Forum
»
Universal Basic Income Explained Clearly
12-09-2017, 04:27 PM
-
#91
Originally Posted By IH8RICE⏩
i don't think welfare and medicaid add up to 4trillion a year buddy.By removing welfare, Medicaid, and other social programs that are poorly run.
-You are only as strong as your weakest link-
12-09-2017, 04:28 PM
-
#92
- InstantLoser
- #1 Pimp Korea
-
- InstantLoser
- #1 Pimp Korea
- Join Date: Jan 2013
- Location: Louisville, Kentucky, United States
- Posts: 34,072
- Rep Power: 206818
-
-
Originally Posted By thorpowers⏩
Nature is the ultimate free market.I agree it's not happening, we've already crossed the point of no return. The masses will keep voting in more government, more regulations, more welfare, more socialism... and we will collapse. The golden era is long over, we are past our peak. Giving females the right to vote was the nail in the coffin. When it collapses all the weak, incompetent, lazy, ect will die off anyways so in the end they always lose. Nature has away of correcting and balancing things.
"That boulder is too large. I could lift a smaller one."
-Hercules
Starting Weight (July 2018) - 362
Current Weight (July 2019) - 268
12-09-2017, 04:32 PM
-
#93
- soaponarope1
- 6'2" 227
-
- soaponarope1
- 6'2" 227
- Join Date: Jun 2016
- Location: Florida, United States
- Age: 40
- Posts: 13,552
- Rep Power: 63078
-
-
It's going to happen eventually when AI takes over 99% of jobs. It pretty much has to happen at that point.
I'm happy I won't be around in 150 years when the earth's population of 25 billion all live in slums and probably under 1 government. As ttechnology and population grow I don't think there's a way around either.
I'm happy I won't be around in 150 years when the earth's population of 25 billion all live in slums and probably under 1 government. As ttechnology and population grow I don't think there's a way around either.
12-09-2017, 04:34 PM
-
#94
- Ironmanlet
- Adamantium User
-
- Ironmanlet
- Adamantium User
- Join Date: Aug 2009
- Location: Cajun Country
- Age: 40
- Height: 5'7"
- Weight: 185 lbs
- Posts: 52,352
- Subscribers: 5
- Rep Power: 415557
-
-
We could just.....you know....
stop having kids.
stop having kids.
“The stories and information posted here are artistic works of fiction and falsehood. Only a fool would take anything posted here as fact.“
PS: Don't eat poop, just don't let the idea of it stop you from living life to its fullest.
12-09-2017, 04:36 PM
-
#95
- Mythenthefang
- Registered User
-
- Mythenthefang
- Registered User
- Join Date: Aug 2013
- Age: 37
- Posts: 4,289
- Rep Power: 6787
-
-
Kurzgezagt is wrong on this point, and it follows quite logically from his fallacious treatment of jobs and automation video.
He believes that automation makes people poorer because he equates money with wealth and doesn't understand that labour is scarce while needs/wants are endless. I.e. THERE WILL ALWAYS BE JOBS BECAUSE WE WILL ALWAYS WANT FOR THINGS.
In fact, a UBI s a sure fire way to reach a point of abject poverty. viz:
1) Savings are what leads to prosperity you defer consumption today to invest in stuff to make MORE consumption tomorrow.
2) A UBI must be funded from somewhere, if it is funded through taxation that results in less savings (by definition)
3) If it is financed through credit expansion (money printing) this has the same effect, it is still a transfer of wealth from savers to the receivers of the ubi
4) therefore, because there will be less saved and invested there will be less consumption available for all over time - i.e we will all get poorer
Pretty rough logic and certainly missing a few bits but that's the gist of it.
Now i'll take off my economist hat and quote from history:
“In a country where the sole employer is the State, opposition means death by slow starvation. The old principle: who does not work shall not eat, has been replaced by a new one: who does not obey shall not eat.”
- Leon Trotsky
A UBI implies that we'd all be under the employ of The State (not necessarily as workers, but The State would be our benefactor). That's terrifying, the people who exploit and enslave us would be our benefactors and only at their whim should we live.
