SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Basic Income is a subject that regularly surfaces in Soylent discussions, so here's a story about Finland's impending experiment with it:
Finland has become the first country in Europe to pay its unemployed citizens a basic monthly income, amounting to 560 euros ($587 US), in a unique social experiment which is hoped to cut government red tape, reduce poverty and boost employment.
Olli Kangas from the Finnish government agency KELA, which is responsible for the country's social benefits, said Monday that the two-year trial with the 2,000 randomly picked citizens who receive unemployment benefits kicked off Jan. 1.
Those chosen will receive 560 euros every month, with no reporting requirements on how they spend it. The amount will be deducted from any benefits they already receive.
The average private sector income in Finland is 3,500 euros per month, according to official data.
Also at The Guardian and swissinfo.ch.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by coolgopher on Wednesday January 04 2017, @11:14AM
At a small scale I could see it being successful. However, at full scale I don't see how it could possibly work. Could someone explain why a UBI (universal basic income) wouldn't simply drive up the cost of living by pretty much exactly the UBI amount?
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 04 2017, @11:19AM
Lol, that's like saying torrents drive up the cost of movie tickets. But dude, if I torrent everything and never buy a movie ticket, why should I care about the price of movie tickets. Fuck you, I got mine, smart guy.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 04 2017, @11:39AM
Torrenting more will solve poverty!
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 04 2017, @11:57AM
Torrenting lowers my cost of living. Now if only I could steal food and lodging in a way that evades prosecution, life would be great. I'm thinking shantytown, but the authorities keep bulldozing the shantytowns and driving out the undesirables. Why won't the judgmental taxpayers let us live in peace and squalor? Why must the people use their hired pigs against us?
(Score: 5, Interesting) by TheRaven on Wednesday January 04 2017, @11:30AM
It would likely have a lot more subtle effects than simply driving up the cost of everything. It won't push up the cost of production much for anything where labour is not a significant part of the cost. For many things, the retail cost is limited by the cost of production because there are multiple competing providers and putting the price up just reduces your share of the market, it doesn't increase your sales.
Additionally, injecting money at the bottom has been shown to increase overall liquidity in the economy. If you give rich people money, then they will invest it, often in other countries or in things like real estate or gold that don't contribute much to the economy. If you give poor people money, then they spend most of it. More poor people spending money means that there is more work for shop keepers, which increases the efficiency of shops and can drive prices down if they're not already near saturation point (things like shops and restaurants have large fixed costs and relatively small per-unit costs, so increasing the number of customers doesn't significantly increase the costs, but does increase the income). A lot of what the shops sell will be imported, but not everything, and so this stimulates other local industries.
The more interesting outcomes are likely to be a shift in the wages for low skill jobs. No one grows up wanting to be a toilet cleaner, but (until we have much better robots) someone needs to do the job. Without something like UBI, you can pay these jobs minimum wage and you'll have people willing to do them because they have no other choice. With UBI, the marginal utility of the money from a minimum wage job is much lower and so there will be a fall-off in supply for these jobs and a need to increase wages.
Most of the economic models show UBI as an overall benefit. I suspect that the problems are likely to be social. We already have a section of the population that regards society in general, and the government in particular, with a large sense of entitlement: society exists to provide for their needs, they don't expect to contribute anything. UBI is likely to make this worse. A large-scale introduction needs to be coupled with something else that stimulates individual engagement with society.
sudo mod me up
(Score: 0, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 04 2017, @11:44AM
No one grows up wanting to be a toilet cleaner, but (until we have much better robots) someone needs to do the job. Without something like UBI, you can pay these jobs minimum wage and you'll have people willing to do them because they have no other choice.
I've volunteered to clean toilets, because hey guess what, moron, I can't get paid for it. You have no clue how competitive janitorial jobs are in the real world, egghead. No other choice means you don't have any job anywhere, not even at minimum wage, presumptuous asshole.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by TheRaven on Wednesday January 04 2017, @12:50PM
sudo mod me up
(Score: 3, Interesting) by VLM on Wednesday January 04 2017, @01:42PM
Thats where you run into strange definition games and the experiment can be pushed to various local definitions of success or failure.
For example, "many theoretical models" assume the janitor would continue to get the basic income regardless of other income sources, much as the police don't stop patrolling my neighborhood because I get a pay raise or the DOT doesn't stop repairing streets because incomes are too high.
So before basic income the janitor got $0 of basic income plus $290/wk for plunging toilets and after spending $285 on fixed expenses (a place to sleep, food, laundry) his "real living" is he plunges toilets for 40 hours a week in exchange for $5/wk of "fun living". Now after basic income he gets $250/wk of basic income, plus the same $290/wk for plunging toilets and after spending, maybe, $300 on slightly inflated fixed expenses, his "real living" is he plunges toilets for 40 hours a week in exchange for $200/wk of "fun living" which is 40 time more "fun" than he bought before basic income. You're claiming no one will plunge toilets because with a basic income plunging a toilet will be paid by 40 times more fun.
Now some people close to retirement are going to say "F it" and some will quit and go back to school or work on "art" or "music" or "entrepreneur" or whatever, which is all good. So there's fewer people to plunge, even though plunging toilets is 40 times more desirable work with a BI, so wages MIGHT go up. On the other hand business owners aren't going to allow employees to smile all day so wages MIGHT go down, obviously there's plenty of applicants when the job only pays $5/wk of discretionary income, so I wouldn't be surprised to see many wages collapse down to minimum wage.
Probably the most interesting effect would be forcing people into contractor relationships where the contracted profit rate is like $1/hr and people are chill with that. The IRS and various state wage/employment departments will absolutely shit a brick when that happens. If, theoretically, you could actually live on BI alone, you have to realize that today there are a hell of a lot of people on the planet living on less than $40/week of discretionary income.
Another fun definition game to get into is do you allow people with IRS or child support debts to get a penny? I mean if you debtor's prison kill them or force them completely off the grid you get no money from them at all ever again.
(Score: 3, Informative) by bradley13 on Wednesday January 04 2017, @12:00PM
I suspect that the problems are likely to be social. We already have a section of the population that regards society in general, and the government in particular, with a large sense of entitlement: society exists to provide for their needs, they don't expect to contribute anything. UBI is likely to make this worse. A large-scale introduction needs to be coupled with something else that stimulates individual engagement with society.
This, precisely this. Until and unless the societal problem is solved, you are just pandering to - and expanding - the FSA [urbandictionary.com].
Everyone is somebody else's weirdo.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 04 2017, @02:16PM
Sounds a lot like corporations and the wealthy who do whatever it takes to hide money from Uncle Sam and pay as little as possible to its labor force.
Ah I see. Lets blame the liberal darkies. Great plan. Meanwhile, in the rural white south.....
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday January 04 2017, @03:12PM
It isn't the liberal darkies who are to blame. It's the rich authoritarian white bastards who cater to those liberal darkies who are to blame. Dirt poor darkies in the ghetto don't decide how much money to spend on welfare. The authoritarians make those decisions. Each and every decision is designed to make those poor darkies more dependent on the authoritarians.
