The lowest income people spend the largest proportion of their income. If you boost their spending potential, then they will pump that money straight back into the economy, unlikely the rich who are much more likely to hoard it. I have no idea why you'd find this perfectly simple and frankly obvious statement laughable.
Universal Basic Income
- Thread starter esmufc07
- Start date
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
The lowest income people spend the largest proportion of their income. If you boost their spending potential, then they will pump that money straight back into the economy, unlikely the rich who are much more likely to hoard it. I have no idea why you'd find this perfectly simple and frankly obvious statement laughable.
botond
Full Member
- Joined
- Jan 29, 2007
- Messages
- 6,265
strong against.
Don't they spend the largest proportion of their income because their bills take up most of their income meaning they automatically spend most of it?The lowest income people spend the largest proportion of their income. If you boost their spending potential, then they will pump that money straight back into the economy, unlikely the rich who are much more likely to hoard it. I have no idea why you'd find this perfectly simple and frankly obvious statement laughable.
I mean, I'm quite sure I spend a larger proportion off my income than Messi and Ronaldo, yet I think they pump a lot more money in to the economy than I do.
The lowest income people spend the largest proportion of their income. If you boost their spending potential, then they will pump that money straight back into the economy, unlikely the rich who are much more likely to hoard it. I have no idea why you'd find this perfectly simple and frankly obvious statement laughable.
Possibly because it sounds like the Republican trickle down model, except in reverse. It presumes participants will spend their divididend with no evidence that they actually will.
What's to say they won't simply spend the money on slightly more expensive rent (good only for low income slumlords), or maybe even save a bit.
Possibly because it sounds like the Republican trickle down model, except in reverse. It presumes participants will spend their divididend with no evidence that they actually will.
What's to say they won't simply spend the money on slightly more expensive rent, or maybe even save a bit.
Don't they spend the largest proportion of their income because their bills take up most of their income meaning they automatically spend most of it?
I mean, I'm quite sure I spend a larger proportion off my income than Messi and Ronaldo, yet I think they pump a lot more money in to the economy than I do.
It's what studies of spending show. If you're poor and have very little disposible income, then when you gain money you tend to spend it. The logical thing to do would be to save, but its just not what the vast majority of people actually do in practice.
It's what studies of spending show. If you're poor and have very little disposible income, then when you gain money you tend to spend it. The logical thing to do would be to save, but its just not what the vast majority of people actually do in practice.
UBI isn't however being promoted as only for the poor. Its being promoted as Universal - for everyone. Why should society pay everyone to spend society's money in order to stimulate the economy ?
Last edited:
Don't they spend the largest proportion of their income because their bills take up most of their income meaning they automatically spend most of it?
But if you have more money on a structural basis you don't classify as poor anymore. Would this in turn change your spending pattern?It's what studies of spending show. If you're poor and have very little disposible income, then when you gain money you tend to spend it. The logical thing to do would be to save, but its just not what the vast majority of people actually do in practice.
UBI isn't however being promoted as only for the poor. Its being promoted as Universal - for everyone. Why should society pay everyone to spend society's money in order to stimulate the economy ?
That's a very different question. I'm not the resident UBI defender.
But if you have more money on a structural basis you don't classify as poor anymore. Would this in turn change your spending pattern?
I assume there's a level where it starts to flatten out, although I don't know what that level is. You'd still expect an explosion in spending though, if people suddenly had tons of extra cash.
Edgar Allan Pillow
Ero-Sennin
I'd expect a massive growth in people earning money via part time or self employed mini-jobs, which could build up on top of UBI to compensate somewhat for the lack of full time employment opportunities.
As for companies failing to flourish, if they're benefiting from replacing employment costs with automation, then either they gain a new tax burden or else they end up with a massive free cost saving which the state ends up carrying through either UBI or welfare payments. It doesn't seem unreasonable to push a lot of those costs back where they came from.
Very optimistic outlook. I'm sceptical.
Stimulating economy when unemployment is on the rise is impossible imo. UBI can help soften the blow for those without basics, but as a economic stimulation tool...I don't buy it.
Do you have any links/sources to support this outlook?
That's a very different question. I'm not the resident UBI defender.
As stated earlier, if its implemented strictly for the poor, disabled, retirees et al then it becomes much more realistic imo, as these are the groups who may actually need it to stabilize their lives.
