Poll

What is your opinion on UBI based on political leanings?

Economically liberal/in favor of UBI
53 (37.3%)
Economically conservative or libertarian/in favor of UBI
42 (29.6%)
Economically liberal/not in favor of UBI
11 (7.7%)
Economically conservative or libertarian/not in favor of UBI
32 (22.5%)
Other (post below)
4 (2.8%)

Total Members Voted: 142

Author Topic: Can We Achieve Universal FI?  (Read 20071 times)

Left

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1156
Re: Can We Achieve Universal FI?
« Reply #50 on: December 08, 2016, 02:10:59 AM »
FI or on govt handouts, which I would consider UBI?

I dont want to stand in line everyday to get my daily $20... it reminds me of soviet russia or communist china or venezuelan bread lines. I dont want to live in a 8x8 cell that the govt decided was enough to call housing. You would just be "paid prisoners" with a larger gated yard to roam in. The wealthy would fence in the people on ubi.

That is what I think of when I think of ubi, it isnt enough to actually enjoy life with, and to make it "livable", the govt has to set standards for living conditions so it can "measure" and know that the ubi is enough.

How come everyone who wants UBI thinks it wouldnt be handed out in such a fashion? To stand in line and only get enough for that single day and they can call it the 8 hour line waiting salary. Then if people think they can make more at a job, they can do that and forgo the waiting in line money

How come most people's assumption is a single yearly/monthly dump of money? Pensions and social security? We have more examples of bread lines in human history.
« Last Edit: December 08, 2016, 02:33:54 AM by Left »

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5311
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: Can We Achieve Universal FI?
« Reply #51 on: December 08, 2016, 04:10:47 AM »
FI or on govt handouts, which I would consider UBI?

I dont want to stand in line everyday to get my daily $20... it reminds me of soviet russia or communist china or venezuelan bread lines. I dont want to live in a 8x8 cell that the govt decided was enough to call housing. You would just be "paid prisoners" with a larger gated yard to roam in. The wealthy would fence in the people on ubi.

That is what I think of when I think of ubi, it isnt enough to actually enjoy life with, and to make it "livable", the govt has to set standards for living conditions so it can "measure" and know that the ubi is enough.

How come everyone who wants UBI thinks it wouldnt be handed out in such a fashion? To stand in line and only get enough for that single day and they can call it the 8 hour line waiting salary. Then if people think they can make more at a job, they can do that and forgo the waiting in line money

How come most people's assumption is a single yearly/monthly dump of money? Pensions and social security? We have more examples of bread lines in human history.

Likely because the modern examples of government services are not based on the model you presented, and few people would vote for such measures if they were suggested.
Give me one fine day of plain sailing weather and I can mess up anything.

MustacheMathTM

shelivesthedream

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2159
  • Location: UK
Re: Can We Achieve Universal FI?
« Reply #52 on: December 08, 2016, 05:44:50 AM »
Because computers now exist...? Register your bank details and get an automated monthly deposit? No one would agree on a system that requires you to stand in line for actual cash. Agreed that the lifestyle to be supported and the amount required might be contentious, but you don't have to wait in line at the Post Office to get your old age pension any more. Obviously it would all be digital/automated.

Left

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 1156
Re: Can We Achieve Universal FI?
« Reply #53 on: December 08, 2016, 07:15:25 AM »
Because computers now exist...? Register your bank details and get an automated monthly deposit? No one would agree on a system that requires you to stand in line for actual cash. Agreed that the lifestyle to be supported and the amount required might be contentious, but you don't have to wait in line at the Post Office to get your old age pension any more. Obviously it would all be digital/automated.
not everyone has a bank account... the is more likely for the poorest in society, the ones who this fabled UBI would benefit the most. Or does bi only matter when you benefit from it?

They dont have to agree to it, they just have to stand in line for it. Americans stand in line everyday, at the coffee store, at the bus stop, in their cars when they drive behind the car in front of them, when they go voting, even the DMV has a line...

Make it a miserable experience to collect ubi, they will find working a job to be "easier" money and not dependent on ubi. When congress want people who get food stamp to pass drug tests, who are you to say "make it easy" to collect welfare?

« Last Edit: December 08, 2016, 08:59:33 AM by Left »

infogoon

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 814
Re: Can We Achieve Universal FI?
« Reply #54 on: December 08, 2016, 07:45:02 AM »
I honestly believe that the left would embrace UBI fairly quickly. I certainly can't see any argument against giving every individual a UBI, indexed to inflation. It would probably reduce or eliminate the need for a great many programs that already serve, badly, the neediest among us. Given that most of the arguments I see against it seem to come from people on the right, who view this idea as another "nanny state" policy -- akin to socialism -- I think you might be somewhat mistaken. I can't find many people on the right these days, either in the general population or in the political class, who have expressed any support for such an idea.

I read an article somewhere a while ago -- in The Atlantic, maybe? -- about how a big touchstone of the Tea Party and other populist conservative groups is the concept of "deserving". A Rand disciple like Paul Ryan might want to cut Medicare and Medicaid on philosophical grounds, because government shouldn't be involved in health care, but a Tea Party adherent might say that Medicare is okay because the recipients paid in over a lifetime and thus they "deserve" it, while Medicaid benefits poor people who don't pay taxes so it should be cut. Look at any discussion of SNAP or other benefit programs on Facebook; there's always a loud contingent making a differentiation between "people who need and deserve help" and "able-bodied people who just refuse to work".

I think UBI would be a big problem for them, even if it could be mathematically proven to cost less money than our current byzantine array of interlocking safety net programs, because "universal" means that some of the recipients would be "undeserving".

