Universal Basic Income & Working Less

BarcaDen

Here's an idea thats been getting traction recently - pay everyone a basic income, abolish existing welfare, and legislate for reduced working hours. I've no idea how this would work in practise (I've read many interesting hypotheticals but I think it would probably take 20 years of playing around with before it was done right) I suspect you'd have to take into public ownership the robotics and have the government invest heavily in automation/productivity. But it could be done.

Basically we've got the technology and the wealth to work far fewer hours but for inexplicable reasons we have people at one end (the precariat) struggling to get by, and people on the other working insane, radically inefficient and unproductive hours. This is a simple problem that could be fixed in a few months with a little imaginative thinking.

I'll just leave these ideas hanging out there, to see what you've got to say. I'll expand on my thoughts later.

Suryavarman

A basic income means that you either give less money to the worst off in society or you come up with a system that is far more expensive than the current one.

Legislating for less hours just makes a basic income more difficult to fund as there would be less income to tax.

Government ownership of the means of production has been a disaster time and time again.

A basic income as you have outlined would be an absolute trainwreck.

BarcaDen

Suryavarman wrote: »

A basic income means that you either give less money to the worst off in society or you come up with a system that is far more expensive than the current one.

Legislating for less hours just makes a basic income more difficult to fund as there would be less income to tax.

Government ownership of the means of production has been a disaster time and time again.

A basic income as you have outlined would be an absolute trainwreck.

We need to distinguish between artificial growth and sustainable growth. Our planet cannot sustain the present neoliberal system, defined as it is by a boom and bust cycle, financialisation, misery for most, incredible riches for the few. We also need a cultural conversation about the purpose of life and ergo, work. At the moment most people are wage slaves, only marginally better off than those in chattel slavery. I look forward to a post work society, where most work is personally directed according to peoples skills and abilities and people could care less about the economic reward.

Government ownership of robotics would be essential in a world with UBI because automation of labour is essential to progressing as a species. Only once we realise that most of us are doing pointless jobs that would be done better by a machine can we embrace our future. If robotics remain in private hands you would have a situation where a tiny elite who control the machines control humanity, I would rather humanity to be in the control of people - wouldn't you?

You can easily have capitalism in such a society. Basically we're given a floor and left to our own devices, the laws of demand and supply would still be followed. Innovation would be at the very core, except in this society the aim would be labour minimisation rather than profit maximisation. I'm not advocating a form of communism. It could be likened to a form of market socialism, I suppose.

BarcaDen

I wouldn't like this to get bogged down in some socialist argument. There are those on the libertarian right who advocate a UBI as well. We can discuss the means and how to go about it. I'd prefer to focus on the benefits it would bring.

With the labour unions in decline across the world, and with the advent of the so called gig economy, it seems to me that the old welfare system is well out of date. For example, I work as a freelance and I have good months and bad months.

With a UBI the individual worker (the individual worker was systematically automised by neoliberal forces in order to weaken their collective bargaining power) would have power and could negotiate for higher wages.

daveharnett

I'm on board in principle. There are two factors that work in our favor here:
- Even if we are both perfectly comfortable, human nature dictates that my neighbor won't be happy until he's got more stuff than me. People will still choose to work.
- We waste vast amounts of labor today, wherever the labour is cheaper than building/buying the automation. I'm confident that we could drop 40-60 of our labour without effecting the world's GDP by an iota. All on their own, self-driving vehicles will cut the worldwide demand for labour by 10% and everyone and everything will still get to where it's going.

ancapailldorcha

There are a few factors to be considered here, mainly cost. It'd take a huge amount of money to fund such a policy and, as Suryavarman notes above, it'll leave many poorer people worse off while handing the wealthy extra money. The main group which would benefit are average working people who'll just find themselves with a cash injection. There's also the argument that it could reduce the incentive of a population to seek employment if they know they'll have guaranteed income. Then again, it could free people up to take chances to pursuing more rewarding projects and opportunities that they might otherwise be too risk-averse to attempt. There is also the fact that taxes could rise significantly leading to more expensive products, services and accommodation, thus nullifying the intended effect of reducing poverty. It would also incentivise people to move to specific countries to claim the income unless it was restricted, ie citizens only.

Using round numbers, to pay the population of Ireland (4.5 million people) €150 a week would cost €675 million per week or €31.5 billion per annum. This is a very blunt calculation but it highlights the main issue of this policy, a severe shortage of capital that could possibly be put to better use such as building housing or infrastructure which would also create jobs.