PedroMendez
Acolyte
Its nonsense to assume, that stimulating demand above a normal level is leading to long-term growth of wealth. Stimulating demand makes sense in situations of crisis/shocks and maybe in economic downturns/recession. Not as a permanent policy tool.
All this talk about mysterious gigantic multiplier effects is just a convenient way to avoid opposition to spending (just like its a convenient way to avoid opposition to tax cuts). Nobody could possibly be against policies that make everybody better off without imposing any costs.
There are good arguments for and against higher transfer payments (and taxes) without coming up with nonsense like this.
All this talk about mysterious gigantic multiplier effects is just a convenient way to avoid opposition to spending (just like its a convenient way to avoid opposition to tax cuts). Nobody could possibly be against policies that make everybody better off without imposing any costs.
There are good arguments for and against higher transfer payments (and taxes) without coming up with nonsense like this.
Its nonsense to assume, that stimulating demand above a normal level is leading to long-term growth of wealth. Stimulating demand makes sense in situations of crisis/shocks and maybe in economic downturns/recession. Not as a permanent policy tool.
All this talk about mysterious gigantic multiplier effects is just a convenient way to avoid opposition to spending (just like its a convenient way to avoid opposition to tax cuts). Nobody could possibly be against policies that make everybody better off without imposing any costs.
There are good arguments for and against higher transfer payments (and taxes) without coming up with nonsense like this.
It's not being put forward as some magic pill to boost the economy, its a potential solution to the likely upcoming massive loss of jobs. No-one is trying to claim it doesn't also come with big drawbacks, but doing nothing comes with much bigger ones. That doesn't mean its the best possible solution of course, just a possible one.
It's not being put forward as some magic pill to boost the economy, its a potential solution to the likely upcoming massive loss of jobs. No-one is trying to claim it doesn't also come with big drawbacks, but doing nothing comes with much bigger ones. That doesn't mean its the best possible solution of course, just a possible one.
Doing nothing and alienating the masses of unemployed people as a drain on the state etc. sounds like a great option.
Automation is going to take an awful lot of jobs within the next 20 years. Doing nothing will end up very distructive for societies.
Man of Leisure
Threatened by women who like sex.
Seems like a crazy idea. How would encouraging people not to work be a good thing?
Seems like a crazy idea. How would encouraging people not to work be a good thing?
Its hard to say whether it would encourage people to work more or less. For example, if people get a set amount that isn't enough to live on then they may be encouraged to work to increase their income into something more livable.
Seems like a crazy idea. How would encouraging people not to work be a good thing?
Most people want to work. A UBI simply gives them more freedom to choose and pursue work they will enjoy, instead of a low paid, shit job.
It will also put the onus back on the employer to make their work more attractive, as people won't be forced into taking anything they can get.
Man of Leisure
Threatened by women who like sex.
Not sure about the bolded part. On average, I’d wager most people would rather not work, but only do so out of necessity. I know that’s the case for my lazy, procrastinating self.Most people want to work. A UBI simply gives them more freedom to choose and pursue work they will enjoy, instead of a low paid, shit job.
It will also put the onus back on the employer to make their work more attractive, as people won't be forced into taking anything they can get.
Also, why is the onus on the employer to make certain jobs more attractive? The employment force needs all kinds of people. It’s a given that some jobs will be viewed more favorably than others, doesn’t mean those jobs viewed less favorably aren’t necessary. Judge Smails put it best “the world needs ditch diggers too.”
FlawlessThaw
most 'know it all' poster
- Joined
- Oct 26, 2005
- Messages
- 29,688
Also, why is the onus on the employer to make certain jobs more attractive? The employment force needs all kinds of people. It’s a given that some jobs will be viewed more favorably than others, doesn’t mean those jobs viewed less favorably aren’t necessary. Judge Smails put it best “the world needs ditch diggers too.”
Why? If they can be automated, then you don't need it. That's when I see UBI is necessary when automation wipes out all sorts of jobs.
botond
Full Member
- Joined
- Jan 29, 2007
- Messages
- 6,265
how do you deal with overpopulation ? pollution and climate change and mass migration after ?
Florida Man
Cartoon expert and crap superhero
Bigger questions for me is that when automation takes most of the jobs, who will be in control of the wealth and capital? How will one be able to attain wealth? And will a market economy even be feasible in the future? If so, will fiat currency be the way to go? I don't know the answers, but it seems obvious to me that if we want a market economy, people are going to need money to spend. Or we might have to give full on communism a try again. Who knows?