Kris

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2480
Re: Can We Achieve Universal FI?
« Reply #55 on: December 08, 2016, 07:47:59 AM »
I honestly believe that the left would embrace UBI fairly quickly. I certainly can't see any argument against giving every individual a UBI, indexed to inflation. It would probably reduce or eliminate the need for a great many programs that already serve, badly, the neediest among us. Given that most of the arguments I see against it seem to come from people on the right, who view this idea as another "nanny state" policy -- akin to socialism -- I think you might be somewhat mistaken. I can't find many people on the right these days, either in the general population or in the political class, who have expressed any support for such an idea.

I read an article somewhere a while ago -- in The Atlantic, maybe? -- about how a big touchstone of the Tea Party and other populist conservative groups is the concept of "deserving". A Rand disciple like Paul Ryan might want to cut Medicare and Medicaid on philosophical grounds, because government shouldn't be involved in health care, but a Tea Party adherent might say that Medicare is okay because the recipients paid in over a lifetime and thus they "deserve" it, while Medicaid benefits poor people who don't pay taxes so it should be cut. Look at any discussion of SNAP or other benefit programs on Facebook; there's always a loud contingent making a differentiation between "people who need and deserve help" and "able-bodied people who just refuse to work".

I think UBI would be a big problem for them, even if it could be mathematically proven to cost less money than our current byzantine array of interlocking safety net programs, because "universal" means that some of the recipients would be "undeserving".

Exactly.

And I won't comment on the hypocrisy of that "deserving" concept among people of the TP persuasion who voted for Trump because he'll "bring their jobs back" but will criticize people who are "not like them" (ahem) being out of work because those people are lazy and won't pull themselves up by their own bootstraps.
Please note: Libertarian4321 did not vote for either Hillary or Trump. He voted for Gary Johnson, who was the Libertarian candidate.

infogoon

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 814
Re: Can We Achieve Universal FI?
« Reply #56 on: December 08, 2016, 08:00:34 AM »
Exactly.

And I won't comment on the hypocrisy of that "deserving" concept among people of the TP persuasion who voted for Trump because he'll "bring their jobs back" but will criticize people who are "not like them" (ahem) being out of work because those people are lazy and won't pull themselves up by their own bootstraps.

It's a good thing the government is using taxpayer money to bribe Carrier into keeping some jobs here, so that the people with those jobs can complain with a clear conscience about people who live on handouts.

Kris

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2480
Re: Can We Achieve Universal FI?
« Reply #57 on: December 08, 2016, 08:02:39 AM »
Exactly.

And I won't comment on the hypocrisy of that "deserving" concept among people of the TP persuasion who voted for Trump because he'll "bring their jobs back" but will criticize people who are "not like them" (ahem) being out of work because those people are lazy and won't pull themselves up by their own bootstraps.

It's a good thing the government is using taxpayer money to bribe Carrier into keeping some jobs here, so that the people with those jobs can complain with a clear conscience about people who live on handouts.

Truth.
Please note: Libertarian4321 did not vote for either Hillary or Trump. He voted for Gary Johnson, who was the Libertarian candidate.

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5311
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: Can We Achieve Universal FI?
« Reply #58 on: December 08, 2016, 08:10:13 AM »
Exactly.

And I won't comment on the hypocrisy of that "deserving" concept among people of the TP persuasion who voted for Trump because he'll "bring their jobs back" but will criticize people who are "not like them" (ahem) being out of work because those people are lazy and won't pull themselves up by their own bootstraps.

It's a good thing the government is using taxpayer money to bribe Carrier into keeping some jobs here, so that the people with those jobs can complain with a clear conscience about people who live on handouts.

If I understand correctly, the government is putting up 7 million over ten years and Carrier is investing 16 million - not a bad return on investment, and allows people to keep their jobs. Kinda why the auto industry bailout worked so well.
Give me one fine day of plain sailing weather and I can mess up anything.

MustacheMathTM

Kris

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2480
Re: Can We Achieve Universal FI?
« Reply #59 on: December 08, 2016, 08:29:06 AM »
Exactly.

And I won't comment on the hypocrisy of that "deserving" concept among people of the TP persuasion who voted for Trump because he'll "bring their jobs back" but will criticize people who are "not like them" (ahem) being out of work because those people are lazy and won't pull themselves up by their own bootstraps.

It's a good thing the government is using taxpayer money to bribe Carrier into keeping some jobs here, so that the people with those jobs can complain with a clear conscience about people who live on handouts.

If I understand correctly, the government is putting up 7 million over ten years and Carrier is investing 16 million - not a bad return on investment, and allows people to keep their jobs. Kinda why the auto industry bailout worked so well.

For fewer than 1000 jobs? Seems like a pretty bad ROI to me.
Please note: Libertarian4321 did not vote for either Hillary or Trump. He voted for Gary Johnson, who was the Libertarian candidate.

kayvent

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 520
  • Location: Canada
Re: Can We Achieve Universal FI?
« Reply #60 on: December 08, 2016, 08:51:43 AM »
2. Money management. The way benefits are currently managed in the UK and the US, portions are allocated for specific things. For example, we have housing benefit which can only be used to pay for your housing, and you have food stamps which can only be used to pay for groceries. With the UBI, there is nothing to stop someone spending their monthly income on toys and luxuries and then starving to death on the street. Or even borrowing against the guarantee of their future UBI payments. I would want the UBI to come with a significant financial education programme in schools (and evening classes for adults) so that if someone did spend it all on crap and then not be able to pay rent, at least they would have informed consent.

My two large concerns are this and how the Gov't manages the program.  With the above; when someone chooses to waste food and rent money on gambling, booze, drugs. Then ends up homeless with a couple of young kids, society will cry out for more programs, more $ spent.  While I would agree people shouldnt be starving or living on the street (particularly innocents) it can and will happen.  This means there would have to be at least some type of bureaucracy in place to make sure the funds are being used appropriately if individuals have a history of not doing so. Bureaucracies are inefficient and we are back to square one.

