When will we have a Basic Minimum Income?

[MikeQ]

People should maybe take a lesson from me. I grew up poor living in a trailer home with buckling floors, bugs, and often no air conditioning. While perhaps unfair to some, my at least adequate intellect paired with the public education system in this country allowed me to excel and chase the American dream. Today I am not rich, but I'm reasonably well to do. I worked my way up, payed for my own college, bought my own cars, repairing them with my own two hands when they broke down. Yes, people should work hard at life, and not always handed things for free. And I don't like the government butting their heads in to tell me what to do -- buckle my seat belt, wear a bike helmet, etc. If I want to risk cracking my head open, that's my own business. But my family has also benefited from various "liberal" services. At times, I got to each lunch at school when otherwise I wouldn't have eaten thanks to a free lunch program. For a time, we bought food with the help of food stamps. In college, I got government loans, some of them subsidized so I wouldn't have to pay interest on them until out of college. Even education itself these days is often seen as liberal, something without which I would still be living in that same broken down trailer home.

The point is, both conservative and liberal viewpoints have their merits. If we can get back to all seeing each other as Americans in my country, instead of Liberals and Conservatives at war with each other, we can get back to compromises that often result in the best outcomes. And if we don't, our great country won't be great for much longer, as it tears itself apart to the applause of it's opponents. Likewise, on this speculative issue, the best outcome is probably some balance between liberal and conservative values. Those on the conservative side should be trying to understand the injustices seen by the liberal side and be thoughtful about how to recognize and support what the liberal side is trying to do, and those on the liberal side should be taking the conservative viewpoints into consideration and trying to modify their first instincts into plans that are more mindful of conservative values and concerns. You need both the compassion of the liberals and the fortitude of the conservatives. I wouldn't be where I am today without the values and support from both sides.

If free lunch, food stamps and government subsidized loans were the only thing the liberals were pushing, I don't think too many people would mind. It's the full-on socialism that bothers me.

 

[ohmman]

Yep I meant disruptive. I lost 3 fingers at the last knucle on my left hand. Words typed on that hand are hit or miss. I guess I got close enough for autocorrect to make the wrong guess.

Fair enough, and I wasn't trying to be overly pedantic (which is why I didn't mention it the first time), I just started to think that maybe you were referring to something else I didn't understand.

I would certainly say the overall trend is for technology to create many more jobs than it destroys, but I find it hard to believe that's the case in every individual example. I would argue that manufacturing automation, which is significantly more responsible for manufacturing job losses than globalization, has created pockets here in the US where new jobs haven't been created.

We discussed this waaaaay back early in the thread, and there are many articles and opinions online, but whether this time around is different or not will really just be a matter of watching.

 

[kort677]

If free lunch, food stamps and government subsidized loans were the only thing the liberals were pushing, I don't think too many people would mind. It's the full-on socialism that bothers me.

have you ever heard about the frog in the pot of water?

 

[MikeQ]

Fair enough, and I wasn't trying to be overly pedantic (which is why I didn't mention it the first time), I just started to think that maybe you were referring to something else I didn't understand.

I would certainly say the overall trend is for technology to create many more jobs than it destroys, but I find it hard to believe that's the case in every individual example. I would argue that manufacturing automation, which is significantly more responsible for manufacturing job losses than globalization, has created pockets here in the US where new jobs haven't been created.

We discussed this waaaaay back early in the thread, and there are many articles and opinions online, but whether this time around is different or not will really just be a matter of watching.

I don't doubt there are areas that are negatively affected. Part of the reason I say people are going to have to be more flexible. It's interesting that when computers started become prevalent in the late 70's and early 80's there wasn't a panic over job loss. The advent of the computer and spreadsheet probably destroyed the accounting industry back then but people seemed to take it in stride. Today people are much more willing to see the bad side of everything and not look for the good. Computers created more and better paying jobs and also boosted productivity. When resources are freed up, they generally are put to better use. This statement of course takes all the human emotion out of the equation and we need to realize that there's a human toll that needs to be considered. Again, I just don't think UBI is the answer.

