Universal Basic Income

[basballguy]

(01-06-2022, 12:14 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Did you read all of the tweets in the thread, or just stop with the first one?

I already know the answer based on your responses, but I wanted to engage in the rhetorical.

You don't need to read all the tweets to know the position.  They're the same arguments it's proponents make....every time...

1) "Survival shouldn't depend upon being employed!" - These people have been watching too much Star Trek.  We don't live in that dystopian future yet.  We've had jobs since we've been hunters and gatherers.  It's how we survive as a species until everything is automated.  Try this argument again in 500 years....until then suck it up and get a job. 

2) "This would mostly impact students, old people, and people with disabilities" - We have programs for groups like these.  Targeted programs...that's how you help people...not a blanket UBI.  

3) "Everyone takes advantage of programs, this would be no different so what's the big deal?" - And then this person cites the 1%?  Someone said it earlier....tell me you're on r/antiwork without telling me you're on r/antiwork.  

4) "With a UBI employers will have to treat you fairly or you can leave!" - Uh what?  Ignoring the plethora of laws in place that protect the employee, yes you can.  You aren't an indentured servent and you can leave any job you want when you want already....especially in the age of the internet and smart phones.  

The problem isn't that we don't have these things...the problem is that we do and people like this girl just don't like it.  

She's not innovative.  She's not coming up with new ideas.  She's not bucking the trend.  Smarter people than her have thought about these things already.  For where we as a society today, we have the best possible programs available to our citizens.  They have flaws and they can be improved for sure...but to think you (no not you) have a better idea is just ignorant.  

[Arturo Bandini]

(01-05-2022, 11:49 PM)michaelsean Wrote: So are we just hoping a whole bunch of people don’t decide to spend their days trying to make money off of their hobby? Because most people won’t.

The idea that people shouldn’t be responsible for taking care of themselves is about five steps too far for me. I just can’t get the mentality that other people are responsible to pay my way so I can go have fun. One on one how would you tell someone that they are responsible to pay for your life of leisure?

The idea is elsewhere. You can have an activity without giving your life to a boss or a company who doesn't give a s*** about you, who don't even know who you are.

I think it's important.

[*michaelsean*]

(01-06-2022, 12:14 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Did you read all of the tweets in the thread, or just stop with the first one?

I already know the answer based on your responses, but I wanted to engage in the rhetorical.

??? I read the one you posted.

[*michaelsean*]

(01-06-2022, 03:12 PM)Arturo Bandini Wrote: The idea is elsewhere. You can have an activity without giving your life to a boss or a company who doesn't give a s*** about you, who don't even know who you are.

I think it's important.

Not everyone or even most can because someone has to pay for all the hobbyists.

[*michaelsean*]

(01-06-2022, 11:57 AM)Nately120 Wrote: Even if this did get passed I'm sure we could convince a significant part of the population that if they accepted that free money from the government it would place the mark of the beast on their social security number, or something crazy like that...anything to get people to refuse a free thing that could benefit them.

And who would be screwed?  If 50% of the workforce wants to quit so they can become professional yodelers, or whatever constitutes a hobby, doesn't that just make people who are willing to work suddenly far more valuable?  Maybe I'm short-sighted, but I feel like my career would take a step in the right direction by default if half the people who had my degree and skillset just disappeared.

I'm also cynical enough to think that "sitting at home staying out of society" is a job worthy of minimum wage, for the sake of the rest of us. Well, now that social media is a thing, I guess that doesn't protect us from basement-dwelling nuts.

So you think 50% are going to be able to pay for the other 50%? And they will be fine going to work year after year to support the other 50%? Which they couldn’t do anyway. Eventually they are going to say screw this.

[*Nately120*]

(01-06-2022, 03:50 PM)michaelsean Wrote: So you think 50% are going to be able to pay for the other 50%?  And they will be fine going to work year after year to support the other 50%?  Which they couldn’t do anyway. Eventually they are going to say screw this.

Hell if I know...I work to support myself and to help out my family.  I just sort of figured years ago that as long as I operate within the borders of the USA a portion of my money is going to be sized by the government and allocated to things that aren't my bank account, and when you're that helpless you either give up or find something else to think about.

Every paycheck I've ever earned has had a portion of it allocated towards all sorts of stuff that's best not to think about (and a lot of it isn't good in my mind).  With that being said, this sort of thing would never pass because Americans are so full of their own blend of the fundamental attribution error and working class hero propaganda that they'd never go for it.  Or it would pass and then politicians would immediately run on repealing it.

Americans, myself included, are like selfish kids.  Everyone gets a slice of cake and that's great...but god help you if one kid gets two slices of cake...suddenly everyone who got one slice of cake is even more upset than if the damn cake were never there to begin with and they got 0 slices of cake.

We can't deal with stuff like this because our very biological survival is based upon the notion that we deserve the things we get and other people don't.  The very basis of our society gives people non-stop reason to compare, contrast, and cry "no fair" which is why this whole concept, and this whole post are moot.

[*michaelsean*]

(01-06-2022, 04:02 PM)Nately120 Wrote: Hell if I know...I work to support myself and to help out my family.  I just sort of figured years ago that as long as I operate within the borders of the USA a portion of my money is going to be sized by the government and allocated to things that aren't my bank account, and when you're that helpless you either give up or find something else to think about.

Every paycheck I've ever earned has had a portion of it allocated towards all sorts of stuff that's best not to think about (and a lot of it isn't good in my mind).  With that being said, this sort of thing would never pass because Americans are so full of their own blend of the fundamental attribution error and working class hero propaganda that they'd never go for it.  Or it would pass and then politicians would immediately run on repealing it.

Americans, myself included, are like selfish kids.  Everyone gets a slice of cake and that's great...but god help you if one kid gets two slices of cake...suddenly everyone who got one slice of cake is even more upset than if the damn cake were never there to begin with and they got 0 slices of cake.

We can't deal with stuff like this because our very biological survival is based upon the notion that we deserve the things we get and other people don't.  The very basis of our society gives people non-stop reason to compare, contrast, and cry "no fair" which is why this whole concept, and this whole post are moot.

We are talking about paying people enough so they don't have to work, and it doesn't come across as bare minimum, and it has no basis in need.  

[*Nately120*]

(01-06-2022, 04:07 PM)michaelsean Wrote: We are talking about paying people enough so they don't have to work, and it doesn't come across as bare minimum, and it has no basis in need.  

I'm sure smarter people than me have crunched the numbers on this, but if everyone can make enough money to live without working, then the amount of what it is worth to not work on will instantly become too low to live on without working, right?

Ok, so I'm getting paid to not work and it's enough to live off of...but how much would it cost to live if no one had to work?  I'll order a pizza....well, no one is making pizza and no one is delivering pizza.  No one is servicing the oven that makes the pizza and no one is running the place that supplies the power to run the oven or the pizza place.  So if practically no one is making a pizza, pizza is going to cost something like $100, because pizza is so damn rare now.

Well, I can afford that pizza on my free salary, but it's not enough to have much left over for my other bills.  Damn it, I need to get a job.

[*michaelsean*]

(01-06-2022, 04:13 PM)Nately120 Wrote: I'm sure smarter people than me have crunched the numbers on this, but if everyone can make enough money to live without working, then the amount of what it is worth to not work on will instantly become too low to live on without working, right?

Ok, so I'm getting paid to not work and it's enough to live off of...but how much would it cost to live if no one had to work?  I'll order a pizza....well, no one is making pizza and no one is delivering pizza.  No one is servicing the oven that makes the pizza and no one is running the place that supplies the power to run the oven or the pizza place.  So if practically no one is making a pizza, pizza is going to cost something like $100, because pizza is so damn rare now.

Well, I can afford that pizza on my free salary, but it's not enough to have much left over for my other bills.  Damn it, I need to get a job.

So then what's the point of doing all that to get right back to where we are?

[*Nately120*]

(01-06-2022, 04:45 PM)michaelsean Wrote: So then what's the point of doing all that to get right back to where we are?

Well, I'm skeptical of anything that just magically injects a bunch of paper money into the already inflated system...but I still think most people would keep their jobs.  Having money is nice, but most people would likely keep their jobs so they could have more money.

[*michaelsean*]

(01-06-2022, 05:36 PM)Nately120 Wrote: Well, I'm skeptical of anything that just magically injects a bunch of paper money into the already inflated system...but I still think most people would keep their jobs.  Having money is nice, but most people would likely keep their jobs so they could have more money.

I'm out day one.

[SunsetBengal]

(01-06-2022, 03:12 PM)Arturo Bandini Wrote: The idea is elsewhere. You can have an activity without giving your life to a boss or a company who doesn't give a s*** about you, who don't even know who you are.

I think it's important.

This is true, and we as humans do have the power to improve ourselves, develop stronger skill sets and increase our worth in the job market.  The thought that everyone should just receive money from other people's labor, simply so that they can decide if they, themselves want to work or not, is just a bit absurd.

[Arturo Bandini]

(01-06-2022, 03:43 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Not everyone or even most can because someone has to pay for all the hobbyists.

We are used to pay things collectively in Europe.

I rather see my money sent to people than military or tax gifts for billionnaires.

[*michaelsean*]

(01-06-2022, 06:48 PM)Arturo Bandini Wrote: We are used to pay things collectively in Europe.

I rather see my money sent to people than military or tax gifts for billionnaires.

But it's not collective.  A large amount of people have to work and earn money and pay taxes so others can try to sell their paint by numbers on the corner.

[basballguy]

(01-06-2022, 06:48 PM)Arturo Bandini Wrote: We are used to pay things collectively in Europe.

I rather see my money sent to people than military or tax gifts for billionnaires.

I'm no tax expert but i feel like i can speak confidently when i say the US Government is not writing checks to individual billionaires...unless they overpaid on their taxes when they file...which would be the same for everyone.

[Belsnickel]

(01-06-2022, 07:21 PM)basballguy Wrote: I'm no tax expert but i feel like i can speak confidently when i say the US Government is not writing checks to individual billionaires...unless they overpaid on their taxes when they file...which would be the same for everyone.

Elon Musk would like to disagree with you.

[Belsnickel]

(01-06-2022, 12:58 PM)basballguy Wrote: You don't need to read all the tweets to know the position.  They're the same arguments it's proponents make....every time...

1) "Survival shouldn't depend upon being employed!" - These people have been watching too much Star Trek.  We don't live in that dystopian future yet.  We've had jobs since we've been hunters and gatherers.  It's how we survive as a species until everything is automated.  Try this argument again in 500 years....until then suck it up and get a job. 

You confused dystopian with utopian. Otherwise, here is the issue. As we supposedly progress as a society, we stop living. What I mean by this is that in the US we don't really live much of a life. We work, we sleep, we eat. All the while the majority of us don't generate enough income to save anything to actually enjoy life if we had the time. Did you know that hunter-gatherer cultures enjoyed more downtime than we do, today? Their resource expenditures to secure resources was outweighed so much by what they brought in that they had time to be a society. Agriculture decreased the amount of free time we had and the industrial revolution decreased it even further to the lowest points we see, today. All we are living for in today's society is to move the economic engines and pay for the lifestyle of the wealthy. We're in the dystopian future right now.

(01-06-2022, 12:58 PM)basballguy Wrote: 2) "This would mostly impact students, old people, and people with disabilities" - We have programs for groups like these.  Targeted programs...that's how you help people...not a blanket UBI.  

Targeted programs that do not do enough and have mountains of regulatory hurdles making them difficult to navigate and utilize.

(01-06-2022, 12:58 PM)basballguy Wrote: 3) "Everyone takes advantage of programs, this would be no different so what's the big deal?" - And then this person cites the 1%?  Someone said it earlier....tell me you're on r/antiwork without telling me you're on r/antiwork.  

So you have no real response to this one.

(01-06-2022, 12:58 PM)basballguy Wrote: 4) "With a UBI employers will have to treat you fairly or you can leave!" - Uh what?  Ignoring the plethora of laws in place that protect the employee, yes you can.  You aren't an indentured servent and you can leave any job you want when you want already....especially in the age of the internet and smart phones.  

UBI actually promotes competition in the salary market. If you're being treated like shit you aren't likely to leave unless you have something else lined up. This eliminates that. Also, do you really understand how there aren't many protections for employees? In the private sector in my state, you can be fired because the owner doesn't like the color of your shirt that day.

(01-06-2022, 12:58 PM)basballguy Wrote: The problem isn't that we don't have these things...the problem is that we do and people like this girl just don't like it.  

She's not innovative.  She's not coming up with new ideas.  She's not bucking the trend.  Smarter people than her have thought about these things already.  For where we as a society today, we have the best possible programs available to our citizens.  They have flaws and they can be improved for sure...but to think you (no not you) have a better idea is just ignorant.  

So, no, we don't have the best possible programs. Not by a long shot. The facts that our income and wealth inequality is far worse than our peer nations, that we have people who can go bankrupt thanks to a trip to the ER, that we have levels of homelessness that are shameful for a "developed nation," all point to this.

[basballguy]

(01-06-2022, 07:36 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Elon Musk would like to disagree with you.

Can you show me where the government wrote Elon Musk a check?  Not his business entities but him.  

