|
My Lil Parachute posted:I would alter the wording to say - "Taking something from someone else, without their approval, is immoral". Really? Taxes are immoral? So we shouldn't have public education, police, courts, national defense, welfare, medical care for the poor, infrastructure or anything else funded by taking something without someone's direct approval? Okay so we should take everything back from the rich who built fortunes on conquest and slavery and exploitation of the rest of the world, right? My Lil Parachute posted:Additionally things obtained for free are not as valued as things worked for. Oh wait, hmmm, no this is going to be "the poors and orphans can pay for their own elementary school" isn't it? VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 15:48 on Dec 17, 2014 |
#
?
Dec 17, 2014 15:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 09:12 |
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Really? Taxes are immoral? So we shouldn't have public education, police, courts, national defense, welfare, medical care for the poor, infrastructure or anything else funded by taking something without someone's direct approval? quote:Okay so we should take everything back from the rich who built fortunes on conquest and slavery and exploitation of the rest of the world, right? a question - do you believe all rich people became rich immorally? Is it possible to be rich and deserve it? quote:OK 100% inheritance tax then, since obviously the children of wealth won't value what they don't work for?
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2014 15:54
|
|
|
My Lil Parachute posted:Most people consent to paying tax, recognizing it is needed for a stable society, but that doesn't open the floodgates to Take Anything You Want. I donate to various charities willingly. It would be immoral to use force to make me imo. Oh okay so there is actually nothing wrong with funding social programs by taxes then, even if people don't agree to each and every use of that tax money? Well, great glad that's settled! My Lil Parachute posted:Trivial to get around - gift it on your deathbed, or sell it to your kids for $1. The gift tax exists, and you can't get out of taxes by selling something like property or securities for $1. Would it kill you to know a bitty bit about what you're posting?
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2014 15:55
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Oh okay so there is actually nothing wrong with funding social programs by taxes then, even if people don't agree to each and every use of that tax money? Beep boop I am a robot who does not see shades of grey. quote:The gift tax exists, and you can't get out of taxes by selling something like property or securities for $1. Would it kill you to know a bitty bit about what you're posting? The "gift tax" in your country is presumably not 100%.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2014 16:00
|
|
|
My Lil Parachute posted:Beep boop I am a robot who does not see shades of grey. Nope sorry, you're trying to take the moral high ground that "taking is wrong" when it's taxes that are feeding the poor, but when taking pays for something you personally like, then oh well that's okay. My Lil Parachute posted:The "gift tax" in your country is presumably not 100%. Neither is the estate tax, but I'm not the one saying people should never get anything they didn't work for, am I? I'd be fine with a gift tax of 100% above a certain threshold though, just like the estate tax should be. My Lil Parachute posted:a question - do you believe all rich people became rich immorally? Is it possible to be rich and deserve it? No it's not. Past a certain threshold getting rich inescapably depends on exploitation. But I'm willing to compromise on the difficult-to-determine parts because I like your "taking without consent is always wrong" philosophy so much. Surely we can agree to start with the obvious injustices like redistributing all land back to indigenous peoples and/or the poor who currently work it, since we know all that poo poo was stolen from the Enclosure Acts to conquest to colonialism, right? VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 16:08 on Dec 17, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2014 16:03
|
|
|
We don't need mincome, we need Sanctuary Districts to house the people the Job Creators don't need (http://en.memory-alpha.org/wiki/Sanctuary_District). In all seriousness though, how would you solve our continually worsening unemployment problems caused by more and increasingly effective automation? Don't think knowledge workers are off the hook either, as expert systems are getting better every day to help doctors and lawyers and such do their jobs.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2014 16:35
|
|
|
TwoQuestions posted:In all seriousness though, how would you solve our continually worsening unemployment problems caused by more and increasingly effective automation? An increasingly repressive police state to ensure no one is taking without consent or getting something they (if they're not born into wealth and property) don't deserve.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2014 16:37
|
|
My Lil Parachute posted:Most people consent to paying tax, recognizing it is needed for a stable society, but that doesn't open the floodgates to Take Anything You Want. I donate to various charities willingly. It would be immoral to use force to make me imo. why?
