Universal Basic Income (UBI)
Poll
 | 6 votes (21.42%) | ||
| | 1 vote (3.57%) | ||
| | 9 votes (32.14%) | ||
| | 12 votes (42.85%) |
28 members have voted
Quote: rxwineThat's not the liberal view. It's the more equitable distribution of income not the equal distribution of income.
It usually asks why the workers pay hasn't risen at the same rate upper level pay has risen by percentages. The reason why $15 minimum seems so outrageous, is probably because it should have already started rising years ago, not just a big boost these last couple years.
The employee and the employer are not equal.
Let's say I own some store, I pay employees $10/hr and I make $100k/yr. I put in 9 more stores and now I'm making about $1M/yr. Should my employees now be making $100/hr?
Also, can you describe what you (or liberals in general) mean by "equitable" or "equitable distribution of income"? I've been a bit unsure of what y'all have been meaning with that, just looked it up to make sure I thought it meant what I thought, and it seems to be used as an oxymoron most commonly.
Quote: rxwineThat's not the liberal view. It's the more equitable distribution of income not the equal distribution of income.
Just a matter of degrees. Redistribution is redistribution, and it never works.
Quote:It usually asks why the workers pay hasn't risen at the same rate upper level pay has risen by percentages. The reason why $15 minimum seems so outrageous, is probably because it should have already started rising years ago, not just a big boost these last couple years.
It is because low-skill workers do not produce more value as time goes by but high-skill ones do. $15 seems outrageous is because it is outrageous.
Quote: RSThe employee and the employer are not equal.
Let's say I own some store, I pay employees $10/hr and I make $100k/yr. I put in 9 more stores and now I'm making about $1M/yr. Should my employees now be making $100/hr?
Also, can you describe what you (or liberals in general) mean by "equitable" or "equitable distribution of income"? I've been a bit unsure of what y'all have been meaning with that, just looked it up to make sure I thought it meant what I thought, and it seems to be used as an oxymoron most commonly.
If you look at pay scales for companies, top management used to average 10-20X that of entry level workers. Today it's more like 100X-300X.
For most workers, salaries haven't kept up with inflation.
Equity starts with pegging the minimum wage to inflation. Doing it retroactively would be preferable
Look at the news about Trumps driver. Ignore everything about the unpaid overtime but the facts show he hadn't had a real raise since 2006. Multiply that by fifty to a hundred million people and that's where the distribution becomes inequitable.
Quote: RSSo you’re against UBI too, right?
I'm not against the theoretical concept of UBI at all, but it's not something that can just be enacted with the stroke of a pen and everything is hunky dory. It's going to take decades, generations, of a complete restructuring of our economic and educational systems on a global level. UBI is not happening in any of our lifetimes.
Quote: AZDuffmanCould you please explain this to liberals?
Every liberal I know already knows this, and none of them are in favor of 100% equal redistribution of wealth. It's the hardcore socialist types that need a good talking to.
Quote: billryanIf you look at pay scales for companies, top management used to average 10-20X that of entry level workers. Today it's more like 100X-300X.
For most workers, salaries haven't kept up with inflation.
Equity starts with pegging the minimum wage to inflation. Doing it retroactively would be preferable
Look at the news about Trumps driver. Ignore everything about the unpaid overtime but the facts show he hadn't had a real raise since 2006. Multiply that by fifty to a hundred million people and that's where the distribution becomes inequitable.
That's what globalism gets you. You have supported it and ushered it in. 75% of the worlds population lives on less than $2 a day. You want equality. You are getting it. What are you trying to say?
#NotGoodEnough4me
Its sort of like reapportionment. When its your political party that benefits from lack of reapportionment, you don't complain at all. When its 'the wrong political party' that benefits the hue and cry is deafening.
It seems clear that more and more liberal areas are going to try this. Just a matter of how long and how big. I still look for it to end very bad.
Quote: AZDuffmanIt seems clear that more and more liberal areas are going to try this. Just a matter of how long and how big. I still look for it to end very bad.
I still think it is something that needs to at least be researched and experimented with, but like I said, nationwide UBI is not happening in our lifetime. If it ever is going to be implemented, though, we might as well start small-scale and start figuring out what works and what doesn't.
Quote: AZDuffmanNow Chicago lookingat UBI.
It seems clear that more and more liberal areas are going to try this. Just a matter of how long and how big. I still look for it to end very bad.
That will not help the homeless population in Chicago, and will not stop the mass exodus from the state to places like Indiana and Wisconsin. Many of the places this has been enforced has ushered in high levels of homelessness, not that Chicago doesn't already have a rampant homeless population.
Quote: billryanIt's a good thing libs have Duff to do their thinking for them.
They don't do it for themselves.
Quote: TigerWuI still think it is something that needs to at least be researched and experimented with, but like I said, nationwide UBI is not happening in our lifetime. If it ever is going to be implemented, though, we might as well start small-scale and start figuring out what works and what doesn't.
It is easy to figure out what doesn't work, where the money comes from. You would have to tax people at almost 100% at some point to pay for it.
Quote: RSThe employee and the employer are not equal.
Let's say I own some store, I pay employees $10/hr and I make $100k/yr. I put in 9 more stores and now I'm making about $1M/yr. Should my employees now be making $100/hr?
Also, can you describe what you (or liberals in general) mean by "equitable" or "equitable distribution of income"? I've been a bit unsure of what y'all have been meaning with that, just looked it up to make sure I thought it meant what I thought, and it seems to be used as an oxymoron most commonly.
The idea of equitability is that a rising tide floats all boats. If the business starts with a 10% net profit, (1mill revenue vs. 900k operating costs) and is paying employees 10/hr, great.
Then, by year 10, the business is now doing 6mill/yr, but the employees have only received raises at .2%/yr (which is the average increase per annum from 1970 -present). It is their work that has made that business increase 6-fold, right alongside their employer, but their $10.00/hr has only increased to $10.20/hr, while the owner has increased his income an average of 50%/yr (another average over the last 10 years, for rising inequity: 50%/yr of earned income has gone to the top 1% of earners).
So the owner is now making almost 5 million a year (net), but the worker wages have stayed nearly flat despite their success.
That is inequitable.
In fact, this past year, under Trump, (June 2017 to June 2018) wages actually DECREASED .2%, according to a report I saw this morning. But the same 50% increase among the 1% occured.
To add insult to injury, the CPI (inflation indicator) for the same period moved from 1.6% to 2.8%, so wages go even less far than last year.
https://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/realer.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwjFpPLa5KbcAhWGTt8KHVoLAtYQFjAJegQIAhAB&usg=AOvVaw21BuO88GGQQP7ua7dgZfhg
If link does not work, it's a pdf from the bureau of labor statistics, wages and consumer price index. Google realearnings2018 and it should come up.
Quote: beachbumbabsThe idea of equitability is that a rising tide floats all boats. If the business starts with a 10% net profit, (1mill revenue vs. 900k operating costs) and is paying employees 10/hr, great.
Then, by year 10, the business is now doing 6mill/yr, but the employees have only received raises at .2%/yr (which is the average increase per annum from 1970 -present). It is their work that has made that business increase 6-fold, right alongside their employer, but their $10.00/hr has only increased to $10.20/hr, while the owner has increased his income an average of 50%/yr (another average over the last 10 years, for rising inequity: 50%/yr of earned income has gone to the top 1% of earners).
So the owner is now making almost 5 million a year (net), but the worker wages have stayed nearly flat despite their success.
That is inequitable.
In fact, this past year, under Trump, (June 2017 to June 2018) wages actually DECREASED .2%, according to a report I saw this morning. But the same 50% increase among the 1% occured.
To add insult to injury, the CPI (inflation indicator) for the same period moved from 1.6% to 2.8%, so wages go even less far than last year.
https://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/realer.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwjFpPLa5KbcAhWGTt8KHVoLAtYQFjAJegQIAhAB&usg=AOvVaw21BuO88GGQQP7ua7dgZfhg
If link does not work, it's a pdf from the bureau of labor statistics, wages and consumer price index. Google realearnings2018 and it should come up.
That is the reward for taking risk. Also, the one to get paid last tends to get paid most. Just the way the world works.
Quote: beachbumbabsThe idea of equitability is that a rising tide floats all boats. If the business starts with a 10% net profit, (1mill revenue vs. 900k operating costs) and is paying employees 10/hr, great.
Then, by year 10, the business is now doing 6mill/yr, but the employees have only received raises at .2%/yr (which is the average increase per annum from 1970 -present). It is their work that has made that business increase 6-fold, right alongside their employer, but their $10.00/hr has only increased to $10.20/hr, while the owner has increased his income an average of 50%/yr (another average over the last 10 years, for rising inequity: 50%/yr of earned income has gone to the top 1% of earners).
So the owner is now making almost 5 million a year (net), but the worker wages have stayed nearly flat despite their success.
That is inequitable.
In fact, this past year, under Trump, (June 2017 to June 2018) wages actually DECREASED .2%, according to a report I saw this morning. But the same 50% increase among the 1% occured.
To add insult to injury, the CPI (inflation indicator) for the same period moved from 1.6% to 2.8%, so wages go even less far than last year.
Let me ask you something. Do you think a company making $1m/year and $6m/year have the same workstaffs? Does the company that has grown bigger and larger have to pay more bills such as more employees, more equipment, perhaps for larger buildings, not to mention more to insure said employees?
https://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/realer.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwjFpPLa5KbcAhWGTt8KHVoLAtYQFjAJegQIAhAB&usg=AOvVaw21BuO88GGQQP7ua7dgZfhg
If link does not work, it's a pdf from the bureau of labor statistics, wages and consumer price index. Google realearnings2018 and it should come up.
Quote: MaxPenThat's what globalism gets you. You have supported it and ushered it in. 75% of the worlds population lives on less than $2 a day. You want equality. You are getting it. What are you trying to say?
This sounds like something you just made up. Or do you have anything that supports this 75% figure. Wikipedia says only about 10% of the world live in extreme poverty, which is currently $1.90 per day (inflation adjusted based on $1 per day in 1996).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extreme_poverty#Current_trends
Quote: TomGThis sounds like something you just made up. Or do you have anything that supports this 75% figure. Wikipedia says only about 10% of the world live in extreme poverty, which is currently $1.90 per day (inflation adjusted based on $1 per day in 1996).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extreme_poverty#Current_trends
I'm starting to get old. Adjusted for inflation I probably should have said $10. Still the same point.
https://money.cnn.com/2015/07/08/news/economy/global-low-income/
Quote: beachbumbabsThe idea of equitability is that a rising tide floats all boats. If the business starts with a 10% net profit, (1mill revenue vs. 900k operating costs) and is paying employees 10/hr, great.
Then, by year 10, the business is now doing 6mill/yr, but the employees have only received raises at .2%/yr (which is the average increase per annum from 1970 -present). It is their work that has made that business increase 6-fold, right alongside their employer, but their $10.00/hr has only increased to $10.20/hr, while the owner has increased his income an average of 50%/yr (another average over the last 10 years, for rising inequity: 50%/yr of earned income has gone to the top 1% of earners).
So the owner is now making almost 5 million a year (net), but the worker wages have stayed nearly flat despite their success.
That is inequitable.
Here is also what is inequitable. The owner will often go periods of making NOTHING! But the worker gets paid week-in and week-out. The owner probably has everything he owns at stake, as even with limited liability it is hard to get unsecured credit as a corporation. The employee did not make the business explode sixfold. That was the owner's vision and determination. The employee gets paid OT for working more than 40 hours a week, for the owner working that much is expected.
If the employee wants that reward, they should try to be an owner!
The real word is not like government work. In the real world, you have to make sales to make a payroll. You put it all on the line. And it can all get wiped out in no time at all. For an example of a wipeout, ask a person who put it all on the line to rent VHS tapes in the 1980s. Ask a guy who owned a TV Repair shop. Ask a former dealer of Suzuki, Dihatsu, Pugeot, or any other number of carmakers who closed up shop.
Quote: beachbumbabsThe idea of equitability is that a rising tide floats all boats. If the business starts with a 10% net profit, (1mill revenue vs. 900k operating costs) and is paying employees 10/hr, great.
Then, by year 10, the business is now doing 6mill/yr, but the employees have only received raises at .2%/yr (which is the average increase per annum from 1970 -present). It is their work that has made that business increase 6-fold, right alongside their employer, but their $10.00/hr has only increased to $10.20/hr, while the owner has increased his income an average of 50%/yr (another average over the last 10 years, for rising inequity: 50%/yr of earned income has gone to the top 1% of earners).
So the owner is now making almost 5 million a year (net), but the worker wages have stayed nearly flat despite their success.
That is inequitable.
In fact, this past year, under Trump, (June 2017 to June 2018) wages actually DECREASED .2%, according to a report I saw this morning. But the same 50% increase among the 1% occured.
To add insult to injury, the CPI (inflation indicator) for the same period moved from 1.6% to 2.8%, so wages go even less far than last year.
https://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/realer.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwjFpPLa5KbcAhWGTt8KHVoLAtYQFjAJegQIAhAB&usg=AOvVaw21BuO88GGQQP7ua7dgZfhg
If link does not work, it's a pdf from the bureau of labor statistics, wages and consumer price index. Google realearnings2018 and it should come up.
If we're going with the "a rising tide raises all boats" thing, and the owner's income is going up by 50% (compounding) per year, then are you saying a low level employee's income should go from $10/hr in year 1 to $576/hr in year 10? <Unfortunately a fitting emoji doesn't yet exist, but if it did, insert here>
Of course, there are many different types of businesses. They scale in different ways. If you're the owner of a business where you're essentially paying people minimum wage, the scalability is going to come from increasing number of stores and thus employees. If in year 1, my only store is bringing in $100k net to me (the owner), and I pay employees $10/hr, then why should I pay employees more if in 10 years I have 10 stores each bringing in $100k, so I'm netting $1M/yr?
Employers should be giving their employees raises that scale with inflation, NOT with the empoyer's income. Should the owner of McDonald's be paying his employees $10,000/hour or whatever the math would work out to be? (That was a rhetorical question.) But the bigger problem itself is inflation.
Quote: Gabes22That will not help the homeless population in Chicago, and will not stop the mass exodus from the state to places like Indiana and Wisconsin. Many of the places this has been enforced has ushered in high levels of homelessness, not that Chicago doesn't already have a rampant homeless population.
You have UBI in your city, and someone asks for a handout, you say, "What happened to your UBI?" You have UBI?. Why are you out here asking for a handout?"
What's not great about that?
Quote: rxwineYou have UBI in your city, and someone asks for a handout, you say, "What happened to your UBI?" You have UBI?. Why are you out here asking for a handout?"
What's not great about that?
The great part about UBI is now when a homeless person asks for money you can say, "What about your UBI?" instead of "Get lost!" ???
Quote: RSThe great part about UBI is now when a homeless person asks for money you can say, "What about your UBI?" instead of "Get lost!" ???
Isn't that what I just said?
It's no different than if you gave a friend money for something, and he show ups asking for money again. What happened to your money? I gave you money.
Quote: rxwineIsn't that what I just said?
It's no different than if you gave a friend money for something, and he show ups asking for money again. What happened to your money? I gave you money.
Yeah, that's what you said. I just can't believe that'd be a "great" part about it. It doesn't make much of a difference to me if I say "no" versus "where did your UBI go?"
I can at least understand the opinion that it may be great because it'd replace food stamps and the like or that it'd give people something to have a chance (not that I necessarily agree with that opinion).....but it being great because I can now tell a homeless person "no", without feeling guilty presumably, is....I.....I just don't have words to describe. I can't even.
You wouldn't have to worry about lobbyists if the federal government had little or no power. Election meddling from those pesky Russians probably wouldn't happen either.
Quote: RSYeah, that's what you said. I just can't believe that'd be a "great" part about it. It doesn't make much of a difference to me if I say "no" versus "where did your UBI go?"
I can at least understand the opinion that it may be great because it'd replace food stamps and the like or that it'd give people something to have a chance (not that I necessarily agree with that opinion).....but it being great because I can now tell a homeless person "no", without feeling guilty presumably, is....I.....I just don't have words to describe. I can't even.
Well, I don't know why people go out of their way to keep the homeless in place on the streets, because I don't do that. Knowing that everyone had a choice to go get their UBI, and then come back on streets and beg just makes it obvious they didn't spend their money on food or something they needed. I'm not interested in buying their cigs, booze or drugs. Why didn't they buy that sandwich?
Quote: AZDuffmanIt is easy to figure out what doesn't work, where the money comes from. You would have to tax people at almost 100% at some point to pay for it.
Based on the strategy of our current government, we wouldn't have to tax people any more than we do right now. The plan our current president and congress have is to spend whatever money they want to do whatever they want, even if they don't have the revenue for it. Counting all federal, state, and local government spending, there is enough to give over $700 to every American adult every month. Start with half that amount while cutting way back on welfare and wars and we wouldn't have to change our taxes at all.
Quote: TigerWuInstead of just giving people $500 cash, they should give people $500 credit towards vegetables and gym memberships.
+EV vegetable stands in the future.
Quote: MaxPenThat is the reward for taking risk. Also, the one to get paid last tends to get paid most. Just the way the world works.
Nope . Sorry. Maybe that's how you THINK the world should work, but for the first 30 or so years post WW2, that's not how we built the very successful middle class, as well as thousands of entrepreneurs and millionaires. People's wages in those years tracked closely with the overall improvement in the economy.
It has worked before. It can work again.
Quote: RSIf we're going with the "a rising tide raises all boats" thing, and the owner's income is going up by 50% (compounding) per year, then are you saying a low level employee's income should go from $10/hr in year 1 to $576/hr in year 10? <Unfortunately a fitting emoji doesn't yet exist, but if it did, insert here>
Of course, there are many different types of businesses. They scale in different ways. If you're the owner of a business where you're essentially paying people minimum wage, the scalability is going to come from increasing number of stores and thus employees. If in year 1, my only store is bringing in $100k net to me (the owner), and I pay employees $10/hr, then why should I pay employees more if in 10 years I have 10 stores each bringing in $100k, so I'm netting $1M/yr?
Employers should be giving their employees raises that scale with inflation, NOT with the empoyer's income. Should the owner of McDonald's be paying his employees $10,000/hour or whatever the math would work out to be? (That was a rhetorical question.) But the bigger problem itself is inflation.
I didn't say employees should get 50% more every year. Not even close. I do say that wages should have gone up in relation to inflation, to keep pace with the cost of living. But they've been stagnant for more than 40 years now.
The average worker could buy a car every few years, and a house, and most made enough that only 1 job.would support the family among 2 adults. That's not true any more either. If wages had kept up, it would be.
Quote: RogerKintBabs seems to think that the constitution grants the federal government the power to correct any inequities that may exist in the free market, real or perceived. Wrong country.
You wouldn't have to worry about lobbyists if the federal government had little or no power. Election meddling from those pesky Russians probably wouldn't happen either.
Nope . Didn't say that at all. Not a word of it.
Next.
Quote: beachbumbabsI didn't say employees should get 50% more every year. Not even close. I do say that wages should have gone up in relation to inflation, to keep pace with the cost of living. But they've been stagnant for more than 40 years now.
The average worker could buy a car every few years, and a house, and most made enough that only 1 job.would support the family among 2 adults. That's not true any more either. If wages had kept up, it would be.
Inflation is a hidden tax. Eventually so much production needs to be stolen to service debt that the whole system will go poof. You may live to see it. Exciting times, sorry that it will break your fairy tale belief system. You were conned. Go read the the Creature from Jekyll Island and study some of the lessons from the Mises Institute.
Like others have pointed out, private employers do not have a magical money press in the basement like the government.
Quote: beachbumbabs
The average worker could buy a car every few years, and a house, and most made enough that only 1 job.would support the family among 2 adults. That's not true any more either. If wages had kept up, it would be.
The house was 1/3 the size of a house is today. The car was almost always bought used. The family lived a much simpler life than they do today. There was probably only one TV and one telephone in the house. You ate out maybe twice a month, on payday, if that. Clothes got handed down the line of kids. You had a fraction of the number of outfits you have today. The dog was not purebred, it came from the dog pound. And you rarely if ever used credit cards! "Wait until payday!" was the way it was.
But at least you see inflation as the hidden tax of big government! LBJ really lit the inflation fuse with his starting a huge war and massive social spending. It set off an inflation wave that was not broken until Reagan/Volker decided to crush it, at the cost of a recession that makes the "Great Recession" look like a day at the beach. Even then it would be until the late-1990s before competition cut corporate pricing power to the point that inflation was really in check.
In the 1970s many workers had a "COLA" raise provision. It was a macro disaster, destroying the steel industry and nearly autos. ou simply cannot give automatic raises to people who are not producing more each year. The real world is not like the government or academic worlds, where you can just increase prices and customers cannot go elsewhere.
https://mic.com/articles/190303/barack-obama-signals-support-for-a-universal-basic-income#.LaXuLeCci
I know that we have to find ways to create jobs--and train people to be qualified to work in those jobs--to help replace those that may be lost to technology. UBI is not the answer because it is the actual earning of money from a job that makes people feel they are of value to society, not yet another welfare program. Losing a job and going on unemployment gives you money, but it doesn't come with the feeling of worth that actually making the money does. Living on welfare does not seem to make people happy and it lends to people growing up in those households who may chose to live on the government dime instead of actually working for income.
There should always be a safety net and a hand up. Once it becomes a hand out, the value diminishes.
Just giving someone money won't provide any of the things the former President says it would...and it will likely make those of us actually working for an income of whatever level look down on the freeloaders as a higher percentage of our tax money goes to support them not working.
Quote: AZDuffman
In the 1970s many workers had a "COLA" raise provision. It was a macro disaster, destroying the steel industry and nearly autos. ou simply cannot give automatic raises to people who are not producing more each year.
So then why can you take money AWAY from them if they're not producing any LESS?
That's effectively what you're doing when you don't do COLA raises.
Quote: TigerWuSo then why can you take money AWAY from them if they're not producing any LESS?
That's effectively what you're doing when you don't do COLA raises.
Or we could keep the COLA increases and outsource the jobs oversees or replace actual people with automation in order to sell our products at prices that are competitive in a global economy
Quote: TigerWuSo then why can you take money AWAY from them if they're not producing any LESS?
That's effectively what you're doing when you don't do COLA raises.
Duplicate
Quote: TigerWuSo then why can you take money AWAY from them if they're not producing any LESS?
That's effectively what you're doing when you don't do COLA raises.
When profits decline, management should absolutely look to cut payroll. But labor would have a hissy fit if their paychecks were reduced. So instead we have inflation, which is just the the government giving permission to businesses to give their workers less spending power without cutting salaries.
The best approach would be to make inflation much lower to encourage saving, so that even when the economy takes a hit, citizens have the resources to get by with far less hardships -- and any recessions would be much easier to recover from. But that would require people to actually think long term about their money, which might be too much for most of us.
Quote: TigerWuSo then why can you take money AWAY from them if they're not producing any LESS?
That's effectively what you're doing when you don't do COLA raises.
Not really. Inflation is a macro thing. It does not mean the business automatically gets to raise prices without customers adjusting their habits.
No business can give COLA raises and survive. To imagine so is a fantasy world.
Government lives in a fantasy world and way more since they adopted baseline budgeting in the 1970s. Have to kill that before you can hope to kill inflation. Except the USA is as addicted to inflation as any heroin addict is to their product.
There will be "Buy Human" campaigns, as opposed to machine made.
Consider even one machine replacing one human. And it's usually a worst ratio. Machines don't ask for raises, they don't strike, they don't fake illnesses for days off, they don't need vacation, they don't need benefits, they don't need pensions, they don't complain, they don't take lunch breaks...
How will humans compete?
He who controls the machines will control the World. (or She)
Some wellness centers do exactly that. The fresh vegetables to a woman at age 35 may not "pay off'' for decades and then who knows which insurance company will avoid having to pay for an expensive surgery. One HMO in Washington State bought an empty supermarket and converted it to a gym. Same machines as at a health club but now they could keep track of how often their insureds visited it.Quote: TigerWuInstead of just giving people $500 cash, they should give people $500 credit towards vegetables and gym memberships.
