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 26th November 2019, 07:39 AM   #241
Rolfe
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
 
Rolfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 44,315
Originally Posted by William Parcher View Post
By choice, or will the government force that?

Eh? I understood we were talking about a property already owned by the family or by someone in the family.

I can't envision any government interference with property. The arrangements will be up to the people participating to sort out.
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012.
Rolfe 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 26th November 2019, 07:57 AM   #242
Rolfe
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
 
Rolfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 44,315
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
Don't expect too much from a UBI. It's not going to solve all of the world's problems. For a majority, it is just something they will get instead of a tax free threshold.

It is mainly for people at the other end of the scale. These are people who will no longer be in a welfare trap. They can get casual or seasonal work without losing any UBI or risking being thrown off welfare altogether (and considering how long it can take to get back on it again, working comes with a very expensive penalty).

People will still be expected to live within their means. There is no obligation to provide anybody with a penthouse suite in a New York apartment.

Yes. This. Most people carry on much as they're doing. Those at the bottom will be a bit better off and those who were trapped by poverty will no longer be in a poverty trap and their lives will be transformed. Those at the top may be paying a bit more in tax but if the economy as a whole benefits then their actual incomes may not drop at all.

If the UBI was brought in suddenly, on 1st January 2020, what might happen? People on social security benefits which were lower than the UBI benefit immediately by having more income. They may be able to afford to rent a room when they couldn't before. They may be able to heat a home that was previously cold. They may be able to replace broken appliances, keep a stock of food in the house, buy a new pair of shoes.

People in low-paid jobs they hate. Would they give them up? $1000 a month isn't that much. Imagine having their present meagre wage plus $1000 every month. I don't think many of them would pack it in immediately. Some might start looking for a job they like better even if it pays less or is part time. Some might feel so liberated from the day-to-day low-wage struggle that they find they don't hate the job as much as all that.

Would people who are already quite comfortable quit their jobs for a life of leisure on only $1000 a month? I doubt it! Also, would everyone actually be $1000 a month better off? The UBI will take the place of tax allowances and other benefits so people who are already paying tax will not see as much as a $1000 rise. I think in the event of a sudden introduction there would be parallel tax changes so that people who are already taking hom more than say double the UBI aren't going to see a lot of difference.

I think the main danger would be unscrupulous sharks positioning themselves to take as much of the new UBI income off the previously destitute as they could manage. Scams, overpriced "basic" accommodation and so on. Might need a bit of legislation to combat that.

It's an interesting thought experiment. People in the thread, if UBI at $1000 a month came in on that date, how do you think it would affect your current life?
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012.

Last edited by Rolfe; 26th November 2019 at 07:58 AM.
Rolfe 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 26th November 2019, 08:10 AM   #243
Rolfe
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
 
Rolfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 44,315
I'll start. If UBI equivalent to $1000 were introduced in January, that comes to £775 per month at the present rate of exchange.

I would be about £80 (just over $100) a month better off. This is because I already have the current UBI for retired people, known as the state pension. That is currently £695 per month. The UBI would replace that, so I'd get £80 more. Whoopee, that's nice. Would it change my life, considering that my total income is £2,500 a month at present? Not really. It might make the life of someone for whom that was their only income a bit easier though.

In fact the British state pension is easily the lowest in Europe and probably the developed world. The equivalent is much higher in other countries. So (and I just thought of this), you absolutely couldn't replace the state retirement pension with a UBI that was less. So that probably returns to an earlier suggestion of mine, age bands for UBI. Infant - minor - adult - senior. And the senior rate would be the retirement pension level. (Except that it had bloody well be higher than the adult UBI, not lower.)
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012.

Last edited by Rolfe; 26th November 2019 at 08:13 AM.
Rolfe 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 26th November 2019, 08:20 AM   #244
P.J. Denyer
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 6,062
Originally Posted by Rolfe View Post
An extended family or a group of family and friends living together and being self-sufficient (including engaging in smallholding-level agriculture and building by the sound of it) sounds like a perfectly fine lifestyle in this context. Since this isn't going to be the way most people will live, I fail to see the problem.

