$1000/month Universal Basic Income - Andrew Yang

[maizefolk]

And the reason I don't agree with your inconclusive evidence is because the burden of proof is on you, as the statement that 'jobs are not going to be available to everyone' is contrary to fundamental economics and recorded history (this isn't to say that there haven't been disruptive spells of unemployment).

I disagree with your assertion that the supply of labor exceeding demand violates anything fundamental about our understanding of economics. Would you be willing to show your work on this how you got to this point?

Supply can exceed demand for all sorts of things, from onions to oil drilled rigs. In most cases, what happens when supply exceeds demand is that the price drops until demand increases. But sometimes no matter how much you drop the price, you cannot create enough demand.* In the case of commodities, in the short term you see a lot of storage for nonperishables (oil or iron or what have you) and a lot of destroyed goods in the case of perishables (farmers burning their crops, onions being dumped in the chicago river. But if the situation continues, you see the capacity to supply the product start to be destroyed. Onion farms go bankrupt and close down. Oil drilling ships are repossessed and, if prices stay low enough for long enough, broken up and sold for scrap.

The destruction of the capacity to supply human labor is people starving in the streets.

*There is a strong and a weak version of this statement. The strong case is "even at zero, you cannot get enough demand to purchase all of the supply." That's what is happening right now with recycling in the USA. It used to have a non-zero value, but demand dropped precipitously -- the result of changed laws in China -- and now in many cases you cannot even give it away. The weak version of this statement is that "no matter how far you drop the price (down to the cost of production), there isn't enough demand to soak up the available supply." This is the version which applies to human labor, since if the value of labor drops below the cost of food and shelter, we have a serious problem EVEN IF there is still enough demand for human labor at a price point below what it costs to keep a human alive.

Now let's talk about the burden of proof. If I wanted to say "jobs are going away" the burden of proof is certainly on me. Have I proved beyond any reasonable doubt that this prediction is true? No absolutely not. I have some suggestive evidence and trends, but nothing close to a conclusive argument.

However you have repeatedly stated that there will always be jobs and that this is somehow a fundamental rule of economics/history/what-have-you. And when you make statements like that, particularly ones you admit are motivated by belief rather than reasoning or evidence, the burden of proof is most assuredly on you. Because I'm arguing for "nothing conclusive but this sure seems suggestive enough we should be worried" and you're arguing for "this is a fundamental principle than can never be violated because I believe it to be so."

Obviously there are lots of differences in the grand scheme of things between work and getting paid. But for each of your examples, you can tie things together with the value added by work: the cabin was built and no money was exchanged, but presumably you could now sell it and be compensated for your work (or you have imputed rent); the firefighters are protecting lots of property owned throughout their community, and the replacement costs for that property would require a lot of work; with stocks you are paying other people to work for you in order to provide you with more capital; and for Alaskans, I'd have to agree with you that it is almost completely unrelated to work and more related to the suckiness of living in Alaska (I wanted to live in Alaska as a child, but alas that strange desire has passed).

So you would agree that folks on a UBI, who would continue to maintain or improve their homes, volunteer at hospitals and fire fighting companies, would indeed be working even if they weren't being paid to do so?

[LennStar]

And yes, a generous UBI would degrade some of our earned worth, which is why I don't support a generous UBI.

What's the point of working hard to leanFIRE/FIRE by 35 if a UBI comes in and gives everyone an unconditional leanFIRE/FIRE lifestyle?

You could say the point is that you don't need to work hard until 35 to reach that point, and can start doing meaningful work from 15 on.

The way you state this is just screaming the same egoistic sentiment I wrote above about the beggar: Why should HE get something for free that I had to struggle to get?

Of course, if we state this about the difference of poor and rich households, it is not egoistic but justice! He has rich parents, he has the right to the money!!

as being poor isn't an inherited trait.

No, it is an inherited condition, as is richness. And, interesting from a pschological point, the non-acceptance of this fact is proportional to the amont of money you have. (On average of course.)

[Bloop Bloop]

And yes, a generous UBI would degrade some of our earned worth, which is why I don't support a generous UBI.

What's the point of working hard to leanFIRE/FIRE by 35 if a UBI comes in and gives everyone an unconditional leanFIRE/FIRE lifestyle?

You could say the point is that you don't need to work hard until 35 to reach that point, and can start doing meaningful work from 15 on.

The way you state this is just screaming the same egoistic sentiment I wrote above about the beggar: Why should HE get something for free that I had to struggle to get?

Of course, if we state this about the difference of poor and rich households, it is not egoistic but justice! He has rich parents, he has the right to the money!!

as being poor isn't an inherited trait.

No, it is an inherited condition, as is richness. And, interesting from a pschological point, the non-acceptance of this fact is proportional to the amont of money you have. (On average of course.)

I suppose your mindset works if you think that children are as rich, or poor, as their parents, and there is no such thing as social mobility. But if you have a look at Harvard and Yale you will see a lot of bright students, soon to be rich, who come from migrant families that either are poor, or 1/2 a generation ago were poor. Those are the exemplars of the American dream.

[LennStar]

I suppose your mindset works if you think that children are as rich, or poor, as their parents, and there is no such thing as social mobility. But if you have a look at Harvard and Yale you will see a lot of bright students, soon to be rich, who come from migrant families that either are poor, or 1/2 a generation ago were poor. Those are the exemplars of the American dream.

Of course there is social mobility. But not as much as there should be, especially in the US.

And that has nothing to do with the fact that yes, poorness and richness are inherited.
btw. Immigrants or Blacks in Harvard and Yale are a great example of bias, on several levels and both sides. But that is a different story.   

[partgypsy]

yes. Most studies show that socieconomic mobility in the US has either stagnated or decreased, and economic disparities are increasing. We have less social mobility than many comparable nations (Canada has more social mobility than we do). So while Americans believe in the American dream, statistics don't back it up.

The whole, a poor student got into Harvard is like the exception that proves the rule, because poor or working class families kids getting into these schools is the minority, even though the vast majority of people are not wealthy.
I find the idea of universal basic income, an attractive idea. Because right now we have a patchwork of things to try prevent people falling through safety nets, such as welfare, food stamps, subsidized housing, each of them means tested, complicated rules and forms, etc. Just to even get those benefits requires enough initiative and help to get through that and people's statuses are constantly changing.

In addition to this, I think there should be some level of universal health coverage via the government. This would cut out a huge amount of beaucracy and middleman, allow people to be in charge of their own lives without all this micromanaging.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socioeconomic_mobility_in_the_United_States

[Boofinator]

Now let's talk about the burden of proof. If I wanted to say "jobs are going away" the burden of proof is certainly on me. Have I proved beyond any reasonable doubt that this prediction is true? No absolutely not. I have some suggestive evidence and trends, but nothing close to a conclusive argument.