I've made this comment before; I fear UBI could encourage majority rule placing restrictions on the UBI to meet the majorities social agenda.  This is fine if you are in the majority, but would really suck for minority groups.  Imagine if the now republican controlled three branches decided certain groups were not eligible for UBI due to being "terrorist risks" or whatnot.  This could lead to very bad situations.

We've kinda seen that already in the very liberal Nordic countries. They were fine paying high taxes to get 'free stuff' but as their populations are becoming less and less white, they are less inclined to pay for those they deem not their real countrymen.

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5311
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: Can We Achieve Universal FI?
« Reply #61 on: December 08, 2016, 08:56:14 AM »
For fewer than 1000 jobs? Seems like a pretty bad ROI to me.

Well I guess we'll agree to disagree on the break even point on keeping employees and taxes flowing into the United States.
Give me one fine day of plain sailing weather and I can mess up anything.

MustacheMathTM

Kris

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2480
Re: Can We Achieve Universal FI?
« Reply #62 on: December 08, 2016, 09:13:47 AM »
For fewer than 1000 jobs? Seems like a pretty bad ROI to me.

Well I guess we'll agree to disagree on the break even point on keeping employees and taxes flowing into the United States.

So the solution is for taxpayers to subsidize every factory?
Please note: Libertarian4321 did not vote for either Hillary or Trump. He voted for Gary Johnson, who was the Libertarian candidate.

Kris

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2480
Re: Can We Achieve Universal FI?
« Reply #63 on: December 08, 2016, 09:35:11 AM »
For fewer than 1000 jobs? Seems like a pretty bad ROI to me.

Well I guess we'll agree to disagree on the break even point on keeping employees and taxes flowing into the United States.

So the solution is for taxpayers to subsidize every factory?

I'm no Trump fan, but when he publicly humiliates companies that shift jobs overseas, for every job involved there are probably many other corporations that are intimidated into not even attempting to move jobs overseas.

Huh. See, I think the more likely outcome will be that more companies will threaten to move overseas unless the government gives them some'a that sweet, sweet subsidy money.
Please note: Libertarian4321 did not vote for either Hillary or Trump. He voted for Gary Johnson, who was the Libertarian candidate.

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5311
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: Can We Achieve Universal FI?
« Reply #64 on: December 08, 2016, 09:45:00 AM »
Well, $700 per year per employee... I'd be up for that, assuming that each job's tax liability exceeds that amount.

But even if it doesn't; higher employment rates are usually a good thing, so I'd still argue for the government to advance policies that increase employment; I would imagine that the reduction in public assistance, as well as the tax liability, would be greater than the cost.
Give me one fine day of plain sailing weather and I can mess up anything.

MustacheMathTM

Kris

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2480
Re: Can We Achieve Universal FI?
« Reply #65 on: December 08, 2016, 09:47:21 AM »
Well, $700 per year per employee... I'd be up for that, assuming that each job's tax liability exceeds that amount.

But even if it doesn't; higher employment rates are usually a good thing, so I'd still argue for the government to advance policies that increase employment; I would imagine that the reduction in public assistance, as well as the tax liability, would be greater than the cost.

Okay. So then, if it was good in this instance, should be doing it in every instance? In other words, should our policy now be for the government to provide taxpayer subsidies in the amount of $700 per year per employee to every business that is contemplating moving a factory overseas?
Please note: Libertarian4321 did not vote for either Hillary or Trump. He voted for Gary Johnson, who was the Libertarian candidate.

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5311
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: Can We Achieve Universal FI?
« Reply #66 on: December 08, 2016, 09:58:09 AM »
Of course not. Just because an program is functional in a single instance does not automatically mean it should be applied to all similar instances.
Give me one fine day of plain sailing weather and I can mess up anything.

MustacheMathTM

Kris

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2480
Re: Can We Achieve Universal FI?
« Reply #67 on: December 08, 2016, 10:05:38 AM »
Of course not. Just because an program is functional in a single instance does not automatically mean it should be applied to all similar instances.

Then what made it the right choice in this particular instance? 

Do we know? Other than that it was good PR for Trump?

Because I haven't seen any evidence that it was.
« Last Edit: December 08, 2016, 10:10:23 AM by Kris »
Please note: Libertarian4321 did not vote for either Hillary or Trump. He voted for Gary Johnson, who was the Libertarian candidate.

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5311
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: Can We Achieve Universal FI?
« Reply #68 on: December 08, 2016, 10:17:57 AM »
Of course not. Just because an program is functional in a single instance does not automatically mean it should be applied to all similar instances.

Then what made it the right choice in this particular instance? 

Do we know? Other than that it was good PR for Trump?

Because I haven't seen any evidence that it was.

Well, in my opinion, for $700 per employee, per year (and this is state money, not federal tax dollars, iirc) 1000 American families get to keep their income and benefits, and $16million dollars is pumped into the economy of the state.  It's not a home-run land on the moon win, but if the only downside is good PR for Trump, I'm completely ok with that.

If the argument against it is that it's bad for government to spur industry or subsidize people in general, then that's a different argument than whether or not this particular instance was a positive.
Give me one fine day of plain sailing weather and I can mess up anything.

MustacheMathTM

Kris

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2480
Re: Can We Achieve Universal FI?
« Reply #69 on: December 08, 2016, 10:25:28 AM »
Of course not. Just because an program is functional in a single instance does not automatically mean it should be applied to all similar instances.

Then what made it the right choice in this particular instance? 

Do we know? Other than that it was good PR for Trump?

Because I haven't seen any evidence that it was.

Well, in my opinion, for $700 per employee, per year (and this is state money, not federal tax dollars, iirc) 1000 American families get to keep their income and benefits, and $16million dollars is pumped into the economy of the state.  It's not a home-run land on the moon win, but if the only downside is good PR for Trump, I'm completely ok with that.

If the argument against it is that it's bad for government to spur industry or subsidize people in general, then that's a different argument than whether or not this particular instance was a positive.