Kurzgezagt is an amazing asset to the science communication community but he REALLY needs to hire an economist to get his economic arguments right.
He believes that automation makes people poorer because he equates money with wealth and doesn't understand that labour is scarce while needs/wants are endless. I.e. THERE WILL ALWAYS BE JOBS BECAUSE WE WILL ALWAYS WANT FOR THINGS.
In fact, a UBI s a sure fire way to reach a point of abject poverty. viz:
1) Savings are what leads to prosperity you defer consumption today to invest in stuff to make MORE consumption tomorrow.
2) A UBI must be funded from somewhere, if it is funded through taxation that results in less savings (by definition)
3) If it is financed through credit expansion (money printing) this has the same effect, it is still a transfer of wealth from savers to the receivers of the ubi
4) therefore, because there will be less saved and invested there will be less consumption available for all over time - i.e we will all get poorer
Pretty rough logic and certainly missing a few bits but that's the gist of it.
Now i'll take off my economist hat and quote from history:
“In a country where the sole employer is the State, opposition means death by slow starvation. The old principle: who does not work shall not eat, has been replaced by a new one: who does not obey shall not eat.”
- Leon Trotsky
A UBI implies that we'd all be under the employ of The State (not necessarily as workers, but The State would be our benefactor). That's terrifying, the people who exploit and enslave us would be our benefactors and only at their whim should we live.
Kurzgezagt is an amazing asset to the science communication community but he REALLY needs to hire an economist to get his economic arguments right.
Natty poverty maintenance crew
Actual economist crew
Austrian school crew
12-09-2017, 04:43 PM
-
#96
- thorpowers
- Registered User
-
- thorpowers
- Registered User
- Join Date: Aug 2013
- Age: 35
- Posts: 3,431
- Rep Power: 9595
-
-
Originally Posted By Mythenthefang⏩
Well articulated. Most people do not understand underlying human nature, what drives us, or even basic economics. Repped.Kurzgezagt is wrong on this point, and it follows quite logically from his fallacious treatment of jobs and automation video.
He believes that automation makes people poorer because he equates money with wealth and doesn't understand that labour is scarce while needs/wants are endless. I.e. THERE WILL ALWAYS BE JOBS BECAUSE WE WILL ALWAYS WANT FOR THINGS.
In fact, a UBI s a sure fire way to reach a point of abject poverty. viz:
1) Savings are what leads to prosperity you defer consumption today to invest in stuff to make MORE consumption tomorrow.
2) A UBI must be funded from somewhere, if it is funded through taxation that results in less savings (by definition)
3) If it is financed through credit expansion (money printing) this has the same effect, it is still a transfer of wealth from savers to the receivers of the ubi
4) therefore, because there will be less saved and invested there will be less consumption available for all over time - i.e we will all get poorer
Pretty rough logic and certainly missing a few bits but that's the gist of it.
Now i'll take off my economist hat and quote from history:
“In a country where the sole employer is the State, opposition means death by slow starvation. The old principle: who does not work shall not eat, has been replaced by a new one: who does not obey shall not eat.”
- Leon Trotsky
A UBI implies that we'd all be under the employ of The State (not necessarily as workers, but The State would be our benefactor). That's terrifying, the people who exploit and enslave us would be our benefactors and only at their whim should we live.
Kurzgezagt is an amazing asset to the science communication community but he REALLY needs to hire an economist to get his economic arguments right.
He believes that automation makes people poorer because he equates money with wealth and doesn't understand that labour is scarce while needs/wants are endless. I.e. THERE WILL ALWAYS BE JOBS BECAUSE WE WILL ALWAYS WANT FOR THINGS.
In fact, a UBI s a sure fire way to reach a point of abject poverty. viz:
1) Savings are what leads to prosperity you defer consumption today to invest in stuff to make MORE consumption tomorrow.