Hell man, if you offered me $500/week for nothing, I'd take it. Or, I'd sure be tempted to take it. But - that road would lead to me being dependent upon you, and your
continued good will. So, I'd turn down your money. Whatever else poor generational welfare dark skinned people might be, they aren't especially stupid. They take your money. As long as you are fool enough to give money away, they're going to take it. The brighter blacks will turn the money down, or find some way to become independent of that money. The less bright blacks, AND WHITES, take all the money you care to shovel at them.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 04 2017, @06:28PM
So much supposition and assumption. The smart people turn down assistance? You're insane, bootstrapping yourself into a logically comfortable position where you can have shitty fucking ideals and deceive yourself into believing they're "good and righteous". There are two very large issues that relate to this topic:
1. Systemic problems causing massive wealth inequality that can not be avoided. No amount of willpower and hard work will bring everyone a good job, there literally are not enough good jobs to go around.
2. People like you who blame the victims of our broken system. You enable the wealthy to continue their greedy destruction by buying into the class/race/culture wars they promote.
Your group of people also believes that welfare supporters are secret authoritarians, yet the conservatives are always the ones pushing massive restrictions on personal freedoms and legislating against behavior they don't like. I'll take the liberal "authoritarians" who provide programs to help humanity and not the conservative types that want to imprison and stomp on the faces of humanity that doesn't make the cut.
(Score: 2) by curunir_wolf on Wednesday January 04 2017, @09:02PM
yet the conservatives are always the ones pushing massive restrictions on personal freedoms and legislating against behavior they don't like.
You mean like placing high taxes on cigarettes and soda? Strictly regulating e-cigarettes and cigars? Passing restrictions on free speech and owning guns? Requiring health insurance and what kind you must have? Restricting private property rights? Requiring how much you can pay workers? Requiring that 15% of your earnings pay for old people's income? Requiring you to pay for public schools that you don't use? Those policies?
I hate to tell you this, but all those massive restrictions on personal freedoms are NOT pushed by conservatives.
I am a crackpot
(Score: 2) by dry on Thursday January 05 2017, @04:07AM
I think it is more like outright banning things like alcohol and various other drugs that the wrong people use. Passing restrictions on speech and other forms of expression that is offensive to them such as anything sex related as well as preventing whole classes of people from owning weapons (certain colours of people and anyone considered dishonest even though the right applies to every person).
It's true that they're usually OK with not paying workers and requiring some % of income to pay for corporations to exist. And of course, lots of right wing countries force people to pay for churches that they don't use, often by just saying that they don't have to pay for the road that serves them.
I'd suggest that you visit one of the conservative allies of the USA to see how far restricting rights can go. Perhaps Saudi Arabia, as conservative of a country as you'll find.
(Score: 2) by curunir_wolf on Thursday January 05 2017, @04:52AM
The point is, far left and far right are both authoritarians and taken to extremes both with try to restrict freedoms in many horrible ways. Lately in the US it's been the left attacking free speech, going further trying to do that than I ever thought I would see happen. If you're looking at extremes there is no more freedom-restricting regime than the far-left North Korea or Communist China. Conservatives certainly have no monopoly on authoritarianism.
BTW, if you want churches, mosques, synagogues and the like to pay property taxes, you also have to remove the tax exemption from all other charities, homeless shelters (often church-based), soup kitchens (often church-based), orphanages, museums, cemeteries, and others. I guess that might be a good thing because then the authoritarian left can then stop telling religious leaders what they can and can't say all the time. I'm assuming this is just you hating religions (probably only SOME of them), because as SCOTUS stated in McCulloch v. Maryland "the power to tax involves the power to destroy."
Not sure WTF you're talking about with income taxes being paid to let corporations exist. I mean, WTF? I wasn't even talking about income taxes, I was talking about payroll taxes, but you don't seem to know the difference. Do you even know where income taxes go? They go into the Treasury, and that pays for EVERYTHING the government does. But do they tax wealth? NO they tax the only thing that poor people have: their LABOR. How's THAT for a fucked up restriction on freedom? The Federal government takes 15% right off the top, BEFORE income taxes.
So I'll go to Saudi Arabia if you go to North Korea. Good luck, comrade!
I am a crackpot
(Score: 2) by dry on Friday January 06 2017, @05:40AM
It's not so much hard left or hard right, it's authoritarian left or right. Hard left should mean no government for example. Not sure what hard right would be though they even have a libertarian wing.
Around here, while church's get (property) tax free status automatically, other tax free institutions have their tax free status looked at every year and if they're not improving the community, they lose it. Should be the same for religious institutions, some do good and some don't.
Different jurisdictions handle payroll taxes and income taxes differently. Here a lot of seniors get their government pension plan topped up out of general revenue, especially people such as housewives who didn't pay much payroll tax to begin with, being busy with non-productive stuff such as bringing up children.
Last government, a right wing one, operated like all they existed for was to help big business. Taxpayer research was only to be done to help business and the taxpayers weren't even allowed to see the science and the government employees weren't allowed to speak to the taxpayers without going through a political.
N. Korea and especially China have gone so far left that they're now right. N. Korea basically has a monarchy even if they do call themselves a republic and China seems like one of the most business friendly governments in the world.
Of course right and left are not things that you can easily point to and especially in America their meanings seem very fluid with both sides having a fantasy about what they really mean
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 05 2017, @05:52AM
You are not wrong and I hate the authoritarians on the left just as I hate them on the right. However rules and regulations are a part of government and the discussion should be more about which ones are worthwhile. Some things are necessary because we live in a society, this weird pure freedom idea is so far removed from reality that I'm not sure what to say... Its a wonderful idea if it could work without tossing millions to the wolves, or allowing the wolves to get worse, but that is not the reality we live in.
(Score: 2) by bob_super on Wednesday January 04 2017, @09:56PM
> The smart people turn down assistance?
All the time. Look at how offended the Big Oil executives look when they get their subsidies.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Thursday January 05 2017, @12:20AM
"The smart people turn down assistance?"
Have you visited the ghettos? Have you been in the housing projects? What you will find there, is not "assisstance", but a "way of life". Street gangs, and baby mamas, all living off of government largesse and illicit drug money.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 05 2017, @06:12AM
I'm tired of debating with the idiots of this site. It pains me because you're not actually an idiot, just stuck in a narrow minded belief system because you think you've "figured out" the world. The problem with all human "figuring out" is that we're pretty terrible at seeing our own presumptions, hindsight is 20/20, etc. There are people who actually study these social problems yet you are able to come up with a simple answer when you haven't really studied the problems and haven't even lived in the conditions you describe. It takes effort to keep your mind from running on its existing thought patterns, until you can accomplish that and broaden your mental horizons I bid you good day.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 05 2017, @06:21AM
It pains me because you're not actually an idiot, just stuck in a narrow minded belief system because you think you've "figured out" the world.