But again, from everything you're saying here, I can only conclude that the government should be doing this in almost every case.
Please note: Libertarian4321 did not vote for either Hillary or Trump. He voted for Gary Johnson, who was the Libertarian candidate.

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5311
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: Can We Achieve Universal FI?
« Reply #70 on: December 08, 2016, 10:46:14 AM »
But again, from everything you're saying here, I can only conclude that the government should be doing this in almost every case.

Again, as with the 2009 bail out of the automotive industry; these particular examples seem to have been net positives for the United States.  So while I'm sure there are times it wouldn't be a net positive, I am not seeing any arguments that this particular instance falls into that camp.
Give me one fine day of plain sailing weather and I can mess up anything.

MustacheMathTM

Kris

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2480
Re: Can We Achieve Universal FI?
« Reply #71 on: December 08, 2016, 11:05:27 AM »
But again, from everything you're saying here, I can only conclude that the government should be doing this in almost every case.

Again, as with the 2009 bail out of the automotive industry; these particular examples seem to have been net positives for the United States.  So while I'm sure there are times it wouldn't be a net positive, I am not seeing any arguments that this particular instance falls into that camp.

Interesting. And yet most of what I'm seeing seems to indicate this is more of a PR gain for Trump than anything. And that's not just "left-leaning" sources.

http://www.businessinsider.com/trump-carrier-deal-wall-street-journal-2016-12
Please note: Libertarian4321 did not vote for either Hillary or Trump. He voted for Gary Johnson, who was the Libertarian candidate.

Malum Prohibitum

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 666
Re: Can We Achieve Universal FI?
« Reply #72 on: December 08, 2016, 11:26:01 AM »
If everyone got $12k extra per year from the government and no other changes happens then you would see a long term trend of price increases for goods / services until the $12k is absorbed by the economy, leaving you back at square one.

If everyone got $12k extra per year from the government but $12k was taken away by either ending social welfare programs then there would be a negligible change to the current situation.

If everyone got $12k per year from the government, artificial intelligence is invented, and robots perform all manual labor jobs, then over time more people will transition into engineering jobs to replace the manual labor jobs, as someone will need to take care of the robots, and there would be LOTS of engineering jobs due to the complexity of the HW / SW problem that artificial intelligence represents.

If everyone got $12k per year from the government and the government provided all necessary food, shelter, and jobs, then we would have a repeat of Communist Russia where the majority have a decline in standard of living and a few politically connected individuals would loot the country.

If somehow all of these problems are solved with Universal FI, I believe that society would be a chaotic hellscape as most people if given the choice would not work at all and sit on their couch playing iphone games (at least until their cell phone breaks and no one is able to fix it).

I don't think Universal FI is possible.

I a glad somebody finally injected a dose of reality into this conversation.  Thanks.

shenlong55

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 129
  • Age: 35
  • Location: Kentucky
Re: Can We Achieve Universal FI?
« Reply #73 on: December 08, 2016, 11:42:02 AM »
I a glad somebody finally injected a dose of reality into this conversation.  Thanks.

I wouldn't really call that reality...

If everyone got $12k extra per year from the government and no other changes happens then you would see a long term trend of price increases for goods / services until the $12k is absorbed by the economy, leaving you back at square one.

Not sure anyone has called for this, it's definitely not what I would do.

If everyone got $12k extra per year from the government but $12k was taken away by either ending social welfare programs then there would be a negligible change to the current situation.

This assumes that exactly $12k of spending would be removed to match exactly $12k of new spending.  It fails to acknowledge even the most basic advantage of UBI, less bureaucracy.

If everyone got $12k per year from the government, artificial intelligence is invented, and robots perform all manual labor jobs, then over time more people will transition into engineering jobs to replace the manual labor jobs, as someone will need to take care of the robots, and there would be LOTS of engineering jobs due to the complexity of the HW / SW problem that artificial intelligence represents.

This assumes robots cannot be engineers.

If everyone got $12k per year from the government and the government provided all necessary food, shelter, and jobs, then we would have a repeat of Communist Russia where the majority have a decline in standard of living and a few politically connected individuals would loot the country.

See first response.

If somehow all of these problems are solved with Universal FI, I believe that society would be a chaotic hellscape as most people if given the choice would not work at all and sit on their couch playing iphone games (at least until their cell phone breaks and no one is able to fix it).

I don't think Universal FI is possible.

Completely disagree with this conclusion.  I think most people have things that they're passionate about that they would do if they weren't pre-occupied with survival.
« Last Edit: December 08, 2016, 11:51:24 AM by shenlong55 »

kayvent

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 520
  • Location: Canada
Re: Can We Achieve Universal FI?
« Reply #74 on: December 08, 2016, 12:31:58 PM »
If everyone got $12k extra per year from the government but $12k was taken away by either ending social welfare programs then there would be a negligible change to the current situation.

This assumes that exactly $12k of spending would be removed to match exactly $12k of new spending.  It fails to acknowledge even the most basic advantage of UBI, less bureaucracy.

When I hear people from the right argue for a universal basic income, I imagine two different camps. One camp being the pragmatists that say "We're giving people money anyway through a patchwork of piecemeal programs. Might as well unify the programs and make it easier for people." Then the other group I imagine are those who hear that they get to layoff large swaths of bureaucrats and that alone is the only argument they need.