However you have repeatedly stated that there will always be jobs and that this is somehow a fundamental rule of economics/history/what-have-you. And when you make statements like that, particularly ones you admit are motivated by belief rather than reasoning or evidence, the burden of proof is most assuredly on you. Because I'm arguing for "nothing conclusive but this sure seems suggestive enough we should be worried" and you're arguing for "this is a fundamental principle than can never be violated because I believe it to be so."

I feel like this is getting nowhere. You seem to be the one predicating your position on a belief when all of the evidence I've observed and shared is to the contrary (other than the evidence one has to squint at while tilting their head to come to the conclusion you're advocating). Meanwhile I use the word 'belief' one time and you jump on that as if my position is any less phantasmagorical than yours.

So you would agree that folks on a UBI, who would continue to maintain or improve their homes, volunteer at hospitals and fire fighting companies, would indeed be working even if they weren't being paid to do so?

Sure. Productive societies exist because people fulfill needs (and wants) of other people. That being said, we are contemplating whether or not UBI would be a net positive for society. Let's break society up into three groups: 1) People who are working and already making decent money will not stop working, and UBI will have minimal effect on their day-to-day lives, so no change there. 2) Hard-working people at the lower rungs of society would continue to work in order to improve their families' lots, so again I wouldn't see much change other than a possible improvement in their standard of living, though this could also be accomplished by more progressive taxation. 3) People not inclined to work will now have a good reason not to even try, which I believe would be a bad outcome for society. It is this third group of people I am concerned about making socially irrelevant by making for them the excuse that "there are no jobs available, so I need my UBI".

As for your supply and demand argument, you are conflating human capital with commodities. But let's take your position at face value, that a significant proportion of people will not be able to obtain jobs (and let's assume a minimum wage that allows for meeting basic needs). If this is true, the logical corollary is that these people are useless to society. They have absolutely nothing of value to provide, so let's take care of them like we take care of the sick and infirm. Is this what you truly believe?

[partgypsy]

Hmm. It is true, that it would be a big "experiment" what would people do? I would argue that 1K a month would not be a particularly luxurious way of living, be more like 700-800 a month given taxes etc needed to fund this kind of shift. The vast majority of people would not be happy or comfortable living like that, and would continue to work.

In personal cases that I know of: a parent wouldn't have to be 100% responsible for a deadbeat son or daughter. They could move out and that parent could have their life back. Or if they were OK with adult child living with them, at least it would not be such a financial hardship. A single Mom who is a teacher; can actually afford to get a babysitter or have enough resources she is not exhausted.
Great teachers will not flee the teaching profession because of the pay.
I know many people in the music and arts. They stick with it and do it because it is their life, even though it means huge sacrifices and often living below poverty level. Now they can contribute to society in that way, AND say, afford to go to the dentist.

The big downside is that there are crappy near minimal wage jobs, that are going to be even less desirable given a ubi. Demand for their jobs will decrease so it will be harder finding positions for those. I'm not sure the long term implications of that, since many of those jobs are still kind of necessary. immigrants, prisoners, robots (but some jobs like assistants in nursing homes, can't be done by any of those options).

So while I think the idea is attractive, I still think man made climate change is the biggest issue, and if we could pick only 1 big thing to tackle, it would be that and universal health care. 

[maizefolk]

I use the word 'belief' one time and you jump on that as if my position is any less phantasmagorical than yours.

Now that you've admitted your positions in this thread have become "phantasmagorical"* we're definitely making progress.

For example, I note you've dropped your argument that there not being enough jobs that people are actually qualified to do would violate some fundamental rule of economics (and that therefore there is not point in explaining HOW such an outcome would violate a fundamental rule of economics.

My emphasis on you admitting your views on the future of work are motivated by fundamental beliefs rather than logic or reasoning is because prior to you bringing that up, I really couldn't understand how we were failing to communicate so spectacularly. In the light of the very different places I now know we are coming from, all that prior confusion now makes a lot more sense.

I don't have a horse in this race and make predictions about what I think might happen in the future. They could clearly be wrong, but I do try to cite my sources and explain what data and reasoning I am using. You clearly do have a horse in the race and make lots of absolute statements about what will happen and how people WILL behave under future, unobserved, scenarios (all the (admittedly imperfect) studies and data we have to the contrary).

To be clear, I realize I'm not going to get you to abandon your closely held beliefs about the way the world works. I just want to make sure that others don't end up in the same confusing position I was in previously, before you explained more about how you came to hold your stated views.

*"having a fantastic or deceptive appearance, as something in a dream or created by the imagination. having the appearance of an optical illusion, especially one produced by a magic lantern. changing or shifting, as a scene made up of many elements."

[Boofinator]

I don't have a horse in this race.... You clearly do have a horse in the race....

I'm not going to call you out on this, but at the same time I've said I wouldn't mind UBI as a social experiment (as passed by the representatives of the people), though it would have to last decades to try to decipher useful trends.

When we make political choices, all of us have but imperfect information. Does it mean our opinions are unworthy of being presented in the event that there are people with more experience with a particular subject in the room? Does it mean the person with the most experience and citations has the right answers on the topic of conversation? Does it mean people who disagree with the person with the most citations are confusing others by expressing their opinions backed by logic and facts?

I've tried to approach this topic humbly but with a belief that 1) UBI might have unintended negative consequences and that 2) it doesn't appear to be supported by the 'lack of jobs' position. I've read through all of your posts and those of others, and I haven't seen anything that sways my mind against those two points (and have presented my evidence to support this). I'm not sure how you've come to your conclusions, but to me they seem more faith-based than mine (except for the fact that they cite flimsy approximations of UBI). But somehow our beliefs have turned into my horse in the race versus your objective detachment.

I note you've dropped your argument that there not being enough jobs that people are actually qualified to do would violate some fundamental rule of economics (and that therefore there is not point in explaining HOW such an outcome would violate a fundamental rule of economics.

I'll respond to this objective statement. How many people would you say are currently unqualified to get a job? I'll admit there are some people, who are infirm, who qualify for little or no jobs.

[maizefolk]

I note you've dropped your argument that there not being enough jobs that people are actually qualified to do would violate some fundamental rule of economics (and that therefore there is not point in explaining HOW such an outcome would violate a fundamental rule of economics.

I'll respond to this objective statement. How many people would you say are currently unqualified to get a job? I'll admit there are some people, who are infirm, who qualify for little or no jobs.

That's a shift the topic of conversation. What fundamental rule of economics 101 would be violated if there were not enough jobs that people would qualified to do? And how do you think such an outcome would violate that rule?