This group already owns the land. Most people don't own that sort of land. They're producing a fair bit of their own food (this is work, you know, it's just not conventional wage-slave employment) in order to have enough money for some luxuries. I don't see it as gaming the system in any way. In fact, if this sort of comminal living - I mean a group consisting of both family and friends - became the norm, it's possible everyone's mental health would improve, caring for children, sick members of the group and elderly members of the group would be a communal task to the benefit of both society and the cared-for.

I say go for it.
I think you've misinterpreted my point and seem to be thinking I'm saying the exact opposite of my position! I was actually saying that this group of people who were supposedly dropping out and becoming non productive would instead be becoming productive in a different, and perhaps better,way. Instead of doing a job they might hate and being dependent on the wages coming in they'd have their own business growing the crops, if successful they have more income and will eventually be paying something back into the system, if not they won't go bust or lose their home. I'm in favour and was posting in support of the idea, opposing the notion that this theoretical family group illustrated a flaw in the system. My belief is that UBI will encourage people to work on top of that income but in more innovative and individual ways because they will be able to take a chance on their ideas due to having a 'freedom to fail' that most of us don't have now.
__________________
"I know my brain cannot tell me what to think." - Scorpion

"Nebulous means Nebulous" - Adam Hills

Last edited by P.J. Denyer; 26th November 2019 at 08:23 AM.
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 26th November 2019, 08:29 AM   #245
Rolfe
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
 
Rolfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 44,315
I still think we're agreeing with each other!
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012.
Rolfe 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 26th November 2019, 08:31 AM   #246
P.J. Denyer
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 6,062
Originally Posted by Rolfe View Post
I still think we're agreeing with each other!
I'm sure we are, I just thought from your reply that you thought I was disagreeing.
__________________
"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 26th November 2019, 08:39 AM   #247
MinnesotaBrant
Illuminator
 
MinnesotaBrant's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 4,716
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
So your pet theory reigns supreme even though trials have not seen large numbers of people moving out to the boonies and living in a hippy commune.
Actually that sounds like fun. I am not good for much but my wife can cook. We still get medicare for all too right? Thanks Bernie. What makes me laugh about most of the responses here is that almost nobody can imagine a future that is not terrible. I think its just me and Psionlo. It kind of makes me wonder if we are really just living our lives out in a computer simulation with the number-generation program running into the negative until the stack is blown.

To make an obvious point. if everything is nearly free to make and AI bots are everywhere, it stands to reason that everything you want including housing will cost very little to buy. I suppose they could go the workhouse route but then we would all be slaves making stuff for our robot masters.
__________________
Formerly known as MNBrant.

Last edited by MinnesotaBrant; 26th November 2019 at 08:48 AM.
MinnesotaBrant 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 26th November 2019, 08:57 AM   #248
Rolfe
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
 
Rolfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 44,315
Originally Posted by P.J. Denyer View Post
I'm sure we are, I just thought from your reply that you thought I was disagreeing.

No, not at all. I think it's a feature, not a bug.

Newtontrino seemed to be implying that group living "on a farm in the boondocks" would in some way be gaming the system. It's just one possible way of living that would be facilitated by the system. It wouldn't suit everyone. The number of groups who are going to try it is unlikely to be enough to skew the operation of the system as a whole.

It's a small farming enterprise, mainly intended to be self-sufficient. Unless the land is already owned by the group (or by one of them) then the farm has to be purchased or leased. That is an expense that will have to be covered as mortgage or rent. If they're going to build their own accommodation they'll have to purchase building materials and tools. There is a fair bit of capital outlay there that has to be covered.

If they're going to grow a fair proportion of their own food then that plus pooling their resources will free up some of the pooled UBI to allow for the purchase of some luxuries as well as essentials. Also to pay the rent or the mortgage and buy these building materials. They might sell surplus produce to make a bit more money. They'll be buying some food, these luxuries, probably household supplies, maybe some fuel, and so participating in the local economy, and keeping money circulating.

What's wrong with any of that? Nothing at all. They're not even going to be idle if they're running a smallholding. If they're not contributing as much to the gross national product as someone who has a job, so what? The system doesn't require that everyone is super-productive. On the contrary it's a way to allow people to be less productive in a situation where automation has shouldered a lot of the burden of productivity.

