Universal Basic Income - From the left to the right

[Benjamin Franklin]

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.

You're a commie disaster. Maybe McCarthyism didn't go far enough. Please move to Russia and enjoy yourself.

[GoBills808]

You're a commie disaster. Maybe McCarthyism didn't go far enough. Please move to Russia and enjoy yourself.

Actually, some would argue it represents true progressivism...admittedly something of which an avowed Democrat would have no concept.

[Benjamin Franklin]

Actually, some would argue it represents true progressivism...admittedly something of which an avowed Democrat would have no concept.

And back here in the real world, capitalism works pretty well to organize the masses.

 

Socialism, erm, not so much.

[GoBills808]

And back here in the real world, capitalism works pretty well to organize the masses.

 

Socialism, erm, not so much.

"All property, indeed, except the savage's temporary cabin, his bow, his matchcoat, and other little acquisitions, absolutely necessary for his subsistence, seems to me to be the creature of public convention. Hence the public has the right of regulating descents, and all other conveyances of property, and even of limiting the quantity and the uses of it. All the property that is necessary to a man, for the conservation of the individual and the propagation of the species, is his natural right, which none can justly deprive him of: but all property superfluous to such purposes is the property of the publick, who, by their laws, have created it, and who may therefore by other laws dispose of it, whenever the welfare of the publick shall demand such disposition. He that does not like civil society on these terms, let him retire and live among savages. He can have no right to the benefits of society, who will not pay his club towards the support of it."

 

-Benjamin Franklin

[TakeYouToTasker]

That's fantastic.

 

You still haven't addressed the very real problem of motivating the "doers" to do.

 

What you propose will bring the world to a grinding halt.

 

Jobs which require expertise and education, long hours, or dangerous conditions will not attract labor. I'd quit tomorrow under these conditions. So would everyone I know.

 

You're also setting your boot on the throat of innovation and entrepreneurship. It sounds as though you have no concept of the role capital formation plays in business and innovation; and even less of an understanding of the risk taking that drives business growth.

Edited June 8, 2017 by TakeYouToTasker

[GoBills808]

That's fantastic.

 

You still haven't addressed the very real problem of motivating the "doers" to do.

 

What you propose will bring the world to a grinding halt.

 

Jobs which require expertise and education, long hours, or dangerous conditions will not attract labor. I'd quit tomorrow under these conditions. So would everyone I know.

Why would you quit?

[Benjamin Franklin]

"All property, indeed, except the savage's temporary cabin, his bow, his matchcoat, and other little acquisitions, absolutely necessary for his subsistence, seems to me to be the creature of public convention. Hence the public has the right of regulating descents, and all other conveyances of property, and even of limiting the quantity and the uses of it. All the property that is necessary to a man, for the conservation of the individual and the propagation of the species, is his natural right, which none can justly deprive him of: but all property superfluous to such purposes is the property of the publick, who, by their laws, have created it, and who may therefore by other laws dispose of it, whenever the welfare of the publick shall demand such disposition. He that does not like civil society on these terms, let him retire and live among savages. He can have no right to the benefits of society, who will not pay his club towards the support of it."

 

-Benjamin Franklin

He had some commie pinko leanings. Started the public library and fire companies. But he believed in earning the fruits of labor too.

[row_33]

Why would you quit?

 

I would estimate 80% of the men who are middle class in my life have sincerely told me they don't know why they bother striving every day, and it's not just talk.

[GoBills808]

 

I would estimate 80% of the men who are middle class in my life have sincerely told me they don't know why they bother striving every day, and it's not just talk.

That's not an uncommon sentiment, but again: why?

[row_33]

That's not an uncommon sentiment, but again: why?

 

They know they are getting destroyed financially compared to prior generations in the same job and class-level.

I have never cared about stuff like that, I live my life.

[GoBills808]

 

They know they are getting destroyed financially compared to prior generations in the same job and class-level.

I have never cared about stuff like that, I live my life.

Well put. So in theory, if your financial needs were met independent of your particular occupation, your incentive to produce would suffer no significant drop-off and could in fact be improved by bettering your security within society.

 

It requires a dramatic shift in perspective, there's no denying that. Love of country and desire to serve the common good would have to replace the profit motive. It's no easy sell.

