SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Think of it: The government prints more money or perhaps — god forbid — it taxes some corporate profits, then it showers the cash down on the people so they can continue to spend. As a result, more and more capital accumulates at the top. And with that capital comes more power to dictate the terms governing human existence.
UBI really just turns us from stakeholders or even citizens to mere consumers.
Meanwhile, UBI also obviates the need for people to consider true alternatives to living lives as passive consumers. Solutions like platform cooperatives, alternative currencies, favor banks, or employee-owned businesses, which actually threaten the status quo under which extractive monopolies have thrived, will seem unnecessary. Why bother signing up for the revolution if our bellies are full? Or just full enough?
Under the guise of compassion, UBI really just turns us from stakeholders or even citizens to mere consumers. Once the ability to create or exchange value is stripped from us, all we can do with every consumptive act is deliver more power to people who can finally, without any exaggeration, be called our corporate overlords.
No, income is nothing but a booby prize. If we're going to get a handout, we should demand not an allowance but assets. That's right: an ownership stake.
https://medium.com/s/powertrip/universal-basic-income-is-silicon-valleys-latest-scam-fd3e130b69a0
(Score: 2, Troll) by bradley13 on Monday October 15 2018, @05:56AM (117 children)
Wow, a progressive actually understands that UBI is a stupid idea. Of course, he then comes up with a different giveaway that's even dumber.
What assets, exactly, does he want to give away, and how are these different from the money they can be exchanged for? Oh...
Everyone is somebody else's weirdo.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 15 2018, @07:15AM (108 children)
UBI isn't a stupid idea. As productivity and automation continue to improve the only viable alternative to the UBI is mandatory busywork. There's only so much you can do with cutting back on the number of hours that people are allowed to work in a given month and not everybody will be suited for the sort of jobs that exist in the future.
It's mostly morons that don't get the fact that people aren't going to voluntarily starve to death. What will happen is that all the free time will be spent figuring out how to grab some of what others have stolen. The UBI definitely is about passifying people so that they don't burn down the system. But, people get bored and will likely engage in something of value eventually, even if it's not something that has monetary value.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 15 2018, @07:23AM
*pacifying
(Score: 4, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 15 2018, @08:30AM (74 children)
Long ago many of the Greek citizens had slaves working for them so they could come up with bullshit, epic level bullshit or actually insightful/useful stuff that people remember and use many centuries later, while not having to toil their own fields. So if automated factories, mines and robots take the place of the slaves, why would a future where most humans are "idle" be such a bad thing?
And why would it be such a bad thing for the people themselves if they keep getting a reasonable amount and quality of Bread and Circuses? The Bread has to be real but the Circuses don't all have to be. Lots of people are pretty happy with movies, TV series, music, computer games, etc.
Modern society is already quite complicated and interdependent. So being even more dependent on others isn't a big thing.
Only a minority of humans can hunt well enough with tools that they make completely from scratch (e.g. bow, arrows and bow strings). And more importantly there just isn't enough "wilderness" out there for 7+ billion people to all do that sort of thing. There are only 4 billion hectares of forest out there. Just about a football field of forest for each person. The larger edible wild animals would go extinct pretty fast if everyone went and "lived free".
(Score: 2, Informative) by rleigh on Monday October 15 2018, @08:58AM (63 children)
It's bad because merely being fed and entertained isn't enough. Merely existing isn't enough. People need purpose in life and pride in themselves and their achievements. People don't like being utterly dependent upon others, and denied the ability to achieve, it's psychologically devastating. There's a reason why a lack of purpose is a prime cause of drug addiction and suicide due to a sense of worthlessness and hopelessness. We need more than that.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 15 2018, @09:19AM (31 children)
When people have no talent for creation, their only avenue for "achievements" is destruction. Do we *really* need hordes of dumb criminals?
Let them while away their time destroying virtual stuff and gaining in-game achievements to their hearts' content. The less of real-world living people and animals get hurt and real-world stuff destroyed, the better for all.
(Score: 2) by rleigh on Monday October 15 2018, @09:32AM (30 children)
Pretty much everyone has the capacity to create. Most of us are not "dumb criminals". Work is a creative outlet for most of us. In its absence, many would be denied to opportunity to make any difference to the world. We already see the destructive effects for people trapped on welfare dependency, and UBI takes that to the next level.
By "destroying virtual stuff" I take it you mean playing computer games. Gaming is fundamentally meaningless and unproductive. Fun for an hour or so, but not the basis of a meaningful and happy existence. I can't believe you are even seriously making that suggestion; it belies any serious consideration of the situation, and belittles the reality many people already have to face.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 15 2018, @10:11AM (8 children)
Most of the populace hides it quite perfectly. If you cannot offer a reliable way to unhide it, truth or falsity of your hypothesis means precisely nothing.
What percent of usual hobbies are meaningful and productive? What percent of regular jobs, come to that?
A person doing the work doable by a robot or a program, is by definition not more creative than said robot or program. Same as with a slave turning a wheel in place of a horse; when a human being gets reduced to a draft animal, it's "meaningful" all right but with the wrong type of meaning.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by rleigh on Monday October 15 2018, @01:08PM (5 children)
"Most of the populace hides it quite perfectly."
I find your attitude regarding your fellow human beings revolting. Given the opportunity, most of us have the aptitude to make something of ourselves. All of us can contribute something to society at large, no matter how small or insignificant. You don't need to be one of the elite to be useful and have purpose.
"What percent of usual hobbies are meaningful and productive?"
It doesn't matter whether your or I think something lacks meaning or is unproductive. Hobbies aren't meant to be so. The meaning lies solely within the person doing the hobby. It has meaning *for them*. But... hobbies alone aren't sufficient for most people to be the sole focus of our lives. We have family, friends, jobs, and other things going on; the hobby activities fill the fits of free time we fit around all the other stuff. We all need things in our live which provide the purpose and meaning which motivates us to get up, and live in the real world. UBI would remove that for a significant number of people. The incentive to get up, go out and earn some money to keep your family going is really important; our society isn't organised the way it is by accident, and we topple the key pillars of the stability of our society at our peril.
Gaming can be an interesting diversion. But it's not a substitute for real life. It's a waste of your life if not indulged in with some degree of moderation and self-control. It can't substitute for the meaning and satisfaction gained from doing real stuff that affects the real world, not for most people. Even the most casual conversation with a stranger has more meaning and importance then self-indulgent time wasting.
(Score: 3, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 15 2018, @02:19PM
And I find your attitude placing your emotions before demonstrable facts lunatic. So what? You, I, and the populace are what we are.
Once more: WHAT aptitude has someone with an IQ of 70 in a world of robots and (simplistic) AIs? Stop regurgitating sound bites and THINK.
Now you start contradicting yourself: "Gaming is fundamentally meaningless and unproductive." is what you argued just ONE message ago. Doublethink, or amnesia?
Yeah, sure it is. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penal_labour#Punitive_versus_productive_labour [wikipedia.org]
(Score: 5, Informative) by c0lo on Monday October 15 2018, @02:26PM
And... exactly how UBI suddenly robs such a person of the aptitude of making something of himself?
This is like saying "A trapeze artist will suddenly lose his aptitude if he trains with a safety net".
