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.
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
BarcaDen wrote: » I think you're missing the point a little bit. The purpose is not to create jobs but rather to eliminate them!
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
BarcaDen wrote: » In a post scarcity world, who says we'll even need money?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