Belsnickel

Quote:You confused dystopian with utopian. Otherwise, here is the issue. As we supposedly progress as a society, we stop living. What I mean by this is that in the US we don't really live much of a life. We work, we sleep, we eat. All the while the majority of us don't generate enough income to save anything to actually enjoy life if we had the time. Did you know that hunter-gatherer cultures enjoyed more downtime than we do, today? Their resource expenditures to secure resources was outweighed so much by what they brought in that they had time to be a society. Agriculture decreased the amount of free time we had and the industrial revolution decreased it even further to the lowest points we see, today. All we are living for in today's society is to move the economic engines and pay for the lifestyle of the wealthy. We're in the dystopian future right now.

Thanks for the correction...not words in my regular vocabulary so i always mess it up.  That aside...at the risk of sounding like a smart-ass it sounds like there's a time management issue if all "we" do is work, eat, and sleep.  However, it seems like the point here is we don't generate "enough" income versus "we shouldn't have to work".  If you're talking supplements then I feel like that's a completely different conversation.  The lady linked in the twitter post isn't making that case.  





Belsnickel

Quote:Targeted programs that do not do enough and have mountains of regulatory hurdles making them difficult to navigate and utilize.

Do not do enough according to who?  You?  What's the bar?  You are stating an opinion.  The fact is...there are programs there for anyone that qualifies and there have been countless financial studies by people far more educated than you and I to come up with a plan that works the best it can for us.  

As for them being difficult to navigate and utilize, that'll always be a mixed bag.  That's not the government's fault.  That's society's fault.  We are currently a culture of "Well what about this scenario?" (I'm not saying that's wrong) but since we're always looking to make "stuff" more available for people, there's going to be more rules.  It extends to all aspects of life...LGBTQ+ stuff, accessibility laws/guidelines, how we sort our trash..you can go on forever.  We are a complex society that strives to ensure everyone is happy and included.  It's a good thing.  

Belsnickel

Quote:So you have no real response to this one.

Her tweet there was asinine.  You didn't really want a serious response to such a stupid comment as "The 1% get richer while everyone works 3 jobs and is on food stamps!" did you?  That is not a data driven comment.  

Belsnickel

Quote:UBI actually promotes competition in the salary market. If you're being treated like shit you aren't likely to leave unless you have something else lined up. This eliminates that. Also, do you really understand how there aren't many protections for employees? In the private sector in my state, you can be fired because the owner doesn't like the color of your shirt that day.

A few things here:

1) That's not salary competition, I'm struggling to find the correlation there.  UBI or not, employers will pay employees based upon their skill set, experience, and market rate.  Whether or not they're nice to you has nothing to do with how much they pay you.  What i THINK you're trying to say is with an UBI people have more flexibility to change jobs if they feel stuck.  But guess what!  you can do that now!  If you don't like how your boss is treating you...go find a new job man!  

2) You gotta stop with these sensational comments man.  Nobody is firing you for the color of your shirt unless you work for Coke and are wearing a Pepsi or Dr. Pepper logo. If you want to have a realistic discussion use realistic talking points and not edge cases.   

Belsnickel

Quote:So, no, we don't have the best possible programs. Not by a long shot. The facts that our income and wealth inequality is far worse than our peer nations, that we have people who can go bankrupt thanks to a trip to the ER, that we have levels of homelessness that are shameful for a "developed nation," all point to this.

Who exactly do you want to have "equality" with?  Me?  A real estate broker?  Elon Musk as you mentioned above?  Lebron James?  Do you even know what you mean by income equality?  And what exactly does income equality have to do with a UBI?  A UBI wouldn't change how much money any of us make.  

Nothing in your reply here is an actual benefit of a UBI

[CKwi88]

(01-06-2022, 07:36 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Elon Musk would like to disagree with you.

Yeah, but welfare for the uber wealthy is kosher. Things like Universal Basic Income demonstrably benefit the impoverished. Miss me with that commie/socialist (not like anyone can tell you the difference) bullshit propaganda. It's much better to convince the middle class that upward social mobility isn't a myth and that poor people should just stop being poor and pull themselves up by their bootstraps. 

Perhaps it's my time being outside the US, but I wonder if other developed nations look at the US like the US looks at Florida.

[basballguy]

(01-06-2022, 09:21 PM)CKwi88 Wrote: Yeah, but welfare for the uber wealthy is kosher. Things like Universal Basic Income demonstrably benefit the impoverished. Miss me with that commie/socialist (not like anyone can tell you the difference) bullshit propaganda. It's much better to convince the middle class that upward social mobility isn't a myth and that poor people should just stop being poor and pull themselves up by their bootstraps. 

Perhaps it's my time being outside the US, but I wonder if other developed nations look at the US like the US looks at Florida.

I don't understand this analogy.  Ignoring your personal politics, what's wrong with Florida?