Reminder: Universal basic income is economically sound and morally correct

Why not a universal wealthy income? $100K+ for everyone.

Universal income to me is so funny. The logic behind it is so naive I almost feel bad for economists, like this is the people they have to reach somehow.

Can you imagine a society where we straight up killed all incentive to work? What an absolute blast it would be to watch society implode the 3rd or 4th time the power goes out.

Maybe so but it will become necessary in the future when 99% of jobs are automated.

If you believe in it, then go give your money to others. Convince others in society to do the same, and maybe a real difference will be made. But why are you involving the government, and forcing everyone to participate in your scheme?

hard work, etc.

difference of a distinction wrote:

If you believe in it, then go give your money to others. Convince others in society to do the same, and maybe a real difference will be made. But why are you involving the government, and forcing everyone to participate in your scheme?

Since we're on the topic wrote:

Universal income to me is so funny. The logic behind it is so naive I almost feel bad for economists, like this is the people they have to reach somehow.

Can you imagine a society where we straight up killed all incentive to work? What an absolute blast it would be to watch society implode the 3rd or 4th time the power goes out.

You think providing SS level or even better income would kill labor incentive?

I'm no economist but it is apparent that the number of workers required is dropping. At some point in the future we will have to address this issue especially if our population is growing.

I don't know about you, but if I were given 30k or whatever, I'd still have the same desire to work as I do today. If some did not, fine, they probably aren't needed.

It's the only way to solve the uneven distribution of wealth that is ruining the economy. That and negative interest rates.

Ok you go ahead and give those people more of your money. Please don't try to use the government to force me to. Thanks.

Let it Rupp wrote:

It's the only way to solve the uneven distribution of wealth that is ruining the economy. That and negative interest rates.

Which do you think injures the economy more?

1. the uneven distribution of wealth; or

2. lack of growth.

Very sad! wrote:

Sorry wage cucks

This is just a glorified version of the dole, in a couple of countries that I analyzed (anglo-saxon) I noticed every time they have introduced a new welfare benefit, productivity would would drop and up went inflation then interest rates. Many nations used to be capable of doing 4-5% growth now it's 1-2% tops. The new one to come out of Europe is paid parental income. The leftist argument was that we need to incentivize women to have more children, but birth rates have continued to decline.

Since we're on the topic wrote:

Universal income to me is so funny.

The logic behind it is so naive I almost feel bad for economists, like this is the people they have to reach somehow.

Can you imagine a society where we straight up killed all incentive to work? What an absolute blast it would be to watch society implode the 3rd or 4th time the power goes out.

Moran

Econobot wrote:

I'm no economist but it is apparent that the number of workers required is dropping.

If you can acknowledge that you are not an economist, don't you think you should not be the judge of what is apparent or not in the economy??? The number of workers required is not dropping. At least, there are enough jobs available to employ everyone who wants a job. Stick to running and leave the economics discussions to others.

Since we're on the topic wrote:

Can you imagine a society where we straight up killed all incentive to work?

Yes. What are you some kind of idiot? What do you think we built all the machines for?

I think what you really mean is, POOR people should want to work, and RICH people should want to relax and sip lemonade, because they are better. You're a pig.

osks wrote:

Econobot wrote:

I'm no economist but it is apparent that the number of workers required is dropping.

If you can acknowledge that you are not an economist, don't you think you should not be the judge of what is apparent or not in the economy??? The number of workers required is not dropping. At least, there are enough jobs available to employ everyone who wants a job. Stick to running and leave the economics discussions to others.

But are there enough jobs to pay for all the people who don't want a job?

osks wrote:

If you can acknowledge that you are not an economist, don't you think you should not be the judge of what is apparent or not in the economy??? The number of workers required is not dropping. At least, there are enough jobs available to employ everyone who wants a job. Stick to running and leave the economics discussions to others.

Actually, there WAS only one guy who was working and he just fired up all the bots in the morning. But one day he got sick and people almost figured that nobody else was working, so he replaced himself with a daemon that loads everything else on startup.

So now nobody is working.

The real Q wrote:

osks wrote:

If you can acknowledge that you are not an economist, don't you think you should not be the judge of what is apparent or not in the economy??? The number of workers required is not dropping. At least, there are enough jobs available to employ everyone who wants a job. Stick to running and leave the economics discussions to others.

But are there enough jobs to pay for all the people who don't want a job?

Jobs don't pay for that, resources do Or should.

They should assign every graduating class a 2.0. It isn't right that 4.0 students should have better grades. We could just average out the 0.0-4.0 scale.

moralriffic wrote:

They should assign every graduating class a 2.0. It isn't right that 4.0 students should have better grades. We could just average out the 0.0-4.0 scale.

Or we could just give everyone a base 3.5 - that seems fair, every year. And then, if some folks wanted to work harder they could... but wait we would need to freeze all of the college admissions standards because it wouldn't be fair for them to raise anything... like prices do.

Or we could leave it alone and let A be A.