I fall into the first camp. I make a good salary yet still the Canadian government feels that they should give me over a thousand dollars a month through programs like CCB, previously had UCCB and CCTB, a bit of a GST/HST rebate every few months, tax write-off for having a kid, no tax penalty for being single, tax credits for contributing to an RRSP, previously had a daycare subsidy, tax credits to help pay for childcare expenses, and a few other programs. I like Trudeau but he can't buy my love like this; it's terrifying how many boutique programs there are. Just the madness of the breadth of them makes me in favour of UBI.

shelivesthedream

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2159
  • Location: UK
Re: Can We Achieve Universal FI?
« Reply #75 on: December 08, 2016, 12:39:27 PM »
Because computers now exist...? Register your bank details and get an automated monthly deposit? No one would agree on a system that requires you to stand in line for actual cash. Agreed that the lifestyle to be supported and the amount required might be contentious, but you don't have to wait in line at the Post Office to get your old age pension any more. Obviously it would all be digital/automated.
not everyone has a bank account... the is more likely for the poorest in society, the ones who this fabled UBI would benefit the most. Or does bi only matter when you benefit from it?

They dont have to agree to it, they just have to stand in line for it. Americans stand in line everyday, at the coffee store, at the bus stop, in their cars when they drive behind the car in front of them, when they go voting, even the DMV has a line...

You make America sound like the third world. Really. I cannot believe that you're making "not everyone has a bank account" into a serious objection. Here in the UK, less than 5% of people don't have bank accounts, and this figure has fallen massively from 22% in 2000, and IMO we can expect it to keep dropping until it's near zero. Computerisation has led to the cost of providing banking services decreasing enormously, and in 2000 banks were obliged to provide a 'basic bank account'. (You can find out more about what that is here: http://www.moneysavingexpert.com/banking/basic-bank-accounts but basically anyone can open one and it has no initial fees and basic services like direct debits, a debit card and getting cash out.) So at least in the UK, no problem for digitally transferring UBI to a bank account because anyone who doesn't currently have one can walk into any high street bank and open one free of charge.

Also, there is a huge difference between queueing being necessary for physical things to be transferred from one place to another ("at the coffee store, at the bus stop, in their cars when they drive behind the car in front of them") and for things which can be done on a computer with no physical presence required (our DVLA, the UK equivalent to the DMV, allows you to do everything online or by post). Part of the rationale behind UBI is that automation is making a large number of jobs redundant - UBI basically embraces that idea and says "Hey, no problem! You don't need a job to get money any more because the machines will do it for us!" If we live in that kind of world, making UBI a digital bank transfer rather than wads of used fivers to be collected every day from some centralised bureaucratic control point will be a piece of cake.

Furthermore, once UBI was introduced, "the poorest" wouldn't be cripplingly broke any more. I'm not saying UBI doesn't have big problems (see my post upthread), but "poor people are too poor to have a bank account so they won't be able to collect UBI" is a really pathetic argument. Seriously, if we can work out how to introduce UBI, I'm sure we can work out how to provide the most basic banking services (deposit money, withdraw money) to everyone to avoid USSR-style queueing.

Quote
Make it a miserable experience to collect ubi, they will find working a job to be "easier" money and not dependent on ubi. When congress want people who get food stamp to pass drug tests, who are you to say "make it easy" to collect welfare?

I'm really unclear on the scenario you're imagining where the government proposes UBI, the country as a whole votes in favour of UBI, the government happily passes laws to enact UBI, and then suddenly everyone wants to make it really cumbersome and bureaucratic to get. Why would a government ever pass a law to enact UBI (one of whose main principles is a reduction in the bureaucracy compared to current means-tested welfare systems) and then immediately put in place a similar level of bureaucracy? The whole point of UBI is that EVERYONE gets it, so it's NOT welfare, so it's in EVERYONE'S interest to make it simple to receive and administrate.

shenlong55

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 129
  • Age: 35
  • Location: Kentucky
Re: Can We Achieve Universal FI?
« Reply #76 on: December 08, 2016, 12:57:37 PM »
Some kinds of work is not fun and you can't be passionate about.  I don't know many people who would want to clean toilets for free.

That's why we need a combination of capitalism and socialism until we get to that robot revolution.  A UBI that only provides for the basic necessities still leaves people wanting more stuff which means we can still incentive them to do those jobs that nobody wants to do.  We just have to pay them more, which actually makes a lot of sense to me.  Why should I get paid massive amounts of money for doing what I love (writing code) while the person with the crappy job gets minimum wage.  I already have incentive to do what I love, I don't need any more.  Let's incentive those people who have to do the jobs that nobody wants to do.

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5311
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: Can We Achieve Universal FI?
« Reply #77 on: December 08, 2016, 01:14:26 PM »
But again, from everything you're saying here, I can only conclude that the government should be doing this in almost every case.

Again, as with the 2009 bail out of the automotive industry; these particular examples seem to have been net positives for the United States.  So while I'm sure there are times it wouldn't be a net positive, I am not seeing any arguments that this particular instance falls into that camp.

Interesting. And yet most of what I'm seeing seems to indicate this is more of a PR gain for Trump than anything. And that's not just "left-leaning" sources.

http://www.businessinsider.com/trump-carrier-deal-wall-street-journal-2016-12

All that source claims is that the precedent is bad. It says nothing about this particular deal being a good or bad deal, only that the overall policy of doing so often would be unwise. I don't see anything that argues this deal is bad because it will actually hurt the economy or the budget of the state or the union or the company etc.
Give me one fine day of plain sailing weather and I can mess up anything.

MustacheMathTM

Kris

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2480
Re: Can We Achieve Universal FI?
« Reply #78 on: December 08, 2016, 01:21:43 PM »
But again, from everything you're saying here, I can only conclude that the government should be doing this in almost every case.

Again, as with the 2009 bail out of the automotive industry; these particular examples seem to have been net positives for the United States.  So while I'm sure there are times it wouldn't be a net positive, I am not seeing any arguments that this particular instance falls into that camp.

Interesting. And yet most of what I'm seeing seems to indicate this is more of a PR gain for Trump than anything. And that's not just "left-leaning" sources.

http://www.businessinsider.com/trump-carrier-deal-wall-street-journal-2016-12

All that source claims is that the precedent is bad. It says nothing about this particular deal being a good or bad deal, only that the overall policy of doing so often would be unwise. I don't see anything that argues this deal is bad because it will actually hurt the economy or the budget of the state or the union or the company etc.