BarcaDen

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

There are a few factors to be considered here, mainly cost. It'd take a huge amount of money to fund such a policy and, as Suryavarman notes above, it'll leave many poorer people worse off while handing the wealthy extra money. The main group which would benefit are average working people who'll just find themselves with a cash injection. There's also the argument that it could reduce the incentive of a population to seek employment if they know they'll have guaranteed income. Then again, it could free people up to take chances to pursuing more rewarding projects and opportunities that they might otherwise be too risk-averse to attempt. There is also the fact that taxes could rise significantly leading to more expensive products, services and accommodation, thus nullifying the intended effect of reducing poverty. It would also incentivise people to move to specific countries to claim the income unless it was restricted, ie citizens only.

Using round numbers, to pay the population of Ireland (4.5 million people) €150 a week would cost €675 million per week or €31.5 billion per annum. This is a very blunt calculation but it highlights the main issue of this policy, a severe shortage of capital that could possibly be put to better use such as building housing or infrastructure which would also create jobs.

I think you're missing the point a little bit. The purpose is not to create jobs but rather to eliminate them! In previous mutations of capitalism, the bosses found ways to automate as a result of working class organisation and defiance of reduced wages. We should be embracing that. Capitalism should mutate and if possible eliminate all of the heavy and boring jobs in the industrial and services sector. Or at least make them less important in our society. At the moment the first instinct of Keynesian thinkers is 'makework', pay people to do unnecessary jobs. What we should be doing is paying people as if it were a right to have a guaranteed income floor, and then allowing them to make their own choices vis a vis work. Surely some people would prefer not to work. I'm quite relaxed about that. It would lead to greater wages for those in work and give them much greater bargaining power. The ratio between profits, wages and labour hours would reach a much more favourable balance towards the worker.

As per the cost - this was a similar argument used against the current welfare system. In many ways its drowning as it is and is hopelessly inefficient. I would advocate abolishing all forms of government welfare and most forms of intervention (except radically boosting innovation and technology) and replace it with a simple UBI system, that could be administered by a simple computer and a couple of IT guys.

BarcaDen

Wow... theres something weird happening here. Can the mods delete posts 6 and 7 and leave post 8 as it is. I went back to edit something and it duplicated it. Thanks.

Suryavarman

BarcaDen wrote: »

We need to distinguish between artificial growth and sustainable growth. Our planet cannot sustain the present neoliberal system, defined as it is by a boom and bust cycle, financialisation, misery for most, incredible riches for the few. We also need a cultural conversation about the purpose of life and ergo, work. At the moment most people are wage slaves, only marginally better off than those in chattel slavery. I look forward to a post work society, where most work is personally directed according to peoples skills and abilities and people could care less about the economic reward.

The planet can easily sustain the current "neoliberal" system. Whatever neoliberal is supposed to mean.

Trying to compare the modern worker's position to that of a slave is utterly ridiculous. Do you have any clue what slavery is?

You're just contradicting yourself with this "post-work" nonsense. Will this society have no work or will the work just be allocated inefficiently?

Government ownership of robotics would be essential in a world with UBI because automation of labour is essential to progressing as a species. Only once we realise that most of us are doing pointless jobs that would be done better by a machine can we embrace our future. If robotics remain in private hands you would have a situation where a tiny elite who control the machines control humanity, I would rather humanity to be in the control of people - wouldn't you?

Labour will never be fully automated. There will always be a need for workers. You're therefore offering a false dichotomy.

You can easily have capitalism in such a society. Basically we're given a floor and left to our own devices, the laws of demand and supply would still be followed. Innovation would be at the very core, except in this society the aim would be labour minimisation rather than profit maximisation. I'm not advocating a form of communism. It could be likened to a form of market socialism, I suppose.

You are advocating communism. That's what Government ownership of the means of production is.

BarcaDen wrote: »

I wouldn't like this to get bogged down in some socialist argument. There are those on the libertarian right who advocate a UBI as well. We can discuss the means and how to go about it. I'd prefer to focus on the benefits it would bring.

If you don't want to get bogged down in socialist arguments then stop making them. You can't advocate government ownership of the means of production and then wave away opposing arguments.

The libertarians that advocate a UBI are wrong as well because their version of a UBI also makes the poor worse off or massively increases the cost of the welfare state massively.

With the labour unions in decline across the world, and with the advent of the so called gig economy, it seems to me that the old welfare system is well out of date. For example, I work as a freelance and I have good months and bad months.