If robots are busy making video games and computers, somebody has to buy these things or there's no point. The robots aren't going to buy them. Might as well be some people having a nice life on a small farm and making their UBI go a bit further by pooling their resources and producing food on a small way.
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012.

Last edited by Rolfe; 26th November 2019 at 08:58 AM.
Rolfe 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 26th November 2019, 09:05 AM   #249
Elaedith
Muse
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 946
I think some people will be willing to live off a minimal amount for a time for specific reasons such as studying. I doubt more than a minority would want to try an alternative lifestyle that involves setting up to live on minimal income indefinitely. Most people don't want to spend their entire life living with their parents or renting a room in a shared house if they have a choice.

Lifestyles based on minimal consumption are environmentally friendly and I wouldn't have a problem if some people did adopt that.
Elaedith 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 26th November 2019, 09:06 AM   #250
The Common Potato
Thinker
 
The Common Potato's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Location: The Scunthorpe Problem
Posts: 138
My view is that the better paid / already well of would be able to afford the expensive eggs. After UBI, the previously less well off would be also able to afford the eggs. Therefore, the temptation is there for the egg seller to put the prices up - because everyone can now afford to buy them.

I received about £300 per month DLA (a benefit) until just over a year ago in addition to my salary. Thanks, IDS! Because of a head injury in 1989 my salary is essentially long-term sick pay. I used to spent the extra and had little to show for it. Some people do just spend - and I'm one of them.
The Common Potato 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 26th November 2019, 09:06 AM   #251
Random
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 3,066
Originally Posted by xjx388 View Post
(snip)

Another downside is that there is no universal amount you can give each citizen that will provide them all with the basics. $800 will easily pay for a small studio apartment and basic sustenance for one person where I live. In San Francisco? I’d bet that number well exceeds $2000 per person. So this couldn’t be a national thing. Heck, it couldn’t even be a State thing (Dallas is a lot more expensive than McAllen). It would have to be administered at the local level. Which re-introduces administrative costs.

(snip)
Why would that be a downside? Just give them a flat rate nationwide. Yeah, there would be some serious readjustments as people realize they can live more cheaply in rural areas than in cities, but is that really an argument against the UBI in and of itself?

UBI will lead to massive changes to the way our economy works. Trying to make it more complicated so that some of those changes are reduced is not inherently a good idea, especially if some of those changes might not be so bad.
__________________
"...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 26th November 2019, 09:13 AM   #252
Rolfe
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
 
Rolfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 44,315
Originally Posted by MinnesotaBrant View Post
Actually that sounds like fun. I am not good for much but my wife can cook. We still get medicare for all too right? Thanks Bernie. What makes me laugh about most of the responses here is that almost nobody can imagine a future that is not terrible. I think its just me and Psionlo. It kind of makes me wonder if we are really just living our lives out in a computer simulation with the number-generation program running into the negative until the stack is blown.

To make an obvious point. if everything is nearly free to make and AI bots are everywhere, it stands to reason that everything you want including housing will cost very little to buy. I suppose they could go the workhouse route but then we would all be slaves making stuff for our robot masters.

There is a serious problem that inequality may worsen to the point where the people who own the robots have all the money, and the people whose jobs have been taken by the robots have nothing. The current robot-owners (Amazon and the like) seem to want it that way. They don't care how badly off their employees are or how many people they throw out of work so long as the share price stays high.

But this isn't sustainable. Somebody has to buy the stuff the robots are making. If hardly anybody can afford to buy what Amazon are selling then their share price isn't going to be looking good. A hundred years ago Henry Ford made sure his employees were earning enough to be able to buy one of the cars they were making. That ethos seems to have been lost.

Fifty years ago people were happily talking of increased leisure hours due to automation allowing our work to be completed faster. I've seen that in my job where automated analysers allow many many more tests to be done in a day than could ever have been done by hand, and word processors allowing me to get all my writing tasks done directly on to my computer without passing manuscripts to a typist and back and forward to be corrected. But my hours never went down.

Why? Partly because productivity went through the roof but salaries didn't. The service we offered just got cheaper so that people could afford to have 20 tests done to figure out what was wrong with their dog rather than use "clinical experience" and informed guesswork. In my line of work this was a good thing really!

