Elon Musk Supports Universal Basic Income: A Needed Advancement

[CynicusRex]

I'm seriously happy Elon Musk is behind a universal basic income. It's something we desperately need to advance.

 

[Evo]

WTH? What was that? I got the last part "stutter stutter ahahaha" ?

 

[russ_watters]

I think UBI is a naive fad...not that that will necessarily keep people from trying to implement some form of it...

 

[CynicusRex]

They used to think the same about equal rights, heliocentrism, abolishment, etc. It's not that our current model is the be all end all so it doesn't hurt to try. It certainly doesn't hurt those who need it the most.

 

[S.G. Janssens]

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.

 

[russ_watters]

They used to think the same about equal rights, heliocentrism, abolishment, etc.

I doubt that, but even if true that doesn't mean this one is any good.

It's not that our current model is the be all end all...

Agreed.

...so it doesn't hurt to try.

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.

It certainly doesn't hurt those who need it the most.

Maybe/maybe not, but it certainly does hurt almost everyone else.

 

[CynicusRex]

Maybe/maybe not, but it certainly does hurt almost everyone else.

Why?

 

[CynicusRex]

That doesn't explain anything. But neither did I so I guess it's fair game.

Imagine that millions of jobs are taken over by robots, faster than ever before. This is inevitable, unless a global catastrophe happens. I don't see how the general populace will be able to change their skillset as fast as robots will change theirs. The need for physical work will shift to intellectual work. How this will play out I don't know, but it seems logical that basic income will expedite this transition. The only thing that keeps the hoi polloi from embracing automation is not the fear of losing their job, but losing their income, their livelihood.

By costing money.

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.

 

[russ_watters]

Why?

By costing money.

 

[S.G. Janssens]

That doesn't explain anything. But neither did I so I guess it's fair game.

I misread your

Why?

and thought it was a question about my post. My apologies.

 

[russ_watters]

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.

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]

... so it doesn't hurt to try. It certainly doesn't hurt those who need it the most...

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.

 

[CynicusRex]

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.

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'. Not that it makes a scientific different, but whatever. Not everything is a lie. It's an engineer who spent six months calculating the system. I don't have any raw data :( but considering we have an incredibly convoluted social net I wouldn't understand it anyway.

I'm not expecting to convince anyone with this reply. Just a clarification where I got it from. They reran this over 5 times within a short period.

 

[CynicusRex]

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.

A scary amount of people including leaders in America worship Jesus as their savior, yet they ignorantly denounce everything he stands for as communism. Their savior is the epitome of un-American. Anyway, I'm confident they'll realize it has to be implemented once they try and create jobs where there aren't any. I also find it very misanthropic or pessimistic to think people will stop doing creative and entrepreneurial things with basic income. Don't forget, basic income does not mean a fixed income of $X; you can have additional means of income too.

 

[russ_watters]

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's the opposite of compelling.

I also find it very misanthropic or pessimistic to think people will stop doing creative and entrepreneurial things with basic income.

That is the flaw on the beneficiary side, yes. Misanthropic and pessimistic maybe, but widescale implimentations of communist policies have shown it also realistic.

I see that people are doing small scale studies of the concept to see if it makes people lazier or more ambitious. All suffer from the same basic flaw: the people being studied know they are being studied.

 

[mheslep]

A scary amount of people including leaders in America worship Jesus as their savior, yet they ignorantly denounce everything he stands for as communism.

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 12:12-13

When Jesus is tempted and offered all the nations of the world in Mathew, he does not respond: 'Deal. What wonderful fair, just, and utopian societies I will create via a vast army of tax collectors and equality laws.'

 

[russ_watters]

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"

 

[CynicusRex]

That's the opposite of compelling.

Not if you'd see the difference in content. But I understand what you're getting at, which is true mostly.

 

[CynicusRex]

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"

"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, and if it is, I think generally only people who dislike their job will complain and be jealous of those not working.

"The right to an income would encourage rich-world governments either to shut the doors to immigrants, or to create second-class citizenries without access to state support."​

This is currently the biggest problem with UBI I'm seeing.

 

[CynicusRex]

Apparently this is a good book about it: https://www.amazon.com/dp/9082520303/?tag=pfamazon01-20

 

[russ_watters]

"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...

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]

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

 

[CynicusRex]

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.

Yes, if you hate what you're doing.
All things aside, 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 or a hut you build yourself in a forest or land while growing your own food. We don't have the freedom to live a self-sufficient life. Before you call me lazy, it has nothing to do with reluctance to work, but with a reluctance to buy stuff I don't need. But today, you are looked at sideways if you say you want to work part time or less. If I observe most of the people around me, most of their money goes to stuff they don't need. Well, I don't need that stuff, so I don't need money for that also. But how the heck do you find a job which pays you the right amount of money you need.

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

See the opening post ;)

 

[russ_watters]

Yes, if you hate what you're doing.

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.

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...

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'm finding myself forced to ask; how old are you? Have you ever had a job? What you are saying doesn't seem to me to have much of a connection to reality.

 

[Stephen Tashi]

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

 

[S.G. Janssens]

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

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.

 

[CynicusRex]

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!).

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.

What you are saying doesn't seem to me to have much of a connection to reality.

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. The only thing I haven't done yet is live alone, but I refuse to do so because I don't want to pay a mortgage. And yes I know that means I don't have to pay for stuff other people are obligated to. But that doesn't change the matter of this discussion. Whether I work now or not, I have the same capability to envision a brighter future where everyone isn't so goddamn fixed on trying to survive.

 

[russ_watters]

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.

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).

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.

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.

 

[russ_watters]

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

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]

the USA already has a negative federal income tax for about 40%(!) of households.

How did you arrive at that figure?

 

[CynicusRex]

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.

1. Where am I complaining?
2. Together with a group of friend we've created the first free 'tool lending library' in Belgium, and the second in Europe. It's funny because doing something about also makes us hippy to many people. Haters will hate I guess.
3. You're assuming too much of me; why wouldn't I want to admit that. 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.
(Yeah I don't really count intellectual work as work. Only mundane repetitive brainless jobs no one dreams of doing as a kid.)

 

[russ_watters]

How did you arrive at that figure?

I pulled it out of the air, from memory. But here are some sources:

http://taxfoundation.org/blog/how-much-do-people-pay-taxes

http://www.wsj.com/articles/top-20-of-earners-pay-84-of-income-tax-1428674384

http://www.taxpolicycenter.org/taxvox/new-estimates-how-many-households-pay-no-federal-income-tax

Roughly 45% pay no or negative federal income tax, but it is tough to pinpoint exactly how many pay zero vs how many pay negative. So 40% seems a good estimate to me.

 

[russ_watters]

1. Where am I complaining?

The statement that you feel pressured (required) to acquire "stuff" is a complaint - and one that is counter-factual.

3. You're assuming too much of me; why wouldn't I want to admit that.

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):

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.

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.

 

[Stephen Tashi]

So 40% seems a good estimate to me.

I think the estimate depends on what a "refundable tax credit" is. To use a "refundable tax credit" must a person eventually have an income and incur some taxes on it ?

A "progressive" tax system isn't the same as the Wikipedia article defines a "negative income" tax system to be.

 

[russ_watters]

Backing-up a bit, I asked google, in a handful of different ways, to tell me what the point is of the UBI. Why do it?

The clearest-cut answer I saw was Musks': robots will take low-end jobs. That may be true, but that isn't a reason to implement UBI now it is a reason to implement it later.

Next is that it simplifies welfare vs other types. That may be true, but there are other ways of simplifying welfare and the removal of the work requirement doesn't necessarily need to be combined with UBI or any other. It seems superfluous to me. So that leaves me with:

Wouldn't it be nice to get paid without having to work? Yep, it certainly would.

 

[CynicusRex]

Wouldn't it be nice to get paid without having to work? Yep, it certainly would.

Which leaves more time to do fulfilling, enjoyable work.

Which is the perfect synergy with a revolution in education:

 

[russ_watters]

I think the estimate depends on what a "refundable tax credit" is. To use a "refundable tax credit" must a person eventually have an income and incur some taxes on it ?

I'm actually not certain if the EIC requires one to have income, but I don't see why it matters. The point we were discussing is the negative tax rate; people who utilize the EIC file a tax return and receive money instead of paying money.

A "progressive" tax system isn't the same as the Wikipedia article defines a "negative income" tax system to be.

Agreed. We're discussing a negative tax, not a progressive but non-zero tax.

 

[russ_watters]

Which leaves more time to do fulfilling, enjoyable work.

Yep, it's awesome for the person getting it. Considerably less awesome for the person paying for it.

 

[Vanadium 50]

Considerably less awesome for the person paying for it.

And how much would that be? Assuming the UBI is itself not taxed, to provide people a UBI at the poverty level would need an income tax somewhere around 50%. To provide them a 'living wage', the income tax would be around 80%.

It seems simpler to have 90% of the population vote that the other 10% gives them all their stuff.

 

[CynicusRex]

Yep, it's awesome for the person getting it. Considerably less awesome for the person paying for it.

Like they would implement such a system if most people would be negatively affected by it. Btw, don't you already pay taxes? I'm guessing yes, so what's the difference? Let's say the government actually loses less money with UBI compared to what we spend now; moreover it pays for itself in the long term due to all the benefits of a society that can thrive.

 

[CynicusRex]

Btw, it would cost 175 billion dollars to eradicate poverty in the USA.⁴⁶ Which is only a quarter of their military budget according to the economist Matt Bruenig. And according to a study from Harvard it would cost 4000 to 6000 billion dollars to end the war in Afghanistan and Iraq.⁴⁷

Why aren't you complaining about your tax dollars now?

46. Matt Bruenig, ‘How a Universal Basic Income Would Affect Poverty’,
Demos (3 oktober 2013). http://www.demos.org/blog/10/3/13/
how-universal-basic-income-would-affect-poverty
47. Linda J. Bilmes, ‘Te Financial Legacy of Iraq and Afghanistan: How
Wartime Spending Decisions Will Constrain Future National Security
Budgets’, Faculty Research Working Paper Series (maart 2013). https://
research.hks.harvard.edu/publications/getFile.aspx?Id=923

 

[mheslep]

...not in our nature to be idle

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_deadly_sins#Sloth

 

[russ_watters]

Like they would implement such a system if most people would be negatively affected by it.

Sure; the majority can and does vote that the more successful minority give them their stuff. In the USA we call that "the tyrany of the majority". It's a death spiral and we're in it.

Btw, don't you already pay taxes?

Yes, I pay a lot of taxes and I can't even tell you how excited I am by the prospect of paying a whole lot more so that other people don't have to work and can focus on having fun instead (oh, thanks for quantifying my misery, @Vanadium 50 !)

I'm guessing yes, so what's the difference?

Let's say the government actually loses less money with UBI compared to what we spend now...

Does not compute. The whole point of the UBI in a "what" sense is to give certain people more money, which means certain other people have to pay more money.

moreover it pays for itself in the long term due to all the benefits of a society that can thrive.

I can't spend your love for your hobbies.

 

[mheslep]

it would cost 175 billion dollars to eradicate poverty in the USA.

The US has spent as much as $22 trillion attempting to eradicate poverty since the War on Poverty began in the 1960s, at least $10 trillion

 

[CynicusRex]

...

You ignored the fantastic amount of money spent on war which could pay for UBI more than once.

Also, I'd rather pay 90% taxes in a world where the government spends its money wisely and where most people are happy than 50% now. Call me a dreamer, but I'm convinced it's inevitable.

I can't spend your love for your hobbies.

Altruism, it feels nice. More people should try it.

 

[Stephen Tashi]

As I recall, one idea behind the "negative income tax" - a la Milton Friedman - was that it would replace the federal bureaucracy that administers social welfare programs. The tax bureaucracy (including the part that enforces honesty in tax returns) would replace the social welfare bureaucracy and it would do away the set of social welfare criteria used to determine "the truly needy". So there is (or was) a free market aspect to a negative income tax. People would receive money without any special restrictions on how they could spend it (e.g. restrictions such imposed by procedures such as food stamps that can only be used to purchase food or rent subsidies that can only be used to pay rent, etc.).

 

[CynicusRex]

The US has spent as much as $22 trillion attempting to eradicate poverty since the War on Poverty began in the 1960s, at least $10 trillion

Your numbers fluctuate wildly. Also, don't spend a lot, spend smart. The former obviously doesn't work, time for the latter.

 

[mheslep]

The UBI is not altruism. The 'good' feelings derived from the use of government power come from the usual sources, shaking down the man and getting away with it, control of others, i.e. A taking from B to give to C.

 

[russ_watters]

You ignored the fantastic amount of money spent on war...

Yes, I did -- because you made no attempt to actually connect the quote to the subject of the thread.

Also, I'd rather pay 90% taxes in a world where the government spends its money wisely and where most people are happy than 50% now. Call me a dreamer, but I'm convinced it's inevitable.

Apparently, what is even better is a world where *I* pay 90% taxes and you get paid not to work! ...just not better for me.

Altruism, it feels nice.

You are confusing altruism with greed: Forcing other people to give you money for nothing is greed.

 

[mheslep]

Your numbers fluctuate wildly

Not my numbers, but the tally depends on what's counted over 50 years.

Also, don't spend a lot, spend smart. The former obviously doesn't work, time for the latter.

The latter is not necessary smart, its only the latter. I'm not persuaded simply because Elon "I'm the alpha here" Musk mentions his take on social policy in passing. I'd love one of his cars as his track record there is ample. His ideas on how to remake society using power? He's just another billionaire. Perhaps his world view is that people are disposable; like his ex wives bought off with alimony.

The latter might be asking others to jump off a cliff because you say it will be awesome and altrusitic.