|
Arglebargle III posted:This scheme would have so many second order effects I think we'd need to have a team of economists work up a paper on it before saying how it would shake out. (or insulting anyone's intelligence for that matter!) Nintendo Kid posted:Our GDP would be quite a bit higher if we didn't have so many people who couldn't afford to buy anything but the bare basics. Or do you not understand late capitalist economies? Demand talks. These are both true statements, calm down a bit and let's get less personal. Obviously we'd be economically stimulated, but any hard effects would need research and debate to insist upon.
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2014 07:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 13:41 |
|
|
The hard effects are clear: people are able to afford to live. That's all we need to know.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2014 07:37
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:The hard effects are clear: people are able to afford to live. That's all we need to know. Unfortunately, now that people can afford to live, what will the second-order impacts be? Will we see a rapid increase in unemployment as service industry jobs are made obsolete due to more affordable home and fast-casual dining? How many McDonald's and other franchises will go belly-up due to an upward shift in consumer spending trends? Or, how much will higher education rates go up for individuals due to increased access? Will individuals be able to more afford to live the basics of life, while resulting in an overall reduction of tax revenues, or will they live a better life while increasing everyone's profit margins and reducing the deficit and need for entitlement programs?
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2014 07:43
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:Unfortunately, now that people can afford to live, what will the second-order impacts be? Will we see a rapid increase in unemployment as service industry jobs are made obsolete due to more affordable home and fast-casual dining? How many McDonald's and other franchises will go belly-up due to an upward shift in consumer spending trends? And don't forget what the knock-on inflationary effects will be when rentiers know that who they are renting to is guaranteed to have $15k a year coming to them. Now granted, inflationary effects have always tended to be less than the direct impacts (see also: minimum wage hikes) but they will exist in an unknown amount.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2014 07:49
|
|
|
Well I know if you paid me $15k a year I'd probably be able to muddle through assuming there wasn't massive increases in inflation (or rather that the purchasing power kept approximate parity). That plus national health care and I think I'd be alright; if I wanted to just sit on my rear end and write the great American novel I wouldn't starve and could see a doctor periodically. That said here's the real stumbling block: it's going to go to... you know... those lazy, entitled people. You know. THEM.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2014 07:49
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:Unfortunately, now that people can afford to live, what will the second-order impacts be? Will we see a rapid increase in unemployment as service industry jobs are made obsolete due to more affordable home and fast-casual dining? How many McDonald's and other franchises will go belly-up due to an upward shift in consumer spending trends? Unemployment rates only matter when employment is necessary to stay alive. By modern standards you could say that unemployment during the 50s say was easily 40% or something due to how many women kept house rather than work. It also seems odd to think the service industry or fast food would collapse from it, fast food is already a more expensive option, and service industries are precisely what people with extra money can make use of and buy.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2014 07:53
|
|
|
ComradeCosmobot posted:And don't forget what the knock-on inflationary effects will be when rentiers know that who they are renting to is guaranteed to have $15k a year coming to them. Inflation is taxation based upon perception of a central bank's inability or unwillingness to make its interest payments, so I expect inflation would fall under a GMI while PPP would also be experienced as decreasing for the lower and lower-middle classes, while GDP would experience rapid and immediate growth in most sectors. Bit of a strange scenario, and not one which I think has been faced too much in history. Falling inflation, decreasing purchasing power, with 5-9% higher rates of GDP growth over pre-intervention rates seems like it would further the concentration in wealth towards the higher end and would result in an upward distribution. Hm. Quite complex when examined from a systems perspective. What was the impact of Alaska's oil divident as compared to pre-intervention? Nintendo Kid posted:Unemployment rates only matter when employment is necessary to stay alive. By modern standards you could say that unemployment during the 50s say was easily 40% or something due to how many women kept house rather than work. Unemployment rates matter more for population concerns and security issues than they do for purely economic reasons. I don't think there would be a collapse in all fast food; I think there would be an upward shift in spending trends from fast-convenience to fast-casual. From McD's to Chipotle's. Now I'm wondering on the margins for McD's vs Chipotle, and whether the continue shift towards fast-casual without GMI will result in increased or decreased tax revenue. E: Nessus posted:That said here's the real stumbling block: it's going to go to... you know... those lazy, entitled people. You know. THEM.  My plan eliminates Obamacare AND lets the poors be free to die from wasting their money on alcohol and vidya games
My Imaginary GF fucked around with this message at 08:05 on Nov 2, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2014 07:59
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:I'm calling you a liar who chooses to ignore facts. I thought the reference was clear. You're being a complete rear end in a top hat, I misremembered and posted new numbers based on the numbers you demanded. Arglebargle III fucked around with this message at 08:23 on Nov 2, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2014 08:04