|
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2014 16:44
|
|
|
My Lil Parachute posted:hello. Hi. My Lil Parachute posted:I would alter the wording to say - "Taking something from someone else, without their approval, is immoral". Additionally things obtained for free are not as valued as things worked for. Firstly, not all people would agree with this. Read the bible quote I posted if you need proof that ideas like this have been around for a long time. This isn't new, and shouldn't be scary. Either way, individual ideas about morality and value are irrelevant to a discussion about public policy. This is about what is sustainable and necessary, not about what gives people the warm and fuzzies. I'm deflecting because I can't argue you on this point. Not because you're necessarily correct, but because I know that this is a belief that was likely reinforced for a long time by your environment and others around you. I'm not nearly naive enough to think that I can change your beliefs, so you'll just have to believe me when I say that your personal mores are irrelevant to the discussion at hand. Also, if you're going to play the morality game, I should let you know that the final boss is the freakin' pope. My Lil Parachute posted:Have you got any cites for this? It sounds a little like the broken-window fallacy. This isn't the same as breaking a window to employ glaziers. This is simple and straightforward redistribution of wealth, which is a well studied issue in economics. I'm sure others could site specific resources better than I could, so I'll leave this question open. My Lil Parachute posted:I would propose a cap on the number of hours worked per week instead. A shorter working week will happen, but it won't be because we want to employ more people. Having more people do the same job for less hours is a straight loser from a business perspective. First, there's more paperwork, more training, more benefits. Secondly, for anything outside of unskilled labor, having more people working on a task just makes no sense and leads to increases in error and delays due to increased bureaucracy. No, a workweek reduction will happen because less man hours are required to meet demand. This will also lead to mass layoffs. The layoffs will happen first. Then, when staff is at a bare minimum, hours will be reduced. Remember, a company will try to produce exactly as much product as will be sold and not a unit more. Companies won't just hire new people and start new manufacturing lines just because they can. They actually have to be able to sell the stuff they make. The idea that giving Frito Lay a tax break will suddenly lead to more chip factories being built is one of the biggest GOP lies. My Lil Parachute posted:Bootstraps: Sure, luck can play a huge role in life (are you born an orphan or heir to a billionare's fortune?) but from what I've seen, most people need some luck and a lot of hard work before they get anywhere. Attributing someones success purely (as many people do) to luck shits all over the work they did to get there. It's not about whether you're born an orphan or a billionaire. It's, quite frankly, whether you're born black (or to a single mother, or disabled, or gay, or in the wrong zip code...). I think most people need to think really hard about just how much was given to them for free. I think you'll find that it was a lot. In my case, I got a free education. Free, quality, consistent food my entire childhood. Free shelter. Free entertainment. Edit: two free cars. Free healthcare. A free pass from the cops (on several occasions - some quite serious). Free job interviews. Free professional references. A free 30 cents for every dollar in my paycheck (I'm a white male). I didn't have to work for any of this, it was just given to me by the very nature of where and to whom I was born. There's probably a ton of stuff I'm forgetting. It wasn't immoral for me to get those things (well, maybe the free 30 cents), and it's not immoral to think that others should get the same. My Lil Parachute posted:Hypothetical: Would you brutally murder 100 Americans at random if everyone else in the world got a weeks worth of food? On average, it would save more lives then it would cost, so would be a net benefit to society - whilst still being an abhorrent act. This is either a straw man or moving the goalposts. Possibly both. If you need to introduce extreme hypotheticals into an argument as your example of something bad, you've already conceded that the position you're arguing against has nothing objectionable enough to attack on its own merits. My Lil Parachute posted:There is a fraction of the population I wouldn't trust to make me a sandwich, so we will always see some unemployment. There are jobs at present which are not done because it is simply not economical but would benefit society (eg roaming the beach all day and picking up litter). With adequate supervision I don't see why we can't get a few hours of community service in exchange for benefits. Those supervisors need to get paid. The bureaucracy to police this needs to get paid. It's a loser from a money perspective, and a loser from a public policy perspective. England tried exactly what you're proposing, and it ended horribly. As much as you might not want to think about it, it's better for the economy and for society if we just subsidize everybody, regardless of what (if anything) they choose to do with themselves. My Lil Parachute posted:The long-term solution has to be a reduction in working hours imo. As I said before, this is going to be a symptom of the problem, not the solution. Edit: Holy crap, this thread exploded. Can we like, try to be civil, here? This is an opportunity for us all to learn from each other and work towards good public policy. Let's embrace it, eh? KillHour fucked around with this message at 16:58 on Dec 17, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2014 16:50
|
|
|
Lots of people confusing "this is immoral" with "but mooooom, i don't wanna".
