Universal Basic Income - Joe Biden's Take (1 Viewer)

[Joe Bryant]

Sorry if honda. Thought this was interesting. As people are replaced by technology, Universal Basic Income is going to be a real topic.

Joe Biden on Universal Basic Income. His position may surprise you. 

 

[Gawain]

“The theory is that automation will result in so many lost jobs that the only plausible answer is some type of guaranteed government check with no strings attached,”

While this is advanced currently, the premise behind UBI is to eliminate the inefficiency, demotivating and inequity in current government social spending programs.

The catch is that Murray’s program would replace all the existing welfare programs and entitlements. Good luck with that. Just as many conservatives are suspicious that a value-added tax would never actually replace income tax (were it to gain steam), the odds are this “mincome” wouldn’t replace other “safety net” programs—it would just be one more government handout.

This is exactly what must happen for a UBI to work and to be accepted by the left and the right. To base opposition to a UBI based on only the automating of industries and to dismissively wave off the impact to societal programs as a whole is disingenuous at best.

 

[Joe Bryant]

What do you guys think about the "dignity of work" thing? That people who are able are better off working for money than to receive money without working for it? 

I'm not surprised at Biden's take on it. It's how he grew up. It's how I grew up. I firmly believe in it. But I also think people like Biden and myself are in the minority there. 

What do you guys think?

 

[Gawain]

What do you guys think about the "dignity of work" thing? That people who are able are better off working for money than to receive money without working for it? 

I'm not surprised at Biden's take on it. It's how he grew up. It's how I grew up. I firmly believe in it. But I also think people like Biden and myself are in the minority there. 

What do you guys think?

Overblown. UBI makes it more likely that people work.

On the lower level of income, without means testing our social service net it's more likely that people will find employment because their benefits aren't reduced as their income grows.

On a middle tier of income, the UBI makes it more likely people will find employment in areas where they are more motivated to generate greater returns. People don't have as much motivation to max current-day income generating potential, which allows for employment in areas with more appeal. ETA for clarity: Returns can be personal (I'd like to teach, but starting salary is 35K, I can make more doing a job I like less and don't have a positive societal impact), or financial (I'd like to start a business, but don't have the means to leave my current employer. With a UBI, I can take the risk to start a business that will be personally rewarding and possibly provide greater financial returns).

On an upper tier of income, the UBI makes it easier to raise marginal rates because people are not merely being taxed to provide services for others. When everyone receives the same benefit, regardless of income level, many arguments against providing social services become a moot point.

 

[roadkill1292]

What do you guys think about the "dignity of work" thing? That people who are able are better off working for money than to receive money without working for it? 

I'm not surprised at Biden's take on it. It's how he grew up. It's how I grew up. I firmly believe in it. But I also think people like Biden and myself are in the minority there. 

What do you guys think?

The answer is pretty much going to be determined by the rate and spread of automation. If we can get by sometime in the future with a workforce 10% the size of our current one (generalities here), will that mean that 90% of able adults have little value? I'd like to think not but then how hard somebody works is already becoming ever so slightly less an admired character trait than maybe it was in the recent past.

I think there's already another substantial thread on this subject laying around somewhere (looks under car seat). You might be interested in fatguy's and my impending revolution against work.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

As people are replaced by technology,

Probably not a happy comment but if this is the basis it's pure marxism.

Describe it as a means of better ordering our social welfare system because it just is and allows us to get rid of the tax & entitlements system, then I'm all ears. Describe it as a means of equalizing the effects of capitalism and I'd say kill it on the spot.

 

[Joe Bryant]

Overblown. UBI makes it more likely that people work.

On the lower level of income, without means testing our social service net it's more likely that people will find employment because their benefits aren't reduced as their income grows.

On a middle tier of income, the UBI makes it more likely people will find employment in areas where they are more motivated to generate greater returns. People don't have as much motivation to max current-day income generating potential, which allows for employment in areas with more appeal. ETA for clarity: Returns can be personal (I'd like to teach, but starting salary is 35K, I can make more doing a job I like less and don't have a positive societal impact), or financial (I'd like to start a business, but don't have the means to leave my current employer. With a UBI, I can take the risk to start a business that will be personally rewarding and possibly provide greater financial returns).

