Split UBI - Split From Breakdown In Civil Order

[bigfield]

Agreed. UBI would take out a decent chunk of the labor pool.

UBI would absolutely destroy the labour pool for shitty, low-paying jobs that employers can only fill because people are desperate to keep a roof over their head.

It should be our goal, as a society, to annihilate those jobs.

If employers can't get workers to work in shitty jobs then they will need to improve working conditions. With a UBI, workers will no longer suffer workplaces which have a callous disregard for employee safety and dignity.

Or allow small businesses to employ people who would not have to try to live on starvation wages.

It would provide subsistence for people while they are trying to launch a business

UBI could significantly improve market competition simply by making small businesses more resilient and able to survive even against corporate competitors.

(Assuming those small businesses deserve to survive. Fuck small business tyrants.)

We don’t like small businesses and we don’t like larger “public ally traded companies. Do we like any companies?!!

I like companies that treat their workers well.

 

[Toni]

Agreed. UBI would take out a decent chunk of the labor pool.

UBI would absolutely destroy the labour pool for shitty, low-paying jobs that employers can only fill because people are desperate to keep a roof over their head.

It should be our goal, as a society, to annihilate those jobs.

If employers can't get workers to work in shitty jobs then they will need to improve working conditions. With a UBI, workers will no longer suffer workplaces which have a callous disregard for employee safety and dignity.

Or allow small businesses to employ people who would not have to try to live on starvation wages.

It would provide subsistence for people while they are trying to launch a business

UBI could significantly improve market competition simply by making small businesses more resilient and able to survive even against corporate competitors.

(Assuming those small businesses deserve to survive. Fuck small business tyrants.)

We don’t like small businesses and we don’t like larger “public ally traded companies. Do we like any companies?!!

What we don’t like is people not being able to afford to live in decent housing, excellent t health care and excellent education and a secure retirement. We also strongly support a strong, healthy environment.

What I oppose is anyone being able to amass so much wealth that they effectively are above the law.

 

[Emily Lake]

Do you have a point or do you not understand what “adjusted” means? If a SS recipient received $30K in retirement benefits without UBI, and UBI is $15K, then SS retirement benefits could be adjusted to $15K.

Sure. And if a working person is currently making $40K, and they get $15K in UBI, then the employer can just drop their salary to $25K.

YES!!!!

That's exactly how it's supposed to work.

It's a shit idea. Especially when paired with your prior-post's scheme to tax that UBI at 100%.

...for a person who already pays $30k/yr in income tax.

Nah, it's a shit idea for everyone

 

[Emily Lake]

There are two fundamental problems with UBI:

1) The numbers don't work. Eventually that will change.

The numbers do work. Total productivity is far more than adequate to feed, house, and clothe everybody; The reason people are hungry, ragged, or homeless is that the fruits of that productivity are unequally distributed.

The fruits are also unequally produced.

I'm all for making massive changes to corporate tax laws, as well as strengthening and simplifying our assistance programs. But I am quite strongly opposed to this notion that everything should be equally distributed, or that everyone's survival needs should be seen to (by someone else) just because they got born.

Being born doesn't entitle you to the fruit of someone else's labor.

2) It's a trap. If society takes a downturn and can't afford UBI you will have a whole bunch of people with no useful job skills. Putting them back to work would be a slow process.

On the contrary, under the current system there are a whole bunch of people who have neither the time nor the money to obtain useful job skills.

Bullshit. I mean, entirely absolutely bullshit. Skilled trades are in high demand, pay quite well, are needed everywhere. And most high schools in the US (not all, of course) have some sort of VoTech arrangement. Enrolling in trade schools is waaaaaayyyyyy less expensive than university or even community college, and they almost all have apprenticeship programs once past the basics, so you get paid as you continue to learn.

There is a constant need for medical billing specialists. Many hospitals will teach the needed skills, and many community colleges offer one-year course for the basics. Heck, most insurance companies will hire entire classes of people for customer service jobs, and pay them while they're in training to learn how to do the job.

FFS janitorial positions pay pretty well, and there's no special skills involved.

Under a UBI, more people would have the time and money for education; And likely more people would want to be employed, as working conditions would need to improve very sharply. Nobody would work for an abusive boss, knowing that quitting wouldn't be a complete disaster for them financially, so bosses would need to make working much more attractive and pleasant, with shorter and/or more flexible hours, more collaborative decision making, and (for those jobs that cannot be made pleasant or enjoyable to do) higher wages.

