Stockton trial project with guaranteed Basic Income

[PrinceOfPain]

I don't consider them losers but clearly they aren't winning.

If you're not winning, you're...?

They also are hard working people who work more than 40 hours a week and need some type of government assistance. Like wal Mart workers.

Sounds like the game is rigged to create losers.

 

[KONG-D'SNT-TAP]

If you're not winning, you're...?



Sounds like the game is rigged to create losers.

Theyre not winning in the sense that their job options are limited But they arent losers as people. They may in fact be amazing people and great citizens. You're being simplistic at best.

 

[tonni]

Because lots of people will abuse it. Just look at food stamps, 23% of food stamps is spent on junk food and pop, while only 12% is on fruits and vegetables. And that is when people are forced to buy food, imagine what people will do with just plain money.

Entitlements and benefits force people to use the money on something that might benefit them.

junk food is cheaper

 

[PrinceOfPain]

Theyre not winning in the sense that their job options are limited But they arent losers as people. They may in fact be amazing people and great citizens. You're being simplistic at best.

Do you not think it's a problem that people with full-time employment cannot afford to sustain themselves?

 

[tonni]

That's nice.
Still sounds like losing.

Would you define it as winning?
Sad life.

this is the kind of "debate" you have to sit through in high school

 

[PrinceOfPain]

this is the kind of "debate" you have to sit through in high school

I'd say that calling people who are clearly losing "great citizens" and "amazing people" as if it means anything is pretty infantile.

 

[KONG-D'SNT-TAP]

Do you not think it's a problem that people with full-time employment cannot afford to sustain themselves?

Does anyone think differently.

 

[PrinceOfPain]

Does anyone think differently.

I don't know. You might. You didn't answer the question.

 

[KONG-D'SNT-TAP]

I don't know. You might. You didn't answer the question.

Yes it's a problem society faces.

 

[tonni]

I'd say that calling people who are clearly losing "great citizens" and "amazing people" as if it means anything is pretty infantile.

i was talking about arguing about the word 'loser'. someone called people with low incomes losers and in that context it clearly didn't mean 'someone who did not win' but was a judgement of character.

 

[PrinceOfPain]

i was talking about arguing about the word 'loser'. someone called people with low incomes losers and in that context it clearly didn't mean 'someone who did not win' but was a judgement of character.

Circumstances strongly influence/dictate character.

 

[tonni]

Circumstances strongly influence/dictate character.

still don't see how working 2-3 jobs to provide for your kids, but not making ends meet, makes you a loser character wise.

at least you admit it wasn't about 'not winning' but about character.

 

[PrinceOfPain]

still don't see how working 2-3 jobs to provide for your kids, but not making ends meet, makes you a loser character wise.

Why would you have kids that you cannot provide for?
That seems to say something about one's character.

Also, you're the first person to mention working 2-3 jobs. Kong mentioned working fewer hours than I do.

at least you admit it wasn't about 'not winning' but about character.

I made a pedantic, throwaway comment that Kong got pissy about. Aside from that, I am not admitting or denying anything.

 

[HIMBOB]

I understand that, which is why people move to locations with better opportunities. I'm not saying it's easy, but sometimes you do what you have to do.



Supply and demand. It's a cold hard reality, and people need to adapt. It sounds ice cold, but I'm not sure that simply paying people to exist and sit on their asses is the best solution. And really, do we need more lawyers or even paralegals? Those well educated folks should go do something productive.



I'm certainly open to the idea that technology may eliminate so many jobs that there is not enough that requires human labor for everyone to have a decent job or any job at all. I'm conditionally open to a guaranteed basic income because of that. I've heard it argued from a libertarian perspective and it was compelling in the sense of being less problematic than the current welfare system. Far less overhead and fewer bad incentives.

Having said that, I'm not sure we are there yet, and I'm still concerned about problems that may be created by people sitting on their asses. Even if a UBI is the only choice or the best choice we still have to think about the opportunities people have to channel those idle hands. How will all that energy be channeled in a non-destructive way?



I think that reducing immigration and increasing skill training, for both blue collar and high tech will help with that. I'm not for Bernies absurd free college plan, but I keep hearing about the skills gap in America for both blue collar and high tech. College isn't for everyone, and it's turned into a highly questionable investment for many. I would be open to funding training programs that focus on fundamental skills and job specific or technical skills. We don't need more women's studies majors in the work force.

And now I'll be cheeky and super regressive by suggesting that women should stay home with the kids. A return to the 1950s family idea is in order. Clear the way ladies.

Australia had free uni for decades. It served us well. There was however alot less people going as a result.
Perhaps free trade courses would be better (more job specific).

 

[panamaican]

I understand that, which is why people move to locations with better opportunities. I'm not saying it's easy, but sometimes you do what you have to do.

That true...assuming you have the money to move and put down a security deposit on a place to rent before you ever get the first paycheck that you use to pay for those things. Moving is a great response but moving isn't free.

Supply and demand. It's a cold hard reality, and people need to adapt. It sounds ice cold, but I'm not sure that simply paying people to exist and sit on their asses is the best solution. And really, do we need more lawyers or even paralegals? Those well educated folks should go do something productive.

Like I said - an unsympathetic example. But at the time that those people enrolled in law school and took possibly took on some debt, they couldn't predict that the market for their services would change. And most people can't either. They can't predict that the local supermarket is going to cut staff or that some larger retailer is going to shift to more online focus reducing in store staff levels. People can't predict these things and they cannot offset them, no matter how much they want to earn.

I'm certainly open to the idea that technology may eliminate so many jobs that there is not enough that requires human labor for everyone to have a decent job or any job at all. I'm conditionally open to a guaranteed basic income because of that. I've heard it argued from a libertarian perspective and it was compelling in the sense of being less problematic than the current welfare system. Far less overhead and fewer bad incentives.

Having said that, I'm not sure we are there yet, and I'm still concerned about problems that may be created by people sitting on their asses. Even if a UBI is the only choice or the best choice we still have to think about the opportunities people have to channel those idle hands. How will all that energy be channeled in a non-destructive way?

No, we're not there yet. The problem is that waiting until we're there will cause more problems. It's like a leaky pipe. Sure, you could wait until it bursts to repair it but it will cost more and take longer to do than getting started now.

As for "idle hands", I've never bought this argument. UBI won't make people not want things, it doesn't discourage people from working. The current welfare model does because the current welfare model reduces it's support based on your workload. So, if you earn $999 you get help but if you earn $1,999 you don't. But if the additional earned $1,000 is not enough to really change your life and to warrant the additional effort why would anyone apply that effort? It would be similar to some guy signing up for overtime but being told that he isn't getting paid anything extra for it. Suddenly, the timve vs. money equation changes - will he really give up his Saturday for no extra income? Maybe if he really likes the job and thinks it will further his career but most people will value their time over zero change in their financial circumstances.

I think that reducing immigration and increasing skill training, for both blue collar and high tech will help with that. I'm not for Bernies absurd free college plan, but I keep hearing about the skills gap in America for both blue collar and high tech. College isn't for everyone, and it's turned into a highly questionable investment for many. I would be open to funding training programs that focus on fundamental skills and job specific or technical skills. We don't need more women's studies majors in the work force.

And now I'll be cheeky and super regressive by suggesting that women should stay home with the kids. A return to the 1950s family idea is in order. Clear the way ladies.

Reducing immigration won't do anything for this subject. Either you're going to reduce the highly skilled labor force which we can't reproduce. Or you're going to reduce the low skilled labor force which will just accelerate automation.

We can't reproduce the high skills because it's a matter of skills distribution. No matter how much we put into computer science, for example, we can't train everyone to PhD level. Not everyone is capable and so we have to supplement with high skilled immigrants.

Reducing the low end of the labor pool, might open up some jobs for other low skilled Americans but only if those Americans are willing to take the low end wage that's being offered. However, it that was true we wouldn't need the low skilled immigrants in the 1st place. And employers aren't going to just raise wages with prices to offset. They're going to automate more aggressively, leaving us with the same problem.

Listen, the ugly truth is that a small percentage of people develop the world changing technologies and advancements that drive the world. 99.5% of the population is incapable of producing these things. The larger your population, the greater the chance that the next amazing breakthrough happens within your borders. America's immigration policy has drawn the elite minds of the world into your country to do that development and we've drawn the most driven people from around the world, high or low skilled, here as well - some of those people or their offspring will develop the next advancement. Without arguing for open borders, people who want to choke down on immigration want to relegate this country to 3rd or 4th place in the world of innovation. They want to give up top dog status to someone else. I cannot understand why.

And we already fund training programs, funding training is not the problem. Getting people hired is the problem. Keeping the lights on and food on the table while you take the time to train is the problem. Funding? Funding is easy, everything else is difficult.