When we make political choices, all of us have but imperfect information. Does it mean our opinions are unworthy of being presented in the event that there are people with more experience with a particular subject in the room?

Absolutely not. The trick is neither to ourselves confuse what is our opinion and what is fact, nor to present our opinions in ways that others with less information may mistake them for facts.

Does it mean the person with the most experience and citations has the right answers on the topic of conversation?

Certainly not all the time. However I would say that the person who is able to tie their views back to data and studies, and also explain how they logically reached their conclusions is going to be right a lot more often than those who are either unable or unwilling to do either of those things.

Does it mean people who disagree with the person with the most citations are confusing others by expressing their opinions backed by logic and facts?

If they clearly label their opinions and opinions, and actually explain what the facts and logic they believe support those opinions, not at all.

If they express their opinions as facts, and when challenges on the absolute truth of those opinions resort to "well it's obvious, any other answer would violate fundamental rules of the world" then yes, they are either intentionally or through negligence creating confusion and spreading misinformation. And I consider that to be morally wrong.

I've tried to approach this topic humbly but with a belief that 1) UBI might have unintended negative consequences and that 2) it doesn't appear to be supported by the 'lack of jobs' position. I've read through all of your posts and those of others, and I haven't seen anything that sways my mind against those two points (and have presented my evidence to support this).

To the bolded bit: Unfortunately, no, you haven't. You have made absolute statements, pointed out that the evidence we have showing your absolutely statements are wrong is not entirely conclusive, and treated that as evidence that your position must be correct.

To the underlined bit: Yes, I understand that now. Before I thought we were having a discussion about what seems more or less likely about the future based on what we know today. Now that I understand that for you, you were starting with a deeply held belief that you are going to continue to hold until it can be refuted with 100% confidence. Hence the talking past each other until you mentioned your fundamental beliefs and it all clicked into place.

I'm not sure how you've come to your conclusions, but to me they seem more faith-based than mine (except for the fact that they cite flimsy approximations of UBI). But somehow our beliefs have turned into my horse in the race versus your objective detachment.

Yup. That's because I'm doing two separate things here. One is that I have a guess about what the future will hold, and I am trying to explain how I reached that conclusion both in case others find it interesting and because if there are holes in my logic or evidence I'm unaware of, the absolute best way to find it is to talk about my ideas with others.  (And this forum has an enjoyable high concentration of people who are interesting in discussing and debating far our future predictions. I think it is because contemplating FIRE requires a personality type which is comfortable thinking about their own personal futures decades from now.) In this role I'm arguing against the position "we don't know" and everyone else gets to argue in favor of "we don't know."

Quite separately, I am playing the opposite role, and listening to other people who have their own ideas about the future, and trying to chime in when I see evidence that they have missed, or a piece of reasoning that I'm not able to follow. In my second hat, I get to take on the far easier job of arguing FOR "we don't know" and whoever else is presenting that predictions or opinions have the harder job of arguing AGAINST "we don't know."

It's quite possible for my own predictions to not only be wrong, but built on false premises and bad data, and that doesn't make any one other person's predictions right. But it does strengthen the case for "we don't know."

[Boofinator]

I note you've dropped your argument that there not being enough jobs that people are actually qualified to do would violate some fundamental rule of economics (and that therefore there is not point in explaining HOW such an outcome would violate a fundamental rule of economics.

I'll respond to this objective statement. How many people would you say are currently unqualified to get a job? I'll admit there are some people, who are infirm, who qualify for little or no jobs.

That's a shift the topic of conversation. What fundamental rule of economics 101 would be violated if there were not enough jobs that people would qualified to do? And how do you think such an outcome would violate that rule?

This is not a shift at all but the logical outcome of your position. If we start from the position that people can provide value to society, and if we have a society where a certain subset of the population doesn't work because "they can't find jobs", than that society will be poorer than the society where that same group of people was provided with incentives (such as earning money to buy necessities) to perform work that provides value. Granted, a lot of these jobs may need to be incentivized by government, but that has been happening for a long, long time (how long depends on how you define "incentivized").

To the rest of your post, I'll just agree with "we don't know".

[maizefolk]

I note you've dropped your argument that there not being enough jobs that people are actually qualified to do would violate some fundamental rule of economics (and that therefore there is not point in explaining HOW such an outcome would violate a fundamental rule of economics.

I'll respond to this objective statement. How many people would you say are currently unqualified to get a job? I'll admit there are some people, who are infirm, who qualify for little or no jobs.

That's a shift the topic of conversation. What fundamental rule of economics 101 would be violated if there were not enough jobs that people would qualified to do? And how do you think such an outcome would violate that rule?

This is not a shift at all but the logical outcome of your position. If we start from the position that people can provide value to society, and if we have a society where a certain subset of the population doesn't work because "they can't find jobs", than that society will be poorer than the society where that same group of people was provided with incentives (such as earning money to buy necessities) to perform work that provides value. Granted, a lot of these jobs may need to be incentivized by government, but that has been happening for a long, long time (how long depends on how you define "incentivized").

I'm still confused, what portion of Econ 101 is violated by the idea that is it possible for the supply of labor to exceed the demand for the types of labor available?

[Boofinator]

I note you've dropped your argument that there not being enough jobs that people are actually qualified to do would violate some fundamental rule of economics (and that therefore there is not point in explaining HOW such an outcome would violate a fundamental rule of economics.

I'll respond to this objective statement. How many people would you say are currently unqualified to get a job? I'll admit there are some people, who are infirm, who qualify for little or no jobs.

That's a shift the topic of conversation. What fundamental rule of economics 101 would be violated if there were not enough jobs that people would qualified to do? And how do you think such an outcome would violate that rule?

This is not a shift at all but the logical outcome of your position. If we start from the position that people can provide value to society, and if we have a society where a certain subset of the population doesn't work because "they can't find jobs", than that society will be poorer than the society where that same group of people was provided with incentives (such as earning money to buy necessities) to perform work that provides value. Granted, a lot of these jobs may need to be incentivized by government, but that has been happening for a long, long time (how long depends on how you define "incentivized").

I'm still confused, what portion of Econ 101 is violated by the idea that is it possible for the supply of labor to exceed the demand for the types of labor available?

Government can create any amount of jobs that aren't demanded by the private market for labor (in addition to incentivizing jobs in other ways).

[maizefolk]

I'm still confused, what portion of Econ 101 is violated by the idea that is it possible for the supply of labor to exceed the demand for the types of labor available?

Government can create any amount of jobs that aren't demanded by the private market for labor (in addition to incentivizing jobs in other ways).

Yes, indeed it can.* But that statement, while true, still does not explain what portion of Econ 101 level economics you believe would be violated by the supply of labor exceeding the demand for the types of labor available.