I beg to differ.

The WSJ called the deal a "shakedown."

It says it was an example of interference in the private economy, and suggests that it's an example of "forcing companies to make noneconomic investments."

I can't see how that's not arguing it will hurt the economy.

Here is another column, this time from the Washington Post.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/12/02/why-trumps-carrier-deal-is-bad-for-america/
« Last Edit: December 08, 2016, 01:24:16 PM by Kris »
Please note: Libertarian4321 did not vote for either Hillary or Trump. He voted for Gary Johnson, who was the Libertarian candidate.

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5311
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: Can We Achieve Universal FI?
« Reply #79 on: December 08, 2016, 02:17:37 PM »
I beg to differ.

The WSJ called the deal a "shakedown."

It says it was an example of interference in the private economy, and suggests that it's an example of "forcing companies to make noneconomic investments."

I can't see how that's not arguing it will hurt the economy.

Here is another column, this time from the Washington Post.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/12/02/why-trumps-carrier-deal-is-bad-for-america/

I guess I would argue that the company was not forced, though of course we don't know all the details. The WAPO hints as much as well, without offering any proof.  So again, I feel this argument is that "actions such as these could be bad for the economy" not that "this one is bad because Carrier is now economically disadvantaged by high labor costs" (or whatever).

I mean, I see the reasoning behind the arguments, but feel they fail to back up their assertions. It seems that it mostly comes to "This is bad because Trump did it, and under completely different hypothetical circumstances it could be really bad."

Also any article that states "any country 2/3rds as wealthy as America" doesn't rate very highly in my book; a quick scan of global GDPs show that there is not a single country on earth that is even 2/3rds as wealthy as the United States, using that metric. But that doesn't back up my argument, of course, merely questions the analytical capacity of sources that disagree with me.
Give me one fine day of plain sailing weather and I can mess up anything.

MustacheMathTM

Financial.Velociraptor

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 975
  • Age: 45
  • Location: Houston TX
  • Devour your prey raptors!
    • Financial Velociraptor
Achieve Financial Escape Velocity - Financial Velociraptor

Classical_Liberal

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 738
  • Age: 41
Re: Can We Achieve Universal FI?
« Reply #81 on: December 09, 2016, 03:55:23 PM »
On topic: https://finance.yahoo.com/news/give-poor-money-directly-and-they-dont-spend-it-on-alcohol-and-cigarettes-135858208.html

Very pertinent to one of my major concerns, thanks F.V.

Of course I would like to see the actual study to be convinced the conclusions are legit.  It does creates hope that my concern is unwarranted, or at least limited in scope. 

Financial.Velociraptor

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 975
  • Age: 45
  • Location: Houston TX
  • Devour your prey raptors!
    • Financial Velociraptor
Achieve Financial Escape Velocity - Financial Velociraptor

Libertea

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 363
  • Age: 42
  • Location: USA
Re: Can We Achieve Universal FI?
« Reply #83 on: December 12, 2016, 05:52:26 AM »
I honestly believe that the left would embrace UBI fairly quickly. I certainly can't see any argument against giving every individual a UBI, indexed to inflation. It would probably reduce or eliminate the need for a great many programs that already serve, badly, the neediest among us. Given that most of the arguments I see against it seem to come from people on the right, who view this idea as another "nanny state" policy -- akin to socialism -- I think you might be somewhat mistaken. I can't find many people on the right these days, either in the general population or in the political class, who have expressed any support for such an idea.
There are multiple libertarian thinkers who support the idea, in large part because it would basically eliminate much of the current bureaucratic mess now in place to administer the current social welfare programs.  From a libertarian perspective, it would also maximize personal freedom and individual choice to administer the money this way: everyone would get it (no means testing, so no need to try to manipulate the system via loopholes or argue about who is "deserving," since we're all getting our equal share), and the government would not be putting stipulations, conditions, or otherwise influencing what people chose to do with their money.  Considering that minimizing government coercion and maximizing personal freedom is so important to libertarians, UBI makes a lot of sense.

kayvent

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 520
  • Location: Canada
Re: Can We Achieve Universal FI?
« Reply #84 on: December 12, 2016, 01:07:07 PM »
I honestly believe that the left would embrace UBI fairly quickly. I certainly can't see any argument against giving every individual a UBI, indexed to inflation. It would probably reduce or eliminate the need for a great many programs that already serve, badly, the neediest among us. Given that most of the arguments I see against it seem to come from people on the right, who view this idea as another "nanny state" policy -- akin to socialism -- I think you might be somewhat mistaken. I can't find many people on the right these days, either in the general population or in the political class, who have expressed any support for such an idea.
There are multiple libertarian thinkers who support the idea, in large part because it would basically eliminate much of the current bureaucratic mess now in place to administer the current social welfare programs.  From a libertarian perspective, it would also maximize personal freedom and individual choice to administer the money this way: everyone would get it (no means testing, so no need to try to manipulate the system via loopholes or argue about who is "deserving," since we're all getting our equal share), and the government would not be putting stipulations, conditions, or otherwise influencing what people chose to do with their money.  Considering that minimizing government coercion and maximizing personal freedom is so important to libertarians, UBI makes a lot of sense.

