Universal Basic Income & Working Less

Suryavarman

BarcaDen wrote: »

As I said, I have a hodgepodge of ideas to go by. Some from me, most from others. Its not a very well formulated policy because we don't have a lot to go on yet. If you're genuinely interested in this, take a wee look at the wikipedia page for UBI, it offers many examples of pilots (most of which have been considered successful). From there you can follow the links to the different projects. The pilot is Utrecht interests me greatly and I'm following it avidly.

Evidence? Since when have we needed evidence for philosophy!!!?

I've read plenty on this idea. I've read plenty of articles on what it would look like in reality (which you clearly haven't). Because I have read around this topic I realise that a UBI would either make the poor worse off or massively increase the cost of the welfare state. I thus oppose the UBI and prefer other cost effective policies to assist the poor such as some form of negative income tax.

People usually provide evidence when they make outlandish claims like you have even if they are discussing "philosophy".

BarcaDen wrote: »

Hi there.

I would never suggest criminalising people who work hard to want to make their own business. I'm freelance, I know how it is. Sometimes I work crazy hours but at least its for me. I don't have a boss. I want others to know what that feels like! (Its ****ing great)

We work long hours because that is the system we have created. The vast majority of us do jobs that could be done in at least half the time were we better organised and efficient. Thats my experience in a variety of industries that I've worked in.

As per computerisation - a good example is accountancy. In the past you had 100.000s of low paid clerks doing manual computation, mostly women. With the advent of computers most of these jobs have gone and in fact as a whole the profession created more jobs and better paying ones for people higher up the value chain.

But this wave of disruption is much more radical than the computer. The computer has merely made the average office more productive and capable of doing greater things. It was in general terms a complement to the labour market, not a replacement of. Look at the numbers who work in industry though. Take a walk down a Volkwagon factory floor. That is the future. McDonalds and Tesco with their self service. I could go on. The evidence suggests that we are creating far fewer well paying, middle class jobs. And the precariat grows every year.

Where is this evidence?

Suryavarman

topper75 wrote: »

Sorry Sir if you were confused. I gave one service/good, Sky subscriptions, as an example. I could have talked about pints of peer or dentist appointments. I meant for you to draw a collective inference from that single example. Output of everything is limited in the short term. Having a sudden increase in the ability for people to meet today's prices as consumers - only serves to make tomorrow's prices higher. It does not make lots of people better off in the medium/long term as the UBI proposers hope/imagine.

You're the confused one. Have another read through your first post on this thread:

topper75 wrote: »

All it would do is move the demand curve upwards.

More money chasing the same amount of goods and services => upwards pressure on prices across the board.

The "poor" will always be with us by definition. Unless you want to try the whole communism thing again. I don't.

There is no sudden increase in people's abilities to purchase goods. Nobody in this thread has argued for funding a UBI through an increase in the money supply. This policy would be funded through taxation so an increase in income for some people would be offset by a fall in income for others. There will be no net increase in income and there will be no effect on inflation.

BarcaDen

Suryavarman wrote: »

I've read plenty on this idea. I've read plenty of articles on what it would look like in reality (which you clearly haven't).

Ok mate. No offence, but I won't be responding to you going forward. No point. Either we talk with respect or we don't talk at all.

BarcaDen

Decency in discourse! Now theres an outlandish idea.

ancapailldorcha

BarcaDen wrote: »

Decency in discourse! Now theres an outlandish idea.

Please try and post more constructively than this.

BarcaDen

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

Please try and post more constructively than this.

My integrity was attacked in a rather contemptuous way. I'll ignore the person in future (btw, I believe its possible to blacklist somebody so their comments don't show up, if you know how please tell) I've learnt that once contempt has been established between two parties, discourse is impossible.

topper75

Suryavarman wrote: »

You're the confused one. Have another read through your first post on this thread:



There is no sudden increase in people's abilities to purchase goods. Nobody in this thread has argued for funding a UBI through an increase in the money supply. This policy would be funded through taxation so an increase in income for some people would be offset by a fall in income for others. There will be no net increase in income and there will be no effect on inflation.

This assumes that the higher earners who you tax to fund your UBI spend less. They won't spend less at all necessarily - they'll save less. You still have more money chasing the same supply of goods and services.

This net effect is as good as a money supply increase. hence the upward moving demand curve.

In your opinion - prices stay the same even though the less well off have been gifted extra income. I cannot fathom how that could be - in this respect I am indeed confused.

ancapailldorcha

BarcaDen wrote: »

My integrity was attacked in a rather contemptuous way. I'll ignore the person in future (btw, I believe its possible to blacklist somebody so their comments don't show up, if you know how please tell) I've learnt that once contempt has been established between two parties, discourse is impossible.

If you have a problem with a post, report it and move on. If you want to add a user to your ignore list, you can click their username for the option. If you have any more questions, please use the PM function so as not to derail the thread further.

Suryavarman

topper75 wrote: »

This assumes that the higher earners who you tax to fund your UBI spend less. They won't spend less at all necessarily - they'll save less. You still have more money chasing the same supply of goods and services.

This net effect is as good as a money supply increase. hence the upward moving demand curve.

In your opinion - prices stay the same even though the less well off have been gifted extra income. I cannot fathom how that could be - in this respect I am indeed confused.

Savings don't go into a big vault to not be spent. Every € that is saved gets spent almost straight away.

Whoever you tax to pay for the basic income has less income than they otherwise would.

All a UBI does is transfer spending, it doesn't increase it.

Dohnjoe

Suryavarman wrote: »

Savings don't go into a big vault to not be spent. Every € that is saved gets spent almost straight away.

Whoever you tax to pay for the basic income has less income than they otherwise would.

All a UBI does is transfer spending, it doesn't increase it.

I see it as a pyramid scheme

Effectively a working person will be supporting someone who chooses not to work

Anyone who argues that a theory like UBI will be cheaper than the current welfare system seriously underestimates people's resolve not to work. I know many people who'd instantly quit their jobs to get a no-strings attached income if it were just above the social welfare level

And out of those people, a portion will try to work the black market (online work) as well as living abroad in cheaper countries (e.g. Spain)

HiJacques

Dohnjoe wrote: »

I see it as a pyramid scheme

Effectively a working person will be supporting someone who chooses not to work

Anyone who argues that a theory like UBI will be cheaper than the current welfare system seriously underestimates people's resolve not to work. I know many people who'd instantly quit their jobs to get a no-strings attached income if it were just above the social welfare level

And out of those people, a portion will try to work the black market (online work) as well as living abroad in cheaper countries (e.g. Spain)

UBI already exists for the baby boomer generation. They were the first generation to experience free universal social care and the entire welfare system is based on their needs.

Their parent’s generation were cheap to maintain in old age by comparison to the costs they will inflict on millennial.

Extended life spans, more advanced costly medical treatments to extend an unproductive period of life even further, higher living standard expectations and a smaller number of children to share the burden of maintaining them or be a large enough democratic force to stop them doing something which undermines the future of the next generations, like Brexit.

BarcaDen

HiJacques wrote: »

UBI already exists for the baby boomer generation. They were the first generation to experience free universal social care and the entire welfare system is based on their needs.

Their parent’s generation were cheap to maintain in old age by comparison to the costs they will inflict on millennial.

Extended life spans, more advanced costly medical treatments to extend an unproductive period of life even further, higher living standard expectations and a smaller number of children to share the burden of maintaining them or be a large enough democratic force to stop them doing something which undermines the future of the next generations, like Brexit.

This is a good point actually. What is a pension if not a form of UBI?

Suryavarman

BarcaDen wrote: »

This is a good point actually. What is a pension if not a form of UBI?

A pension is given to far fewer people than a UBI would making it far more affordable. A pension is only given to people not expected to work so it gives us little insight into how a UBI would affect work incentives. Government pension schemes are also set to drag countries down as the ratio of workers to pensioners is too low.

BarcaDen

I think a lot of the focus here and the criticism has been about the cost of UBI. That is a fair point to make of course, but I think it risks missing the woods for the trees. For example, the proposed UBI in Switzerland (which obviously didn't pass the referendum) would have cost about 33% of GDP. Thats a cost that governments could afford if they wanted. As a frame of comparison, Switzerland is a rather right leaning country and spends only 19.4% of its GDP on welfare, a bit below the OECD average. For leftys like me, 33% of GDP is easily manageable.

I'm more interested in how UBI would eliminate precariousness, which some people claim doesn't exist (because they have little to no experience of it)

ancapailldorcha

HiJacques wrote: »

Brexit

HiJacques, this is not a forum for one word posts. Please try to post more constructively than this.

Its dead Jim

Dohnjoe wrote: »

I see it as a pyramid scheme

Effectively a working person will be supporting someone who chooses not to work

Anyone who argues that a theory like UBI will be cheaper than the current welfare system seriously underestimates people's resolve not to work. I know many people who'd instantly quit their jobs to get a no-strings attached income if it were just above the social welfare level

And out of those people, a portion will try to work the black market (online work) as well as living abroad in cheaper countries (e.g. Spain)

If people don't want to work they don't have to with the current system yet people still choose to work, when jobs are available the majority will take them.

Dohnjoe

Its dead Jim wrote: »

If people don't want to work they don't have to with the current system yet people still choose to work, when jobs are available the majority will take them.

There is a huge social stigma to being on the welfare as a life choice, people have to jump through hoops, they have to be means tested, they have to turn up at the welfare office, they have to be actively searching for jobs - it's a pain in the ass, it's designed to be a negative experience

UBI would be completely different, it would be free money with no strings attached, no stigma, a complete entitlement. Personally I know many people who would insto-quit their jobs to get on that gravy train, do online work on the side, maybe go live like a king in Thailand..

In order to prevent the serious amount of abuse that would take place, they would have to start adding so many strings that it would end up essentially becoming the same model as current welfare with the same level of administration

topper75

Suryavarman wrote: »

Savings don't go into a big vault to not be spent. Every € that is saved gets spent almost straight away.

I've re-read this a few times and can only conclude that we have completely different concept of savings and what they are.

Suryavarman wrote: »

Whoever you tax to pay for the basic income has less income than they otherwise would.

Yes correct less income - but not necessarily less spending, just less savings. THEIR spending stays the same. New spending is added to the less well off. Is this magic, or has something got to give? Clue: prices.

Suryavarman wrote: »

All a UBI does is transfer spending, it doesn't increase it.

No it doesn't transfer spending. The well off folks have already seen the dentist, have already subscribed to Sky etc.

You are not taking the spending. You are taking their savings. This is extra money chasing the same supply of goods and services, see? What happens prices then?

Suryavarman

topper75 wrote: »

I've re-read this a few times and can only conclude that we have completely different concept of savings and what they are.




Yes correct less income - but not necessarily less spending, just less savings. THEIR spending stays the same. New spending is added to the less well off. Is this magic, or has something got to give? Clue: prices.



No it doesn't transfer spending. The well off folks have already seen the dentist, have already subscribed to Sky etc.

You are not taking the spending. You are taking their savings. This is extra money chasing the same supply of goods and services, see? What happens prices then?

Basically what you're saying is that savings go into a big vault and stay there without being used. I'm sorry but that is completely incorrect.

topper75

Suryavarman wrote: »

Basically what you're saying is that savings go into a big vault and stay there without being used. I'm sorry but that is completely incorrect.

For money supply purposes it may as well be. Maybe you are on about these savings being used by banks as liquidity reserves to make further loans? In Keynesian economics, you have to reckon with the Marginal Propensity to Save MPS when looking at the money supply and injections.

HiJacques

ancapailldorcha wrote: »

HiJacques, this is not a forum for one word posts. Please try to post more constructively than this.

Brexit is the ultimate manifestation of the old inflicting their self-interest on the next generation and changing the rules of generational succession.

The 'War' generation and the generations before them sacrificed heavily for their children but the 'Boomers' started leaving debts for future generations based on Keynesian economics.

Brexit wilfully hamstrings the economic growth prospects for the generation which is expected to pay their bills.

ancapailldorcha

HiJacques wrote: »

Brexit is the ultimate manifestation of the old inflicting their self-interest on the next generation and changing the rules of generational succession.

The 'War' generation and the generations before them sacrificed heavily for their children but the 'Boomers' started leaving debts for future generations based on Keynesian economics.

Brexit wilfully hamstrings the economic growth prospects for the generation which is expected to pay their bills.

This thread is about a Basic Income. Please stay on topic.

HiJacques

UBI is a good idea in a utopian society where everyone feels that their contribution is equal and that they won't be left empty handed when it's needed for them. Most people don't trust the state they live in to that extent and would fear that a massive unsustainable debt would be accrued in a short time. Leaving others to pay the bill.

Suryavarman

topper75 wrote: »

For money supply purposes it may as well be. Maybe you are on about these savings being used by banks as liquidity reserves to make further loans? In Keynesian economics, you have to reckon with the Marginal Propensity to Save MPS when looking at the money supply and injections.

Rich people invest most of their savings, they put them in a bank account. That's why they are rich people.

starshine1234

A universal income will be required in the future.

Artificial Intelligence will destroy jobs, and by so doing, it will destroy our economy and our societies.

We only have to consider the world in 20 years. A world where many jobs, like driving, warehousing, call center staff have been automated out of existence. Perhaps some new jobs are created but these jobs are unlikely to be absolutely necessary for living.


People will have no money unless they are given money for free. Society cannot function if people are broke. They will commit crime.

People who shout 'Luddite' are wrong to do so. Artificial intelligence will allow nearly every job to be automated, with only a few exceptions.

Consider a robot like Data from Star Trek. He can do nearly any job a human could do.


Some rich capitalists will own most of the robots. But how can they make money if only a few people own all the robots?
No-one else would have any money to pay for the use of the robots.


An example would be self driving cars. It's likely the national fleet of cars would be much reduced. The new fleet of approx 150,000 self driving cars would be owned by only a few owners. They make all the money.
Who pays them if everyone is broke?



So a universal income will be needed.


In the near future an app will be available which can diagnose illness. But it won't be able to prescribe medications as the pharmacy industry will lobby the government to prevent that.
But people won't want to pay doctors and pharmacists when the people could use a free app which has a better performance than the humans.
So this problem will lead to social strife. The pharmacists won't want to be automated out of existence. But the technology to replace them will exist, and people will want to use it.
How will governments solve this?
I suspect they won't and we will have war.
I'm not saying we'll have a war because of pharmacists. This issue will affect huge numbers of workers in all types of jobs. The government won't be able to handle the pace of change, and society will be at major risk of breaking down.



Companies need to pay taxes very highly. They will be the only ones with money to pay any taxes. They need to pay for use of our fishing areas and agricultural fields. The self driving companies will need to pay for the upkeep and for the use of our national road resource. Mobile phone companies need to pay for use of the spectrum.
The problem here is that companies want to pay no tax, and governments seem to want to allow them to do that.
But who will pay for the running and for the upkeep of our country?


Universal income of 188 per week for all working age adults. It's the only way. Naysayers may raise objection after objection but automation and artificial intelligence will utterly change our societies.

Dohnjoe

starshine1234 wrote: »

We only have to consider the world in 20 years. A world where many jobs, like driving, warehousing, call center staff have been automated out of existence. Perhaps some new jobs are created but these jobs are unlikely to be absolutely necessary for living.

Been happening for at least a century and a half, personally I've heard all this 30 years ago, yet here we are, some countries have nearly record low unemployment rates. Occupations seem to get created just as quickly as they are replaced by tech.

starshine1234

Intelligence is the difference.

Are you arguing that artificial intelligence doesn't have the potential to replace all jobs?

If so, I think you are wrong.
If not, then my point is proven.

Some jobs, like human modelling, and prostitution are relatively immune from replacement. Nearly all other jobs could be done better by computers or robots.

Suryavarman

starshine1234 wrote: »

Intelligence is the difference.

Are you arguing that artificial intelligence doesn't have the potential to replace all jobs?

If so, I think you are wrong.
If not, then my point is proven.

Some jobs, like human modelling, and prostitution are relatively immune from replacement. Nearly all other jobs could be done better by computers or robots.

Do you have any evidence whatsoever to back up your claims?

starshine1234

Common sense.

Humans are good at jobs because humans are intelligent.

If computers also displayed intelligence then they'd also be good at jobs.

It's conceivable that androids like Data from Star Trek could exist. After all, the creators of Star Trek did conceive of such an android.

Is it possible that Data could exist?

I say that it is obvious that he could exist. Technology is always improving and eventually we will have general purpose intelligence in computers.

If Data did exist he could do all human jobs better than humans themselves.



The only valid argument is that artificial intelligence is impossible, or that it would take centuries of effort.

How do humans think?
Do we use magic?

If you say yes, then I don't agree.
If we don't use magic, then whatever physical methods we use to think, and to act intelligently, will be the same physical methods that computers use.


In other words, either humans are unique in the universe with our ability to think, or we are not. I suspect we are not unique and other creatures and machines can also be intelligent.

Can machines be conscious?
This is very difficult but I'd say machines will appear to as conscious as other humans. After all, no human can prove that other humans are conscious. We just take it for granted.


If a computer reaches human level intelligence at some point then computer intelligence will be super human within only a few further years.
In other words, humans are stuck at human level intelligence, but computers are not.

Suryavarman

So you don't have any evidence. Check out the law of comparative advantage. Regardless of advances in AI humans will always have comparative advantages in some activity. The idea that humans will someday be replaced by robots is completely illogical.