Irish Exit
Verified User
LOL it is not a "a small universal basic income to everybody with no questions asked." Lots of questions are asked because it has eligibility requirements that not everyone meets. Felons get no free checky checky.
Alaska's Universal Basic Income, Supported By Liberals and Conservatives Under Attack
- Thread starter PoliTalker
- Start date
LOL it is not a "a small universal basic income to everybody with no questions asked." Lots of questions are asked because it has eligibility requirements that not everyone meets. Felons get no free checky checky.
PoliTalker
Diversity Makes Greatness
OK, I grant you that literal point.
But seriously, the only questions are minimal to establish that the recipient is an Alaskan and has lived in the State for a year, which will ensure they are there for a winter. If they can stay through that, that's enough for 99.99% of recipients.
This money is handed out from the State to almost everybody for doing nothing.
anonymoose
Classical Liberal
That and the proceeds they get from panhandling.
Irish Exit
Verified User
Only 6 out of 7 Alaskans get checks, and their entire state population is smaller than my Congressional District's, so it isn't 99.9%. The requirements are more than you continue to represent and you still cannot answer the fundamental question----how will Alaska pay these checks without oil and gas revenue?
Anyway, Finland is ending their little 2,000 person trial (which by the way was designed to cut social spending) and America's experiment with it in the 1970's showed precisely why it is a bad idea---instead of supplementing people's existing income, most of the recipients just decided to work less and remain just as poor as they had been before. ( This is link that will trigger an automatic PDF download from the boston fed. Don't click if you don't want that: https://www.bostonfed.org/-/media/Documents/conference/30/conf30b.pdf )
What about we only start doing a universal basic income when the robots are actually taking away jobs? Unemployment is at 3.7% and there is a high demand for labor. The percent of the population employed is below the 90s and pre-recession levels, but it is recovering and still above the 80s and before (because of women entering working force), and we have a lot more older retired people.
We can start with requiring employers to pay workers time and a half pay for all work past 40 hours. This will encourage them to hire more workers. We can also work to fill the 5 million jobs skills gap and no longer need to import skilled labor from other countries.
ThatOwlWoman
Leftist Vermin
Alaska's infrastructure is totally dependent upon the mineral and oil extraction industries. Without those, there would be no money for highway repairs, grid maintenance, state employees' salaries (including law enforcement), environmental quality enforcement, etc. There is no state income or sales tax to pay for these things.
PoliTalker
Diversity Makes Greatness
evince
Truthmatters
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alaska#Land_ownership
According to an October 1998 report by the United States Bureau of Land Management, approximately 65% of Alaska is owned and managed by the U.S. federal government as public lands, including a multitude of national forests, national parks, and national wildlife refuges.
it cracks me up that Rs love states where so much of the land is owned by the government
According to an October 1998 report by the United States Bureau of Land Management, approximately 65% of Alaska is owned and managed by the U.S. federal government as public lands, including a multitude of national forests, national parks, and national wildlife refuges.
it cracks me up that Rs love states where so much of the land is owned by the government
PoliTalker
Diversity Makes Greatness
Hello Kacper,
My figure is not substantiated. It was a guess. What is the source for your '6 out of 7' figure?
The plan would be paid for by taxing the ultra-wealthy more. And that won't be a problem going forward, because the growth of their wealth continues to exceed their usage of it, and will ultimately be so great, they will be the only source of wealth in the economy. Eventually, they will pretty much own everything. That is where the whole thing is headed.
If what I believe will happen comes true, the Universal Basic Income will be the only thing that keeps the economy alive. And I really can't envision a scenario where that will not happen. We are on the verge of building machines that can learn to do things. Not just machines that replace human workers. Machines that can figure out what work needs to be done, and learn how to do it. They will service themselves, design and build themselves. There won't be much new work for humans generated by the advent of these ultimately versatile machines.
But there's a catch. These machines will be so expensive that only the super-rich and big corporations will be able to afford them. That means all of the profits they generate by displacing most workers will be going to the super-rich. That presents a huge problem for capitalist consumerism. Most would-be consumers will not have jobs or wealth with which to buy anything. These machines will work themselves out of a job by destroying the market they will initially be built to exploit. As they displace the expense of workers, they also eliminate customers for products.
The only way for money to have much active circulation then will be for government to redistribute it. Like it or not. Some people will still have work, but most will not. There simply won't be any way for the economy to function without a UBI.
My figure is not substantiated. It was a guess. What is the source for your '6 out of 7' figure?
The plan would be paid for by taxing the ultra-wealthy more. And that won't be a problem going forward, because the growth of their wealth continues to exceed their usage of it, and will ultimately be so great, they will be the only source of wealth in the economy. Eventually, they will pretty much own everything. That is where the whole thing is headed.
If what I believe will happen comes true, the Universal Basic Income will be the only thing that keeps the economy alive. And I really can't envision a scenario where that will not happen. We are on the verge of building machines that can learn to do things. Not just machines that replace human workers. Machines that can figure out what work needs to be done, and learn how to do it. They will service themselves, design and build themselves. There won't be much new work for humans generated by the advent of these ultimately versatile machines.
But there's a catch. These machines will be so expensive that only the super-rich and big corporations will be able to afford them. That means all of the profits they generate by displacing most workers will be going to the super-rich. That presents a huge problem for capitalist consumerism. Most would-be consumers will not have jobs or wealth with which to buy anything. These machines will work themselves out of a job by destroying the market they will initially be built to exploit. As they displace the expense of workers, they also eliminate customers for products.
The only way for money to have much active circulation then will be for government to redistribute it. Like it or not. Some people will still have work, but most will not. There simply won't be any way for the economy to function without a UBI.
Irish Exit
Verified User
There is a strong conservation side to the GOP. There was actually a bit of an environmentalist side too, but the Great Recession allowed corporations to exploit people's economic fears to turn them against it.
Irish Exit
Verified User
I looked at the population of Alaska and subtracted the number of people who got checks last year. I know math is analog and all, but it still works so why replace it.
PoliTalker
Diversity Makes Greatness
Hello distraff,
There are not currently good well-paying jobs for everybody. Most jobs have been downsized and benefits stripped away. The BLS counts someone as 'employed' if they work one hour per week. Who can live on that? Many jobs are part time, temporary, no benefits. Many American workers cannot survive on their pay; and qualify for and receive government assistance, even as they work. American taxpayers put food on the table of Walmart workers.
We can't wait until all the jobs are replaced by automation. That is already happening, will ramp up, and so is/will demand for government assistance (be) rising.
At some point, we have to realize that all those government assistance agencies, and all that huge big government bureaucracy, could be replaced by one far lower overhead system, which instead of spinning so many wheels to decide eligibility, simply hands out money instead with few requirements. And makes government smaller. The money goes into circulation, and the economy sings along. We would be far better situated to do this proactively rather than waiting until it is a big problem and/or causes a recession/depression before we act.
There are not currently good well-paying jobs for everybody. Most jobs have been downsized and benefits stripped away. The BLS counts someone as 'employed' if they work one hour per week. Who can live on that? Many jobs are part time, temporary, no benefits. Many American workers cannot survive on their pay; and qualify for and receive government assistance, even as they work. American taxpayers put food on the table of Walmart workers.
We can't wait until all the jobs are replaced by automation. That is already happening, will ramp up, and so is/will demand for government assistance (be) rising.
At some point, we have to realize that all those government assistance agencies, and all that huge big government bureaucracy, could be replaced by one far lower overhead system, which instead of spinning so many wheels to decide eligibility, simply hands out money instead with few requirements. And makes government smaller. The money goes into circulation, and the economy sings along. We would be far better situated to do this proactively rather than waiting until it is a big problem and/or causes a recession/depression before we act.
anonymoose
Classical Liberal
lol That too.
PoliTalker
Diversity Makes Greatness
I love math. You can drop your guard with me. There is no reason to be snippy. I have not suggested replacing math. Thanks for letting me know how you arrived at your figure. The PFD is only paid out to Alaskans who stay there for at least a year. The 1/7 probably represents temporary non-citizens of Alaska there for whatever reason.
Yes, there aren't enough good paying jobs for everyone, but that has always been the case. Yes, some jobs have been downsized, part time and benefits reduced, but other good jobs have been created as well, and there have always been jobs with bad benefits. Yes, the unemployment measure has problems, but the U6 unemployment factors in the underemployed and discouraged workers and its only 7.6%, and is almost at the record low in 2000 at 7.3%. You have pointed out legitimate problems with our economy but these have always been problems and you have not shown that they haven't gotten worse, and that automation, instead of outsourcing or the skills gap is the cause.
Lets not tax away the middle class which is already burdened by rising costs and high taxes and is struggling to survive, in order to pay for a universal basic income. We already have too many takers who leach out of those of us who actually go out and work. A basic income will encourage millions to just live off a basic income and not work instead of working hard and getting an education.
lets make sure that everyone can easily get an affordable education in in-demand skills, and that kids actually learn valuable life skills in primary education, and that secondary education is focused solely on marketable career skills. Lets create 5 million new great jobs to fill the skills gap. Lets make sure that businesses, especially small business aren't hampered by over-taxation and over-regulation, so they actually have a chance to create jobs. Lets eliminate the trade deficit and bring back the millions of jobs moved overseas. Lets cut the military budget and wasteful welfare and spending for thousands of programs and red tape, and cut and simplify taxes for workers. Lets impose overtime pay requirements to encourage businesses to hire more workers.
And we need some liberal reforms too. Lets require that the wealthy pay more in taxes and these taxes actually benefit everything financially (universal healthcare, education, social security). Lets impose limitations on monopolies and make sure that employees and customers have protections from corporations.
And while we are at it, let's cure cancer; create international peace; make contact with extra-terrestrial life; solve the riddle of the Sphinx; totally eliminate illiteracy and hunger throughout the world, and end death.
PoliTalker
Diversity Makes Greatness
Hello distraff,
That doesn't make it OK.
OK, I get it. You choose to believe our economy is static, that wealth inequality has not grown. That is wrong. It has. And it continues to become more polarized. Our birth rate is insufficient to even replace our population. That is a very good indicator that average people do not have as much wealth as they once did. They don't feel comfortable to have large families because they can't afford them. We have gone from a one-worker breadwinner economy with larger families to both parents working and smaller families. And still, millennials can't afford homes, live in parents' basements as they pay off student loans to the wealth extractor class.
I totally agree there. We will have to tax the ultra-rich for that. There won't be much of a middle class after AI hits.
There won't be any work for them to do. And it is disingenuous to blame the poor for their own condition. Most people on government assistance are working.
The new 'in-demand skills' are going to be: "Are you a robot which can learn and adapt and work 24-7-365 without ever getting sick?
You know, after you get done slashing government to the bone, a new problem would be created. All those government workers whom have been turned out into the market will further impede efforts to find good well-paying jobs with adequate benefits for all. Those don't exist today, and capitalism has zero interest in creating that for the future. To be real, capitalism seeks to eliminate workers, not utilize them.
Good stuff, and I appreciate your balance. You know, I once thought it might be a good idea to have a maximum wage. It wouldn't be a number, but instead a ratio. A ratio of maximum executive take vs average worker take. This would include all forms of remuneration to executives including stock and other instruments. But that was before I really grasped the looming changes we as a society are facing with the advent of true AI. These machines won't need workers to build, design or service them. The machines will do that themselves. It is difficult to imagine what new work they might create, and even more difficult to imagine any such new work at sufficient levels to support society. We are left with no alternative but to tax the super-rich heavily to pay for the UBI. And that won't hurt them, because they will own the giant corporations which own the robots. Without the expense of labor, those corporations will be so profitable they will blow away the staggering numbers of today. This will come in exponential leaps.
Sooner or later, everyone will embrace the UBI.
That doesn't make it OK.
OK, I get it. You choose to believe our economy is static, that wealth inequality has not grown. That is wrong. It has. And it continues to become more polarized. Our birth rate is insufficient to even replace our population. That is a very good indicator that average people do not have as much wealth as they once did. They don't feel comfortable to have large families because they can't afford them. We have gone from a one-worker breadwinner economy with larger families to both parents working and smaller families. And still, millennials can't afford homes, live in parents' basements as they pay off student loans to the wealth extractor class.
I totally agree there. We will have to tax the ultra-rich for that. There won't be much of a middle class after AI hits.
There won't be any work for them to do. And it is disingenuous to blame the poor for their own condition. Most people on government assistance are working.
The new 'in-demand skills' are going to be: "Are you a robot which can learn and adapt and work 24-7-365 without ever getting sick?
You know, after you get done slashing government to the bone, a new problem would be created. All those government workers whom have been turned out into the market will further impede efforts to find good well-paying jobs with adequate benefits for all. Those don't exist today, and capitalism has zero interest in creating that for the future. To be real, capitalism seeks to eliminate workers, not utilize them.
Good stuff, and I appreciate your balance. You know, I once thought it might be a good idea to have a maximum wage. It wouldn't be a number, but instead a ratio. A ratio of maximum executive take vs average worker take. This would include all forms of remuneration to executives including stock and other instruments. But that was before I really grasped the looming changes we as a society are facing with the advent of true AI. These machines won't need workers to build, design or service them. The machines will do that themselves. It is difficult to imagine what new work they might create, and even more difficult to imagine any such new work at sufficient levels to support society. We are left with no alternative but to tax the super-rich heavily to pay for the UBI. And that won't hurt them, because they will own the giant corporations which own the robots. Without the expense of labor, those corporations will be so profitable they will blow away the staggering numbers of today. This will come in exponential leaps.
Sooner or later, everyone will embrace the UBI.
While some jobs get eliminated and downgraded, many more are being created like they have for the last 150 years since the industrial revolution. Ever since the industrial revolution, there have been many predictions of mass unemployment due to automation, and workers being reduced to low-wage servants. These predictions have not been borne out because the new factories produced products that needed new jobs for management, and the savings from cheaper products allowed consumers to spend more on services that needed new jobs. fter 150 years of automating tens of millions of jobs and the eradication of dozens of entire industries, we stand at 3.7% unemployment and 7.6% U-6 unemployment, which is really good. A higher percent of the population is employed than in the 50s, 60s, 70s, and 80s.
Also grand predictions about the future like space colonies, flying cars, and super-fast commutes have not come to fruit so we aren't sure when true AI will actually happen until it does, and we are nowhere near actually doing that yet. But I do think computers will get a lot smarter and start eliminating tens of millions of jobs and will eliminate more than they create, but I don't know how quickly this will happen. We can't implement mass-unemployment policies until this actually starts happening.
As of now, there are millions of high skills jobs that are unfilled and we have to actually import skilled labor constantly. Why can't we take the poor in the US and fill these positions? Why can't we balance our trade and bring back millions of jobs for the poor and unemployed to fill? Why don't we increase the demand for more workers by requiring time and a half pay for all work past 40 hours? And even with these problems not addressed, we still have very low unemployment. Its wasteful and irresponsible for taxpayers to give people money for not working when we can create millions of by fixing these problems first.
Income inequality is a big problem, but not just for the poorest who will be helped by a basic income, but also middle class workers, and even lower wage blue collar workers too. The basic income won't help these workers who struggle to pay their bills and instead raise their taxes in order to pay millions to not work. To help with this problem, we should raise taxes on the rich to provide universal healthcare to workers. We should address high housing costs and get them lowered. We should make the wealthy to pay for social security for their workers by removing the cap on social security taxes. We should mandate minimum benefits to workers like sick time, vacation time, and overtime pay, and a living wage.
I think you are right about future mass unemployment, and the inequality problems we have, but I believe there are some great solutions that keep people working and makes their jobs better.
You are thinking now. A Chinese entrepreneur on 60 miniutes said in the future,there will be 40 percent less jobs. That has to be planned for ,assumng the wealthy want to come out in public sometime.
Automation took hundreds of thousands of jobs out of the auto industry,. Replacing workers has never abated.
IT HAD BETTER BE "SOONER"...BECAUSE IF IT IS LATER, IT WILL BE AFTER AN UPHEAVAL THAT WILL MAKE ALL PREVIOUS UPHEAVALS SEEM LIKE CHILD'S PLAY.
This has got to happen soon...within the lifetimes of people now alive...PROBABLY within the lifetime of adults now living.