Minimum income - good thing or bad?

[Taskmaster]

Originally Posted by MGM135is

I think the way you make universal basic income work in the US is by merging the unemployment and social security systems. You eliminate income taxes on that money, and go to a flat tax on anything above that amount which is whatever you earn. Then like Bill Gates said, any technologies or cost advantages that displace workers in the USA, you tax companies for that if they have a presence here. So not only automation tax but also a "I'm moving my workers to a 3rd world country" tax since Americans won't be working under that scenario either.

However as someone said above this is a slippery slope because what if you find process improvements that allow you to reduce a workforce by 10%? You're still displacing workers even though it isn't through automation.

It going to happen, we might as well start hashing it out now.

[Taskmaster]

I hate these conversations - economics is a joke.

https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...ubris-disaster

https://www.theodysseyonline.com/the...does-not-exist

[Biorin]

Originally Posted by TheAxiom

I hate these conversations - economics is a joke.

https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...ubris-disaster

https://www.theodysseyonline.com/the...does-not-exist

I know you're not a Hayek fan, but one of my favorite quotes from him is something to the effect of "the curious task of economics is to show us how little we really know about what we imagine we can design." That's why I'm a fan of Austrian economics - it takes the fact that human behavior does not always follow rational and logical patterns into account. Of course, the solution to this, for them, is to minimize government creation of programs that are designed based on certain assumptions of behaviors and economics.

[MightyMouseTech]

Originally Posted by xQx

tl;dr I'm all for Universal Basic Income.
* Don't stress if you're American, your country is so right wing you'll be the last people on earth to get UBI.
* It's not some commie left-wing bullshit, it's the flattening of complex social security schemes into a single payment.
* UBI is about encouraging people to work by removing barriers that keep them on social security.
* UBI is about removing the stigma of 'dole bludgers' in a world where automation gives them little opportunity to find full-time paid work.
* UBI is about replacing the 18th centuary tax system with a 21st centuary tax system. (Abolish minimum wage, abolish forced full-time conditions, abolish tax brackets)
* The real question is how much do we pay, and how quickly do we pay it back? Is it $5,000 or $15,000 and 30% maximum tax rate at $100,000pa or 65% at $50,000pa?
* In some countries, it costs not much more than the existing social services system because of efficiency gains. And the idea is it pays for its self by getting more people into part-time work.


I am 100% all for the Universal Basic Income (UBI). I'm an Australian (where we have an extensive existing social support network), A full-time employee and the owner of an online business with part-time employees. I'm not an expert on the issue, but as a tech company owner, high-income earner and huge contributor to a social support system - I think I'm in a pretty good place to talk about the pros and cons of UBI. Also, I'm no left-wing socialist, I'm dead against industry protection and unionisation. I'd like to share why I'm behind the UBI.
.

You and I are on the same page. If done right, I think it could lead to much greater efficiency in gov't. How many people are paid right now to monitor and dispense cheques for unemployment and welfare? Every person is a separate case that involves many man hours to manage. It would also reduce the amount some people get, and so they would be more inclined to go and get a part time job to make up for the shortfall, without being penalised. Many people currently on unemployment and welfare will not accept a part time job with the current system because it would end their benefits.

Interesting about the minimum wage change, had not thought about that before.

[Taskmaster]

Originally Posted by Biorin

I know you're not a Hayek fan, but one of my favorite quotes from him is something to the effect of "the curious task of economics is to show us how little we really know about what we imagine we can design." That's why I'm a fan of Austrian economics - it takes the fact that human behavior does not always follow rational and logical patterns into account. Of course, the solution to this, for them, is to minimize government creation of programs that are designed based on certain assumptions of behaviors and economics.

I have little respect for economics because it isn't a true science and Hayek doesn't really take human nature in account. It assumes that there is a rational reason behind all decisions, information symmetry and that somehow the mysterious force called the market will make a benevolent decision that will piss prosperity on everyone.

So their answer is "leave things to their own devices and it will figure itself out" just really ignores the reality of the struggles people face daily. Can't agree.

[Biorin]

Originally Posted by TheAxiom

I have little respect for economics because it isn't a true science and Hayek doesn't really take human nature in account. It assumes that there is a rational reason behind all decisions, information symmetry and that somehow the mysterious force called the market will make a benevolent decision that will piss prosperity on everyone.

So their answer is "leave things to their own devices and it will figure itself out" just really ignores the reality of the struggles people face daily. Can't agree.

He absolutely did consider it, and said that studying the market was studying the relationship between a number of people.

It's not a mysterious benevolent force. People tend to act in their own interests. I believe that if you take that into account and act accordingly, rather than creating programs because everyone loves each other and wants to help and there are puppies and unicorns running through the fields, you will achieve optimal results.

[Mr Tonka]

Originally Posted by MightyMouseTech

You and I are on the same page. If done right, I think it could lead to much greater efficiency in gov't. How many people are paid right now to monitor and dispense cheques for unemployment and welfare? Every person is a separate case that involves many man hours to manage. It would also reduce the amount some people get, and so they would be more inclined to go and get a part time job to make up for the shortfall, without being penalised. Many people currently on unemployment and welfare will not accept a part time job with the current system because it would end their benefits.

Interesting about the minimum wage change, had not thought about that before.

Greater efficiency in government.... What does this lead to? Does it mean that government employees get more free time, more vacation? Or does it lead to pay cuts for government employees? Or lay offs of government employees?

If there are no checks for unemployment and welfare to dispense and all those man hours for separate cases are eliminated, how many people, government employees, are going to be unnecessary?

And if by decreasing government size, cost and employees leads to more non government employees working full time jobs, what are the government employees going to do for income?

[other_evolved]

Originally Posted by TheAxiom

I have little respect for economics because it isn't a true science and Hayek doesn't really take human nature in account. It assumes that there is a rational reason behind all decisions, information symmetry and that somehow the mysterious force called the market will make a benevolent decision that will piss prosperity on everyone.

So their answer is "leave things to their own devices and it will figure itself out" just really ignores the reality of the struggles people face daily. Can't agree.

Behavioral economics, behavioral finance, financial anthropologists, etc. all attempt to wrap the soft science around the hard science aspect of economics. It is by no means perfect, but thats why it is called the dismal science. I think you are taking an all encompassing opinion and applying it to the entirety of the discipline.

[Joekerr]

Originally Posted by Biorin

I know you're not a Hayek fan, but one of my favorite quotes from him is something to the effect of "the curious task of economics is to show us how little we really know about what we imagine we can design." That's why I'm a fan of Austrian economics - it takes the fact that human behavior does not always follow rational and logical patterns into account. Of course, the solution to this, for them, is to minimize government creation of programs that are designed based on certain assumptions of behaviors and economics.

Originally Posted by TheAxiom

I have little respect for economics because it isn't a true science and Hayek doesn't really take human nature in account. It assumes that there is a rational reason behind all decisions, information symmetry and that somehow the mysterious force called the market will make a benevolent decision that will piss prosperity on everyone.

So their answer is "leave things to their own devices and it will figure itself out" just really ignores the reality of the struggles people face daily. Can't agree.

I think too often our current governments have adopted a partial Keynesian approach to economics. In that they fully grab hold of part of his theory - that being to encourage the government to spend to spur growth, but completely ignore the other (and equally critically important) part which is to act counter-cyclically to the market and save when it is good, to cool the growth. Such that the objective is overall not to run an accumulated deficit. But no one does that, and everyone seems to have become so dependant on government programs that I feel this tool is not much of a lever to press anymore.

I suppose in some respect I like Keynes' approach and theory, though not all of it. I do think there are moral factors such as laziness which contribute to unemployment.

Generally speaking, I support more of a private sector influence in the market and a reduced government influence (while acknowledging that government is still needed - I simply want it smaller). But which government would actually voluntarily reduce itself? Partially why I think I should run for politics, but realistically, I have little interest and see little personal reward.

[MightyMouseTech]

Originally Posted by Mr Tonka

Greater efficiency in government.... What does this lead to? Does it mean that government employees get more free time, more vacation? Or does it lead to pay cuts for government employees? Or lay offs of government employees?

If there are no checks for unemployment and welfare to dispense and all those man hours for separate cases are eliminated, how many people, government employees, are going to be unnecessary?

And if by decreasing government size, cost and employees leads to more non government employees working full time jobs, what are the government employees going to do for income?

The only way to have greater efficiency in the gov't is to fire people.

[Taskmaster]

Originally Posted by other_evolved

Behavioral economics, behavioral finance, financial anthropologists, etc. all attempt to wrap the soft science around the hard science aspect of economics. It is by no means perfect, but thats why it is called the dismal science. I think you are taking an all encompassing opinion and applying it to the entirety of the discipline.

Economics is sociology with a focus on how people spend money. It's not a true science, and I actually get triggered with we operate under the assumption it actually is one.

In fact, the whole reason it exist is to push a Hayek type model as the de facto truth of how society does/should function.

[other_evolved]

Originally Posted by TheAxiom

Economics is sociology with a focus on how people spend money. It's not a true science, and I actually get triggered with we operate under the assumption it actually is one.

In fact, the whole reason it exist is to push a Hayek type model as the de facto truth of how society does/should function.

Good, good.

Edit: What you're describing is called Economic Sociology, and is something that is a part of the world of economics.

[Biorin]

Originally Posted by Joekerr

I think too often our current governments have adopted a partial Keynesian approach to economics. In that they fully grab hold of part of his theory - that being to encourage the government to spend to spur growth, but completely ignore the other (and equally critically important) part which is to act counter-cyclically to the market and save when it is good, to cool the growth. Such that the objective is overall not to run an accumulated deficit. But no one does that, and everyone seems to have become so dependant on government programs that I feel this tool is not much of a lever to press anymore.

I suppose in some respect I like Keynes' approach and theory, though not all of it. I do think there are moral factors such as laziness which contribute to unemployment.

Generally speaking, I support more of a private sector influence in the market and a reduced government influence (while acknowledging that government is still needed - I simply want it smaller). But which government would actually voluntarily reduce itself? Partially why I think I should run for politics, but realistically, I have little interest and see little personal reward.

The people who typically should be in power are rarely the ones that want it. It never fails to amaze me when government is seen as a universal force for good that will act righteously to benefit people, when the same people making these arguments will turn around and acknowledge how corrupt and self-serving so many of these politicians are. Not even just politicians - show me ONE DMV employee that has genuinely wanted to help me. One!!!!

[Biorin]

Originally Posted by TheAxiom

Economics is sociology with a focus on how people spend money. It's not a true science, and I actually get triggered with we operate under the assumption it actually is one.

In fact, the whole reason it exist is to push a Hayek type model as the de facto truth of how society does/should function.

I would say that most government economists are Keynesian. This is nowhere near a Hayek model - saying that it exists solely to push one type of agenda is a bit of an overreach. It is the attempt of many to understand and explain a behavior. Some choose to implement policy based on the understanding that they have developed.

[Taskmaster]

Originally Posted by Biorin

He absolutely did consider it, and said that studying the market was studying the relationship between a number of people.

The 'market' isn't something you can study, what he was doing is called sociology, focusing on the action of people in groups, except this instance it's how the operate with currency. [/QUOTE]

Originally Posted by Biorin

It's not a mysterious benevolent force. People tend to act in their own interests.

Not always, not even the majority of the time. We can't even agree on this, how can you believe a whole fiction...err sorry, theory based off this assumption.

Originally Posted by Biorin

I believe that if you take that into account and act accordingly,

You can't take it into account - you can't predict ever possible action of every person, if we could, we wouldn't have 90% of the issues that we do. This is inherently flawed thinking.

Originally Posted by Biorin

rather than creating programs because everyone loves each other and wants to help and there are puppies and unicorns running through the fields, you will achieve optimal results.

Ahh, leave them to their own devices. Yes, that requires critical thought and research. And to be clear, this isn't a dig at you, but just pointing out how silly of a comment that is.

[Taskmaster]

Originally Posted by other_evolved

Behavioral economics, sociology* behavioral finance, financial anthropologists, etc. all attempt to wrap the soft science around the hard science aspect of economics. It is by no means perfect, but thats why it is called the dismal science. I think you are taking an all encompassing opinion and applying it to the entirety of the discipline.

It's not a science. I refuse to acknowledge it as one, and laugh when people try to justify it's existence beyond a subset of sociology. Does it have it's place? Sure, but it's not a science in the modern sense of the word.

[Biorin]

Originally Posted by TheAxiom

The 'market' isn't something you can study, what he was doing is called sociology, focusing on the action of people in groups, except this instance it's how the operate with currency.

I didn't say what he was or wasn't studying. You said he did not take behavior into account. He did.

Originally Posted by TheAxiom

Not always, not even the majority of the time. We can't even agree on this, how can you believe a whole fiction...err sorry, theory based off this assumption.

Sure, we can agree to disagree whether people tend to act in their own benefits.

Originally Posted by TheAxiom

You can't take it into account - you can't predict ever possible action of every person, if we could, we wouldn't have 90% of the issues that we do. This is inherently flawed thinking.

This is exactly what I'm saying. You cannot predict the behaviors of people, so we should not attempt to design programs that do so. However, self-interest is (in my opinion, as you disagree) a common motivator among all living beings in nature. How we choose to achieve that differs, and is what you cannot hope to predict.

Originally Posted by TheAxiom

Ahh, leave them to their own devices. Yes, that requires critical thought and research. And to be clear, this isn't a dig at you, but just pointing out how silly of a comment that is.

Why does letting someone do what they want to do require critical thought and research? Observing and understanding the results might.

I'm not trying to start a debate here (and really not interested in having one). Just sharing my thoughts.

[Taskmaster]

Originally Posted by Joekerr

I think too often our current governments have adopted a partial Keynesian approach to economics. In that they fully grab hold of part of his theory - that being to encourage the government to spend to spur growth, but completely ignore the other (and equally critically important) part which is to act counter-cyclically to the market and save when it is good, to cool the growth. Such that the objective is overall not to run an accumulated deficit. But no one does that, and everyone seems to have become so dependant on government programs that I feel this tool is not much of a lever to press anymore.

I suppose in some respect I like Keynes' approach and theory, though not all of it. I do think there are moral factors such as laziness which contribute to unemployment.

Generally speaking, I support more of a private sector influence in the market and a reduced government influence (while acknowledging that government is still needed - I simply want it smaller). But which government would actually voluntarily reduce itself? Partially why I think I should run for politics, but realistically, I have little interest and see little personal reward.

What entity would voluntarily would reduce itself?

Originally Posted by Biorin

I would say that most government economists are Keynesian. This is nowhere near a Hayek model - saying that it exists solely to push one type of agenda is a bit of an overreach. It is the attempt of many to understand and explain a behavior. Some choose to implement policy based on the understanding that they have developed.

No it's not, it's literally an agenda driven research, driven by the thought that people are not only selfish, but operate rationally selfish manor. And it's why they Hayek model isn't one that is beneficial to most people.

[Mr Tonka]

Originally Posted by MightyMouseTech

The only way to have greater efficiency in the gov't is to fire people.

I agree. So in theory, we would essentially trade the current lot of welfare recipients for another, right?

I mean lets face the reality that over the last few generations, a welfare culture has been born. We all agree that no one wants to live on welfare but some people have adapted to it because their parents grew up in it, they were raised in it and they are raising their kids in it. I highly doubt the people participating in this welfare culture will all of a sudden be motivated to get a job.

Whether you agree with the above or not, i think you'll agree that not everyone currently on welfare will jump back into full time employment and i know you agree that a number of people will lose their government job. (which in the US, for many, is a form of welfare in itself) These people won't have tremendously useful skills in which to barter with. They won't have high motivation or drive to excel. I mean, they've been working for the government for the last several years..... What happens to them?

[Biorin]

Originally Posted by TheAxiom

What entity would voluntarily would reduce itself?


No it's not, it's literally an agenda driven research, driven by the thought that people are not only selfish, but operate rationally selfish manor. And it's why they Hayek model isn't one that is beneficial to most people.

Economics is not entirely driven by this - this is why there are different schools of thoughts on the subject. People operate how they operate - Hayek's ideas aren't saying that we should force people to be selfish in order for things to succeed. They ask how we can gain the most benefit from something that is inevitable.

Again, I realize you disagree with that. However, if it is what you believe, you act accordingly.

[Taskmaster]

Originally Posted by Biorin

I didn't say what he was or wasn't studying. You said he did not take behavior into account. He did.

Not really. He made a broad assumption about how the majority people would react, and he was wrong.

Originally Posted by Biorin

Sure, we can agree to disagree whether people tend to act in their own benefits.

OK

Originally Posted by Biorin

This is exactly what I'm saying. You cannot predict the behaviors of people, so we should not attempt to design programs that do so. However, self-interest is (in my opinion, as you disagree) a common motivator among all living beings in nature. How we choose to achieve that differs, and is what you cannot hope to predict.

We don't design programs to predict the behaviors, we have programs as a result of their behavior - they are reactive, not proactive.

Originally Posted by Biorin

Why does letting someone do what they want to do require critical thought and research? Observing and understanding the results might.

Why did they come to that conclusion, how did they make that choice? What shaped their decision Those are all questions that Psychology, and Sociology ask and attempt to decipher. You can't understand the results if you can't understand the variables involved.

Originally Posted by Biorin

I'm not trying to start a debate here (and really not interested in having one). Just sharing my thoughts.

That's fine, I'm indifferent either way.

[Joekerr]

Originally Posted by TheAxiom

What entity would voluntarily would reduce itself?


[/B]

Which was the same question I asked, though I suspect you are expanding the scope to include private sector?

If so, I do agree - generally there are no incentives for any entity to voluntarily reduce itself. IMO, where government and private sector differ however is that the private sector is driven by profit and failure to do so will directly correlate to a reduction in their size, perhaps to non-existence. Therefore, they are required to be in tune with what the market wants.

The government does not operate under similar restrictions. Therefore, I would like to see it curtailed and reduced. A smaller government is a better government in my view. I'm not anti-government though - I do believe they have a part to play. I just don't agree with all the extra parts they've grabbed recently and seem to feel is theirs to play.