Universal Basic Income - From the left to the right

[GoBills808]

 

How can you possibly guarantee equality of outcome without setting a limit on achievement? The only other way would be to supplement all but the single highest wage-earner's incomes to match that of the highest. Do you really believe that an individual's dignity justifies paying a busboy an hourly wage equal to that of an attorney? Again, it's about learning and developing a marketable skill. Esteem has nothing to do with it.

 

If people were not unique individuals; if there was no such thing as talent or work ethic, then maybe this issue could be addressed from the standpoint of equality in an egalitarian society. The problem is that we are individuals, each with their own talents, skills, and ethics. How we choose to earn our money and live our lives are our choice as individuals, but we are also each responsible for not being a burden on our fellow citizens.

That's going a bit beyond the scope of my original answer. I simply posited that an individual's dignity was at least a relevant baseline for evaluating their worth in a monetary sense, whereas things like 'talent' or 'character' or 'work ethic' would be significantly harder to quantify.

 

But to answer the larger point, I don't know. There isn't any meaningful precedent. To reference the OP, I suspect we're heading in a similar direction with robotics increasingly supplanting human capital. What I don't worry about is the justification for income equality, provided the social incentives replace the fiscal ones in terms of an individual's sense of worth. It's ultimately an optimistic view of society and humanity.

He's a communist. He's said as much in prior posts. You're not arguing against his argument.

Not exactly. Socialism and communism are a bit different...but yes, my politics do lean that way.

[IDBillzFan]

a better mechanism is to have a job guarantee program. There are all kinds of services that people can perform and "earn" a minimum guaranteed income.

 

Assuming they feel like that 'service' is not beneath them, or that they feel they deserve more than the minimum guaranteed income.

 

The problem, of course, is that you're trying to provide work for people who actually don't want to work. Because the basic truth is that if you DO want to work, and are willing to bust your ass, there is plenty of work out there right now.

 

Yes, maybe you need to take two jobs. Even three. And yes, you may have to make sacrifices. But it's there if you really want it.

 

Unfortunately, like anything else that is guaranteed, the left will ultimately hire antifa fools to burn things down until the minimum wage is $30/hour. And then they'll B word about that. Because the entitled will never be happy regardless of what you do.

Edited June 8, 2017 by LABillzFan

[Magox]

 

 

 

I apparently have more confidence in people than you do.

 

 

The irony is that it is exactly that confidence and human capability that will produce advanced technologies that will most likely make most human labor functions obsolete.

you're snarkiness is in the right direction though, a better mechanism is to have a job guarantee program. There are all kinds of services that people can perform and "earn" a minimum guaranteed income.

 

I'm sort of beginning to fall under this line of thinking.

 

Assuming they feel like that 'service' is not beneath them, or that they feel they deserve more than the minimum guaranteed income.

 

The problem, of course, is that you're trying to provide work for people who actually don't want to work. Because the basic truth is that if you DO want to work, and are willing to bust your ass, there is plenty of work out there right now.

 

Yes, maybe you need to take two jobs. Even three. And yes, you may have to make sacrifices. But it's there if you really want it.

 

Unfortunately, like anything else that is guaranteed, the left will ultimately hire antifa fools to burn things down until the minimum wage is $30/hour. And then they'll B word about that. Because the entitled will never be happy regardless of what you do.

 

My instincts and social desires are that we incentivize people to work, and I believe that should always be the case. I hear Azalin's argument and in a perfect world that is the way I would want things to be. He says that there will be other jobs available with higher skill levels. I agree, however I believe that the net loss of jobs from the more menial sorts of labor along with some loss of higher skilled positions due to AI will far outweigh the net gains from the higher skill jobs. I just don't believe it is feasible to expect that for every job lost due to advanced technologies that there is a net job to be gained via higher skilled trade. I don't buy that and seems illogical to me. I could be wrong, but I just don't see it.

[Chef Jim]

 

I'm sort of beginning to fall under this line of thinking.

So you're thinking it's a good idea to work for their welfare check? I've been calling for this forever.

