Would you accept a 30% income reduction to help your employer be more profitable?

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by yaletown_fella

A 10% VAT is not large by any means. It is only half the European level. Like I said, this UBI program is even more easily affordable if you slapped a 20% luxury VAT on air travel, Uber, Netflix and other luxury non essentials.

"Economically, there are also lingering questions about the feasibility and long-term benefits of providing every American with a $1,000 guaranteed monthly income"

He is not proposing to give 350 billion people $1000. This is only for adults 18-65, who will only qualify if they opt out of existing housing benefits, disability, welfare programs.


"Much of the cost and effectiveness of the program will depend on whether it replaces existing safety net programs, like food stamps, housing assistance, or Social Security and Medicare, or if it's an addition to those programs"

The editor of the article has no idea what Yang is proposing or is conveniently ignoring it. Yang clearly states his UBI is NOT an addition to existing programs.

Also the studies (like the infamous Finland study) cited in the article biased and only give UBI to people who have been dependent on welfare their entire lives. I dont mean to sound insensitive but most of these people who have lived on welfare their whole lives (not to mention in Finland which is full of alcoholism) dont understand basic budgeting or delayed gratification.

If you gave $1000 a month to an underemployed guy like me, Id be a millionaire when I retire. NONE of these studies have given a basic income to underemployed young people.

I'm not going to even get into the fact the article link you posted is propaganda hit piece put out by the corporate media giant ABC. All corporate media and big donor politicians prey profit on peoples economic insecurities, discontentment, and declining mental health. Thats how Trump (aka Rupert Murdoch, Wilbur Ross, Saudi Royalty ) was elected, the swing states lost 4 million manufaturing jobs and people were desperate for change. Thats why a reality TV clown was elected in 2016.

Trump's campaign blamed the effects of automation and the winner take all economy on immigrants. Trump is not the disease itself, he's the symptom of a much bigger economic disease: of brutal winner take all economy, automation and a record low labor force participation.

If you don't give a UBI to everyone then it isn't a UBI, and if you let people pick and choose whether to be on it rather than existing welfare then you wreck the whole point of it. As then you have to keep the existing bureaucracy to maintain the existing systems as well as building a new one to both administer the new system and how it interacts with the old one.

[yaletown_fella]

Originally Posted by milomilo

If you don't give a UBI to everyone then it isn't a UBI, and if you let people pick and choose whether to be on it rather than existing welfare then you wreck the whole point of it. As then you have to keep the existing bureaucracy to maintain the existing systems as well as building a new one to both administer the new system and how it interacts with the old one.

I dont understand how that wrecks the whole point of it. The centrist UBI Im promoting is meant to be an income supplement , not an income replacement.

And the new system would not require a new beurocracy because its administration can be completely automated for minimal cost.

The majority of people would opt out of their exisiting benefits. And at that point, mass social service layoffs and office closures would take effect. It would gradually become phased out over time.

As a society we need to have an honest conversation about why we feel it's necessary to allocate so much money towards public education. We are throwing $12,000 of funding per high school student per year in an education system that is preparing them for a world that will no longer exist by the time they have graduated.

Already, the radiology field is dead and about to be completed automated. We are only 2-5 years away from lower level legal jobs from being automated. The same goes for the majority of jobs in financial services and wealth management, The list goes on. Any shortfall in UBI could easily be funded by reasonable education budget cuts.

And dont tell me that automation will create just as many new jobs as it is destroying because any honest informed person will tell you that's complete nonsense. And don't tell me we can retrain truck drivers to become software engineers. Certain people, like myself, just dont have the mental capacity for tech related work.

A $1000/month UBI would also allow people to be mobile and move to an area with cheap rentals. It would end involuntary homelessness overnight and drastically cut the need and funding for homelessness, police and emergency services.

[acottawa]

There aren’t just shortages in a STEM, there are shortages in many trades, and in the agricultural sector.

What there is too much of is people with degrees in “studies”. Most of the people studying “studies” should be encouraged to learn a trade.

[yaletown_fella]

Originally Posted by acottawa

There aren’t just shortages in a STEM, there are shortages in many trades, and in the agricultural sector.

What there is too much of is people with degrees in “studies”. Most of the people studying “studies” should be encouraged to learn a trade.

"Shortages" are often cited in reports or studies published by and/or funded by major corporations in the trades sector. Shortage is code for "We have a shortage of a pool of applicants to choose from" And typically corporations want a minimum of 10 applicants for 1 job. Thats 9 applicants who will be S.O.L

[WarrenC12]

I'm not sure I believe the automation hype. It's always "just around the corner". We see automated checkouts, ordering machines, phone apps, etc.

"The jobs apocalypse is coming" and yet here we are at historic low unemployment, and we're going to hit the huge wave of boomer retirements in the short term.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by yaletown_fella

"Shortages" are often cited in reports or studies published by and/or funded by major corporations in the trades sector. Shortage is code for "We have a shortage of a pool of applicants to choose from" And typically corporations want a minimum of 10 applicants for 1 job. Thats 9 applicants who will be S.O.L

I don't know where you get that info. My industry (healthcare) is desperate for nurses and other clinical professionals.

[yaletown_fella]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

I'm not sure I believe the automation hype. It's always "just around the corner". We see automated checkouts, ordering machines, phone apps, etc.

"The jobs apocalypse is coming" and yet here we are at historic low unemployment, and we're going to hit the huge wave of boomer retirements in the short term.

The unemployment rate is meaningless. Most new "jobs" that were created are temporary or part time , very precarious with no security or benefits.

We are at a historic low labour force participation rate in the US and Canada.

[yaletown_fella]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

I don't know where you get that info. My industry (healthcare) is desperate for nurses and other clinical professionals.

All of these fields are getting flooded as we speak.

[WarrenC12]

Originally Posted by yaletown_fella

The unemployment rate is meaningless. Most new "jobs" that were created are temporary or part time , very precarious with no security or benefits.

We are at a historic low labour force participation rate in the US and Canada.

Meaningless?

Participation rate:

https://www.ceicdata.com/en/indicator/canada/labour-force-participation-rate

We are most certainly not at historic lows.

[vid]

Honestly, we should have the state assign a trade to every individual à la China. They can study their studies, but they have to practice plumbing or welding on the side, too. That way they can be unemployed in two fields instead of one.

[yaletown_fella]

Originally Posted by WarrenC12

Meaningless?

Participation rate:

https://www.ceicdata.com/en/indicator/canada/labour-force-participation-rate

We are most certainly not at historic lows.

The chart will only show the past 2 years. And a labor force participation of 66% is pretty bad, not to mention half of the "jobs" wont cover a basic cost of living.

Lets see the labor force participation over the last 50 years.

That (insignificant) spike over the last 2 years is after a bunch of full time jobs were converted to part time jobs and contract jobs were added.
Not to mention the the bloated government "creating jobs"

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by yaletown_fella

The chart will only show the past 2 years. And a labor force participation of 66% is pretty bad, not to mention half of the "jobs" wont cover a basic cost of living.

Lets see the labor force participation over the last 50 years.

That (insignificant) spike over the last 2 years is after a bunch of full time jobs were converted to part time jobs and contract jobs were added.
Not to mention the the bloated government "creating jobs"

66 is pretty close to the peak over the last 40 years, particularly considering the ageing population.



Full time jobs being converted to part time or contract would not show up as reduced unemployment.

I understand there are certain sectors that are worse off than they used to be in terms of wages and benefits (retail, security, cleaning) but I don’t think the aggregate problems exist the way you see them.

[vid]

I love how he asked for that to prove his point, and you gave it to him and it proved yours instead.

This is why when I ask people to back something up, I Google it myself first to make sure I'm not going to look like a retard.

[yaletown_fella]

Originally Posted by vid

I love how he asked for that to prove his point, and you gave it to him and it proved yours instead.

This is why when I ask people to back something up, I Google it myself first to make sure I'm not going to look like a retard.

Actually, the data is questionable to say the least and hasnt proved either of our points. Im supposed to take his word that the data dosent include part time and contract work?

And your ad hominem slur is insensitive towards people with mental disabilities.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by yaletown_fella

I dont understand how that wrecks the whole point of it. The centrist UBI Im promoting is meant to be an income supplement , not an income replacement.

Then it's different to the model that is vaunted by people pushing UBI, and it's pointless. The entire purpose of UBI is to replace almost all other forms of welfare and replace it with a single payment. This has many advantages, being simpler, more acceptable to middle class people, removing disincentives to work etc.

Originally Posted by yaletown_fella

And the new system would not require a new beurocracy because its administration can be completely automated for minimal cost.

It will definitely require some admin, 'automation' isn't magic. And you still have all the admin from the old system plus additional admin from how the two systems interact. So a system designed to reduce administrative burden will in fact increase it significantly.

Originally Posted by yaletown_fella

The majority of people would opt out of their exisiting benefits. And at that point, mass social service layoffs and office closures would take effect. It would gradually become phased out over time.

If that's the case, why keep the old system? It literally makes no sense. UBI has to be done completely, or not at all. Which is a big part of the reason it has never been properly tried.

[yaletown_fella]

Originally Posted by milomilo

Then it's different to the model that is vaunted by people pushing UBI, and it's pointless. The entire purpose of UBI is to replace almost all other forms of welfare and replace it with a single payment. This has many advantages, being simpler, more acceptable to middle class people, removing disincentives to work etc.



It will definitely require some admin, 'automation' isn't magic. And you still have all the admin from the old system plus additional admin from how the two systems interact. So a system designed to reduce administrative burden will in fact increase it significantly.



If that's the case, why keep the old system? It literally makes no sense. UBI has to be done completely, or not at all. Which is a big part of the reason it has never been properly tried.

I think we are misunderstanding one another. I agree with the goals of UBI you stated, It's just unaffordable to give $1000 UBI to people already on assistance unless they choose to opt-out of their benefits. For example , someone on disability may get $1200 per month in benefits so they wouldnt benefit from opting into a $1000/month UBI if they were completely unable to work.

[milomilo]

Originally Posted by yaletown_fella

I dont understand how that wrecks the whole point of it. The centrist UBI Im promoting is meant to be an income supplement , not an income replacement.

And the new system would not require a new beurocracy because its administration can be completely automated for minimal cost.

The majority of people would opt out of their exisiting benefits. And at that point, mass social service layoffs and office closures would take effect. It would gradually become phased out over time.

As a society we need to have an honest conversation about why we feel it's necessary to allocate so much money towards public education. We are throwing $12,000 of funding per high school student per year in an education system that is preparing them for a world that will no longer exist by the time they have graduated.

Already, the radiology field is dead and about to be completed automated. We are only 2-5 years away from lower level legal jobs from being automated. The same goes for the majority of jobs in financial services and wealth management, The list goes on. Any shortfall in UBI could easily be funded by reasonable education budget cuts.

And dont tell me that automation will create just as many new jobs as it is destroying because any honest informed person will tell you that's complete nonsense. And don't tell me we can retrain truck drivers to become software engineers. Certain people, like myself, just dont have the mental capacity for tech related work.

A $1000/month UBI would also allow people to be mobile and move to an area with cheap rentals. It would end involuntary homelessness overnight and drastically cut the need and funding for homelessness, police and emergency services.

And to add to what others have said, these ideas of automation are fantasy. Mark my words, in 10 or 20 years time I guarantee every truck still has a squishy human behind the wheel. If one thinks about the consequences of automated drivers for more than a millisecond we see the problems that getting rid of them will face.

[yaletown_fella]

It will actually greatly reduce accidents.

However, in the near future it's expected that human truck drivers will takeover from the AI for "the last 10 miles" or when the trucks enter urban areas. Think about it.. those last 10 miles in urban areas arent going to provide anywhere near the employment as the thousands of truck miles now.

[acottawa]

Originally Posted by yaletown_fella

Actually, the data is questionable to say the least and hasnt proved either of our points. Im supposed to take his word that the data dosent include part time and contract work?

The workforce participation rate would include both contract and part time workers. It is just the number of people working divided by the number of people 15 and over.

However, only about 10% of part time workers are looking for full time work.

https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/t1/tbl1/en/tv.action?pid=1410002801

[yaletown_fella]

Originally Posted by acottawa

The workforce participation rate would include both contract and part time workers. It is just the number of people working divided by the number of people 15 and over.

However, only about 10% of part time workers are looking for full time work.

https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/t1/tbl1/en/tv.action?pid=1410002801

I'd assume that's because many of them have given up on the prospect of finding full time work. Employers dont want to pay the benefits, pension etc.