Punished UMN wrote:Trollzyn the Infinite wrote:How so?
Because it potentially runs into the same issues as rentier states, that is, that if the populace is dependent on the state for its income, then this gives the state a legal and philosophical justification for political dominance over such citizens. This effect is observed in Gulf States, where the state generates income from natural resources on state-owned property, giving it a massive income which is not dependent upon taxation of its citizens, and then it uses UBI-like programs and investment into development to give its citizens some of its economic resources. It is a reversal of the Western social-contract upon which democracy is based. To put it in terms Americans would be more familiar with: No representation without taxation.
If there is no representation without taxation, then half of US citizens aren't represented. You've mangled a Revolutionary War slogan that wasn't all that rigorous to begin with.
The Gulf States that provide free electricity and so on, do not illustrate a bad downward trend of democracy, in fact the opposite. Democracy anywhere is a demand of the middle class and capitalists, not of the "workers". Any social contract requiring people to work to survive is just a figment of your political imagination, and does not account for the rich, for charity, or for unpaid work eg of parenting.
You don't like UBI but you haven't given one valid reason. And anyway, aren't you an authoritarian? The workers being dependent on the state should be good, surely?
Washington Resistance Army wrote:Trollzyn the Infinite wrote:I'd like to hear more about this. I didn't even know about UBI until Yang brought it up in 2016, after which I looked it up because I was skeptical. I never found anything that suggested it wouldn't work; quite the opposite, actually. From what I saw it would pay for itself after a year or two. I heard it worked well everywhere it had been tried, to boot.
Admittedly this was 4 years ago so maybe I'm out-of-touch on the issue.
Afaik the data is either inconclusive or fairly against UBI as a concept. Finland is the big example and the only thing the data shows there is that people are happier with it, which, no shit, you're giving them, free money despite the Finnish government hoping to use it to motivate people to enter the workforce more and things of that nature. That's where my objections come in. UBI is the perfect way for the rich to pacify the masses even as automation gets worse and worse and more people go without jobs. It's essentially just tossing table scraps at the bulk of the population and saying "go spend it on entertainment and stay distracted" while the rich continue to gain more and more wealth and power.
The same argument would apply to raising minimum wages. Or unionism. Or worker safety. Or universal healthcare. Really anything that's good for workers, is against their interests because it will stop them rising up ...
I hope your accelerationist phase won't last long. Workers being poor and oppressed does not lead to a revolution: at best it leads to uprisings and only greater oppression.
Major-Tom wrote:Either way, my biggest concern w UBI is the ability to jack up costs across the board. If you're a landlord, and you now know that everyone is getting an extra $1,000 a month, what's stopping you from raising rent by $500? If you sell consumer electronics, what's stopping you from raising the price of a device from $249 to $349 because you know people can cough up the cash?
It's not a bogus system, but the implementation would certainly be very flawed in the US. Especially the proposals where
everybody gets one. Mr. McMansion would need a basic income a lot less than, say, a poor family of four.
A one-off inflationary effect is likely, particularly in goods like devices which not everyone has, suddenly more people can afford, but are in limited supply. For goods overall, redistributing money from the rich (who spend a very small proportion on shop goods) to workers, who can now afford better essentials and some luxuries, creates enduring demand. Their device will last them a year or so, hence with their next payment they will buy better clothes or get a better haircut. If the market is worth anything at all, it should be able to supply an enduringly high level of demand. Inflation is only an issue during a transitional phase of relative scarcity.
High building costs are largely driven by high land prices: it's just not worth building a cheap house given the cost of land. Unfortunately that barrier to entry can't be lowered enough to get all the new houses that need to be built where the people are (unless UBI is enough to pay off a mortgage on, ie very high). People need to be given incentive to move where it is cheap to build, or even where there are vacant houses.
Washington Resistance Army wrote:Trollzyn the Infinite wrote:I'm really not seeing the connection between rich folks getting more money and power (which is always happening and has always been happening) and people getting paid by the state.
Automation functionally only helps the people who already have wealth and the means to capitalize on it so it stands to reason that as automation continues it will disenfranchise the many in favor of the few but the few can and likely will use things like UBI to try and keep the many passive and in favor of the system despite it not working in their favor. It's functionally just becoming an unthinking servant or a peon, you get your handouts to stay alive and little more. That's not an ideal or even a good future, that's a dystopia.
A dystopia is that, but insert "rich philanthropists" in place of "government".
I think we can take banning robots off the table. And hopefully crime, as a way of earning a living. So let's hear your alternative to UBI? Enforced 20-hour working week so everyone can get a share of that ennobling work which is so much better than money from the government?