Because UBI is exactly that: a safety net arresting your financial fall if you drop hard from what you are attempting.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday October 15 2018, @10:09PM (2 children)
I see nothing in your post indicating that the attitude is wrong. I'll note here that a better approach would be to note that if there really were an overwhelming population of destroyers versus creators, we wouldn't have a civilization in the first place.
Gaming is one way to get those most casual conversations with strangers on the other side of the world. It's not bad communication-wise as hobbies go, if you're playing massive multi-player.
My view on this is that this is much like genetic expression. A gene "expresses" itself, if it has some concrete effect on the world. If that effect is positive to the organisms ability to survive and reproduce, then the gene survives to spread itself through the population. Similarly, when we do stuff in the real world, be it a job or a "hobby" with real world application, we influence the world in a way that improves our survival and improves further our ability to shape the world. A UBIer with a full time hobby of games may be improving themselves, but they don't have independence. They won't have much ability to control their lives, if someone pulls the plug on their UBI.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 16 2018, @03:38AM (1 child)
Same goes for lots of people with jobs. Heck in the USA their health care is often tied to their job.
Those people would have even less power and freedom than the UBI consumers the submitter objects to - since they would have to work to live - they would be shackled to their jobs for many hours a day for a wage that won't go up if the robots don't get more expensive or worse. There are plenty of people in the world who don't have independence from their jobs. And a minority that if freed from having to do their jobs might actually come up with stuff that's interesting or even useful to many others, even if it would be a one time thing and not a "job".
Right now the robots are far from good enough to most people's jobs for cheap enough. But if the robots get good and cheap enough, why should people be forced to compete against the robots just to survive? That's just a race to the bottom.
Just think of the Chinese and Indian workers as the first wave of robots. Are the jobs they took really coming back to the USA? The Chinese workers can still compete with the robots for now. And they certainly can outcompete many workers in the USA: https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2013/01/16/169528579/outsourced-employee-sends-own-job-to-china-surfs-web [npr.org]
The Chinese companies are looking to replace those workers with robots. They will be forced to climb up the ladder to escape the robots, or die. Guess whose jobs some of those workers will take?
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday October 16 2018, @04:01AM
Well, if you pulled their UBI, they'd still be employed. If you pulled their job, they can always find another. It's not like a UBI where you can't find another sugar daddy.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 15 2018, @02:04PM (1 child)
Many industries have developed out of hobbies - PC's, most things electronic, aeroplanes, rockets, drones, SCUBA. travel, GNU, linux.
(Score: 2) by rleigh on Monday October 15 2018, @08:45PM
While this is certainly true, it does not imply that it is sustainable or desirable for society at large to live this way.
(Score: 2) by sjames on Monday October 15 2018, @03:50PM (20 children)
"Want fries with that?" is not a creative outlet. But if enough people (for example, every citizen) is in a position where they can quit and do arts and crafts instead (perhaps beautify the neighborhood or sell their creations), employers will need to either pay a lot more and offer a better work/life balance so their employees can find a creative outlet or find a way for the work to be a creative outlet for the employees.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 15 2018, @05:04PM (19 children)
Which is why Indian reservations aren't dumps.
Oh, wait
(Score: 2) by fyngyrz on Monday October 15 2018, @06:32PM
The key cause of reservations (and city ghettos, and religious compounds) becoming, and remaining, dumps arises because:
(a) It's easy to lever geographically isolated individuals into culturally isolated insular cliques using little more than nonsensical finger-pointing at a claimed "enemy", and...
(b) Because almost every time such an insular clique forms, it generates its own patois and style which serve to form a very strong basis for everyone else isolating the group. Or IOW, the enemy now actually exists.
Once the cultural isolation reaches a critical point, most people inside don't reach out, and most people outside don't reach in — the isolated group descends deeply into antisocial patterns and the end result is terrible to behold. Very few people, relatively speaking, manage to pull themselves out of that kind of muck.
Once you've invested in your own special set of pseudo-identity-based isolationist rationales and complemented that with behaviors that "outsiders" will find repugnant or difficult to comprehend, you're done, and those "outsiders" will promptly stick a fork in you.
FYI, I have lived, longish-term, in two different ghettos (10y, 4y) and presently live right next door to an indian reservation (30y.) All three were, and remain, outright hellholes.
(Score: 2) by sjames on Monday October 15 2018, @07:29PM (17 children)
There are many reasons the reservations are dumps. A big one is that the various government programs all carry strings that prevent exactly the things I suggested as outlets.
The one case where that has changed is overwhelmed by the baggage of several generations growing up under a system where the strings were firmly attached.
We need to get rid of those strings ASAP so as to not train more people to fail.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday October 15 2018, @11:50PM (16 children)
Just remember that UBI is a string as well.
(Score: 2) by sjames on Tuesday October 16 2018, @12:01AM (15 children)
Nope. You get the money, you do what you want with it.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday October 16 2018, @12:17AM (14 children)
Unless you don't get the money. Leaving the country and renouncing citizenship would be one such way to lose UBI. And of course, laws can be passed to remove or reduce UBI for any scary circumstance that the legislatures or security apparatus can dream up. It'd be a sleazy way to cut costs of the program, should they overcommit spending to it.
In addition, what hoops will you need to jump through to show that you're who you claim you are and deserve that UBI check? What information will you need to give to the authorities? Even a relatively innocuous program like this is an avenue for government authorities to exert control over you and extract information about you.
(Score: 4, Touché) by sjames on Tuesday October 16 2018, @01:39AM (13 children)
It takes a lot less than that to lose your job.
Your argument reeks of desperation.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday October 16 2018, @04:02AM (12 children)
And it takes a lot less than that to get another job.
(Score: 2) by sjames on Tuesday October 16 2018, @06:26AM (11 children)
Also, you should look up the meaning of "no strings attached". You are probably deliberately stretching the meaning just to have a pseudo argument, but just In case, I suggest looking it up.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday October 16 2018, @01:59PM (10 children)
(Score: 2) by sjames on Tuesday October 16 2018, @03:25PM (9 children)
Here's a hint, those might be risks or concerns (and some easily avoided), but they are not strings attached. REALLY, go look up what that expression means!
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday October 16 2018, @05:19PM (8 children)
The problem here is that every government program that doles out money has strings attached by implication. For example, they don't need to gather information about you in order to write UBI checks. But that will become necessary when my 500 children (John0 through John499, of course) start collecting UBI checks. Fraud and deceit always creep into any consideration of public goods like the UBI. The reactions to that invariably create strings.
Similarly, once money is doled out, someone will desire to use that stream of funds to influence or control the general population. It's human nature to meddle, and the existence of the UBI provides a great lever for such. That's another string.
And of course, I mentioned the obvious, that you have to stay a citizen in order to get the UBI. That creates an even higher barrier to exit for people in the US. I'll note here that one of the key ways to reduce income and wealth inequality is to allow freer movement of people.
(Score: 2) by sjames on Tuesday October 16 2018, @05:58PM (7 children)
Sorry no. You don't get to redefine words. You get the money with no strings attached. There exist risks that you may not continue getting money, but that's not related to how you choose to spend what you already got unless you foolishly contribute it to a right winger's campaign.
As for your arguments that it encourages you to stay in the U.S., what do you suggest? "OMG NO! We can't make the U.S. that good of a place to live, people might want to stay!!!". Perhaps we should turn the U.S. into a "third world shit hole" so people won't feel compelled to stay?
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday October 16 2018, @06:36PM (6 children)
Why are you only looking at that for your strings? I think you should just reread my posts and realize thereafter that strings not only manifest in constraints on how one spends money.
What happens if the US no longer is such a wonderful place to stay, for example, because of a theocratic takeover of the country? It's not a strong string, but it is a string that complicates your efforts (and the efforts of your friends and family) to get out.
(Score: 2) by sjames on Tuesday October 16 2018, @07:22PM (5 children)
Because that is what is meant by no strings attached. It always has been. I said it that way to specifically contrast it with current safety net programs that fain due to significant strings being attached.
Otherwise, we can all be deeply concerned that if an asteroid ghits the earth, your job may be gone and other potential employers dead.
Now SHOO! Go buy a dictionary, or at least read this [thefreedictionary.com].
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday October 16 2018, @11:11PM (4 children)
From your own link:
I already noted three things that qualify. The first counts as a special condition. Create a UBI and someone will need a bunch of info and power to prevent fraud. The second is an implicit obligation. Create the UBI and it will need to be defended from the busy bodies who will want to use it as a societal modification tool (particularly difficult since it was created for that purpose). And finally, the bit about having to retain citizenship in order to continue to receive the UBI is a typical restriction.
Now that we've settled that, I'll summarize my side. I merely pointed out that UBI has some strings attached to itself. It's nowhere as bad as poorly designed needs-base stuff that encourages people to stay in poverty. But they are there.
(Score: 2) by sjames on Wednesday October 17 2018, @12:21AM (3 children)
It's funny how everybody I have ever spoken with but you shares my understanding of the phrase.
But note that your rather over-broad definition of strings attached covers literally everything including breathing since nobody is guaranteed their next breath.
But you do seem at last to see my point. Without the means testing and restrictions on how it can be spent, it avoids being a poverty trap.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday October 17 2018, @01:38AM (2 children)
The dictionary shares my understanding of the phrase too.
(Score: 2) by sjames on Wednesday October 17 2018, @02:13AM (1 child)
Only if you read it sideways with the wrong prescription glasses.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday October 17 2018, @10:40AM
(Score: 5, Insightful) by NotSanguine on Monday October 15 2018, @09:40AM (20 children)
And how would UBI make humans unwilling to create purpose in their lives? How many hours a week does a guy like Elon Musk or Jeff Bezos work? They have the means to never work another moment again. Forever.
Why do they do it? Because they create purpose and drive themselves forward. Most of us do this, even if we don't have bazillions of dollars.
It seems to me that not having to worry about things like a roof or basic foodstuffs would *encourage* innovation, risk taking and entrepreneurship.
Given how difficult and prone to failure it is to create/develop a new idea/product/service, even if you have the desire to do so, if you have a crap, boring job that pays just enough to feed you and your family, you're not going to give it up to try and start a business which might be really successful.
As such, if you didn't have to worry about your kids going hungry or being homeless, many, many more people would use their capabilities for innovation, creation (whether that be a product, a service or art) and starting their own businesses. But if they know that if they fail (or even if it takes a while to succeed), they and their kids will be out in the street, most people will choose their crap job.
Beyond that, there's a pretty good *capitalist* economic argument too. Our economy is highly dependent on consumer spending. Broadening the base of those with money to spend will grow the economy much more than having the bulk of wealth and income concentrated in a small percentage of the population. From a medium to long term perspective, making sure *everyone* can consume will bolster the economy, not hurt it.
Please note that I'm not saying that UBI is the only way, or even the right way to broaden the distribution of income/wealth, but what we're doing now wastes so much human potential as well as being a drag on the economy.
If we don't do *something*, things are going to get really ugly. Fortunately for me, I'm old enough that I'll probably be dead before things get that bad. But that will be little comfort to those 30 and under.
Making sure that everyone in the richest country on this planet is housed, fed and reasonably well educated would be a huge boon to all of us.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 15 2018, @09:59AM
This would explain the high rate of alcoholism among all the retired people around me and in the soviet union.
(Score: 1, Troll) by rleigh on Monday October 15 2018, @01:20PM (18 children)
> And how would UBI make humans unwilling to create purpose in their lives? How many hours a week does a guy like Elon Musk or Jeff Bezos work? They have the means to never work another moment again. Forever.
> Why do they do it? Because they create purpose and drive themselves forward. Most of us do this, even if we don't have bazillions of dollars.
> It seems to me that not having to worry about things like a roof or basic foodstuffs would *encourage* innovation, risk taking and entrepreneurship.
It's a lovely idea in theory. In practice the evidence is completely to the contrary, with welfare dependency being a cycle of despair and ruin for many. I've seen it first hand. It's not called the "welfare trap" for nothing.
The Musk/Bezos example is a poor one. Suppose you were like one of them, with amazing ideas. But with UBI, you might well not have the agency to put those ideas into practice because you're an unemployed layabout with no connections to get a job somewhere you could actually make something of your ideas. I have lots of ideas, but I can't make anything of them alone. Being given the freedom to pursue them is nice, but not necessarily going to be as fulfilling or productive as doing it in the context of a commercial organisation.
Having good ideas and motivation doesn't matter if you don't have the agency to realise it. UBI could end up crushing people because it actively prevents them from pursuing their dreams. The basic income can be a trap, robbing people of the motivation to better themselves and their condition. I often wonder about how many lives have been robbed of their potential due to the welfare state sapping people of the drive to push themselves further. And I think UBI would be even worse than that.
(Score: 5, Informative) by Bobs on Monday October 15 2018, @02:01PM (14 children)
You seem to be missing the point of UBI: a basic income that provides the freedom/opportunity to choose how to spend your time.
Think of the alternative options: the “welfare trap” you spoke of was because welfare is means tested and if you get a job to improve your situation, you start losing all the support - food, housing, income, that has been helping you to get by. With UBI you keep it when you take on additional work - there is no “ trap”. Those who want to work, make art, teach, start a business, whatever, have the opportunity to do so without the risk of being homeless or starving to death.
Minimum wage jobs, can also be a trap because between the work and the commuting and the costs involved you often don’t have opportunity for much of anything else, and typically don’t make enough to get by on.
In a few years, 70%+ of jobs will be done better, faster, cheaper and with higher quality by robots and AI. What sort of meaningful, paid work will the displaced people be able to do? Talk about despair for them. UBI gives them a choice and hope. What is the alternative for them?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 15 2018, @02:29PM (13 children)
Where's the money for UBI coming from? So you think you're free to start a business with UBI and the taxes will not be so prohibitive as to have effectively landed everyone in the welfare trap? Then, as always under socialism, the mass starvations will come!
