|
Jack of Hearts posted:Seriously, who is advocating that? Two people living together would be making more than the current median household income without doing anything at all. You can't just take the yearly pre-tax wages of a person making $15/hour working full time and set that as the minimum, that's dumb. What amount would you propose then? The only numbers that have been bandied about here is a 30k one. Name your alternate price.
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 19:11
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 13:41 |
|
|
I'm surprised that so many leftists in this thread actually seem to support a mincome. How would such a thing be sustained, or even implemented in the first place, when it's so easy to attack? I mean you're just straight up giving money to people who aren't working. You might not think it's justified, but that would definitely create resentment. Telling people to just get over it isn't going to make it happen.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 19:14
|
|
|
Jizz Festival posted:I'm surprised that so many leftists in this thread actually seem to support a mincome. How would such a thing be sustained, or even implemented in the first place, when it's so easy to attack? I mean you're just straight up giving money to people who aren't working. You might not think it's justified, but that would definitely create resentment. Telling people to just get over it isn't going to make it happen. Utah is straight up giving away homes to the homeless. It's been incredibly successful. Amazingly, there hasn't been a massive backlash from the people of Utah over this. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news...saved-millions/
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 19:17
|
|
|
Jizz Festival posted:I'm surprised that so many leftists in this thread actually seem to support a mincome. How would such a thing be sustained, or even implemented in the first place, when it's so easy to attack? I mean you're just straight up giving money to people who aren't working. You might not think it's justified, but that would definitely create resentment. Telling people to just get over it isn't going to make it happen.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 19:17
|
|
|
Jizz Festival posted:I'm surprised that so many leftists in this thread actually seem to support a mincome. How would such a thing be sustained, or even implemented in the first place, when it's so easy to attack? I mean you're just straight up giving money to people who aren't working. You might not think it's justified, but that would definitely create resentment. Telling people to just get over it isn't going to make it happen. If you think it would create a significant pushback then that's a claim you need to prove. Because currently nothing supports that.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 19:20
|
|
|
Nitrousoxide posted:What amount would you propose then? The only numbers that have been bandied about here is a 30k one. Name your alternate price. I'm asking who suggested that number in the first place. I suppose another question is why you'd accept such a number uncritically. Half that would be more than sufficient. $12K a year with substantial additional allowances for children would be acceptable if we're thinking in terms of political tenability. People on true mincome wouldn't be able to live in NY or SF, but with a guaranteed income, they'd be able to move out to cheaper areas and live decently.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 19:21
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:If you think it would create a significant pushback then that's a claim you need to prove. Because currently nothing supports that. Nothing supports the idea that there would be pushback against a gigantic welfare program? I don't know what world you're living in.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 19:22
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:If you think it would create a significant pushback then that's a claim you need to prove. Because currently nothing supports that. What do you mean nothing supports that? loving food stamps are a perpetual target of conservative hatred, mincome would be ideal for stoking those same resentments. I don't know what you're trying to say by demanding he "prove" his claim, but if you don't think what he's saying is plausible I don't know how well connected you are to American political reality.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 19:24
|
|
|
Jizz Festival posted:I'm surprised that so many leftists in this thread actually seem to support a mincome. How would such a thing be sustained, or even implemented in the first place, when it's so easy to attack? I mean you're just straight up giving money to people who aren't working. You might not think it's justified, but that would definitely create resentment. Telling people to just get over it isn't going to make it happen. Even if you were right*, opposition to a policy is not in itself a reason not to support it. If it were, why would anyone support anything except whatever everyone else already supported**? *: as my previous posts might have indicated, I think the opposite is at least as likely to be true for a program which would benefit literally every citizen. **: 
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 19:27
|
|
|
Jack of Hearts posted:What do you mean nothing supports that? loving food stamps are a perpetual target of conservative hatred, mincome would be ideal for stoking those same resentments. I don't know what you're trying to say by demanding he "prove" his claim, but if you don't think what he's saying is plausible I don't know how well connected you are to American political reality. The key word is "gigantic". The experience of other countries with universal health-care suggests that universal benefits rapidly become politically impossible to fully roll back.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 19:29
|
|
|
Doc Hawkins posted:Even if you were right*, opposition to a policy is not in itself a reason not to support it. If it were, why would anyone support anything except whatever everyone else already supported**? My reason to not support it is that it's not likely to happen, so why not support something better that's also not likely to happen? If we're going to push for a pie-in-the-sky ideal, it shouldn't just be another welfare thing tacked onto capitalism like mincome.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 19:32
|
|
|
You will notice that the discussion of GMI in this thread was started by a conservative concern trolling in opposition to a livable minimum wage. I don't think anyone here is supporting it to the exclusion of more realistic and immediate concerns.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 20:05
|
|
|
Nitrousoxide posted:There are a few. Price is one. That one is pretty certain even without a study just by multiplying the number of adults in the US by the proposed GBI. ~235 million. People here seem to want around a 30k a year GBI which would require 7 trillion dollars. Keep in mind the USA GDP is around 16-17 trillion. That'd mean this one program would require 42% of the entire economic output of the USA to fund -- not including implementation costs. This could obviously be alleviated by reducing the payout. But would people be okay with a 15k GBI at 21% of the GDP. That's not enough live on. Why should you care about what's "efficient"? The obsession with more efficiency, more productivity, more more MORE is why we live an endless hustle on a slowly dying earth. If GBI would let you work a job you want instead of the one that makes the most money, by all means do so.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 20:51
|
|
|
Nitrousoxide posted:You'd be a fool to not be cautious. Trite, meaningless expression, lashing out in fear. OMG BIG, MUST RUN
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 21:03
|
|
|
Jizz Festival posted:My reason to not support it is that it's not likely to happen, so why not support something better that's also not likely to happen? If we're going to push for a pie-in-the-sky ideal, it shouldn't just be another welfare thing tacked onto capitalism like mincome. I support a whole lot of policies, many of which are in direct competition with each other, many of which require bloody and awful revolution. I can discuss the pros/cons cost/benefits of them all in conversation without having to pick only one that I will ever support or support in discussion.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 21:04
|
|
|
Nitrousoxide posted:What amount would you propose then? The only numbers that have been bandied about here is a 30k one. Name your alternate price. The simple and cautious answer would be to start with a small amount (let's say 6k annually if you're desperate for a specific number), and slowly and steadily increase it year on year until the marginal drawbacks start to outweigh the marginal benefits. (and those drawbacks aren't going to be a 20% drop in GDP, what is wrong with you). It would be a smaller program that would generate a nice curve with a bunch of data points for your viewing pleasure. And you won't be able to calculate the cost by multiplying 6k by the population if the country. We've already addressed that.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 21:15
|
|
|
Coming late on the conversation over the last few pages. Is it unreasonable to tie GMI and minimum wage levels to where a person lives? I'm from central Illinois where cost of living is pretty low, so conservative types get a big laugh out of $15 an hour which would be living pretty well around here. Consequently I would think such a wage would be near impossible to support a family on in the city. Is there something I'm missing here? I never here it mentioned with the topic of min. wage or incomes is raised.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 21:44
|
|
|
Jizz Festival posted:I'm surprised that so many leftists in this thread actually seem to support a mincome. How would such a thing be sustained, or even implemented in the first place, when it's so easy to attack? I mean you're just straight up giving money to people who aren't working. You might not think it's justified, but that would definitely create resentment. Telling people to just get over it isn't going to make it happen. How do you sustain it? You rein in the loving rich and their ability to pillage everything in sight. Productivity per worker has been growing steadily for...well, ever but wages for anybody that isn't rich has stagnated to hell and back. It's actually been declining for decades for the bottom quintile. The opposition to such things comes about because the rich spent significant chunks of money convincing the middle class that they'll be the ones footing the bill. Here's a hint: they won't. The rich, however, very much like the way things are going because they get to be continually more obscenely rich. 1% of America's population has 20% of America's wealth. The bottom 20% can't even afford enough to eat anymore. It isn't because they just all up and collectively decided to be lazy.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 23:26
|
|
|
Uroboros posted:Coming late on the conversation over the last few pages. Is it unreasonable to tie GMI and minimum wage levels to where a person lives? I'm from central Illinois where cost of living is pretty low, so conservative types get a big laugh out of $15 an hour which would be living pretty well around here. Consequently I would think such a wage would be near impossible to support a family on in the city. Is there something I'm missing here? I never here it mentioned with the topic of min. wage or incomes is raised. What would be the point? If $15/hour has no negative effects and also improves the lives of millions, why would we want to scale that back to $10/hour? Conservative types always oppose the minimum wage no matter where it's set, so it's not like you'd be appeasing them.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 23:31
|
|
|
Jizz Festival posted:I'm surprised that so many leftists in this thread actually seem to support a mincome. How would such a thing be sustained, or even implemented in the first place, when it's so easy to attack? I mean you're just straight up giving money to people who aren't working. You might not think it's justified, but that would definitely create resentment. Telling people to just get over it isn't going to make it happen. Why is it surprising that people support something in accordance with their principles? That it might be an unpopular idea doesn't provide a good reason to not support it. Many people have supported unpopular good ideas, many of these ideas became reality and actually normal and widely supported. There's literally nothing surprising about any of this???
