Barack Obama signals support for a universal basic income

a reply to: TheLead

No just plenty of times where the elite took too much, made life too miserable, and demanded more than the "peons" could give. Which is repeating... yet again... for the umpteenth sad time... You can only push people so far before they fight back.

Didn't Nixon try to get a basic-income benefit passed through Congress unsuccessfully...

I think there is one thing that is being overlooked when looking at the future of automation and those that maintain it. Are we really going to keep people employed working 40-60 hour weeks while 40-90% of the population doesn't work at all? Maybe we see something like an 8-12 hour work week, where people are actual experts and true professionals in their jobs. They may know a machine or two, inside out, upside down and backwards vs having to service 30 different machines and having to reference a manual each time. I know I would much prefer the expert (working much less hours) working on my machine than the "jack of all" technician.

But the thing with going to automation is that it is a cost saver to the company over-all which needs to be translated to the employees who brought them to this point and helped make the company. It isn't right for the CEO to benefit from the (slave labor) of many decades or centruies while their old employees fall into poverty.

This means that the person working the 8-12 weeks needs to be well paid for being a skilled expert in their field and somewhat equivelent (in some proportion) to the money saved by firing the old workers. With this setup there could be 5 people employed, at a higher rate/wage, working the 8-12 hours instead of the poor sap working 40-60 hours (probably for relatively little pay b/c so many other people would take the job).

If the work week were shortened to the point of 8-20 hours per week, there would be a lot more time for people to inovate, invent or pursue their real dreams and passions. Very few people are lucky enough for their job to be what they love to do, even though people love to say "you have to do what you love - for a career" - well that just isn't in the cards for everyone, if it was, then our septic tanks would be over flowing, our toilets would look like a science experiment and so on.

People love to think that all a person need to do is work hard and they will get their chance, but there is a moving goal line in this game and it is constantly being re-defined, especially for some groups of people. Those who "have" and think they "have" only because they are the most special,smartest, bestest, are going to find themselves in an entirely new world where they are going to be in a very different situation.

originally posted by: XAnarchistX
Didn't Nixon try to get a basic-income benefit passed through Congress unsuccessfully...

Yes. Politically infeasible at the time.

There are a lot of excerpts online from "Rutger’s new book, Utopia for Realists: The Case for a Universal Income, Open Borders, and a 15-Hour Workweek."

Can you imagine solving all 3

So.... Does that mean that my house payment will be lowered? I will no longer have to pay property tax? Insurance for my home? my car? My electric bill? Health insurance?


Because 600 a month isn't going to cover all of that.

a reply to: chiefsmom

More like your expenses will go up $600.
It's like that raise you get on social security, Medicare goes up the same ammount..

a reply to: chiefsmom

Nope more than likely it will raise all of those making the increase ineffective or a potential negative.

Sounds like a distraction to buy time while
they consider a more permanent course of
action. I don't believe they consider supporting
a massive population at all. Why would they?
I think this is a very bad sign.
Bad indeed.

originally posted by: xuenchen
This would drag out the (already 50 years) war on poverty for another 50 years.

😎

works for them! so they say let's bring it on!

originally posted by: randyvs
Sounds like a distraction to buy time while
they consider a more permanent course of
action. I don't believe they consider supporting
a massive population at all. Why would they?
I think this is a very bad sign.
Bad indeed.

A third of the human race was killed by these three plagues--by the fire, the smoke, and the sulfur that came from their mouths.

a reply to: DigginFoTroof

Not only will the ones who know how to keep the automation going be the haves, but so will the ones who own the resources the automation will need to use, and so will one other class - the artisans who make things by hand.

Everyone has a shoddy machine made blanket that looks like every other Walmart grade cheap-ass blanket, but only certain people will have the ones made by those who remember how to sew or knit or weave or crochet who can get wool from those who still have access to real sheep or alpaca or other animals that produce a spinnable fiber for making yarns and threads.

You get my drift. Those will be unique, and anyone who can create that type of item will be a new type of have alongside the machine masters.

Everyone else will be in the bottom 99% again.

originally posted by: Puppylove
Ok BSL then. Basic standard of living. Instead of a universal basic income. Figure out something we can compromise on as basic living standard we believe in, provide that, and if people want more they work for it or something.

Now there's some creative thinking! Good one PL.
Perhaps we could put basic human needs first and foremost, and do it in such a way that it is our highest priority?
Ahead of any money-talk that gets the greedy folks all riled-up.

originally posted by: Nothin

originally posted by: Puppylove
Ok BSL then. Basic standard of living. Instead of a universal basic income. Figure out something we can compromise on as basic living standard we believe in, provide that, and if people want more they work for it or something.

Now there's some creative thinking! Good one PL.
Perhaps we could put basic human needs first and foremost, and do it in such a way that it is our highest priority?
Ahead of any money-talk that gets the greedy folks all riled-up.

OK.

How do you provide things that take time, effort, etc., to produce without compensating those who must produce them for you?

I know it makes you feel better to believe this all being witheld over greed, but the truth is that all of this takes resources you don't have to produce. And as much as you think many of us who are better off than you are hiding our money away because we don't want to share it, that's a lie. We don't have anything to hide many of us.

We work hard to provide for our families, sometimes extended, and can't afford to provide for the entire world too no matter how much you want us to.

And none of that changes the fact that what you want needs to be produced by someone, lots of someones, and they deserve compensation for their efforts.

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed
a reply to: DBCowboy

You have a Choice either go forward with a ubi or something similar or all those desperate hungry people will come to steal from you and yours... Which would you prefer ?

Class warfare and threats.

No just reality, go check the history books to see that when the masses have nothing left to lose they revolt, perhaps it's reality itself is what you find threatening .

Easier to get votes for Democrats promising (yet not delivering) free stuff to a hungry Democratic demographic.

originally posted by: Edumakated

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: theantediluvian
To say that UBI is "far to the Left" is really inaccurate. It has support in right-wing circles too. Milton Friedman was a supporter for instance.

Friedman supported a negative income tax, not universal basic income. Negative income tax would be used to phase out welfare and bureaucracy, while using the surplus to give a basic income to those who used welfare.

And we have negative income taxes now in the form of earned income tax credit. In fact, when you look at the tax rolls, the very bottom already has negative tax rates meaning they are getting money back from government, not paying taxes.

Very interesting. I never knew that.

But isn’t an income tax credit a credit towards money owed? In Friedman’s idea, they wouldn’t owe any taxes.

originally posted by: TheLead
a reply to: DBCowboy


“It’s not just money that a job provides,” Obama said in a portion of his speech devoted to economic policy. “It provides dignity and structure and a sense of place and a sense of purpose. So we’re gonna have to consider new ways of thinking about these problems, like a universal income.”

WTF does that mean? A job provides confidence and purpose, so we need to think about giving people something for nothing to undermine that?

That's exactly what he means. Obama is all about being divisive towards the American people. look at how he decided that Travon was a good enough kid to be his, or how little Mikey Brown could never have done anything wrong. Obama is what's wrong with the country.

He loves to give power and a voice to people, but never give them the skills or knowledge to use them effectively. Empowering the little guy then encouraging them to gang up and bully, that's all we get every time Obama talked to Americans about anything. He wants a world where he and others like him (people who manipulate mothers) control everything, and everyone else is given a penitence o keep them happy. It's strait out of Animal Farm, just like his commie loving mom taught him.

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: Edumakated

originally posted by: LesMisanthrope

originally posted by: theantediluvian
To say that UBI is "far to the Left" is really inaccurate. It has support in right-wing circles too. Milton Friedman was a supporter for instance.

Friedman supported a negative income tax, not universal basic income. Negative income tax would be used to phase out welfare and bureaucracy, while using the surplus to give a basic income to those who used welfare.

And we have negative income taxes now in the form of earned income tax credit. In fact, when you look at the tax rolls, the very bottom already has negative tax rates meaning they are getting money back from government, not paying taxes.

Very interesting. I never knew that.

But isn’t an income tax credit a credit towards money owed? In Friedman’s idea, they wouldn’t owe any taxes.

The lower incomes have little to no federal income tax burden. However, the tax deductions and credits often result in basically getting a tax refund even though they paid little to no taxes because they exceed the tax liability. The end result is a negative tax rate.

For example, let's say Joe Broke Guy owe's $2k in federal income taxes. However, he gets a child tax credit of $7k. So $2k - $7k = -$5k. So he gets a tax refund of $5k from the government.

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: Nothin

originally posted by: Puppylove
Ok BSL then. Basic standard of living. Instead of a universal basic income. Figure out something we can compromise on as basic living standard we believe in, provide that, and if people want more they work for it or something.

Now there's some creative thinking! Good one PL.
Perhaps we could put basic human needs first and foremost, and do it in such a way that it is our highest priority?
Ahead of any money-talk that gets the greedy folks all riled-up.

OK.

How do you provide things that take time, effort, etc., to produce without compensating those who must produce them for you?

I know it makes you feel better to believe this all being witheld over greed, but the truth is that all of this takes resources you don't have to produce. And as much as you think many of us who are better off than you are hiding our money away because we don't want to share it, that's a lie. We don't have anything to hide many of us.

We work hard to provide for our families, sometimes extended, and can't afford to provide for the entire world too no matter how much you want us to.

And none of that changes the fact that what you want needs to be produced by someone, lots of someones, and they deserve compensation for their efforts.

Your question is an excellent one, and fits right into the subject at hand.
There might not be an easy answer to that, and am not personally prepared to suggest anything.

What is the baseline here? The minimum needs required to provide a BSL for all, or what the material cost is?

Whether you agree or not: can you see how that baseline might alter the conversation?

Are we discussing what is best for all, or what is best for certain individual haves/have-nots?

If we slowly move towards a society that takes care of all, could we not find ways to do that without taking anything away from the haves?
Do you think that an angle like that, could ease the tensions all around?
It might require a paradigm shift, away from throwing money at our problems, which may make those that are extremely materialistic, a tad uneasy though.

originally posted by: Nothin

originally posted by: ketsuko

originally posted by: Nothin

originally posted by: Puppylove
Ok BSL then. Basic standard of living. Instead of a universal basic income. Figure out something we can compromise on as basic living standard we believe in, provide that, and if people want more they work for it or something.

Now there's some creative thinking! Good one PL.
Perhaps we could put basic human needs first and foremost, and do it in such a way that it is our highest priority?
Ahead of any money-talk that gets the greedy folks all riled-up.

OK.

How do you provide things that take time, effort, etc., to produce without compensating those who must produce them for you?

I know it makes you feel better to believe this all being witheld over greed, but the truth is that all of this takes resources you don't have to produce. And as much as you think many of us who are better off than you are hiding our money away because we don't want to share it, that's a lie. We don't have anything to hide many of us.

We work hard to provide for our families, sometimes extended, and can't afford to provide for the entire world too no matter how much you want us to.

And none of that changes the fact that what you want needs to be produced by someone, lots of someones, and they deserve compensation for their efforts.

Your question is an excellent one, and fits right into the subject at hand.
There might not be an easy answer to that, and am not personally prepared to suggest anything.

What is the baseline here? The minimum needs required to provide a BSL for all, or what the material cost is?

Whether you agree or not: can you see how that baseline might alter the conversation?

Are we discussing what is best for all, or what is best for certain individual haves/have-nots?

If we slowly move towards a society that takes care of all, could we not find ways to do that without taking anything away from the haves?
Do you think that an angle like that, could ease the tensions all around?
It might require a paradigm shift, away from throwing money at our problems, which may make those that are extremely materialistic, a tad uneasy though.

You have to be able to define what you mean by a basic standard living. I'd argue in the US, we generally already provide it as our standard of living is so high. In the US, our ghetto housing projects are nicer than upper class housing in most countries.