Chicago Isn't Broke Enough? Universal Basic Income...

[Starlight]

But Jordan Peterson has made some disturbing observations about IQ and employability.

I'd say pretty much all my observations of Jordan Peterson have disturbed me with regard to his IQ and employability...

[Teallaura]

Yes, but just because the exact moment in time when it would happen, doesn't mean that it won't happen. Precisely what I stated, that new jobs require greater skill, is basically what you're saying. Yes, new higher skilled jobs were created. And that has been and is a very positive development. The question is whether this can continue.

I admit its speculative, but I think we'll have a situation where the majority of the population wouldn't have the required skill to fill the relatively small amount of jobs available. If such a situation became the case, then I think universal basic income would happen. Either that or we'd transition to a money less society, since commodities could be produced so quickly that putting a price on them would be pointless.

Its the same with Peak Oil predictions. There's only a finite amount of oil in the ground. Its a non-replenishing resource. Ergo oil prices will inevitably rise as it becomes more scarce. When that occurs is hard to predict, but its inevitable.

Um, I saw a documentary not long ago about Britain in war time (WWII). They were having to pull blacksmiths and other craftsmen out of retirement in order to be able to keep up with consumer needs - these were people who had largely lost out to industrialization (and who's kids had died in WWI) going from skilled to unskilled labor.

The information age is also dependent on unskilled labor - and not just flipping burgers. At one point 'electronic' claims processing for M'caid began, like in every other industry, on the keyer's floor - keying is something of an art but it's not a difficult to acquire skill. Skipping stupider things like slow integration (let's have a human bridge computer programs, won't THAT be efficient?!?) there are still fairly low skilled to unskilled jobs in any data processing operation - someone always insists on mailing things in.

[JonathanL]

I'd say pretty much all my observations of Jordan Peterson have disturbed me with regard to his IQ and employability...

wow look at this guy who shows emotions what kind of moron does that

[Starlight]

wow look at this guy who shows emotions what kind of moron does that

The kind who has uncontrollable bouts of crying while babbling nonsense about individualism?

[JonathanL]

The kind who has uncontrollable bouts of crying while babbling nonsense about individualism?

Yes, because a 1:30 minute clip ripped out of context is going to tell us everything of why he teared up. There couldn't possibly be any other reason for why he started crying other than him being moved by what he read about individualism.

[Starlight]

Yes, because a 1:30 minute clip ripped out of context is going to tell us everything of why he teared up. There couldn't possibly be any other reason for why he started crying other than him being moved by what he read about individualism.

There's actually not any context that makes it better. He's just a loon.

[Leonhard]

Um, I saw a documentary not long ago about Britain in war time (WWII). They were having to pull blacksmiths and other craftsmen out of retirement in order to be able to keep up with consumer needs - these were people who had largely lost out to industrialization (and who's kids had died in WWI) going from skilled to unskilled labor.

The information age is also dependent on unskilled labor - and not just flipping burgers. At one point 'electronic' claims processing for M'caid began, like in every other industry, on the keyer's floor - keying is something of an art but it's not a difficult to acquire skill. Skipping stupider things like slow integration (let's have a human bridge computer programs, won't THAT be efficient?!?) there are still fairly low skilled to unskilled jobs in any data processing operation - someone always insists on mailing things in.

Nothing you mention here is a job that you couldn't automate. At best you can say that we haven't done it yet.

However, we can all agree that whether or not automation will one day, decades and decades from now, result in a society having little to no unskilled jobs... applying a theoretical solution for social inequality in such a society, to this society (which definitely has plenty of space for jobs), or - which is closer to whats happening - rebranding some wellfare with that sexy name, is a bit dumb.

[Teallaura]

Nothing you mention here is a job that you couldn't automate. At best you can say that we haven't done it yet.

However, we can all agree that whether or not automation will one day, decades and decades from now, result in a society having little to no unskilled jobs... applying a theoretical solution for social inequality in such a society, to this society (which definitely has plenty of space for jobs), or - which is closer to whats happening - rebranding some wellfare with that sexy name, is a bit dumb.

Actually, you stated that such transitions had always been from unskilled to skilled but I don't think that's true - at least it's only true in parts of a complex economy.

When they successfully automate foraging then I'll agree (on automation ever getting so far advanced) - but most automation presently is based on best case situations in which machines respond to human selections/set up.

[Rational Gaze]

Where do you get this insanity from? Have you considered checking yourself into a psychiatric facility?

History books, mostly. You ought to consider reading one. Or any book, for that matter. And, no, picture and coloring books don't count.

[Rational Gaze]

"The unexamined life is not worth living."

So, what you're saying is, your life isn't worth living? Well, that explains how depressed you are.

[Rational Gaze]

When an employer gives an employee money, they depend on the employer, they're not independent. I'm reminded of the proverb "no man is an island, entire of itself"... everyone lives in society with others, none of us are "independent" of everyone around us in a really deep sense.

I have never, ever, heard of any person in the world who said "I've decided I'm not going to bother to earn money for myself because the government takes a small percentage of it". Economists have wildly speculated this might happen if taxes were in the 90%+ range, but as far as I am aware there is zero empirical data on people who have decided not to get rich because of taxes.

Yes, it makes them richer. There's also reasonably good empirical data that people do use the money responsibly and sensibly to improve their lives (e.g. pay for an education, use it to start a business etc).

The money allows them the freedom to obtain the things they need for creating wealth - e.g. to pursue education, to have a roof over their head while they apply for jobs, to buy a suit to go to work in, to buy a vehicle to travel to work, the funds they need to start a business, etc.



? Pretty much 100% of the money given to the poor people will be immediately spent on goods and services in the local community - that's what the phrase "living paycheck to paycheck" means, such people spend 100% of their income every week. So if the local community gives money to poor people it's an investment with 100% return within the week - those people will spend the money on local goods and services and do so immediately. So when you say "an investment with no hope of return" I don't understand what you are trying to say.

Donut shops would only hire more employees if there were higher demand for donuts. We could create higher demand for donuts by giving poor people more money... which would then lead to the donut shop employing more staff, etc.

If the policy you are instead proposing is that the government could pay businesses to take on more staff than they need/want, thereby creating more jobs, sure, I'm mostly on board with that. Then you're kind of heading in the direction of a federal jobs guarantee of the kind that Bernie Sanders and some Democrats are currently talking about. You'd have to try and figure out exactly how to differentiate between a 'normal' employee that the business would have hired anyway, and an 'extra' employee whom the government is paying the business to hire unnecessarily, and try to prevent employers from scamming the system by claiming subsidies for employees they would have hired anyway and that gets complex, but imagining you could find a way to do that then the policy seems okay.

Increasing the minimum wage tends to be mathematically neutral with regard to unemployment. A few employers can no longer afford all their staff and will lay off a worker or two, and a few employers will have increased demand for goods and services and so will hire a worker or two. But because the amounts being paid to employees and the amounts they are spending if they're living paycheck to paycheck (100% of wages) remain the same ratio (i.e. 1.0), there's no change to employment levels.

The only ways it typically changes employment levels is if people who had previously been voluntarily unemployed decide it's now "worth working" at the new higher minimum wage levels and start applying for/getting jobs, or if the raise to the minimum wage is high enough that workers are now able to save some of their income and are no longer living paycheck to paycheck and thus not spending their entire pay increase which may then lower employment as businesses aren't seeing the same increase in revenue that they're spending in increased wages.

Australia released a study on the subject showing minimum wage increases caused no job losses and maybe caused a few job gains, and they have one of the highest minimum wages in the world. Their minimum wage is currently $18.93 AUD per hour, which is somewhere in the vicinity of $14-$18 USD per hour depending on how the exchange rate is doing in any given year.

Because nobody except you says that sort of nasty thing.

How about "life's hard and we're all in this together as a society and a country, have $500 to help yourself get back on your feet"?

Nothing's stopping you spending that money from the government to get job skills. In fact, the government would absolutely love for you to do that.

No.

Human dignity is innate, it isn't a function of dependence on the government or lack of it.

As a factual matter, with regard to Western countries in the present day, it is literally the government's job to build roads. Libertarian fantasies about ideal worlds in which people all have jet-packs and local businesses build the roads aren't factual.

Probably, but that's a pretty vague statement.

I don't quite know how to interpret this. I'm reminded of Indian toilets, I think it is, that squirt water onto your behind rather than use toilet paper. So if you're suggesting that the government provided toilets in public spaces that it already provides should follow that model.... I dunno if I'd have a problem with that. But I don't think that's what you're trying to get at.

To me it's all about efficiency, optimization, and outcomes. If the proposal is that the government should install all toilets and make them robotic/water squirting, then I would be happy to see the efficiency and cost-saving pros and cons of that. I would judge it based on whether it made society happier, more efficient, lower cost.

But I wouldn't approach it with arbitrary philosophical declarations of "I think the government inherently should/shouldn't be in the business of toilets" and would regard anyone who did as silly.

That would be inefficient, so I would never want that. It would also breach basic personal privacy, so I would never want that.

communism is poo poo.jpg

[Teallaura]

In other news...

[Sparko]

Yes, but just because the exact moment in time when it would happen, doesn't mean that it won't happen. Precisely what I stated, that new jobs require greater skill, is basically what you're saying. Yes, new higher skilled jobs were created. And that has been and is a very positive development. The question is whether this can continue.

I admit its speculative, but I think we'll have a situation where the majority of the population wouldn't have the required skill to fill the relatively small amount of jobs available. If such a situation became the case, then I think universal basic income would happen. Either that or we'd transition to a money less society, since commodities could be produced so quickly that putting a price on them would be pointless.

Its the same with Peak Oil predictions. There's only a finite amount of oil in the ground. Its a non-replenishing resource. Ergo oil prices will inevitably rise as it becomes more scarce. When that occurs is hard to predict, but its inevitable.

meh.

How much skill does it take to use a computer? especially today versus 50 years ago. The higher the technology, the easier to use and less skill needed. In general technology makes it easier for unskilled workers to do more. But also automation seems to leave room for artisans. People appreciate a hand-made item more than something spit out by a factory.

Things will always change, but as long as there are people, there will be work. Maybe less drudgery but always work.

[QuantaFille]

When an employer gives an employee money, they depend on the employer, they're not independent. I'm reminded of the proverb "no man is an island, entire of itself"... everyone lives in society with others, none of us are "independent" of everyone around us in a really deep sense.

I am not currently and have never been dependant on my employer in the sense we are discussing. Yes, I depend on them to hold up their end of the employment agreement, i.e. they pay me for my labour. That is not the same sense of "depend", however, and I think you know that.
I have actually walked out on a job before with no prior notice and no other job lined up because I was fed up with management's shenanigans. I then went out and found a better employer. I am dependant on myself to earn my money. No one takes care of my husband and I besides ourselves.

I have never, ever, heard of any person in the world who said "I've decided I'm not going to bother to earn money for myself because the government takes a small percentage of it". Economists have wildly speculated this might happen if taxes were in the 90%+ range, but as far as I am aware there is zero empirical data on people who have decided not to get rich because of taxes.

"Small percentage"
Others have already mentioned people moving away from Chicago due to antics like this, and I know it was happening in France as well some time back (though I'm not sure what the current situation is there). I've known people who got a promotion at work that put them in a higher tax bracket, and they actually started taking home less money because of the higher tax rate. If you don't know about this kind of thing happening, you're more out of touch than I thought. If there's no incentive to work hard and make your own money, why bother doing anything but sit on your butt and collect a paycheck from the government?
Or, do what a lot of people do and move somewhere where you can keep more of your money. This is especially important for small business owners who can put that money towards growing their business so they can hire more employees.

Yes, it makes them richer. There's also reasonably good empirical data that people do use the money responsibly and sensibly to improve their lives (e.g. pay for an education, use it to start a business etc).

Not with $500/mo. That's grocery money, and only for a small family. That's nowhere near what's needed to pay tuition, let alone start a business.

The money allows them the freedom to obtain the things they need for creating wealth - e.g. to pursue education, to have a roof over their head while they apply for jobs, to buy a suit to go to work in, to buy a vehicle to travel to work, the funds they need to start a business, etc.

You have such an unrealistically high opinion of human nature.

Ok, maybe you don't know how it works.

? Pretty much 100% of the money given to the poor people will be immediately spent on goods and services in the local community - that's what the phrase "living paycheck to paycheck" means, such people spend 100% of their income every week.

That's not exactly what it means. It means that you have to spend it all in order to pay the rent and utilities and buy food and gas, with nothing left over.

So if the local community gives money to poor people it's an investment with 100% return within the week - those people will spend the money on local goods and services and do so immediately. So when you say "an investment with no hope of return" I don't understand what you are trying to say.

Let me see if I can break it down further.
The donut shop owner has, let's say, five employees who work, and two "employees" who get paychecks without working because they are poor. (This money actually goes through the government in the form of taxes and redistribution, but for simplicity we'll say the shop owner gives it to them directly.) The donut shop owner will not see enough of an increase in sales to recoup those paychecks every month. Even if every shop in the community did the same, i.e. giving paychecks to non-workers, it doesn't work out because those people aren't earning money and add no value to their employer's business. If the demand for donuts goes up, the owner now has to hire two more workers whilst still paying his non-workers. My point is, if he has to pay their wages either way, why doesn't he just train those two to start with and have them work for him? Then they add value and revenue to the shop. If he has seven people making and selling donuts rather than five, he makes more money. Seven people can make more donuts than five. If he's clever, he'll send one off to be trained in marketing, so there will be an increase in demand for his product. Then he can hire even more people.

Donut shops would only hire more employees if there were higher demand for donuts. We could create higher demand for donuts by giving poor people more money... which would then lead to the donut shop employing more staff, etc.

But that money comes from someone else who earned it, and had it taken from them by the government. If these businesses are having to pay taxes to fund the project of giving "free" money to the poor, there goes the money they could have used for payroll.

If the policy you are instead proposing is that the government could pay businesses to take on more staff than they need/want, thereby creating more jobs, sure, I'm mostly on board with that.

That's one of the stupidest things I've ever heard...

Then you're kind of heading in the direction of a federal jobs guarantee of the kind that Bernie Sanders and some Democrats are currently talking about.

...oh, Bernie Sanders. That explains it. So instead of creating an economic environment that fosters business growth and increases employment, we're going to brute force it. Yeah, that'll work.

You'd have to try and figure out exactly how to differentiate between a 'normal' employee that the business would have hired anyway, and an 'extra' employee whom the government is paying the business to hire unnecessarily, and try to prevent employers from scamming the system by claiming subsidies for employees they would have hired anyway and that gets complex, but imagining you could find a way to do that then the policy seems okay.

Increasing the minimum wage tends to be mathematically neutral with regard to unemployment.

I.e., it doesn't increase the demand for goods and services enough that businesses have to hire more workers. Or, it does, but the businesses can't afford to hire as many people as they need to keep up.

A few employers can no longer afford all their staff and will lay off a worker or two, and a few employers will have increased demand for goods and services and so will hire a worker or two.

If there was as widespread an increase in demand for goods and services as you seem to think there would be, the unemployment rate should drop significantly. And yet, it doesn't. This destroys the entire theory you're proposing here. How do you not see that?

But because the amounts being paid to employees and the amounts they are spending if they're living paycheck to paycheck (100% of wages) remain the same ratio (i.e. 1.0), there's no change to employment levels.

Why would the employment level change because of the percentage of paycheck the average person spends? They are spending more money (still the entirety of their monthly income), which is the same thing that giving them a free $500/mo accomplishes. Think it through...

The only ways it typically changes employment levels is if people who had previously been voluntarily unemployed decide it's now "worth working" at the new higher minimum wage levels and start applying for/getting jobs, or if the raise to the minimum wage is high enough that workers are now able to save some of their income and are no longer living paycheck to paycheck and thus not spending their entire pay increase which may then lower employment as businesses aren't seeing the same increase in revenue that they're spending in increased wages.

I thought you just said, if people are given more money, they spend more money and this drives up the demand for goods, which makes businesses hire more people...

Australia released a study on the subject showing minimum wage increases caused no job losses and maybe caused a few job gains, and they have one of the highest minimum wages in the world. Their minimum wage is currently $18.93 AUD per hour, which is somewhere in the vicinity of $14-$18 USD per hour depending on how the exchange rate is doing in any given year.

So, giving minimum wage workers (i.e. the poor) more pay, doesn't increase employment, at least not significantly.

Because nobody except you says that sort of nasty thing.

If you actually think I'm saying something nasty, your reading comprehension skills are abysmal. I'm pointing out what it feels like to be given a handout instead of a hand up.

How about "life's hard and we're all in this together as a society and a country, have $500 to help yourself get back on your feet"?

$500 a month with no assistance towards getting a job (or a better job) is not helping anyone get back on their feet. That's my point.

Nothing's stopping you spending that money from the government to get job skills. In fact, the government would absolutely love for you to do that.

You mean except for the fact that's it's not enough for that purpose? Ok.

I'm saying that it's unsustainable for only those with jobs to support everyone (including those without jobs) rather than everyone making their own money. This is basic economics.

No.

Ok. If you don't see that, then I can't help you.

Human dignity is innate, it isn't a function of dependence on the government or lack of it.

Maybe you use the word "dignity" differently than I do. I'm trying to say that it's insulting.

As a factual matter, with regard to Western countries in the present day, it is literally the government's job to build roads. Libertarian fantasies about ideal worlds in which people all have jet-packs and local businesses build the roads aren't factual.

No, it's road construction companies' job. If the government didn't take a cut of the profits, maybe there'd be more cash on hand in these companies for things like maintaining the roads we have. But like I said, this is a completely different topic and I don't want to go down this rabbit trail.

My point is, there are things that the government should provide for its citizens, and things it shouldn't.

Probably, but that's a pretty vague statement.

Do you believe that there are things the government has no business being a part of? Or is every necessity, basic or no, the job of the government to provide?

I don't quite know how to interpret this. I'm reminded of Indian

Japanese

...toilets, I think it is, that squirt water onto your behind rather than use toilet paper. So if you're suggesting that the government provided toilets in public spaces that it already provides should follow that model.... I dunno if I'd have a problem with that. But I don't think that's what you're trying to get at.

It's not. What I am getting at, is that sometimes it's degrading for the government to personally insert itself where it doesn't belong.

To me it's all about efficiency, optimization, and outcomes.

Then get the government out of it and let the free market sort it out.

If the proposal is that the government should install all toilets and make them robotic/water squirting, then I would be happy to see the efficiency and cost-saving pros and cons of that. I would judge it based on whether it made society happier, more efficient, lower cost.

I can't tell whether you're being facetious, or if you're trying to appear not to get my example, or if you're genuinely stupid.

But I wouldn't approach it with arbitrary philosophical declarations of "I think the government inherently should/shouldn't be in the business of toilets" and would regard anyone who did as silly.

I think it's equally silly to say, "the government should be inextricably intertwined with every personal and private detail of your life and if you don't like it, tough banana peels."

That would be inefficient, so I would never want that. It would also breach basic personal privacy, so I would never want that.

Yet you favour big government.

[Psychic Missile]

I've known people who got a promotion at work that put them in a higher tax bracket, and they actually started taking home less money because of the higher tax rate. If you don't know about this kind of thing happening, you're more out of touch than I thought.

Um... wow.