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 23:34
|
|
|
Jizz Festival posted:My reason to not support it is that it's not likely to happen, so why not support something better that's also not likely to happen? The more relevant question is "why not?" Many, many policies we take for granted were at one time "very unlikely to happen," but they didn't end up happening by not supporting them.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 23:38
|
|
|
Jizz Festival posted:I'm surprised that so many leftists in this thread actually seem to support a mincome. How would such a thing be sustained, or even implemented in the first place, when it's so easy to attack? I mean you're just straight up giving money to people who aren't working. You might not think it's justified, but that would definitely create resentment. Telling people to just get over it isn't going to make it happen. It would be harder to attack than Social Security, which is really loving hard to attack. Social Security privatization has very little traction, and the abolition of Social Security is a total nonstarter. In addition to that, a mincome is going to be the natural result of technology's effect on our economy. Anti-minwage arguments often include a discussion on how automation is going to price out all of the workers who are currently getting paid for menial labor. But automation is inevitable; eventually "should I automate this job" isn't even going to be a question, it will just be the natural state of things (kind of like how engineering firms don't ask the question "should we hire 100 people to solve math problems with slide rules or should we buy one desktop computer?"). A mincome recognizes that economic output is not the only kind of valuable output, and we should let people choose career paths that produce an unlivable amount of income because those paths A) might have other societal benefits and B) are going to become more and more common and necessary as automation overtakes much of the labor market. Nitrousoxide posted:It's not in a vacuum. But if it results in lots of people taking less profitable jobs it undermines the economy and makes funding the project even less feasible. Your question posits that there would be labor shortages, but there's a ridiculous excess of labor supply right now. If you were to quit your job as a lawyer, I guarantee that it would get filled even if there was a $30k/year mincome (especially law, of all fields, which has a glut of graduates who can't find a job where they can actually practice law). The GDP would be fine, human ambition wouldn't go away just because we guaranteed everyone's minimum living expenses. And if, during the phase-in toward full mincome, we noticed deleterious effects then we could just stop increasing the mincome. There's really no issue here. QuarkJets fucked around with this message at 23:44 on Sep 7, 2016 |
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 23:41
|
|
|
Nitrousoxide posted:The theoretical downsides to a GBI are less troublesome than the theoretical downsides to a minimum wage. Given no actual data on both and bring forced choose, I would still choose a GBI. Given data that a minimum wage is bad but no data on GBI I'd choose GBI. Given data that modest minimum wage increases are not harmful I would favor that over a GBI. Nitrousoxide posted:There are a few. Price is one. That one is pretty certain even without a study just by multiplying the number of adults in the US by the proposed GBI. ~235 million. People here seem to want around a 30k a year GBI which would require 7 trillion dollars. Keep in mind the USA GDP is around 16-17 trillion. That'd mean this one program would require 42% of the entire economic output of the USA to fund -- not including implementation costs. This could obviously be alleviated by reducing the payout. But would people be okay with a 15k GBI at 21% of the GDP. That's not enough live on. These posts next to each other are amazing to me. Given no data at all you would still assume the GBI is better policy than modest increases in minimum wage. So without any data you seem to be saying you felt that raising the minimum wage a few dollars per hour was equivalent to policy requiring trillions of dollars (in your own eyes, others have already pointed out how your reasoning here is also flawed). And of course, after coming to the light that maybe minimum wage won't destroy the economy, you go on to explain how the GBI will. It's hard to come to the conclusion that this is being argued in good faith.
|
|
#
?
Sep 7, 2016 23:53
|
|
|
Raldikuk posted:These posts next to each other are amazing to me. Given no data at all you would still assume the GBI is better policy than modest increases in minimum wage. So without any data you seem to be saying you felt that raising the minimum wage a few dollars per hour was equivalent to policy requiring trillions of dollars (in your own eyes, others have already pointed out how your reasoning here is also flawed). And of course, after coming to the light that maybe minimum wage won't destroy the economy, you go on to explain how the GBI will. It's hard to come to the conclusion that this is being argued in good faith. It is a failure to acknowledge the role natural human bias plays in accepting certain fundamental premises as "logical" or correct on the face when in reality they are anything but. It was understanding that many of my stated and unstated opinions were biased and that even logical arguments in favor of a position do not necessarily result in logical outcomes that finally snapped me out of Libertarianism. I used the necessity of others performing economic experiments as a crutch against making tough decisions to take direct action to solve problems (race based approaches, appropriating the capital of the capital class, providing poor cash rather than string laden stamps, etc.), without realizing this would leave the country/world stranded in a prisoner's dilemma while suffering continued. And ultimately I learn that there is not a single shred of evidence that supports the idea that deontological positions ever resulted in superior results than consequentialist positions, and that inaction might as well be direct negative action. This is why I continue to harp on why it is necessary to empirically demonstrate the value of alternative positions since we have never demonstrated the value of our current policy (and most fully admit it is not achieving its goals).
