Universal Basic Income/Andrew Yang Discussion

[Mathgod]

Originally Posted by CliffFletcher

Sucks to be a utopian misanthrope.

Who exactly is the misanthrope again? The one who wants things to stay as is, or the one who wants humanity's situation to improve?

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Mathgod

You mean we're not precariously close to suffering cataclysmic consequences as a result of climate change?

You mean our oceans and waterways aren't being pumped full of garbage and other toxins?

You mean we aren't breathing in toxic gases every single day from vehicles and other sources?

You mean the top 1% of the world's population doesn't hold nearly half the world's wealth?

You mean the US doesn't have a bloated military industrial complex which fights endless wars?

You mean there isn't an opioid crisis reeking havoc on our population?

You mean there aren't still people committing suicide every single day, despite how wonderful everything supposedly is?

You mean there hasn't been a huge surge in recent years of climate change denial, anti-vax, and other anti-science movements?

You mean people aren't tossed aside like garbage as soon as they don't do as society demands of them?


Oh, ok. Good to know.

The goods news is that a UBI will give the addicted more money with which to purchase fentanyl. CERB has some really interesting (terrifying might be a better word) side affects on drug use.

[PepsiFree]

Yeah everyone I know on CERB uses it to by ecstasy and coke. People on EI can usually only afford meth.

[Mathgod]

Maybe UBI can be some sort of credit system that can only be spent in certain ways (rather than just sending out cash).

Something to consider: how are drug lords going to recruit dealers if everyone has access to a UBI? Why would people choose a life of crime if they have a better alternative directly at their fingertips?

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by Mathgod

This mostly comes across as a bunch of gaslighting and condescension (and yes, more strawmen and ad hominem attempts).

School must have let out. How was English 30? <-- That is condescension.

That's okay, you mostly came across as full #### and not knowing what you're talking about. I was doing my best to try and expose you to reality, but like so many millennials you have this belief of your righteousness without having any expertise, experience, or competency. <-- That is an ad hominem.

UBI is a well thought out idea, with massive support from voters, politicians, and corporations. This is one of the freshest ideas in the history of man and countries are lining up to implement the genius idea. <-- That is gaslighting.

Simple math shows that 20k/year is enough for a person to scrape by and access the bare minimum necessities. I'm not going to be gaslit into thinking otherwise.

Emphasis on simple. That's your problem. You think this is a "simple" problem for "simple math". Yes, you can "scrape by" on $20K while living in your parent's basement. Get out in the real world, and that doesn't go very far, especially if you have expectations of having a life. In fact, that $20K leaves you living in a state of poverty and subject to depression because you don't have a life and the potential for having one seems minimal. The incidence of depression and other mental illness as a result of living in poverty conditions is a well documented issue.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...stract-sec-id7

https://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...53829216305640

https://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...65032717320232

https://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...65032716302634

https://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...77953620300678

https://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...54139X05005987

All of these articles show a direct correlation between poverty and depression, regardless of the various locales or other variables. Living in poverty increases your likelihood of depression by by a factor of 2.1. The last thing we want to do is add to the mental health load our society is already facing. Oh, wait. We don't have to worry about that, because you killed all the programs that people with mental illness can turn to and get help to pay for UBI.

I wish we could conduct an experiment to give you the experience you're in search of. If there were a way to actually give you the experience to live your claims and make you try to live on $20K for a year. And I'm not talking as a student, I'm talking as a self-sufficient person with responsibilities (leases, bills, a menial job, etc.), and you have to make due on $1,667 a month, less taxes. It would be exceptionally difficult for you and a real eye opener. You would be an absolute wreck by the end of it. The stress that people experience while living in poverty is unbelievable and I would like to see your take on it after experiencing it for a year.

The idea that UBI should be higher than 20k/year, is certainly worth considering. However, your overall case against UBI is mostly based on misconceptions and preconceived bias. You seem to have this idea that only certain people should be treated with decency and compassion, and not others. You're never going to end up with a well-functioning society that way. Callousness only begets more callousness.

Okay, this is the most disingenuous thing I've seen anyone post in quite some time. Are you forgetting I'm the one arguing for maintaining the very social programs that people rely upon to help them, RIGHT NOW. You're the one arguing that we should kill all of these programs, that help people with very specialized issues, and replace them with a single payment, that could be less than what they are receiving right now, and leave them on their own to try and figure out how to pay the assistance they need. Talk to the people who you are taking their social services away from and telling them they are on their own for finding similar services... on $20K a year. Those people might call this plan callous.