On an upper tier of income, the UBI makes it easier to raise marginal rates because people are not merely being taxed to provide services for others. When everyone receives the same benefit, regardless of income level, many arguments against providing social services become a moot point.

Thanks. Not considering UBI or specific programs, in a general sense how much value do you put on a person working?

In a theoretical situation - What do you think is the best thing for a person?: To work at a job where they make a decent living wage or to be given a check for the same amount? 

 

[Gawain]

Thanks. Not considering UBI or specific programs, in a general sense how much value do you put on a person working?

In a theoretical situation - What do you think is the best thing for a person?: To work at a job where they make a decent living wage or to be given a check for the same amount? 

I don't put a tremendous value on "work," mainly because what is work for one person is not work for another person. I think productivity is a much better gauge of a society and a UBI, as opposed to current safety net programs allows people the freedom to find those avenues in which they are most productive.

Our concept of "work" has been blurred over the past 100 years (professional sports, proliferation of entertainment industries, home brewing, artisanal gardening).
Therefore, it's difficult for me to assign arbitrary values to a bottler at Anheiser-Busch and the guy making Skittle-Brau.
I will say that I, and America in general, value people who are able to take something they love and make it into a career. The most value society gives is to people who would be in a field, even if it was unpaid. Which is valued more, the Plaintiff's Attorney, or the Pro-Bono Attorney? Evan Silva or Roger Goodell?

As for the second part, your scenario is not how a UBI would be introduced. For the strict hypothetical that you've painted, current society couldn't support the check and the only option would be the one where someone works. However, the UBI number is not a decent living wage. It is a social net replacement. There are no social service programs that give a decent living wage. UBI allows a person to make a decent living wage out of an interest that may provide more societal value, but not be as lucrative as their current employment.

 

[Ramsay Hunt Experience]

Is Uncle Joe somehow under the impression that UBI would criminalize work?  If people want to work, they'll work (assuming the jobs exist for them to work at).  UBI just wouldn't make their ability to feed and house their family or have health care dependent on that. 

 

[Joe Bryant]

I don't put a tremendous value on "work," mainly because what is work for one person is not work for another person. I think productivity is a much better gauge of a society and a UBI, as opposed to current safety net programs allows people the freedom to find those avenues in which they are most productive.

Our concept of "work" has been blurred over the past 100 years (professional sports, proliferation of entertainment industries, home brewing, artisanal gardening).
Therefore, it's difficult for me to assign arbitrary values to a bottler at Anheiser-Busch and the guy making Skittle-Brau.
I will say that I, and America in general, value people who are able to take something they love and make it into a career. The most value society gives is to people who would be in a field, even if it was unpaid. Which is valued more, the Plaintiff's Attorney, or the Pro-Bono Attorney? Evan Silva or Roger Goodell?

As for the second part, your scenario is not how a UBI would be introduced. For the strict hypothetical that you've painted, current society couldn't support the check and the only option would be the one where someone works. However, the UBI number is not a decent living wage. It is a social net replacement. There are no social service programs that give a decent living wage. UBI allows a person to make a decent living wage out of an interest that may provide more societal value, but not be as lucrative as their current employment.

Thanks.

 

[Slapdash]

Sorry if honda. Thought this was interesting. As people are replaced by technology, Universal Basic Income is going to be a real topic.

Joe Biden on Universal Basic Income. His position may surprise you. 

You may be interested in some of thoughts in the long running BIG thread here:  https://forums.footballguys.com/forum/topic/667759-basic-income-guarantee/

A few things I think Biden gets wrong:

• An effective safety net is crucial to transmitting the wealth generated by automation (which is highly concentrated and saved) such that aggregated demand growth remains strong enough to create the new industries of the future
  
• It is important to view the BIG as a safety net replacement rather than on top of it (although healthcare and education may be special)
  
• Conflating having a job with working.  BIG doesn't prevent or even discourage working. It could enable people to work an actual job fewer hours to spend more time on their families, volunteering, or their passions.  Those things aren't jobs, but are work and have positive spillover affects
  

 

[roadkill1292]

Maybe, Joe, we should turn this question around a little. How are those of you who value hard work going to feel when yet another value of the past is no longer highly valued by society in general?

