Is your argument then that those that are in favour of UBI don't actually advocate for it right now, but instead under some hypothetical future scenario? Anytime I have had a discussion with someone in favour of UBI, it has always been for now.
I'm talking in the bigger picture. UBI just isn't popular because it is has no chance of ever happening. Sure, its popular with those who like the idea, because they are already sold on it working regardless of evidence to counter the narrative. They are the anti-vaxxers of economic concepts.
Quote:
For clarity, my comment regarding UBI for right now being popular was in reference to it being popular for those that advocate for it, not popular in general.
Gotcha. We agree. UBI is the Alexander Keith's of ideas. Those who like it, like it a lot. Everyone else thinks it's a bad investment and leaves a bad taste in your mouth.
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Lanny_McDonald For This Useful Post:
Great comments. But what is the possibility of USGov approving the type of taxation required to support this program. We're talking 254M adults in the US. At $1,000 a month that is $3.048 TRILLION dollars in revenue to be collected and redistributed each year. If we go with the $20,000 a year model, that's $5.08 TRILLION. That's 1/4 of projected GDP for 2020. Where do you find the political support for such a program and such a heavy lift?
The other end of this is, that would mean the end to every social program in the country, including social security and medicare. I'm all for supporting the needy, but I will tell you one thing, I'm not going into retirement and taking a $15K a year haircut on my social security, and have to belly up for healthcare benefits on top of that, to support such a plan. I've worked my whole life and paid my taxes and contributions to social security with the expectation of a payoff in my golden years. That needs to happen. Unless that happens, even the most liberal of Americans will kill this thing in the womb.
You likely have to kill social security and replace it with UBI to make the numbers work.
The average social security recipient receives 1500 per month so would see a modest bump. It would be interesting to see median benefit to see if most people would be better off. I suspect the Median payment is lower than the average payment so their should be a majority of Americans who will collect more in retirement.
About 1 trillion is collected in social security search year so it is critical that it be part of any UBI solution. If the US went from spending 35% - 50% of its funds publicly (50% tax increase) it would raise another 3 trillion dollars. I don’t know enough about other US social programs like welfare and child benefits to understand how they could be fed into the UBI stream.
In general though it appears that if government spending accounts for 50% of GDP a UBI could be offered to all adults without gutting existing social programs.
I agree it’s not politically palatable in the US or anywhere really.
The Following User Says Thank You to GGG For This Useful Post:
I would have to assume basically all social nets (in Canada, being CPP, EI, AISH, CERB, etc) would cease to exist with the implementation of UBI, wouldn't they? It wouldn't make sense to have anything additional.
I would have to assume basically all social nets (in Canada, being CPP, EI, AISH, CERB, etc) would cease to exist with the implementation of UBI, wouldn't they? It wouldn't make sense to have anything additional.
The only thing with that is that, unless you want to have different payment levels, would have to support everyone to the highest support currently offered, or you end up cutting payments to some. I'm not convinced "universal" makes sense in this regard, unless you top up certain people.
The only thing with that is that, unless you want to have different payment levels, would have to support everyone to the highest support currently offered, or you end up cutting payments to some. I'm not convinced "universal" makes sense in this regard, unless you top up certain people.
True, but I guess the question is whether the highest level currently is exceedingly high or not and under what circumstances the UBI would need to be exceeded. I admit I don't really know. I'm just thinking that in theory, if you set UBI to a level where you say "this is enough for all basic necessities and nothing else" do you really need any more than that? Maybe in certain health aspects.
Looks like maximum CPP is $58 700, and I think that is the highest one. Not sure what the minimum is, bit at that level, that's almost $5000 a month. S0 it would be significant reduction.
Looks like maximum CPP is $58 700, and I think that is the highest one. Not sure what the minimum is, bit at that level, that's almost $5000 a month. S0 it would be significant reduction.
That’s the maximum insurable income.
Maximum payout is 1175 per month right now and rising with the new program plus 600 or so for OAS and up to 900 for GIC.
So with those programs you receive somewhere between 1500 and 1800 so in that 20k ballpark.
The Following User Says Thank You to GGG For This Useful Post:
I think it's important to remember that UBI is a proposed solution to a potential problem. Most rational people aren't proposing UBI under the current economic conditions but rather as a response to massive unemployment due to automation. It's impossible to say with certainty that this scenario would come to pass, but there are some indications that it's possible or even likely. If so, the socio-economic system will need to undergo a massive shift. Maybe UBI is a solution, maybe not.
There are many posters in this very thread who are advocating that UBI is feasible now.
In a future world where robots do all manual labour and menial jobs....yeah it makes more sense.
There are many posters in this very thread who are advocating that UBI is feasible now.
In a future world where robots do all manual labour and menial jobs....yeah it makes more sense.
There are "some" posters in this thread who are advocating for it right now. Most are discussing it and whether it will ever be feasible.
When does this future of robots doing all manual labor and menial jobs arrive? I know I'm still waiting for my flying car that was promised to me in the 80s.
There are "some" posters in this thread who are advocating for it right now. Most are discussing it and whether it will ever be feasible.
When does this future of robots doing all manual labor and menial jobs arrive? I know I'm still waiting for my flying car that was promised to me in the 80s.
It's hard to say. Things are moving fast right now and it seems to be accelerating. That doesn't mean it will stay that way of course.
At the current rate, I can see there being a real issue in about 50 years. Of course, it won't be sudden like one day everything is fine, and the next everyone is unemployed. It will be a gradual enough creep that people will adjust for as long as they can.
Right now, the technology exists to possibly cause an employment crisis, but it isn't being implemented everywhere. For example, there is a brick laying robot that can lay 6,000 bricks in a day compared to the 500 or so that a human can do - and it only takes one worker to work it. In my view, if you can automate something like that, then most manual types of jobs will be in danger. There are even automated toilet cleaners now. Once it becomes cost effective, it will happen IMO. The whole thing is on rails now, if a human can do it, you better believe that someone is trying to make a machine or computer that can do it.
There is one way I can see a future crisis being averted though, and that is allowing or forcing the population to decline. Of course that opens up a whole new can of worms. But that is also a tough sell as capitalist economies are also dependent on population growth.
__________________
"A pessimist thinks things can't get any worse. An optimist knows they can."
Last edited by FlamesAddiction; 09-17-2020 at 05:34 PM.
That’s the maximum insurable income.
Maximum payout is 1175 per month right now and rising with the new program plus 600 or so for OAS and up to 900 for GIC.
So with those programs you receive somewhere between 1500 and 1800 so in that 20k ballpark.
Politically, CPP will be impossible to kill, imo. Even though many of the current recipients paid nowhere near the cost of their pensions, they will feel they saved for their own cpp retirement and won't want it replaced with something else.
There are "some" posters in this thread who are advocating for it right now. Most are discussing it and whether it will ever be feasible.
When does this future of robots doing all manual labor and menial jobs arrive? I know I'm still waiting for my flying car that was promised to me in the 80s.
Edit: Also this. Flying, automated cars are actually a big part of Uber's plans in southern California.
__________________
"If stupidity got us into this mess, then why can't it get us out?"
One thing I've learned from this thread is that UBI is an interesting topic for discussion of the market, macros and behavioral psychology as long as the discussion is dispassionate enough to work through numerous alternative hypotheses about how so many market forces interact with each other in an exploration of our beliefs and assumptions. There's no need for anyone to rush into passionately defending one hypothesis or one set of assumptions though. It's less interesting if we can't detach the intellectual exploration from the personal sentiments that resist challenges to the way we see things. It's really the type of discussion best held with open and curious minds on all sides.
It's rather easy to remain dispassionate when the status quo pretty much aligns with what you want society to be.
And it's rather interesting how quickly some become ultra-passionate when some components of society veer toward what they deem to be reprehensible. Is the devil really "nowhere near as evil as Donald Trump"? It's an interesting proposition. I would like to see it scientifically proven, using facts only. No emotions allowed.
Point is, I'm more than willing to be curious and open minded, provided that everyone here is willing to do the same. When people instantly resort to ad hominems as soon as they hear things they don't like, it makes it rather difficult to keep the conversation dispassionate.
Quote:
Originally Posted by New Era
You're social media tracks are pretty easy to follow and they paint quite the picture. I know that you have no expertise nor competencies in what you are talking about. You like to use circular references and closed information loops, just like all the self-produced non-peer reviewed videos you've dropped on this site.
Wow, do you know who you sound like? "I've spoken to people in the know. They've been talking. They've been saying. They largely agree with me! The experts don't understand any of this like I do!" Let me guess, vaccinations cause autism too? People are talking. They're saying...
Oh lookie here. More ad hominems and false assumptions about me. Totally unexpected.
The people I've spoken with about this (in person, not online) have PhDs and are medical professionals. The idea that clinical depression is overdiagnosed is not some fringe idea held by a few random people on the internet, it's something that many people from various walks of life either accept or, at the very least, see as worthy of consideration.
I've also been through some things that have been rather eye-opening.
There was a time, long ago, when I believed that the experts are all-knowing and should never ever be questioned. It turns out, things aren't quite that simple.
Quote:
Really? People in psychiatry and psychology get their marching order from the DSM? Bwaaaaaaaahahahahahaha!!!
The DSM [sic] is a reference manual. More accurately known as the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, and identified by the edition - we are using DSM-5. The manual is a reference to confirm or validate diagnosis assumptions. The American Psychiatric Association is the publisher and the content is developed by working groups of hundreds of experts in their fields of study, which is then vetted through the peer review process. Anything that ends up in the DSM has been fully vetted through multiple clinical trials and using an independent test-retest methodology. No marching orders. A very cooperative process for making updates where SMEs are the ones who determine the content, then have that content tested and retested to come to reliable and repeatable conclusions. Then that is vetted through the peer review process. So yeah, really driven by a small tight-nit cabal of "people."
I shared your little conspiracy theory with a circle of my psychologist cohorts and we all thank you for the laugh. We have all pulled out our copies of the DSM-5 and are awaiting our marching orders.
"Marching orders" might be a slight mischaracterization, but it's not that far off from the reality of the situation. The DSM is the guide that every psychiatrist uses to make diagnoses. In any situation where there is doubt or uncertainty, the contents of the DSM are used as the authority to determine what is to be done.
It's easy to scream "peer review!" any time someone suggests that the experts might not be immune to having blind spots. It's easy to scream "tin foil!" any time someone suggests that experts are not immune to having ulterior motives. It's not as easy to actually sit down and legitimately listen to what's being said by those who disagree with some of the established doctrines of our society. And by legitimately listen I mean actually listen without getting side tracked by ad hominems, stereotypes, or prejudices.
My belief is that UBI would lead to a precipitous drop in rates of depression. Can I scientifically prove it? No, but that in and of itself not a reason to dismiss the notion outright. I think more study should be done into looking into the relationship between depression rates (and the things that cause people to become depressed in the first place) and how UBI could potentially alleviate some of those causes. These people may be on to something: http://www.psychchange.org/uploads/9...eb_updated.pdf
FTR - it's absolutely true that most scientists and medical experts are amazing people who do incredibly important work, and don't allow ulterior motives to pollute what they do. However, the things I've seen, heard, and been through, have shown me that not all people in fields of expertise should be painted with the same angelic brush.
Are you saying, with a straight face, that what you're proposing / hoping for doesn't require a "massive change"?
Reread what I was responding to. I was asked about a "massive change in human nature".
A massive change in government functioning would be required, not a change in human nature.
Quote:
Originally Posted by afc wimbledon
It doesnt actually matter as in any system these are the people who end up in charge, you put in UBI and the 'psychos' will always find a way to game the system and end up with the best of it, as a species though we have spent almost all of our existence relying on our strength and aggression to literally make it through the day and pass on our genes, for millions of years, not the couple of thousand we have been 'civilised' the only surviving genes passed on were the ones from the most violently aggressive, we are at our heart Morlocks not Eloi
And yet, we today live in a (relatively) civilized society. As a species, we've come a long way from our days of overt barbarism. Has there been some "massive change" in human nature... or has the capability to be civil toward one another been in us all along?
Another thing to consider... countries vary enormously in their policies and in how the government treats its citizens, as well as how citizens treat one another. Some countries are more like North Korea, others are more like the Scandinavian countries. Some are dictatorships, some are democracies, most are somewhere in between.
The question is, how is this possible, if all people are beholden to one rigid and specifically defined human nature?
Quote:
Originally Posted by you&me
I took MG's use of "psycho" to be less literal, and more along the lines of "meanies that get what they want".
I understand that psychopaths (and sociopaths) are real and that many of their characteristics tend to lead to better personal outcomes... Fascinating stuff.
I was referring to people like Donald Trump, Ayn Rand, Ronald Reagan, Koch Brothers, etc. People who actively try to push the world farther and farther away from egalitarianism, and closer and closer toward rugged callousness, exploitation, and authoritarianism.
It's rather easy to remain dispassionate when the status quo pretty much aligns with what you want society to be.
And it's rather interesting how quickly some become ultra-passionate when some components of society veer toward what they deem to be reprehensible. Is the devil really "nowhere near as evil as Donald Trump"? It's an interesting proposition. I would like to see it scientifically proven, using facts only. No emotions allowed.
Point is, I'm more than willing to be curious and open minded, provided that everyone here is willing to do the same. When people instantly resort to ad hominems as soon as they hear things they don't like, it makes it rather difficult to keep the conversation dispassionate.
Oh lookie here. More ad hominems and false assumptions about me. Totally unexpected.
The people I've spoken with about this (in person, not online) have PhDs and are medical professionals. The idea that clinical depression is overdiagnosed is not some fringe idea held by a few random people on the internet, it's something that many people from various walks of life either accept or, at the very least, see as worthy of consideration.
I've also been through some things that have been rather eye-opening.
There was a time, long ago, when I believed that the experts are all-knowing and should never ever be questioned. It turns out, things aren't quite that simple.
"Marching orders" might be a slight mischaracterization, but it's not that far off from the reality of the situation. The DSM is the guide that every psychiatrist uses to make diagnoses. In any situation where there is doubt or uncertainty, the contents of the DSM are used as the authority to determine what is to be done.
It's easy to scream "peer review!" any time someone suggests that the experts might not be immune to having blind spots. It's easy to scream "tin foil!" any time someone suggests that experts are not immune to having ulterior motives. It's not as easy to actually sit down and legitimately listen to what's being said by those who disagree with some of the established doctrines of our society. And by legitimately listen I mean actually listen without getting side tracked by ad hominems, stereotypes, or prejudices.
My belief is that UBI would lead to a precipitous drop in rates of depression. Can I scientifically prove it? No, but that in and of itself not a reason to dismiss the notion outright. I think more study should be done into looking into the relationship between depression rates (and the things that cause people to become depressed in the first place) and how UBI could potentially alleviate some of those causes. These people may be on to something: http://www.psychchange.org/uploads/9...eb_updated.pdf
FTR - it's absolutely true that most scientists and medical experts are amazing people who do incredibly important work, and don't allow ulterior motives to pollute what they do. However, the things I've seen, heard, and been through, have shown me that not all people in fields of expertise should be painted with the same angelic brush.
once again, maybe you could try reading it slowly, the DSM exists to remove diagnostic bias, it literally does the opposite of what you think it does
You just used different words to describe the same thing I was describing. It has the final say on how and when a diagnosis is made.
No it doesnt, the patient has the final say as it is a diagnostic tool, the patient has to exhibit a set number of clearly recordable and provable indicators, it is generally 5 or so out of a possible 9 or 10 indicators, the indicators are concise, some obvious, some less so but short of a doctor inventing syptoms it takes away power from the doctor, it also makes it more difficult to lock people up for say being gay or left wing as a doctor can no longer just use one behaviour to justify a diagnosis.
it is generally 5 or so out of a possible 9 or 10 indicators, the indicators are concise, some obvious, some less so but short of a doctor inventing syptoms it takes away power from the doctor
Agreed. How does that in any way contradict what I said before?
Agreed. How does that in any way contradict what I said before?
Because by setting a criteria that must be met it actually removes power from the doctor and the book itself, ultimately the only thing that counts is the behaviour of the patient.
You are suggesting that the DSM has the power to diagnose people who are not ill due to bias in psychiatry, the manual is literally a safe guard against bias, it can be challenged in a way an individual diagnoses can't be.
When the manual comes out doctors and advocates pour over it, at times challenging indicators or their definition, causing revisions and reprints, it is why we are at the DSM 5 and not just the DSM. it quite literally allows the whole world to have a say which is why homosexuality, that used to be considered a paraphiliac disorder in the original DSM is no longer mentioned at all in edition 5, it wasnt because doctors suddenly decided being gay wasnt a sign of mental illness, it was because society decided being gay was ok
Last edited by afc wimbledon; 09-18-2020 at 06:39 PM.
