Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community
Old 04-24-2017, 10:15 PM   #21
FlamesAddiction
Franchise Player
 
FlamesAddiction's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Vancouver
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by iggy_oi View Post
This is why how this is implemented is very important. Automation and outsourcing combined with an increasing population size will make the job market very difficult in the future. The money to fund a guaranteed basic income will need to come from somewhere. As the labour pool decreases, more of that funding will either come from businesses or those who are still employed. Look at the current resistance people put up to any tax increase to create programs for the benefit of the less fortunate, how many people are going to want to continue to pay increasingly more to fund a basic income as the job market continues to decrease? There is no guarantee of how quickly that will escalate, but what happens when the number of unemployed greatly outnumbers the amount of income earners? Once businesses become the majority contributor how long will it take before people start being told "the basic income level needs to be reduced otherwise businesses will be forced to close"?

It is a very slippery slope, I'm not saying it's a bad concept or won't work, however without proper implementation this could very easily lead to a small percentage of the population dictating what everyone else should have because they control all the wealth. Does that sound more like a renaissance or the dark ages?
Strange Mysteries has a segment on future developments where they talk about universal income (starts at 21:25). It's highly subjective, but still interesting to think of the potential it has.

__________________
"A pessimist thinks things can't get any worse. An optimist knows they can."
FlamesAddiction is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-25-2017, 09:04 AM   #22
Regorium
First Line Centre
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Calgary
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ToewsFan View Post
Funny how the people most against these types of initiatives argue that it's a waste of taxpayer money. Housing Canaidans most at-risk actually saves the taxpayer money, when all is factored in, and lets people with problems with mental health and substance abuse (the majority of the homeless population), focus on getting the help they need, instead of basic survival.

It's a win-win situation for all of Canada.
I'm for basic income.

I'm not for this pilot project. Sell me on this pilot project where we find 4000 people and pay them a BI for 3 years (at the cost of 150 million dollars). What data are we hoping to obtain? What analysis could be done?

My opinion is this: Because no trade-offs are being assessed, this is literally just "Does free money improve outcomes?" The answer to that is unequivocally YES.

What am I not seeing in terms of what is being studied with this pilot project as it is being presented?
Regorium is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-25-2017, 09:08 AM   #23
Fuzz
Franchise Player
 
Fuzz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2015
Exp:
Default

Aren't there other countries trying this experiment? Wouldn't it be prudent to see how it works for them, first?
Fuzz is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 04-25-2017, 09:27 AM   #24
belsarius
First Line Centre
 
belsarius's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Edmonton
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Regorium View Post
I'm for basic income.

I'm not for this pilot project. Sell me on this pilot project where we find 4000 people and pay them a BI for 3 years (at the cost of 150 million dollars). What data are we hoping to obtain? What analysis could be done?

My opinion is this: Because no trade-offs are being assessed, this is literally just "Does free money improve outcomes?" The answer to that is unequivocally YES.

What am I not seeing in terms of what is being studied with this pilot project as it is being presented?
The analysis is a lot more complex than "Does free money improve outcomes?", it gets into the how much does it improve. The studies in Dauphin, Manitoba in the 70s gave lots of feedback on hospitalization rates, employment participation, education participation etc. These trials should be updating this information for current standards as well as help understand how much secondary costs can be saved.

There are a lot of interesting stories regarding the Mincome studies, both anecdotal from the participants and analytical from the data.
__________________
@PR_NHL
The @NHLFlames are the first team to feature four players each with 50+ points within their first 45 games of a season since the Penguins in 1995-96 (Ron Francis, Mario Lemieux, Jaromir Jagr, Tomas Sandstrom).
belsarius is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-25-2017, 10:01 AM   #25
CliffFletcher
Franchise Player
 
Join Date: May 2006
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by iggy_oi View Post
This is why how this is implemented is very important. Automation and outsourcing combined with an increasing population size will make the job market very difficult in the future. The money to fund a guaranteed basic income will need to come from somewhere. As the labour pool decreases, more of that funding will either come from businesses or those who are still employed.
Correct, as automation cuts deep swathes through labour needs, business will need to step up to the plate and contribute to basic income. At some point there won't be enough spending power to fuel our economy, and businesses themselves will need to essentially foster and grow consumers just to have people to sell to.

