Select Page
Poker Forum
Over 1,291,000 Posts!
Poker ForumFTR Community

Universal Basic Income

Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 75 of 227
  1. #1

    Default Universal Basic Income

    The introduced funds in the experiment in Kenya function as export. An export is when outside resources in terms of money are exchanged for inside resources in terms of goods/services. In the Kenya example, outside resources in terms of money are exchanged for essentially nothing, which makes those outside resources function as a near cost-free source of new resources to the village economy.

    If welfare functioned like this, it would be good. And more of it would be better. In fact, getting as much of it as possible would be best. It would be equivalent to discovering new resources that didn't exist before, like if an angel came down from heaven and magic wand'd a whole bunch more wheat or RAM or Lexus's.

    Welfare, like UBI, doesn't function like this. It's resource redistribution, not resource introduction. If a new law passes that says employers must pay employees $100 more per week, that isn't going to change GDP by the aggregation of those $100 because employers will cut an approximately equivalent quantity elsewhere. I say approximately because it wouldn't be exact because incentives would change, which would change efficiencies, which would make the amount cut elsewhere either more, the same, or less than the amount increased in wage.

    This brings us to the usual requirement: evaluate an economic proposal by what it does to incentives to produce.
    Last edited by wufwugy; 02-02-2018 at 06:59 PM.
  2. #2
    spoonitnow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    14,219
    Location
    North Carolina
    Universal basic income is one of the stupidest fucking ideas ever fucking invented. The price of shit will just go up, people will still end up in debt because they're fucking idiots, etc.

    It's like taking the idea of expansive financial aid and student loans for college and applying it to the entire fucking economy. What in the fuck did they think was going to happen when they complain about costs shooting up and people as a whole not being any better off than they were before?
    Last edited by spoonitnow; 02-02-2018 at 07:51 PM.
  3. #3
    This appears to be (a much needed) split from whatever thread we got sidetracked into this on. That being the case, it should be clarified that the Kenya experiment was brought up to highlight the fact that workers do not seem to use the extra income as a substitute for earned income, but instead they use it to do more than they otherwise could.

    I agree that the studies do not fully model UBI, and I'm not sure where you got the idea that they are meant to, although I'm sure it's not hard to find media representations of the study that paint that picture.
  4. #4
    Quote Originally Posted by boost View Post
    it should be clarified that the Kenya experiment was brought up to highlight the fact that workers do not seem to use the extra income as a substitute for earned income, but instead they use it to do more than they otherwise could.
    This depends on the elasticity of their demand for different goods/services and on their utility, which really can be anywhere on their demand curves for goods/services depending on personal preference. OngBonga is an example of somebody who had a combination of those such that welfare replaced a significant portion of earned income. That doesn't mean it's true for all. It's different for everybody, though the general trend is that more unearned income reduces the demand for earned income.
  5. #5
    Quote Originally Posted by spoonitnow View Post
    Universal basic income is one of the stupidest fucking ideas ever fucking invented. The price of shit will just go up, people will still end up in debt because they're fucking idiots, etc.

    It's like taking the idea of expansive financial aid and student loans for college and applying it to the entire fucking economy. What in the fuck did they think was going to happen when they complain about costs shooting up and people as a whole not being any better off than they were before?
    Note that it's not the economy price level that goes up from the financial aid scenario, but the financial aid price level and related ones. This micro effect doesn't change the price level in the macro economy. The macro price level is changed by monetary policy (essentially aggregate demand) or by supply shocks (like finding more oil).

    UBI would maybe increase some prices, but not the aggregate price level.
  6. #6
    spoonitnow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    14,219
    Location
    North Carolina
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    Note that it's not the economy price level that goes up from the financial aid scenario, but the financial aid price level and related ones. This micro effect doesn't change the price level in the macro economy. The macro price level is changed by monetary policy (essentially aggregate demand) or by supply shocks (like finding more oil).

    UBI would maybe increase some prices, but not the aggregate price level.
    Did you ever watch the Chappelle skit about black people getting reparations?

    The first thing I'm doing if they set up a universal basic income is investing in every publicly traded gambling company.
  7. #7
    Are they not trailing this to some extent in Finland currently?
  8. #8
    spoonitnow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    14,219
    Location
    North Carolina
    Quote Originally Posted by Savy View Post
    Are they not trailing this to some extent in Finland currently?
    Do you know why Norway and Sweden don't drift off into the Norwegian Sea?

    Spoiler:
    Because Finland sucks.
  9. #9
    spoonitnow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    14,219
    Location
    North Carolina
    Btw I'm in discord get the fuck in there we have shit to discuss
  10. #10
    Quote Originally Posted by spoonitnow View Post
    Btw I'm in discord get the fuck in there we have shit to discuss
    I'm tired and going bed, will be on discord at various points tomorrow.

    Quote Originally Posted by spoonitnow View Post
    Do you know why Norway and Sweden don't drift off into the Norwegian Sea?

    Spoiler:
    Because Finland sucks.
    I just find it interesting because most people think this is a lefty pipe dream when most of the people backing it up are fairly right wing economically.
  11. #11
    Quote Originally Posted by Savy View Post
    I'm tired and going bed, will be on discord at various points tomorrow.



    I just find it interesting because most people think this is a lefty pipe dream when most of the people backing it up are fairly right wing economically.
    I think a good portion of that backing by conservatives/libertarians is because they think it would be better as a replacement for the current welfare system. On that, I quite like Caplan's comment I posted a day or so ago. It came from this article:

    http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/...tarian_2.html#

    In it, he basically iterates what I iterated, about how the popularity of UBI among libertarians derives from the compromise element of it. Lefties adore them some welfare, so it ain't going away and most libertarians/conservatives know it, so compromise.
  12. #12
    spoonitnow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    14,219
    Location
    North Carolina
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    I think a good portion of that backing by conservatives/libertarians is because they think it would be better as a replacement for the current welfare system. On that, I quite like Caplan's comment I posted a day or so ago. It came from this article:

    http://econlog.econlib.org/archives/...tarian_2.html#

    In it, he basically iterates what I iterated, about how the popularity of UBI among libertarians derives from the compromise element of it. Lefties adore them some welfare, so it ain't going away and most libertarians/conservatives know it, so compromise.
    Agreed. I prefer it over the current system.
  13. #13
    I tend to agree with Caplan on that main point I quoted earlier. He thinks UBI would be worse than status quo since it would vastly increase the number of people who have reasonable option to produce less.
  14. #14
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    This depends on the elasticity of their demand for different goods/services and on their utility, which really can be anywhere on their demand curves for goods/services depending on personal preference.
    Ignore the quoted.

    The labor-leisure model shows what we want to know about this.



    There are a lot of reasons why the Kenya thing might not show this effect in an obvious way (though it still might).
  15. #15
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    I tend to agree with Caplan on that main point I quoted earlier. He thinks UBI would be worse than status quo since it would vastly increase the number of people who have reasonable option to produce less.
    Is there not quite a lot of evidence that suggests that when people can spend their time and effort on things that interest them rather than things they have to their productivity increases by a huge amount.

    The use of these systems is very dependant on how they are funded.
  16. #16
    spoonitnow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    14,219
    Location
    North Carolina
    Quote Originally Posted by Savy View Post
    Is there not quite a lot of evidence that suggests that when people can spend their time and effort on things that interest them rather than things they have to their productivity increases by a huge amount.
    There are plenty of people who are interested in writing Twilight fan fiction who are more productive when working at McDonald's because they're producing more value.
  17. #17
    Quote Originally Posted by Savy View Post
    Is there not quite a lot of evidence that suggests that when people can spend their time and effort on things that interest them rather than things they have to their productivity increases by a huge amount.
    If doing what interested them increased their productivity over what doesn't interests them, wouldn't they be doing what interests them instead of what doesn't? The reason people do things that "don't interest them" is because making money to buy stuff interests them more than doing something that "interests them" that doesn't yield an equivalent amount of money.

    Outside of that, having greater capital (I'm including all capital, like human capital) might make it easier for somebody to be productive doing what interests them. The Kenya thing could exemplify this since it might be a big shock in capital. An example is that if cutting down trees interests you but if all you have is a handsaw, you might be more productive doing something else. However, if you have increased capital (which can carry with it increased opportunity) such that you have a chainsaw, you could probably switch to doing what you are more interested in (cutting down trees) AND make more money doing so than the next best option.
  18. #18
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post

    Here's a good way to conceptualize what's going on here in regular terms.

    Let's say you make $100k and we break that up into 10 slices of $10k each and apply a marginal value to each slice. Which slice of $10k do you value having more: the first $10k or the last? The way we find the answer to this is to compare the things you would buy with your first $10k and last $10k and compare your subjective assessment of how much those purchases mean to you. For example, most people, with their first $10k, pay for things like food, shelter, electricity, transportation, clothes; and with their last $10k pay for things like 4k TVs or extra video games. Those people, if they don't have food, shelter, etc., rate themselves as significantly worse off than if they don't have 4k TVs, etc., which tells us why they buy food, etc. with the first $10k instead of buying 4k TVs with it.


    This can be more deeply examined when acknowledging that total income also informs these marginal assessments. For example, if somebody makes $100k, that person likely buys more expensive food, shelter, clothes, etc. than he would if he only makes $10k. This is where differences in the shapes of utility curves (personal preferences) between different people come into play. For example, some people value expensive homes a lot more than others, enough that if they make $10k they still prefer to work more to make $100k so they can buy those expensive homes. But other people don't feel this way and feel that working enough to make $100k doesn't satisfy them as much. They might rather live in trailer homes, in cheap apartments with lots of roommates, in hostels, crashing on friends' couches, or even on the street altogether.

    With that in mind, if we make a UBI $10k per person per year (the rate most seem to think it should be set at), the person who values things like expensive homes enough to do the work he is able in order to get to $100k will still do it even though his first $10k is "free". But the person who doesnt mind living in really cheap circumstances and doesn't mind eating cheap frozen burritos and wearing cheap clothes and who doesn't like working, well that person is the type who would take that $10k UBI and not work. However, if he received no UBI, no welfare at all, he would have no option but to work to get up to his preferences of $10k. And he WOULD work to do it since he would prefer it over not doing it.


    Further, in this economy, there is $110k of money, $100k to the one guy and $10k to the other. The $10k UBI for each is paid for by the $100k earner, yet he is actually producing $110k of goods/services while the other guy is producing $0. This shows that the UBI (and welfare) is inherently unfair. And it gets worse because the same type of marginal assessment we did above applies to the $100k guy's desire to work as much as he does, work more, etc.. He's going to actually produce less than he otherwise would because each unit of production provides him less value than it otherwise would since some of it goes to the $10k guy. So, we might have a scenario where if the $100k guy wasn't subsidizing the $10k guy, the $100k guy might choose to work for $105k. Also, the $10k guy would choose to produce $10k since he's not subsidized. We then end up with a fair system and a more wealthy system that produces $115k of goods/services instead of $110k



    I hope this makes sense.
    Last edited by wufwugy; 02-03-2018 at 04:49 PM.
  19. #19
    Quote Originally Posted by spoonitnow View Post
    There are plenty of people who are interested in writing Twilight fan fiction who are more productive when working at McDonald's because they're producing more value.
    You say that but look at the amount of money twilight made. That clearly started out as a lonely fat ugly girl writing stories she could get off to.
  20. #20
    Quote Originally Posted by Savy View Post
    You say that but look at the amount of money twilight made. That clearly started out as a lonely fat ugly girl writing stories she could get off to.
    Some entrepreneurs and some employers do understand that this is a thing, and they try to spot people or areas to allow for freedom of pursuit of personal desires. The concept is already standard in a lot of ways. For example, employers provide amenities that make employees feel they are doing more of what they want to be doing because they raise productivity. Some creative fields allot time for employees to do what they wish.

    It doesn't seem to be the case that being non-selective about who or what areas to do this yields positive results. Some fat ugly girls can write fanfic and make it big. Most fat ugly girls writing fanfic can't.
  21. #21
    spoonitnow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    14,219
    Location
    North Carolina
    Quote Originally Posted by Savy View Post
    You say that but look at the amount of money twilight made. That clearly started out as a lonely fat ugly girl writing stories she could get off to.
    Average all of the earnings for that and 50 Shades of Grey (which is based on Twilight and a movie called Secretary) out across all of the fan fiction ever written, and what you'll find is that they're still more productive working at McDonald's, and it's nowhere fucking close.
  22. #22
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    Some entrepreneurs and some employers do understand that this is a thing, and they try to spot people or areas to allow for freedom of pursuit of personal desires. The concept is already standard in a lot of ways. For example, employers provide amenities that make employees feel they are doing more of what they want to be doing because they raise productivity. Some creative fields allot time for employees to do what they wish.

    It doesn't seem to be the case that being non-selective about who or what areas to do this yields positive results. Some fat ugly girls can write fanfic and make it big. Most fat ugly girls writing fanfic can't.
    Yeah because there would still be a market which dictates what you can and can't make money from it's just that the results from said market would be higher because more people have tried and therefore you have better to pick from. Those that couldn't wouldn't just get a free ride to do whatever they wanted. It would just allow more time to be spent on something, not all their time. If we are at the point where everyone has their needs met by something that requires no input then we aren't at the same situation because there is literally nothing more you need from life.

    The outcomes that you speak about are not only based on satisfaction from doing something if that was the case people would already only do what satisfies them. It's an EV calc. If I could spend all my time doing whatever I fancied I 100% would and tbh I would be more unproductive. If you freed up some of my time and I could choose to spend it on what I wanted I would still have to ration that out to what I got the most from. What I get the most from isn't necessarily what society benefits the most from but in a capitalist system this still holds true anyway. If it didn't then that key component of you getting to decide what you do wouldn't' exist.



    Quote Originally Posted by spoonitnow View Post
    Average all of the earnings for that and 50 Shades of Grey (which is based on Twilight and a movie called Secretary) out across all of the fan fiction ever written, and what you'll find is that they're still more productive working at McDonald's, and it's nowhere fucking close.
    That's terrible maths and doesn't prove the point you want it to.
  23. #23
    Why is no one on discord?
  24. #24
    Finally caught up in this thread. Here's the right answer.

    UBI is wrong.

    Welfare should be working fine. It isn't because it's being used a political tool, and not the economic safety net that it's supposed to be. Now I want to clarify here, when I say "welfare", I don't mean specifically welfare (free money). I realize that in the 1990's Clinton enacted a policy requiring people to work for welfare. As a result, actual welfare isn't really that huge of an expense, and slackers getting free money from welfare isn't really that big of a problem.

    From here on, when I say "welfare" I mean the entirety of social safety nets available. So in addition to welfare, I'm also talking about social security disability benefits, medicaid, food stamps, WIC, and whatever else I'm missing. Note, that I'm NOT talking about Unemployment Benefits, as that is an insurance system funded by employers.

    Any humane society would provide safety nets for the unfortunate and under-privileged. That's it, safety nets. As in the minimum required to not-die. It should be an emergency-only system with 0 incentive to participate other than desperation.

    That is NOT what welfare is in America.

    The requirements for participation have been loosened in order to increase enrollment. Furthermore, the restrictions on use have been similarly loosened, to ensure that these programs become so entrenched into people's lives, that they become dependent. I heard radio ads during the Obama administration that advertised the food-stamps program as a convenient weight-management plan. The ad continued to extol how convenient and easy it is to sign up.

    I read recently that a large grocery chain in America (it was not named), has sold $357 million in Pepsi on food stamps. That's ONE STORE. The total has to be close to a billion. The point isn't to shit on Pepsi. Pepsi is awesome. But if the government is paying that much for soda, how much are they paying for cookies, and pizza, and chocolate bars?? The program is meant to keep people from starving, not keep them in Cheetos.

    I could go on. There have been studies showing massive fractions of disability recipients could actually work. They sit at home all day playing Candy Crush....they can do data entry.

    Why is it this way? Because a person dependent on government is always going to support liberal policy. That's what this is about. Votes. You guys have gone around in circles for two dozen posts here arguing about economic benefits and incentives to produce and what not. None of that is in debate. Free shit decreases incentive. period. it is known.

    One side of the political spectrum actually desires to decrease incentive.
  25. #25
    spoonitnow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    14,219
    Location
    North Carolina
    There's a company that operates around here, mostly in gas stations and similar, called Hunt Brothers Pizza.

    You can't buy pre-cooked food in North Carolina on food stamps (EBT). Here's how they get around it.

    You buy the pizza uncooked. They hand you a cold pizza and a receipt. You go to another window where they offer free use of their ovens for cooking pizzas. You hand the worker the pizza, and they cook it for free after you've paid for it.

    There's been a somewhat similar push for a long time now to let people use EBT at restaurants.
  26. #26
    oskar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    6,914
    Location
    in ur accounts... confiscating ur funz
    One model for UBI I think sounded interesting was that you hand out money that devalues periodically. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demurrage_(currency) It is dated from the time it changes hands and if it doesn't change hands withing x amount of time, it devalues by some percentage. The idea is to incentivize people to invest locally. Let's say you and your 5 buddies all have regular jobs and now UBI becomes a thing. You could pool together and have 6k per month to invest in a business. If these businesses turn out to be on the whole profitable, this is one way that the money you throw into UBI could flow back.

    Another argument is that you lose the entire bureaucratic apparatus behind welfare which accounts for a significant percentage of the cost of welfare and that money is no longer completely wasted.

    It's all going to be speculative until some country pulls the trigger and actually tries it.


    On a side note I don't even think food stamps should be a thing. It should be straight up cash. I don't think the idea of shaming people into getting back to work is going to be super effective (I'm willing to change my mind if there are studies.)
    Going on welfare shouldn't mean you're not allowed to have a social life until you get back on the workforce. This seems like it could have the opposite effect. Being able to go out for lunch and generally having a social life seems pretty damn beneficial to finding work in my experience.
    The strengh of a hero is defined by the weakness of his villains.
  27. #27
    spoonitnow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    14,219
    Location
    North Carolina
    Quote Originally Posted by oskar View Post
    On a side note I don't even think food stamps should be a thing. It should be straight up cash. I don't think the idea of shaming people into getting back to work is going to be super effective (I'm willing to change my mind if there are studies.)
    Going on welfare shouldn't mean you're not allowed to have a social life until you get back on the workforce. This seems like it could have the opposite effect. Being able to go out for lunch and generally having a social life seems pretty damn beneficial to finding work in my experience.
    I realize you're not from the US, but here, the point of food stamps is to keep people from starving, not to subsidize their social life.

    Them only being able to spend FOOD stamps on FOOD seems obvious to me, but maybe it's an American thing.

    One problem with just giving straight-up cash is that it gets spent in places it probably shouldn't, which has the effect of the government subsidizing other businesses. There's a commonly discussed example in the United States of California doing the kind of thing you're talking about here only to find that millions were spent in casinos.
    Last edited by spoonitnow; 02-04-2018 at 12:45 PM.
  28. #28
    oskar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    6,914
    Location
    in ur accounts... confiscating ur funz
    If the only purpose of welfare is to keep people from not starving to death, I guess that makes sense. If your goal is to give them the best possible chance of getting a job, then making it easier to social network seems important. So I think the latter makes more economical sense, but I really have no idea and I am not emotionally invested in this issue. I think if you want to get people to stop abusing welfare you should probably start by looking at income tax. If a 40h minimum wage job barely keeps you from starving while the government takes 50+% of your income all things considered, I don't blame anyone for gaming the system.
    The strengh of a hero is defined by the weakness of his villains.
  29. #29
    spoonitnow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    14,219
    Location
    North Carolina
    Quote Originally Posted by oskar View Post
    If the only purpose of welfare is to keep people from not starving to death, I guess that makes sense.
    This may help clear some of it up for you: Food stamps aren't the only form of welfare here. It's just one particular form designed specifically to keep people fed. It uses a debit card system now but can only be used to purchase food items that have not been prepared (except for work-arounds like the Hunt Brothers Pizza example I gave above).

    The issue that myself, BananaStand and a whole lot of other people have is that there are no real restrictions on what someone can buy with it, so it effectively subsidizes companies like Pepsi (in BananaStand's example). It'll effectively subsidize some companies purely because someone is going to have to turn a profit on something bought at a store, but one argument is that it would be a benefit to the person receiving food stamps if there were more restrictions on what could be purchased so that nine (or ten) figures of it isn't going to something like soda.

    Quote Originally Posted by oskar View Post
    If your goal is to give them the best possible chance of getting a job, then making it easier to social network seems important. So I think the latter makes more economical sense, but I really have no idea and I am not emotionally invested in this issue. I think if you want to get people to stop abusing welfare you should probably start by looking at income tax. If a 40h minimum wage job barely keeps you from starving while the government takes 50+% of your income all things considered, I don't blame anyone for gaming the system.
    A primary complaint a lot of Americans have is that we're taxed pretty high in exchange for the relatively low level of benefit we get for it in aggregate. However, if you're working 40 hours/week at minimum wage, you most likely have a very, very small net amount of tax you pay each year.
    Last edited by spoonitnow; 02-04-2018 at 06:59 PM.
  30. #30
    oskar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    6,914
    Location
    in ur accounts... confiscating ur funz
    holy shit I just checked: 9% sales tax... you fuckers. It's 20% around here. Same story with income tax.
    The strengh of a hero is defined by the weakness of his villains.
  31. #31
    spoonitnow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    14,219
    Location
    North Carolina
    Quote Originally Posted by oskar View Post
    holy shit I just checked: 9% sales tax... you fuckers. It's 20% around here. Same story with income tax.
    Our sales tax varies state-by-state. There's not a federal sales tax.

    Also, our income is taxed on both state and federal levels.
  32. #32
    Quote Originally Posted by oskar View Post
    If the only purpose of welfare is to keep people from not starving to death, I guess that makes sense. If your goal is to give them the best possible chance of getting a job, then making it easier to social network seems important. So I think the latter makes more economical sense, but I really have no idea and I am not emotionally invested in this issue.
    As spoon pointed out, it's not just food assistance that is being abused. That is just an obvious one that somehow seems to just be ignored.

    The larger problem is the "entitlement" that these programs cultivate in people. Among those who patronize these programs, there seems to be an overwhelming feeling of being "owed". 'You can afford that, and I can't, so that's not fair'. And the government agrees.

    So if you can afford food, but not name brand non-essential food, then the government will provide. The government will provide you with a free cell phone if you can't afford one. The government will provide you with housing, medical care, college financing, and a slew of other benefits. It's offensive to those of us who work for those things and not only pay for them, we pay for others to have them as well.

    We used to promise our citizens a right to "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". That's gone now. People feel that they are owed a certain lifestyle. To deny them that insults their human dignity. And since so many of them aren't white, any restrictions on these programs are considered racist.

    And now you're just taking this "lifestyle entitlement" a step further by saying "people need to have social time". And you think the government should subsidize it with dollars taken from people who GO TO FUCKING WORK??? Christ almighty what is going on in this world??

    It bothers me that there are people out there claiming benefits because of an inability to work, yet that inability to work was their own doing. Like if you smoke 2 packs and eat 6,000 calories a day, there will come a time when you can't get out of bed anymore. When that happens, why is it the taxpayer's fault if you die there? Why are you suddenly owed free shit because you ate yourself into oblivion.

    . I think if you want to get people to stop abusing welfare you should probably start by looking at income tax. If a 40h minimum wage job barely keeps you from starving while the government takes 50+% of your income all things considered, I don't blame anyone for gaming the system
    More than half of America pays $0 income tax.

    If you can't live on a minimum wage job, get a better one. 40 hours a week isn't that much time. If you work that much, sleep 8 hours a night, commute 30 minutes each way to work, and take 3 hours a day for personal grooming, errands, and meal breaks, that still leaves you 46 hours a week to work a second job, find a better first job, or learn new skills in order to find a better job.

    The problem is that there is no incentive to do any of those things. Moving up in the world means getting less benefits, so the net gain to the individual is negligible. I can make $10/hour at an easy job, keep most of it, and have the government pay for all my shit. Or I can work my balls off at a harder job for $20/hour and spend most of it buying things the government used to provide me for free when I was lazier.

    The more entitlements expand...the worse this will get.
  33. #33
    So, I guess my point is....how will UBI be any different? How will it not make the problem WORSE?

    Over half the country pays no taxes, we already have the highest corporate tax rate in the world, we spend at least half a billion on Pepsi, and now I'm hearing "Hey Mr. Government, give us more money because we need more free time to socialize". The solution to all this, is to tax the rich more? What the fucking fuckety fuck??

    "Soak the billionaires" sounds really catchy, but in reality, it's the middle class that pays for everything.
  34. #34
    oskar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    6,914
    Location
    in ur accounts... confiscating ur funz
    And now you're just taking this "lifestyle entitlement" a step further by saying "people need to have social time". And you think the government should subsidize it with dollars taken from people who GO TO FUCKING WORK??? Christ almighty what is going on in this world??
    My angle is that social networking is an important part of finding work. About half the jobs I've worked I got into because I knew people who worked for that company. I don't think that's a good thing, but it's a thing. If you're giving people enough money so they can still engage in social activity they're going to have a better chance to become productive than if you keep them housebound.
    It might feel just that you should only get the bare minimum to survive if you're not currently paying back into the system, but that might not be the most reasonable course of action from an economics standpoint.
    I think a good analogy is the prison system. It might feel right to see it as punishment, but it's more beneficial as a whole to think of it as rehabilitation. The norwegian prison system might look grotesque to your ethical sensibilities, but they have extremely low recidivism rates compared to the US.

    More than half of America pays $0 income tax.
    "all things considered"
    Even if you pay 0% income tax you're still being taxed every time you spend money. But the numbers are a lot lower than I thought because I was thinking about the socialist shithole I live in.
    The strengh of a hero is defined by the weakness of his villains.
  35. #35
    oskar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    6,914
    Location
    in ur accounts... confiscating ur funz
    btw I would have no problem with a massive tax on everything containing added sugar... and child abuse charges for parents of obese children. But that's for another thread.
    The strengh of a hero is defined by the weakness of his villains.
  36. #36
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    10,322
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    As I understand it, there used to be more restrictions on what food stamps can be spent on, but they were relaxed due to arguments just like what is being said about subsidizing Pepsi.

    The argument went that the gov't NOT subsidizing Pepsi, while subsidizing plenty of other choices in the supermarket was the gov't playing favorites with businesses.

    (no references, just going off of memory)
  37. #37
    Quote Originally Posted by oskar View Post
    My angle is that social networking is an important part of finding work. About half the jobs I've worked I got into because I knew people who worked for that company. I don't think that's a good thing, but it's a thing. If you're giving people enough money so they can still engage in social activity they're going to have a better chance to become productive than if you keep them housebound.
    who are you talking about here??

    If you're talking about someone who's a lazy piece of shit who has lived off the dole his whole life....then he probably has all the social time he needs. If you're talking about someone whose best prospect for employment are entry-level jobs....then socializing won't help. Most job applications are going to be done online, or at an electronic kiosk at the business. And if we're talking about someone skilled and well compensated, then they already have a good job. And if they ever lose it due to circumstances beyond their control, like a layoff, there are insurance (not entitlement) programs that can replace their income while they network and interview for a new job.

    It might feel just that you should only get the bare minimum to survive if you're not currently paying back into the system, but that might not be the most reasonable course of action from an economics standpoint.
    I think a good analogy is the prison system. It might feel right to see it as punishment, but it's more beneficial as a whole to think of it as rehabilitation. The norwegian prison system might look grotesque to your ethical sensibilities, but they have extremely low recidivism rates compared to the US.
    That's a trade-off. Low crime, and low recidivism rates are due to a lack of income inequality. Crime is a side effect of income inequality. If your argument is that wealth redistribution will reduce crime, fine, you'll get no argument from me. But I would argue that redistribution destroys the incentive to innovate and take risks. It diminishes the returns for excellence, therefore diminishing the drive toward excellence. It's no coincidence that 40+ of the top 50 hospitals in the world are in America. Who the fuck wants to become a Doctor in Norway if it means essentially living the same lifestyle as an insurance agent? So I would ask you, is that a fair trade-off for having less street crime?

    Also, you're forgetting the main reason for the prison system. It's not punishment nor is it rehabilitation. It's a deterrent.

    "all things considered"
    Even if you pay 0% income tax you're still being taxed every time you spend money. But the numbers are a lot lower than I thought because I was thinking about the socialist shithole I live in.
    I actually live in a state that collects 0 income or sales tax. Schools are still open. Roads and bridges are functional.
    Last edited by BananaStand; 02-05-2018 at 11:31 AM.
  38. #38
    Quote Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey View Post
    As I understand it, there used to be more restrictions on what food stamps can be spent on, but they were relaxed due to arguments just like what is being said about subsidizing Pepsi.

    The argument went that the gov't NOT subsidizing Pepsi, while subsidizing plenty of other choices in the supermarket was the gov't playing favorites with businesses.

    (no references, just going off of memory)
    I don't have any references either, but my memory is slightly different. I recall arguments about "human dignity" and how it is wrong to pass judgement on another person's choices. If a person is hungry, and needs help, we should give them that help (food stamps). However, we would be wrong to insult that person by restricting their choices and giving them different rights just because they are poor.

    And as usual, when we say "poor" we mean "black". So there really wasn't much debate to be had, since any opposition could be denounced and invalidated as "racist". If a white person can buy lobster and rib-eye, then so can a black person. The government decided it didn't matter who pays for it.

    To me, the food stamp problem could be solved pretty easily by having a simple "allowance" for every category of purchase.

    The government already tracks CPI and tons of other related measures, they know what a dozen eggs should cost. Let's say it's $1.80. Then that's all food stamps should cover. If you are a food stamps recipient and you prefer the convenience of buying your eggs at the corner store, where they are $2.50, then you are free to kick in the extra 70 cents yourself. The government should provide you with eggs. Not eggs + a convenient lifestyle.

    Then you could easily adjust how much food stamps will pay for any given purchase. It could be cost based, or time-based. Like "we'll pay for soda, but you only get X ounces per week, after that, buy your own". Or "we'll pay $6/lb for seafood because some white flaky fish or a filet of salmon is part of a healthy diet. If you wanna get shrimp and lobsters, you can kick in the extra $8/lb yourself"

    This way, the taxpayers are only subsidizing the need. Not the needs, and conveniences, and indulgences.

    Furthermore, this would DESTROY the rampant black market for food stamps. I wish I had numbers on this one because there is a massive population of drug addicts out there who sell their food stamps at a heavy discount for cash.

    In other words, a person might buy $100 in food stamps from an addict for $50. Then he goes to the store and buys $100 worth of rib-eyes for himself, and it only cost him $50. If the food stamps themselves were rigged to only buy $X worth of rib-eyes....then there is no incentive to engage in this activity.
  39. #39
    spoonitnow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    14,219
    Location
    North Carolina
    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    Furthermore, this would DESTROY the rampant black market for food stamps. I wish I had numbers on this one because there is a massive population of drug addicts out there who sell their food stamps at a heavy discount for cash.

    In other words, a person might buy $100 in food stamps from an addict for $50. Then he goes to the store and buys $100 worth of rib-eyes for himself, and it only cost him $50. If the food stamps themselves were rigged to only buy $X worth of rib-eyes....then there is no incentive to engage in this activity.
    The market for this is a lot bigger than I think many people realize, particularly if they're not in the US. The standard rate is 2:1, so like you said, someone might take $50 for $100 worth of food stamps. This is a major issue with the current system that needs to be addressed, but ultimately, there's nothing that could really be done about it if they try hard enough.

    For a simple example: The person with the food stamps could just meet someone who wants to buy X dollars of beef (or whatever), and they tell them what they want. They meet them outside of the store with the beef and pay them half of X, or whatever similar approach would work out.

    Regardless, I think they should make it more difficult for this type of transaction to take place compared to the current system.

    I've received text messages from people (sending to the wrong number) asking if I want to buy an EBT card. There are ads on Craigslist. You'll see people standing around outside of grocery stores doing the same thing asking people if they want to buy a card. The market is huge.
  40. #40
    http://www.businessinsider.com/meet-...eriment-2018-1

    There's that word...Experiment

    It's a rigged experiment. If you artificially increase wealth, then OF COURSE those people are going to have better lives. DUH! What kind of science is that??

    I wonder how this "experiment" accounts for things like the wealth lost when a firm says "nah, let's open our company in another town where the taxes are cheaper"
  41. #41
    itt free market capitalists are demanding restriction of trade for poor (black) people.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  42. #42
    If person A has an item of value, and person B is willing to buy it, who the fuck is person C to intervene?
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  43. #43
    spoonitnow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    14,219
    Location
    North Carolina
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    itt free market capitalists are demanding restriction of trade for poor (black) people.
    I'm all for them using the food stamps they're given however they think they should be used. For example, someone smart and sufficiently driven could use that money to get themselves back on their feet faster than many of the programs can that are currently in place.

    I'm against having money stolen from me at threat of gunpoint and given to poorly executed programs that can easily fund lottery ticket and drug habits.

    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    If person A has an item of value that was stolen from person C at threat of violence, and person B is willing to buy it, who the fuck is person C to intervene?
    fyp
  44. #44
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    If person A has an item of value, and person B is willing to buy it, who the fuck is person C to intervene?
    You don't think it matters that Person C is the one paying?

    Or what if Person C kept his mouth shut and then later Person B turned around and said "That's not enough, give me more". Surely you would empathize with Person C's complaints then?
  45. #45
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    10,322
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    Quote Originally Posted by spoonitnow View Post
    I'm against having money stolen from me at threat of gunpoint and given to poorly executed programs that can easily fund lottery ticket and drug habits.
    So is everyone, dude.

    You keep insisting that paying taxes is somehow antithetical to your freedom, but I don't see it. I don't see any example of a gov't on the scale of the USA which doesn't collect taxes.
    I don't see any viable alternative which doesn't replace humans with unicorns.
  46. #46
    spoonitnow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    14,219
    Location
    North Carolina
    Quote Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey View Post
    So is everyone, dude.

    You keep insisting that paying taxes is somehow antithetical to your freedom, but I don't see it. I don't see any example of a gov't on the scale of the USA which doesn't collect taxes.
    I don't see any viable alternative which doesn't replace humans with unicorns.
    COLONIZED
  47. #47
    It wasn't stolen though, since person A is the legitimate owner of the asset in question.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  48. #48
    spoonitnow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    14,219
    Location
    North Carolina
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    It wasn't stolen though, since person A is the legitimate owner of the asset in question.
    COLONIZED
  49. #49
    If the govt repossess your house and give it to me, do you have a right to tell me to not have parties?
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  50. #50
    spoonitnow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    14,219
    Location
    North Carolina
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    If the govt repossess your house and give it to me, do you have a right to tell me to not have parties?
    Governments don't repossess; banks do...

    ...Because they own the fucking house as the result of an agreement between two parties, both of which gave consent.

    Terrible analogy.
  51. #51
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    10,322
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    Reformulate to an argument based on angary, ongie.
  52. #52
    spoonitnow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    14,219
    Location
    North Carolina
    Quote Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey View Post
    Reformulate to an argument based on angary, ongie.
    NSFW: https://i.imgur.com/6FJYfaz.gif

    You should come hang out with us in Discord. Bring your gay jokes. https://discord.gg/qNtbGsd
  53. #53
    Helping people is great. The idea of welfare derives in part from the belief that helping people is great AND that people who appear like help will help them will be positively affected by help.

    The issue is that being positively affected by help is not the same as looking like you would be positively affected by help. Therefore, when it comes to helping people, it is HARD to know exactly how to do it. It takes a bunch of know-how, a bunch of trial and error. Essentially, it takes the very thing that markets of freely choosing people do.

    The failure of welfare -- and it is a wide and severe failure -- can probably mostly be attributed to the fact that it's government provided. As usual, if you think that helping people that could use help is a good idea (which it is), the last thing you want is for government to be involved.
  54. #54
    I wanna know, from progressives, what the "right" amount of redistribution is? How much can a person have and keep? What's the dollar amount that signals "too much" and triggers redistribution? What is "fair"?

    France has a top tax rate of 75%

    France also has something called "Nutella riots"

    You do the math.
  55. #55
    Haha itt an American is mocking France for the Nutella riots.

    Every heard of Black Friday?
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  56. #56
    Quote Originally Posted by MadMojoMonkey View Post
    Reformulate to an argument based on angary, ongie.
    Can't be fucked. My analogies might be terrible, but spoon misuses words like murder and theft.

    Also he'll point out govt seizes property, not repossesses. Even though if I point out theft is unlawful while tax is not, he'll call me a pedant.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  57. #57
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    Haha itt an American is mocking France for the Nutella riots.

    Every heard of Black Friday?
    What about black Friday?
  58. #58
    MadMojoMonkey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    10,322
    Location
    St Louis, MO
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    Can't be fucked. My analogies might be terrible, but spoon misuses words like murder and theft.

    Also he'll point out govt seizes property, not repossesses. Even though if I point out theft is unlawful while tax is not, he'll call me a pedant.
    Did you miss the part where taxes aren't theft anymore, but rape?
  59. #59
    Well they do rape you with high taxes so there is that.
  60. #60
    spoonitnow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    14,219
    Location
    North Carolina
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    Well they do rape you with high taxes so there is that.
    But only if you've been employed for a majority of your adult life while making more than $20/hour or so.
  61. #61
    Quote Originally Posted by spoonitnow View Post
    But only if you've been employed for a majority of your adult life while making more than $20/hour or so.
    Then you can afford it. Why should you have something other people don't have?
  62. #62
    spoonitnow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    14,219
    Location
    North Carolina
    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    Then you can afford it. Why should you have something other people don't have?
    Because if they don't have money for a social life, they can't put in a fucking job application.
  63. #63
    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    Then you can afford it. Why should you have something other people don't have?
    Tax what you want less of, subsidize what you want more of.

    So if you want less production (which means fewer goods/services for the poor) then tax the proceeds of production, and if you want even less production than that then subsidize those that produce the least.
  64. #64
    I'll be fair, I've always conceded that while I was on benefits, if I can afford to buy weed, I was getting more than I needed to survive. All I ever felt "entitled" to was a survival.

    This "social life" bullshit is weak. Maybe the govt should pay internet bills too so they can dick about on facebook "networking"?
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  65. #65
    spoonitnow's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    14,219
    Location
    North Carolina
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    I'll be fair, I've always conceded that while I was on benefits, if I can afford to buy weed, I was getting more than I needed to survive. All I ever felt "entitled" to was a survival.

    This "social life" bullshit is weak. Maybe the govt should pay internet bills too so they can dick about on facebook "networking"?
    We already have welfare for Internet connections in the US. You usually qualify if you're on food stamps. Same thing with a cell phone.
  66. #66
    Spoon beat me to it. But this....

    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    Maybe the govt should pay internet bills too so they can dick about on facebook "networking"?
    ....is very very real

    Free house, free phone, free internet, and free food helps people find all the free time they need to deal drugs
  67. #67
    Quote Originally Posted by spoonitnow View Post
    We already have welfare for Internet connections in the US. You usually qualify if you're on food stamps. Same thing with a cell phone.
    A phone is essential if you intend to find a job, but... cheap payg model with no credit.

    Free internet? That's what libraries are for.
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    ongies gonna ong
  68. #68
    Quote Originally Posted by OngBonga View Post
    Free internet? That's what libraries are for.
    Makes too much sense.

    Taxpayers should fund both
  69. #69
    You can always run a regression back to a point where a person has a truly harder time than he should when viewed in isolation. However, organizing society around those instances is no way to organize society.

    A healthy society organizes around the principles that the individual, the family, the friends, and the community (the church) help those who have the worst of dire conditions. Since the last several decades has been seeing drastic fall in this idea, some people find themselves knocked down with a harder time of getting back up than they otherwise would. The government attempting to solve this problem has just made things worse. The real solution is probably to return to what humans are entirely evolved for: championing the family and championing the religion and its community.
  70. #70
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    You can always run a regression back to a point where a person has a truly harder time than he should when viewed in isolation. However, organizing society around those instances is no way to organize society.

    A healthy society organizes around the principles that the individual, the family, the friends, and the community (the church) help those who have the worst of dire conditions. Since the last several decades has been seeing drastic fall in this idea, some people find themselves knocked down with a harder time of getting back up than they otherwise would. The government attempting to solve this problem has just made things worse. The real solution is probably to return to what humans are entirely evolved for: championing the family and championing the religion and its community.
    See the bolded. That is NOT what welfare attempts to do in America. So I'm not sure the rest is applicable.

    Welfare is the side effect of a political party that has chosen a philosophy of redistribution. Whether that redistribution is a good idea, whether it's the best option, or whether it's even needed at all is not something that's up for debate. Successful execution of this plan results in measurable financial benefits for the party's voting base.
  71. #71
    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    See the bolded. That is NOT what welfare attempts to do in America. So I'm not sure the rest is applicable
    I know that's not what it currently does or has ever done, but the idea that it is to help those worst off is probably the main reason why people support it.
  72. #72
    Quote Originally Posted by wufwugy View Post
    but the idea that it is to help those worst off is probably the main reason why people support it out loud.
    Fixed your post by adding the bolded
  73. #73
    That is true for the party politicians.
  74. #74
    oskar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    6,914
    Location
    in ur accounts... confiscating ur funz
    I thought I made it perfectly clear that I am in support of whatever makes more economical sense. You could replace welfare money with sleeping bags and dried beans that would cut that shit down to a fraction of the cost.
    edit: actually it turns out lard and sugar are the most cost effective calories you can consume. The poor had it right all along

    I'm pretty sure that UBI or negative tax would be a much better system for everyone. There's more incentive to find work, and you don't bump billions into welfare management and instead can spend it directly on the people. I'm not saying it's the greatest possible system, but I'd be surprised if it's worse than the current one.
    Last edited by oskar; 02-07-2018 at 04:30 AM.
    The strengh of a hero is defined by the weakness of his villains.
  75. #75
    oskar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    6,914
    Location
    in ur accounts... confiscating ur funz
    Quote Originally Posted by BananaStand View Post
    That's a trade-off. Low crime, and low recidivism rates are due to a lack of income inequality. Crime is a side effect of income inequality. If your argument is that wealth redistribution will reduce crime, fine, you'll get no argument from me. But I would argue that redistribution destroys the incentive to innovate and take risks. It diminishes the returns for excellence, therefore diminishing the drive toward excellence. It's no coincidence that 40+ of the top 50 hospitals in the world are in America. Who the fuck wants to become a Doctor in Norway if it means essentially living the same lifestyle as an insurance agent? So I would ask you, is that a fair trade-off for having less street crime?
    idk, ask the doctors in norway. They seem to be doing fine. There are lots of studies about monetary incentives and productivity. General conclusion: not that important past a certain point. I don't think I'm just speaking for myself when I say: I'd much rather work in my field for minimum wage than as a cashier for twice my wage.
    Also, you're forgetting the main reason for the prison system. It's not punishment nor is it rehabilitation. It's a deterrent.
    So how's that working out for you guys? And no I did not forget that, it is immaterial to the point I was making.

    I actually live in a state that collects 0 income or sales tax. Schools are still open. Roads and bridges are functional.
    That's great. That's how it should be imo.
    Last edited by oskar; 02-07-2018 at 03:45 AM.
    The strengh of a hero is defined by the weakness of his villains.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •