Leondros, did you not post yourself the chart showing that the negative taxation effects those making above 200K/year? That is not the uber-rich, but certainly not the middle class as blankall suggests.
At a certain point the scale of money that we are talking about in terms of personal income becomes a number that is not being returned to the local economy by the people that are earning it.
The number of people making more than $200k/year and earning a strict, non-tax sheltered salary, is very low. You would not be able to fund any kind of programs. Additionally, marginal tax rate in Alberta on these higher incomes (anything above $214k) is already 47%. How much more do you plan to tax it? How much more can you tax it, before people stop working more to earn these incomes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harry Lime
Also, I would venture that if people making over 200K/year are working 75 hours per week, then they need to restructure their own life/work ratio to enjoy their own pre-retirement years. If there is a lack of incentive for people to work excessively, that is probably a good thing for the people themselves.
These are the realities of owning your own business or a higher end career.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harry Lime
Also, I'd like to apologize to blankall, I did not mean you personally were saying that poor people were lazy, but rather generally that many times in this thread it was insinuated that 20K/year would cause a general malaise, which is a statement with no basis in reality. I can't imagine someone refusing to work because they can afford Netflix for free.
I dont understand why not wanting to work makes you lazy, I am not lazy, I spend my free time digging my garden, going for long walks, riding 30 or 40k a day, I do way more physically when I'm not working.
Only an idiot would waste their life on performing mostly repetitive tasks they are at best bored by or dislike, we work because we have too to survive, that's the only reason, if you take away that incentive/punishment then a person who carried on working for no reason would have to be soft in the head, that's not lazy that's just common sense, you have a limited life span, you dont stay married to a woman who makes your life a misery, thats not being lazy its being sensible, work is no different
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to afc wimbledon For This Useful Post:
Could this be considered a problem that we should be looking to solve, and that UBI could provide a solution for? If UBI makes the absolute worst, low paying jobs undesirable, then either innovation or a change in compensation would have to occur to ensure those jobs still get done. I don't see big innovations coming in the realm of toilet cleaning, but shouldn't compensation actually reflect the true value of the work and match the desirability of the position? Instead of continually allowing certain jobs to exist almost solely based on the fact that they take advantage of the basic need to survive, shouldn't we expect the compensation to match the job?
For some positions, yes. We need toilets cleaned, so pay people who clean toilets more.
But lot of jobs are in a grey area, including many that are typically performed by part-time or seasonal employees. If we pay restaurant busboys* enough to earn a living wage, maybe restauarants just stop employing busboys. If we pay everyone on a landscaping crew enough to live independently, and that means it costs $250 to have a spring yard cleanup and fertilizer done instead of $150, then maybe a lot fewer people get their lawn cleaned up and half the landscaping companies go out of business, along with those jobs.
In some cases raising the floor doesn't make the lower rungs of the employment ladder more secure and rewarding - it's removes the rungs (and in some cases entire businesses) altogether. A society where only well-paying, 40hr week job existed would look dramatically different than the society we have now, in ways that aren't obvious. You can expect chronically high youth unemployment, for starters.
* My first real job was as a busboy at the Glencoe Club when I was 16. I worked about 12-16 hours a week, which was enough for a bit of spending money. A UBI makes jobs like that extremely unattractive. But the banquet hall didn't need 6 full-time employees, it needed 10 part-time ones because all of the work was on Sat nights and Sunday days.
__________________
Quote:
Originally Posted by fotze
If this day gets you riled up, you obviously aren't numb to the disappointment yet to be a real fan.
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to CliffFletcher For This Useful Post:
I dont understand why not wanting to work makes you lazy, I am not lazy, I spend my free time digging my garden, going for long walks, riding 30 or 40k a day, I do way more physically when I'm not working.
Only an idiot would waste their life on performing mostly repetitive tasks they are at best bored by or dislike, we work because we have too to survive, that's the only reason, if you take away that incentive/punishment then a person who carried on working for no reason would have to be soft in the head, that's not lazy that's just common sense, you have a limited life span, you dont stay married to a woman who makes your life a misery, thats not being lazy its being sensible, work is no different
I think it comes down to people liking "stuff".
They want a car, house, boat, a houseboat, home theater, sushi lunches, vacations, live sports, ceramic cat figurines, sexual attraction of wealth, and the list goes on.
A lot of people work to survive, but a lot also push themselves so they can experience things and entertain themselves. UBI alone would get very boring for most people.
__________________
"A pessimist thinks things can't get any worse. An optimist knows they can."
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to FlamesAddiction For This Useful Post:
I think you're missing the point here, which is that a new system is meant to change the way things and the current system, and that if some of the same problems that exist today (inflation, tax avoidance) will exist tomorrow, that's ok, because they are not the problems being addressed.
If jobs need to be done, they should be paid enough to be done. If UBI makes it so that they need to be paid more to be done, then they will be paid more to be done. And if UBI does that, it suggests they were not properly valued in the first place, and were instead just taking advantage of a broken system. You essentially require all jobs that exist solely on the back of taking advantage of the need to survive, and you force them to be paid closer to the value of the work. Is being a janitor any less important or valuable than being an accountant? And if so, does the discrepancy between pay accurately reflect the discrepancy between value? Maybe not. Just because a job does not require an education, does not mean it holds significantly less value than one that does (this goes back to the education argument earlier). It feels vaguely like the perception that white collar work is more important or valuable than blue collar work, which I don't think is valid.
And unless you can show with some degree of evidence that the increase in tax avoidance and inflation will outweigh the benefits of UBI, it's not a compelling argument. Just saying some problems that currently exist will also exist later, is not swaying anyone.
Wages are dictated by supply and demand. The skillset that an accountant has is more rare and in higher demand than that of a janitor, hence the reason that the accountant is paid more. Paying someone more because you feel the job is undesirable despite the fact that it is a low skill position that is not highly in demand seems quite odd to me. It also leads me to think that you do not understand how markets work.
I dont understand why not wanting to work makes you lazy, I am not lazy, I spend my free time digging my garden, going for long walks, riding 30 or 40k a day, I do way more physically when I'm not working.
Only an idiot would waste their life on performing mostly repetitive tasks they are at best bored by or dislike, we work because we have too to survive, that's the only reason, if you take away that incentive/punishment then a person who carried on working for no reason would have to be soft in the head, that's not lazy that's just common sense, you have a limited life span, you don't stay married to a woman who makes your life a misery, thats not being lazy its being sensible, work is no different
I think it depends on the person. I think some people subconsciously look forward the monotony of work, and having a certain routine they follow on a daily basis, and then look forward to the pay cheques afterwards for a job well done. It can also help heighten the enjoyment of time off work, because it makes the weekend or vacation time something to look forward to.
I've talked to people who've retired, and oftentimes, that's the thing they miss. They feel like there's no real sense of purpose anymore, and that all the free time they now have isn't as satisfying to have, since they now get unlimited amounts of it.
Again, not saying that's everyone, but definitely is true for some people.
Give people UBI and they will, in general, still want more than they have. Poor people want more. Rich people want more. People always want more. If they didn't we would have just stayed at subsistence levels of development.
Cliff just mentioned above that he worked a ####ty job when he was 16. I presume he wasn't homeless then and had parents taking care of room and board for him instead of UBI, but he still worked that ####ty job so that he could enjoy more. Other people will continue to work ####ty jobs so that they can enjoy more too.
The notion that UBI will make the basic drives that are the foundations of capitalism disappear is silly. It would be much less radical in that way than some proponents and detractors of UBI seem to be suggesting.
__________________
"If stupidity got us into this mess, then why can't it get us out?"
UBI in a vacuum seems like an attractive proposition, prevent people from falling into poverty by providing a baseline income to survive.
However, I can also envision it having terrible consequences for groups like young males between 18-25. I can remember a time where my basic motivations were to smoke weed and play video games 24/7. Keep in mind I've had a job on a continuous basis since I was 14. My parents weren't going to fund my clothes, car, computers ect, so I was forced to stay employed/ remain employable or give up my luxuries. What's going to stop groups of 4 or 5 guys from pooling their UBI and living in a party pad for years, until life opportunities basically pass them by? That would have been a dream scenario for 18 year old me, who was somewhat directionless until my early 20s. I have friends who are still trapped in this cycle of directionless self harm and unhealthy consumption habits, and we're in our mid to late 30s now.
The Following User Says Thank You to burn_this_city For This Useful Post:
Give people UBI and they will, in general, still want more than they have. Poor people want more. Rich people want more. People always want more. If they didn't we would have just stayed at subsistence levels of development.
Cliff just mentioned above that he worked a ####ty job when he was 16. I presume he wasn't homeless then and had parents taking care of room and board for him instead of UBI, but he still worked that ####ty job so that he could enjoy more. Other people will continue to work ####ty jobs so that they can enjoy more too.
The notion that UBI will make the basic drives that are the foundations of capitalism disappear is silly. It would be much less radical in that way than some proponents and detractors of UBI seem to be suggesting.
there are only two points to UBI as I can understand, the one where we no longer have jobs and so it is neccersary to maintain an economy and the one where you shouldnt have to do a crap job to have a decent life and so UBI should provide you with nice things, if it doesnt do that then you still need to doa crap job to get the nice things no? if so whats the point?
there are only two points to UBI as I can understand, the one where we no longer have jobs and so it is neccersary to maintain an economy and the one where you shouldnt have to do a crap job to have a decent life and so UBI should provide you with nice things, if it doesnt do that then you still need to doa crap job to get the nice things no? if so whats the point?
I'm not exactly a proponent of UBI, but most of the arguments I've seen have been about maintaining the economy rather than freeing people from unpleasant work.
Edit: Actually, I'll amend that to say they have been about saving the economy by preventing the largest part of the population from becoming destitute, and potentially fostering economic growth by lessening the economic barriers low income but enterprising or ambitious people face in trying to realize their ambitions.
__________________
"If stupidity got us into this mess, then why can't it get us out?"
I'm not exactly a proponent of UBI, but most of the arguments I've seen have been about maintaining the economy rather than freeing people from unpleasant work.
well wouldnt massive raises to minimum wage do that?
well wouldnt massive raises to minimum wage do that?
Not if there aren't enough jobs, such as if the scenario in which automation leads to very high unemployment ends up really happening.
Really though, I think one of the most practical arguments for UBI in that scenario is one that places the government in the role of managing a transfer of wealth from the rich (people or corporates) to the poor and working class just so that those poor and working class don't come to eat the rich. It could be described as a protection racket, or, viewed in another way, could just be described as keeping your farm animals well fed so that they're docile and easy to work with, allowing you to keep farming them without disruption.
__________________
"If stupidity got us into this mess, then why can't it get us out?"
I don’t think I have said or implied that anywhere.
You may not have said it per se, but it's a prevalent attitude that tends to be present in people who are against UBI.
Quote:
In fact my fear is the opposite that too much skilled labour leaves the economy so we are unable to support basic systems.
Again going back to the motivation video I posted earlier... based on your feedback on the video, it seems like you ignored the bulk of what was actually said in it. It explicitly said that money is a tremendous motivator for grunt-work jobs; jobs that are physically demanding. This means jobs like construction, farm work, power plants, water treatment plants, etc. Make these jobs well paying (emphasis on well paying), and people will work them. As for the skilled trades, they are a mixture of menial and non-menial work, so money is still a strong motivator for those tasks as well.
Another key take away from the video that you seem to have missed, is the fact that people are driven by purpose. People aren't just going to constantly sit at home and tinker, when they could collaborate with others to achieve greater things and contribute to society in a more meaningful way.
Quote:
All UBI does is redistribute wealth by a modest amount.
There's nothing modest about it. It would be a game changer in terms of giving people the power to say no to any situation where they feel they are being exploited.
Quote:
UBI does absolutely nothing to address the problem you define above. Giving everyone 20k per year to spend how they want to doesn’t change the material nature of society.
It would cause a shift in society's focus from its current rampant consumerism, exploitation of one another, and destruction of the planet, to a healthy balance between consumerism and modesty.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ark2
Wages are dictated by supply and demand. The skillset that an accountant has is more rare and in higher demand than that of a janitor, hence the reason that the accountant is paid more. Paying someone more because you feel the job is undesirable despite the fact that it is a low skill position that is not highly in demand seems quite odd to me. It also leads me to think that you do not understand how markets work.
Wages are dictated by supply and demand. Rarity of skillset is a factor, but it's not the only factor. The supply of workers willing to work low-paying jobs is artificially high when people are looking at starvation as the alternative. Introduce a UBI, and the supply of people willing to work for such low pay suddenly shrinks, and you have to increase the pay to bring them back.
They want a car, house, boat, a houseboat, home theater, sushi lunches, vacations, live sports, ceramic cat figurines, sexual attraction of wealth, and the list goes on.
A lot of people work to survive, but a lot also push themselves so they can experience things and entertain themselves. UBI alone would get very boring for most people.
You're basically talking about paying people the bare minimum to survive, and if they want "stuff" they have to work for it.
What happens when you're on a budge of $1,500.00, and rent is $1,000.00. Now everyone has an extra $1,500.00 from UBI lying around. The evil landlords decide....hey, I can now charge $1,500 for rent instead of $1,000. In fact, I'll get a better quality of tenant at that price point, as the "rif raff" won't want to pay more.
You're basically talking about paying people the bare minimum to survive, and if they want "stuff" they have to work for it.
What happens when you're on a budge of $1,500.00, and rent is $1,000.00. Now everyone has an extra $1,500.00 from UBI lying around. The evil landlords decide....hey, I can now charge $1,500 for rent instead of $1,000. In fact, I'll get a better quality of tenant at that price point, as the "rif raff" won't want to pay more.
I mentioned this before, but aren't their already laws in place, at least in some jurisdictions, that regulate rent increases?
__________________
"A pessimist thinks things can't get any worse. An optimist knows they can."
by giving into UBI you are likely also having to give up certain freedoms in life, ones we take for granted. For many people (but not all), there is even less incentive to do more, work harder, strive, set goals, etc... In fact, I would argue that those above whatever UBI minimum earnings and who work would logically choose to reduce their earnings just sufficiently to qualify for UBI and in so doing not have to work at all. That's a win isn't it? Free money... for nothing... play video games, smoke, and drink, and DGAFF.
Once the government owns you, they tell you what to do, and you go along with it because you have no choice. Soon enough you're doing unsavory things. Socialism.
Wages are dictated by supply and demand. The skillset that an accountant has is more rare and in higher demand than that of a janitor, hence the reason that the accountant is paid more. Paying someone more because you feel the job is undesirable despite the fact that it is a low skill position that is not highly in demand seems quite odd to me. It also leads me to think that you do not understand how markets work.
I understand how markets work and the basics of supply and demand, thank you. And I understand why, today, an accountant is paid more than a janitor. My questions are centered around whether artificial demand or artificial scarcity are at play and having an adverse effect on wages, and whether UBI would remove some of that. This touches on the previous education discussion and properly preparing someone for work, somewhat.
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). 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. 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? 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. 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.
Supply and demand in the current state is meaningless because UBI would throw the current balance for many jobs completely out the window and force them to adjust. There would be no jobs that survive solely based on the fact that people need a job and any one would do. The ones that do survive would do so because they are essential, and the wages would compensate to ensure they were filled.
I believe a UBI would boost wages across the board for "lower class" or "low skill" work, and cause a reduction in wages for those in the highest paid positions. But that's personal belief, backed up by almost nothing, and almost entirely indefensible.
I mentioned this before, but aren't their already laws in place, at least in some jurisdictions, that regulate rent increases?
What if it's not rent, it's the price of apples. On top of that the apple producers have to pay their staff more, since the cost of paying an apple picker has doubled, as staff no longer want to work unless they are paid twice the salary.
