The Trump Presidency

[icarusfall]

UBI leans heavily on automation as means to support. The problem is that as automation increased, wages stagnated. By all accounts we should be living a much fuller quality of life, but greed is a hell of a thing.

[kedawa]

UBI will never happen. There's no incentive for the owners of the robots doing all the work to give their money away. All it will do is drive industry away to countries that don't redistribute wealth as severely.

[Doc Holliday]

Like China?

[Doc Holliday]

Oh yes, UBI, the idea that if we just trust the government to provide our means of sustenance all will work out fine.

Sure, but the worst impact would come from an escalated rise of depression.

[Frogacuda]

Companies cannot donate to politicians. What they can do is give money to an organize that will advocate for whatever including a politician.

That's where te disclosure breakdown is.

It's worse than that. They can offer them jobs when they leave congress. Fake jobs with real salaries.

[Frogacuda]

UBI will never happen. There's no incentive for the owners of the robots doing all the work to give their money away. All it will do is drive industry away to countries that don't redistribute wealth as severely.

UBI will come after we have a global government, not before.

[A Robot Bit Me]

Sure, but the worst impact would come from

an escalated rise of depression.

What evidence is there that receiving the bare minimum required to live will lead to a sedentary lifestyle any more than working full time for a six-figure salary at an office gig will? This is the right-wing leap I just don't understand. If they have the capacity and the opportunity, people will work for reasons other than keeping a full stomach. Anyone reading this could leave their current gig and get a job that demands fewer hours and pays just enough to survive, but you're not doing that because you want the device on which you're reading this, the accompanying service, and to do things. Maybe you even work at whatever it is you work at because you like it!

[Frogacuda]

I also said in this thread that I support giving poor people money directly. Like a bigger better version of EITC. How is that bootstraps?

I just don't like the market distortions that come from minimum wage increases. I think there are better ways to help the people it tries to help.

Like giving people money or benefits directly doesn't distort the market? Those things are essentially welfare for those employers that want to pay less than a living wage, and it widens the gap between the very poor and the very rich, making life worse for those in the middle making, say, double minimum wage.

What evidence is there that receiving the bare minimum required to live will lead to a sedentary lifestyle any more than working full time for a six-figure salary at an office gig will?

I don't think anyone really believes it will lead people to just shamble around without purpose, like sitting at a desk for 40 hours a week is fulfilling for the average person. But it does raise the question of how people will compete with each other to decide who gets the most stuff/hottest girl/whatever. Humans are a competitive animal and that won't go away if we all make the same income.

[Diff-chan]

Like giving people money or benefits directly doesn't distort the market? Those things are essentially welfare for those employers that want to pay less than a living wage, and it widens the gap between the very poor and the very rich, making life worse for those in the middle making, say, double minimum wage.

Except employers are under no obligation to hire poor people. They can also fire that poor person and replace them with a kiosk or even just not hire a couple and that widens the gap too. The employer has a lot more power than you seem to think they do.

You're not going to make employers altruistic. They don't owe any of their employees a "living wage." They owe them a day's pay for a day's work and that is all. If a job ain't worth $15 then the employer isn't going to pay them $15 an hour.

If the job is worth $10 and the employee gets paid that they will get hired. And if the government gives some cash to the employee for a job well done that produces less distortions.

[A Robot Bit Me]

That cash comes from the income of other laborers, though. How is forcing other wage-earners to subsidize low-wage workers any more of a "distortion" than forcing companies to do the same?