- #1
CynicusRex
Gold Member
- 98
- 68
I'm seriously happy Elon Musk is behind a universal basic income. It's something we desperately need to advance.
Is it? Maybe, maybe not. A lot of scholarly literature on the topic can be found online, among with a recent study in a German context. This is one of those situations where I would like to know more economics in order to come to a better objective assessment.TheBlackAdder said:It's something we desperately need to advance.
I doubt that, but even if true that doesn't mean this one is any good.TheBlackAdder said:They used to think the same about equal rights, heliocentrism, abolishment, etc.
Agreed.It's not that our current model is the be all end all...
Actually, trying bad ideas or even just implementing good ideas badly can hurt a lot. Right now we're piling bad program on top of bad program and each new one we add accelerates our march to bankruptcy and deepens it's eventual impact....so it doesn't hurt to try.
Maybe/maybe not, but it certainly does hurt almost everyone else.It certainly doesn't hurt those who need it the most.
russ_watters said:Maybe/maybe not, but it certainly does hurt almost everyone else.
russ_watters said:By costing money.
By costing money.TheBlackAdder said:Why?
I misread yourTheBlackAdder said:That doesn't explain anything. But neither did I so I guess it's fair game.
and thought it was a question about my post. My apologies.TheBlackAdder said:Why?
I'd like to see some information about that. Generally with this concept I've seen a lot of vague and overly optimistic analysis, particularly when it comes to ignoring or downplaying the costs.TheBlackAdder said:For Belgium for instance it has already been calculated. We'd actually profit from basic income, compared to the social security system we have now; which already gives 'free money' to people who do nothing.
TheBlackAdder said:... so it doesn't hurt to try. It certainly doesn't hurt those who need it the most...
russ_watters said:I'd like to see some information about that. Generally with this concept I've seen a lot of vague and overly optimistic analysis, particularly when it comes to ignoring or downplaying the costs.
mheslep said:There's an argument that it very much hurts to try via government, which the UBI would. Have you considered that position? Some leaders in this country have suggested that the dole is a "narcotic" that "destroys" the "spirit" and "moral" fibre, that it's profoundly un-American.
That's the opposite of compelling.TheBlackAdder said:I got it from a tv report from one of the most credible channels in Belgium. Regarded as the public as a channel for 'smart people'.
That is the flaw on the beneficiary side, yes. Misanthropic and pessimistic maybe, but widescale implimentations of communist policies have shown it also realistic.TheBlackAdder said:I also find it very misanthropic or pessimistic to think people will stop doing creative and entrepreneurial things with basic income.
I have a stongly different understanding of the sayings of Jesus in the new testament, which has much to say about what one should personally do to aid the poor of means and spirit, and rejects anything to do with the embrace of power (e.g. government power). Mathew 4:8, Luke 10:30, Luke 12:12-13TheBlackAdder said:A scary amount of people including leaders in America worship Jesus as their savior, yet they ignorantly denounce everything he stands for as communism.
russ_watters said:That's the opposite of compelling.
russ_watters said:A good article discussing the naive flaws I was referring to before:
http://www.economist.com/news/leade...e-how-disruptive-it-would-be-basically-flawed
Key points:
-"Fantastically expensive"
-"Proponents...underestimate how disruptive it would be"
I think history has shown that not to be true, but even still, try looking at it from a perspective of logic or cost/benefit analysis:TheBlackAdder said:"But over time, the stigma against leaving the workforce would surely erode: large segments of society could drift into an alienated idleness. Tensions between those who continue to work and pay taxes and those opting out weaken the current system; under a basic income, they could rip the welfare state apart."
It's not in our nature to be idle...
russ_watters said:I think history has shown that not to be true, but even still, try looking at it from a perspective of logic or cost/benefit analysis:
If you have a part time job that pays you $10,000 a year and are offered a UBI of $10,000 a year, that renders your job's effective pay rate to be zero: you are working for free. That makes quitting your job and living off your UBI the logically/economically correct thing to do.
Greg Bernhardt said:Elon Musk had something to say about this recently
Elon Musk: Robots will take your jobs, government will have to pay your wage
http://www.cnbc.com/2016/11/04/elon...bs-government-will-have-to-pay-your-wage.html
No, all that is required is that you not like your job more than you would like to do literally anything else. And there really aren't many people in the world for whom that is true.TheBlackAdder said:Yes, if you hate what you're doing.
Huh? Of course you can! In a free society you can live in a cardboard box under a bridge if you want! (And some people do!).I've got a big problem that, at least in Belgium, you don't have the freedom to live a life of modesty. You can not live in a super small home...
This is one possible instrument that has been proposed as the basis of a UBI, see the link to the recent publication that I have in my earlier post.Stephen Tashi said:How does a UBI differ from a "negative income tax" ? - proposed by such radical politicians as Richard Nixon.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_income_tax
See, such a reply is exactly what I mean. Being content with little immediately means an individual is a hippy, crazy and what not. There are other joys in life other than buying stuff.russ_watters said:Huh? Of course you can! In a free society you can live in a cardboard box under a bridge if you want! (And some people do!).
russ_watters said:What you are saying doesn't seem to me to have much of a connection to reality.
Huh? That isn't responsive to what I said other than to vaguely agree with me. So again: if you don't like "buying stuff", then don't. in a free society that is your right and it doesn't make you crazy/a hippie (though complaining about it instead of just doing it might make you a hippie).TheBlackAdder said:See, such a reply is exactly what I mean. Being content with little immediately means an individual is a hippy, crazy and what not. There are other joys in life other than buying stuff.
So it appears we both know the same thing, you just didn't want to admit it. I find that to be a poor justification for such a radical economic change.Again, why? Do you know something more about reality than I do? Yes, I've worked and most people just do it because they have to.
Whether Nixon is the originator of that particular idea or not, the USA already has a negative federal income tax for about 40%(!) of households.Stephen Tashi said:How does a UBI differ from a "negative income tax" ? - proposed by such radical politicians as Richard Nixon.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_income_tax
russ_watters said:the USA already has a negative federal income tax for about 40%(!) of households.
russ_watters said:Huh? That isn't responsive to what I said other than to vaguely agree with me. So again: if you don't like "buying stuff", then don't. in a free society that is your right and it doesn't make you crazy/a hippie (though complaining about it instead of just doing it might make you a hippie).
So it appears we both know the same thing, you just didn't want to admit it. I find that to be a poor justification for such a radical economic change.
I pulled it out of the air, from memory. But here are some sources:Stephen Tashi said:How did you arrive at that figure?
The statement that you feel pressured (required) to acquire "stuff" is a complaint - and one that is counter-factual.TheBlackAdder said:1. Where am I complaining?
You made a critical claim about human nature and people's willingness to work despite receiving a UBI that you later acknowledged were false. I don't really know your motive for that, which is why I asked. Indeed, you are now reinforcing my perception of what is really behind the UBI (interestingly/tellingly, if you ask google it is hard to get a straight answer):3. You're assuming too much of me; why wouldn't I want to admit that.
Yes, is my perception that what is largely behind the support for UBI - despite peoples' insistence that they won't work less - is the desire to get paid without having to work.It's basically one of my most important reasons for implementing basic income. We live on a tiny planet, with a tiny lifespan in a giant maybe infinite universe. Why the hell are we wasting our time with working to survive. Everyone should be able to enjoy science, literature, etc.
russ_watters said:So 40% seems a good estimate to me.