Nope, not nearly. Runaway1254 is actually an idiot, and he hasn't figured out anything. His VCR is still blinking. When his wife goes to play bingo, he believes her. He actually thinks he served in the navy! No, stupid, uneducated, delusional, racist, Fox News listener and Breetfart reader. As dumb as they come. That's our Runaway! And correct, there is no point to debating him.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 05 2017, @03:49PM
"No amount of willpower and hard work will bring everyone a good job, there literally are not enough good jobs to go around."
you make your own job, ffs.
(Score: 1, Troll) by aristarchus on Wednesday January 04 2017, @11:21PM
Um, Runaway, did you just say "darkies"? You quite definitely are a moran and a racist, and you do not deserve a basic income! Nor do you deserve a response. UnAmerican Traitor! Please leave this site, you are giving everyone a bad reputation.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Thursday January 05 2017, @12:17AM
I said "darkies" and I've said worse. Often when referring to you, Aristarchus!
(Score: 2, Informative) by aristarchus on Thursday January 05 2017, @05:12AM
Yes, we are all well aware. But this is why you are banned from everywhere on the internets except here. You share this honor [sic] with Ethanol_fueled and MikeeUSA, an anti-semite and a pedophile. Does this not embarrass you? It is not that there is a difference of opinion here, you are just socially unacceptable, even if you try to cloak it in "politically uncorrect". No, you are just an unthinking prejudiced asshole hillbilly from the South, from the state that gave us the Clintons, and you think you can contribute anything meaningful to the discussion here on SoylentNews? No, you do not, and now it is time for you to grow a pair and just log off and shut your mouth. Before you embarrass yourself more, and smear the reputation of SoylentNews further. I am serious.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Thursday January 05 2017, @10:58PM
We've gone over this idea before. I'm not banned from the internets. In fact, you commented once about my karma rating. Despite all your efforts, my karma stays right up there near 50. You throw a hissy fit, use your sock puppets to mod me down, and reasonable people repair the damage you do.
Have you read this submission yet? https://soylentnews.org/submit.pl?op=viewsub&subid=17777¬e=&title=not+alt-right%2C+but+POPULISM [soylentnews.org]
Your greatest problem is that you are an idealogue. You actually believe in all that stupid shit the politicians toss at you to keep you distracted from real issues. You actually believe that gay marriage was important, you actually believe that SJW's know what they are talking about, you believe in your left/liberal/progressive/democrat heros.
Hell man, only the very worst of the worst on the Republican/right side believe in the party's heros, like you believe in Hillary. I guess that just makes you a chump.
Anyway, my views are far more "mainstream" than you can possibly imagine. (not that I claim to be "mainstream", only that you can't imagine what "mainstream" really means) You're out of touch with reality, dude.
Trump won. He beat the "best" that your party had to offer, he beat the "best" that the other party had to offer - because WE ARE ALL SICK OF YOUR IDEOLOGIES!!
It's time for you to get in touch with reality, man. Or, not. YOu can, if you insist, rant and rave like a madman for the next 4 years, or 8 years, or 80 years.
Embarrassed. Yes, many of us are embarrssed when you post your meaningless nonsense here. But, we must defend YOUR freedom of speech, or we will surely lose our own freedom of speech. But, I learned that concept as a very young child. Obviously, you have never learned it. Being the c̶h̶a̶n̶c̶r̶e̶ ̶ anchor baby of a pair of foreigners, you weren't born to a real American war hero, or his bride who all but worshipped the man for fighting in the Pacific.
Trump won. Get used to the idea. Or, you can be like the Republicans, whose own party revolted on them, and threw them under the bus. Maybe Bernie can win the next nomination, without your favored criminals standing in is way?
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Friday January 06 2017, @12:13AM
Tell us more, Runaway! You are so average! Share your homespun wisdom with the rest of us. Please?
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Friday January 06 2017, @01:53AM
You don't listen. I'm only willing to waste so much time on you.
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Friday January 06 2017, @03:36AM
Oh, come on, Runaway! Tell about your encounter with the jigaboos! Expound on the constitutional grounds for striping citizenship from anchor babies! Affirm once again that you are not racist! We all love to hear your opinions on topics like these. Please go on, Runaway!
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Friday January 06 2017, @02:56PM
I'm terribly racist, and known for my racism, right here in real life, Aristarchus. Monday, I returned to work after 7 weeks off for surgery. Want to know what happened when I walked in the door? An attractive 30-something black lady squealed, and hollered my name before I walked the short distance from the door, to the break room. As I walked into the break room, tall muscular black dude hammered my shoulder, and tells me "bout time you brought your lazy ass back to work!" This particular black dude is also a former squid - I think he missed swapping sea stories. Dropped my gear in the break room, and walked to the ops office. Little Mexican gal, 40 something, dropped what she was doing, and took the three paces to the door to give me a hug. My boss seemed to have an urge to hug me, but she restrained herself - which is just as well, 'cause she's not nearly so hot as the 40-something. After flapping my gums for a bit in the office, I walked out on the floor, to be loudly greeted by two more black ladies. All the guys, black, white, and Mexican, have a word of welcome for me, although few are as loud and boisterous as the women. Then, there's this nubile little thing who used to work third shift with us, but has moved to day shift. She's 23, and hot, hot, hot. When she saw me in the morning, she came running, and I though she was going to jump on me and hug me to death. I suppose that she remembered just in time that I am something of a lecher - she stopped, and beamed the most beautiful 23-year old nubilbe baby-doll smile at me, and chattered away for five minutes. Beautiful little anchor baby, that girl is.
I am hardly any less outspoken at work than I am here on the forum. I speak my mind in real life, just as I do here. Some people agree with some of my opinions, other people agree with other opinions, and some of my opinions don't have any real followers at all. But, these coworkers still love me.
Think about that for a bit. People who have worked with me for a decade, on a daily basis, people who have seen me at my best and my worst, don't seem to think that I'm a racist.
Do ya think that just maybe, the racism problem here is all in your head? Possibly, it's you who is the racist?
BTW - that lovely little anchor baby KNOWS that she's an anchor baby. Both her, and her big brother. Their opinions on the matter differ from mine, but we respect each other enough that we can actually discuss things like anchor babies.
Unlike here, where people of certain persuasions deem me to be subhuman because I know their politics are nothing but shit.
Damn, I wish I were about 40 years younger. I'd chase that little girl all around the plant . . . .
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Friday January 06 2017, @10:22PM
I'd chase that little girl all around the plant . . . .
So, racist who wants to deport your fellow workers, but still a nice guy. This is the cognitive dissonance that we do not understand. You either are faking the politeness, or you are not serious about your political views. But it seems you are more on the side of pedophilia than anti-semitism? Umm, OK. . . . .
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Friday January 06 2017, @10:30PM
As sweet and beautiful as this little girl is, her parents were law breakers. They USED their children to get a toe in the door. I'll be OK if her parents are deported, and she and her brother are left here. Or, they can choose to leave with their parents. It's not that big a deal. Mexico hasn't been hit with a meteor, and become uninhabitable, since her parents left there.
Remember - illegal isn't a race. Illegal is illegal though.
If these Mexicans I work with can accept my point of view, WTF can't you? Were YOUR parents illegals? So, you take it personally?
Once again, the amendment was aimed at former slaves, and the offspring of former slaves. It was never intended to open the gates for an invading force of 50 million.
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Friday January 06 2017, @11:04PM
You attack any American citizen, you attack them all! Doesn't matter whether you personally think they are legal, or not. You child lecher, you! What makes you even think I am one, though? Nationalism is an artificial and repugnant notion, as both you and the Donald are making abundantly clear. It is a betrayal of the principles of the American and French revolutions, which asserted the Rights of Man (Thomas Paine?), and Liberty, Equality, and Fraternity. So why do you hate America?
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Saturday January 07 2017, @12:18AM
Utter horse shit. Pure, utter horse shit.
Citizenship is conferred via parentage, not by an accident of location at birth.
"Nationalism is an artificial and repugnant notion"
THIS is why you are no American. You've rejected the very concept of Americanism. You've rejected the concept of German, French, British, or Chinese citizenship, along with American citizenship. In your view of the world, anyone can come from anywhwere, and demand an equal voice in government. It is you and your kind who betray America.
Oh - the French revolution? A bit of mass hysteria, really. http://articles.latimes.com/1989-11-24/news/vw-242_1_salem-witch-trials [latimes.com]
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Saturday January 07 2017, @12:31AM
I now have reliable intelligence that shows "Runaway1956" to be a 16-year-old female working in a "fake-news" operation in Macedonia. She has evaded detection for so long because she is almost a perfect facsimile of an older middle-aged redneck hillbilly male from the Southern United States of America. Reports suggest that the "fake-news" operation was in fact set up several years ago by Russian operatives paving the way for Donald Trump to be elected President of the US. Not only a traitor, but not even a real person. Cool story, bro!
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Saturday January 07 2017, @12:51AM
When you've run out of sensible things to say, always fall back on personal attacks. That's the ticket, Aristarchus. Chapter six in the SJW manual, right?
(Score: 2) by aristarchus on Saturday January 07 2017, @02:06AM
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2017/01/06/the-hillary-for-mayor-story-proves-that-we-learn-nothing/ [washingtonpost.com]
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Saturday January 07 2017, @02:36AM
Mannfred Mann for Mayor? Alright, I'll go for that. Well, I would if I were eligible to vote in NYC.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 04 2017, @12:44PM
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Thexalon on Wednesday January 04 2017, @02:58PM
That makes sense when the problem you are trying to solve is not enough people working hard enough to ensure that the needs of society are being met. But when the problem you are trying to solve is that there's actually a surplus of labor and not enough jobs, then the people who aren't contributing labor at all but are sitting around living on their poverty-level government handout are in fact helping to solve your problem. That's in general the problem that capitalism is running into: It has no good built-in mechanism for dealing with a general surplus of productivity.
What this would trigger, though, is a re-alignment in how employers can treat their employees. With UBI, employees would always have a viable option of walking away from their job. I don't think most people would, because the income from UBI is poverty-level and most people want to live better than that, but it would definitely change the power balance, because without a welfare system and without savings (which most people don't have), the options are either (A) work, or (B) starve to death, whereas with UBI the options are either (A) work, or (B) live at a poverty-level income. I don't think anybody knows what the effects of that will be.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 2) by curunir_wolf on Wednesday January 04 2017, @08:39PM
It won't push up the cost of production much for anything where labour is not a significant part of the cost.
This assumption makes no sense. Labor costs will absolutely increase, because you will have a smaller labor force, with people opting out of work because they are receiving a UBI, and others refusing certain jobs because they are receiving a UBI. Businesses would HAVE to offer higher wages in order to attract the same labor force.
I am a crackpot
(Score: 2) by Immerman on Wednesday January 04 2017, @10:12PM
The point is, that labor costs are already only a small fraction of the production cost of most goods and many services. Even if you double the cost of labor, if that was only 10% of the cost of making a widget, the cost to buy a widget will only increase 10%.
(Score: 2) by curunir_wolf on Thursday January 05 2017, @12:30AM
Sure, but you still have to INSTALL the widget, so it's still going to cost you 110% more unless you can somehow install it yourself. That kills the service industry, which is pretty much ALL labor costs, and is also where the labor costs will increase the most. And that's where most of the jobs have been created lately. Uber won't be finding drivers when the government has just provided the extra incoming they were getting driving for nothing.
I am a crackpot
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Immerman on Thursday January 05 2017, @03:38AM
Nothing will cost you 110% more. The widget costs 10% more, and the installation costs twice as much. But if your widget needs installing, installation is almost certainly only a fraction of the cost of the widget itself, so the overall cost is still only increased by that fraction.
(Score: 2) by curunir_wolf on Thursday January 05 2017, @05:06AM
Are you trying to do math? You may need some help.
Widget costs $5. Assume (for the sake of argument), that to make it costs $4, and 10% is labor costs of $0.40. Installation is all labor, and that's $2.50 (pretty common, for something simple, labor is about 1/2 the cost of the part, on average, can be a lot more, but this is a generic widget, so that's a good rule of thumb).
So the UBI comes in, wages go up. Company ends up paying double in labor costs to attract enough workers (they're making more widgets, too, because more people can afford them).
So now labor is $0.80 to make one widget, and company passes on the increase and it now costs $5.50.
Installation labor also doubles, to $5.
Now you're paying $11 for something that used to cost $7.50. So it's really only around 70%, not 110%, but you get the point.
Also, you haircut went from $20 to $40, your maid is charging $200 a week instead of $100, that Uber ride (if there are any left) went from $15 to $30, and cab rides have increased even more, because the cab company is paying double for not just drivers, but also for the mechanics and the dispatchers. If you think those increases are bad, wait until you see how much your hospital and doctors bills go up when nurses and orderlies are demanding more pay. Grocery stores operate on very TINY margins, so, yes, food will increase a lot more than just farmer labor costs, because they also have to pay for cashier, stock boys, cleaning crews, and that goes for pretty much all the retail stores and all those little service industry shops sharing the same strip mall where your grocery store is.
So, yes, there is a LOT more to labor costs that you're thinking about.
I am a crackpot
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 05 2017, @06:19AM
Good! I kinda like the idea of people being paid fair wages and costs rising higher so that it becomes cost effective to fix things instead of buying new ones.
(Score: 2) by TheRaven on Thursday January 05 2017, @10:50AM
sudo mod me up
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 04 2017, @11:44AM
Fantastic concept, let's leverage this speculation and further inflate the bubble UBI proposes to keep from popping. I propose a flat 90% tax rate for all gainfully employed in order to fund this amazing, "free money" experiment. Comrades, are you with me?
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 04 2017, @12:01PM
Let's tax Fuckerberg at 99% and pay people to post shit to Facefuck.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 04 2017, @02:21PM
Would fairer than the current 0.005% taxes that these deep pocket corporations actually pay.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 04 2017, @02:27PM
Because if you had said to be taxed at 99.995% then that would be close to be as abusive as the actual taxes they are paying.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by fritsd on Wednesday January 04 2017, @12:47PM
Welcome to Sweden!