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:You're being a complete rear end in a top hat, I misremembered and posted new numbers based on the numbers you demanded. You're arguing with Fishmech.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2014 16:58
|
|
|
ComradeCosmobot posted:And don't forget what the knock-on inflationary effects will be when rentiers know that who they are renting to is guaranteed to have $15k a year coming to them. My *guess* is that this would be outweighted by the stimulatory effects as low income people started paying more. I'm honestly surprised nobody has written up a solid policy analysis on this topic. I feel like I've read one but can't remember enough to google it.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2014 17:04
|
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:
The facts still stand that people didn't seem to generate concerns or security issues during time periods where fewer people "needed" to work. Or, for that matter, that they also didn't seem to lessen those during periods when even more people were working (say, when child labor was widespread and many old people would stay at least part time employed til death due to lack of old people support programs). Plus you seem to misunderstand the whole nature of fast food businesses - the convenience factor is huge for all income ranges, and they're all free to introduce other dining styles in the same restaurant. Many McDonald's in particular have undergone a Starbucks-lite interior redesign that can accommodate a swift pivot to also doing "fast casual" inside or even table service. And I'd dare say that a basic income includes a stimulus towards supporting increased tourism/road tripping where fast food is particularly useful.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2014 17:40
|
|
|
Poors will make fewer babies due to the signals produced by the market. Already we can see in the western world that the birth rate is falling. We just need to get the poorer nations on earth to follow suit. It may take a while for equilibrium to be reached but eventually we will live in a world populated by a wealthy skeleton crew that maintains the vast army of automatons. edit: so to answer your question, no.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2014 17:55
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:Unemployment rates only matter when employment is necessary to stay alive. By modern standards you could say that unemployment during the 50s say was easily 40% or something due to how many women kept house rather than work. What you're really talking about here is labor participation, and in that sense we've already got around 40% of the working age population who are unemployed. The actual unemployment rate only looks at people who are actually looking for work. Labor force participation rose pretty steadily as women started working, and it's falling again since there aren't actually enough jobs to support full labor participation.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2014 18:25
|
|
|
Paradoxish posted:What you're really talking about here is labor participation, and in that sense we've already got around 40% of the working age population who are unemployed. The actual unemployment rate only looks at people who are actually looking for work. Labor force participation rose pretty steadily as women started working, and it's falling again since there aren't actually enough jobs to support full labor participation. And more people retiring.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2014 18:35
|
|
|
I cant give much info on the economics of it, but I was listening to a podcast about millenials and something that was noted was how we as a society should strive for less people working. Now that it is less necessary for people to work and you have more people who can live comfortably within a home with only a few workers, we should see that as a point of progress and not blaming individual's ethics. I guess it's more noticeable with millenials because their parents are probably doing well enough to support them. So, I think just for the fact that we are getting to a point where not everyone needs to work, yes we will need a basic income, or subsidized housing, healthcare & food. (http://www.cracked.com/podcast/what-america-cant-admit-about-millennial-generation/)
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2014 19:50
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:My *guess* is that this would be outweighted by the stimulatory effects as low income people started paying more. Between all the existing nations with similar policies of minimum income, negative income tax, or indirect entitlement through strong social welfare systems, the hand-wringing over UBI "secondary effects" or "knock-on effects" are simply a lazy way of arguing against something while pretending to share a sympathetic mindset. It is just simple redistribution, and any other negative consequence of broken capitalism can be dealt with through additional measures.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2014 19:58
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:Our GDP would be quite a bit higher if we didn't have so many people who couldn't afford to buy anything but the bare basics. Or do you not understand late capitalist economies? Demand talks. Umm you don't understand economics if you think taking money from one person and giving it to another person as part of a system which might plausibly decrease working hours will boost GDP in any real terms. The only hope for boosting the economy is to create an overall healthier social situation where education and human capital increase. However, this is long term.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2014 23:53
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:Umm you don't understand economics if you think taking money from one person and giving it to another person as part of a system which might plausibly decrease working hours will boost GDP in any real terms. That depends on if the person getting the money is going to spend it in a way that increases aggregate demand more than leaving it with the first person or not.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2014 23:55
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:Umm you don't understand economics if you think taking money from one person and giving it to another person as part of a system which might plausibly decrease working hours will boost GDP in any real terms. Actually unless you're talking about Austrian economics or something then "economics" doesn't really have anything to say about what would happen in that situation until you add in a lot of context, such as each person's propensity to spend. It's entirely plausible, for instance, that raising income taxes and using that money to increase food stamps would increase GDP.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2014 00:02
|
|
|
chairface posted:That depends on if the person getting the money is going to spend it in a way that increases aggregate demand more than leaving it with the first person or not. No it doesn't depend on that. It depends on whether more stuff gets produced or not which is a very unlikely effect of policy that probably won't boost working hours. What you described can happen in a 100% inflationary scenario where no new wealth is created at all. Helsing posted:Actually unless you're talking about Austrian economics or something then "economics" doesn't really have anything to say about what would happen in that situation until you add in a lot of context, such as each person's propensity to spend. Same.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2014 00:03
|
|
|
In our current economic climate an increase in aggregate demand would lead to more production. If you combined that with a a German style "work-sharing" scheme then you could easily have a situation where wealth is redistributed, hours worked goes down and production increases.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2014 00:16
|
|
|
Helsing posted:In our current economic climate an increase in aggregate demand would lead to more production. If you combined that with a a German style "work-sharing" scheme then you could easily have a situation where wealth is redistributed, hours worked goes down and production increases. Increased aggregate demand increases real GDP if and only if it causes an increase in 1) productivity or 2) working hours. It's just arithmetic. So which one of the above is going to increase due to GMI and why? Increased working hours isn't likely at all. It will probably decrease working hours and workforce participation. The only argument for a productivity increase is that decreased employment will spur increased automation. In a scenario where aggregate demand increases and employment decreases this is very possible, but not likely to actually increase production, it will just offset some of what's lost. Like I said, over the long term there is the hope that increased education and human capital might cause an increase in both of the above. That's possible but certainly not immediate.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2014 00:27
|
|
|
The mistake you're making is that you're assuming that the economy is already working at full capacity, which it isn't. There are already idle resources that could be put to use if the demand for them existed.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2014 00:33
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:No it doesn't depend on that. Because we produce things for magical fairy reasons and not because there is demand for the products to be met. Riiiiiiight.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2014 00:36
|
|
|
Helsing posted:The mistake you're making is that you're assuming that the economy is already working at full capacity, which it isn't. There are already idle resources that could be put to use if the demand for them existed. No I'm not. If it's already at full capacity then increased demand won't cause any growth. Case closed. But if it's not at full capacity a policy still has to do 1 or 2 above to actually increase output. There are literally no exceptions to this. Keynesian stimulus for example typically works by boosting employment in a situation when employment is low. The increased GDP comes from the employment. But in the case of GMI we have a policy that may boost aggregate demand, but probably simultaneously discourages an increase in employment. Hence no growth. chairface posted:Because we produce things for magical fairy reasons and not because there is demand for the products to be met. Riiiiiiight. By over-reacting to him, you've let Reagan sabotage your understanding of economics. asdf32 fucked around with this message at 00:50 on Nov 3, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2014 00:45
|
|
|
Helsing posted:In our current economic climate an increase in aggregate demand would lead to more production. If you combined that with a a German style "work-sharing" scheme then you could easily have a situation where wealth is redistributed, hours worked goes down and production increases. Production would increase, but why wouldn't it just increase in China, and decrease GDP?
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2014 00:47
|
|
|
Discussions about productivity and to a large extent production are really missing the whole goddamn point about whether basic incomes are necessary. Basic incomes are guarantees of survival for the individual and guarantees of stability for the capitalist system which seems to provide neither of those with great reliability.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2014 00:47
|
|
|
GMI is just another way of trying to patch up the holes in the sinking ship of capitalism all because the captain and crew don't want to admit that other boats without holes built in during the manufacturing process might be more buoyant.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2014 00:56
|
|
|
Arri posted:GMI is just another way of trying to patch up the holes in the sinking ship of capitalism all because the captain and crew don't want to admit that other boats without holes built in during the manufacturing process might be more buoyant. This is very insightful and precisely the sort of view points we need to deal with real world problems.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2014 01:06
|
|
|
namesake posted:Discussions about productivity and to a large extent production are really missing the whole goddamn point about whether basic incomes are necessary. Basic incomes are guarantees of survival for the individual and guarantees of stability for the capitalist system which seems to provide neither of those with great reliability. You need to talk about productivity because what is money if there is nothing to buy?
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2014 01:08
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:but probably simultaneously discourages an increase in employment. Hence no growth. Why? People with more money buying more things would not result in an increase in providers of those things?
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2014 01:11
|
|
|
on the left posted:You need to talk about productivity because what is money if there is nothing to buy? I don't subscribe to motivational theories which require people to be threatened with starvation unless they go to work or no work will get done.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2014 01:16
|
|
|
namesake posted:I don't subscribe to motivational theories which require people to be threatened with starvation unless they go to work or no work will get done. An explicit goal of minimum income is shorter working hours and to make it unnecessary for people to work except by choice.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2014 01:20
|
|
|
A basic income is needed, direct cash payments to the poor will boost the economy. The reality is that wages will continue to stagnant, people will lose jobs to automation, they'll wind up homeless, and be placed into Sanctuary Districts. In the end Gabriel Bell will save the hostages and we'll all realize that the poor are humans, just like us.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2014 01:20
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:No I'm not. If it's already at full capacity then increased demand won't cause any growth. Case closed. As demand increases more idle workers are hired. Also people currently performing low productivity work may be attracted by better wages to move into higher productivity occupations. In addition to this you'll have people who can now afford to do things like hire a nanny (creating one job) and then enter the labour force (increasing hours worked). It also raises the price of labour, which puts pressure on companies to automoate, which in turn raises productivity (and thanks to the GMI job killing automation presumably won't carry the risk of sucking aggregate demand out of the middle class). So I see no reason to assume that productivity or hours worked are guaranteed to decline, and even if they do decline there's seemingly no reason to think they'd just happen to decline the exactly right amount to eliminate any gains from increasing aggregate demand. on the left posted:Production would increase, but why wouldn't it just increase in China, and decrease GDP? No doubt some of the money would end up going to places like China but roughly %70 of America's GDP is still domestic consumption, and in particular a lot of the goods and services consumed by lower income individuals are local based (i.e. lunch at the local deli, somebody to take care of your kids, etc).
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2014 01:22
|
|
|
on the left posted:You need to talk about productivity because what is money if there is nothing to buy? Though just to be clear as a wealth transfer policy GMI will absolutely work. It's just that increased GDP isn't likely to be an immediate result. And there is a chance that inflation will be somewhat significant as a result (if not in general, then in housing or other areas where people will inevitably compete to spend their new money) archangelwar posted:Why? People with more money buying more things would not result in an increase in providers of those things? Because all of the potential providers are now getting $15k and feel less need to work? Am I wrong that part of the point is that old people, single mothers etc won't feel as much pressure to work?
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2014 01:22
|
|
|
Helsing posted:No doubt some of the money would end up going to places like China but roughly %70 of America's GDP is still domestic consumption, and in particular a lot of the goods and services consumed by lower income individuals are local based (i.e. lunch at the local deli, somebody to take care of your kids, etc). If everyone walks each other's dogs and babysits, our GDP will spiral into infinity and the US will be known as the richest nation.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2014 01:24
|
|
|
on the left posted:An explicit goal of minimum income is shorter working hours and to make it unnecessary for people to work except by choice. Then necessary work will have to become something people chose to do, perhaps by improved conditions and a greater sense of meaning, purpose and control over what they do at work. Positive social relationships between workers would encourage participation and even provide negative enforcement against slacking.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2014 01:30
|
|
|
asdf32 posted:Because all of the potential providers are now getting $15k and feel less need to work? If a bunch of elderly Wal Mart greeters and single moms waiting tables suddenly withdraw their labour from the economy while simultaneously a bunch of car dealerships, construction firms, marketers and factories get new customers then do you really think the final effect on the economy will be nil? on the left posted:If everyone walks each other's dogs and babysits, our GDP will spiral into infinity and the US will be known as the richest nation. If you want to argue that GDP isn't an ideal tool for measuring human welfare or even economic development I'm not going to disagree with you.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2014 01:34
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 13:41 |
|
|
asdf32 posted:Because all of the potential providers are now getting $15k and feel less need to work? Minimum wage policy supposedly has the exact same effect of pushing out certain sections of the labor force, yet somehow increased unemployment is not a guaranteed consequence of raising minimum wage. Additionally, you are talking about removing the most vulnerable and often least productive elements of the labor force, and offsetting it with increased consumption.
|
|
#
?
Nov 3, 2014 01:39
|
|