With a UBI the individual worker (the individual worker was systematically automised by neoliberal forces in order to weaken their collective bargaining power) would have power and could negotiate for higher wages.

The worker wouldn't be able to negotiate a higher wage because a UBI won't make them any more productive. Workers can't get higher wages without being more productive

oscarBravo

BarcaDen wrote: »

I think you're missing the point a little bit. The purpose is not to create jobs but rather to eliminate them!

Let's try a bit of reductio ad absurdum on that: suppose all jobs are eliminated and replaced by automation.

Where does the money come from to pay the UBI?

topper75

All it would do is move the demand curve upwards.

More money chasing the same amount of goods and services => upwards pressure on prices across the board.

The "poor" will always be with us by definition. Unless you want to try the whole communism thing again. I don't.

Suryavarman

BarcaDen wrote: »

I think you're missing the point a little bit. The purpose is not to create jobs but rather to eliminate them! Or at least make them less important in our society. At the moment the first instinct of Keynesian thinkers is 'makework', pay people to do unnecessary jobs. What we should be doing is paying people as if it were a right to have a guaranteed income floor, and then allowing them to make their own choices vis a vis work. Surely some people would prefer not to work. I'm quite relaxed about that. It would lead to greater wages for those in work and give them much greater bargaining power. The ration between profits, wages and labour hours would reach a much more favourable balance towards the worker.

As per the cost - this was a similar argument used against the current welfare system. In many ways its drowning as it is and is hopelessly inefficient. I would advocate abolishing all forms of government welfare and most forms of intervention (except radically boosting innovation and technology) and replace it with a simple UBI system, that could be administered by a simple computer and a couple of IT guys.

If a UBI is going to eliminate jobs then who the hell is going to pay for this? You're advocating for a massively more expensive welfare programme while massively reducing our ability to pay for it. Your argument is completely lacking credibility.

Suryavarman

topper75 wrote: »

All it would do is move the demand curve upwards.

More money chasing the same amount of goods and services => upwards pressure on prices across the board.

The "poor" will always be with us by definition. Unless you want to try the whole communism thing again. I don't.

A UBI will have little to no effect on inflation. You'd just be redistributing existing income not creating additional income through inflation.

topper75

Suryavarman wrote: »

A UBI will have little to no effect on inflation. You'd just be redistributing existing income not creating additional income through inflation.

No I don't accept that.

If everyone can now get Sky Sports because of the UBI, and they all start ringing up to get the installation, there are limited numbers of vans/installers.

Something has got to give.

What gives is prices.

Upwards. Sky charge more. Its more expensive for everybody.

We call this inflation, demand-pull inflation.

There is no financial alchemy. Capitalism found this out the hard way in 2007/2008. Communism suffered it for decades in the USSR, and China is getting its lesson now.

BarcaDen

I would probably agree that UBI is probably 20-30 years before its time. It would probably help to have this conversation around the same time that driving is fully automated and all of the industrial jobs have been replaced by robots. I could be wrong about structural unemployment - others have made the claim before and its come to nought. But something feels different about this. If I'm correct, and we see legions of people with no work (in some ways we already have this in parts of the so called developed world) and many people working crazy hours, we ARE going to have some kind of revolution. It doesn't take a genius or a 'communist' to figure that out.

What should governments do in the meantime? First of all, they should encourage the process of automation and they should gradually legislate to reduce the working week. The 40 hour week is a fiction. 100 years ago it was a 60 hour week. And when the labour movement tried to reduce it and foster the welfare state similar arguments were marshalled - its too expensive, if we work less how can we afford this system... etc.

This thing about productivity and wage increases only apply to a relatively small set of skilled middle class workers. The vast majority of people doing manual jobs have next to no bargaining power. If there are 10 jobs and 11 candidates, the lowest accepted wage becomes the de facto wage for the 10 new employees. This wage depression, which we've seen galloping across Europe and the US hasn't affected middle class people yet which is why many of you are probably unfamiliar with it. But get used to it. Because soon, machines are going to be much more productive and much better at doing a host of middle class professions. And then, quite frankly, you're gonna be ****ed.

BarcaDen

oscarBravo wrote: »

Let's try a bit of reductio ad absurdum on that: suppose all jobs are eliminated and replaced by automation.

Where does the money come from to pay the UBI?

I got a bit carried away. Its unlikely that all jobs will be eliminated.

In a post scarcity world, who says we'll even need money? We're stuck in a premodern paradigm and all the while robotics is marching on. We need to rethink everything, frankly.

topper75

BarcaDen wrote: »

But get used to it. Because soon, machines are going to be much more productive and much better at doing a host of middle class professions. And then, quite frankly, you're gonna be ****ed.

Or perhaps I could retrain. I'm stuck with my DNA, but I can change my 'middle class profession' to whatever is demanded. The job I do now didn't exist 10 years back. Many posters here, I wager, could claim this.

I've heard some manual workers have tried this retraining thing too. The cheek of them.

Suryavarman

topper75 wrote: »

No I don't accept that.

If everyone can now get Sky Sports because of the UBI, and they all start ringing up to get the installation, there are limited numbers of vans/installers.

Something has got to give.

What gives is prices.

Upwards. Sky charge more. Its more expensive for everybody.

We call this inflation, demand-pull inflation.

There is no financial alchemy. Capitalism found this out the hard way in 2007/2008. Communism suffered it for decades in the USSR, and China is getting its lesson now.

If more people order Sky then Sky hires more people to install sky dishes.

That isn't how inflation is calculated by the way. It's a bit more complicated than the increase in people's Sky bills.

BarcaDen

topper75 wrote: »

Or perhaps I could retrain. I'm stuck with my DNA, but I can change my 'middle class profession' to whatever is demanded. The job I do now didn't exist 10 years back. Many posters here, I wager, could claim this.

Assuming there's enough work to go around, fine.

If not, and we're entering an era of structural unemployment, then we're gonna have trouble. Educated, creative and motivated people can retrain. Thats grand. What about the 80% of the population lacking the aptitude, the ability, or the motivation? What about the people on low pay just getting by? Because there is no income security, and hence no incentive to jump ship and take control of our own lives, millions are being left by the wayside.

As an aside, does anyone really think our present system is perfect? I don't think so. You can see in the data that traditionally working class people are voting for far right populists in huge numbers. Look at Brexit! If you don't see an inherent source of dissatisfaction with the present system then you're all delusional. As I say, middle class people are too busy working themselves to death so they can't see it, but they will. Eventually.

topper75

BarcaDen wrote: »

In a post scarcity world, who says we'll even need money?

Post-scarcity makes no sense with expanding populations.

With scarce (or at least limited) resources, you need a way of determining buying power. For us now, that is represented by money.

As the population expands with finite resources, the imperative for such is greater in fact rather than less.

topper75

BarcaDen wrote: »

Assuming there's enough work to go around, fine.

If not, and we're entering an era of structural unemployment, then we're gonna have trouble. Educated, creative and motivated people can retrain. Thats grand. What about the 80% of the population lacking the aptitude, the ability, or the motivation? What about the people on low pay just getting by? Because there is no income security, and hence no incentive to jump ship and take control of our own lives, millions are being left by the wayside.

As an aside, does anyone really think our present system is perfect? I don't think so. You can see in the data that traditionally working class people are voting for far right populists in huge numbers. Look at Brexit! If you don't see an inherent source of dissatisfaction with the present system then you're all delusional. As I say, middle class people are too busy working themselves to death so they can't see it, but they will. Eventually.

I'm no Methuselah but I know that this dissatisfaction and structural unemployment are not new concepts at all. The retraining cost for less well-off can be socialised. That makes sense. We have adult ed, Fás etc. UBI though is not a solution because it just pushes the demand curve upwards. If the supply curve stays put, prices rise.

Suryavarman

BarcaDen wrote: »

Assuming there's enough work to go around, fine.

If not, and we're entering an era of structural unemployment, then we're gonna have trouble. Educated, creative and motivated people can retrain. Thats grand. What about the 80% of the population lacking the aptitude, the ability, or the motivation? What about the people on low pay just getting by? Because there is no income security, and hence no incentive to jump ship and take control of our own lives, millions are being left by the wayside.

As an aside, does anyone really think our present system is perfect? I don't think so. You can see in the data that traditionally working class people are voting for far right populists in huge numbers. Look at Brexit! If you don't see an inherent source of dissatisfaction with the present system then you're all delusional. As I say, middle class people are too busy working themselves to death so they can't see it, but they will. Eventually.

A hell of a lot more than 20% of the population are educated and able to retrain.

Stop shifting goalposts. Our current system has some imperfections but that doesn't justify your completely unworkable system.

BarcaDen

Suryavarman wrote: »

A hell of a lot more than 20% of the population are educated and able to retrain.

Stop shifting goalposts. Our current system has some imperfections but that doesn't justify your completely unworkable system.

'My system' is a hodgepodge of ideas, not a workable system. I'm clearly not some great economist. I've identified a problem, like many other people have, and believe a UBI in some shape or form is a decent solution. Could I be wrong about us entering an era of structural unemployment? Absolutely. It seems to me that most of the jobs created in the wake of the 2008 crisis have been really ****ty ones (deliveroo cyclists, shopworkers jobs, callcenters) A lot of this feels like 'makework', the sticking plaster over the putrifying corpse of capitalism as it currently operates.

How will it be funded, how would it work in practise? I have no idea. There are some interesting pilots currently running so we'll see how it all plays out. As I say, I think its probably 20 years too soon but we'll see.

mahoganygas

BarcaDen wrote:

I look forward to a post work society, where most work is personally directed according to peoples skills and abilities and people could care less about the economic reward.

BarcaDen wrote:

I'm not advocating a form of communism.

I struggle to see how the end result materialises into anything other than communism.

40 years ago people talked about robots talking over our jobs.
That has happened. But we call those robots computers.

The human race is now more productive than ever, and yet we still work long hours. Why do you think that is? Are you suggesting legislation or criminalising somebody working hard or striving for their unconventional dreams?

That doesn't sound like emancipation for humanity. It sounds like a gulag.

Interesting topic OP.

Suryavarman

BarcaDen wrote: »

'My system' is a hodgepodge of ideas, not a workable system. I'm clearly not some great economist. I've identified a problem, like many other people have, and believe a UBI in some shape or form is a decent solution. Could I be wrong about us entering an era of structural unemployment? Absolutely. It seems to me that most of the jobs created in the wake of the 2008 crisis have been really ****ty ones (deliveroo cyclists, shopworkers jobs, callcenters) A lot of this feels like 'makework', the sticking plaster over the putrifying corpse of capitalism as it currently operates.

How will it be funded, how would it work in practise? I have no idea. There are some interesting pilots currently running so we'll see how it all plays out. As I say, I think its probably 20 years too soon but we'll see.

How are we supposed to have a discussion if you aren't going to bother providing any examples of what this policy would actually look like? You've spent the whole thread waving away opposing arguments with outlandish claims and no evidence to back them up.

topper75

Suryavarman wrote: »

If more people order Sky then Sky hires more people to install sky dishes.

That isn't how inflation is calculated by the way. It's a bit more complicated than the increase in people's Sky bills.

They can't train in workers overnight.

They can however implement price increases overnight. So that typically is what happens.

In the medium term yes, you can train installers but will still have bottlenecks with dishes and box orders. All material resources are ultimately limited.

Not sure what you mean by 'how inflation is calculated'? Are you talking about the CPI?

I'm talking about an immediae demand-driven increase in the price of a particular good/service. A brutally straightforward and observable calculation sadly.

Suryavarman

topper75 wrote: »

They can't train in workers overnight.

They can however implement price increases overnight. So that typically is what happens.

In the medium term yes, you can train installers but will still have bottlenecks with dishes and box orders. All material resources are ultimately limited.

Not sure what you mean by 'how inflation is calculated'? Are you talking about the CPI?

I'm talking about an immediae demand-driven increase in the price of a particular good/service. A brutally straightforward and observable calculation sadly.

You said inflation earlier, now you're talking about a particular good/service. Make up your mind up on what you want to discuss and get back to me.

BarcaDen

Suryavarman wrote: »

How are we supposed to have a discussion if you aren't going to bother providing any examples of what this policy would actually look like? You've spent the whole thread waving away opposing arguments with outlandish claims and no evidence to back them up.

As I said, I have a hodgepodge of ideas to go by. Some from me, most from others. Its not a very well formulated policy because we don't have a lot to go on yet. If you're genuinely interested in this, take a wee look at the wikipedia page for UBI, it offers many examples of pilots (most of which have been considered successful). From there you can follow the links to the different projects. The pilot is Utrecht interests me greatly and I'm following it avidly.

Evidence? Since when have we needed evidence for philosophy!!!?

BarcaDen

mahoganygas wrote: »

I struggle to see how the end result materialises into anything other than communism.

40 years ago people talked about robots talking over our jobs.
That has happened. But we call those robots computers.

The human race is now more productive than ever, and yet we still work long hours. Why do you think that is? Are you suggesting legislation or criminalising somebody working hard or striving for their unconventional dreams?

That doesn't sound like emancipation for humanity. It sounds like a gulag.

Interesting topic OP.

Hi there.

I would never suggest criminalising people who work hard to want to make their own business. I'm freelance, I know how it is. Sometimes I work crazy hours but at least its for me. I don't have a boss. I want others to know what that feels like! (Its ****ing great)

We work long hours because that is the system we have created. The vast majority of us do jobs that could be done in at least half the time were we better organised and efficient. Thats my experience in a variety of industries that I've worked in.

As per computerisation - a good example is accountancy. In the past you had 100.000s of low paid clerks doing manual computation, mostly women. With the advent of computers most of these jobs have gone and in fact as a whole the profession created more jobs and better paying ones for people higher up the value chain.

But this wave of disruption is much more radical than the computer. The computer has merely made the average office more productive and capable of doing greater things. It was in general terms a complement to the labour market, not a replacement of. Look at the numbers who work in industry though. Take a walk down a Volkwagon factory floor. That is the future. McDonalds and Tesco with their self service. I could go on. The evidence suggests that we are creating far fewer well paying, middle class jobs. And the precariat grows every year.

topper75

BarcaDen wrote: »

Take a walk down a Volkwagon factory floor. That is the future. McDonalds and Tesco with their self service. I could go on. The evidence suggests that we are creating far fewer well paying, middle class jobs. And the precariat grows every year.

It was always thus though. There are few cartwrights, coopers, farriers, stevedores, or candlestick makers on our dole queues. People move on.

topper75

Suryavarman wrote: »

You said inflation earlier, now you're talking about a particular good/service. Make up your mind up on what you want to discuss and get back to me.

Sorry Sir if you were confused. I gave one service/good, Sky subscriptions, as an example. I could have talked about pints of peer or dentist appointments. I meant for you to draw a collective inference from that single example. Output of everything is limited in the short term. Having a sudden increase in the ability for people to meet today's prices as consumers - only serves to make tomorrow's prices higher. It does not make lots of people better off in the medium/long term as the UBI proposers hope/imagine.

Suryavarman

BarcaDen wrote: »

As I said, I have a hodgepodge of ideas to go by. Some from me, most from others. Its not a very well formulated policy because we don't have a lot to go on yet. If you're genuinely interested in this, take a wee look at the wikipedia page for UBI, it offers many examples of pilots (most of which have been considered successful). From there you can follow the links to the different projects. The pilot is Utrecht interests me greatly and I'm following it avidly.

Evidence? Since when have we needed evidence for philosophy!!!?

I've read plenty on this idea. I've read plenty of articles on what it would look like in reality (which you clearly haven't). Because I have read around this topic I realise that a UBI would either make the poor worse off or massively increase the cost of the welfare state. I thus oppose the UBI and prefer other cost effective policies to assist the poor such as some form of negative income tax.

People usually provide evidence when they make outlandish claims like you have even if they are discussing "philosophy".

BarcaDen wrote: »

Hi there.

I would never suggest criminalising people who work hard to want to make their own business. I'm freelance, I know how it is. Sometimes I work crazy hours but at least its for me. I don't have a boss. I want others to know what that feels like! (Its ****ing great)

We work long hours because that is the system we have created. The vast majority of us do jobs that could be done in at least half the time were we better organised and efficient. Thats my experience in a variety of industries that I've worked in.

As per computerisation - a good example is accountancy. In the past you had 100.000s of low paid clerks doing manual computation, mostly women. With the advent of computers most of these jobs have gone and in fact as a whole the profession created more jobs and better paying ones for people higher up the value chain.

But this wave of disruption is much more radical than the computer. The computer has merely made the average office more productive and capable of doing greater things. It was in general terms a complement to the labour market, not a replacement of. Look at the numbers who work in industry though. Take a walk down a Volkwagon factory floor. That is the future. McDonalds and Tesco with their self service. I could go on. The evidence suggests that we are creating far fewer well paying, middle class jobs. And the precariat grows every year.

Where is this evidence?

Suryavarman

topper75 wrote: »

Sorry Sir if you were confused. I gave one service/good, Sky subscriptions, as an example. I could have talked about pints of peer or dentist appointments. I meant for you to draw a collective inference from that single example. Output of everything is limited in the short term. Having a sudden increase in the ability for people to meet today's prices as consumers - only serves to make tomorrow's prices higher. It does not make lots of people better off in the medium/long term as the UBI proposers hope/imagine.

You're the confused one. Have another read through your first post on this thread:

topper75 wrote: »

All it would do is move the demand curve upwards.

More money chasing the same amount of goods and services => upwards pressure on prices across the board.

The "poor" will always be with us by definition. Unless you want to try the whole communism thing again. I don't.

