Ah. Ok. So this is your response any time someone suggests that the authorities might not have all the answers. K cool.
Quote:
But it’s not a benefit to society. If I pay an expert to get the roof done and brakes changed and instead due my job that I am an expert in to generate wealth then society has more wealth. That wealth can then be taxed and redistributed for the benefit of society. Overall experts doing things they are experts in increases societies wealth.
Those things benefit society more than if you stayed on the couch, was my point.
Quote:
You didn’t answer the question about human behaviour. Why does 20k a year change people’s desire to consume as much as possible. You don’t need UBI to change taxation regimes to discourage consumption and to clean up the nature of consumption.
I think a lot of our fanatical obsession with amassing material wealth and living high-consumption lifestyles comes from a feeling that something terrible will happen if we don't do so. We fear that we'll be seen as less than, and that our well being and even our survival will be threatened. Let's show people that they're survival isn't threatened, and that we have each other's backs, and we'll see if most people still have a frantic obsession with consuming as much as possible.
Quote:
What you seem to be advocating for is to heavily tax consumption and non-clean power which has the result of making everything more expensive which in turn reduces consumption. This is fine and an interesting conversation. It is in no way tied to a UBI and in this kind of environment where you are making energy cost more human labour you need more work hours not less to maintain the same standard of living. So your welfare regime should be encouraging labour participation.
Not really sure what you're getting at here.
Quote:
The entire experience has left me extremely jaded with the average work force.
So you feel that you should have easy, abundant access to low cost labour.
My question is, should this really be a priority for our society?
But it wasn't a ####ty job. It was a great job for a high school student - I was with my friends and other young people, we had fun, we worked hard. It didn't pay a living wage, but why should a working as a busboy two nights a week pay a living wage?
Still, if I could have made $300 a week doing nothing, I would have taken that instead. Everyone I knew would have.
To add to this, workingb at a restaurant when you're young has been different than working a truly dull and unpleasant job full time for life.
I think a lot of our fanatical obsession with amassing material wealth and living high-consumption lifestyles comes from a feeling that something terrible will happen if we don't do so. We fear that we'll be seen as less than, and that our well being and even our survival will be threatened. Let's show people that they're survival isn't threatened, and that we have each other's backs, and we'll see if most people still have a frantic obsession with consuming as much as possible.
I find someone named Mathgod constantly arguing with their personal feelings instead of facts to be delightfully ironic.
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Handsome B. Wonderful For This Useful Post:
Ah. Ok. So this is your response any time someone suggests that the authorities might not have all the answers. K cool.
No, it's my response to someone who clearly has no understanding of the subject matter but makes the outlandish claim of "I know a tremendous amount about it."
Yes, those people who have dedicated decades to learning about the issues, researching the subject matter, have repeated their experiments with consistent and reliable results - all of which have been peer reviewed, don't know what they are talking about. But you "know a tremendous amount about it" and can clearly state that these experts don't know what they are talking about and you have the answers. That is the Dunning-Kruger effect in action.
You have identified problems in society that could generally be classified as over and unnecessary consumption that is leading to exploitation and environmental destruction
You have proposed UBI which does nothing to address the stated problem.
UBI is the solution to when the human labour requirement of creating goods is so low that large quantities of human labour are no longer required to create surplus so you need to disincentivize work and provide a means of living for those who don’t have access to jobs. This does not exist today. Until this scenario begins to exist we are much better focusing elsewhere.
UBI is not the solution to Over-Consumption. It does nothing to address over consumption. It merely transfers the consumption from one group to another. UBI is not a solution to greed
UBI is not a solution to homelessness
UBI is not a solution to mental health
UBI is not a solution to addictions
UBI is not a solution to global warming
UBI might be a solution to poverty in some scenarios but targeted programs are likely to be more efficient.
You are underpants gnoming UBI to this massive change in the human condition.
The question is... is what you're describing an inevitable part of human nature? Or does our natural urge for competency, contribution, and recognition quickly turn into an urge to exploit, extract, and stockpile... when we look out the window and see a world around us that is completely callous, and where everyone else is exploiting, extracting, and stockpiling?
we are at our heart immensely competitive. violent for most of our history cannibal peer ranked apes, we will absolutely look to eff' each other over in any system, again you need to realize the system we live in is wholly a reflection of us, the system didnt create itself, we created it, and we have had many many chances to create something different, every revolution, every commune or weird church group that goes off to live in the boonies could become a paradise on earth with no greed or cruelty and they all become #### shows of greed, power trips and sexual abuse.
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to afc wimbledon For This Useful Post:
No, it's my response to someone who clearly has no understanding of the subject matter but makes the outlandish claim of "I know a tremendous amount about it."
Yes, those people who have dedicated decades to learning about the issues, researching the subject matter, have repeated their experiments with consistent and reliable results - all of which have been peer reviewed, don't know what they are talking about. But you "know a tremendous amount about it" and can clearly state that these experts don't know what they are talking about and you have the answers. That is the Dunning-Kruger effect in action.
You don't know anything about me, yet that hasn't stopped you from making assumptions about me.
The fact is that I have seen, heard, and been through a whole bunch of things that have informed me on the topic. I've spoken to people in the know, and they largely agree with my assessment, which is that clinical depression is wildly overdiagnosed, and the vast majority of people who've been diagnosed actually don't have anything wrong with them.
Most of the people in the psychiatry and psychology professions get their marching orders from the top, from the DSM, which is controlled by a tight-knit group of people. Never underestimate ulterior motives that these people might have. Think about it, what if you had the power to label anyone crazy that you wanted to silence. You could label anyone who passionately disagrees with your political views as mentally ill.
Quote:
You have proposed UBI which does nothing to address the stated problem.
UBI is the solution to when the human labour requirement of creating goods is so low that large quantities of human labour are no longer required to create surplus so you need to disincentivize work and provide a means of living for those who don’t have access to jobs. This does not exist today. Until this scenario begins to exist we are much better focusing elsewhere.
UBI is not the solution to Over-Consumption. It does nothing to address over consumption. It merely transfers the consumption from one group to another. UBI is not a solution to greed
UBI is not a solution to homelessness
UBI is not a solution to mental health
UBI is not a solution to addictions
UBI is not a solution to global warming
UBI might be a solution to poverty in some scenarios but targeted programs are likely to be more efficient.
You are underpants gnoming UBI to this massive change in the human condition.
Disagree on all of these assertions.
There's no "massive change" being sought after here. Just an unlocking of a piece of human nature that already exists. Have you seen the film The Day The Earth Stood Still... it gets the point across rather well.
Quote:
Originally Posted by afc wimbledon
we are at our heart immensely competitive. violent for most of our history cannibal peer ranked apes, we will absolutely look to eff' each other over in any system, again you need to realize the system we live in is wholly a reflection of us, the system didnt create itself, we created it, and we have had many many chances to create something different, every revolution, every commune or weird church group that goes off to live in the boonies could become a paradise on earth with no greed or cruelty and they all become #### shows of greed, power trips and sexual abuse.
Does this prove that we're ultra competitive by nature? Or does it prove that a small percentage of people are complete psychos and are very good at conning and manipulating the rest of us? Perhaps the system is largely a reflection of those people, not of the population as a whole.
There's no "massive change" being sought after here. Just an unlocking of a piece of human nature that already exists. Have you seen the film The Day The Earth Stood Still... it gets the point across rather well.
Are you saying, with a straight face, that what you're proposing / hoping for doesn't require a "massive change"?
Quote:
Does this prove that we're ultra competitive by nature? Or does it prove that a small percentage of people are complete psychos and are very good at conning and manipulating the rest of us? Perhaps the system is largely a reflection of those people, not of the population as a whole.
It's a widely understood, basic concept that humans are ultra competitive by nature. The small percentage of people that you're labelling as "psychos" are just more competitive and therefore more successful.
Human nature is built around competitiveness, its how humanity improves itself, mankind drives itself through the motivation of gain.
What's stopped us from completely wiping ourselves out is our ability to critically think and show concepts of compassion and mercy.
But a human being that isn't competitive in some way stalls and gets left behind, its that simple.
In simple terms, human beings are wired to be jerks, they can show kindness, compassion and mercy, but there has to be a gain from it or a plus from it.
__________________
My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;
One thing I've learned from this thread is that UBI is an interesting topic for discussion of the market, macros and behavioral psychology as long as the discussion is dispassionate enough to work through numerous alternative hypotheses about how so many market forces interact with each other in an exploration of our beliefs and assumptions. There's no need for anyone to rush into passionately defending one hypothesis or one set of assumptions though. It's less interesting if we can't detach the intellectual exploration from the personal sentiments that resist challenges to the way we see things. It's really the type of discussion best held with open and curious minds on all sides.
__________________
"If stupidity got us into this mess, then why can't it get us out?"
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to JohnnyB For This Useful Post:
Yes, wages are tied to supply and demand, obviously, thank you. But it feels like you forgot the supply part of the equation. The supply of workforce doesn't just depend on skillset, it also depends on willingness to do the work/desirability of the job and location of the workforce (amongst other things).
Agreed. And I have never meant to suggest that I think otherwise. Supply means actual supply. Not people that could do it but won't. I assumed that was self-explanatory.
Quote:
Right now, being a janitor is a low-demand job, right? It's essential, many businesses and buildings need janitors, but there is a large supply of workforce because the skillset required is not hard to obtain nor is it rare.
I would go one further and question just how essential it is. Most small and medium sized companies do not require full time janitorial services. Many businesses are able to get by with a cleaning person that comes in after hours for a couple hours throughout the week.
Quote:
But the willingness to do the work/desirability of the job is low, so that should remove a large portion of the supply, thus creating higher wages, right?
Is it difficult to hire a janitor? Are there janitorial job postings that go for months on end without being filled? I've never heard this so please advise if so. On the other hand, if these jobs are filled rather quickly, then I would say that at worst, the supply is adequate for the demand. At worst, there is excess supply for the demand.
But let's explore this a bit more: even if you have a skillset for a job that is rare, it does not mean that you will be able to command a high wage. That job also needs to have a high perceived value (again, this is something that I roll into demand). Would a full time janitorial position have that much value to you as a business owner when you can get away with having someone come in for 2 hours 3 nights a week and pay them out of petty cash?
Quote:
Well, it doesn't, because people need to work to survive, and even the lowest paid job is still a job. So the supply is artificially propped up.
Again, statements like this make it sound like you don't understand how markets work. Business owners don't get together and arbitrarily decide to suppress wages for certain jobs.
Quote:
That's the issue. With a UBI, that supply would diminish so wages would be forced to go up to compensate, and reflect something that is probably closer to the true value of the work.
Why would the supply diminish? Just about everyone advocating for UBI is insisting that people wouldn't drop out of the workforce if given UBI. If low skilled workers are only capable of performing these undesirable jobs, and if they definitely would continue to work, I fail to see how the supply would be impacted by this.
Here's the thing: you and I would like to see the same thing, which is people ultimately earning better wages. We just fundamentally disagree on how to go about achieving this. My view is that the best way someone can earn a better living is to develop a skillset that is in demand and rare. Do that and you are guaranteed to earn more. I think this is also far more practical a solution than UBI which I feel would be unsustainable financially, and also extremely deleterious to our democracy.
You don't know anything about me, yet that hasn't stopped you from making assumptions about me.
The fact is that I have seen, heard, and been through a whole bunch of things that have informed me on the topic. I've spoken to people in the know, and they largely agree with my assessment, which is that clinical depression is wildly overdiagnosed, and the vast majority of people who've been diagnosed actually don't have anything wrong with them.
Most of the people in the psychiatry and psychology professions get their marching orders from the top, from the DSM, which is controlled by a tight-knit group of people. Never underestimate ulterior motives that these people might have. Think about it, what if you had the power to label anyone crazy that you wanted to silence. You could label anyone who passionately disagrees with your political views as mentally ill.
Disagree on all of these assertions.
There's no "massive change" being sought after here. Just an unlocking of a piece of human nature that already exists. Have you seen the film The Day The Earth Stood Still... it gets the point across rather well.
Does this prove that we're ultra competitive by nature? Or does it prove that a small percentage of people are complete psychos and are very good at conning and manipulating the rest of us? Perhaps the system is largely a reflection of those people, not of the population as a whole.
It doesnt actually matter as in any system these are the people who end up in charge, you put in UBI and the 'psychos' will always find a way to game the system and end up with the best of it, as a species though we have spent almost all of our existence relying on our strength and aggression to literally make it through the day and pass on our genes, for millions of years, not the couple of thousand we have been 'civilised' the only surviving genes passed on were the ones from the most violently aggressive, we are at our heart Morlocks not Eloi
It's a widely understood, basic concept that humans are ultra competitive by nature. The small percentage of people that you're labelling as "psychos" are just more competitive and therefore more successful.
No, psychopathy is a real thing that affects about 1% of the population. One characteristic of a psychopath is being able to exploit people without empathy. It's not difficult to see why many of them become powerful CEOs and politicians.
__________________
"A pessimist thinks things can't get any worse. An optimist knows they can."
The Following User Says Thank You to FlamesAddiction For This Useful Post:
