bkp_duke
Well-Known Member
And, honestly, from a guy as smart as Elon, I'm surprised he didn't come up with something better than UBI. Bill Gates recognized the need for a revamped education system decades ago.
-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
- Status
What if the UBI was education based? Getting a four year degree would guarantee a certain level of income...
I remain unconvinced that more educated people would create enough jobs for educated people and not more baristas with masters degrees...
bkp_duke
Well-Known Member
Education or work-based, then I might be persuaded. As they say, the devil would be in the details.
Really more self-preservation than altruism. I like to say I'm selfishly altruistic.
Most of my income comes from dividends. If the companies I'm invested in lose their consumers I lose my dividends. Gotta keep the economy moving.
Every time this thread wakes up, it just goes straight to shouting. Listen up: there are 3 possibilities here -
1) you do NOT believe that technology will replace jobs, you believe there will always be new jobs.
2) you believe in a coming sociological crisis caused by technology replacing a significant fraction of jobs... and you believe the solution is a Basic Minimum Income.
3) you believe... but you do not believe a Basic Minimum Income is the solution.
Those in camp 1, please stop yelling and interact on why/how you think employment opportunities will continue despite (or perhaps because of) technology advances.
Those in camp 2, please listen to the camp 1 people. That is who you are going to need to convince in order to implement BMI.
Those in camp 3, which includes me BTW, put forth alternatives. I did so far earlier in thread but it is buried. Will resurrect in separate post.
1) you do NOT believe that technology will replace jobs, you believe there will always be new jobs.
2) you believe in a coming sociological crisis caused by technology replacing a significant fraction of jobs... and you believe the solution is a Basic Minimum Income.
3) you believe... but you do not believe a Basic Minimum Income is the solution.
Those in camp 1, please stop yelling and interact on why/how you think employment opportunities will continue despite (or perhaps because of) technology advances.
Those in camp 2, please listen to the camp 1 people. That is who you are going to need to convince in order to implement BMI.
Those in camp 3, which includes me BTW, put forth alternatives. I did so far earlier in thread but it is buried. Will resurrect in separate post.
cpa
Active Member
cpa
Active Member
Fair enough. Me... I've seen more than enough people bet against Elon and lose. No Thx
What about bringing back the CCC? Would you support that?
Yes, you betcha. In fact, it ought to be mandatory for everyone for two years or so after high school. No exceptions. No deferments. Even the physically impaired could have some role. And this might teach us at a young enough age about others who are not like ourselves. My grandfather (1891-1981) told me that the best way to break down barriers among people is to share a foxhole with them.
Only took me 33 pages to think of it. Happy to start new poll if you'll participate. Or you can if you wish.That probably would have been a more informative poll than what I posted
anticitizen13.7
Not posting at TMC after 9/17/2018
I am increasingly fatalistic about BMI.
Most of middle America will never accept the humiliation of living on "government handouts". They would prefer to live in a Mad Max wasteland rather than submit to this.
Most of middle America will never accept the humiliation of living on "government handouts". They would prefer to live in a Mad Max wasteland rather than submit to this.
The closest thing we have to Mad Max, Alaska has had a BMI for years.
Mmmmm.... two BMI threads might break the internet
anticitizen13.7
Not posting at TMC after 9/17/2018
The closest thing we have to Mad Max, Alaska has had a BMI for years.
Mmmmm.... two BMI threads might break the internet
A payout of 1-2k/year is not going to replace most peoples' need to earn income to survive.
A disturbing question I've asked myself: what happens if manufacturing becomes so advanced that economies of scale no longer matter as much? What if 10-20% of the population could make an isolated high-tech economy and simply trade/buy amongst themselves?
That was my reference to Elysium.
The 'M' in BMI stands for 'minimum'. It would start as a supplement, not a replacement.
_Universal_ Basic Income. Universality is essential to the idea. Otherwise it's just more selective incentive policy.
Why the obsession with four-year degrees and higher degrees? It's rather ironic if you're advocating for UBI. UBI posits that providing financial security to all will lead to societal benefit through allowing the personal freedom to pursue fulfilling paths. The US baccalaureate higher educational system forces people to spend a lot of time, money and effort, with additional time, money and effort in the name of the benefits of broad education, before they gain their ticket to financial security. The system isn't compatible with UBI.
I agree. You won't find many people more jaded about formal education than myself. Too often we conflated education (4,6,8 year degrees) with being educated. Some of the dumbest people I've known have masters degrees and some of the smartest most 'educated' people I've known only have a GED. I think the primary problem is the lack of curious minds....
I was trying to find common ground with duke...
UBI, BMI... whatever you want to call it... I wouldn't be opposed to finding a way to make it merit or need-based. If the objective is to support the consumer base I don't think it necessarily has to be 'universal' to accomplish that.
I dunno... the next ~15 years are going to be very interesting. Wether that's in a good way or bad way is up in the air.....
Skotty
2014 S P85 | 2023 F-150L
Here's an interesting way to think about it. Which doesn't mean I favor thinking of it this way, or think others should, just that it's an interesting way to think about it.
Everyone gets BMI. Okay. Most people pay taxes. BMI will be less than most people pay in taxes (otherwise, where is all this BMI money coming from? Just printing it off the presses?). So effectively, for most people, BMI is just a flat tax cut. Oh snap! That sounds conservative! The only place where that changes in on the extreme poverty end, where people pay little to nothing in taxes because they live in poverty, but the still get BMI. This is the handout that conservatives hate. But the conservatives are also getting the equivalent of a tax cut out of it, which they are probably fine with. This leaves the question, assuming you didn't advocate for just printing extra money every year, how will the budget balance out? Either other programs will need big cuts, or automated businesses will be paying more in taxes, but I'm sure some would make the argument that the tax increase will be less than these companies are saving through automation instead of employing people. Sort of an automation tax, which some conservatives might would actually support, because it promotes employing people and penalizes cutting jobs for automation.
Everyone gets BMI. Okay. Most people pay taxes. BMI will be less than most people pay in taxes (otherwise, where is all this BMI money coming from? Just printing it off the presses?). So effectively, for most people, BMI is just a flat tax cut. Oh snap! That sounds conservative! The only place where that changes in on the extreme poverty end, where people pay little to nothing in taxes because they live in poverty, but the still get BMI. This is the handout that conservatives hate. But the conservatives are also getting the equivalent of a tax cut out of it, which they are probably fine with. This leaves the question, assuming you didn't advocate for just printing extra money every year, how will the budget balance out? Either other programs will need big cuts, or automated businesses will be paying more in taxes, but I'm sure some would make the argument that the tax increase will be less than these companies are saving through automation instead of employing people. Sort of an automation tax, which some conservatives might would actually support, because it promotes employing people and penalizes cutting jobs for automation.
Many of the proposals include an automation tax of some sort. It's certainly tricky, though. How do you determine what's automation effectively? Is John Deere suddenly subject to an automation tax?
I do think that's the best way to pay for it, though. I suggested way upthread that somehow the automation tax should be covering the externalities of unemployed people. And in that way, it pays for the program. Oddly, I think we'll need AI to determine the appropriate rates..
I hope we're wrong and there's some other way to get people secure and employed. This all seems like a lot of work for those poor robots.
Re Elon: with his well documented record of unfulfilled promises, the fact that tesla hasn't produced financial returns other poor business models I don't place too much validity in his views of the economics of the future. He may be a brilliant visionary but he hasn't the ability to solve all the world's problems. Some people get stuck at the alter of Elon
- Status
Similar threads
