Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Descan]

The same people who are too stupid to use 10K to get food, shelter, and electricity, are too stupid to realize to sign up for welfare. The same people who would spend it on drugs, would find a way to spend vouchers on drugs.

At least this way, the kids would also get 10K (Possibly in a trust-fund, possibly only starting at 12 or so (at that age there should be a bit of responsibility, and though I don't know the statistics that sounds like a lower-bound age for kids on the street, at least in general. I know there are younger kids, and they can be handled case-by-case)) and would be able to at least not starve, even if they shouldn't have to be buying their own food.

[XXSockXX]

10k isn't enough for a lot of places. I'd say just make food staples, basic housing, and education free, period.

Eh, we have something close to that, it's good, but it doesn't solve all problems. People can fall through cracks in the system, not everyone is equally responsible and/or intelligent and some are just victims to certain mentalities in certain socio-economic milieus.

Except with an universal income, you don't get the feeling those guys are ripping you off, because they only get the same things you do.

Of course you do. How do you think universal income is going to be paid for? Taxes. So the few who will actually pay taxes will provide for the many that do nothing.
We've had universal income seriously debated by some political parties (around 800-1000 euro per month were discussed), but the main problem seems to be that the economy would collapse pretty soon and with nobody paying taxes anymore the state couldn't provide universal income. Universal income sounds like a good idea, but there is no way you could realistically afford it.

[Descan]

Canada did it in a town a few decades back. Economy didn't collapse there. People still paid taxes, they just used the extra money to pay for education, or food, or start businesses. Healthcare costs went down. And so did crime.

BTW Canada could afford it, even without fiddling with the numbers (i.e. taking into account the saved costs of making it taxable and getting rid of welfare bureaucracy.) Average federal income each year is about 500 billion, lowest I saw was 400 and the highest was 600.

That doesn't take into account raising taxes on corperations or the higher-tier tax brackets, or a federal lottery that pays for it (Even if you have to give out 50 million every few weeks, if you make 100 million each week? You make a profit.)

There are a LOT of ways to pay for it, and people are not lazy buggers just looking for an excuse to stop working. They'll keep working, they'll keep paying taxes, the world won't end if you put up a safety net.

[kaijyuu]

People will still work for luxuries, assuming all their necessities are given for free.

[Descan]

That too.

[XXSockXX]

I don't know how representative an example from a single town is and how that would work for a whole country. I'm also not very familiar with how stuff works in Canada. (Education is basically free here, and healthcare insurance is mandatory and covered by welfare if necessary).

People would probably still work for luxuary, the numbers that were discussed here are not that high (1000 eur/month can be less than what some welfare recipients cost now). Problem is, overall productivity would drop, no one would be willing to take shitty jobs anymore and many people would rather work part-time. Not because they're lazy, but because working is generally not fun for most people.

Raising taxes on corporations can be risky, if you're the only country doing it.

We have problems already paying for welfare and especially pensions, due to the demographic situation.
Another problem we also have - immigration into the welfare system. That would get a lot worse too.

[Descan]

Make it citizen based.

You know how many people stopped working? Less than 4% of new mothers, everyone else was less than 1%. Mostly the male students in high school going back to school. Productivity -didn't- stop.

And yes, it's a small sample. But it's one of the ONLY samples, and one of the only times where it was for more than a few months (4 or more years IIRC) and it was one of the only times where it was a whole town instead of a few people in the town.

Another thing, maybe... maybe people shouldn't be taking shitty jobs? If you mean things like sanitation workers, people do that because they want to. And if you mean like fast-food workers, maybe giving people the option to NOT work shit-jobs is a GOOD THING? Force the owners to automate or upgrade their working standards.

Forgive me, but that line of thought reminds me of the telecoms yelling about Google Fibre because it's "unfair competition", meanwhile they have a monopoly, when what they're really saying is "We don't want to have to actually work to keep customers"

[Lagslayer]

Make it citizen based.

You know how many people stopped working? Less than 4% of new mothers, everyone else was less than 1%. Mostly the male students in high school going back to school. Productivity -didn't- stop.

And yes, it's a small sample. But it's one of the ONLY samples, and one of the only times where it was for more than a few months (4 or more years IIRC) and it was one of the only times where it was a whole town instead of a few people in the town.

Another thing, maybe... maybe people shouldn't be taking shitty jobs? If you mean things like sanitation workers, people do that because they want to. And if you mean like fast-food workers, maybe giving people the option to NOT work shit-jobs is a GOOD THING? Force the owners to automate or upgrade their working standards.

Forgive me, but that line of thought reminds me of the telecoms yelling about Google Fibre because it's "unfair competition", meanwhile they have a monopoly, when what they're really saying is "We don't want to have to actually work to keep customers"

Jobs where you come into contact with the customer can only be improved so much. Because customers are far too often assholes, ignorant, and/or trying to steal from you. It only takes a couple of bad customers to ruin your day, because you always have to be on guard.

[Descan]

Then automate it. There are burger places already that are fully automated. It IS going to happen, so better to get the safety net for the lost jobs in place now rather then later.

[SalmonGod]

Jobs where you come into contact with the customer can only be improved so much. Because customers are far too often assholes, ignorant, and/or trying to steal from you. It only takes a couple of bad customers to ruin your day, because you always have to be on guard.

Customers might more often get the treatment they deserve, also, if putting up with their shit isn't a matter of survival for employees.  I imagine you'd see a positive cultural shift.  Same thing with bosses that abuse their employees.  People would face more natural consequences for the ways they treat each other and be forced to improve, and I see that as a good thing.

Another problem that would see improvement is people with higher potential to do more beneficial work to society would have more freedom to pursue that work, instead of being caught in stasis with a full-time job that doesn't leave them time and energy to invest in ambitions.

[alexandertnt]

Another problem that would see improvement is people with higher potential to do more beneficial work to society would have more freedom to pursue that work, instead of being caught in stasis with a full-time job that doesn't leave them time and energy to invest in ambitions.

I have seen people with very good skills and dreams end up with a full time job. Many of those dreams vanish or are heavily cut back at least, with their skills being often only minimally used.

And it is a shame, because if they had the time to pursue their dreams, they would likely do a much better and more efficient job of it then they do with their full time employent. They would also be infinitely happier. What could have been...

[XXSockXX]

And yes, it's a small sample. But it's one of the ONLY samples, and one of the only times where it was for more than a few months (4 or more years IIRC) and it was one of the only times where it was a whole town instead of a few people in the town.

Another thing, maybe... maybe people shouldn't be taking shitty jobs? If you mean things like sanitation workers, people do that because they want to. And if you mean like fast-food workers, maybe giving people the option to NOT work shit-jobs is a GOOD THING? Force the owners to automate or upgrade their working standards.

Sorry, but 4 years in a town is nothing. Towns can decide pretty much nothing here, and they are certainly in no way a model for a national economy. And 4 years? Economic reforms take decades till all effects show up, and you'd have to plan ahead for about half a century.
Universal income is a great idea on paper, but I don't see how it could work on a practical level. A big country to try it might suffer severe problems soon enough. Sadly the main reason that the german economy isn't that bad seems to be the cutting back on welfare in the last 10-20 years.

And by shitty jobs I didn't mean fast-food jobs (I don't think they are economically that relevant or even that common beyond transitional jobs for young people) but pretty ordinary things like office jobs or factory work, jobs for medium-qualified people. I know people who work in factories for 20 years or more, they have a decent income, but cannot cut back on work and still have to do 3 shifts. They would love to work less, especially as they get older, but either can't afford it or don't have the possibility to switch to part time if they want to keep the job. To them automation is a jobkiller, as are lower corporate taxes in other countries. Industrial production is still pretty important here, but corporations are quick to move to eastern Europe or China if it's cheaper for them.

[Descan]

Can I just say that saying "There are severe problems with it" isn't an answer? I could say that about anything, and you wouldn't have to believe me.

Also, how is "They can't afford to work less" a decent argument against "giving people money and freedom to work less"?

Quite frankly I love automation. Freeing people up to do things more important than sit in front of an assembly line or stack boxes 8-12 hours a day is great. The problem is that those people, in those crap jobs, can't make enough to save enough to transition into more important work, like education or business building, after their job has been automated.

[XXSockXX]

Can I just say that saying "There are severe problems with it" isn't an answer? I could say that about anything, and you wouldn't have to believe me.

I know, I'm just trying to be pragmatic. I may be too old to be idealistic. I like our welfare system and would rather see it improved, but that stuff is complicated...

Also, how is "They can't afford to work less" a decent argument against "giving people money and freedom to work less"?

If people work less, their productivity goes down. Your employer might as well move his factory to a country where workers are cheaper and more productive. Industrial production and exports are the backbone of our economy. Work costs are high here, but workers are qualified enough to keep companies here. In some sectors they are moving to other countries though, and that is a real problem.

Quite frankly I love automation. Freeing people up to do things more important than sit in front of an assembly line or stack boxes 8-12 hours a day is great. The problem is that those people, in those crap jobs, can't make enough to save enough to transition into more important work, like education or business building, after their job has been automated.

Again, I admire your idealism, but when you think realistic here, many people are neither willing to nor capable of creating businesses. The problem isn't only that they can't save enough to do something else, but that they have mortgages and families and that they don't want to spent years getting the qualifications for another, more interesting job. Education is pretty much nationalized here, there certainly should be more money for that, but again, that money has to come from somewhere.

Well, I guess I'm just saying national economies are super-complicated, especially in a globalized context. If I had a working solution for something like universal income I'd be happy to collect my Nobel-prize. 

[Frumple]

If people work less, their productivity goes down.

This... isn't actually true, or at least not necessarily true. Overworking is a thing and tends to lower productivity. Further, there's a very definite and very strong "diminishing returns" to extra man hours, especially in heavily automated workplaces. After a point you just don't get more out of extra hours than it costs to have them. To boot, sometimes productivity is actually a bad thing -- you might be able to produce a trillion gizmos, but if the gizmo market is only buying up five hundred or so...

Also, if you're talking the states, while we are still one of the strongest manufacturing economies in the world, industrial production and exports hasn't been then backbone of our economy for years -- the states is a service economy now, full stop. We do some manufacturing on the side, but that's not our primary money maker, hasn't been for a while, and shows every sign of being even less so going into the future. Things are changing, y'know?