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, 11:36 AM   #201
Childlike Empress
Ewige Blumenkraft
 
Childlike Empress's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Ivory Tower
Posts: 17,232
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
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.

One could argue (and some proponents of UBI do) that if you pay a lazy slob basic income, through the pure act of paying it all back to society in form of purchasing basic goods plus booze and playstation games, he is already a net-productive member of society, at least if you ask Sony and Jack Daniels.
__________________
Audiatur et altera pars
Childlike Empress 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, 11:48 AM   #202
Brainster
Penultimate Amazing
 
Brainster's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 16,742
Originally Posted by GnaGnaMan View Post
Please explain one of these ways.
1. A VAT guarantees some price increases for goods, since goods are now taxed during the production period. The cost of those taxes has to be passed along to the consumer.

2. One of the benefits of UBI is that everybody has a little free spending money, right? Increased demand and stable supply means that prices will increase. This is basic micro-economics.

3. Others have pointed out that people will be free to turn down crappy jobs and crappy wages. Ergo, wages must rise for those crappy jobs (after all, they still have to be done) must rise, ergo prices for the goods and services those jobs provide must increase.
__________________
My new blog: Recent Reads.
1960s Comic Book Nostalgia
Visit the Screw Loose Change blog.
Brainster 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, 11:58 AM   #203
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 43,892
Originally Posted by Childlike Empress View Post
One could argue (and some proponents of UBI do) that if you pay a lazy slob basic income, through the pure act of paying it all back to society in form of purchasing basic goods plus booze and playstation games, he is already a net-productive member of society, at least if you ask Sony and Jack Daniels.
Sure, people can argue things that are wrong. If you aren't producing goods or services, then you aren't productive. By definition.
__________________
"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 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, 12:01 PM   #204
The Great Zaganza
Maledictorian
 
The Great Zaganza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 9,041
Plenty of companies reward customers just for being transparent customers.
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, 12:08 PM   #205
ahhell
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 2,497
On the rent control thing. Theory, observation, and almost all economists agree, it causes shortages.

Renters will stay in units they otherwise wouldn't for obvious reasons, even when they no longer need the space. Builders will build less because its less profitable and landlords will actually remove units from the market because it no longer pays enough to rent them. The only people it benefits are people who already have apartments and have no desire to leave them.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rent_r...housing_market

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.
Sure, the two have little to do with each other. Rent control is bad policy that hurts those it is meant to help regardless of the UBI. Manahattan needs to be rid of rental control.

Quote:
Paul Krugman writes that rent control inhibits construction of new housing, creates bitter tenant–landlord relations, and in markets with not all apartments under rent control, causes an increase in rents for uncontrolled units.[24]

Thomas Sowell writes that rent control reduces the supply of housing,[31]:4 and has stated that rent control increases urban blight.[31]:5 [32]:1
I doubt you could find much else that Sowell and Krugman agree on.

Last edited by ahhell; 9th April 2019 at 12:14 PM.
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, 12:20 PM   #206
P.J. Denyer
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 5,588
Originally Posted by Beelzebuddy View Post
This is a much bigger deal than people realize at first. If you haven't ever been on the dole, you don't know what all is involved. There is a LOT of money (and effort) wasted trying to ensure that no money is wasted, and it all gets mixed in with money and effort wasted by Libertarian and/or racist dickheads making the process deliberately complicated while trying to shame people out of being poor to discourage them going through it at all.

It's a situation a lot like universal health care: it's more effective and cheaper to give it to everyone than to draw a distinction between who needs it and who doesn't.

Absolutely, payment errors in the UK are several times larger than benefit fraud. Unclaimed benefits and allowances are greater than both together. Of course tax avoidance is an order of magnitude greater but but gets an order of magnitude fewer Daily Fail headlines.....
__________________
"I know my brain cannot tell me what to think." - Scorpion

"Nebulous means Nebulous" - Adam Hills
P.J. Denyer 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, 12:28 PM   #207
Meadmaker
Penultimate Amazing
 
Meadmaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 19,313
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
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.
Sounds like student loans.
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, 12:51 PM   #208
Childlike Empress
Ewige Blumenkraft
 
Childlike Empress's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Ivory Tower
Posts: 17,232
Originally Posted by Ziggurat View Post
Sure, people can argue things that are wrong. If you aren't producing goods or services, then you aren't productive. By definition.

