ISF Logo   IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events
 


Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today.
Reply
Old 9th April 2019, 07:17 AM   #161
ahhell
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 2,207
Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
Surely that's impossible.

A very small percentage of people are gathering welfare right now. T
here's a lot of overhead. What shall we say? A factor of 2? A factor of 3? In other words, for every dollar of welfare, there's two that go to the bureaucracy that administers welfare? Ok. So UBI comes in and the overhead goes down, a lot That means we could provide the welfare to 3 times as many people as we do now, right?

I don't think that's enough for "universal".

We'd pay for it by taking money from the people who choose to work, and giving it to those who choose not to.

ETA: Oh, and since everyone gets it, everyone who pays in gets a fraction back. Send in the money. The government gives some of it back to you, and some of it to the guy next door, and keeps some of it, because it's not like there's zero overhead even in the "everyone gets a check" version of the system.
That's if you only consider programs called, "welfare" but there are lots of people on various forms of government assistance that could be and probably should be discontinued if UBI is instituted. Long term disability, social security, food stamps, etc.

Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
Call me skeptical. I seriously doubt that you would be satisfied with a rudimentary standard of living if you had the opportunity to increase your income.
There absolutely will be some folks satisfied with a minimum standard of living if it means they can just sit on their porch all day. I don't know how many but there will be some.

Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
The stupid - it burns!

UBI is just a redistribution of wealth. It is inflationary only if it is financed by printing money.
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
There's some unstated premises in there that those of us not so well versed in economics aren't aware of. Its not actually an explanation of anything. Its basically "Its not inflationary because"
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
Since that post went straight over your head I doubt that I could give you an explanation that you would understand.

Basically, any redistribution of incomes will result in a redistribution of prices. Some will go up and some will go down.
Even if it isn't inflationary in the aggregate wouldn't this result in inflation on things that the folks at the bottom spend the most on? It would result in more money in circulation rather than in banks and investments right?

Any rate, I'm not opposed to a UBI, I'm currently ambivalent. I suspect it would be superior to most current social welfare programs. Folks won't have to prove they need it, it will be of no to minimal impact to rich people but potentially dramatically beneficial to poor people by just relieving the stress of being poor. It could reduce a significant amount of government waste if it actually replaces more buraueacratic and paternalistic forms of redistribution.

There's a reasonable argument that Alaska has proven the benefits though, there couple a grand a year is significantly less than most forms of the UBI I've seen proposed. Politically, it might be easier to for the masses to swallow than more targeted programs that folks tend to see as going to the other undesirables. Which means we'd have to address whether it goes to immigrants legal or otherwise. I don't think it should go to either. You don't have to come to the US, if you want to, get a job and forego that benefit until you naturalize. That makes it easier to sell to the folk and frankly, I don't see any moral or ethical reason why we shouldn't with old it from non-citizens. With the exception of those raised in the US after they were snuck in by their parents.

Last edited by ahhell; 9th April 2019 at 07:20 AM.
ahhell is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th April 2019, 07:18 AM   #162
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 17,063
Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza View Post
well, these regulations are done by the states, whereas a UBI would of course be Federal.
Oh even better. The states giving up programs (read money and power in the political sense) to the Federal Government. Yeah that's gonna happen.
__________________
- "Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset
- "Stupidity does not cancel out stupidity to yield genius. It breeds like a bucket-full of coked out hamsters." - The Oatmeal
- "To the best of my knowledge the only thing philosophy has ever proven is that Descartes could think." - SMBC
JoeMorgue is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th April 2019, 07:33 AM   #163
GnaGnaMan
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 1,515
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
No... it... isn't. It already happens. The example I gave earlier how the rent goes up in military towns at pretty much an exact 1:1 ratio with BAH rates without anyone even pretending that's not what they are doing wasn't something I pulled from thin air.
Okay, I just don't have the energy to explain how markets work right now. Maybe just think about what happens when someone charges a price that others can under-bid?

What you are describing is a form of the so-called Principal-agent problem. It is not related.
__________________
It makes no difference whatever whether they laugh at us or revile us, whether they represent us as clowns or criminals; the main thing is that they mention us, that they concern themselves with us again and again. -Hitler
GnaGnaMan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th April 2019, 07:36 AM   #164
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 17,063
Originally Posted by GnaGnaMan View Post
Maybe just think about what happens when someone charges a price that others can under-bid?
They all make an under the table agreement to NOT do that so they can all charge the same high price? They form territories so each one has an effective monopoly in a certain area? They make their pricing policies so confusing and opaque that you can't actually tell what you are getting for what value?