2) A UBI must be funded from somewhere, if it is funded through taxation that results in less savings (by definition)
3) If it is financed through credit expansion (money printing) this has the same effect, it is still a transfer of wealth from savers to the receivers of the ubi
4) therefore, because there will be less saved and invested there will be less consumption available for all over time - i.e we will all get poorer
Pretty rough logic and certainly missing a few bits but that's the gist of it.
Now i'll take off my economist hat and quote from history:
“In a country where the sole employer is the State, opposition means death by slow starvation. The old principle: who does not work shall not eat, has been replaced by a new one: who does not obey shall not eat.”
- Leon Trotsky
A UBI implies that we'd all be under the employ of The State (not necessarily as workers, but The State would be our benefactor). That's terrifying, the people who exploit and enslave us would be our benefactors and only at their whim should we live.
Kurzgezagt is an amazing asset to the science communication community but he REALLY needs to hire an economist to get his economic arguments right.
12-09-2017, 04:48 PM
-
#97
Originally Posted By thorpowers⏩
I agree with all of this, which is why I think UBI could be a good idea. I know how crazy that sounds.I agree it's not happening, we've already crossed the point of no return. The masses will keep voting in more government, more regulations, more welfare, more socialism... and we will collapse. The golden era is long over, we are past our peak. Giving females the right to vote was the nail in the coffin. When it collapses all the weak, incompetent, lazy, ect will die off anyways so in the end they always lose. Nature has away of correcting and balancing things.
Leftists are not going to stop and if we're not careful they will bring the whole thing down. If we can 'share' (inb4 communism) some of the wealth around and raise the standard of living for people, there would be less anger and resentment towards the rich. This is a very serious issue and it goes beyond just economics.
Nobody is even saying UBI woulddefinitelywork. There are trials in Canada and Finland atm. We need large scale trials in poverty ridden areas. I can see the argument for how it would encourage people to be productive. You've mentioned human nature, it's not in our nature to be lazy kunts. We find fulfillment and happiness through achieving things. If it turns out it doesn't work, then so be it.
12-09-2017, 04:51 PM
-
#98
- ItsOverBoyos
- Please kill me
-
- ItsOverBoyos
- Please kill me
- Join Date: Dec 2015
- Posts: 2,387
- Rep Power: 306
-
-
Originally Posted By thorpowers⏩
what do you do for work?That's the kinda entitled attitude I would expect from a supporter of this idea. Your income is directly based off the value you bring. If you work 72 hours in a week and only make $1000 then increase the value you give to others. I work ~5 hours a week and make 10k+ a month. Nobody forces you to work 40-72 hours a week in a free country. You chose that, work smarter not harder.
not everyone can be a business owner making bank
12-09-2017, 04:52 PM
-
#99
- InstantLoser
- #1 Pimp Korea
-
- InstantLoser
- #1 Pimp Korea
- Join Date: Jan 2013
- Location: Louisville, Kentucky, United States
- Posts: 34,072
- Rep Power: 206818
-
-
Originally Posted By Gainzzz⏩
It's not sharing, it's theft. We already have a massive welfare state. Whatever you subsidize, you get more of. When the welfare state began, single motherhood was fairly low. Now look at how much we have. We pay women to crank out children out of wedlock. We pay people to sit on their asses, creating generational poverty. We're already "sharing the wealth". It makes things worse, not better.If we can 'share' (inb4 communism) some of the wealth around
"That boulder is too large. I could lift a smaller one."
-Hercules
Starting Weight (July 2018) - 362
Current Weight (July 2019) - 268
12-09-2017, 04:53 PM
-
#100
- thorpowers
- Registered User
-
- thorpowers
- Registered User
- Join Date: Aug 2013
- Age: 35
- Posts: 3,431
- Rep Power: 9595
-
-
Originally Posted By Gainzzz⏩
You think 12k is going to be enough to satisfy anyone? They will never be satisfied man no disrespect but you are very naive when it comes to human nature. Give them 12k and they will want 20k, then 50k...and it doesn't matter what the amount is, these people will still have issues. Trust fund babies that are given millions and never have to work end up with the same issues, depression, drugs, suicide. People need purpose in life. They need meaning. Being handed everything robs them of all that. Hard times make strong men. You have to through some struggle to make anything of yourself. Being comfortable and safe at all times isn't good for humans, it's not natural.I agree with all of this, which is why I think UBI could be a good idea. I know how crazy that sounds.
Leftists are not going to stop and if we're not careful they will bring the whole thing down. If we can 'share' (inb4 communism) some of the wealth around and raise the standard of living for people, there would be less anger and resentment towards the rich. This is a very serious issue and it goes beyond just economics.
Nobody is even saying UBI woulddefinitelywork. There are trials in Canada and Finland atm. We need large scale trials in poverty ridden areas. I can see the argument for how it would encourage people to be productive. You've mentioned human nature, it's not in our nature to be lazy kunts. We find fulfillment and happiness through achieving things. If it turns out it doesn't work, then so be it.
Leftists are not going to stop and if we're not careful they will bring the whole thing down. If we can 'share' (inb4 communism) some of the wealth around and raise the standard of living for people, there would be less anger and resentment towards the rich. This is a very serious issue and it goes beyond just economics.
Nobody is even saying UBI woulddefinitelywork. There are trials in Canada and Finland atm. We need large scale trials in poverty ridden areas. I can see the argument for how it would encourage people to be productive. You've mentioned human nature, it's not in our nature to be lazy kunts. We find fulfillment and happiness through achieving things. If it turns out it doesn't work, then so be it.
Think of it this way...would you rather be a lion in a zoo that has all of it's needs met, it has vets providing free medical care, zookeepers cleaning up after you and providing free steaks, female lions to fuk all day, but you are controlled. Or would you rather be a wild lion living in your natural habitat, you are the king free to do what you want when you want. Yea you might die, it's dangerous, but the thrill of the hunt keeps you going, and the excitement of the unknown and making a name for yourself. Which would you be? People who value security over freedom (most females and alot of men too) would probably choose the lion in the zoo. I think thats a depressing life, and it is not optimal for anyone.
12-09-2017, 04:58 PM
-
#101
- VTheKing
- Allied Allies Alliance
-
- VTheKing
- Allied Allies Alliance
- Join Date: Jun 2009
- Location: British Columbia, Canada
- Age: 34
- Posts: 28,869
- Rep Power: 81290
-
-
Originally Posted By Mythenthefang⏩
All that you're arguing is that the consumption ratio would increase relative to that of savings, which does not imply the consequences you mentioned. In order to get a return on investment, you need people to actually consume whatever goods and services you're now providing thanks to your savings. That is, there is such a point where an increase in the savings ratio would reduce overall economic activity; likewise with the consumption ratio.Kurzgezagt is wrong on this point, and it follows quite logically from his fallacious treatment of jobs and automation video.
He believes that automation makes people poorer because he equates money with wealth and doesn't understand that labour is scarce while needs/wants are endless. I.e. THERE WILL ALWAYS BE JOBS BECAUSE WE WILL ALWAYS WANT FOR THINGS.
In fact, a UBI s a sure fire way to reach a point of abject poverty. viz:
1) Savings are what leads to prosperity you defer consumption today to invest in stuff to make MORE consumption tomorrow.
2) A UBI must be funded from somewhere, if it is funded through taxation that results in less savings (by definition)
3) If it is financed through credit expansion (money printing) this has the same effect, it is still a transfer of wealth from savers to the receivers of the ubi
4) therefore, because there will be less saved and invested there will be less consumption available for all over time - i.e we will all get poorer
He believes that automation makes people poorer because he equates money with wealth and doesn't understand that labour is scarce while needs/wants are endless. I.e. THERE WILL ALWAYS BE JOBS BECAUSE WE WILL ALWAYS WANT FOR THINGS.
In fact, a UBI s a sure fire way to reach a point of abject poverty. viz:
1) Savings are what leads to prosperity you defer consumption today to invest in stuff to make MORE consumption tomorrow.
2) A UBI must be funded from somewhere, if it is funded through taxation that results in less savings (by definition)
3) If it is financed through credit expansion (money printing) this has the same effect, it is still a transfer of wealth from savers to the receivers of the ubi
4) therefore, because there will be less saved and invested there will be less consumption available for all over time - i.e we will all get poorer
Go Canucks Go!
Mais notre monde érodé restera le même
Et demain toi et moi serons partis
12-09-2017, 05:00 PM
-
#102
Originally Posted By thorpowers⏩
How are we going to address the growing hatred towards the rich and leftists who fuel it? It won't be long until they're voted into power, then chit will really hit the fan.You think 12k is going to be enough to satisfy anyone? They will never be satisfied man no disrespect but you are very naive when it comes to human nature. Give them 12k and they will want 20k, then 50k...and it doesn't matter what the amount is, these people will still have issues. Trust fund babies that are given millions and never have to work end up with the same issues, depression, drugs, suicide. People need purpose in life. They need meaning. Being handed everything robs them of all that. Hard times make strong men. You have to through some struggle to make anything of yourself. Being comfortable and safe at all times isn't good for humans, it's not natural.
Think of it this way...would you rather be a lion in a zoo that has all of it's needs met, it has vets providing free medical care, zookeepers cleaning up after you and providing free steaks, female lions to fuk all day, but you are controlled. Or would you rather be a wild lion living in your natural habitat, you are the king free to do what you want when you want. Yea you might die, it's dangerous, but the thrill of the hunt keeps you going, and the excitement of the unknown and making a name for yourself. Which would you be? People who value security over freedom (most females and alot of men too) would probably choose the lion in the zoo. I think thats a depressing life, and it is not optimal for anyone.
Think of it this way...would you rather be a lion in a zoo that has all of it's needs met, it has vets providing free medical care, zookeepers cleaning up after you and providing free steaks, female lions to fuk all day, but you are controlled. Or would you rather be a wild lion living in your natural habitat, you are the king free to do what you want when you want. Yea you might die, it's dangerous, but the thrill of the hunt keeps you going, and the excitement of the unknown and making a name for yourself. Which would you be? People who value security over freedom (most females and alot of men too) would probably choose the lion in the zoo. I think thats a depressing life, and it is not optimal for anyone.
12-09-2017, 05:04 PM
-
#103
- thorpowers
- Registered User
-
- thorpowers
- Registered User
- Join Date: Aug 2013
- Age: 35
- Posts: 3,431
- Rep Power: 9595
-
-
Originally Posted By Gainzzz⏩
People are always going to bi$ch and complain no matter what, giving into their demands is absolutely not the right answer. That's what gave us the spoiled millennial generation in the first place, failed parenting practices of giving kids whatever they want, telling them they're special and can do anything, nobody's a loser, participation trophies. It's not natural or normal. There are winners and losers. Let the losers fail. It benefits nobody to do otherwise.How are we going to address the growing hatred towards the rich and leftists who fuel it? It won't be long until they're voted into power, then chit will really hit the fan.
12-09-2017, 05:08 PM
-
#104
- A-GAME
- Pedicabo ego vos et irrum
-
- A-GAME
- Pedicabo ego vos et irrum
- Join Date: Nov 2006
- Posts: 47,648
- Rep Power: 280053
-
-
Originally Posted By Gainzzz⏩
You certainly don't address it by giving in to their demands.How are we going to address the growing hatred towards the rich and leftists who fuel it? It won't be long until they're voted into power, then chit will really hit the fan.
Still Cuckin On Four Fours, Wrapped In Four Voes
12-09-2017, 05:09 PM
-
#105
- NuggzTheNinja
- Exotic Game Hunter
-
- NuggzTheNinja
- Exotic Game Hunter
- Join Date: Oct 2004
- Posts: 31,871
- Rep Power: 237953
-
-
Originally Posted By Ironmanlet⏩
I'm getting chipped for rapid access to one of my gun safes. I think it's a pretty cool idea.Not a big fan of the 'slippery slope' argument. Do you think RFID chips will take off?
As a government-sponsored thing? Nah.
This account was created for the purpose of roleplaying and satire. All posts, messages, images, or other media produced by this Bodybuilding.com profile, including stories, names, references to characters and incidents, and views expressed, are fictitious and intended as parody. No identification or association with actual persons (living or deceased), places, buildings, or products is intended or should be inferred.
12-09-2017, 05:11 PM
-
#106
- thorpowers
- Registered User
-
- thorpowers
- Registered User
- Join Date: Aug 2013
- Age: 35
- Posts: 3,431
- Rep Power: 9595
-
-
Originally Posted By ItsOverBoyos⏩
Started two businesses, working on my third. Everyone has an equal opportunity legally to be a business owner in the United States. Everyone may not have the aptitude due to genetics/environment, but that is true of almost anything whether you want to be a pro ball player or chemist...what do you do for work?
not everyone can be a business owner making bank
not everyone can be a business owner making bank
12-09-2017, 05:11 PM
-
#107
12-09-2017, 05:12 PM
-
#108
12-09-2017, 05:15 PM
-
#109
- thorpowers
- Registered User
-
- thorpowers
- Registered User
- Join Date: Aug 2013
- Age: 35
- Posts: 3,431
- Rep Power: 9595
-
-
Originally Posted By Gainzzz⏩
The underlying concept of UBI can be found in the Communist Manifesto by Karl Marx. It does go any farther left than that...UBI is supported by some very intelligent people. It is not a leftist idea.
12-09-2017, 05:15 PM
-
#110
- A-GAME
- Pedicabo ego vos et irrum
-
- A-GAME
- Pedicabo ego vos et irrum
- Join Date: Nov 2006
- Posts: 47,648
- Rep Power: 280053
-
-
Originally Posted By Gainzzz⏩
Like who? What are their arguments? Post vids if you have any. I support UBI, but only when scarcity for resources is no longer an issue. That won't happen in our lifetime, so it's not worthy discussing.UBI is supported by some very intelligent people. It is not a leftist idea.
Still Cuckin On Four Fours, Wrapped In Four Voes
12-09-2017, 05:21 PM
-
#111
- thorpowers
- Registered User
-
- thorpowers
- Registered User
- Join Date: Aug 2013
- Age: 35
- Posts: 3,431
- Rep Power: 9595
-
-
Originally Posted By A-GAME⏩
Leftist elite billionaires and politicians like Mark Zuckerberg....the same people that also want mass muslim immigration, open borders, feminism, ect....Like who? What are their arguments? Post vids if you have any. I support UBI, but only when scarcity for resources is no longer an issue. That won't happen in our lifetime, so it's not worthy discussing.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AYjDIFrY9rc&t=44s
12-09-2017, 05:28 PM
-
#112
- InstantLoser
- #1 Pimp Korea
-
- InstantLoser
- #1 Pimp Korea
- Join Date: Jan 2013
- Location: Louisville, Kentucky, United States
- Posts: 34,072
- Rep Power: 206818
-
-
Originally Posted By thorpowers⏩
Fixed the embed.Leftist elite billionaires and politicians like Mark Zuckerberg....the same people that also want mass muslim immigration, open borders, feminism, ect....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AYjDIFrY9rc&t=44s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AYjDIFrY9rc&t=44s
"That boulder is too large. I could lift a smaller one."
-Hercules
Starting Weight (July 2018) - 362
Current Weight (July 2019) - 268
12-09-2017, 05:32 PM
-
#113
- A-GAME
- Pedicabo ego vos et irrum
-
- A-GAME
- Pedicabo ego vos et irrum
- Join Date: Nov 2006
- Posts: 47,648
- Rep Power: 280053
-
-
Originally Posted By thorpowers⏩
Yes, that's who I see promoting this garbage too. I've heard all their arguments, but he's saying he has other sources. I want to see them, not the same old leftist cucks that want to usher in a new communist utopia.Leftist elite billionaires and politicians like Mark Zuckerberg....the same people that also want mass muslim immigration, open borders, feminism, ect....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AYjDIFrY9rc&t=44s
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AYjDIFrY9rc&t=44s
Still Cuckin On Four Fours, Wrapped In Four Voes
12-09-2017, 06:03 PM
-
#114
- Mythenthefang
- Registered User
-
- Mythenthefang
- Registered User
- Join Date: Aug 2013
- Age: 37
- Posts: 4,289
- Rep Power: 6787
-
-
Originally Posted By VTheKing⏩
What's a consumption ratio?All that you're arguing is that the consumption ratio would increase relative to that of savings, which does not imply the consequences you mentioned. In order to get a return on investment, you need people to actually consume whatever goods and services you're now providing thanks to your savings. That is, there is such a point where an increase in the savings ratio would reduce overall economic activity; likewise with the consumption ratio.
Wouldn't every individual in a society have their own consumption ratio? And so by taking wealth from some to give to others you reduce savings by precisely the amount of net-payers multiplied by their individual consumption ratios?
It does imply the consequences I mentioned: you take money away from people they have less savings > less investment > less output > less stuff to consume
I do agree with you that what we measure as "economic activity"couldtheoretically decrease when the individuals in a society increase their savings. But how does it follow that this outcome is necessarily bad? Consumption is not what drives economic growth - savings are.
Natty poverty maintenance crew
Actual economist crew
Austrian school crew
12-09-2017, 06:13 PM
-
#115
- Jasonw1178
- 5'3" 300lbs Fudge Rounds
-
- Jasonw1178
- 5'3" 300lbs Fudge Rounds
- Join Date: Dec 2012
- Posts: 44,104
- Rep Power: 271274
-
-
I think in the future when automation takes over basically everything something like a basic income might be a reality but as for now, no. We have a production based economy and if you take away that incentive to be productive things will fall off fast. No doubt automation and AI as it's coming to being is going to really change things. However, machinery in one way or another has been replacing jobs for centuries and yet somehow we still need people to do things and we are more productive than ever. In the 60's on, people thought that computers were going to take everyone's jobs, but they ended up creating a lot more jobs than before.
12-09-2017, 06:17 PM
-
#116
- Unbreakable09
- Registered User
-
- Unbreakable09
- Registered User
- Join Date: May 2009
- Age: 35
- Posts: 2,165
- Rep Power: 2696
-
-
Originally Posted By Gainzzz⏩
lmfaoUBI is supported by some very intelligent people.It is not a leftist idea.
Any US citizen that supports this idiocy is a shame. Founding Fathers doing barrel rolls in their graves.
Carpe diem
12-09-2017, 06:19 PM
-
#117
Originally Posted By thorpowers⏩
That wasn't the welfare state, that was the bankers (money created as debt) and the politicians (so-called free trade that was mostly opening our markets to foreign competition).The system that fuked you was the welfare state and left wing policies. Before the welfare state the average man could afford a house, car, wife, and kids working one job that he enjoyed working 40 hours a week. I agree with you the current system is fuked, but it's not because of too much economic freedom, its the opposite.
Originally Posted By TheRealCartman⏩
Lower administrative cost. UBI should theoretically appeal to the same people that want a simplified taxation system.That is the method I could support, get rid of welfare, social security, employment insurance and all other government run social programs and roll it all into UBI. One program to replace several others which should result far fewer costs to run the program.
Originally Posted By thorpowers⏩
Most of the "parasites" are the elderly, disabled, and children and the biggest program after Social Security/Medicare is SNAP/food stamps.It is a realistic solution, it is the solution that has been practiced for almost all of human existence. Welfare, feminism, communism, UBI, these are all new ideas most of which starting with Karl Marx. By you saying you are entitled to my money for your existence you are saying you are entitled to my labor that got me that money. If you are entitled to my labor that is to say I am your slave. The producers should not be the slaves of the incompetent and lazy. Give me ONE reason why it is a net benefit for society to support people that will not, cannot, or do not work. Without using an emotional argument such as for "compassion" ...just one benefit for society. Society would be much better off if the parasites were left to fail.
We have this tricky little problem that our money is created as debt and our economic system depends on continued growth while the unfortunate fact is we inhabit a finite planet that has a maximum carrying capacity and finite resources.
So how do you manage a shrinking economy when you have a monetary policy that necessitates growth? Well you could just keep printing and handing out money, yeah? I mean none of it is real.
What happens in a game of monopoly when one player has all the money?
Game over.
So what if the bank just gave every player $1,000 every time they passed GO? That could definitely keep the game going longer.
And, as to the falling demand for labor in first world countries, well the least disruptive solution I see is moving to a 32 hour work week as full time and raising the minimum wage to a level that a full time job would pay someone at least 150% of the federal poverty line for a single person household.
That should reduce the number of unemployed and also alleviate the number of employed people that need government assistance. 150% of the federal poverty line is the cut off for most assistance programs. Of course if you are a single mom, or sole bread winner of whatever flavor for more than just yourself then you will qualify for some things, but not as much as if the minimum wage is too low.
INTP Crew
Inattentive ADD Crew
Mom That Miscs Crew
12-09-2017, 06:35 PM
-
#118
- ContrarianIndi
- ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ
-
- ContrarianIndi
- ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ
- Join Date: Jan 2013
- Posts: 4,699
- Rep Power: 14697
-
-
We're an interest rate hike away from complete financial chaos and massive societal breakdown, but people are talking about spending trillions MORE on retarded programs like UBI?
LOL.
No fuks given about what these socialist coksuckers do anymore, at least it will be interesting living during the complete collapse of the most powerful civilization ever known. We had a good run at least.
LOL.
No fuks given about what these socialist coksuckers do anymore, at least it will be interesting living during the complete collapse of the most powerful civilization ever known. We had a good run at least.
I wish Hillary would violate me like she violated federal law
<>< Christian ><>
ΜΟΛΩΝ ΛΑΒΕ
libertarian
12-09-2017, 06:40 PM
-
#119
- thorpowers
- Registered User
-
- thorpowers
- Registered User
- Join Date: Aug 2013
- Age: 35
- Posts: 3,431
- Rep Power: 9595
-
-
Originally Posted By katya422⏩
You have zero understanding of economics, beyond the game of monopoly. Please before trying to discuss something like this read up on economics, I highly recommend 'Basic Economics' by Thomas Sowell to get you started. Employers do not set wages, the market does, and it is dependant on how much value the employee brings. If that employee is working 32 hours a week and not bringing more than "at least 150% of the federal poverty line for a single person household" worth of value to that business, then the business will fail. Policies like this implemented on a national level and the society collapses. Which is why women should not vote. I run two businesses and I can't just pay a random arbitrary number to my employees that makes you feel good, I pay based on the value my employee brings so that I can still remain profitable. If my employee brings greater than $3 an hour worth of value, then I can pay them $3 an hour. If it's $1000 an hour I pay $1000 an hour.And, as to the falling demand for labor in first world countries, well the least disruptive solution I see is moving to a 32 hour work week as full time and raising the minimum wage to a level that a full time job would pay someone at least 150% of the federal poverty line for a single person household.
12-09-2017, 06:50 PM
-
#120
- ErnieMccracken
- Join Date: Nov 2013
- Posts: 100,062
- Rep Power: 330290
-
-
Originally Posted By ContrarianIndi⏩
That's the point, Francis. We are heading toward total economic collapse and are going to need to make radical changes in how society allocates resources if we're going to maintain any reasonable standard of living.We're an interest rate hike away from complete financial chaos and massive societal breakdown, but people are talking about spending trillions MORE on retarded programs like UBI?
LOL.
No fuks given about what these socialist coksuckers do anymore, at least it will be interesting living during the complete collapse of the most powerful civilization ever known. We had a good run at least.
LOL.
No fuks given about what these socialist coksuckers do anymore, at least it will be interesting living during the complete collapse of the most powerful civilization ever known. We had a good run at least.
Bookmarks
-
- Digg
-
- del.icio.us
-
- StumbleUpon
-
-
Posting Permissions
- You may not post new threads
- You may not post replies
- You may not post attachments
- You may not edit your posts