[Magox]

That's going a bit beyond the scope of my original answer. I simply posited that an individual's dignity was at least a relevant baseline for evaluating their worth in a monetary sense, whereas things like 'talent' or 'character' or 'work ethic' would be significantly harder to quantify.

 

But to answer the larger point, I don't know. There isn't any meaningful precedent. To reference the OP, I suspect we're heading in a similar direction with robotics increasingly supplanting human capital. What I don't worry about is the justification for income equality, provided the social incentives replace the fiscal ones in terms of an individual's sense of worth. It's ultimately an optimistic view of society and humanity.

Not exactly. Socialism and communism are a bit different...but yes, my politics do lean that way.

 

 

I think you've made very good arguments. I just don't see how one could measurably evaluate "dignity" into a form of compensation. The beauty of capitalism from my perspective is that more often than not it rewards productivity. For that reason, in my view it still is the best form of economic and political system. Having said that, moving forward I do believe that some sort of hybrid of capitalism and some other form of economic and political system will eventually be the path forward.

So you're thinking it's a good idea to work for their welfare check? I've been calling for this forever.

 

Absolutely. For the most part.

 

I've been saying the same thing for years as well as you probably have seen me say. Reforming the welfare system with more strings tied to employment.

[snafu]

The irony is that it is exactly that confidence and human capability that will produce advanced technologies that will most likely make most human labor functions obsolete.

 

I'm sort of beginning to fall under this line of thinking.

 

My instincts and social desires are that we incentivize people to work, and I believe that should always be the case. I hear Azalin's argument and in a perfect world that is the way I would want things to be. He says that there will be other jobs available with higher skill levels. I agree, however I believe that the net loss of jobs from the more menial sorts of labor along with some loss of higher skilled positions due to AI will far outweigh the net gains from the higher skill jobs. I just don't believe it is feasible to expect that for every job lost due to advanced technologies that there is a net job to be gained via higher skilled trade. I don't buy that and seems illogical to me. I could be wrong, but I just don't see it.

Maybe just bolster and make more efficient the food stamp and the re-training programs already in place, put these programs in the hands of states so they can figure out the local costs and impacts of the programs and you've got a start. Handing out $$ to anyone who lost a job is dis-incentivizing people to go out and actually do work.

 

This also addresses Gobills808's thought of handing out money to people fo just "being".

[GoBills808]

Maybe just bolster and make more efficient the food stamp and the re-training programs already in place, put these programs in the hands of states so they can figure out the local costs and impacts of the programs and you've got a start. Handing out $$ to anyone who lost a job is dis-incentivizing people to go out and actually do work.

 

This also addresses Gobills808's thought of handing out money to people fo just "being".

You still have to work to get paid, that's the point. Everyone contributes, everyone gets paid.

 

 

I think you've made very good arguments. I just don't see how one could measurably evaluate "dignity" into a form of compensation. The beauty of capitalism from my perspective is that more often than not it rewards productivity. For that reason, in my view it still is the best form of economic and political system. Having said that, moving forward I do believe that some sort of hybrid of capitalism and some other form of economic and political system will eventually be the path forward.

'Dignity' in how Azalin and I were discussing it is simply being. Thus, your worth is inherent. Your skills, talents, work ethic are extraneous, and your output relative to others does not dictate the degree to which you are compensated financially.

[Magox]

 

'Dignity' in how Azalin and I were discussing it is simply being. Thus, your worth is inherent. Your skills, talents, work ethic are extraneous, and your output relative to others does not dictate the degree to which you are compensated financially.

 

Philosophically I'm opposed to your line of thinking, in today's world this sort of orthodoxy leads to stagnation and lower economic output. Also, and I say this not in a pejorative manner but I think this sort of does make you more so of a communist than a socialist.

Edited June 8, 2017 by Magox

[Chef Jim]

You still have to work to get paid, that's the point. Everyone contributes, everyone gets paid.

'Dignity' in how Azalin and I were discussing it is simply being. Thus, your worth is inherent. Your skills, talents, work ethic are extraneous, and your output relative to others does not dictate the degree to which you are compensated financially.

I take it you're not in sales.

[TakeYouToTasker]

Existence does not confer value.

 

There is zero merit to simply existing.

