Society/Culture A basic income for citizens.

[Run n Spread]

In a way it is both. Its actually the end of welfare and the socialisation of the economy to an extent. But there are so many hurdles to be passed and conversations to be had that it isn't likely to be realistic before 2030, and probably later than that.

It could be absolutely brilliant, and its definitely preferable to the alternative.

I'm torn but optimistic. Man will always be pushed to work/better themselves/compete to an extent so don't see the negative in having a higher floor to a point.

 

[Scotland]

In a way it is both. Its actually the end of welfare and the socialisation of the economy to an extent. But there are so many hurdles to be passed and conversations to be had that it isn't likely to be realistic before 2030, and probably later than that.

It could be absolutely brilliant, and its definitely preferable to the alternative.

The welfare budget is about $150b, give or take.

$150b / 23m citizens is $6521 per year or $543 per month. That's not exactly a livable income.

Realistically it would need to be 3-4 times that amount, meaning welfare spending would be more than all govt spending combined.

Where is the shortfall going to come from?

 

[VineyIsLORD]

The welfare budget is about $150b, give or take.

$150b / 23m citizens is $6521 per year or $543 per month. That's not exactly a livable income.

Realistically it would need to be 3-4 times that amount, meaning welfare spending would be more than all govt spending combined.

Where is the shortfall going to come from?

That's definitely a hurdle.

There would obviously be savings as the welfare system becomes more or less redundant and the ATO's job would be easier too.

But obviously tax revenue needs to increase dramatically. Perhaps a wealth tax like Piketty argued for in Capital?

 

[Scotland]

That's definitely a hurdle.

There would obviously be savings as the welfare system becomes more or less redundant and the ATO's job would be easier too.

But obviously tax revenue needs to increase dramatically. Perhaps a wealth tax like Piketty argued for in Capital?

It's a hurdle in the sense that Scarlett Johannson living in the US and being much more famous and attractive than me is a hurdle to me shagging her.

 

[VineyIsLORD]

It's a hurdle in the sense that Scarlett Johannson living in the US and being much more famous and attractive than me is a hurdle to me shagging her.

Never give up. I never thought I'd bang her either.

 

[Sugar2Sideshow]

Just a thought regarding working longer and the gap between rich and poor.

Right now the gap between the rich and the poor is massive, but the poor now are way better off than the poor years ago. If I just wanted to live in a little shanty and was happy to live on very basic food etc, I would hardly have to work at all. But because I want all that good stuff that the world has to offer these days, travel, tv, car etc, I have to work long hours.

The old cliche "there is always someone worse off than you" is so accurate. If everyone in the neighbourhood I live in has a really shit life and I have a slightly less shit life, I'm going to be happy. But if I have a decent life, and everyone else is living in luxury I'm going to be unhappy.

 

[Sinjin Smith]

Can you explain AWS to a layman like myself?

My level of expertise amounts to a few years experience coding in SQL. About a decade ago.

Amazon Web Service/AWS is quit simply a hosted data centre service, infrastructure as a service. They are massive data centres that lease out the compute and the core components of a network and provide global availability (your Sydney servers go down, the ones in Singapore kick in, or Japan ones, or USA ones) This service is quite flexible and a company simply spins up application resources to handle increased traffic during uptime and will tear down same apps during low time to reduce operating costs. It is also incredibly fast, I can spin up complex environments in a matter of hours, simple ones in minutes and have everything scripted, if a host is compromised it's decommissioned in seconds, in a physical world that can take much longer.

This is the future of data centre, PCI -DSS already have public cloud clauses in their policies, other regulations will follow and Amazon have a massive head start. The monopoly of this situation is scary.

 

[WA ROO]

Never give up. I never thought I'd bang her either.

You got her stunt double
She wasn't impressed

 

[Todman]

Accountants, doctors, IT support, real estate agents, tradesmen, solicitors etc will disappear pretty quickly once the worm begins to turn. If your job involves a skill of some sort, one that takes repetition and knowledge to get good at... you are basically stuffed.

I hope you don't believe your own bullshit.

I think you watched Wall.E one to many times

 

[medusala]

Regulation is our way of saying we don't want to be victims of Capitalism gone wild.

Regulation can cause capitalism to go wild. How have the 1% managed to capture 95% of income gains under Obama? Why have investments banks become so powerful post Nixon? People can blame Clinton for ending Glass Steagall but it had become irrelevant anyway with the banks effectively getting around it.

Why do Goldmans traders continually try to "smash it out of the park"? Why do they and other investment banks take far bigger risks than previously when they were partnerships?

Moral Hazard.

They game the system. Upside they win, downside they rely on idiot politicians to bail them out (because the world will supposedly end otherwise). I don't care if you are "right wing" or "left wing", tea party or occupy. That isn't a great state of affairs, I think we can all (unless you are doing God's work) agree.

The issues from the GFC would most likely have been over and done with by now if a laissez faire approach was taken. Instead, the problems are bigger now than then. Here is what happened when an alternative approach was taken (nb no idea who this Coffman chap is but the basics of the 1921 depression are pretty well known even if there are arguments over its cause ie monetary policy or as below tax increases etc I think the balance is probably towards the former)

http://newswithviews.com/Coffman/mike128.htm

Just like President Obama today, President Wilson attempted to spend his way out of the depression by dramatically increasing federal spending and taxing the rich. Like Obama, he failed. The whiplash effect of Wilson’s wild increase in non-defense spending and tax increases resulted in the 1920-1921 depression. In 1913 federal spending was 2.0 percent of the Gross National Product (GNP); about the same as the preceding one hundred years. During the Wilson administration, it jumped to over 7 percent. At the end of Wilson’s tenure the non-defense federal budget was nearly 20 times higher than when he started. Wilson also raised the income tax rate from 7 percent to 73 percent for the rich to supposedly pay for it.

By 1920 unemployment had jumped to nearly 12 percent,[a] and GNP declined 17 percent – the same general pattern as experienced from 2008-2011. In spite of the Federal Reserve, or because of it, the economy was a disaster.

Warren Harding was elected President in 1921. His very anti-Keynesian methods took the boot off the throat of the American people by slashing taxes from 73% to 25% by 1925. Taxes were cut for lower income brackets starting in 1923. Harding also cut the government's budget nearly in half between 1920 and 1922. The results? The national debt was reduced by one-third. By 1922 unemployment was down to 6.7 percent and by 1923 it had dropped to 2.4 percent. The depression had vanished and The Roaring Twenties were launched.

But obviously tax revenue needs to increase dramatically.

Are you voluntarily paying additional income tax? If not why not?

 

[VineyIsLORD]

I hope you don't believe your own bullshit.

I think you watched Wall.E one to many times

Strong contribution.

 

[coerced]

If people think services such as Uber and AirBnB are game changers wait until AWS really gains a foothold and starts receiving compliance approval from independent regulators.....which actually has already begun. Quite simply organisations will drastically reduce their physical footprint, offshoot enterprises that are hardly 12 months old are making a killing on just offering tailored AWS security and management services (most originating in Israel), the whole mode of IT operations has just changed massively.

We have actually hired more than 150 developers because of this offering but your right, the traditional IT physical skill set is going. DevOps for everyday applications is now going through a quantum shift which is going to have huge ramifications for the IT job market, it could get messy.

Yep - your typical DBA, sysadmin, web infrastructure job situated in house is going to simply evaporate. These were six figure jobs requiring high levels of education. They're gone, and much of their function is going to be situated offshore and automated (how great is it to autoscale an instance and know it will keep running forever).

But really they're just the first in IT. So much corporate software development is pro-forma, eg in Java houses it's usually paint-by-numbers Spring or Hibernate, the patterns are established and easy to follow, one person just needs to make a decision on what to build. No one will need to write code for most software development.

I hope you don't believe your own bullshit.

I think you watched Wall.E one to many times

He's not inaccurate in the slightest. For instance, the law is a field that is ripe for this kind of disruption (to use an overused term). Pages of documents, written in a similar style, requiring semantic analysis. When this is figured out, and it won't be long before it is, a lot of high paying jobs will be gone.

 

[Ratts of Tobruk]

Regulation can cause capitalism to go wild. How have the 1% managed to capture 95% of income gains under Obama? Why have investments banks become so powerful post Nixon? People can blame Clinton for ending Glass Steagall but it had become irrelevant anyway with the banks effectively getting around it.

Why do Goldmans traders continually try to "smash it out of the park"? Why do they and other investment banks take far bigger risks than previously when they were partnerships?

Moral Hazard.

They game the system. Upside they win, downside they rely on idiot politicians to bail them out (because the world will supposedly end otherwise). I don't care if you are "right wing" or "left wing", tea party or occupy. That isn't a great state of affairs, I think we can all (unless you are doing God's work) agree.

The issues from the GFC would most likely have been over and done with by now if a laissez faire approach was taken. Instead, the problems are bigger now than then. Here is what happened when an alternative approach was taken (nb no idea who this Coffman chap is but the basics of the 1921 depression are pretty well known even if there are arguments over its cause ie monetary policy or as below tax increases etc I think the balance is probably towards the former)

http://newswithviews.com/Coffman/mike128.htm

Just like President Obama today, President Wilson attempted to spend his way out of the depression by dramatically increasing federal spending and taxing the rich. Like Obama, he failed. The whiplash effect of Wilson’s wild increase in non-defense spending and tax increases resulted in the 1920-1921 depression. In 1913 federal spending was 2.0 percent of the Gross National Product (GNP); about the same as the preceding one hundred years. During the Wilson administration, it jumped to over 7 percent. At the end of Wilson’s tenure the non-defense federal budget was nearly 20 times higher than when he started. Wilson also raised the income tax rate from 7 percent to 73 percent for the rich to supposedly pay for it.

By 1920 unemployment had jumped to nearly 12 percent,[a] and GNP declined 17 percent – the same general pattern as experienced from 2008-2011. In spite of the Federal Reserve, or because of it, the economy was a disaster.

Warren Harding was elected President in 1921. His very anti-Keynesian methods took the boot off the throat of the American people by slashing taxes from 73% to 25% by 1925. Taxes were cut for lower income brackets starting in 1923. Harding also cut the government's budget nearly in half between 1920 and 1922. The results? The national debt was reduced by one-third. By 1922 unemployment was down to 6.7 percent and by 1923 it had dropped to 2.4 percent. The depression had vanished and The Roaring Twenties were launched.



Are you voluntarily paying additional income tax? If not why not?

I don't really think this thread needs to become another hotspot for your topic, but while a bit of me did think that the bail-out was an unfair intervention, I think given there were several closures means that I seriously doubt there was a deliberate tactic of taking on too much risk because the govt would help them out if it all went spare. Risks were taken because they were getting away with it and the credit crunch will, I think, have made these companies far more conscious of not getting caught up in so much crap again. But in order to stop the accumulative effect of individuals taking risks and getting ahead which leads others to do the same, then obviously you can introduce regulation to attempt to curtail it. Similarly a huge part of the reason why there is huge inequality in America is their lack of regulations that benefit the poor. Regulation can obviously be done poorly or be done well. But trying to say that 'regulation' itself is the problem is political. Everyone knows some regulation is needed. It's just a matter of working out what it should be doing.

 

[Todman]

Keynes has been proven wrong by history.

 

[Todman]

For instance, the law is a field that is ripe for this kind of disruption (to use an overused term). Pages of documents, written in a similar style, requiring semantic analysis. When this is figured out, and it won't be long before it is, a lot of high paying jobs will be gone.

Our lawyers will do what they do in the US, chase ambulances.

 

[VineyIsLORD]

Keynes has been proven wrong by history.

Agreed. Not socialist enough.

 

[VineyIsLORD]

Our lawyers will do what they do in the US, chase ambulances.

Barristers will do just fine, at least for a long time.

Cant see how solicitors will remain viable.

 

[MC Bad Genius]

Yep - your typical DBA, sysadmin, web infrastructure job situated in house is going to simply evaporate. These were six figure jobs requiring high levels of education. They're gone, and much of their function is going to be situated offshore and automated (how great is it to autoscale an instance and know it will keep running forever).

But really they're just the first in IT. So much corporate software development is pro-forma, eg in Java houses it's usually paint-by-numbers Spring or Hibernate, the patterns are established and easy to follow, one person just needs to make a decision on what to build. No one will need to write code for most software development.

He's not inaccurate in the slightest. For instance, the law is a field that is ripe for this kind of disruption (to use an overused term). Pages of documents, written in a similar style, requiring semantic analysis. When this is figured out, and it won't be long before it is, a lot of high paying jobs will be gone.

I don't understand the mindset of this not happening. Is it wilful ignorance or just a lack of understanding about the insane level of AI development? There is no amount of hard work that will save a lot of jobs.

 

[Power Raid]

I like the idea and feel we need to move toward the concept of a base income. we already have this with the dole and pension but it isn't enough and there isn't the attached concept of participation.

we need to take a rethink on how we structure our society and locking people out of work and locking people out of society is cruel.

 

[VineyIsLORD]

I like the idea and feel we need to move toward the concept of a base income. we already have this with the dole and pension but it isn't enough and there isn't the attached concept of participation.

we need to take a rethink on how we structure our society and locking people out of work and locking people out of society is cruel.

Its not just cruel its dangerous and intelligent wealthy people understand that

 

[Power Raid]

Its not just cruel its dangerous and intelligent wealthy people understand that

I look at places like China and can't help but think how wonderful it is to see the elderly participating in society. We don't seem to have that for our seniors or for our unemployed.

It will require a complete rethink and proper safeguards but getting people participating is healthy, productive and rewarding. Where we have to be careful is the abuse of "participation" and creating a working poor (always unavoidable to an extent but we have to be careful we don't create a monster).

 

[Todman]

Barristers will do just fine, at least for a long time.

Cant see how solicitors will remain viable.

Every day our three tiers of government pass new laws and regulations, more than enough reason for solicitors.

 

[Sinjin Smith]

I hope you don't believe your own bullshit.

I think you watched Wall.E one to many times

He is actually spot on, this is a natural progression with advancements in IT. Look at the present to say mid 90s, I'm interested in a house I take a virtual glance online, already reduced input from the real estate agent (not the company), I need to do some DIY I hit up tutorials on YouTube, tradies not needed unless especially complex (I actually do this as I'm shit with my hands and anything carpentry based) same with basic car repairs, when I travel I book online and check in online, there's two roles right there gone.

VineyIsLORD is bang on in about 5 pushing 10 years time. It will be a drastically different landscape.

 

[medusala]

Similarly a huge part of the reason why there is huge inequality in America is their lack of regulations that benefit the poor. Regulation can obviously be done poorly or be done well. But trying to say that 'regulation' itself is the problem is political. Everyone knows some regulation is needed. It's just a matter of working out what it should be doing.

A huge issue re inequality if the welfare trap. We have been over this again though im not sure you quite understood it. The minimum wage and welfare can be massive contributors to poverty by both a) ensuring people are priced out of the market and b) leaving them better off on welfare than in work.

But in order to stop the accumulative effect of individuals taking risks and getting ahead which leads others to do the same, then obviously you can introduce regulation to attempt to curtail it..

Goldman's trader vs public servants. Attempt is the correct word.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business...EM_Recipient_2016_06_08&utm_campaign=DM126218

Whole industries will be wiped out by new technology, warns Bank of England's Mark Carney

The Bank chief concluded: “Your generation will determine how well the world commercializes fundamental breakthroughs in areas such as new energy technologies, biotech and fintech.

“And your generation will determine whether we maintain the social capital for shared prosperity consistent with the values of this university and country.”

The Governor’s comments echoed a speech made by Andy Haldane, the Bank’s chief economist, who last year warned that nearly half of all British jobs could be performed by robots in the years ahead.

 

[Todman]

A huge issue re inequality if the welfare trap. We have been over this again though im not sure you quite understood it. The minimum wage and welfare can be massive contributors to poverty by both a) ensuring people are priced out of the market and b) leaving them better off on welfare than in work.