*Do note that the cost of having the government create jobs is substantially higher than the cost of just paying the same amount of money to people directly. A good example of the government creating jobs is the Teach for America program. The cost of each new position has been estimated to be ~$25,000 per year above and beyond the cost of compensation paid directly to the folks who get the jobs.

[Boofinator]

I'm still confused, what portion of Econ 101 is violated by the idea that is it possible for the supply of labor to exceed the demand for the types of labor available?

Government can create any amount of jobs that aren't demanded by the private market for labor (in addition to incentivizing jobs in other ways).

Yes, indeed it can.* But that statement, while true, still does not explain what portion of Econ 101 level economics you believe would be violated by the supply of labor exceeding the demand for the types of labor available.

*Do note that the cost of having the government create jobs is substantially higher than the cost of just paying the same amount of money to people directly. A good example of the government creating jobs is the Teach for America program. The cost of each new position has been estimated to be ~$25,000 per year above and beyond the cost of compensation paid directly to the folks who get the jobs.

I'll concede that, in theory, the labor value of a person could go to zero. If such were the case, there'd literally be nothing that person could do that would be provide value to anybody else, period. Even The Matrix wasn't that dystopian (the people at least exchanged their life energy to the robots for sustenance).

As for governments directly supplying jobs: I agree, it is a generally non-optimal solution to high unemployment, and there are generally better ways to incentivize jobs.

[maizefolk]

I'll concede that, in theory, the labor value of a person could go to zero.

Okay thanks. So just to be clear you are now retracting this prior statement?

And the reason I don't agree with your inconclusive evidence is because the burden of proof is on you, as the statement that 'jobs are not going to be available to everyone' is contrary to fundamental economics and recorded history (this isn't to say that there haven't been disruptive spells of unemployment).

If so, I really do appreciate it.

If such were the case, there'd literally be nothing that person could do that would be provide value to anybody else, period. Even The Matrix wasn't that dystopian (the people at least exchanged their life energy to the robots for sustenance).

No, it would simply mean that there was nothing some people could do that no one else was already doing to provide enough value to someone else to allow those people to meet their own basic needs for food, shelter, etc.

I have seen you repeatedly brush aside the those two key limitations: 1) it's not enough for a person to be qualified for at least one job, there need to be enough of those kinds of jobs for all the people at that skill level. 2) it's not enough for the value of a person's labor to be greater than zero, it needs to be enough greater than zero for them to feed, cloth, and shelter themselves.

Why?

[Boofinator]

I'll concede that, in theory, the labor value of a person could go to zero.

Okay thanks. So just to be clear you are now retracting this prior statement?

And the reason I don't agree with your inconclusive evidence is because the burden of proof is on you, as the statement that 'jobs are not going to be available to everyone' is contrary to fundamental economics and recorded history (this isn't to say that there haven't been disruptive spells of unemployment).

If so, I really do appreciate it.

If such were the case, there'd literally be nothing that person could do that would be provide value to anybody else, period. Even The Matrix wasn't that dystopian (the people at least exchanged their life energy to the robots for sustenance).

No, it would simply mean that there was nothing some people could do that no one else was already doing to provide enough value to someone else to allow those people to meet their own basic needs for food, shelter, etc.

I have seen you repeatedly brush aside the those two key limitations: 1) it's not enough for a person to be qualified for at least one job, there need to be enough of those kinds of jobs for all the people at that skill level. 2) it's not enough for the value of a person's labor to be greater than zero, it needs to be enough greater than zero for them to feed, cloth, and shelter themselves.

Why?

I'm only retracting the previous statement to the extent that it would not be true in situations where people were essentially worthless to society. But in theory, people should always be able to provide value to society, as has been shown throughout history if the correct incentives are in place. So I'll agree its possible in a shitty society for such a thing to happen, but the solution isn't to waive our arms and say people cannot add value to society so let's feed and shelter them like pets.

Let's take a look at the two limitations you have noted (and which I bolded): If a large group of people could not afford to eat or shelter, those people would begin growing their own food and creating their own shelter (and they'd do it on government land if they were hungry and cold enough). Or, what is more likely, food and shelter become so cheap (because robots) that those people can work at service-type jobs to earn enough for their necessities.

[maizefolk]

Let's take a look at the two limitations you have noted (and which I bolded): If a large group of people could not afford to eat or shelter, those people would begin growing their own food and creating their own shelter (and they'd do it on government land if they were hungry and cold enough). Or, what is more likely, food and shelter become so cheap (because robots) that those people can work at service-type jobs to earn enough for their necessities.

So here's statement you are making which you are presenting as some sort of absolute truth. Fortunately, this is one where there is plenty of recent and historical data to check the validity or invalidity of your claim.

1) In 1918 the price of Japan skyrocketed, the result of food being diverted to their ongoing war with Russia. Again, rather than going out into the mountains to grow more food, people rioted and ultimately brought down the  government (the current administration, not their whole system of government). Source.

2) In 2008 the price of bread at private bakeries in Egypt rose 5x, which was beyond what many Egyptians were able to afford. Rather than going off into the wilderness to grow their own wheat, people in Egypt rioted and ultimately brought down the regime (replacing it was a new government that was in many ways far worse, but by then wheat prices had declined and Egpytians were able to afford to feed themselves and their children again). Source.

3) Rapid inflation of food prices in venezuela over the past two years, combined with stagnating wages, resulted in the average venezuelan losing ~24 lbs of body weight. Rather than go off into the mountains and growing food for themselves, the result has been rioting and looting.

In short, I would say that you again making a falsely confident prediction that contradicts what we can learn from history about how human beings react when facing the threat of starvation for themselves or their children.*

*And to be clear, none of those three cases are the result of automation destroying jobs. In fact some of them are clearly cases of the government causing food shortages through misguided policies. Yet my prediction is that, for the people who cannot afford to feed themselves and their families, the root cause won't matter all that much.

[PDXTabs]

@maizeman, @Boofinator,

I would add that just because you want to grow your own food doesn't mean that I can. During the turn of the 20th century Canada kept track of which immigrants were able to survive vs flee or starve to death on their homestead grants. They decided that people from cities were very bad at farming if you dropped them on fallow land with few tools which is an unsurprising result.

EDITed to add:

I read about this while researching my own dirt poor Black Sea German ancestors. I don't have a great source, but there is a little here:

Sifton was adamant that immigrants and settlers be from farming backgrounds, describing his ideal settler as the “stalwart peasant in a sheep-skin coat, born on the soil, whose forefathers have been farmers for ten generations, with a stout wife and a half dozen children” (see Immigration Policy).
- https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/dominion-lands-policy#ImmigrationandSettlement

I found the primary source:

Let it not be imagined from this fact that you can gather up tens of thousands of people who have neither any desire for, nor adaptability to, the life which is ahead of them and turn them into farmers. It takes two generations to convert a town-bred population into an agricultural one, and it is not likely to be done on any considerable scale except under the pressure of starvation. In any event it takes two generations to do it. Canada has no time for that operation. We have not two generations to spare. - Sir Clifford Sifton, Minister of the Interior of Canada, 1896-1905 (The Immigrants Canada Wants).

[Bloop Bloop]

I think if faced with a choice between starving or not starving most people could manage it.

I don't advocate going that far though. I believe the government should provide basic food and basic shelter for everyone. No one should be homeless. If UBI advocates were simply wanting that, I'd be happy to accede. A lot of them want a UBI "living wage" (i.e. a wage that allows a person to be fully functional in society) and I don't see the moral imperative for that.

[PDXTabs]

I don't advocate going that far though. I believe the government should provide basic food and basic shelter for everyone. No one should be homeless. If UBI advocates were simply wanting that, I'd be happy to accede. A lot of them want a UBI "living wage" (i.e. a wage that allows a person to be fully functional in society) and I don't see the moral imperative for that.

But we're talking about $12K USD per year in this thread. I am not aware of any UBI currently under discussion by any government entity that would provide a "living wage."

[Kyle Schuant]

If you give unconditional, in that very moment, you declare that all those people receiving the UBI are your equal. The giving changes from a posture of superior sympathy to a posture of obligation. It changes from a "compassion" that is given to a right that is exercised. Which of course, for many people, means a degrading of their own worth.
It is actually quite comparable to the fight for the voting right for women (or Blacks going in "white" schools etc.)

This is much better-expressed than my comment that people's real objection to UBI over the dole etc are "we don't want to give up our moral judgements." Very well-put, and very insightful. Thankyou.

[Bloop Bloop]

I don't advocate going that far though. I believe the government should provide basic food and basic shelter for everyone. No one should be homeless. If UBI advocates were simply wanting that, I'd be happy to accede. A lot of them want a UBI "living wage" (i.e. a wage that allows a person to be fully functional in society) and I don't see the moral imperative for that.

But we're talking about $12K USD per year in this thread. I am not aware of any UBI currently under discussion by any government entity that would provide a "living wage."

I have no issues with a $12K USD payment as long as that was limited to residents and as long as it supplanted all other forms of welfare (besides disability and medical spending). It seems a sensible figure to me.

[maizefolk]

I don't advocate going that far though. I believe the government should provide basic food and basic shelter for everyone. No one should be homeless. If UBI advocates were simply wanting that, I'd be happy to accede. A lot of them want a UBI "living wage" (i.e. a wage that allows a person to be fully functional in society) and I don't see the moral imperative for that.

But we're talking about $12K USD per year in this thread. I am not aware of any UBI currently under discussion by any government entity that would provide a "living wage."

I have no issues with a $12K USD payment as long as that was limited to residents and as long as it supplanted all other forms of welfare (besides disability and medical spending). It seems a sensible figure to me.

So it sounds like you folks are in agreement about the specific UBI being discussed in this thread. That's great!

[LennStar]

That being said, we are contemplating whether or not UBI would be a net positive for society.

You are not doing this.
You are speculating if an UBi would be positive or negative for a certain economic model (that is destroying the very base of our lives, making it a negative every time in the long run anyway), ignoring (like the model) all environmental, social and psycological results.

If this is true, the logical corollary is that these people are useless to society.

And as the result you say this, but what you really say is simply: A certain part of people will not contribute to company's profits. Which is still wrong, bercause they would consume, and (lack of) consumption is a far more serious problem for the current economic model than workers. How long has it been since the Phoebus cartell? Since millions were put into finding out how you can make stockings that go broken again?

Government can create any amount of jobs that aren't demanded by the private market for labor

No. It can create quite an demand for certain types of jobs (like building roads), but for most jobs government can only pay you to sit down outside your home and get bored to death.

Of course government can subsidize e.g. coal. As the German government has, because of jobs. Every coal job cost a bit more subsidies per person than just giving those workers their wage "for free". And this has dramatically worsened the CO2 stats, but of course was good for certain big companies.

those people would begin growing their own food and creating their own shelter

How, without land? And I am not talking about e.g. Singapur.
Of course there are those places where people go then. We generally call them slum and it is (nearly) universally agreed that they are not a condition people should life in.
Not to mention, as others have noted, that the majority of people on earth simply do not know how to grow food (and btw. how would they survive the first year until harvest?). And even those who do know how to grow food are often not doing it, instead going to the city to look for a job.

[Boofinator]

Let's take a look at the two limitations you have noted (and which I bolded): If a large group of people could not afford to eat or shelter, those people would begin growing their own food and creating their own shelter (and they'd do it on government land if they were hungry and cold enough). Or, what is more likely, food and shelter become so cheap (because robots) that those people can work at service-type jobs to earn enough for their necessities.

So here's statement you are making which you are presenting as some sort of absolute truth. Fortunately, this is one where there is plenty of recent and historical data to check the validity or invalidity of your claim.

1) In 1918 the price of Japan skyrocketed, the result of food being diverted to their ongoing war with Russia. Again, rather than going out into the mountains to grow more food, people rioted and ultimately brought down the  government (the current administration, not their whole system of government). Source.

2) In 2008 the price of bread at private bakeries in Egypt rose 5x, which was beyond what many Egyptians were able to afford. Rather than going off into the wilderness to grow their own wheat, people in Egypt rioted and ultimately brought down the regime (replacing it was a new government that was in many ways far worse, but by then wheat prices had declined and Egpytians were able to afford to feed themselves and their children again). Source.

3) Rapid inflation of food prices in venezuela over the past two years, combined with stagnating wages, resulted in the average venezuelan losing ~24 lbs of body weight. Rather than go off into the mountains and growing food for themselves, the result has been rioting and looting.

In short, I would say that you again making a falsely confident prediction that contradicts what we can learn from history about how human beings react when facing the threat of starvation for themselves or their children.*

*And to be clear, none of those three cases are the result of automation destroying jobs. In fact some of them are clearly cases of the government causing food shortages through misguided policies. Yet my prediction is that, for the people who cannot afford to feed themselves and their families, the root cause won't matter all that much.

You're taking me out of context. I agreed with you on the French Revolution, earlier in this thread, where people were overthrowing the government over some variation of "Let them eat cake". Yes, violent upheaval would occur if people are not fed.

This doesn't equate to UBI being the solution, because as you point out, if there isn't enough food then prices will skyrocket and UBI would then be worthless. If you tie UBI to some consumer staple price index, and if those consumer staples run low, there will be run-away inflation with all of the joys that that portends.