There would be a massive shift in the kinds of employment that would be low paid vs high paid; And a huge shift in attitudes towards work by employees, and towards workers, by employers.

So in your opinion, this approach of giving everyone free money is somehow going to change the entire nature of the human psyche? It's going to make all the meanies into nice people and all the jobs into high-paying gigs, and everyone will want to work and nobody will be lazy or opportunistic, and basically it'll just fix the entire human race.

 

[Toni]

Do you have a point or do you not understand what “adjusted” means? If a SS recipient received $30K in retirement benefits without UBI, and UBI is $15K, then SS retirement benefits could be adjusted to $15K.

Sure. And if a working person is currently making $40K, and they get $15K in UBI, then the employer can just drop their salary to $25K.

YES!!!!

That's exactly how it's supposed to work.

It's a shit idea. Especially when paired with your prior-post's scheme to tax that UBI at 100%.

...for a person who already pays $30k/yr in income tax.

Nah, it's a shit idea for everyone

I used to be opposed to UBI but life happened and I know a number of people who are barely—barely hanging on. I see the effects of poverty reflected in my community and have seen enough to see the major culprit being very low wages, and very high profits for a handful of people who work hard to starve public education and who don’t get tooth and nail against anything that might increase their taxes or increase their liability for environmental damage their business causes or in any way inhibits their ability to do exactly what they want, when they want.

I have zero problem taxing UBI payments to millionaires or even to very comfortably middle class people like myself.

 

[Emily Lake]

What's the point in giving it and turning around and taxing it away?

Because many people do not need the support. Letting rich people keep that unneeded money would just increase the income disparity and make less money available to those that need it.

Or, and I know this is a crazy idea so hear me out... Or how about we don't give it to the people who don't need it?

Then it will be criticized as an entitlement and welfare. And we know how much right wingers love welfare. UBI removes that distinction.

Pretty sure right wingers love UBI about as much as they love welfare. I don't see how you're coming out ahead on this.

Plus, "stick it to the right wingers" is not as big a selling point as you seem to think

No sticking to the right wingers involved. And UBI will be given to lefties and righties alike. When the money starts coming in, they will change their minds very quickly.

Sure... until bilby taxes it all away again.

But you know what? Go for it. Statistically speaking, progressives are wealthier and have higher incomes than conservatives do anyway. It will be interesting to see what happens when the proponents of UBI realize that they're the ones footing the bill and see their quality of life decrease.

 

[Toni]

There are two fundamental problems with UBI:

1) The numbers don't work. Eventually that will change.

The numbers do work. Total productivity is far more than adequate to feed, house, and clothe everybody; The reason people are hungry, ragged, or homeless is that the fruits of that productivity are unequally distributed.

The fruits are also unequally produced.

I'm all for making massive changes to corporate tax laws, as well as strengthening and simplifying our assistance programs. But I am quite strongly opposed to this notion that everything should be equally distributed, or that everyone's survival needs should be seen to (by someone else) just because they got born.

Being born doesn't entitle you to the fruit of someone else's labor.

2) It's a trap. If society takes a downturn and can't afford UBI you will have a whole bunch of people with no useful job skills. Putting them back to work would be a slow process.

On the contrary, under the current system there are a whole bunch of people who have neither the time nor the money to obtain useful job skills.

Bullshit. I mean, entirely absolutely bullshit. Skilled trades are in high demand, pay quite well, are needed everywhere. And most high schools in the US (not all, of course) have some sort of VoTech arrangement. Enrolling in trade schools is waaaaaayyyyyy less expensive than university or even community college, and they almost all have apprenticeship programs once past the basics, so you get paid as you continue to learn.

There is a constant need for medical billing specialists. Many hospitals will teach the needed skills, and many community colleges offer one-year course for the basics. Heck, most insurance companies will hire entire classes of people for customer service jobs, and pay them while they're in training to learn how to do the job.

FFS janitorial positions pay pretty well, and there's no special skills involved.

Under a UBI, more people would have the time and money for education; And likely more people would want to be employed, as working conditions would need to improve very sharply. Nobody would work for an abusive boss, knowing that quitting wouldn't be a complete disaster for them financially, so bosses would need to make working much more attractive and pleasant, with shorter and/or more flexible hours, more collaborative decision making, and (for those jobs that cannot be made pleasant or enjoyable to do) higher wages.