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2016 01:23
|
|
|
Oh, and I studied actual economics rather than believing I could reason the whole goddamn field of study out from the basic laws presented in Econ 101. One of the first things you learn from even the staunchest of free market researchers is that you would not make an incredibly stupid claim like "Nebraska is a control for Kansas and thus comparison studies are science."
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2016 01:26
|
|
|
archangelwar posted:Oh, and I studied actual economics rather than believing I could reason the whole goddamn field of study out from the basic laws presented in Econ 101. One of the first things you learn from even the staunchest of free market researchers is that you would not make an incredibly stupid claim like "Nebraska is a control for Kansas and thus comparison studies are science." This is deep knowledge far beyond mere supply and demand, you pleb. You see, people act therefore... *acres of bullshit* ...so you see you are wrong, I am right, and all government should be abolished.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2016 01:28
|
|
|
Woolie Wool posted:Why should you care about what's "efficient"? The obsession with more efficiency, more productivity, more more MORE is why we live an endless hustle on a slowly dying earth. If GBI would let you work a job you want instead of the one that makes the most money, by all means do so. I mean a certain amount of economic inefficiency is fine if it's accompanied by a corresponding and similarly sized increase in happiness. It's a question of degrees. Maybe lots of people stop doing what they are better at and the GDP drops enough to make people sufficiently worse off to counteract the benefit. Maybe the happiness is greater than the cost. Maybe they break even, or another approach gives more happiness with lower cost. That's why data is important. Goon Danton posted:The simple and cautious answer would be to start with a small amount (let's say 6k annually if you're desperate for a specific number), and slowly and steadily increase it year on year until the marginal drawbacks start to outweigh the marginal benefits. (and those drawbacks aren't going to be a 20% drop in GDP, what is wrong with you). It would be a smaller program that would generate a nice curve with a bunch of data points for your viewing pleasure. This is a starting point. Depending on how the Netherlands and Finland experiments go I'd be willing to do a GBI that corresponds to the current entitlements received. Whatever that turns out to be when those experiments conclude and if they have positive results as that is what they are studying. You want more, pressure you city to experiment with a more aggressive GBI. Raldikuk posted:These posts next to each other are amazing to me. Given no data at all you would still assume the GBI is better policy than modest increases in minimum wage. So without any data you seem to be saying you felt that raising the minimum wage a few dollars per hour was equivalent to policy requiring trillions of dollars (in your own eyes, others have already pointed out how your reasoning here is also flawed). And of course, after coming to the light that maybe minimum wage won't destroy the economy, you go on to explain how the GBI will. It's hard to come to the conclusion that this is being argued in good faith. I'm not saying that a GBI will destroy the economy. I'm giving examples of how it could be damaging should it turn out to be bad. We frankly don't know whether it's good or bad right now. archangelwar posted:It is a failure to acknowledge the role natural human bias plays in accepting certain fundamental premises as "logical" or correct on the face when in reality they are anything but. It was understanding that many of my stated and unstated opinions were biased and that even logical arguments in favor of a position do not necessarily result in logical outcomes that finally snapped me out of Libertarianism. I used the necessity of others performing economic experiments as a crutch against making tough decisions to take direct action to solve problems (race based approaches, appropriating the capital of the capital class, providing poor cash rather than string laden stamps, etc.), without realizing this would leave the country/world stranded in a prisoner's dilemma while suffering continued. Man, I'd wish you'd stop trying to be my psychiatrist. I welcome novel research on the matter. I'm not content to sit back and wait for others to do it. If love to see more experiments done and would vote for them if given the opportunity to try limited, local experiments. Stop straw manning my views.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2016 01:50
|
|
|
QuarkJets posted:It would be harder to attack than Social Security, which is really loving hard to attack. Social Security privatization has very little traction, and the abolition of Social Security is a total nonstarter. Automation is going to reduce the amount of work that needs to be done by people, yes. The good solution to this problem, in my opinion, is to have everyone share the load (get everyone working or training for needed jobs) and work fewer and fewer hours as things become more automated. Everyone does their share, everyone gets their share of the wealth, and everyone sees their free time increase as productivity increases. The mincome solution is to keep things the way they are now but pay the increasing number of people who can't get a job enough to live a meager existence. It'd be better than just letting those people starve, but what I can't understand is seeing this as something to aim for. Let's aim for the good solution and leave the mincome as the worst case scenario. The way we start towards the good solution is by nationalizing industries and turning them into public services operated for the benefit of everyone. Something like the mincome isn't a step in this direction; it's just doing damage control for capitalism.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2016 01:59