There is no sudden increase in people's abilities to purchase goods. Nobody in this thread has argued for funding a UBI through an increase in the money supply. This policy would be funded through taxation so an increase in income for some people would be offset by a fall in income for others. There will be no net increase in income and there will be no effect on inflation.

BarcaDen

Suryavarman wrote: »

I've read plenty on this idea. I've read plenty of articles on what it would look like in reality (which you clearly haven't).

Ok mate. No offence, but I won't be responding to you going forward. No point. Either we talk with respect or we don't talk at all.

BarcaDen

Decency in discourse! Now theres an outlandish idea.

ancapailldorcha

BarcaDen wrote: »

Decency in discourse! Now theres an outlandish idea.

Please try and post more constructively than this.

BarcaDen

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Please try and post more constructively than this.

My integrity was attacked in a rather contemptuous way. I'll ignore the person in future (btw, I believe its possible to blacklist somebody so their comments don't show up, if you know how please tell) I've learnt that once contempt has been established between two parties, discourse is impossible.

topper75

Suryavarman wrote: »

You're the confused one. Have another read through your first post on this thread:



There is no sudden increase in people's abilities to purchase goods. Nobody in this thread has argued for funding a UBI through an increase in the money supply. This policy would be funded through taxation so an increase in income for some people would be offset by a fall in income for others. There will be no net increase in income and there will be no effect on inflation.

This assumes that the higher earners who you tax to fund your UBI spend less. They won't spend less at all necessarily - they'll save less. You still have more money chasing the same supply of goods and services.

This net effect is as good as a money supply increase. hence the upward moving demand curve.

In your opinion - prices stay the same even though the less well off have been gifted extra income. I cannot fathom how that could be - in this respect I am indeed confused.

ancapailldorcha

BarcaDen wrote: »

My integrity was attacked in a rather contemptuous way. I'll ignore the person in future (btw, I believe its possible to blacklist somebody so their comments don't show up, if you know how please tell) I've learnt that once contempt has been established between two parties, discourse is impossible.

If you have a problem with a post, report it and move on. If you want to add a user to your ignore list, you can click their username for the option. If you have any more questions, please use the PM function so as not to derail the thread further.

Suryavarman

topper75 wrote: »

This assumes that the higher earners who you tax to fund your UBI spend less. They won't spend less at all necessarily - they'll save less. You still have more money chasing the same supply of goods and services.

This net effect is as good as a money supply increase. hence the upward moving demand curve.

In your opinion - prices stay the same even though the less well off have been gifted extra income. I cannot fathom how that could be - in this respect I am indeed confused.

Savings don't go into a big vault to not be spent. Every € that is saved gets spent almost straight away.

Whoever you tax to pay for the basic income has less income than they otherwise would.

All a UBI does is transfer spending, it doesn't increase it.

Dohnjoe

Suryavarman wrote: »

Savings don't go into a big vault to not be spent. Every € that is saved gets spent almost straight away.

Whoever you tax to pay for the basic income has less income than they otherwise would.

All a UBI does is transfer spending, it doesn't increase it.

I see it as a pyramid scheme

Effectively a working person will be supporting someone who chooses not to work

Anyone who argues that a theory like UBI will be cheaper than the current welfare system seriously underestimates people's resolve not to work. I know many people who'd instantly quit their jobs to get a no-strings attached income if it were just above the social welfare level

And out of those people, a portion will try to work the black market (online work) as well as living abroad in cheaper countries (e.g. Spain)

HiJacques

Dohnjoe wrote: »

I see it as a pyramid scheme

Effectively a working person will be supporting someone who chooses not to work

Anyone who argues that a theory like UBI will be cheaper than the current welfare system seriously underestimates people's resolve not to work. I know many people who'd instantly quit their jobs to get a no-strings attached income if it were just above the social welfare level

And out of those people, a portion will try to work the black market (online work) as well as living abroad in cheaper countries (e.g. Spain)

UBI already exists for the baby boomer generation. They were the first generation to experience free universal social care and the entire welfare system is based on their needs.

Their parent’s generation were cheap to maintain in old age by comparison to the costs they will inflict on millennial.

Extended life spans, more advanced costly medical treatments to extend an unproductive period of life even further, higher living standard expectations and a smaller number of children to share the burden of maintaining them or be a large enough democratic force to stop them doing something which undermines the future of the next generations, like Brexit.

BarcaDen

HiJacques wrote: »

UBI already exists for the baby boomer generation. They were the first generation to experience free universal social care and the entire welfare system is based on their needs.

