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.
The usual division is between efficiency, robotics and automation.
Neither steel nor coal use "robotics" much but both workforces were crushed by high-efficiency, large-scale machinery. Steel mills turn out more tin than in times past, with 10% of the workforce. Coal - which endlessly clamors about restoring jobs - operates mines with a vanishingly small number of machinery operators and some simple mining robots (just automated diggers and scoops).
Robotics have steadily replaced human workers on assembly lines from electronics to auto to appliances and more. Note, for example, that Tesla built their factories to be highly automated from the start... job creation was modest and will never grow significantly. That's how all these magic industries of the future will do it. They won't start producing millions of Weezical 5000's by hiring tens of thousands of people; they will build a robotic, largely automated facility to do it.
And same for warehousing and shipping, using more and more efficient picking, packing and stacking equipment that has reduced the number of workers to a fraction of prior times.
And automation into AI is going to start eating away at job tiers thought 'automation proof' - the vast pool of intellectual, judgment-based but fairly rote jobs such as accounting, payment processing, customer service, etc.
These jobs are eroding fast, have been since the 1970s, and aren't coming back... from China, Taiwan, Nicaragua or anywhere else. And "new jobs" in those "fabulous new industries no one's ever heard of yet" never will exist in any significant number. And no, the industries that build all this stuff won't replace anything: every system they build and put into place is an end point for them and some additional large body of workers.
This Time Really Is Different.â„¢
Right track, completely unworkable direction. How do you count "robots" when one multiarmed welder/assembler can do what took ten assembly line humans? How about an AccountantBot 5000, which does all the routine aspects of accounting formerly overseen by 100 juniors, reporting to a reduced workforce of senior accountants?
Right track... but the taxation has to be on wealth production, not the various finely-divided categories we use now. To tax salaries and earnings and profits and items individually is to let far too much fall through the cracks in the automated economy we are bound to. And everything that falls through those cracks just happens to end up in the pockets of a shrinking number of increasingly wealthy individuals... which is already not a sustainable situation.
I'm beginning to see some Thomas Piketty/Amartya Sen leak into your points?
If the United States can spend billions(if not trillions) overseas in pointless wars and on corporate bailouts, we can hand out $1000-$2000/month--which is a fair amount--to lower-income individuals.
If the United States can spend billions(if not trillions) overseas in pointless wars and on corporate bailouts, we can hand out $1000-$2000/month--which is a fair amount--to lower-income individuals.
Well, not year after year and even if many other 'welfare' programs are terminated or reduced.
UBI simply won't work with our current system. Wrangling over which niche to tax and which category of citz get the stipend and how it needs to be fitted around other programs is... to completely miss the point.
UBI is not a partisan issue. Conservative economists like Milton Friedman support it. Thomas Paine at the founding of our country supported it called it a citizens dividend.
Quote:
Originally Posted by EDS_
I'm the one who mentioned Friedman and UBI. For the record he wasn't especially for government largess. He's points about UBI were that the costs would be more easily trackable and controllable.
Wow. And here I thought Herr Josef Göbbels was dead.
Apparently, he's alive and well.
For the record, Milton Friedman never supported Universal Basic Income.
What Friedman advocated was a Negative Income Tax, which is a form of Universal Basic Income (there are many forms of Universal Basic Income that the ignorant are apparently too stupid to understand).
The arrangement that recommends itself on purely mechanical grounds is a negative income tax.
Source: Capitalism and Freedom, Friedman, Milton, The University of Chicago Press, 1962, page 158.
Friedman opposed Universal Basic Income for the reason stated:
The advantages of this arrangement [the negative income tax] are clear. It is directed specifically at the problem of poverty. It gives help in the form most useful to the individual, namely, cash. It is general and could be substituted for the host of special measures now in effect. It makes explicit the cost borne by society. It operates outside the market. Like any other measures to alleviate poverty, it reduces the incentives of those helped to help themselves, but it does not eliminate that incentive entirely, as a system of supplementing incomes up to some fixed minimum would. An extra dollar earned always means more money available for expenditure.
[emphasis mine]
Source: Capitalism and Freedom, Friedman, Milton, The University of Chicago Press, 1962, page 158.