There would be a massive shift in the kinds of employment that would be low paid vs high paid; And a huge shift in attitudes towards work by employees, and towards workers, by employers.

So in your opinion, this approach of giving everyone free money is somehow going to change the entire nature of the human psyche? It's going to make all the meanies into nice people and all the jobs into high-paying gigs, and everyone will want to work and nobody will be lazy or opportunistic, and basically it'll just fix the entire human race.

Under the current system, being rich certainly seems to entitle you to the fruits of other people’s labor—and it seems that you’re just fine with that, I guess.

 

[Emily Lake]

Also - I'm in a particularly snarky mood right now, so take my posts with a grain of salt or three. I'm not giving them the amount of thought I normally do.

 

[Emily Lake]

I showed that an UBI of 15K appears sustainable.

The hell you did. Your poverty level UBI would cost the ENTIRE GOVERNMENT REVENUE to fund!

 

[Emily Lake]

You lower the reward, people do less.

Observation suggests the opposite. The hardest workers are the lowest paid.

Yep, those incredibly dedicated hardworking fast food employees.

On what are you basing your observations? And what do you mean by "hard working"?

 

[Emily Lake]

I showed that an UBI of 15K appears sustainable.

No, you never addressed the problems.

How the economy operates after an UBI is put into effect depends on the specifics of the UBI amount and how it is financed. The notion that companies could effectively reduce salaries by the UBI requires the implicit assumptions of strong market power on the part of employers and no change in the supply of labor.

You seem to think you can stick the employers with a huge cost increase and they'll just have to take it.

Sorry, but few industries operate at the profit margins required to be able to absorb the additional costs. Wages will either crash or the jobs disappear entirely.

Wages are supposed to crash.

Incomes should remain roughly the same.

So your plan really, really is to fuck over the people who pay the taxes, tax the "free money" that you're given them are the equivalent of 100%, and somehow that's supposed to magically make every nice and friendly and also increase wages and make more people want to work?

 

[Emily Lake]

Not only have you pretty much halved our income

Your income wouldn't change.

You would receive less of it directly from your employer, and more of it from government; But the net change should be close to zero.

Okay. Seriously. HOW IS THE GOVERNMENT GOING TO GET THE TAXES TO PAY OUT THE FREE MONEY ONCE THE WAGES HAVE CRASHED?

 

[Emily Lake]

It's challenging to grasp the logic in staunchly defending a labor market that, despite substantial support over nearly a century, seemingly falls short in distributing wealth equitably among the majority rather than just a privileged few. Reevaluating our pro-business bias and exploring alternatives seems sensible. While UBI may not be the solution, and the current system isn't a complete failure, outright hostility towards policies that prioritize the worker over businesses strikes me as unreasonable, again, given we've been rolling out red carpets and tossing roses at their feet for a long ass time.

I'm not defending the labor market. Although I don't think there's actually anything wrong with the principle of the labor market in the first place. What's wrong is that corporate taxes are dumb and stupid and need to be revised in a substantial way, lobbying needs to be gutted and set on fire, and companies need to be prohibited from negotiating tax breaks and such entirely.

You don't have to have a rosy and sycophantic view toward monopoly enterprises and "too big to fail" bastards to realize that UBI isn't a well thought out idea.

There are a whole host of things that can - and should - be considered before this.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I showed that an UBI of 15K appears sustainable.

No, you never addressed the problems.

How the economy operates after an UBI is put into effect depends on the specifics of the UBI amount and how it is financed. The notion that companies could effectively reduce salaries by the UBI requires the implicit assumptions of strong market power on the part of employers and no change in the supply of labor.

You seem to think you can stick the employers with a huge cost increase and they'll just have to take it.

Sorry, but few industries operate at the profit margins required to be able to absorb the additional costs. Wages will either crash or the jobs disappear entirely.

Wages are supposed to crash.

Incomes should remain roughly the same.

So your plan really, really is to fuck over the people who pay the taxes, tax the "free money" that you're given them are the equivalent of 100%, and somehow that's supposed to magically make every nice and friendly and also increase wages and make more people want to work?

Yes, that has been bilby's plan all along. It has been his signature here forever "Let's fuck over the people who pay taxes".

