CDZ Another conversation about Universal Income

[BlackSand]

The problem is always the state. The state needs to be abolished, but sadly too many think we NEED the state. They have been brainwashed in the government schools to abide by and admire the state. They can't wrap their heads around a stateless society.

Good thing you stopped at "state" ... If you had said "society" you would have started to sound like Theodore Kaczynski ...

.

 

[gipper]

The problem is always the state. The state needs to be abolished, but sadly too many think we NEED the state. They have been brainwashed in the government schools to abide by and admire the state. They can't wrap their heads around a stateless society.

Good thing you stopped at "state" ... If you had said "society" you would have started to sound like Theodore Kaczynski ...

.

Unfortunately statists are everywhere.

 

[martybegan]

because some people are different than others, and most people need something tangible in return for their labor, time, or capital.
And with Priests and Nuns their basic needs are met via the voluntary giving of their sponsors, not the forceful taking of worth that a universal income would require.

Meh, most monestaries, nunneries and priestly orgs make their own money, though they also take donations.

When I was out with my bad back, I made two book cases and a desk and dining table for my two kids, and two foot stools for my wife.

I wasnt paid in money, but in affection.

People will stay busy and work on something in some capacity.

Humanity wont just turn into potatoes.

That's all well and good for self-motivators and people with interests, but you can't apply your own work ethic to other people.

The first people to take advantage of a basic income will also be the last people to do anything on their own. Once they get listless, we would be in trouble.

 

[JimBowie1958]

That's all well and good for self-motivators and people with interests, but you can't apply your own work ethic to other people.
The first people to take advantage of a basic income will also be the last people to do anything on their own. Once they get listless, we would be in trouble.

The children born today may be the first generation that is predominately composed of people who will never have a job.

We will have UBI or we will have a civilization built on ashes and ruin.

 

[martybegan]

That's all well and good for self-motivators and people with interests, but you can't apply your own work ethic to other people.
The first people to take advantage of a basic income will also be the last people to do anything on their own. Once they get listless, we would be in trouble.

The children born today may be the first generation that is predominately composed of people who will never have a job.

We will have UBI or we will have a civilization built on ashes and ruin.

There will be conflict, but it would have to get really out of hand for the civilization to end.

Conflict has a habit of reducing population pressures.

 

[JimBowie1958]

That's all well and good for self-motivators and people with interests, but you can't apply your own work ethic to other people.
The first people to take advantage of a basic income will also be the last people to do anything on their own. Once they get listless, we would be in trouble.

The children born today may be the first generation that is predominately composed of people who will never have a job.

We will have UBI or we will have a civilization built on ashes and ruin.

There will be conflict, but it would have to get really out of hand for the civilization to end.

Conflict has a habit of reducing population pressures.

OK, imagine the kind of conflict that finally breaks out when 80% of the public cannot find a job and the GOP keeps telling them to get off their lazy asses.

 

[martybegan]

That's all well and good for self-motivators and people with interests, but you can't apply your own work ethic to other people.
The first people to take advantage of a basic income will also be the last people to do anything on their own. Once they get listless, we would be in trouble.

The children born today may be the first generation that is predominately composed of people who will never have a job.

We will have UBI or we will have a civilization built on ashes and ruin.

There will be conflict, but it would have to get really out of hand for the civilization to end.

Conflict has a habit of reducing population pressures.

OK, imagine the kind of conflict that finally breaks out when 80% of the public cannot find a job and the GOP keeps telling them to get off their lazy asses.

I think you would have conflict well before 80%, unless something else culled the population.

We need a new frontier and the only one we have left sucks at supporting life.

 

[JimBowie1958]

We need a new frontier and the only one we have left sucks at supporting life.

Even if we had a new frontier, the robots would beat everybody else to it.

So apparently you dont get the problem.

Corporations will not hire people when they can buy a robot that can do anything for less than $2000.

 

[martybegan]

We need a new frontier and the only one we have left sucks at supporting life.

Even if we had a new frontier, the robots would beat everybody else to it.

So apparently you dont get the problem.

Corporations will not hire people when they can buy a robot that can do anything for less than $2000.

Exploration and exploitation are two different things, and if by some miracle we could figure out extra-solar travel and find habitable planets we wouldn't just send robots.

The solution may be bans on certain type of robot labor.

 

[JimBowie1958]

The solution may be bans on certain type of robot labor.

Well banning drugs, prostitution and murder has really worked out well, maybe it can work with robots as well.

 

[martybegan]

The solution may be bans on certain type of robot labor.

Well banning drugs, prostitution and murder has really worked out well, maybe it can work with robots as well.

Considering you would be banning it from work that is usually person to person, and you would be gunning for companies rather than people, it would probably be easier.

 

[MarathonMike]

There will likely be massive unemployment as automation replaces or reduces the need for humans. Maybe the answer is to provide a basic income in exchange for the individual providing useful services a few hours a week. Clearing vacant lots, planting trees etc. Then at least it isn't just a handout where someone can lay on the couch all day.

 

[JimBowie1958]

There will likely be massive unemployment as automation replaces or reduces the need for humans. Maybe the answer is to provide a basic income in exchange for the individual providing useful services a few hours a week. Clearing vacant lots, planting trees etc. Then at least it isn't just a handout where someone can lay on the couch all day.

Yes, adding some form of community service would be a nice condition, but would you agree that UBI should also replace all other forms of government pay outs?

 

[danielpalos]

Jordan Peterson is a really interesting guy, and has some fascinating thoughts on the universal income issue that seems to be popping up more often nowadays.

My position has been that productivity, income and skill sets have all become so out-of-balance that we may not be able to re-balance them, so some kind of universal income may be necessary.

Peterson disagrees, and lays it out here. By the way, this is a very smart guy who is not paralyzed by partisan thought, and likes to instead look for areas of agreement on which to build. Crazy, huh?

JimBowie1958 , I think you'd find this interesting:

"So we can have an intelligent discussion between the Left and the Right, and the discussion would go something like this - You need innovation, you pay for innovation with inequality, but you need to bind inequality because if it is too intense then things destabilize. Okay, we can agree on that, we've got the parameters set. Now we have to start thinking very carefully through how to do the re-distribution issue, we don't know how to do that. So you might say well, we'd have a guaranteed income for people, which I think is a horrible solution, by the way, but it addresses the right problem, which is we're hyper-productive, the spoils go to those at the top, and some of those resources have to be funneled down to the people who have zero, so that they can at least get to the point where they can innovate, so the whole bloody thing doesn't wobble and fall."

Why doesn't he like the idea of a Universal Income?

"I think that the idea that the solution is a basic income is not a good idea, because I think the problem is deeper than that. I don't think the fundamental problem is that people don't have enough money. I think the fundamental problem is that human beings, in some sense, are beasts of burden. And if they're not provided with a place where they can accept personal and social responsibility in an honorable manner, they degenerate and die. That's the opiate crisis in West right now."

Only in right wing fantasy. Solving simple poverty means abolishing "wage slavery" in our Republic.

 

[danielpalos]

Income inequality is likely to get much worse in the West. This is due to improvements in computers, software, and robotics being employed replacing humans.

Dr Kaufman predicts in a couple decades we will be in big trouble, as so few people will have jobs available to them. Labor costs are declining as demand for labor declines. This just might result in even greater income inequality.

We are in the midst of a structural change that might be good or bad but with a corrupt government with too much power, it is likely to be bad.

Henry Kaufman - Wikipedia

What concerns me is that we're not paying much attention to this issue. If our history is any indication, we'll end up waiting until it's a full crisis, and then make some poorly-thought out snap decision to deal with it.
.

Not paying attention much? This issue is being partially addressed, by health care reform and a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage.

 

[danielpalos]

Jordan Peterson is a really interesting guy, and has some fascinating thoughts on the universal income issue that seems to be popping up more often nowadays.

My position has been that productivity, income and skill sets have all become so out-of-balance that we may not be able to re-balance them, so some kind of universal income may be necessary.

Peterson disagrees, and lays it out here. By the way, this is a very smart guy who is not paralyzed by partisan thought, and likes to instead look for areas of agreement on which to build. Crazy, huh?

JimBowie1958 , I think you'd find this interesting:

"So we can have an intelligent discussion between the Left and the Right, and the discussion would go something like this - You need innovation, you pay for innovation with inequality, but you need to bind inequality because if it is too intense then things destabilize. Okay, we can agree on that, we've got the parameters set. Now we have to start thinking very carefully through how to do the re-distribution issue, we don't know how to do that. So you might say well, we'd have a guaranteed income for people, which I think is a horrible solution, by the way, but it addresses the right problem, which is we're hyper-productive, the spoils go to those at the top, and some of those resources have to be funneled down to the people who have zero, so that they can at least get to the point where they can innovate, so the whole bloody thing doesn't wobble and fall."

Why doesn't he like the idea of a Universal Income?

"I think that the idea that the solution is a basic income is not a good idea, because I think the problem is deeper than that. I don't think the fundamental problem is that people don't have enough money. I think the fundamental problem is that human beings, in some sense, are beasts of burden. And if they're not provided with a place where they can accept personal and social responsibility in an honorable manner, they degenerate and die. That's the opiate crisis in West right now."

I agree with Jordan Peterson based on what you have presented here. Universal income is a bad idea.

I can't help but wonder who is going to pay our income taking into consideration the fight over welfare that we presently experience.

Solving simple poverty is always a Good idea, simply Because, it promotes the general welfare.

 

[Mac1958]

Jordan Peterson is a really interesting guy, and has some fascinating thoughts on the universal income issue that seems to be popping up more often nowadays.

My position has been that productivity, income and skill sets have all become so out-of-balance that we may not be able to re-balance them, so some kind of universal income may be necessary.

Peterson disagrees, and lays it out here. By the way, this is a very smart guy who is not paralyzed by partisan thought, and likes to instead look for areas of agreement on which to build. Crazy, huh?

JimBowie1958 , I think you'd find this interesting:

"So we can have an intelligent discussion between the Left and the Right, and the discussion would go something like this - You need innovation, you pay for innovation with inequality, but you need to bind inequality because if it is too intense then things destabilize. Okay, we can agree on that, we've got the parameters set. Now we have to start thinking very carefully through how to do the re-distribution issue, we don't know how to do that. So you might say well, we'd have a guaranteed income for people, which I think is a horrible solution, by the way, but it addresses the right problem, which is we're hyper-productive, the spoils go to those at the top, and some of those resources have to be funneled down to the people who have zero, so that they can at least get to the point where they can innovate, so the whole bloody thing doesn't wobble and fall."

Why doesn't he like the idea of a Universal Income?

"I think that the idea that the solution is a basic income is not a good idea, because I think the problem is deeper than that. I don't think the fundamental problem is that people don't have enough money. I think the fundamental problem is that human beings, in some sense, are beasts of burden. And if they're not provided with a place where they can accept personal and social responsibility in an honorable manner, they degenerate and die. That's the opiate crisis in West right now."

Only in right wing fantasy. Solving simple poverty means abolishing "wage slavery" in our Republic.

Maybe not everything is simple partisan politics.
.

 

[danielpalos]

Jordan Peterson is a really interesting guy, and has some fascinating thoughts on the universal income issue that seems to be popping up more often nowadays.

My position has been that productivity, income and skill sets have all become so out-of-balance that we may not be able to re-balance them, so some kind of universal income may be necessary.

Peterson disagrees, and lays it out here. By the way, this is a very smart guy who is not paralyzed by partisan thought, and likes to instead look for areas of agreement on which to build. Crazy, huh?

JimBowie1958 , I think you'd find this interesting:

"So we can have an intelligent discussion between the Left and the Right, and the discussion would go something like this - You need innovation, you pay for innovation with inequality, but you need to bind inequality because if it is too intense then things destabilize. Okay, we can agree on that, we've got the parameters set. Now we have to start thinking very carefully through how to do the re-distribution issue, we don't know how to do that. So you might say well, we'd have a guaranteed income for people, which I think is a horrible solution, by the way, but it addresses the right problem, which is we're hyper-productive, the spoils go to those at the top, and some of those resources have to be funneled down to the people who have zero, so that they can at least get to the point where they can innovate, so the whole bloody thing doesn't wobble and fall."

Why doesn't he like the idea of a Universal Income?

"I think that the idea that the solution is a basic income is not a good idea, because I think the problem is deeper than that. I don't think the fundamental problem is that people don't have enough money. I think the fundamental problem is that human beings, in some sense, are beasts of burden. And if they're not provided with a place where they can accept personal and social responsibility in an honorable manner, they degenerate and die. That's the opiate crisis in West right now."

His "beast of burden " point is very much a real issue with Universal Income.


Most people get a lot of their sense of self worth from their work, and thus taking responsibility for them selves and/or their families.


Take that away, and a lot of people would degenerate, in different ways.


I've seen and heard of a lot of people basically just falling apart once they were forced to retire.

I have read, the Spartans had a similar problem. It was not about income, but about lifestyle choices.

 

[danielpalos]

Jordan Peterson is a really interesting guy, and has some fascinating thoughts on the universal income issue that seems to be popping up more often nowadays.

My position has been that productivity, income and skill sets have all become so out-of-balance that we may not be able to re-balance them, so some kind of universal income may be necessary.

Peterson disagrees, and lays it out here. By the way, this is a very smart guy who is not paralyzed by partisan thought, and likes to instead look for areas of agreement on which to build. Crazy, huh?

JimBowie1958 , I think you'd find this interesting:

"So we can have an intelligent discussion between the Left and the Right, and the discussion would go something like this - You need innovation, you pay for innovation with inequality, but you need to bind inequality because if it is too intense then things destabilize. Okay, we can agree on that, we've got the parameters set. Now we have to start thinking very carefully through how to do the re-distribution issue, we don't know how to do that. So you might say well, we'd have a guaranteed income for people, which I think is a horrible solution, by the way, but it addresses the right problem, which is we're hyper-productive, the spoils go to those at the top, and some of those resources have to be funneled down to the people who have zero, so that they can at least get to the point where they can innovate, so the whole bloody thing doesn't wobble and fall."

Why doesn't he like the idea of a Universal Income?

"I think that the idea that the solution is a basic income is not a good idea, because I think the problem is deeper than that. I don't think the fundamental problem is that people don't have enough money. I think the fundamental problem is that human beings, in some sense, are beasts of burden. And if they're not provided with a place where they can accept personal and social responsibility in an honorable manner, they degenerate and die. That's the opiate crisis in West right now."

I agree with Jordan Peterson based on what you have presented here. Universal income is a bad idea.

I can't help but wonder who is going to pay our income taking into consideration the fight over welfare that we presently experience.

This would be one hell of a partisan battle if it ever came up on a national basis, that's for sure.

I definitely agree with him that things can only get so far out of balance before the have-nots decide to rebel on a significant scale, though.
.

Nah. The Dems will promise to "soak the rich" and then tax the shit out of the declining middle class, while taking care of their super rich supporters.


As the poor rise in numbers, they become dependent on what they can get from the government.


Thus, the need of the dems to even pretend to care, drops away.


See Chicago and Venezuela.


It's an excellent system of control.

Unlike helping the rich get richer faster, at the expense of the poor.

 

[Mac1958]

Income inequality is likely to get much worse in the West. This is due to improvements in computers, software, and robotics being employed replacing humans.

Dr Kaufman predicts in a couple decades we will be in big trouble, as so few people will have jobs available to them. Labor costs are declining as demand for labor declines. This just might result in even greater income inequality.

We are in the midst of a structural change that might be good or bad but with a corrupt government with too much power, it is likely to be bad.

Henry Kaufman - Wikipedia

What concerns me is that we're not paying much attention to this issue. If our history is any indication, we'll end up waiting until it's a full crisis, and then make some poorly-thought out snap decision to deal with it.
.

Not paying attention much? This issue is being partially addressed, by health care reform and a fifteen dollar an hour minimum wage.

Drop in the bucket. This is far more complicated than simplistic partisan politics.
.