[Boofinator]

I would add that just because you want to grow your own food doesn't mean that I can. During the turn of the 20th century Canada kept track of which immigrants were able to survive vs flee or starve to death on their homestead grants. They decided that people from cities were very bad at farming if you dropped them on fallow land with few tools which is an unsurprising result.

My comment was a generalization and a bit on the simplistic end. It ignored the societal upheaval that would occur long before the "return to the ground" situation would occur. What I was attempting to do was prove a point: either robots are good and ensure bountiful harvests for everyone (in which case we need to make sure everyone has enough money to buy these harvests, with some suggesting UBI is the answer), or there is not enough food in which case the robots are failing us and there will be plenty of jobs for farmers (limited of course to the amount of arable land).

Basically, my point was that people will work really damn hard to make sure their needs are met. It might involve wholesale decapitation of the leaders of society or other radical means to ensure survival.

[maizefolk]

You're taking me out of context. I agreed with you on the French Revolution, earlier in this thread, where people were overthrowing the government over some variation of "Let them eat cake". Yes, violent upheaval would occur if people are not fed.

Here is the entirety of your text.

I'm only retracting the previous statement to the extent that it would not be true in situations where people were essentially worthless to society. But in theory, people should always be able to provide value to society, as has been shown throughout history if the correct incentives are in place. So I'll agree its possible in a shitty society for such a thing to happen, but the solution isn't to waive our arms and say people cannot add value to society so let's feed and shelter them like pets.

Let's take a look at the two limitations you have noted (and which I bolded): If a large group of people could not afford to eat or shelter, those people would begin growing their own food and creating their own shelter (and they'd do it on government land if they were hungry and cold enough). Or, what is more likely, food and shelter become so cheap (because robots) that those people can work at service-type jobs to earn enough for their necessities.

I am afraid don't see anything with the addition of context which changes the interpretation of your bolded statement to some other meaning which is consistent with the history of what has actually happened when large numbers of people find themselves unable to afford to feed themselves or their families.

It sounds like you now agree that your prediction of what would happen if people are no longer able to afford to feed or shelter themselves (phrased as a statement of absolute fact, not a prediction or opinion) is not an accurate statement. Is that correct?

[Boofinator]

That being said, we are contemplating whether or not UBI would be a net positive for society.

You are not doing this.
You are speculating if an UBi would be positive or negative for a certain economic model (that is destroying the very base of our lives, making it a negative every time in the long run anyway), ignoring (like the model) all environmental, social and psycological results.

So if I get you right, capitalism is a broken model and should be replaced with an alternative, rather than tweaked to reduce the negative externalities and the Tragedy of the Commons scenarios. Fair enough, but I don't think that is something Andrew Yang is proposing. If I'm wrong please feel free to insert it into this conversation.

[maizefolk]

My comment was a generalization and a bit on the simplistic end. It ignored the societal upheaval that would occur long before the "return to the ground" situation would occur.

That would seem to be a rather critical omission.

What I was attempting to do was prove a point: either robots are good and ensure bountiful harvests for everyone (in which case we need to make sure everyone has enough money to buy these harvests, with some suggesting UBI is the answer), or there is not enough food in which case the robots are failing us and there will be plenty of jobs for farmers (limited of course to the amount of arable land).

I admit to being somewhat puzzled as to how this new point is related to my concern regarding your repeating ignoring of the two caveats that "1) it's not enough for a person to be qualified for at least one job, there need to be enough of those kinds of jobs for all the people at that skill level. 2) it's not enough for the value of a person's labor to be greater than zero, it needs to be enough greater than zero for them to feed, cloth, and shelter themselves." which is where you posted your comment about people just being able to go back to the land and farm if they couldn't afford food.

However, putting that aside, I'm afraid even this new and apparently unrelated point doesn't seem to hold up.

How familiar are you with modern agricultural production? Even in the absence of robots, there just aren't that many jobs for farmers. In the USA today, without any robots (but with some pretty extensive technology and infrastructure) we're already able to produce far more food per acre than more labor intensive agricultural systems in other parts of the world. So even if farming doesn't become any more automated at all, the 4M americans currently supplying all of our food are able to do so more efficiently, more productively, and with a lower environmental impact than if we tried to solve the same problem by throwing more labor at it. If we were still using the lower tech/less technology intensive but more labor intensive approaches to farming that you suggest the world would have hit a hard limit on its population about 3-4 billion people ago. Which is what people were predicting back in the 1960s and 1970s.

If we do have an absolute shortage of food in the future (seems unlikely to me in the USA in the foreseeable future, but quite possible when you consider the world as a whole) it it quite hard to picture any scenario where it will be a shortage of farmers, but quite easy to image quite a lot of scenarios where it will be because of a shortage of farmland (or irrigation water, or fertilizer). So your statement that jobs for farmers are "limited of course to the amount of arable land" would seem to be both the beginning and end of that digression.

Basically, my point was that people will work really damn hard to make sure their needs are met. It might involve wholesale decapitation of the leaders of society or other radical means to ensure survival.

On this we are in complete agreement. I find the prospect of living through a violent revolution (or failing to do so, as the case may be), far more offensive than the prospect of preemptively moving to a capitalistic system where income doesn't start at zero.

It is certainly your prerogative to prefer to go down with the ship, if you find the UBI a more dangerous or morally offensive concept than the experience of a violent revolution.

[Boofinator]

It is certainly your prerogative to prefer to go down with the ship, if you find the UBI a more dangerous or morally offensive concept than the experience of a violent revolution.

So those are the only two alternatives?

[maizefolk]

It is certainly your prerogative to prefer to go down with the ship, if you find the UBI a more dangerous or morally offensive concept than the experience of a violent revolution.

So those are the only two alternatives?

If we end up in a situation where enough people cannot feed themselves and their families because their labor is no longer worth enough for them to earn the money they would need to do so, then yes I see those as the two main possible outcomes.

There could certainly be other possible outcomes.

However, so far the one alternative you proposed (people going peacefully back to the land) seems unlikely based on the prior history of what people have done when they cannot feed themselves and impossible to pull off globally based on the level of technology and infrastructure required for the productivity that is letting us (mostly) feed 7 billion people with our existing global supply of arable land.

[Nick_Miller]

I won't even try to get into this extremely detailed conversation. I just wanted to say that I watched a clip of Yang on CNN and I thought he made a very solid impression, answered questions intelligently, and was pretty likable. I do look forward to seeing him in the debates, and I'll say he's much more interesting than most of the endless number of senators and representatives tossing their hats in the ring.

[Boofinator]

It is certainly your prerogative to prefer to go down with the ship, if you find the UBI a more dangerous or morally offensive concept than the experience of a violent revolution.

So those are the only two alternatives?

If we end up in a situation where enough people cannot feed themselves and their families because their labor is no longer worth enough for them to earn the money they would need to do so, then yes I see those as the two main possible outcomes.

There could certainly be other possible outcomes.

However, so far the one alternative you proposed (people going peacefully back to the land) seems unlikely based on the prior history of what people have done when they cannot feed themselves and impossible to pull off globally based on the level of technology and infrastructure required for the productivity that is letting us (mostly) feed 7 billion people with our existing global supply of arable land.

The comment was put forth just to highlight that the system is, to a certain extent, a self-correcting one. It wasn't intended to be a literal "this will most certainly happen" scenario.

All of that being said, we are discussing hypotheticals for situations in the future. Andrew Yang's proposal is about implementing UBI in the present. I don't currently see any doom and gloom in the present that would justify the need for a UBI. And I've presented my opinions regarding what I foresee as being a potential negative externality resulting from the implementation of UBI. I understand and respect that others have their own opinions, and the great part about our democracy is that we can be a small (or big!) part of implementing change.

[maizefolk]

And I've presented my opinions regarding what I foresee as being a potential negative externality resulting from the implementation of UBI. I understand and respect that others have their own opinions, and the great part about our democracy is that we can be a small (or big!) part of implementing change.

So long as you make it clear these are opinions and not facts, I think we are at a consensus.

[LennStar]

That being said, we are contemplating whether or not UBI would be a net positive for society.

You are not doing this.
You are speculating if an UBi would be positive or negative for a certain economic model (that is destroying the very base of our lives, making it a negative every time in the long run anyway), ignoring (like the model) all environmental, social and psycological results.

So if I get you right, capitalism is a broken model and should be replaced with an alternative, rather than tweaked to reduce the negative externalities and the Tragedy of the Commons scenarios. Fair enough, but I don't think that is something Andrew Yang is proposing. If I'm wrong please feel free to insert it into this conversation.

Capitalism is a broken model?
In the sense the word is mostly meant, yes.
Better replaced with an alternative?
Yes.
rather than tweaked to reduce the negative externalities
First, this seldom works, and there is a lot you still need to tweak. I sincerely think it is not possible to have a meaningfully "tweaked" capitalism.

But that is not the point. What you are doing here is similar to the above: You are putting up two unlikely alternatives and refusing everything because they are so unlikely.

The far more likely and easier thing is that an UBI is both a way of tweaking capitalism and moving the system towards one that may make not destroy human civilization. That is imho the reason why it has fans on all sides of the political spectrums.

---

Tragedy of the Commons scenarios.

Generelly speaking I would like you to talk of the Tragedy of the Untended Commons. I know the title is different, but that is what Hardin describes (and which effectivly means it is not a Commons at all). Also please do not forget Hardin was a far-right who wrote that piece as a propaganda paper against "socialism", which likely explains his omittances.
Also I suggest you inform yourself about the Tragedy of the unused or underused commons, something that happens surprisingly often in capitalistic systems.

[PDXTabs]

Capitalism is a broken model?
In the sense the word is mostly meant, yes.
Better replaced with an alternative?
Yes.

I'm not convinced that Capitalism is broken or needs to be replaced any more than fire is broken or needs to be replaced. Just because fire is a useful tool doesn't mean that we let it burn our cities. Just because Capitalism is a useful tool doesn't mean that we should let it burn society.

Though you may not disagree, judging by your comment. But I view Capitalism as a tool just like any other.

[Boofinator]

And I've presented my opinions regarding what I foresee as being a potential negative externality resulting from the implementation of UBI. I understand and respect that others have their own opinions, and the great part about our democracy is that we can be a small (or big!) part of implementing change.

So long as you make it clear these are opinions and not facts, I think we are at a consensus.

Isn't much of what is posted in Off Topic more-or-less opinions generated from experience, history, logic, and observation of the known facts? We're posting here to both learn from others and perhaps persuade others to learn from us if we feel one way or another about a topic. Clearly your opinion is that UBI will be a good policy, and you have presented your evidence to support your thesis. I've examined your evidence, and you've examined mine, and neither one of us has felt a compelling need to change their original opinions. So it goes.

In my opinion, most political debates can and should go this way. I would only take umbrage if people are clearly lying about facts, which I don't think has been the case here (even if perhaps I exaggerated my points more than necessary or left out certain qualifiers at times, I have been posting in good faith).

[maizefolk]

Isn't much of what is posted in Off Topic more-or-less opinions generated from experience, history, logic, and observation of the known facts? We're posting here to both learn from others and perhaps persuade others to learn from us if we feel one way or another about a topic. Clearly your opinion is that UBI will be a good policy, and you have presented your evidence to support your thesis. I've examined your evidence, and you've examined mine, and neither one of us has felt a compelling need to change their original opinions. So it goes.

Indeed, but while I have made it clear I am presenting predictions and opinions and what information I have used to come to those opinions and predictions, you continue to make absolute statements about how humans would react to future events that, while not impossible, would appear inconsistent with all of the evidence we have to date.

You can certainly still state that you think or believe X will lead to Y.

In my opinion, most political debates can and should go this way. I would only take umbrage if people are clearly lying about facts, which I don't think has been the case here (even if perhaps I exaggerated my points more than necessary or left out certain qualifiers at times, I have been posting in good faith).

"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his [or her] own facts."

Having people whose opinions diverge on a topic is a really good thing. Makes for much more interesting discussion.  Having people who state things as fact which are not facts, on the other hand, makes intelligent and reasoned discussion impossible

You have repeatedly statements of "fact" and then, only when challenged on the things you are stating as facts are inconsistent with all the evidence we have to date, argued they were actually opinions. Do you disagree with this assessment? If so, I'd be happy to go back through recent pages of the thread to cite specific examples.

I regret to say that I do not see that type of behavior as consistent with having a good faith discussion on this or any topic. Regretfully, I feel some level of obligation to continue to point out when the confounding of facts and opinions occurs, as fruitless as this discussion has clearly become for both of us.

[Boofinator]

That being said, we are contemplating whether or not UBI would be a net positive for society.

You are not doing this.
You are speculating if an UBi would be positive or negative for a certain economic model (that is destroying the very base of our lives, making it a negative every time in the long run anyway), ignoring (like the model) all environmental, social and psycological results.

So if I get you right, capitalism is a broken model and should be replaced with an alternative, rather than tweaked to reduce the negative externalities and the Tragedy of the Commons scenarios. Fair enough, but I don't think that is something Andrew Yang is proposing. If I'm wrong please feel free to insert it into this conversation.

Capitalism is a broken model?
In the sense the word is mostly meant, yes.
Better replaced with an alternative?
Yes.
rather than tweaked to reduce the negative externalities
First, this seldom works, and there is a lot you still need to tweak. I sincerely think it is not possible to have a meaningfully "tweaked" capitalism.

But that is not the point. What you are doing here is similar to the above: You are putting up two unlikely alternatives and refusing everything because they are so unlikely.

The far more likely and easier thing is that an UBI is both a way of tweaking capitalism and moving the system towards one that may make not destroy human civilization. That is imho the reason why it has fans on all sides of the political spectrums.

---

Tragedy of the Commons scenarios.

Generelly speaking I would like you to talk of the Tragedy of the Untended Commons. I know the title is different, but that is what Hardin describes (and which effectivly means it is not a Commons at all). Also please do not forget Hardin was a far-right who wrote that piece as a propaganda paper against "socialism", which likely explains his omittances.
Also I suggest you inform yourself about the Tragedy of the unused or underused commons, something that happens surprisingly often in capitalistic systems.

Regarding the bolded part. Could you explain how "Choice A" and "Choice B(=not A and something you are given free reign to define)" are two unlikely alternatives?

I agree UBI has fans on all side of the political spectrum, but it has detractors on all sides as well.

I read an article (I'm assuming yours?) on the Untended Commons, and yes, I think it is government's role (as a proxy for when communal solutions as mentioned in the article do not work). One method is to establish property rights, which is privatization, but needless to say this is not the only method. The article I read on underused commons was interesting as well, but does not seem unique to the capitalist model.

[maizefolk]

I won't even try to get into this extremely detailed conversation. I just wanted to say that I watched a clip of Yang on CNN and I thought he made a very solid impression, answered questions intelligently, and was pretty likable. I do look forward to seeing him in the debates, and I'll say he's much more interesting than most of the endless number of senators and representatives tossing their hats in the ring.

Yes, I stole the "capitalism where income doesn't start at zero" line from watching his town hall on Sunday. I think it's very unlikely that he wins the nomination, but he comes across as an intelligent guy who has thought a lot about hard problems. Looking forward (cautiously) to seeing the first debates this summer!

[Boofinator]

Isn't much of what is posted in Off Topic more-or-less opinions generated from experience, history, logic, and observation of the known facts? We're posting here to both learn from others and perhaps persuade others to learn from us if we feel one way or another about a topic. Clearly your opinion is that UBI will be a good policy, and you have presented your evidence to support your thesis. I've examined your evidence, and you've examined mine, and neither one of us has felt a compelling need to change their original opinions. So it goes.

Indeed, but while I have made it clear I am presenting predictions and opinions and what information I have used to come to those opinions and predictions, you continue to make absolute statements about how humans would react to future events that, while not impossible, would appear inconsistent with all of the evidence we have to date.

You can certainly still state that you think or believe X will lead to Y.

In my opinion, most political debates can and should go this way. I would only take umbrage if people are clearly lying about facts, which I don't think has been the case here (even if perhaps I exaggerated my points more than necessary or left out certain qualifiers at times, I have been posting in good faith).

"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his [or her] own facts."

Having people whose opinions diverge on a topic is a really good thing. Makes for much more interesting discussion.  Having people who state things as fact which are not facts, on the other hand, makes intelligent and reasoned discussion impossible

You have repeatedly statements of "fact" and then, only when challenged on the things you are stating as facts are inconsistent with all the evidence we have to date, argued they were actually opinions. Do you disagree with this assessment? If so, I'd be happy to go back through recent pages of the thread to cite specific examples.

I regret to say that I do not see that type of behavior as consistent with having a good faith discussion on this or any topic. Regretfully, I feel some level of obligation to continue to point out when the confounding of facts and opinions occurs, as fruitless as this discussion has clearly become for both of us.

If somebody said, "capitalism does not work well", and then goes through to explain why they believe it doesn't work well, would you take this as fact or opinion? This is clearly meant to be an opinion, even if they don't outright say "this is my opinion". This is an opinion because it is clearly unprovable. It is frankly obtuse to take every one of these types of statement as fact.

[maizefolk]

If somebody said, "capitalism does not work well", and then goes through to explain why they believe it doesn't work well, would you take this as fact or opinion? This is clearly meant to be an opinion, even if they don't outright say "this is my opinion". This is an opinion because it is clearly unprovable. It is frankly obtuse to take every one of these types of statement as fact.

If they include the bolded bit, then yes they are clearly labeling their opinion as an opinion.

If they drop into a thread and say "capitalism doesn't work, because Econ 101 says so" then they are both misrepresenting their opinion as fact and detracting from the conversation.

[LennStar]

Could you explain how "Choice A" and "Choice B(=not A and something you are given free reign to define)" are two unlikely alternatives?

This was about  replaced with an alternative, rather than tweaked
I think you also agree that replacing capitalism is unlikely (at leat at the moment). I certainly think tweacking it a meaningful amount is unlikely (with an UBI the most likely thing that would have a big impact).

I read an article (I'm assuming yours?)

lol I assume not ^^
hm... that is if you searched for LennStar and untended commons than i think I wrote one. But you should not read my words on those topics.
If you want to know about commons, you might want to start with Elinor Ostrom, the only woman who ever got an economy Nobel Price.

The article I read on underused commons was interesting as well, but does not seem unique to the capitalist model.

That is definitely true. I don't think there will ever be a system where underusage is (vanishingly) rare.
But afaik the capitalist system is the only one that has in it's very basic theoretical roots the base assumption that such a thing does not happen. (Because any capitalist would exploit that to make more profit, right?)

That is the main problem I have with capitalism (or at least neoliberalism): most (or all) of the very basic concepts it has (like the homo oeconomicus) have never been oberved in reality. But it is still acted as if these would be daily occurances and actions and politics are decidid upon this.
And then everyone is totally surprised that the solutions do not work like the theory says. Like the last 426 times they were tried.

[Boofinator]

That is the main problem I have with capitalism (or at least neoliberalism): most (or all) of the very basic concepts it has (like the homo oeconomicus) have never been oberved in reality. But it is still acted as if these would be daily occurances and actions and politics are decidid upon this.
And then everyone is totally surprised that the solutions do not work like the theory says. Like the last 426 times they were tried.

I don't think that many of the ideas used to conceptualize capitalism are meant to be taken literally (such as homo economicus). But by and large, people act in their own self-interest, making an idea such as homo economicus an approximation of reality (to a certain degree). For instance, on this thread, both the people advocating for UBI and those advocating against UBI are acting in their own personal interest (whether they or someone they care about are literally in need of such a program, or more likely, they feel society would be better off with or without the program, or even the desire to be benevolent ultimately results in a feeling of self-worth (either by giving money directly to the poor (pro-UBI) or by giving the poor an incentive to work (anti-UBI))).