As a freelancer ("enskild näringsidkare"), my F-skatt = income tax + "employer-part of social premium" is taxed at 55%, IIRC. And then I don't mention the 25% Moms (VAT).
(I'm not very successful, so my income tax bracket is not very high like your joking comment, but it is painful that I have to pay full "employer-part of social premium" for my (bumbling) employee, me)
If you want a working society, it costs taxes. You get used to it, or leave; that's why Monaco [wikipedia.org] is full of nobs, and Gérard Depardieu emigrated to Russia, for example.
But not many people do. Funny, really: it's almost as if there are other important factors in a person's life, besides "The Economy"!
Only if you're too close to society's edge, money-wise, does it make a large difference. When you have to worry about the future (=next month), it diminishes your productivity and the risks you can take with your career(s).
There are several social effects of an UBI that might give some positive relief for that.
But, you'll have to suffer that other people who "don't deserve it as much as you", get as much money as you, PAID FOR BY YOUR TAXES. This is entirely a cultural factor, I believe, whether you accept that or not.
It also depends on whether you have an economic left-wing or right-wing party in government.
But if it is true what "I've read on the Internet" that less than 100 people in our world have as much money as the bottom 50% people on the planet, then it is difficult to argue that taxes are too high!
(Score: 3, Informative) by Runaway1956 on Wednesday January 04 2017, @03:20PM
(I'm not very successful, so my income tax bracket is not very high like your joking comment, but it is painful that I have to pay full "employer-part of social premium" for my (bumbling) employee, me)
Love that sentence. Salutes! I spent a few years self-employed. My employee worked his arse off, but my employer never had enough money to pay the employee what he deserved. It sucked, man!! We don't have your tax system, but our tax system seemed full of traps too. No matter what, the tax man was going to get his, and maybe a little more too!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 04 2017, @08:57PM
> I spent a few years self-employed. My employee worked his arse off, but my employer never had enough money to pay the employee what he deserved.
Easy to explain...small businesses take 5-10 years to establish a stable customer base. My tiny company, me and one contractor (in a high tax state) have been at it for 20 years now and we do just fine. We put in the hours, but not to the point of killing ourselves. We are not getting rich enough for a private jet, but we both own our houses and are putting money away for a rainy day. In the good years I take home more. In the slow years my contractor may be a little ahead of me--I'll fund "internal R&D" on speculation that customers might be interested when work picks back up.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by dublet on Wednesday January 04 2017, @11:58AM
It doesn't mean market forces won't work, it will just give everyone a minimal floor. It removes some pressures so that people who cannot afford to live otherwise, won't have to leave somewhere they don't want to to work a job they don't want to. It means people could move to somewhere outside urban areas to still get a residence.
There will be likely some effects in that jobs that are not terribly desirable (cleaner?) will have to start paying more to attract applicants. I suppose this is the one factor that is likely to drive up the cost of living. However, this discounts the drive to increasingly automate manufacturing and farming. With those ongoing trends, it's likely to see much greater levels of unemployment anyway, which would necessitate a radical proposal such as this.
It has the potential to level out (disrupt?) some housing markets if you remove those people who live somewhere not because they want to, but because they need to out of economic necessity.
Worth bearing in mind that the amount proposed in this experiment isn't exactly frivolous. The recipients are unlikely to be able to live lavishly on it.
It's been known for some time that giving the poorest people money (though benefits or tax rebates, whatever) stimulates the economy more than giving it to the rich by virtue of poor people being more likely to put it back into the economy, rather than simply accumulating wealth. So this could be a great economic stimulus.
We live in interesting times.
"If anyone needs me, I'm in the angry dome. [dublet.org]"
(Score: 4, Interesting) by VLM on Wednesday January 04 2017, @02:04PM
Aside from poor people you just gave every small business startup the equivalent of their first $500/month or $1000/month or whatever it works out to in revenue. Double that for two founders or more than double for a family business.
Getting past those early small orders of magnitude are a lot harder than the latter. Getting that first $1K/month of revenue is really hard and with a basic income you just got it for free.
This also extends the runway on longer term investments.
Note this isn't just SV "wrap someone elses project in bootstrap.io and demand your entitled billion" BS startups, but ma and pa restaurants or some dude's corner car mechanic shop or the dude who got his master plumber license last week and all he's got is a truck and willingness to sweat.
I suspect the main result of a BI in the "mid to high IQ" cultural groups is almost everyone is gonna have a side "thing" going on. Sure I do software during the week and fine art level carpentry every Saturday in my wood shop. You want a modernized "43 folders" replica/lookalike in the Wooton desk style for a mere $5K each, well I'm your man I think making those are fun. Ironically $5K isn't very much when expressed as a per hour cost, for something that takes a man-year to make, but if BI is buying me food, and I'm having fun in my shop part time on Saturdays, well...
(Score: 2) by dublet on Wednesday January 04 2017, @06:02PM
That sounds like a good thing to me.
"If anyone needs me, I'm in the angry dome. [dublet.org]"
(Score: -1, Troll) by khallow on Wednesday January 04 2017, @02:20PM
It's been known for some time that giving the poorest people money (though benefits or tax rebates, whatever) stimulates the economy more than giving it to the rich by virtue of poor people being more likely to put it back into the economy, rather than simply accumulating wealth. So this could be a great economic stimulus.
No. There are two problems with that assertion. First, we don't actually know that. Investments work on different time scales than mere spending does, but that doesn't mean it is less effective even as economic stimulus even though it takes longer to work. Second, why is economic stimulus supposed to be better than wealth accumulation?
The only non-garbage economic argument I've heard in favor of UBI is that a little extra money for poor people seems to go a long way to making their lives better. For example, there are studies that small gifts of money at critical points can help save people from bankruptcy.
(Score: 5, Informative) by Immerman on Wednesday January 04 2017, @04:50PM
>why is economic stimulus supposed to be better than wealth accumulation?
Economic stimulus increases the flow of money, increasing wealth for many people - If I get an an extra dollar, which I spend on a haircut, the barber also gets an extra dollar of income, which he can spend on a meal, so that a restaurant gets an extra dollar of revenue, etc. Obviously there's losses at every step, but the gist is that for every dollar you give someone who's going to immediately spend it, you generate several dollars worth of economic activity. Exactly how much can vary dramatically, but I seem to recall that typical estimates put it between $2 and $10.
Money flows uphill in a capitalist economy - every dollar a poor man spends will eventually end up in a rich man's pocket, but the more step it takes on the way, the more total wealth it generates. And that doesn't just benefit the people along the way - it also benefits the rich man, because the more wealth there is in circulation, the more lucrative are the opportunities to profit.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Wednesday January 04 2017, @08:53PM
Bingo :) You're describing the concept known as "velocity of money." The reason this works is because money isn't backed by anything concrete any longer; it's a floating fiat currency, essentially certificates of debt, or what amounts to promises to provide goods and/or services.
When the money hits the rich, who have all the goods and services they need, they effectively take it out of circulation *while not reducing the money supply de jure.* So the supply remains inflated, while the actual purchasing power of the dollars in circulation drops, instead of rising as it should if the money the rich remove from the system were counted as deflationary loss.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2, Informative) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday January 05 2017, @01:15AM
Allow me to introduce you to the concept of investment. Without investment, you would have to save up the entire cost for a home/car/small business before you ever got one. Maybe it's just me but that doesn't sound like money sitting idle. It in fact sounds like money being in motion and benefiting both the investor and the recipient.
Now allow me to inform you what the rich really do with their money: they invest it. Nobody with two brain cells to rub together sits on cash when there is inflation happening and the Fed does its best to make sure there always is some happening.
Now I know this won't convince you because your narrative relies on the rich being evil but it is the plain and simple truth.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Thursday January 05 2017, @03:36AM
Hey Uzzard, I don't *have* a "narrative" aside from "fuck the lying liars and the lies they tell." You can stop projecting now; just because you personally are as faith-based as any frothing Theonomist ("muh fwee markkit!") does not mean your opponents are. Incidentally, you are one of said lying liars, and your entire post history proves it.
Now, onto the meat: Holding money offshore, evading taxes, and buying up legislation and legislators is NOT investment in any economic sense of the word. That shit is "investment" in approximately the same way pimping is sex education. Every last thing I said above still stands, and doubly so in the case of lobbying, because what we have THERE is regulatory capture. That is an example of evil people deliberately perverting the system for their own ends; "playing both ends against the middle" is much too polite a description.
And on that note: when you disingenuous little fucks diarrhea on about how regulation is the great Satan and point to regulatory capture as your evidence, you are committing the EXACT same fallacy you accuse "gun grabbers" of. Regulation doesn't, after all, kill business; it's corrupt PEOPLE who misuse it that do. See how that works?
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday January 05 2017, @01:28PM
Oh, I agree on your first statement on regulatory capture. It's a shame you flipped the coin and came down with the exact opposite position for your proles. This is why I can never have any respect for a position you hold. Your ideals and ethics are subordinate to your emotions. You literally do not give a single damn about right and wrong as long as your team ends up better off. This makes you equally as corrupt and without morals as any lobbyist; come to think of it, that's precisely what you are.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Thursday January 05 2017, @05:52PM
Jesus fucking Christ, Uzzard, I can't keep replacing the fuses in the ol' Irony-o-meter. The sheer level of selfish projection and hypocrisy in this post actually made a mental record scratch sound go off in my head. I literally went "*vzzzzzrrrpt?!*" reading that.
You seem to fancy yourself some kind of radical, and I believe you even used the word to describe yourself here. Unfortunately, you are completely and diametrically wrong on this too: the word you're looking for is "reactionary." Only someone with a grasp of history to rival, say, a slightly stunned oyster, would advocate the things you do and think they're in any way new or innovative.
The real festering colon-cancer-polyp cherry on this shit-sundae of a cake is when you, YOU, accuse ME of pure emotional reasoning. Listen and listen good, carrion breath: tone policing is not an argument. Being angry does not make someone wrong. If you don't like my tone, feel free to fuck off and never come back; you can be replaced. You can't even throw a proper tu quoque fallacy, you festering moron.
Stick to coding. It's the one thing you're any good at.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2) by TheRaven on Thursday January 05 2017, @10:57AM
Now allow me to inform you what the rich really do with their money: they invest it.
This is true, but the important question is where they invest it. The bit of 'free trade' that no one talks about so much is free movement of capital. If you have a lot of money to invest, then you're not in any way limited to investing it locally, and if you can get better returns investing it in companies in India or China then you will. This often doesn't benefit any of the people in the places where the rich made their money.
sudo mod me up
(Score: 2) by The Mighty Buzzard on Thursday January 05 2017, @01:19PM
I tend to agree. The problem is the very same people who want to steal from the rich are the ones touting globalism for the most part. Sanity is not in their color wheel.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday January 05 2017, @12:25AM
Economic stimulus increases the flow of money, increasing wealth for many people
No, increasing the flow of money can be inflationary, but it's not wealth producing.
If I get an an extra dollar, which I spend on a haircut, the barber also gets an extra dollar of income, which he can spend on a meal, so that a restaurant gets an extra dollar of revenue, etc.
The same for investments except that something of lasting value is created in the process.
Money flows uphill in a capitalist economy - every dollar a poor man spends will eventually end up in a rich man's pocket
Two problems with this. First, it's not true. Rich people employ a lot of people and the money flows downhill when they do. Second, rich people don't keep money in their pockets. In an inflationary world, that's a recipe for losing wealth. They primarily invest it, which again means the money is now available to be used for other purposes such as employing poor people.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by theluggage on Wednesday January 04 2017, @12:03PM
Could someone explain why a UBI (universal basic income) wouldn't simply drive up the cost of living by pretty much exactly the UBI amount?
If its calculated correctly, the vast majority of people will see their UBI clawed back in additional tax. Mostly, its going to be replacing benefits that people already get. If UBI greatly increases the amount of money in the average pocket, you're doing it wrong.
Yes, "will it scale" is a difficult question - you can't do UBI properly without massive, well-coordinated adjustments to the tax and welfare systems. Welfare needs to be cut back so that it only covers extra expenses due to disability etc., not the inability to work and income tax needs to be very finely tuned so that people on UBI still have an incentive to work, but people on higher incomes pay it all back in tax. Tricky. Then you need some sort of "remedial" scheme for the minority of people who just can't manage their own finances.
Also, the cost of this sort of state involvement in the economy is more state involvement, so things like price and rent controls might be needed. However, don't kid yourself that these are new issues - they apply just as much to the current system of welfare benefits. Remember, if you pay any sort of state support to people on low wages, you're effectively subsidising the businesses paying below-living-wages. Certainly in Europe (including the UK, for the moment) benefits to the "working poor" are probably a bigger problem than the minority of "scroungers" who "won't work" that the politicians like to use as bogiemen.
The Finnish experiment seems to be an investigation into the "incentive" effect targetted at people already on benefits - will UBI encourage or discourage people from taking paid work? - rather than a dry run of a full-blown UBI scheme. Reading between the lines in TFA, it sounds like Finland requires benefit recipients to account for how they spend their benefit money, whereas the UBI will be no-strings - so this experiment might make more sense in Finland than in other countries that just dole out welfare money to people who meet the criteria.
(Score: 2) by Immerman on Thursday January 05 2017, @03:32AM
I think the phasing from UBI net gain to net loss without disincentive is not so difficult as you imagine. It's true that as the incremental tax rate increases you take home less of each additional dollar you earn, but you're never in the position where earning an extra dollar actually costs you anything, which is what makes the current system such a trap. In fact, even if you imagine the incremental tax rate at the breakeven point is a whopping 33% (currently applied to income in the $190K to $413K range in the US), you'll still be taking home 2/3 of the next dollar you earn.
I also fail to see how you've got a credible slippery slope into needing market controls - you are not changing the supply side of the market for goods and housing, nor are you altering the demand side dramatically - most working-class people will see only a slight if any reduction in net income, and the impoverished were already largely receiving targeted assistance anyway. It's only those "in betweeners" transitioning from one group to the other that see a real change with a UBI.
Well, except for possible usage changes - for example I could see collective living scenarios becoming more popular. Several people sharing a big house can get you a lot more bang for your buck than separate apartments, but I seem to have heard that targetted housing assistance often precludes such arrangements.
There might also be a slight shrinkage in the available low-end labor pool at a given price point, as the UBI allows for more comfortable part-time employment - but considering the current unemployment/underemployment levels we'd have to see a dramatic shrinkage before worrying about a labor shortage. And even then, the solution is something free markets are great at - if you need more labor than you can get, offer more money and/or a better working environment to lure employees from your competitors, or to work longer hours.
(Score: 2) by stormreaver on Wednesday January 04 2017, @12:04PM
The amount will be deducted from any benefits they already receive.
This, all by itself, will doom this experiment to failure. While the State won't pay anymore than it already does, the recipients won't be any better off than they are now. This will have zero net effect. So what's the point?
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 04 2017, @12:24PM
So what's the point?
Savings on the current highly complex bureaucracy for citizens and state at cost <0?
(Score: 2) by VLM on Wednesday January 04 2017, @02:15PM
Also, freedom. Big brother says I can't have more than two roommates while getting housing assistance and I can't afford community college with my existing one roommate, but if big brother would F off I could have a little frat house here and get my degree in the profitable field of underwater basket weaving so I can later get a job as a barista and get off welfare, times like a million Millennial kids.
There will be problems. A lot of government handouts are based on targeting "lower IQ segments" as beneficiaries while making the application process so incredibly complicated that only "higher IQ segments" can correctly apply when ironically they are likely already successful anyway and are going to be successful no matter if they're helped or not. I've seen this with some government contract handouts and small business administration programs where you can't get the program unless you have a degree and full time job in SBA studies, but if you have a degree and full time job in SBA studies your business will auto-fail, unless you're a regular Einstein in which case your business will likely succeed anyway regardless if it gets help or not (something like you'd get more revenue running your business 20 hours per week rather than interfacing with the SBA for 20 hours per week). Obviously this specific example varies greatly with department, level of govt, and over decades of time.
(Score: 2) by AndyTheAbsurd on Wednesday January 04 2017, @02:07PM
The advantage should be in administrative savings. Since they've decided "We're giving these people this amount of money per month no matter what they do with it", they don't have to assign a bureaucrat to check in and make sure that it's being spent on food and housing rather than vodka and weed. However, since they've also decided "we're going to deduct an identical amount from other benefits these people get", I suspect that it's going to end up being an administrative headache rather than an administrative pain-reliever.
Please note my username before responding. You may have been trolled.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 05 2017, @03:27AM
Yes, for during the test, there will of course be administrative headache and more byrocracy, but you have to be able to separate the stuff that is caused by the test and what is caused, because the of the system being tested.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by theluggage on Wednesday January 04 2017, @02:07PM
While the State won't pay anymore than it already does, the recipients won't be any better off than they are now
It might make sense in Finland. TFA says:
Those chosen will receive 560 euros every month, with no reporting requirements on how they spend it.
...which implies that the Finnish system normally requires claimants to account for how they spend their benefits. The UBI payments are no-strings. Also, unlike the benefits they replace, these payments won't be clawed back immediately the claimant takes a job. The main point of the experiment (again, according to TFA) is to see if it is an incentive or disincentive to look for work.
One of the problems with complex means-tested welfare benefits systems - especially the more generous European ones - is that they create "poverty traps" whereby getting a job at best leaves you no better off. At worst - where there are multiple benefits, from different departments or branches of government - coming off benefits can leave people significantly worse off (e.g. you get a job, come off welfare, then find that your kids no longer get free school meals, you have to pay for doctor's prescription, you lose travel concessions etc.)
Really, what UBI means at present is that you scrap virtually all benefits and concessions, replace them with a single, unconditional UBI payment and then gradually reclaim the UBI through the income tax system as people earn more. Tricky to tune correctly, but far easier (and cheaper to administer) than dealing with multiple, interacting benefits.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by r1348 on Wednesday January 04 2017, @12:21PM
Do you really think that people earning 560€/mo in Finland (not your cheapest country) would suddenly go on a spending spree?
Because inflation is not driven by income, but by spending. Subsistence spending would hardly be a blip on the radar.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by VLM on Wednesday January 04 2017, @01:24PM
drive up the cost of living
I suspect the road block will be definitions of the "cost of living".
So in very poor neighborhoods were people do absolutely nothing but pay rent and buy food, the extra income would be eaten mostly by increasing in poor people rents and poor people foods (high carb fattening convenience food).
However in middle/upper class areas, if "they" try to increase the price of real estate or frosted flakes, first of all most of my mortgage will continue to be paid by fixed salary so on a percentage basis the change will be pretty small to irrelevant, and if they increase the price of corn syrup I won't care because I eat healthier and will just buy more salad or steak or whatever. Also all my neighbors have interests other than boosting property prices so its unlikely all the money will get dumped into the next mortgage, in fact a ton of it is going to go into lawnmowers and big screen TVs and toys and toy haulers (ATVs, snowmobiles, jetskis), basically the stuff they buy already but now another couple hundred bucks of it.
So the Korean convenience store in a poor part of LA can try to increase the price of 2 liters of soda to $5 because the poor people got more money for a very short amount of time, but that's just going to encourage them even more to take a bus out to whitetopia where 2 liters are still 79 cents and a quarter of the store is a fresh produce department, so the Korean dude can try to capture that money and he will get some, but hardly all of it.
Meanwhile there are competing cultural definitions of "living" such that "poor people status symbols" are going to boom, correct, but if you don't participate in the $500 sneaker economy or the $4K rims economy then price inflation there won't matter, in fact its good for you because whatever it is you want, that they don't, will not go up in price (I donno, books. Or education. Or fine art. Yard and house care stuff. Esoteric (non-apple) computer hardware.)
Note that most of the cost savings of a BI is getting rid of the expense of big brother, so this specific example of giving them $500 cash while taking away $500 of hyper-regulated benefits means its almost certain that the sales and demand and prices of food and rent will go DOWN as they spend at least a penny of cash on something they want other than hyper regulated food and rent benefits. Optimistically yeah I'll just get one more roommate than big brother permits and then I can afford to go back to school, or more realistically yeah I'll just get one more roommate than big brother permits and then I can buy more weed and beer, whatever, either way the local landlords are going to make LESS money.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by jelizondo on Wednesday January 04 2017, @02:31PM
Why is so popular the perverse notion that giving money or a break to the people is bad for the economy but giving money to banks is perfectly good?
Quoting ‘The Economist’ on Quantitative Easing [economist.com]:
Give 3 Trillion dollars to the banks, no problem; it is the free market thing to do. Try to get tuition-free college? You dirty commie! Who's going to pay for it?
(Score: 2) by jmorris on Wednesday January 04 2017, @04:23PM
Why not the simpler answer, both are symptoms of the same problem: Politics.
The poor have their Socialist Party to lobby the government for more welfare. (Social Democrat, Labor, Democratic, the party label changes from place/time to avoid the negative stigma that always attaches.) The banks use lobbyists to accomplish the same thing. The thing is stealing from the treasury. Stealing is always wrong. How about that? Nice simple and general rule. With our current social technology government is required, things like military, courts, usually roads, etc. all work best with a government. Governments are NOT required to redistribute wealth though, if you count each and every occurrence as a failure you get a rule that is simple and easy to apply.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 04 2017, @06:43PM
Taxes are theft, yatta yatta whatever.
There is no magic free market and society will always have to account for the human factor. UBI isn't theft or redistribution like you think. It is a social safety net that will improve the lives of millions, and much of the cost is already factored into existing welfare programs that could then be eliminated. But hey, don't let humanity advance if it goes against your personal feelings of individuality and accomplishment. You're a special snowflake that shouldn't have to contribute back to society except in ways you deem worthy.
Money is a fictional entity used by humans to enable them to help each other, doing things for the sake of money is a backwards approach.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by jelizondo on Wednesday January 04 2017, @07:00PM
Please jmorris, hear me out. I know it will go against your beliefs but one thing is belief and quite another is reality.
Do you think you paid the entirety of the roads you travel? Do you think that the majority of the cost was borne by the poor to middle-class people? Nope. It was wealth redistribution. You see, not only commies do that; we also do it in the free market.
Now, think about people like Warren Buffett [cnn.com], who claims to pay a lower tax rate than his secretary and people like Donald Trump [nytimes.com], who claims hasn’t paid taxes in years. Is it fair that hardworking people like you and me have no choice but to pay taxes while billionaires can pay very little or no tax?
And don’t get me started on Apple, Microsoft and many other corporations that offshore their profits and pay no taxes in the U.S.
If everyone, person or corporation, paid his fair share there would be a lot of money to meet the costs of stuff that is derided today, like tuition-free college. Not a commie thing, just fairness. Free market should not mean the law of the stronger. We are supposed to be civilized, not jungle people.
(Score: 1, Troll) by jmorris on Wednesday January 04 2017, @09:53PM
Do you think you paid the entirety of the roads you travel?
A big chunk of roads are paid for by gas taxes and vehicle taxes, often varying by the impact of the vehicle on the roads so big heavy cars and trucks pay more. So yes, a company running a fleet of trucks pays more. That is reasonable. A rich person with a luxury car might only pay a little more because it is a little heavier. That too is fair.
Now, think about people like Warren Buffett, who claims to pay a lower tax rate than his secretary
I know that is a fetish of progs, but who cares? Does Mr. Buffett pay MORE TAXES than his secretary? Yes he does, a lot more. He pays a lower rate because it is investment income, which we incentivize with a lower rate; because we encourage savings and investment over consumption for its positive effects on the economy. Saving is good. If you want to argue for changing the tax system to punish savings and encourage consumption we can have that debate; you will lose but we can have it.
And don’t get me started on Apple, Microsoft and many other corporations that offshore their profits and pay no taxes in the U.S.
You are economically illiterate so this doesn't come as a shock. Those companies operate worldwide. We have the highest corporate tax rates in the developed world at the moment. Explain why it is responsible to the shareholders to bring profits into the U.S. under those circumstances? Explain why it is wrong to relocate a corporate headquarters from a country that punishes them to a country that welcomes them. If we want the world to move/keep their headquarters here and invest in plants, equipment and employees here we have to compete for that against every other country who would like that wealth flowing into their country.
If everyone, person or corporation, paid his fair share...
Define it. Or STFU. Tell us what a 'fair share' is. Tell us the percentage of someone's labor you feel entitled to seize and redistribute. Tell us the number that is fair, the number that one percent more would be unfair. Or admit you simply envy others and covet their goods; that you would be fine with seizing it all.
like tuition-free college
Don't colleges suck enough now? Why do you want to utterly destroy education? Do you want to redistribute ignorance equally or something?
Not a commie thing, just fairness.
Explain what is 'fair' about enslaving one group of people to serve the wants and desires of another group?
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 04 2017, @10:42PM
As usual you keep your head firmly tucked between your butt cheeks. You're a greedy small minded person swallowing lame propaganda and spouting back pseudo-intellectual garbage.
Explain what is 'fair' about enslaving one group of people to serve the wants and desires of another group?
I guess it sails way way waaayyy over your head that we currently have 99% enslaved by 1%. Why should the actual workers not get a share of the profits from their work? I thought that was the ideal scenario for you libcons, put in hard work and get your rewards. Right now people put in their hard work and get the bare minimum the company is willing to pay. Its a pyramid scheme with only a little more validity than the actual scam version.
Greedy bastards just don't want to give up their little empires.
(Score: 2) by Kromagv0 on Wednesday January 04 2017, @04:30PM
You are forgetting that the regular, non elected non government people, who would be against UBI were also very likely against giving the banks a metric shit ton of money. What is interesting is that the regular, see the previous qualifier, people who are for UBI are likely against giving banks a metric shit ton of money.
T-Shirts and bumper stickers [zazzle.com] to offend someone
(Score: 2) by darkfeline on Wednesday January 04 2017, @06:42PM
>Could someone explain why a UBI (universal basic income) wouldn't simply drive up the cost of living by pretty much exactly the UBI amount?
Because grocery stores destroy malformed but perfectly good produce and bakeries destroy their pastries at the end of the day so poor people can't scavenge the food for free.
Join the SDF Public Access UNIX System today!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 04 2017, @10:12PM
This has been illegal in France since 2015. [popularresistance.org]
Note also that Massachusetts made the move in 2014.
-- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 2) by butthurt on Thursday January 05 2017, @12:59AM
You don't say what you mean by "full scale." If we take it to mean "everyone in Finland" then any inflationary effect can be expected to be limited by the fact that Finland, among other countries, uses the euro but can't unilaterally create euros. Prices for "things" that can be traded with other Eurozone countries--electricity, wine, cheese--ought to tend to be similar to what people will pay in those other countries. Prices for land in Finland, and rents, might be expected to increase when homeless people suddenly aspire to having their own space to live in. Finland had already set the goal of "eliminat[ing] long-term homelessness by 2015."
http://www.housingfirst.fi/en/housing_first/homelessness_in_finland/national_programme_2012-2015 [housingfirst.fi]
In November 2010 there were 7877 single homeless people and 349 homeless families in Finland.
-- http://www.housingfirst.fi/en/housing_first/homelessness_in_finland [housingfirst.fi]
More inflation might of course be expected if a UBI--or any major governmental spending--were implemented by creating and distributing money.