I'm curious to know what your take is on a basic income for all US citizens versus our current 'conditional' welfare system. What do you think short term and long term outcome would be? Would the increased tax burden on the upper classes result in a total collapse rendering a basic income useless? My personal opinion is that it is necessary given the increasing rate of job automation coupled with our increasing population size (not to mention aging). Am I delusional? If so, why?
My personal opinion is that it is necessary given the increasing rate of job automation coupled with our increasing population size. Am I delusional? If so, why?
You might not be delusional, but in order to prove that it is necessary, you should at least take into consideration the fact that automation has been increasing for over a century, as well as population, and yet unemployment has remained relatively constant (ie, within a range unrelated to the amount of automation or population growth).
If your hypothesis doesn't deal with those two facts, then it's in the realm of fantasy, not reality.
Good points. However, both the population increase as well as the increase in automation is happening at an exponential rate, not linear as I infer (perhaps incorrectly) your statement to be.
This would also address more than solely unemployment though. It could lead to the abolishment of the minimum wage, which expecting people to live on is sort of a joke anyhow. It could provide a means for a single mother to actually be around enough to raise her kid(s) which has all sorts of positive societal benefit
However, both the population increase as well as the increase in automation is happening at an exponential rate
It has been growing exponentially for a long time. There's been no correlation between either population growth and unemployment, or automation and unemployment. If your hypothesis is correct, then you need to explain the lack of correlation.
It could lead to the abolishment of the minimum wage, which expecting people to live on is sort of a joke anyhow.
Almost no one lives on minimum wage. Look up the demographics of a typical minimum wage earner some time, almost all of them live in a nice middle-class income household.
Honestly though, I think it'll remain firmly in fantasy land
Don't. Base your worldview on facts. That is the only way we'll ever get the cheap energy, because people are looking at scientific facts and how we can use them.
... you should at least take into consideration the fact that automation has been increasing for over a century, as well as population, and yet unemployment has remained relatively constant
I am not necessarily worried about unemployment; I am worried about the increasing gap between the elite and everyone else. Early automation created the need for the middle class, as the wealthy needed trained people to run the machines. But in the past 40 years automation has become far more capable and sophisticated. It requires less people to run modern machines, but they need to be far more skilled than the last generation. This has lead to the shrinking middle class, the rising 1%, and also the rising
... you should at least take into consideration the fact that automation has been increasing for over a century, as well as population, and yet unemployment has remained relatively constant
I am not necessarily worried about unemployment; I am worried about the increasing gap between the elite and everyone else. Early automation created the need for the middle class, as the wealthy needed trained people to run the machines. But in the past 40 years automation has become far more capable and sophisticated. It requires less people to run modern machines, but they need to be far more skilled than the last generation. This has lead to the shrinking middle class, the rising 1%, and also the rising upper middle class.
Accelerated, more sophisticated automation didn't by itself led to a shrinking of the middle class. It is not even the primary factor.
Globalization did that. A middle class that was not educationally prepare to move out of what I call "manual/rudimentary" manufacturing, and a national difficulty to operate efficiently, those two played a significant role.
Remember, middle class used to denote blue collar jobs.
But those jobs started to go bye bye quite some time ago. It even preceded 2000's globalizat
1) We have always been faced with "increasing automation" from the moment we first used animals to till soil rather than doing it ourselves. The increased automation frees us to do more interesting work.
2) Basic income? How defines how much is "basic"? The problem here, is that it is a slippery slope of incremental definitions. Poor used to mean selling your pee to earn money ("piss poor"), now it means ObamaPhones, $100 Nike Shoes and a flat screen TV.
3) What makes you think that anyone is entitled to some
I am a libertarian. So most of what you say is meaningless in my case. However, the way the left uses terms like "Welfare to big corporations" I laugh. And when they say things like "GE didn't pay any taxes", I laugh harder. You see, it is the LEFT that creates "welfare" loopholes for things like Green Energy (Solyndra et al) used by big corporations like GE to avoid paying taxes.