 

[lod001]

Sorry if honda. Thought this was interesting. As people are replaced by technology, Universal Basic Income is going to be a real topic.

Joe Biden on Universal Basic Income. His position may surprise you. 

I like Biden but he's not seeing the real world from where he's at. the correct phrase is 'There are people who simply do not want to work'. That population is growing. So what do we do with them? One side wants to hand them fee stuff. The other says eff them, let them starve and die. Well as one of the ones working and paying for these people to sit and do nothing, I want the same free stuff.

 

[lod001]

Here' is what UBI will produce. I don't need to see a study on it to know exactly what will happen. There will basically be 3 types of people.

1. Works and takes the UBI as extra income.
2. Works until he is tired of that job, quits, takes vacations from working, lives off UBI until he needs extra $ and goes and get new job.
3. Lives off of UBI, basically in poverty and never works because he doesn't want to work.

 

[NCCommish]

Machine being introduced right now in 50  fast food restaurants that will take care of cooking the burger completely. Determining how many it needs, flipping them, etc. Only need humans for the finish and packaging but you know darn well we aren't far from burger dropping in at one end and finished product on the other. This is a transitory thing. Will dramatically reduce the number of people needed. And we have built our economy on these low paying service jobs the last decade or so. Very soon the question becomes now what? Every job those displaced could do will follow suit.

I saw the marxist comment above. Really? What do you think happens when you have a permanent underclass unable to afford more than a cardboard box for shelter and are living off garbage? In the most heavily armed country on earth? As Mark Blythe says the Hamptons aren't a defensible position. UBI will be neccesary and sooner than many think.

 

[NCCommish]

As to the dignity of work. I think that's something people who need other people to work long hard hours made up and we bought it hook, line and sinker. I would love to be able to volunteer or do research or any number of things in which I would be happy but may not pay well or at all because I would be able to rely on a UBI. There's value in those things as well.

 

[Yankee23Fan]

Why are we linking this policy to automation?  That isn't the only reason to consider it, and frankly, it wouldn't even be a reason I would think matters to consider it.

 

[adonis]

What do you guys think about the "dignity of work" thing? That people who are able are better off working for money than to receive money without working for it? 

I'm not surprised at Biden's take on it. It's how he grew up. It's how I grew up. I firmly believe in it. But I also think people like Biden and myself are in the minority there. 

What do you guys think?

Dignity of work thing is a remnant of our past and it's a social construct that was necessary for centuries because if people didn't work, they didn't eat.

As societies progressed, and folks started to move from agriculture to more specialized jobs, then to the industrial revolution...our concepts of the necessity of work didn't change because everyone really needed to pitch in for all of us to have what we needed as a society.

In the past few decades however, so much of our work has been automated, so much cheap labor in other markets have come online that the jobs of the past are no longer necessary for all of us to eat, find shelter, and provide other basic things for life.  Folks started having trouble finding jobs because more and more of it was going to higher skilled jobs, and the lower skilled jobs were being phased out due to automation or globalization and weren't coming back.

So what we've had for the past few decades is an undercurrent of underemployed folks with an outdated mentality in themselves and in society as a whole that to work is to have dignity, especially for men.  But the jobs just weren't there.  So you get a lot of unhappiness, need for unemployment benefits or other "entitlements", increased drug usage, opioid usage, etc.

Our country is coming to terms with the fact that we no longer really need everyone in our society to work, yet that's how we value ourselves as folks contributing to the economy/society.  If the market no longer needs the skills you're able to provide, then what do we do with you?  If the only jobs available are those out of your intellectual or physical means, and "dignity" is tied to work, then what do we do?

To me, we need to question why our human dignity is tied to something as abstract as whether or not a given market needs the skills you can provide.  When you think about it, it's rather arbitrary, but it's central to our society's valuation of the individual.  How much money you make, for many people, determines your worth as a human...take that down to the extreme, and if you're not making money, you have no value to society.  This comes out when folks talk about people on welfare, or on disability, to some degree because they're said to be "gaming" the system, but in other respects because we have this clear "you're worth what you make" mentality baked in.

But again, that implies that our value as humans is somehow tied directly to what a market needs and whether your skills can meet that need.  When a market has so much free labor, for example in the form of automation or AI, the number of jobs necessary to fill all needs for that society gets reduced considerably, and the skills required to be useful to society are heightened out of the reach of most folks.

So you have a society that doesn't need the skills of most of its citizens in order to produce a ton of stuff, and you still have a society tied to the idea that you're worth what the market tells you you're worth, and you're left with an equation that will convince folks that they're worthless, unless we do something about it.  What we can do about it is to challenge the notion that we are valued, as humans, by what the market is willing to pay for our skills.  It's not an accurate assessor.

So universal basic income is one way to combat the reality, the inevitability, that most folks will be "priced" out of the market, because more and more of the skills they have and capacity for work that they have, will be taken over by lower cost suppliers of work (namely, AI and automation).  It's inevitable...it's coming...and UBI is one method we have to get folks ready for the shift in thinking required to handle this new reality.

 

[Joe Bryant]

You may be interested in some of thoughts in the long running BIG thread here:  https://forums.footballguys.com/forum/topic/667759-basic-income-guarantee/

A few things I think Biden gets wrong:

• An effective safety net is crucial to transmitting the wealth generated by automation (which is highly concentrated and saved) such that aggregated demand growth remains strong enough to create the new industries of the future
  
• It is important to view the BIG as a safety net replacement rather than on top of it (although healthcare and education may be special)
  
• Conflating having a job with working.  BIG doesn't prevent or even discourage working. It could enable people to work an actual job fewer hours to spend more time on their families, volunteering, or their passions.  Those things aren't jobs, but are work and have positive spillover affects
  

Thanks.

 

[roadkill1292]

Why are we linking this policy to automation?  That isn't the only reason to consider it, and frankly, it wouldn't even be a reason I would think matters to consider it.

Listening.

 

[Joe Bryant]

Maybe, Joe, we should turn this question around a little. How are those of you who value hard work going to feel when yet another value of the past is no longer highly valued by society in general?

Hi RK,

Not sure. Can you elaborate on what some of the other values you mean when you say, "yet another value of the past is no longer highly valued by society in general?"

 

[roadkill1292]

Hi RK,

Not sure. Can you elaborate on what some of the other values you mean when you say, "yet another value of the past is no longer highly valued by society in general?"

I'm trying to recapture my thoughts of two hours ago when I wrote that. But one example I could come up with is the faith component for political candidates. At one time, the joke went, Americans would vote for (insert villain here) before they'd vote for an atheist, and it wasn't very long ago that the newspaper in my Baltimore suburban county stopped asking candidates for local office their church affiliation. Being a member of a conventional religious sect was such a fundamental requirement that even liberal newspaper reporters never questioned the validity of it. That is steadily becoming less and less a factor in major elections and, oddly enough, we may have Donald Trump to thank in large part for it.

I'll try to think of some more for later.

 

[Joe Bryant]

I'm trying to recapture my thoughts of two hours ago when I wrote that. But one example I could come up with is the faith component for political candidates. At one time, the joke went, Americans would vote for (insert villain here) before they'd vote for an atheist, and it wasn't very long ago that the newspaper in my Baltimore suburban county stopped asking candidates for local office their church affiliation. Being a member of a conventional religious sect was such a fundamental requirement that even liberal newspaper reporters never questioned the validity of it. That is steadily becoming less and less a factor in major elections and, oddly enough, we may have Donald Trump to thank in large part for it.

I'll try to think of some more for later.

Thanks. Let me know if you think of some more. 

To your question, if it does become a thing where something that is important to me becomes not important to much of society, I think my answer would be I'd just deal with it. 

