The colossal problem with universal basic income [video](youtube.com)
youtube.com
The colossal problem with universal basic income [video]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m25YLByFVRw
97 comments
"Universal Basic Assets"
I agree with this.
I agree with this.
Isn't Big Think funded by the Kock family[0]? I'd take this information with a grain of salt, they typically lean hard on conservative perspective.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Think
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Think
Pretty much all of this research is funded by one side or another— we should always be as scrupulous as possible in examining an argument, and assume there's money behind it.
Also, pedantic here but it's Koch, pronounced like "Coke", rather than Kock. :)
Also, pedantic here but it's Koch, pronounced like "Coke", rather than Kock. :)
>and assume there's money behind it.
I mean there is always going to be money behind anything. It's largely how our society works.
You instead should ask yourself what end goal the money is being spent for.
I mean there is always going to be money behind anything. It's largely how our society works.
You instead should ask yourself what end goal the money is being spent for.
> but it's Koch, pronounced like "Coke"
Doubly pedantic but in the original German it is pronounced Kawcchh
Doubly pedantic but in the original German it is pronounced Kawcchh
I mean Douglas is right that that UBI doesn't solve every social or economic problem, but this does seem a little out-of-character for him.
Kind of an ad hominem argument. I'm a liberal and I think we probably will need a UBI at some point, but I do see the point he's making, where a lot of big tech proponents seem to side-step the problems they're helping to create (loss of jobs) by calling for universal basic income.
Plenty of western countries, including the US and UK have record high employment, and plenty of un-filled open positions. The unemployment we do have is a skill shortage, not a jobs shortage. Meanwhile China has employed hundreds of millions of people and salaries there have boomed. None of this shows any real sign of a squeeze on overall employment.
I know there’s a lot of talk about AI putting people out of work, but it doesn’t actually seem to be happening yet. Automation has been putting people out of work for hundreds of years now, yet there are more jobs than ever. Ultimately maybe we’ll all live in a Star Trek future when ‘work’ is synonymous with ‘slavery’. We’re a very long way from anything like that, yet people talk a lot as though it’s already happening when it really isn’t.
I know there’s a lot of talk about AI putting people out of work, but it doesn’t actually seem to be happening yet. Automation has been putting people out of work for hundreds of years now, yet there are more jobs than ever. Ultimately maybe we’ll all live in a Star Trek future when ‘work’ is synonymous with ‘slavery’. We’re a very long way from anything like that, yet people talk a lot as though it’s already happening when it really isn’t.
[deleted]
Is it side-stepping if UBI actually happens?
He gives an argument that the answer is still "yes". If UBI happens and Uber et al still ends up with all the money, then the argument still holds. Using a non-existent UBI as an argument for how they behave today is another level of problem.
Their most popular content shows another story:
https://www.youtube.com/user/bigthink/videos?view=0&sort=p&f...
https://www.youtube.com/user/bigthink/videos?view=0&sort=p&f...
He complains that UBI would funnel more money to the people producing goods. At the end he advocates "universal basic assets," distributing ownership of productive assets instead of just income. If anything it's more left-wing than UBI.
Frankly, those two things are more similar than they might look.
I mean, what's the practical difference between owning 0.00000001% of the nation's productive assets versus getting paid 0.00000001% of GDP as UBI?
One aspect is that ownership might be alienable (i.e. you can sell that basic asset), but a system like that would be just a short-term bandaid since we'd expect that within a few decades we'd have millions of people who own nothing, and then we'd back to square one. But if it can't be sold, then ownership of productive assets is pretty much the same thing as getting dividends from those assets, and that is pretty much the same thing as unconditional income, perhaps with a slightly different calculation rules on how it changes year by year.
I mean, what's the practical difference between owning 0.00000001% of the nation's productive assets versus getting paid 0.00000001% of GDP as UBI?
One aspect is that ownership might be alienable (i.e. you can sell that basic asset), but a system like that would be just a short-term bandaid since we'd expect that within a few decades we'd have millions of people who own nothing, and then we'd back to square one. But if it can't be sold, then ownership of productive assets is pretty much the same thing as getting dividends from those assets, and that is pretty much the same thing as unconditional income, perhaps with a slightly different calculation rules on how it changes year by year.
> distributing ownership of productive assets instead of just income
Yeah, that's pretty much standard communism ("collective ownership of the means of production"). The million dollar question, is "how do we go about doing this without setting up a fascist state?"
Yeah, that's pretty much standard communism ("collective ownership of the means of production"). The million dollar question, is "how do we go about doing this without setting up a fascist state?"
How different is that from public companies with large funds- for example pension funds- as shareholders? Even if the property is public, the objective of maximizing profit doesn't change, and that is obtained by appointing ceos and managers.
I think you mean authoritarian state. Fascism is a specific right wing thing.
No, and until a decade ago there wasn't anybody trying to push that falsehood. Fascism involves heavy government control of everything.
"All within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state."
-- Benito Mussolini
That is anything but right wing.
"All within the state, nothing outside the state, nothing against the state."
-- Benito Mussolini
That is anything but right wing.
It's absolutely right-wing. It's not libertarian, but libertarian isn't equal to right-wing; you can have right-libertarians, but even the most extreme of those is more moderately right (and within the wide classical liberal tradition) than fascists, who are essentially—while certainly there was some novelty involved in Mussolini's time—a conscious throwback further right to classical conservatism.
Libertarian isn't equal to right-wing, but neither is nationalism or racism or anything else that you may see in fascism.
Fundamentally, the left is about collectivism and the right is about individualism. The difference is whether you think the state is a provider or a parasite. It's about wanting the government to take care of you or get out of your way. It's about wanting the government to make everybody have equal stuff or an equal opportunity.
Fundamentally, the left is about collectivism and the right is about individualism. The difference is whether you think the state is a provider or a parasite. It's about wanting the government to take care of you or get out of your way. It's about wanting the government to make everybody have equal stuff or an equal opportunity.
> Fundamentally, the left is about collectivism and the right is about individualism.
No, its not. That's pretty much the libertarian-authoritarian axis, which is largely orthogonal to the left-right axis. Libertarian socialism is not only a thing, it's an older thing than modern, pro-capitalist right-libertarianism. (It's also older than Leninism.)
