Who's in debt to whom?

[rah]

I've paid for health insurance for almost 40 years now and except for a my wife's pregnancy, never really needed it but for a few doctors visits. BUT now that I'm getting older I'll be taking advantage of it. I consider it only fair because care is going to get costly and I'm glad I was able to pay for it over a lifetime. That's why I get upset about all the people that whined about The Obama care requirement that people have insurance "because they don't need it" And the thought that they may take accessible coverage away after paying all those years and finally needing it seems like a sick joke.

[The Mad Monk]

This is where TMM posts the Humans Need Not Apply video. If you look at the new sectors of employment that have only existed since the 20th century, they make up a very small segment of the population. We are losing jobs already.

Whoops! Sorry, I've been slacking...

[dannubis]

Universal basic income has one huge flaw (that is not even connected to the system itself). It will cause it to fail in each implementation you can think of.

"People don't value income they don't have to work for properly."

This causes people to care more about the income itself than how it is generated. (Tax the rich ! Get rid of the immigrants ! Let the sick pay for themselves...). Why would you care how your wealth is generated if you get it anyway.

Without a huge dose of idealism this simply does not work.

[Lorizael]

It will cause it to fail in each implementation you can think of.

"People don't value income they don't have to work for properly."

Genetically engineer humans to value income differently. Man, that was easy.

[Jon Miller]

I would generally say 'yes, UBI!'.

But I have some experience in Belgium and Sweden.

In Sweden, when I was there 8 years ago, people would riot and burn cars and so on in the Swedish gettos. At first I didn't understand, the gettos were nicer than many areas (both urban and rural) in the US. Even 'middle class' areas. The people had food, housing and healthcare. And education.

But when I moved to Belgium in 2012, I started to understand. The state wasn't as nice, but there were still many many people who had their housing, food, healthcare (and education) provided by the state. They would sit at the cafes/etc throughout the day. And they were angry.

And I realized what was lacking, both in Belgium and in Sweden. Jobs. Not just any jobs, but jobs that were part of society. People, particularly men, want to work (women want to work too, but many have the cultural expectation that that can be work for the family).

The US has done much better in allowing immigrants to be part of the economy, despite people in the US having worse healthcare, housing, food and education.

We need to move to a society where everyone owns a bit of the means of production and recognize that more and more work will need to be service work to each other. It can't be just service work to the 0.1% of the world's population that own the means of production.

JM

[dannubis]

Genetically engineer humans to value income differently. Man, that was easy.

Forgot he was posting somehting on poly and would like to modify his initial statement to :

"It will cause it to fail in each practical implementation you can think of."

I hope that covers all the angles, even the sci-fi ones...

PS: that was not a challenge, Lori

[Proteus_MST]

...

We need to move to a society where everyone owns a bit of the means of production and recognize that more and more work will need to be service work to each other. It can't be just service work to the 0.1% of the world's population that own the means of production.

JM

Well, "the workers own he means of production" of course is an important basic principle of communism (at least in an ideal marxist sense ... not in the way that it was realized in the USSR and other communist countries, of course (where it was/is practically the party who owns them))

It also means that Kid and all other rightwing people will fight teeth and claws against this (likewise all ultra rich people who make their money by owning the means of production and exploit people in order to get richer)

[Lorizael]

Forgot he was posting somehting on poly and would like to modify his initial statement to :

"It will cause it to fail in each practical implementation you can think of."

I hope that covers all the angles, even the sci-fi ones...

PS: that was not a challenge, Lori

But honestly it's not hard to imagine solutions. JM hit on one accidentally in his post. Stereotypical women of the 50s had less of a need/inclination to work because of the culture they were brought up in. Men were the opposite, because of the culture. That culture has changed for women over the last several decades. So that's a good test case for the idea that we can shift people's attitudes about work via cultural evolution.

[rah]

I Don't know if that's a good example since women in the 50's considered staying at home raising kids as contributing. That's considerable different then just getting money without effort.

[Aeson]

Yah, it's more indicative of the "want to work" or "need to work" being important. (Maybe more precise to say, "need for sense of achievement, working and progressing towards goals")

I do think a UBI (+universal healthcare) is better than what we have in the US currently, but full employment guarantee (+universal healthcare) would be better.

[Lorizael]

I Don't know if that's a good example since women in the 50's considered staying at home raising kids as contributing. That's considerable different then just getting money without effort.

Sure, but it's a different kind of contribution than the 9-5, 40 hours/week, clock in clock out blaaaaaaah all the men were doing. And if you look across countries today, you see that attitudes toward work differ. In the US, there's an element of pride and duty to working as much as possible that I think is more prevalent than in other first world countries.

[Proteus_MST]

I Don't know if that's a good example since women in the 50's considered staying at home raising kids as contributing. That's considerable different then just getting money without effort.

And that surely would a good example for a job where the current system puts stones into the path of any woman (or man) that want to do it full time,
as caring for your family/kids is neither a job that is paid, nor is it a job which gives you money for your pension funds.

So a single mother may be forced to decide between being there for the household and her kids fulltime and rthe necessity to earn more money in order to sustain the family, and in a family, it usually is the worse choice to have one of the parent be a stay at home mom (or dad) compared with having them both work.

Having a basic income for stay at home moms/dads that is paid to them by the state without having to fulfill any fu´rther preconditions (than being a stay at home mom/dad) and that doesn't "smell like" being on welfare (but rather is seen like a just salary for an importnt contribution to society) surely would be a step into the right direction

[rah]

Those women staying at home aren't my worry. They're going to feel like they're contributing and be too busy to be having a negative impact. It's those that aren't busy that will be needing things to do that we may not want them doing. That's where disruptions come from.

[Proteus_MST]

Those women staying at home aren't my worry. They're going to feel like they're contributing and be too busy to be having a negative impact. It's those that aren't busy that will be needing things to do that we may not want them doing. That's where disruptions come from.

Well, what I said in my last posting of course wasn't about a totally unconditional income, but rather some kind of "fulltime parents income" (insofar, it would require that you have an underage child you care for, no matter whether the kid is adopted or your own).


For an UBI itself there are, of course, many important questions to ask/answer.
What percentage of people will still pursue a study
What percentage of people will still seek a "normal job"
What percentage of people will contribute to society in some other manner (being actrive in clubs or cultural activities ... or contribute their time to helping others)

And, of course, what percentage of people won't contribute to society at all

And what percentage of people of the last category can society endure (without habing any negative effects)

That's why pilot projects into the UBI (like they have been/are performed in many cities/regions in lots of countries) are an important step / prerequisite ... in order to gain insight into how the UBI will affect people/society

[rah]

And, of course, what percentage of people won't contribute to society at all

I think this percentage will be higher than other think. I keep thinking of many the unemployed people, sitting around being bitter or turning to some criminal activity to support themselves. A small UBI isn't going to impact that.


For you other points
There is a UBI for unemployed between jobs, it's called unemployment insurance. Granted it could last longer. They want to contribute
There is some support for the single mother. Maybe it could be more. They contribute

I'll concede the study aspect and maybe you could provide a ubi for those that can prove they're actual students. They want to contribute.

But I have no sympathy for those that don't want or have any intention of contributing. I don't want to provide any incentive for that % to increase.