 

[Dedfin]

This isn't a new idea, in case no one knew.  I'll leave this here in case anyone wishes to read it.

http://www.academia.edu/2698139/Two_arguments_for_Basic_Income_Thomas_Paine_1737-1809_and_Thomas_Spence_1750-1814_

 

[ren hoek]

As a means of fulfilling the 'safey net,' I like the idea of BIG.  Especially as a replacement for the welfare system.  It's fair, undiscriminating, replaces insolvent programs that younger generations will never see a dime of with functional ones in the here and now, eliminates a lot of middle men.  It's easily accounted for even.  It'd be interesting to see what that number looks like if it was pulled from current welfare spending.  

 

[Johnnymac]

This country will implement a UBI at least 10 years after they needed to.  Our govt kicks the can down the road and they will not be prepared.

 

[fatguyinalittlecoat]

Yeah I really think the whole "value of hard work" idea is something that started as propaganda and has burrowed its way into people's brains.  Do animals value hard work?  I don't think so, they just value the result of hard work.

Feeling good about accomplishing something is a real thing.  But it doesn't have to be work.  I feel good if I learn a song on the guitar or tell a good joke or help a friend in need.  I feel nothing of the sort sitting in my office typing on a computer for eight hours. 

 

[Grace Under Pressure]

If someone gets a BIG and volunteers 50 hours a week building shelters and feeding people, are they working?

There is a long thread on BIG. As I mentioned in there, replacing the existing retirement program may prove problematic because all people do not receive the same level of benefits under SS. Good luck convincing someone who is 55 years old to give up an expected level of benefits they've been paying into all their lives.

 

[roadkill1292]

Thanks. Let me know if you think of some more. 

To your question, if it does become a thing where something that is important to me becomes not important to much of society, I think my answer would be I'd just deal with it. 

How will you deal with a Guaranteed Basic Income? Will you go full speed trying to run two successful businesses or will you slack off a little and maybe do some other things with the time and added financial security?

 

[Ramsay Hunt Experience]

How will you deal with a Guaranteed Basic Income? Will you go full speed trying to run two successful businesses or will you slack off a little and maybe do some other things with the time and added financial security?

If we don't incentivize work, nobody will be left to give Tanner time outs!

 

[AAABatteries]

Why are we linking this policy to automation?  That isn't the only reason to consider it, and frankly, it wouldn't even be a reason I would think matters to consider it.

This - I support BIG regardless of automation but do feel like it will push the issue to forefront which is probably a good thing.

 

[Joe Bryant]

How will you deal with a Guaranteed Basic Income? Will you go full speed trying to run two successful businesses or will you slack off a little and maybe do some other things with the time and added financial security?

That's a good question. Maybe I don't understand how UBI works. Not everyone gets it, right? That wouldn't be right it seems.

 

[roadkill1292]

That's a good question. Maybe I don't understand how UBI works. Not everyone gets it, right? That wouldn't be right it seems.

Everybody, including Donald Trump's family, gets a baseline income of somewhere around the poverty line. Sometimes numbers like $10-12,000 annually per adult are used in the equations.

 

[Joe Bryant]

Everybody, including Donald Trump's family, gets a baseline income of somewhere around the poverty line. Sometimes numbers like $10-12,000 annually per adult are used in the equations.

Interesting. I didn't know that. That seems like not the best allocation of the money. 

To answer the question, I'd hope I'd work the same way. I'm pretty boring on work. I don't know that I work that much harder when I have an unexpected loss or slack off if I have an unexpected gain.

 

[Henry Ford]

Thanks. Not considering UBI or specific programs, in a general sense how much value do you put on a person working?

In a theoretical situation - What do you think is the best thing for a person?: To work at a job where they make a decent living wage or to be given a check for the same amount? 

I can't speak for anyone else, but I've been working full time, with one year off during law school, since I was 13. I think working for a living wage is tremendously good for people and extremely valuable. However:

1. The current minimum wage is not a living wage, which is one reason why so many people are on benefits; and

2. "Full employment" in this country does not expect everyone to be working who wants to be. 

