7 ms·

We need UBI

djsumdog 6y ago
I use to believe in UBI, but I think introducing UBI now would be an absolutely and complete disaster. UBI makes sense if there is zero resource scarcity. If we had working Fission reactors and were pulling asteroids into orbit to mine, it might make sense. I think UBI implemented now would turn into the "Basic" seen in The Expanse books. We'd just see people with no incentives continue down the road of poverty.
- uoaei 6y ago
  Yours is a Randian analysis and it has been the sole argument from Republicans for not giving people UBI. What do you think about the concept of "trickle-up economics"?
  - nobody9999 6y ago
    >Yours is a Randian analysis and it has been the sole argument from Republicans for not giving people UBI. >What do you think about the concept of "trickle-up economics"? I'd argue that significantly enhancing the social safety net, significantly increasing minimum wages and, most importantly, providing strong incentives toward reduced incomes at the very high end, would provides significant long term economic advantages. Why do I say this? For a variety of reasons: 1. >70% of US GDP is consumer spending. Increasing the amount and number of folks with discretionary income will boost demand significantly; 2. Enhancing the social safety net would encourage innovation and entrepreneurship. When you have an idea that you want to develop, but most folks don't even have a few hundred dollars available in an emergency will stop those folks from doing so -- In the current environment, unless there's immediate success, it's likely that such a person, and their family, will be sleeping rough and eating out of garbage cans pretty soon. With a robust social safety net, those folks can pursue their entrepreneurial ideas without worrying about starving in the street; 3. Incentivizing lower incomes at the very high end, via income taxes (cf. the 1950s), write offs for new business formation/development and other, similar incentives can boost employment, new business creation and focus resources on an ecosystem of smaller companies with real competition in many (if not most) industries; 4. Raising wages at the low end dovetails nicely with (1) above. Spreading wealth more widely (I am emphatically not suggesting forced wealth redistribution) among the population won't harm those at the top. How many houses, cars, dishwashers, pizza pies, miniskirts, throw rugs, yachts, toaster ovens, ball gags, window fans, telephones, snow globes, etc., etc., etc. can one family reasonably buy/use? Significantly increasing the incomes of those at the bottom will increase demand for all manner of products and services, strengthening the broader economy over the long term. 5. Finally, I'll wonder out loud how much "poorer" or "worse off" someone earning $5,000,000/annum is vs. someone earning $15,000,000/annum? Having wealth/income more widely distributed across the population would create a stronger, more resilient economy over the long term -- one which would benefit those at the top and the bottom -- and lead to significantly better outcomes for everyone over the long term. I'd note note that my reasoning doesn't include any arguments for "socialism." Rather, every single one focuses on how to strengthen and enhance a society and economy based on market principles. Feel free to disagree, as I'm sure many of you will. I'd be interested to hear your arguments and will attempt to respond thoughtfully. Edit: Fixed numbering.
    - uoaei 6y ago
      I guess I'm not seeing the difference between "the social safety net" and "money in people's hands." Technocratic means-tested programs are no substitute for giving people money and letting them spend it organically. Isn't that the point of a "free market" anyway? To let the market decide what is valuable? It's hard to accept any claim that constructing barriers makes social safety nets more effective. Giving people money and raising minimum wages is indistinguishable to me. The only way they can be different is if you think economic output would be significantly different if people weren't "forced" to work by making wages the only avenue of income. That is the Randian perspective I am referring to.
      - nobody9999 6y ago
        >The only way they can be different is if you think economic output would be significantly different if people weren't "forced" to work by making wages the only avenue of income. I do think economic output would be significantly different, regardless of how you "spread it around." A broader base of consumers will consume more. A broader base of entrepreneurs will expand economic development. Spreading the money around will increase consumption and incentivize increased economic output. I'm not sure what you mean by a "Randian" perspective, based on what I wrote. My post advocated for an enhanced safety net. I did not put any conditions (like "means tested") on such enhancements. My post advocated for, in simple terms, "spreading the money around widely", in order to increase economic stability, reduced poverty and economic inequality. I also implied that doing so would, over the long term, create an economy with less inequality by increasing the share of a (growing) pie by those with the least. And that's somehow "Randian?" I guess one (or both) of us need to go back and re-read Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead, because IIRC the changes I suggest are completely antithetical to those expressed in Rand's writings. Edit: Added clarity WRT to the impact of increased wages/enhanced safety net vs. UBI.
        uoaei 6y ago
        ... I referenced very specifically which part to me is Randian. The sentiment that if we give people free money they will be lazy and sink into a life of dependence.
WorkingDead 6y ago
We need to take money from everyone so we can charge handling fees and pay people to send their own money back to them.

We need UBI

I use to believe in UBI, but I think introducing UBI now would be an absolutely and complete disaster. UBI makes sense if there is zero resource scarcity. If we had working Fission reactors and were pulling asteroids into orbit to mine, it might make sense. I think UBI implemented now would turn into the "Basic" seen in The Expanse books. We'd just see people with no incentives continue down the road of poverty.

uoaei 6y ago
Yours is a Randian analysis and it has been the sole argument from Republicans for not giving people UBI. What do you think about the concept of "trickle-up economics"?
- nobody9999 6y ago
  >Yours is a Randian analysis and it has been the sole argument from Republicans for not giving people UBI. >What do you think about the concept of "trickle-up economics"? I'd argue that significantly enhancing the social safety net, significantly increasing minimum wages and, most importantly, providing strong incentives toward reduced incomes at the very high end, would provides significant long term economic advantages. Why do I say this? For a variety of reasons: 1. >70% of US GDP is consumer spending. Increasing the amount and number of folks with discretionary income will boost demand significantly; 2. Enhancing the social safety net would encourage innovation and entrepreneurship. When you have an idea that you want to develop, but most folks don't even have a few hundred dollars available in an emergency will stop those folks from doing so -- In the current environment, unless there's immediate success, it's likely that such a person, and their family, will be sleeping rough and eating out of garbage cans pretty soon. With a robust social safety net, those folks can pursue their entrepreneurial ideas without worrying about starving in the street; 3. Incentivizing lower incomes at the very high end, via income taxes (cf. the 1950s), write offs for new business formation/development and other, similar incentives can boost employment, new business creation and focus resources on an ecosystem of smaller companies with real competition in many (if not most) industries; 4. Raising wages at the low end dovetails nicely with (1) above. Spreading wealth more widely (I am emphatically not suggesting forced wealth redistribution) among the population won't harm those at the top. How many houses, cars, dishwashers, pizza pies, miniskirts, throw rugs, yachts, toaster ovens, ball gags, window fans, telephones, snow globes, etc., etc., etc. can one family reasonably buy/use? Significantly increasing the incomes of those at the bottom will increase demand for all manner of products and services, strengthening the broader economy over the long term. 5. Finally, I'll wonder out loud how much "poorer" or "worse off" someone earning $5,000,000/annum is vs. someone earning $15,000,000/annum? Having wealth/income more widely distributed across the population would create a stronger, more resilient economy over the long term -- one which would benefit those at the top and the bottom -- and lead to significantly better outcomes for everyone over the long term. I'd note note that my reasoning doesn't include any arguments for "socialism." Rather, every single one focuses on how to strengthen and enhance a society and economy based on market principles. Feel free to disagree, as I'm sure many of you will. I'd be interested to hear your arguments and will attempt to respond thoughtfully. Edit: Fixed numbering.
  - uoaei 6y ago
    I guess I'm not seeing the difference between "the social safety net" and "money in people's hands." Technocratic means-tested programs are no substitute for giving people money and letting them spend it organically. Isn't that the point of a "free market" anyway? To let the market decide what is valuable? It's hard to accept any claim that constructing barriers makes social safety nets more effective. Giving people money and raising minimum wages is indistinguishable to me. The only way they can be different is if you think economic output would be significantly different if people weren't "forced" to work by making wages the only avenue of income. That is the Randian perspective I am referring to.
    - nobody9999 6y ago
      >The only way they can be different is if you think economic output would be significantly different if people weren't "forced" to work by making wages the only avenue of income. I do think economic output would be significantly different, regardless of how you "spread it around." A broader base of consumers will consume more. A broader base of entrepreneurs will expand economic development. Spreading the money around will increase consumption and incentivize increased economic output. I'm not sure what you mean by a "Randian" perspective, based on what I wrote. My post advocated for an enhanced safety net. I did not put any conditions (like "means tested") on such enhancements. My post advocated for, in simple terms, "spreading the money around widely", in order to increase economic stability, reduced poverty and economic inequality. I also implied that doing so would, over the long term, create an economy with less inequality by increasing the share of a (growing) pie by those with the least. And that's somehow "Randian?" I guess one (or both) of us need to go back and re-read Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead, because IIRC the changes I suggest are completely antithetical to those expressed in Rand's writings. Edit: Added clarity WRT to the impact of increased wages/enhanced safety net vs. UBI.
      - uoaei 6y ago
        ... I referenced very specifically which part to me is Randian. The sentiment that if we give people free money they will be lazy and sink into a life of dependence.

WorkingDead 6y ago

We need to take money from everyone so we can charge handling fees and pay people to send their own money back to them.