 

[ItsNotAboutTheMoney]

the whole conversation reeks of a luddite mentality. will some jobs go by the wayside, sure! will other jobs be created? YES.

The Luddites were skilled textile workers concerned that mechanization would replace skilled labor with low-skill labor, resulting in low wages and poor employment and working conditions.

The Luddite concern is not about job creation, it is that if skilled labor or well-paid semi-skilled labor is replaced by automation, there is no guarantee that it will be replaced by alternative employment that provides similar income and conditions, and, that the competitive pressures that drives automation means that any new opportunity would be targeted for automation.

Recent advances and hype of AI and robotics have led to more concern about a reduction in well-paid jobs and ultimately even displacement of unskilled labor. That has led to more discussion about BMI/UBI, but in my view, the discussion really has its roots in concern about wages, conditions and insecurity of unskilled labor.

 

[MikeQ]

have you ever heard about the frog in the pot of water?

Yeah, it seems like the liberals have just gone straight to boil though.

I honestly am a fairly liberal person when it comes to social issues like gay marriage and equality. My problem is with demonizing the rich and creating a country of victims who think the rich own them something. Especially when "rich" includes someone at my income level. I'm by no means rich. I can afford to live a comfortable life but I'm not at a point where taking $15-20K out of my pocket yearly (like obamacare did) goes unnoticed. I've planned and worked hard my whole life so I can hopefully retire at 55. I don't appreciate people telling me that I need to put those plans on hold because other people need my money more than I do.

 

[mspohr]

Similiar thing happened to my brother but due jobs moving overseas. He worked in Aviation Maintenance. A huge portion of those jobs moved to Mexico, El Salvidor, and China. He was able to turn his job loss into a positive and now works for a major Japanese electronics firm who's in-flight entertainment systems are in most aircraft. It caused him some pain but in the end, he's making more money and has more job security.

Interestingly, moving aviation maintenance overseas lowers labor cost but it also has the added benefit to the air carriers that it lets them skirt FAA regulations. So next time you're flying, take comfort in the fact that the maintenance on your aircraft may be being performed by someone with a 6th-grade education.

I once took a domestic flight in Nigeria (which is notorious for poor aircraft maintenance) and my colleague advised me to take a particular airline since they had better maintenance... their mechanics were Polish.

 

[MikeQ]

And I'm liberal on protecting the environment and getting rid of our dependence on fossil fuels. I drive a Tesla after all.

 

[mspohr]

Another perspective on UBI:
Universal Basic Income and the Threat of Tyranny - Quillette

The basic thesis seems to be that governments which don't "need" their citizens because they have income from natural resources or a few rich companies tend to become tyrannical. He thinks that once we have lots of unemployed people getting a UBI, the government will become a tyranny.
"Societies where the state economy depends on small inputs from many different citizens tend to give their citizens significantly more rights, including the right of participation in the government itself. Societies where the state economy comes from natural resources, or other sources that require only a small, fixed number of people to defend or maintain them, tend to develop autocratic regimes with little concern for the welfare of their citizens."
"And finally, we need to think more about the issue of the vote. So far we’ve taken for granted that government lies in the hands of the working people. But when they truly become a minority, can democracy even still work? Will working people accept a vote by non-working people to increase their universal basic income? If so, what stops them from increasing it indefinitely? "

Can't say that I agree with this but it is an interesting thesis.

 

[kort677]

The Luddites were skilled textile workers concerned that mechanization would replace skilled labor with low-skill labor, resulting in low wages and poor employment and working conditions.

The Luddite concern is not about job creation, it is that if skilled labor or well-paid semi-skilled labor is replaced by automation, there is no guarantee that it will be replaced by alternative employment that provides similar income and conditions, and, that the competitive pressures that drives automation means that any new opportunity would be targeted for automation.