[TakeYouToTasker]

Why would you quit?

Because it's not worth the sacrifices I make, the hours I work, the responsibilities I have, without the financial rewards.

 

I work longer, smarter, and harder than most people. It's people like me who drive the economic engine of this country.

 

I got into my profession because of the financial rewards, as do most people in the professions which drive the economy, and if I'm not compensated appropriately for my effort, ethic, and skill set I'm more than content to collect a check for simply existing.

 

The truth is that the world needs people like me, because there are very few of us, relative to the size of the population, who can do what we do, where as there as roughly 7.5 billion people who can flip a burger. Flipping burgers is easy, and stress free, and doesn't require me to make any sacrifices. Pay me the same for both, and I'm flipping burgers.

Edited June 8, 2017 by TakeYouToTasker

[IDBillzFan]

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.

 

Please tell me you're just making stuff up to troll everyone. Please.

 

In the event you're not, let me break this down in crayola for you: If you pay everyone the same, regardless of what they do, you remove individual incentive, which removes individual production, which removes things like, oh, innovation and excellence. What you are advocating for is a nation that would hope to one day attain mediocrity.

 

In my experience, people who advocate for mediocrity have hit a wall in their own career after realizing Wal-Mart greeter is their career peak.

 

Thank God the country doesn't work this way.

[row_33]

My needs are met, my ambitions are not that huge compared to my colleagues. I'm doing what i want to do, have the freedom to enjoy time off as I wish, I don't possess expensive assets (and am not under a mortgage) and have no pension upcoming. I'll make do with what I have as I go along.

 

The self-discipline and sacrifice to sit down and study and then build a career require some kind of reward for us.

 

I'm in favour of safety nets for the grossly unfortunate for welfare and medical emergency. A decent system that would provide for this would cost pennies on what has been flushed away already. My pipe dreams... In Canada maybe we have done this because we don't have other major drains on our GNP?

[GoBills808]

Because it's not worth the sacrifices I make, the hours I work, the responsibilities I have, without the financial rewards.

 

I work longer, smarter, and harder than most people. It's people like me who drive the economic engine of this country.

 

And if I'm not compensated appropriately for my effort, ethic, and skill set I'm more than content to collect a check for simply existing.

People like you ARE the drivers of economy, and the fact that you recognize that your contributions are important to the nation is kind of the point. How does that square with the second bolded, which posits that regardless of the country as a whole, you'd be comfortable taking from society/government/your neighbors without producing anything in return? Do you value profit or country?

 

And again, nobody gets a check for simply existing.

[TakeYouToTasker]

People like you ARE the drivers of economy, and the fact that you recognize that your contributions are important to the nation is kind of the point. How does that square with the second bolded, which posits that regardless of the country as a whole, you'd be comfortable taking from society/government/your neighbors without producing anything in return? Do you value profit or country?

 

And again, nobody gets a check for simply existing.

Then if you want me to drive it, you'll pay me accordingly, or I won't. I have something you need.

 

When I get cut, the country doesn't bleed. When I lose a loved one, the country doesn't cry. When I am hungry, the country doesn't feel the pangs.

 

Every individual is an individual, seeing the world through the prism of their own feelings, emotions, strengths, and weaknesses. We are not a group, we are not a monolith, we are not a function of intersectionality.

 

I value myself, my loved ones; both friends and family. I am loyal to my country insofar as it represents the values I believe in. I am not more loyal to any particular stranger because of where they reside or originate. I don't place any value at all on ethnicity, race, or nationality; as an individual does nothing to earn those sorts of labels.

 

As for your assertion that I'd be more comfortable taking? I reject the premise of your questioning.

 

If you set up a society in which you have eliminated free association and exchange and the core of property rights and self ownership, making me not much more than a slave, I'm more than comfortable leading a moral resistance by setting down my plowshare.

Edited June 8, 2017 by TakeYouToTasker

[GoBills808]

Then if you want me to drive it, you'll pay me accordingly, or I won't. I have something you need.

 

When I get cut, the country doesn't bleed. When I lose a loved one, the country doesn't cry. When I am hungry, the country doesn't feel the pangs.

 

Every individual is an individual, seeing the world through the prism of their own feelings, emotions, strengths, and weaknesses. We are not a group, we are not a monolith, we are not a function of intersectionality.