(Score: 2) by sjames on Monday October 15 2018, @04:07PM (12 children)
As long as the tax is less than 100% and you continue to receive UBI, you will always be better off for running your business.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 15 2018, @04:52PM (10 children)
Yes, business is great under "not real" socialism! [spectator.co.uk]
(Score: 2) by sjames on Monday October 15 2018, @07:16PM (9 children)
The only person suggesting that strawman as a model for the U.S. is you.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday October 16 2018, @12:23AM (8 children)
Um, no. Someone suggested something really stupid. That tax better be a lot less than 100% or we won't see those businesses.
(Score: 2) by sjames on Tuesday October 16 2018, @01:42AM (7 children)
It should be a lot less, but my criterion is a measure of the worst case.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday October 16 2018, @04:04AM (6 children)
(Score: 2) by sjames on Tuesday October 16 2018, @06:29AM (5 children)
Why not? You're still better off for running it.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday October 16 2018, @02:25PM (4 children)
Because that's not true. If I see ten cents of every dollar my business earns, what's in it for me? Remember one of the key arguments for UBI is that it reduces the risks associated with doing something new. Well, you have to consider the other side too for a non-hobby, the reward. Greatly reducing the reward for starting a business is very similar to increasing the risk. In the above case, by reducing the reward for starting a business by an order of magnitude is similar to increasing the risk by an order of magnitude, once you get to businesses that have profit potential much larger than the UBI.
(Score: 2) by sjames on Tuesday October 16 2018, @03:39PM (3 children)
If that's just not enough for you, don't do it. Someone else will. You can just keep it at hobby level or choose something else. But keep in mind that if you're in that tax bracket, those dimes on the dollar are probably enough to fund a fairly lavish lifestyle and my guess is that you won't want to give it up.
You'll whine and moan to your butler about how "hard" life is and "threaten" to give it all up, but at the end of the day your greed will drive you to show up tomorrow and keep doing it.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday October 16 2018, @05:22PM (2 children)
Why? High taxes hurt them as much as they hurt me. The sharply reduced reward still remains.
Unless, of course, they don't bother because the reward isn't worth the risk.
Meanwhile in other countries with a much lower tax rate, new businesses will start up which routinely form zero profit subsidiaries in high tax land.
(Score: 2) by sjames on Tuesday October 16 2018, @05:47PM (1 child)
Khallow is threatening to take his marbles and stomp off in a huff! OH NOES! Whatever will we do?!?
Oh, I know: "BYE BYE! Don't let the door hit you where the Good Lord split you!"
Hint: At one point, the Beatles were paying 95% in taxes. They didn't quit.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday October 16 2018, @06:56PM
Yea, right. [reddit.com]
Funny how there's always loopholes when these crazy high tax rates happen. So what appears to have happened here is that the Beatles got burned by these sky high taxes one year, took on competent tax advisors, and then only paid 30% thereafter.
That doesn't quite fit the narrative, does it?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 15 2018, @10:16PM
^ this guy gets it
(Score: 5, Insightful) by NotSanguine on Monday October 15 2018, @03:35PM
Not even a little bit. They are great examples. I used Musk and Bezos as examples for two reasons:
1. They are people pretty much everyone knows. If I'd said Barb Henderson or Zvi Liebmann, you'd have no idea who I was talking about;
2. They have no incentive to work *at all*, given that they have enough resources to support hundreds of people for centuries.
Even though they have the resources to buy new fully furnished houses, complete with cars, clothes, food and pretty much anything they might want, and then throw it all away, every week for the rest of their lives without doing a lick of work, they work hard, because they have dreams, aspirations and purpose that goes far beyond just eating money.
And most people are the same way (well except for the part about buying a new home every week and throwing it away). There are many, many amazingly talented and capable people out there who *could* be innovating, creating and making their communities more prosperous and productive. Instead *they* are caught in a trap. They don't have the means to pursue their dreams and goals, as they need to spend most of their waking hours working just to live paycheck to paycheck.
I pointed out that UBI isn't the only, and may well not be the best way to help the *majority* of working-age people out of their own money trap.
The vast majority who *are* working and, while they make ends meet, they often don't have much or any savings in case they have unexpected expenses like car problems, sick family members, etc. And if they lose their job, they are likely a month or so away from eviction. Sometimes, it doesn't even require you losing your job to be unable to cover the rent.
Have you ever tried to hold down a job when you didn't have any place to shower? I have. It's damn near impossible to be presentable on a regular basis when you're homeless.
As I said, we need to do *something* or this is gonna get real ugly. Then again, maybe that's what you'd like to see. If so, don't be disingenuous about it, have the courage of your convictions and just come right out and say you want to blow up our society.
You don't seem to have a clear understanding about what it's like to be in the vast majority of people in this country.
As to those on public assistance, that's become just a cruel joke on those (a tiny percentage of the population, BTW) who receive it.are *actively* discouraged from seeking work because their skill sets (Don't get me started on the incredible inequality in our school systems) will only allow them to get low paying jobs. Once they do that, they are smacked with a whole host of additional costs (commuting, child care, clothing, etc., etc., etc.) which eats away most (if not all or more) any additional cash flow than that which they get from public assistance.
What's more, as soon as they do this, they are immediately cut off. Gee, let's think about that. If I go out and get a job paying me, say, US$14,000/annum, less taxes. Yes, I am aware that they will get a refund at the end of the year, but that money is still deducted from the ~US$270.00 per week. Call it %20 (or more, if there are state/local income taxes) on weekly basis. Have you tried to feed, clothe and house a family on a couple hundred bucks a week? Don't forget, they now need to commute, which costs money. And any children who aren't in school need to have child care. The cost for day care is often more than they take home.
Even further, as soon as you take that job, you begin to lose various other benefits (this is dependent on where you are) like housing subsidies, food stamps, community outreach, and on and on and on.
tl;dr: You're talking out of your ass, and it smells that way too.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 2) by sjames on Monday October 15 2018, @04:00PM
Welfare fails because of the many strings attached. Show any sign of improving your lot in life and the rug gets pulled out from under you. You must regularly go through a ritual where you must kiss a petty bureaucrat's ass and satisfy them that you are trying and failing to find a suitably menial job. It's a trap because it is well designed to be a trap.
UBI removes the strings and frees the recipient to do something meaningful to themselves and others.
(Score: 2) by dry on Tuesday October 16 2018, @05:30AM
The only evidence I'm aware of, where a UBI was tried, resulted in almost everyone still working with the exceptions being teenagers who spent more time getting educated instead of quitting school to help their families and mothers, who spent more time raising their young children.
UBI is not welfare. People are still free to work.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mincome [wikipedia.org] in particular Dauphin where the recipients had no strings attached to their guaranteed income. Searching for Dauphin and UBI gives other sources as well.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by c0lo on Monday October 15 2018, @10:14AM (4 children)
Some people, only some people. Many go through life (if they are lucky) just content of getting through life. The Americans call it "pursuit of happiness", it's the basis of their dream.
And if you think at the amount of people that worth mentioning on a larger scale than their family/friends circle or be remembered longer than their life time, you realize that more than 99.9% of all of us that will achieve exactly that: go though an unremarkable life, different from any other only in a matter of insignificant details.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2, Disagree) by rleigh on Monday October 15 2018, @01:32PM (3 children)
> And if you think at the amount of people that worth mentioning on a larger scale than their family/friends circle or be remembered longer than their life time, you realize that more than 99.9% of all of us that will achieve exactly that: go though an unremarkable life, different from any other only in a matter of insignificant details.
That's missing the point though. It doesn't matter whether you are or aren't remembered by society at large. What's important is that you felt *within yourself* that your life has meaning and purpose. Welfare and UBI take that away for many.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by c0lo on Monday October 15 2018, @02:12PM
(consider the context: " Merely existing isn't enough. People need purpose in life and pride in themselves and their achievements.")
That's exactly the point: in reality most of the people are passing through the life with, statistically speaking, little consequences - their "achievements" are almost inconsequential for the world.
However, as almost are "going through life just content of going through life", makes from this a thing something that actually keeps this world going.
In other words "merely existing" is not to be dismissed as worthless, even if the individual "achievements" are so trivial that one may discount any of them from the bigger picture.
Because those many are chasing something meaningless - whatever they "achieve" is weakly dependent on whatever wealth they can accumulate their entire life.
Just ask TMB if he needs millions to go fishing or to fight "dick niggers" with regex-es on S/N.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 2) by sjames on Monday October 15 2018, @04:17PM (1 child)
How would UBI take that away? I'd be willing to bet that doing a single painting (even one with zero artistic merit) and selling it for $1 at a garage sale would provide more sense of creation and more "immortality" than a lifetime of flopping whoppers or filing TPS reports in triplicate
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday October 16 2018, @02:45PM
Let us keep in mind that even with a "lifetime of flopping whoppers or filing TPS reports in triplicate", you have the opportunity for promotion. And you're flipping burgers and filing TPS for a reason, which is to provide service to others. That can generate more of a sense of creation and more "immortality" than a mere throw-away piece of art. Depends on the person, I suppose.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by hemocyanin on Monday October 15 2018, @03:02PM (1 child)
Let us be honest about work -- most of the work done by the vast majority of people merely provides income, not purpose. Flipping burgers, filing documents, raking leaves -- it's just some necessary maintenance but isn't going to provide people with a great sense of purpose like they'd get from sending a robot to an asteroid. Very few people have that kind of meaningful and interesting work.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 16 2018, @02:20AM
And yet, I've met people that took great satisfaction and purpose from taking care of old people, one of the low paying "menial" jobs that hasn't been mentioned here. Of course not everyone will be happy doing this job--as can be easily seen from talking to the workers at any senior residence or nursing home. But there is a core of these workers that really do care.
(Score: 2) by sjames on Monday October 15 2018, @03:45PM (2 children)
That is exactly why UBI is necessary. Consider how many people are utterly dependent on their employer and are in a dead end job. They're too busy working for their employer to do anything else.
With UBI, they become LESS dependent on their employer and more able to find some way to advance. They gain the ability to try independent contracting without the downside of starving or becoming homeless between contracts. They can survive on UBI while they get a small business up to speed. And unlike the current programs they don't have to go through a regular ritual of kissing a petty bureaucrat's ass and proving that they are neither advancing or having any fun in order to continue surviving.
Sounds like a big win.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 16 2018, @02:23AM (1 child)
> Sounds like a big win.
Think of all the social workers in the welfare system (many with degrees or advanced degrees)--UBI puts them right out of a job!
(Score: 2) by hendrikboom on Wednesday October 17 2018, @06:15PM
Lack of UBI is not the only reason for social services. My daughter has a job analyzing peoples' needs when they leave hospital so that the right special facilities can be provided them.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 15 2018, @06:23PM (1 child)
"So if automated factories, mines and robots take the place of the slaves, why would a future where most humans are "idle" be such a bad thing?"
Do you really need it spelt out?
Everyday citizens back then owned slaves to do their work for them. They received the money for the work done by the slaves.
hint: Everyday citizens this time around won't own automated factories, mines and robots. Only that 1% at the top will. You won't be able to work (As the 1%'s robots will be doing it all) and you won't be able to afford sitting idle since nobody else will be doing your work for you to profit off of.
(Score: 2) by fyngyrz on Monday October 15 2018, @06:40PM
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday October 15 2018, @09:22PM (7 children)
Lack of power for one thing. Democracy in the developed world came from a population whose labor was valuable. They were able to force through changes because of that power. Take that away, and a key part of democracy is undermined.
Instead, how about we not try to hasten the robot apocalypse and work on making human labor more valuable?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday October 16 2018, @04:00AM (6 children)
What's so wonderful and good about having to work to survive? Many of those Greeks who came up with Democracy didn't have to work to survive - they had slaves to do the work for them.
Their slaves didn't have the right to vote. So much for labor giving you power and the ability to force through changes.
So how would people with UBI have less power as long as they still had the right to vote?
Most people in the world have very little power. And that's how it should be. Democracy allows them to decide who gets to accumulate and use some of that power. That way when shit happens at least it's shit that more of them deserve, than if some dictator got power and forced his shit on everyone.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday October 16 2018, @04:29AM (4 children)
Socrates was a stonemason, soldier, and politician in addition to his philosophy career. A career as teacher or academic was common for thinkers of the time.
A key reason why working to "survive" is a good thing is because you become versed in actual applications of your ideas and with the problems that result. A key problem with the intellectual-side Greeks is that for the most part they had little idea of how their ideas could be applied nor interest in doing so. So there were plenty of ideas spit out, but little work done to validate any of them.
I think that was an important reason why so much of this was lost after the collapse of the Western Roman Empire. Like with the engineering technologies of the day, the knowledge of the ancient philosophers died out. There was little context or value to them in the hard new world that followed the Roman Empire.
Just look at how it works in the world today. Financial reforms frequently can't happen because someone shrewdly created an entitlement that would need to be massively cut back in order for the reform to have any chance of success. Examples include Social Security and Medicaid/Medicare in the US and the Japanese Postal Savings System. These become bribes to the electorate to go with the status quo even though that's destroying the future of their country.
Just make the UBI big enough that most voters will protect the politicians who are divvying up the resources of the country.
(Score: 2) by hendrikboom on Wednesday October 17 2018, @06:19PM (3 children)
Tell me more about the Japanese Postal Savings System and how it keeps people down.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday October 18 2018, @03:30AM (2 children)
The key to understanding the problem is to know the dynamic by which it operates. The Japan Post Bank has almost 200 trillion Yen in savings - the only loans [wikipedia.org] it does are short term credit lines and Japanese government bonds (meaning it holds somewhere around a fifth of Japan's massive government debt). So right there, there's an ugly issue. In order for the bank to pay interest on the savings that have been accumulated by Japanese citizens, the Japanese government has to borrow from the bank.
So what does the Japanese government do with the money it borrows? It turns it into concrete [nytimes.com] - lots and lots of low value construction and infrastructure improvement. So a fraction of the country which happens to use this system encourages the country to borrow excessively and then turn that spending into crap.
Supposedly in recent years, they've implemented reforms to fix this mess. We'll see if that's true or not. But having reached debt levels twice over their GDP indicates they have some very serious problems to overcome.
(Score: 2) by hendrikboom on Friday October 19 2018, @01:30AM (1 child)
Reading that article, it looks as if the problem is viewing infrastructure development as a direct means of providing jobs, rathern then in doing things that will provide returns later, such as education. Still, having a captive bank to borrow from is seductive, and may rob the government of imagination and innovation.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday October 19 2018, @06:04PM
To go back to my earlier remark, we have here a situation where people are encouraged, by higher than market rates, to put their money into a system of government abuse and corruption. It's a great example of how the electorate can be bribed to go along with these things.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday October 16 2018, @04:36AM
Quite a bit. After all, the employer too is always in danger of being replaced.
No, that's not how it should be. You are thus beholden to whoever is running things.
There are plenty of ways this gets subverted. Here, the creation of an entitlement that makes a bunch of people dependent on the people in power, is a common approach.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Monday October 15 2018, @09:06AM (16 children)
Allow me to rephrase what I see in your post:
With automation taking over, you don't know how people will be employed in the future. Because you can't see any source of income other than traditional jobs, you believe that there can be no other sources of income than jobs or welfare. Since there are no jobs, we should demand some form of welfare. Apparently, this UBI thing is preferable to other forms of welfare.
As for people getting bored, and doing "something of value" - maybe you can cite statistics - significant statistics - or proles or welfare recipients doing things of value.
Here, I can readily admit that perhaps some of those people who have lived in the projects all of their lives might be doing something of value. Just because I can't see and/or can't recognize the value, doesn't necessarily mean they have no value. But - please - elucidate on that subject. Mostly, what I see in the projects, are "consumers", or pets, or livestock, whose time is used up in the pursuit of drugs, alcohol, and sex. They seem to contribute nothing to society. Those individuals who leave the projects behind often times become very valuable members of society - but what are the statistics? And, what do they DO? Military - basketball - get an education and a job - maybe art or music - reality shows -
I'd like to see some convincing statistics on those who leave welfare behind. The vast majority have as much value as livestock - and many of those have less value than livestock.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by Dr Spin on Monday October 15 2018, @10:35AM (15 children)
As for people getting bored, and doing "something of value" - maybe you can cite statistics - significant statistics - or proles or welfare recipients doing things of value.
The entire 60's music movement in the UK (British invasion, Beatles, etc, in the USA) was the result of the teens being on the dole*, so they could spend all day listening to rock'n'roll and learning to play the guitar. Some of us learned how to design electronics building amplifiers for rock bands, and went on to design computers.
Others wrote books, and acted in dramas travelled the world, and all sorts of things, so, yes we have seen it on a large scale.
* before computers, benefits were fairly easy to get because it was unrealistic to expect meaningful checks to work, however, the amount you got was pretty minimal, so you would still get a job if you could. - UBI, in effect.
Warning: Opening your mouth may invalidate your brain!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 15 2018, @10:48AM (6 children)
Exceptions don't prove the the end result which has been multi-generational welfare dependency on sink estates throughout the country. A guitar would cost a weeks wage, how did people on the dole afford that? And most of the electronics skills you mention were picked up during the war and passed on from there.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by sjames on Monday October 15 2018, @04:24PM (3 children)
The entirety of science up to the 20th century came from people who didn't have to work for a living. The engineering came from people who worked but had free time and enough money to tinker.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday October 19 2018, @06:40PM (2 children)
I can name a dozen pre-20th century mathematicians off the top of my head: Poisson, Euler, Gauss, Fermat, Leibniz, Newton, Riemann, Cauchy, Frobenius, Abel, Fourier, and Hilbert. They still worked for a living, but their work was something relatively conducive like math research, teaching, diplomacy, academic administration, engineer, soldier, etc.
If one actually reads biographies of scientists from this era, one sees a lot of people struggling to get by and do scientific research while simultaneously meeting their own needs.
Meanwhile today, it's easier than ever to be a scientist and thus, scientists are way oversubscribed. The problems today have nothing to do with the vagaries of living and much to do with appearances of doing science being valued more to a lot of parties with funding than the actual science.
(Score: 2) by sjames on Friday October 19 2018, @08:02PM (1 child)
Look again. Some like Gauss were not born to money, but he (for example) was on a full ride from the local nobility. None of them were filling out TPS reports in triplicate or waiting tables.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday October 19 2018, @11:05PM
In other words, he worked for a living, but his living was doing math research and teaching.
That's not what "working for a living" means. Could be a lumberjack too.
(Score: 2) by fyngyrz on Monday October 15 2018, @06:57PM (1 child)
Used guitars, hand-me-down guitars, borrowed / shared guitars.
Speaking as a formerly very poor rock and roll musician, and one who now does the lending and handing out. I give out studio time, too.
Um... no. The number of people who picked / pick up actually useful electronics skills then and now in the military is really pretty small. Just because you can run a field radio doesn't mean you can build one. Likewise, just because you know how to run a hardened military laptop doesn't mean you can start with a blank sheet and design a microprocessor-based system.
You build such skills by digging in as deep as you can, quite often over your head, wallowing in discovery and accomplishment — and learning from failure. The military has never been about that at all; they make cogs specifically to fit pre-defined places in their machine, and once your useful skill set has been put together, that's what you do. Want to qualify for a step up? They've got a pre-defined path for that, too. Hobbies and personal pursuits of passion, however, always have been about pursuit of passion without much regard for limits or someone else's vision of what you can/should be. That's where most of the creatives find their muses. I certainly did, and it's true of everyone else I've ever known as well. Formal environments typically produce cookie-cutter results. They're certainly useful, but they're different.
(Score: 2) by sjames on Monday October 15 2018, @11:44PM
Enlarging, the sound of the rock guitar as we know it is achieved by setting the pre-amp "wrong". The military is not known for encouraging trying things the "wrong" way.
(Score: 2) by rleigh on Monday October 15 2018, @01:23PM
I'm sure it can benefit some individuals. However, I don't think you can generalise the success of a few to something which is of benefit to the whole of society. They are exceptions.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday October 15 2018, @01:24PM (6 children)
That's interesting - without a welfare system, we wouldn't have had the Beatles. But, that doesn't say much for statistics. Millions on welfare, or the dole, and we have the Beatles to show for it?
I'm going to be cooperative. Let's say that the vast majority of artists have either arisen from the welfare slums, or were pampered children of wealthy parents. People with a lot of leisure, and no real demands on their time. Do those artists justify all the money given away to the rest of the millions with nothing to do?
I still see livestock here. The rancher in Texas may have 100 horses on his property. He keeps them because he works some or most, and the rest are good breeding stock. Out of those 100 horses, he may have a unique horse - a 7-gaited horse, or an especially talented roping horse, or a very fast horse that wins a lot of races. (Personally, I put the most value on a good trail horse, smart enough to keep himself and his rider out of trouble. Many of us who have ridden have a favorite horse that just did the right thing at the right time, and needed no input from the rider.)
Suddenly, there is a horse population explosion. Horses decrease in value, and he can't sell the excess. What does he do with all those horses? Well - he goes out and culls them. The ones he doesn't have a use for, and he can't sell, he *might* try to give away. Those he can't give away are headed to the glue factory. Or, more likely, he'll sell them to a broker who takes them to Mexico for slaughter, and the butcher shops.
As I see it, the Beatles were somewhat unique, and stood out from the herd - so they became pampered pets. The herd from which they came are still expendable livestock.
