[Cause]

3000 dollars a month? That's a lot. Where will it come from? I'd be happy to never work again.

[Aptorian]

I'm not smart enough to explain all his arguments but basically, when it comes to basic income, every dollar you put in, you're going to get back fivefold or tenfold.

Think about the Scandinavian model. We're some of the happiest, most successful countries, with low inequality and next to no corruption. That's linked to our welfare system. We spend a lot but we get a lot back, in return.

Now if you expand that idea the argument for basic income is that you immediately remove a ton of administrative and societal issues that are actually much more expensive over the course of a lifespan than just handing out money. No administration of people on welfare, better nutrition, more family time, more time spent in school, more financial equality. That adds up.

More over experiments, both in the developing countries and in the west, show that people want to work. The thinking that everyone stops working without money as a primary insentive is false. So is the idea of the lazy poor.

With basic income you free up time wasted on doing bullshit jobs, people will work less but be less stressed and tired which will actually make them more efficient workers. Fewer hours means more jobs. You'll also see more start ups and specialization.

Basically, basic income is the real trickle down economics. You inject money into the lower class and everyone prospers.

Read Utopia for Realists. It's a very optimistic but also realistic and pragmatic look at the various issues we're faced with.

Edit: also, fun fact, just to get this back into US politics. Nixon was actually close to implementing a kind of basic income in the US but then some Neo-liberal asshole got in his ear, they muddled the message and the whole thing fell through.

This post has been edited by Aptorian: 28 July 2019 - 11:08 AM

[Cause]

Im not against a basic income, it could have potential. Im not sure yet but I think its worth investigating. 3000 dollars a month though is currently more than many people with jobs make. Honestly for many , many people it would make sense to take the money and thats it. Unless inflation crushes its true worth. I know one billionaire democratic in the running is offering the idea of a 1000 dollars a month. Huge help to people who are employed, decent safety net to people who are unemployed but not a truly livable amount on its own. 3000 dollars just seems to high to me on first blush

[Aptorian]

I might have set the amount too high, maybe 2000-2500 is more realistic but the point the book argues, is that when you make people financially secure, they don't just retire.

Doesn't matter if you're born poor or rich. Research shows that the majority wants to work, they want to create, build or help others.

Inactivity, long term, makes people unhappy.

[worry]

I'm all for economic solutions that aim towards equity -- and UBI has its potential as part of that, if implemented correctly (and Apt is right, people who want to be in the workforce still will be, while people who probably shouldn't be or can't be can still live in relative basic humane comfort). But to clear up a little myth: the white middle class was not in any way neglected -- politically, legislatively, rhetorically -- pre-Trump. It's a false narrative. Obama talked about them constantly -- constantly -- in the most ego-strokingest terms possible, just like every politician before him, and probably did more for them than any president since LBJ. He just also talked about non-white/straight/male/cis people as if they were fully people, which to the conservative cohort Trump represents, is the biggest possible sin. They cannot stand it. But white resentment/grievance/aggression is born of white supremacy, male resentment/grievance/aggression is born of male supremacy, and straight resentment/grievance/aggression is born of straight supremacy. There are no outside origins. Solutions to those problems are possible, but need to be more holistic than economics (though certainly not neglecting economics), and it involves dismantling systems and ways of thinking that are centuries ingrained.

This post has been edited by worry: 28 July 2019 - 07:14 PM

[Tiste Simeon]

Man, as a straight white Christian male I must be the most oppressed and underrepresented person around!?

[Aptorian]

See, you can make all the snide remarks you want but that'll only reinforce the us vs them mentality. Saying somebody is stupid is not going to stop them doing stupid things. It just makes you feel better because you know in your heart you're better than them.

It's easier to look outward for the causes of your problems than inwards. It's easier to single out an enemy you can hate, like Mexicans, than attempt to fight the relentless machine that's globalism. The people who hate the most are likely the ones who are most afraid.

[worry]

Aptorian, on 29 July 2019 - 06:25 AM, said:

Saying somebody is stupid is not going to stop them doing stupid things. It just makes you feel better because you know in your heart you're better than them.

Yup, you said it, brother! Aw, look at the time. Guess I'll be bookmarking this page so I can read the rest of your post at a later date.

[HoosierDaddy]

Another mass shooting.

[Cause]

Tiste Simeon, on 29 July 2019 - 06:11 AM, said:

Man, as a straight white Christian male I must be the most oppressed and underrepresented person around!?

Oppression is not on a scale, you either experience it or you don't. Though oppressed is not really the right word here. The average white guy in America is fine, their are lots that aren't and they will be interested in their own well being.

In my country white people are still the most 'powerfull' demographic but also the smallest, the governing party ignores them as a voting class completely. All that money and power doesn't make them just shrug off being ignored. It causes them a lot of anxiety and some predictably lash out at government. Its human nature.

[D'rek]

worry, on 28 July 2019 - 07:12 PM, said:

and Apt is right, people who want to be in the workforce still will be

Though automation is perpetually decreasing the number of available jobs, so at some point we will hit a point where many/most of those who want to be in the workforce can't simply because there aren't enough jobs.

worry, on 28 July 2019 - 07:12 PM, said:

But to clear up a little myth: the white middle class was not in any way neglected -- politically, legislatively, rhetorically -- pre-Trump. It's a false narrative. Obama talked about them constantly -- constantly -- in the most ego-strokingest terms possible, just like every politician before him, and probably did more for them than any president since LBJ.

Those who get their news only from, say, Fox News, would never have heard any of that constant talk and ego-stroking, though. People build their personal narrative on what they believe, rather than on facts, and in the U.S. there seems to be a lot of people with no desire (or, more cynically, I'd argue without the education) to investigate whether their beliefs are factual. Certainly doesn't help that your major media are all aligned one way or another, hurray two party system

[Azath Vitr (D'ivers]

HoosierDaddy, on 29 July 2019 - 07:27 AM, said:

Another mass shooting.

At least two mass shootings in the news, 'one on each coast'.

'The gunman who murdered three people at a food [garlic] festival in Northern California on Sunday posted about a far-right book on Instagram moments before the attack.

[...] The book glorifies “Aryan” men, condemns inter-marriage between races and defends violence based on bogus eugenicist tropes.

[...] In his last post, Legan also complained of paved-over nature and towns “overcrowd[ed]” with “hoards of mestizos and Silicon Valley white twats.” Some fascists, particularly those who follow the hyper-egoist school of thought laid out in Legan’s recommended book, criticize industrialization and Silicon Valley lifestyles as “degenerate.”

someone in the audience shouted: “Why are you doing this?” and the gunman replied, “Because I’m really angry.”'

https://www.thedaily...ooting?ref=home

[Imperial Historian]

D, on 29 July 2019 - 04:00 PM, said:

worry, on 28 July 2019 - 07:12 PM, said:

and Apt is right, people who want to be in the workforce still will be

Though automation is perpetually decreasing the number of available jobs, so at some point we will hit a point where many/most of those who want to be in the workforce can't simply because there aren't enough jobs.

Is that true? It certainly decreases certain types of jobs, but I don't know if it decreases the total number of jobs or even the level of wealth created for workers. My opinion is that automation has generally resulted in the replacement of one type of work with other types of work. Is there evidence either way? It's a tricky thing to measure.

[Itwæs Nom]

Imperial Historian, on 29 July 2019 - 09:40 PM, said:

D, on 29 July 2019 - 04:00 PM, said:

worry, on 28 July 2019 - 07:12 PM, said:

and Apt is right, people who want to be in the workforce still will be

Though automation is perpetually decreasing the number of available jobs, so at some point we will hit a point where many/most of those who want to be in the workforce can't simply because there aren't enough jobs.

Is that true? It certainly decreases certain types of jobs, but I don't know if it decreases the total number of jobs or even the level of wealth created for workers. My opinion is that automation has generally resulted in the replacement of one type of work with other types of work. Is there evidence either way? It's a tricky thing to measure.

I think yes, a lot. While it does also create new positions the number just doesn't match the decrease. For example there are giant stores where any logistics are carried out by ground drones and special stands for the stored stuff that the drones just carry on their backs. In a single store these drones can replace literally scores of people, and they certainly don't create one new position per drone employed I'd say. Theres a couple years old TED talk about it somewhere.

