not reason, you may as well bury money and have people dig it up again.

It's stupid.

Anonymous Tue May 26 19:53:05 2015 No.766933

>>766838
>Money motivates them. Basic income would not change their lifestyle

Your proposing to pay them much less and provide an option where they do no work at all and live happily. Do you really think anyone is going to do those jobs for a tiny bit more than basic income? Look to Canadian Indian reservations beside diamond mines for that answer. It's no. Their actually the closest people I can think of who have essentially a basic income and look how well it does there.

Anonymous Tue May 26 20:07:52 2015 No.766952

>>765786
So you plan to prevent people from escaping, take their assets, and give it away, but it's ok because some might come back when people buy stuff. Also businessmen are not going to be able to independently work out that by paying an extra 30% in income tax they will be losing money.

That sounds about right. If there is one thing people with billion dollar empires aren't good at it's basic math.

>>764927
>Fact of the matter is that so far weve escaped the reality of needing fewer people because weve added more "trinkets" and bs for people to consume
So you think we are going to just stop making anything that is not 100% non-essential any day now?

>Were running put of people who make enough money to consume anything.
Funny. S&P keeps going up, Apple keeps posting record profits. Seems your full of shit.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 26 21:23:54 2015 No.767045 >>764927 >Were running put of people who make enough money to consume anything. Good thing consumer credit exists!

Anonymous Tue May 26 21:49:06 2015 No.767078

>>767045
>Good thing consumer credit exists!
>more debt
goldstein pls

>>766952
>So you plan to prevent people from escaping, take their assets, and give it away, but it's ok because some might come back when people buy stuff

The rich will have to pay their taxes, its a pretty simple concept, and can be done based on if the regulatory bodies have the will and the laws in place to do it.

>Also businessmen are not going to be able to independently work out that by paying an extra 30% in income tax they will be losing money.

As I posted above, many will be making even more money thanks to increased consumer demand. Also, as automation gets cheaper and more widespread, production costs will go down and profits will go up. Not sure where you're getting 30% income tax increase from, but as it is now at least in the US, the mega rich aren't paying much tax at all.

>So you think we are going to just stop making anything that is not 100% non-essential any day now?

No one said that, we will continue making "trinkets" and all other manner of non-essential shit. The difference is that what once needed many people working in a factory or in service-oriented positions will now only require a few technical experts to do so.

>Funny. S&P keeps going up, Apple keeps posting record profits. Seems your full of shit.
Yes obviously all the consumers with no money just need to invest in the S&P and Apple! Oh they don't have any money to invest? well i guess they can just starve.
Pro-top: stock market gains =/= sufficient money for consumer demand

>>	Anonymous Tue May 26 22:28:18 2015 No.767130 >>766933 >Look to Canadian Indian reservations beside diamond mines for that answer. I am Canadian. I know all about First Nations entitlements. Their culture is completely fucked with alcoholism and violence. That is why they have no ambition.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 26 22:47:31 2015 No.767168 >>759946 >You can't fucking tax a corp you fucking moron I guarantee if you were having this conversation in real life, there would be no way you could look the poster you're responding to straight in the eyes. You fucking moron.

Anonymous Tue May 26 23:30:20 2015 No.767211

>>767078
>Yes obviously all the consumers with no money just need to invest in the S&P and Apple! Oh they don't have any money to invest? well i guess they can just starve.
>Pro-top: stock market gains =/= sufficient money for consumer demand

Who are all of these people you keep referring to that have zero jobs, zero education, and nothing but dead ends?

You're either referring exclusively to niggers and spics, or you've convinced yourself that we live in some kind of dystopia where every single person is completely broke and only the mighty and holy federal government can come in and save us from the evil corporations.

The way you word your arguments and over exaggerate leads me to believe you're a teenager or young twenty something NEET.

Anonymous Wed May 27 06:43:40 2015 No.767545

>>767130
Their culture developed because of the welfare state they live in. It's no different than the blacks in Detroit or the underclass whites in the UK.

>>767078
Every point made in your post is so fucking stupid I don't even know where to begin.

You are a retard, just stop talking.

Anonymous Wed May 27 07:34:55 2015 No.767565

While everyone is bickering about what taxes to enact or cut, Google and Boston dynamics are taking giant leaps forward in technology. At some point in the next 20-50 years we *will* have software which at least borders on the edge of being sentient.

It will take your job and do it cheaper and better than you.

Whining about 'muh inflation!' won't change the fact that THERE WILL BE NO JOBS. For a large portion of the population there will be no way to get funds.

The /pol/ team can blame whomever they please. It will be the same for all of us unless we own the means of production.

Everyone is avoiding (not that I blame them) the fact that the populace is fucked if "they took yr job!"

You are all picking on strawmen, the socialist and economic aspects of this are completely secondary to the topic. What do we do with all these people?

So far the suggestions I've seen are:

Basic income

Forced job creation

Fuck them. Let them eat cake.

Does anyone actually have a better response instead of attacking their personal favorite strawman?

>>	Anonymous Wed May 27 07:56:43 2015 No.767579 I'm all for basic income. Children should get it too, but have it given to their guardian until they turn 15. All other forms of welfare should be abolished.

>>	Anonymous Wed May 27 20:15:34 2015 No.768232 >>758378 Bump

>>	Anonymous Wed May 27 20:54:29 2015 No.768274 >>767579 >All other forms of welfare should be abolished. I agree but I think we shouldn't fuck with medicare all at once. Old people will shit bricks if you try to pull the plug too fast.

Anonymous Wed May 27 20:54:45 2015 No.768275

>>759513
no such thing as locking away assets, unless he's taking cask and physically hiding it.

buy gold and hide it? You had to buy the gold, the guy who sold it to you is going to use that money to buy shoes and a burger

buy equities, bonds, any kind of regulated security? same deal

put it in the bank? when you put money in the bank, the bank doesn't go "nobody touch this money right here, this is anon's money, everyone make sure to keep anon's money safe" No, it goes directly into the greater economy, whether through loans or prop trading

Anonymous Wed May 27 21:07:32 2015 No.768285

>>766933
Oil rig work is strenuous, dangerous, and often located in remote locales.

It also pays ridiculously good for a blue-collar job. On average, oil rig workers pull in $100,000 a year.

> Do you really think anyone is going to do those jobs for a tiny bit more than basic income?
Shit jobs like retail work are easily automated.
For the shit jobs which require actual human labor, a basic income is hardly going to cause these jobs to go extinct; the market will adapt if necessary. The oil industry needed workers, so they raised wages and created decent living conditions. Are you suggesting that the free market would suddenly grind to a halt with a basic income?

>>	Anonymous Wed May 27 21:11:02 2015 No.768288 >>768285 I think the argument is similar to "Why not set minimum wage at $1000/hr?" and "Who will pay for all of this welfare?"

>>	Anonymous Wed May 27 21:13:52 2015 No.768291 i don't believe that Basic Income is sustainable unless strict inflation controls are put into place. can't just print the welfare bux out. which is what would happen if this were implemented in today's market/gubmit

Anonymous Wed May 27 21:28:35 2015 No.768299

>>768288
>Why not set minimum wage at $1000/hr?
A ridiculous strawman.

Yes, BI has an inflationary effect, no one denies that. But the labor force is no longer increasing in size, it's decreasing. The comparative advantage of automation and outsourcing has sent labor force participation rates to a 37-year low; the idea of a fully-employed America is simply long gone. Not every unemployed worker is smart enough to be retrained in STEM fields, and reversing the trend of automation for the sole sake of employing everyone is simply retarded, so ultimately we're confronted with a problem of what to do with people who are unable to be employed through no fault of their own.

Inevitably, we'll have a version of what Charles Murray called the "custodial state," where the lower sections of the population, through no fault of their own, require government intervention into their lives; the sole difference being that it won't just encompass the bottom 10% of the intelligence continuum, but rather a much larger portion of the population.

The economy, remember, doesn't just rely on supply; demand is also a significant part of the equation. You worry about inflation, but what about deflation caused by 50% of the population becoming unable to acquire goods?

Anonymous Wed May 27 21:36:39 2015 No.768307

>>768288
>Who will pay for all of this welfare?
The efficiency gains due to automation will be at a very minimum equal to the salaries of those displaced from their jobs, and potentially much more.

Not to mention that we're discussing replacing all current forms of welfare with a universal disbursement of money to the entire population.

>>	Anonymous Wed May 27 21:38:01 2015 No.768308 >>768307 does the government really spend that much per person that it would actually just be cheaper to hand everyone a check?

Anonymous Wed May 27 21:39:27 2015 No.768309

>>768299
I think we should restructure taxes and welfare at the same time as we implement basic income.

We should tax the means of production, water, wood, minerals, land. And remove all welfare and re-implement it as Basic Income

You can't whine about income tax because you are literally taxing the things they are making money off of. It's a flat tax so you can't whine about how it isn't fair.

And I think BI would probably be cheaper than the current system of welfare.

>>	Anonymous Wed May 27 21:56:50 2015 No.768328 File: 329 KB, 1468x2060, 1431995448009.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] What do we do when we implement BI and 2 years later people say it's not enough and they need more? Just keep raising taxes?

Anonymous Wed May 27 22:07:54 2015 No.768336

>>768285
Yes I know it's a lousy job, which is why it pays well. Which is also why if you take a large quantity of their money to pay for this BI scheme (or devalue their money by printing cash) they will no longer do it. That was the entire argument from the start.

Free market? This entire thing is about controlling the labor market by adding an artificial floor. The correction would likely be massive inflation to the point of people on BI ending up below the poverty level. Which would mean you would jack up BI ad infinitum in a never ending cycle.

>>768307
So who exactly is going to invest in automation if there is no incentive since you are simply going to use any cost savings it to pay for people to do nothing?

Am I being trolled or are you people serious?

>>	Anonymous Wed May 27 22:08:11 2015 No.768337 >>758378 Unless basic stuff like food and housing prices are fixed and enforced by a governmental agency inflation would make prices of everything skyrocket within a decade

>>	Anonymous Wed May 27 22:23:00 2015 No.768344 >>768337 and cost controls have a poor track record.

Anonymous Wed May 27 22:35:22 2015 No.768356

>>768336
Inflation is a result of increasing consumption; yes, an increased money supply increases consumption of goods. But we're discussing BI as a means of supporting people who lose their jobs as a result of automation. In this case, we're trying to keep consumption at current levels by augmenting the incomes of everyone, enabling those who lose their jobs to continue participating in the market.
>Free market? This entire thing is about controlling the labor market by adding an artificial floor.
What floor? BI applies to everyone, even those still working, so I don't see how you can equate this with a minimum wage-imposed floor.
>So who exactly is going to invest in automation if there is no incentive since you are simply going to use any cost savings it to pay for people to do nothing?
Who exactly is going to invest in automation if there is no incentive, since much fewer people can purchase goods produced by automated processes?

Anonymous Wed May 27 22:55:17 2015 No.768372

>>768356
why work when i will get paid to not work? Why work when i still get paid to do shitty work? Why work when others get paid to not work?

Some people will work because they enjoy it. They are the rare exception.

One thing everyone wants is more money. BI will only be essentially the poverty or under poverty line and people will have to be drug dealers or something under the table to get ahead of it. Or be lazy.

Sounds like a fun idea, but what happens next? EBT cards and no fluid cash so uncle sam can spy where every dollar goes? Sounds far fetch'd and limiting freedoms.

Anonymous Wed May 27 22:58:08 2015 No.768373

>>768372
>don't work
You get BI
>work
You get BI + income from work
Why is this so hard to understand? You're absolutely right, everyone wants more money, which is why BI beats the current welfare regime: no welfare "pits" where making more money disqualifies you from aid, the same incentive to work harder.

Anonymous Wed May 27 23:05:05 2015 No.768382

>>768373

Except it's not that simple

>Don't work = Get basic income

>Work = Basic income + income from work - Higher taxes that are less than the basic income, resulting in an overall net loss through tax increases

This isn't nearly as simple as you make it out to be. It's money traveling through a government entity, which is massively inefficient and corrupt.

Feasible if you literally stripped away the retarded military spending, 90% of redundant and corrupt federal bureaucracies, Medicare, and the current welfare system, but be honest, that's not realistic and that's not how a basic income would happen. The reality for a basic income is that it's nothing more than higher taxes for more gimme dats.

>>	Anonymous Wed May 27 23:33:16 2015 No.768406 >>759482 I fucking would, I make less than that shit right now.

Anonymous Thu May 28 00:19:18 2015 No.768452

>>759482

i've had an idea for a book for a long time. i want to sit down and write it but i'm working 60 to 70 a week at 3 jobs. i don't even have health insurance for me, all goes to my sick parents/family.

if my car fails, i lose one of my jobs and i'd have no way to get to the other 2 in a timely manner

Anonymous Thu May 28 00:23:37 2015 No.768460

>>768373

You're gonna have to adjust taxation. If BI nudges people into higher tax brackets or pushes them out of certain credits/deductions lotta people who would still be working are gonna be pissed.

>>768382

Military spending isn't really a big deal tbh. Entitlements are where all the really huge problems are and slicing those off take political balls that I don't think this country has.

Anonymous Thu May 28 00:44:08 2015 No.768487

>>768460
>Military spending isn't really a big deal tbh. Entitlements are where all the really huge problems are and slicing those off take political balls that I don't think this country has.

That's what I'm saying

For the discussion of basic income to even be anything more than circle jerking, you have to amputate and entire portion of spending, and it has to either be entitlements or the military. Good fucking luck getting either of those through.

There are a lot of good ideas with basic income, but the fact that you simply cannot end or reduce the current entitlement programs to the extent needed to fund it is why the debate of basic income itself is just a waste of time.

If you just implemented it right now, you'd do nothing more than spend more debt just to cut everyone a check that they would immediately spend on dumbshit consumer goods and rims, which is just another broken window.

>>	Anonymous Thu May 28 01:09:05 2015 No.768521 >>758378 Will probably be a net positive if its structured correctly. The money would have to be conditional on you providing something positive for society however.

>>	Anonymous Thu May 28 01:34:44 2015 No.768551 >>758857 Not true. Look up foreign earned income exclusion.

>>	Anonymous Thu May 28 01:51:56 2015 No.768558 >>768337 Why would prices increase? It's not like the supply is drying up. Are you saying people would jack up prices just because? Because I would believe you.

Anonymous Thu May 28 02:10:18 2015 No.768570

>>768328
>>768372
>>768336
>>768487

I get what you are saying but we are talking about the automation of millions of jobs.

You are saying that BI is worthless because people should just take a STEM job? What jobs do you expect all of these normal people to do? They aren't great thinkers or artists.

I'm not disagreeing with you that the economics of BI sound fucked up. But what do you propose as an alternative? How will all of these people obtain purchasing power?

I can also pose a counter question to your tax issue: At what point when the cost of labor and production approaches zero do we decide to keep charging obscene prices? Do we just give everything away? Who allocates this "stuff"?

To me, BI is the fairest solution to the above problems. Because as the cost of production falls though the floor, we approach a massive social issue in the form of automation. Our old model is one where we trade labor for goods. What happens when there is no labor? Do we force the producers to give us jobs? Do we force them to distribute their goods?

>>768382
I completely agree that taxes would need a complete overhaul at the very least. But I think that you could restructure the tax system to even lessen the overall tax burden when we reach the labor automation point I talked about above.

Anonymous Thu May 28 02:46:15 2015 No.768590
File: 28 KB, 755x367, Inferior normal luxury goods examples.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>768336
>The correction would likely be massive inflation to the point of people on BI ending up below the poverty level

What is "income elasticity of demand"?

>>768337

>Unless basic stuff like food and housing prices are fixed and enforced by a governmental agency inflation would make prices of everything skyrocket within a decade

Coughincomeelasticityofdemandcough

Anonymous Thu May 28 02:53:41 2015 No.768598

>>768372
No one who matters is going to stop working for 10 or 15k a year guy. The people that lazy are already gaming the system and dealing drugs and living in basements posting on 4chan>>768487
>For the discussion of basic income to even be anything more than circle jerking, you have to amputate and entire portion of spending

No. You really dont. Go pull up census data and federal spendind reports. 10k per adult us citizen over age 21 with no new taxes and i left medicaid (but not medicare alone) , probably more if we just had a single payer health insurance system but i doubt bernie sanders will win the election.

Go do the math. I can bump 10k to 13 with a 3% pollution tax on coal and we can get to 15k with a little military cut.

also I left social security in place , you restructure it from the UBI forward and grandfather all the grandfathers in then slowly eliminate it entirely.

Anonymous Thu May 28 02:55:48 2015 No.768604

>>768521
>The money would have to be conditional on you providing something positive for society however.

Which adds to cost and defeats the purpose of the whole thing. Look i get it you hate mooches , we all do.

Isnt the silver spoon baby living off a trust fund a giant mooch as well? How come its only the poor that we make put to be monsters when rich schmucks run around not contributing all the time?

Oh wait their spending contributea. Oh wait no they spend on luxuries whereas your average joe would pump the basic income money right back into the local community

Anonymous Thu May 28 03:15:01 2015 No.768642

>>758493
The value isn't added when the welfare recipient receives his check, it's added when he goes and spends the check. Anytime someone buys something, whether they worked for it or not, they are creating value. This is also a basic premise for economic liberalism believe it or not. The faster money is exchanged for services and products, the more wealth is created. That's part of what all those international free trade agreements are about, removing barriers between people to create wealth.

>>	Anonymous Thu May 28 03:48:13 2015 No.768688 >>758378 Wouldn't that just amount to a drastically higher minimum wage? Or am I missing something?

Anonymous Thu May 28 03:58:17 2015 No.768698

>>768688
the idea is that as automation removes the need for more and more jobs, people will be unable to consumer and demand for goods and services will drop

An drastically higher min wage would imply that there are still enough jobs for relatively full employment
A BI would give every citizen a check that would allow for basic expenses such as food, shelter, clothes, etc.

A study done in a town manitoba canada called mincome was a sort of test project for basic income. It showed only a low drop in hours worked by residents, mostly for women raising their children and students and adults continuing education. It also showed higher test scores and lower dropout rates, and a decrease in psychiatric hospitalization

Anonymous Thu May 28 04:04:30 2015 No.768706 [DELETED]

>>758473

I know many people who are on welfare.

Their payday consist of spending their money on a TV payment, ps4 payment, paying rent, and utitlies. That's around $700. Next they get their food stamps which consist of about $400, $250 is sold which is $125 in their pocket for weed, cigs, and subs. Other amount goes to food, mostly junk food. This individual used in this example has a car which was purchased for $700 and is now broke down due to poor maintenance, has been for 2 months now. This individual will go ask the 50 year old parents for a lift to get more subs that are given to said individual at tax payer expense. Sells those too. Said individual also has a son that isn't watched by said individaul, but by said individuals crazy ass gf that drains air out of car tires for no fucking reason.

Me? I work in manufacturing and invest in the stock market, stack silver, pay bills, buy the food stamps from said individual, and just live life while said individual is a leech on everyone else.

What the fuck ever though, free money for all.

Anonymous Thu May 28 04:19:01 2015 No.768713

>>768706
Beat the shit out of that straw man! He's an asshole!

But seriously, we aren't talking about whether we believe that morons can spend their money normally. We are talking about whether or not basic income is the best solution to the issue of labor automation.

We have already pointed out that BI is not an ideal solution. But unless you have a better one, you are just bitching like the welfare jerks you are talking about.

>>	Anonymous Thu May 28 08:28:26 2015 No.768845 >>768713 You guys are talking absolute shit and know nothing about economics or automation or likely anything else. Just a bunch of socialist children trying to justify being lazy idiots by proclaiming the future is already ruined.

>>	Anonymous Thu May 28 09:43:00 2015 No.768886 >>768845 So lets hear your solution. Or shall we just hand out shovels and pay people to dig holes and fill them all day?

Anonymous Thu May 28 13:43:30 2015 No.769055

>>768845
>>768886
That's whats actually funny about many basic income discussions. In a way, the idea should be more supported by those on the right, it's even supported by people like Hayek, Friedman and Charles Murray. Hell even Thomas Paine supported the idea.

The far left on the other hand should be the ones worried, at least communists and socialists, as a BI would entrench a capitalistic system rather than worker owned means of production

>>	Anonymous Thu May 28 17:17:22 2015 No.769236 >>769055 >The far left on the other hand And give the government more legitimacy and power

Anonymous Thu May 28 17:39:33 2015 No.769261

>>769236
>And give the government more legitimacy and power

Legitimacy yes, Power not so much.
Unlike traditional welfare systems, the government would not have the kind of leverage to pick and choose winners and losers with a UBI, at least in theory. There also would presumably be less government bureaucrats to give power to, as a UBI is far easier to implement

>>	Anonymous Thu May 28 17:50:24 2015 No.769281 >>769055 This is exactly what I've been saying! BI is capitalist in nature, not socialist!

Anonymous Thu May 28 17:54:55 2015 No.769284

>>768604
I never said that trust fund babies don't mooch as well. It's why I'm for a heavy estate tax on financials assets above a certain threshold. I don't like obscene capital gains as the next guy.

However, that being said, basic income should still be conditional on the person providing value to society. What I'm for is essentially a negative income tax, and if you can't find work the government should provide it for you. No person that wants to work should not be able to, and no person that works full time should live in poverty.

Anonymous Thu May 28 18:04:59 2015 No.769293

>>768845
Look, you can attack the premise of automation but it's another conversation entirely. It has nothing to do with the concept of BI as a solution to a perceived issue.

If we we talking about the pros and cons of fallout shelters, you wouldn't attack the premise of nuclear war.

Discuss what's at hand, I know ADD is difficult to deal with.

>>	Anonymous Thu May 28 18:05:04 2015 No.769294 >>769284 You don't understand UBI.

>>	Anonymous Thu May 28 18:13:23 2015 No.769301 >>769284 So you are saying that if the private sector has no work to give we should just pay people to dig holes and fill them in? There's no value in that. Not to mention who gets to pick what's valuable? That's socialism.

Anonymous Thu May 28 19:03:32 2015 No.769356

>>769301
>digging holes

That's why I said things that have value. Rebuilding, improving, and maintaining America's infrastructure while it might consist of digging holes and filling them back up again, is valuable; that's just one example. Providing income to volunteer workers is also valuable. Funding public research is also valuable, and on and on. There's plenty of public investments that could be done, which would provide work to thousands of people.

>>	Anonymous Thu May 28 19:34:13 2015 No.769385 >>769356 you don't need 15 guys to fill a pothole in the road. i'm pretty sure the gubmint is good on labor for infrastructure as it is

Anonymous Thu May 28 19:54:20 2015 No.769410

>>769301
Actually the premise has merit. A negative income tax could achieve the same thing as a UBI with less shuffling of things and we as a country need about a trillion dollara in infastructure repair , its one of the things bernie sanders is running on

Its not perfect but im definitely not opposed to a negative income tax to begin with and then when the automation really kicks in we could re examine things and go towards basic income and (wishful utopian thinking i know) a post scarcity society

>>	Anonymous Thu May 28 19:55:32 2015 No.769413 >>769301 >That's socialism. Its actually not socialism at all but your american so...sure its socialism buddy And why is that a bad word again?

Anonymous Thu May 28 20:12:12 2015 No.769431

The basic income has been an idea for a long time... there's a reason we haven't implemented it.

People are bad with money. Especially poor people. If we give them straight cash, what is stopping them from blowing it on lotto tickets and coke, then complaining when they can't eat? Our current system gives them food stamps, which cannot be (easily) traded for coke, public housing, healthcare. We give the services, not the cash.

If we got 1k month basic income you'd see even more nigs in new 300Cs while they went hungry.

>>	Anonymous Thu May 28 20:15:26 2015 No.769436 >>769431 All of the pilots of basic income show you're wrong. The poor are better at spending aid money than we are.

>>	Anonymous Thu May 28 20:19:37 2015 No.769442 >>758748 With free healthcare i prolly would. But basic income would most likely raise inflation and force me to look for a job.

>>	Anonymous Thu May 28 20:21:44 2015 No.769443 >>758897 That is not the 1%.

>>	Anonymous Thu May 28 20:27:10 2015 No.769448 >>769443 Mostly, it is. In fact, most people who are in the 1% of income on any given year are not the same people in the next 1% the next year. This is due to people selling businesses, homes, companies, etc.

Anonymous Thu May 28 20:27:54 2015 No.769449

>>769431
>If we give them straight cash, what is stopping them from blowing it on lotto tickets and coke, then complaining when they can't eat?
It's not our business what they do with their money. If some niggers want to let their crack babies starve, then that's their problem.

But none of the problems you've mentioned have been stopped by granting services instead of straight cash. Drug addicts can and do easily trade food stamps for drugs. Means-tested services, while a great idea, also introduce inefficiencies in distributing services, because you need a bureaucracy to review the cases of everyone who applies for welfare.

People who aren't shitheads with welfare right now will continue to do fine on UBI, while Lashonda and her 7 babies will do no worse on UBI than how they're doing right now on the current welfare system.

>>	Anonymous Thu May 28 20:28:40 2015 No.769450 >>769431 nothing stops them from spending it on lottery and coke nothing stops them from spending foodstamps or other welfare on it as well

>>	Anonymous Thu May 28 20:29:54 2015 No.769453 >>769448 The 1% are people who earn so much fucking money that they fly on personal jets, not doctors working 40h a week.

Anonymous Thu May 28 23:52:14 2015 No.769643

>>769356
So you are saying that if we had the ability to produce everyone's clothing, food, and housing for next to nothing, we should still force people to work? LITERALLY digging holes, and filling them back in this case... Because reasons?

Please enlighten me because I don't understand what you are saying here:
>digging holes and filling them back up again, is valuable

I'm not disputing the fact that STEM jobs probably won't be automated out for a long time. But all of the labor jobs like truck driving, and engine maintenance are toast in the mid-term future. That is an enormous number of jobs.

You seem to be saying that we should force the government or private sector to hire useless workers. WHY!? If you are giving them the money whether or not they work, why force people to work? Why force them to work on nonsense!?

Don't BS me that you think every truck driver and welder will get a STEM job. They won't.

And finally, none of this matters. We are asking how BI will affect the economy.

I think we can all accept that their are engineering hurdles before complete automation happens. But we aren't asking if automation will work for everything. We are asking if basic income is a solution to the issue of a massive labor surplus. We are asking how you would equitably distribute the wealth in that situation.

Anonymous Fri May 29 01:02:04 2015 No.769685

>>769643
I think the government should tax the productivity gained by the automation, and start a massive spending project to improve infrastructure.

If there's ton of unemployment the government can get labor for cheap, doing jobs robots will likely not be able to do for a long long time.

Anonymous Fri May 29 01:05:13 2015 No.769687

>>769448
>Mostly, it is. In fact, most people who are in the 1% of income on any given year are not the same people in the next 1% the next year. This is due to people selling businesses, homes, companies, etc.

This is wrong. The 1% are always the same families. They have intergenerational wealth.

Anonymous Fri May 29 01:40:04 2015 No.769699
File: 49 KB, 788x575, automation.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>769685

If automation doesn't hit the construction industry, why couldn't the government just hire existing construction companies?

They're already trained in roadwork or whatever you want them to do. Even if the government decides to tax productivity gains from automation, there's only a finite amount of infrastructure improvements to spend it on. Income elasticity of demand applies to the government too; there's only a finite number of projects and roads to do maintenance on, and to employ all the individuals being displaced (anywhere in the tens of millions) in an industry with a mere 6 million workers (http://www.bls.gov/iag/tgs/iag23.htm)) is simply infeasible.

>doing jobs robots will likely not be able to do for a long long time.
>pic related
More jobs that are going to be automated: http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2015/05/21/408234543/will-your-job-be-done-by-a-machine

>>	Anonymous Fri May 29 01:43:20 2015 No.769701 >>769685 >tax the productivity gained by the automation Like a technological dividend? Perhaps in the form of a basic income which would boost the economy and thus tax revenue?

Anonymous Fri May 29 01:50:37 2015 No.769703

>>769699
Oh yeah, some jobs like the one you linked are going to be able to be done by robots very easily.

I was thinking more along the lines of replacing aging water and sewer lines, gas lines, and all the things that they love to dig up the street and create traffic for.

>>769701
>technological dividend
Exactly. Except instead of handing it out to the poor, invest in technologies such as building new nuclear power plants (expensive), solar power (limited to the sun belt), it asteroid mining, which is probably a pipe dream.

Who am I kidding, it's going to go fund the next war.

>>	Anonymous Fri May 29 02:03:43 2015 No.769710 >basic income It seems like is the future. But for some reason i hate it. is like having a nanny. and in the end this is going to be "the time machine" of H G Wells, with two different races.

>>	Anonymous Fri May 29 02:04:54 2015 No.769712 >>769710 the cows, and the cows owners.

Anonymous Fri May 29 02:26:01 2015 No.769722

I am certain this has been mentioned before. But a UBI would actually free up the welfare system. As it stands, welfare is pretty emasculating. You have to report everything you spend your money on, show that you're trying to go for work, and even if you jump through all the hoops, sometimes you get nothing. I've heard stories of people having to take photos of their cabinets to prove they were spending their money on food sensibly. Because, yanno, receipts and bank transactions aren't enough proof.

Welfare as it is, is pretty damn inefficient. Having case workers sift through stuff with a fine comb costs us money.
Firing off cheques to every person will also cost us money. But in terms of the money given to the people, versus money spent investigating the use of said money, will be more efficient. And with everyone moving away from paprer money, and into using their plastic debit/credit cards more often, accurate records of transactions are even easier to keep.

For those unemployed and on "the dole", finding frivolous, unproductive spending would be easy. Especially for larger purchases, such as extravagant television sets. Someone with a repeat history of such things could then be questioned.

I'm also certain this was mentioned, but with UBI, minimum wage could be removed. This would mean that employers could charge even less for employment. However, this would also give employees more bargaining power, and more liberty to have part-time employment. This should also increase the productivity and happiness of many different workplaces. If I don't have to work to live, I can find a job I like and keep it. If my boss doesn't need to work to live, he can run his business without the pure goal of profit in mind. Or he can (in theory) be more kind to his employees. In the minimum wage field, this would be a huge impact.

I've known line cooks who have worked with terrible teams and awful bosses. With shitty conditions like that, the job is hell. (1/2)

Anonymous Fri May 29 02:33:41 2015 No.769726

>>769722
I've also heard that some kitchens band together and work really well together, and that's actually a really enjoyable place to be. If we can improve overall employee satisfaction with UBI, we can increase the productivity.
Also with more part timer workers, we can more evenly distribute the amount of employment. Theoretically, this could also reduce unemployment. If people already employed work less hours, then more people can be hired to fill in. This can also leave more people free to pursue activities they desire.

This also leads to productivity increases in the field of recreational activities. If I had three to four days off a week with no worries, I certainly would do a lot more fun stuff. I'd be doing a lot more bike riding. That means more employment for the mechanic, and various places I will inevitably eat out at. That of course is anecdotal. But I imagine with more free time, more people would do something similar, or pursue more education to get more money.

I can't imagine how this would impact the higher paid work force. With a minimum wage slashed, I imagine employers would revisit how they pay their employees. And it may affect how many hours people work. Which may again lead to more people being employed overall. If our lawyers are working fewer hours, we'll need more lawyers.

I could be wrong, and I could be naive.

>>	Anonymous Fri May 29 17:32:43 2015 No.770162 >>769687 No he's quite right. Go look it up.

Anonymous Fri May 29 17:43:20 2015 No.770168

>>768886
I reject that there is a problem to be solved. Automation and machinery has not created a vast unemployed populace, nor will it. You are making the massive assumption that in the near future "someone" will create a robotic replacement for humans but are entirely ignorant to how incredibly difficult a task that is. You are creating a ridiculous strawman of the future itself and using lazy socialist arguments to defeat it.

>>769293
Since automation is being used here as the source of money for all of this BI nonsense it does have an integral part in this discussion. Who exactly is going to automate a process when they cannot reap the rewards in efficiency it produces because the glorious 4chan biz state is going to take that cost savings and redistribute it to their dumbest of teenagers I don't know.

Anonymous Fri May 29 20:02:22 2015 No.770302

>>770162
You're right, but I think the confusion is people using the 1% as a kind of buzzword for the megarich
what they are usually referring to is the .1 or .01% which IS generally inter-generational wealth

>>770168
>nor will it.
stopped reading right there

>>	Anonymous Fri May 29 20:30:59 2015 No.770322 >>770302 Well the 1% is defined as over ~ 350k/year, which is certainly intergenerational.

Advanced search
Text to find
Subject [?]Search by post subject. Leave empty for any.
Username [?]Search for user name. Leave empty for any user name.
Tripcode [?]Search for tripcode. Leave empty for any.
Email [?]Search by email. Leave empty for any.
Filename [?]Search by image filename. Leave empty for any.
From Date [?]Enter what date to start searching from. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
To Date [?]Enter what date to start searching until. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
Image hash
Search in	All Posts OPs Only
Deleted posts	Show all posts Show only deleted posts Only show non-deleted posts
Internal posts	Show all posts Show only internal posts Show only archived posts
Order	New posts first Old posts first
Capcode	All Posts Only by Users Only by Mods Only by Admins Only by Developers
Results	Posts Threads
Action	[ Simple ]

/biz/ - Business & Finance