I don't know exactly how that will work. I suspect there will be something like vouchers or contracts, probably bundled, where a person may opt for $100/mo from Walmart, $150/mo from Amazon, etc. Big producers and retailers will rely on this mass-consumer voucher model, while local boutique shops and services will be patronized by people who have well-paying jobs.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by fotze View Post
If this day gets you riled up, you obviously aren't numb to the disappointment yet to be a real fan.
CliffFletcher is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to CliffFletcher For This Useful Post:
Old 04-25-2017, 10:08 AM   #26
mrkajz44
First Line Centre
 
mrkajz44's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Deep South
Exp:
Default

Honestly, I don't understand how basic income would ever work. It all has to do with cost - who the heck if funding this massive program? I follow a few economists on twitter and one in particular has really good points about how basic income is just not feasible due to cost restraints:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/repor...ticle27723204/
Quote:
The Finnish example is typical of the fiscal folly. The Finns propose a monthly transfer of €800 ($1,200) a person, which sounds nice until you do the math and figure out this would require a doubling of existing taxes to fund the program. This transfer would barely replace what low-income Finns already get under their existing social support system, so the bloated scheme would simply pay out big cheques to those who don’t need them, doing little to help those who are struggling. Not only would this plan be unimaginably expensive, but it’s hard to see why there would be any social gain that would begin to offset the costs.
Quote:
In Canadian terms, an equivalent transfer of $1,200 a month would cost the treasury more than $500-billion a year. Of course, you might then be able to cancel existing social assistance, child benefits, employment insurance and Old Age Security – but that would only add up to about $100-billion in savings, leaving you $400-billion short. As a reference point, current Canadian federal revenues are about $300-billion a year, so we’d need to more than double our current taxes to pay for it. In the Canadian political world, new programs costing $1-billion or $2-billion generate intense political heat, so a Finnish-style basic income proposal costing in the hundreds of billions is simply a non-starter for Canada.
The article I linked argues on the basis that everyone gets basic income (which is really a true "basic income"), which is different from the "phase-out" pilot running right now, but that still doesn't change the fact that the overall math doesn't seem to work out when considering how the program is to be funded.
__________________
Much like a sports ticker, you may feel obligated to read this
mrkajz44 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-25-2017, 10:11 AM   #27
normtwofinger
Self-Retirement
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Exp:
Default

Where is the article that talks about the Ontario program? The OP posted about Finland.
normtwofinger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-25-2017, 10:19 AM   #28
Regorium
First Line Centre
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Calgary
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by normtwofinger View Post
Where is the article that talks about the Ontario program? The OP posted about Finland.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/hamilt...lton-1.4082476
Regorium is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-25-2017, 10:23 AM   #29
CaramonLS
Retired
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CliffFletcher View Post
Correct, as automation cuts deep swathes through labour needs, business will need to step up to the plate and contribute to basic income. At some point there won't be enough spending power to fuel our economy, and businesses themselves will need to essentially foster and grow consumers just to have people to sell to.

I don't know exactly how that will work. I suspect there will be something like vouchers or contracts, probably bundled, where a person may opt for $100/mo from Walmart, $150/mo from Amazon, etc. Big producers and retailers will rely on this mass-consumer voucher model, while local boutique shops and services will be patronized by people who have well-paying jobs.
There are some estimates that show over the next 10-15 years up to 40% of the workforce are at a potentially high risk of automation. We are already at a point in time where self driving cars alone could bump the unemployment rate by 5-10% in a very short amount of time.

Probably time that Canada reconsider it's immigration policies too if labour isn't going to hold the value it previously did. I can't see a situation that is sustainable if we are bringing 250-300k per year into the country. There won't even be enough jobs to support those already here.

Governments needed to start looking at this problem yesterday. This is going to come quick and it is probably going to hurt.
CaramonLS is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to CaramonLS For This Useful Post:
Old 04-25-2017, 10:32 AM   #30
AltaGuy
AltaGuy has a magnetic personality and exudes positive energy, which is infectious to those around him. He has an unparalleled ability to communicate with people, whether he is speaking to a room of three or an arena of 30,000.
 
AltaGuy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: At le pub...
Exp:
Default

It's going to happen everywhere in the Western world. Figuring out how to do it sustainably is definitely the question. We need consumers, or we got nothing.
AltaGuy is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to AltaGuy For This Useful Post:
Old 04-25-2017, 10:39 AM   #31
Regorium
First Line Centre
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Calgary
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by belsarius View Post
The analysis is a lot more complex than "Does free money improve outcomes?", it gets into the how much does it improve. The studies in Dauphin, Manitoba in the 70s gave lots of feedback on hospitalization rates, employment participation, education participation etc. These trials should be updating this information for current standards as well as help understand how much secondary costs can be saved.

There are a lot of interesting stories regarding the Mincome studies, both anecdotal from the participants and analytical from the data.
Some of those studies on the Dauphin experiment conceded that the structure of the Mincome (temporary, small population selected) led to difficulty in generating conclusions. This pilot project does not change those parameters.

I have read that hospitalization rates go down and employment participation goes down and education participation goes up. All great things from the first pilot project. I don't see how the structure of the current pilot project gives us additional information - perhaps modern experimentation and recordkeeping techniques - but I believe the big picture will be very similar. Is more modernized and precise data worth another 150 million over 3 years?

Basically, I feel that the improved outcomes of basic income are well known by this point and not worth 150 million to explore further. The questions need to shift to "is it worth it?" and "can this be implemented?" Without any sort of test for these questions, we are repeating the Mincome experiment from the 70s.
Regorium is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-25-2017, 10:52 AM   #32
Jason14h
Franchise Player
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CaramonLS View Post
There are some estimates that show over the next 10-15 years up to 40% of the workforce are at a potentially high risk of automation. We are already at a point in time where self driving cars alone could bump the unemployment rate by 5-10% in a very short amount of time.

Probably time that Canada reconsider it's immigration policies too if labour isn't going to hold the value it previously did. I can't see a situation that is sustainable if we are bringing 250-300k per year into the country. There won't even be enough jobs to support those already here.

Governments needed to start looking at this problem yesterday. This is going to come quick and it is probably going to hurt.
100 years ago 95% of the workforce worked in farms. They all (most) lost their jobs to automation.

The problem isn't job loss, its job creation. Fewer and fewer people are out there creating new jobs and industries.

I see 2 reasons:

1. The standard of living has risen across the world, but a lot in the developed world. People don't need a lot of money to be entertained and content. The drive to 'takes risks to better ones life" just aren't there in a risk vs reward as much as they were.

2. To many public jobs/an increasing % of people in public jobs. Public jobs never have driven innovation or new industry job creation.

We need to figure out how to get back to people being entreprenuers and creating new industries to replace the jobs being lost by automation.

Regarding basic income and how to pay for it. In theory we already support basic income for most people, it is just wrapped up in red tape and government programs. If we could prove it is cheaper to kill these programs and just give people to $$, it could totally work. But that would kill more jobs and the government has created an industry of moving money to people.
Jason14h is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-25-2017, 11:08 AM   #33
Regorium
First Line Centre
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Calgary
Exp:
Default

Also, since I haven't offered any solutions, here's some things I'd like to explore with basic income:

1) Offer BI to the working poor - People that are making over the cap (48k for a household or whatever). Tell them that this safety net exists even if they quit their job tomorrow. Based on my criticism, we know that giving more money to poor people improves their outcomes. But I actually don't know what would happen if you gave a BI to middle class people that already have (crappy) jobs. Would they quit and go back to school? Would they continue working knowing that their jobs are being taxed at a marginal rate of 70%+ based on the amount they'd receive from BI?

