Universal Basic Income

[jmccracky]

(01-10-2022, 07:30 PM)basballguy Wrote: I appreciate the conversation but I don't think you and I are getting any further.  I've cited practical examples, personal examples, and examples in the media where one could logically conclude existing programs work and are being utilized.  All you are saying "nu uh, they aren't and we need a UBI".  

Now I could obviously do my own research on UBI's if i wanted to but that entirely defeats the purpose of having a discussion on a message board.  

You created this thread floating the idea of UBI but you've made no real effort to convince me with facts, just perceived opinions.  Your opinions might be fact but I have no way of knowing since you won't provide any details. 

He provided a link with information that is even behind a paywall for anyone to read. Check the link, homie.  

[basballguy]

(01-11-2022, 07:46 PM)jmccracky Wrote: He provided a link with information that is even behind a paywall for anyone to read. Check the link, homie.  

Homie,

I checked it out.

He solicited a discussion on a discussion board.  Why the hell would i want to read over 500 pages of documents instead of have a discussion?  If we no longer want to discuss then so be it....telling me programs don't work then linking to 10 documents with a combined 500+ pages of shit to sift through is not having a discussion nor solidifying his position.  

I still like him and respect his opinions though.  :)

[jmccracky]

(01-11-2022, 07:59 PM)basballguy Wrote: Homie,

I checked it out.

He solicited a discussion on a discussion board.  Why the hell would i want to read over 500 pages of documents instead of have a discussion?  If we no longer want to discuss then so be it....telling me programs don't work then linking to 10 documents with a combined 500+ pages of shit to sift through is not having a discussion nor solidifying his position.  

I still like him and respect his opinions though.  :)

Fair enough. I didn't have any reason to think you didn't like him, lol. As you were........

[NATI BENGALS]

(01-10-2022, 07:30 PM)basballguy Wrote: I appreciate the conversation but I don't think you and I are getting any further.  I've cited practical examples, personal examples, and examples in the media where one could logically conclude existing programs work and are being utilized.  All you are saying "nu uh, they aren't and we need a UBI".  

Now I could obviously do my own research on UBI's if i wanted to but that entirely defeats the purpose of having a discussion on a message board.  

You created this thread floating the idea of UBI but you've made no real effort to convince me with facts, just perceived opinions.  Your opinions might be fact but I have no way of knowing since you won't provide any details. 

One post you are saying we should be talking about how the social security system is at risk of going broke and a mind boggling $800 a week taco bell unemployment check. Then the next  you are saying everything works great why change.

Then you assume no solutions can exist through government because it's been around 5000 years.

And in not one of these posts have I seen a mention of technology, AI, and machines eliminating countless jobs and millions of workers.


I think a UBI is inevitable. The roll out won't be pretty and it won't get done right the first time. Unless our natural predators (virus, bacteria, fungi, asteroids, murder hornets, earth) get stronger, I don't believe the human population ever tops out. We will be 3d printing houses, vertical robot farming food, with self driving vehicles. I see no way for there to ever be enough jobs.

[basballguy]

(01-11-2022, 10:31 PM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: One post you are saying we should be talking about how the social security system is at risk of going broke and a mind boggling $800 a week taco bell unemployment check. Then the next  you are saying everything works great why change.

Then you assume no solutions can exist through government because it's been around 5000 years.

And in not one of these posts have I seen a mention of technology, AI, and machines eliminating countless jobs and millions of workers.


I think a UBI is inevitable. The roll out won't be pretty and it won't get done right the first time. Unless our natural predators (virus, bacteria, fungi, asteroids, murder hornets, earth) get stronger, I don't believe the human population ever tops out. We will be 3d printing houses, vertical robot farming food, with self driving vehicles. I see no way for there to ever be enough jobs.

Not what I said at all.  I will be polite and rehash even though you clearly didn't read the entire conversation (i can be boring).     

The discussion point was these programs are not being used or not working and need to be replaced....with no data to back it up.  (Show me a program that's not used).  Whereas they are clearly being used (hence the examples above).  If we don't feel they are being used correctly then that's something that should be explored instead of trying to introduce a new program.....and I even state I support reform for these programs.  

We have programs, they are used, and they work for many people.  That's an indisputable fact.  

Trying to introduce a UBI with a reason of "The existing programs are not being used" with no examples of a single program being underutilized or not used....just doesn't work.  Who knows maybe there is an example in those 500 pages of documents but again that entirely defeats the purpose of a message board discussion.  

Now your argument of needing a UBI to replace income due to AI/robotics replacing jobs is utter nonsense.  The same technology also creates jobs.  Unemployment is about where it was precovid and that is at a 20 or so year low.  There are plenty of jobs.  And for those that can't find a job, there's a program called "Unemployment Benefits" that helps those people that are trying to find work.  

"There aren't enough jobs" is literally the worst argument you can make for a UBI (right now, Jan 2022).  

[Belsnickel]

(01-11-2022, 11:10 PM)basballguy Wrote: The discussion point was these programs are not being used or not working and need to be replaced....with no data to back it up.  (Show me a program that's not used).  Whereas they are clearly being used (hence the examples above).  If we don't feel they are being used correctly then that's something that should be explored instead of trying to introduce a new program.....and I even state I support reform for these programs.  

I don't recall making that discussion point. I have said these programs aren't effective enough and I have said they are burdensome, but I haven't said our current programs aren't being used.

(01-11-2022, 11:10 PM)basballguy Wrote: Trying to introduce a UBI with a reason of "The existing programs are not being used" with no examples of a single program being underutilized or not used....just doesn't work.  Who knows maybe there is an example in those 500 pages of documents but again that entirely defeats the purpose of a message board discussion.  

The reason for a UBI is because it is a more effective program and has fewer barriers-to-entry for those that may need it than our currently existing programs. That's been my position from the start. You seem to have created a straw man to argue against.

And I posted the research because it is where my positions come from. That's how you have a discussion. I have made statements, that backs me up. If you don't want to read it, that's fine, but don't complain about my lack of facts and "perceived opinions" when I have provided the research to back up my claims.

[basballguy]

(01-12-2022, 08:41 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: I don't recall making that discussion point. I have said these programs aren't effective enough and I have said they are burdensome, but I haven't said our current programs aren't being used.


The reason for a UBI is because it is a more effective program and has fewer barriers-to-entry for those that may need it than our currently existing programs. That's been my position from the start. You seem to have created a straw man to argue against.

And I posted the research because it is where my positions come from. That's how you have a discussion. I have made statements, that backs me up. If you don't want to read it, that's fine, but don't complain about my lack of facts and "perceived opinions" when I have provided the research to back up my claims.

Ok I’ll bite. Where in those documents does it cite social security or unemployment as being programs that aren’t used by the public and has data to back it up? If you can tell me then I’ll read it….I’m not finding it myself when I don’t even know it’s in there

[Belsnickel]

(01-12-2022, 01:15 PM)basballguy Wrote: Ok I’ll bite. Where in those documents does it cite social security or unemployment as being programs that aren’t used by the public and has data to back it up? If you can tell me then I’ll read it….I’m not finding it myself when I don’t even know it’s in there

Those aren't claims that I made, so why would you ask for that?

[basballguy]

(01-12-2022, 01:21 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Those aren't claims that I made, so why would you ask for that?

Are you really asking me to quote your own posts?


I just….I cant anymore with you on this topic.

[Belsnickel]

(01-12-2022, 01:58 PM)basballguy Wrote: Are you really asking me to quote your own posts?


I just….I cant anymore with you on this topic.

I'm not, because I never made those claims. Hard for you to quote me saying something I never did.

[NATI BENGALS]

(01-11-2022, 11:10 PM)basballguy Wrote: Not what I said at all.  I will be polite and rehash even though you clearly didn't read the entire conversation (i can be boring).     

The discussion point was these programs are not being used or not working and need to be replaced....with no data to back it up.  (Show me a program that's not used).  Whereas they are clearly being used (hence the examples above).  If we don't feel they are being used correctly then that's something that should be explored instead of trying to introduce a new program.....and I even state I support reform for these programs.  

We have programs, they are used, and they work for many people.  That's an indisputable fact.  

Trying to introduce a UBI with a reason of "The existing programs are not being used" with no examples of a single program being underutilized or not used....just doesn't work.  Who knows maybe there is an example in those 500 pages of documents but again that entirely defeats the purpose of a message board discussion.  

Now your argument of needing a UBI to replace income due to AI/robotics replacing jobs is utter nonsense.  The same technology also creates jobs.  Unemployment is about where it was precovid and that is at a 20 or so year low.  There are plenty of jobs.  And for those that can't find a job, there's a program called "Unemployment Benefits" that helps those people that are trying to find work.  

"There aren't enough jobs" is literally the worst argument you can make for a UBI (right now, Jan 2022).  

Sure there are plenty of low skill entry level jobs out there for the taking and apparently a lot of businesses are having a hard time finding those workers. Just so happens that will expedite the problem. Not saying there are not good quality jobs available.

https://www.wired.com/story/covid-brings-automation-workplace-killing-some-jobs/

Technology isn’t going to stop. Undesirable jobs will remain undesirable. Businesses will seek to maximize profits. Put that all together and I think you have the recipe for less human workers. 10 robots replace 100 people and a couple people are hired to maintain the robots. Cha Ching more money for the top earners, maybe the replaced workers will land on their feet somewhere else. As time marches on I would imagine this trend accelerates.

By inevitable I didn’t mean next week. I just see it as an obvious scenario that will need to be addressed

[basballguy]

(01-12-2022, 06:28 PM)NATI BENGALS Wrote: Sure there are plenty of low skill entry level jobs out there for the taking and apparently a lot of businesses are having a hard time finding those workers. Just so happens that will expedite the problem. Not saying there are not good quality jobs available.

https://www.wired.com/story/covid-brings-automation-workplace-killing-some-jobs/

Technology isn’t going to stop. Undesirable jobs will remain undesirable. Businesses will seek to maximize profits. Put that all together and I think you have the recipe for less human workers. 10 robots replace 100 people and a couple people are hired to maintain the robots. Cha Ching more money for the top earners, maybe the replaced workers will land on their feet somewhere else. As time marches on I would imagine this trend accelerates.

By inevitable I didn’t mean next week. I just see it as an obvious scenario that will need to be addressed

No disagreement from me here on any of these points.  I think it's wonderful automation can eliminate low skill entry level jobs.  From both a cynical POV "Less people clamoring for low skill jobs to be compensated the same as trained professional like teachers"....to more practical POVs like "Humans are way too smart and can contribute so much more to society than flipping burgers...we shouldn't need people doing these jobs".  

You also probably understand we are encouraged to advance our technologies (as businesses).  As many people know, businesses receive tax credits when their spending goes to things like  R&D or infrastructure.  Sure it impacts the bottom line for shareholders and leadership but it also impacts the bottom line for the regular employees too.  

The original post about the rando tweeting in support of UBI and people should not have to work if they don't want to is immediately refuted by your comments (and they are comments I agree with).  We will...no doubt....eventually get there.  It will not be in our lifetime and it will likely not be in our children's or grandchildren's lifetime (depending upon your age).  Until such a time comes, we have to work.  Which is why this particular point was also bad for pro UBI arguments.  

There are plenty of jobs out there (yes many undesirable)...but there are still jobs.  People finding work is not currently a problem (for most people).  Until it becomes a problem there are probably half a dozen better arguments to be made in favor of a UBI.

[Belsnickel]

(01-12-2022, 07:24 PM)basballguy Wrote: There are plenty of jobs out there (yes many undesirable)...but there are still jobs.  People finding work is not currently a problem (for most people).  Until it becomes a problem there are probably half a dozen better arguments to be made in favor of a UBI.

It is a problem when someone cannot support themselves on those jobs. This is why UBI is a consideration, because of those many undesirable jobs that usually have very low pay.

[basballguy]

(01-12-2022, 07:50 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: It is a problem when someone cannot support themselves on those jobs. This is why UBI is a consideration, because of those many undesirable jobs that usually have very low pay.

My man, we’ve had this discussion already.

Bels:A UBI would help those where their current wage isn’t sufficient
BBG: Existing programs already do that and they are targeted towards those that need the help
Bels: They aren’t used or they aren’t used enough
BBG: I used them, I’ve had friends use them. The headlines in the news say they are used to exhaustion…they are likely incorrectly used and reform isn’t a bad idea
Bels: Please read 500 pages of white papers
BBG: Kill me

[Belsnickel]

(01-12-2022, 08:15 PM)basballguy Wrote: My man, we’ve had this discussion already.

Bels:A UBI would help those where their current wage isn’t sufficient
BBG: Existing programs already do that and they are targeted towards those that need the help
Bels: They aren’t used or they aren’t used enough
BBG: I used them, I’ve had friends use them. The headlines in the news say they are used to exhaustion…they are likely incorrectly used and reform isn’t a bad idea
Bels: Please read 500 pages of white papers
BBG: Kill name

I never said they aren't used. I said they are not sufficient and they are difficult to navigate, making them underutilized. You can stop with the straw man argument any time.

[basballguy]

(01-12-2022, 08:20 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I never said they aren't used. I said they are not sufficient and they are difficult to navigate, making them underutilized. You can stop with the straw man argument any time.

(01-12-2022, 08:20 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: So, here is where my knowledge and education comes in as a policy wonk. Sure, there are countless financial studies done by people far more educated and you and I that have come up with plans that work the best they can for us. Guess what, though. We aren't utilizing them. Our social safety net is a failure, and I have never met a wonk in that specialty that would say otherwise. In so many measures that are used by these folks, the US falls far behind our WEIRD brethren. Here is also another little secret, there are UBI policies that these folks have come up with that would work far better than what we have. The reason we don't have them has nothing at all to do with their efficacy or their cost. It has to do with our politicians being too conservative and with the deadlocks in Congress that prevent any real progress which is a result of our broken system that is not truly representative of our country's citizens.

I have only asked for more information a half dozen times and feel like i've been pretty polite about it too. All you can do is link to 500 pages of white papers that may or may not have something related in it.  If you don't want to, fine...whatever....but I'm only as good as the information you type on this message board.  

If you'd rather be an be that guy that says "oh you're just straw man arguing now" without still providing any actual data....then I apologize for thinking you were capable of having a much more constructive conversation.  

[Belsnickel]

(01-12-2022, 10:07 PM)basballguy Wrote: I have only asked for more information a half dozen times and feel like i've been pretty polite about it too. All you can do is link to 500 pages of white papers that may or may not have something related in it.  If you don't want to, fine...whatever....but I'm only as good as the information you type on this message board.  

If you'd rather be an be that guy that says "oh you're just straw man arguing now" without still providing any actual data....then I apologize for thinking you were capable of having a much more constructive conversation.  

You do understand that what I said weren't being used were plans that aren't in place, right? They are policies that these experts have put together that aren't in place because our legislatures won't pass them. So you are misreading my post and trying to make it say something it isn't.

And some of those plans are in those white papers because some of those plans involve UBI.

[GMDino]

(01-12-2022, 10:07 PM)basballguy Wrote: I have only asked for more information a half dozen times and feel like i've been pretty polite about it too. All you can do is link to 500 pages of white papers that may or may not have something related in it.  If you don't want to, fine...whatever....but I'm only as good as the information you type on this message board.  

If you'd rather be an be that guy that says "oh you're just straw man arguing now" without still providing any actual data....then I apologize for thinking you were capable of having a much more constructive conversation.  

I feel that what is important is that someone made up their mind based on what they believe and just because people have done actual research and it was provided to encourage education and discussion all of that will be ignored because the possibility of changing their mind is a foreign concept.


How can you ask for info, be provided info, and then say you won't read it because you don't know what it means.  All while questioning a position that was never proposed in the first place and expect to be taken seriously?

[basballguy]

(01-13-2022, 10:47 AM)GMDino Wrote: I feel that what is important is that someone made up their mind based on what they believe and just because people have done actual research and it was provided to encourage education and discussion all of that will be ignored because the possibility of changing their mind is a foreign concept.


How can you ask for info, be provided info, and then say you won't read it because you don't know what it means.  All while questioning a position that was never proposed in the first place and expect to be taken seriously?

Ok a couple things:

Show me where in that 500+ pages of "provided info" is what i asked for and I will happily read it.  

As for saying "questioning a position that was never proposed in the first place"  If you spent as much time skimming the thread as you did trying to be witty and condescending you might've seen where I got it from....Instead you'd rather be a dick....but you must feel cool for saying that.  I'll make sure to rep you so you feel validated.  

[basballguy]

(01-12-2022, 10:13 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: You do understand that what I said weren't being used were plans that aren't in place, right? They are policies that these experts have put together that aren't in place because our legislatures won't pass them. So you are misreading my post and trying to make it say something it isn't.

And some of those plans are in those white papers because some of those plans involve UBI.

That was in no way clear to me with how it was typed. I can see how you intended what you were saying now.

After all that then the point is still valid.  For almost every argument in favor of a UBI, there is already a government funded program.