Their parent’s generation were cheap to maintain in old age by comparison to the costs they will inflict on millennial.

Extended life spans, more advanced costly medical treatments to extend an unproductive period of life even further, higher living standard expectations and a smaller number of children to share the burden of maintaining them or be a large enough democratic force to stop them doing something which undermines the future of the next generations, like Brexit.

This is a good point actually. What is a pension if not a form of UBI?

Suryavarman

BarcaDen wrote: »

This is a good point actually. What is a pension if not a form of UBI?

A pension is given to far fewer people than a UBI would making it far more affordable. A pension is only given to people not expected to work so it gives us little insight into how a UBI would affect work incentives. Government pension schemes are also set to drag countries down as the ratio of workers to pensioners is too low.

BarcaDen

I think a lot of the focus here and the criticism has been about the cost of UBI. That is a fair point to make of course, but I think it risks missing the woods for the trees. For example, the proposed UBI in Switzerland (which obviously didn't pass the referendum) would have cost about 33% of GDP. Thats a cost that governments could afford if they wanted. As a frame of comparison, Switzerland is a rather right leaning country and spends only 19.4% of its GDP on welfare, a bit below the OECD average. For leftys like me, 33% of GDP is easily manageable.

I'm more interested in how UBI would eliminate precariousness, which some people claim doesn't exist (because they have little to no experience of it)

ancapailldorcha

HiJacques wrote: »

Brexit

HiJacques, this is not a forum for one word posts. Please try to post more constructively than this.

Its dead Jim

Dohnjoe wrote: »

I see it as a pyramid scheme

Effectively a working person will be supporting someone who chooses not to work

Anyone who argues that a theory like UBI will be cheaper than the current welfare system seriously underestimates people's resolve not to work. I know many people who'd instantly quit their jobs to get a no-strings attached income if it were just above the social welfare level

And out of those people, a portion will try to work the black market (online work) as well as living abroad in cheaper countries (e.g. Spain)

If people don't want to work they don't have to with the current system yet people still choose to work, when jobs are available the majority will take them.

Dohnjoe

Its dead Jim wrote: »

If people don't want to work they don't have to with the current system yet people still choose to work, when jobs are available the majority will take them.

There is a huge social stigma to being on the welfare as a life choice, people have to jump through hoops, they have to be means tested, they have to turn up at the welfare office, they have to be actively searching for jobs - it's a pain in the ass, it's designed to be a negative experience

UBI would be completely different, it would be free money with no strings attached, no stigma, a complete entitlement. Personally I know many people who would insto-quit their jobs to get on that gravy train, do online work on the side, maybe go live like a king in Thailand..

In order to prevent the serious amount of abuse that would take place, they would have to start adding so many strings that it would end up essentially becoming the same model as current welfare with the same level of administration

topper75

Suryavarman wrote: »

Savings don't go into a big vault to not be spent. Every € that is saved gets spent almost straight away.

I've re-read this a few times and can only conclude that we have completely different concept of savings and what they are.

Suryavarman wrote: »

Whoever you tax to pay for the basic income has less income than they otherwise would.

Yes correct less income - but not necessarily less spending, just less savings. THEIR spending stays the same. New spending is added to the less well off. Is this magic, or has something got to give? Clue: prices.

Suryavarman wrote: »

All a UBI does is transfer spending, it doesn't increase it.

No it doesn't transfer spending. The well off folks have already seen the dentist, have already subscribed to Sky etc.

You are not taking the spending. You are taking their savings. This is extra money chasing the same supply of goods and services, see? What happens prices then?

Suryavarman

topper75 wrote: »

I've re-read this a few times and can only conclude that we have completely different concept of savings and what they are.




Yes correct less income - but not necessarily less spending, just less savings. THEIR spending stays the same. New spending is added to the less well off. Is this magic, or has something got to give? Clue: prices.



No it doesn't transfer spending. The well off folks have already seen the dentist, have already subscribed to Sky etc.

You are not taking the spending. You are taking their savings. This is extra money chasing the same supply of goods and services, see? What happens prices then?

Basically what you're saying is that savings go into a big vault and stay there without being used. I'm sorry but that is completely incorrect.

topper75

Suryavarman wrote: »

Basically what you're saying is that savings go into a big vault and stay there without being used. I'm sorry but that is completely incorrect.

For money supply purposes it may as well be. Maybe you are on about these savings being used by banks as liquidity reserves to make further loans? In Keynesian economics, you have to reckon with the Marginal Propensity to Save MPS when looking at the money supply and injections.