[row_33]

Is there a "right wing" argument that this is a good thing?

 

Those who favour a single rate tax or something in that realm, are they in favour of this?

 

I know the minimum wage thinking goes all over the map for every strain of thought...

[TakeYouToTasker]

Is there a "right wing" argument that this is a good thing?

 

Those who favour a single rate tax or something in that realm, are they in favour of this?

 

I know the minimum wage thinking goes all over the map for every strain of thought...

There is no conservative argument for UBI. Milton Freidman made a case for the idea in his book Capitalism and Freedom, as a reform of the welfare state, but his reasoning wasn't imbedded in conservatism, rather reform.

[row_33]

But if Uncle Miltie advised it...

 

It's too big a project, like simply throwing the tax code in the garbage and writing a 5 page one.

it would be a great sting operation and catch all kinds of illegals and wanted men when they try to register for a minimum income

 

best one since MLB tricked the umpire union into mass resignation and then didn't rehire the worst of the worst, much needed again...

[Chef Jim]

Existence does not confer value.

 

There is zero merit to simply existing.

 

That would give the same value to a guy who shoots heroin every night and sleeps under a bridge as the guy who helps people overcome drug addiction, get a job and afford a place to live. That's asinine.

 

Oh I'm sorry. Do I need written permission prior to mentioning you or talking to you?

[/dev/null]

Existence does not confer value.

 

 

But does it covfefe value?

[row_33]

But does it covfefe value?

 

Is that the greatest red herring ever?

[GoBills808]

 

Philosophically I'm opposed to your line of thinking, in today's world this sort of orthodoxy leads to stagnation and lower economic output. Also, and I say this not in a pejorative manner but I think this sort of does make you more so of a communist than a socialist.

No. Communism doesn't require a government, and is decidedly anti-market. Socialism can function with both a democratic governing body and doesn't discriminate against a healthy free market. The idea of everyone getting paid the same amount is attributed to communism but can be equally applied in a socialist society.

 

*EDIT: forgot to address 'stagnation and lower economic output'. There are several schools of thought on this, one I've been subscribing to (and helping develop in truth) is that as capitalism progresses, its value to society as a whole decreases in that what it produces does not benefit society at large. Capitalism is the natural form of developing societies due to its inherently progressive nature, whereby under certain conditions and for a certain length of time society will flourish under a pure capitalist system as the necessary goods and services are both easily produced and improved upon. For that, capitalism has no equal.

 

There comes a time, however, when the wants and needs of society become more complex, and it's here I believe capitalism begins to fail. Rather than providing the necessary goods and services required of a mature society, capitalism, due to its linear and individualistic nature, cannot adapt quickly enough to find an equilibrium between the good of society and the profit motive. It's a victim of it's own success, basically. And it's here that other socioeconomic systems can evolve to replace capitalism, which is what Marx would argue is the natural progression of societies anyway.

 

That would give the same value to a guy who shoots heroin every night and sleeps under a bridge as the guy who helps people overcome drug addiction, get a job and afford a place to live. That's asinine.

 

Oh I'm sorry. Do I need written permission prior to mentioning you or talking to you?

No, as I said before it requires everyone to put forth their best effort in terms of production. You obviously don't get to partake in society if you don't contribute.

Edited June 8, 2017 by GoBills808

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

Where's a good site to compare various economic performances by nation? Something like the OECD? I had a question that's bugging me.

[Chef Jim]

 

No, as I said before it requires everyone to put forth their best effort in terms of production. You obviously don't get to partake in society if you don't contribute.

 

So the amount of your contribution to society will no determine the amount of your compensation?

 

You don't agree that if person A and person B have the exact same job but person A is a hell of a lot better at it than person B they should both be compensated the same?

 

You may have mentioned this already I'm just getting clarification.

[GoBills808]

 

So the amount of your contribution to society will no determine the amount of your compensation?

 

You don't agree that if person A and person B have the exact same job but person A is a hell of a lot better at it than person B they should both be compensated the same?

 

You may have mentioned this already I'm just getting clarification.

Correct. And further, even if Person A and Person B have DIFFERENT jobs and one is better at it than the other they should both be compensated equally. In theory.