Poll of the Day > Controversial Opinion #1. Universal basic income.

(+) Yeah! (+)

People also need to spend money on a place to live

Jen0125 posted...

You're talking about the US here. Of course UBI would be the absolute bare minimum to survive.

At best lol

So LinkPizza's main concern with UBI is that he thinks most people will spend their money on cheap luxuries and not actually work? Despite all data pointing to the contrary and that already being pointed? And the fact that there's already not enough jobs to go around, so if some people don't work, so what? You're just creating hypothetical scenarios to complain about. This is called a straw man argument.

1. all poor people in america can be fully funded if one of the US Aircraft carriers used their nuclear power to mine bitcoin on their behalf while they are not in active operations

---

Pity post #1

---

JigsawTDC posted...

So LinkPizza's main concern with UBI is that he thinks most people will spend their money on cheap luxuries and not actually work? Despite all data pointing to the contrary and that already being pointed? And the fact that there's already not enough jobs to go around, so if some people don't work, so what? You're just creating hypothetical scenarios to complain about. This is called a straw man argument.

No. I never said I had a problem with people spending their money on cheap luxuries, nor did I ever imply I had a problem with that. Don't put words in my mouth. My problem is I believe most people will just immediately stop working because they literally don't have to. And with automation, many jobs will disappear. I feel we'll first have too many open jobs because who wants to work for money if they don't have too. Then we'll have so much automation that there won't be enough jobs to go around for the people that want them. Or, in the worse case scenario, both. Not enough jobs that people are qualified for, plus too many jobs that need those qualified people...
---

LinkPizza posted...

No. I never said I had a problem with people spending their money on cheap luxuries, nor did I ever imply I had a problem with that. Don't put words in my mouth. My problem is I believe most people will just immediately stop working because they literally don't have to. And with automation, many jobs will disappear. I feel we'll first have too many open jobs because who wants to work for money if they don't have too. Then we'll have so much automation that there won't be enough jobs to go around for the people that want them. Or, in the worse case scenario, both. Not enough jobs that people are qualified for, plus too many jobs that need those qualified people...

It's only going to exacerbate over time. What will we do when there are 9 billion people and only 1 million jobs worldwide?

---

Lokarin posted...

It's only going to exacerbate over time. What will we do when there are 9 billion people and only 1 million jobs worldwide?

Yes. I think automation is a big problem. Nor do I like it invading every part of life. I'd rather be dead than live in a fully automated world. Which based on my lifestyle, I will be dead before it's fully automated...
---

LinkPizza posted...

My problem is I believe most people will just immediately stop working because they literally don't have to.

I addressed that too, you just chose to ignore it. It's already been pointed out to you that actual data and studies contradict this. Yet you still want to double-down on your own speculation that's based on nothing but your feelings.

JigsawTDC posted...

I addressed that too, you just chose to ignore it. It's already been pointed out to you that actual data and studies contradict this. Yet you still want to double-down on your own speculation that's based on nothing but your feelings.

Yeah. Maybe. I don't think it will happen here. That's my belief... I feel that most people would just stop working because they don't have to... Especially since there's still the cost of living problem, and a bunch of other problems that people won't think about until it happens... Nothing is really going to make me like UBI or automation, though...
---

A post-job world is an enticing prospect, but only if we stop with the idea that people's livelihoods are tied to work. Sadly I can see the people who own all the automation continuing to want to maximize the profit for people at the top - which is why automation is also scary if we don't have UBI. Yes, it will require "taking away" money from rich people, but they might be the only ones generating it at that point.

Maybe the models we have now made more sense when it wasn't as easy to produce needed goods without people's labor, and it was mutually beneficial for someone to get a job so they could have a livelihood. But I think moving away from that should be a goal, as long as we're smart about it. I feel like in modern society we are capable of producing just about anything we could ever ask for, but the problems there are not everyone can access all of it, and the demands for labor create a lot of problems. UBI and automation are potentially the intersection of where we solve both of those issues.

Zareth posted...

This is the shit that I don't get how people don't understand it. If you have ONLY the money necessary to survive but no money for luxuries, would you be content to just sit around all day and do literally nothing because you can't afford anything else?

If that was an actual argument, you would have a 100% employment rate and nobody would ever retire unless they were physically unable to work. However, the reality is that a LOT of people are content with just not working -- a sentiment you'll often hear when talking to workers particularly in lower social positions -- and by incentavizing and normalizing that behavior, the number of people who don't want to work will only grow. Now if we were in a society that didn't need workers -- because everything was almost completely automated -- that wouldn't be an issue. However, we live in reality, not your fantasyland.

CoorsLight posted...

I'd rather take a risk and speculate on things that have numbers behind them, i.e. this is how much money we anticipate a person might need and how much we might be able to put into a UBI program, and look at successful models for a pragmatic approach, than not take the risk because of people's "gut feeling" that people will be lazy and exploit it. Plus we already are taking risks the way things are now, and it's immoral to act like poverty is something that will be solved with status quo individualism

Or, in other words, "I'd rather take a massive, unnecessary risk that could collapse not just our economy but our society because I don't feel like working and, instead of moving to a nation that already believes in this nonsense, I want to drag down America so it can be the next Venezuela."

shadowsword87 posted...

Would you rather have these sort of systems set in place now, or later?

Do you want to build massive underground bunkers because the US might someday be invaded by aliens now, or later? Right now there's so much shit that has to happen and adjustments that need to be made for a post-labor society that implementing changes makes absolutely no sense because we're possibly still hundreds of years away from the technology making it feasible.

---

Lol. You don't even need to use aliens as an analogy. Did you forget about the Cold War, Zeus? When we built underground bunkers as a proactive measure in case of nuclear war?

Zeus posted...

If that was an actual argument, you would have a 100% employment rate

A 100% employment rate is impossible under capitalism my dude. Corporations need the threat of unemployment to scare their workers in to realizing that they are replaceable.

---

Far-Queue posted...

Yeah but why give money to poor people who will spend it and put it back into the economy when we can give massive tax breaks to wealthy people who hoard their money? Think of the billionaires!

If I were to legit hear that argument at the end, there, I'd have to counter-argument that a healthy economy would mean their billions have more worth or value than if they had it all. Also, the typical consumer can only continue to buy the goods and services we're charged too damn much for already if we have the money to spend and give to the billionaires.

Jen0125 posted...

You're talking about the US here. Of course UBI would be the absolute bare minimum to survive.

At least for a few years before inflation and productivity, and other factors, cause min wage and UBI combined to fall to about 15-20% of poverty levels. But surely we'll keep up the bare minimum to meet the inflation so people can afford to even breathe and serve their corporate overlords, right? lol no, probably not; thanks, capitalism.

---

Jen0125 posted...

You're talking about the US here. Of course UBI would be the absolute bare minimum to survive.

If they did do it (which I doubt), I hope they dont do it the same for every state. For how much a one person home costs in California, you could buy a mega mansion in Iowa.

---

Fierce_Deity_08 posted...

If they did do it (which I doubt), I hope they dont do it the same for every state. For how much a one person home costs in California, you could buy a mega mansion in Iowa.

Depends on the part of California. The outskirts of the high desert? Maybe. The "heartland?" Maybe a decent house with working amenities. LA or San Fran? One box from U-Haul, after the gas it takes to get to their store and back.

---

Fierce_Deity_08 posted...

If they did do it (which I doubt), I hope they dont do it the same for every state. For how much a one person home costs in California, you could buy a mega mansion in Iowa.

If worse than that. Even in the same state, the differences vary. Where I live, things are actually pretty cheap. If I move about 2 hours away in the same state, things are like 3-5 times more expensive.
---

Zareth posted...

A 100% employment rate is impossible under capitalism my dude. Corporations need the threat of unemployment to scare their workers in to realizing that they are replaceable.

It's very possible, unless market forces conspired to keep people out of work and self-employment stopped being a thing. But even if you rounded down to a 99% employment rate, that would be far better than the US's rigged employment rate and far better than the US's real employment rate (which was dummied by things like the Clinton administration switching the unemployed to be being on long-term disability programs to push the numbers down)

And imagine what could be accomplished with a 100% or near-100% employment rate.

---

So Zeus calls a completely automated world (which technological innovation is increasingly pushing towards) a fantasyland, but claims a 100% employment rate is completely feasible. Lmao. How does this dude take himself so seriously?

I'm not sure we'd need, or even want complete automation. Just enough that we can reinvest the savings on jobs into UBI that can eliminate poverty, then have some jobs around so that people can have income for luxuries if they want

Yeah, I don't think the world will ever be 100% automated, but I think it's a bit baffling to assume that it's more realistic for things to head in the other direction.

shadowsword87 posted...

Would you rather have these sort of systems set in place now, or later?

its always humorous when zeus says this stuff, considering hes on unemployment and using these programs, ok?

---

UBI worked well in Finland. People like to say it was cancelled, but it was planned to only be a pilot program of a certain length.

---

Fierce_Deity_08 posted...

If they did do it (which I doubt), I hope they dont do it the same for every state. For how much a one person home costs in California, you could buy a mega mansion in Iowa.

yeah how awful would it be if there was TOO MUCH money being spent and circulating back into the economy in some states

---

Mead posted...

yeah how awful would it be if there was TOO MUCH money being spent and circulating back into the economy in some states

I dont think thats what theyre saying. If they have the same for every state, some of the places with a higher cost of living, they wouldnt have enough. Either that, or other people in lower cost areas would be getting a ton. And people wouldnt like it if things became unfair like that. Plus, it would probably result in everybody trying to move to a lower cost of living area just to get all that extra money...
---

LinkPizza posted...

And people wouldnt like it if things became unfair like that.

Things couldnt be more unfair than they are getting now to a lot of struggling families.

LinkPizza posted...

or other people in lower cost areas would be getting a ton.

Plus, it would probably result in everybody trying to move to a lower cost of living area just to get all that extra money...

I see no real issue. Lord knows there are a lot of struggling rural areas that could use an influx of funds for their local economy.

---

Mead posted...

Things couldnt be more unfair than they are getting now to a lot of struggling families.

They definitely could be...

Mead posted...

I see no real issue. Lord knows there are a lot of struggling rural areas that could use an influx of funds for their local economy.

Sure. Im sure the people living there want to be living in castles. But Im also sure that would be completely unfair to people who love elsewhere... Until landlords start charging insane prices because of the insane amount of money some people would get...
---

less people would be struggling if businesses weren't forced to shutdown
---

Krazy_Kirby posted...

less people would be struggling if businesses weren't forced to shutdown

even less people will struggle when those businesses are booming because people have money to spend

---

LinkPizza posted...

Im sure the people living there want to be living in castles.

I think a lot of places would just be happy if they could properly fund their local public schools.

---

Mead posted...

I think a lot of places would just be happy if they could properly fund their local public schools.

Maybe. But the money seems to be going to the people instead...
---

LinkPizza posted...

Maybe. But the money seems to be going to the people instead...

who spend it and pay taxes with it, along with keeping small businesses open

---

Mead posted...

who spend it and pay taxes with it, along with keeping small businesses open

Or who just build castles... But really, I'm not sure many would spend it on small businesses. It's cheaper if you go to the bigger chains. If Jen is right about it being barely enough, then why shop locally, when the chains have things for half the price. And if that are living like royalty instead because someone had the stupid idea of giving everyone the same amount, they'd probably go to the super fancy places to get stuff (like places where a bite of steak is like $100 because the cow had grass from another country, and water made from ice from the top of a mountain or some shit)... Local businesses will probably get shafted, tbh...
---

I really don't think LP is worth engaging with here. He's already stated his views are completely based in his own subjective biased speculation and not the actual data and studies we've provided that contradict those beliefs, and he's made it abundantly clear he's more interested in doubling-down on his beliefs with wishy washy rhetoric than providing any argument of substance. If he wants to be stuck in his viewpoint, let him. It's not going to change the inevitable.

Weren't the studies done somewhere else that wasn't the US, though? And I'm not trying to change the inevitable. But I don't have to like it...
---

ofc people who aren't working would love to get money to not work
---

Speaking of data and studies provided, why is the assumption that UBI would be enough to live on? Even the trial programs are only a couple hundred a month.

---

Veedrock- posted...

Even the trial programs are only a couple hundred a month.

So, it was more of a supplement than actual UBI? Because if that was the case, doesn't that mean people kept working because they still needed more to live on? Also, since it was only for a few months, doesn't that mean people probably didn't quit because they would still need to make money after the trial period was over?
---

Krazy_Kirby posted...

ofc people who aren't working would love to get money to not work

meanwhile people who are working would be so pissed off to get more money back from the government each month to help with bills and expenses

---

LinkPizza posted...

So, it was more of a supplement than actual UBI?

"Actual UBI" is not defined as cost-of-living afaik, it's just a guaranteed income of any amount. And it sounds like a UBI being below a living wage is what you want, so people are still forced to work.

Tangently related, remember the start of covid when unemployed people got $600 a week while most essential workers, even full timers, didn't make nearly that much? That's a real, unfair situation that occurred, one that wouldn't have if UBI was in place. Workers get kind of shafted under current social programs that disqualify them, while UBI benefits them more than anyone.

---

Veedrock- posted...

"Actual UBI" is not defined as cost-of-living afaik, it's just a guaranteed income of any amount. And it sounds like a UBI being below a living wage is what you want, so people are still forced to work.

Tangently related, remember the start of covid when unemployed people got $600 a week while most essential workers, even full timers, didn't make nearly that much? That's a real, unfair situation that occurred, one that wouldn't have if UBI was in place. Workers get kind of shafted under current social programs that disqualify them, while UBI benefits them more than anyone.

Which makes more sense. Though, some seem to want UBI to be enough to live off of... That being said, many people decided to not work because they made more. Which if UBI happens like some other people wanted could technically happen again. If UBI did earn you more than your job, and you were living even somewhat comfortably, there would be no reason to work if you are now making more. That being said, that means that the reason people kept working wasn't because they wanted to, but because they had to. For at least 2 reasons. 1, UBI wasn't enough to live off on it's own. And 2, they still needed money after the trial period was over. So, the studies don't really prove that if given enough to live on, people would still keep their job...
---

LinkPizza posted...

Though, some seem to want UBI to be enough to live off of...

what do you think the phrase "universal basic income" refers to if not "enough to live off of"

it should be enough to "not die from inaccessibility to basic needs"

---

agesboy posted...

what do you think the phrase "universal basic income" refers to if not "enough to live off of"

it should be enough to "not die from inaccessibility to basic needs"

I know what it refers to. Though, if that's what we want, then it's apparently different from the studies, right? According to Veedrock-, the UBI we were talking about here, and the UBI in the studies are different things. Which then means that the studies don't even matter anymore...
---

you're obfuscating the issue

do you think 1-2k per month is less or more than the studies'? because it's DEFINITELY not more than

---

agesboy posted...

you're obfuscating the issue

do you think 1-2k per month is less or more than the studies'? because it's DEFINITELY not more than

How am I obfuscating the issue? No one is giving any info. The only person who gave more info on the trial runs is Veedrock-. And they mentioned that the trial program was only "a couple hundred a month." If that's true, then that means that the studies don't prove anything. Earlier, others said the studies showed that, "in places where they have done UBI the vast majority of people have chosen to keep working because they want more than just the basic necessities". If Veedrock- is telling the truth about it being a couple hundred a month, then that means that the reason they still worked was because the wanted more than just the basic necessities. It's because they ha to keep working to afford the basic necessities. Not to mention, if they were trial runs that ended, people probably wouldn't quit because they would still need income after the trial run was over...
---

https://features.inside.com/universal-basic-income-studies-does-it-work/

---

So, what Veedrock- was saying was true... But then, I'd have to agree with them. UBI would only be a supplement, and not enough to live on. So, people would have to keep working, unlike what was being said before. Not because they want to, but because they have to. I mean, in both Stockton and Finland, while the extra money is nice, neither gave enough for my rent, let alone everything I need a month. And I'm in a low cost of living area. And pay less than many people I know. So, it wouldn't be people working because they wanted to work, but because they had to work... Which means we have no proof that people wouldn't actually stop working if UBI was actually enough to live off of. The only good thing that came out was better employment opportunities (though it was only 15 that went to full time, and I don't know if they were the unemployed ones or the ones employed, but not full time), which shouldn't need UBI to do if wages were a little higher, tbh...

And while the New Leaf project is nice, that's not UBI for all. Only for those who need it. And in that case, wouldn't be UBI. Nor would is probably directly affect most people. Though, that's always something they should have (the helping them part)...

The Finland one was already weird since they seemed to already be fine. And overall, it was a failed experiment because of the changes made in the middle... So, some people weren't getting much more overall. And employment rates stayed the same.

And it still leaves big questions like how make it universal when it will lead to unfairness (or fairness that's make everything very complicated) all around... Like, for example, the amount to give out... It would have to be price city by city. And even then, it'll still be unfair...
---

agesboy posted...

you're obfuscating the issue

do you think 1-2k per month is less or more than the studies'? because it's DEFINITELY not more than

1-2k a month isn't enough to live in a lot of places
---

Krazy_Kirby posted...

1-2k a month isn't enough to live in a lot of places

which is yet another reason many people would still work

---