"The prices magically go down" is not the answer.

Again so the answer to all the potential problems with the glorious socialist Utopia that UDI is gonna bring us is... the invisible hand of the market and trust in business to not be shady will stop them from happening.

Sure. Let's go with that.
__________________
- "Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset
- "Stupidity does not cancel out stupidity to yield genius. It breeds like a bucket-full of coked out hamsters." - The Oatmeal
- "To the best of my knowledge the only thing philosophy has ever proven is that Descartes could think." - SMBC
JoeMorgue is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th April 2019, 07:57 AM   #165
applecorped
Rotten to the Core
 
applecorped's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 19,156
Uti
__________________
All You Need Is Love.
applecorped is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th April 2019, 08:02 AM   #166
GnaGnaMan
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 1,515
Originally Posted by ahhell View Post
There's some unstated premises in there that those of us not so well versed in economics aren't aware of. Its not actually an explanation of anything. Its basically "Its not inflationary because"
Even if it isn't inflationary in the aggregate wouldn't this result in inflation on things that the folks at the bottom spend the most on?
Think of computers. More and more people buy them but the price drops all the while.
In a functioning market, the market price of a good will equal the price of producing that good (somewhat simplified). That means that any price increase will depend on the cost of producing those extra units and nothing else.

Quote:
It would result in more money in circulation rather than in banks and investments right?
Yes and no. Mostly no, I think.
Inflation can be caused by increasing the velocity of money. If a dollar is spent more often then it will look as if there were more dollars.
If you take money from under someone's mattress and give it to people who live hand to mouth then this will cause a bit of inflation.
The catch is that investing money is not the same as keeping it under the mattress. Say you open a business. You buy property, equipment, perhaps train staff. You spend a lot of money doing that.
You buy stocks. You now got the stocks but someone else has the money and probably passes it on to someone.
__________________
It makes no difference whatever whether they laugh at us or revile us, whether they represent us as clowns or criminals; the main thing is that they mention us, that they concern themselves with us again and again. -Hitler
GnaGnaMan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th April 2019, 08:11 AM   #167
GnaGnaMan
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 1,515
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
They all make an under the table agreement to NOT do that so they can all charge the same high price? They form territories so each one has an effective monopoly in a certain area? They make their pricing policies so confusing and opaque that you can't actually tell what you are getting for what value?

"The prices magically go down" is not the answer.
First of all, what you are describing is criminal in a market economy.

In fairness, it is known that many markets in the US don't function. But what you are asserting is that the US is not a market economy at all.

Quote:
Again so the answer to all the potential problems with the glorious socialist Utopia that UDI is gonna bring us is... the invisible hand of the market and trust in business to not be shady will stop them from happening.
Uh. Socialism is that thing where you have a planned economy, not markets.
There's no UBI in traditional socialism. theprestige has already given the socialist rejection.
__________________
It makes no difference whatever whether they laugh at us or revile us, whether they represent us as clowns or criminals; the main thing is that they mention us, that they concern themselves with us again and again. -Hitler
GnaGnaMan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th April 2019, 08:15 AM   #168
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 17,063
Originally Posted by GnaGnaMan View Post
First of all, what you are describing is criminal in a market economy.
Again do you think I just make those things up? Regional monopolies, price fixing, and confusing billing are all well established and happen all the time. My ISP does all three to me once a month, without lube.

It seems we're getting told "Sure UDI will work, but only in an economy which already has all its problems fixed and therefore wouldn't need it." A system which works only in already perfect system does not impress me.

I'm not buying an economic cure-all that's I'm promised will work "right up until the point a business gets greedy or tries something shady or the government gets bloated or inefficient."

"This will work, businesses just need to be honest and the government needs to be efficient" is like saying "This will work, water just needs to be not wet and fire needs to be not hot."
__________________
- "Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset
- "Stupidity does not cancel out stupidity to yield genius. It breeds like a bucket-full of coked out hamsters." - The Oatmeal
- "To the best of my knowledge the only thing philosophy has ever proven is that Descartes could think." - SMBC

Last edited by JoeMorgue; 9th April 2019 at 08:55 AM.
JoeMorgue is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th April 2019, 08:50 AM   #169
Dr. Keith
Not a doctor.
 
