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.
How do you know that no more houses will be built? These things don't happen in a vacuum like you guys like to think
I meant no more relative to the speed with which new cash is introduced into the economy. Of course houses will continue to be built, but if anything fewer houses will be built because the marginal construction worker will work less due to UBI. However because developers and homeowners will know that the UBI money is already in pocket or in the pipeline, prices will rise faster than homes can be built. It's called structural inflation and coupled with slowing growth produces stagflation. We've been here before.
You're correct that nothing in the economy happens in a vacuum, and more cash in circulation without an accompanying increase in productivity will cause inflation of the prices of goods and services such that the purchase power of the cash increase is nullified and the excess cash is captured by the same market incumbents who captured cash before the additional supply entered circulation.
I am a hard right winger but Andrew Yang's $1000 a month basic income idea holds some appeal to me. What I like about it is that unlike every other handout program it does not descriminate against those without children. In our current system if you have kids you are not only protected from destitution you very likely can get a bonanza of cash and prizes from the U.S government. If you don't have kids (or have adult children) you pay into this system but if you ever need help you are on your own buddy...you can dive down into homeless and no one would care. This system is terrible and no one can guilt me into thinking otherwise. God bless you Andrew Yang.
You cannot expect to fix a problem by expanding the scope of the source of the problem. This is pure circular reasoning ...
The fundamental flaw here is the notion of “entitlement”. This is where the problem starts. “I exist, therefore I am entitled to receive what I need to continue to exist”. This flawed notion can only be accommodated by taking from others in order to give it to them. The question remains “why”? Why does anyone think “Joe” is entitled to some of what “Jim” worked hard for? Joe isn’t entitled to anything. Joe is responsible for himself, so if he wants to continue to exist ... do what Jim does .... EARN IT. Don’t sit there and wait for someone else to take care of you.
This flawed way of thinking is like fire. Every raging Forrest fire started from a tiny spark. The moment you agree that it’s OK to take from one person and give that to another, you have replaced personal responsibility with theft.
How does basic income create an incentive to work? How are you going to fuel the engine of growth if everyone is sitting on their duffs waiting on a check from someone's else's hard work?
Automation, machine learning and AI are going to eat up more and more jobs in the near future, in both the white collar and the blue collar/service industries. When there are no jobs to be had, basic income will become inevitable. And with how rapidly these technologies are advancing, it's going to happen sooner than most people think.
Status:
"It Can't Rain All The Time"
(set 28 days ago)
Location: North Pacific
15,754 posts, read 7,591,221 times
Reputation: 2576
Quote:
Originally Posted by Avondalist
I meant no more relative to the speed with which new cash is introduced into the economy. Of course houses will continue to be built, but if anything fewer houses will be built because the marginal construction worker will work less due to UBI. However because developers and homeowners will know that the UBI money is already in pocket or in the pipeline, prices will rise faster than homes can be built. It's called structural inflation and coupled with slowing growth produces stagflation. We've been here before.
You're correct that nothing in the economy happens in a vacuum, and more cash in circulation without an accompanying increase in productivity will cause inflation of the prices of goods and services such that the purchase power of the cash increase is nullified and the excess cash is captured by the same market incumbents who captured cash before the additional supply entered circulation.
1920s the u.s. was booming. 1930s not so much (no one knows why) Government steps in provides government contracted work for any one looking for work. Begins social programs SS Retirement, Unemployed Benefits ... before that time, how was our federal tax dollars spent and for what, government services? So taxes did (where did the money go) what exactly that would impact the economy?
The government devises a way or several ways in which to take tax money (that which they will deduct from our wages) and put some of the fed tax money back into the hands of the citizen which the citizen can use to buy things (produced) in the market place ... and that's a bad thing?
Educate me. Because I don't see companies that will halt production or make less, because people have been empowered through cash to make purchases. If anything I would think that companies would hire more people and produce more items to meet the demands of the gov money in circulation.
But then we have the 1920s boom, followed by a bust 1930s ... so idk.
If companies will only make the same as they did before and charge more ... then this needs to be a whole other conversation on, perhaps, market caps.
1000 a month is $6.00 per hour. There are a lot of minimum wage jobs if you are willing to work.
If everyone gets $1,000 a month including those working low paying jobs most will quit. Most are only working those jobs because they have to or they will be on the streets. Take that away and most will sit at home for $1000 a month compared to also working for $2,000 a month. If its a couple its $2,000 a month. Who will fill these jobs when millions no longer need to work. There would be huge lines everywhere. Lots of people wanting to buy things but no one to sell them those things.
Wealthier people will just pocket the other $1,000 a month and get wealthier. It would put massive pressure on prices which will skyrocket from adding all this money to disposable incomes. Which means $1,000 a month would soon not be enough. It would have to go up to compete with inflation.
Location: Live:Downtown Phoenix, AZ/Work:Greater Los Angeles, CA
27,606 posts, read 14,594,858 times
Reputation: 9169
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oklazona Bound
If everyone gets $1,000 a month including those working low paying jobs most will quit. Most are only working those jobs because they have to or they will be on the streets. Take that away and most will sit at home for $1000 a month compared to also working for $2,000 a month. If its a couple its $2,000 a month. Who will fill these jobs when millions no longer need to work. There would be huge lines everywhere. Lots of people wanting to buy things but no one to sell them those things.
Wealthier people will just pocket the other $1,000 a month and get wealthier. It would put massive pressure on prices which will skyrocket from adding all this money to disposable incomes. Which means $1,000 a month would soon not be enough. It would have to go up to compete with inflation.
People on your side of the aisle keep boasting about how these jobs are being replaced by automation, all because the workers dared to want more than $2/hr.....
Status:
"It Can't Rain All The Time"
(set 28 days ago)
Location: North Pacific
15,754 posts, read 7,591,221 times
Reputation: 2576
Quote:
Originally Posted by Oklazona Bound
If everyone gets $1,000 a month including those working low paying jobs most will quit. Most are only working those jobs because they have to or they will be on the streets. Take that away and most will sit at home for $1000 a month compared to also working for $2,000 a month. If its a couple its $2,000 a month. Who will fill these jobs when millions no longer need to work. There would be huge lines everywhere. Lots of people wanting to buy things but no one to sell them those things.
Wealthier people will just pocket the other $1,000 a month and get wealthier. It would put massive pressure on prices which will skyrocket from adding all this money to disposable incomes. Which means $1,000 a month would soon not be enough. It would have to go up to compete with inflation.
Give a millionaire a million dollars and he will be a million dollars richer.
Give a poor person a million dollars and they will be poor once more.
It speaks to the behavior patterns of the average person. Poor people spend their money; the millionaire invests it. So a person who is earning 1,000 dollars, gets an additional 1,000 per month they are more apt to make lifestyle changes like getting a better place to live or a better car. Some may even go to college on it, but the bottom line is they're going to spend it. If they want to keep that new found lifestyle, the will work for it.
Automation, machine learning and AI are going to eat up more and more jobs in the near future, in both the white collar and the blue collar/service industries.
No, it won't, but keep hallucinating anyways.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ellis Bell
1920s the u.s. was booming. 1930s not so much (no one knows why)
I know why. There were a number of factors, structural unemployment caused by the rapid introduction of new technology, higher taxes, restrictive tariffs, and the Federal Reserve's failure to act in a timely manner.
And, you're wrong. There was a recession in 1925, and by the way, the stock market set record highs during the recession.
There was another recession in 1928 which ended in June 1929, and, yes, the stock market also set record highs.
Also, note that the stock market collapsed even worse than 1929 over the period 1938 to 1942 when the economy was growing at rates of 12.5% per quarter.
Quote:
Originally Posted by greywar
Doesn't matter if you are giving it right back to people. You act like the money is being removed from circulation. What nonsense.
I never said anything about the amount of money in circulation, but you did, but then, of course, you don't understand Economics.
Taking money from other people to give to other people will cause this...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Avondalist
Also if everyone gets $1000 a month, house prices will rise so that your mortgage payment is $1000 a month more, since no new houses will actually be built because of basic income but everyone will have more moeny.
Quote:
Originally Posted by FirebirdCamaro1220
How do you know that no more houses will be built? These things don't happen in a vacuum like you guys like to think
The rate of increase in the supply of housing will not change.
Giving them $1,000 will induce the same effect as Wage Inflation. The prices of everything will rise and it will be as though you never gave anyone $1,000.
Rents will increase 50% to 100%, even higher in some areas, housing prices will increase, the price of cars, jewelry, furniture, food, clothing, medical care, musical instruments and every thing else will increase, so that your financial situation doesn't actually change even one bit.
The price of electric, natural gas, and gasoline will probably not increase over the short-term or near-term, but may over the long-term.
The price of cable, internet and cell-phone services will increase.
At the end of the day, nothing will have happened very slowly, and many people, especially those at the bottom will actually be slightly worse off than they are now.
People on your side of the aisle keep boasting about how these jobs are being replaced by automation, all because the workers dared to want more than $2/hr.....
My side of the aisle? The side that does not believe socialism is the answer? That is pretty much everyone but the far far left. I am not a Republican or Democrat.
As far as automation goes, that is a future issue. This is the time to encourage people to get educated and not just hand them money every month without doing anything to earn it.
I am a hard right winger but Andrew Yang's $1000 a month basic income idea holds some appeal to me. What I like about it is that unlike every other handout program it does not descriminate against those without children. In our current system if you have kids you are not only protected from destitution you very likely can get a bonanza of cash and prizes from the U.S government. If you don't have kids (or have adult children) you pay into this system but if you ever need help you are on your own buddy...you can dive down into homeless and no one would care. This system is terrible and no one can guilt me into thinking otherwise. God bless you Andrew Yang.
So who exactly will you be stealing this money from?
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.
