Senate Universal basic income

I would agree to a certain point. It should exist for the Lower - Middle wage earners if they were to implement it.

Correct. This would likely result in the elimination of the minimum wage however.

 

But the thing is, working can also represent a cost, right?

I spend personally around AU$45 a week in transports costs, AU$50 in lunches and meals, and AU$20 in dry cleaning.

Plus I have work clothes.

If this magic fairy income is 82% of the min wage, and requires no expenditure/output from me... why work?

 

my highly intelligent predictions for the future:

I think our current model of capitalism is very outdated and the longer we hold onto it, the more problems we will create. our system is unsustainable, prone to huge problems, and can only go so far. I think decades from now, socialism is inevitable (prefer a mixed system myself). not the stupid fake kind as we know it throughout history. this will be the real deal, and it will develop in part through social upheaval but also develop organically as the logical next step. universal income is a part of this. it is difficult for me to imagine it being implemented in the near future, but decades from now I see it functioning as part of a new economic system we are not yet familiar with. I think a variety of things will cause this. we live in a confused time. on one hand, the wealth gap is increasing, but at the same time, small middle classes in 'second' and 'third' world countries are rapidly expanding. I think decades from now, absolute poverty will be nearly non existent yet the wealth gap will still have increased because of the expansion of relative poverty. still, people will globally will be better educated and better equipped to combat exploitation. our current system relies on exploitation. this will be a huge crossroads for humanity. the system itself will have to adjust to this new reality or collapse. throw in another problem- automation. technology has historically created just as many jobs as it has destroyed, but many have argued that this is still a huge rise. everyone keeps going on about 'well why would people work?' (dumb imo who ****ing cares) but the real problem is people will want to work but won't be able to. this is where universal basic income comes in. in this new world of greater income equality and robots taking over most of the jobs, universal basic income will provide people with their basic income (key word basic). the jobs that are available will provide extra income to those who do them. people could of course, also dedicate their time to the arts and all that. there's a chance for a pretty good setup but it'll get way worse before it gets better. I honestly think this is what we should aspire to and don't get the 'well **** it I want people to suffer for their money lol' mindset.

sounds stupid when I summarise everything. gonna try to give some more realistic answers to Ender Sai questions now.

 

Socialism isn't inevitable because it fails to adequately address the question of incentives.

The biggest issue we have now is Keynsian twits like Obama and others didn't let the economy just collapse and burn in 2007-2009. "Too big to fail" is not a capitalist mantra.

What benefits people in capitalism is competition. Competition breeds innovation and drives costs down. If you want proof of this I suggest you look at your television set.

What does not benefit capitalism is nepotism, poor risk management, complacency, and monopolies.

If you place the means of production in the hands of the state you take away incentives for risk takers to... well, take risks. That is just a terrible scenario.

 

Because you want to have purpose and a sense of contribution to society. And if you want to do anything but eat and sleep.

You realise almost all serious economists are Keynesian right?

Don't be ridiculous we aren't talking about Communism.

 

You are kidding right? Or at least American, in that you have a pathological inability to correctly define socialism.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism

"Socialism is a social and economic system characterised by social ownership of the means of production and co-operative management of the economy,[1][2] as well as a political theory and movement that aims at the establishment of such a system"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communism

In political and social sciences, communism (from Latin communis – common, universal)[1][2] is a social, political, and economic ideology and movement whose ultimate goal is the establishment of the communist society, which is a socioeconomic order structured upon the common ownership of the means of production, absence of social classes, money,[3][4] and the state.[5][6]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Communist_society

A communist society (or communist system) is the type of society and economic system postulated to emerge from technological advances in the productive forces inMarxist thought, representing the ultimate goal of the political ideology of Communism. A communist society is characterized by common ownership of the means of production with free access[1][2] to the articles of consumption and is classless and stateless,[3] implying the end of the exploitation of labor

 

Actually no, socialism is not so narrowly defined, and their are many variants. The two which are in question here:

Democratic Socialism, or Social Democracy, is a variant of socialism which incorporates a mixed economic system, where both the public and private sectors have a split control over the economy. This is the variant of socialism we have in Australia.

Soviet Socialism is the variant where the economy is purely run by the state in the hopes of creating a Communist society.

 

Erm, no.

Social democracy and democratic socialism are not interchangable terms. One is a democratic march to socialism; the other is the notion that the state needs to guide capitalism in the growth of social equity.

 

You know these terms aren't as clearly defined as that and that they are both utilised interchangeably, either correctly or incorrectly. Either way 'Social democracy' is a variant of Socialism and is the socialism we are talking about here. There is a reason many Social Democratic parties are members of Socialist International.

 

Oh, well in that case, national socialism is also a form of socialism, because people can get stuff wrong and then just blindly insist that they're right.

 

It is a form of socialism...

Speaking of getting things wrong I'd really like you to tell me how the Keynesians are so wrong and how capitalism isn't naturally volatile.

 

Nazism is? Oh boy.

And yes, it (capitalism) is naturally volatile. There's nothing wrong with that. Volatility is a good thing.

There's tonnes of critiques for the Kensyian model. It's inherently a political and not economic solution and it overstates the role of the state in pulling economic levers. Typically, by the time the state intercedes, it's interceding at a point of correction so you just get a contribution to inflationary pressures which is bad in that part of the cycle. They're also not economists, the politicians who go for Kensyianism. They go because the short term nature of the plans are good for keeping voters onside and the long term consequences are an afterthought at best or someone else's problem.

 

Yes, it is a variant.

Except for the fact human beings have to live in this model. If you are going to criticise Keynesianism at least go with the line that capitalism isn't volatile without government intervention. Otherwise you don't even really agree with the alternative Austrian School.

Tonnes does not mean that it is a valid criticism.

If the state intervenes at the correct time they can correct the struggling markets, or at least prevent a complete crash.

Except for Keynes, Nobel Laureate Joesph Stiglitz, Paul Krugman, etc. Fact of the matter is most economists are Keynesians.

You realise most politicians don't follow through with Keynesian models? Keynesianism isn't popular when you are meant to raise the taxes.

 

Yeah, so I see why Lord Vivec struggled...

 

socialism= public ownership of means of production. this could mean a variety of things. the type I support is market socialism.

okay now we're talking. :y: I'll address some of the socialism stuff but I'll try to keep this about universal income too.

I have yet to see a good argument that socialism or universal basic income reduce incentives. this assumes that greed (and fear of starving) is the only thing that motivates people. for most people, incentives would either stay the same or increase. the average worker will still go to work to make money in order to provide for themselves. right now that is why they work for state and private businesses. the only difference is that in a true socialist society they'd be working in a democratically accountable system which if anything would boost morale. introducing universal basic income would actually increase incentives as well. right now the incentive for most people is to go to their job to survive. with universal basic income in place, people would be able to take risks that they would not have taken without the safety net provided by universal basic income, not to mention that it'd give the youth better access to health and education so they can do 'better' things later.

as for the whole innovation thing, lmao I remember all that 'invisible hand' bs from high school economics. there is no denying that innovation occurs in capitalist systems. that doesn't mean it can't happen in socialist systems as well. and neither is inherently innovative. a capitalist or socialist system could both fail in this regard. capitalism holds us back just as much as it could move us forward i.e. companies buying out other companies just to take their innovative products off the market. additional funding could still be allocated to people to further advance the arts/sciences/etc. it'd just be determined in a more democratic fashion. and of course, establishing universal basic income does not prohibit anyone from doing anything really.

there is of course, the 'problem' of the world becoming simultaneously more and less equal. in the future there will be no 'third world economies' for us to exploit, and our global capitalism is dependent on that. everywhere, welfare programs (rightfully demanded by the public) will become bloated, and problems related to automation and the ageing population will create problems in the job market leaving many people without work. universal basic income will be the best solution in preventing a number of problems. I actually agree with you to an extent on your opinion about the late 2000s recession. I don't agree that the government should have just done nothing (I once wrote a good essay on how different countries handled it, a common trend is that social safety nets help keep things afloat even in the face of disaster) but what we are doing to address these huge long term issues now is only prolonging the inevitable without doing much at all. we can continue to hold onto outdated capitalist ideals which will make things very tense, continue with our keynesian bs (not that keynesian economics in general is bs) which does nothing to alleviate the long term problems, or we can adapt to these changes and create a more democratic system with universal income which is the sensible thing to do.

inflation is the most valid criticism I think, and it's not like I'm smart so I have yet to come up with a proper solution (even if I have ideas). I don't think it'd be worse than periodically raising the minimum wage (not actually doing anything in the long term) combined with bloated budgets though. as I've been saying, there will need to be greater structural changes (which will occur naturally over the next several decades) to facilitate this as a long term solution.

 

That's a complete cop-out and you know it, although I realise reliable economic mathematics is difficult to find for the Austrian School. But then again you acknowledge that capitalism is inherently unstable, which is a Keynesian belief, so I'm not sure what your argument would be to fix the problem. Just let economies collapse? Just listen to any lecture by Joseph Stiglitz. Politicians, I agree, implement Keynesianism poorly, however Keynesianism saved us from a Second Great Depression.

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/06/27/inequality-is-not-inevitable/?ref=topics&_r=0

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/cifamerica/2008/dec/05/us-economy-keynesian-economic-theory

http://www.theguardian.com/books/20...-interview-uk-economy-lost-decade-zero-growth

 

It is not a cop out but please lecture me moar from Econ 101 and PoliSci 101 lecture notes.

You simplify concepts because either it suits your point or because that's the level of analysis you have done. So not only is discourse dumbed down, the process gets indignation thrown in for good measure.

When you graduate maybe we can talk.

Maybe.

 

A future without jobs is not a future without work

 

Believe me, it was real, I was there. Real ****. The 'fake kind', as you ignorantly put it, is what happens in real life. Every time.

 

I am by no means an economist or political scientist, but this topic is interesting. In addition to the questions put forth by Ender, what form would the UBI be distributed in? Cash? If so, how does the government ensure that the UBI, which is intended to ensure that everybody can sustain a minimum standard of living, is spent responsibly? What if someone blows through their monthly "allowance" in a day on stupid stuff and still doesn't want to work? Do we then just let them rot? Is the society still obligated to take care of these people?

Do you give people "credits' that can only be used on government approved products, or that can only be spent in certain amounts on certain items? Who decides on these products?

I am genuinely curious as to how the idea of a UBI addresses these issues on an individual level.

 

you'll get no answer, because the fact that it has such potent capacity to place upwards pressure on inflation is managed by UPI advocates with this robust policy: ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

It is my understanding that the money would be handed out monthly, so if the UBI was $12,000 a year you'd get $1,000 a month. It would be your money no strings attached. You blow it on nothing you blow it on nothing.

Canada is now going to test UBI

 

Hey, that's great, there's idiots everywhere. I can't wait to see it fail.

 

It's a good idea. But to answer one of Ender Sai s older questions: yes it would be means tested of course.

If you've ever worked commission you should know what a basic minimum guarantee is. That's how this would work. And the vast majority of people would far exceed it. But for those that wouldn't it's a floor enabling them to survive.

 

OK and can one of your rose-tinted romantics tell me how it wouldn't immediately create inflationary pressure?

What you are doing is taking money out of the money supply and giving it to someone in lieu of their working for it, which means the distributed income in dollar terms is worth less because it cannot be priced via a functioning exchange mechanism. Why would I work and earn just about UBI, when I could not work, save money on uniform and transport and just masturbate to X-Box all day?

The very point of any welfare safety net is to provide an income that supports someone prior to their return to work. It was never intended as a permanent income stream and should only serve as such in extreme circumstances.

Providing therefore a living wage as a handout would be, quite frankly, an excellent way to disincentivise workers from working if their wage is only marginally ahead of this unicorn-pooed cash.