You complain about people who vote for Donald Trump. Well you know what gives birth to the Trumpian mindset? It's the concept of "no one ever gave a damn about me, so why should I give a damn about others?" You can't combat this mindset by only looking out for those who are in the worst situations. You have to send a clear message to everyone that every person matters.

Come on, what are you talking about? You are aware that the Trump states, those deep red states, are the ones who receive the most social assistance in the nation? They also get the most subsidies of all the states. "Those people" are the ones mostly sucking off the teet of the government, so they have nothing to whine about. They are well looked after. Their problem is the fact that we ARE trying to make every person matter and that drives them up the wall. These are the people that like their institutionalized racism, work to maintain it, and vote for the party that will keep the pedal to the metal in that regard. "Send a clear message to everyone that every person matters." Give me a break. These are the people that have been sending messages for the past 60 years that black and brown people don't matter.

Since you've swung the doors open on ad hominems, now it's my turn... you may have more years of experience in certain areas than I, but never underestimate the biases and damage that creep in as a person suffers more emotional/psychological trauma as the years go on. There's a reason why candidates like Sanders and Yang polled well among young people and poorly among older people, it's because people tend to become more callous and ruthless as they get older.

It's also because we have expertise, experience, and competency on our side. You know, the things you need to understand the big problems that affect society and the impact one system has on another. You need that understanding to tackle these big issues and affect real change. There is a difference between blind idealism and supporting change. Blind idealism is dangerous because it is filled with blind spots. That's where experience comes into play. While you call it callousness or ruthlessness we like to call it knowledge and awareness of the pitfalls of idealism.

We've all been there, and we've all championed idealistic causes and have learned our lessons the hard way, just like you will learn yours. Trust me, I used to think my old man was doddering old fool and I was the master of all domains too. Funny thing, I hit 35 and found out that old goat knew WTF he was talking about. A day doesn't go by that I wish I could tug his ear to get advice on the things impacting us and our world. Sadly he is long gone and I don't get to rely on his wisdom and counsel when I need it. Weird thing is, I have all the young guys in the office asking me for advice because I've been around the block a few times and have that experience to work from.

Here's the other thing... it seems like we've always sat back and let the "old wise" folk call the shots in our society. For the most part, we've generally trusted them to make the best decisions because of their (purported) vast experience, wisdom, and knowledge. I don't know about you, but from my perspective the world is a complete disaster right now. Look at climate change, pollution in general, never ending wars, poverty (both here and abroad), organized crime, rampant wealth disparity, systemic racism, opioid epidemic, dictatorial regimes, and other problems. This is the result of hundreds of years of letting the all-knowing experts make the big decisions. Maybe it's time to move away from the notion that the old & experienced always know best? Maybe it's time to let younger voices into the conversation and take their input seriously to heart?

You're right. There is a lot in the world that is ####ed up. But that vast majority of people haven't contributed a ton to that. That has been a small group of money and power hungry individuals that have caused the vast majority of the damage. The uber rich have always had way too much power and that is what needs to change. For every Bill Gates that wants to do goodm there are Koch Brothers that want to burn the place to the ground. This is what needs to change.

It's funny, but not too long ago I was sitting in a cabinet meeting and the conversation trued to the future. People were scared ####less because the millennials were going to be taking over and, generally speaking, they didn't care about the systems or had any interest in being engaged. I was the dissenting voice in the room and disagreed. I said they just needed to find that issue that mobilized them, just as we had been mobilized by the anti-war and anti-nuke movements in the past. Maybe this is your generation's cause. Maybe this is what will get millennials engaged and participating in the system. But that is the thing, you have to get engaged with the system. You have to learn to work within it just like we did, and the greatest generation did, and so on. Once you understand how the system works and you're on the inside then, and only then, will you have the opportunity to make the change you want. You have some good ideas, but those ideas have to work within the constructs of our government, our economy, and our society. Too much change too quickly will always be rejected. Your generation's time will come, and then you will have the honor of cleaning up the pile of #### the greatest and the boomers left behind. Trust me, I don't like what is being left behind and it is why I am trying to foment change from the inside and make a difference before I pack it in.

[Jason14h]

Originally Posted by Mathgod

Maybe UBI can be some sort of credit system that can only be spent in certain ways (rather than just sending out cash).

Something to consider: how are drug lords going to recruit dealers if everyone has access to a UBI? Why would people choose a life of crime if they have a better alternative directly at their fingertips?

You think drug dealers are making $1500 month ? They will just pocket the $1500 and laugh , just like they did with The $2000 a month over the last 4 months

[Mathgod]

Originally Posted by New Era

Emphasis on simple. That's your problem. You think this is a "simple" problem for "simple math". Yes, you can "scrape by" on $20K while living in your parent's basement. Get out in the real world, and that doesn't go very far, especially if you have expectations of having a life. In fact, that $20K leaves you living in a state of poverty and subject to depression because you don't have a life and the potential for having one seems minimal.

And this is your entire problem. Your entire premise rests on some bull#### stereotype of what "having a life" means.

The incidence of depression and other mental illness as a result of living in poverty conditions is a well documented issue.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...stract-sec-id7
https://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...53829216305640
https://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...65032717320232
https://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...65032716302634
https://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...77953620300678
https://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...54139X05005987

All of these articles show a direct correlation between poverty and depression, regardless of the various locales or other variables. Living in poverty increases your likelihood of depression by by a factor of 2.1. The last thing we want to do is add to the mental health load our society is already facing.

Maybe it's because we brainwash everybody into thinking they're worthless if they don't have a certain type of job, a certain level of income, a certain level of consumption, a certain type of lifestyle, live in a certain type of home, drive a certain type of car, wear a certain type of clothes, etc etc etc.

You are contributing to the problem; you just don't realize it.

I want to bring the homelessness rate to zero. You want to pick & choose who gets treated with decency and who doesn't. That's the difference.

I wish we could conduct an experiment to give you the experience you're in search of. If there were a way to actually give you the experience to live your claims and make you try to live on $20K for a year. And I'm not talking as a student, I'm talking as a self-sufficient person with responsibilities (leases, bills, a menial job, etc.), and you have to make due on $1,667 a month, less taxes. It would be exceptionally difficult for you and a real eye opener. You would be an absolute wreck by the end of it. The stress that people experience while living in poverty is unbelievable and I would like to see your take on it after experiencing it for a year.

For the record, the UBI is not taxed, and people can also earn a certain amount of income from a job before it starts being taxed. In Canada, it's the first (approximately) $12k that you can make from working without paying tax on it.

Why would I have leases again? Ohh yeah that's right, I have to drive a car in order to have a life and mobilize upward and be someone, otherwise I'm a worthless POS.

You know what? I'd take you up on your offer. $1667/month tax free for a year, and any money I make from working is mine to keep.

Okay, this is the most disingenuous thing I've seen anyone post in quite some time. Are you forgetting I'm the one arguing for maintaining the very social programs that people rely upon to help them, RIGHT NOW. You're the one arguing that we should kill all of these programs, that help people with very specialized issues, and replace them with a single payment, that could be less than what they are receiving right now, and leave them on their own to try and figure out how to pay the assistance they need. Talk to the people who you are taking their social services away from and telling them they are on their own for finding similar services... on $20K a year. Those people might call this plan callous.

My position is and always has been that those with legitimate disabilities receive a higher payment than those who don't.

Come on, what are you talking about? You are aware that the Trump states, those deep red states, are the ones who receive the most social assistance in the nation? They also get the most subsidies of all the states. "Those people" are the ones mostly sucking off the teet of the government, so they have nothing to whine about. They are well looked after. Their problem is the fact that we ARE trying to make every person matter and that drives them up the wall. These are the people that like their institutionalized racism, work to maintain it, and vote for the party that will keep the pedal to the metal in that regard. "Send a clear message to everyone that every person matters." Give me a break. These are the people that have been sending messages for the past 60 years that black and brown people don't matter.

First of all, there is no truly UBI in any of those states.

Second, Trump is working to dismantle the assistance programs in those states, bit by bit, without replacing them with anything.

https://washingtonmonthly.com/2020/0...al-safety-set/

The brainwashing that Trump supporters have succumb to is deeply worrying. I don't know what the solution is. However, I know that the solution is not to pat them on the back and support their "logic" as they scream "pull yourself up by your bootstraps!"

It's also because we have expertise, experience, and competency on our side. You know, the things you need to understand the big problems that affect society and the impact one system has on another. You need that understanding to tackle these big issues and affect real change. There is a difference between blind idealism and supporting change. Blind idealism is dangerous because it is filled with blind spots. That's where experience comes into play. While you call it callousness or ruthlessness we like to call it knowledge and awareness of the pitfalls of idealism.

We've all been there, and we've all championed idealistic causes and have learned our lessons the hard way, just like you will learn yours. Trust me, I used to think my old man was doddering old fool and I was the master of all domains too. Funny thing, I hit 35 and found out that old goat knew WTF he was talking about. A day doesn't go by that I wish I could tug his ear to get advice on the things impacting us and our world. Sadly he is long gone and I don't get to rely on his wisdom and counsel when I need it. Weird thing is, I have all the young guys in the office asking me for advice because I've been around the block a few times and have that experience to work from.

I think growing older and gaining experience causes you to lose some of the blind spots you previously had, but develop new ones. That's why younger people and older people need to work together to create solutions, not just one group or the other calling the shots.

You're right. There is a lot in the world that is ####ed up. But that vast majority of people haven't contributed a ton to that. That has been a small group of money and power hungry individuals that have caused the vast majority of the damage. The uber rich have always had way too much power and that is what needs to change. For every Bill Gates that wants to do goodm there are Koch Brothers that want to burn the place to the ground. This is what needs to change.

It's funny, but not too long ago I was sitting in a cabinet meeting and the conversation trued to the future. People were scared ####less because the millennials were going to be taking over and, generally speaking, they didn't care about the systems or had any interest in being engaged. I was the dissenting voice in the room and disagreed. I said they just needed to find that issue that mobilized them, just as we had been mobilized by the anti-war and anti-nuke movements in the past. Maybe this is your generation's cause. Maybe this is what will get millennials engaged and participating in the system. But that is the thing, you have to get engaged with the system. You have to learn to work within it just like we did, and the greatest generation did, and so on. Once you understand how the system works and you're on the inside then, and only then, will you have the opportunity to make the change you want. You have some good ideas, but those ideas have to work within the constructs of our government, our economy, and our society. Too much change too quickly will always be rejected. Your generation's time will come, and then you will have the honor of cleaning up the pile of #### the greatest and the boomers left behind. Trust me, I don't like what is being left behind and it is why I am trying to foment change from the inside and make a difference before I pack it in.

I applaud your efforts. I just think your perspective is incomplete.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by PepsiFree

Yeah everyone I know on CERB uses it to by ecstasy and coke. People on EI can usually only afford meth.

https://www.google.ca/amp/s/www.cbc.ca/amp/1.5606188

There are negative consequences with enabling users to purchase narcotics.

Based on preliminary results from the Ontario coroner's office, there was roughly a 25 per cent increase in overdose deaths in March, April and May of this year, compared to similar data for the previous year.

British Columbia saw a 39 per cent jump in overdose deaths in April compared to the same month last year.

In late May, Chief Public Health Officer Dr. Theresa Tam said the B.C. numbers represent "a worrying trend."

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Mathgod

Maybe UBI can be some sort of credit system that can only be spent in certain ways (rather than just sending out cash).

Something to consider: how are drug lords going to recruit dealers if everyone has access to a UBI? Why would people choose a life of crime if they have a better alternative directly at their fingertips?

You can have the life of crime AND the better alternative. In fact it being a tax less cash job that provides a small side income but not a real 9-5 job probably has a certain attractiveness in a UBI world. You need such a small amount of more money to provide a large increase in standard of living when all of your needs are paid for. 100% of income goes to wants.

So making small amounts of money selling drugs seems like a reasonable hobby. I think the answer is legalize, tax, treat and enforce. This becomes even more important when you have a UBI.

I think that caveats, claw backs, means testing, requiring people to work all work significantly against the main benefit of UBI. It’s cheap to administer and always there. If you get rid of those factors you might as well target need instead.

The entire concept of UBI is people are better at spending their money then the government is on what they need now so it is more efficient to indiscriminately fund people rather than for the government to fund programs to help people.

In general I agree with the principle of UBI that access to meeting the basic needs to live should be provided by the state. However the Universal nature of UBI and human nature will lead to perverse incentives causing the system to collapse.

Like every 50 year engineer retiring and spending their lives tinkering instead of developing modern power grids and extracting energy from the earth.

[bizaro86]

Originally Posted by GGG

https://www.google.ca/amp/s/www.cbc.ca/amp/1.5606188

There are negative consequences with enabling users to purchase narcotics.

I suspect the lockdown, and associated job losses, relationship breakdowns, and depression have probably had an impact on drug use as well. Hard to separate that effect from CERB when they happened at the same time.

Anecdotally I would say the public use of hard drugs seems to be becoming more prevalent. That's just a personal observation (and anecdote !=data) but I doubt the dirty guy with glassy eyes in the Home Depot parking lot this afternoon with a needle in his arm was injecting insulin for his diabetes.

[Mathgod]

Originally Posted by GGG

You can have the life of crime AND the better alternative. In fact it being a tax less cash job that provides a small side income but not a real 9-5 job probably has a certain attractiveness in a UBI world. You need such a small amount of more money to provide a large increase in standard of living when all of your needs are paid for. 100% of income goes to wants.

So making small amounts of money selling drugs seems like a reasonable hobby. I think the answer is legalize, tax, treat and enforce. This becomes even more important when you have a UBI.

Unless drug dealing without a license is still a crime, in which case a person is taking an a huge risk by choosing to break the law.

In general I agree with the principle of UBI that access to meeting the basic needs to live should be provided by the state. However the Universal nature of UBI and human nature will lead to perverse incentives causing the system to collapse.

Like every 50 year engineer retiring and spending their lives tinkering instead of developing modern power grids and extracting energy from the earth.

If they were making an engineer's salary for 50 years (or even 25 years for that matter), they likely can retire regardless of whether or not UBI is provided to them.

I hope we aren't looking at another 10 pages of this thread talking about human nature. Let's just say I strongly disagree with your assessment.

[Lanny_McDonald]

Originally Posted by Mathgod

And this is your entire problem. Your entire premise rests on some bull#### stereotype of what "having a life" means.

A bull#### stereotype? You mean being able to afford to do things with friends, have a home to raise a family, take that family on vacations to expose themselves to different places and cultures, and enrich their lives? That stupid stereotype?

Maybe it's because we brainwash everybody into thinking they're worthless if they don't have a certain type of job, a certain level of income, a certain level of consumption, a certain type of lifestyle, live in a certain type of home, drive a certain type of car, wear a certain type of clothes, etc etc etc.

Hmmm, I think that's your problem and no one else's. I haven't seen anyone else project this into this discussion except you. I don't think many people outside of teenagers considers themselves a piece of #### because they don't drive a particular car or wear certain clothes. If they do, they likely have self esteem or emotional problems. I think people want to have access to a comfortable life. They want to provide for themselves and their loved ones. Anything more is a bonus.

You are contributing to the problem; you just don't realize it.

Really? Do tell. Do tell. Please tell me all the horrible things I have done to contribute to the downfall of our society.

I want to bring the homelessness rate to zero. You want to pick & choose who gets treated with decency and who doesn't. That's the difference.

Talk about building a strawman. Where have I said anything of the sort? I've been arguing for the maintenance of social programs that help people and elevate the weakest in society. Not all people need help, so it is best to shift the money to those in the greatest need rather than cut everyone, including those who don't need the money, a check. It would be wonderful to solve homelessness, but giving homeless people money is not the solution. The are plenty of reasons people are homeless and money isn't always the solution. Mental illness, addiction, and domestic violence are big contributors that money doesn't solve. Again, you take a simplistic view at a very complex issue where there are a number of contributing factors to the underlying problem. A lot of those people need help from other programs that will no longer be available under your UBI system.

For the record, the UBI is not taxed, and people can also earn a certain amount of income from a job before it starts being taxed. In Canada, it's the first (approximately) $12k that you can make from working without paying tax on it.

For the record, UBI doesn't exist, so what you're saying is all conjecture and rules you believe will be in place.

Why would I have leases again? Ohh yeah that's right, I have to drive a car in order to have a life and mobilize upward and be someone, otherwise I'm a worthless POS.

Uhhhhh, you need to have a lease to have an apartment. You know, shelter.

Depending where you live and where where you work, you may need a vehicle, but I would never recommend leasing an automobile. But if that makes you feel like a piece of #### then you can always get a bus pass and use public transportation, if they don't cut public transportation to pay for UBI.

You know what? I'd take you up on your offer. $1667/month tax free for a year, and any money I make from working is mine to keep.

Well, except for the money you'd have to spend to live, but I get your point. It would be interesting to see what "nest egg" you accrued at the end of this year.

My position is and always has been that those with legitimate disabilities receive a higher payment than those who don't.

Have you articulated that anywhere? First I've seen of this commentary. If so, to what extent?

First of all, there is no truly UBI in any of those states.

UBI doesn't exist anywhere.

Second, Trump is working to dismantle the assistance programs in those states, bit by bit, without replacing them with anything.

Yeah, this isn't news. Trump is a real piece of crap and people are hurting because of it. That is the thing, his party wants to do away with social programs that help the less fortunate and replace them with... nothing. They have no interest in replacing social programs with anything, they just want to eliminate them and cut the taxes for the rich.

The brainwashing that Trump supporters have succumb to is deeply worrying. I don't know what the solution is. However, I know that the solution is not to pat them on the back and support their "logic" as they scream "pull yourself up by your bootstraps!"

And who in this thread has suggested that? We need to help the weakest in society. The argument is which is the best way.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Mathgod

Unless drug dealing without a license is still a crime, in which case a person is taking an a huge risk by choosing to break the law.


If they were making an engineer's salary for 50 years (or even 25 years for that matter), they likely can retire regardless of whether or not UBI is provided to them.

I hope we aren't looking at another 10 pages of this thread talking about human nature. Let's just say I strongly disagree with your assessment.

The entire success of UBI rests on human nature.

If one accepts the theory that productivity is actually increasing more rapidly then before and that rapid job loss at a faster rate then job creation is inevitable to occur.

If the above is true then the purpose of UBI is to provide a disincentive for people to seek work so the available jobs matches the available number of workers. If UBI is too large then the disincentive is too large and the cost of labour rises beyond what is able to be sustained and required. Too low and it doesn’t provide the level of support.

It is entirely possible that the level of UBI required to provide a basic standard of living is above the level require to disincentivize the level of work provided by society.

That is entirely predicated on human behaviour.

[Mathgod]

Originally Posted by New Era

A bull#### stereotype? You mean being able to afford to do things with friends, have a home to raise a family, take that family on vacations to expose themselves to different places and cultures, and enrich their lives? That stupid stereotype?

Hmmm, I think that's your problem and no one else's. I haven't seen anyone else project this into this discussion except you. I don't think many people outside of teenagers considers themselves a piece of #### because they don't drive a particular car or wear certain clothes. If they do, they likely have self esteem or emotional problems. I think people want to have access to a comfortable life. They want to provide for themselves and their loved ones. Anything more is a bonus.

Really? Do tell. Do tell. Please tell me all the horrible things I have done to contribute to the downfall of our society.

Once again, your entire problem is right here. You list a bunch of nice-to-haves and try to pass them off as must-haves, then you perpetuate the stereotype that people who don't have these nice-to-haves "don't have a life". By doing so, you're helping to perpetuate the myth that those who live low-consumption lifestyles are "less than".

It's simple enough to draw a coorelation between poverty (or what certain institutions deem to be poverty) and depression (or what certain institutions deem to be depression). It's another to dig deeper and try to figure out why, in our society, there's such a link between low-consumption lifestyles and suicide. I think a lot of it has to do with people looking at those who have more and thinking "oh no, why don't I get to live like that?", and then the dismay eats away at them and eventually they slip into mental health problems. I think we combat this by helping people understand that it's ok to have less, and it doesn't make you any less of a person to live modestly.

Not sure why you keep trying to make statements against me on a personal level. Once again, they are false.

Talk about building a strawman. Where have I said anything of the sort? I've been arguing for the maintenance of social programs that help people and elevate the weakest in society. Not all people need help, so it is best to shift the money to those in the greatest need rather than cut everyone, including those who don't need the money, a check. It would be wonderful to solve homelessness, but giving homeless people money is not the solution. The are plenty of reasons people are homeless and money isn't always the solution. Mental illness, addiction, and domestic violence are big contributors that money doesn't solve. Again, you take a simplistic view at a very complex issue where there are a number of contributing factors to the underlying problem. A lot of those people need help from other programs that will no longer be available under your UBI system.

Your opposition to UBI shows that you only want certain people to be treated with decency. I think you'd be surprised at how many of those homeless people wouldn't have developed those problems in the first place if they lived in a society that didn't have such brazen disregard for their well being. An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

Any economic system that doesn't have UBI, is a blackmail-based economy. Period.

Have you articulated that anywhere? First I've seen of this commentary. If so, to what extent?

In the initial video I posted, I said that we can pay for UBI "and still be able to care of the sick, the elderly, and the disabled". Admittedly, I could have phrased it a different way to convey it more clearly.

Trump is a real piece of crap and people are hurting because of it. That is the thing, his party wants to do away with social programs that help the less fortunate and replace them with... nothing. They have no interest in replacing social programs with anything, they just want to eliminate them and cut the taxes for the rich.

My point is that Trump supporters don't support UBI, and generally don't support any program that promotes compassion/decency/empathy. To them, it's all "the evil socialism". So to use red states as some kind of example of why UBI doesn't work, is quite disingenuous.

And who in this thread has suggested that? We need to help the weakest in society. The argument is which is the best way.

Not only that; we also need to see to it that everyone feels valued. We don't do that by blackmailing people. You're suggesting providing assistance only to some, while leaving everyone else to pull themselves up by their bootstraps.

Originally Posted by GGG

The entire success of UBI rests on human nature.

If one accepts the theory that productivity is actually increasing more rapidly then before and that rapid job loss at a faster rate then job creation is inevitable to occur.

If the above is true then the purpose of UBI is to provide a disincentive for people to seek work so the available jobs matches the available number of workers. If UBI is too large then the disincentive is too large and the cost of labour rises beyond what is able to be sustained and required. Too low and it doesn’t provide the level of support.

It is entirely possible that the level of UBI required to provide a basic standard of living is above the level require to disincentivize the level of work provided by society.

That is entirely predicated on human behaviour.

Spoiler!

[GGG]

You videos are incredibly lazy. Summarize the key idea. Also you already posted it and it entirely supports the idea that UBI will be a failure as it will demotivate people to work.

Once basic needs are met money does not provide significant motivation and people focus on mastery which is completely separate from fulfilling a societal need.

Also you miss the key point relevant to UBI, though I am inferring you’re conclusion because you didn’t bother to post it, which is people will do work to benefit society once their basic needs are met. That isn’t supported by the MIT research. It shows that additional money beyond what meets there basic needs does not motivate people to perform better. That is a subtle but fundamental difference.

At its core society needs to do enough labour to produce the energy and food to sustain it. As you meet peoples basic needs money has a lower motivating factor.

If UBI is too high it fails due to insufficient labour to meet societies needs.

Until the answer is robots to every question of who is doing this ####ty job the balance between UBI level and required labour needs to be finely tuned.

[Mathgod]

Originally Posted by GGG

You videos are incredibly lazy. Summarize the key idea. Also you already posted it and it entirely supports the idea that UBI will be a failure.

Once basic needs are met money does not provide significant motivation and people focus on mastery which is completely separate from what society needs.

Key idea from video: that the concept that "lazy people" need to be coerced into subservience, is entirely hypocritical.

The status quo is a failure. UBI won't be.

What society actually needs is very different from what you think it needs.

[CaptainYooh]

You've got to be about 16, are you? I'm just curious. Nothing wrong with it. It's great to be young and rebellious.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Mathgod

Key idea from video: that the concept that "lazy people" need to be coerced into subservience, is entirely hypocritical.

The status quo is a failure. UBI won't be.

What society actually needs is very different from what you think it needs.

I expanded my post above

What do I think society needs?

[Mathgod]

Originally Posted by GGG

What do I think society needs?

More GDP, more economic growth, more job creation, more consumption, more labor to support that consumption... more more more more more......

I'm saying that our society has developed so much of this single minded obsession with consumerism and economic growth, that we've lost sight of many things that are important. One of those things is that we're treating our planet like it's an infinite toilet, and pretending like there won't be dire consequences of our actions.

Originally Posted by CaptainYooh

You've got to be about 16, are you? I'm just curious. Nothing wrong with it. It's great to be young and rebellious.

Ohhhh yes. I joined the board when I was 5.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Mathgod

More GDP, more economic growth, more job creation, more consumption, more labor to support that consumption... more more more more more......

I'm saying that our society has developed so much of this single minded obsession with consumerism and economic growth, that we've lost sight of many things that are important. One of those things is that we're treating our planet like it's an infinite toilet, and pretending like there won't be dire consequences of our actions.

I don’t think I have said or implied that anywhere. In fact my fear is the opposite that too much skilled labour leaves the economy so we are unable to support basic systems. The concern is really growth agnostic.

UBI does absolutely nothing to address the problem you define above. All UBI does is redistribute wealth by a modest amount. Giving everyone 20k per year to spend how they want to doesn’t change the material nature of society.