|
I have heard that in the coming decades more and more jobs are going to be in danger of automation. I don't know if that's true or not, but if it is, what's going to happen to all of the people who are out of a job? Sure, maybe they can just go and get a new job, but what if those jobs end up getting automated? Perhaps there are certain fields and careers that can't be automated, at least in the near future, but are there really enough of those to go around? Like, can we really expect everyone to become an astrophysicist or a doctor? People have said that new jobs will simply be created. But what kind of new jobs? And will enough of them be created? One solution I've heard is basic income, which I guess is when we all just get phat paychecks from the gubment. But I have no idea if that would work. But on the other hand, I know of no alternatives. Are there alternatives? And how would they work? Do we just create a bunch of bullshit jobs?
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2014 02:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 05:31 |
|
|
In the future you will either roast fresh-caught long pig over a tire fire or be the one roasted, OP.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2014 03:04
|
|
|
We will think of newer and ever stupider services to provide each other through the magic of capitalist innovation, and desire newer and stupider consumer products which much be designed, produced, and thrown away.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2014 03:29
|
|
|
zeal posted:In the future you will either roast fresh-caught long pig over a tire fire or be the one roasted, OP. Or you're developing a disruptive app for finding the most delicious and legally killable humans. Maybe it has a matchmaking element like Uber so instead of suicide booths in the future you volunteer to be eaten.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2014 03:30
|
|
|
We need one now, OP.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2014 03:37
|
|
|
Yeah the only problem is you multiply the US population by a very modest basic income like $15,000/year and the figure you get is whooooops. I mean it's not impossible but with basic income and the current federal tax revenue (alone! not counting state revenues) you'd have to collect about 50% of US GDP in taxes. So... that's not going to happen. Arglebargle III fucked around with this message at 04:15 on Nov 2, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2014 04:05
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:Yeah the only problem is you multiply the US population by a very modest basic income like $15,000/year and the figure you get is whooooops. You couldn't just write someone a check for $N per month You could have credit cards with $X / day for food $Y / month for rent(which is worked out through a housing service) and $Z / week misc. (aka 'real' cash) If you do volunteer / charity or some other useful work you can get a Z bonus.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2014 04:14
|
|
|
I think it'd take about six months before everyone was routing 100% of their BMI to pay the 29.99% interest rate on the credit card bills they ran up.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2014 04:18
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:Yeah the only problem is you multiply the US population by a very modest basic income like $15,000/year and the figure you get is whooooops. I'd like to see your numbers on this. Last time I saw numbers it wasn't all that far out there, though we would need to impose fairly high tax rates on the top percentages of income. Plus, remember that there would, at least ideally, be significant administrative savings as the various costs in determining eligibility went away.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2014 05:08
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:Yeah the only problem is you multiply the US population by a very modest basic income like $15,000/year and the figure you get is whooooops. Uh, you just tax the $15,000 out of the people making well over $15,000.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2014 05:22
|
|
|
47% of all jobs in the US are at risk of automation in the next 20 years, most of it affecting low-skill jobs, especially transportation and service jobs. Keep in mind that service jobs are what has picked up the slack since the housing crisis. Basic Income is going to be very hard to implement because you're literally giving everyone a paycheck regardless if they're already earning income. Something like a Guaranteed Minimum Income would be more affordable, where you're only paying people who aren't working or don't work full time.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2014 05:23
|
|
|
I can't imagine the future not looking like some variation of Player Piano, except that it won't be nearly as entertaining as Vonnegut's portrayal. Think more roaming bands of rioters and people getting murdered by a super-bloated police state. What is funny is there's tons of poo poo that needs done, it just isn't profitable so the government will have to hire people to do it. Rand alPaul fucked around with this message at 05:29 on Nov 2, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2014 05:26
|
|
|
If everyone has lost their jobs to machines who will buy the crap machines produce? Makes you think.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2014 05:35
|
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:I'd like to see your numbers on this. Last time I saw numbers it wasn't all that far out there, though we would need to impose fairly high tax rates on the top percentages of income. $15,000 x 340 million people = $5.1 trillion. 2014 US GDP is 17.3 trillion (check wikipedia). FY 2013 Federal tax receipts were 2.8 trillion. 5.1+2.8=7.9 7.9/17.3=0.4566 I was off by 4% in my mental math but whatever, that's 45% of US GDP for only a basic income near the poverty line and federal tax receipts (in a time of deficit too) not counting any other tax burden. I guess if you assume that basic income will wipe out Social Security and non-health financial assistance outlays the numbers get better by about a trillion dollars, but you have to assume that all those things are not financed by deficit spending currently in order to remove them from the tax receipts column. Arglebargle III fucked around with this message at 05:41 on Nov 2, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2014 05:37
|
|
Hieronymous Alloy posted:I'd like to see your numbers on this. Last time I saw numbers it wasn't all that far out there, though we would need to impose fairly high tax rates on the top percentages of income. Just doing OOM, the GDP of the USA is in the e13 range, while the GMI is in the e12 range, so it's at most ten percent. Of course, with those numbers a family of four is making ten grand more than median household income, so this potentially drops significantly if we take kids into account etc.