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2014 16:51
|
|
|
My Lil Parachute posted:I donate to various charities willingly. It would be immoral to use force to make me imo. I used to totally believe this! Turns out, I was wrong. We have to support other people and the economy as a whole. No, this is not voluntary. It's not about being nice, or good or moral. It's about making a decent life for ourselves in a poo poo world. Just because you don't personally know the family squatting in an abandoned building downtown with no heat in January doesn't mean you're not responsible for them. Being moral is about standing up and saying "the world's problems are my problems." We're insulated from how lovely the world is in our suburb McMansions and our gated communities, but it's still our problem. Our mess to clean up. You can't look on someone with no job, no home and no food and say "This is your fault!" because it's not. It's all of ours. We let them down. We let them slip through the cracks. We need to take responsibility.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2014 17:17
|
|
|
It sounds cliched but I think we absolutely have to begin thinking outside common moral boundaries and comfort zones in order to survive increased automation. "Nobly getting by with the skin on your teeth and taking no handouts" is admirable in a premodern frontier society but that is not the world we live in any more. You may be uncomfortable "giving away things for free" but it will be increasingly necessary to do so in order to avert disaster.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2014 17:22
|
|
|
murphyslaw posted:It sounds cliched but I think we absolutely have to begin thinking outside common moral boundaries and comfort zones in order to survive increased automation. "Nobly getting by with the skin on your teeth and taking no handouts" is admirable in a premodern frontier society but that is not the world we live in any more. More importantly, nobody ever actually did this. I think the only way you possibly could get by with no handouts is if you lived in the woods and grew your own food, or something. We underestimate how important all the free things we were given as children were to our success as an adult. I don't think anyone here can claim they were never given something they didn't have to pay off. Hell, my mom gave me thousands of dollars as a gift to help me buy my house just last year. It's something that, as human beings, we just do. I think the hard part is getting over the fact that you don't know who's getting the money and what they're using it for. One way or another, it has to happen, though.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2014 17:30
|
|
|
KillHour posted:Hell, my mom gave me thousands of dollars as a gift to help me buy my house just last year. It's something that, as human beings, we just do. But you deserve that, not like those welfare queens having more kids to get more of my money and using abortion as birth control because they're sluuuuuuts  My Lil Parachute posted:Beep boop I am a robot who does not see shades of grey. Seriously though, what is the argument you are making here? Because you say this: My Lil Parachute posted:I would alter the wording to say - "Taking something from someone else, without their approval, is immoral". But then you clarify that taxes are consensual so it's not immoral: My Lil Parachute posted:Most people consent to paying tax, So apparently the first part is irrelevant because you don't actually object to taxes on any kind of moral grounds at all, and the only question is whether something is a practical (or moral) use of tax money or not. Further you seem to be consequentialist when it suits you: My Lil Parachute posted:recognizing it is needed for a stable society By that standard a minimum income in the face of increasing automation is a definite necessity for a stable society because societies with people starving in the streets and dying without healthcare is a recipe for instability and revolution. But once again, if it's okay to take what is needed and spend it on whatever is necessary for a stable society then your deontological reasoning above that "taking without approval is immoral" appears even more irrelevant because if you really believed it consistently then the consequences don't matter. So in what framework are you operating here? Is there a deontological moral rule that we have to abide by, or do we do what has the best outcome for society?
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2014 17:44
|
|
|
Goddamnit; stop being a prick.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2014 17:55
|
|
|
Asking him to define the basis of his argument is being a prick?
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2014 17:58
|
|
|
My Lil Parachute posted:a question - do you believe all rich people became rich immorally? Is it possible to be rich and deserve it? Let me give an analogy explaining why it's impossible to be morally rich. Imagine that there's a race between 100 people where the top 5 people are given a reward of millions of dollars. 25 of those people are sick or injured to begin with. Can you really say that the winners deserved to win when many of the competitors were handicapped to begin with? To make the analogy even more like reality, imagine that many of the people who don't win will live in poverty, so there's a great consequence to ending up in the bottom quintile(s). Would it not be greatly immoral for the winners to choose to keep the great majority of their earnings? After all, the competition wasn't fair to begin with and many of their fellow competitors are living in poverty while they enjoy the benefits of their great wealth. And this analogy is actually overly generous in that it assumes that the competition itself is relatively fair. So no, it isn't possible to be a moral rich person. There's a sliding scale of immorality depending upon how rich a person is, but every single person who has tens/hundreds of millions of dollars is grossly immoral.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2014 18:09