Dr. Keith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Texas
Posts: 18,210
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
Why not? Because they're not sufficiently motivated in the absence of monetary needs? Some people are like that: if given temptations, they will fall to sin, including sloth. That doesn't mean that in the absence of such temptation that they can't do a decent job.
Because they cost a lot of money to manage and tend to be HR nightmares. ****** employees lead to ****** departments and ****** companies.

Quote:
The problem of people choosing not to work isn't a platitude. The numbers matter, and they're unknown, but if the numbers are too large the system will fall apart.
It is funny that we are constantly being told that consumerism is ruining our country and yet you think that consumerism is not enough of a drive to motivate workers. People want better things.

The gamers I know spend more on their hardware than they do on basic transportation. They have every decent console and two to three different computers. They have multiple expensive monitors and laugh at my plebeian work setup. They smoke pot like they breathe air and they work for very large corporations making very good six figure salaries. They would not stop working if it meant giving up on the hardware arms race that is gaming.
__________________
Suffering is not a punishment not a fruit of sin, it is a gift of God.
He allows us to share in His suffering and to make up for the sins of the world. -Mother Teresa

If I had a pet panda I would name it Snowflake.
Dr. Keith is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th April 2019, 08:58 AM   #170
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 17,063
"People aren't just going to sit around and do nothing just because they don't need to work" would be a lot more convincing if people sitting around and doing nothing didn't happen even when they do need to work.

It's like when I'm told Universal Health Care won't lead to people being less worried about their health. If people aren't health concerned in a society where they have to deal with both the health and financial consequences of poor health decision the idea that if we take away the financial consequences they going to magically start being more health conscious is.... off to me.
__________________
- "Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset
- "Stupidity does not cancel out stupidity to yield genius. It breeds like a bucket-full of coked out hamsters." - The Oatmeal
- "To the best of my knowledge the only thing philosophy has ever proven is that Descartes could think." - SMBC
JoeMorgue is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th April 2019, 08:59 AM   #171
Chanakya

 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 1,018
This argument, that people may not work if handed out an UBI, sounds ethically tone-deaf to my ears. If a bunch of people don't want to work, what good reason would anyone have to want/prefer to force them to? After all it isn't as if UBI enables opulence, only bare subsistence.
Chanakya is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th April 2019, 09:06 AM   #172
Thermal
Philosopher
 
Thermal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: NJ USA. We Don't Like You Either
Posts: 7,082
Originally Posted by Chanakya View Post
This argument, that people may not work if handed out an UBI, sounds ethically tone-deaf to my ears. If a bunch of people don't want to work, what good reason would anyone have to want/prefer to force them to? After all it isn't as if UBI enables opulence, only bare subsistence.
Because the idea of some lazy ass sticking his hand out for you to work and give to him is obscene to many of us. If you need help, no problem. If you are just lazy, good luck but you're on your own.
__________________
"Half of what he said meant something else, and the other half didn't mean anything at all" -Rosencrantz, on Hamlet
Thermal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th April 2019, 09:06 AM   #173
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 28,836
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
It's like when I'm told Universal Health Care won't lead to people being less worried about their health. If people aren't health concerned in a society where they have to deal with both the health and financial consequences of poor health decision the idea that if we take away the financial consequences they going to magically start being more health conscious is.... off to me.
I live in a country where there is universal health care, and people aren't significantly less worried wbout their health as far as I can tell.

Dave
__________________
Me: So what you're saying is that, if the load carrying ability of the lower structure is reduced to the point where it can no longer support the load above it, it will collapse without a jolt, right?

Tony Szamboti: That is right
Dave Rogers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th April 2019, 09:06 AM   #174
Dr. Keith
Not a doctor.
 
Dr. Keith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Texas
Posts: 18,210
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
There are a few factors in play here which aren't applicable more broadly. For housing around a military base, both the supply and demand are pretty inelastic: neither changes much in size. Decreasing housing prices won't attract more customers because the size of the military base is fixed by other factors. Increasing the amount of money that military personnel spend won't increase housing supply either, because you won't attract more military personnel to the base because of housing prices. That inelasticity is what leads to a 1-to-1 increase in rents with BAH rates.

