Redpill me /biz/. If the globalist shills want universal basic income then it must be bad. So why is it bad?
My guess is that the circulation of money / economic growth depends on banks making loans to worthwhile businesses, many of them small ones. Now that technology stagnates (or businesses stagnate for whatever reason), less loans are made, and there is less growth and consumption, which is unacceptable to megacrops and government bureaucrats who want GDP growth at all costs. So now the globalists just want to redistribute money to every citizen, 90 % of them dumb plebs, so more money can be spent on Coca Cola, iPads, Big Macs, and all that dumb shit that doesn't really matter (compared to a loan to some guy who wants to start a new business, which is actually worthwhile in the long run).
>Flood country with illegals
>Institute a basic income
>Liberals cheer it on
>Massively increased taxes
>Middle class completely erodes
>>1098667
I wanted to keep mass migration as something to be disregarded in this discussion but I agree
>>1098669
Well that is how it's going to happen.
Good luck doing it in the US.
You'll never be able to roll back enough of the other welfare programs to make it feasible.
A large number of boomers and professional welfare recipients won't take kindly to having their welfare lowered to the BI levels.
>>1098656
Only due to the rise of technological innovation and globalization. Less people will be working in advanced nations in the next 50 yrs.
If someone can create a 10-12 hour robot that can do manual labor it is f-ing over for many folks.
I do not believe we will get living wages until something drastic comes along.
>>1098656
>globalist shills
What?
>>1098656
Welfare: Make as much money as min. wage workers or more. Encourages people not to work. They will often resort to illegal activities for extra income.
Basic income: benefits the productive members of society as much as the leeches. Does not de-incentivize work whatsoever.
If your country has welfare there is literally no argument to be made not to replace it with basic income.
>>1098656
This is the stupidest post I've seen here, I hope this is bait.
>>1098656
The unknown is effect on inflation , we know price of goods wont be effected because of income elasticity of demand (we're just rerouting existing money not making new money) but it firther divests money from labor so borrowing / lending risk becomes fuzzy so it might drive inflation.
So far overall the experiments have shown lots of positive benefits but this unanswerd questions pretty hige and all the experiments have been small scale.
>>1098656
Social media presence will become the new currency for people who don't have the expertise to engage in a technical economy.
>>1098656
UBI is an overhyped meme. A much more useful public policy for fairly ensuring income is a job guarantee at fixed minimum wage and unlimited hours. Most workers would continue to work in the private sector as they do but those who would be unemployed can temporarily (or permanently if they like) work in the JG scheme.
Inflation is thus controlled by an employed buffer stock instead of an unemployed buffer stock. Significantly better than the system we use today.
UBI can be introduced on top of that but I would fear that it's unnecessary and brings the risk of inflation and incentive not to work.
>>1098656
Its only bad while using fiat currency, that makes it unsustainable, it would work if applied in a steady state economy with a non debt-based currency.
>>1100000
What a fucking waste of digits. What happens when the useless minumum wage hole digger/fillers unionize and demand higher wages?
>>1100231
>>1098699
Can someone please explain the fundamental difference between welfare and basic income??
>>1100231
What happens when the useless zero wage welfare consumers organize and demand bigger welfare payments? They're already in the public sector.
If the system is abused then it's simple, you fire them just like any other job.
Also it's not hole digging and filling. It's real, useful work. Put the strawman away.
>>1100326
I'm not in favor of UBI but this is how I understand it.
Welfare: means tested, so only the poor get it
UBI: everyone gets it
>>1098699
Except that basic income will cost the state much more, even if you replace all welfare, state pensions and associated administration costs with BI. Which means increased taxes or public debt (most likely both) to cover those costs.
>>1100337
>if the system is abused, then it's simple you fire them
Im not sure you are familiar with the U.S government.
>>1100337
>>1100339
Not being cheeky, honest question but did you totally think this through? I mean, I agree with you in theory but seems like there's some flaws in what you're saying, like
>everyone gets it not just the poor
wouldn't the poor be the only ones utilizing UBI by default?
also
>real, useful work
Like what? Factory work and manufacturing are the only things that come to mind but I'm not sure what the nuances are in terms of those industries being attempted outside of the free market
>>1100380
The poor might be the only ones who spend it all, since the rest would probably just add it to a savings account and spend their regular income, but all would use it, just some more than others.
>>1100410
So UBI is everybody getting a certain amount of money regardless as to whether they need it or not?
>>1100380
>wouldn't the poor be the only ones utilizing UBI by default?
Why would anyone not take free money?
>Like what? Factory work and manufacturing are the only things that come to mind but I'm not sure what the nuances are in terms of those industries being attempted outside of the free market
You're thinking in the wrong area. The idea is to have local government administer the scheme so that local community needs are met. Example: maintenance of public transport infrastructure.
There's a whole body of work on how this idea could be implemented. If you call your local council (or whatever authority it is in your country and region) and survey them on what kind of unmet needs they have, you get a list as long as your arm.
>>1100415
Yes, it differs from welfare in that there's no requirement to get it, its not like you have to be poor or unemployed to get it, but it doesn't have to be enough to survive.
>>1100420
So who pays them? If local governments have things that need to get done, but no budget to do it, I dont see how this idea is helpful. It's not like minimum wage jobs arent garunteed anyways. Do you really want someone too lazy or dumb to work at McDonalds working for the city?
What you are describing exists already. It's called the military
>>1100415
yes. it helps the poor just as welfare does now, but instead of providing incentive not to work (or else their juicy welfare will be lost) it gives everyone incentive to work.
costs are saved on useless bureaucracy because you just cut everyone a check instead of analyzing and micromanaging who gets what in tens of millions of people. also eliminates gaming the system for the most part.
stimulates the economy because people have money to spend some extra money to spend on business ventures, basically QE for the people instead of central banks.
>>1100431
>So who pays them? If local governments have things that need to get done, but no budget to do it, I dont see how this idea is helpful.
Federal government. Or if implemented in the eurozone, the ECB would have to fund it.
>It's not like minimum wage jobs arent garunteed anyways.
No, that's exactly what it's like. Unless you're saying unemployment doesn't exist?
>Do you really want someone too lazy or dumb to work at McDonalds working for the city?
That's not how it works. If McDonalds is not hiring then you can go work in the JG scheme instead. So, why would you choose McDonalds over JG? Because JG only pays a low fixed wage.
McDonalds would have to offer you at least reasonable pay & conditions if they want your work. This is already true with the existing minimum wage arrangements.
If someone is, as you say, "too lazy or dumb" for McDonalds then they will have the choice of working in the JG and getting an income or not.
>What you are describing exists already. It's called the military
The military may be as close to it as we have right now, granted, but what I'm describing can be a temporary job for the out-of-work, or supplementary to their main job, or whatever people want it to be. The military doesn't solve unemployment and underemployment like a federal job guarantee would.
>>1100439
>basically QE for the people instead of central banks
You really shouldn't use this rhetoric. It betrays an ignorance as to what QE really is. There's nothing wrong with what people call "People's QE" except that the name is misleading - it has nothing whatsoever to do with QE.
You might prefer to call it overt monetary financing or deficits without debt issuance. Something that reflects how it actually works.
>>1100445
>unemployment doesnt exist
It literally doesnt. Anyone who wants a minimum wage job can get one.
>>1100487
The principle behind it is that so much money is spent in social services actually determining how much dole-bludgers get and all the different pensions and allowances, etcetera.
UBI would essentially level that by removing a lot of government bodies responsible for doling out welfare and have a UBI instead with that money. Of course this makes the country more attractive to immigrants though which is a huge problem, especially in EU.
Here in Australia there has been talk about it and I would definitely not be averse to it (I do work full time). We're transitioning away from the traditional hire-hirer economy in that now people have much more opportunity to work for themselves, pursue business ventures previously impossible, etcetera. I think a UBI would complement that and generally speaking allow people to do what they enjoy a little more, overall creating a happier society which would strengthen economically for that fact.
Of course there are a ton of roadblocks to actually achieving that and if immigrants can take advantage of it everyone is fucked.
>>1100487
Well if that's true then implementing this scheme would demonstrate it (nobody would sign up, because there are no unemployed) and you could then justify cutting unemployment benefits and possibly other safety nets.
So even if your ideological position is justified, which I don't believe it is, this system would still be a good idea if for no reason other than to prove you right.
>>1100504
>overall creating a happier society which would strengthen economically for that fact.
What makes you think a happier populace is better for the economy? Look at Japan. The salary men are undoubtedly much more miserable than the herbivores but their misery and labor was much better for their economy.
>Dilution
>>1100504
Tell me what you think of this: >>1100000
A research centre in Newcastle Australia has developed a detailed proposal for how this kind of scheme could be implemented by the Australian government. It was submitted to the government a few years ago and basically dismissed on ideological grounds. Without getting into the politics of it, I think it's objectively a good idea, and without the undermining inflation risks of a UBI.
>>1100506
Less resources spent in areas like crime etc.
>>1100516
I'm not an economist but I will say there are some people who flat out refuse to work, at least in Aus. Introducing guaranteed work here but removing welfare seems like it would be detrimental to that class of people and in turn drag down the country in terms of averages.
It is also difficult to guarantee unskilled jobs in a time of increasing automation. I think the only way that would work (in Aus) is if the minimum wage was significantly lower.
>>1100542
Removing welfare is optional. You could leave everything in place and add the job guarantee and see what happens.
As long as there are unmet public needs there is potential for job creation. If all such jobs are soon to be lost to automation (which is to say, improved productivity) then that's even better in my opinion, and we can look at other options to use unemployed labour. I think it's a little premature and wishful thinking.
The level of the wage is something that can be argued based on your politics and, by the way, it would replace the existing enforced minimum wage. I consider this scheme among other things an objectively better alternative to the minimum wage; the real minimum wage is no longer zero, and the workforce remains employable, and a huge (yuuuuge) amount of real output is retained rather than wasted as unemployment.
>>1098699
>Basic income: benefits the productive members of society as much as the leeches. Does not de-incentivize work whatsoever.
That income has to come from somewhere. If your economy consisted of just two people who are each guaranteed $100 in basic income then you need to collect $200 in taxes from somewhere. If person A is just getting a flat $100 then person B must be getting $100 and then paying a $200 tax bill. If that doesn't kill one's incentive to work I don't know what will.
>>1100715
It's two people having a conversation about the thread topic you idiot
>>1100722
>4 replies in a row by the same poster 5-20 mins apart
>2 people are having a conversation
>>1100745
It's not our fault you can't read IDs. Stop embarrassing yourself.
>>1100718
Yeah, I'm not understanding this either. Are we gonna nationalize the oil/gas fields to pay for it? You can't pay everyone money without it coming from somewhere. UBI faggots explain pls
>>1100487
I tried half a dozen times in the past few months. If I tell them what I've been doing with myself (prior jobs, education, etc.) they tell me I'm overqualified. If I leave that info out, they think I've just been sitting in my parent's basement for the past 20+ years. (I'm in my mid-30's.) If I lie about my jobs, they'll find out easily if they try to contact anyone.
>>1100750
>>1100577
To answer your question I'd say there are a lot more variables to what you propose, and potentially a very big outlay to enact and find/create jobs specifically for the scheme. I do think it's ideal to have everyone working in some capacity but the nature of privileged societies that currently have welfare is prohibitive to its implementation. I don't think it would pass, and if it would it would eat up MORE taxpayer money until it was fully fledged which could take over a decade knowing the Aus government
>>1100754
**to reply to your post
>>1100753
>tried 6 times in a few months
>applied once every few weeks
>gave up
Wow I wonder why you're unemployed
>>1100758
>he's willing to work but didn't demonstrate it often enough according to my judgement therefore he deserves to be unemployed
>>1100768
No, demonstrating a willingness to work once every few weeks is not often enough "according to my judgement." Apparently according to Taco Bell's judgement, as well
like people who want 90% tax they never consider the behavioral changes that this would have
>>1098656
This is the rare globalist policy that's not actually bad. It's a mitigation effort to prevent things going completely south when automation destroys 80% of all jobs.
That basic income will be keeping a lot of people from stealing bread.
Im a landlord.
Universal income will mean I can ramp up my rents by whatever that universal income amount is.
>>1101103
This. Just like any access to free money, it will increase the costs of living.
>>1101108
Yup.
Its simply government enforced inflation, used to devalue government debt
>people support Trump non-ironically
>they think they aren't as fucked as the next guy long term no matter who gets elected president
>>1101114
This Mickey Mouse understanding of inflation needs to leave 4chan forever
>>1101133
Fine, I might not be as economically literate as you are. You win.
I do, however, have enough rental properties that I make the equivalent of a full time wage on them.
If basic income comes in then I will increase the rent. I am sure that supermarkets etc will increase their prices as well.
That is my opinion.
I guarantee it would be more efficient to let people have their first $30k of income tax free
>>1101178
This is the best thing said in the entire thread.
>>1101103
I'd fuck off immediately after you announced your increase in rent if I was your tenant.
And my guess is that I wouldn't be the only one.
>>1101178
This is pretty much what Trump wants to do.
>>1101476
all the other landlords expenses would rise and would do it too. where would you go.
You must understand that gov't does not create wealth or value. It is an inefficient flow through entity.
>>1101493
> all the other landlords expenses would rise and would do it too.
No they wouldn't, if they increased prises it would be due to them being greedy jews, not due to an increase in costs.
> where would you go.
Literally anywhere I'm not being jewed out of my new income.
> You must understand that gov't does not create wealth or value. It is an inefficient flow through entity.
It wouldn't be creating it, just redistributing it.
Fucking landlords thinking they're macro economists.
>print five trillion dollars to boost stock market prices
>100% okay!
>give failing corporations free handouts because they were too incompetent to run their own business
>nothing wrong!
>let banks invent fictitious money for themselves through the fractional reserve system
>that's how the system is supposed to work!
>give a person in poverty a few thousand dollars so they can eat and eventually escape their situation
>HOLY SHIT YOU ARE SO GREEDY HOW COULD YOU DO THIS YOU GREEDY WASTE OF HUMAN SKIN OH MY GOD YOU ARE SO ENTITLED AND UNPRODUCTIVE YOU NEED TO GO TO PRISON AND DIE
>>1101700
Can you cite anyone actually arguing all those things? Because I'm opposed to all of them.
>>1101724
How about 95% of /biz/ for starters? Out of all those issues, the only thing people here post about is greedy poor people. If they truly cared about those handouts to the rich as much as they care about giving money to poor people, then we would see equally many threads about it.
God forbid someone suggests taking back the trillions of our dollars that we've given to banks and corporations over the last decade. That would cause a randian shitfest if it were posted on this board.
>>1101700
>>1101761
>tfw /biz/ gets completely BTFO
Bread and circus
It's a backdoor subsidy like food stamps are for agribusiness
>>1101700
No one is saying these things. Go away Bernie
Because a UBI is based upon massive central planning at every level of the market you will get false signals like never before and the cycle of boom-bust will become even more severe
It will become impossible to know the true value of something including your own currency and when that happens you can be guaranteed that no one will take risks and there will be stagnation across the marketplace ranging from the sole-proprietor for whom he is the only employee all the way up to multinational conglomerates
Good way to destroy a civilization
>>1101700
nobody is going to 'escape' shit
even if you gave each person $100,000 they are going to waste it. notice any lotto winners establishing themselves and their family names? fuck no. they buy atvs and boats and houses for their cousins.
if you make $30k per year or $200k per year, you're still in debt, just for things of different amounts. a mansion mortgage vs an apartment, a mercedes loan vs a used hyundai loan, etc
see, the thing everyone is ignoring that people don't even WANT to escape. they just want the ability to buy nice things. what happens during every protest/riot? they go around and loot jordans. because that's what they want. nobody wants freedom from capitalism, they simply want their piece of the pie
give a man any amount of money and he will stay a consumerist wage slave
nobody is saying "END CAPITALISM!" they are saying "I WANT TO BE ONE OF THE WINNERS TOO!"
they don't want to live in a world where you CAN'T win
>>1102230
The lotto winners that won the 1.5billion dollar powerball in my home town actually seem to be trying to establish their family name with their newfound 300 million bucks. They packed up and went where the land was cheaper out in the countryside.
>>1102237
if they were smart you would never know that they won the lottery
>>1102230
GOD DAMN THOSE POOR PEOPLE AJFJEJSJWJDIRHFJWJEIEKQMQJGIGJQOQOOIRIGJCNWJEJRJTJFNSJQOEBTJFJFJQOQJRJFJNBFJAOQOEHTJVNCBFHAIQOEJTJFNSKAKWJTHTJWOQOSKGJGJSOQOWIGJSJQQTOTJSNVKGLALORJWJW
Brb, giving more handouts to the wealthy.
>>1102239
It's public record in my state.
>>1102242
Go away Bernie. No one deserves handouts
>>1102242
it has nothing to do with my supposed 'hatred of poor people'
it has everything to do with reality
the average person does not want to overthrow the system, they want to win in the system. their biggest goal in life is to buy the nicest things they can afford. you give them money and their mindset doesn't suddenly change. they just buy bigger and better shit.
you have this idealistic notion they're going to buy a farm or a bakery or some shit. in reality, they're going to call up the dealership and say "MAMA HIT THE JACKPOT! get me in the nicest model i can afford!"
>>1102257
Pfft, six trillion dollars is small change as long as it's going into bankers' pockets :^)
BUT HOLY SHIT HOW DARE YOU ASK FOR A FEW THOUSAND!!!!
wagies on suicide watch
>>1102265
WhyObjectivismIsShitTXT.jpg
>>1102275
>I can't refute the point
>>1102322
>I post edgy quotes with pictures next to them on the internet
I tip my fedora to you m'sir!
>>1102242
Strawman.jpg
>>1102332
>m'sir
>>1100231
then they better vote people into office that share their view
>>1098656
>country implements UBI
>CEOs lower employee wages
>People who actually work receive no real benefit
>CEOs get more money due to cut wages
>>1103623
>CEOs lower employee wages
Employees go on strike/quit en mass (UBI now gives them the ability to afford to live without a job)
>People who actually work receive no real benefit
People who actually work get twice or so income as compared to those who just get UBI money
>CEOs get more money due to cut wages
CEOs end up with lowered salaries due to negotiations with employees who now have the power to bring the company to halt.
>>1104194
So your goal all along was just lower executive pay. Why didnt you just say that from the beginning?
If everyone gets 1500 a month than the price of everything will go up so the producers get a bigger share of the pie.
Rent will go up quite a bit. Groceries will go up quite a bit. The only thing that won't really go up will be consumer electronics. Phones tvs and stuff like that.
The only benefit is it will devalue govt debt.
Still waiting on UBI-fags to explain where all this money is going to come from. What will you do when the taxes collected don't add up to the amount of money everyone is guaranteed? If you just reduce the income then why even have the UBI to begin with as no one will be receiving a "living" wage? If you print the difference then why not just cut everyone a trillion dollar check?
>In the Carboniferous Epoch we were promised abundance for all,
>By robbing selected Peter to pay for collective Paul;
>But, though we had plenty of money, there was nothing our money could buy,
>And the Gods of the Copybook Headings said: "If you don't work you die."
True words, Rudyard Kipling. True words.
>>1105047
there are many problems with this. if we don't means test recipients, will we let them die in the street when they spend their month's income on stupid bullshit?
also, in every job i've worked, I've been paid because I add value. to a product, to a service, etc. so where is the value in handing cash to people? How do we slide the scale? How do we encourage participation in low wage work when being lazy pays nearly as much? What about regional differences in cost of living, etc.
Sounds like a gravy train for government spending and wealthy elite entrenchment though so I guess that's why it's still being discussed.
this is kinda like the free college thing. why should I--as someone who went into trades because I wasn't bankrolled--pay taxes to fund some kid's college education? It doesn't make sense. I am sick of watching my buying power decrease because risk and foolishness keeps getting socialized.
>>1105047
>Still waiting on UBI-fags to explain where all this money is going to come from.
UBI advocates often don't have the economic awareness and will explain it away with something like "paid for by cutting military" or "tax the rich at 90%" or whatever.
In truth it wouldn't depend on such measures because federal spending and taxation aren't related in the way everyone believes. We're told that the government takes money through tax, then spends it, and borrows if it needs to spend more. That's not accurate.
What actually happens is the government spends banking reserves into existence and taxes some back, leaving the deficit in the form of non-government saving, then sells bonds to replace those net saved reserves (or buys bonds back when it runs a surplus, which is less often).
So when you say:
>If you print the difference then why not just cut everyone a trillion dollar check?
The government ALWAYS "prints" the "difference" and lets that difference take the form of interest-bearing bonds as a voluntary policy decision. I don't know why you think this means the same thing as conducting some obviously inflationary fiscal policy like a trillion dollar payout.
If the government didn't issue debt then the deficit would just be represented by zero interest reserves instead of bonds at 2% or whatever.
Most people who understand the monetary system don't actually push for a UBI but prefer the policy approach I posted earlier in the thread, which is a job guarantee (buffer stock employment) scheme. This would not be inflationary because it automatically moderates demand - as private spending picks up, private employment grows and expenditure on the job guarantee scheme falls. UBI doesn't have this elegant price stabilising effect, because it pays out to everyone all the time, irrespective of the business cycle.
>>1102283
its 18k m8
>>1105047
>Still waiting on UBI-fags to explain where all this money is going to come from.
The whole point of technological advancement is to reduce the work burden, not to increase it. This basic misunderstanding is what drives you doofuses to ass-backwards conclusions whenever UBI is discussed.
In case you hadn't yet noticed, most low-skill jobs will be automated in the coming years. Conservative estimates put the numbers at 50% of jobs lost in 20 years time. Where will you shove all those people?
Instead of gasping "b-but muh service economy" (as if the demand for services would suddenly skyrocket to a degree where 80-90% of Americans could serve others as whores, bartenders and entertainers), UBI-fags realize that technological unemployment can be used to free the people from wage slavery.
To make it simple
Situation in the present
>joe and greg create something worth 200USD
>taxes eat away 80 dollars, joe and greg keep the rest
>noah, the cripple with depression, doesn't starve - thanks to welfare, funded by joe, greg and societal cohesion
Situation with UBI
>joe and greg are unemployed
>automated systems now create something worth 200USD
>joe, greg and noah can still lead decent lives without resorting to crime
>>1100504
I hear this meme that we spend loads of money on means testing, anyone care to prove this?
>>1104204
Not really, that's just one of the many secondary effects, my personal goal would be to allow artists to make art without having to worry about making enough money to survive, giving workers more bargaining chips is a nice plus but not the main reason.
>>1102265
Unlike autistic russians, some of us are interested in what the effects of a policy are rather than whether it's virtuous or not.
>>1103623
>CEOs lower employee wages
>People who actually work receive no real benefit
So they all get poached by a company which didn't lower wages, leaving the company that did this with only teenagers, the elderly, and the otherwise unemployable as workers.
If anything, it would probably raise wages, as the next marginal dollar is worth less the more money you have, so you'll need more money to convince people to work more hours. On the other hand it could lower wages in sectors with intangible benefits to workers like job satisfaction, prestige, etc as the dollar value of those will increase to workers.
>>1105151
Saying UBI is okay because the government already prints more money than it collects is like saying that eating a box of donuts every day is okay because you're already fat.
That the government spends more than it makes is already a problem. Having it spend even more because "fuck it" is ridiculous and absurd and people are right to laugh at you. UBI is a mathematically bankrupt idea that only sounds good to the sort of person who just got out of triple bypass surgery and decides to celebrate with a bacon cheeseburger.
>>1105469
You're only saying that because you assume deficits are bad. Deficits are the way it should be most of the time, or else by definition the private sector can't overall spend less than its income and will need to accumulate debt to maintain its spending levels.
>Public debt is bad but private debt is good!
I wish this meme would die. Public debt doesn't matter.
>>1106103
>I wish this meme would die
You're the only one perpetuating it. No one said anything about private debt being good. Liquidity is good, and to that end debt is useful, but spending for spendings sake does not wealth make.
>>1106113
>You're the only one perpetuating it. No one said anything about private debt being good.
No, it's exactly what he said when he claimed that deficits are bad (and therefore, presumably, surpluses are good). Surpluses erode private savings and drive up private debt.
>spending for spendings sake does not wealth make
You accuse me of putting words into people's mouths and then assume I want excessive spending. Clearly that's not what I'm saying. Capitalism runs on spending and private entities usually want to net save - so the government simply MUST spend more than it taxes most of the time to keep demand up.
Associating deficit (net) spending, even well below the output gap, with sickness or disrepair is just a tool pushed by ideologues and sheep.