Well, he exists anyway, and the day you take his slot on the motorway to get to your productive job faster while he is still napping instead of heading to the burger turner job he only has because so many unproductive members of society got up, blocked the motorway and now have to eat in a couple of minutes (who also all stayed home that day), you'll thank UBI for increasing your productivity.
__________________
Audiatur et altera pars
Childlike Empress 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, 12:54 PM   #209
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 37,140
Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza View Post
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.
Okay?

But what exactly is the claim? Get rid of rent control, and supply will increase faster than demand, and housing prices will go down?
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, 12:58 PM   #210
Childlike Empress
Ewige Blumenkraft
 
Childlike Empress's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Ivory Tower
Posts: 17,232
I think economic arguments for UBI are quite sound, but the main benefit would be, as someone already mentioned, the mere ability to say "no". And this is so profound for a "value-based" society we all like to think we live in that we can't even imagine the consequences. Think journalism, child care, care for the old just as a starter.
__________________
Audiatur et altera pars
Childlike Empress 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, 01:05 PM   #211
Thermal
Philosopher
 
Thermal's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Currently Dismembered
Posts: 7,974
Originally Posted by P.J. Denyer View Post
Absolutely, payment errors in the UK are several times larger than benefit fraud. Unclaimed benefits and allowances are greater than both together. Of course tax avoidance is an order of magnitude greater but but gets an order of magnitude fewer Daily Fail headlines.....
Nvm
__________________
"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 01:06 PM.
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, 01:17 PM   #212
3point14
Pi
 
3point14's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 18,067
Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
Most people are bigger slackers than I am. I am just more honest about it.

I work because I have to. I have no choice. Given that I have to spend 40 hours a week doing things I wouldn't do unless you paid me for it, I try and find things that I don't hate doing, and that are the "most productive", i.e. highest paying. However, if you said to me, "Or, you can spend your time however you want, and we'll make sure your basic needs are met." then the first time my boss ticked me off, I would say buzz off and walk out the door.
That's assuming that the things you want to do don't cost any money.
__________________
Up the River!

Anyone that wraps themselves in the Union Flag and also lives in tax exile is a [redacted]
3point14 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, 01:25 PM   #213
GnaGnaMan
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 1,707
Originally Posted by Brainster View Post
1. A VAT guarantees some price increases for goods, since goods are now taxed during the production period. The cost of those taxes has to be passed along to the consumer.
That's true. VAT is not UBI, though.
VAT is usually explicitly a tax on the consumer.

Quote:
2. One of the benefits of UBI is that everybody has a little free spending money, right? Increased demand and stable supply means that prices will increase. This is basic micro-economics.
Can you expand on why the supply would be stable?

Quote:
3. Others have pointed out that people will be free to turn down crappy jobs and crappy wages. Ergo, wages must rise for those crappy jobs (after all, they still have to be done) must rise, ergo prices for the goods and services those jobs provide must increase.
1)What you are saying here is that people are being forced to work for less than the market wage.
I am not saying that this isn't the case. But it is something that needs to be addressed regardless of a UBI.

2)I would expect wages for some jobs to fall when people no longer have to demand a living wage.

3)It's not really obvious to me that the net effect would be significant inflation. That needs further work.

Also, I had hoped to see an argument for runaway inflation.
__________________
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, 01:43 PM   #214
Childlike Empress
Ewige Blumenkraft
 
Childlike Empress's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Ivory Tower
Posts: 17,232
Originally Posted by GnaGnaMan View Post
That's true. VAT is not UBI, though.
VAT is usually explicitly a tax on the consumer.

In his proposal on his website I linked earlier, Andrew Yang asks for 10% VAT and claims that in Europe the average rate is 20%. I actually had to look it up for my country Germany. It's 19% in general and 7% for basic goods everybody needs. Contrary to other countries, there is no increased VAT for luxury goods, but the general percentage the VAT has of total tax income of the state is around 30% already. UBI not very near yet but the road is obvious.
__________________
Audiatur et altera pars
Childlike Empress 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, 02:05 PM   #215
Dr. Keith
Not a doctor.
 
Dr. Keith's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Texas
Posts: 18,852
Originally Posted by Childlike Empress View Post
I think economic arguments for UBI are quite sound, but the main benefit would be, as someone already mentioned, the mere ability to say "no". And this is so profound for a "value-based" society we all like to think we live in that we can't even imagine the consequences. Think journalism, child care, care for the old just as a starter.
Agreed.
__________________
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, 02:08 PM   #216
ahhell
Master Poster
 
Join Date: Feb 2017
Posts: 2,497
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
Okay?

But what exactly is the claim? Get rid of rent control, and supply will increase faster than demand, and housing prices will go down?
Depends on how you do it but there will be less housing regardless.

A. Rent control exists.
B. Rent control does not.

All things being equal, in condition B there will be more and cheaper housing available.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rent_r..._modern_Europe

Widely agreed upon by economists, demonstrated via observation, and predicted in theory.

If you cap the price of something below market rates, producers will produce less while consumers will still want more of it which reduces the available stock. That which is available may be cheaper but there will be less to go around and or there will be a black market where the prices are actually higher than they would be otherwise or the quality will be less.
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, 03:45 PM   #217
Hercules Rockefeller
Woof!
 
Hercules Rockefeller's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 3,275
I think a UBI would have to be Universal and not just to American to have a chance. I've got the perfect solution that only requires we get rid of people.
__________________
Quantum physics means that anything can happen at anytime and for no reason. Also, eat plenty of oatmeal, and animals never had a war! - Deepak Chopra
Hercules Rockefeller 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, 03:55 PM   #218
Roboramma
Penultimate Amazing
 
Roboramma's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 12,775
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
That rather dishonestly ignores the small fact that when a bank gives you money you're expected to give it back plus some.
I don't think I was dishonestly ignoring that fact. Sure, the fact that you have to pay it back incentivises you to do something productive with it, so the situations aren't identical. But Meadmaker was saying that he can't see how getting money from someone else can make you more productive. The fact that loans work is a very obvious example of the fact that getting money can make people more productive.

Will people who don't have to pay the money back have incentive to use it to increase their productivity? Of course they will, everyone wants a better life.
__________________
"... when people thought the Earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the Earth was spherical they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the Earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the Earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together."
Isaac Asimov
Roboramma 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, 03:56 PM   #219
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 37,140
Originally Posted by ahhell View Post
Depends on how you do it but there will be less housing regardless.



A. Rent control exists.

B. Rent control does not.



All things being equal, in condition B there will be more and cheaper housing available.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rent_r..._modern_Europe



Widely agreed upon by economists, demonstrated via observation, and predicted in theory.



If you cap the price of something below market rates, producers will produce less while consumers will still want more of it which reduces the available stock. That which is available may be cheaper but there will be less to go around and or there will be a black market where the prices are actually higher than they would be otherwise or the quality will be less.
Okay. Now apply all that to Manhattan Island. If you got rid of rent control there, how much low income housing would be added?
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, 03:56 PM   #220
Roboramma
Penultimate Amazing
 
Roboramma's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 12,775
Originally Posted by JoeMorgue View Post
This is starting to sound more and more like the argument the hardcore Pirate Bay / File Sharing enthusiasts use just blown up to cover all of society and approached from the other direction.

"Don't you see man, just make all media free and let people share and copy stuff without restriction. That way art, true art, is only going to be made who truly want to make it."