No, its not. That's pretty much the libertarian-authoritarian axis, which is largely orthogonal to the left-right axis. Libertarian socialism is not only a thing, it's an older thing than modern, pro-capitalist right-libertarianism. (It's also older than Leninism.)
So what exactly is left-right in your mind? It's looking like you don't think Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren are on the left, and you don't think Rand Paul and Clarence Thomas are on the right.
Perhaps you are calibrated to a non-US definition. If so, you should qualify it as something like "UK right" or "UK left" or whatever.
Perhaps you are calibrated to a non-US definition. If so, you should qualify it as something like "UK right" or "UK left" or whatever.
> It's looking like you don't think Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren are on the left
Relative to the center in the US they are on the left and also, if not on the authoritarian side, at least not on the libertarian side either.
> and you don't think Rand Paul and Clarence Thomas are on the right.
Paul is, rhetorically at least, a right-libertarian. Thomas is a partisan Republican who is quiet enough on ideological issues that I wouldn't try to place him other than somewhere vaguely on the right.
> Perhaps you are calibrated to a non-US definition.
No, actually, my degree is focussed on the US political space, not that it really matters (the US center is way to the right of the developed world, such that what is by broader standards a center-right faction has recently been dominant in the left-most of the two major parties, but that just affects position on that axis, not what the axes are; it's also true that US politics seems unidimensional due to the two party system, so all variations often get characterized as left-right even when they aren't and only weakly, if at all, correlate with left-right variation.)
Relative to the center in the US they are on the left and also, if not on the authoritarian side, at least not on the libertarian side either.
> and you don't think Rand Paul and Clarence Thomas are on the right.
Paul is, rhetorically at least, a right-libertarian. Thomas is a partisan Republican who is quiet enough on ideological issues that I wouldn't try to place him other than somewhere vaguely on the right.
> Perhaps you are calibrated to a non-US definition.
No, actually, my degree is focussed on the US political space, not that it really matters (the US center is way to the right of the developed world, such that what is by broader standards a center-right faction has recently been dominant in the left-most of the two major parties, but that just affects position on that axis, not what the axes are; it's also true that US politics seems unidimensional due to the two party system, so all variations often get characterized as left-right even when they aren't and only weakly, if at all, correlate with left-right variation.)
UBI is a libertarianish policy, and Big Think has published pro-UBI articles in the past.
OTOH, Rushkoff's objections are from a left perspective, and leftists in general seem to be coming out against it.
In the past some less-radical leftists have been for it (and one or two very atypical communists), but now that it is officially coded "tech-bro" I see leftists reiterating conservative arguments against minimum wage, except against UBI. It's odd.
OTOH, Rushkoff's objections are from a left perspective, and leftists in general seem to be coming out against it.
In the past some less-radical leftists have been for it (and one or two very atypical communists), but now that it is officially coded "tech-bro" I see leftists reiterating conservative arguments against minimum wage, except against UBI. It's odd.
As someone on the left and someone who has actively participated in multiple socialist parties in the US for years, the opposition to UBI from the left (DemSocs, Marxist-Leninists, various flavors of anarchists) is because we see it as a way for the ruling class to gut social programs instead of supplement them. The idea of "guaranteed income" argued for by people like MLK was a way to abolish poverty forever.
Here's some MLK quotes on it from his book Where Do We Go From Here: https://medium.com/basic-income/mlk-on-guaranteed-income-bfd...
Here's some MLK quotes on it from his book Where Do We Go From Here: https://medium.com/basic-income/mlk-on-guaranteed-income-bfd...
Well, that's part of the deal if UBI is ever to get off the ground.
Normally UBI is considered to be sort of a truce between the left and the right. The left wants the UBI, and the right wants to get rid of government bureaucrats. The left gives up on the government bureaucrats ("gut social programs") and the right gives up on tossing out all forms of welfare.
Of course, both sides are motivated to break the truce. You just admitted that in fact, wanting to not "gut social programs". Enforcing the truce doesn't seem possible.
Normally UBI is considered to be sort of a truce between the left and the right. The left wants the UBI, and the right wants to get rid of government bureaucrats. The left gives up on the government bureaucrats ("gut social programs") and the right gives up on tossing out all forms of welfare.
Of course, both sides are motivated to break the truce. You just admitted that in fact, wanting to not "gut social programs". Enforcing the truce doesn't seem possible.
Well, one obvious solution there is to simply accept no compromise and vote the right and corporations completely out of power.
Haha, good one. As if our entire government isn't a captured agency at this point.
> Normally UBI is considered to be sort of a truce between the left and the right.
No, it's not, or at least not by most people who back UBI. There are people who back forms of it on the Left, and people who back forms of it on the Right, and, sure, it's conceivable that one way it might pass is an alliance between those two that involves some compromise, but it's just as plausible that it would get implemented, if at all, by a Right- or Left-leaning governing coalition in a compromise between UBI-favoring elements and others from the same side of the spectrum.
No, it's not, or at least not by most people who back UBI. There are people who back forms of it on the Left, and people who back forms of it on the Right, and, sure, it's conceivable that one way it might pass is an alliance between those two that involves some compromise, but it's just as plausible that it would get implemented, if at all, by a Right- or Left-leaning governing coalition in a compromise between UBI-favoring elements and others from the same side of the spectrum.
Normally UBI is considered to be sort of a truce between the left and the right
By whom? There is nothing outlandish about implementing UBI without gutting every other aspect of the social safety net, it's just that the interests against it want their pound of flesh in exchange for any increase in social services.
For instance, all of this could be paid for with a tiny portion of the US defense budget.
By whom? There is nothing outlandish about implementing UBI without gutting every other aspect of the social safety net, it's just that the interests against it want their pound of flesh in exchange for any increase in social services.
For instance, all of this could be paid for with a tiny portion of the US defense budget.
I do understand that, but I have also heard things from supposed leftists like "Oh, everyone's rent will go up by $1000." This says less about leftist movements than the people I talk to.
Ok. That makes sense.
I think that Douglas's argument addresses a strawman : UBI fails to fight the evils of capitalism.
Which is totally not the point of UBI. The point of UBI is to increase the efficiency of our economy and to improve the living conditions of our population, which results in all kinds of other improvements.