Plus the positions automation creates - maintenance workers, programmers, production line designers, operators in case of semi-automation(just what comes to mind) - mostly require higher education than the jobs obliterated by automation which too can be a problem even if it's not a direct decrease of positions.

[worry]

@D'rek: oh yah, I was just clarifying since it's an international board and I just don't know how much non-Americans got to see how painstaking Obama was, day after day after day, not to upset the apple cart of American white fragility. And in the end, how very little that mattered to the people who were seeking to resent him anyway. In hindsight, there are a lot of different opinions on whether he should have done things differently or not, but I don't envy him the task and don't think he did a bad job of it, at least rhetorically (I do think of it separately, mostly, from his accommodation of -- some would say conciliation to -- the GOP on policy matters, where I would agree much more with his critics).


Anyway, in recent news:







Man. Imagine, at this late date, thinking the problem in Washington is polarization. That what we need is more bipartisanship, more compromise. Rather than someone who radically and unequivocally opposes the GOP and its ethos.

[Grief]

Imperial Historian, on 29 July 2019 - 09:40 PM, said:

D, on 29 July 2019 - 04:00 PM, said:

worry, on 28 July 2019 - 07:12 PM, said:

and Apt is right, people who want to be in the workforce still will be

Though automation is perpetually decreasing the number of available jobs, so at some point we will hit a point where many/most of those who want to be in the workforce can't simply because there aren't enough jobs.

Is that true? It certainly decreases certain types of jobs, but I don't know if it decreases the total number of jobs or even the level of wealth created for workers. My opinion is that automation has generally resulted in the replacement of one type of work with other types of work. Is there evidence either way? It's a tricky thing to measure.

A recent report commissioned by the European Commission on the Future of Work argues that - although it is hard to predict the impact - the "fears of massive displacement of workers are unfounded" and that new technologies will overall improve the quality of jobs. (At the same time it notes that this requires investment in education and skills and that AI is likely to be disruptive in the short term and can increase inequality). The OECD comes to similar conclusions. Of course YMMV regarding how much stock you put by this, but you might find the papers interesting.

(There is a separate thread for automation though, so let's move any further replies in that direction!)

[Cause]

Grief, on 30 July 2019 - 12:49 AM, said:

Imperial Historian, on 29 July 2019 - 09:40 PM, said:

D, on 29 July 2019 - 04:00 PM, said:

worry, on 28 July 2019 - 07:12 PM, said:

and Apt is right, people who want to be in the workforce still will be

Though automation is perpetually decreasing the number of available jobs, so at some point we will hit a point where many/most of those who want to be in the workforce can't simply because there aren't enough jobs.

Is that true? It certainly decreases certain types of jobs, but I don't know if it decreases the total number of jobs or even the level of wealth created for workers. My opinion is that automation has generally resulted in the replacement of one type of work with other types of work. Is there evidence either way? It's a tricky thing to measure.

A recent report commissioned by the European Commission on the Future of Work argues that - although it is hard to predict the impact - the "fears of massive displacement of workers are unfounded" and that new technologies will overall improve the quality of jobs. (At the same time it notes that this requires investment in education and skills and that AI is likely to be disruptive in the short term and can increase inequality). The OECD comes to similar conclusions. Of course YMMV regarding how much stock you put by this, but you might find the papers interesting.

(There is a separate thread for automation though, so let's move any further replies in that direction!)

Dindt we have a thread about this once, or was that in the expanse tv show discussion?

[worry]

Fainted from shock when I read this.

[Malankazooie]

Couldn't watch the debates last night, but caught some highlights one the news this morning. Bernie had 'bernie-mode' turned up to 11. He must have chopped up some Centrum Silver and Metamucil on a mirror and snorted some uncut lines of that shit prior to walking on stage.

And can we all agree that Marianne Williamson is nuttier then a chipmunk turd?

[worry]

Yah, I didn't get to see it all, but from the chunks I have seen Bernie ruled and so did Sen. Warren. Not surprising. Can't wait till he's prez and she's VP. I'm expecting a lot of these cookie cutter moderates to drop out soon after they were laid waste. As others have mentioned, so many of them need to be running for Senate, not Prez.