if they're underemployed and undercompensated why is that interesting? are we discussing basic income with the goal of catching a small number of people and bringing them up to... starvation wages? what ethic would motivate such a discussion?
― lol dis stance dunk (Doctor Casino), Thursday, 22 March 2018 20:27 (six years ago) link
well-compensated, enabling-the-good-life manufacturing jobs have virtually ceased to exist between automation on the one hand and exploitation of worldwide low-wage labor pools on the other. you see this as a cyclical change likely to be reversed, or imagine that those low-wage labor markets will eventually fight their way into an american postwar grand bargain w capital?
this will never be reversed and is sort of the great problem with any grand far-left scheme. take power in a single country and you are left with the whole system of production, distribution, logistics that is based entirely on exploiting low costs from world-wide markets.
having said that we are far away from the utopian idea of automation replacing labour whole-sale. most people, even in advanced countries which "don't make anything", still work, and will continue to do so. they might be working less, and they're fighting for scraps of a diminishing pie, but they're still working. UBI to me seems like a libertarians dream of providing just enough income for the increasingly immigrated workers of the future gig/0 hour contract economy to get by on so they don't explode
― Louis Jägermeister (jim in vancouver), Thursday, 22 March 2018 20:37 (six years ago) link
immiserated not immigrated
Here’s where my thinking on this took a turn. People generally have a fucked up, heavily abstracted and simplified idea of work imo. Work is moving stuff from one place to another, often delicately, frequently under dynamic conditions, while accepting and adapting to new information and prioritizing it based on lived experience and training sessions of varying vintage, and really trying not to damage yourself or others. This is what a barista or a hack cabdriver or a warehouse worker does for hours; but if you stare at a screen all day you forget how much of the body and the mind are involved, you just think of it as dumb machines following instructions, and distill the complexity away.
― El Tomboto, Friday, 23 March 2018 00:50 (six years ago) link
all work really is is finding a way to get money from humans
― Rabbit Control (Latham Green), Friday, 23 March 2018 15:10 (six years ago) link
“I love the president,” Mr. Dowd said in a telephone interview. “I wish him the best of luck. I think he has a really good case.”
hahahahahaha
― Rabbit Control (Latham Green), Friday, 23 March 2018 15:18 (six years ago) link
shit wron gthread
― Rabbit Control (Latham Green), Friday, 23 March 2018 15:23 (six years ago) link
https://www.economist.com/news/united-states/21741586-team-scientists-undertakes-ambitious-experiment-which-could-change-thinking-about
― 𝔠𝔞𝔢𝔨 (caek), Thursday, 3 May 2018 15:29 (five years ago) link
get thee to Chicago?
https://theintercept.com/2018/07/16/chicago-universal-basic-income-ubi/
― the ignatius rock of ignorance (Dr Morbius), Monday, 16 July 2018 16:38 (five years ago) link
fuck you doug ford
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/aug/01/ontarios-new-conservative-government-to-end-basic-income-experiment
― reggie (qualmsley), Wednesday, 1 August 2018 21:16 (five years ago) link
Rushkoff has an interesting take:
https://medium.com/s/powertrip/universal-basic-income-is-silicon-valleys-latest-scam-fd3e130b69a0
I like it, to some degree. Giving low-level workers an ownership stake (in the form of stock options/RSUs, I guess?) in their companies is better than just asking the government to cut a check. However, this doesn't get us out of the cycle of having to work, which I think is a big piece of UBI. Also, why not just pay the workers a better salary? Tying worker pay to company performance is great when companies are growing, but if we want to create a sustainable future, we should be trying to wind down economic systems that require ever-accelerating growth.
― DJI, Wednesday, 10 October 2018 17:50 (five years ago) link
we had a seminar on the pre-analysis plan for ycombinator's UBI project by one of the ppl working on it the other week, v cool
― flopson, Wednesday, 10 October 2018 20:47 (five years ago) link
Yeah? Tell me more...
― DJI, Wednesday, 10 October 2018 20:56 (five years ago) link
uhh it's been a couple weeks and i didn't take notes so this is all off memory, but they're doing it in 2 states (but they couldn't tell us which) targeting people all across the income distribution although focusing on lower-income (for power purposes), rural and urban areas, a pretty huge control group (with some clever compensation schemes to keep everyone answering their surveys). seemed very well designed. they've already done a pilot in oakland to dry run a lot of the logistical stuff. costs tens of millions of dollars
― flopson, Thursday, 11 October 2018 02:00 (five years ago) link
Cool thx
― DJI, Thursday, 11 October 2018 15:14 (five years ago) link
every once in a while i run into an idea so idiotic that i just have to share it. especially when it's not my idiotic idea!
However, Fuller didn’t just shut down the idea of UBI. While he asserted that UBI, as we have known and defined it, isn’t a correct fit for our current world, he stated that there are other, more realistic solutions—ones that truly address the issues that stem from advancing technology.Fuller suggested that, as we continue to get farther into the data-driven technological age, one solution could be to force companies to pay for the information that they currently take from us for nothing. “We could hold Google and Facebook and all those big multinationals accountable; we could make sure that people, like those who are currently ‘voluntarily’ contributing their data to pump up companies’ profits, are given something that is adequate to support their livelihoods in exchange.”So, instead of the government doling out standard salaries to all citizens, which is basically what UBI calls for, people would be financially compensated for the data that they give to companies by these very same companies. This could mean that social media giants and other websites that ask for your personal information would have to fairly compensate you for the information that they take from you.
Fuller suggested that, as we continue to get farther into the data-driven technological age, one solution could be to force companies to pay for the information that they currently take from us for nothing. “We could hold Google and Facebook and all those big multinationals accountable; we could make sure that people, like those who are currently ‘voluntarily’ contributing their data to pump up companies’ profits, are given something that is adequate to support their livelihoods in exchange.”
So, instead of the government doling out standard salaries to all citizens, which is basically what UBI calls for, people would be financially compensated for the data that they give to companies by these very same companies. This could mean that social media giants and other websites that ask for your personal information would have to fairly compensate you for the information that they take from you.
https://futurism.com/ubi-universal-basic-income-alternative
― Karl Malone, Tuesday, 4 December 2018 20:54 (five years ago) link
https://www.dosomething.org/facts/11-facts-about-hunger-us
― reggie (qualmsley), Tuesday, 4 December 2018 22:31 (five years ago) link
being paid for the data you provide to social media companies is actually a good idea, but it wouldn't be remotely a UBI-sized sum under any realistic scenario
― flopson, Wednesday, 5 December 2018 01:46 (five years ago) link
One cent for every stepMILF search you do on Pornhub.
― louise ck (milo z), Wednesday, 5 December 2018 02:04 (five years ago) link
https://www.seattletimes.com/nation-world/finland-bares-personal-tax-data-on-national-jealousy-day/
― reggie (qualmsley), Tuesday, 1 January 2019 20:22 (five years ago) link
Great story, thanks! I kind of agree with the Fins, but I can't even imagine how that would ever happen/work in the USA.
― DJI, Wednesday, 2 January 2019 00:44 (five years ago) link
“These particular executives have destroyed their reputation,” he said. “I would be surprised if they didn’t care. Finland is a small society. There is a sense that as long as you’re a Finn, you’re always a Finn. They will show up at Christmas at Helsinki Airport, they will be recognized, and they will feel it in people’s eyes: the disrespect.”
― DJI, Wednesday, 2 January 2019 00:54 (five years ago) link
Minimum wage, but relevant to thread...
https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/02/21/magazine/minimum-wage-saving-lives.html
A living wage is an antidepressant. It is a sleepaid. A diet. A stress reliever. It is a contraceptive,preventing teenage pregnancy. It preventspremature death. It shields children from neglect.
― 𝔠𝔞𝔢𝔨 (caek), Friday, 22 February 2019 16:28 (five years ago) link
all credit to @loggedtheFUCKon pic.twitter.com/JbI0AvVWOW— Emotional Stress Animal (@moleculesofyou) April 18, 2019
― 𝔠𝔞𝔢𝔨 (caek), Friday, 19 April 2019 17:34 (four years ago) link
https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/why-universal-basic-income-is-a-bad-idea-by-daron-acemoglu-2019-06
Daron Acemoglu is smart, BUT http://crookedtimber.org/2019/06/09/how-to-debate-universal-basic-income/
He ignores that it may empower workers relative to employers, since a UBI improves the quality of the exit options of the workers. His arguments that basic income would make people politically passive are exactly the opposite from the assumptions that basic income advocates make, and as far as I can tell these are things one cannot predict, either way. He assumes that holding a job is in itself a good thing (which arguably depends on whether it is good/decent work or not).
― El Tomboto, Monday, 17 June 2019 00:06 (four years ago) link
This is an expert demolition of the mainstream automation discourse by @abenanav. Low demand for labor isn't explained by robots taking your job, but by overcapacity, stagnation, and the loss of manufacturing as the economy's growth engine. https://t.co/FvksF6aa8A— Ben Tarnoff (@bentarnoff) October 11, 2019
― 𝔠𝔞𝔢𝔨 (caek), Friday, 11 October 2019 18:58 (four years ago) link
(sorry the article is paywalled ironically)
― 𝔠𝔞𝔢𝔨 (caek), Friday, 11 October 2019 18:59 (four years ago) link
i suppose pasting paywalled things from journals is not kosher on ilx? (i have access and am reading now)
― Seany's too Dyche to mention (jim in vancouver), Friday, 11 October 2019 20:21 (four years ago) link
paste it but rot-13 it first for airtight opsec
― to regain his mental focus, he played video-game golf (bizarro gazzara), Friday, 11 October 2019 20:27 (four years ago) link
Is new left review on sc1-h|_|b
― president of deluded fruitcakes anonymous (silby), Friday, 11 October 2019 21:06 (four years ago) link
https://www.businessinsider.com/spain-to-approve-basic-income-scheme-response-coroanvirus-outbreak-2020-5
― DJI, Monday, 18 May 2020 17:47 (three years ago) link
I mean that sounds good re: Spain but if it's means tested isn't just an income support benefit rather than UBI?
― Noel Emits, Monday, 18 May 2020 18:26 (three years ago) link
Honestly I'm ok with no UBI for high-earners.
― DJI, Monday, 18 May 2020 18:37 (three years ago) link
Sure, but a having to inevitably jump through hoops to demonstrate identity and income level (and assets!) and is highly antithetical to many versions of BI. And it isn't U.
― Noel Emits, Monday, 18 May 2020 18:42 (three years ago) link
thought the whole point was that UBI is no questions asked, but also income tax is increased so higher earners effectively end up paying for their own BI?
― thomasintrouble, Monday, 18 May 2020 18:48 (three years ago) link
That works too.
― DJI, Monday, 18 May 2020 19:03 (three years ago) link
That also is more efficient to implement.
― A is for (Aimless), Monday, 18 May 2020 19:08 (three years ago) link
Means testing is a wedge issue that in practice is used to weaken the welfare state. Resist it wherever possible.
― 𝔠𝔞𝔢𝔨 (caek), Monday, 18 May 2020 21:49 (three years ago) link
https://www.peoplespolicyproject.org/projects/social-wealth-fund/I didn’t know about Alaska
― 𝔠𝔞𝔢𝔨 (caek), Saturday, 17 October 2020 22:19 (three years ago) link
can’t find the video any longer but I remember watching a Glenn Beck interview w Frank Llewelyn about “”socialism”” back during the ‘08 election and dude went to town on the AK Permanent Fund and Beck basically pulled the plug. It was vaguely exciting tv, as far as those things went in the olden times
― A-B-C. A-Always, B-Be, C-Chooglin (will), Saturday, 17 October 2020 23:14 (three years ago) link
I mean, if you want to be honest, and you want to take who of the four people running for national office was actually the most socialistic, it was Sarah Palin — because she administered a state that says that the oil revenues are collectively owned...BECK: Right.LLEWELLYN: ... and she used her position as governor to force the oil companies to pay the state more money, which they then redistributed to the people. Now, I have a feeling that that's what Chavez does in Venezuela, that people like you criticize him for. So, you know, that would, at least, be a more serious discussion .BECK: Right.LLEWELLYN: ... than the type of discussion that's appeared in magazines and whatever.BECK: OK, Frank...
― A-B-C. A-Always, B-Be, C-Chooglin (will), Saturday, 17 October 2020 23:15 (three years ago) link
https://www.peoplespolicyproject.org/projects/social-wealth-fund/I didn’t know about Alaska― 𝔠𝔞𝔢𝔨 (caek), Saturday, October 17, 2020 6:19 PM (one hour ago) bookmarkflaglink
I didn’t know about Alaska
― 𝔠𝔞𝔢𝔨 (caek), Saturday, October 17, 2020 6:19 PM (one hour ago) bookmarkflaglink
imo the social wealth dividend is the best way to fund a UBI
― flopson, Saturday, 17 October 2020 23:55 (three years ago) link
why is that flopson?
― 𝔠𝔞𝔢𝔨 (caek), Tuesday, 20 October 2020 21:06 (three years ago) link
i'm kinda of two minds about it
a trad public finance economics answer goes something like: 'the government should raise money via the optimal tax portfolio. it has the power of taxation; there's no reason for it to tax to spend to buy stocks and then pay out the dividends as transfers. it can just tax and transfer directly'
however, this ignores administrative difficulties across taxing different income sources. wealth is hard to tax and previous attempts were unsuccessful at raising much money; of the twelve european countries had wealth taxes in 1990, only 3 still have them, and they aren't huge sources of revenue. wealth is hard to tax for a variety of banal reasons, many (but not all) of which are related to avoidance/enforcement: people can report wealth just below the tax threshold (the literature in empirical public finance on "bunching" finds lots of evidence of this with wealth taxes), they can exploit asset exemptions and shift the portfolio of wealth, and they can stash revenue abroad or expatriate.
some taxes are harder to implement and raise more money than others. the nordics get huge government revenues with broad-based consumption taxes and VATs. technically speaking these taxes are regressive (since poor people spend a larger share of their income on consumption than the rich), but that regressivity can easily be netted out by a progressive structure in other parts of the tax code
saez and zucman argue that this time is different, and with the right policy we can tax wealth properly this time and raise tonnes of money. maybe they're right; i don't know. they make a good case, but it's hard to tell ex ante what will happen. there are also other things you can do like estate taxes that get to wealth and are much easier to administer
wealth is insanely unequally distributed and so is the flow income from it. so we really want to somehow redistribute that value, if not with a wealth tax then by some other means. buying up wealth and redistributing the flow income using a SWF is super easy.
also, politically, i think it's an easy sell. contrast SWF with a UBI funded by a tax on personal income. say the UBI is 10k per year. people above some level of income will pay more in personal income taxes for the UBI than they receive from it. will they still support the UBI? maybe. to the extent that the distribution of personal income is skewed, the group of people who pay more into the UBI than they pay in will be smaller. income is pretty skewed, but it's not as skewed as wealth.
in an SWF, there is a one-time purchase (or, if you're really radical, expropriation) of wealth that has to be paid for. but after that, the UBI funds just flow from the dividends. and those dividends would have been going to the wealth holders, who we already know are a tiny group.
i also think it's easy to sell politically. people hate the ultra wealthy, dramatically underestimate how unequally distributed wealth is, and become way more in favour of taxing wealth when you tell them how unequally distributed it is (see this paper on estate tax https://www.nber.org/papers/w18865). SWF seems to me to be a good way to get tax-phobic USA to get on board with redistributing wealth
― flopson, Saturday, 24 October 2020 21:54 (three years ago) link
A wealth tax (2% over $50 million, 3% over a billion) could fund a $80/month UBI, a 20% VAT could fund a $800 UBI. So while a wealth tax would be more progressive on the tax side, when taking both sides into account the VAT UBI would cut poverty more. Might as well do both though— James Medlock (@jdcmedlock) September 26, 2020
^ btw caek if u don't already, this account is a must-follow for left public finance. kinda like matt bruenig without the constant political hot takes that get him cancelled every other week
― flopson, Saturday, 24 October 2020 22:05 (three years ago) link
wow, great post flopson
― Li'l Brexit (Tracer Hand), Saturday, 24 October 2020 22:08 (three years ago) link
thx trace :)
btw, the saez zucman BPEA piece i linked to is probably the best single thing to read on wealth taxes imho (and hopefully largely accessible)
― flopson, Saturday, 24 October 2020 22:16 (three years ago) link
thank you! that makes sense.
the nordics get huge government revenues with broad-based consumption taxes and VATs. technically speaking these taxes are regressive (since poor people spend a larger share of their income on consumption than the rich), but that regressivity can easily be netted out by a progressive structure in other parts of the tax code
the can, but are they in practice? how?
SWF seems to me to be a good way to get tax-phobic USA to get on board with redistributing wealth
seems like this is demonstrably true given the existence proof of alaska.
i actually followed medlock this week ironically (i am a proposition 13 crank.)
― 𝔠𝔞𝔢𝔨 (caek), Sunday, 25 October 2020 03:31 (three years ago) link
alaska a bit of a weird case since they didn't have to raise taxes to buy the SWF, it was just the money from alaska's oil industry. in the kind of SWF the people's policy project are proposing, the government would have to pay the value of the stocks in the first place, which would cost $$$
in the nordics, a combo of transfers + increasing other progressive taxes; making income tax more progressive, boosting inheritance tax, paying for universal programs, etc.
― flopson, Sunday, 25 October 2020 03:44 (three years ago) link
anita baker’s on board
SomeGoodNews*UBI https://t.co/M1pvb7wmGH— Anita Baker (@IAMANITABAKER) January 14, 2021
― Li'l Brexit (Tracer Hand), Thursday, 14 January 2021 01:14 (three years ago) link