A society should have a minimum level of subsistence living below which no citizen should fall.  That's not the same as a decent living, or a living wage level.  But we shouldn't have people dying in the streets.

I'm just as happy to set up public works where everyone is guaranteed a job at a living wage, and raising the minimum wage to the level of a decent living, but that seems just as unlikely as passing UBI.

 

[Henry Ford]

Interesting. I didn't know that. That seems like not the best allocation of the money. 

To answer the question, I'd hope I'd work the same way. I'm pretty boring on work. I don't know that I work that much harder when I have an unexpected loss or slack off if I have an unexpected gain.

That's where "universal" comes in.   It replaces social programs that have income caps with a universal income that doesn't penalize you for earning more. 

 

[Gawain]

Interesting. I didn't know that. That seems like not the best allocation of the money. 

To answer the question, I'd hope I'd work the same way. I'm pretty boring on work. I don't know that I work that much harder when I have an unexpected loss or slack off if I have an unexpected gain.

It is the best allocation of the money because it removes all disincentives. No matter where you draw the UBI (the universal means everyone), someone is going to get the short end of the stick. Make it 10K for everyone earning under 50K and there's no incentive to perform any activities that would take someone from 50K to 55K. Make it 100K and the same principle applies.
 

The other issue that I have is the reliance on the term "hard work." A guy out digging ditches works much harder than me. He doesn't work smarter than me. I've had bosses that I've worked harder than, but they worked smarter, either by starting the business or by working hard earlier in their life to get to a point where their skill set allowed them greater compensation while not performing as much work.

We should talk about how much "smart work" is valued. The folks who do "hard work" are generally looked down upon.

ETA: The only restrictions I think should be on the program is that a UBI must be non-transferable and non-attachable.

 

[Joe Bryant]

That's where "universal" comes in.   It replaces social programs that have income caps with a universal income that doesn't penalize you for earning more. 

Interesting. Thanks. Still doesn't seem like the best thing to give rich people money like that. But I also haven't really thought about it much. 

 

[roadkill1292]

Interesting. I didn't know that. That seems like not the best allocation of the money. 

I mean this with no malice, Joe, but I'm sitting here laughing and wondering at what part of "Universal" you didn't understand? But moving on, anyone with a high income would undoubtedly be taxed at a higher rate to make their UBI of little consequence to them. Part of the allure of UBI is that it doesn't waste administrative resources picking and choosing recipients on the basis of "need."

 

[Joe Bryant]

I mean this with no malice, Joe, but I'm sitting here laughing and wondering at what part of "Universal" you didn't understand? But moving on, anyone with a high income would undoubtedly be taxed at a higher rate to make their UBI of little consequence to them. Part of the allure of UBI is that it doesn't waste administrative resources picking and choosing recipients on the basis of "need."

I never thought about it much. I assumed universal meant universally everyone would be guaranteed a certain income. If you don't earn it from a job, the government would assist. 

 

[The Commish]

In a theoretical situation - What do you think is the best thing for a person?: To work at a job where they make a decent living wage or to be given a check for the same amount? 

I don't think the question should be "what's best for the person?" rather "What's best for the whole?"  The answer to that is simple.  It's better that we have as many people contributing to the system they are taking from as possible.  I understand there will always be exceptions, but generally speaking our systems/programs should be structured in a way that if you are taking resources from the system you should be required to give resources back or spend time working in the system to produce resources for others.  I've never seen a successful, self sustaining system that was designed in a way that people could simply take from it and not contribute SOMETHING towards it.

 

[adonis]

I mean this with no malice, Joe, but I'm sitting here laughing and wondering at what part of "Universal" you didn't understand? But moving on, anyone with a high income would undoubtedly be taxed at a higher rate to make their UBI of little consequence to them. Part of the allure of UBI is that it doesn't waste administrative resources picking and choosing recipients on the basis of "need."

I never thought about it much. I assumed universal meant universally everyone would be guaranteed a certain income. If you don't earn it from a job, the government would assist. 

