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.
Supply and demand. If being a landlord suddenly becomes more lucrative, more landlords enter the market, and the increased supply pushes prices back down.
Quote:
Originally Posted by RichieRich
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.
Quite the opposite. Not having all your time/energy drained by a menial job, means you have more time/energy to keep tabs on what government is doing, and participate in protests. If anything I'd say the current situation, where everyone has to have a job, is more conducive to government corruption and despotism.
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.
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.
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.
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.
You make the classic mistake of thinking money and capitalism cause our behaviour, in truth our behaviour is what causes capitalism, we want to be better than our peers, be that a nicer deer skin or a porsche, we are desperate to achieve status, the stuff we buy is just an attempt to display our status, it isnt a coincidence a dominant baboon's arse is the same colour as a Ferrari
I mentioned this before, but aren't their already laws in place, at least in some jurisdictions, that regulate rent increases?
These laws can protect people in existing leases at least for a little while. But looking at the general economy, over the medium term and over thousands of rental agreements and condo/apartment sales and transactions, rents will move higher.
As very hypothetical, if I have 1 rental condo and regulations don't let me raise rent, I can sell that condo and buy a new one, and with my new tenant I can charge however much I want.
Supply and demand. If being a landlord suddenly becomes more lucrative, more landlords enter the market, and the increased supply pushes prices back down.
Sure, 'just' become a landlord. You have the 20% down payment for a rental property? Real estate is finite, especially real estate in desirable places in cities where everyone wants to live... I got to say, your idealism is cute, but it just isn't realistic. You remind me of how some of my friends talked when they were in high school about 12 years ago. Those friends are now in politics (federal, and provincial) and man have their tones and ideologies changed.
The Following User Says Thank You to Leondros For This Useful Post:
we want to be better than our peers, be that a nicer deer skin or a porsche, we are desperate to achieve status, the stuff we buy is just an attempt to display our status, it isnt a coincidence a dominant baboon's arse is the same colour as a Ferrari
That's kind of my point, people want to feel competent, to feel like they matter, and want recognition from their peers. This remains true regardless of whether UBI is in place. However, I strongly believe there wouldn't be nearly as strong of an obsession and preoccupation with accumulating material wealth, if we stopped exploiting and blackmailing one another. Maybe just maybe we'd actually start giving a damn about the well being of one another?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Leondros
Sure, 'just' become a landlord. You have the 20% down payment for a rental property? Real estate is finite, especially real estate in desirable places in cities where everyone wants to live... I got to say, your idealism is cute, but it just isn't realistic. You remind me of how some of my friends talked when they were in high school about 12 years ago. Those friends are now in politics (federal, and provincial) and man have their tones and ideologies changed.
Housing prices are so high thanks in large part to speculators who buy homes in bulk and use them as casino chips for profit.
Your friends figured out where the cheddar is, and it's the banks and major corporations.
These laws can protect people in existing leases at least for a little while. But looking at the general economy, over the medium term and over thousands of rental agreements and condo/apartment sales and transactions, rents will move higher.
As very hypothetical, if I have 1 rental condo and regulations don't let me raise rent, I can sell that condo and buy a new one, and with my new tenant I can charge however much I want.
That's with the laws as they currently are, but I would expect them to change to suit the new economic reality. Again, I am thinking in the future and not any time too soon.
Automation is already being used in the construction industry and in 50 years, simple public housing can probably be built relatively fast and cheaply to fix any supply issues. It would also help recapture UBI money.
For the record, I don't know if unconditional UBI is the solution, but it could be a solution. But in my opinion, I am 100% sure that there will be problem eventually. I would be interested to know what other solutions would be possible. Unless people don't think there will be a problem, but then I am curious about that reasoning as well.
__________________
"A pessimist thinks things can't get any worse. An optimist knows they can."
Last edited by FlamesAddiction; 09-16-2020 at 05:01 PM.
The Following User Says Thank You to FlamesAddiction For This Useful Post:
That's kind of my point, people want to feel competent, to feel like they matter, and want recognition from their peers. This remains true regardless of whether UBI is in place. However, I strongly believe there wouldn't be nearly as strong of an obsession and preoccupation with accumulating material wealth, if we stopped exploiting and blackmailing one another. Maybe just maybe we'd actually start giving a damn about the well being of one another?
Housing prices are so high thanks in large part to speculators who buy homes in bulk and use them as casino chips for profit.
