Jump to content


DrJ

Member Since 03 Sep 2003
Offline Last Active Private
**---

Posts I've Made

In Topic: Basic Income for All

Yesterday, 01:44 PM

 

I give you a couple of bucks and I hope that you're going to use this money to get yourself ahead so you don't really need the money anymore.

 

Who said anything about using the money to get oneself ahead? Or getting to the point of not needing it anymore? Neither "need" not "getting ahead" are part of the equation. You're still tjhinking of this in terms of "program for the poor".

 

 

 

To me the goal is to make it so people don't need this money anymore, because in an ideal world the program doesn't even exist and people just provide for themselves without the government getting involved

No advanced human society has ever even sniffed this ideal It's an impossibility. Might as well plan for what human societies actually exist.

 

 

Again - what's the point of the program if it isn't to alleviate poverty.    It would be a lot more efficient, less costly, and entirely fair for the government to eliminate all of the programs and give nothing to anyone.    If we're not worrying about alleviating poverty, that's my preference.


In Topic: Basic Income for All

Yesterday, 01:27 PM



 



 



Dr J, I'm having trouble following you- have you backed off your "this would be a huge disincentive to work and would crush the global economy" and are now saying "doesn't seem like it would be much better than our current system"?

 

The collapsing of the global economy and terminator stuff is more a bit of tongue in cheek nonsense related to the idea that we're all getting automated out of jobs. 

 

My original post regarding this actual idea itself was this:

 

We need to address the root problem rather than just treat the symptoms. The idea that you select a career at age 18, get an entry level job, and then reap ever increasing rewards as your experience in this area increases is becoming antiquated. Careers are now going to be fluid and we need a population that can adapt readily. Training and re training is now a continual process. Making sure that people can continue to survive no matter how little they're willing to adapt is kind of counterproductive.

 

 

There's a giant skill gap in this country.  Our current systems have been horrible at addressing this and it is continuing to widen.    I don't really see how this system is any better since it is pretty much a lot of the same with maybe a few minor tweaks that might make it slightly less bad.

It's been pointed out several times now that it isn't the same thing.  Right now there is a clear disincentive for some people to work- in some instances you can be worse off by getting a job.  That wouldn't be the case with a BIG- if you earn more, you get more, in every single case.  It's also been pointed out that this may lead to more people receiving training, since they won't be forced to take a minimum wage job, or work multiple jobs, to survive.  

 

It's certainly not going to solve every problem, but it's clearly better in several ways than our current system.

 

 

But as I've pointed out several times now, it is the same basic concept.   I give you a couple bucks to give you a chance, and I hope that you're going to use this money to get yourself ahead so you really don't need the money all that much anymore in the future.    This is a bit of a restructure, but the premise is the same - I give you a couple of bucks and I hope that you're going to use this money to get yourself ahead so you don't really need the money anymore.   To me the goal is to make it so people don't need this money anymore, because in an ideal world the program doesn't even exist and people just provide for themselves without the government getting involved.   

 

Programs based on this premise have proven to be unsuccessful IMO.   In a variety of different formats since states all have some degree of autonomy in how they manage this.     And no one has really given much explanation on why this is some magic formula that really gets us a heck of a lot more.    I get that you get $20K in scenario 1 and you get $21K in scenario 2.   I don't see how any of this makes you any less likely to need the original 20K to begin with just to survive.


In Topic: Basic Income for All

Yesterday, 12:26 PM

 

 

Dr J, I'm having trouble following you- have you backed off your "this would be a huge disincentive to work and would crush the global economy" and are now saying "doesn't seem like it would be much better than our current system"?

 

The collapsing of the global economy and terminator stuff is more a bit of tongue in cheek nonsense related to the idea that we're all getting automated out of jobs. 

 

My original post regarding this actual idea itself was this:

 

We need to address the root problem rather than just treat the symptoms. The idea that you select a career at age 18, get an entry level job, and then reap ever increasing rewards as your experience in this area increases is becoming antiquated. Careers are now going to be fluid and we need a population that can adapt readily. Training and re training is now a continual process. Making sure that people can continue to survive no matter how little they're willing to adapt is kind of counterproductive.

 

 

 

There's a giant skill gap in this country.  Our current systems have been horrible at addressing this and it is continuing to widen.    I don't really see how this system is any better since it is pretty much a lot of the same with maybe a few minor tweaks that might make it slightly less bad.

 

 

It's coming and relatively quickly in a historical context. We ignore it at our own risk.

 

 

Just not seeing it.   No matter how much we automate in the IT world, all it ever amounts to is people demanding stuff more frequently.


In Topic: Basic Income for All

Yesterday, 12:13 PM

Dr J, I'm having trouble following you- have you backed off your "this would be a huge disincentive to work and would crush the global economy" and are now saying "doesn't seem like it would be much better than our current system"?

 

The collapsing of the global economy and terminator stuff is more a bit of tongue in cheek nonsense related to the idea that we're all getting automated out of jobs. 

 

My original post regarding this actual idea itself was this:

 

We need to address the root problem rather than just treat the symptoms. The idea that you select a career at age 18, get an entry level job, and then reap ever increasing rewards as your experience in this area increases is becoming antiquated. Careers are now going to be fluid and we need a population that can adapt readily. Training and re training is now a continual process. Making sure that people can continue to survive no matter how little they're willing to adapt is kind of counterproductive.

 

 

 

There's a giant skill gap in this country.  Our current systems have been horrible at addressing this and it is continuing to widen.    I don't really see how this system is any better since it is pretty much a lot of the same with maybe a few minor tweaks that might make it slightly less bad.


In Topic: Basic Income for All

Yesterday, 11:54 AM

 

 

 

 

The main point is that none of the systems where we try and attack poverty by giving people a few bucks and hope they fix themselves have ever worked.   You can pay for their day care, schooling, housing, food, etc and it still doesn't seem to work.   Poverty never seems to shrink.   So there's no reason to believe this one actually would work, since it's just more of the same.    The anecdotal hypo-story successfully distracted from that point.

 

And what everyone else is saying is that the reason those systems have never worked is specifically because they are built such that if the system starts to work just a little bit (i.e. the person starts to earn their own money), the system kicks out the legs from under itself.  What if the system stayed stable when it did start to work?  Maybe it would continue to work.

 

Think of it this way:

 

System A: We give you $20K per year, minus whatever you earn by working.  You need to be able to earn $20,001 by working in order for working to be of any benefit whatsoever.

 

System B: We give you $20 per year.  You only need to earn $1 by working in order for working to be beneficial to you.

 

 

I get that part.    I guess the part that I don't get is how any job that changes this equation actually translates to this person getting out of poverty.    We could just raise minimum wage to $15.00 or whatever and accomplish the same thing.    Now there's no jobs they could take that wouldn't be of benefit to them.    I don't get how them taking this minimum wage job is going to change much for them long term though.    They need to be trained to where they aren't competing for these sorts of jobs if we're to stand any chance of that long term.

 

 

How does raising minimum wage to $15 help the poorest and least skilled?  The only causes employers to stop hiring.

 

The BIG helps with training too.  Now someone in a low wage, dead-end job can simply quit (or cut back hours) and take a class instead.

 

 

It probably helps about as much as the person taking a low wage, dead-end job to begin with.