It's the same argument. If we "get rid" of the people who only make art to make money, the people left would just happily give it away for free so society will have all the art it needs with none of the cost and this will all magically balance out in the end because reasons.
I don't think that remotely resembles any argument anyone is making.
__________________
"... when people thought the Earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the Earth was spherical they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the Earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the Earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together."
Isaac Asimov
Roboramma 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, 04:01 PM   #221
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 37,140
Originally Posted by Roboramma View Post
I don't think I was dishonestly ignoring that fact. Sure, the fact that you have to pay it back incentivises you to do something productive with it, so the situations aren't identical. But Meadmaker was saying that he can't see how getting money from someone else can make you more productive. The fact that loans work is a very obvious example of the fact that getting money can make people more productive.
Jesus Christ what a dishonest argument.

Lenders don't give money, they sell it. And they filter out people who don't look plausibly productive. Because they're trying to make profitable sales, not hand out money blindly.

I'm all in favor of investing in profitable people. But are you really proposing a UBI on that basis?
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, 04:06 PM   #222
Roboramma
Penultimate Amazing
 
Roboramma's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 12,775
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.
You say you don't have something then say we have something else which is a subset of the first.

"Lots of people like to run as a hobby." "No, lots of people like to run while wearing clothes." The second sentence isn't a contradiction of the first.

You perhaps missed the post that I was responding to, which wasn't saying that the lack of incentives to pay back the money is the reason that UBI won't work, but rather the fact that the money is coming from someone else.

Sure, the specific ways in which the banking system works which won't be a part of UBI might make a difference. They are certainly necessary for the banks to get their money back. Are they necessary to incentivise people investing in increasing their productivity, in whatever form?
__________________
"... when people thought the Earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the Earth was spherical they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the Earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the Earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together."
Isaac Asimov
Roboramma 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, 04:09 PM   #223
Roboramma
Penultimate Amazing
 
Roboramma's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 12,775
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.
That's a valid concern I think. My personal view is that we really should get rid of this stuff, even if it's a difficult political fight, but maybe I'm being too much of an idealist in that regard, to expect it's possible.
__________________
"... when people thought the Earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the Earth was spherical they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the Earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the Earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together."
Isaac Asimov
Roboramma 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, 04:45 PM   #224
Meadmaker
Penultimate Amazing
 
Meadmaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 19,313
Originally Posted by Roboramma View Post
I don't think I was dishonestly ignoring that fact. Sure, the fact that you have to pay it back incentivises you to do something productive with it, so the situations aren't identical. But Meadmaker was saying that he can't see how getting money from someone else can make you more productive. The fact that loans work is a very obvious example of the fact that getting money can make people more productive.

Will people who don't have to pay the money back have incentive to use it to increase their productivity? Of course they will, everyone wants a better life.
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
Jesus Christ what a dishonest argument.

Lenders don't give money, they sell it. And they filter out people who don't look plausibly productive. Because they're trying to make profitable sales, not hand out money blindly.

I'm all in favor of investing in profitable people. But are you really proposing a UBI on that basis?
What prestige said.

I clarified that I meant with no strings attached. I think you (Roboramma) are trying to get at the fact that if I could use money I have to pay back then I could also use money that I didn't have to pay back. That's only sort of true. There are a couple of reasons why it's wrong.

First, if I've got a great idea, and the only thing stopping me is I don't have an additional subsistence level wage to put it into action, well...…….come to think of it, I can't come up with any scenario where that could possibly actually result in me being more productive. If that's all I needed, I can probably find a way to borrow it using the "normal" means, and the amount of money is very small anyway, and it comes in slow chunks instead of a lump sum, and, well, there are so many reasons why that additional UBI money just isn't going to make the difference.


Second, the requirement to pay it back actually provides the incentive to use it productively.

Third, I don't need money in order to get as productive as I will likely ever be.


For me, personally, I have access to money if I really need it as the only way to better myself, so when I said that I can't imagine a scenario where the UBI money would make me more productive, I meant it. If I really needed money to be productive, I could find the money.