Recent advances and hype of AI and robotics have led to more concern about a reduction in well-paid jobs and ultimately even displacement of unskilled labor. That has led to more discussion about BMI/UBI, but in my view, the discussion really has its roots in concern about wages, conditions and insecurity of unskilled labor.

well skippy I think that you're just plain wrong

 

[MikeQ]

Another perspective on UBI:
Universal Basic Income and the Threat of Tyranny - Quillette

The basic thesis seems to be that governments which don't "need" their citizens because they have income from natural resources or a few rich companies tend to become tyrannical. He thinks that once we have lots of unemployed people getting a UBI, the government will become a tyranny.
"Societies where the state economy depends on small inputs from many different citizens tend to give their citizens significantly more rights, including the right of participation in the government itself. Societies where the state economy comes from natural resources, or other sources that require only a small, fixed number of people to defend or maintain them, tend to develop autocratic regimes with little concern for the welfare of their citizens."
"And finally, we need to think more about the issue of the vote. So far we’ve taken for granted that government lies in the hands of the working people. But when they truly become a minority, can democracy even still work? Will working people accept a vote by non-working people to increase their universal basic income? If so, what stops them from increasing it indefinitely? "

Can't say that I agree with this but it is an interesting thesis.

As long as we have Corporate personhood, corporations will decide how much UBI people get,

 

[mspohr]

As long as we have Corporate personhood, corporations will decide how much UBI people get,

You could probably make the argument now that we have a tyranny by corporations. They fund most political campaigns and thereby "own" the legislators who then do whatever corporations want. Voters are really irrelevant. The government doesn't need any of those pesky voters since they have corporations funding them.
So, do corporations want a UBI? Probably not since it might cost them money. However, giving people money to spend on the stuff corporations make might be a way to sell UBI.

 

[kort677]

As long as we have Corporate personhood, corporations will decide how much UBI people get,

what exactly is corporate personhood?

 

[kort677]

Voters are really irrelevant.

quick give hillary a call!

 

[mspohr]

quick give hillary a call!

She did get more votes but lost the election. Shows the power of election manipulation.
The Supremes and Mit have declared corporations to be people and to have protected rights including unlimited campaign spending. They're actually"super people" since they count much more than peons.

 

[bhzmark]

Look at it like this. Basic Minimum Income is a disincentive to doing what it requires to be successful. Much like welfare, it makes you okay with mediocrity.

How do you know this? any evidence? Have you looked at places where a basic income has been used before? What does the data show?

 

[MikeQ]

what exactly is corporate personhood?

The Supreme Courts ruled that corporations are people and therefore having rights (like free speech). Corporate political spending is therefore protected as it is considered the First Amendment right to free speech.

 

[MikeQ]

How do you know this? any evidence? Have you looked at places where a basic income has been used before? What does the data show?

It's welfare with a different name. Why would result be different? The people who will benefit from UBI are already the ones who didn't see the need to have highly marketable skills in the first place. Giving them free money will likely enforce that belief.

 

[bhzmark]

It's welfare with a different name. Why would result be different? The people who will benefit from UBI are already the ones who didn't see the need to have highly marketable skills in the first place. Giving them free money will likely enforce that belief.

Show me the data rather than your intuition. Other places have implemented UBI. Simply see what happened there. No need to theorize about it. Look at the data.

Those who aren't interested in the data are just driven by ideology -- often formed when they read Ayn Rand as a 15 year old. Which are you?

 

[bkp_duke]

She did get more votes but lost the election. Shows the power of election manipulation.
The Supremes and Mit have declared corporations to be people and to have protected rights including unlimited campaign spending. They're actually"super people" since they count much more than peons.

Ironic, when the the US Supreme court was liberal-leaning they came to the decision that corporation have personhood. Cannot blame this one on the "conservatives". ;-)

The U.S. Supreme Court's Cultivation of Corporate Personhood