Same thing across the board. Automation makes something more cheaply? Then reduce the price, don't put wages up. Corner more sales by charging less than your competitors, and do that by squeezing salaries even more, and employing fewer people. Nobody ever got that reduced working week for the same salary, even though automation was making them far more productive than before.

Maybe this is a way to get there. Maybe the UBI facilitates a lifestyle where people only have to work say 20 hours a week to make enough to be comfortable, and have enough money to buy the stuff the robots are making. It's not a bug it's a feature.

Is this a reasonable way of looking at it?
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012.
Rolfe 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 26th November 2019, 09:22 AM   #253
The Common Potato
Thinker
 
The Common Potato's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2019
Location: The Scunthorpe Problem
Posts: 138
Originally Posted by Rolfe View Post
A lot of diagnostics is heavy-duty pattern recognition. I was involved in early attempts to computerise the process which didn't realise that, which treated it more as a series of algorithms. The results weren't just useless they were actively dangerous. However with vastly increased processing power and information availability, and the decision-making process being correctly based in pattern recognition, it could well be done, and done better than human clinicians.
I used to be a life assurance underwriter - was playing cricket for the company when I was hit on the head. I have no idea of much of the job is now computerised, if any. I can't see much of a reason why it wouldn't be as it was basically risk assessment.
The Common Potato 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 26th November 2019, 09:23 AM   #254
Rolfe
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
 
Rolfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 44,315
Originally Posted by Random View Post
Why would that be a downside? Just give them a flat rate nationwide. Yeah, there would be some serious readjustments as people realize they can live more cheaply in rural areas than in cities, but is that really an argument against the UBI in and of itself?

UBI will lead to massive changes to the way our economy works. Trying to make it more complicated so that some of those changes are reduced is not inherently a good idea, especially if some of those changes might not be so bad.

Yes. I think that's where I was coming from when I said, what would happen if we just did it, suddenly?

People still have the houses and jobs they always had. Those who were just scraping by on a tiny income will get along better and those who were destitute will be in a position to change their lives. Everybody else won't be much affected at that point. Everybody will still be in the same place.

I think movement and redistribution of population would be very gradual. People would initially use the money to live better where they were, particularly those who already have jobs. Maybe unemployed and particularly homeless people will be the first to look around at opportunities that might be available to them out of town where rents are cheaper. But beyond that it would be a gradual process of people realising that they had options they didn't have before, and making plans to change their lives.
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012.
Rolfe 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 26th November 2019, 10:00 AM   #255
NewtonTrino
Illuminator
 
NewtonTrino's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 4,390
Originally Posted by psionl0 View Post
Is that all it takes for you to oppose a UBI? "One family"?

Either you believe that so many families would do this that it threatens the economy or you would rather have 100 people suffer than allow 1 person to "rort" the system.
My entire family gets to retire for all time. Sounds like a great plan to me. I hope it all pans out exactly as the proponents say though, otherwise there might be some chaos.
NewtonTrino 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 26th November 2019, 10:06 AM   #256
NewtonTrino
Illuminator
 
NewtonTrino's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 4,390
Originally Posted by P.J. Denyer View Post
I wonder what his proported family who 'might grow their own food' will do with the excess crop (either due to over production or just getting sick of eating the same thing every day)? Without the pressure of meeting the rent/mortgage how many hobbies and interests get monetised into small businesses? How many people get to study who couldn't otherwise afford to? How many start the business of their dreams because they can afford to risk failure?
Who knows, but running an actual business is work that I certainly won't be doing. It's unlikely we would grow much excess food because there are still inputs required into the system. I'm thinking more pea patch than farm with a ton of equipment.

As for starting businesses and stuff most people simply aren't setup to do that mentally. Taking on a business is a lot of work if you are just trying to chill out.

Maybe other families will start businesses though.

As for studying, yes! I bet a lot of people will spend time studying and learning more.

