Europeans considering universal basic income and job guarantees

[J842P]

No, because (as you snipped when quoting me):

As spending preceeds taxation, rather than following it, there's no problem 'raising' that money - if it's in circulation, you can tax it out (and if it's not, you don't need to, because money that's not circulating isn't adding to inflation).

Ignoring the bits of counterarguments which you have trouble refuting is a great way to feel like you are right; But it's a shithouse way to actually BE right.

I ignored it because it wasn't relevant to my point--even big changes in the tax code don't have that big an effect on tax take as a percent of GDP. The left keeps citing the supposed glory years of 90%+ tax rates--but note that that didn't produce much effect.

You appear to be assuming constant (or near constant) GDP.

Is that a reasonable assumption? Would it be a reasonable assumption in the event that a UBI were introduced? The answer may surprise you...

Loren has stated he believe the GDP would shrink, because "fewer people would be working". No explanation, of course.

 

[laughing dog]

You appear to be assuming constant (or near constant) GDP.

Is that a reasonable assumption? Would it be a reasonable assumption in the event that a UBI were introduced? The answer may surprise you...

Loren has stated he believe the GDP would shrink, because "fewer people would be working". No explanation, of course.

And any explanation that focuses on the supply side (fewer workers) without addressing the demand side is economically ignorant.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

No, because (as you snipped when quoting me):

As spending preceeds taxation, rather than following it, there's no problem 'raising' that money - if it's in circulation, you can tax it out (and if it's not, you don't need to, because money that's not circulating isn't adding to inflation).

Ignoring the bits of counterarguments which you have trouble refuting is a great way to feel like you are right; But it's a shithouse way to actually BE right.

I ignored it because it wasn't relevant to my point--even big changes in the tax code don't have that big an effect on tax take as a percent of GDP. The left keeps citing the supposed glory years of 90%+ tax rates--but note that that didn't produce much effect.

You appear to be assuming constant (or near constant) GDP.

Is that a reasonable assumption? Would it be a reasonable assumption in the event that a UBI were introduced? The answer may surprise you...

Anything to justify a totally unreasonable fantasy.

Why don't you figure ET is going to come along and give us replicator technology while you're at it.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

You appear to be assuming constant (or near constant) GDP.

Is that a reasonable assumption? Would it be a reasonable assumption in the event that a UBI were introduced? The answer may surprise you...

Loren has stated he believe the GDP would shrink, because "fewer people would be working". No explanation, of course.

A bunch of people could maintain their standard of living without working. Why would they choose to work? It's not like they are doing things they would enjoy doing.

 

[Jayjay]

You appear to be assuming constant (or near constant) GDP.

Is that a reasonable assumption? Would it be a reasonable assumption in the event that a UBI were introduced? The answer may surprise you...

Loren has stated he believe the GDP would shrink, because "fewer people would be working". No explanation, of course.

A bunch of people could maintain their standard of living without working. Why would they choose to work? It's not like they are doing things they would enjoy doing.

The number of people who's standard of living is near or below the poverty line right now are a minuscule part of the economy. Whether they work or not hardly makes a difference.

 

[bilby]

You appear to be assuming constant (or near constant) GDP.

Is that a reasonable assumption? Would it be a reasonable assumption in the event that a UBI were introduced? The answer may surprise you...

Anything to justify a totally unreasonable fantasy.

I agree that you're mistaken to make that assumption, but it's refreshingly honest, if surprising, that you are so direct in admitting your reason for making it.

Why don't you figure ET is going to come along and give us replicator technology while you're at it.

Because that would be ludicrous. Whereas redistribution of wealth for social welfare purposes is a routine activity in strong developed economies (notably Australasia, Canada, the EU and the Nordic States).

Suggesting an extension of that already effective model, with a view to greater efficiency and effectiveness, is hardly in the same order of reasonableness as anticipating an alien technology transfer.

Perhaps you could engage in some actual discussion, and skip the silly non-sequiturs.

 

[bilby]

You appear to be assuming constant (or near constant) GDP.

Is that a reasonable assumption? Would it be a reasonable assumption in the event that a UBI were introduced? The answer may surprise you...

Loren has stated he believe the GDP would shrink, because "fewer people would be working". No explanation, of course.

A bunch of people could maintain their standard of living without working. Why would they choose to work? It's not like they are doing things they would enjoy doing.

Almost nobody who does a job that couldn't be automated would have anywhere CLOSE to their current standard of living if they accepted a reduction in total income to the level of any proposed UBI, by quitting their current job as soon as UBI was introduced.

There would, of course, be a need for the wages for truly unpleasant jobs that cannot be automated to increase very sharply indeed, but that's a feature, not a bug. If a job is unpleasant but necessary, it should pay well. It shouldn't pay poorly on the basis that people will have to do it for shit money in order to avoid starvation and homelessness.