 

I value myself, my loved ones; both friends and family. I am loyal to my country insofar as it represents the values I believe in. I am not more loyal to any particular stranger because of where they reside or originate. I don't place any value at all on ethnicity, race, or nationality; as an individual does nothing to earn those sorts of labels.

 

As for your assertion that I'd be more comfortable taking? I reject the premise of your questioning.

 

If you set up a society in which you have eliminated free association and exchange and the core of property rights and self ownership, making me not much more than a slave, I'm more than comfortable leading a moral resistance by setting down my plowshare.

Let me answer point by point:

 

-'Pay accordingly' is difficult to define precisely. I don't have a $ figure offhand.

 

-When you get cut, the country would (theoretically) patch you up. Offer benefits when a loved one dies. Provide for your hunger.

 

-That individualism exists is not my argument, rather that collectivism in economics and society can have greater positive impact.

 

-Ibid.

 

-The bolded was taken directly from your quote, and not meant to offend at all.

 

-I find the rest of your argument cogent and at odds with the assertion that the type of socialism I've proposed here is akin to slavery.

[TakeYouToTasker]

Let me answer point by point:

 

-'Pay accordingly' is difficult to define precisely. I don't have a $ figure offhand.

 

That's the point. You don't get to determine my worth, or dictate terms to me. I decide that, and if you disagree, then you don't get to enjoy my labor.

 

 

 

-When you get cut, the country would (theoretically) patch you up. Offer benefits when a loved one dies. Provide for your hunger.

That's not nearly the same. You don't suffer when I suffer. I care about me, and mine. I am responsible for me, and mine. I am not my brother's keeper, nor are you mine.

 

 

 

-That individualism exists is not my argument, rather that collectivism in economics and society can have greater positive impact.

Collectivism in economics as a greater positive ignores human motivation. It's as if you for some reason believe that you can enjoy the unique economic engine of capitalism while at the same time removing all incentive to produce. In this you're not much different than Robert Owen, postulating that with the advent of Socialist Man roasted chicken would fly down out of the sky and present themselves on the dinner table.

 

 

 

-I find the rest of your argument cogent and at odds with the assertion that the type of socialism I've proposed here is akin to slavery.

All socialism is slavery to one degree or another. When you strip men of freedoms, that's what you wind up with.

[IDBillzFan]

-That individualism exists is not my argument, rather that collectivism in economics and society can have greater positive impact.

 

It has a great positive impact on people incapable of having a greater, positive impact on themselves.

 

I can do FAR more for myself AND others if I am unshackled. You, on the other hand, are convinced you are unable to take care of yourself, and need everyone else to make life better for you.

 

While I'll never understand that kind of thinking, I at least give you credit for accepting and admitting your limited ability to take care of yourself in a manner you find satisfying.

[Taro T]

Let me answer point by point:

 

-'Pay accordingly' is difficult to define precisely. I don't have a $ figure offhand.

 

-When you get cut, the country would (theoretically) patch you up. Offer benefits when a loved one dies. Provide for your hunger.

 

-That individualism exists is not my argument, rather that collectivism in economics and society can have greater positive impact.

 

-Ibid.

 

-The bolded was taken directly from your quote, and not meant to offend at all.

 

-I find the rest of your argument cogent and at odds with the assertion that the type of socialism I've proposed here is akin to slavery.

What possible incentive exists in your Utopia for ANYONE to be a plumber (which is a skill that's still required in a highly automated world) rather than an artist?

 

Why would someone that wants to be in the medical field fight through 12-14 years of education & residency to become a specialist rather than just 7 or so years to be a PA?

 

Why would someone with a difficult job innovate a more efficient way of accomplishing the task rather than simply not work as hard on it?

 

Why would someone who loves learning ever give up being a "professional student" that would bring back a fraction of the return of that student going out and "working for a living" would?

 

You take away incentive to excel & you will wind up w/ less excellence & innovation.

 

And just out of curiosity who decides who does what jobs? Pretty sure you've said in your system that everyone has to produce to get that wage. Someone has to make that decision AND enforce it. (If you didn't state that, apologies, have you confused w/ someone else. But would still like an answer to the question.)

Edited June 8, 2017 by Taro T