But very few goods are anywhere close to that inelastic. And even most housing isn't that inelastic, with most people having much more flexibility about where they choose to live. Rents in some areas might very well go up because of UBI, but they might also drop elsewhere. And it's not even obvious where it will rise and where it will drop. Do you bid up prices in the city because more people can afford to live there? Or do prices drop because people don't need the city jobs and head for cheaper places to live?

Overall, if UBI is funded through taxes and not by printing money, I don't think it will have a major effect on inflation. But that doesn't mean it won't have any other serious problems.
Thank you for taking the time to explain this. I kept scrolling hoping that someone would tackle this so that I wouldn't have to. Because lets face it, my attempt wouldn't have been as well written.
__________________
Suffering is not a punishment not a fruit of sin, it is a gift of God.
He allows us to share in His suffering and to make up for the sins of the world. -Mother Teresa

If I had a pet panda I would name it Snowflake.
Dr. Keith is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th April 2019, 09:09 AM   #175
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 17,063
Originally Posted by Dave Rogers View Post
I live in a country where there is universal health care, and people aren't significantly less worried wbout their health as far as I can tell.

Dave
Yes but this mistaking correlation for causation, or at least something similar.

As I noted earlier, and apparently was some sort of radical idea, systems are going to work better in countries that actively want them, but the side affect of that is the systems going to work better because... they are actively wanted. So questions of "I don't understand why system X work just because people don't want it" to be rather odd.

Your universal healthcare and your society's increased health awareness might be two symptoms (no pun intended) of the same cause. Universal Health Care might only work in societies that reach some tipping point of overall general awareness and just general give-a-crap-ness about their health.
__________________
- "Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset
- "Stupidity does not cancel out stupidity to yield genius. It breeds like a bucket-full of coked out hamsters." - The Oatmeal
- "To the best of my knowledge the only thing philosophy has ever proven is that Descartes could think." - SMBC

Last edited by JoeMorgue; 9th April 2019 at 09:13 AM.
JoeMorgue is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th April 2019, 09:10 AM   #176
mumblethrax
Species traitor
 
mumblethrax's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 2,231
Originally Posted by arthwollipot View Post
There's an aspect of this that people here don't appear to be considering. Jobs are disappearing. Jobs are being made redundant by automation and artificial intelligence, and that trend is only going to increase. UBI provides the solution to that. Those who don't want to work don't need to, leaving more jobs for people who do want to work. And some of the people who don't want to work may spend their time in artistic pursuits, potentially spurring a new cultural renaissance.
I think this is why I'm parting ways a bit from the pro-UBI crowd--they all seem to propose it in light of impending automation.

To my mind, UBI (or welfare) makes sense as a solution to the moral problems that the liberal order presents--we shouldn't be asked to choose between work and starvation. And if you're very liberal (in the old school sense), it's probably preferable to welfare, as it's less prone to paternalism. That's an argument that works, for liberals, from the end of the 18th century up until now-ish.

But a self-driving economy doesn't just threaten jobs, it threatens the same liberal order where this argument obtains. You can't rationalize enormous wealth disparities in term of well-worn liberal, meritocratic arguments in a world where machines do every job better than humans. Instead we'll have a world where most of us are just barely scraping by because our grandparents didn't manage to become independently wealthy before the robots came along, while descendants of those who did lead lives of fabulous opulence. UBI doesn't strike me as a solution to this broken social model.

If a post-jobs world is coming, we ought to be arguing for universal ownership. UBI is then a great idea whose time is just about to pass.
mumblethrax is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th April 2019, 09:11 AM   #177
Dr. Keith
Not a doctor.
 
Dr. Keith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Texas
Posts: 18,210
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
And... that's one of those big problems with UBI I mentioned in my previous posts. Replacing other forms of welfare with UBI would require a major reduction in government bureaucracy. And that's pretty damned appealing to me. But for the same reason, I don't think it will happen. Those government employees who administer those programs won't just smile and turn in their resignations as those programs unwind. They'll fight tooth and nail to keep the gravy train moving. They will find a reason why UBI alone doesn't suffice.
I think it is a prerequisite for any UBI system that all other forms of welfare would need to be scrapped. And I agree that this may be the largest challenge. The problem is that we spend way too much money trying to document who deserves help rather than just handing out help.

I'm reminded of the fad of drug testing welfare recipients. It made rich people happy but was a waste of their money.
__________________
Suffering is not a punishment not a fruit of sin, it is a gift of God.
He allows us to share in His suffering and to make up for the sins of the world. -Mother Teresa

If I had a pet panda I would name it Snowflake.
Dr. Keith is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th April 2019, 09:15 AM   #178
GnaGnaMan
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 1,515
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
Again do you think I just make those things up? Regional monopolies, price fixing, and confusing billing are all well established and happen all the time. My ISP does all three to me once a month, without lube.

It seems we're getting told "Sure UDI will work, but only in an economy which already has all its problems fixed and therefore wouldn't need it." A system which works only in already perfect system does not impress me.

I'm not buying an economic cure-all that's I'm promised will work "right up until the point a business gets greedy or tries something shady or the government gets bloated or inefficient."

"This will work, businesses just need to be honest and the government needs to be efficient" is like saying "This will work, water just needs to be not wet and fire needs to be not hot."
I'm not entirely sure you understand what you are asserting there.

Imagine a person who is offered coffee and refuses by saying: "No, that tap water contaminated."
You'd think that the belief that the tap water is poisonous has more implications that whether one wants a coffee or not.

You are asserting that the US is fundamentally not a market economy. That has immediate and urgent implications. It makes no sense to use it as an argument against something that may or may not happen at some unspecified time in the future.

Here's a better analogy:
-Will you travel to Hawaii when you are retired?
-No. I'm buring and they don't let you on a plane when you are on fire.
__________________
It makes no difference whatever whether they laugh at us or revile us, whether they represent us as clowns or criminals; the main thing is that they mention us, that they concern themselves with us again and again. -Hitler
GnaGnaMan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th April 2019, 09:21 AM   #179
Chanakya

 
Join Date: Apr 2015
Posts: 1,018
Originally Posted by Thermal View Post
Because the idea of some lazy ass sticking his hand out for you to work and give to him is obscene to many of us. If you need help, no problem. If you are just lazy, good luck but you're on your own.
Lazy ass? Strawman, surely? A judgmental begging-the-issue strawman at that?

Who are we to judge another's motivations?

UBI is simply a form of income redistribution, ideally flowing from the top to the bottom. It is no more than an additional support to those that might find it of use.

If some choose to use it to sustain themselves and not work, well, I can appreciate an economic argument against that stance (I suppose it boils down to a projection of how many might choose to opt out), but not a moral one.
Chanakya is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th April 2019, 09:26 AM   #180
The Great Zaganza
Maledictorian
 
The Great Zaganza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 7,473
another question:

would the UBI be paid if you leave the country but remain a citizen?
__________________
Opinion is divided on the subject. All the others say it is; I say it isnít.
The Great Zaganza is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th April 2019, 09:27 AM   #181
Dave Rogers
Bandaged ice that stampedes inexpensively through a scribbled morning waving necessary ankles
 
Dave Rogers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Cair Paravel, according to XKCD
Posts: 28,836
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
Yes but this mistaking correlation for causation, or at least something similar.
No. You've said "A will inevitably lead to B." I've said "Here is an example where A has not led to B." That is a valid counter-argument.

Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
Your universal healthcare and your society's increased health awareness might be two symptoms (no pun intended) of the same cause. Universal Health Care might only work in societies that reach some tipping point of overall general awareness and just general give-a-crap-ness about their health.
I'm not sure that was particularly true of the UK in 1948. One of the benefits of a universal health care system is that it makes information on how to maintain good health freely available; in fact, it's financially motivated to do so, because better general health means less work to be done on a limited budget.

But we digress.

Dave
__________________
Me: So what you're saying is that, if the load carrying ability of the lower structure is reduced to the point where it can no longer support the load above it, it will collapse without a jolt, right?

Tony Szamboti: That is right
Dave Rogers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th April 2019, 09:27 AM   #182
JoeMorgue
Self Employed
Remittance Man
 
JoeMorgue's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Florida
Posts: 17,063
Originally Posted by GnaGnaMan View Post
I'm not entirely sure you understand what you are asserting there.
You're basically asking me to just take on faith that a system in which things that companies already do "just can't because of economic theory so and so" when UDI is implemented.

You're saying things like (functional) monopolies, price fixing, and so forth just... can't happen because of some fundamental law of Economic 101 Theory but... how?

Right now I have one choice for ISP. Most Americans only one choice for ISPs. They have functional monopolies in most places. They already charge whatever they want. This isn't some hypothetical world. This is what comes to my mailbox every month and I have to pay it.

I can't imagine what you expect to happen when of the... (pulls number out of thin air) 30 million people in VerizaComcastATT's service area suddenly get a guaranteed X amount more a month.

The idea that that's NOT going to make the ISP raise their prices is functionally insane. It's literally on the level of dropping a ball and being shocked when it falls down. They already literally charge as much as their customers can pay without choosing "literally no ISP at all."

When have a system in which many, not all but many, companies literal only competition is "People literally too poor to buy our services" and you can guarantee they've crunched those numbers to know exactly where that tipping point is to "Charge as absolute much as we can without charging too many people out of the service entirely."

And the only answer to this are "Well the market will handle it" or "Well just have the government implement price fixing" which would be a thousand times harder sell then UBI and frankly like I said when the government is setting the prices and giving the income... that's not capitalism anymore.
__________________
- "Ernest Hemingway once wrote that the world is a fine place and worth fighting for. I agree with the second part." - Detective Sommerset
- "Stupidity does not cancel out stupidity to yield genius. It breeds like a bucket-full of coked out hamsters." - The Oatmeal
- "To the best of my knowledge the only thing philosophy has ever proven is that Descartes could think." - SMBC

Last edited by JoeMorgue; 9th April 2019 at 09:28 AM.
JoeMorgue is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th April 2019, 09:33 AM   #183
Thermal
Philosopher
 
Thermal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: NJ USA. We Don't Like You Either
Posts: 7,082
Originally Posted by Chanakya View Post
Lazy ass? Strawman, surely? A judgmental begging-the-issue strawman at that?
Not straw. Maybe a little hyperbole.

Quote:
Who are we to judge another's motivations?
Not judging. Just not financing a lifestyle.

Quote:
UBI is simply a form of income redistribution, ideally flowing from the top to the bottom. It is no more than an additional support to those that might find it of use.
I think need versus use is the important point here. We could all use a little free cash. Those in need should get it.

Quote:
If some choose to use it to sustain themselves and not work, well, I can appreciate an economic argument against that stance (I suppose it boils down to a projection of how many might choose to opt out), but not a moral one.
This is the tipping point for me. Morally, it's a no. We've all known couch surfers and the like. They can be fun. If one sticks their hand out for me to work for them, it's a no-go. Live your life as you wish, but don't ask me to finance it. Such funds have ample places to go for good ends. Paying for some guy's personal Endless Summer is not one of them.

eta: forgot: when we have hunger, education, health care, and the other important stuff worked out we should then discuss how to give peole money for nothing. till then, it's a nice idea but morally we have more pressing work to do with available funds
__________________
"Half of what he said meant something else, and the other half didn't mean anything at all" -Rosencrantz, on Hamlet

Last edited by Thermal; 9th April 2019 at 09:41 AM.
Thermal is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th April 2019, 09:36 AM   #184
GnaGnaMan
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 1,515
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
You're basically asking me to just take on faith that a system in which things that companies already do "just can't because of economic theory so and so" when UDI is implemented.

You're saying things like (functional) monopolies, price fixing, and so forth just... can't happen because of some fundamental law of Economic 101 Theory but... how?
No. I am not saying that at all. I don't know what could possibly have given you that idea.
__________________
It makes no difference whatever whether they laugh at us or revile us, whether they represent us as clowns or criminals; the main thing is that they mention us, that they concern themselves with us again and again. -Hitler
GnaGnaMan is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th April 2019, 09:40 AM   #185
Arcade22
Philosopher
 
Arcade22's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Sweden
Posts: 5,104
Originally Posted by Puppycow View Post
Elephant in the room:

Would undocumented immigrants and asylum seekers be entitled to this income?
Hopefully by the time they consider implementing something like this these developed western countries would've already require individuals to have a "personal ID number" to access public services. Illegal immigrants would not have such a number and thus would not receive any money, much like they wouldn't be able to go to the doctor (except for emergencies of course).

Asylum seekers already live on money they get from the state.
__________________
Freedom you all want, you want freedom. Why then do you haggle over a more or less? Freedom can only be the whole of freedom; a piece of freedom is not freedom. You despair of the possibility of obtaining the whole of freedom, freedom from everything - yes, you consider it insanity even to wish this? - Well, then leave off chasing after the phantom, and spend your pains on something better than the - unattainable. - Max Stirner

Last edited by Arcade22; 9th April 2019 at 09:41 AM.
Arcade22 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th April 2019, 09:47 AM   #186
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 33,250
Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza View Post
Yes, UBI should remove the need for minimum wage or rent control, which should help ease housing shortages in highly desirable locations.
Dude what?

Without rent control, housing prices in highly desirable locations would skyrocket. You'd end up having to peg UBI to market rates for housing in Manhattan.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th April 2019, 09:49 AM   #187
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 42,764
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
Dude what?

Without rent control, housing prices in highly desirable locations would skyrocket. You'd end up having to peg UBI to market rates for housing in Manhattan.
Let's say rents skyrocket in Manhattan. Why is that an unacceptable outcome?
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th April 2019, 09:53 AM   #188
The Great Zaganza
Maledictorian
 
The Great Zaganza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 7,473
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
Dude what?

Without rent control, housing prices in highly desirable locations would skyrocket. You'd end up having to peg UBI to market rates for housing in Manhattan.
economists and empirical observations do not agree with that assumption.
__________________
Opinion is divided on the subject. All the others say it is; I say it isnít.
The Great Zaganza is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th April 2019, 10:05 AM   #189
ahhell
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 2,207
Originally Posted by Chanakya View Post
This argument, that people may not work if handed out an UBI, sounds ethically tone-deaf to my ears. If a bunch of people don't want to work, what good reason would anyone have to want/prefer to force them to? After all it isn't as if UBI enables opulence, only bare subsistence.
There do seem to be some social costs to idleness. Folks tend to find things to do if they don't have to work. Not all of those things benefit society and many of them are problematic for society. Work, for the most part tends to be neutral to beneficial. There is also evidence that lack of work* is bad for the individual. There are some studies that indicate a correlation with early retirement and earlier death and general age related declines.**

*Work in this case being meaningful and challenging mental/physical effort.
**Its mostly preliminary studies which is suggestive but not really convincing.

Any rate, there are reasons to be concerned with people not working other than just kvetching about lazy free loaders. Its worth listening to Andrew Yang on the subject, his big thing is UBI but he also expresses concern with idleness in more detail.
ahhell is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th April 2019, 10:07 AM   #190
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
 
psionl0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 31į57'S 115į57'E
Posts: 14,109
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
That great because "Oh you're getting the short end of the stick but don't worry... other people aren't" is great because you can just lie and tell everyone that.


Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
I'm seriously amazed that the hippie progressives are advocating a "Just trust business to not take advantage of this, and the invisible hand of the market will take care of it if they do" defense.
Once again you are responding to a completely different set of words to the ones that you quoted. It is also sheer rubbish. Businesses will take advantage of anything that they can take advantage of. They are constrained only by the laws of supply and demand (or what the government will let them get away with in some cases).
__________________
"The process by which banks create money is so simple that the mind is repelled. Where something so important is involved, a deeper mystery seems only decent." - Galbraith, 1975
psionl0 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th April 2019, 10:16 AM   #191
psionl0
Skeptical about skeptics
 
psionl0's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: 31į57'S 115į57'E
Posts: 14,109
Originally Posted by ahhell View Post
Even if it isn't inflationary in the aggregate wouldn't this result in inflation on things that the folks at the bottom spend the most on?
Some goods will indeed become more expensive but the increased demand would also increase the supply of these goods so in the longer term, this would not be that drastic.

Originally Posted by ahhell View Post
It would result in more money in circulation rather than in banks and investments right?
More accurately, it would result in more money being spent on goods and services instead of being used to pump up property prices (banks lend a lot more money than has been deposited).
__________________
"The process by which banks create money is so simple that the mind is repelled. Where something so important is involved, a deeper mystery seems only decent." - Galbraith, 1975
psionl0 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th April 2019, 10:21 AM   #192
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 33,250
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
Let's say rents skyrocket in Manhattan. Why is that an unacceptable outcome?
I'm not sure it is unacceptable.

But the idea that UBI would mean Manhattan no longer "needs" rent control seems mistaken to me.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th April 2019, 10:30 AM   #193
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 42,764
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
I'm not sure it is unacceptable.

But the idea that UBI would mean Manhattan no longer "needs" rent control seems mistaken to me.
Manhattan doesn't need anything. People need things. And they need affordable rents. They may want affordable rents in Manhattan, just like I want an affordable private Caribbean Island. But want isn't need.
__________________
"As long as it is admitted that the law may be diverted from its true purpose -- that it may violate property instead of protecting it -- then everyone will want to participate in making the law, either to protect himself against plunder or to use it for plunder. Political questions will always be prejudicial, dominant, and all-absorbing. There will be fighting at the door of the Legislative Palace, and the struggle within will be no less furious." - Bastiat, The Law
Ziggurat is online now   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th April 2019, 10:33 AM   #194
Meadmaker
Penultimate Amazing
 
Meadmaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 18,665
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
No, we do not. We have a banking system based on the idea that borrowing money for some productive scheme, and paying back the loan with interest, will make you more productive.

I'm not sure your "banking" scheme has worked incredibly well anywhere it's been tried.

But the actual banking scheme we actually have has indeed worked incredibly well to multiply the wealth of society.
Moreover, just to get the money in the first place, I have to convince them that there is reason to believe I will pay it back, plus a profit. That's a really important feature of the system. If the system gave out money "universally", the system would fail.
Meadmaker is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th April 2019, 10:34 AM   #195
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 33,250
Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza View Post
economists and empirical observations do not agree with that assumption.
Which assumption? That housing prices in low supply, high demand areas would skyrocket without rent control?

Or that UBI would have to be pegged to the market rates of such housing, in order to make such housing affordable to UBI recipients?

Either way, do you have cites of economists and/or empirical observations for either of those?
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th April 2019, 10:40 AM   #196
The Great Zaganza
Maledictorian
 
The Great Zaganza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 7,473
Rent Control leads to underuse - you don't leave a house with cheap rent, even if you only use two rooms in it.
It also makes it unattractive to build new units.
Freakonomics Radio has a recent episode on this, if you want details.
__________________
Opinion is divided on the subject. All the others say it is; I say it isnít.
The Great Zaganza is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th April 2019, 10:47 AM   #197
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 33,250
Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
Moreover, just to get the money in the first place, I have to convince them that there is reason to believe I will pay it back, plus a profit. That's a really important feature of the system. If the system gave out money "universally", the system would fail.
I mean, we could run UBI as a banking/business loan type arrangement:

You get x many years of "startup" funding, with the understanding that you'll become a net-productive member of our society in that time. After that, the funding gets replaced by your own earned income, and you have to pay back the UBI funds with interest.

Default, and you go to debtor's prison.

Or you file for an exemption, and if approved you get welfare instead, with no expectation that you'll ever become net-productive, and no requirement to ever pay it back.
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th April 2019, 10:50 AM   #198
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
 
Oystein's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 16,420
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
*Very slowly* If business people know that everybody is going to suddenly have more money to spend, they will raise prices.

Now someone is going to argue that this isn't technically speaking "inflation" in the literal Economics 101 sense, but the end result is the same.
Except not everybody is going to suddenly have more money to spend. Adding UBI to everyone's income isn't the only change that's gonna happen.
For example:
  • Since UBI will replace many other social welfare programs, especially those that provide basic subsistence for those without other sources of income, that part of the population is not going to have significantly more money to spend
  • Assuming a rise in VAT, this will eat up much, perhaps all, of the UBI for those wealthy people who spend money frequently on expensive luxury
  • Arguably, wages will also be restructured - as has been pointed out, there are good arguments to get rid of minimum wages.

So yes, ceteris paribus UBI would drive inflation, but it's naive to think it's the only change to reckon: All other things are not equal.
__________________
Thermodynamics hates conspiracy theorists. (Foster Zygote)
Oystein is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th April 2019, 11:04 AM   #199
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 33,250
Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza View Post
Rent Control leads to underuse - you don't leave a house with cheap rent, even if you only use two rooms in it.
It also makes it unattractive to build new units.
Freakonomics Radio has a recent episode on this, if you want details.
There's some blanks here that I'm having trouble filling in.

Could you go back and answer my question in direct terms?

Does this Freakonimics episode claim that getting rid of rent control would not lead to an increase in housing prices in low-supply, high demand areas? And back this claim with empirical observations and expert opinion?
theprestige is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 9th April 2019, 11:11 AM   #200
The Great Zaganza
Maledictorian
 
The Great Zaganza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 7,473
http://freakonomics.com/podcast/rent-control/

What can be shows is that rent control reduces the number of units on the market, since owners sell rather than let.
__________________
Opinion is divided on the subject. All the others say it is; I say it isnít.
The Great Zaganza is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Social Issues & Current Events

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:56 PM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.