The final screwing by the boomers...

[Jaskalas]

So what problem would UBI actually be addressing and how or will it eliminate the issue?

With an annual amount equal to 25% of personal income in the United States, I could use UBI to:

1. Separate employment from base necessities. Giving rise to "free time" to spend on getting an education, or to pursue entrepreneurship.
2. Complete elimination of homelessness.
   1. Create a nest egg, that... when mature by age 18, lets everyone pay cash for a modest home. Wide spread elimination of mortgages and rents.​
   2. For those who still need a loan, it allows a guaranteed minimum payment. Ensuring the acquisition of a loan with a new federal housing program.​
   3. For those who need a shelter, ensures the funds to keep the care giver's doors open.​
3. Separates "living" from a fixed job or location. If Chicago south side is putting bullets in your kids... leave. Your UBI follows you out of town.
4. Covers and thus replaces many, if not all, bureaucratic systems whose hoops and strings make it difficult for people in need to get financial assistance.
5. Allows a more "hands off" free market economy. People are already protected from predation, fewer laws needed regarding wages and benefits.

The goal is to achieve economic security for our people. A bare minimum, but one whose guarantee and longevity would open many doors of opportunity.

Given the full extent of taxation, this "class disparity" you speak of would necessarily be lower through the corrective power of redistribution. Would it not? Furthermore, it can be transitioned to taxing production on companies that automate. What they skip paying in wages, they can pay society to maintain its consumers. To keep Capitalism alive. The premise allows us to handle automation in a smooth way, to prepare for the day where millions have no job opportunity.

The problem I see us facing, is that labor has been losing its value over the past 40+ years. I believe UBI provides an opportunity for us to side step the crisis this causes. To let Capitalism continue on its course, to make itself as efficient as possible - and instead of fighting this progress we can embrace it without harming ourselves. Because we'll have put in enough of a tax to keep the safety line functioning. Minimum wage was mentioned, that just encourages them to automate faster. I think UBI would let us say "automation, bring it on!"

Now... whether many more people in the future would necessarily be poorer than they are today. Products might be cheaper, but yes. Employment and labor will ultimately look nothing like they do today. Labor and wages will continue to decline. I don't see a logical way to prevent that. Our path is set, our destination is clear. A Trump'er I know, when presented with this pending disaster, would rather see us devolve into an agrarian society just so we can prop up the "value" of labor. I do not see how we could be happy in abandoning industrialization and society at large. Rather, I view UBI and automation as an opportunity to decouple our everyday lives from mandatory tedium and allow us to either fully express ourselves, our ideas, our art, our entertainment, or to allow us to participate in the market(s) at the times and places of our own choosing.

Capitalism and its markets are evolving. I want to see us still standing, not knocked down, when they take the next step.

 

[Jaskalas]

BTW, here are the figures.

United States...
Personal Income: $17,572,000,000,000
Population: 327,000,000
Per Person: $53,737
UBI: $13,434 (25%)

 

[pmv]

The Boomers were raised with a belief system that happened to coincide with America's post-war prosperity. And the stage of Capitalism that they got to experience at the time. Everyone could be "the man" by opening a mom and pop store or other form of small business. You were the "upper class", all you needed were some bootstraps. Pull yourself up, get rich, and avoid taxes.

But the market is not static. The very virtue of Capitalism is that it is efficient. Over the years its efficiency has improved. From new markets, offshoring jobs, stifling wages and rising automation. Capitalism means we do things "better", no matter the cost. This requires regulation, or it will speed ahead, jump the tracks, and careen our nation(s) off a cliff. Capitalism will cannibalize itself to DEATH, by cutting costs. By cutting labor. By cutting out its own consumers.

Capitalism needs a safety net to prevent it from going over that cliff. Far as I am aware, some form of Basic Income is the only idea on the table for effectively dealing with this developing situation, and handling the burden of automation as we move to cut millions of jobs in the future.

Boomers, however, too few of them process the facts of the case. Instead they'll harp on their belief system. Ignoring the growing mountain of evidence that markets change over time. And their era of mom and pop, that their parents enjoyed and that they benefited from, no longer exists. They'll still believe in bootstraps, though none exist. They'll point out Bill Gates and say you're only a lazy !@#$ up if you don't catch lightning in a bottle. From our point of view it is demented and cruel to taunt the masses with fake promises of making themselves rich off a fantasy. But for a Boomer, they lived in an America where that fantasy was more... real. They cannot comprehend that times have changed.

We must pry Conservative America's economic illiteracy from their icy cold grasp, and slap them upside the head with the GAP. With the massive economic changes that they oversaw and helped orchestrate throughout their life times. That "greed is good" means "mom and pop" died a long time ago. They burned the bootstraps by making Wall Street King. But hey, I can live with that. We can make modern Capitalism Great Again. However, someone has got to pay for that.

Republicans may cling to old fables, but that won't change what needs to be done to save our economic futures.

That's not an unreasonable assessment. But I think it's difficult to engage in this conversation because the generational issue is different in Europe vs the US. Even though it's similar enough that boomer-resentment exists here as well. But a major difference is simply that the post-war economic boom began much later here and spluttered-out earlier. The group who really benefited from that boom are smaller, and the benefits were shorter-lived.

When I was young it was just a given that "old people" were poor. That was the perception and the stats supported it. And that continued for a long time, even while it became clear that that was not the case in the US - where you had a lot of quite well-off retired people. I remember that being something that genuinely startled me about the US - you saw old people living an affluent lifestyle doing affluent-people things - it seemed unnatural somehow!

But eventually we did get a similar dynamic here, with, at the working-class end, the council-house sales letting some council tenants get a very nice deal (at the ultimate expense of the next generation of low-income people) and the short-lived era of generous final-salary pensions. There was definitely an element of short-termist electoral bribery going on.

It just didn't go on for nearly as long as in the US, and wasn't universal.

I really think the supposed 'easy time' that generation had is over-stated. Only a certain proportion of them got the supposed benefits.


And he main thing is you just can't look at it without taking into account class. The class-structure of the country was very different then, the middle-class was much smaller. All classes got some generational benefits, but the class structure itself also changed, which makes comparisons complicated.

I think maybe that same thing applies in the US, but here it happened in a much more concentrated way over a much shorter time-span.


I'm not a supporter of UBI, as I fear it will be used as a way of subisidising poverty-wages or just 'parking' people who are surplus to economic-requreiments while not paying them enough to have a decent life. But have had that discussion already, and I don't really have a better solution.

 

[nOOky]

BTW, here are the figures.

United States...
Personal Income: $17,572,000,000,000
Population: 327,000,000
Per Person: $53,737
UBI: $13,434 (25%)

I envision all sorts of problems with a UBI. It would keep citizens from taking on low paying jobs. Why work when you could simply move in with someone and have enough money to squeak by? Likely millions would still not buy health care. If we have learned anything from free money it's that if you give a poor person $1,000, they'll buy a flat screen t.v. and beer with it. If you give it to a rich person they will invest it. I would envision the cost of basic goods and services to go up, making that thousand dollars not go as far as it once did. People would make poor decisions and get things like payday loans because they now have a guaranteed income, or get extorted by those rent to own places.

I'd rather the focus be on free healthcare for all. If a UBI was implemented would we scrap Social Security? I'd like to be positive about it, I mean I'd love the extra money, but given the state of credit and lack of interest in saving in this country I am jaded.

 

[SMOGZINN]

It would keep citizens from taking on low paying jobs.

This is a feature not a problem. Those low paying jobs will have to pay better. In the end if the job needs to be done, it needs to pay enough to get someone to want to do it. Right now our market is increasingly moving towards the 'if they are hungry enough they will take what we offer' method. As population grows they will be able to do that with more and more jobs, as the competition for jobs will continue to outpace the need for those jobs in nearly every sector. That will lead to subsistence living and we need to do better.

I'd rather the focus be on free healthcare for all.

I think that at least right now most of us would agree with that. If we can only do one of these things, healthcare is the one we should focus on. It will generate a lot more good for our society right now.

If a UBI was implemented would we scrap Social Security?

Probably. There might have to be some sort of adjustment to the UBI for people unable to work, but overall it would mostly replace SS and a whole slew of other programs like the food stamp programs.

I'd like to be positive about it, I mean I'd love the extra money, but given the state of credit and lack of interest in saving in this country I am jaded.

Then work on fixing that. If we have a problem with these things it is because our society has caused that problem. An individual might make bad choices, but when it is society wide then it is being caused by policy.

 

[dank69]

Post removed and poster warned.

Perknose
Forum Director

 

[blackangst1]

Forget it bro, you are the black jew muslim criminal terrorists and all of "you" are the same. If they live long enough they too will be shit on someone elses shoes. It's a PC White Supremacist mentality because we all know what "they" are like and need to be disposed of.

Offensive as fuck and reported.

As to the OP: JSt0rm: I agree with your sentiment 100%

 

[fskimospy]

I envision all sorts of problems with a UBI. It would keep citizens from taking on low paying jobs. Why work when you could simply move in with someone and have enough money to squeak by? Likely millions would still not buy health care. If we have learned anything from free money it's that if you give a poor person $1,000, they'll buy a flat screen t.v. and beer with it.

Can you provide any empirical evidence that what you're saying here is accurate? All data I've seen shows that overwhelmingly when you give poor people money they spend it on things they actually need.

If you give it to a rich person they will invest it.

Right, because their immediate needs are met so they can contribute to savings.

I would envision the cost of basic goods and services to go up, making that thousand dollars not go as far as it once did. People would make poor decisions and get things like payday loans because they now have a guaranteed income, or get extorted by those rent to own places.

It's possible that this would cause some inflation because we would be putting capital to work that's currently being hoarded unproductively by rich people but that's a feature, not a bug.

I'd rather the focus be on free healthcare for all. If a UBI was implemented would we scrap Social Security? I'd like to be positive about it, I mean I'd love the extra money, but given the state of credit and lack of interest in saving in this country I am jaded.

Why not both?

 

[PlanetJosh]

I'm another one of 'em getting social security (direct deposit.) Been collecting it since I turned 62. And that was 3 years ago. Just over 700 a month usd. Each month roughly 140 usd is taken out of the original 840 usd for Medicare coverage. Not that anyone really cares much about that except you've been sort of paying for it for much of your lives in America.

I've been doing net research to find out if social security is funded mostly by all of us (collectively,) or if it's more from our individual payroll deductions for it. And I can't really find the answer. Did I pay for my own government social security checks during my work years? Not sure I believe that. Seems like there must be some dipping into here and there for it. Anyway you experts out there can better explain how that works for those of us who were or are on a payroll with W2s.

 

[IronWing]

I'm another one of 'em getting social security (direct deposit.) Been collecting it since I turned 62. And that was 3 years ago. Just over 700 a month usd. Each month roughly 140 usd is taken out of the original 840 usd for Medicare coverage. Not that anyone really cares much about that except you've been sort of paying for it for much of your lives in America.

I've been doing net research to find out if social security is funded mostly by all of us (collectively,) or if it's more from our individual payroll deductions for it. And I can't really find the answer. Did I pay for my own government social security checks during my work years? Not sure I believe that. Seems like there must be some dipping into here and there for it. Anyway you experts out there can better explain how that works for those of us who were or are on a payroll with W2s.

Your payments into SS were paying for the then current recipients plus buying bonds to be redeemed to cover a portion of your own benefits. Current workers are paying the remaining portion of your benefits plus bonds to cover a portion of their own future benefits.

 

[nOOky]

Can you provide any empirical evidence that what you're saying here is accurate? All data I've seen shows that overwhelmingly when you give poor people money they spend it on things they actually need.



Right, because their immediate needs are met so they can contribute to savings.



It's possible that this would cause some inflation because we would be putting capital to work that's currently being hoarded unproductively by rich people but that's a feature, not a bug.



Why not both?

Actually no, I don't have the time right now, sorry, as I said I "envisioned" what would happen with a UBI, I did not state anything as a "fact". If you want to go ahead and show me the data that solidifies your point about spending I'll gladly look at it though.

 

[nakedfrog]

I'm another one of 'em getting social security (direct deposit.) Been collecting it since I turned 62. And that was 3 years ago. Just over 700 a month usd. Each month roughly 140 usd is taken out of the original 840 usd for Medicare coverage. Not that anyone really cares much about that except you've been sort of paying for it for much of your lives in America.

I've been doing net research to find out if social security is funded mostly by all of us (collectively,) or if it's more from our individual payroll deductions for it. And I can't really find the answer. Did I pay for my own government social security checks during my work years? Not sure I believe that. Seems like there must be some dipping into here and there for it. Anyway you experts out there can better explain how that works for those of us who were or are on a payroll with W2s.

My understanding is that it's supposed to be a mix of both (my SSA sign in claims what I'm due is based on my earning contributions), and that yes, they screwed us by taking money out of the fund.

 

[fskimospy]

Actually no, I don't have the time right now, sorry, as I said I "envisioned" what would happen with a UBI, I did not state anything as a "fact". If you want to go ahead and show me the data that solidifies your point about spending I'll gladly look at it though.

Well for example numerous investigations into SNAP have found very limited fraud and abuse (the myth is that people on food stamps are buying steak and lobster or whatever).

So in the case of other direct cash benefits to the poor they generally spend it quite well. There's no particular reason to think that would not be true with UBI as well. It's a common myth that poor people will act irresponsibly with their money because we generally think of poverty as some sort of moral failing.

 

[fskimospy]

My understanding is that it's supposed to be a mix of both (my SSA sign in claims what I'm due is based on my earning contributions), and that yes, they screwed us by taking money out of the fund.

The boomers didn't screw us by taking money out of the trust fund because a trust fund could never exist to begin with. When you stop and think about it the trust fund was invested in treasury bills, meaning that the trust fund existed as a system where the government promised to pay itself money. The only way a trust fund could have existed in a meaningful way is if we had used those dollars to engage in mass purchases of foreign assets.

 

[nakedfrog]

The boomers didn't screw us by taking money out of the trust fund because a trust fund could never exist to begin with. When you stop and think about it the trust fund was invested in treasury bills, meaning that the trust fund existed as a system where the government promised to pay itself money. The only way a trust fund could have existed in a meaningful way is if we had used those dollars to engage in mass purchases of foreign assets.

I wasn't speaking of boomers, just the folks in Washington.

 

[fskimospy]

I wasn't speaking of boomers, just the folks in Washington.

What I mean is that it's not possible for ANYONE to screw us by taking money out of the fund because the fund never existed in the first place. It was always an accounting fiction.

 

[ElFenix]

What I mean is that it's not possible for ANYONE to screw us by taking money out of the fund because the fund never existed in the first place. It was always an accounting fiction.

well, it did screw over workers in that the tax rate was set too high (never should have been much more than breaking even with inflows vs outflows) so took money out of laborers' pockets. but that would be the case whether the trust fund was full of treasuries or congress just took it straight to general revenue, to your point.