My, that's a mighty fine straw figure, there. Quite handsome. Pull it out of some dark orifice and then go on a ridiculous rant about how much it will cost. Why not make it easy and say... $8k? $10k? I mean, if you're going to do inflationary math until you bust a vein, may as well make it easy.
C'mon back when you understand that UBI is not some welfare supplement to be dropped on our existing condition... and thus waving your hands and screeching about social security etc. is quite meaningless.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Therblig
Yep, Welfare Iz Badd.
Too bad we're not talking about welfare.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Therblig
No, actually it's not, not in the sense the term is used - unless you're going to include Social Security, Medicare, farm and mining subsidies, corporate tax breaks and industry support/subsidies in the term, along with about fifty other things those losers demand as an entitlement.
But of course, you've never touched any such government giveaway in your life, so I understand your misunderstanding.
Well, the Propaganda & Disinformation is certainly strong with this one.
UBI is welfare. Proponents of UBI say that is is welfare, which refutes your claims that it isn't, unless your intention is to call those Liberal proponents who have been operating websites pushing UBI for years and years a bunch of liars.
So, is it? You know, your intention?
More than that, one of the arguments proponents of UBI make is that UBI will replace all other welfare.
Proponents of UBI claim that by replacing existing welfare benefits with a single welfare benefit will eliminate the costs of administering numerous welfare benefits with the cost of administering a single program, and that will result in cost-savings to tax-payers.
Some proponents of UBI go so far as to claim UBI could be paid for in whole or in part from the cost-savings gained by combing all welfare programs into a single welfare program, but not surprisingly they are unable to show any numbers to back their claim.
In case you don't get it, replacing welfare benefits with welfare benefits is still welfare benefits.
The fact that you refuse to admit that it is welfare does not alter the fact that it is welfare.
A rose by any other name....
Quote:
Originally Posted by jtab4994
My thoughts are: How long before Spain moves to end UBI? Months? 2 years? Is the Spanish government just trying to distract voters from the huge Covid-19 death rate they suffered?
Hello, you've reached the UBI information line. All of our operators are currently busy. However, the following message may answer most questions you may be calling to ask:
Small-scale experiments with giving people money on top of all other benefits and without a fundamental shift in national economic planning are about as meaningful as what a dog's turds might spell on the ground.
Thank you for calling.
The US conducted 5 experiments on UBI, including 2 experiments that lasted 10 years.
All 5 failed. That's why you have the Earned Income Tax Credit instead of UBI.
I'm thinking you don't know that Spain uses the Euro.
I'm thinking you don't know that the requirement set forth by the EU Central Bank is that any State using the Euro cannot have annual deficit spending greater than 3% of GDP.
I'm thinking you don't know what a Peseta is.
I'm think you don't understand that Spain used the Peseta before it switched to the Euro.
I'm thinking you don't know that at one time: $1 = 32,000 Pesetas.
I'm thinking you don't know that I used to vacation on the Costa Brava at Iloret-de-Mar sipping double-shot margaritas that cost 4,000 Pesetas, or a whole $0.12.
I'm thinking you don't know that my beachfront hotel over-looking the beach where I was drinking my $0.12 double-shot margaritas was just 450,000 Pesetas a night, which is a whole $14 or so.
I'm thinking you don't understand that Spain's constant borrowing to spend lavishly on its many welfare programs is the reason why Spain was plagued with rampant Monetary Inflation, high unemployment and the reason why $1 = 32,000 Pesetas.
I'm thinking you forgot that Spain dumped or reduced its lavish welfare programs in order to get its budget under control and switch to the Euro.
I'm thinking that you don't know that even right now, Spain owes a helluva lot of countries a helluva lot of money.
I'm thinking you don't understand that Spain, who already owes a helluva lot of countries a helluva lot of money, isn't going to be able to do this and stay within 3% of GDP without borrowing a helluva lot of more money from whatever country is dumb enough to lend them more money.
Well, not year after year and even if many other 'welfare' programs are terminated or reduced.
UBI simply won't work with our current system. Wrangling over which niche to tax and which category of citz get the stipend and how it needs to be fitted around other programs is... to completely miss the point.
UBI(YangGang)=/=basic income, which is what Spain is pushing for. There's a difference between the two. One is for everybody; the other depends on the income you have.
Again, enough with the wars/regime changes. Stop subsidizing organizations, people and countries that hate your guts(WHO, etc.). Cut the fat and we can afford it. Money printer go brrr. And honestly, I'd be in favor of an expanded "welfare" system in exchange for USA-ONLY policies.
True, but the idea behind UBI is that, with rising automation, there eventually won't be enough jobs to go around to provide even a subsistence level to many.
Yeah, because when we replace three welders with three robotic welders we create 4 jobs instead of losing 3 jobs.
That's a gain of +1 jobs just in case you couldn't figure it out.
The sky is falling! The sky is falling!
Quote:
Originally Posted by PamelaIamela
$12k per year is not enough.
I think $4000 per month is more realistic.
Pray tell, on what do you base that conclusion?
Quote:
Originally Posted by PamelaIamela
That's only one trillion two hundred billion.. a month.
We could fund it the way we fund all deficits: Quantitative Easing, aka Modern Monetary Theory, i.e. Money Magic.
You're grotesquely misinformed. Quantitative Easing is Quantitative Easing. Quantitative Easing is not also known as Modern Monetary Theory, which is something completely different.
Your argument is a total fail, for one simple reason.
You are ignorant of the fact that all $710 Billion of Quantitative Easing has been paid back.
Not only was it paid back in its entirety, the Federal Reserve netted $30 Billion in interest payments which it turned over to the Treasury Department.
Now...recalculate and get back to us.
Quote:
Originally Posted by BornintheSprings
Its not UBI its a welfare program. Its not universal and you lose the benefits if you start working. This creates bad incentives to stay on the program instead of seeking employment. Make it universal for all citizens and don't take it away if they start making money give people a real choice.
To their credit, that is not how the Liberal proponents of UBI describe it.
The "U" in UBI is "Universal," meaning everyone gets it regardless of income and regardless of their employment status.
Quote:
Originally Posted by PamelaIamela
Actually a true UBI could be done, but as this thread shows, it will have to navigate a landmine of opposition and a world of unknown and unintended consequences.
But it could and should eliminate a host of other state supports. Which ones, who knows.
You would want to keep them all though, right?
Wrong.
No one in the US is going to accept $1,000/month in lieu of their current welfare benefits.
When I say "no one" that includes the people on welfare, because while they may be dumb, they're not stupid. They're not going to give up more money to get less money.
True UBI is universal. If you do not intend to give Bill Gates and Warren Buffet and George Soros their monthly UBI benefit, then you are not talking about UBI, you are talking about targeted welfare benefits.
The problem with people like you is you don't think.
Why do you hate children?
What did little children ever do to you to make you hate them so?
Why do you ignore the very obvious moral hazard here?
Children suffer so, going without food and even when they get "food" it isn't nutritious food, it's potato chips.
Those children suffer health problems and have lower academic achievement and performance because of it.
That's because their parents trade their EBT cards for cash in order to buy drugs and alcohol or gamble.
And you want to take away the EBT card and replace it with cash? What do you think those parents are going to do? Who actually believes those parents will suddenly start buying nutritious food for their children and feeding them properly when they start getting cash?
Those children are going to suffer even worse.
All because you want to feel good about yourself.
Many more EBT card users would love to trade their EBT cards for cash, but they fear the law, because if they get caught, they'll lose their benefits so they don't even try it.
And you want to take away their EBT cards and give them cash?
Congratulations. You now have 10x as many children suffering from poor nutrition with health problems and poor academic performance.
And all so you can feel good about yourself.
HUD pays 2/3rds of the rent.
You want to take away HUD and give cash to people whose money management skills are non-existent, who are over-indulging and lacking any self-discipline.
Great. That cash will be burning a hole in their pocket and they'll blow it.
Then when it comes time to pay the rent, they ain't got the money.
They'll be evicted and homeless, but hey, at least you'll feel good about yourself.
Electric and natural gas subsidies are paid directly by the government. You want to give those people cash? They'll blow it on drugs and alcohol, and their electric and gas will be in arrears and then cut-off and those people will be sitting in the dark with no electricity.
Well, you know what? You don't have to cook potato chips, so no problem, right?
Aren't you going to add in the increased cost of healthcare and the increased cost to society with the army of unhealthy low academic achievers you've created?
Why not?
Hidden costs, external costs and such are one thing we examine in Economics.
Lets go UBI of $1500 a month to everyone, with the stipulation that random drug tests are required to qualify..
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.
