What about the concept of Govt. supplied housing and meals. Covers the basic survival bits. Nothing fancy: Army style barracks, and school lunch style meals. Free for any who want it. Thus no need to have a BMI for shelter and food, all is provided. Possibly free transportation to/from these locations.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
- Status
mspohr
Well-Known Member
We have these for black men from the inner cities. They're called prisons.
Others can join the Army and get free food and lodging.
The only thing these lack is freedom.
You're missing the point. How does that maintain consumption? If it's a 1:10 ratio of jobs:consumption that means than 9 people need to be consumers for which there is no job. How do we maintain consumption? This isn't about handouts. This is about maintaining the economy.
$$$ has little value if it isn't moving. Consumption is the lifeblood of the economy. If we keep relying on jobs to return $$$ to consumers as automation increases more and more $$$ will pool at the top and strangle the economy. We need another path to return purchasing power to consumers when sufficient employment is no longer an option. One potential path is a BMI.
Last edited:
With basic needs met (food/shelter) then an individual can spend the rest of their reduced income on more stuff.
What is the difference between A: Govt hands BMI $$$ to person. Person spends $$ on shelter, $ on food. B: Govt gives $$$ to food/shelter providers directly. Either way $$$ is spent, and $$$ worth of goods/services are consumed.
Without a job or BMI how is there ANY income?
Shouldn't people decide what they want to buy? If the government is choosing what to buy you've destroyed the free market. The purpose of a BMI is the best product still wins... not the product the government wants to win. Everyone gets X amount of 'votes' they get to vote with their BMI on which product or service we want more of. That's how you keep the economy alive and not stifle progress with automation.
People need to have a choice for society to have innovation. Remove choice and you kill innovation. It's worth noting that welfare gave us Harry Potter (for better or worse
). Thanks to the robust social safety net in the UK JK Rowling was free to pursue her passion of writing instead of squandering her time in a menial job to survive.So there's a HUGE difference. We need variety. We need innovation. Not a bunch of cookie cutter block houses that harken back to a darker time.
For the 3rd or 4th time... the primary purpose of a BMI isn't to provide food and shelter. It's to ensure the consumer base has sufficient purchasing power to keep the economy moving.
@nwdiver explained it very well above, but the difference is that you're assuming $$$ = food/shelter only. Also, you're assuming that everyone wants to spend $ on food and $$ on shelter. Some people might be cool with rooming up and spending $ on shelter and $ on food, leaving $ for something else. Others (foodies) may want to spend $ on shelter, and $$ on food. Choice and flexibility is freedom.
To the third link... how is hiring 4 people to dig a hole and 4 people to fill the hole any different than just paying 8 people to spend money? I understand the ideological drive to pay people for useless labour just to you feel like they're earning their money... but is it really any different?
'sending small checks to what could end up eventually being half the population (or more) would be extremely unproductive, fiscally unsustainable, and socially irresponsible.'
No. No. and No. It's actually incredibly productive since consumption drives production. Money is totally fake. And we kinda crossed that line when we started letting machines work for us... 'responsible' is highly subjective.
If the idea of monetary debt makes you uneasy... don't think of it as money. Think of it as an allowance to request goods and services. Goods and services that thanks to Industry 4.0 are effectively infinite and inexhaustible. I like to use my PV system as an example. Yes, it produces a finite amount of energy but the amount of energy it generates is so much higher than my needs that it's effectively limitless.
Last edited:
Elon says he's not an alien... but if benevolent aliens did send us an emissary to help guide us through a difficult transition... seems like Elon would be exactly what they would send. Let's hope he succeeds... 'cause I've seen enough movies to know what happens if he fails...
mspohr
Well-Known Member
Is Finland’s basic universal income a solution to automation, fewer jobs and lower wages?
Is Finland’s basic universal income a solution to automation, fewer jobs and lower wages?
Is Finland’s basic universal income a solution to automation, fewer jobs and lower wages?
mspohr
Well-Known Member
Important point at the end when he says the really hard part is for people to have meaning in their lives without a job.
Not the same. Arguably similar, but definitely not the same.
EIC is a tax credit, therefore has a reliance upon income (by design, hence the name). This is counter to what this entire thread is about, which is supply outpacing demand.
Finland's model has no such reliance.
In the USA, if you have no income at all, and you are not a billionaire, you get welfare, drug dealer or not. This is the BMI. The earned income credit is money you get 'even if employed'.
I can play word games, too.