I'll go one step further, though. I'll say that my situation is also true for darned near everyone else. Ambitious people who want to better themselves, and need money to do it, and could actually make it work with just the money UBI would provide, almost always have access to enough money to make it happen. The vast, vast, majority of people who got the money would use it to purchase consumer goods.

Now, it's true that some people would use it on education, but a more cost effective way to get people educated, if we were to decide that's what we really need, would be to subsidize education, but if we do that, we ought to only subsidize education for those who are likely to learn something from that education, and likely to be studying something worthwhile to society.


It's also true that some people would invest it in some sort of entrepreneurial venture, but there are sources of capital for small ventures. Most people who would be unsuccessful at acquiring a small sum of money, like the value of the UBI, would also be unsuccessful at using it. A more cost effective way of encouraging entrepeneurship would be to create some sort of government agency to subsidize ventures under some circumstances. We could call it a "small business administration" or something.



Oh, and there's probably some way to parse my words in such a way that it means some other sort of thing, but just to be sure, let me make it absolutely clear what I meant. If you give me more money, what I will do is retire. I will not become more productive. If you gave it to me when I was younger, I would have spent it on beer, or travel, or video games, or something other than becoming more productive. So would the vast majority of people.

ETA: Just to be certain of what I wrote, and that I wasn't misremembering, I went back and looked it up. I said there was no way to give "me" money to make "me" more productive. I meant it, and it's true. As noted above, I'll go one step farther and say that it's also true for a lot of other people. And for every person who would make himself more productive by spending their UBI check, there will be a dozen who will make themselves less productive. It's a bad investment.

Last edited by Meadmaker; 9th April 2019 at 04:53 PM.
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, 04:49 PM   #225
Puppycow
Penultimate Amazing
 
Puppycow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 23,740
Originally Posted by Arcade22 View Post
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.
Is that right? No wonder so many people are claiming asylum these days.
__________________
A fool thinks himself to be wise, but a wise man knows himself to be a fool.
William Shakespeare
Puppycow 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, 04:58 PM   #226
Puppycow
Penultimate Amazing
 
Puppycow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 23,740
Originally Posted by Dave Rogers View Post
Turning the question around, then, how would UBI be paid to illegal immigrants?

Dave
The same way they pay it to anyone else I suppose.

Come to America illegally, have a kid in America. The kid is now an American citizen, and you can start receiving benefits. They've got it all figured out. Claiming asylum is another way to get a foot in the door.
__________________
A fool thinks himself to be wise, but a wise man knows himself to be a fool.
William Shakespeare
Puppycow 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, 05:12 PM   #227
arthwollipot
Observer of Phenomena
 
arthwollipot's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Location, Location
Posts: 63,445
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.
The bit you seem to be missing is that the UBI payment doesn't go up. Some prices may go up, yes, but then they'll stabilise at the new level.

Another thing that a lot of people seem to be missing is that UBI is sufficient to meet basic needs. It keeps you out of poverty. If you're happy subsisting at right above the poverty line, you're sweet. If you want anything else, you'll need a job. Want to smoke pot and watch TV? Pot costs money. You can either eat ramen and smoke pot, or eat real food and not smoke pot. To do both, get a job.
__________________
Self-described nerd. Pronouns: He/Him

We can't go back. We don't understand everything yet.
"Everything" is a little ambitious. We barely understand anything.
Yeah. But that's what the first part of understanding everything looks like.
- xkcd Time (frame 1071-3)
arthwollipot 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, 05:53 PM   #228
Roboramma
Penultimate Amazing
 
Roboramma's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 12,775
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
Jesus Christ what a dishonest argument.

Lenders don't give money, they sell it. And they filter out people who don't look plausibly productive. Because they're trying to make profitable sales, not hand out money blindly.

I'm all in favor of investing in profitable people. But are you really proposing a UBI on that basis?
I'm proposing that some people will use UBI in ways that will improve their productivity.

I'm not proposing that all people will, or that the efficiency of this will be similar to the efficiency at which productivity increases when banks lend money.