If X is the universal income agreed upon and Y is the income you get from working, it'd create a fairly significant disincentive to work if you're basically just replacing X with Y until Y>X.

Much more incentive to work would be that you get X+Y, and it would allow you to move around more freely, not be trapped in a dead-end job, and be able to explore things you were passionate about.  

Probably some downsides too, such as employers paying less because an X baseline is built in, but who knows - the value of someone's skills may not change that much in society even if X income is guaranteed to everyone.

 

[adonis]

I don't think the question should be "what's best for the person?" rather "What's best for the whole?"  The answer to that is simple.  It's better that we have as many people contributing to the system they are taking from as possible.  I understand there will always be exceptions, but generally speaking our systems/programs should be structured in a way that if you are taking resources from the system you should be required to give resources back or spend time working in the system to produce resources for others.  I've never seen a successful, self sustaining system that was designed in a way that people could simply take from it and not contribute SOMETHING towards it.

The interesting parallel in work is a computer.

Used to, before programming and automation, you needed someone sitting at a computer making sure tasks were getting done.  Then you got smarter computers, and you could do more, with less work from humans, by automating tasks.

Through this automation, more work actually would get done with less input necessary from humans.  So the output increased while the need for human labor decreased.

This is happening at a large scale in society in general.  Less human input is necessary to produce more output.

This is undermining the whole "people need to give back if they receive" because at a certain point, their input into the system will be completely meaningless in terms of being needed to provide things for others.  Perhaps there's a psychological benefit to "being productive", but I suspect that will go away when you realize you're not actually being "productive" but rather engaged in the equivalent of meaningless busy-work because your labor isn't needed.

Instead, why not pursue something that you're passionate about...pursue your interests, and if working on something happens to be your interest, so be it...but it's not because society needs your input...but rather just because you want to do it, you do it.

 

[Henry Ford]

Interesting. Thanks. Still doesn't seem like the best thing to give rich people money like that. But I also haven't really thought about it much. 

They pay enough taxes under these proposals to offset.

 

[roadkill1292]

If X is the universal income agreed upon, it'd create a fairly significant disincentive to work if you're basically just replacing X with Y until Y>X.

Much more incentive to work would be that you get X+Y, and it would allow you to move around more freely, not be trapped in a dead-end job, and be able to explore things you were passionate about.  

Probably some downsides too, such as employers paying less because an X baseline is built in, but who knows - the value of someone's skills may not change that much in society even if X income is guaranteed to everyone.

It seems likely to me that automation will be the key driver to wages being suppressed. Contrary to the opinions of opponents who think that everyone will sit home and play video games, I think that most people will still be competing for additional incomes and better standards of living. That plus robots will still make it an employer's market.

 

[adonis]

If X is the universal income agreed upon, it'd create a fairly significant disincentive to work if you're basically just replacing X with Y until Y>X.

Much more incentive to work would be that you get X+Y, and it would allow you to move around more freely, not be trapped in a dead-end job, and be able to explore things you were passionate about.  

Probably some downsides too, such as employers paying less because an X baseline is built in, but who knows - the value of someone's skills may not change that much in society even if X income is guaranteed to everyone.

It seems likely to me that automation will be the key driver to wages being suppressed. Contrary to the opinions of opponents who think that everyone will sit home and play video games, I think that most people will still be competing for additional incomes and better standards of living. That plus robots will still make it an employer's market.

Agreed.  I think taxes on robots (or AI work unit equivalents) is an interesting proposal which could help increase the cost to the rich/business owners for automating jobs, and provide an pool of resources to distribute to those displaced from workforce.

I think the challenging thing is that once automation is widespread enough, the jobs that most people will have the skills to perform won't be available and will instead be automated.  It'll be the exception, rapidly dwindling, that people will be needed for work once the technology is there to replace even half (or 25% even) of the jobs...the acceleration towards nearly replacing 100% of the jobs at that point will be swift.

We'll be able to meet almost all of society's needs with almost no need for human labor.  So even those who want to work will either find themselves doing busywork just to feel useful (fooling themselves) or they'll do work that society doesn't deem incredibly valuable, just because they enjoy it.