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2014 05:40
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:Just doing OOM, the GDP of the USA is in the e13 range, while the GMI is in the e12 range, so it's at most ten percent. Of course, with those numbers a family of four is making ten grand more than median household income, so this potentially drops significantly if we take kids into account etc. Yes, 9 trillion is so insignificant when compared to 10 trillion. Your argument has persuaded me!
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2014 05:43
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:We need one now, OP. Nintendo Kid posted:Uh, you just tax the $15,000 out of the people making well over $15,000. Wholeheartedly agreeing with you, wow.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2014 05:43
|
|
|
McDowell posted:You couldn't just write someone a check for $N per month I wonder if it wouldn't be more feasible to have a smaller GMI while heavily subsidizing the prices of low end housing, food staples and basic utilities. Perhaps combined with some sort of negative income tax arrangement.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2014 05:44
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:$15,000 x 340 million people = $5.1 trillion. 2014 US GDP is 17.3 trillion (check wikipedia). FY 2013 Federal tax receipts were 2.8 trillion. 5.1+2.8=7.9 7.9/17.3=0.4566 US GDP in 2013 was 81 trillion, so this is 6% of GDP going to it.
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2014 05:44
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:Yes, 9 trillion is so insignificant when compared to 10 trillion. Your argument has persuaded me! Haha, you ignored the part where your "low income" becomes decidedly middle-class with a nuclear family in favor of whining about approximations.
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2014 05:45
|
|
|
A gift economy would be better. From each according to his needs to each according to their ability. That's my opinion, thank you for reading.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2014 05:51
|
|
|
Number Two Stunna posted:I wonder if it wouldn't be more feasible to have a smaller GMI while heavily subsidizing the prices of low end housing, food staples and basic utilities. Perhaps combined with some sort of negative income tax arrangement. Yeah, that is my point - you intervene more directly with cost of living issues and then having a basic income isn't as daunting.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2014 05:51
|
|
|
Food is already heavily subsidized, I don't know how people can expect it to get much lower. In fact a lot of people (stupid people in my opinion) criticize hoe cheap food is in the US for enabling people to get fat - somehow ignoring that if it were more expensive you're going to get a lot more people dying of starvation. And it is subsidized for "healthy" food plenty too. Really, the only place to go from here is straight up issuing rations to people at full scale - lord knows the military always has plenty of food coming in that they are not going to use, and can be prepared and eaten by people living in a slumlord's apartment just as well as in loving Iraq or whatever. Nintendo Kid fucked around with this message at 05:55 on Nov 2, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2014 05:53
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:We need one now, OP. Exactly this. The discussion should be, what would be the most practical method of putting one in place? States are too small an area to do this in; too many of the most populous metropolitan regions are across multiple administrative regions. Would there be a way to form interstate compacts structured with the power to set minimum wage standards based upon a formula of travel time, distance, and density from nearest metropolitan center? Nintendo Kid posted:Food is already heavily subsidized, I don't know how people can expect it to get much lower. In fact a lot of people (stupid people in my opinion) criticize hoe cheap food is in the US for enabling people to get fat - somehow ignoring that if it were more expensive you're going to get a lot more people dying of starvation. The limiting cost of food access isn't the price of food, its the logistics of distribution. A more accurate and impactful question would be, what policies could be pursued that would incentive capacity expansion which would most impact cereal transportation? Unfortunately, the answer is "approve lots more pipelines and subsidize pipeline construction." See how well that plays with donors most likely to donate on humanitarian/social issues. My Imaginary GF fucked around with this message at 05:57 on Nov 2, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2014 05:54
|
|
|
The military is 4% of GDP, an exceptionally generous plan like the one being thrown around here is 6%, a more modest plan gives us 5%, a harsh plan that actually skims the poverty line gives us 3%. It's quite doable, since SS benefits equal 5% of GDP already.