Funny thing is that when I talk about UBI at work, my more liberal colleagues are the ones most likely to be anti-UBI.

shenlong55

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 129
  • Age: 35
  • Location: Kentucky
Re: Can We Achieve Universal FI?
« Reply #85 on: December 12, 2016, 01:38:23 PM »
I honestly believe that the left would embrace UBI fairly quickly. I certainly can't see any argument against giving every individual a UBI, indexed to inflation. It would probably reduce or eliminate the need for a great many programs that already serve, badly, the neediest among us. Given that most of the arguments I see against it seem to come from people on the right, who view this idea as another "nanny state" policy -- akin to socialism -- I think you might be somewhat mistaken. I can't find many people on the right these days, either in the general population or in the political class, who have expressed any support for such an idea.
There are multiple libertarian thinkers who support the idea, in large part because it would basically eliminate much of the current bureaucratic mess now in place to administer the current social welfare programs.  From a libertarian perspective, it would also maximize personal freedom and individual choice to administer the money this way: everyone would get it (no means testing, so no need to try to manipulate the system via loopholes or argue about who is "deserving," since we're all getting our equal share), and the government would not be putting stipulations, conditions, or otherwise influencing what people chose to do with their money.  Considering that minimizing government coercion and maximizing personal freedom is so important to libertarians, UBI makes a lot of sense.

Funny thing is that when I talk about UBI at work, my more liberal colleagues are the ones most likely to be anti-UBI.

I would be very interested to hear their reasoning.

shelivesthedream

  • Handlebar Stache
  • *****
  • Posts: 2159
  • Location: UK
Re: Can We Achieve Universal FI?
« Reply #86 on: December 13, 2016, 01:48:03 AM »
In my experience, "liberals" are often liberal until someone wants to do something they dislike or disagree with. I wouldn't call myself a liberal/libertarian exactly, but I have a lot of respect for someone who genuinely believes in personal liberty for all, even when it results in others doing "wrong" thins with their liberty.

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5311
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: Can We Achieve Universal FI?
« Reply #87 on: December 13, 2016, 03:32:12 AM »
In my experience, "liberals" are often liberal until someone wants to do something they dislike or disagree with. I wouldn't call myself a liberal/libertarian exactly, but I have a lot of respect for someone who genuinely believes in personal liberty for all, even when it results in others doing "wrong" thins with their liberty.

+100
Give me one fine day of plain sailing weather and I can mess up anything.

MustacheMathTM

kayvent

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 520
  • Location: Canada
Re: Can We Achieve Universal FI?
« Reply #88 on: December 13, 2016, 05:15:07 AM »
Funny thing is that when I talk about UBI at work, my more liberal colleagues are the ones most likely to be anti-UBI.

I would be very interested to hear their reasoning.

A lot of liberals that I know (on the internet, in RL, and watching through media) consider themselves the struggling middle or poor class. Even if they make 2x or more the comparable median household income on a single income. With a UBI, theoretically, the tax brackets rise accordingly so that well-off people don't really benefit from it (i.e. someone making 100K would still get 20K in UBI payments but would pay at least 20K more in taxes).

Many people I know wouldn't benefit in the short-term from UBI in the above implementation because they make over the median household income. The complaint I hear is that; they'd still have to work to maintain their standard of living while others wouldn't.

shenlong55

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 129
  • Age: 35
  • Location: Kentucky
Re: Can We Achieve Universal FI?
« Reply #89 on: December 13, 2016, 07:02:29 AM »
Funny thing is that when I talk about UBI at work, my more liberal colleagues are the ones most likely to be anti-UBI.

I would be very interested to hear their reasoning.

A lot of liberals that I know (on the internet, in RL, and watching through media) consider themselves the struggling middle or poor class. Even if they make 2x or more the comparable median household income on a single income. With a UBI, theoretically, the tax brackets rise accordingly so that well-off people don't really benefit from it (i.e. someone making 100K would still get 20K in UBI payments but would pay at least 20K more in taxes).

Many people I know wouldn't benefit in the short-term from UBI in the above implementation because they make over the median household income. The complaint I hear is that; they'd still have to work to maintain their standard of living while others wouldn't.

Ah, I see...  That is...  Disappointing... 

CorpRaider

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 213
Re: Can We Achieve Universal FI?
« Reply #90 on: December 13, 2016, 07:04:37 AM »
Didn't Lord Keynes postulate that this would happen like what 70 years ago?

StarBright

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 868
Re: Can We Achieve Universal FI?
« Reply #91 on: December 13, 2016, 08:05:22 AM »
Of course not. Just because an program is functional in a single instance does not automatically mean it should be applied to all similar instances.

Then what made it the right choice in this particular instance? 

Do we know? Other than that it was good PR for Trump?

Because I haven't seen any evidence that it was.

Well, in my opinion, for $700 per employee, per year (and this is state money, not federal tax dollars, iirc) 1000 American families get to keep their income and benefits, and $16million dollars is pumped into the economy of the state.  It's not a home-run land on the moon win, but if the only downside is good PR for Trump, I'm completely ok with that.

If the argument against it is that it's bad for government to spur industry or subsidize people in general, then that's a different argument than whether or not this particular instance was a positive.

To what I bolded above - don't forget that a chunk of that 16 million is actually being used to increase automation so ultimately will not be pumped into the state in the form of wages but will eventually cost the "saved" jobs.

Knaak

  • Bristles
  • ***
  • Posts: 403
Re: Can We Achieve Universal FI?
« Reply #92 on: December 13, 2016, 08:45:00 AM »
Didn't Lord Keynes postulate that this would happen like what 70 years ago?

86 years ago.  In 1930 he predicted a 15 hour workweek by the end of the century while still increasing our living standards.  Turns out the real number was significantly lower.  According to this MIT article from 2000, "[a]n average worker needs to work a mere 11 hours per week to produce as much as one working 40 hours per week in 1950."  Given the extra productivity gains from Keynes' prediction in 1930 until 1950, we would have been in the single digit work hours by 2000.  And with the productivity gains between 2000 and now, we should be at zero.  Instead, people pursued more stuff instead of more free time and society adapted by creating a bunch of Bullshit Jobs.