 

[Gawain]

It seems likely to me that automation will be the key driver to wages being suppressed. Contrary to the opinions of opponents who think that everyone will sit home and play video games, I think that most people will still be competing for additional incomes and better standards of living. That plus robots will still make it an employer's market.

I'm not that well versed about the automated timeline, but don't we basically need an unlimited power supply and self replicating robots to get to this stage?

It's easy to be blinded by the fact that we're in America where our needs are met, our wants are largely met and all-in-all we live mighty comfortably. Even our poor are doing well.

More than a billion people still live on less that $2.00 a day. Almost 5 billion people live on less than $10.00 a day. Have you ever seen a Chinese production line? Cheap products that are handmade. Have you ever seen a South Asian textile factory? 

The USA tasks may be automated, but the global stage is nowhere close.

 

[Yankee23Fan]

Interesting. I didn't know that. That seems like not the best allocation of the money. 

To answer the question, I'd hope I'd work the same way. I'm pretty boring on work. I don't know that I work that much harder when I have an unexpected loss or slack off if I have an unexpected gain.

It's actually a fairly good allocation of money.  Obviously devil in the details.

In our B.I.G. talks here there have been many different avenues to attack it or support it.  My basic position on it is as follows:

The social safety net costs X dollars a year.  Let's say it's 400 billion a year just to come up with a fake round number for example sake.  That safety net results in certain people being stuck getting that support because if they get a part time job, or go to full time, or go to school, they lose the benefit.  So there is a perpetual class of people stuck there unable to move up and on.  At the same time, many of the programs just aren't run very well and have a massive amount of waste of administrative overhead.  And all of that costs the 400 billion.

What if we took that same 400 billion, removed all administrative headaches, got rid of food stamps, unemployment, TANF, and all of those "welfare" programs  - all of them - and instead just turned that 400 billion around to each citizen over 18 in a monthly "income."  No strings.  Just be a citizen and 18, and you get one every month.  No income qualifications, no residence qualifications, nothing.  This does several things.

One, it lets people stuck in the system the chance to get out.  With a basic income that pays for food and rent, you can get a part time job, or move from part time to full time, or get job training instead of working a job that never allows you the time to get the training and advance.  It helps to pull people out of the "system."

Two, it gets rid of a massive amount of government administration and by definition decreases the cost of the government saving money, and you can either save that money for other things, or put it right back into the B.I.G. and give people a little more money.

Third, it remove the political football of these programs and gets money right to the people without the need for political games.

There are more benefits - and yes there are negatives.  But ultimately, the basic argument is this.  We are spending that fake 400 billion anyway.  We aren't getting rid of the social safety net we have and anyone that thinks we are is a useless voice in the talk.  So what is the better way to use that 400 billion?  The B.I.G. way or the way we've been doing it?

 

[roadkill1292]

One of the arguments, which I don't agree with, against the BIG is fear that it will only be a first step, that people won't stop voting themselves an ever-increasing share of the pie. Similar arguments have been leveled at the Fair Tax, with opponents saying that politicians would never refrain from imposing other taxes in addition to it. I think the benefits of both systems are well worth the ensuing risks but I understand, kinda, why some don't.

 

[NCCommish]

I never thought about it much. I assumed universal meant universally everyone would be guaranteed a certain income. If you don't earn it from a job, the government would assist. 

Another thing about being universal is removing stigma and class from the equation. As mentioned 12000 a year means a lot more to someone making 30 k or less, which is 50% of American workers, than it does to someone making 1 million. But everyone gets it there is no stigma of "you're on the dole". Further it's efficient because it just goes to everyone so no tracking, no means testing, no enforcement actions needed. And as mentioned with none of those things there is also no disincentive to work because you will still get it. This would ideally replace most if not all welfare programs that give people checks after they jump through hoop after hoop. Might have to go more than 12k to get rid of all. Personally I would say 18k and then pretty much wipeout most tax deductions once you get over 250k in income. Phasing them out progressively to that point. Oh and the BIG should be federally tax free at a minimum.