In fact there is actually precedent for this that I just realized! In Israel they have a system where you can study the torah and pretty much never have to work. People are already effectively doing this today! Note these people don't generate much, if any, economic activity though. They just study.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torah_study
NewtonTrino 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 26th November 2019, 10:10 AM   #257
Darat
Lackey
Administrator
 
Darat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: South East, UK
Posts: 88,560
Originally Posted by William Parcher View Post
Forget the penthouse in NYC. Nobody here is talking about that. How much is the 1 bedroom apartment down at street level in NYC?
If the rent is more than someone who only has UBI income to afford they won't rent there. If they want to live there then they will have an incentive to earn other income.
__________________
I wish I knew how to quit you
Darat 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 26th November 2019, 10:11 AM   #258
NewtonTrino
Illuminator
 
NewtonTrino's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 4,390
Originally Posted by William Parcher View Post
Which one of them already owns the land?
I do. I own enough land outright already to make this happen. Actually the land I own is worth enough I could probably trade it for a few thousand acres in a cheaper area.

Regardless I don't think the plan requires the land to already be owned. Places in middle america are cheap enough that a mortgage would be easily paid within the context of the basic income.
NewtonTrino 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 26th November 2019, 10:19 AM   #259
NewtonTrino
Illuminator
 
NewtonTrino's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 4,390
Originally Posted by Rolfe View Post
No, not at all. I think it's a feature, not a bug.

Newtontrino seemed to be implying that group living "on a farm in the boondocks" would in some way be gaming the system. It's just one possible way of living that would be facilitated by the system. It wouldn't suit everyone. The number of groups who are going to try it is unlikely to be enough to skew the operation of the system as a whole.
I don't think of it as gaming the system at all, it's a feature right?

People will respond to the incentives you put in front of them. That's really what this thread is, theorizing about what behaviors people might exhibit under this system.

One thing is for sure, this would be a boon to rural people and rural economies.
NewtonTrino 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 26th November 2019, 10:21 AM   #260
Minoosh
Penultimate Amazing
 
Minoosh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 10,228
Originally Posted by Rolfe View Post
In fact, if this sort of comminal living - I mean a group consisting of both family and friends - became the norm, it's possible everyone's mental health would improve, caring for children, sick members of the group and elderly members of the group would be a communal task to the benefit of both society and the cared-for.

I say go for it.
I was just talking about this in the Greta thread. Moving in with my mom fills a social need and also lowers my carbon footprint. This isn't out in the country, though. Mom's Social Security covers the rent and some of the groceries. It is a trade-off though. I think in some ways we prefer living alone, but this has its benefits.

I have a very small pension, but need to pay health insurance premiums. Mom's had Medicare for 30 years, and she gets a little extra federal income for my father's service in WWII.

Living in groups is how a lot of immigrants manage to survive and send remittances home.

ETA: I also work, but usually part time.

Last edited by Minoosh; 26th November 2019 at 10:23 AM.
Minoosh 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 26th November 2019, 10:38 AM   #261
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
 
TragicMonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Monkey
Posts: 52,658
Originally Posted by The Common Potato View Post
My view is that the better paid / already well of would be able to afford the expensive eggs. After UBI, the previously less well off would be also able to afford the eggs. Therefore, the temptation is there for the egg seller to put the prices up - because everyone can now afford to buy them.
For years I lived in an area with a high volume of military present. The basic housing allowance at the time was $500 a month. So all the rental properties started at $500 a month at the very lowest, because all the landlords knew they could always find lots of people able to pay at least that. Anybody who couldn't afford that, not being in the military, had to either live way out in the country or get a lot of roommates.

If everybody gets the same amount of extra money, prices will go up. Not just because the money's there and everyone selling something knows it, but also because the seller themselves gets that extra money and therefore isn't needing to cut their prices to encourage sales. A starving artist may sell a work for a hundred bucks. A comfortable artist who already has a hundred bucks might decide to sell it for a thousand.

I think the whole concept of a rising tide lifting all the boats is too simplistic to work here.
__________________
You added nothing to that conversation, Barbara.
TragicMonkey 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 26th November 2019, 10:44 AM   #262
William Parcher
Show me the monkey!
 
William Parcher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 23,678
Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
For years I lived in an area with a high volume of military present. The basic housing allowance at the time was $500 a month. So all the rental properties started at $500 a month at the very lowest, because all the landlords knew they could always find lots of people able to pay at least that. Anybody who couldn't afford that, not being in the military, had to either live way out in the country or get a lot of roommates.

If everybody gets the same amount of extra money, prices will go up. Not just because the money's there and everyone selling something knows it, but also because the seller themselves gets that extra money and therefore isn't needing to cut their prices to encourage sales. A starving artist may sell a work for a hundred bucks. A comfortable artist who already has a hundred bucks might decide to sell it for a thousand.