In the USA, if you have no income at all, and you are not a billionaire, you get welfare, regardless of your race or beliefs. This is similar to a BMI. The earned income credit is money you get 'even if employed', regardless if you're a drug dealer on the side or if you are a serial killer.
mspohr
Well-Known Member
In the US, there are a lot of restrictions on "welfare". It's really a combination of different programs... AFDC (TANF), SNAP, housing, etc. Each of these has complex requirements for eligibility and have a bureaucracy to enforce those requirements. For instance AFDC (Aid for families with dependent children) was restricted to families with children; drug dealers need not apply. It was replaced with TANF (Temporary Assistance for Needy Families) was added "temporary" to the family requirement. If there was a "man in the house", different rules applied (usually disallowed... tended to work against families). Also the "temporary" part has kicked a lot of families out of the program. So, nothing like the BMI.
Earned income credit is a tax credit which is only available if you have income.
The BMI has no requirements and eliminates a lot of bureaucracy... should be music to small government conservatives except for the giving away money part but even they should like the "free market" aspects of the program. Let the market compete for these dollars and stimulate the economy.
That's the paradox. As much as people complain about being at work... there's just something about having to do something that you may not really want to do that adds value to your free time.
Which would be fine but then it becomes infectious. It's not enough that 'I' have to work... it wouldn't be 'fair' if only 'I' had to work. The paradigm is that 'everyone' has to work. That further gives more perceived value to free time.
Kinda reminds me of the scene in 'The Matrix' where the first matrix is described. Humans define their reality with suffering.
This is an interesting way to phrase it. I loved all of my jobs but one, and even that one wasn't terrible - I just traveled too much. But there were definitely times when I was forced to do the "grind" part of the job in order for the reward. I loved the job, but didn't love every task associated with the job.
I can speak a bit to the discussion about meaning. I retired at 40, but I continue to search for work in some form that will satisfy me. I stay busy, but as most at TMC can attest, not busy enough to stay away from here. I've always valued hard work and my identity has been very closely tied to being a "hard worker." Not having a long term job or a business that I'm creating has definitely made me feel like there's a hole somewhere in my life. I fill it with other things - family, travel, all of the work around my property - but I continue to struggle with it. The feeling is at its worst when someone asks what I do for a living.
Despite all of that, my life does have plenty of meaning. I take pleasure in my family and friendships and most everything that I do. The real question of meaning will be 30 years from now, looking back. Will I regret not having done more?
And that, I think gets to the risk of BMI. Even if we're all "retired", how do we measure productivity in a world where production is handled by robots? We can't have billions of innovators. When we all get to old age, what's the measure of a life well lived? It seems to me that it's going to have to be different than it is today, at least to some degree.
*Apologies for the personal stuff, but I felt it provided a bit of a window into the discussion.
mspohr
Well-Known Member
I think the problem is that our society has reduced "meaningful existence" to "having a job" to the point where even meaningless assembly line or burger flipping jobs are called "meaningful". Some employees in these jobs have bought into this charade.
It will probably require a major reorientation of our value system for people to accept that they can have a meaningful life without having a job.
FWIW, here's some text from Wikipedia:
"Historically the study of meaningfulness in life has taken three routes. Victor Frankl's work emphasized finding value in an individual's life in order to attain meaningfulness. "Value" would be further subcategorized into three main areas: creative, experiential, and attitudinal. For all of these classes of values, it is because of one's sense of responsibility that one pursues these values and consequently experiences a meaningful life. It is through the realization that one is the sole being responsible for rendering life meaningful that values are actualized and life becomes meaningful.
Ernest Becker studied meaningfulness and its relationship to culture. According to Becker, a human's consciousness makes them aware of their own mortality.[3] In order to deal with their inevitable death, humans attempt to leave their mark in some symbolic act of immortality within the structured society, otherwise known as "Terror Management Theory". The structure created through society and culture provides humans with a sense of order. Through the structured society we are able to create a symbolic immortality which can take various forms, e.g., monuments, theatrical productions, children, etc. Culture's order reduces death anxiety as it allows the individual to live up to the societal standards and in living up to such ideals; one is given self-esteem which counterbalances the mortal anxiety.
Finally, Snyder examined the previous theories and operationalized meaningfulness as having more to do with self-control that leads to higher self-esteem. As one lives by societal standards of living, one exercises self-control and it is through this self-control that higher self-esteem is achieved. Meaning is found when one realizes that one is capable and able to effectively achieve their goals through successful management. Furthermore, Snyder specified control as: "a cognitive model whereby people strive to comprehend the contingencies in their lives so as to attain desired outcomes and avoid undesirable ones". From this feeling of control, meaningfulness is achieved when one feels able to effectively live his/her life and achieve goals."
--------
None of these definitions mentions a "job" as part of a meaningful life although some aspects of a job could contribute to each of the definitions.
- Status
Similar threads
