[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/biz/ - Business & Finance

View post   
File: 74 KB, 400x560, 1392057365148.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
193245 No.193245 [Reply] [Original]

What does /biz/ say about Universal Basic Income?

I think it's going to be necessary seeing that automation is already bringing production back to America, like with the Apple setting up in Texas. This will allow for a lot of cheaper goods, which would destroy any and all 15/hr slogans. However, there will be less and less people working in America, due to automation.

This will force corporations to have to sustain one resource with another: money and people. They will be taxed, or contribute to some sort of pool, then people will receive x amount based on y factor. Private entrepreneurship would ideally still be possible, and there will still be jobs for some people, so not everyone will get the money. Though, those who do, will barely get the minimum to live without being able to save, forcing them to look for ways to increase their money via entrepreneurship.

>> No.193303

It's a very good idea, but politically it won't work. The right won't go for it because muh welfare muh taxes. The left certainly won't go for it because if a monetary income is a right (as it should be in a country with no frontiers left) then they wouldn't be able to take credit for various welfare programs (like muh obamaphone). The bureaucracy of the government will despise it as well as it reduces their size and control. Politically it's going to be a hard sell.

>> No.193343

Its a good idea but not right now because not everything is automated yet. Maybe 100 years into the future.

>> No.193355

It will never work because scarcity exists.

>> No.193360

>>193355

But I thought your mom had an eternal cave of financial burden?

>> No.193364

>>193360

My mother passed away 5 years ago due to cancer, so that doesn't qualify as eternal.

>> No.193370

It will only work in a society where food, water, clothing and shelter are so abundant that they are effectively 'worthless' in the sense that they cannot be bought or sold. We're talking the StarTrek kinda future where they can make food appear out of thin air and shit.

>> No.193375

>>193364

But you're still alive...

>> No.193373

>>193370

Star Trek eliminated scarcity with near infinite energy and the ability to convert energy to matter.

>> No.193382

>>193373
Pretty much. I realize its bullshit, but I also think being paid to do nothing is also bullshit if there is still a need to work to get goods and services. Where do you draw the line when it comes to handouts for worthless people?

>> No.193386

>>193382

But getting money from a corporate tax isn't being paid to do nothing, it's being paid to be a consumer.

>> No.193409

>>193382
Simply give those moneys in form of meal vouchers, some for the hygene, and the rest, in deductions of basic services, like the bills.

>> No.193428

>>193409
At that point you're getting into social/economic planning, and vulnerable to manipulation by large corporate monopolies. Everyone having a guaranteed basic income that is enough to feed, house, clothe, and insure them would be more efficient and allow the elimination of other welfare programs.

As a bonus, it would also allow you to make moralistic assertions about the remaining poor, since they would have to have been pretty dumb to stay poor at that point. Everybody wins!

>> No.193431

>>193382

At the end of the day, the people who want a "basic" income just don't want to work the shit jobs they are only qualified for. They seem to believe because they exist they are somehow entitled to the wealth others create to support their existence.

It'll never happen.

>> No.193433

>>193428

The perception of what it means to be poor will be changed.

>> No.193458

>>193431
What about people who can't find work because jobs are being lost to technology?

Should we just give them a basic income so they can stimulate the economy, seeing as all the money will go right back into it?

Should we just kill off anyone who's deemed useless by society?

Should we latch on to old economic principles because we're scared of a future where all of our necessities are provided by technology and automation?

>> No.193473

>>193458
>What about people who can't find work because jobs are being lost to technology?
It takes years if not decades for someone's job to cease to exist. It is their responsibility to continue to be valuable as a productive member of society. Competition doesn't end the day you get a job.

>Should we just give them a basic income so they can stimulate the economy, seeing as all the money will go right back into it?
What about the people who use that 'basic income' to buy illegal substances or illegally gamble? Considering someone out of a job and with 0 prospects is more likely to get high all day and do stupid shit, your argument has a glaring hole in it.

>Should we just kill off anyone who's deemed useless by society?
No but we shouldn't spoonfeed people who are useless and do nothing to change that.

>Should we latch on to old economic principles because we're scared of a future where all of our necessities are provided by technology and automation?
We're a long way from a sunshine and rainbows future. You want to see what happens to a society that ceases to care about personal growth and prosperity, look at Detroit.

>> No.193478

>>193458

You don't seem to understand that the money you would "give" these people comes from taxes. Increasing taxes removes money from the private sector which decreases growth, job creation, and investment.