I think the whole concept of a rising tide lifting all the boats is too simplistic to work here.
That's what I was leading to. Rental properties could jack up their rents to the extent that needy UBI recipients are right back where they started. The very poor UBI people still can't pay for housing and food even when getting a free $1500 every month.
__________________
Bigfoot believers and Bigfoot skeptics are both plumb crazy. Each spends more than one minute per year thinking about Bigfoot.
William Parcher 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 26th November 2019, 10:49 AM   #263
NewtonTrino
Illuminator
 
NewtonTrino's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 4,390
Originally Posted by William Parcher View Post
That's what I was leading to. Rental properties could jack up their rents to the extent that needy UBI recipients are right back where they started. The very poor UBI people still can't pay for housing and food even when getting a free $1500 every month.
Even more reason to move out to middle america and buy an old farm. Why would anyone choose to live in an expensive area when they no longer have to work to generate an income?
NewtonTrino 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 26th November 2019, 10:50 AM   #264
William Parcher
Show me the monkey!
 
William Parcher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 23,678
Originally Posted by Rolfe View Post
Eh? I understood we were talking about a property already owned by the family or by someone in the family.
Right, we were talking about the Nutrino situation. All family lives on the property owned by the father. Presumably, nobody there pays rent to dad. But it wouldn't always be that way. You must have heard of parents who make their children pay rent to live in the same house.


Quote:
I can't envision any government interference with property. The arrangements will be up to the people participating to sort out.
I was thinking about chaos with skyrocketing rents. The government might need to makes laws that prevent landlords from raising rents so that the whole UBI project does not have the legs cut out from beneath it.
__________________
Bigfoot believers and Bigfoot skeptics are both plumb crazy. Each spends more than one minute per year thinking about Bigfoot.
William Parcher 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 26th November 2019, 10:57 AM   #265
Rolfe
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
 
Rolfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 44,315
Originally Posted by Minoosh View Post
I was just talking about this in the Greta thread. Moving in with my mom fills a social need and also lowers my carbon footprint. This isn't out in the country, though. Mom's Social Security covers the rent and some of the groceries. It is a trade-off though. I think in some ways we prefer living alone, but this has its benefits.

I have a very small pension, but need to pay health insurance premiums. Mom's had Medicare for 30 years, and she gets a little extra federal income for my father's service in WWII.

Living in groups is how a lot of immigrants manage to survive and send remittances home.

ETA: I also work, but usually part time.

I think a lot depends on having suitable accommodation and in particular that it's big enough. Every adult or partnered couple needs a room of their own, and that needs to be big enough to accommodate activities that aren't appropriate for the common living areas. For example if you want to watch a film nobody else wants to watch, or if you want to practise your oboe. You also need common living and dining space so that you really live as a family rather than simply being people with individual rooms in a rooming house. You need enough space to avoid friction.

It's actually normal to live that way in anthropological terms. We evolved living in extended family groups, with child and elder and disability and sickness care being shared (usually among the women, admittedly). The nuclear family is relatively recent. And even the nuclear family is shrinking, with fewer children per couple than ever before. Loneliness is increasing. People with no family networks are struggling to cope with childcare, with their own illness, and with living alone as they grow older.

Expanding the group to include friends as well as family might well be the way to go in future. I know some people who are trying it at the moment. More than a flat or house-share, but a deliberate intent to form a permanent socially cohabiting group where the members look out for each other as family. This may be a general way forward to combat loneliness, improve child, disability, sickness and elder care, and make use of housing more efficient.

But although that may be facilitated by the introduction of UBI it's somewhat apart from it, so maybe getting off the topic a bit.
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012.
Rolfe 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 26th November 2019, 10:57 AM   #266
TragicMonkey
Poisoned Waffles
 
TragicMonkey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Monkey
Posts: 52,658
Originally Posted by NewtonTrino View Post
Even more reason to move out to middle america and buy an old farm. Why would anyone choose to live in an expensive area when they no longer have to work to generate an income?
Proximity to family who still work is the primary reason retirees live where they do. A lot of older people retired to traditional locations like FL and AZ only to sell their "last homes" and move back to where their kids live in order to be near the grandchildren.

Access to decent medical facilities is a factor, too: would you want your cancer treatments at Donkey Gulch County Clinic with its two part-time doctors, or would you rather go to Metropolis Research University Cancer Center stuffed full of Nobel candidates?
__________________
You added nothing to that conversation, Barbara.
TragicMonkey 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 26th November 2019, 10:58 AM   #267
William Parcher
Show me the monkey!
 
William Parcher's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 23,678
Originally Posted by NewtonTrino View Post
Even more reason to move out to middle america and buy an old farm. Why would anyone choose to live in an expensive area when they no longer have to work to generate an income?
In anticipation of the "UBI Boom" everything becomes more expensive out in the places where living isn't expensive.

An old farm no longer costs $200,000.... it jumped to $420,000. How about renting a small 1 bedroom in some sleepy little suburb. Oops, those went up to $2000/month. Dammit, where is a poor person on UBI supposed to live now? Same place they did before - in a tent.
__________________
Bigfoot believers and Bigfoot skeptics are both plumb crazy. Each spends more than one minute per year thinking about Bigfoot.
William Parcher 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 26th November 2019, 11:02 AM   #268
Rolfe
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
 
Rolfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 44,315
Originally Posted by William Parcher View Post
You must have heard of parents who make their children pay rent to live in the same house.

It's more a case of children who start earning money start contributing to the family budget. It should be expected and there shouldn't have to be any "make" about it.
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012.
Rolfe 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 26th November 2019, 11:07 AM   #269
NewtonTrino
Illuminator
 
NewtonTrino's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 4,390
Originally Posted by TragicMonkey View Post
Proximity to family who still work is the primary reason retirees live where they do. A lot of older people retired to traditional locations like FL and AZ only to sell their "last homes" and move back to where their kids live in order to be near the grandchildren.

Access to decent medical facilities is a factor, too: would you want your cancer treatments at Donkey Gulch County Clinic with its two part-time doctors, or would you rather go to Metropolis Research University Cancer Center stuffed full of Nobel candidates?
In my scenario nobody works, so no problem there.

I'm pretty sure they still have hospitals in Kansas.
NewtonTrino 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 26th November 2019, 11:09 AM   #270
NewtonTrino
Illuminator
 
NewtonTrino's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 4,390
Originally Posted by Rolfe View Post
It's more a case of children who start earning money start contributing to the family budget. It should be expected and there shouldn't have to be any "make" about it.
I would think everyone's UBI would go into the common family fund that is budgeted to take care of all needs. That budget would likely include some personal spending money for everyone.

BTW electronics are cheap. There is no reason why everyone wouldn't have their own TV. At this point you just need an internet connection. Luckily companies are working on good satellite internet now that's fast enough for a family compound and cheap enough to work in this scenario.

Overall I think this kind of living is a lot more traditional than what we do now and might be a vast improvement.
NewtonTrino 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 26th November 2019, 11:10 AM   #271
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 39,810
Originally Posted by NewtonTrino View Post
In my scenario nobody works, so no problem there.
Sorry if I missed this, but if nobody in your scenario is working, where are you getting all the surplus wealth to distribute among them?
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 26th November 2019, 11:12 AM   #272
Rolfe
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
 
Rolfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 44,315
Originally Posted by William Parcher View Post
In anticipation of the "UBI Boom" everything becomes more expensive out in the places where living isn't expensive.

An old farm no longer costs $200,000.... it jumped to $420,000. How about renting a small 1 bedroom in some sleepy little suburb. Oops, those went up to $2000/month. Dammit, where is a poor person on UBI supposed to live now? Same place they did before - in a tent.

I'm not convinced. There will be people with the money to pay a reasonable rent who are prepared to pay it. That is demand. Someone is going to do the supply side. If all the available small one-bed properties in Little Puddleton are taken at $2000 per month, then somebody is going to see the business opportunity in providing something that people with $500 a month to spare will take up.