Then they equate "Tax deductions" as "Subsidies", which would mean that almost all Americans are "Subsidized" by deductions (Stan
No, what I am saying is if you kill off Big Oil, you kill off a huge source of revenue to Big Government. It is very much like the attacks on "Big Tobacco" from the 90's where we increased taxes to the point of impacting cigarette sales, and the sudden loss of revenue the taxes raised (see Laffer Curve) that were being used by Big Government for programs, that suddenly no longer have funds to drive them.
Liberals (and NeoCons) love big government, but don't have the guts to admit that the very enterprises th
Have you done a study of loopholes and who proposed them? I suspect you'll find them proposed all over the political spectrum. Or what income "government" (which ones?) gets from Big Oil?
That aside, a "subsidy" may be viewed as a tax break that similar entities don't get. The Standard Deduction isn't a subsidy, because everybody gets it who doesn't have more deductions. The mortgage interest deduction might be regarded as a subsidy of homeowners. If Big Oil doesn't pay the taxes that you'd expect be
Oi, I realize this will woosh right over your partisan-baked brain, but I'll bite:
"What makes you think that anyone is entitled to someone else's money?" How did they get that money in the first place? Through a societal system they are able to take advantage of. Never completely on their own like libertarians are want to believe. Our current monetary system is based on debt leveraged on debt based on a promise. It's purely imaginary, fiat, whatever. The real deal is the cost of energy, resource extrac
Lets assume that it is legal. To coin a phrase "What difference does it make!!!!!!"
Money is just a convenient shorthand.
Yup, but you still haven't made any case that it is any business of government to take money from one person to give to another, under threat of a gun. The thing people like yourself are missing, is that government at its best is mutual consent, and at worst is tyranny. You're making the argument tyrants make, and not liberty.
A good place to start is being able to eat real food and have a stable place to live.
A good place to start is to realize that we already have a large number of programs that provide serv
1) A vibrant middle class is an aberration of history. I don't think we can look to history and find meaningful examples of what exponentially increasing technology will do to our current social structures.
2) Our society determines what basic income is. Just like we determine our laws.
3) Living in a society that respects property rights has its costs. Almost the only difference between the relatively peaceful western world and places like the unrest in the middle east is that the vast majority of our population has a lot of opportunities. You take those away and we will have the same unrest here.
I tend to agree with Thomas Paine, who believed that all citizens have a natural inheritance created by the introduction of the system of landed property. So in return for society recognizing property rights those property holders owe society some of its proceeds. He explicitly stated this should not be considered charity.
4) He never said he thought there would only be positive results. He did say he thinks it would be a good idea, but plenty of good ideas still have consequences. And he was openly asking for other opinions while merely offering his own; there is no need to jump down his throat.
5) No one is saying people would be paid not to work. All people would just be told "you don't have to work to meet your basic needs." Once that burden is removed, people would still be free to work to better their lives further. Very few people would just sit around all day doing nothing, and those that do really would be the ones we want removed from the workforce anyway.
1) Indeed. And was a result of industrious people who were rewarded for their hard work and ingenuity. The Elite Ruling Class is opposed, and therefore regulates commerce to the point of killing the middle class, in the name of "social order" and "group rights" of course.
2) "Our Society" doesn't do any such thing. The ruling class does so only to gain economic control from those it rules. But then again, we are "too stupid" to know what is in our best interests, so we must all those smart MIT professor type
1) It was also the result of the government funding a massive push to educate the workforce in the post-secondary education system. If you look at 1910, which was an era where big business was running things, 2.7% of the population was college educated. By 1990 it was almost double that.
The notion that industrious people created the middle class is laughable. It was clearly a partnership between the public sector which educated the workforce and the private sector that took this new workforce and created a
Opinion On Basic Income (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm curious to know what your take is on a basic income for all US citizens versus our current 'conditional' welfare system. What do you think short term and long term outcome would be? Would the increased tax burden on the upper classes result in a total collapse rendering a basic income useless? My personal opinion is that it is necessary given the increasing rate of job automation coupled with our increasing population size (not to mention aging). Am I delusional? If so, why?
Re: (Score:3)
My personal opinion is that it is necessary given the increasing rate of job automation coupled with our increasing population size. Am I delusional? If so, why?
You might not be delusional, but in order to prove that it is necessary, you should at least take into consideration the fact that automation has been increasing for over a century, as well as population, and yet unemployment has remained relatively constant (ie, within a range unrelated to the amount of automation or population growth).
If your hypothesis doesn't deal with those two facts, then it's in the realm of fantasy, not reality.
Re: (Score:2)
Good points. However, both the population increase as well as the increase in automation is happening at an exponential rate, not linear as I infer (perhaps incorrectly) your statement to be.
This would also address more than solely unemployment though. It could lead to the abolishment of the minimum wage, which expecting people to live on is sort of a joke anyhow. It could provide a means for a single mother to actually be around enough to raise her kid(s) which has all sorts of positive societal benefit
Re:Opinion On Basic Income (Score:4, Interesting)
However, both the population increase as well as the increase in automation is happening at an exponential rate
It has been growing exponentially for a long time. There's been no correlation between either population growth and unemployment, or automation and unemployment. If your hypothesis is correct, then you need to explain the lack of correlation.
It could lead to the abolishment of the minimum wage, which expecting people to live on is sort of a joke anyhow.
Almost no one lives on minimum wage. Look up the demographics of a typical minimum wage earner some time, almost all of them live in a nice middle-class income household.
Honestly though, I think it'll remain firmly in fantasy land
Don't. Base your worldview on facts. That is the only way we'll ever get the cheap energy, because people are looking at scientific facts and how we can use them.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
... you should at least take into consideration the fact that automation has been increasing for over a century, as well as population, and yet unemployment has remained relatively constant
I am not necessarily worried about unemployment; I am worried about the increasing gap between the elite and everyone else. Early automation created the need for the middle class, as the wealthy needed trained people to run the machines. But in the past 40 years automation has become far more capable and sophisticated. It requires less people to run modern machines, but they need to be far more skilled than the last generation. This has lead to the shrinking middle class, the rising 1%, and also the rising
Re: (Score:2)
Globalization, not automation. (Score:3)
... you should at least take into consideration the fact that automation has been increasing for over a century, as well as population, and yet unemployment has remained relatively constant
I am not necessarily worried about unemployment; I am worried about the increasing gap between the elite and everyone else. Early automation created the need for the middle class, as the wealthy needed trained people to run the machines. But in the past 40 years automation has become far more capable and sophisticated. It requires less people to run modern machines, but they need to be far more skilled than the last generation. This has lead to the shrinking middle class, the rising 1%, and also the rising upper middle class.
Accelerated, more sophisticated automation didn't by itself led to a shrinking of the middle class. It is not even the primary factor. Globalization did that. A middle class that was not educationally prepare to move out of what I call "manual/rudimentary" manufacturing, and a national difficulty to operate efficiently, those two played a significant role.
Remember, middle class used to denote blue collar jobs.
But those jobs started to go bye bye quite some time ago. It even preceded 2000's globalizat
Re: (Score:1)
1) We have always been faced with "increasing automation" from the moment we first used animals to till soil rather than doing it ourselves. The increased automation frees us to do more interesting work.
2) Basic income? How defines how much is "basic"? The problem here, is that it is a slippery slope of incremental definitions. Poor used to mean selling your pee to earn money ("piss poor"), now it means ObamaPhones, $100 Nike Shoes and a flat screen TV.
3) What makes you think that anyone is entitled to some
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I am a libertarian. So most of what you say is meaningless in my case. However, the way the left uses terms like "Welfare to big corporations" I laugh. And when they say things like "GE didn't pay any taxes", I laugh harder. You see, it is the LEFT that creates "welfare" loopholes for things like Green Energy (Solyndra et al) used by big corporations like GE to avoid paying taxes.