Bigger questions for me is that when automation takes most of the jobs, who will be in control of the wealth and capital? How will one be able to attain wealth? And will a market economy even be feasible in the future? If so, will fiat currency be the way to go? I don't know the answers, but it seems obvious to me that if we want a market economy, people are going to need money to spend. Or we might have to give full on communism a try again. Who knows?
That's what UBI in part, seeks to remedy. Since normally, most of the capital would coagulate towards the top, UBI would redistribute it to offset various things like automation, poverty, etc.
Bigger questions for me is that when automation takes most of the jobs, who will be in control of the wealth and capital? How will one be able to attain wealth? And will a market economy even be feasible in the future? If so, will fiat currency be the way to go? I don't know the answers, but it seems obvious to me that if we want a market economy, people are going to need money to spend. Or we might have to give full on communism a try again. Who knows?
I dont know tbh. Those who have capital would get more capital i guess. I suspect that getting in at the ground floor just wont really be feasible in the future - you'll be competing against something that works 24/7, doing the work of dozens of humans that doesn't get tired or need a break or make mistakes. You'd assume the cost to entry will be really damn high. Like how competitive would a 5 year old AI be if they continue improving at a similar rate to computers? How feasible will it be to build up some capital on your own when the only game in town is being a waiter or a barman or a nurse?
How well paid will they be when you've got like 1 in 2 people unemployed?
I think the fear of automation idea is also a bit overexagerated. Its true that manufacturing will gradually dissipate and get replaced by some degree of automation, but its also true that people are both gradually dying off over time and getting replaced by younger, more tech savvy people who can actually do things in the current and future economy. UBI could therefore be used more for people in need and not for every single person.
MTF
Full Member
I think the fear of automation idea is also a bit overexagerated. Its true that manufacturing will gradually dissipate and get replaced by some degree of automation, but its also true that people are both gradually dying off over time and getting replaced by younger, more tech savvy people who can actually do things in the current and future economy. UBI could therefore be used more for people in need and not for every single person.
I think its exaggerated because we've progressively reduced the share of manual labor in society for thousands of years, the population has grown more than tenfold and yet the large majority of working-age people are employed in one activity or another. If anything, this basic analysis makes me more worried about our use of resources, because our level of production has always kept up with the available capital x available manpower equation (capital here is productive devices/structures, not money).
Not to dismiss the notion because I understand where the intuitive concern is coming from. Just that its not the first time we've had it.
11101
Full Member
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2014
- Messages
- 21,819
First results are coming out now. Colour me surprised:
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-47169549
Giving jobless people in Finland a basic income for two years did not lead them to find work, researchers said.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-47169549
It's what studies of spending show. If you're poor and have very little disposible income, then when you gain money you tend to spend it. The logical thing to do would be to save, but its just not what the vast majority of people actually do in practice.
Don't know why this is even debatable as we have decades or more of very consistent evidence?
First results are coming out now. Colour me surprised:
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-47169549
It wasn't basic income as it was employment and means tested. And the same structural unemployment issues will exist but we will be able to stop spending such a huge amount stigmatising and victimising the unemployed. And we are going to have to as many jobs are going to disappear or significantly reduce in number.
I think the fear of automation idea is also a bit overexagerated. Its true that manufacturing will gradually dissipate and get replaced by some degree of automation, but its also true that people are both gradually dying off over time and getting replaced by younger, more tech savvy people who can actually do things in the current and future economy. UBI could therefore be used more for people in need and not for every single person.
I'd say the opposite. A large proportion of jobs will be replacable or partially replacable.
afrocentricity
Part of first caf team to complete Destiny raid
- Joined
- May 12, 2005
- Messages
- 27,813
Whoosh!First results are coming out now. Colour me surprised:
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-47169549
Silva
Full Member
so job finding stayed the same but people were happier, a modern day tragedy
jeff_goldblum
Full Member
- Joined
- Dec 6, 2011
- Messages
- 3,917
The whole potential of the idea falls apart if it's not universal. If you only give it to jobless people how is it any different from employment benefit, which I believe is a good thing, but ultimately a sticking plaster on a larger problem.
The real impact of UBI would be to change
society enormously. It would transform the labour market. People wouldn't have to work long hours to make ends meet. A lot of people would work part-time, meaning there'd be way more jobs kicking about. People wouldn't be forced to work a shit job because there was no other option, so employers would be incentivised to pay better and provide better conditions and benefits.
The knock-on effects of being able to live relatively comfortably on part-time hours would be huge.There would have hundreds of thousands fewer latchkey kids, life would be easier for single parents, carers, mature students. It would be a more productive and healthy society all round.
The real impact of UBI would be to change
society enormously. It would transform the labour market. People wouldn't have to work long hours to make ends meet. A lot of people would work part-time, meaning there'd be way more jobs kicking about. People wouldn't be forced to work a shit job because there was no other option, so employers would be incentivised to pay better and provide better conditions and benefits.
The knock-on effects of being able to live relatively comfortably on part-time hours would be huge.There would have hundreds of thousands fewer latchkey kids, life would be easier for single parents, carers, mature students. It would be a more productive and healthy society all round.
Balljy
Full Member
- Joined
- Jan 31, 2016
- Messages
- 3,659
I think the fear of automation idea is also a bit overexagerated. Its true that manufacturing will gradually dissipate and get replaced by some degree of automation
I think that's incredibly optimistic to say automation is over-exaggerated. We are barely 70 years into even inventing the word and AI will massively improve over the next few decades. Manual labour being machine focused is almost a given.
There will obviously be a proportion of skilled work which will not be viable for automation in services, but tax and social services will need to take into account automation increasing.
Last edited:
Mockney
Not the only poster to be named Poster of the Year
First results are coming out now. Colour me surprised:
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-47169549
I’m not sure what you really expected. A small experiment of 2,000 wasn’t going to radically open up the job market or anything. In fact you could equally look at it from the POV that as they did no worse than the control sample (with just as many finding employment) it proved that the concept posed little threat of upheaval, nor significantly discouraged motivation in the way it’s detractors said it would. And even that it’s tangible increase in well being could easily be seen as a net positive...
Now, I’m on the fence with UBI, but that proves next to nothing as a detraction. If anything it’s an (admittedly small) encouragement.
acnumber9
Full Member
- Joined
- Jun 21, 2006
- Messages
- 22,564
Surely if everybody has more money the cost of living would just increase and negate any extra income. Are landlords, supermarkets etc not going to see this extra money sloshing around as a way to increase their profits?
Silva
Full Member
The cost of living is going up without people having more money.Surely if everybody has more money the cost of living would just increase and negate any extra income. Are landlords, supermarkets etc not going to see this extra money sloshing around as a way to increase their profits?
acnumber9
Full Member
- Joined
- Jun 21, 2006
- Messages
- 22,564
Thanks for stating the obvious.The cost of living is going up without people having more money.
Sweet Square
ˈkämyənəst
Yep pretty much. UBI is only going to be positive if there is big changes to how the state functions.Surely if everybody has more money the cost of living would just increase and negate any extra income. Are landlords, supermarkets etc not going to see this extra money sloshing around as a way to increase their profits?
Oo0AahCantona
Full Member
- Joined
- May 23, 2014
- Messages
- 5,397
I just want to discuss the framework of the conversation so far, in order to properly discuss UBI the discussion really has to be argued in good faith without wider political narratives taking focus, in that, whatever side of the political spectrum you reside on and whatever individual philosophical ideologies you hold, wont detract from the importance of the concept in relation to our current economic system and any realistic future projections of what our system may evolve into.
Firstly, the key and structurally most important argument for some form of UBI is the increasing prevelance of automation in the manufacturing industries as has been mentioned and its spread across most other industries and service sectors of the economy. This is happening now with our current technology levels, there are already job losses taking place and will continue to take place. you would be hard pressed to find a majority consensus that would state our rate of technological gain as a society is about to stall or regress.
The fact is we are in unparalleled territory with regards to automation technologies, and while it might still seem like science fiction, tangible progress on robotics and ai is not a lifetime away (not a general artificial intelligence) but things like self driving cars, replacements for manual labour etc which not in 10 years time, but 20/30/40 years Down the line our job market is going to look remarkably bleak from our current perspective. There will be increasingly less and less low skilled work and as a result drastically increased unemployment and a further increase in wealth inequality and poverty in our current societal structure.
Now the other side of the coin is positivity, we shouldn’t be holding low skilled jobs on a pedestal of the hard honest days work. Nobody should be working down coal mines or subjecting themselves to a lifetime of backbreaking labour, or working minimum wage at McDonald’s or stacking shelves in poor working conditions when the ability and infrastructure is there for people to pursue work and satisfaction in the things they actually enjoy. whilst there is absolutely nothing wrong with the pursuit of these jobs and many people will gain a degree Of fulfilment from these careers and whilst it’s unrealistic to expect all these 45-50 year old low skilled workers to retrain as coders or programmers or whatever jobs are needed in the new economy, the fact remains that when machines are taking these jobs it’s an opportunity for people to start living lives they want to live, instead of working as a means to an end.
So the question is, when labour is removed from the capital equation, from an economic standpoint what do we do. Because it’s obvious that what’s the good of having drastically cheaper goods and services when the consumer has no money to buy anything when they have no income as they are out of work. So already your looking at taxation sweeping up the profit surplus gains and being redistributed anyway through a higher form of business tax.
Or the state then has to create jobs on a national scale to force people into productive employment in order for the economy to function and people not to be totally aimless. Or the simpler solution is a form of UBI, we can argue the semantics, we can argue when it has to happen, we can argue how to rectify any societal negatives that may arise whatever they may be, but we need to have this conversation.
This is before even considering any other potential positives such as increased population happiness, reduced anxiety from less hours worked, more people being able to switch to creative fields, arts culture, self employment, retraining and education.
Firstly, the key and structurally most important argument for some form of UBI is the increasing prevelance of automation in the manufacturing industries as has been mentioned and its spread across most other industries and service sectors of the economy. This is happening now with our current technology levels, there are already job losses taking place and will continue to take place. you would be hard pressed to find a majority consensus that would state our rate of technological gain as a society is about to stall or regress.
The fact is we are in unparalleled territory with regards to automation technologies, and while it might still seem like science fiction, tangible progress on robotics and ai is not a lifetime away (not a general artificial intelligence) but things like self driving cars, replacements for manual labour etc which not in 10 years time, but 20/30/40 years Down the line our job market is going to look remarkably bleak from our current perspective. There will be increasingly less and less low skilled work and as a result drastically increased unemployment and a further increase in wealth inequality and poverty in our current societal structure.
Now the other side of the coin is positivity, we shouldn’t be holding low skilled jobs on a pedestal of the hard honest days work. Nobody should be working down coal mines or subjecting themselves to a lifetime of backbreaking labour, or working minimum wage at McDonald’s or stacking shelves in poor working conditions when the ability and infrastructure is there for people to pursue work and satisfaction in the things they actually enjoy. whilst there is absolutely nothing wrong with the pursuit of these jobs and many people will gain a degree Of fulfilment from these careers and whilst it’s unrealistic to expect all these 45-50 year old low skilled workers to retrain as coders or programmers or whatever jobs are needed in the new economy, the fact remains that when machines are taking these jobs it’s an opportunity for people to start living lives they want to live, instead of working as a means to an end.
So the question is, when labour is removed from the capital equation, from an economic standpoint what do we do. Because it’s obvious that what’s the good of having drastically cheaper goods and services when the consumer has no money to buy anything when they have no income as they are out of work. So already your looking at taxation sweeping up the profit surplus gains and being redistributed anyway through a higher form of business tax.
Or the state then has to create jobs on a national scale to force people into productive employment in order for the economy to function and people not to be totally aimless. Or the simpler solution is a form of UBI, we can argue the semantics, we can argue when it has to happen, we can argue how to rectify any societal negatives that may arise whatever they may be, but we need to have this conversation.
This is before even considering any other potential positives such as increased population happiness, reduced anxiety from less hours worked, more people being able to switch to creative fields, arts culture, self employment, retraining and education.
Don't Kill Bill
Full Member
- Joined
- May 14, 2006
- Messages
- 5,790
I’m not sure what you really expected. A small experiment of 2,000 wasn’t going to radically open up the job market or anything. In fact you could equally look at it from the POV that as they did no worse than the control sample (with just as many finding employment) it proved that the concept posed little threat of upheaval, nor significantly discouraged motivation in the way it’s detractors said it would. And even that it’s tangible increase in well being could easily be seen as a net positive...
Now, I’m on the fence with UBI, but that proves next to nothing as a detraction. If anything it’s an (admittedly small) encouragement.
I'd agree with you unless it costs more money. If it does then the measurement would have to be against other spending initiatives which could use the extra money more constructively.
Share: