1mo ago

So much for "progress"

Political Memes @lemmy.world

FenrirIII @lemmy.world

1mo ago

602 35

You're viewing a single thread.

231 comments

There is an economic rule about this
Basically what it says is that new developments - like electricity, cars, computers - cause a temporary increase in demand for labor - and therefore higher wages.
As the technology becomes routine, optimization and automation remove the need for labor - demand for labor decreases and by the rule of the market wages go down.
This development is natural and has nothing to do with who's currently president, policies or anything like that. To quote from the link above:
Stephen Cullenberg stated that the TRPF (Tendency of the rate of profit to fall) "remains one of the most important and highly debated issues of all of economics" because it raises "the fundamental question of whether, as capitalism grows, this very process of growth will undermine its conditions of existence and thereby engender periodic or secular crises."
The only thing that guarantees that the population in the US can continue to live in the long-term is Universal Basic Income - which says that the state should distribute resources among the population even if the people don't work. Basically a form of state-backed social welfare. Without it, the issue will continue to get worse, until people will die on the streets by hunger and cold in masses. UBI is a necessity for the person and for peace.
- Serious question: wouldn't Universal Basic Income rely on everyone paying their taxes instead of certain groups trying to hide or avoid paying it? I can't see governments affording this without a serious look at their spending to pull back om somethings, or there being a sufficient amount in the coffers from taxation.
  
  Debt money is constantly being created for the benefit of the already rich. Taxes are just another punishment for the poor. It's not a real issue, just political theater/distraction.
  
  There's some monetary theory that suggests careful creation of money is actually fine and won't lead to hyperinflation. So potentially, measured money printing to support UBI and stabilize the world economy might actually be fine? Honestly I don't know enough about the theory and proofs to really say, but there's some interesting possibilities if you allow for measured money creation
- We have UBI in my country.
  600-1300€ (depending number of children) as of this year. Over that you have to add up another series of subsidies. Most important one probably rent one that halves the cost of renting a house (the government takes care of about 50% of your rent if your income is bellow some threshold)
  For reference minimum wage is 1134€
  Most common salary is around 1200€
  And healthcare is obviously free at the point of service.
  But life is not as golden as you may thing. I used to be hardcore defendant of UBI until it became a reality. Now I'm not really into that. I think is faulty and actually bad for society. Many people are starting to have a feeling that breaking their asses 40 hours a week for getting the exactly same level of life quality that someone that does not work at all is just unfair. And tensions are on the rise. And I see a bad ending for it, it's like a ticking bomb. And it's bringing the contrary of peace, is creating confronting groups among our society.
  Nowadays I am more defendant of reducing number of workhours. If there's not enough work for everyone then maybe instead of working 40 hours a week people should be working just 20 hours a week, but everyone capable of doing work should be working, so everyone could work less hours and enjoy more life. I think it is more fair than UBI. And more likely to create social harmony.
  
  That doesn't sound like UBI. Someone working and earning a wage would earn that wage on top of the UBI so would not have the same quality of life as someone not working. What you described sounds more like a welfare program.
  
  It's the application of the proposed UBI in any welfare economy out there.
  The proposed UBI does not make much sense. On that scenario the instant inflation of giving everyone X extra money would make the UBI irrelevant and unsuitable for a living.
  What you are talking were proposed by some groups when IMV was implemented. But it was promptly taken out of consideration as it makes no economical sense whatsoever.
  Difference between welfare programs and this UBI is that welfare programs are subject to other considerations. Like only first 5000 applicants get it, or the distribute X amount of millions between the Y people with more points, or they are subject to any other criteria. We have those here too. Difference is that UBI has no other criteria. If you don't have that income that income is given to you. It's how a UBI is applied. Giving 500€ to everyone just to take 500€ out of taxes from most to maintain it and letting inflation make UBI quantity irrisorium would make no sense.
  In order to UBI to work the quantity given must be a living wage. And a living wage would always be close the most common wage in a developed country. I don't see how it would be possible por a UBI to be a living wage and then the most common wage being approximately double that, it doesn't seem feasible.
  
  The U in UBI is universal. If not everyone gets it, it's not UBI.
  
  Universal means that ALL people universally have access to that basic income. By their own ways or with help.
  Getting radical with the definition makes no sense.
  Give everyone 500€, then take everyone who is working 500€ in taxes. Dafuck? No need for the unreasonable and additional paperwork of doing it the long way.
  The purpose is ensuring everyone have at minimum 500€ (example) of disposable income. And that is rationally achieve the way I have explained that's being done in all welfare countries that are taking this as an objective.
  Still against it, one way or the other. But the other way seems unnecessarily convoluted for no rational reasons.
  
  You are describing GMI and not UBI. Not sure what its confusing about universal
  
  A lot is confusing.
  What issue does it solve to give Elon Musk $500?
  How it's supposed to be kept a livable wage from that kind of proposed UBI without working salary when UBI+Minimum wage would result in the most common income, making automatically just UBI way below the minimum for a decent living in that society?
  How does a more convoluted way of giving money solves any of the issues that arises from just giving money until a threshold?
  Why it makes any sense to make it like that anyway?
  I call an UBI the law that ensures that there is an Universal Basic Income. So if we set out universal basic income in 500€, no person in this country will have less than 500€ a month, simple as that.
  And anyway that has severe issues. So I really think that we should be "giving jobs", by reducing working hours of everyone, instead of money.
  
  What issue does it solve to give Elon Musk $500?
  If a benefit is only intended for select people, there is a cost associated with administration and enforcement. That cost can be quite significant, but more importantly, opens it up to questions of who deserves it, and how much, thereby negating its universality. If rich people aren't eligible, who gets to decide where to draw the line between who is rich and who is not?
  To a rich person, UBI amounts to rounding error, they literally won't notice the difference between getting it vs not. The idea is they'll be paying way more in taxes than they get from UBI.
  UBI is superior to something like a guaranteed minimum income. With a GMI, you make up to the GMI amount whether you work or not - so what is the incentive to work? You end up no better off than if you don't. This is a big problem with any state benefits, though usually it's worse, like with welfare, you tend to lose benefits once you reach some threshold, so working too much or too hard leaves you worse off than before.
  With UBI, it's a gradual trade- you can work not at all, and the state hands you let's say 40k per year. You get bored, or maybe you just want more/nicer stuff, so you take a part time job and work 20 hours a week - you still get 40k per year UBI, but you also earn 20k per year, of which 10k goes to taxes- so your take home is 50k, your cost to the state is reduced to 30k. As you work more hours and/or acquire more skills, your pay (from your job) eventually reaches 80k per year - at which point 40k goes to taxes, so now you're at break even as far as UBI goes, your take-home is 80k. You're still a net drain on society, (because of course the government does things besides pay UBI) but not as much. As you earn more, you pay more into UBI than you get out of it- but your take-home still rises, so people who want to pursue wealth as an end can still keep some of it.
  Of course the numbers are pulled out of my ass, I'm not even attempting to come up with a working plan, just getting the gist across. I'll let people smarter than me hammer out the details.
  
  Administration and enforcement are WAY higher when giving something to 100 million people than when giving it to 1 million.
  At least where I live calculating someone's income is trivial. Government have that data. With GMI 1 million people would need to say to the government that they want the money in a particular bank account, and the government would need to deal with ensure that petitions are legit. With UBI that work gets multiplied by a hundred or more. Suddenly the government has to control that the money is going to the proper bank accounts. And has to deal with WAY more fringe cases (recently deceased, minors, double identities, etc). There's no case for UBI being easier to manage.
  As for the rest the problem is the same between UBI and GMI if you think it through. UBI would need an humongous budget. Where that money will come from? Two options, printed or taxes.
  Printed is out of the question, hyper-inflation would be for the history books. Taxes would mean that most people end up loosing as much as they are gaining. And at the end you end with the same dilemma people who after taxes get the money and people who not. Just that it gets decided by tax brackets.
  And the fundamental issue is the same. Giving that the basic income is actually what's needed for a living... That would be pretty similar to the most common income for a job. As that's how economy work. Money is just an exchange for people's work. So the most common salary is more likely to be very similar to the amount of work needed for sustaining a population divided between the working population. I don't see it working on the proposed way, of UBI being a livable wage and the minimum salary being able to add another livable wage on top of that. I don't see how that would even be possible. Most likely on that scenario UBI+minimum wage ends up becoming what's needed to actually live good. And UBI alone becomes unlivable, making people who depended on that poor again.
  Not that GMI solves many issues. Just simpler to get a pretty similar outcome.
  Still I think both are bad approaches. Because they make it possible to some people to live without working(people that can work), out of others work. That will always make frictions.
  My approach would be just for the government to give jobs instead of money, guarantee jobs with livable income. Or if not all that much work is required for society, then lowering the working hours from 40 to less until all working population could share the load. I don't buy a society where some people work and others don't (that's why I don't like capitalism). I prefer societies where everyone who can work do actually work until society needs are filled.
  
  We already have social security numbers, and the IRS...
  make it possible to some people to live without working
  It's already like that, there are people who only go to work because they have to, and while there do as little as they can get away with. UBI would end the pretense, get them out of the way.
  
  Yeah, you got the point right. "Monotonicity" is important. That means, if somebody puts in more effort, they should get out more of it.
  
  x-axis is how much you earn from jobs, y-axis is how much you take home in-total.
  The only thing that remains to be determined is the parameters of that curve (offset + slope). A steeper slope would mean people are more motivated to go to work, but also less tax income for the state.
  I would propose a slope of 1/2 and an offset that is big enough to be able to live on it, but i believe this is something the people will have to determine through voting.
  
  You can call it UBI but that's not what anyone else means by UBI, so you're just confusing the debate by calling it that.
  
  Universal Basic Income. No strings attached. Everybody gets it. There is no income threshold.
  Regular human: UBI
  McDonalds worker: UBI + McDonalds income
  Bus driver: UBI + Bus driver income
  Doctor: UBI + Doctor's income
  Billionaire tech CEO: UBI + Tech CEO money
  Yeah, the inflationary pressure would probably be insane and would constantly negate any progress. I'm not an economist so I don't really know.
  
  I think that's a faulty interpretation of what an UBI should be.
  Universal Basic Income should mean everyone Human has at minimum that basic wage. By their own means or with help.
  Meaning ultimately that there are no humans living under X amount of money.
  
  One of the key points of UBI is that it is universal, meaning everyone gets it regardless of their own means.
  If you take it away from people who work then it's just un/underemployment support and it discourages people from taking low paid jobs and breeds resentment towards recipients.
  
  Where does it come the budget for that type of UBI? Two options:
  -Taxes: then workers do not actually get the UBI as the same amount of money that goes in goes out. It's just a convoluted way for getting the exact same result as just giving the money to the poorest to begin with.
  -Printing money: knock! Knock! Who is it? hyperinflation!
  -Tax, but just the rich!: If you want to tax the rich tax the rich. No need for a UBI excuse to do so.
  
  Yes, some people are going to pay more in taxes than they get in UBI. But with UBI you raise the bottom level of income in society so that everyone is able to live. Then people can supplement UBI by working an amount which fits them. Nobody has to work 60 hours a week just to be able to live. And you should also have tax thresholds set so that people don't pay as much in income tax as they get in UBI as soon as they start working - more/better paid work should always make you better off.
  In the end yes the rich will have to pay more towards it because UBI is inherently a form of wealth redistribution.
  
  Which country?
  
  Spain
  
  What country has UBI?
  
  Spain.
  It's known as "Ingreso mínimo vital". It's money given to everyone under X income. Without any other considerations. Everyone who doesn't have that money by themselves is given it by the government.
  
  We also have RSI in Portugal and it works in a similar way. It is not UBI. The U stands for Unconditional. What you describe is just welfare.
  
  Giving everyone, even millionaires, 500€ a month is an unreasonable application of UBI. It makes no sense doing it that way. No sense whatsoever.
  Traditional welfare can run off, as it's a program with X amount of money attached to it, UBI is not linked to allocated resources, so it doesn't run off.
  This the difference between traditional welfare and UBI is that UBI is given to EVERYone who needs it. As before welfare programs traditionally ran of of money before reaching everyone. There's no need, and it makes no sense to just give everyone money that it's going to instantly vaporize (via taxes or inflation)
  
  I'm not debating the merits of UBI. All I'm saying is UBI is, by definition, unconditional.
  
  Maybe. But given the unreasonable approach of a radical UBI I thought reasonable that more people understood the GMI approach as the way to actually materialize an UBI.
  I stand corrected as it's clear that many people actually believe that a pure UBI is somehow feasible as it's simplest definition.
  It's like when talking about democracy we are not talking about ancient greek democracy but about modern democracy instead.
  
  GMI has the problems you yourself stated. When someone working earns as much as someone on GMI they are bound to feel resentment.
  
  It should be universal human needs (food, shelter, healthcare, etc.)
  If they're just giving out paper money, it'll be worthless by the time it reaches the poor.
  
  Why are you still working 40 hours a week?
  
  I'm actually not.
  We have a strong union and we have 35 hours a week, full pay.
  But national limit is still 40 (they are talking about lowering it to 37,5 but it's taking ages).
- This development is natural
  lmao.
  
  Any actual notes or thoughts?

231 comments