|
|
|
Jizz Festival posted:Automation is going to reduce the amount of work that needs to be done by people, yes. The good solution to this problem, in my opinion, is to have everyone share the load (get everyone working or training for needed jobs) and work fewer and fewer hours as things become more automated. Everyone does their share, everyone gets their share of the wealth, and everyone sees their free time increase as productivity increases. Oh yes, nationalizing whole industries left and right. That will work splendidly. Good thing we have all of these successful countries to point to which are/were doing fantastic: Cuba, Venezuela, North Korea, the Soviet Union, East Germany. Can't wait to live the dream of from each according to his ability, to each according to his need.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2016 02:10
|
|
|
Nitrousoxide posted:Oh yes, nationalizing whole industries left and right. That will work splendidly. Good thing we have all of these successful countries to point to which are/were doing fantastic: Cuba, Venezuela, North Korea, the Soviet Union, East Germany. You do know other countries have nationalized industries and natural resources, right? I find it hilarious that you leave the PRC off this list.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2016 02:12
|
|
|
Nitrousoxide posted:Oh yes, nationalizing whole industries left and right. That will work splendidly. Good thing we have all of these successful countries to point to which are/were doing fantastic: Cuba, Venezuela, North Korea, the Soviet Union, East Germany. You left off the UK and France.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2016 02:13
|
|
|
Nitrousoxide posted:I mean a certain amount of economic inefficiency is fine if it's accompanied by a corresponding and similarly sized increase in happiness. It's a question of degrees. Maybe lots of people stop doing what they are better at and the GDP drops enough to make people sufficiently worse off to counteract the benefit. Maybe the happiness is greater than the cost. Maybe they break even, or another approach gives more happiness with lower cost. That's why data is important. You're still wrong about this. If you leave your high paying job to work on something you enjoy more, someone will fill that role who values their money more than their happiness (or who is genuinely fulfilled by that work). High paying jobs aren't a thing that people will just stop doing, and if you want an example of that, just look at something we call recorded loving history. We have a lot of slack in employment right now; what you are saying would only hold true if there were far more open jobs than there were skilled people to work them. Given that automation is increasingly making this no longer the case, your hypothetical is bullshit.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2016 02:14
|
|
|
Nitrousoxide posted:Oh yes, nationalizing whole industries left and right. That will work splendidly. Good thing we have all of these successful countries to point to which are/were doing fantastic: Cuba, Venezuela, North Korea, the Soviet Union, East Germany. Thank you for nicely demonstrating how much more threatening nationalization is to the status quo than a mincome could ever dream of.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2016 02:14
|
|
|
paragon1 posted:You do know other countries have nationalized industries and natural resources, right? I mean the PRC realized the error that was pure communism and and seen enormous growth for it. If you want to point to them I'm cool with that.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2016 02:16
|
|
|
Hey guys remember the BBC, that noted failed communist propaganda organ?
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2016 02:19
|
|
|
Dirk the Average posted:You're still wrong about this. If you leave your high paying job to work on something you enjoy more, someone will fill that role who values their money more than their happiness (or who is genuinely fulfilled by that work). High paying jobs aren't a thing that people will just stop doing, and if you want an example of that, just look at something we call recorded loving history. We're at like 5% unemployment which is considered full employment by economists. There's not an enormous slack of applicants. Some industries may be over saturated sure, attorneys for one, but the economy as a whole is not.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2016 02:19
|
|
|
Nitrousoxide posted:I mean the PRC realized the error that was pure communism and and seen enormous growth for it. If you want to point to them I'm cool with that. The biggest economic actors by far in the PRC are state owned enterprises.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2016 02:20
|
|
|
Jazerus posted:Hey guys remember the BBC, that noted failed communist propaganda organ? The BBC should be privatized.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2016 02:21
|
|
|
You do know that nationalizing some industries and operating them for the public benefit and enrichment isn't "pure" communism right? (  at the idea of "pure" communism, btw)
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2016 02:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2024 13:41 |
|
|
Nitrousoxide posted:The BBC should be privatized. You're a moron.
|
|
#
?
Sep 8, 2016 02:22
|
|