And Keynes wasn't the only one from the 1930s that predicted a huge drop in labor hours.  Bertrand Russell wrote In Praise of Idleness in 1932 where he suggested a four hour workweek would have been sufficient (long before Tim Ferriss!):

Quote
If, at the end of the war, the scientific organization, which had been created in order to liberate men for fighting and munition work, had been preserved, and the hours of the week had been cut down to four, all would have been well. Instead of that the old chaos was restored, those whose work was demanded were made to work long hours, and the rest were left to starve as unemployed. Why? Because work is a duty, and a man should not receive wages in proportion to what he has produced, but in proportion to his virtue as exemplified by his industry.

Watchmaker

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 154
Re: Can We Achieve Universal FI?
« Reply #93 on: December 13, 2016, 09:02:37 AM »
If everyone got $12k per year from the government, artificial intelligence is invented, and robots perform all manual labor jobs, then over time more people will transition into engineering jobs to replace the manual labor jobs, as someone will need to take care of the robots, and there would be LOTS of engineering jobs due to the complexity of the HW / SW problem that artificial intelligence represents.

As was mentioned above, you're assuming robots can't become engineers for some reason.  But even if they can't, do you really believe that the number of engineering jobs created would be close to the number of jobs lost?  What about all the people who can't get a job in engineering?

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5311
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: Can We Achieve Universal FI?
« Reply #94 on: December 13, 2016, 09:13:41 AM »
To what I bolded above - don't forget that a chunk of that 16 million is actually being used to increase automation so ultimately will not be pumped into the state in the form of wages but will eventually cost the "saved" jobs.

This has already been covered. Do you propose that getting rid of those jobs immediately, shutting down the factory and not investing in it is superior for the American economy than letting those jobs hang on as long as possible, updating the factory and continuing to produce the goods in, and ship them from, America, even with greatly reduced job numbers (that were going away no matter what).
Give me one fine day of plain sailing weather and I can mess up anything.

MustacheMathTM

Classical_Liberal

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 738
  • Age: 41
Re: Can We Achieve Universal FI?
« Reply #95 on: December 13, 2016, 09:50:53 AM »
Didn't Lord Keynes postulate that this would happen like what 70 years ago?

I've brought this point up many times in similar threads before.  For this to work, people have to consume and live like their grandparents (or great-grand for you young'ens) did. That means one household car, kids sharing rooms & one household bathroom, no extravagant all-inclusive vacations at peak times of year, maybe growing some of your own food, etc...  The horrors! 

StarBright

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 868
Re: Can We Achieve Universal FI?
« Reply #96 on: December 13, 2016, 10:56:00 AM »
To what I bolded above - don't forget that a chunk of that 16 million is actually being used to increase automation so ultimately will not be pumped into the state in the form of wages but will eventually cost the "saved" jobs.

This has already been covered. Do you propose that getting rid of those jobs immediately, shutting down the factory and not investing in it is superior for the American economy than letting those jobs hang on as long as possible, updating the factory and continuing to produce the goods in, and ship them from, America, even with greatly reduced job numbers (that were going away no matter what).

Sorry- I looked for that point elsewhere in the thread but must have missed it!

I honestly don't know if it was worth the tax breaks to save a portion of the jobs (which will eventually be lost). I grew up on the west side of Indianapolis where most of the factories,warehouses and airport are located. Indy keeps giving companies breaks on taxes to locate/remain there, but they often produce suboptimal jobs and because of the tax deals there is little to no tax base for schools and roads - creating a pretty vicious cycle of undereducated workers who take the jobs that pay increasingly less.

I know because I have lots of old high school buddies who are working for carrier, rexnord, allison transmision, the amazon warehouse, Fedex, etc. and my HS guidance counselor actively discouraged me from applying to out of state universities but told me I could "make it to management someday" at Fedex. I want better for my old stomping grounds than 10-14 an hour jobs and sh*tty schools.

Also- my understanding , from friends that work at/or have relations who work at Carrier is that the top tier jobs (Carrier has two tiers - 14$ an hour and $26 an hour) are going to have to renegotiate anyway and some of them are still losing their jobs in 2017. Essentially some people are now on 2021 lay off schedule instead of a 2019 layoff schedule and it is possible that they'll have lower wages/higher insurance costs than they would have had otherwise.

To bring this back to the topic at hand - I suppose that is why I'm in favor of UBI. No one in the US can compete with $3 an hour workers in Mexico.
« Last Edit: December 13, 2016, 11:06:09 AM by StarBright »

Metric Mouse

  • Walrus Stache
  • *******
  • Posts: 5311
  • FU @ 22. F.I.R.E before 23
Re: Can We Achieve Universal FI?
« Reply #97 on: December 13, 2016, 11:08:31 AM »
To bring this back to the topic at hand - I suppose that is why I'm in favor of UBI. No one in the US can compete with $3 an hour workers in Mexico.

Agreed. And everyone wants better jobs and more tax revenue for their areas. And UBI would be preferable for everyone.  But until then, as was covered up thread, for $700/year/job, the state is getting $28,000/year/job of taxable income. Plus $1.6 million per year of factory upgrades. Not a bad return on investment. 

Sorry that those jobs are going away in your area, but at leas this deal will allow 1,000 local families another decade to adjust to changing employment conditions.
Give me one fine day of plain sailing weather and I can mess up anything.

MustacheMathTM

Malum Prohibitum

  • Pencil Stache
  • ****
  • Posts: 666
Re: Can We Achieve Universal FI?
« Reply #98 on: December 13, 2016, 01:19:47 PM »
Is a UBI scheme not inflationary?  Serious question.

shenlong55

  • Stubble
  • **
  • Posts: 129
  • Age: 35
  • Location: Kentucky
Re: Can We Achieve Universal FI?
« Reply #99 on: December 13, 2016, 01:42:11 PM »
Is a UBI scheme not inflationary?  Serious question.

No more so than any other way that we inject money into the economy (welfare, quantitative easing, etc...) and it could be similarly balanced by policies that remove money from the economy (taxes, quantitative tightening, etc...).