And I think that this is obvious.
So ya, I gotta raise my eyebrow at Douglas.
I think that Douglas's argument addresses a strawman : UBI fails to fight the evils of capitalism.
Which is totally not the point of UBI. The point of UBI is to increase the efficiency of our economy and to improve the living conditions of our population, which results in all kinds of other improvements.
And I think that this is obvious.
So ya, I gotta raise my eyebrow at Douglas.
Actually, the idea that the Koch brothers fund only "conservative stuff" is not terribly accurate. They fund things all over the map. "Conservatives" don't particularly trust them either. If you really get down to what they fund, instead of reading people's screeds about them and scapegoating, it's rather hard to characterize. (I've also seen them called "libertarian", but they have rather more left-wing and big-government stuff than you would expect with that.)
Care to provide some examples of non-conservative stuff that they fund?
They strongly support immigration in every way.
All owner-class capitalists should. The machine needs ever more cheap labor to fuel the endless growth, and the bigger the labor pool, the less you can pay people.
Thanks for great posts guys.
Well, this video and universal basic income in general, for one: https://www.thenation.com/article/a-basic-income-would-upend...
It is true that you can find conservative thinkers who have been in favor of UBI, but it is not a generally-conservative idea right now. The general conservative idea remains to try to "get government out of the way" of the economy and let the free market provide people with jobs. I don't see conservative sites talking about UBI in positive ways; I see it as a generally liberal idea where one of the arguments the liberals are using is that some conservative leaders have written about it positively in the past. (Which is a valid enough argument.) "Nobody" "knew" that certain conservative thinkers had written positively about UBI until it was picked up as a liberal, left-wing idea and somebody found those arguments.
(Note I am merely mentioning certain arguments, not making them.)
The Koch foundation has also been fairly vigorously anti-Trump: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/koch-broth... , including opposition to the immigration restrictions from certain mainly-Muslim contries, a relatively liberal perspective. Whether or not you consider some of the other mentioned positions "conservative" starts getting down into some weeds. (i.e. "Is Trump conservative, and is opposing Trump therefore anti-conservative?" is something you could write a lengthy essay on that would largely come down to "it depends on which definition of conservative you're using", and would really be more a springboard for examining the relevant definitions and how they differ.)
I'm not saying they aren't often in the position of opposing liberalism (which I think may be more accurate than "being conservative"... there are more than two sides to the world), but it's not 100%, either. It's more complicated.
Nor am I particularly defending them here, either. I'm not a huge fan either, just for different reasons than most people here. Again, going back to "there's more than two sides in the world".
It is true that you can find conservative thinkers who have been in favor of UBI, but it is not a generally-conservative idea right now. The general conservative idea remains to try to "get government out of the way" of the economy and let the free market provide people with jobs. I don't see conservative sites talking about UBI in positive ways; I see it as a generally liberal idea where one of the arguments the liberals are using is that some conservative leaders have written about it positively in the past. (Which is a valid enough argument.) "Nobody" "knew" that certain conservative thinkers had written positively about UBI until it was picked up as a liberal, left-wing idea and somebody found those arguments.
(Note I am merely mentioning certain arguments, not making them.)
The Koch foundation has also been fairly vigorously anti-Trump: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/koch-broth... , including opposition to the immigration restrictions from certain mainly-Muslim contries, a relatively liberal perspective. Whether or not you consider some of the other mentioned positions "conservative" starts getting down into some weeds. (i.e. "Is Trump conservative, and is opposing Trump therefore anti-conservative?" is something you could write a lengthy essay on that would largely come down to "it depends on which definition of conservative you're using", and would really be more a springboard for examining the relevant definitions and how they differ.)
I'm not saying they aren't often in the position of opposing liberalism (which I think may be more accurate than "being conservative"... there are more than two sides to the world), but it's not 100%, either. It's more complicated.
Nor am I particularly defending them here, either. I'm not a huge fan either, just for different reasons than most people here. Again, going back to "there's more than two sides in the world".
The (David H.) Koch Institute For Integrative Cancer Reasearch at MIT (https://ki.mit.edu) was partly funded by a $100m grant from him, and does not appear to have a conservative agenda.
I think it is a reasonable interpretation of solidsnack9000's request that it be something ideological as well. Pretty much everyone agrees that cancer is bad and should be cured.
Read "Inventing The Future" by Srnicek & Williams.
Please.
Please.
Can you give a quick synopsis so we know why we should read it? What did you get out of it that you liked, and how does it relate to UBI?
UBI seems like a interesting idea but I don't think it's more than a small part of a bigger solution.
It could possibly help people from having 3-4 part time jobs just to make ends meet, but other problematic areas still exist.
Affordable housing, get people off the street / living in their cars.
Public medical care that doesn't require insurance or bankrupt you.
Higher education system that doesn't leave you with a life long debt.
It could possibly help people from having 3-4 part time jobs just to make ends meet, but other problematic areas still exist.
Affordable housing, get people off the street / living in their cars.
Public medical care that doesn't require insurance or bankrupt you.
Higher education system that doesn't leave you with a life long debt.
To me, part of the problem is that nobody can simply "live" anymore. While there are homesteaders who can effectively "live off the land", people can no longer actually do that.
Instead of UBI, why not create a system where people can actually "live" without needing to create a whole system where the government ends up requiring people to pay into the system?
From the video: "We can't just give these people houses because they don't have jobs".
Yeah, because they don't just get "the house" they also have to pay property taxes, and for the utilities, and for everything else that is required, you know, actually live in the house.
Maybe this is overly simplistic, but it seems like you can do one of two things: prop "the system" up by continuing to require things like property taxes and the like, or find a way for people to be able to actually, you know, OWN their property and do whatever they want with it so that they could be completely self-sufficient.
EDIT: Actually, that seems to be something along the lines of what he is saying: "UBI perputates people as consumers but not as owners" (my paraphrase)
Instead of UBI, why not create a system where people can actually "live" without needing to create a whole system where the government ends up requiring people to pay into the system?
From the video: "We can't just give these people houses because they don't have jobs".
Yeah, because they don't just get "the house" they also have to pay property taxes, and for the utilities, and for everything else that is required, you know, actually live in the house.
Maybe this is overly simplistic, but it seems like you can do one of two things: prop "the system" up by continuing to require things like property taxes and the like, or find a way for people to be able to actually, you know, OWN their property and do whatever they want with it so that they could be completely self-sufficient.
EDIT: Actually, that seems to be something along the lines of what he is saying: "UBI perputates people as consumers but not as owners" (my paraphrase)
I'm not a fan of UBI, but income is a valuable and liberating thing. It gives people choice by providing them with a resource they control and can spend as they want.
Living in the modern works necessarily involves the consumption of valuable resources. Space, power, water, food, goods, services. Providing those at no costs will lead to horrible inefficiencies and excessive use. You need to charge for them so that people can make rational choices and trade-offs between them and take responsibility for their decisions and preferences.
Living in the modern works necessarily involves the consumption of valuable resources. Space, power, water, food, goods, services. Providing those at no costs will lead to horrible inefficiencies and excessive use. You need to charge for them so that people can make rational choices and trade-offs between them and take responsibility for their decisions and preferences.
Very few people would want to live this "self-sufficient" lifestyle. I dont think people are opposed to efficiencies of scale or the advancements that can come from multinational corporations. I think that its not just simplistic reasoning is completely wrongheaded.
Even fewer comprehend the difficulties and sacrifice it would entail.
A talk by the Throwing Rocks as the Google Bus author. A little muddled but I think his argument is the problem UBI is "it's just a way of perpetuating our roles as consumers at the bottom of the pyramid not as owners" while I guess the 0.1% still own everything.
Which I guess could be an issue although as we don't have UBI who knows how it'd play out.
Which I guess could be an issue although as we don't have UBI who knows how it'd play out.
That's obviously how it would play out. The way it works right now is that corporations for the work that you do for them give you money which you use to buy goods from them. UBI makes it so that the government taxes corporations and gives money to consumers to buy things from them. How much money is entirely political but you can be assured that there will always be more need for growth and that consumers will always be told to tighten their belts. You will also never have enough money left over to invest or save a nest egg. So over time more income share will go to the top.
The other main way for it to play out would be to vote in some left wing style wealth redistribution. That kind of thing does happen. Maybe not just now but if Google and Amazon's AGI robots were taking over everything I could see a vote in that direction.
Looking that up I don't think redistributive tax has to be left wing. Top income tax rates were 90%+ under Winston Churchill (Cons) and Eisenhower (Rep).
I'd think of it not as a way for "perpetuating our roles as consumers at the bottom of the pyramid not as owners" but as acknowledging that the large picture is changing from a loop where nearly everyone is both a consumer a producer to an environment where large portion of people will inevitably be only consumers, because the economy won't need their labor anymore. And it's reasonable to assume that these people - who have little economic power now, and will have less and less of it - won't magically become the owners of the world. They might seize ownership with force in a revolution or they may get handed that ownership as a handout, but they can not trade for it or work for it or bargain for it, they don't have and won't have anything to offer to those who currently own the world's resources and means of production.
It's not a way of perpetuating the current roles, it's a way of treating the consequences of current roles so that the consequences are more humane. Of course, one may argue that keeping the consequences horrific is more likely to motivate radical change, which is true, but IMHO not a good way to proceed.
It's not a way of perpetuating the current roles, it's a way of treating the consequences of current roles so that the consequences are more humane. Of course, one may argue that keeping the consequences horrific is more likely to motivate radical change, which is true, but IMHO not a good way to proceed.
> A little muddled but I think his argument is the problem UBI is "it's just a way of perpetuating our roles as consumers at the bottom of the pyramid not as owners" while I guess the 0.1% still own everything.
A UBI funded by a tax on capital income and/or wealth could equally well be construed as enshrining the role of the public as owners, representing a rent charged on capitalists who are mere fee simple property owners by the people, who are the sovereign owners.
A UBI funded by a tax on capital income and/or wealth could equally well be construed as enshrining the role of the public as owners, representing a rent charged on capitalists who are mere fee simple property owners by the people, who are the sovereign owners.
I had a thought, wondering if it could work. For anyone who has the means, you can set up a basic income for your children by contributing about 350/month from the time they are born, then assuming 7% growth there will be over 250K sitting in the trust fund. This is enough for $10,000 per year (4% drawdown rate), which will provide them a basic income just as they are getting out of college, and trying to find their way in the world.
The major problems I see with this, is inflation (adjust the monthly contributions to keep up with inflation), and for multiple kids $350/month will not be achievable for people of lower income.
The major problems I see with this, is inflation (adjust the monthly contributions to keep up with inflation), and for multiple kids $350/month will not be achievable for people of lower income.
I think the whole point of basic income is to help people that can't afford what you are proposing.
> assuming 7% growth
That's a big assumption, and doesn't take into account the reduced spending power (cost inflation) during that time.
That's a big assumption, and doesn't take into account the reduced spending power (cost inflation) during that time.
7% is in line with historical growth rate (below it, actually)
Cost inflation is assumed to be 3%, which is why the withdrawal rate is 4% (4% + 3% = 7%)
Anyway a 4% withdrawal rate is fine for 30 years (the duration of the trinity study) but a lower withdrawal rate (say, 3.25%) is needed for longer timespans like the 65-ish years of life expected of someone just graduating college, see this: https://earlyretirementnow.com/2016/12/07/the-ultimate-guide...
Cost inflation is assumed to be 3%, which is why the withdrawal rate is 4% (4% + 3% = 7%)
Anyway a 4% withdrawal rate is fine for 30 years (the duration of the trinity study) but a lower withdrawal rate (say, 3.25%) is needed for longer timespans like the 65-ish years of life expected of someone just graduating college, see this: https://earlyretirementnow.com/2016/12/07/the-ultimate-guide...
UBI fails to take into account human nature. 1) Crime and social unrest is directly correlated to perception of relative wealth inequality. Past a certain point, relative wealth has a dominant effect on life expectancy! [b]
2) Given the above point, the solution would seem to be a progressive tax on the wealthy. Unfortunately, this is very hard to make workable, as the wealthy have control of most of the wealth and power, and failing that, are the most mobile.
http://www.sfindicatorproject.org/indicators/view/146
([b] Ichiro Kawachi, 2000. Income Inequality and Health. In Social Epidemiology. Eds. Lisa Berkman and Ichiro Kawachi. New York: Oxford University Press. Pp. 76-94.)
2) Given the above point, the solution would seem to be a progressive tax on the wealthy. Unfortunately, this is very hard to make workable, as the wealthy have control of most of the wealth and power, and failing that, are the most mobile.
http://www.sfindicatorproject.org/indicators/view/146
([b] Ichiro Kawachi, 2000. Income Inequality and Health. In Social Epidemiology. Eds. Lisa Berkman and Ichiro Kawachi. New York: Oxford University Press. Pp. 76-94.)
I agree that finances affect health outcomes and that government and policy is primarily the domain of upper classes, but you leave "human nature" undefined while it does pretty much all the work of holding up your point. Care to define or otherwise elaborate on that bit?
I don't think it's "hard" per se to change the tax structure to be less advantageous to the wealthy, but it does take organization, imagination, and some money.
For every $1,000 a representative received from corporations supporting net neutrality, like Google or Netflix, they were 24 percent more likely to vote for it. For every $1,000 from companies opposing it, they were 2.6 percent more likely to vote against. [1]
So (under this study), regardless of which side you assign to wealthy interests, politician attention is pretty cheap. Furthermore, votes are leverage here (if not a multiplier) and it's a simple fact that there are magnitudes fewer wealthy voters than non wealthy. This can help make up for a lack of press attention.
Long story short, I don't agree that UBI is unworkable any more than I believe that today's robber barons are untaxable.
1. https://theintercept.com/2017/05/04/how-much-does-a-politici...
I don't think it's "hard" per se to change the tax structure to be less advantageous to the wealthy, but it does take organization, imagination, and some money.
For every $1,000 a representative received from corporations supporting net neutrality, like Google or Netflix, they were 24 percent more likely to vote for it. For every $1,000 from companies opposing it, they were 2.6 percent more likely to vote against. [1]
So (under this study), regardless of which side you assign to wealthy interests, politician attention is pretty cheap. Furthermore, votes are leverage here (if not a multiplier) and it's a simple fact that there are magnitudes fewer wealthy voters than non wealthy. This can help make up for a lack of press attention.
Long story short, I don't agree that UBI is unworkable any more than I believe that today's robber barons are untaxable.
1. https://theintercept.com/2017/05/04/how-much-does-a-politici...
you leave "human nature" undefined while it does pretty much all the work of holding up your point. Care to define or otherwise elaborate on that bit?
I'm referring to the the body of research around the GINI coefficient. It's not absolute poverty which causes crime and social unrest. It's perception of relative status, particularly its effect on people's calculation of their viability in the mating market. If people are so far down on the hierarchy, they have no chance, that's when they upend the game board.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M3XYHPAwBzE
Long story short, I don't agree that UBI is unworkable any more than I believe that today's robber barons are untaxable.
I never said that UBI is unworkable and I never said that the wealthy are untaxable. We know historically the 2nd isn't the case for the US. My point is that 1) it's not directly addressing the underlying problem and that 2) it will be hard to tax away the wealth of the wealthy. We appear to disagree on 2) but not really. Historically, the wealthy either donate their wealth voluntarily (in the case of Scandinavian countries, the culture is such that the entire society volunteers through voting for policies) or they're killed and imprisoned. (In the historical case of the US, it takes an outside existential threat.)
So basically, you have to have some sort of change across the entire culture, either bloody or not.
I'm referring to the the body of research around the GINI coefficient. It's not absolute poverty which causes crime and social unrest. It's perception of relative status, particularly its effect on people's calculation of their viability in the mating market. If people are so far down on the hierarchy, they have no chance, that's when they upend the game board.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M3XYHPAwBzE
Long story short, I don't agree that UBI is unworkable any more than I believe that today's robber barons are untaxable.
I never said that UBI is unworkable and I never said that the wealthy are untaxable. We know historically the 2nd isn't the case for the US. My point is that 1) it's not directly addressing the underlying problem and that 2) it will be hard to tax away the wealth of the wealthy. We appear to disagree on 2) but not really. Historically, the wealthy either donate their wealth voluntarily (in the case of Scandinavian countries, the culture is such that the entire society volunteers through voting for policies) or they're killed and imprisoned. (In the historical case of the US, it takes an outside existential threat.)
So basically, you have to have some sort of change across the entire culture, either bloody or not.
Jordan Peterson? OK, guy.
> The French Revolution was a period of far-reaching social and political upheaval in France and its colonies beginning in 1789. The Revolution overthrew the monarchy, established a republic, catalyzed violent periods of political turmoil, and finally culminated in a dictatorship under Napoleon who brought many of its principles to areas he conquered in Western Europe and beyond. Inspired by liberal and radical ideas, the Revolution profoundly altered the course of modern history, triggering the global decline of absolute monarchies while replacing them with republics and liberal democracies.
Similarly you could wrestle control out of the hands of the wealthy if you wanted to... it's just a question of what will replace that and not make it worse, i.e. Venezuela.
Similarly you could wrestle control out of the hands of the wealthy if you wanted to... it's just a question of what will replace that and not make it worse, i.e. Venezuela.
it's just a question of what will replace that and not make it worse
Periods of widespread terror and destruction should be remembered forever. No one should want that as a price for anything.
Periods of widespread terror and destruction should be remembered forever. No one should want that as a price for anything.
For whom? For instance there has been massive periods of terror and destruction in the Middle East. Americans in general agree it as a price for freedom from Saddam and the Taliban -- followed by the Islamic State. This was at the behest in many ways of the American wealthy who want more wealth by rebuilding those countries and seizing their oil deposit for international corporations. So terror and destruction are not remembered at all by those who perpetuate them and many humans use it as a common place tool for politically enriching themselves.
For instance there has been massive periods of terror and destruction in the Middle East. Americans in general agree it as a price for freedom from Saddam and the Taliban -- followed by the Islamic State.
There are many who opposed the war, and feel that the American public was sold a bill of goods and lied to. There are many that would rather all that never happened.
There are many who opposed the war, and feel that the American public was sold a bill of goods and lied to. There are many that would rather all that never happened.
The primary cause of crime and social unrest is stressful jobs and inability to pay the bills. Get rid of that and see the general happiness explode.
The primary cause of crime and social unrest is stressful jobs and inability to pay the bills.
In other words: perception of relative status. People who are happy in their jobs, have enough to pay the bills, who have personal dignity, and who get genuine delight from their everyman/everywoman pastimes have good perceptions of their relative status. When everyone is truly "middle class" in perception, society is healthy.
In other words: perception of relative status. People who are happy in their jobs, have enough to pay the bills, who have personal dignity, and who get genuine delight from their everyman/everywoman pastimes have good perceptions of their relative status. When everyone is truly "middle class" in perception, society is healthy.
The bills for what though? A car, iphone, internet, Netflix, attending movies? 100+ years ago people were happy without that. The reason we wouldn’t be today is our relatively poor way of life without them compared to those who have. I think the parent (grandparent) poster is correct.
Wow, check your privilege.
https://flowingdata.com/2018/02/08/how-different-income-grou...
Housing, health care, food, and transportation make up close to 75% of of all household spending. And it's an even higher percentage the lower your income level. And on average people in our lowest income brackets spend more money than make - so really it's like they spend 100% of their income on necessities and then borrow for things like the Internet, travel to their uncle's funeral, repairing their broken heater, and so on.
These are basic life functions, forget about an iPhone.
https://flowingdata.com/2018/02/08/how-different-income-grou...
Housing, health care, food, and transportation make up close to 75% of of all household spending. And it's an even higher percentage the lower your income level. And on average people in our lowest income brackets spend more money than make - so really it's like they spend 100% of their income on necessities and then borrow for things like the Internet, travel to their uncle's funeral, repairing their broken heater, and so on.
These are basic life functions, forget about an iPhone.
It sounds like you're arguing in favor of redistribution, and UBI would work as part of that. Some sort of increase in progressive taxation (to fund it) would be the other part.
Basically, redistribution only works well when the wealthy do it voluntarily for their personal glory and enlightened self interest. When they fail to do this, it might not be pretty.
> Basically, redistribution only works well when the wealthy do it voluntarily for their personal glory and enlightened self interest.
Well, that's the only way it works well for the wealthy, sure.
> When they fail to do this, it might not be pretty.
True, revolution against and liquidation of the elites and their hoards isn't pretty. Which is a good reason the wealthy ought to voluntarily, in their own enlightened self-interest, act to convince the rest of society that they are committed to voluntary, ongoing redistribution; institutionalizing UBI enthusiastically would be a way of doing that.
Well, that's the only way it works well for the wealthy, sure.
> When they fail to do this, it might not be pretty.
True, revolution against and liquidation of the elites and their hoards isn't pretty. Which is a good reason the wealthy ought to voluntarily, in their own enlightened self-interest, act to convince the rest of society that they are committed to voluntary, ongoing redistribution; institutionalizing UBI enthusiastically would be a way of doing that.
Well, that's the only way it works well for the wealthy, sure.
Historically, when it's done by force, it doesn't work so well for the rest of society in the long term, either.
Historically, when it's done by force, it doesn't work so well for the rest of society in the long term, either.
> Historically, when it's done by force, it doesn't work so well for the rest of society in the long term, either.
The French Revolution seems to have worked out reasonably well in the long term; the short-to-intermediate term, perhaps not as much.
The French Revolution seems to have worked out reasonably well in the long term; the short-to-intermediate term, perhaps not as much.
The French Revolution seems to have worked out reasonably well in the long term
Because the system that's currently in place is quite different from what came just after the revolution. In any case, a period of such terror remains indelibly in history forever, as it should. No moral person should want to create another. As far as I can tell, only angry and embittered people want that.
Because the system that's currently in place is quite different from what came just after the revolution. In any case, a period of such terror remains indelibly in history forever, as it should. No moral person should want to create another. As far as I can tell, only angry and embittered people want that.
> No moral person should want to create another
Sure, just like no moral person wants war. (But yet some moral people find engaging in war preferable to the available alternatives in some circumstances.)
OTOH, the thing is no moral person wants (or wants to continue) the conditions of oppression that invariably precede such revolutions either. Sometimes the choice is between morally bad and morally worse, and one's perception of which is which depends very much which side of the palace gates one lives on.
> As far as I can tell, only angry and embittered people want that.
Which seems to be an argument against creating the conditions which generate that particular kind of angry and bitter people, out of either self-interest or the moral desire to avoid the results it produces.
Sure, just like no moral person wants war. (But yet some moral people find engaging in war preferable to the available alternatives in some circumstances.)
OTOH, the thing is no moral person wants (or wants to continue) the conditions of oppression that invariably precede such revolutions either. Sometimes the choice is between morally bad and morally worse, and one's perception of which is which depends very much which side of the palace gates one lives on.
> As far as I can tell, only angry and embittered people want that.
Which seems to be an argument against creating the conditions which generate that particular kind of angry and bitter people, out of either self-interest or the moral desire to avoid the results it produces.
Which seems to be an argument against creating the conditions which generate that particular kind of angry and bitter people, out of either self-interest or the moral desire to avoid the results it produces.
Which is precisely why the wealthy need to be voluntarily building up society, such that the fabulous potential of the world in 2019 is available to everyone, in the form of a noble, everywoman/everyman life.
Which is precisely why the wealthy need to be voluntarily building up society, such that the fabulous potential of the world in 2019 is available to everyone, in the form of a noble, everywoman/everyman life.
it might not be pretty.
The current arrangement is already not pretty, unless you have the means to ignore the unpleasant parts.
The current arrangement is already not pretty, unless you have the means to ignore the unpleasant parts.
It's a lot more pretty than the alternative. There are multiple places around the world that experimented with redistribution, and some are still doing it. You aren't about to move to one of those places, are you? Ignore the rich for a moment, put aside that jealousy, and ask yourself what it is like to be a typical or lower-income person in a place like Venezuela or Zimbabwe after things got redistributed.
There is something deeply wrong with advocating for redistribution in your own country when you could simply migrate to a country that has implemented the policy you desire.
There is something deeply wrong with advocating for redistribution in your own country when you could simply migrate to a country that has implemented the policy you desire.
There is more than one alternative.
What if you don't get UBI in jail? Incentive to keep out of trouble.
There are so many issues with this video, I don't even know where to begin. I like this one line:
"The US Department of Agriculture burns food every week in order to keep the prices of that food high, even though there's people who are starving and people who need homes."
... OK, let's ignore the fact that the world produces far more food than it needs and people still starve. Obviously the problem is with the USDA, if only they didn't do that everything would be fine /s. Every line in here reads like it's pandering to a specific viewpoint in an attempt to legitimize the UBI message. "I think people shouldn't starve, therefore this person must be right".
To me, "the" colossal big problem with UBI (if there is only one) is the probable hyperinflation and crash that happens as a result of redistributing many trillions of dollars without the creation of commensurate economic value. Guaranteed employment (where at least some economic value is getting created) is a less risky approach to accomplishing the same goal.
To me, "the" colossal big problem with UBI (if there is only one) is the probable hyperinflation and crash that happens as a result of redistributing many trillions of dollars without the creation of commensurate economic value. Guaranteed employment (where at least some economic value is getting created) is a less risky approach to accomplishing the same goal.
2:45 : "we faked lower employment through ... unsustainable business practices"
What sustainability is can be up for debate. But i've never seen of a version that would put more people back in jobs than automation will take away.
3:55 : 'We will get the government to print more money, to give it to workers'.
Either this is some very small thinking for 'Big Think' or you they are skipping over a lot of assumptions that should be stated explicitly.
---
One 'Universal Basic Asset' idea i like is giving every person a yearly carbon credit that companies have to buy, instead of gifting it to the largest polluters.
What sustainability is can be up for debate. But i've never seen of a version that would put more people back in jobs than automation will take away.
3:55 : 'We will get the government to print more money, to give it to workers'.
Either this is some very small thinking for 'Big Think' or you they are skipping over a lot of assumptions that should be stated explicitly.
---
One 'Universal Basic Asset' idea i like is giving every person a yearly carbon credit that companies have to buy, instead of gifting it to the largest polluters.
I don't see UBI in this way at all. Nothing would stop a UBI recipient from investing a portion of that income.
In my mind a UBI allows increased economic freedom. It especially benefits the people currently most in need of it.
That's not a bad thing.
In my mind a UBI allows increased economic freedom. It especially benefits the people currently most in need of it.
That's not a bad thing.
I think it’s useful to look at the basic social contract here. Voters already have a degree of ownership over the state. They are shareholders that get to elect a board to run the state on their behalf. In that sense maybe a dividend is reasonable. Looking at it another way, the relationship between citizen and stats is one of responsibilities on both sides.
Citizens are responsible for the defence of the state, in the most extreme case through conscription into the armed forces, which puts an obligation on the state to protect them. This and the realisation by the government that many citizens were not fit for such service, was one of the impetuses behind the consensus on the creation of the National health Service in the UK. Partly it was quid-pro-quo for the sacrifices ordinary people made, but partly it was just good national security policy to ensure the nation had a healthy labour and fighting force. This isn’t socialism, it’s just good governance.
So while I see a clear justification for a social dividend for citizens, I don’t necessarily see a UBI as a sensible form in which to express it. The form that dividend takes should take into account the form of the obligations of citizens to state and vice-versa. For me health care is an obvious one. The state has a clear interest in a healthy population, ready for work and capable of defending it. I plain don’t comprehend how US conservatism doesn’t see this, it’s been plainly obvious to European conservatives since WW2 or earlier, perhaps because we faced a more existential threat than the US did. Pensions and Medicare or it’s equivalent are also just good policy, who wants thousands of destitute old people dying on the streets.
Unemployment benefit and UBI are more arguable. Both are a form of social dividend, but could disincentivize work. I’m not an absolutist about this, I think it’s certainly true that people from time to time can find themselves unable to work or find a job and need a helping hand and I think that’s fine and reasonable, however people able to work have an obligation to do so. I worry that a lot of discussion about UBI leans towards freeing people from the need to work. I’m sorry, but someone needs to do those jobs. We’re a very long way from a Star Trek utopia where AI does all the hard labour.
Employment rates and open positions in the west are both pretty high. The global economy has gobbled up hundreds of thousands of Chinese workers without breaking step and wages in China have until recently been soaring. The current economic risks have nothing to do with AI taking our jobs. It may happen, but it isn’t really now and I don’t think it’s likely to for many decades to come. Automation has been stealing jobs for hundreds of years, yet somehow there’s more work than ever.
Citizens are responsible for the defence of the state, in the most extreme case through conscription into the armed forces, which puts an obligation on the state to protect them. This and the realisation by the government that many citizens were not fit for such service, was one of the impetuses behind the consensus on the creation of the National health Service in the UK. Partly it was quid-pro-quo for the sacrifices ordinary people made, but partly it was just good national security policy to ensure the nation had a healthy labour and fighting force. This isn’t socialism, it’s just good governance.
So while I see a clear justification for a social dividend for citizens, I don’t necessarily see a UBI as a sensible form in which to express it. The form that dividend takes should take into account the form of the obligations of citizens to state and vice-versa. For me health care is an obvious one. The state has a clear interest in a healthy population, ready for work and capable of defending it. I plain don’t comprehend how US conservatism doesn’t see this, it’s been plainly obvious to European conservatives since WW2 or earlier, perhaps because we faced a more existential threat than the US did. Pensions and Medicare or it’s equivalent are also just good policy, who wants thousands of destitute old people dying on the streets.
Unemployment benefit and UBI are more arguable. Both are a form of social dividend, but could disincentivize work. I’m not an absolutist about this, I think it’s certainly true that people from time to time can find themselves unable to work or find a job and need a helping hand and I think that’s fine and reasonable, however people able to work have an obligation to do so. I worry that a lot of discussion about UBI leans towards freeing people from the need to work. I’m sorry, but someone needs to do those jobs. We’re a very long way from a Star Trek utopia where AI does all the hard labour.
Employment rates and open positions in the west are both pretty high. The global economy has gobbled up hundreds of thousands of Chinese workers without breaking step and wages in China have until recently been soaring. The current economic risks have nothing to do with AI taking our jobs. It may happen, but it isn’t really now and I don’t think it’s likely to for many decades to come. Automation has been stealing jobs for hundreds of years, yet somehow there’s more work than ever.
I think a lot of the interest over UBI comes from wealth disparity (rich getting much, much richer, middle class shrinking). On top of this, people are working harder than ever and salaries are mostly stagnant. In other words, wealth is being siphoned away from those creating value into the pockets of people who already have immense wealth.
I'm personally more in favor of real social dividends: a public fund that owns stock in publicly-traded companies and returns some portion as a dividend, and some portion it reinvests into buying more stock. The idea being people are getting a dividend (like UBI) but it's based on overall productivity so there's a connection between working and the payout (obviously, the connection is a few steps removed, but it's there nonetheless).
Regarding democracy/ownership, I think it's somewhat debatable. We're told the government represents us, but how many of your interests are represented by the Democratic party? How many by the Republicans? I can safely say at most 10-15% of my interests are ever really taken into account in a two-party system. I'd say people who are incredibly wealthy have a much greater say in political outcomes than the general population. In essence, we are told we have ownership over the state, but in reality our ownership share is collectively small.
I'm personally more in favor of real social dividends: a public fund that owns stock in publicly-traded companies and returns some portion as a dividend, and some portion it reinvests into buying more stock. The idea being people are getting a dividend (like UBI) but it's based on overall productivity so there's a connection between working and the payout (obviously, the connection is a few steps removed, but it's there nonetheless).
Regarding democracy/ownership, I think it's somewhat debatable. We're told the government represents us, but how many of your interests are represented by the Democratic party? How many by the Republicans? I can safely say at most 10-15% of my interests are ever really taken into account in a two-party system. I'd say people who are incredibly wealthy have a much greater say in political outcomes than the general population. In essence, we are told we have ownership over the state, but in reality our ownership share is collectively small.
I'm a Brit, but I think in both our systems we can see the electorate making actual decisions and politicians adjusting their policies and behaviour to voter sentiment. Whatever we might think about the outcomes, the swing from Obama to Trump in the US and the Brexit vote in the UK were both examples of the electorate making a real choice.
Big companies have much less influence over here though due to our stricter campaign finance laws.
Big companies have much less influence over here though due to our stricter campaign finance laws.
Douglas appears to be saying that UBI is bad because it supports and perpetuates all of the bad stuff about capitalism (wrecking the environment and concentrating wealth in the hands of the wealthy)
It does this because UBI means giving people money, and then they buy the usual crap from the usual wealthy guys.
Have I got that right?
But the alternative, "give everybody a job", does the exact same thing.
So the "colossal problem" with UBI is that it does nothing to cure the evils of capitalism?
Ok. Well it does cure some other big evils.
I think Douglas's point is just hot air. Sorry.
It does this because UBI means giving people money, and then they buy the usual crap from the usual wealthy guys.
Have I got that right?
But the alternative, "give everybody a job", does the exact same thing.
So the "colossal problem" with UBI is that it does nothing to cure the evils of capitalism?
Ok. Well it does cure some other big evils.
I think Douglas's point is just hot air. Sorry.
I've never heard UBI discussed in terms of its benefits to innovation, which is its most important characteristic. There is exactly one reliable way to innovate: Be able to spend a huge amount of time doing unpaid work.
Right now there are essentially three groups that can afford to innovate: Students, the wealthy, and the people the wealthy give money to (via VC money). (Note that I'm using "wealthy" broadly here, if you can not have income for 1-5 years, you're wealthy by these standards).
UBI is basically having faith in human race is natural innovators, funding for the creativity of the entire human race, instead of just a tiny subset of the population.
To address the straw man upfront: Capitalism of course incentivizes innovation as well, and just as important as UBI. These approaches can, and must co-exist, and in fact form the two sides of the innovation coin: Incentivize (capitalism) and enabled (UBI).
The counterarguments to this model are ridiculous, because they assume you have to throw out capitalism to get UBI. Where are you going to get that goop for the 3D printer? You pay people to mine it! Why in the world would you think that wouldn't work? If you give every human $100,000 a year (for example), you think no one is going to be willing to work to earn more money? Which human race have you been watching when you formed those beliefs? All those rich people who earned their first million and then stopped?
Right now there are essentially three groups that can afford to innovate: Students, the wealthy, and the people the wealthy give money to (via VC money). (Note that I'm using "wealthy" broadly here, if you can not have income for 1-5 years, you're wealthy by these standards).
UBI is basically having faith in human race is natural innovators, funding for the creativity of the entire human race, instead of just a tiny subset of the population.
To address the straw man upfront: Capitalism of course incentivizes innovation as well, and just as important as UBI. These approaches can, and must co-exist, and in fact form the two sides of the innovation coin: Incentivize (capitalism) and enabled (UBI).
The counterarguments to this model are ridiculous, because they assume you have to throw out capitalism to get UBI. Where are you going to get that goop for the 3D printer? You pay people to mine it! Why in the world would you think that wouldn't work? If you give every human $100,000 a year (for example), you think no one is going to be willing to work to earn more money? Which human race have you been watching when you formed those beliefs? All those rich people who earned their first million and then stopped?
I agree with that entirely. In fact, you can take it one step further and say that it is essential for freedom. One of the huge hurdles for many people leaving their jobs is health insurance. The other is money. If people don't need to worry about their health, and have enough for food and shelter, now companies need to directly compete on job quality, because workers don't feel compelled to work SOMEWHERE.
And while I see his point that it's funneling more money to the top, I think that's also missing the point that someone needs to pay for all this universal basic income...and that's probably the people at the top...
And while I see his point that it's funneling more money to the top, I think that's also missing the point that someone needs to pay for all this universal basic income...and that's probably the people at the top...
After doing a lot of reading and research, I'm not. I think people should be paid for the work they do, whether directly or indirectly.
I'm now much more in favor of things like social dividends: taxing profits of businesses and distributing it equally amongst the population, taxing estates at 90+% and distributing it equally amongst the population, etc.
Another idea I like is the social fund: it buys controlling shares in publicly-traded companies, forces them to issue dividends, then sends 10-20% of the dividends to the citizens, and spends the other 80-90% on buying more shares in other companies, with the net effect of socializing the profits of large companies.
Yes, most of these ideas would fall under some loose definition of "socialism." That said, it ties passive income to overall productivity, something that UBI doesn't do.