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:Asking him to define the basis of his argument is being a prick? VitalSigns posted:But you deserve that, not like those welfare queens having more kids to get more of my money and using abortion as birth control because they're sluuuuuuts Being sarcastic and condescending is being a prick. And yes, poking holes in the structure of someone's argument is how you deface them on a live television debate. This is not a live television debate. You're not going to impress anyone by making My Lil Parachute feel attacked. Ytlaya posted:Let me give an analogy explaining why it's impossible to be morally rich. It still comes back to the fact that the more money you have, the more insulated you are from those that don't. In that position, it's easy to feel like you are not responsible for those persons, and moreover to feel like they had every advantage you did. There's a reason that every rich man in the bible was painted as a villain. Being rich while others suffer is, in and of itself, a sin. Edit: Forgive me for all the bible references. I am not particularly religious, but was raised Catholic and was around a lot of very conservative Protestants very often, so it was often a powerful tool in debates. If nothing else, it shows that these ideas aren't new, but have been around for millennia. Well before the advent of modern capitalism, as we know it. KillHour fucked around with this message at 18:18 on Dec 17, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2014 18:09
|
|
|
KillHour posted:Being sarcastic and condescending is being a prick. And yes, poking holes in the structure of someone's argument is how you deface them on a live television debate. This is not a live television debate. You're not going to impress anyone by making My Lil Parachute feel attacked. I was just kidding around with the welfare queens part, sorry. As for the rest, the reason I'm trying to get him to define the structure of his argument is because I think a common problem with that pseudo-Libertarian viewpoint is that for the normal decent person who believes them (as opposed to say the total evil pricks like the Kochs et al) is that they're based on a proposal that on a cursory examination "sounds good" like "don't take money from people without consent" but the superficial coherence falls away if you examine critically what it means. Also it's difficult to pin someone down who is eliding between steadfast moral rules and utilitarian concerns when pressed for specifics. I mean I get that we all kind of do that as a matter of course because few people have some pure moral standard, but I think it's important to question someone about whether they're being consistent with their moral principles or whether it's just a replacement for "something I don't like". It's common in conservative thought for taxation to be forcible confiscation when the money is spent on food stamps, but a voluntary patriotic contribution when it's spent on wars or law and order or highways or whatever. If you can get someone to agree that it's the object of government spending that's the important moral and practical consideration and not the fact that it's funded by "confiscatory" taxation, then you're free to demonstrate that social welfare is a good and moral use of money without giving them the option to dig in and go "doesn't matter, stealing is wrong" once you do that successfully. VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 18:25 on Dec 17, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2014 18:23
|
|
|
I'm trying to make some sense out of this shitshow of a thread, because I will freely admit that I am no expert on this situation. Somebody directly answer this question: Do we expect the rate of technological progress to slow in an appreciable way that will stem the now-centuries-old process of the devaluation of human labor? If not, how can anyone imagine human labor continuing to have value as our technology is increasingly outpacing all human endeavors in terms of productivity, efficiency, and reliability? http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/16/science/century-long-study-will-examine-effects-of-artificial-intelligence.html?_r=1
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2014 19:07
|
|
|
Quidam Viator posted:I'm trying to make some sense out of this shitshow of a thread, because I will freely admit that I am no expert on this situation. I certainly can't. I also can't really figure out what people's solution to that problem is gonna be, if not a basic income. I mean I imagine someone's proposed something in one of these huge rear end posts, but I'm certainly not up to the task of finding it. The only other solution I can think of is something like "employ half the population as police to beat the poo poo out of the other half who all have no jobs or money at all". I guess it'd work, but I dunno if anyone's gonna actually get behind that without some pretty obfuscating language at least.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2014 19:16
|
|
|
ChairMaster posted:I certainly can't. That would be my follow-up question, if technology really will continue its march, as all evidence seems to indicate. We are now close enough to a near-complete devaluation of human labor that it's not just some distant science fiction; it's more in the realm of climate change, namely a thing that is inevitable without immense societal change, likely within our lifetimes. I personally believe that no existing economic framework has a valid answer to the question of what happens when labor no longer has value. Both capitalism and communism and all of their variants are founded on the idea that labor is valuable. If this thread is really meant to ask a question about the unbounded future, then we first have to come to some common ground on whether the value of labor will actually continue, or if the rest of these comments have been pure ideological masturbation about whose current worldview will survive, even though none of them will. As far as I'm concerned, if you can't make a definitive statement defending how human labor will continue to have value, the burden of proof is on you to explain why you're still arguing as if it will. Is it simple short-sightedness, or is it denial? Or do you really have a way to explain how humans will get back into designing computer chips, running stock markets and banks, managing utilities, and of course, doing service work, having displaced their computerized competitors?
