fandomsecrets | [ SECRET POST #3971 ]

[ SECRET POST #3971 ]

⌈ Secret Post #3871 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.

__________________________________________________

02.

[Orphan Black]

__________________________________________________

03.

[ Dota 2 Esport ]

__________________________________________________

04.

__________________________________________________

05.

[George R.R. Martin]

__________________________________________________

06.

[Black Books]

__________________________________________________

07.

Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 01 pages, 14 secrets from Secret Submission Post #554.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

but there's a difference between unemployment and like, giving everyone money. how high of taxes are you going to set so that everyone gets a free stipend large enough for them to live off of? Especially since considerably fewer people will be compelled to actually work, if they don't have to. I know for fucking sure I'd quit my shitty job lol

Yeah, same. I fucking hate my job. Sign me up for this free money.

Look at Scandinavia. The states are required to provide everyone with a place to live and enough money so that no-one starves to death, but if you want a car or a bigger house, you'll have to work.

The Scandinavian states do NOT give all of their citizens free housing and money. That is completely untrue.

In what way is it untrue? Yes, you can get evicted if you mess up, but as a rule no-one is left out on the street penniless. If you can't afford an apartment or food on your own, you'll get social benefits to pay for that stuff.

If you think that isn't true, tell me how many people froze or starved to death there last winter? Because that's what is going to happen without state intervention.

Are you confusing unemployment payments with universal basic income for everyone? Because that's what it sounds like you're doing. It's one thing to take care of those who can't afford it, it's quite another to give everyone in your country a lump sum every month.

I wasn't talking about universal basic income, but the current system of unemployment payments, different social benefits, and housing benefits. These are basically the same as the universal basic income, just with more bureaucracy. Changing the name wouldn't make it any more expensive or suddenly make people lazier.

NAYRT but like

what they're suggesting is basically just a universal basic income, which is a relatively mainstream economic proposal. I don't know if it's necessarily the best solution to the problem going forward, and there are implementation issues that do need to be worked out (how do you manage inflation and costs, that sort of thing), but I don't like the attitude that this is some kind of ludicrous insane thing that OP is being wildly unrealistic for suggesting. And for instance there's nothing intrinsically improbable or difficult about having an economic system with high tax rates on the very wealthy.

How is that a mainstream economic proposal? how many countries are giving each and every citizen "universal basic income" for not working?

Ethically speaking, I have zero problem with what OP is suggesting, but economically speaking, it is ludicrous. Until all jobs are replaced by robots, there isn't enough wealth to just give everyone for free, especially when we actually do need humans doing the crappy jobs that no one would do if they had a choice about it.

Not true. The BI trials that have been done show people work just like the would without one. Because a BI only covers food and a house. Sure, that is fine for a small number of people and they may not work. But *most* people would like to be able to travel and have luxuries like going to the movies. Or eating fancy food.

So they work.

Also not true. The trials were just that - trials. The participants were aware that they would not receive money indefinitely. That in no way could possibly replicate a real world situation where a mass number of citizens are assured they never need to work again for their basic needs.

I see now that all trials are worthless and we should never trial anything. Seems legit. Good good.

If you can't look at data critically, don't bother having an opinion. Seriously.

Re: If you had extreme political power

(Anonymous) - 2017-08-10 17:45 (UTC) - Expand

How is that a mainstream economic proposal? how many countries are giving each and every citizen "universal basic income" for not working?

It's widely discussed and there have been, and currently are, various pilot and test programs going on in various places. I'm not saying everyone agrees that it's a good idea, I'm saying it's a fairly familiar and well-established and reasonably well-studied idea.

but economically speaking, it is ludicrous. Until all jobs are replaced by robots, there isn't enough wealth to just give everyone for free, especially when we actually do need humans doing the crappy jobs that no one would do if they had a choice about it.

It is by no means clear that this is the case. It's obviously a matter of significant debate, but it is not obviously the case that we don't have enough wealth to provide a basic income.

And also, "basic income" is not the same as "give everyone everything for free". Those are extremely different proposals, and what OP said was "a small but livable monthly income". I don't think it would be difficult, in principle, to find people to do menial labor to supplement that income. You might have to pay them more than you do now, but that's not a bad thing.

Like... right now most of the wealth and income doesn't exactly go to people doing menial labor, you know? Most of the wealth and income goes to people who are extremely wealthy. I don't think the idea that we're in a state where we as a society are just scraping by holds water.

See the thing is, you're not thinking this though - many countries would actually break even or even save money by introducing a universal income, because with a universal income would wouldn't need to employ however many government employees that currently run welfare program and all the various expenses that are associated with essentially testing and checking people against certain criteria to make sure they qualify for the welfare they're applying for. A lot of governments know this, and it is actually an ideological stance against giving people 'free money' that stops the proposal getting any further than an 'interesting idea'. Many economists support this idea so from that point alone it really isn't ludicrous 'economically speaking'.

Also, People will still do crappy jobs, because a universal income would be enough to live off/ not die, but it wouldn't be enough to 'get ahead' in life. On top of this, demand and supply works in the job economy too - if all those 'crappy' jobs are actually necessary for society to function, but the pay isn't adequate to attract employees, the solution is to up the pay and benefits to attract applicants.

Think of the last time you bought something other than basic food or paid rent. How about.... oh... the internet you're on right now? If you want the luxury of non-library internet, you work. What about a TV? Netflix subscription? A pack of hair elastics? Some form of clothing?

I'd wager basically prison living isn't your idea of comfortable living. Even in prisons inmates get the 'luxury' of being able to buy small things, after food and not dying of exposure is taken care of.

Universal income would create large government savings by no longer needing vast departments to administrate welfare payments.

People will still be compelled to work, because a universal income will only cover basics . If you want to save money, travel, go out to eat with your friends, or even just buy non no-name brand products and not have to budget furiously each and every month, you will have to work.

What it would do is give you (personally) a safety net that would make it possible for you to leave an unfavourable or toxic workplace and commit your time and effort to finding a new, better job.

I'm not saying it wouldn't have teething problems that would have to be worked out, but the idea that it would somehow cripple the economy because no one would bother to work is very silly.

What really grinds my gears is just the attitude that like... anything outside of our present economic framework is absurd and silly and can be dismissed without any thought

It's both extremely disingenuous and actively harmful

So what, work an easy part-time job to get a little extra spending money? Sign me up. Don't expect anyone to go work in sewers, do jobs that require significant training time and expense, or anything with long hours.

I mean, you can say it's silly that people are throwing this out without giving it serious thought, but I also think you and the other commenters are being extremely optimistic and don't think any of the criticism is even possibly legitimate. It sounds like something you idealistically want, which is fine, but economically speaking, it doesn't sound remotely fool-proof. (especially considering you obviously would have to forcefully redistribute wealth and keep it in government hands, so the government could actually have the money to do this... because right now, it sure as fuck doesn't.)

So what, work an easy part-time job to get a little extra spending money? Sign me up. Don't expect anyone to go work in sewers, do jobs that require significant training time and expense, or anything with long hours.

So pay people doing those jobs more.

That's how the whole concept of supply and demand on the labor market is supposed to work, isn't it?

I mean, you can say it's silly that people are throwing this out without giving it serious thought, but I also think you and the other commenters are being extremely optimistic and don't think any of the criticism is even possibly legitimate.

I think there are legitimate avenues of criticism. I don't think it's fool proof by any means. I also think all of the criticisms that you've raised are, like, the things that people come up with in the first 15 minutes of thinking about the idea of a universal basic income. And I think that the problem you have is that you see all the features of our present economic system as necessary and natural and unchangeable, when this is not the case.

(especially considering you obviously would have to forcefully redistribute wealth and keep it in government hands, so the government could actually have the money to do this... because right now, it sure as fuck doesn't.)

Well yes i would say that is straightforwardly and openly what people think should happen

You think it's okay for the government to just steal money from people until everyone has the exact same amount of money? I don't think you'll find much support for that. Or how else do you propose forcefully redistributing money until the government has everyone's money who dares to have had more in their bank account than a 19-year-old college student waitressing part time? How do you account for people who make huge salaries but live in cities where the cost of living is phenomenally high, vs. the person who is make a third of that salary but living rich in their tiny rural town? Is being rich not allowed in your society?

Hello. Quick question. Why are you ignoring the repeated points made about government savings from not having to administrate welfare payments and suggesting instead that proponents of universal income would finance it by 'forcefully redistributing money'?

How do you account for people who make huge salaries but live in cities where the cost of living is phenomenally high, vs. the person who is make a third of that salary but living rich in their tiny rural town?

This is an interesting point, and one that is already problem - welfare payments and even money from full time jobs are increasingly not enough to live reasonably in areas with high cost of living. So, I would say it is a different problem that needs to be solved separately, as it is not what a universal income was designed to address. If you attack it on that point, it would be like asking why libraries aren't solving homelessness.

You think it's okay for the government to just steal money from people until everyone has the exact same amount of money?

We're not talking about redistributing wealth to the point that everyone has the same amount of money. We're talking about redistributing wealth through taxation used to fund a universal basic income. Which isn't that different, in principle, from the present system of taxation.

This is, honestly, such a completely absurd strawman, and has so little relevance to anything else we've been discussing, that it's really hard to take any of it in good faith.

"Don't expect anyone to... [do unpleasant work], do jobs that require significant training time and expense, or anything with long hours." But... how do we get people to do those jobs now, if everyone could just work in an 'easy' job instead? See the points in other comments about demand and supply in the labour market.

(especially considering you obviously would have to forcefully redistribute wealth and keep it in government hands, so the government could actually have the money to do this... because right now, it sure as fuck doesn't.) I'm not sure why you're completely ignoring my point about the savings governments would make not having to administrate welfare payments.

I mean, you can say it's silly that people are throwing this out without giving it serious thought You're not the one actually considering or arguing against the points that are being raised by other people, e.g. you're not actually giving this serious thought. You're just having a knee-jerk ideological reaction to a suggestion that goes against how you think society should function.

Also, on that point, people around the world are giving it serious thoughts. Experts who understand economics and social dynamics are conducting basic income trials to see whether it would be a viable system. Actual economists think it could be a good idea. Maybe it is. Maybe it isn't. But there are a lot of potential benefits to it, so why on earth should it not be trialled and taken seriously?

If people could get by working a part-time job instead of a full-time one, then you would be able to employ twice as many people for the same cost, so all of those people who want to work but currently can't find a job would be able to.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only