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2014 05:59
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:The military is 4% of GDP, an exceptionally generous plan like the one being thrown around here is 6%, a more modest plan gives us 5%, a harsh plan that actually skims the poverty line gives us 3%. It's quite doable, since SS benefits equal 5% of GDP already. What is the cost of a plan which would disqualify individuals from entitlement programs? I'd like to be able to show "GMI is an entitlement-reducing and cost-saving proposal".
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2014 06:01
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:US GDP in 2013 was 81 trillion, so this is 6% of GDP going to it. not even close https://www.google.com/search?q=u.s.+gdp
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2014 06:04
|
|
My Imaginary GF posted:What is the cost of a plan which would disqualify individuals from entitlement programs? Any plan except the harsh one obsoletes Social Security entirely, as it pays adults about 1500/year more than median SS benefits. In addition, it completely obsoletes TANF and probably food stamps as well. However, it does nothing for healthcare and it's debatable whether it can really cover housing all that well, as even the low end of apartments outside of city centers are too expensive for a single renter under the GMI.
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2014 06:09
|
|
StabbinHobo posted:not even close Oh, I was looking at the total wealth instead.
|
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2014 06:11
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:$15,000 x 340 million people = $5.1 trillion. 2014 US GDP is 17.3 trillion (check wikipedia). FY 2013 Federal tax receipts were 2.8 trillion. 5.1+2.8=7.9 7.9/17.3=0.4566 Also hey genius: 20% of the US population is under 15, solidly children. Why would they need the basic income when they can't even legally work in most fields? So you can knock 68 million out of your presumably future population right there (since we only have under 320 million now). And then you have people already on who were going to be on Social Security - that tops out at about $30k a year and most people are closer to $15k a year - so again a no impact segment. That's currently 56 million people. So we can chop a good 110 million people out of your estimate right there. Effectronica posted:Any plan except the harsh one obsoletes Social Security entirely, as it pays adults about 1500/year more than median SS benefits. In addition, it completely obsoletes TANF and probably food stamps as well. However, it does nothing for healthcare and it's debatable whether it can really cover housing all that well, as even the low end of apartments outside of city centers are too expensive for a single renter under the GMI. Well we certainly wouldn't repeal section 8 over it - and the guaranteed income might make more landlords accepting of section 8 vouchers.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2014 06:13
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:Also hey genius: Wow you're being hostile immediately when I was just posting really basic figures. So children are out? And we can eliminate people on social security because they wouldn't actually be drawing a basic income? Or are you saying that because they already draw money from the government, they can be eliminated? Social Security outlays last year were $800 billion and I already mentioned them! Please be less hostile to basic math. Effectronica posted:Haha, you ignored the part where your "low income" becomes decidedly middle-class with a nuclear family in favor of whining about approximations. Yes. Low income becomes middle class when you have 2-4 incomes, but if we're eliminating children it gets murkier again. Why are you gloating? Also "whining about approximations" is not fair, you flat out stated that because GDP is in the ten trillions range it logically must be at least ten times larger than tax receipts, which are in the trillions range. Then you showed that you didn't even bother to check US GDP before hopping into the conversation and were out by a factor of 3. Arglebargle III fucked around with this message at 06:37 on Nov 2, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2014 06:32
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:Wow you're being hostile immediately when I was just posting really basic figures. Why wouldn't they be? Actual mincome experiments have functioned fine without also giving money to the children directly. I mean I guess it would be nice that kids would potentially build up a tidy $225,000 trust fund by the time they can start attempting a learner's permit, but it's also not necessary to do so.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2014 06:43
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:Also hey genius: Taking a figure of 320 million and knocking off a trillion dollars from federal tax receipts for social security and welfare programs to be replaced by basic income puts the figure at 38% of GDP; looking more reasonable but it still doesn't include state tax burden and makes the optimistic assumption that all social security and welfare money was paid for by taxes in the first place. Ok eliminating old people and children you're now at 32% GDP federal tax burden but a family of four now receives $30,000/year. Poverty line is $23,000. Arglebargle III fucked around with this message at 06:46 on Nov 2, 2014 |
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2014 06:44
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:Taking a figure of 320 million and knocking off a trillion dollars from federal tax receipts for social security and welfare programs to be replaced by basic income puts the figure at 38% of GDP; looking more reasonable but it still doesn't include state tax burden and makes the optimistic assumption that all social security and welfare money was paid for by taxes in the first place. Our GDP would be quite a bit higher if we didn't have so many people who couldn't afford to buy anything but the bare basics. Or do you not understand late capitalist economies? Demand talks.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2014 06:46
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:Our GDP would be quite a bit higher if we didn't have so many people who couldn't afford to buy anything but the bare basics. Or do you not understand late capitalist economies? Demand talks. This scheme would have so many second order effects I think we'd need to have a team of economists work up a paper on it before saying how it would shake out. (or insulting anyone's intelligence for that matter!)
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2014 06:48
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:This scheme would have so many second order effects I think we'd need to have a team of economists work up a paper on it before saying how it would shake out. (or insulting anyone's intelligence for that matter!) We already know most of the effects: it has been successfully performed on trial basises. I will feel free to insult the intelligence of anyone who adds 20+ million phantom people to their equations based on future population while not also inflating the gdp they're going to use for argument, friend. Because that's you just being intellectually dishonest and trying to create a worst case scenario from no sense whatsoever - a veritable Mises.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2014 06:52
|
|
|
Effectronica posted:Any plan except the harsh one obsoletes Social Security entirely, as it pays adults about 1500/year more than median SS benefits. In addition, it completely obsoletes TANF and probably food stamps as well. However, it does nothing for healthcare and it's debatable whether it can really cover housing all that well, as even the low end of apartments outside of city centers are too expensive for a single renter under the GMI. I need numbers and citations before I can write it up in a brief, or know which figures to look at for a brief. Seriouspost at that, I could pass along a decent enough proposal directly to someone I know who'd be able to get it implemented on a national level. So, how can I eliminate Obamacare with a GMI? Give me a starting number/formula for a single individual above 18, with incentives to get married.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2014 07:18
|
|
|
Nintendo Kid posted:Because that's you just being intellectually dishonest and trying to create a worst case scenario from no sense whatsoever - a veritable Mises. What the gently caress?
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2014 07:29
|
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:What the gently caress? Well, you're correct about this: Arglebargle III posted:This scheme would have so many second order effects I think we'd need to have a team of economists work up a paper on it before saying how it would shake out. (or insulting anyone's intelligence for that matter!) A properly formulated scheme would result in higher tax income and increased Federal spending levels with increased costs for goods with high demand whose only limit currently is access. Or, such a scheme would result in state revenues rising while tuition costs for higher education soaring if those increased revenues are not allocated appropriately. And lets be honest, when does a windfall ever result in appropriate allocation?
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2014 07:33
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 25, 2024 05:31 |
|
|
Arglebargle III posted:What the gently caress? I'm calling you a liar who chooses to ignore facts. I thought the reference was clear. You made a post based on 340 million people being the us population (it won't be that until AT LEAST around 2020 by current projections) but using GDP and tax revenue figures based on now. That's called being willfully ignorant, or just plain stupid. You take your pick.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2014 07:33
|
|