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.
UBI is neither unemployment insurance nor welfare. It actually gets rid of a lot of them. Neither is it a job/career replacement. That would be something leaning more towards communism.
You're arguing as if you're arguing against a welfare program. Murray is right if you look at it as welfare, which is what you're doing.
In the future, a bunch of folks won't be able to work 40 hours no matter how much they want to because of efficiency improvements and technology. Covid accelerated that transition; we're seeing permanent drops out of the workforce as a result.
Your Puritan work ethic ideology is useless against robots.
So you ignore the real content - UBI, if established, WILL be a career for some.
Murray was more about all social programs (not just welfare) decreases incentives to escape from poverty - UBI will likely continue or enhance that trend.
We are not talking about "In the future" we are talking about now - you are giving up before we see what impact COVID has long term. UBI is still a long term solution to a short term issue.
IDK WTF talking about puritan work ethic (that is late 16th century church of England stuff) I never professed anything of the sort - and what that has to do with robots. Is that a feeble attempt at a put down?
So you ignore the real content - UBI, if established, WILL be a career for some.
Murray was more about all social programs (not just welfare) decreases incentives to escape from poverty - UBI will likely continue or enhance that trend.
We are not talking about "In the future" we are talking about now - you are giving up before we see what impact COVID has long term. UBI is still a long term solution to a short term issue.
IDK WTF talking about puritan work ethic (that is late 16th century church of England stuff) I never professed anything of the sort - and what that has to do with robots. Is that a feeble attempt at a put down?
16th and 17th centuries actually. But it had a profound impact on American culture (and also northern European culture, since it was a feature of particular strains of Protestantism).
You're not getting my references I guess.
The puritan work ethic was an idea that people had to work really hard or else they were failing in life (or failing God- same thing). No, the robot point was in reference to actual robots and software that will increasingly take all of our jobs.
Companies have already reacted to covid by laying off huge parts of their workforces. My workplace laid off 30%, my wife's 40%, and they are not bringing them back. They are just making all of us remaining do 1.5, 2, or 3 people's jobs. They will never bring them back, because with the forced online change, we've figured out how to the same or more work with fewer humans. This is not temporary, it is permanent.
UBI is not welfare. You keep acting like it's welfare. It's not. Everyone would get it, rich or poor.
One of the reasons welfare doesn't work well is because to take it is to demean yourself. The act of applying for it is to become a subject of society's pity. To receive it is to have a scarlet letter declaring yourself a failure. "You lost your means of providing for yourself and your family. What a loser you must be. Here's a handout from those of us who are doing better and are not losers; now get your act together before we cut you off."
UBI is not that. It's a dividend everyone gets. The point is NOT to pay people for being poor, so that they want to stay poor so as not to upset their welfare eligibility. UBI would result in those few people who do max out welfare, to lose it.
It wouldn't be enough for an indivdual to escape poverty... but a couple or family could pool it. Which is exactly the point. It would enable people to have the one or one-and-a-half earner households that we used to instead of requiring two earners. A group of 5-10 young people could pool theirs and start a business. Etc. etc.
Last edited by redguard57; 10-13-2020 at 01:28 AM..
The world is changing faster than we can all react to it. People kept arguing that, well in the past, every technological revolution eliminated some jobs but created equal or greater numbers of new jobs.
Not this time. The efficiency improvements are too great now, and we're probably losing 3 jobs for every 1 that is created. And it's only going to accelarate as time moves on. The exception of course being the cushy government job - those people never feel any effects from change.
If we coud figure out a UBI payment that made sense, I would support it.
The world is changing faster than we can all react to it. People kept arguing that, well in the past, every technological revolution eliminated some jobs but created equal or greater numbers of new jobs.
Not this time. The efficiency improvements are too great now, and we're probably losing 3 jobs for every 1 that is created. And it's only going to accelarate as time moves on. The exception of course being the cushy government job - those people never feel any effects from change.
If we coud figure out a UBI payment that made sense, I would support it.
While, considering the Covid bust, do you have any evidence to support your theory? I'm pretty good with econometric data and whatnot and don't see anything like your 1 up 3 down claim, not even close.
While, considering the Covid bust, do you have any evidence to support your theory? I'm pretty good with econometric data and whatnot and don't see anything like your 1 up 3 down claim, not even close.
Maybe not literal analogues, but I suspect for ever 1 "career" type job that is lost, it is not replaced by an equivalent but rather 2 "gigs."
By "career" - I mean a FT equivalent job that comes with health insurance and some kind of retirement plan. By "gig" - an at-will job that comes with few or no benefits other than salary, and is not full time.
Even pre-covid, I saw more and more competition for FTEs, while more and more "gigs" get created. My workplace is straight up honest with why they do it - they do not want to pay for health insurance for a single body more than they have to. If I have to hear one more higher level admin complain about personnel health insurance cost, I'll scream.
The only way to overcome that is more and more education. But even that won't save you in a lot of circumstances.
16th and 17th centuries actually. But it had a profound impact on American culture (and also northern European culture, since it was a feature of particular strains of Protestantism).
You're not getting my references I guess.
The puritan work ethic was an idea that people had to work really hard or else they were failing in life (or failing God- same thing). No, the robot point was in reference to actual robots and software that will increasingly take all of our jobs.
Companies have already reacted to covid by laying off huge parts of their workforces. My workplace laid off 30%, my wife's 40%, and they are not bringing them back. They are just making all of us remaining do 1.5, 2, or 3 people's jobs. They will never bring them back, because with the forced online change, we've figured out how to the same or more work with fewer humans. This is not temporary, it is permanent.
UBI is not welfare. You keep acting like it's welfare. It's not. Everyone would get it, rich or poor.
One of the reasons welfare doesn't work well is because to take it is to demean yourself. The act of applying for it is to become a subject of society's pity. To receive it is to have a scarlet letter declaring yourself a failure. "You lost your means of providing for yourself and your family. What a loser you must be. Here's a handout from those of us who are doing better and are not losers; now get your act together before we cut you off."
UBI is not that. It's a dividend everyone gets. The point is NOT to pay people for being poor, so that they want to stay poor so as not to upset their welfare eligibility. UBI would result in those few people who do max out welfare, to lose it.
It wouldn't be enough for an indivdual to escape poverty... but a couple or family could pool it. Which is exactly the point. It would enable people to have the one or one-and-a-half earner households that we used to instead of requiring two earners. A group of 5-10 young people could pool theirs and start a business. Etc. etc.
You keep trying to pigeonhole me - you seem to be unable to try to label me and others that you disagree with. I never professed any religious view let alone puritan values. Your reference to puritan values is an attempt at delegitimizing me or others that believe in work. You have tried several times to label me and argue stuff I never said. Try argue what I said not what you think I was saying - it is disingenuous to argue something I never said.
Of course UBI is not welfare and I never said anything of the sort - you are the only one that continues to imply I did. UBI is for everyone but only a benefit to the very young / poor because everyone's taxes will need to rise to cover the cost. Also UBI is supposed to ensure that basic needs are covered so SNAP, welfare and unemployment could be reduced. I suspect some will make a career out of living on UBI, just like some make a career out of welfare - some just prefer to not work.
You need to quit seeing only in your little world - UBI is a very expensive and poor solution to a short term issue. It has been shown every time that it has been tried to be unaffordable and a disincentive to work.
You keep trying to pigeonhole me - you seem to be unable to try to label me and others that you disagree with. I never professed any religious view let alone puritan values. Your reference to puritan values is an attempt at delegitimizing me or others that believe in work. You have tried several times to label me and argue stuff I never said. Try argue what I said not what you think I was saying - it is disingenuous to argue something I never said.
Of course UBI is not welfare and I never said anything of the sort - you are the only one that continues to imply I did. UBI is for everyone but only a benefit to the very young / poor because everyone's taxes will need to rise to cover the cost. Also UBI is supposed to ensure that basic needs are covered so SNAP, welfare and unemployment could be reduced. I suspect some will make a career out of living on UBI, just like some make a career out of welfare - some just prefer to not work.
You need to quit seeing only in your little world - UBI is a very expensive and poor solution to a short term issue. It has been shown every time that it has been tried to be unaffordable and a disincentive to work.
It hasn't been tried because payments given to a select population for a limited time are not "universal." That is welfare. It doesn't matter if you call it a tax rebate, disability payment, unemployment insurance or whatever. It is a form of welfare no matter how you cut it. If a particular person or group gets a transfer payment for a particular reason from the government - it's welfare.
Here's what you said:
My values and those of most Working Americans is that people should work to get paid, short term unemployment and assistance is Ok, but assistance should not be a permanent job/career.
That is puritan work ethic (theological and sociological concept emphasizing diligence and hard work). You could just call it "work ethic." The term actually comes from early 20th century sociology, the Puritans didn't actually have a term for what they simply considered the right way to live. I'm not trying to "call you" anything. I'm saying that's the type of thinking you're displaying - "people should work for any money they get," whether that work is useful for the individual or useful for society or not. What we have lost in covid are a lot of jobs that were not necessary to our society functioning and I'd wager we will not get back 50% of them. But the people are still out there and are going to fall into poverty and need welfare at this rate.
It's also a negative view of people, assuming they'd be lazy and would use it to bum around their whole lives on UBI instead of spending it on, say, education. UBI would not be a career-level income. You could survive enough on it to eat and shelter yourself at least in the cold months, but that's it. It's not even enough to live on a whole year. With UBI we could get rid of a lot of poverty support in the form of welfare that we currently pay out and doesn't ever resolve it.
It's interesting that you have a zero sum view of people and a zero sum view of the money supply. You think that it's too expensive, and that people will just be lazy, and that extra money in the economy would not be put to productive use, not create jobs, etc...
I thought the economy was not zero sum, and that was why capitalism's so great?
Last edited by redguard57; 10-13-2020 at 06:01 PM..
It hasn't been tried because payments given to a select population for a limited time are not "universal." That is welfare. It doesn't matter if you call it a tax rebate, disability payment, unemployment insurance or whatever. It is a form of welfare no matter how you cut it. If a particular person or group gets a transfer payment for a particular reason from the government - it's welfare.
Here's what you said:
My values and those of most Working Americans is that people should work to get paid, short term unemployment and assistance is Ok, but assistance should not be a permanent job/career.
That is puritan work ethic (theological and sociological concept emphasizing diligence and hard work). You could just call it "work ethic." The term actually comes from early 20th century sociology, the Puritans didn't actually have a term for what they simply considered the right way to live. I'm not trying to "call you" anything. I'm saying that's the type of thinking you're displaying - "people should work for any money they get," whether that work is useful for the individual or useful for society or not. What we have lost in covid are a lot of jobs that were not necessary to our society functioning and I'd wager we will not get back 50% of them. But the people are still out there and are going to fall into poverty and need welfare at this rate.
It's also a negative view of people, assuming they'd be lazy and would use it to bum around their whole lives on UBI instead of spending it on, say, education. UBI would not be a career-level income. You could survive enough on it to eat and shelter yourself at least in the cold months, but that's it. It's not even enough to live on a whole year. With UBI we could get rid of a lot of poverty support in the form of welfare that we currently pay out and doesn't ever resolve it.
It's interesting that you have a zero sum view of people and a zero sum view of the money supply. You think that it's too expensive, and that people will just be lazy, and that extra money in the economy would not be put to productive use, not create jobs, etc...
I thought the economy was not zero sum, and that was why capitalism's so great?
First off - what I said was NOT puritan at all and I said so. The phrase "assistance should not be a permanent job/career" is not professing religious values and certainly not 16th century England.
This is the third time I have objected to you putting a label and more specifically a religious label on me - that is against the TOS for City Data.
You keep attributing to me things I never said such labels of "lazy" and "bum around", making up thoughts I that I never offered, that is disingenuous. But you also put quotes on phrases I never wrote - that is against the TOS for City Data.
I actually specifically said in previous posts that the economy needs to grow for deficit spending to work - that is not zero sum - again making up lies and attribute thoughts I did not express.
You need to learn how to express a disagreement without inappropriate labels/name calling, misquoting, misattributions, attributing thoughts never expressed and making up lies. You need to stop your improper behavior.
Most of the millennials I am meeting these days are making $100K/yr+ right out of college and they are still complaining. When I was young the average salary for a computer science grad was $40k/yr and then you progressed to $80k/yr when you were super senior.
Now, college grads in Tech get $120k/yr starting pay and super seniors (GenX and Boomer cohorts) get $150k/yr! The GenXers are the ones who got hosed. Boomers may have made less but they had a stock market going to Andromeda and a cheap Cost of Living...homes used to cost nothing those days.
This woman's salary is the outlier of outlier.
Average college grad in England makes around 25k GBP. Salaries are a lot lower in Europe (well everywhere else, really) than in the US.
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.