Your friends figured out where the cheddar is, and it's the banks and major corporations.
No, they want more than their peers, they want more food and more mating partners, we want our peers to recognise we are better than them
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.
Schools out!
For someone who doesn't like ad hominems you sure do like to drop them. Anybody who is "against UBI," which means anyone who questions whether it would work, is labelled some type if misanthrope or miscreant who clearly doesn't like all people.
Quote:
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.
Which mean you are not allowing for the market to regulate what those jobs can pay. You are artificially inflating the market for those jobs, which in turn will inflate the market for jobs in the related industry and start a domino effect. To add to this inflationary mechanism you are then forcing the service provider to up their costs, which then go on to the consumer to pay for. Inflation is a real problem with this model.
Quote:
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.
People are motivated by two drivers. Extrinsic and intrinsic. Extrinsic (external) motivators have a greater level of decay and do not act as a long term motivator. Intrinsic (internal) motivators are a much better driver, but linked more to our emotional health and subject to our mood. Hence the discussion of depression and the possible effects on this system. But you dismissed that because, science. You don't know anything about it, so to you it has no relevance nor validity to any discussion you want to have.
Quote:
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.
No, it wouldn't. People will still have obligations and responsibilities they will have to live up to. People will still have to deal with the same challenges of searching for another job before moving on to another. That's the thing about being an adult, it normally comes with responsibilities in the shape of commitments, relationships, and responsibilities that you still have to maintain regardless of whether your boss treats you like crap.
Quote:
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.
Your idealism is showing. Human nature is not going to change just because you give someone some money. There are decades of research available on UBI experiments, if you care to look at them. Feel free to look at the First Nations/American Indian reservations for a longitudinal example of what a basic income payment can do to/for communities. There is some stark data there to look at. A mortgage payment is not going to make people shift from "rampant consumerism, exploitation of one another, and destruction of the planet, to a healthy balance between consumerism and modesty." As I've said all along, you need to change every system we have in place (economic, political, social, etc.) for UBI to work. The hardest part will be re-wiring every man, woman, and child on this planet.
Quote:
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.
No, they want more than their peers, they want more food and more mating partners, we want our peers to recognise we are better than them
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?
Schools out!
For someone who doesn't like ad hominems you sure do like to drop them. Anybody who is "against UBI," which means anyone who questions whether it would work, is labelled some type if misanthrope or miscreant who clearly doesn't like all people.
Wrong. I simply stated a fact, which is that there is a tendency that those who are opposed to UBI are more likely than not to be very concerned about its impact on economic growth/job creation. I did not make any particular statement about any particular person.
Quote:
Which mean you are not allowing for the market to regulate what those jobs can pay. You are artificially inflating the market for those jobs, which in turn will inflate the market for jobs in the related industry and start a domino effect. To add to this inflationary mechanism you are then forcing the service provider to up their costs, which then go on to the consumer to pay for. Inflation is a real problem with this model.
I absolutely am allowing the market to regulate what those jobs pay. There may be some inflation initially, but it becomes less and less of a concern over time as automation takes on more and more of work that humans used to do.
Quote:
People are motivated by two drivers. Extrinsic and intrinsic. Extrinsic (external) motivators have a greater level of decay and do not act as a long term motivator. Intrinsic (internal) motivators are a much better driver, but linked more to our emotional health and subject to our mood. Hence the discussion of depression and the possible effects on this system. But you dismissed that because, science. You don't know anything about it, so to you it has no relevance nor validity to any discussion you want to have.
It has huge relevance, and I have not dismissed it. I know a tremendous amount about it, and I know that most of it stems from people feeling marginalized and not valued by society.
Quote:
No, it wouldn't. People will still have obligations and responsibilities they will have to live up to. People will still have to deal with the same challenges of searching for another job before moving on to another. That's the thing about being an adult, it normally comes with responsibilities in the shape of commitments, relationships, and responsibilities that you still have to maintain regardless of whether your boss treats you like crap.
Yes, it would. No person should be trapped in a situation where they are being taken advantage of. UBI provides that freedom to leave the situation.
Quote:
Your idealism is showing. Human nature is not going to change just because you give someone some money. There are decades of research available on UBI experiments, if you care to look at them. Feel free to look at the First Nations/American Indian reservations for a longitudinal example of what a basic income payment can do to/for communities. There is some stark data there to look at. A mortgage payment is not going to make people shift from "rampant consumerism, exploitation of one another, and destruction of the planet, to a healthy balance between consumerism and modesty." As I've said all along, you need to change every system we have in place (economic, political, social, etc.) for UBI to work. The hardest part will be re-wiring every man, woman, and child on this planet.
Coorelation does not equal causation. There are a lot more factors going on in those reserves than just whether or not they're receiving payments.
Just because some authority claims to have all the answers regarding human nature, doesn't necessarily mean that they actually do.
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.
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.
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
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...
I don’t think I am actually against UBI entirely. I think that it’s proponents hand wave away the risks and ignore the fundamental question of if the disincentive to work is greater then the amount of work society has required to do. It doesn’t disappear because of a video on motivation Why I specifically addressed the non grunt work is that I though the premise is that grunt levels jobs are being automated away therefore the jobs that need staffing are not the ones where increasing pay increases performance. However if the grunt jobs are still around you still have the problem outlined above.
In a world with UBI how do you calibrate UBI such that their is sufficient incentive for the work that needs to be done gets done while at the same time providing a suitable living wage. It is not guaranteed that it is possible to accomplish both.
Tinkering is purpose, for example I changed the brakes on my car this weekend, not because I can’t afford to but because it is fulfilling. I put a new roof on my garage in the spring not because I couldn’t afford to but because I hadn’t done it before. I also did a ton of hiking this summer when I wasn’t working. What I didn’t do in this spare time was contribute to society in any meaningful way. You are assuming that the Mastery concept is equivalent to making society better. It isn’t, it’s just having new experiences, learning and getting good at things. These may or may not be beneficial to society at large. We clearly disagree with the level of risk and the human response
It’s the bolder where I don’t follow your logic.
Why wouldn’t people who currently max out there ability to spend money so they have to work continue to do that with an additional 20k in their pocket. Why would this behaviour change.
Why would there be a shift in focus from exploitation and consumption? Economic analysis shows giving money to poor people acts as really good stimulus precisely because it increases consumption.
Throughout history the Energy consumed per person is rising. Transferring money from rich to poor doesn’t change this. If you want to change this you need to increase the cost of energy. There is no other solution.
I don’t think I am actually against UBI entirely. I think that it’s proponents hand wave away the risks and ignore the fundamental question of if the disincentive to work is greater then the amount of work society has required to do. It doesn’t disappear because of a video on motivation Why I specifically addressed the non grunt work is that I though the premise is that grunt levels jobs are being automated away therefore the jobs that need staffing are not the ones where increasing pay increases performance. However if the grunt jobs are still around you still have the problem outlined above.
In a world with UBI how do you calibrate UBI such that their is sufficient incentive for the work that needs to be done gets done while at the same time providing a suitable living wage. It is not guaranteed that it is possible to accomplish both.
Tinkering is purpose, for example I changed the brakes on my car this weekend, not because I can’t afford to but because it is fulfilling. I put a new roof on my garage in the spring not because I couldn’t afford to but because I hadn’t done it before. I also did a ton of hiking this summer when I wasn’t working. What I didn’t do in this spare time was contribute to society in any meaningful way. You are assuming that the Mastery concept is equivalent to making society better. It isn’t, it’s just having new experiences, learning and getting good at things. These may or may not be beneficial to society at large. We clearly disagree with the level of risk and the human response
It’s the bolder where I don’t follow your logic.
Why wouldn’t people who currently max out there ability to spend money so they have to work continue to do that with an additional 20k in their pocket. Why would this behaviour change.
Why would there be a shift in focus from exploitation and consumption? Economic analysis shows giving money to poor people acts as really good stimulus precisely because it increases consumption.
Throughout history the Energy consumed per person is rising. Transferring money from rich to poor doesn’t change this. If you want to change this you need to increase the cost of energy. There is no other solution.
I think that what you outlined here is actually a great argument for the adoption of UBI. The stimulus to the economy would be significant, because I agree with you that human nature will not change dramatically. What will happen is a decrease in stress related illness, which will reduce the burden on the health care system.
Personally, I don't think that there will large changes in behavior other than an increase in consumption at the local level. Jobs that were crappy at 20K/year will now be crappy at 40K/year. The same people in those positions now will likely be in them then.
__________________
"By Grabthar's hammer ... what a savings."
Tinkering is purpose, for example I changed the brakes on my car this weekend, not because I can’t afford to but because it is fulfilling. I put a new roof on my garage in the spring not because I couldn’t afford to but because I hadn’t done it before. I also did a ton of hiking this summer when I wasn’t working. What I didn’t do in this spare time was contribute to society in any meaningful way. You are assuming that the Mastery concept is equivalent to making society better. It isn’t, it’s just having new experiences, learning and getting good at things. These may or may not be beneficial to society at large. We clearly disagree with the level of risk and the human response
It is a benefit to society that you are doing these things. You replacing your car breaks and garage roof means that you aren't paying someone else to do it for you, so you've saved society from doing that work. Likewise, your active lifestyle makes it far less likely that you'll find yourself in a clinic or a hospital bed any time soon, and/or needing prescription drugs.
Quote:
Why wouldn’t people who currently max out there ability to spend money so they have to work continue to do that with an additional 20k in their pocket. Why would this behaviour change.
Why would there be a shift in focus from exploitation and consumption? Economic analysis shows giving money to poor people acts as really good stimulus precisely because it increases consumption.
Throughout history the Energy consumed per person is rising. Transferring money from rich to poor doesn’t change this. If you want to change this you need to increase the cost of energy. There is no other solution.
Well, that's just it. On the one hand, UBI acts as a stimulus and may lead to increased consumption for some. But on the other hand, taxes and inflation will lead to reduced non-essential consumption across the board.
Quote:
Originally Posted by _Q_
Instead of a UBI, why not a Job Guarantee?
Are you going to tell a 50 year old truck driver who just lost his job to a self-driving truck, that he has to quickly transition to a highly-skilled, technical job?
Wrong. I simply stated a fact, which is that there is a tendency that those who are opposed to UBI are more likely than not to be very concerned about its impact on economic growth/job creation. I did not make any particular statement about any particular person.
I absolutely am allowing the market to regulate what those jobs pay. There may be some inflation initially, but it becomes less and less of a concern over time as automation takes on more and more of work that humans used to do.
It has huge relevance, and I have not dismissed it. I know a tremendous amount about it, and I know that most of it stems from people feeling marginalized and not valued by society.
Yes, it would. No person should be trapped in a situation where they are being taken advantage of. UBI provides that freedom to leave the situation.
Coorelation does not equal causation. There are a lot more factors going on in those reserves than just whether or not they're receiving payments.
Just because some authority claims to have all the answers regarding human nature, doesn't necessarily mean that they actually do.
The Dunning-Kruger effect in action.
The Following User Says Thank You to Lanny_McDonald For This Useful Post:
It is a benefit to society that you are doing these things. You replacing your car breaks and garage roof means that you aren't paying someone else to do it for you, so you've saved society from doing that work. Likewise, your active lifestyle makes it far less likely that you'll find yourself in a clinic or a hospital bed any time soon, and/or needing prescription drugs.
Well, that's just it. On the one hand, UBI acts as a stimulus and may lead to increased consumption for some. But on the other hand, taxes and inflation will lead to reduced non-essential consumption across the board.
Are you going to tell a 50 year old truck driver who just lost his job to a self-driving truck, that he has to quickly transition to a highly-skilled, technical job?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
__________________
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 disconnect between CERB and UBI is that you would recieve the UBI irregardless of whether or not you are working. The way that CERB is set up you lose CERB if you are making more than $1000/month. So to make it worth going off of CERB, you need to be making more than $3000/month to at least come out even.
In reality, if the employees at Indes store were making less than $4000/month, it would not be worth coming back to work. It would make more sense for them to simply find a job where the business was ok not going over the $1000/month limit.
This is the worst part of CERB, but it would not be there in UBI, and therefore is not a factor.
We were 100% fine with keeping people under 1000$/month so they could get their CERB. People still didn't want to come to work, or even pick up one 5 hour shift to help out.
It ended up being quite the social experiment. They are starting to come out of the woodwork now. We've had two calls for people who want to come back to work in the next couple of weeks and expect more as CERB ends.
Obviously when they first refused to come in to work we documented it and changed their ROE to resigned.
These are all able bodied, young people who's Facebook's are filled with the leisure activities they enjoyed all summer.
The entire experience has left me extremely jaded with the average work force.
The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to indes For This Useful Post:
