Basic income

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

About 10k/annum to you and me.

Looking at the green party's policy document and it's more like 5k. Great, the magical unicorn that no-one has promised me is already failing to live up to expectations.
https://policy.greenparty.org.uk/assets/files/Policy%20files/Basic%20Income%20Consultation%20Paper.pdf

shd be owgg

lol shd be pegged to just above the poverty line imo eliminate poverty altogether

otm

you have to jump through all kinds of hoops to get unemployment benefits and the state workers reviewing crap are way overworked. likely to get some notice a year after you stopped collecting benefits related to some arcane piece of paper they think you didn't mail in triplicate

just gimmie the cash! damn

if we make it too easy for people to survive, will there still be any exceptionalism in america? will excellence itself become extinct, like hereditary aristocracy?

do we have that much exceptionalism now? how many people are working a job they're exceptional at rather than the first one they were offered when they needed to pay rent?

doesnt matter america has fulfilled its destiny of inventing the internet now its time to kick back in ones government issue yurt and game

I imagine that a universal basic income for adults would fuel a boom in additional housing units, as more young adults can afford to live on their own. Also could spark increased migration to small towns, where cost of living is cheap, but well-paid jobs are few.

yeah my yurt is definitely gonna be in the middle of nowhere in northern new england or the upper midwest i've got this planned out already

feel like u might want to think about somewhere a lil more temperate

i mean i know mongolians live in them in extreme cold but those are hardy folk

no its ok climate change will make those places good by the time this all enacts

ya good point

i heard of this again recently, paraphrasing: proposing a basic income non taxable: people would be free to go out there and add to their basic situation to improve their situation if they swing that way. groovy!

wait this is not a drunk chat? ok.

I imagine that a universal basic income for adults would fuel a boom in additional housing units, as more young adults can afford to live on their own. Also could spark increased migration to small towns, where cost of living is cheap, but well-paid jobs are few.

― a little too mature to be cute (Aimless), Saturday, 30 January 2016 21:05 (Yesterday) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

From a country with rent supplement and social welfare payments where there exists great disparity in rents within very short distances, this has not been the experience. People on these benefits do not move to less popular areas for cheaper rent.

you could see towns competing for the new tax base, offering free wifi or something, dog parks. not totally out of the imagination. i know we're trying to set up free wifi here

https://medium.com/@morganwarstler/guaranteed-income-choose-your-boss-1d068ac5a205#.ttqiaqsml

feel like you guys would hate this stuff cause it's a bit too tech-posi but i find this kind of speculative thinking up different welfare systems stuff interesting at the very least

choose yr own bossventure