Here - someone points out that the working class is still part of the livestock, I suppose. But, I'll counter that the working portions of the herd are earning their keep, and are viewed differently from the greater part of the herd. Those horses have value, and may be expected to be "put out to pasture" one day.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 15 2018, @02:40PM (5 children)
so you think the purpose and justification of life is work for the ruling class which decides who's worthy?
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Monday October 15 2018, @03:01PM (4 children)
That's a European concept, I think. Everyone belonged to Royalty, and your purpose was to somehow enrich the Royal Landowner. It seems that we've just adapted the concept, so that in the US, you "belong" to a corporation, so long as you enrich the corporation.
My own view is, you need to give something back to society, if you expect society to support you. If you produce nothing of value, then you deserve nothing of value. You've got to swap, trade, barter, or buy whatever you need in life. The Beatles swapped some songs for a wealthy lifestyle. People who have NOTHING to trade live their lives out in housing projects and ghettos.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 15 2018, @10:31PM (3 children)
That mindset is a failure once society reaches the point of abundance, like the US has now. People want to be useful, that is an inherent trait. UBI would free people to be more productive and do things that have no real profit motive.
The hardest part of such a future that I see is making sure that people get to swap in/out of the actual work force. If all the jobs are taken then some people who want to earn more money will be left out and a clear class system will develop, so there should be some system to maintain the labor market fluidity. Such a system would allow the pace of life to slow waaay down such that trains might become more popular for travel. This would clean up the skies with reduced flights as people are not rushed to make the best use of 10 measly vacation days.
Anyway, the concept is solid but the potential downfalls are many. "Meritocracy" type people such as yourself who want to enforce workaday/eataday will be the source of the problems because deep down you're selfish. It is reasonable to not want to work and provide for others with no help at all, but that is not really the situation here. In this day and age we ALL get help from others, our advanced society with its various creature comforts are 100% dependent on the whole. The hardest working people are still getting something for nothing by getting to live in modern society.
Not to mention the best paid in our society are getting a massively disproportionate slice of the money-pie yet you aren't going all vigilante about that injustice. They are literally thieves, and I know you don't like the wealth disparity but that is a much worse reality we have now.
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday October 16 2018, @01:50AM (2 children)
Sorry, the concept has not been demonstrated to be "solid". All I've seen is so much wishful thinking.
(Score: 2) by dry on Tuesday October 16 2018, @05:45AM (1 child)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mincome [wikipedia.org]. People on UBI keep working generally. If someone gave you a thousand a month, would you quit work, or perhaps just cut back a bit?
(Score: 2) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday October 16 2018, @02:09PM
Interesting question. I think that if you were to mail me a check every month for a thousand dollars, I wouldn't quite, or cut back. I would almost definitely use that extra thousand to purchase and/or do things that I have put off, for lack of "disposable" income. That is, there are things I'd really like to have, that I could probably afford, if I were willing to take out a loan, or cash in on something else. But, I'm not willing to do either, so I do without. A thousand a month extra money? Hell yeah, I'd have a new - or almost new - motorcycle in very short order. I could put up new fence, soon after the new motorcycle. (We're talking about a mile of fence, and a half dozen truck/tractor main gates, and another half dozen man gates here, which means a nice chunk of change.) I could add a couple of outbuildings, and tear down the old rotten ones.
Of course, being married, the wife would probably have something to say about how I would spend that money. But, definitely a new motorcycle! We wouldn't even discuss that - I'd just go get the bike!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 15 2018, @09:39AM
Wrong! [cnn.com]
(Score: 2) by bradley13 on Monday October 15 2018, @11:44AM (4 children)
"As productivity and automation continue to improve the only viable alternative to the UBI is mandatory busywork."
Nonsense. You know, there's a reason that we don't work from sun-up to sun-down on the farm anymore. It's called industrialization, and it reduced the average working hours from "all of them" to maybe 60-70 hours per week. Further increases in industrial productivity have now reduced this to around 40 hours per week.
Why are people scared of further increases in productivity? What's wrong with reducing the average work week to 30 hours? Or 20?
With very few exceptions, the real problem lies elsewhere. Back in the bad-old-days, just about anyone could milk a cow or swing a scythe. With industrial jobs, the required skill levels rose, and there were fewer unskilled jobs. Today, that trend continues: there are ever fewer unskilled jobs. What do you do with people who have no useful education and no useful job skills? That is the real problem, and it is a societal problem that UBI, by itself, will do nothing to eliminate.
Cold, hard truth: aside from a few heart-rending anecdotes, most people with no education and no skills are found in self-perpetuating subcultures that are a net drain on society. While we shouldn't just let them starve, we definitely should kill off the subcultures. Yes, cultural imperialism. Specifically, capitalism is the best system in existence [duckduckgo.com], and it is predicated on the individual incentive to work for your money.
What that means is this: If you want to pay UBI to the uneducated and unskilled who cannot support themselves, fine, that's a decent thing to do. However, this must be predicated on eliminating the subcultures that create the uneducated and unskilled. Find a way to ensure that their children get an education and acquire some sort of job skills. If that proves impossible, then eliminate child bearing so that the subculture dies out. Want UBI? First, sign up for your free vasectomy or tubal ligation.
Everyone is somebody else's weirdo.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 15 2018, @12:14PM
Business owners and certain classes of professionals (eg: top lawyers) still work 70 hours a week.
Covered here [soylentnews.org] but would it still be considered eugenics if it were voluntary? At least better than promoting eugenic ideologies [inews.co.uk] to the idiot classes or thinking the nazi comparisons [lbc.co.uk] are unwarranted.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by sjames on Monday October 15 2018, @04:33PM
We never worked from sunup to sundown except in myths created to pacify people working 10 hour days in the mines and factories.
In the middle ages, "a days work" meant from sunrise to noon or from noon to sundown.
Farming had and still has busy seasons surrounding planting and harvesting but it also has slow seasons where you're just fixing things and letting the plants grow.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 15 2018, @10:39PM (1 child)
Hello modern Puritan. That is some seriously stupid shit which will actually lead us into modern slavery. There is no escaping automation.
Inventing bullshit jobs will lead to societal unhappiness and a general dystopia predicated on forcing people to work miserable meaningless jobs. Such jobs already exist in relative abundance and it is a problem.
UBI would 100% help those problems, and those subcultures you refer to are often symptoms of our societal problems with wealth disparity. Someone who decides they don't like being useless would be able to go to school without working two shitty jobs, someone who wants to create their own business could at least start without worrying about starving, etc. These points have been made many times in this thread and it is sad that you are stuck in the Puritan mindset where only the whip is capable of getting people to be useful for society.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday October 15 2018, @11:49PM
Why do you think there's a need to escape automation? Automation creates jobs too. I'll note that the developing world doesn't have a problem with automation. Maybe it's time to figure out what they're doing right?
Why would we want to employ people for bullshit jobs rather than useful jobs? There is this assumption about automation that hasn't proven out in the real world.
I don't buy that some war on slacker subcultures will be anything other than a total cluster. But I can think of a really obvious reason why the subculture doesn't have wealth. Because, if any member were to get wealth, it'd be parceled out and spent by the rest of the culture.