The entire point of the excercise is to shift payrolls from funding basics plus disposable income, to funding disposable income only, with basics already covered for everybody.

There's plenty of incentive there for people to work. Just no incentive for them to tolerate having their wages driven by a race to the bottom; So nobody's gonna need to put up with shit work for shit pay.

You want people to do shit work, you're going to have to compete for them financially, without the threat of penury.

 

[bigfield]

A bunch of people could maintain their standard of living without working. Why would they choose to work? It's not like they are doing things they would enjoy doing.

Almost nobody who does a job that couldn't be automated would have anywhere CLOSE to their current standard of living if they accepted a reduction in total income to the level of any proposed UBI, by quitting their current job as soon as UBI was introduced.

There would, of course, be a need for the wages for truly unpleasant jobs that cannot be automated to increase very sharply indeed, but that's a feature, not a bug. If a job is unpleasant but necessary, it should pay well. It shouldn't pay poorly on the basis that people will have to do it for shit money in order to avoid starvation and homelessness.

The entire point of the excercise is to shift payrolls from funding basics plus disposable income, to funding disposable income only, with basics already covered for everybody.

There's plenty of incentive there for people to work. Just no incentive for them to tolerate having their wages driven by a race to the bottom; So nobody's gonna need to put up with shit work for shit pay.

You want people to do shit work, you're going to have to compete for them financially, without the threat of penury.

It seems to me that this effect of UBI would also enable government to remove the minimum wage. In Australia we could probably do away with all of the pay scales set out in industrial awards, and let everyone's pay be determined by the market.

Employers would be free to offer wages as low as they want, and if they can find people who are willing to sell their labour at that price, that's good for them. Some industries might be able to hire workers at extremely cheap hourly rates. UBI ensures those workers are still able to pay their bills and quit their job if and when they decide the pay is too low. The services those companies provide would also become cheaper.

Other employers may discover that they have to pay a much higher price to get people to work their shit jobs, or change those jobs to make them less shit. For example, Amazon wouldn't be able to treat its warehouse employees so poorly, because nobody would work for them. It might just mean that it takes an extra day or two for the your book order to ship. Some companies would probably go under if they lost their access to unlimited exploitative labour. Their departure from markets would make way for (smaller) companies with a different approach to work with a focus on pleasant, safe and fulfilling working conditions for blue-collar workers.

It's possible that some of the accomplishments of industry that we've witnessed, such as just-in-time logistics and cheap cutting-edge gadgets, might not be possible without the exploitation of workers. But I'd like to see what people accomplish if they aren't trapped in shit jobs.

--

And economic measures like GDP growth don't mean a fucking thing if that growth isn't actually providing a benefit to people. What good is GDP growth if people can't even find a job that pays the bills?

 

[bilby]

A bunch of people could maintain their standard of living without working. Why would they choose to work? It's not like they are doing things they would enjoy doing.

Almost nobody who does a job that couldn't be automated would have anywhere CLOSE to their current standard of living if they accepted a reduction in total income to the level of any proposed UBI, by quitting their current job as soon as UBI was introduced.

There would, of course, be a need for the wages for truly unpleasant jobs that cannot be automated to increase very sharply indeed, but that's a feature, not a bug. If a job is unpleasant but necessary, it should pay well. It shouldn't pay poorly on the basis that people will have to do it for shit money in order to avoid starvation and homelessness.

The entire point of the excercise is to shift payrolls from funding basics plus disposable income, to funding disposable income only, with basics already covered for everybody.

There's plenty of incentive there for people to work. Just no incentive for them to tolerate having their wages driven by a race to the bottom; So nobody's gonna need to put up with shit work for shit pay.

You want people to do shit work, you're going to have to compete for them financially, without the threat of penury.

It seems to me that this effect of UBI would also enable government to remove the minimum wage. In Australia we could probably do away with all of the pay scales set out in industrial awards, and let everyone's pay be determined by the market.

Employers would be free to offer wages as low as they want, and if they can find people who are willing to sell their labour at that price, that's good for them. Some industries might be able to hire workers at extremely cheap hourly rates. UBI ensures those workers are still able to pay their bills and quit their job if and when they decide the pay is too low. The services those companies provide would also become cheaper.

Other employers may discover that they have to pay a much higher price to get people to work their shit jobs, or change those jobs to make them less shit. For example, Amazon wouldn't be able to treat its warehouse employees so poorly, because nobody would work for them. It might just mean that it takes an extra day or two for the your book order to ship. Some companies would probably go under if they lost their access to unlimited exploitative labour. Their departure from markets would make way for (smaller) companies with a different approach to work with a focus on pleasant, safe and fulfilling working conditions for blue-collar workers.

It's possible that some of the accomplishments of industry that we've witnessed, such as just-in-time logistics and cheap cutting-edge gadgets, might not be possible without the exploitation of workers. But I'd like to see what people accomplish if they aren't trapped in shit jobs.

--

And economic measures like GDP growth don't mean a fucking thing if that growth isn't actually providing a benefit to people. What good is GDP growth if people can't even find a job that pays the bills?

Exactly. Minimum wage is a redundant concept under UBI. And pay rates generally would presumably reduce by the amount of the UBI - existing workers would see very little change in their total income, in the immediate term.

 

[Elixir]

You appear to be assuming constant (or near constant) GDP.

Is that a reasonable assumption? Would it be a reasonable assumption in the event that a UBI were introduced? The answer may surprise you...

Loren has stated he believe the GDP would shrink, because "fewer people would be working". No explanation, of course.

A bunch of people could maintain their standard of living without working. Why would they choose to work? It's not like they are doing things they would enjoy doing.

Would you go sit on your ass if you were guaranteed 1k/mo?
If not, why are you projecting that on others?

I submit that MORE people would work because they would have the means to clean themselves up and present a respectable front, and the means to GET to work if hired. And I have as much evidence for that as you have for your assertion.
Plus, I have been dirt poor before, and I know that's what I would have done.

 

[J842P]

You appear to be assuming constant (or near constant) GDP.

Is that a reasonable assumption? Would it be a reasonable assumption in the event that a UBI were introduced? The answer may surprise you...

Loren has stated he believe the GDP would shrink, because "fewer people would be working". No explanation, of course.

A bunch of people could maintain their standard of living without working. Why would they choose to work? It's not like they are doing things they would enjoy doing.

OK, Loren, but even if I grant you that for the sake of argument, you haven't explained why I should assume that will make the economy contract. You are simply question begging. Transparently.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

A bunch of people could maintain their standard of living without working. Why would they choose to work? It's not like they are doing things they would enjoy doing.

The number of people who's standard of living is near or below the poverty line right now are a minuscule part of the economy. Whether they work or not hardly makes a difference.

Lets look at the proposal WorldTraveler provided as it's the only one with actual numbers.

For a couple that's the 45th percentile in income--or 52nd if you add a couple of kids. Not a minuscule part of the economy!

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I agree that you're mistaken to make that assumption, but it's refreshingly honest, if surprising, that you are so direct in admitting your reason for making it.

Why don't you figure ET is going to come along and give us replicator technology while you're at it.

Because that would be ludicrous. Whereas redistribution of wealth for social welfare purposes is a routine activity in strong developed economies (notably Australasia, Canada, the EU and the Nordic States).

Suggesting an extension of that already effective model, with a view to greater efficiency and effectiveness, is hardly in the same order of reasonableness as anticipating an alien technology transfer.

Perhaps you could engage in some actual discussion, and skip the silly non-sequiturs.

Of course it's ludicrous. I was saying the proposal in question was just about as ludicrous.

 

[bilby]

I agree that you're mistaken to make that assumption, but it's refreshingly honest, if surprising, that you are so direct in admitting your reason for making it.

Why don't you figure ET is going to come along and give us replicator technology while you're at it.

Because that would be ludicrous. Whereas redistribution of wealth for social welfare purposes is a routine activity in strong developed economies (notably Australasia, Canada, the EU and the Nordic States).

Suggesting an extension of that already effective model, with a view to greater efficiency and effectiveness, is hardly in the same order of reasonableness as anticipating an alien technology transfer.

Perhaps you could engage in some actual discussion, and skip the silly non-sequiturs.

Of course it's ludicrous. I was saying the proposal in question was just about as ludicrous.

I know what you were saying.

And that you were wrong.

 

[DBT]

There won't be much choice in the years to come, either UBI or dire social and economic consequences.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Of course it's ludicrous. I was saying the proposal in question was just about as ludicrous.

I know what you were saying.

And that you were wrong.

I still see a total unwillingness to address the actual numbers.

 

[ZiprHead]

Of course it's ludicrous. I was saying the proposal in question was just about as ludicrous.

I know what you were saying.

And that you were wrong.

I still see a total unwillingness to address the actual numbers.

I agree. I've asked you to post them several times.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I still see a total unwillingness to address the actual numbers.

I agree. I've asked you to post them several times.

The numbers have to be based on what the payments will be. Worldtraveler posted some, I used them--and got a completely impossible tax rate out of it.

 

[DBT]

I still see a total unwillingness to address the actual numbers.

I agree. I've asked you to post them several times.

The numbers have to be based on what the payments will be. Worldtraveler posted some, I used them--and got a completely impossible tax rate out of it.

Can we see your figures?

 

[Loren Pechtel]

The numbers have to be based on what the payments will be. Worldtraveler posted some, I used them--and got a completely impossible tax rate out of it.

Can we see your figures?

You didn't respond when I posted the effects.