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2014 19:30
|
|
|
I think backing up a bit, we probably agree on some things. Assuming technology becomes good enough that most people can't support themselves through work society will have to change to accomodate that. Mincome could be a part of that. That society would be waaaaay different than the society of today. 6% unemployment is honestly not very much and some of that is frictional. We should separate talking about welfare from talking about mincome. I believe safety nets are a good thing. Does anyone posting ITT right now disagree with that? KillHour posted:It's not about whether you're born an orphan or a billionaire. It's, quite frankly, whether you're born black (or to a single mother, or disabled, or gay, or in the wrong zip code...). I think most people need to think really hard about just how much was given to them for free. I think you'll find that it was a lot. In my case, I got a free education. Free, quality, consistent food my entire childhood. Free shelter. Free entertainment. Edit: two free cars. Free healthcare. A free pass from the cops (on several occasions - some quite serious). Free job interviews. Free professional references. A free 30 cents for every dollar in my paycheck (I'm a white male). I didn't have to work for any of this, it was just given to me by the very nature of where and to whom I was born. There's probably a ton of stuff I'm forgetting. It wasn't immoral for me to get those things (well, maybe the free 30 cents), and it's not immoral to think that others should get the same. This is thinking I have trouble assimilating. Your food, shelter, entertainment, cars, health related expenses, were all paid for by your parents (presumably). They paid taxes to help pay for your education. That stuff didn't just get showered on you because of where you grew up and who you were born to. You had advantages because your parents were willing to work hard to provide them to you. It's not immoral that you have access to those things but it is kind of telling that you don't seem to appreciate the sacrifice it took to deliver them. It's not immoral, but is rather naive, to propose that everyone should have those things and btw they will all be paid for by the state forcing someone else to be the rich-ish parent. You as an individual don't get a free 30 cents on every dollar in your paycheck. =( That is not how statistics works. White males in general get paid more though the 30 cent figure is extremely debatable and needs to be conditioned by education, occupation, experience, and other factors.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2014 19:57
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:I think backing up a bit, we probably agree on some things. Assuming technology becomes good enough that most people can't support themselves through work society will have to change to accomodate that. Mincome could be a part of that. But won't people just buy jewelry and steam accounts with that? What need have the poor with money, can't they just send the housekeeper to the store to pick up a few things if they're running low on food  wateroverfire posted:This is thinking I have trouble assimilating. Your food, shelter, entertainment, cars, health related expenses, were all paid for by your parents (presumably). They paid taxes to help pay for your education. That stuff didn't just get showered on you because of where you grew up and who you were born to. You had advantages because your parents were willing to work hard to provide them to you. It's not immoral that you have access to those things but it is kind of telling that you don't seem to appreciate the sacrifice it took to deliver them. It's not immoral, but is rather naive, to propose that everyone should have those things and btw they will all be paid for by the state forcing someone else to be the rich-ish parent. So...then they were showered on you just because of whom you were born to...and your problem with it is that others shouldn't get what was yours by virtue of your better birth? VitalSigns fucked around with this message at 20:07 on Dec 17, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2014 20:01
|
|
|
Quidam Viator posted:That would be my follow-up question, if technology really will continue its march, as all evidence seems to indicate. We are now close enough to a near-complete devaluation of human labor that it's not just some distant science fiction; it's more in the realm of climate change, namely a thing that is inevitable without immense societal change, likely within our lifetimes. I personally believe that no existing economic framework has a valid answer to the question of what happens when labor no longer has value. Both capitalism and communism and all of their variants are founded on the idea that labor is valuable. If this thread is really meant to ask a question about the unbounded future, then we first have to come to some common ground on whether the value of labor will actually continue, or if the rest of these comments have been pure ideological masturbation about whose current worldview will survive, even though none of them will. Eh. The idea that we're at or even near the point where human labor will be valueless - even a majority of human labor - is pretty drat sci fi today. It´ll be pretty drat scifi 100 years from now. I agree with you that looking into the unbounded future it's a thing that seems like it could happen. How do we even accurately concieve of what a society where human labor has no value looks like?
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2014 20:04
|
|
|
Nope. Ain't gonna.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2014 20:05
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:Nope. Ain't gonna. ...address the blatant contradiction you posted? Unsurprising, but disappointing nonetheless.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2014 20:06
|
|
|
VitalSigns posted:...address the blatant contradiction you posted? Unsurprising, but disappointing nonetheless. I have never seen a conversation you were part of be anything but a total shitshow, so yeah, I'll live with your disappointment.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2014 20:07
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:I have never seen a conversation you were part of be anything but a total shitshow, so yeah, I'll live with your disappointment. You literally claimed in one sentence that gifts from your parents aren't given just because of who you were randomly born to...because your parents (the people you were randomly born to) worked for those gifts (and you didn't). Sorry basic logic seems like a shitshow to you, but then again you are a neo-colonialist...
