Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

Debunked: Socialism has never worked

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
    Maybe Mark Zuckerberg should start with his company. Give all of his employees a "universal basic income" regardless of whether they actually show up for work or not and see how well his business does.
    Like I said, Musk is actually doing something like this. I don't know if Zuckerberg has a big enough share in his company to do something like this for Facebook employees.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Adrift View Post
      As I understand it, EVERYONE gets money. You, me, Zuckerberg, and the homeless guy. I don't know how they figure out how much to give everyone, or if everyone will get the same amount. You won't lose it if you suddenly find yourself employed, because its money that everyone universally gets.
      sounds nice until you realize that those who are working are also the ones PAYING for the Basic, so you are just paying yourself (and others) in the end. If they take out 30% of my pay and give me a stipend back I am most likely going to be losing money in the deal.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
        So he already proved that raising the minimum wage isn't a solution, so what makes him think a basic universal income will be any more successful?
        Exactly. Since COL isn't universal, why is it fair for someone poor living in an affluent area to get the same as someone living in the sticks?
        That's what
        - She

        Without a clear-cut definition of sin, morality becomes a mere argument over the best way to train animals
        - Manya the Holy Szin (The Quintara Marathon)

        I may not be as old as dirt, but me and dirt are starting to have an awful lot in common
        - Stephen R. Donaldson

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Adrift View Post
          Like I said, Musk is actually doing something like this. I don't know if Zuckerberg has a big enough share in his company to do something like this for Facebook employees.
          I hope all of those big greedy corporations do this! Pay a basic wage to their employees who don't even bother to show up! That way I can go out and work mulitple jobs and not show up and get rich!

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Sparko View Post
            sounds nice until you realize that those who are working are also the ones PAYING for the Basic, so you are just paying yourself (and others) in the end. If they take out 30% of my pay and give me a stipend back I am most likely going to be losing money in the deal.
            Right. It would definitely benefit some people over others. The question I think on the minds of some libertarians at least is...will it be any worse than the programs we've already implemented, especially when taking into consideration the automation of most low level jobs, which will leave even more people unemployed. I, personally, have no idea. I can't imagine such a concept working, but it should be interesting to see what happens to those nations that experiment with it.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Sparko View Post
              I hope all of those big greedy corporations do this! Pay a basic wage to their employees who don't even bother to show up! That way I can go out and work mulitple jobs and not show up and get rich!

              This is from an inc.com article on the subject,

              1. Mark Zuckerberg, co-founder and CEO of Facebook
              Zuckerberg brought up the idea during his Harvard commencement speech in May. The Facebook CEO believes a universal basic income could encourage innovation. "We should explore ideas like universal basic income to make sure that everyone has a cushion to try new ideas," he said during his speech.

              2. Elon Musk, co-founder and CEO of Tesla
              The Tesla CEO believes a universal basic income could be the solution to machines taking people's jobs. In a November 2016 interview with CNBC, Musk said that there didn't seem to be any other choice but universal basic income. "There's a pretty good chance we end up with a universal basic income, or something like that, due to automation," Musk told CNBC.

              He also said that having a universal basic income would open the doors for people to have more leisure time and to pursue their interests.

              3. Sam Altman, president of Y Combinator
              Altman is at the forefront of Y Combinator's Oakland experiment. At his Basic Income Project's inception, Altman wrote in a blog post that he believes increased automation would lead to an eventual nationwide implementation of a universal basic income.

              "I also think that it's impossible to truly have equality of opportunity without some version of guaranteed income," Altman wrote. "And I think that, combined with innovation driving down the cost of having a great life, by doing something like this we could eventually make real progress toward eliminating poverty."

              4. Pierre Omidyar, founder of eBay
              The eBay founder's Omidyar Network announced in February that it was investing almost $500,000 in a universal basic income experiment in Kenya backed by the charity GiveDirectly. In the largest UBI experiment to date, the program will provide long-term UBI to 6,000 people for 12 years, and 26,000 people in 200 villages will receive cash transfers in all. In a blog post, the network cited automation and globalization as large disruptions to traditional work structures.

              "Existing social safety nets seem increasingly unsuited for these disruptions to work and income," the post explained. "The debate has taken off quickly, with advocates and detractors posing political and philosophical arguments. However, while the discussion has generated a lot of heat, it hasn't produced very much light."


              The article also points out,
              "Of course, the idea has detractors. Countries like Switzerland recently rejected the concept outright, after a vote scuttled the initiative in 2016. Critics argue that a universal basic income is simply too expensive--implementing a program might decrease funding for other programs like Social Security or Medicaid--and that it might encourage people not to work."

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Adrift View Post
                Right. It would definitely benefit some people over others. The question I think on the minds of some libertarians at least is...will it be any worse than the programs we've already implemented, especially when taking into consideration the automation of most low level jobs, which will leave even more people unemployed. I, personally, have no idea. I can't imagine such a concept working, but it should be interesting to see what happens to those nations that experiment with it.
                Most governments can't afford to even get themselves out of debt much less have enough to pay their citizens a basic wage.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Adrift View Post
                  This is from an inc.com article on the subject,

                  1. Mark Zuckerberg, co-founder and CEO of Facebook
                  Zuckerberg brought up the idea during his Harvard commencement speech in May. The Facebook CEO believes a universal basic income could encourage innovation. "We should explore ideas like universal basic income to make sure that everyone has a cushion to try new ideas," he said during his speech.

                  2. Elon Musk, co-founder and CEO of Tesla
                  The Tesla CEO believes a universal basic income could be the solution to machines taking people's jobs. In a November 2016 interview with CNBC, Musk said that there didn't seem to be any other choice but universal basic income. "There's a pretty good chance we end up with a universal basic income, or something like that, due to automation," Musk told CNBC.

                  He also said that having a universal basic income would open the doors for people to have more leisure time and to pursue their interests.

                  3. Sam Altman, president of Y Combinator
                  Altman is at the forefront of Y Combinator's Oakland experiment. At his Basic Income Project's inception, Altman wrote in a blog post that he believes increased automation would lead to an eventual nationwide implementation of a universal basic income.

                  "I also think that it's impossible to truly have equality of opportunity without some version of guaranteed income," Altman wrote. "And I think that, combined with innovation driving down the cost of having a great life, by doing something like this we could eventually make real progress toward eliminating poverty."

                  4. Pierre Omidyar, founder of eBay
                  The eBay founder's Omidyar Network announced in February that it was investing almost $500,000 in a universal basic income experiment in Kenya backed by the charity GiveDirectly. In the largest UBI experiment to date, the program will provide long-term UBI to 6,000 people for 12 years, and 26,000 people in 200 villages will receive cash transfers in all. In a blog post, the network cited automation and globalization as large disruptions to traditional work structures.

                  "Existing social safety nets seem increasingly unsuited for these disruptions to work and income," the post explained. "The debate has taken off quickly, with advocates and detractors posing political and philosophical arguments. However, while the discussion has generated a lot of heat, it hasn't produced very much light."


                  The article also points out,
                  "Of course, the idea has detractors. Countries like Switzerland recently rejected the concept outright, after a vote scuttled the initiative in 2016. Critics argue that a universal basic income is simply too expensive--implementing a program might decrease funding for other programs like Social Security or Medicaid--and that it might encourage people not to work."
                  It still boils down to stealing profits (as taxes) from the companies that actually use the automation to make profits and giving those profits to others who don't work. I am betting that when they come to Musk and say, "We notice that you are using robots to build your Teslas, so we want 40% of your profits to give to people you put out of work" he will balk at the plan.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                    It still boils down to stealing profits (as taxes) from the companies that actually use the automation to make profits and giving those profits to others who don't work.
                    Just curious, but don't a lot of libertarians think taxes are stealing anyways? If so, I suppose for them it'd come down to which is the biggest theft, current government subsidies/financial aid, or free money up front.

                    Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                    I am betting that when they come to Musk and say, "We notice that you are using robots to build your Teslas, so we want 40% of your profits to give to people you put out of work" he will balk at the plan.
                    I get the feeling that he's the type of businessman who'd be all for it. I mean, he already is, so I have a hard time thinking he'd balk further down the road.

                    The thing that just doesn't make sense to me at all is how is this supposed to help cost of living. It seems that once your landlord knows that you can now afford the rent, they'll just raise the rent to prices you can't afford anymore. How do you keep something like this from boosting inflation, unless the government steps in to artificially prevent that. As someone who comes down on the left side of the equation more times than I do on the right when it comes to government aid, healthcare, and the like, the heart seems in the right place with these sorts of ideas, but it seems not to take into consideration the realities that people are messed up. That we'll take the easy route more often than the harder one.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Adrift View Post
                      Just curious, but don't a lot of libertarians think taxes are stealing anyways? If so, I suppose for them it'd come down to which is the biggest theft, current government subsidies/financial aid, or free money up front.
                      Yeah pretty much. But in this case it would be literally true. They would be taking their profits to give to people who didn't work. I believe in taxes to support needed infrastructure and services. I am not a libertarian by any means. I think that philosophy is just as flawed as the socialists'. Libertarianism ends in anarchy and dog-eat-dog.


                      I get the feeling that he's the type of businessman who'd be all for it. I mean, he already is, so I have a hard time thinking he'd balk further down the road.

                      The thing that just doesn't make sense to me at all is how is this supposed to help cost of living. It seems that once your landlord knows that you can now afford the rent, they'll just raise the rent to prices you can't afford anymore. How do you keep something like this from boosting inflation, unless the government steps in to artificially prevent that. As someone who comes down on the left side of the equation more times than I do on the right when it comes to government aid, healthcare, and the like, the heart seems in the right place with these sorts of ideas, but it seems not to take into consideration the realities that people are messed up. That we'll take the easy route more often than the harder one.
                      I don't think it would be as simple as the landlord saying "well he can afford more so I will charge more" although it could be. I think what will happen is that all of the businesses that end up paying for this basic income will want to increase their prices in order to afford the extra taxes. That raised the cost of goods and the cost of living. Just like when they raise the minimum wage. Eventually those at the bottom will still not be able to afford anything.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                        Yeah pretty much. But in this case it would be literally true. They would be taking their profits to give to people who didn't work. I believe in taxes to support needed infrastructure and services. I am not a libertarian by any means. I think that philosophy is just as flawed as the socialists'. Libertarianism ends in anarchy and dog-eat-dog.




                        I don't think it would be as simple as the landlord saying "well he can afford more so I will charge more" although it could be. I think what will happen is that all of the businesses that end up paying for this basic income will want to increase their prices in order to afford the extra taxes. That raised the cost of goods and the cost of living. Just like when they raise the minimum wage. Eventually those at the bottom will still not be able to afford anything.
                        The podcast I was listening to didn't really say if this would actually raise taxes (though I can't imagine how it wouldn't). Again, I think the idea is that if you disable all of these other expensive programs, this new program sort of pays for itself, but I'm almost certain that's not how it's going to work out in reality. According to the podcast, apparently we already tried experimenting with something like this back in the 70s under Nixon, but the data came back lopsided and incomplete. There were "rumors" that people stopped going to work, and that families started divorcing (the podcasters stated that the rumors were just that, and that the divorce rates were not that high, but actually praised the raise in divorce rates, suggesting that it was likely women no longer debt slaves to their husbands).

                        Now, I'm going to get into a bit of an aside here. Almost all of the popular podcasts I listen to lean politically left, even though none of them are political podcasts. This particular podcast, 99% Invisible, is a podcast typically devoted to design and architecture, that occasionally gets into weird and interesting things that are happening around us without most of us being aware of it (thus, invisible). I wouldn't even mind if some of these podcasts leaned left, but almost all of them do, and not very subtly either. It's like listening to NPR all day with them kinda pretending to be neutral, but not trying very hard. I can only guess the reason so many successful podcasts lean this way is because they all come from the same places...usually a big city on the coast. And artists and creative types typically lean left as well. Again, as someone who is politically neutral (though fiscally left leaning), it's tiring to hear the lack of neutrality, and nonbias. But I digress...

                        I just don't see efforts in this getting that far in the US. Still, I think it might be good to pay attention to it in case it gathers steam in the future. I think the only way that'll happen is if it proves successful in "Nordic welfare states" (the podcast's terminology), but I'm thinking that's unlikely.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Adrift View Post
                          The podcast I was listening to didn't really say if this would actually raise taxes (though I can't imagine how it wouldn't). Again, I think the idea is that if you disable all of these other expensive programs, this new program sort of pays for itself, but I'm almost certain that's not how it's going to work out in reality. According to the podcast, apparently we already tried experimenting with something like this back in the 70s under Nixon, but the data came back lopsided and incomplete. There were "rumors" that people stopped going to work, and that families started divorcing (the podcasters stated that the rumors were just that, and that the divorce rates were not that high, but actually praised the raise in divorce rates, suggesting that it was likely women no longer debt slaves to their husbands).

