Poll

Universal Basic Income:

Good Idea
16 (72.7%)
Bad Idea
6 (27.3%)

Total Members Voted: 22

Author Topic: Universal Basic Income  (Read 1322 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Cool Chris

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 4821
  • Gender: Male
  • Rest in Peace
Re: Universal Basic Income
« Reply #35 on: July 10, 2017, 10:33:15 AM »
Ariich, I've read that too about the situation in the US.

And if we are talking about available jobs vs available bodies to perform those jobs, are we going to bring up the taboo subject of limited offspring? I brought it up in another thread a long time ago. We always talk about the supply side of the jobs equation, but never the demand. If we are talking futuristic literature, many utopian/dystopian stories I've read include a limit on the number of children people can have.
"Nostalgia is just the ability to forget the things that sucked" - Nelson DeMille, 'Up Country'

Online RuRoRul

  • Posts: 1429
  • Gender: Male
Re: Universal Basic Income
« Reply #36 on: July 10, 2017, 10:49:11 AM »
Ariich, I've read that too about the situation in the US.

And if we are talking about available jobs vs available bodies to perform those jobs, are we going to bring up the taboo subject of limited offspring? I brought it up in another thread a long time ago. We always talk about the supply side of the jobs equation, but never the demand. If we are talking futuristic literature, many utopian/dystopian stories I've read include a limit on the number of children people can have.
Yes, for these sort of considerations about the future, we do have to think about the population. I suppose the reality is that if that the increase in population that occurs due to birth rates is truly unsustainable, then it will be curbed - one way or another. Whether through war, famine, epidemic, whatever. Limiting offspring directly isn't pleasant to think about, but it may be better than the alternatives.

However, before jumping straight to the idea of birth rates being limited directly by regulation (or even technology...) by a governing entity, it makes sense to consider things that might reduce high birth rate indirectly. Availability of contraception and education limit birth rates. If society is to deal with the externality of there being "too many people", then education and healthcare will be vital for that, and leaving it to the "free market" to determine won't really do (if people don't get educated or can't afford contraception, they will just have kids - and yeah, those people and kids will suffer, but if the population gets far too high then the rest of society will suffer too). And of course there are religious and cultural roadblocks to increasing contraception - that's one of the things I believe has been problematic in places like Africa, though I think that some religious organisations are starting to come around now.

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 9040
  • Gender: Male
Re: Universal Basic Income
« Reply #37 on: July 10, 2017, 10:52:28 AM »
I think that getting people over that ideological hurdle would be the most difficult part of the process of getting to a universal basic income - regardless of whether people can make the case that it'd be beneficial for society as a whole, it will be harder to get people over the idea that, yes, some people might get away with suffering less than they should.

I don't at all think you're talking about me (because I expressed some openness to UBI) but respectfully, don't dis ideology then say something like that last line.   It is absolutely an ideological proposition to say "some people might get away with suffering less than they should".  Who's to say what suffering someone "SHOULD" have?   I'm open to ideas that make sense, that help people, but you can't and shouldn't predicate it on blatantly partisan concepts like pre-determining what people "deserve" or not.   That's the reason I WOULD be in for a UBI, because it would be for EVERYONE - presumably, I would get it, Donald Trump would get it, Bill Gates would get it - and it would be judgement free and objective.   To my mind, and past the metaphysical thought (that I agree with) that it is beyond human ken to know what someone "deserves" or not, why isn't the argument that "what you have is what you deserve" carry the day?

What about those people that get the UBI and decide to drink it away?  What then?  Do we have a safety net on top of the safety net?    Do you write those people off and say "well, we helped them as best we could, let 'em die."  If they piss away the help, isn't that, after all, what they DESERVE"?

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 9040
  • Gender: Male
Re: Universal Basic Income
« Reply #38 on: July 10, 2017, 10:54:20 AM »
Ariich, I've read that too about the situation in the US.

And if we are talking about available jobs vs available bodies to perform those jobs, are we going to bring up the taboo subject of limited offspring? I brought it up in another thread a long time ago. We always talk about the supply side of the jobs equation, but never the demand. If we are talking futuristic literature, many utopian/dystopian stories I've read include a limit on the number of children people can have.

Fair question, but unless and until you discuss the idea of geographical aspect of jobs, you're REALLY asking for a lot by bringing up the population aspect.   If someone won't move 1000 miles WITHIN THEIR OWN COUNTRY for a job, how do you expect to enforce 2.1 children per family? 

Online RuRoRul

  • Posts: 1429
  • Gender: Male
Re: Universal Basic Income
« Reply #39 on: July 10, 2017, 11:15:30 AM »
I think that getting people over that ideological hurdle would be the most difficult part of the process of getting to a universal basic income - regardless of whether people can make the case that it'd be beneficial for society as a whole, it will be harder to get people over the idea that, yes, some people might get away with suffering less than they should.