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2014 20:09
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:This is thinking I have trouble assimilating. Your food, shelter, entertainment, cars, health related expenses, were all paid for by your parents (presumably). They paid taxes to help pay for your education. That stuff didn't just get showered on you because of where you grew up and who you were born to. You had advantages because your parents were willing to work hard to provide them to you. It's not immoral that you have access to those things but it is kind of telling that you don't seem to appreciate the sacrifice it took to deliver them. That upbringing directly led to me getting a good job (that I could not have gotten without such an upbringing), which will then allow me to provide the same things to my kids, providing them better opportunities than if I had been born into poverty. Likewise, my parents didn't just make all that poo poo appear out of thin air because they loved me enough or worked hard enough or bootstrapped enough. It's a self-feeding cycle, and it's why such massive inequality exists in the first place - rich people have rich kids; poor people have poor kids. wateroverfire posted:It's not immoral, but is rather naive, to propose that everyone should have those things and btw they will all be paid for by the state forcing someone else to be the rich-ish parent. I would like to point out that you just argued that some children shouldn't have good food, shelter, education, healthcare or entertainment because their parents aren't rich. wateroverfire posted:You as an individual don't get a free 30 cents on every dollar in your paycheck. =( That is not how statistics works. White males in general get paid more though the 30 cent figure is extremely debatable and needs to be conditioned by education, occupation, experience, and other factors. That is exactly how it works. In fact, because of statistics, it could be even higher than that! But it's probably in the ballpark. For instance, I make about 15% more than my wife (and always have), and we are about the same age, education level and have similar jobs. And we worked at the same company for a while - I got a higher paying job than she did, even though we started about 2 months apart.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2014 20:18
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:Eh. The idea that we're at or even near the point where human labor will be valueless - even a majority of human labor - is pretty drat sci fi today. It´ll be pretty drat scifi 100 years from now. Well, no wonder this thread is such a mess. You're acting as if none of the things that are happening are happening, and you don't even care to provide any source of explanation, other than to say that the idea of the end of work has to be science fiction. And you really believe that you can project a full century out, and think we'll still be talking about income, and jobs, and arguments about people buying Steam accounts or asparagus? Exactly how sustainable do you really believe our current economic models are, and how did you arrive at that delusion?
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2014 20:19
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:We should separate talking about welfare from talking about mincome. I believe safety nets are a good thing. Does anyone posting ITT right now disagree with that? Aren't safety nets and money from parents literally the same thing only from the parents mean it's applied on a random basis rather than any moral basis? You might believe in ownership and the freedom to do whatever with what is owned and so believe in the freedom to donate but what does that mean about receivership? Those who have the most now get to decide who receives the most next? Unless wealth equals morality it has to be more complicated than that. Your agreement over safety nets necessarily means that there is a minimum transfer which pays for them in administration and resources and so presumably when voluntary action fails to meet this level some other mechanism must also step in to bridge this gap. If you agree then we must argue specifics about what this safety net must provide and why. If you disagree then you do believe that wealth equals morality and the will of the rich is the will of the just. Quidam Viator posted:As far as I'm concerned, if you can't make a definitive statement defending how human labor will continue to have value, the burden of proof is on you to explain why you're still arguing as if it will. Is it simple short-sightedness, or is it denial? Or do you really have a way to explain how humans will get back into designing computer chips, running stock markets and banks, managing utilities, and of course, doing service work, having displaced their computerized competitors? Oh let's have some fun... Capitalism: Employment exists for selfish reasons; it doesn't rest on costs directly but the gap between cost of employment and revenue gained from the workers actions to entice a capitalist to hire them. Machinery for the most part has a constant cost both in terms of initial expenditure which must be earned back over its life and the cost of providing it with power and effective competition always tries to drive profits generated from the business downwards, but as stated machinery is a fixed cost or a sunk cost meaning it's hard to run them on the cheap. Humans however can be subject to things than machines can't; coercion, social pressures, loss of status and legal action against the unemployed, death, meaning their costs are very very flexible because they will sacrifice all of their long term costs to survive today. Thus human labour can always be manipulated into providing some service below the cost of a machine and if it kills them then someone will take their place at minimum cost to the employer. Even a high tech producer may suffer against an employer capitalist as the public sees the employer as their only means of survival and so award the employer social benefits while the employer makes money from the workers. There will always be jobs under capitalism. Communism: Humans are a social, productive species which likes to feel valued. Even in a world where work is unnecessary in terms of producing materials there will be vast social benefits (such as psychological benefits) to spending time ordering, crafting, designing and seeing those final products in real life and being used. There will always be a positive use for human expression and interaction in the act of production.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2014 20:24
|
|
|
Somebody asked how much it would cost, and I figured I would give it a go. The premise is 15k USD per person, with a gradual decrease in actual benefit received going from 15k at 15k to 0k at 30k written down linearly. E.g. someone earning 25k would receive an additional 2.5k. In the end I have included 7.5k for children under 18. According to http://www.ssa.gov/cgi-bin/netcomp.cgi?year=2013 the amount of wage earners in 2013 were: 155,772,341 According to the census estimate for 2013 the population was 316,128,839 of which 23,3% were under 18 = 73,658,020 Leaving an additional 86,698,479 over 18 and no income. I won't be writing out the income intervals, but other than that this leaves us with the following costs: over 18 no income = 86,698,479 * 15k = 1,300,477,177,695 Wage earners under 30k but over 0k = 809,448,260,000 (EDIT: previously stated at: 990,341,570,000) Wage earners over 30k = 1,346,243,545,000 For a total tax increase of 3,637,062,292,695 - expensive stuff, but while that is the nominal tax increase the actual tax increase would be substantially lower, because although people earning more than 30k would be taxed 15k they would also be receive 15k, making that part neutral for recipients. Essentially leaving the bill at 2,109,925,437,695 As the current social programs in the US amount to 2,287,133,000,000 according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_programs_in_the_United_States this part could essentially be revenue positive. However some of these should probably not be done away with, even under a mincome scheme. Considering the hardship of parents we could also add the dutch proposal (half mincome for kids) leaving a cost increases of 552,435,146,153 Leaving a total cost of ˝ trillion (if the dutch proposal is chosen) + whatever is left in - 180 billion in savings. And a total nominal tax increase of the amount above + 1.346 trillion - 180 billion, and similarly a total actual tax increase of minus 180 billion. EDIT: Miscalculation. Cost previously stated at: 2,290,818,747,695 corrected to 2,109,925,437,695 Pingui fucked around with this message at 16:22 on Dec 18, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2014 20:35
|
|
|
KillHour posted:That upbringing directly led to me getting a good job (that I could not have gotten without such an upbringing), which will then allow me to provide the same things to my kids, providing them better opportunities than if I had been born into poverty. Likewise, my parents didn't just make all that poo poo appear out of thin air because they loved me enough or worked hard enough or bootstrapped enough. It's a self-feeding cycle, and it's why such massive inequality exists in the first place - rich people have rich kids; poor people have poor kids. That is definitely a dynamic. However, what's your point? My point is that providing that stuff has a cost, and someone has to bear the cost. You're saying "don't worry it'll be someone else you'll never see" and IMO that's pretty naive. "Redistribute it all" is not a plan for breaking the cycle of poverty. KillHour posted:I would like to point out that you just argued that some children shouldn't have good food, shelter, education, healthcare or entertainment because their parents aren't rich. Dude, I didn't argue that. I argued that saying "you're going to have all these benefits and don't worry someone else is going to pay" is pretty naive and that you're ignoring what things cost. KillHour posted:That is exactly how it works. In fact, because of statistics, it could be even higher than that! But it's probably in the ballpark. For instance, I make about 15% more than my wife (and always have), and we are about the same age, education level and have similar jobs. And we worked at the same company for a while - I got a higher paying job than she did, even though we started about 2 months apart. Good for you! That's ALSO not how statistics work, but if you guys are so similar in every other way and your jobs are really that comparable, why not coax her to ask for a raise? Quidam Viator posted:Exactly how sustainable do you really believe our current economic models are, and how did you arrive at that delusion? Pretty sustainable tbh. We're all still here and the world economy seems to have been pretty resiliant in the face of crisis, so that's a good indicator that things are not about to fly apart. Business is good despite some headwinds. US growth is pretty robust though Europe continues to be Europe. Why do you believe The End Is Nigh? That seems like a much more controversial proposition - not to mention one that has been wrong any number of times in the last 100 years.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2014 20:35
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:That is definitely a dynamic. However, what's your point? My point is that providing that stuff has a cost, and someone has to bear the cost. You're saying "don't worry it'll be someone else you'll never see" and IMO that's pretty naive. "Redistribute it all" is not a plan for breaking the cycle of poverty. Generational poverty (and exploitation) has a cost too, only it too is paid by people we never see and don't have to think about. It's curious that you're so worried about prices paid by those who have more wealth than they can conceivably spend in lifetime after lifetime, and not about the price in lost opportunity paid by those who are born into poverty and cannot afford an education or even the nourishment to promote proper brain development.
|
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2014 20:42
|
|
|
wateroverfire posted:That is definitely a dynamic. However, what's your point? My point is that providing that stuff has a cost, and someone has to bear the cost. You're saying "don't worry it'll be someone else you'll never see" and IMO that's pretty naive. "Redistribute it all" is not a plan for breaking the cycle of poverty. My point is that the people who are bearing the cost can afford it. In fact, my household is in the ~55th percentile for income, and I can easily afford a ~10% increase in taxes, even though it is unlikely that I would need to bear nearly that much. Tax me, I'm good for it!  wateroverfire posted:Dude, I didn't argue that. I argued that saying "you're going to have all these benefits and don't worry someone else is going to pay" is pretty naive and that you're ignoring what things cost. We all have to pay. If you are rich and you're not paying, you need to be. Please, let me know how much this will cost. I'm sure you'll find that it's affordable if you're willing to go back to pre-Reagan tax rates. And yes, you literally argued that. Your argument was that it's unreasonable (or "naive", as you put it) to give all children food, clothing and shelter because nobody else should have to pay for it. You literally said that. wateroverfire posted:Good for you! That's ALSO not how statistics work, but if you guys are so similar in every other way and your jobs are really that comparable, why not coax her to ask for a raise? Yes, it is. Do you not know how a standard deviation works? You obviously never took statistics (or were bad at it, or something). Also, the reason she makes less than me is that she was passed up for the job she wanted and given a lesser job (in the same department) because of "lack of experience," not that she was given the same job with lower salary. She would have to jump 3 pay grades to catch up to me now. wateroverfire posted:Pretty sustainable tbh. We're all still here and the world economy seems to have been pretty resiliant in the face of crisis, so that's a good indicator that things are not about to fly apart. Business is good despite some headwinds. US growth is pretty robust though Europe continues to be Europe. Why do you believe The End Is Nigh? That seems like a much more controversial proposition - not to mention one that has been wrong any number of times in the last 100 years. There are going to be radical changes to the economy in the next hundred years. The economy of 100 years ago looks nothing like today, and economic trends took MUCH longer to propagate before the internet. A global crash can happen in seconds, now. Pingui posted:Somebody asked how much it would cost, and I figured I would give it a go. The premise is 15k USD per person, with a gradual decrease in actual benefit received going from 15k at 15k to 0k at 30k written down linearly. E.g. someone earning 25k would receive an additional 2,5k. In the end I have included 7,5k for children under 18. Honestly, it should probably be higher than this. If we made it $31,305 (Equivalent to $15/hr full time), we could make all the ultra-capitalists happy and abolish minimum wage! Then THE FREE MARKET  could decide if flipping burgers is worth another $2.50/hr or whatever.Edit: We could always just not pay for it. Get rid of whatever social programs are made redundant by a mincome (probably most of them) and throw the rest on the top of the budget as a deficit. We would essentially be taking out a negative-interest loan on behalf of everyone under a certain income, expecting to make it back in GDP (which we would, easily). It would be like those stimulus checks Bush gave out. Except it would actually work. KillHour fucked around with this message at 21:25 on Dec 17, 2014 |
|
#
?
Dec 17, 2014 20:54
|
|
|
KillHour posted:Honestly, it should probably be higher than this. If we made it $31,305 (Equivalent to $15/hr full time), we could make all the ultra-capitalists happy and abolish minimum wage! Then THE FREE MARKET What I can also tell you is that the actual cost is increased 177,857,881,513 per thousand increase in mincome (+ 36,829,009,744 for the kids following the dutch proposal).
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2014 16:54
|
|
|
Pingui posted:In my initial calculation, I did a miscalculation (people making from 15k to 30k all received 30k), making a substitution of all existing programs revenue positive. If you want to get people on board with a mincome, that should probably be the take-away instead of what you stated here. It should however be noted that I did not touch the military budget at all in the calculation, so if you want to increase the mincome that is probably the place to start. That number can't be right. Every thousand you add is going to increase eligibility, which makes each thousand more expensive than the last. Taking anything out of the military budget is pretty much a non-starter politically and economically. Like it or not, a large portion of our economy is tied up in military spending. A reduction in military spending is still austerity, which is the last thing we need right now. Honestly, putting it on the deficit may be the best option.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2014 19:39
|
|
|
KillHour posted:That number can't be right. Every thousand you add is going to increase eligibility, which makes each thousand more expensive than the last. You're right, I only tested it for small increases. At 30k it averages 195,653,150,680, starting at the number stated and ending at 210,323,855,513. Reducing military spending is certainly a political non-starter, but it is easier than increasing a mincome from 15k with positive revenue to a massively negative revenue at 30k. Economically it isn't a non-starter under mincome and I am surprised you would claim that, considering the multiplication effects of military spending versus a mincome increase of a similar size.
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2014 20:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 09:12 |
|
|
Nice article about UBI in developmental contexts from The Guardian:quote:...
|
|
#
?
Dec 18, 2014 21:40
|
|