                          Now, I'm going to get into a bit of an aside here. Almost all of the popular podcasts I listen to lean politically left, even though none of them are political podcasts. This particular podcast, 99% Invisible, is a podcast typically devoted to design and architecture, that occasionally gets into weird and interesting things that are happening around us without most of us being aware of it (thus, invisible). I wouldn't even mind if some of these podcasts leaned left, but almost all of them do, and not very subtly either. It's like listening to NPR all day with them kinda pretending to be neutral, but not trying very hard. I can only guess the reason so many successful podcasts lean this way is because they all come from the same places...usually a big city on the coast. And artists and creative types typically lean left as well. Again, as someone who is politically neutral (though fiscally left leaning), it's tiring to hear the lack of neutrality, and nonbias. But I digress...

                          I just don't see efforts in this getting that far in the US. Still, I think it might be good to pay attention to it in case it gathers steam in the future. I think the only way that'll happen is if it proves successful in "Nordic welfare states" (the podcast's terminology), but I'm thinking that's unlikely.
                          I somehow get the idea that these people think that automation and robots will be the new "slave class" and generate all this free money and products that will be handed out to the masses, making them the new aristocratic society who can simply sit on their butts and relax in luxury. But someone has to buy the products the robots make, and someone has to make the robots and own the robots and decide what they make and market the products and sell them, etc. And the energy they use to make the products has to come from somewhere, and all that. There ain't no such thing as a free lunch.

                          bd6d96fcc6a5009ed16ff67f18578cc3.jpg

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Adrift View Post
                            The article also points out,
                            "Of course, the idea has detractors. Countries like Switzerland recently rejected the concept outright, after a vote scuttled the initiative in 2016. Critics argue that a universal basic income is simply too expensive--implementing a program might decrease funding for other programs like Social Security or Medicaid--and that it might encourage people not to work."
                            The underlined is a really strange criticism, because what I know of the basic universal income is that would be instead of programs like Medicaid or social security based on the premise that people would have the money to pay for those things themselves. Basically, you get rid of all social programs and distribute the money to the citizens instead. Of course you could more or less accomplish the same thing by simply reducing or eliminating taxes and encouraging the people to work instead which has the added benefit of encouraging people to actually contribute to society. But since that would also reduce government control, no politician would be in favor of it.
                            Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
                            But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
                            Than a fool in the eyes of God


                            From "Fools Gold" by Petra

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                              The underlined is a really strange criticism, because what I know of the basic universal income is that would be instead of programs like Medicaid or social security based on the premise that people would have the money to pay for those things themselves. Basically, you get rid of all social programs and distribute the money to the citizens instead. Of course you could more or less accomplish the same thing by simply reducing or eliminating taxes and encouraging the people to work instead which has the added benefit of encouraging people to actually contribute to society. But since that would also reduce government control, no politician would be in favor of it.
                              Yeah, I thought that was odd wording too. Reducing/eliminating taxes would likely not accomplish the same goal though, I don't think. If we're talking about the unemployed, doesn't matter how little you tax the guy with no money. He's still not going to have any money.

                              Comment


                              • People will be more likely to find work if they can't simply let the government take care of them, and let local communities provide charity. That's shouldn't be the government's job.
                                Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
                                But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
                                Than a fool in the eyes of God


                                From "Fools Gold" by Petra

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by little_monkey, Yesterday, 04:19 PM
                                6 responses
                                45 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post whag
                                by whag
                                 
                                Started by whag, 03-26-2024, 04:38 PM
                                42 responses
                                230 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post whag
                                by whag
                                 
                                Started by rogue06, 03-26-2024, 11:45 AM
                                24 responses
                                104 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Ronson
                                by Ronson
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 09:21 AM
                                32 responses
                                173 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 08:34 AM
                                73 responses
                                285 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                                Working...
                                X