Basic Income Guarantee

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Malt-Liquor-Kitty, Aug 15, 2015.

  1. #1 Malt-Liquor-Kitty, Aug 15, 2015
    Last edited by a moderator: Aug 15, 2015
    I've noticed a pattern in a few threads on this subforum having to do alot with the future of automation and future economics as to do with employment. I've suggested it before but haven't been well recieved so I thought to start a discussion that is more focused on the ideology pertaining to the solution known as a Basic Income Gaurantee.



    I've known of and read a lot about the idea since high school and have made presentations loosely pertaining to this topic but never recieved constructive discussions of the matter. So knowing of some of the bright minds that frequent this subforum I thought to bring it here.



    As a starter for discussion, I offer a possible solution to the worry towards employment in a future filled with automation of jobs and also a future riddled with poverty and inequality. That solution being a supplied Basic Income to the populace.



    I'll define this proposition of Basic Income as being a government supplied no strings attached monthly check for one thousand dollars for those over twenty one and a check of three hundred for those under that age.



    Already that sounds like a drastic and improbable program to be implemented but hopefully a discussion with the fine bladies and blades on this forum will root out the problems and maybe the benefits as to the idea that is Basic Income Gauruntee.



    A short article that covers some of the main ideas and possibilities of such a program is right here other wise I'll clarify if asked to the best of my knowledge. http://io9.com/how-universal-basic-income-will-save-us-from-the-robot-1653303459<br />


    Thanks ahead for those that join in on the discussion. I'm sure I can learn a lot from the thoughts and ideas expressed in this thread.
     
  2. Automation does NOT cause overall unemployment.
     
  3. Agreed, and I don't think it would ever get to a point to cause 100% unemployment. But maybe far of in the future it could cause a significant percentage of employment.

    Though it would be pretty cool to have robot slaves do ALL of our work.
     
  4. have you considered that cost of living differs by location?

    Have you consideres how an influx of disposable income (either through inflation or taxation) will affect costs?

    A government cannot simply give its citizens free money, without also controlling the basic costs of living to ensure that money has value

    -Yuri
     
  5. It won't reduce employment ANY. What it does is raises everyone's standard of living.


    Here's a great idea for FULL employment: Outlaw bulldozers, earth movers, and backhoes. It would take millions of men with picks and shovels to do the work those machines do. Sound like a good idea?


    Outlaw 18-wheelers and force businesses to move materials with pickup trucks -- or better yet, horses and wagons. Think of all the new trucks that would be required, all the new drivers, new mechanics to maintain the trucks, etc. Sound good?


    Outlaw farm tractors. Make farmers go back to using horses. Then instead of plowing 40 acres of land per day they could only plow a couple. Think of all the farriers, harness-makers, whip-makers, horse breeders, etc. that would have jobs.


    Do you have any idea what life was like for the average person before all the above-mentioned machinery was invented? For one thing, they didn't have the idle time to think up silly subjects like this thread.


    Oh well, the world will be yours in a few years. Good luck.

     
  6. You seriously believe that?

     
  7. #9 Techno mechanical fox, Aug 15, 2015
    Last edited by a moderator: Aug 15, 2015
    I do not think that automation is anywhere near full automation.


    Automation will also take some time to reach places grocery stores, restaurants, and fast food chains because automation is a very large, fixed investment. This is why it benefits large scale factories more than small businesses. Businesses also have to depreciate equipment investments, and report it as an expense on their income statements.


    To summarize what that means, if a company buys a $200,000 with a 10 year lifespan, it will reduce their net income before taxes by $20,000 per year even before maintenance and the cost of capital. GM suffered in the 90's from large amounts of depreciation expense on their books partly because of this.


    People have been saying that machines are replacing us since the 1970's. Machines will replace humans in most manufacturing, but many of the low paying jobs we have now will remain unaffected. This is because there is less benefit from replacing a $8 an hour worker with a machine than there is replacing a $40 per hour worker with a machine.
     
  8. I think that the idea of just a basic income guarantee is flawed, but I would be okay with giving people free crappy concrete khrushchyovka style apartments instead, with food stamps.




     
  9. believe what?

    There is no way government ccan enforce minimum wage or supplemental income without also controlling costs. Total communism or no communism.

    And no I don't believe in communism

    -Yuri
     
  10. You wrote: "A government cannot simply give its citizens free money, without also controlling the basic costs of living to ensure that money has value."


    What is "free money"?


    How can government control the cost of living?


    How does government make sure money has value?

     
  11. "Free money" doesn't exist, nor should it.
     
  12. As silly as this discussion or idea maybe to you, I find the idea intriguing as I imagine an increase of automation to the point menial label will be a thing of the past. I can't see any reason to revert back to the majority of man power being put back into menial labor as you suggest. Outlawing technology and machinery to the scale you suggested would be extremely counterintuitive. But maybe you suggested all that in jest because you think the discussion is silly, I don't know.
     
  13. If giving everyone a thousand bucks each month increases our standard of living why not give everyone $20,000 a month and we'll all be rich. Think of all that money circulating, all the new cars bought, all the new houses. Why piddle around with minimum wage living when we can all live like kings.
     
  14. No, my point is that automation and technology raises peoples' standard of living overall, it doesn't increase unemployment.


    A employee on a bulldozer earns what, $30 per hour? How much is a man with a pick and shovel worth per hour? The man with the machine is much more productive and therefore earns much more money -- even though the "menial labor" with a pick and shovel is gone.


    In my business (injection moldmaking) I've seen a huge increase in productivity -- thanks to computers -- since I started in 1968. A lot of handwork that we used to have to do is done by machines now, and done better and faster. Guys who are under 50 or so don't even know HOW to do the handwork I had to learn, and who cares? The skills are no longer needed, nor are the skills needed to plow a field with horses.



    Henry Ford figured out how to create a production line. He could produce cars faster with fewer workers -- but that brought the price of cars DOWN, benefiting the consumer which was his goal. It helped the economy expand, benefiting everyone except carriage makers, blacksmiths, the buggy-whip industry, etc.



    This is how economies expand and how wealth is created.


    It's all just basic economics.




     
  15. Yo CE! :D


    And why dick around with a $15 minimum wage? Why not $30? Or $50?

     
  16. Ya and then a cheeseburger at McDonalds will cost $15. Minimum wage can be whatever you want. The separation between rich and poor will always be there. $50 will be the new poor. Millionaires will then be making billions so on and so forth. The price of everything will go up accordingly.
     
  17. Too bad most people can't figure that out.
     
  18. Oh I getcha, and I agree do to the apparent nature of automation increasing the standard of living. The cost and labor goes down dramatically with the increase of technological automation.

    But I just didn't understand what you were getting at with the outlawing of machinery and technology.

    It still blows my mind how much food we can produce thanks to technologies developed over the last hundred years. It takes miniscule fractions of man power compared to what it took to make food a century ago.

    With that thought, I can see very few people (or any at all) actually having to work menial labor after the next century. So maybe me saying employment would go down wouldn't happen but more so we'll be working jobs that are more intellectually based instead of physical labor.

    And maybe at that point we'll live in such a world of abundance that a Basic Income for the populace wouldn't be needed but is just a fruit of that abundance.
     

Share This Page