Jazerus posted:

i have no objections to a full employment/reduced work week scheme right this very second. it's a good idea. but it's the stopgap, rather than ubi being the stopgap. public works that paid pretty well and guaranteed a job to all would definitely eliminate the bullshit low-value private sector jobs that can be automated away though, if the public works program lasted long enough, and then you have to start thinking about how you're going to go forward from there.

also i honestly have no idea what the desirable $ figure for ubi would be at this time. i'm hesitant to index it to any kind of regional variation in cost of living because marginal value is still a thing and you wouldn't want, e.g. people flooding new york to live there for a while on ubi and then go home to ruralville where the portion of their ubi that they managed to save is worth far more than that of the folks who just stayed in ruralville. so yeah that's a question i'm not really qualified to answer.

Serf posted:

me, under capitalism: robots are bad
me, under communism: robots are good

Al! posted:

it always comes down to some guy deciding that housework isnt socially necessary labor

Al! posted:

the biggest and reasonable criticism of UBI is that different people have wildly different needs depending on locality, health, ability, etc. so actually designing a UBI system that truly takes care of people's survival needs is an incredibly difficult to hit moving target (ha ha just kidding, all you would need is to hire enough case workers to handle a full load)

comedyblissoption posted:

i think that a back of the envelope calculation based on gdp per capita shows that we cannot have a UBI that by itself is considered live-able today. the masses of people still need to absolutely labor to provide a modern standard of living. can you even name a $ figure that you consider live-able?

if people were directed out of low-value bullshit jobs that only exist because of perverse capitalist incentives into high-value jobs, our society could be transformed and maybe we could even start conceiving of a live-able UBI system. right now that is so far beyond what we are capable of though that to propose it to people should be considered untenable.

ate poo poo on live tv posted:

Locality shouldn't be factored into UBI. No one NEEDs to live in New York City, but if the rentier class wants their starbucks they should have to pay for their barista's to live there everyone else can and should leave immediately.

the bitcoin of weed posted:

if food and housing and healthcare and education and childcare and probably a few more things are guaranteed to people then everyone could probably easily live very well on 50k per person

deadgoon posted:

here's enough UBI to support whatever u think the ethical baseline should be

from this position of economic security, how many of u want to supplement ur income by taking a job picking crops or on the line at the iphone factory

come on, raise ur hands

Homeless Friend posted:

deadgoon posted:

here's enough UBI to support whatever u think the ethical baseline should be

from this position of economic security, how many of u want to supplement ur income by taking a job picking crops or on the line at the iphone factory

come on, raise ur hands

comedyblissoption posted:

that 57k GDP figure per person is generated by the current economic output of the US society. you cannot economically implement a 50k per person UBI today. the GDP to even consider that would require substantially more economic productivity of the society.

Agean90 posted:

my biggest issue with ubi is that lovely landlords wouod hike their rents by however much the ubi is

Al! posted:

a gig economy would actually probably work pretty well with a robust ubi

OatmealRaisin posted:

this is like every lib's plan to fix america by forcibly relocating rural residents to cities

the bitcoin of weed posted:

a decent livable UBI is only achievable or useful if we first de-commodify the various necessities of living

if food and housing and healthcare and education and childcare and probably a few more things are guaranteed to people then everyone could probably easily live very well on 50k per person

of course at that point you're most of the way to full communism anyway

comedyblissoption posted:

that 57k GDP figure per person is generated by the current economic output of the US society. you cannot economically implement a 50k per person UBI today. the GDP to even consider that would require substantially more economic productivity of the society.

ate poo poo on live tv posted:

Owning residential property besides the house you personally live in is punishable by guillotine.

Taintrunner posted:

at the same time, housing in cities like new york especially is hosed up for poor people, living in roach infested basement closets for upwards of $700/mo. forming and enforcing a universal standard of living to bring an end to the exploitation of the vulnerable is essential

Taintrunner posted:

at the same time, housing in cities like new york especially is hosed up for poor people, living in roach infested basement closets for upwards of $700/mo. forming and enforcing a universal standard of living to bring an end to the exploitation of the vulnerable is essential

Jazerus posted:

i'm pretty sure most folks could live reasonably on like $10k per person at that point. if you're guaranteeing housing then you're eliminating the biggest source of regional variation in expenses. but that still has a much higher cost than just the $10k since you've got the necessities in there separately.

quote:

the us gov could print a shitload more money to make up some of this gap, for one thing. under a modern monetary theory analysis, the federal government spends waaaay less money than it should to maintain a healthy inflation rate at the moment, that's why the fed has to do quantitative easing

$50k per person is higher than i would have pegged it, maybe $30k? some places would be unliveable on ubi at that rate but who knows, maybe that would revive rural america in a good way

Taintrunner posted:

this is a huge problem, yeah. it'd be like gentrification on kerosene

Serf posted:

me, under capitalism: robots are bad
me, under communism: robots are good

Jazerus posted:

also yeah i agree with al! that gdp per capita right now doesn't have that much bearing on what a rationally organized socialist economy could do with the same resources

comedyblissoption posted:

you need to factor in any other social welfare programs along with UBI to provide a compelling economic argument that such a program is possible. you can't just handwave away housing and not include that in your UBI costs.

comedyblissoption posted:

maybe you should focus on convincing people to support a rationally organized socialist economy before you browbeat them into supporting a UBI system that is fundamentally impossible even if you had the political power to try to implement the policy

exquisite tea posted:

I don't fear the robots taking over because I believe that we as human beings are probably too stupid to figure out our own problems, but a well-constructed, self-replicating AI can probably get off this rock and thrive long after we're gone. It's our evolutionary destiny.

OatmealRaisin posted:

this is like every lib's plan to fix america by forcibly relocating rural residents to cities

ate poo poo on live tv posted:

Lol gently caress that. If I could I'd be gone from NYC post-haste. I'd come visit via train every few weeks. But if it were cheaper to live here I wouldn't mind as much. However because I have to work, I currently have to live here.

comedyblissoption posted:

maybe you should focus on convincing people to support a rationally organized socialist economy before you browbeat them into supporting a UBI system that is fundamentally impossible even if you had the political power to try to implement the policy

comedyblissoption posted:

what im saying is to talk about a live-able UBI today is unproductive. it is economically impossible in our current situation. your definition of "live-able" would need to be shared with zuckerberg and be either squalor or alaskan-like supplementary income. there are more important issues to focus on (e.g. medicare for all, converting the economy to worker co-ops, etc.) before that issue.

OatmealRaisin posted:

it's cool that you have the flexibility to up and gently caress off without a second thought if not chained to your desk

lots of people don't

Serf posted:

gently caress those AIs. either we go together or no one goes at all

Main Paineframe posted:

what's so hard about "enough that nobody ever has to worry about rent, food, or healthcare"?

Homeless Friend posted:

Alpha Mayo posted:

I can't decide if UBI is a first step to socialist utopia or capitalist dystopia. Though I have a hard time believing it could lead somewhere worse than the US is today, where oligarch's are so rich and powerful they can have our politicians deny climate change at the expense of the entire planet.

comedyblissoption posted:

you need to factor in any other social welfare programs along with UBI to provide a compelling economic argument that such a program is possible. you can't just handwave away housing and not include that in your UBI costs.

printing money isn't economic output or wealth generation by itself. monetary policy can be used to encourage and generate economic output, but that's totally different from what you are suggesting here.