In reality there is a finite number of homeless people. Give them some money and see what happens. Maybe a lot of people manage to upgrade their accommodation a bit, maybe people at present living with family will move out to find their own place, but you don't need a huge number of extra properties to fit most of them in.
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012.
Rolfe 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 26th November 2019, 11:16 AM   #273
NewtonTrino
Illuminator
 
NewtonTrino's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 4,390
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
Sorry if I missed this, but if nobody in your scenario is working, where are you getting all the surplus wealth to distribute among them?
From the government, the UBI of $1000 per person.
NewtonTrino 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 26th November 2019, 11:19 AM   #274
NewtonTrino
Illuminator
 
NewtonTrino's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 4,390
Originally Posted by Rolfe View Post
I'm not convinced. There will be people with the money to pay a reasonable rent who are prepared to pay it. That is demand. Someone is going to do the supply side. If all the available small one-bed properties in Little Puddleton are taken at $2000 per month, then somebody is going to see the business opportunity in providing something that people with $500 a month to spare will take up.

In reality there is a finite number of homeless people. Give them some money and see what happens. Maybe a lot of people manage to upgrade their accommodation a bit, maybe people at present living with family will move out to find their own place, but you don't need a huge number of extra properties to fit most of them in.
Homelessness is a whole other subject. However, I think a UBI would actually exacerbate it depending on how we define it.

One of the biggest problems living in a crappy RV or a tent is that it's hard to work and live that lifestyle. $1k per month would go a long way towards making a nomadic lifestyle much easier.

I could see all kinds of different scenarios from cheap RVs custom made for this lifestyle, to tiny homes on trailers that you have someone move every once in a while. And don't forget boat living as well.

A couple living in an RV getting $2k per month? Seems like that could easily work out and they could travel around the country seeking fun and opportunity.
NewtonTrino 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 26th November 2019, 11:26 AM   #275
Rolfe
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
 
Rolfe's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: NT 150 511
Posts: 44,315
Sounds good. Why not then?
__________________
"The way we vote will depend, ultimately, on whether we are persuaded to hope or to fear." - Aonghas MacNeacail, June 2012.
Rolfe 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 26th November 2019, 11:29 AM   #276
NewtonTrino
Illuminator
 
NewtonTrino's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 4,390
Originally Posted by Rolfe View Post
Sounds good. Why not then?
Why not what?
NewtonTrino 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 26th November 2019, 11:40 AM   #277
theprestige
Penultimate Amazing
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 39,810
Originally Posted by NewtonTrino View Post
From the government, the UBI of $1000 per person.
The US has a population of 327.2 million. In your scenario, the government has to come up with $3.272 trillion in UBI payments. Every month. If nobody is working in your scenario, where is the government getting all that surplus wealth from? What's producing it?

(Also, if nobody is working, then what does everyone need all this money for?)
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 26th November 2019, 11:41 AM   #278
P.J. Denyer
Philosopher
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 6,062
So presumably the people who think that UBI will lead to 'nobody works' also believe that anyone earning a living wage won't put in any effort to gain a promotion or pay rise?
__________________
"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 26th November 2019, 11:41 AM   #279
NewtonTrino
Illuminator
 
NewtonTrino's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 4,390
Originally Posted by theprestige View Post
The US has a population of 327.2 million. In your scenario, the government has to come up with $3.272 trillion in UBI payments. Every month. If nobody is working in your scenario, where is the government getting all that surplus wealth from? What's producing it?

(Also, if nobody is working, then what does everyone need all this money for?)
I dunno man, maybe they just print it up. That's firmly in the not my problem category, I just get the money and spend the money. I thought in this thread we were assuming a UBI and talking about the effects.

I'm assuming taxes on those people that do work would go up, yet another good reason to not do that working thing.
NewtonTrino 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 26th November 2019, 11:44 AM   #280
NewtonTrino
Illuminator
 
NewtonTrino's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 4,390
Originally Posted by P.J. Denyer View Post
So presumably the people who think that UBI will lead to 'nobody works' also believe that anyone earning a living wage won't put in any effort to gain a promotion or pay rise?
Do you think most people do this now? I don't think most people are very ambitious. You know how income inequality is such a thing thing in this country? The difference between those with large incomes and everyone else tends to be that ambition you are claiming people have.

Also I don't think nobody works is the answer. Some people will, some won't. Over time that ratio may shift around, it really depends on the details. I would certainly retire completely tomorrow and advocate my kids do the same.
NewtonTrino 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 11:05 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.