I don't at all think you're talking about me (because I expressed some openness to UBI) but respectfully, don't dis ideology then say something like that last line.   It is absolutely an ideological proposition to say "some people might get away with suffering less than they should".  Who's to say what suffering someone "SHOULD" have?   I'm open to ideas that make sense, that help people, but you can't and shouldn't predicate it on blatantly partisan concepts like pre-determining what people "deserve" or not.   That's the reason I WOULD be in for a UBI, because it would be for EVERYONE - presumably, I would get it, Donald Trump would get it, Bill Gates would get it - and it would be judgement free and objective.   To my mind, and past the metaphysical thought (that I agree with) that it is beyond human ken to know what someone "deserves" or not, why isn't the argument that "what you have is what you deserve" carry the day?

What about those people that get the UBI and decide to drink it away?  What then?  Do we have a safety net on top of the safety net?    Do you write those people off and say "well, we helped them as best we could, let 'em die."  If they piss away the help, isn't that, after all, what they DESERVE"?
Well I definitely don't think I was talking about you. But even if someone's position was somewhat similar to the one I characterised like that though, I'm aware it's quite a simple generalisation so I don't mean to accuse anyone on the forum specifically of being like that (like I said, I see "I don't want people I dislike getting it easy!" as the counterpoint to "I just want everyone to get free stuff!" - I'd like to hope no one on this forum had views quite as simple :p)

But I think there's a misunderstanding with the line you're railing against because it sounds as though you are actually agreeing with me: by "some people might get away with suffering less than they should" I was trying to portray the perspective of, I suppose, the "other side" of the argument rather than my own position. I think that, even if UBI was feasible, it would be difficult to get enough people to overcome the ideology or even the "gut feeling" that would just make them resistant to the idea of, say, the "entitled millenial not even looking for a job but getting by on his Universal Basic Income" even if someone could make the case that it was better for them and their wallet for that lazy kid to get just his money even if they thought he didn't "deserve" it.

At least I think there was a misunderstanding, because I agree with your post.
« Last Edit: July 10, 2017, 11:21:02 AM by RuRoRul »

Offline Chino

  • Be excellent to each other.
  • DT.net Veteran
  • ****
  • Posts: 19113
  • Gender: Male
Re: Universal Basic Income
« Reply #40 on: July 10, 2017, 11:21:20 AM »
Ariich, I've read that too about the situation in the US.

And if we are talking about available jobs vs available bodies to perform those jobs, are we going to bring up the taboo subject of limited offspring? I brought it up in another thread a long time ago. We always talk about the supply side of the jobs equation, but never the demand. If we are talking futuristic literature, many utopian/dystopian stories I've read include a limit on the number of children people can have.

Fair question, but unless and until you discuss the idea of geographical aspect of jobs, you're REALLY asking for a lot by bringing up the population aspect.   If someone won't move 1000 miles WITHIN THEIR OWN COUNTRY for a job, how do you expect to enforce 2.1 children per family?

I agree with this, but at the same time admittedly wouldn't move 1000 miles just for a job (I guess if it was that or starving to death, I'd move). My mom and dad are 63 and 62, and they're getting to that point in life when the kids might have to start taking care of the parents at any time. After everything they've done for me and my fuckups in early adulthood, I'd rather make minimum wage until they're both dead than bail on them for my own financial security.

Offline jingle.boy

  • DTF's resident deceased dictator
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 20015
  • Gender: Male
  • The changing of the worrd is inevitabre!!!
Re: Universal Basic Income
« Reply #41 on: July 10, 2017, 12:36:23 PM »
But doesn't every generation say that the next generation or two are entitled spoiled brats? I'm sure Kev's dad's era said the same thing about his group of people.
Interestingly, recent research in the UK indicated that the "millennial" generation is the first to be economically/financially worse off than the generation before (at least since these things were measurable which I think was around 1900 or so). I've no idea about the US, but I wouldn't be surprised if it's similar.

In "western" culture, I think this is universally going to be the case - some of it by choice.  There is a large population within this generation that isn't nearly as motivated by financial value/returns as they are by social value/returns.
Dream Theater Forums: Expanding musical tastes and shrinking wallets since 2009.
Note to forum, jingle is usually right.
I'm actually disappointed he's not Kim Jong-Il

Offline Chino

  • Be excellent to each other.
  • DT.net Veteran
  • ****
  • Posts: 19113
  • Gender: Male
Re: Universal Basic Income
« Reply #42 on: July 10, 2017, 01:31:31 PM »
But doesn't every generation say that the next generation or two are entitled spoiled brats? I'm sure Kev's dad's era said the same thing about his group of people.
Interestingly, recent research in the UK indicated that the "millennial" generation is the first to be economically/financially worse off than the generation before (at least since these things were measurable which I think was around 1900 or so). I've no idea about the US, but I wouldn't be surprised if it's similar.

In "western" culture, I think this is universally going to be the case - some of it by choice.  There is a large population within this generation that isn't nearly as motivated by financial value/returns as they are by social value/returns.

I think about this a lot because I see it too, but I don't know if it's necessarily a bad or negative thing. The reason behind the motivation is what needs to be looked at. I think a lot of it might have to do with image. Outside of not getting fired, I really don't care how others perceive me on the surface. I have no need or desire to show off wealth in any capacity. I know a lot of people my parents' age, as well as a ton within Victoria's family, where the image they project is one of the highest priorities of their lives. They are nearing 60 years old and only have about $30K in a savings account for retirement, but no biggie, they have a sweet CLS550 sitting out in the driveway that they put in a ton of overtime for. I work hard for what's needed and a bit of future planning, not much else. As long as I can contribute 10% to my 401K while keeping the bills paid, put a few hundred into a savings account each month, and splurge on a vacation or two per year, I'm good. I have my rainy day fun and I'm content. There isn't a single bone in my body that urges me to work even the slightest bit harder just to increase my perceived rank in society. I think there are a lot of people my age that think that way. My generation doesn't seem to care about convincing others we have money.
« Last Edit: July 10, 2017, 01:36:53 PM by Chino »

Offline cramx3

  • Chillest of the chill
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 15623
  • Gender: Male
    • The Home of cramx3
Re: Universal Basic Income
« Reply #43 on: July 10, 2017, 01:49:28 PM »
I've read an article recently stating that the next generation is more likely to be like baby boomers.  Reason being that they've grown up in a down economy and their motivations will be more like baby boomers.  I guess we will see. 

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 9040
  • Gender: Male
Re: Universal Basic Income
« Reply #44 on: July 10, 2017, 03:37:47 PM »
Ariich, I've read that too about the situation in the US.

And if we are talking about available jobs vs available bodies to perform those jobs, are we going to bring up the taboo subject of limited offspring? I brought it up in another thread a long time ago. We always talk about the supply side of the jobs equation, but never the demand. If we are talking futuristic literature, many utopian/dystopian stories I've read include a limit on the number of children people can have.

Fair question, but unless and until you discuss the idea of geographical aspect of jobs, you're REALLY asking for a lot by bringing up the population aspect.   If someone won't move 1000 miles WITHIN THEIR OWN COUNTRY for a job, how do you expect to enforce 2.1 children per family?

I agree with this, but at the same time admittedly wouldn't move 1000 miles just for a job (I guess if it was that or starving to death, I'd move). My mom and dad are 63 and 62, and they're getting to that point in life when the kids might have to start taking care of the parents at any time. After everything they've done for me and my fuckups in early adulthood, I'd rather make minimum wage until they're both dead than bail on them for my own financial security.

But we're on the same page; you answered it.  You'd take minimum wage and accept the responsibility of the decision.  I'm did the same thing at the end of my marriage.   What I'm talking about is the person that loses his union job at the plant, making an ever-escalating Davis Bacon-level wage for the SAME job he was hired in at as a tech from high school, and then bitches to Obama about how the economy is failing him.  Well, hoss, they're making that same car in South Carolina, I guarantee you and if you're really interested in that work, you can STILL be doing that work.  Won't be union, and won't be at the excessive rate you were being paid, but it's there for you.  So if you choose to stay in Detroit that's on you - it's America, after all - but accept the consequences of doing so.

Offline ariich

  • sexin' you later
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 19621
  • Gender: Male
  • Fun! Fun! Fun! Fun!
Re: Universal Basic Income
« Reply #45 on: July 11, 2017, 04:01:36 AM »
But doesn't every generation say that the next generation or two are entitled spoiled brats? I'm sure Kev's dad's era said the same thing about his group of people.
Interestingly, recent research in the UK indicated that the "millennial" generation is the first to be economically/financially worse off than the generation before (at least since these things were measurable which I think was around 1900 or so). I've no idea about the US, but I wouldn't be surprised if it's similar.

In "western" culture, I think this is universally going to be the case - some of it by choice.  There is a large population within this generation that isn't nearly as motivated by financial value/returns as they are by social value/returns.
That's fair, I'm sure some of it is by choice. But much of it isn't, and is (I think) a somewhat inherent feature of the fact that the baby boomer generation (post-war) is now at retirement age, while we're all living longer and longer all the time. So our society is just that much older than it used to be. This puts incredible strain on our public services, property prices, etc. which severely depresses the purchasing power of younger generations. Those of us that receive support/property from our parents will do ok, but in the UK at least those who don't and aren't earning big money are basically screwed.

Interestingy this also ties in to the question about birth rates. On one hand, yes we could restrict birth rates to death rates in order to keep the population under control. But again in the UK at least working-age people are barely generating enough to pay for the pensions and public services of the wealthier elderly (I'm generalising here). If we reach a point technologically where many don't need to work, then that's fine, but we're a long way away from that.

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 9040
  • Gender: Male
Re: Universal Basic Income
« Reply #46 on: July 11, 2017, 09:30:36 AM »
Interestingy this also ties in to the question about birth rates. On one hand, yes we could restrict birth rates to death rates in order to keep the population under control. But again in the UK at least working-age people are barely generating enough to pay for the pensions and public services of the wealthier elderly (I'm generalising here). If we reach a point technologically where many don't need to work, then that's fine, but we're a long way away from that.

As an aside, I don't remember the exact number but there's an optimum multiple (I seem to recall 1.8, but don't quote me on that).   

I don't have any pat answers - and I will be honest and admit that my head answers probably conflict with my heart answers - but it's a question that has to be addressed at some point.  We have 7.5 BILLION people on the planet and fully a quarter of them are in one country.  That's a pressure point that has to break at some point.   

Offline Chino

  • Be excellent to each other.
  • DT.net Veteran
  • ****
  • Posts: 19113
  • Gender: Male
Re: Universal Basic Income
« Reply #47 on: July 11, 2017, 09:33:03 AM »
Interestingy this also ties in to the question about birth rates. On one hand, yes we could restrict birth rates to death rates in order to keep the population under control. But again in the UK at least working-age people are barely generating enough to pay for the pensions and public services of the wealthier elderly (I'm generalising here). If we reach a point technologically where many don't need to work, then that's fine, but we're a long way away from that.

As an aside, I don't remember the exact number but there's an optimum multiple (I seem to recall 1.8, but don't quote me on that).   

I don't have any pat answers - and I will be honest and admit that my head answers probably conflict with my heart answers - but it's a question that has to be addressed at some point.  We have 7.5 BILLION people on the planet and fully a quarter of them are in one country.  That's a pressure point that has to break at some point.

There are really only 4 things that could happen.
1) A eugenics program that the public is okay with
2) New plague/Natural Disaster
3) People start having fewer kids on their own
4) Mars

Offline cramx3

  • Chillest of the chill
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 15623
  • Gender: Male
    • The Home of cramx3
Re: Universal Basic Income
« Reply #48 on: July 11, 2017, 09:34:49 AM »
Interestingy this also ties in to the question about birth rates. On one hand, yes we could restrict birth rates to death rates in order to keep the population under control. But again in the UK at least working-age people are barely generating enough to pay for the pensions and public services of the wealthier elderly (I'm generalising here). If we reach a point technologically where many don't need to work, then that's fine, but we're a long way away from that.

As an aside, I don't remember the exact number but there's an optimum multiple (I seem to recall 1.8, but don't quote me on that).   

I don't have any pat answers - and I will be honest and admit that my head answers probably conflict with my heart answers - but it's a question that has to be addressed at some point.  We have 7.5 BILLION people on the planet and fully a quarter of them are in one country.  That's a pressure point that has to break at some point.

Yea I think about this a lot too, I think mother nature has it's way of dealing with that in some aspects at least and if that doesn't settle the population bursting, I think we (as humans) will find our own way to kill ourselves off (thinking war).

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 9040
  • Gender: Male
Re: Universal Basic Income
« Reply #49 on: July 11, 2017, 09:35:56 AM »
But doesn't every generation say that the next generation or two are entitled spoiled brats? I'm sure Kev's dad's era said the same thing about his group of people.
Interestingly, recent research in the UK indicated that the "millennial" generation is the first to be economically/financially worse off than the generation before (at least since these things were measurable which I think was around 1900 or so). I've no idea about the US, but I wouldn't be surprised if it's similar.

In "western" culture, I think this is universally going to be the case - some of it by choice.  There is a large population within this generation that isn't nearly as motivated by financial value/returns as they are by social value/returns.

Not arguing, just musing out loud... I don't know that this is true.  I keep coming back to the old adage, "If you're 20 and aren't a Democrat, you have no heart.  If you're 50 and not a Republican you have no brain."   That's not literal (and not intended to imply that "Democrats are dumb") but it does sort of generalize the emphasis points.    I know some of it is systemic; my daughter - at 16 - has an entire program at school that involves community service.   "Community service" in my school (I'm 50 this fall) was cutting my neighbors lawn for $10 while I did my mine.   

I have mixed emotions on that, to be honest.   I'm the guy that will donate time/money and never say a word about it.  That's the way it should be (if you want it).  I don't care at all for this sort of broadcasted form of service that let's everyone know how much you're doing and for whom.  It makes it artificial and forced, and leads to bullying and shaming (two things I despise with equal fervor to racism and bigotry) of otherwise good people. 

Offline jingle.boy

  • DTF's resident deceased dictator
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 20015
  • Gender: Male
  • The changing of the worrd is inevitabre!!!
Re: Universal Basic Income
« Reply #50 on: July 11, 2017, 10:00:46 AM »
More and more employment surveys (Glassdoor, Forbes, Bloomberg, HBR etc...) will frequently see things like culture, work-life balance, sense of purpose, 'happiness', etc.... as some of the top criteria/factors.  Certainly, compensation is and always will be important (often #1), but more and more it's not as dominant a factor for new hires.  This is why I say that a certain population of the younger generations (and a greater proportion than from GenX'rs) are not as motivated by financial gains.
Dream Theater Forums: Expanding musical tastes and shrinking wallets since 2009.
Note to forum, jingle is usually right.
I'm actually disappointed he's not Kim Jong-Il

Offline cramx3

  • Chillest of the chill
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 15623
  • Gender: Male
    • The Home of cramx3
Re: Universal Basic Income
« Reply #51 on: July 11, 2017, 10:09:52 AM »
More and more employment surveys (Glassdoor, Forbes, Bloomberg, HBR etc...) will frequently see things like culture, work-life balance, sense of purpose, 'happiness', etc.... as some of the top criteria/factors.  Certainly, compensation is and always will be important (often #1), but more and more it's not as dominant a factor for new hires.  This is why I say that a certain population of the younger generations (and a greater proportion than from GenX'rs) are not as motivated by financial gains.

I'm not even in the younger generation and can agree that those other things mentioned are just as important to me as compensation.  I explicitly told my boss I need a better work/life balance after the first year of the job and as an hourly worker, that meant a cut in hours, which I was happy when it actually happened even though it took a hit on my wallet (we hired another person to take off some of my and others work loads).  My happiness is more important than anything else in the world for me.  Money does not equal happiness.

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 9040
  • Gender: Male
Re: Universal Basic Income
« Reply #52 on: July 11, 2017, 01:16:56 PM »
More and more employment surveys (Glassdoor, Forbes, Bloomberg, HBR etc...) will frequently see things like culture, work-life balance, sense of purpose, 'happiness', etc.... as some of the top criteria/factors.  Certainly, compensation is and always will be important (often #1), but more and more it's not as dominant a factor for new hires.  This is why I say that a certain population of the younger generations (and a greater proportion than from GenX'rs) are not as motivated by financial gains.

It's interesting; I've worked for a small(er) environmental company (about $400 million in annual revenue) and a conglomerate (Fortune 5, $150 billion in annual revenue) and now a France-based international company (about $20 billion in annual revenue) and the surveys are well known and consistent.  But it's hard to say whether that is the case when the rubber meets the road.   From what I've seen the most common reason to leave is a tie between "money" and "bad boss".   But that's anecdotal. 

Where I think it does make a difference is in the retention metric.  Attrition is lower

Offline lordxizor

  • EZBoard Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 2476
  • Gender: Male
  • and that is the truth.
Re: Universal Basic Income
« Reply #53 on: July 11, 2017, 04:10:57 PM »
Getting back to the topic of Universal basic income, I'm all for it in a sort of limited scope. I think we're rapidly approaching the point where there will not be enough good paying jobs to support people who want to work. Here's a system I could support:

1. Every American citizen 18+ gets a monthly deposit equal to the poverty rate for a single person (currently about $1000, tied to inflation).
2. The benefit phases out for higher income Americans (starting around $70k and gone altogether at $150k or so).
3. No other federal welfare is available (including unemployment, food stamps, social security, college grants, etc), state run welfare is allowed, but no federal funding
4. Single payer healthcare for everyone is also available (high deductible HSA type plan, with low income Americans getting deposits into their HSA account, employers are encouraged to add funds the their employees HSA accounts as a benefit)
5. Taxes paying for the universal basic income start at the first $1 of income.
6. Minimum wage can be made lower since everyone is already starting off with enough to keep their belly's full.

What appeals to me about this is that no one is going to be starving to death, but the only way to get beyond that is to get a job. Plus there are no weird cut-offs like in the current system where getting a higher paying job can actually result in a net loss of income due to welfare benefits being dropped. And the overhead to manage this system will be minuscule compared to the current system. A computer database and a system to direct deposit funds into people bank accounts. You'd need some people to do spot checks to prevent fraud and keep the databases updated, but I imagine you'd need only a tiny fraction of the current welfare workforce to maintain this system. It also keeps people who don't care to work out of the workforce to free up jobs for those who do want to work. If you can scrap by on $12k a year, go for it and free up the jobs for those who want to work. And it allows a spouse to more easily stay at home with the kids, again freeing up a job for someone else.

The obvious issues are that some areas are significantly more expensive to live in than others, so $1000 a month in NYC doesn't get you very far, but $1000 a month in Bumsville, Kansas is not too bad. Again, cities or states can choose to have additional benefits, but overall I think it's best to keep it a flat amount nationwide. Also, kids  are an issue. I don't think you should get additional money for each kid, otherwise you just have a bunch of kids and pull down pretty good money. I think if you couple this with increased free/cheap care for kids, free breakfast and lunch for all kids in school, etc, you can eliminate a lot of the problems with people having tons of kids to get more money yet make sure kids are taken care of.

Obviously I have no idea how much any of this costs or what the tax implications would be. I saw a similar plan laid out by a journalist a while back and he claimed it would cost $100s of millions less than the current systems every year, but of course didn't provide those details.

Offline cramx3

  • Chillest of the chill
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 15623
  • Gender: Male
    • The Home of cramx3
Re: Universal Basic Income
« Reply #54 on: July 11, 2017, 05:05:53 PM »
2. The benefit phases out for higher income Americans (starting around $70k and gone altogether at $150k or so).

Doesn't that take away from the "universal" part of this idea?  I get what you are saying with your proposition, but Stadler mentioned something about if it's for everyone then it's a bit easier to swallow than making such an idea work for only some. 

Offline lordxizor

  • EZBoard Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 2476
  • Gender: Male
  • and that is the truth.
Re: Universal Basic Income
« Reply #55 on: July 11, 2017, 05:09:53 PM »
2. The benefit phases out for higher income Americans (starting around $70k and gone altogether at $150k or so).

Doesn't that take away from the "universal" part of this idea?  I get what you are saying with your proposition, but Stadler mentioned something about if it's for everyone then it's a bit easier to swallow than making such an idea work for only some. 
I wouldn't have a problem with it being for everyone if the numbers worked out. Of course, it would kick in immediately if a person lost their job or otherwise lost their income.

Offline cramx3

  • Chillest of the chill
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 15623
  • Gender: Male
    • The Home of cramx3
Re: Universal Basic Income
« Reply #56 on: July 11, 2017, 05:13:56 PM »
If the numbers worked out, I wouldn't have a problem either, but the numbers is where I am confused as I have no idea how you make the numbers work for UBI in general.

Offline XeRocks81

  • Posts: 269
  • Gender: Male
Re: Universal Basic Income
« Reply #57 on: July 11, 2017, 05:20:17 PM »
If the numbers worked out, I wouldn't have a problem either, but the numbers is where I am confused as I have no idea how you make the numbers work for UBI in general.

A big part of making the numbers work has to be that it replaces many existing programs,  like lordxizor mentioned.


Offline cramx3

  • Chillest of the chill
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 15623
  • Gender: Male
    • The Home of cramx3
Re: Universal Basic Income
« Reply #58 on: July 11, 2017, 05:22:30 PM »
If the numbers worked out, I wouldn't have a problem either, but the numbers is where I am confused as I have no idea how you make the numbers work for UBI in general.

A big part of making the numbers work has to be that it replaces many existing programs,  like lordxizor mentioned.

edit: beat me to it

Can you actually say the numbers erased from those programs equal the number needed for UBI?  Sounds nice on paper, maybe it does work, but I am curious if the numbers do in fact work.  Not trying to knock lord's idea or UBI in general, just trying to understand the actual funding of such an idea.  All those social programs are funded by taxes, what happens when income taxes dry up?

Offline Chino

  • Be excellent to each other.
  • DT.net Veteran
  • ****
  • Posts: 19113
  • Gender: Male
Re: Universal Basic Income
« Reply #59 on: July 11, 2017, 05:23:23 PM »
If the numbers worked out, I wouldn't have a problem either, but the numbers is where I am confused as I have no idea how you make the numbers work for UBI in general.

A big part of making the numbers work has to be that it replaces many existing programs,  like lordxizor mentioned.

edit: beat me to it

And the government as a whole needs to get their shit together on other types of spending as well. $400B developing a plane for example, or $3T in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Offline cramx3

  • Chillest of the chill
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 15623
  • Gender: Male
    • The Home of cramx3
Re: Universal Basic Income
« Reply #60 on: July 11, 2017, 05:25:34 PM »
And the government as a whole needs to get their shit together on other types of spending as well. $400B developing a plane for example, or $3T in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Managing the budget is obviously important.  I don't see our government getting their shit together anytime soon either.

Offline lordxizor

  • EZBoard Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 2476
  • Gender: Male
  • and that is the truth.
Re: Universal Basic Income
« Reply #61 on: July 11, 2017, 06:21:59 PM »
If the numbers worked out, I wouldn't have a problem either, but the numbers is where I am confused as I have no idea how you make the numbers work for UBI in general.

A big part of making the numbers work has to be that it replaces many existing programs,  like lordxizor mentioned.

edit: beat me to it

Can you actually say the numbers erased from those programs equal the number needed for UBI?  Sounds nice on paper, maybe it does work, but I am curious if the numbers do in fact work.  Not trying to knock lord's idea or UBI in general, just trying to understand the actual funding of such an idea.  All those social programs are funded by taxes, what happens when income taxes dry up?
I suspect that cutting all existing programs would get you most of the way there, but the difference would need to be made up somewhere, which of course means higher taxes. Like I had in my list, I would want those taxes to start with the first dollar you earned so that everyone felt the pain, even the poor, but of course the rich would have to pay more to offset the high numbers of poor people.

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 9040
  • Gender: Male
Re: Universal Basic Income
« Reply #62 on: July 12, 2017, 07:56:44 AM »
Getting back to the topic of Universal basic income, I'm all for it in a sort of limited scope. I think we're rapidly approaching the point where there will not be enough good paying jobs to support people who want to work. Here's a system I could support:

1. Every American citizen 18+ gets a monthly deposit equal to the poverty rate for a single person (currently about $1000, tied to inflation).
2. The benefit phases out for higher income Americans (starting around $70k and gone altogether at $150k or so).
3. No other federal welfare is available (including unemployment, food stamps, social security, college grants, etc), state run welfare is allowed, but no federal funding
4. Single payer healthcare for everyone is also available (high deductible HSA type plan, with low income Americans getting deposits into their HSA account, employers are encouraged to add funds the their employees HSA accounts as a benefit)
5. Taxes paying for the universal basic income start at the first $1 of income.
6. Minimum wage can be made lower since everyone is already starting off with enough to keep their belly's full.

What appeals to me about this is that no one is going to be starving to death, but the only way to get beyond that is to get a job. Plus there are no weird cut-offs like in the current system where getting a higher paying job can actually result in a net loss of income due to welfare benefits being dropped. And the overhead to manage this system will be minuscule compared to the current system. A computer database and a system to direct deposit funds into people bank accounts. You'd need some people to do spot checks to prevent fraud and keep the databases updated, but I imagine you'd need only a tiny fraction of the current welfare workforce to maintain this system. It also keeps people who don't care to work out of the workforce to free up jobs for those who do want to work. If you can scrap by on $12k a year, go for it and free up the jobs for those who want to work. And it allows a spouse to more easily stay at home with the kids, again freeing up a job for someone else.

The obvious issues are that some areas are significantly more expensive to live in than others, so $1000 a month in NYC doesn't get you very far, but $1000 a month in Bumsville, Kansas is not too bad. Again, cities or states can choose to have additional benefits, but overall I think it's best to keep it a flat amount nationwide. Also, kids  are an issue. I don't think you should get additional money for each kid, otherwise you just have a bunch of kids and pull down pretty good money. I think if you couple this with increased free/cheap care for kids, free breakfast and lunch for all kids in school, etc, you can eliminate a lot of the problems with people having tons of kids to get more money yet make sure kids are taken care of.

Obviously I have no idea how much any of this costs or what the tax implications would be. I saw a similar plan laid out by a journalist a while back and he claimed it would cost $100s of millions less than the current systems every year, but of course didn't provide those details.

And your last paragraph sinks the entire ship.  I mean, I get we're not politicians here, and it's discussion, but why propose something if you don't know what it costs?   Hell, on that criteria, why not EVERYONE not work, and give EVERYONE $515K a year?

I'm kidding a little with that (I certainly don't mean it to be harsh) but more seriously, there are some philosophical flaws in your plan.   
- There's a whole lot of "free" in your post, and yet, none of it is really "free".  You're just arbitrarily asking those that are successful and those that want to work to foot the bill for those that aren't and/or don't.   
- Why are we worried about people that "don't want to work"?  Who gives a shit if you "don't want to work"?  "Can't", I totally get it, but part of the current problem is that there are too many people that "don't want to work" but still want the government teat to be ready and available when their personal shit hits their personal fan.   
- Why would there be a UBI AND a minimum wage?   That's the whole point of a UBI, to take it out of the hands of "employers" (and to be fair, I like your idea of a simultaneous single payer system, since that would take that out of employers hands as well).

Not really interested in programs that act as a wealth reallocation system, frankly, and that is one of my beefs with the ACA.   
« Last Edit: July 12, 2017, 08:04:48 AM by Stadler »

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 9040
  • Gender: Male
Re: Universal Basic Income
« Reply #63 on: July 12, 2017, 08:02:25 AM »
If the numbers worked out, I wouldn't have a problem either, but the numbers is where I am confused as I have no idea how you make the numbers work for UBI in general.

A big part of making the numbers work has to be that it replaces many existing programs,  like lordxizor mentioned.

edit: beat me to it

Can you actually say the numbers erased from those programs equal the number needed for UBI?  Sounds nice on paper, maybe it does work, but I am curious if the numbers do in fact work.  Not trying to knock lord's idea or UBI in general, just trying to understand the actual funding of such an idea.  All those social programs are funded by taxes, what happens when income taxes dry up?

Do the math:   323 million people in the U.S.   At $1000 a month, you're looking at $3.87 TRILLION a year.  That's almost a quarter of our ENTIRE economy, GIVEN to people with no strings attached, on a yearly basis.   That's ballpark what the IRS collects in a given year - total - from income tax.   


Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 9040
  • Gender: Male
Re: Universal Basic Income
« Reply #64 on: July 12, 2017, 08:07:10 AM »
If the numbers worked out, I wouldn't have a problem either, but the numbers is where I am confused as I have no idea how you make the numbers work for UBI in general.

A big part of making the numbers work has to be that it replaces many existing programs,  like lordxizor mentioned.

edit: beat me to it

And the government as a whole needs to get their shit together on other types of spending as well. $400B developing a plane for example, or $3T in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Don't equate the two; I'm not saying you're wrong, but the $400B on the plane and the $3T in Irag/Afghanistan are a) both over much longer periods of time (decades in the latter case) and b) generate revenue that offsets the initial spend.   You know this; Electric Boat in Groton.  Sikorsky in Stratford.   As anyone from any community where a base was closed outright.  You think Detroit is bad?   

Offline Stadler

  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 9040
  • Gender: Male
Re: Universal Basic Income
« Reply #65 on: July 12, 2017, 08:07:39 AM »
If the numbers worked out, I wouldn't have a problem either, but the numbers is where I am confused as I have no idea how you make the numbers work for UBI in general.

A big part of making the numbers work has to be that it replaces many existing programs,  like lordxizor mentioned.

edit: beat me to it

Can you actually say the numbers erased from those programs equal the number needed for UBI?  Sounds nice on paper, maybe it does work, but I am curious if the numbers do in fact work.  Not trying to knock lord's idea or UBI in general, just trying to understand the actual funding of such an idea.  All those social programs are funded by taxes, what happens when income taxes dry up?
I suspect that cutting all existing programs would get you most of the way there, but the difference would need to be made up somewhere, which of course means higher taxes. Like I had in my list, I would want those taxes to start with the first dollar you earned so that everyone felt the pain, even the poor, but of course the rich would have to pay more to offset the high numbers of poor people.

Of course. 

Offline lordxizor

  • EZBoard Elder
  • *****
  • Posts: 2476
  • Gender: Male
  • and that is the truth.
Re: Universal Basic Income
« Reply #66 on: July 12, 2017, 08:52:44 AM »
If the numbers worked out, I wouldn't have a problem either, but the numbers is where I am confused as I have no idea how you make the numbers work for UBI in general.

A big part of making the numbers work has to be that it replaces many existing programs,  like lordxizor mentioned.

edit: beat me to it

Can you actually say the numbers erased from those programs equal the number needed for UBI?  Sounds nice on paper, maybe it does work, but I am curious if the numbers do in fact work.  Not trying to knock lord's idea or UBI in general, just trying to understand the actual funding of such an idea.  All those social programs are funded by taxes, what happens when income taxes dry up?

Do the math:   323 million people in the U.S.   At $1000 a month, you're looking at $3.87 TRILLION a year.  That's almost a quarter of our ENTIRE economy, GIVEN to people with no strings attached, on a yearly basis.   That's ballpark what the IRS collects in a given year - total - from income tax.   


My plan would not include anyone less that 18 years old, so that eliminates a lot of people and a lot of the cost you listed. To me the whole purpose of this is to prepare for the days when there are not enough jobs for people who want them, which is coming very soon with AI becoming smarter by the day. What do we do with all those people who literally will not be able to find work?

Offline ariich

  • sexin' you later
  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 19621
  • Gender: Male
  • Fun! Fun! Fun! Fun!
Re: Universal Basic Income
« Reply #67 on: July 12, 2017, 09:26:11 AM »
If the numbers worked out, I wouldn't have a problem either, but the numbers is where I am confused as I have no idea how you make the numbers work for UBI in general.

A big part of making the numbers work has to be that it replaces many existing programs,  like lordxizor mentioned.

edit: beat me to it

Can you actually say the numbers erased from those programs equal the number needed for UBI?  Sounds nice on paper, maybe it does work, but I am curious if the numbers do in fact work.  Not trying to knock lord's idea or UBI in general, just trying to understand the actual funding of such an idea.  All those social programs are funded by taxes, what happens when income taxes dry up?

Do the math:   323 million people in the U.S.   At $1000 a month, you're looking at $3.87 TRILLION a year.  That's almost a quarter of our ENTIRE economy, GIVEN to people with no strings attached, on a yearly basis.   That's ballpark what the IRS collects in a given year - total - from income tax.   


My plan would not include anyone less that 18 years old, so that eliminates a lot of people and a lot of the cost you listed. To me the whole purpose of this is to prepare for the days when there are not enough jobs for people who want them, which is coming very soon with AI becoming smarter by the day. What do we do with all those people who literally will not be able to find work?
I don't know that this is realistic. Unless we reach a point where there are no problems for the world to solve (which I can't see happening ever), there will always be work for people to do. But as technology continues to advance, the nature of the work changes.

Offline jingle.boy

  • DTF's resident deceased dictator
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 20015
  • Gender: Male
  • The changing of the worrd is inevitabre!!!
Re: Universal Basic Income
« Reply #68 on: July 12, 2017, 09:56:14 AM »
there will always be work for people to do. But as technology continues to advance, the nature of the work changes.

As has been the case for over 100 years since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution.  Think about it ... how many mobile app developers were there 15 years ago?  You can count the worldwide jobs on one hand (I'm being a tad facetious).  How many millions are there now?  We don't even know what kinds of jobs most kids staring elementary school right now will be in existence - most of them don't even exist today.
Dream Theater Forums: Expanding musical tastes and shrinking wallets since 2009.
Note to forum, jingle is usually right.
I'm actually disappointed he's not Kim Jong-Il

Offline cramx3

  • Chillest of the chill
  • DTF.org Alumni
  • ****
  • Posts: 15623
  • Gender: Male
    • The Home of cramx3
Re: Universal Basic Income
« Reply #69 on: July 12, 2017, 09:57:13 AM »
there will always be work for people to do. But as technology continues to advance, the nature of the work changes.

As has been the case for over 100 years since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution.  Think about it ... how many mobile app developers were there 15 years ago?  You can count the worldwide jobs on one hand (I'm being a tad facetious).  How many millions are there now?  We don't even know what kinds of jobs most kids staring elementary school right now will be in existence - most of them don't even exist today.

True.

Robot repair man might be an in demand job in the future  :lol