Society/Culture Universal Basic Income

[MaddAdam]

An idea that is rapidly gaining traction across large, and often seemingly opposed, sections of political thought.

Simply put - everybody in society gets a "living stipend" and then any earnings above that are taxed progressively.

There's competing ideological reasons for folks supporting the idea, but it is essentially being driven by a recognition that automation and other massive changes to the workplace are leading to a precarious gig economy for many, or outright unemployment with no hope of ever gaining work again.

In my view the left supports it because it is the ultimate in redistributive politics.

The right - and the idea is very popular among the Silicon Valley types - recognise that in a society where there's hundreds of millions/billions of "surplus humans" and also a very small, hugely wealthy elite, conditions are ripe for revolution, or at the very least, the small wealthy elite having to live essentially "fortified" lives. There's the recognition that for many companies to succeed, people will need to get money from somewhere to pay for their services, so companies will pay more tax in order to fund a UBI that people spend on "their" products.

Trials are underway or planned in quite a few places: https://www.theguardian.com/politic...trials-being-considered-in-scotland?CMP=fb_gu

What sayeth the assembled sages of BigFooty on this idea?

 

[Watchyourwaite]

Do you mind if I call you Jack?

I'm all right, Jack.

 

[igon value]

The right - and the idea is very popular among the Silicon Valley types - recognise that in a society where there's hundreds of millions/billions of "surplus humans" and also a very small, hugely wealthy elite, conditions are ripe for revolution, or at the very least, the small wealthy elite having to live essentially "fortified" lives.

An automated world would make this easy. Crush any revolution with drones (and whatever horrors Boston Dynamics is working on).

 

[MaddAdam]

An automated world would make this easy. Crush any revolution with drones (and whatever horrors Boston Dynamics is working on).

Yeah nah, it doesn't work that way.

Economies need people spending money. Companies need it.

If the rich just kill all the poor, then they will have killed off what makes then rich.

 

[MaddAdam]

Do you mind if I call you Jack?

I'm all right, Jack.

You should call me "Sir" until we established a more informal and friendly basis.

 

[igon value]

Yeah nah, it doesn't work that way.

Economies need people spending money. Companies need it.

If the rich just kill all the poor, then they will have killed off what makes then rich.

Who says?

That was the former mode of capitalism - but increasingly profitability for companies is achieved chasing the high end. For instance, Apple is the most profitable company in the world, but they eschew chasing market share and make products for the higher end of the consumer market. They do not care about selling to the bottom 90% of humanity.

Citigroup released a paper a decade ago that predicted that economic growth would be increasingly generated by the wealthy few

 

[MaddAdam]

My own view is a bit incoherent. At one level I don't see how avoids simply turning heaps of people into lazy bastards who sit around getting hammered all day on someone else's coin. But then at the same time, there is the reality that the only other plausible option for dealing with a sudden large "bulge" of population that isn't contributing to the economy is war. And war is hell, it must be avoided at all costs.

 

[Watchyourwaite]

What if certain basic items were free? And not able to be shipped out of Aus.

 

[MaddAdam]

Who says?

That was the former mode of capitalism - but increasingly profitability for companies is achieved chasing the high end. For instance, Apple are the most profitable company in the world, but they eschew chasing market share and make products for the higher end of the consumer market. They do not care about selling to the bottom 90% of humanity.

Citigroup released a paper a decade ago that predicted that economic growth would be increasingly generated by the wealthy few

I see where you're going with this and your posts have a lot of merit.

As I've said, I don't know where I stand on the idea, I'm certainly not a signed up fan, but I'm not dismissing it out of hand.

 

[MaddAdam]

What if certain basic items were free? And not able to be shipped out of Aus.

I suspect that - free stuff - would form part of it, but the cornerstone of the idea is cash - or "credits" whatevs - but disposable income.

 

[igon value]

I see where you're going with this and your posts have a lot of merit.

As I've said, I don't know where I stand on the idea, I'm certainly not a signed up fan, but I'm not dismissing it out of hand.

I just don't see the concept ultimately having that much appeal for the super wealthy. I see the rise of automation displacing jobs going hand in hand with the creeping police state, which is increasingly built around enforcing petty laws.

The Brits had a similar problem in dealing with an explosion of useless people - first they invented the Bloody Code, and then they invented transportation.

 

[Footypie32]

My own view is a bit incoherent. At one level I don't see how avoids simply turning heaps of people into lazy bastards who sit around getting hammered all day on someone else's coin. But then at the same time, there is the reality that the only other plausible option for dealing with a sudden large "bulge" of population that isn't contributing to the economy is war. And war is hell, it must be avoided at all costs.

I think this would only be a major problem at the start. There's already people who do that now. It would be similar to when a lot of people turned 18 and were able to start drinking. Sure, at the start you went stupid, but eventually most people realise it's not a sensible long term option.

I do wonder though if a better and more economically sound idea would be to make all tertiary education free.

 

[Footypie32]

I just don't see the concept ultimately having that much appeal for the super wealthy. I see the rise of automation displacing jobs going hand in hand with the creeping police state, which is increasingly built around enforcing petty laws.

The Brits had a similar problem in dealing with an explosion of useless people - first they invented the Bloody Code, and then they invented transportation.

Instead of arguing why the idea would or wouldn't work, you seem to be arguing why a certain group would or wouldn't like the idea. What do you think of the idea?

 

[igon value]

Instead of arguing why the idea would or wouldn't work, you seem to be arguing why a certain group would or wouldn't like the idea. What do you think of the idea?

It working depends on whether those who hold all the wealth and power like the idea.

 

[Messenger]

I just don't see the concept ultimately having that much appeal for the super wealthy. I see the rise of automation displacing jobs going hand in hand with the creeping police state, which is increasingly built around enforcing petty laws.

The Brits had a similar problem in dealing with an explosion of useless people - first they invented the Bloody Code, and then they invented transportation.

Useless people?

 

[Footypie32]

It working depends on whether those who hold all the wealth and power like the idea.

I'm still not convinced they would hate it. Banks, for one, would love the idea that their debtors have a stable and constant income. Sure, they would probably raise their interest rates, but they dislike variables such as customers suddenly being without income.

 

[igon value]

Useless people?

That's what the poor who were convicted for stealing bread and hanged or transported were considered in the 17th and 18th centuries.

 

[Taylor]

I like the idea but not the delivery. I think there should be a basic minimum living standard but not a payout of money to achieve that.

The minimum standard could be a m2 of shelter, running water to a certain amount per day, a certain amount of kWh per day etc, certain number of calories etc

Above the poverty line and available to anyone who is happy living in a high rise packed full of one room places, but hey, no rent or utility bills.

 

[Footypie32]

I like the idea but not the delivery. I think there should be a basic minimum living standard but not a payout of money to achieve that.

The minimum standard could be a m2 of shelter, running water to a certain amount per day, a certain amount of kWh per day etc, certain number of calories etc

Above the poverty line and available to anyone who is happy living in a high rise packed full of one room places, but hey, no rent or utility bills.

What is the problem with paying out cash? It sounds like you're talking about building slums. Where would you build these shelters? I'm assuming they would be outside the city centres. Is public transport free too so they can get to work? How do you deliver calories?

I know handing out cash seems a little cold, but your idea seems like a bureaucratic nightmare.

 

[MaddAdam]

I just don't see the concept ultimately having that much appeal for the super wealthy. I see the rise of automation displacing jobs going hand in hand with the creeping police state, which is increasingly built around enforcing petty laws.

The Brits had a similar problem in dealing with an explosion of useless people - first they invented the Bloody Code, and then they invented transportation.

It certainly has proponents from the super wealthy.

Elon Musk.

http://www.cnbc.com/2016/11/18/elon...sal-basic-income-heres-how-it-would-work.html

 

[MaddAdam]

I think this would only be a major problem at the start. There's already people who do that now. It would be similar to when a lot of people turned 18 and were able to start drinking. Sure, at the start you went stupid, but eventually most people realise it's not a sensible long term option.

I do wonder though if a better and more economically sound idea would be to make all tertiary education free.

What would be the point of tertiary education being free when there's very little demand for say lawyers, accountants and even many forms of medici?

Universities themselves would need to undergo a major shift.

 

[Taylor]

What is the problem with paying out cash? It sounds like you're talking about building slums. Where would you build these shelters? I'm assuming they would be outside the city centres. Is public transport free too so they can get to work? How do you deliver calories?

I know handing out cash seems a little cold, but your idea seems like a bureaucratic nightmare.

I think it cuts out all the alcohol and other vice abuses that people will assume goes on with a direct cash deposit.

We could either try and find a price to get people to a minimum living standard or we could give them that standard. If the buildings had train stations then they can go straight into town.

Plus they only have to be built once, the minimum cash will just go up and up with nothing much for the government to later sell/privatise as they do to cut down debt.

Plus the building industry in WA is on the downturn and building mountains of free low impact high rise housing will do wonders for those unemployed now and later.

The big losers would be rental owners at the low end of the market.

 

[Maggie5]

An idea that is rapidly gaining traction across large, and often seemingly opposed, sections of political thought.

Simply put - everybody in society gets a "living stipend" and then any earnings above that are taxed progressively.

There's competing ideological reasons for folks supporting the idea, but it is essentially being driven by a recognition that automation and other massive changes to the workplace are leading to a precarious gig economy for many, or outright unemployment with no hope of ever gaining work again.

In my view the left supports it because it is the ultimate in redistributive politics.

The right - and the idea is very popular among the Silicon Valley types - recognise that in a society where there's hundreds of millions/billions of "surplus humans" and also a very small, hugely wealthy elite, conditions are ripe for revolution, or at the very least, the small wealthy elite having to live essentially "fortified" lives. There's the recognition that for many companies to succeed, people will need to get money from somewhere to pay for their services, so companies will pay more tax in order to fund a UBI that people spend on "their" products.

Trials are underway or planned in quite a few places: https://www.theguardian.com/politic...trials-being-considered-in-scotland?CMP=fb_gu

What sayeth the assembled sages of BigFooty on this idea?

I would much rather governments subsdise manufacturing in the areas of clothing and footwear. Unlikely to ever not need humans.
Would almost need to start over again from cotton growing, wool processing, dyeing, etc. increase tarriff imports etc.
maybe there are other areas but these two come to mind.

 

[MaddAdam]

I think it cuts out all the alcohol and other vice abuses that people will assume goes on with a direct cash deposit.

We could either try and find a price to get people to a minimum living standard or we could give them that standard. If the buildings had train stations then they can go straight into town.

Plus they only have to be built once, the minimum cash will just go up and up with nothing much for the government to later sell/privatise as they do to cut down debt.

Plus the building industry in WA is on the downturn and building mountains of free low impact high rise housing will do wonders for those unemployed now and later.

The big losers would be rental owners at the low end of the market.

The whole point of the theory is that by giving people cash,you give them the opportunity to do things they want to do.

As someone else suggested, there will be some who sit aound drinking piss all day or just generally bludging and being losers.

A lot of people would use the money to start micro-businesses, and you'd get people pooling resources to set up a business. In this regard the gig economy becomes a plausible social good, as people can choose to work as much or as little as they like. And there'd be stuff where say sure, an elderly person can be given a house that supports them in every way, but they still need and crave company. You would have a lot more low level service economy that has actualy societal value.

People will still be able to earn money, there'll be jobs, but much of the economy will be organised differently.

 

[MaddAdam]

I would much rather governments subsdise manufacturing in the areas of clothing and footwear. Unlikely to ever not need humans.
Would almost need to start over again from cotton growing, wool processing, dyeing, etc. increase tarriff imports etc.
maybe there are other areas but these two come to mind.

Yeah, but that's simply not going to happen.