Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'General Discussion Forum' started by Crni Vuk, Mar 21, 2020.
Why doesn't Widerquist include the net contributors in his calculation? Surely, their positive influence would fullfill the 500 billion deficit, right?
Well, apparently not, and by ommitting that he sneakily circumvented admitting that the entire federal revenue AND THEN SOME would go into UBI.
And sure, there'd be lower healthcare costs if people are healthier when they have more money. And sure, the US could stand to reduce military spending.
But there is no budget left. Just raising spending by 3% of the GDP doesn't cut it. That's JUST for paying the UBI, not the entire rest of federal spending. I talked about that earlier. It's a simple budget, the same thing he did in that paper.
I understand what you're trying to say but I am also thinking from a historical perspective here where every social improvement was branded as impossible, to expensive, unfeasible and radical. Social security, pensions, labour rights, even slavery was seen as impossible to abolish by those that defended it. They said societies would collapse, chaos would ensue, whole economies would s top to function properly. Well I the results, we live them today. And there can be no doubt that someone living today has a far greater standard than 200 years ago.
Maybe, maybe I am the idiot maybe my views are to utopian, to outlandish. But I think we "dreamers" have a pretty decent historical track record here of getting what we want. We might not always get it when we dream about it. But if you would take a coal miner from the 1820s and you would explain him what society is today in 2020? Would he believe you? Would anyone in that time believe it?
I am convinced that technological revolutions and changes in our society will make at the very least something that's similar to the UBI a necessity. I am not saying it's coming tomorrow but I am pretty sure it will happen at some point.
Yes. Well. Since it won't matter if I poke holes in your idealism, I'll just try and come up with solutions to prevent people like me becoming feudal lords over you dirty UBI-peasants.
First and foremost, decrease work time for as many people as possible. That way you get more people in the remaining work force, the people still working have more free time, the wealth gap is lower, and the overall tax revenue can potentially be increased. Many jobs will need increased time management and information sharing, but for the most part, this can be pulled off decently well. This also has the benefit that even when, dunno, only 20% of the population could have a full time job, it's now 40%+ actually working still. Gotta see how many people are actually capable of acquiring the necessary skillsets, but it's a start.
Who knows. We have to wait and see I guess. But yes I agree work hours have to be lowered and most probably that's what will happen either with or without the UBI - but it would also require a different economy than we have now I hear a lot of people talking about making work hours more "flexible" to suit your needs even the unions talk about it here. Sounds good if implemented correctly. However I do not see people working with the minimum wage lowering their hours from 10 to 6 hours per day if we keep the current cost of living where you can barely pay for your rent and everything else. So wages will have to increase by a lot - which they should anyway in my opinion the people that keep society running right now, are often the ones with the lowest income.
So what ever happens we will be living in a very different situation compared to the last 40 years. Work will not have simply the same meaning as it does now.
Still doesn't answer the question what society will do with those that are unfit, so to speak. People that will loose their current jobs, but are either not capable or skilled enough to learn the professions that remain or come up. So society will have to find solutions for those people and right now being "jobless" is very stigmatised. So I see a lot of potential for social conflicts here. Or society will come up with new bull shit jobs.
I'm sure whatever happens, we can make it work by getting economists to lie about it.
See, this car costs $25,000, but since I have $20,000 in the bank, the REAL price is only $5,000. What a steal, I can easily afford that!
Seriously, thanks Crni. You found a philosopher/economist that I now hate more than Richard David Precht or Niko Paech. The UBI is literally his only topic (besides sperging out about how any and all property is evil, which he usually does instead of bringing in any actual arguments), and HE FUCKING LIES ABOUT IT. Precht and Paech are just stupid smug assholes, but Widerquist is a stupid smug lying asshole.
The takeaway is: Don't just blindly trust economists who promise you things you like. Better turn them all into biofuel so they produce useful hot air for once.
/edit: Oh shit, I just widerquisted my finances, and guess what: I can stop working now! See, I thought about moving into a bigger place. Let's say I want to move into a place that costs 4000 euros per month rent, that's pretty steep. But I also get like, say, 3000€ per month from my workplace, so the actual rent for the new flat would be just 1000€, that's a lot better. But then I realized that if I stay in an apartment that only costs like 1000€ rent per month to begin with, I'm actually EARNING 2000€ per month! Holy shit! Together with my job that's like 5000€ per month, and I don't need that. With just the 2000€ per month from the rent I can live comfortably (and rent is just 1000€ per month, so that's fine) and I don't have to work anymore! Fuck yeah!
However even if I would follow your idea of lowering work hours you would most probably still need some sort of support, unless you increase the wages so much that 6 hours are worth as much like 12. - There are already people in Germany getting benefits here, the so called Aufstocker as their wages are so low they require support for the government.
The Konrad-Adenauer-Stiftung had the idea of a so called Bürger-Geld, where you would receive about 600 Euros.
Malte Jahn, mathematician says an UBI could be in theory, financed. As a sort of "negative income tax". - If I remember correctly this is also Milton Friedmans idea but I would have to look that up.
According to Götz Werner in 2006, if we take the finances of the current social transfer (Germany) with a volume of 620 Billions and divide it by the population each citizen already receives on average 645 Euros.
In Germany at least we have already a relatively expensive well fare system so it wouldn't be like we had to throw some additional 800 Billions on top. And no I am not saying health care and a few other benefits should be simply abolished, this would mean you would have suddenly less than before if you had a very low income or received unemployment benefits. However the cost are much smaller than the one you named. And the additional funds required to realise it can be taken from increased taxes on the super wealthy, the financial transaction tax and large corporations that pay much less taxes than your average business already.
There are also many more models out there.
But how would you finance the decrease of work hours in our current economic mode anyway? One way or another either the state will have to step in and fill the gabs. Or business will have to start to increase the wages by a lot.
I'm explicitly talking about how to make the UBI work without the massive income disparity, not lower work hours as a seperate solution. Should have made that more clear.
The lowering of work hours for those still working has the effect that more people still work, with UBI to lower the impact on their income loss. This way the tax revenue can remain higher because more people are still providing a net contribution. This is necessary because, well, the UBI has to be paid somehow. Of course, with lower work hours the taxation for lower incomes has to be increased, or at least it has to be made sure that the total tax revenue is still high enough. To make clear what I mean:
10 people earn 10k per month for fulltime job, pay 50% taxes for that, so 50k tax revenue for ten people working full time. Consider a UBI of 1k, and twenty people working half time. Twenty people, earning 5k per month, still earning the same 100k before taxes. But would they all pay the 50% tax rate still? If so, they'd each earn 2.5k per month (3.5k after receiving the UBI), 50k in total (70k after UBI), and 50k tax revenue. That's great, but what if 5k per month puts them in a lower tax bracket? Let's say, 25%? So each pays 1.25k in taxes, leaving 20k in total tax revenue for those twenty working people, and each with 3.75k per month earnings. Plus a 1k UBI, so 4.75k for each in total.
Just to make it clear that the taxation has to be taken care of. Let's say you have a certain population that you need to take care of with the UBI, so with the 50k tax revenue from the ten full time or 20 half time workers at the same tax rate you could provide UBI for 50 people in total. If the 20 people pay less taxes, though, the tax revenue suddenly drops to 20k, so only 20 people can receive UBI from that.
So the tax rate has to make sure that the budget is fullfilled. And to get the tax revenue at whatever tax rate, people need to get paid accordingly, that's the whole point.
However it's done, the budget has to be taken care of. It can be done, especially in a country like Germany with an already very high tax rate and lots of social programs that coul dbe replaced.
But it has to be done carefully, without lying and pretending that half a trillion more than the entire budget is a totally reasonable cost.
This cannot work, it's untenable; even with funny-money. Wages are not arbitrary. Work is a commodity too, and one cannot just double its cost without doubling its value.
Also... There ARE jobs that are not intended to offer a living wage.... because no one is intended or expected to live on the income of those jobs. No one is supposed to be a life long professional cashier at McDonalds.
Sure it can work, but the prices for the product of the work will have to rise accordingly. That would increase the revenue from VAT, but also make the potential UBI more and more inadequate, as higher costs of living raise the poverty line. It easily slips into a cycle, so special care has to be taken.
This is why it can't work.
Prices don't rise, the money loses value.
Why not? And more specifically who actually tells you that it shouldn't be?
These are entry-level jobs.
*How do you get a job without work experience?...How do you get work experience without a job?
These are not jobs to buy a house and start a family on. These are jobs a student might have....for a time.
To MAKE them cost the employer a great deal more than they are worth to that employer is to irritate the employer enough to find a cheaper alternative, like automation.
Don't view a job as what it offers the worker, view the job by what it costs the employer, and by what they get out of it. They are the customer, in this case.
Few (if anyone) starts a business for the purpose of employment; employees are almost a necessary evil; they are definitely a headache. They are only there to get things done; and done at a reasonable expense. What business would burden themselves with a workforce, if they could get the work done without them?
Hey, for one we would actually be able to get good service instead of teens with a bored look in their eyes who are horrible at their job because "this is not what I plan to do with my life".
But ... why? It certainly wasn't like that I don't know 50 years ago. Why is it exactly an 'entry-level' job for you?
Of course working fast food restaurants was an entry-level job 50 years ago. Even more so than today. It's THE stereotypical teens-in-summer job.
It's a fallacy, it's the lowest level job, only instead of lowest level we call them "entry level" because that way you have the false hope you will one day write a novel, or direct a film, or be a actor and make millions, and at the same time still have people at "entry level" jobs serving you when you get there.
I don't believe this even for a second. It's neither realistic nor does it represent the reality. I believe this "It's a teenager job" is a myth anyway. You do not even have nearly enough teenagers to fill up all the roles at restaurants, warehouses, stores etc. You name it. Who's supposed to do the job in the morning or late at night if it's supposed to be a "teenagers" job anyway? That doesn't make sense. Not to mention that it also means, simply because "teenager" is doing it they are not worth the payment? I worked as a teenager in construction once. Shoveling dirt around the whole day till I got blisters. I also worked at assamble lines. In kitches. And many other so called "low-skilled" jobs. Is that all just for "teenagers" too and thus the wages should be so low that you can not afford a normal live from 8-9 hours of work?
And I am not only talking about the company, like Mc Donalds. I am talking about the job in general, the activity. A lot of people worked as cashiers till their pension. Seriously. Why does it matter if it's at Wall Mart, Mc Donalds or Costco?
So again, why is it an so called "entry-level job"? And how can anyone say this amidst a fucking pandemic where only the "essential" workers are out there of which god knows how many are cashiers and low skilled jobs ...
Wikipedia damn ... looks like I am defeated. But why do YOU see cashiers at Mc Donalds as an Entry-level-job. They also do not give an explanation for it. They just describe what the term entry-level job is supposed to mean, I quote : "is a job that is normally designed or designated for recent graduates of a given discipline and typically does not require prior experience in the field or profession."
But why exactly are they entry entry-level-jobs not worth to be payed decent wages? Nothing in that Wikipedia article, as short as it is, tells us about that even if we would accept them to be "entry-level" jobs.