2) Do BI in a major metropolis for the poor. Does it change outcomes in a place like Toronto when housing and services are ridiculously expensive? How effective is a flat BI when cost of living is drastically different?

3) Do a larger roll out of BI along with a funding scheme. For example, do BI in Hamilton or a small to mid-sized city, but have the funding end too. Add a 5% "BI tax" to everything (or whatever revenue generator), and then have a near-revenue neutral BI. Then test outcomes of all socio-economic classes including businesses, middle class, lower class and upper class.
Regorium is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-25-2017, 11:09 AM   #34
belsarius
First Line Centre
 
belsarius's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Edmonton
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Regorium View Post
Some of those studies on the Dauphin experiment conceded that the structure of the Mincome (temporary, small population selected) led to difficulty in generating conclusions. This pilot project does not change those parameters.

I have read that hospitalization rates go down and employment participation goes down and education participation goes up. All great things from the first pilot project. I don't see how the structure of the current pilot project gives us additional information - perhaps modern experimentation and recordkeeping techniques - but I believe the big picture will be very similar. Is more modernized and precise data worth another 150 million over 3 years?

Basically, I feel that the improved outcomes of basic income are well known by this point and not worth 150 million to explore further. The questions need to shift to "is it worth it?" and "can this be implemented?" Without any sort of test for these questions, we are repeating the Mincome experiment from the 70s.
I think the biggest flaw in the Mincome experiment was that it was never properly concluded. The raw data was transferred to the University and left to academics to analyze and draw conclusions. No comparisons to current government programs were properly conducted, no actual cost analysis was conducted. I see this Ontario program as more extensive as it is drawing from population in very different regions with different constraints and priorities.

It also isn't like they are burning 50 Mil a year on nothing, like you said this will improve outcomes for a thousands of people, providing them an increase in their standard of living.

This study will help answer the questions of "is it worth it?" and "can this be implemented?" by providing current and relevant data. Trying to make these decisions based on a 40 year old study in a different province or studies in a different country doesn't seem very appropriate.
__________________
@PR_NHL
The @NHLFlames are the first team to feature four players each with 50+ points within their first 45 games of a season since the Penguins in 1995-96 (Ron Francis, Mario Lemieux, Jaromir Jagr, Tomas Sandstrom).
belsarius is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-25-2017, 11:44 AM   #35
CaptainCrunch
Norm!
 
CaptainCrunch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Exp:
Default

Obviously I think there needs to be more of a study of this, but I kind of disagree with the premise of the whole throw money at it to solve it. All this does is allow governments to wash their hands of it by shouting, see we threw money at it, its dealt with.

But at the same time, you get rid of the welfare programs and unemployment programs and other programs so in effect. To me anyways you're not really helping people that are in the lower income brackets, your just accepting that they're there and the government loses its incentive to push them up.

People are talking about automation killing jobs, and that's fine, I accept that premise to an extent, however how is just creating a minimum income paid by the government going to create new jobs and industry sectors if it suddenly creates an environment where people can sit at home?

I would question the concept as a person put it that people could collect the BI and then work under the table to increase their wealth? How is that fair in anyway? Shouldn't any dollar earned over minimum income be taxed?

And the whole idea, that its only the wealth that pay for it I think is disingenuous to the sell job to be honest?

First and foremost, wouldn't they either merely move their wealth and income to another country that lets say doesn't have BI and lets say doesn't tax more then half their income? In fact wouldn't other countries fight for their capital investment and their personal wealth.

And what's the definition of the wealthy who pay? Lets say that you suddenly jack up taxation for people making 40 or 50k a year. Lets say to support BI you tax those people half of their pay checks so their take home goes to 20 or 25k? Wouldn't it just be more worthwhile to say screw it, I'll take the 17k and stay home and maybe work under the table mowing lawns? Its less aggravation and I can sit at home and call myself a scientist.

As well, I guess my question is under a pure system of Basic Income, the cost savings are in terms of a reduction of managing a myriad of social programs.

In effect you don't need welfare and UI and for the people that are getting disability from the government that goes away. You can also get rid of the pension. But at the same time wouldn't you do things like put user fees on healthcare since BI would far overshadow healthcare in terms of percentage of tax income spent.

I tend to look at anything that Wynne does as cynically designed to fight her next election, and BI is a big thing that can attract lower income voters to her cause.

I'm certainly not dismissing it, but this seems to be an idea that to me might simplify government but it won't necessarily help the vulnerable and I'm not talking about normal low income earners here.

I tend to think that it will just create a pool of low income earners getting checks but it won't look at underlying causes or specific issues that put people in that pool.
__________________
My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;

Look on my Works, ye Mighty, and despair!
CaptainCrunch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-25-2017, 12:00 PM   #36
CliffFletcher
Franchise Player
 
Join Date: May 2006
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jason14h View Post
We need to figure out how to get back to people being entreprenuers and creating new industries to replace the jobs being lost by automation.
We have all sorts of innovation and new industries. The problem is they require very little labour. Look at Silicon Valley. You have multi-billion-dollar companies with fewer than 50 employees. Google's parent company, Alphabet, has a market cap of $600 billion and it employs only 70,000 people. That's a fraction of how many people Ford, IBM, and GE employed at their peak.

0.5% of American workers are employed in industries that have emerged since 2000.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by fotze View Post
If this day gets you riled up, you obviously aren't numb to the disappointment yet to be a real fan.
CliffFletcher is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-25-2017, 12:05 PM   #37
peter12
Franchise Player
 
peter12's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CliffFletcher View Post
We have all sorts of innovation and new industries. The problem is they require very little labour. Look at Silicon Valley. You have multi-billion-dollar companies with fewer than 50 employees. Google's parent company, Alphabet, has a market cap of $600 billion and it employs only 70,000 people. That's a fraction of how many people Ford, IBM, and GE employed at their peak.

0.5% of American workers are employed in industries that have emerged since 2000.
Kind of skeptical of this whole automation narrative. More and more so as the hype dies down.

https://www.city-journal.org/html/re...try-15085.html
peter12 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-25-2017, 12:19 PM   #38
Jason14h
Franchise Player
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CliffFletcher View Post
We have all sorts of innovation and new industries.
We don't though. Although your 2nd point is true as well.

We don't have many new companies, and the ones we do have aren't employing enough people. Instead keeping money hidden off-shore.

http://money.cnn.com/2016/09/08/news...r-40-year-low/
Jason14h is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-25-2017, 01:15 PM   #39
CliffFletcher
Franchise Player
 
Join Date: May 2006
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by peter12 View Post
Kind of skeptical of this whole automation narrative. More and more so as the hype dies down.

https://www.city-journal.org/html/re...try-15085.html
That article deals only with manufacturing. Where automation is really going to replace labour is in the service sector, which is the biggest segment of the economy today.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by fotze View Post
If this day gets you riled up, you obviously aren't numb to the disappointment yet to be a real fan.
CliffFletcher is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-25-2017, 01:27 PM   #40
FlamesAddiction
Franchise Player
 
FlamesAddiction's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Vancouver
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by AltaGuy View Post
It's going to happen everywhere in the Western world. Figuring out how to do it sustainably is definitely the question. We need consumers, or we got nothing.
There will still be consumers, but it will be 1%'s creating products for other 1%'s to consume. Everyone else will have to form a black market economy where people toil for scraps. In the end, it will probably create a huge underclass, and potentially a class war.

It's really in the best interest for big businesses to eventually subsidize universal income. The government might need to facilitate it through taxes.
__________________
"A pessimist thinks things can't get any worse. An optimist knows they can."
FlamesAddiction is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 08:39 AM.

Calgary Flames
2023-24




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright Calgarypuck 2021