They can already. It takes saving money, finding the cheap choices, and a bit of planning. I doubt UBI will make much difference to the sort of people who'd take such risks.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday October 15 2018, @02:00PM
Let us note this didn't happen in the past. As productivity and automation (really the same thing) improved, the value of peoples' labor increased and became more in demand.
I have a solution to that. Don't cut back. Limiting the hours that people can work, makes them less valuable (more overhead per hour worked).
Unless, of course, they no longer learn the skills to do that. One of the things forgotten is that work is a great place to learn a variety of skills that schools and education won't or can't teach you such as reliability and competence, leading people, and just getting stuff done.
(Score: 2) by jmorris on Monday October 15 2018, @05:20PM (7 children)
Had you actually read Marx you would realize you are making the same mistake he did. He saw the rapid changes happening in England during the Industrial Revolution and made a straight line projection from that present into the future. Always a bad idea. He assumed that machines were replacing the work of workers at a rapid rate, soon only a few workers with a lot of machines would produce everything and most would be idle, thus redistribution of income only answer. Silicon Valley and you think computers are rapidly replacing workers, soon only a tech elite will be maintaining the robots and everyone else will be idle, thus redistribution is the answer.
Nope. Economics is people, people are thus always of value. Instead of reading Marx, read Mises [mises.org].
(Score: 3, Insightful) by sjames on Monday October 15 2018, @07:14PM (6 children)
Then why is it that whenever the subject of raising minimum wage to a lavel that provides a living wage, the right keeps popping up and saying "they're not worth minimum wage"?
Pick one, Senator. Either they are and they're being ripped off en-masse, or they're not and you're wrong about automation.
(Score: 2) by jmorris on Monday October 15 2018, @07:55PM (4 children)
You are committing yet another logical fallacy here. You assume that if a person is ever paid below some arbitrary "minimum" wage they are worthless people who will never earn enough to support themselves. Look at reality and see it is your very minimum wage laws that make that more true than you want to admit, by denying people entry to the labor market.
Students, the retired, people with low skills, lots of people is areas of the country with lower cost of living, all would be perfectly willing to work for wages below the federally mandated minimum wage but are forbidden and either suffer the loss of income, work off the books or go on government assistance and stay there. If you allow people to work, yes even at crappy low paying jobs, you allow them to learn important skills, to participate in society, to have a feeling of self worth. Even if they aren't earning what you think is a "living wage" (whatever that term is, notice it is always left poorly defined) at the moment, even if they need to take in a roomie or are still living at home. And yes, even if they still qualify for government assistance, we should make sure those programs always encourage work. Show me the graven tablet saying that no man should bestir himself to labor unless it pay enough to fully support himself, a spouse and 2.1 children. Perhaps instead tell young people to work themselves up the value chain a bit before marrying and having children?
(Score: 2) by sjames on Monday October 15 2018, @08:48PM (3 children)
I didn't commit a first fallacy here. And nice dodging of the question.
People are forbidden to work at below the minimum wage because if they do, they end up depending on subsidies in order to continue living. Effectively, their payroll ends up socialized. Surely your argument isn't we don't need socialism because socialism works fine?
My original post stands, choose one, Senator. Try to stay on target.
(Score: 1, Troll) by jmorris on Monday October 15 2018, @09:09PM (2 children)
Nah brah, you clearly ain't smart enough for this ride and everyone else has moved onto another thread.
(Score: 2) by sjames on Monday October 15 2018, @10:10PM
Classic fail on your part, HAND.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday October 15 2018, @10:49PM
Says everyone to you all the time, but you expect us to take YOU seriously? lawwwwl brah, git gud
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday October 18 2018, @04:13AM
Why is it you never care about the cost of living? People can be of value and yet still not meet your inflated expectations of what a living wage (and thus, minimum wage) is.
(Score: 2) by Immerman on Tuesday October 16 2018, @03:08AM (7 children)
I'm fond of the idea of "redistributed" wealth being given away voluntarily, in exchange for social privileges of comparable value.
Specifically - if you want the substantial protections of incorporation, LLCs, etc., then you need to purchase those protections from the citizenry with a substantial ownership stake. Say one third, held in trust by the government, with ownership evenly distributed across the citizenry. With individual citizens being entitled to directly both vote their shares and collect any dividends paid on them.
If you don't want to share your company with the people, you're free not to - but in that case you can be held personally liable for your company's actions.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday October 18 2018, @04:14AM (6 children)
Government can't even run a government. Why would we want it near our businesses too?
(Score: 2) by Immerman on Thursday October 18 2018, @02:00PM (5 children)
It's already inextricably tied to the heart of businesses - government is the only thing that protects corporate shareholders from liability for the actions of their company.
I only suggest involving it further since there probably needs to be some sort of intermediary to hold the citizen-owned shares, since the exact number of shares owned by any individual will be constantly fluctuating with the population.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday October 18 2018, @03:07PM (4 children)
And expedites the clean up of the mess via bankruptcy when that happens plus a number of other services. But that's not ownership or decision-making, both which government is notoriously bad at, both due to lack of expertise and due to enormous conflict of interest. For example, during the US federal government-directly takeover of the General Motors bankruptcy, the government lost [reuters.com] somewhere around $12 billion on the deal, but it worked great for the United Automobile Workers (and allies who were supporters of the then Obama administration) who did great by the takeover in their favor.
In other words, there was a profound amount of corruption and bad choices made when politics mixed with the business world. That is typical for government interference in business affairs.
My view is that we have centuries of history indicating that mixing government and business is a really bad idea. We should instead have a separation of business and state similar to how it's done with religions.
Instead, this increased entanglement just allows the usual suspects (on both business and government sides) even more ways to exploit the situation for profit. This scheme will never benefit "the People", but the usual well-connected people. Why make the problem worse?
(Score: 2) by Immerman on Thursday October 18 2018, @03:25PM (3 children)
Nowhere did I suggest government ownership - just a government-managed trust, through which individual citizens can assert *their* ownership. But hey, we could leave that out and let every corporation manage their per-citizen shareholding directly.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday October 18 2018, @04:03PM (2 children)
And you just suggested it again. A government-managed trust is government ownership. The various interested parties who aren't "individual citizens" can work with that.
Just like now? Works as far as I'm concerned.
(Score: 2) by Immerman on Thursday October 18 2018, @06:00PM (1 child)
>Just like now
No - you missed the part where the *entire citizenry* is a major stakeholder. Right now the poorset 50% of the population own no stock, because they have no capital to invest. While upwards of 80% of stock is owned by the richest 10%, and the remainder is mostly owned indirectly through various retirement plans and other such indirect investment tools, which are themselves mostly managed by corporations with a similar ownership profile.
So, right now the rich call all the corporate shots, and take home all the money, while the rest of the population is left out, except for paying all the social costs of such a system.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday October 18 2018, @09:02PM
I'm not missing a thing. They'll still own nothing afterward. It'll be a government trust that owns.
Come on. What social costs? Of course, the rich should call the corporate shots. They're the ones with skin in the game. I have not even the least bit of a problem leaving the vast majority of humanity, US citizens, or whatever, out of the loop. They don't know anything about the business. And they have no business with the business.