Then they equate "Tax deductions" as "Subsidies", which would mean that almost all Americans are "Subsidized" by deductions (Stan
Re: (Score:3)
No, what I am saying is if you kill off Big Oil, you kill off a huge source of revenue to Big Government. It is very much like the attacks on "Big Tobacco" from the 90's where we increased taxes to the point of impacting cigarette sales, and the sudden loss of revenue the taxes raised (see Laffer Curve) that were being used by Big Government for programs, that suddenly no longer have funds to drive them.
Liberals (and NeoCons) love big government, but don't have the guts to admit that the very enterprises th
Re: (Score:2)
Have you done a study of loopholes and who proposed them? I suspect you'll find them proposed all over the political spectrum. Or what income "government" (which ones?) gets from Big Oil?
That aside, a "subsidy" may be viewed as a tax break that similar entities don't get. The Standard Deduction isn't a subsidy, because everybody gets it who doesn't have more deductions. The mortgage interest deduction might be regarded as a subsidy of homeowners. If Big Oil doesn't pay the taxes that you'd expect be
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Oi, I realize this will woosh right over your partisan-baked brain, but I'll bite:
"What makes you think that anyone is entitled to someone else's money?"
How did they get that money in the first place? Through a societal system they are able to take advantage of. Never completely on their own like libertarians are want to believe. Our current monetary system is based on debt leveraged on debt based on a promise. It's purely imaginary, fiat, whatever. The real deal is the cost of energy, resource extrac
Re: (Score:3)
How did they get that money in the first place?
Lets assume that it is legal. To coin a phrase "What difference does it make!!!!!!"
Money is just a convenient shorthand.
Yup, but you still haven't made any case that it is any business of government to take money from one person to give to another, under threat of a gun. The thing people like yourself are missing, is that government at its best is mutual consent, and at worst is tyranny. You're making the argument tyrants make, and not liberty.
A good place to start is being able to eat real food and have a stable place to live.
A good place to start is to realize that we already have a large number of programs that provide serv
Re:Opinion On Basic Income (Score:5, Interesting)
1) A vibrant middle class is an aberration of history. I don't think we can look to history and find meaningful examples of what exponentially increasing technology will do to our current social structures.
2) Our society determines what basic income is. Just like we determine our laws.
3) Living in a society that respects property rights has its costs. Almost the only difference between the relatively peaceful western world and places like the unrest in the middle east is that the vast majority of our population has a lot of opportunities. You take those away and we will have the same unrest here.
I tend to agree with Thomas Paine, who believed that all citizens have a natural inheritance created by the introduction of the system of landed property. So in return for society recognizing property rights those property holders owe society some of its proceeds. He explicitly stated this should not be considered charity.
4) He never said he thought there would only be positive results. He did say he thinks it would be a good idea, but plenty of good ideas still have consequences. And he was openly asking for other opinions while merely offering his own; there is no need to jump down his throat.
5) No one is saying people would be paid not to work. All people would just be told "you don't have to work to meet your basic needs." Once that burden is removed, people would still be free to work to better their lives further. Very few people would just sit around all day doing nothing, and those that do really would be the ones we want removed from the workforce anyway.
Re: (Score:3)
1) Indeed. And was a result of industrious people who were rewarded for their hard work and ingenuity. The Elite Ruling Class is opposed, and therefore regulates commerce to the point of killing the middle class, in the name of "social order" and "group rights" of course.
2) "Our Society" doesn't do any such thing. The ruling class does so only to gain economic control from those it rules. But then again, we are "too stupid" to know what is in our best interests, so we must all those smart MIT professor type
Re: (Score:2)
1) It was also the result of the government funding a massive push to educate the workforce in the post-secondary education system. If you look at 1910, which was an era where big business was running things, 2.7% of the population was college educated. By 1990 it was almost double that.
The notion that industrious people created the middle class is laughable. It was clearly a partnership between the public sector which educated the workforce and the private sector that took this new workforce and created a
Are you delusional????? (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Am I delusional?
Maybe we should ask Hazel Bennetton.