I was responding initially to the idea that Meadmaker couldn't see how giving people money could improve their productivity. I wasn't trying to argue that it inevitably will. You seem to think I'm arguing for a stronger case than I am.

I am very simply saying that having more money can make people more productive. Maybe I phrased it in a way that seemed to be saying more than that, if so I apologise. But I don't think there's anything dishonest about the idea that having more funds can open up opportunities for people that leads to improvements in their productivity, and I do think that the effectiveness of loans is a proof of that concept.

Will it tend to be used in that way more than in ways that will lower productivity*? I haven't actually made that argument yet, but it seems to me that you are objecting to that claim.

*I tend to think so, but I will have to try to do some research before making that case.
__________________
"... when people thought the Earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the Earth was spherical they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the Earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the Earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together."
Isaac Asimov
Roboramma 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, 06:00 PM   #229
Random
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 3,034
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?

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.
This is less of an argument against UBI, and more of an argument in favor of socializing internet service. In a lot of countries, the government regulates the internet infrastructure, and they get cheaper, faster internet.
__________________
"...Am I actually watching Big Bird argue with the Egyptian God of the Dead? Is PBS sending some kind of weird religious message here?"
Random 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, 06:12 PM   #230
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
 
Ziggurat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 43,892
Originally Posted by Hercules Rockefeller View Post
I think a UBI would have to be Universal and not just to American to have a chance. I've got the perfect solution that only requires we get rid of people.
"Death solves all problems - no man, no problem." - Anatoly Rybakov
__________________
"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 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, 06:16 PM   #231
Roboramma
Penultimate Amazing
 
Roboramma's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 12,775
Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
ETA: Just to be certain of what I wrote, and that I wasn't misremembering, I went back and looked it up. I said there was no way to give "me" money to make "me" more productive. I meant it, and it's true.
Okay, I am happy to believe you. And I'm sure you are right that there are other people for whom that is true as well.

On the other hand I gave a friend of mine $10000, no strings attached, around a year and a half ago and he used it to start a business which now has something like 10 employees. I have another friend who I allowed to live rent free in my spare room (for about a year now), and that has allowed him to take a job that isn't that high paying but is helping him to get experience in a new industry that hopefully will lead to new opportunities in the future. If not he'd probably be still living in SuZhou which has fewer opportunities but also a lower cost of living. I can't say for sure, but I can see that as a possible increase in his productivity.



Quote:
As noted above, I'll go one step farther and say that it's also true for a lot of other people. And for every person who would make himself more productive by spending their UBI check, there will be a dozen who will make themselves less productive. It's a bad investment.
It's an empirical question, and I admit I haven't supported the idea that you are wrong here, but similarly your viewpoint is also just an opinion at this point. Neither us of has backed this up with data.

It's possible that my viewpoint is informed by living in Shanghai where there are a lot of opportunities and my circle of friends tends to be people who came here looking for those opportunities. I may be biased in how I think people are likely to spend a surplus.
__________________
"... when people thought the Earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the Earth was spherical they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the Earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the Earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together."
Isaac Asimov
Roboramma 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, 07:07 PM   #232
Meadmaker
Penultimate Amazing
 
Meadmaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 19,313
Originally Posted by Roboramma View Post
It's possible that my viewpoint is informed by living in Shanghai where there are a lot of opportunities and my circle of friends tends to be people who came here looking for those opportunities. I may be biased in how I think people are likely to spend a surplus.
I think that is the case.

That friend you gave 10,000 dollars to. You knew him, right? You wouldn't give 10,000 bucks to a stranger, or to a friend who you knew wouldn't be productive, would you? Likewise with the rent free friend. You chose who lived in that room, and you wouldn't let someone live in that room rent free indefinitely while they rummaged through your fridge and proclaimed they were too stressed to find a job.

You were not behaving like a bank, in that you were not demanding a return on investment and demanding collateral to make it more likely to get a return, or at least avoid a loss on that investment, but you were performing a very important function that a bank would perform. You were assessing whether your sacrifice, of money, or of privacy, was likely to have a payoff, which in your case might just be a warm fuzzy feeling that you helped people out. Regardless of your reward, you didn't just provide those benefits to any old stranger on the street. You screened those who sought to be beneficiaries of your aid.

UBI removes that screening process.

ETA: For what it's worth, I'm not against all welfare. In fact, I'm for a social "safety net" that would be roughly the same as a guaranteed minimum income, but if I were making the rules, all received money would have strings attached. You think that people might use the money to advance their education. In my world, attending classes might be a requirement for receiving the money.

The actual rules and regulations get very complicated. Someone has to come up with rules of who gets exempted for age, health, dependent care requirements, etc. Someone has to come up with exactly what the minimum effort required toward "bettering yourself" has to be, and what to do with people who don't meet the minimums. Those are all complicated details and I don't have the answer to them, and it will cost money to pay bureaucrats to invent and enforce the rules, but I believe that the cost of the aid plus the cost of the bureaucrats would be less, a lot less, than just giving money to everyone.

Last edited by Meadmaker; 9th April 2019 at 07:12 PM.
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, 08:26 PM   #233
Brainster
Penultimate Amazing
 
Brainster's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 16,742
Originally Posted by GnaGnaMan View Post
That's true. VAT is not UBI, though.
VAT is usually explicitly a tax on the consumer.
A VAT is how people like Andrew Yang are planning to pay for the UBI. If you don't have the VAT, then you will definitely have runaway inflation.

Quote:
Can you expand on why the supply would be stable?
It all fits it with everything else. If we have a UBI, presumably some people will choose not to work. It is hard to argue that productivity will increase in these circumstances. Ergo stable to decreasing supply seems the most obvious outcome.

Quote:
1)What you are saying here is that people are being forced to work for less than the market wage.
What? How the hell did you get that from this:

Originally Posted by Brainster
3. Others have pointed out that people will be free to turn down crappy jobs and crappy wages. Ergo, wages must rise for those crappy jobs (after all, they still have to be done) must rise, ergo prices for the goods and services those jobs provide must increase.
I believe that those jobs currently provide a market wage. Indeed, I don't understand how anybody could argue otherwise. But if you give everybody $12,000 a year, the market will presumably change quite a bit.

Quote:
2)I would expect wages for some jobs to fall when people no longer have to demand a living wage.
Exactly how would this occur?

Quote:
3)It's not really obvious to me that the net effect would be significant inflation. That needs further work.
You can lead a horse to water...

Quote:
Also, I had hoped to see an argument for runaway inflation.
Ah, so you agree it would be inflationary, just not runaway. And here I thought I had done this for nothing.
__________________
My new blog: Recent Reads.
1960s Comic Book Nostalgia
Visit the Screw Loose Change blog.
Brainster 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, 08:36 PM   #234
The Great Zaganza
Maledictorian
 
The Great Zaganza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 9,041
Most economist, as far as I know, think a luxury VAT would not harm the economy but create quite a bit of revenue.
And all economists I know agree that an estate tax is the best tax, since it doesn't affect market behavior at all - you won't decide not to die because that would mean extra taxes.
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, 09:00 PM   #235
Puppycow
Penultimate Amazing
 
Puppycow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 23,740
Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza View Post
Most economist, as far as I know, think a luxury VAT would not harm the economy but create quite a bit of revenue.
And all economists I know agree that an estate tax is the best tax, since it doesn't affect market behavior at all - you won't decide not to die because that would mean extra taxes.
George Steinbrenner died at a very convenient time for his heirs, but that's just the old Yankee luck I suppose. Saved his heirs $500 million in taxes.

https://www.nj.com/news/2010/07/geor...death_dur.html

Quote:
Steinbrenner's death Tuesday came during an unplanned year-long gap in the estate tax, the first since it was enacted in 1916. Political wrangling has stalemated efforts in Congress to replace the tax that expired in 2009.
__________________
A fool thinks himself to be wise, but a wise man knows himself to be a fool.
William Shakespeare
Puppycow 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 PM   #236
The Great Zaganza
Maledictorian
 
The Great Zaganza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 9,041
Originally Posted by Puppycow View Post
George Steinbrenner died at a very convenient time for his heirs, but that's just the old Yankee luck I suppose. Saved his heirs $500 million in taxes.

https://www.nj.com/news/2010/07/geor...death_dur.html
kinda proves my point.
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, 10:34 PM   #237
Roboramma
Penultimate Amazing
 
Roboramma's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Shanghai
Posts: 12,775
Originally Posted by Meadmaker View Post
UBI removes that screening process.
Absolutely, and I agree that that's an important difference. I am not trying to say that UBI will be effective to the same extent that banks are, I was only trying to make the case that it can function as a productivity multiplier for some. Again, what proportion of people that will be true of is certainly up for debate.

Quote:
Those are all complicated details and I don't have the answer to them, and it will cost money to pay bureaucrats to invent and enforce the rules, but I believe that the cost of the aid plus the cost of the bureaucrats would be less, a lot less, than just giving money to everyone.
Well, I think that's where the subject of the debate should focus, anyway, and while I am leaning in a different direction than you on where I think it will go, we certainly agree that that is the important issue here.
__________________
"... when people thought the Earth was flat, they were wrong. When people thought the Earth was spherical they were wrong. But if you think that thinking the Earth is spherical is just as wrong as thinking the Earth is flat, then your view is wronger than both of them put together."
Isaac Asimov
Roboramma 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, 10:43 PM   #238
BobTheCoward
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 17,438
Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza View Post
Most economist, as far as I know, think a luxury VAT would not harm the economy but create quite a bit of revenue.
And all economists I know agree that an estate tax is the best tax, since it doesn't affect market behavior at all - you won't decide not to die because that would mean extra taxes.
Economists won't say it is good or bad. Whether affecting market behavior is good or bad isn't a positive economic question
BobTheCoward 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, 10:52 PM   #239
The Great Zaganza
Maledictorian
 
The Great Zaganza's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 9,041
Originally Posted by BobTheCoward View Post
Economists won't say it is good or bad. Whether affecting market behavior is good or bad isn't a positive economic question
I stand corrected
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 10th April 2019, 03:00 AM   #240
GnaGnaMan
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 1,707
Originally Posted by Brainster View Post
A VAT is how people like Andrew Yang are planning to pay for the UBI. If you don't have the VAT, then you will definitely have runaway inflation.
The USA is the only industrialized country without a VAT. Can you explain why it would experience runaway inflation when none of the others did?

Quote:
It all fits it with everything else. If we have a UBI, presumably some people will choose not to work. It is hard to argue that productivity will increase in these circumstances. Ergo stable to decreasing supply seems the most obvious outcome.
Is this about the US not being a market economy?
Because that's certainly not how things should be expected to go in a market economy.

Quote:
What? How the hell did you get that from this:
In theory, the market wage should equal the marginal productivty of the employee. To what a degree this describes the real world is debatable but probably not important here.
The wage, of course, includes benefits like health care.
Some people work for less, eg slaves. I suppose you could call not being tortured a "benefit" but let's not torture language and just say they are being forced.

I understood you to say that some people work for less than the market wage now because they fear some negative consequence. IE they are being forced.

If that's not what you are saying then please explain.

Quote:
I believe that those jobs currently provide a market wage. Indeed, I don't understand how anybody could argue otherwise. But if you give everybody $12,000 a year, the market will presumably change quite a bit.
Wait... what? Just a bit higher up you asserted nothing would change except for people quitting their jobs. Please clarify that.

Quote:
Exactly how would this occur?
The usual way. Competition. "The invisible hand".

Quote:
Ah, so you agree it would be inflationary, just not runaway. And here I thought I had done this for nothing.
Please don't lie.
__________________
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
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 02:04 AM.
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.