• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Would/do you support a Universal Basic Income for all U.S. citizens?

Would/do you support a Universal Basic Income for all U.S. citizens?

  • Total voters
    90
SmokeAndMirrors said:
No, they'll just spend that same money automating more stuff. Because at the end of the day, the jobs humans don't want to do are the sorts of jobs we're automating... because humans don't want to do them.

Like I said above, if you cut hours while pay rises, then you need more employees to work the same number of total company hours. That would fill this gap as certain industries transition.

And what sort of power would the people have to protest when the government could starve most of them with a simple delayed budget, without even overturning UBI?

None. You cannot have power when the person threatening you is the only means of survival you have.
Click to expand...

Bottom line, you're always going to need humans to do certain things, especially where interpersonal elements are required.

The conditions that justify the UBI, namely a massive excess of labour relative to jobs, features considerable downward pressures on wages, including those wages not subject to automation/outsourcing due to the cascading effect of competition for those jobs that remain.

As a direct consequence of the UBI, you have a shrinkage in this excess labour because people no longer have to accept **** jobs for **** pay, which means that, at an absolute minimum, the rate of wage/benefit decline is slowed; i.e. it would be worse without UBI.

Finally, again, the government exists at the behest of the people (theoretically; in truth the US is a plutocracy, but at least so long as that happens to be the case UBI won't be passed), and as stated, there are ways to structure the UBI such that it can withstand temporary shutdowns, such as a reserve system. Again, presupposing the conditions that would warrant something like the UBI, if say 20-30% of the population or more depended on it, and that the UBI were so poorly structured that a politico could do it, do you really think he's going to sacrifice his career via imposing mass starvation?
 
Surrealistik said:
Bottom line, you're always going to need humans to do certain things, especially where interpersonal elements are required.

The conditions that justify the UBI, namely a massive excess of labour relative to jobs, features considerable downward pressures on wages, including those wages not subject to automation/outsourcing due to the cascading effect of competition for those jobs that remain.

As a direct consequence of the UBI, you have a shrinkage in this excess labour because people no longer have to accept **** jobs for **** pay, which means that, at an absolute minimum, the rate of wage/benefit decline is slowed; i.e. it would be worse without UBI.

Finally, again, the government exists at the behest of the people (theoretically; in truth the US is a plutocracy, but at least so long as that happens to be the case UBI won't be passed), and as stated, there are ways to structure the UBI such that it can withstand temporary shutdowns, such as a reserve system. Again, presupposing the conditions that would warrant something like the UBI, if say 20-30% of the population or more depended on it, and that the UBI were so poorly structured that a politico could do it, do you really think he's going to sacrifice his career via imposing mass starvation?
Click to expand...

And like I said, every single one of those issues is solvable without resorting to handing the lives of children to whatever future politicians may or may not give a crap about their lives.

Once you have that much power, you don't really have to worry about what anyone thinks. Like I said, eating trumps standing up for yourself for most people. If you want an example, look at literally any society that has ever handed over this kind of power to their government. Eventually, a bad egg slips through.

And that's how life is. Corrupt politicians are unavoidable. So, our system has to be designed to keep them under control. And there is no way to do that when you rob the people of independent survival.
 
SmokeAndMirrors said:
But that changes when you cut the work week while pay rises. You would need more employees for the same number of total company work hours.

You would also have MORE of certain kinds of jobs. Stuff humans actually like doing, like independent crafters, small businesses, community leaders, etc.

UBI, on the other hand, would send wages through the floor. I guarantee it. Companies only pay what they have to, and if they can get away with paying less because the government picks up the slack, they will. They aren't concerned about whether their employees then become vulnerable to government corruption. They just care about their shareholders.

I will grant you that my way is more of a fight. But we have watched government corrupt all over the world over and over again. And UBI is a recipe for disaster. The fight is worth it for a safer, better-off country that is less vulnerable to almost instantaneous humanitarian disaster.

Compare UBI to feudalism and tell me they don't look just a little too similar for comfort.
Click to expand...

You do bring up an interesting point I haven't thought about, which is the wages decrease. It seems like that could be controlled with some increase to the minimum wage, though, I still believe that high skilled jobs would pay more than enough for the best talent. It's a delicate balance for sure. And I am not opposed to anything you've suggested, I just think a UBI might be necessary given our current tract with the income disparity we have as a nation.

Honestly, I think a UBI would be best for developing countries. Instead of charitable givings, just give each individual a UBI, and that gives people the freedom to take risks economically without the fear of going hungry. It takes them away from the day by day, to planning for a more prosperous future.
 
SmokeAndMirrors said:
And like I said, every single one of those issues is solvable without resorting to handing the lives of children to whatever future politicians may or may not give a crap about their lives.

Once you have that much power, you don't really have to worry about what anyone thinks. Like I said, eating trumps standing up for yourself for most people. If you want an example, look at literally any society that has ever handed over this kind of power to their government. Eventually, a bad egg slips through.

And that's how life is. Corrupt politicians are unavoidable. So, our system has to be designed to keep them under control. And there is no way to do that when you rob the people of independent survival.
Click to expand...

#1: You're again assuming that a program which is responsible for the basic upkeep of a huge swath of the population, large enough to result in significant social instability were it rescinded or suspended without appropriate alternative, would be at the exclusive mercy of a handful of politicos; that's somewhere on the continuum of highly to extremely unlikely.

#2: Which societies feature such a UBI which have descended, as a direct consequence, from democracy into tyranny/autocracy? Where is the historical precedence for your claims that this would result in unaccountable, elected politicians due to the use of the program as a bludgeon?

#3: Even if such a program were at the mercy of a few politicos due to colossal oversight and idiocy in its structuring, no, they can't reasonably use it as a bludgeon against the electorate between the possibility of impeachment and the certainty of being ousted next electoral cycle, nevermind the massive instability and upheaval that would result.

#4: What are your alternative solutions to the UBI or other similar government programs assuming mass persisting unemployment (20-30+%) due to automation and outsourcing?
 
X Factor said:
I considered that along with just a regular "no" but I didn't want to split the vote. :lol:
Click to expand...

I doubt there would have been much split.
 
Your Star said:
Eventually yes, I see it as an inevitability.

Honestly, I think it would free people up to do more of a variety of things, and it would encourage creativity. Especially when our economy becomes more autonomous.
Click to expand...

If that were the case, there should be vast amounts of art, science, and inventing coming from those currently existing off government handouts. I don't see that happening.
 
jimbo said:
If that were the case, there should be vast amounts of art, science, and inventing coming from those currently existing off government handouts. I don't see that happening.
Click to expand...

They are often working 2 or 3 jobs to make ends meet. Doesn't allow for much free time.
 
Your Star said:
They are often working 2 or 3 jobs to make ends meet. Doesn't allow for much free time.
Click to expand...

Did you read the part about those currently existing on government handouts?
 
jimbo said:
Did you read the part about those currently existing on government handouts?
Click to expand...

Yes, most people who receive government assistance work. They're called the working poor.
 
Your Star said:
You do bring up an interesting point I haven't thought about, which is the wages decrease. It seems like that could be controlled with some increase to the minimum wage, though, I still believe that high skilled jobs would pay more than enough for the best talent. It's a delicate balance for sure. And I am not opposed to anything you've suggested, I just think a UBI might be necessary given our current tract with the income disparity we have as a nation.

Honestly, I think a UBI would be best for developing countries. Instead of charitable givings, just give each individual a UBI, and that gives people the freedom to take risks economically without the fear of going hungry. It takes them away from the day by day, to planning for a more prosperous future.
Click to expand...

Do you really think we'd get UBI and an increase minimum wage, with corporations having the influence they do? Not a chance, in my opinion. I don't see any politically feasible way for the average person to not wind up relying on UBI for a significant and perhaps even majority portion of their survival.

I think we'd be better off creating a truly long-term solution -- a people-led restructure of labor where we retain our power as citizens -- than just passing a shiny bill and signing over our ability to feed ourselves without government permission. It's appealing for its seeming ease, but it never ends well to give that much power to an institution that ALWAYS winds up with corrupt people in it. Short-term thinking has bitten us many times before.

I think it'd be even worse in developing countries. A lot of them are so economically depressed because they're actually under enforced austerity by Europe and America while they pay back the shark loans we talked them into after decolonization (they always pay on time, but their debt has been rising all the same for decades due to interest, and therefore they continue to be under enforced austerity). They can't increase their budgets enough to sustain UBI... without us taking over even more control of their countries. They're also rife with dictators who have capitalized on the weakened countries we've created, and would probably have no qualms with using that power of food to force the populace into alignment with their interests.

Developing countries would be better off if we simply left them alone and stopped with our shark loans and other forms of meddling. They didn't need our charity, before we totally destroyed their agriculture but dumping our glut of grains into their market. It's our fault they're in that position to begin with, and I don't like the idea of continuing to force Western solutions onto them for a problem we created.

Honestly, I don't want for us to keep trying to force them to be like us. I'd like to see what they come up with on their own once they're out from under our boot. They have such novel ideas about stuff like environmentalism and equality that most of the West hasn't even thought of, if you look underneath the chaos and continued depression. Maybe it'd be to our own benefit to just leave them alone and let them see out their own vision without our insistence of how their governance should run, and our limitations on how they feed their people.
 
SmokeAndMirrors said:
No. I think there are better ways to deal with automation in the direction of increasing livability and pursuit of fulfillment for people, that don't require such a heavy dependence on such an incredibly powerful government.

That's simply too much survival ability taken away from the people for me to ever be comfortable with it. A self-serving government forcing its desires is then as simple as a budget shut-down that suddenly leaves millions unable to eat. Absolute power corrupts absolutely...
Click to expand...

Like agree on what is the ideal population of the USA allowing for reasonable unemployment, retirements, etc. since the less we work, the poorer we get. So fewer people are needed to keep a healthy economy going. Good luck having that conversation. But someday we may have to.
 
chuckiechan said:
Like agree on what is the ideal population of the USA allowing for reasonable unemployment, retirements, etc. since the less we work, the poorer we get. So fewer people are needed to keep a healthy economy going. Good luck having that conversation. But someday we may have to.
Click to expand...

You're assuming we have no choice but to leave hours and wages the way they are. That's not true at all. We can change that any way we like.

Hell, we wouldn't even be needing to have this conversation for another 5 or 10 years if wages were what they were even in the 60's, relative to living.
 
SmokeAndMirrors said:
You're assuming we have no choice but to leave hours and wages the way they are. That's not true at all. We can change that any way we like.

Hell, we wouldn't even be needing to have this conversation for another 5 or 10 years if wages were what they were even in the 60's, relative to living.
Click to expand...

Where do these peoples pay checks come from? You?
 
X Factor said:
I try to keep commentary out of my poll choices, but my own personal opinion would be best expressed as "Oh, hell no".
Click to expand...

lol...hey, X. You know I love you, right? hehe...but I'm going to say, I think you're being short sighted. All you need to do to understand the risk is to reflect on what's possible with automation today, and think about how technology has picked up speed over the last 20 years. Automation is designed solely to reduce headcount, that's what it's for, that's what it does, that's why it's being researched. And when people are no longer required to staff corporations, the practice providing jobs itself will become corporate charity...given how corporations are moving as quickly as possible towards deregulation, with many on the right cheering them all the way, it might not be bad to have a plan B. Not everyone can be doctors and lawyers and CEO's, or make baskets and homemade cookies for the farmer's market. Basic minimum income ensures that people don't starve to death after they become obsolete in the workforce. It's not my favorite model, but in lieu of something even more radical, it's probably the best way to go forward. Maybe if you make the corporations who profit from reducing human jobs pay for it, this might not become a thing...but again...hehe...not exactly the direction you guys are going at the moment. :)
 
Absolutely not. I can support a minimum wage but not a universal basic income entitlement. You shouldn't be paid to be alive. As it is we need to cut entitlements and/or enforce personal reforms on those receiving them.
 
SmokeAndMirrors said:
Do you really think we'd get UBI and an increase minimum wage, with corporations having the influence they do? Not a chance, in my opinion. I don't see any politically feasible way for the average person to not wind up relying on UBI for a significant and perhaps even majority portion of their survival.

I think we'd be better off creating a truly long-term solution -- a people-led restructure of labor where we retain our power as citizens -- than just passing a shiny bill and signing over our ability to feed ourselves without government permission. It's appealing for its seeming ease, but it never ends well to give that much power to an institution that ALWAYS winds up with corrupt people in it. Short-term thinking has bitten us many times before.

I think it'd be even worse in developing countries. A lot of them are so economically depressed because they're actually under enforced austerity by Europe and America while they pay back the shark loans we talked them into after decolonization (they always pay on time, but their debt has been rising all the same for decades due to interest, and therefore they continue to be under enforced austerity). They can't increase their budgets enough to sustain UBI... without us taking over even more control of their countries. They're also rife with dictators who have capitalized on the weakened countries we've created, and would probably have no qualms with using that power of food to force the populace into alignment with their interests.

Developing countries would be better off if we simply left them alone and stopped with our shark loans and other forms of meddling. They didn't need our charity, before we totally destroyed their agriculture but dumping our glut of grains into their market. It's our fault they're in that position to begin with, and I don't like the idea of continuing to force Western solutions onto them for a problem we created.

Honestly, I don't want for us to keep trying to force them to be like us. I'd like to see what they come up with on their own once they're out from under our boot. They have such novel ideas about stuff like environmentalism and equality that most of the West hasn't even thought of, if you look underneath the chaos and continued depression. Maybe it'd be to our own benefit to just leave them alone and let them see out their own vision without our insistence of how their governance should run, and our limitations on how they feed their people.
Click to expand...

What's your solution precisely?

Yes, the political system is absolutely and deeply corrupt; the US is a plutocracy at least at the federal level in everything but name. In order for a UBI to even pass, it'd have to undergo a substantial detox, absolutely, starting with the first amendment which the SCOTUS has disastrously construed to mean that money is speech.

That said, government isn't unconditionally and invariably corrupt (see the majority of wealthy northern European states, Scandinavia and the Commonwealth; the biggest difference is substantive electoral/lobbying limits and the ability to enforce them, as well as no constitutional enshrinement of unlimited money in politics), and any reform that could so extricate the government from its current state of rule by the rich such that UBI legislation could feasibly pass would also provide the insulations from money in politics and electoral corruption that ensures it would indeed work as a long term solution.

Again, there is no prohibition on working, and in fact people are freer and more incentivized than on welfare to seek additional income sources through employment because there is no loss in benefits. Meanwhile, as stated, UBI actually would have the likely effect of if not increasing wages/benefits due to partial deflation of labour pools, then slowing their reduction. Now, if someone _cannot_ find a job, because again, we are at 20-30%+ persistent unemployment due to automation/outsourcing, how is the status quo any better? People would be just as massively reliant on government, only the fragmented mess of social programs currently in place would be less streamlined, less efficient in terms of benefits yielded per dollar spent, and more punitive to those who want to resume or get supplementary work.
 
Surrealistik said:
What's your solution precisely?

Yes, the political system is absolutely and deeply corrupt; the US is a plutocracy at least at the federal level in everything but name. In order for a UBI to even pass, it'd have to undergo a substantial detox, absolutely, starting with the first amendment which the SCOTUS has disastrously construed to mean that money is speech.

That said, government isn't unconditionally and invariably corrupt (see the majority of wealthy northern European states, Scandinavia and the Commonwealth; the biggest difference is substantive electoral/lobbying limits and the ability to enforce them, as well as no constitutional enshrinement of unlimited money in politics), and any reform that could so extricate the government from its current state of rule by the rich such that UBI legislation could feasibly pass would also provide the insulations from money in politics and electoral corruption that ensures it would indeed work as a long term solution.

Again, there is no prohibition on working, and in fact people are freer and more incentivized than on welfare to seek additional income sources through employment because there is no loss in benefits. Meanwhile, as stated, UBI actually would have the likely effect of if not increasing wages/benefits due to partial deflation of labour pools, then slowing their reduction. Now, if someone _cannot_ find a job, because again, we are at 20-30%+ persistent unemployment due to automation/outsourcing, how is the status quo any better? People would be just as massively reliant on government, only the fragmented mess of social programs currently in place would be less streamlined, less efficient in terms of benefits yielded per dollar spent, and more punitive to those who want to resume or get supplementary work.
Click to expand...

I've stated it about seven times. Perhaps try reading it.

Also, I think you need to do a little more research on the reality of Europe. Just because you're not seeing the problems on the American-centric news doesn't mean it isn't happening. There is no utopia in Europe, as there isn't anywhere else, and all these countries do have various problems with their welfare systems, corruption, and even the basic fairness of their representation in some cases.

You are totally pulling numbers out of your ass based on, near as I can tell, a pure fantasy narrative of how our society currently works.
 
Last edited:
SmokeAndMirrors said:
I've stated it about seven times. Perhaps try reading it.

Also, I think you need to do a little more research on the reality of Europe. Just because you're not seeing the problems on the American-centric news doesn't mean it isn't happening. There is no utopia in Europe, as there isn't anywhere else, and all these countries countries do have various problems with their welfare systems, corruption, and even the basic fairness of their representation in some cases.

You are totally pulling numbers out of your ass based on, near as I can tell, a pure fantasy narrative of how our society currently works.
Click to expand...

You haven't actually given me any specifics whatsoever on your solution (nor meaningful counterpoints that I haven't addressed). Thus far I have essentially empty platitudes such as:

"I think we'd be better off creating a truly long-term solution -- a people-led restructure of labor where we retain our power as citizens -- than just passing a shiny bill and signing over our ability to feed ourselves without government permission."

What does that even mean? Mass unionization per some Scandinavian countries? I'm all for that, but how do you do it? Further, how does unionization itself address massive labour surpluses?

"Lowering the work week and paying better accomplishes the same goal of allowing people to ultimately pursue a passion, or volunteer work, or other forms of work that give humans true sense of purpose, like hands-on tasks and community efforts."

Great, so what are you going to do? Force companies to hire during high persistent unemployment well into the double digits? Again, how do you solve and address the actual unemployment itself?

As to Europe (and the Commonwealth), the wealthier, more developed countries do indeed have better, more representative government and freer societies. In terms of CPI, freedom of the press and Democracy index for instance:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corruption_Perceptions_Index

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Press_Freedom_Index

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_Index

That isn't to say these countries are "utopias", but they are certainly better off in these important metrics per some of our current best quantifications of corruption and democratic integrity. Certainly they are no de facto plutocracies per the unfortunate case of the United States: https://scholar.princeton.edu/sites...testing_theories_of_american_politics.doc.pdf

And which numbers am I pulling out of my ass exactly? The 20-30% persistent unemployment? With regards to that, in the context of this discussion the UBI is assumed to be an answer to unsustainably high unemployment; I'm referencing the case of the Great Depression as a historical instance of such unemployment numbers.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom