Basic income

1. if everyone just wanted a subsistence/hair-above poverty line income and the desire to work cuts off at that level more people would, like, only work enough to achieve that income. the vast majority of people want considerably more money than that. people want swimming pools in their backyards, they want to travel, they want to spend money on their stupid kids' hobbies. they also just want to be middle class because it gives them a sense of validation. since the middle-middle and upper-middle class would be net-paying into the UBI, they would have to work even more to achieve the same status.

this is all based on the idea that people have infinite consumption wants / that there aren't alternate ways for people to achieve status. it's a pretty narrow view of history.

doesn't have to be infinite, just has to be > subsistence

anyway basic income is a good aspiration, and has to remain so due to reality

clarity and intuitive appeal is exactly why basic income is much better as a teleology than whatever expanded scheme of tax credits etc

flopson earlier was arguing how basic income would be implemented in america in 2016, which is not really any less pointless than arguing about whichever third way subsidy program that also will not happen in foreseeable future would be better

the US does have an earned income tax credit! it helps a little

lagoon- you think you can come closer to the truth about best way to raise income of poor people by, what, ignoring research on it and just saying 'unions lol'?

― flopson, Friday, January 29, 2016 4:07 PM (11 seconds ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

acknowledging that whats happening is a political/ideological struggle wld be much more enlightening that yr prosumer totemic relationship to research is

or you cld continue read the economist like its a text book, a tragic customer of sophistry

flopson, I'd appreciate yr takes on subsidy programs/grants and how those are diminishing (but still exist) in Canada, especially compared to the US

i hung out w/a couple canadians in montreal who were taking advantage of the french learning program. from my understanding, quebec will basically subsidize your living in quebec for a short period as long as you attend the french language program in the hopes of retaining your residence. pretty good deal, imo

― μpright mammal (mh), Friday, January 29, 2016 4:04 PM (4 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

don't know much about it. a few friends have done the get payed to go to french class thing and some artists i know make use of the grants. the music grants tend to go to people who make really bad music with notable exceptions

actually, that's an interesting post, flopson. ignore lagoon and his twitter hot takes

lol saying "twitter hot takes" while throwing "idiot" around

cant u guys make a pretend economist thread or something

figure i'd speak the language of yr trbe

dont try to act too smart

i'm just always kind of amazed by this outpouring of united states economic talk and am thinking you are a really studied dude and then i hang in mtl and think about how it's such an outlier when it comes to cities of that critical mass that are affordable and think maybe you have figured out how to game the system somehow

teach me yr flopways

the united states is economics

we're so much more, we have some nice bars

for all the talk of craft beer, you really can drink a lot cheaply

acknowledging that whats happening is a political/ideological struggle wld be much more enlightening that yr prosumer totemic relationship to research is

or you cld continue read the economist like its a text book, a tragic customer of sophistry

― lag∞n, Friday, January 29, 2016 4:11 PM (1 minute ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

https://yuq.me/achievements/01/116/SqoYFcH0hf.jpg

i've long know ilx overall was but i genuinely never suspected you were this corny. as someone who admires you a lot it's kind of eye-opening tbh

my serious answer to this patronizing admonition (tragic consumer of sophistry lmao) is that there are political/ideological and non-political/ideological parts to poverty/income inequality/teh struggle. i think partisan leftists tend to ignore the non-political ideological parts and yeah for sure a lot of economists and technocrats ignore the political/ideological parts. i try to be open minded and read both critically because i care and am very interested by this stuff and always have been

Most economists and technocrats are heavily invested in and committed to the neoliberal hegemony, that's how they got to be technocrats.

hence my skepticism of the ycombinator ppl even muttering the words "basic income," they are very idealistic in that they think they can address any problem from the bay area/cloud, but they tend to see only the things that exist in their sphere as problems

there's always an angle

When is Bnad going to come back and talk about West Berlin?

flopson you do not at all seem to be placing the ecnommics you are citing within any ideological context, and in fact seem completely unaware that yr views align perfectly with certain ideology, if you werent all i am the first person to ever look at a chart about it it wld be easier to take

i meanyou realize that theres tons of research that indicates that the decline in unions are a huge part of the decline of the middle class right, its just not the stuff you like

tim o'reilly's response and editing of that paul graham essay isn't perfect but it gets at the core of the way tech figureheads word things -- any time problems with economics or labor are brought up when it comes to income inequality they instantly think it's either an indictment of their wealth or a call to action for them to personally weigh in on the problem

it's like the classic relationship stereotype where one partner comes home from work and lays out the issues of the day and their significant other, instead of being a sympathetic ear, thinks they need to break down the problems through conversation and address them all personally. maybe it's time for them to be supportive

Most economists and technocrats are heavily invested in and committed to the neoliberal hegemony, that's how they got to be technocrats.

― petulant dick master (silby), Friday, January 29, 2016 4:21 PM (5 minutes ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

many are for sure and large parts of it still have that culture. but krugman and stiglitz are prob the most prominent public-facing economist, so that's good i guess. and imo the neoliberal consensus within the profession is cracking. there's also been a huge tendency towards empirical and away from theoretical work within the profession, which has allowed a lot of smart leftists to rise to the top of the profession (people like Suresh Naidu or Arin Dube, whose minimum wage research is a huge push behind the current wage of increases)

do public-facing economists have much actual sway on the market

imo the most influential economist in the US is https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chair_of_the_Federal_Reserve

i appreciate flopson in this thread (which may be more damning than lag∞n's condemnation). tbh i don't even really get a sense of lag∞n's objection to this discourse except "lol economist" (?) and "unions" (ok)

I mean, I like pointing to Krugman articles and acting like he's being listened to by heads of industry but uhhh remember Alan Greenspan?

isn't the entire idea behind basic income that you get to keep capitalism/neoliberalism and just have a comprehensive and robust safety net?

i appreciate flopson in this thread (which may be more damning than lag∞n's condemnation). tbh i don't even really get a sense of lag∞n's objection to this discourse except "lol economist" (?) and "unions" (ok)

― Mordy, Friday, January 29, 2016 4:36 PM (6 seconds ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

yes the ultimate lol chart v lol unions battle of 2016 great contribution mordy

you're lashing out but i'm not your enemy lag∞n. look within.

the Fed chairperson is probably the 3rd most powerful person in DC, so yeah

omg what is with this thread and lo qual passive aggression u guys r so bad at it

btw my earlier point about their being an upper-bound for promotions in union-led workforces (with management being non-union) applies in the corporate world, too. since i've been a wage slave post-college, the number of people in management who started at the entry level (most of whom are still college-educated in my industry) who worked their way into upper management has shrunk, to be replaced by people who started in business management and worked upward

isn't the entire idea behind basic income that you get to keep capitalism/neoliberalism and just have a comprehensive and robust safety net?

I mean that's a possible idea but not a very ambitious one. The authors of Inventing the Future, a provocative book I just read/am in love with, advocate the basic income as a platform for a counterhegemonic left to pursue politically. Like the neoliberal consensus and austerity politics are premised on the artificial maintenance of scarcity. Basic income is a post-scarcity policy.

the government could create the money to give to people as a basic income for free but chooses not to because of the ideological dominance of neoliberal austerity.

I don't disagree but even then it's an outgrowth of capitalism. It doesn't entail nationalizing any industries and there's a clear precedence for it already in welfare. wasn't this marx' theory of history? technology cures scarcity, it becomes more profitable for capitalism to feed ppl for free than to charge them and it ushers in the end of history?

yeah while the initial pitch wld be keep everything the same just give everyone money one has to think that it wld end up being a pretty socially transformative thing

things dont have to be socailism to be radical

i think it's valuable for this reason tho - zizek claimed "it is easier to imagine the end of the world than it is to imagine the end of capitalism" so this allows for radical change w/out forcing ppl to imagine the impossible

nb i agree 100% that it's a radical and fantastic idea and i'm in favor 👍

It's probably a mistake to imagine that the end of history has happened or is imminent. People have been wrong about that repeatedly.

history is... constantly ending... think abt it

just a continuous, unending now... history's ended.. war to win all wars

the technocratic paper of record examines the silicon valley-basic income connection http://www.vox.com/2016/1/28/10860830/y-combinator-basic-income

other hypothesis: ppl figure out how to get paid under the table more easily, cash transactions flourish

i love cash tbh feels good to hold

cold, hard, stinky cash

its good

dean baker:

First, the robots taking all the jobs story is almost absurd on its face. How fast do we think productivity will grow that demand and reduced hours cannot keep pace? Productivity grew at a 3.0 percent annual rate from 1947 to 1973. We saw rapid growth in pay and living standards and very low rates of unemployment. Do we think the story would have looked worse if annual productivity growth was 4.0 percent?

It is almost impossible to imagine a story where productivity growth suddenly jumps from its current rate of less than 1.0 percent annually to a pace so rapid that we are losing jobs left and right due to improvements in technology. It is possible to tell a story where the Fed raises interest rates to slow the economy and job creation even as technology is displacing more and more workers.

That is a plausible story given that we have had several members of the Fed’s Open Market Committee that sets interest rates who have been worried about hyper-inflation. But the problem in that case is crazy-bad Fed policy, not robots taking jobs. And, we do the country a horrible disservice if we imply that the problem is somehow technology rather than the people running the Fed.

http://cepr.net/blogs/beat-the-press/cheap-thoughts-on-productivity-growth

Still have no idea the difference btwn this and yknow adequate unemployment benefits