Universal Basic Income - From the left to the right

[GoBills808]

Let me reiterate that this is all theoretical, and not even necessarily my point of view. It's just good discussion. So:

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.)

There are plumbers who would be better artists and artists who would be better plumbers at present, with a range of income levels not necessarily in accord with their respective 'talents' or production. In theory, a democratically elected government (or board, or whatever legislative body agreed upon) would determine proper job placement through various practical aptitude and educational assessments.

 

As previously stated, the incentive to produce would be the individual's interest in providing for country and society, rather than the profit motive.

 

 

 

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.

I don't consider myself limited in my ability to provide for myself. In fact, I'm confident in my ability to provide for others after satisfying my personal needs. This system relies on individuals with greater capacity for production reinvesting surplus capital.

 

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.

 

Do you believe that your labor exists in a vacuum, that your production is dependent upon nothing beyond your personal efforts? It's very hard, in this day and age, to argue against the interconnectedness of an individual's position in society and the degree to which they are compensated.

[IDBillzFan]

This system relies on individuals with greater capacity for production reinvesting surplus capital.

 

Based on what motivating factor?

[GoBills808]

 

Based on what motivating factor?

Patriotism. Pride. Love of your fellow man. Personal responsibility and ownership. Social credit. Basically the spectrum of motivation already in play sans profit.

[snafu]

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

It is human nature. Plain and simple.

The only way to overcome this is by employment of a totalitarian regime. People won't voluntarily subscribe to your way, they haven't in the past, they won't in the future. Your plan looks good on paper, but it doesn't work in the real world.

[TakeYouToTasker]

It is human nature. Plain and simple.

The only way to overcome this is by employment of a totalitarian regime. People won't voluntarily subscribe to your way, they haven't in the past, they won't in the future. Your plan looks good on paper, but it doesn't work in the real world.

No, it doesn't look good on paper. It's a moral travesty as well.

[Taro T]

Let me reiterate that this is all theoretical, and not even necessarily my point of view. It's just good discussion. So:

 

There are plumbers who would be better artists and artists who would be better plumbers at present, with a range of income levels not necessarily in accord with their respective 'talents' or production. In theory, a democratically elected government (or board, or whatever legislative body agreed upon) would determine proper job placement through various practical aptitude and educational assessments.

 

As previously stated, the incentive to produce would be the individual's interest in providing for country and society, rather than the profit motive.

 

 

 

...

So you're good w/ life, but liberty & pursuit of happiness can go f' themselves?

 

Having some "legislative body" in charge of what people are going to do rather than following what they have a passion for is a really good way to significantly lower productivity, output, & innovation. Realizing this is all in some highly automated future, but it's difficult to imagine how things continue moving forward from that point unless the machines can upgrade themselves because there's no incentive for the people to put in the effort to do it.

[Chef Jim]

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.

So you're one of those that feels someone flipping burgers should make the same as someone who runs into burning buildings to save people? You're insane.

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

Because humans are inherently lazy.

Patriotism. Pride. Love of your fellow man. Personal responsibility and ownership. Social credit. Basically the spectrum of motivation already in play sans profit.

So you're going to breed greed out of the human DNA?

[TakeYouToTasker]

So you're going to breed greed out of the human DNA?

It's even worse than that. He'd have to breed out the survival instinct of the hunter-gatherer which has been developed over the entirety of human history.

[Chef Jim]

It's even worse than that. He'd have to breed out the survival instinct of the hunter-gatherer which has been developed over the entirety of human history.

Well we'd eventually find out which gene is stronger. Greed or laziness.

[DC Tom]

Well we'd eventually find out which gene is stronger. Greed or laziness.

 

I once designed a study to test that.

 

Never got around to performing it, though...

[TakeYouToTasker]

Well we'd eventually find out which gene is stronger. Greed or laziness.

I think they're two sides of the same coin.

[Chef Jim]

I think they're two sides of the same coin.

Drove by a homeless encampment tonight. They had all "the comforts of home" and thought "why the !@#$ do they get away without paying mortgage or rent?"

[TakeYouToTasker]

Drove by a homeless encampment tonight. They had all "the comforts of home" and thought "why the !@#$ do they get away without paying mortgage or rent?"

It all comes back to incentivization, and the path of least resistance.

[IDBillzFan]

Patriotism. Pride. Love of your fellow man. Personal responsibility and ownership. Social credit. Basically the spectrum of motivation already in play sans profit.

