Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
UNC4ME -
I always wondered how I could be so stupid or foolish to be raised by a violent alcoholic stepfather and a codependent mother. I must have just been unlucky.
I knew of kids that were smart enough to choose sane, sober and wealthy parents that could support them in the most lavish life followed by a huge inheritance. They were far more lucky then they knew.
BTW - When most stuff is created by robotic slaves that work for a bit of electricity the wealth, as represented by the increase in order from raw material to product, is collected by the owners. IMHO these owners should be taxed to support the people displaced by the investment. Just because something creates wealth does not mean it is a good idea.
I am almost 30. If I did not have a job, I would not be able to participate in the American economic system. If I had no money, what options would I have? I can farm, but without money, I cannot purchase land to farm on. The federal government has land, but as a citizen, I have zero right or access to it.
Most Americans have little choice. Their lives are decided by the economic class they are born into. Most jobs do not pay enough for one to ascend the social ladder. We like to pretend that there are an abundance of opportunities, because it makes us feel good about our country. But our politicians chased those opportunities off long ago, and I doubt they will ever come back. Too many people willing to work for nothing around the world for your average American to compete.
UNC4ME -
I always wondered how I could be so stupid or foolish to be raised by a violent alcoholic stepfather and a codependent mother. I must have just been unlucky.
I knew of kids that were smart enough to choose sane, sober and wealthy parents that could support them in the most lavish life followed by a huge inheritance. They were far more lucky then they knew.
BTW - When most stuff is created by robotic slaves that work for a bit of electricity the wealth, as represented by the increase in order from raw material to product, is collected by the owners. IMHO these owners should be taxed to support the people displaced by the investment. Just because something creates wealth does not mean it is a good idea.
Do you suppose that those of us born to better parents than yours have been somehow insulated from working for a living? Sure, there are some trust fund babies out there, but they are the few and those of us who work for a living are the many. I see no purpose in whining that I fall into the latter group. I also don't have the athletic talent to earn millions in the NBA or NFL. Or the artistic talent to create paintings worth millions. Me complaining that those vagaries in talent are unfair would be equally pointless.
Why whine that some have it better than you do when, if you look around the world, it becomes apparent that many, many more have it a whole lot worse?
How come you ignored this part of my post? You claimed that the future value of basic income would be 28K in TODAY'S DOLLARS as your argument as to why businesses won't fail en mass when we reach almost total unemployment. I posted the below, which you edited out when responding.
"In 2016, poverty level for one person is $ 11,880. Your basic income of 8K puts them well below that. I can only speculate that in the distant future where we are all unemployed that 28K will also put those subsisting on basic income well below the poverty level. Tell me, how many people living on 8K a year spend money on anything other than the very, very basics and quite frankly probably can't even afford some of those? So, yes, LOTS of businesses will go out of business."
I stand by my premise. When only a few work and most subsist on basic income, businesses not engaged in selling basics will fail driving down the collected business taxes you claim will support basic income.
Scenario one: Basic income. Most people at poverty level. Businesses fail.
Scenario two: No basic income. Same UBI-dependent people at zero income. Businesses fail harder. Starving people destroy stuff, then die.
Why is this happening? Wealth has a strong tendency to concentrate, for obvious reasons. There's only one pie, and they're taking all the slices. Once they have the whole pie, they don't need customers. the whole world is begging at the dinner table, waiting for them to spend. That is the endgame to our current capitalist paradigm. This is how class warfare happens. It ceases to be about right or wrong, deserving or not. It becomes about the basics, the struggle for resources. The only question is, which direction do we want to move as a whole society? Before we even begin to answer that question, we need to stop acting like individuals in a vacuum. Call me communist.
What would be the most efficient means of distributing resources and wealth in a world without work/jobs? Or at least a world where there is not enough work for all?
It's getting to the point where many jobs are as simple as pushing a button. As technology progresses, tasks will be made easier, jobs may be consolidated and lost, and a growing share of the population will not be able to function in our economic system.
Realistically, work will continue to be relevent for a long time. Even if the system is not efficient, "work" gives purpose to millions, and keeps them busy and occupied. That way, the crooks in DC can continue to rob them blind.
Why would you think there would no longer be enough jobs and work? You're implying that manual labor is being replaced by technology for the sake of efficiency, and you'd be right. Is it efficiency drives technology, or technology drives efficiency? Either way, humans greatest asset is our intellect, no matter that you invent some high technology marvel, or simply find a better way of doing something. That's not necessarily dependent on education, it has to be a mindset for seeing opportunity and not waiting for a person or government to give you the tools or resources to survive. Otherwise we're no better off than cattle.
Couldn't one have said this back when we started automating agriculture?
Such a large percentage of the population involved in the very manual process of agriculture and along comes the cotton gin, reapers/threshers, the steam engine, combines, tractors, etc. where will all these people go that work the fields with all these inventions makes tasks easier and jobs get consolidated and lost?
Agriculture is just one example. In 1950 it took 1/3rd of all working people to feed the people in the country. Today it only takes 1.5% of the population to grow a tremendous increased amount of food.
If we had the same type of telephone systems as in 1950 today, there are not enough working women to staff the telephone operators that would be needed to keep telephones working the way they did then.
Back then they were worried as some people are today as they saw jobs disappear (I know as I was in the work force then). But back then, they would never even have dreamed there would be all the IT jobs there are today as an example.
That is just two examples, of changes in jobs over the years, and the re-allocation of jobs. People are working on the new jobs as I write this.
Experts tell us, that just 10 years from now, that half the jobs people will working at in this country have not even been invented yet.
Saying that it's 28K in today's money is meaningless unless we know where 28K would put one versus the poverty level at that point in time.
"Today's money" means it is corrected for inflation. That's what 50% of GDP is currently. I don't mind educating you, but it would be nice if you admitted that you don't understand economics.
Per capita GDP rises faster than inflation. This is the result of productivity increases, mostly due to the utilization of technology. On average in the last 150 years the US real per capita GDP has risen 3%/yr. When I said "$28k/yr in today's money" I was being as conservative as I could be, to give you a point of reference. That's assuming that real GDP/capita is the same as now. Zero economic growth.
If GDP/capita continues to rise at 3% above inflation, then 30 years from now 50% of GDP would be equivalent to $68k in today's money. Meaning that a single individual would be able to afford a living standard equal to person making $68k now. And that's without working.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