 

[ZiprHead]

Being born doesn't entitle you to the fruit of someone else's labor.

Yes. Unproductive people should just die. Is there an ice flow somewhere nearby where we can drop off some of those people?

 

[ZiprHead]

The fruits are also unequally produced.

I'm all for making massive changes to corporate tax laws, as well as strengthening and simplifying our assistance programs. But I am quite strongly opposed to this notion that everything should be equally distributed, or that everyone's survival needs should be seen to (by someone else) just because they got born.

Being born doesn't entitle you to the fruit of someone else's labor.

Have you tried telling that to Jeff bezos?

 

[ZiprHead]

What's the point in giving it and turning around and taxing it away?

Because many people do not need the support. Letting rich people keep that unneeded money would just increase the income disparity and make less money available to those that need it.

Or, and I know this is a crazy idea so hear me out... Or how about we don't give it to the people who don't need it?

Then it will be criticized as an entitlement and welfare. And we know how much right wingers love welfare. UBI removes that distinction.

Pretty sure right wingers love UBI about as much as they love welfare. I don't see how you're coming out ahead on this.

Plus, "stick it to the right wingers" is not as big a selling point as you seem to think

No sticking to the right wingers involved. And UBI will be given to lefties and righties alike. When the money starts coming in, they will change their minds very quickly.

Sure... until bilby taxes it all away again.

But you know what? Go for it. Statistically speaking, progressives are wealthier and have higher incomes than conservatives do anyway. It will be interesting to see what happens when the proponents of UBI realize that they're the ones footing the bill and see their quality of life decrease.

Do you know they already do it in Alaska? They just don't call it UBI. Alaska is a very conservative state, but don't ever try to take their UBI away from them.

 

[bilby]

Being born doesn't entitle you to the fruit of someone else's labor.

Tell that to your kids.

I think you'll find that it absolutely and unequivocally does.

 

[bigfield]

Not only have you pretty much halved our income

Your income wouldn't change.

You would receive less of it directly from your employer, and more of it from government; But the net change should be close to zero.

Okay. Seriously. HOW IS THE GOVERNMENT GOING TO GET THE TAXES TO PAY OUT THE FREE MONEY ONCE THE WAGES HAVE CRASHED?

Tax the rich.

 

[bilby]

There are two fundamental problems with UBI:

1) The numbers don't work. Eventually that will change.

The numbers do work. Total productivity is far more than adequate to feed, house, and clothe everybody; The reason people are hungry, ragged, or homeless is that the fruits of that productivity are unequally distributed.

The fruits are also unequally produced.

I'm all for making massive changes to corporate tax laws, as well as strengthening and simplifying our assistance programs. But I am quite strongly opposed to this notion that everything should be equally distributed, or that everyone's survival needs should be seen to (by someone else) just because they got born.

Being born doesn't entitle you to the fruit of someone else's labor.

2) It's a trap. If society takes a downturn and can't afford UBI you will have a whole bunch of people with no useful job skills. Putting them back to work would be a slow process.

On the contrary, under the current system there are a whole bunch of people who have neither the time nor the money to obtain useful job skills.

Bullshit. I mean, entirely absolutely bullshit. Skilled trades are in high demand, pay quite well, are needed everywhere.

But cost a lot of time and money to acquire the skills to do.

And most high schools in the US (not all, of course) have some sort of VoTech arrangement.

Which isn't particularly helpful to someone who isn't in high school when their current job disappears, and they need to find another one.

Enrolling in trade schools is waaaaaayyyyyy less expensive than university or even community college, and they almost all have apprenticeship programs once past the basics, so you get paid as you continue to learn.

But you need money and time to begin with. "less expensive" isn't affordable to people who have zero dollars to spare.

There is a constant need for medical billing specialists.

Though frankly that entire job shouldn't exist (and doesn't, outside the US).

Many hospitals will teach the needed skills, and many community colleges offer one-year course for the basics.

Great! Just as soon as people can wait a year for their next meal, that will render my concerns "entirely absolutely bullshit".

Heck, most insurance companies will hire entire classes of people for customer service jobs, and pay them while they're in training to learn how to do the job.

Will they? Do they hire homeless people?

FFS janitorial positions pay pretty well,

No, they absolutely do not.

and there's no special skills involved.

Yes, there absolutely are.

Clearly you have never done janitorial work.