 

The spectrum of motivation already in play...sans profit?

 

If no one is making a profit, where does the money come from to pay everyone? And if everyone earns the same amount, how do you regulate how people spend their money?

 

Wait. Let me guess. Since everyone is earning the same amount of money, then everything they buy must cost the same. A pound of apples is the same as a car. A haircut costs the same as dinner at Nobu.

 

Or wait. Maybe there is no more Nobu...or any sushi at all...because if everyone can't afford it, then no one can afford it. We must only provide what everyone can afford.

 

And we're doing all of this in the same of...what as that again? Ownership? Personal responsibility?

 

Man, I gotta hand it to you. Excellent trolling. Just excellent.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

 

I once designed a study to test that.

 

Never got around to performing it, though...

 

ba dum dink

[Magox]

It's a good discussion, GoBills808 is able to put together well-thought-out and cogent arguments. I believe he means as well as anyone else on this board, I just happen to believe that his vision of society is a Utopian fantasy. I believe he overestimates human behavior and what most people are willing to do outside of what is best for their own particular situation.

 

I just don't see a society that is run by humans that would thrive without an incentive driven economic orthodoxy. History has told us that the more you "give" and the less economic incentive provided to man the less he is willing to do. I believe we can safely say that has been the case much more often than not. The conflict for me is that although I deeply disagree with GoBills808 economic philosophy as well-meaning as it may be, I think that from my perspective, sadly it is inevitable that some of his ideal policy prescriptions may share similar space in a Venn Diagram of what I believe we may ultimately need.

Edited June 9, 2017 by Magox

[GoBills808]

 

The spectrum of motivation already in play...sans profit?

 

If no one is making a profit, where does the money come from to pay everyone? And if everyone earns the same amount, how do you regulate how people spend their money?

 

Wait. Let me guess. Since everyone is earning the same amount of money, then everything they buy must cost the same. A pound of apples is the same as a car. A haircut costs the same as dinner at Nobu.

 

Or wait. Maybe there is no more Nobu...or any sushi at all...because if everyone can't afford it, then no one can afford it. We must only provide what everyone can afford.

 

And we're doing all of this in the same of...what as that again? Ownership? Personal responsibility?

 

Man, I gotta hand it to you. Excellent trolling. Just excellent.

I'm not trolling. And I'm far from being convinced anything like what I've outlined would work in practice. I've just done a fair amount of work on the subject and it's always good for discussion, it's not meant in bad faith or to offend. Just talk.

 

To answer the price of goods/services point, there are a lot of different opinions on how to implement a functioning economy. I imagine it would work similar to how it does now: different prices for different goods that individuals can purchase as they see fit. The range of value in similar goods would probably be condensed to accommodate the purchasing public's equivalence of disposable income, but the overall quality would theoretically remain at mean or even possibly increase, given efficiencies in consolidating production and less waste via incentivizing frugality.

[4merper4mer]

I'm not trolling. And I'm far from being convinced anything like what I've outlined would work in practice. I've just done a fair amount of work on the subject and it's always good for discussion, it's not meant in bad faith or to offend. Just talk.

 

To answer the price of goods/services point, there are a lot of different opinions on how to implement a functioning economy. I imagine it would work similar to how it does now: different prices for different goods that individuals can purchase as they see fit. The range of value in similar goods would probably be condensed to accommodate the purchasing public's equivalence of disposable income, but the overall quality would theoretically remain at mean or even possibly increase, given efficiencies in consolidating production and less waste via incentivizing frugality.

Dear Lord I hope you are under 25.

[TakeYouToTasker]

I'm not trolling. And I'm far from being convinced anything like what I've outlined would work in practice. I've just done a fair amount of work on the subject and it's always good for discussion, it's not meant in bad faith or to offend. Just talk.

 

To answer the price of goods/services point, there are a lot of different opinions on how to implement a functioning economy. I imagine it would work similar to how it does now: different prices for different goods that individuals can purchase as they see fit. The range of value in similar goods would probably be condensed to accommodate the purchasing public's equivalence of disposable income, but the overall quality would theoretically remain at mean or even possibly increase, given efficiencies in consolidating production and less waste via incentivizing frugality.

How do you determine how much of each good to produce, and what locations it should be sold in and in what quantity? How do you determine prices?

Edited June 9, 2017 by TakeYouToTasker

[Chef Jim]

Dear Lord I hope you are under 25.

 

No he could be in his 80's. Commies were big in the 50's