Add to all of that you just set a major price floor on employment and the costs of items will necessarily increase to the point the "basic" income will never be adequate.

I think the issue here is that people such as yourself don't really understand how a SYSTEM functions. You can't just tweak a subsystem and expect the rest of the system to not be impacted. The system will naturally evolve back to a offset equilibrium point at which point you'll be back here bitching the "basic" income needs to be raised.

Sooner or later the entire system collapses.

So to answer your question about what to do? Fuck'm. They'll have to figure out how to survive or not on their own. I'm not willing to sacrifice what I earn to a bunch of losers because you feel it's morally superior. I'm also not prepared to damn everyone else in the same system who do work to support the parasites breeding.

>> No.193475

>>193431
It would not be made to be 'hurr i dunt work i git monei anyway' but simply a way to life for a while you look for another job if they fired you.

>>193409
>insuring
Please, i said making them live, not actually being at the same level of a worker.

The new 'poor' will simply live without moneys, the working peoples, will be able to actually live, spending moneys on shit they don't really need, but makes them feel good.

How much a person would spend in food? 100 dollars at month? plus another 30 dollars for product for the hygene, and another 200 dollars for the montly bills.

330 dollars at month aren't that much, living with them is probably like being divorced.

>> No.193488

wrong quote, i meant to reply to Pb
>>193428

>> No.193506

>>193473
What about when we get to the point that all the shit jobs like manufacturing and minimum wage jobs are automated away, and the only jobs left that still need humans are the very highly skilled/educated jobs? We'll have huge classes of people that aren't qualified for any of the jobs out there because the lower/middle class jobs are all automated.

>> No.193509

The way I like to see it is like a jellyfish that grows algae in its bulb. The metaphor isn't exact, but it's in the general direction.

>> No.193517

>>193506

The only reason a job would be automated is because the cost to automated is less than the cost to hire people to do it.

Minimum wage increases and a basic income help close the gap between automation and employment.

Your choice.

>> No.193520

>>193478
>So to answer your question about what to do? Fuck'm. They'll have to figure out how to survive or not on their own. I'm not willing to sacrifice what I earn to a bunch of losers because you feel it's morally superior.

And this is why you can't argue reason or logic with the left. They're entirely motivated by their short-sighted greed and nothing will ever change that.

Perhaps one of the poor that you tell to "fuck off" will "survive" by murdering you for all of that money you didn't pay in taxes. Then, the tax payers will be paying the bill to deal with the mess.

You can't just tweak a subsystem and expect the rest of the system to not be impacted. Right?

>> No.193521

>>193517
Wouldn't increasing the minimum wage make automation even more attractive?

>> No.193522

>>193506
>All automated.

I dunno about that, how much an automation could actually do?
Something like a casher, we tend to forget that humans can be good at anything, if trained.

It will probably require 100 years to get so good with automatism to get them to do our work.

>> No.193525

>>193521

It's the only reason fast food hasn't been automated yet, for example.

>> No.193526

>>193525
http://marshallbrain.com/manna1.htm

>> No.193529

>>193522

Already in the works. Stores have self check out lines, pump your own gas, vending machines.

>> No.193532

>>193526

http://www.gizmag.com/hamburger-machine/25159/

>> No.193545

>>193529
Yes, but it's still easy to do, and it requires a person to do it.

Or the gas pump directly fill your car without having to open something?

All you do is getting it some money and did the work of another person, saving a pair of dollars.

>> No.193571

>>193545
You know how Telsa has the fully automated battery swap service now? What if in the future, we get fully automated self driving cars? And when they get low they can drive themselves to a battery swap station to change out for a new fully charged battery? Meanwhile the old battery can automatically recharge underground.

>> No.193577

>>193245
>What does /biz/ say about Universal Basic Income?
Stupid idea.

Destoys mutual aid societies and makes people dependent on the state.

>> No.193583

Its a good idea to implement INSTEAD of current welfare.

>> No.193592

If you were to completely eliminate the welfare state, from public schools, social security, and even subsidies. Then a universal basic income is certainly most efficient.

>> No.193627

>>193529
NJ made it illegal to pump your own gas to force gas stations to hire more people. Expect to see resistance laws like this more and more

>> No.193638

>>193577

>state
>corporations feeding one resource with another
>somehow the same thing

>> No.194142

In an ideal world, I think a UBI could be pretty efficient. Think about it, you file taxes, if your income is lower than the minimum, you just get a tax credit to "top you up".

It would just use the existing tax infrastructure to do everything, including fraud prevention. And all the other programs can be gradually pulled.

But, I doubt it would happen, though, because it's such a third-rail subject and would be political suicide to start pushing for it.

Also, knowing how governments mishandle things, it would probably turn into a cocked-up supplement-to-a-supplement mess, generating another huge agency to oversee the entire circus.

Finally, the UBI has no solution to the free-rider problem.

In total, I'm suspicious about it. If it were easy to try out for a year just to see what would happen, I'd be on-board. But, with that kind of a huge change, there would be no way to just try it.

>> No.194196

>>194142
Your thing is closer to a minimum income than a basic income. A basic income is "Everyone gets $10000, no matter how much they make already"

>> No.194224

>>194196
That sounds very similar and probably has all of the same types of problems.

>> No.194230

>>193627
Yeah, nah. The world isn't New Jersey, otherwise I would of killed myself years ago.

>> No.194568

>>193355
In the third world maybe

>> No.194577

>>193382
>Where do you draw the line when it comes to handouts for worthless people?
When you start calling people worthless just because there's many times more people than labor required or desired to run society.

>> No.194584

>>193520
>And this is why you can't argue reason or logic with the left. They're entirely motivated by their short-sighted greed and nothing will ever change that.
You mean the right. Your entire post looks like its actually taking a shot at the right.

>> No.194759

>>193245

bringing production back won't hurt jobs or lower prices. It will help the trade deficit and will be very very good for the country overall.

It won't hurt jobs because we have already exported so many jobs, new production lines will be very automated so few jobs created. It probably won't lower prices because we have so many regulations here environment, factory safety, accounting / bookkeeping requirements. US workers are so much more productive, it really is a wash, but the production being so close to the end market is an advantage in ttm.

fixing the trade deficit is obvious.

obvious good to the country is the demand for highly skilled technicians and engineers to setup, run and debug production and are 100% solid middle to upper-middle class jobs. This sort of industrial base will bring back more heavy industry too. A virtuous circle.

I bet that if we pull this off, the US is going to remain #1 for another century.

>> No.194767

>>194759
why do that when we can just sell bonds at 0% interest?

bring on QE4!

>> No.194790
File: 13 KB, 268x268, my-brain-is-full-of-fuck.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
194790

>>194577

implying that destroying jobs isn't good because it frees people to achieve a higher purpose or to create even more value

>21st century
>being a Luddite
>being this stupid
>being scared of creating so much value that we don't actually have to work anymore
>thinking that creating jobs is more important than creating wealth
>probably thinks we should dig ditches and fill them in again, because at least you have a job, slave

>> No.194800
File: 274 KB, 500x490, 1358290290942.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
194800

>>194790
This guy fucking gets it.

Fuck work.
Yay technology and efficiency.

>> No.194797

>>194577
I call people worthless when they refuse to adapt. Sweeping changes to industry don't happen overnights. Its up to the employee to keep up. It's the responsibility of the employee to continue to evolve and grow as a person so when the layoffs happen for his wrench-turning job, he can move to a different position, not stand outside waving a sign screaming 'muh union, muh strike!'

>> No.194804

>>194767

Asshats in charge are desperate to hold things together long enough to blame things on somebody else.

But these problems are long term & structural and we brought them on ourselves by voting for the wrong guys (ex. laughing at Perot) and not holding their feet to the fire.

Look at how fiscally conservative 4chan has become (still socially liberal and a bit twisted too, but I digress). This change is happening everywhere as hard times bite. That change in views will slowly permeate society. My granddad who saw the great depression was forever changed. Same thing is happening now. We are going to be making better choices for the next 30 years.

>> No.194820

>>194790

>implying the average person will profit from the wealth that comes from automation

>> No.194825

>>194820
well it worked last time (industrial revolution)

problem?

>> No.194839

>>194820

Even if the poor are not directly able to capture profits from automation, there will be benefits. Think about the cellphone in your pocket, the cheap clothes on your back, and odds are you are not staving.

I think most people here are poor, but they are not destitute. I think the biggest obstacle to becoming wealthy is financial, business, and technical illiteracy, not being held down by somebody.

gates, jobs, google & facebook dudes came from basically nothing. society has not changed and will not change that much unless we really screw things up.

>> No.194868

>>194820
>>implying the average person will profit from the wealth that comes from automation
Are you not using a computer?
Did your parents not use a car?
Are you not using a computer?

Literally kill yourself.

>> No.194871

>>194820
Daily reminder socialists are luddites.

>> No.194877

>>194871
progressives are actually dealthly afraid of progress.

>> No.195372

>>193245
Some form of that, along with social programs and maybe some kind of rations is what I'd advocate for the near future.

I think one thing we're potentially going to not see coming is the power of renewables. Most people would say that a factory represents the means of production, but at the most essential level, it's energy that gives us the means not only for production, but also for life itself. Right now a lot of govts. are experimenting and suffering from solar farms, but decentralized, consumerized solar panels are what I think will bring the real change. And really, once you have the means of fueling your car, running your fridge and AC, your TV, your lights, etc. sitting on your roof, passively generating free electricity for you, what are the consequences of staying in, or doing your own thing?

>> No.195405

>>193473
>What about the people who use that 'basic income' to buy illegal substances or illegally gamble? Considering someone out of a job and with 0 prospects is more likely to get high all day and do stupid shit, your argument has a glaring hole in it.
Just wanted to point out how terrible this argument is.

1. "ILLEGAL SUBSTANCES"
Bitch please. You couldn't just leave it at "getting drunk," could you? Nah, you had to appeal to current law, which has been proven an utter failure. The world will be a better place when more countries finally legalize and then devote funds to rehab programs. .

2. Addiction
There is substantial evidence that drug addiction has a strong correlation with desperation and poverty. If people feel secure and comfortable, they're more likely to plan for the future and avoid hard drugs. Basic income would give homeless and desperate addicts the funds and flexibility necessary to improve their surroundings and their lives, and devote their time to more PRODUCTIVE forms of leisure.

3. Because leisure
Leisure used to be considered a VIRTUE in days of old. Leisure was a time for intellectual growth and exercise. It was a time for taking pleasure in beauty and art. For conversation and reading. IT STILL IS. When people have basic income, they're liberated to pursue their education, which is EXACTLY THE SORT OF THING that will help them remain productive in the post-automation economy.

But let's face it, you're just trying to lead us off a slippery slope. Fuck you.

>> No.195410

>>195405
>Bitch please. You couldn't just leave it at "getting drunk," could you?
Of course not. Alcohol is taxed and sold legally by businesses. The point was handing degenerates money doesn't mean it magically goes back into the economy. If drugs are 100% legal and taxed then yes, you'd be right. But so long as meth and other shit needs to be bought on the black market, it doesn't help anyone.
We;re talking economy here, not your SJW bullshit

>> No.195416

>>195410
>Of course not. Alcohol is taxed and sold legally by businesses. The point was handing degenerates money doesn't mean it magically goes back into the economy. If drugs are 100% legal and taxed then yes, you'd be right. But so long as meth and other shit needs to be bought on the black market, it doesn't help anyone.
>We;re talking economy here, not your SJW bullshit
Except drug law reform is a real thing with serious benefits that you'd be insane not to support. Bringing up
>muh illegal drugs
on an impulse whenever you're trying to explain why lazy people make you angry plays right into the hands of the drug war fuckheads. It also shows you're a stupid asshole.

You also haven't refuted
>Leisure used to be considered a VIRTUE in days of old. Leisure was a time for intellectual growth and exercise. It was a time for taking pleasure in beauty and art. For conversation and reading. IT STILL IS. When people have basic income, they're liberated to pursue their education, which is EXACTLY THE SORT OF THING that will help them remain productive in the post-automation economy.
>When people have basic income, they're liberated to pursue their education, which is EXACTLY THE SORT OF THING that will help them remain productive in the post-automation economy.
>When people have basic income, they're liberated to pursue their education, which is EXACTLY THE SORT OF THING that will help them remain productive in the post-automation economy.

>> No.195424

>>195416
>all that anger
>completely misses the point
And I'm out. Go adopt a homeless guy, see how that works out

>> No.195431

>>195424
>hur dur you didn't understand what I meant! No, I won't say what it was!
>And I'm out. Go adopt a homeless guy, see how that works out
Nice fucking argument. How about, have the fucking courtesy to admit you're just not in the mood for a debate, instead of throwing shit shots.

>> No.195432

>>195431
>Every reply filled with ranting, swearing and insults
>courtesy

>> No.195437

>>195432
>>Every reply filled with ranting, swearing and insults
>>courtesy
Yes fag, there are different kinds of courtesy. I'm talking about actual logic here, not your pussy feelings.