“That’s if you only count money as value. Money is simply one way of expressing value,”
It is the only way that is universally accepted. You can object to you all you like, but if you cannot gain consensus on another measure, the objection has no legs.
“Anyway, Wikipedia is free”
No, it’s not. It is user supported. The donators pay the freight for those who don’t contribute. And those contributions are part of GDP.
Right. That’s the system we have. I think that’s flawed.
That is your perogative. However, as long as a massive majority of citizens behave (not believe, but behave) according to MY definition, yours has no legs.
(Re intrinsic motivation.) That’s a perception, speculation.
No. It is the consistent result of sociological studies going back a century. If you choose not to recognize them, that is your prerogative, but it is I who am data-based, not you.
Many UBI pilots, however, have been done, and while they are not truly representative of all the benefits expected from a full UBI…
Correct. Full stop. What you have essentially said is that we have no data. Period.
“Why doesn’t a UBI amount to the same thing?”
Because the definition of “productive” is set sociologically. UBI is welfare, unproductive, and will never be respected by the producing society. The better solution is job guarantees, which alleviates those three problems.
“Not guarantee able. Do you believe Trump when he guarantees he’ll bring coal jobs back?”
This is a digression. I DO think that a portion of the coal jobs will come back, simply because coal is one of the most efficient sources of energy we have. If India stops buying, there is an entire sub-saharan africa who is short on power. But the larger point is that there are many areas where the creation of good jobs can be accelerated by non-regressive government polcies.
What the hell does that mean? You need a bag carrier? That’s gonna be a quick job to go, too.
So? I need a person to carry my bags. If they are willing to work for tips, and I am willing to pay them, how is that any concern to anyone else?
But are they realistically addressing them? I’m highly skeptical, and your insistence that some sort of jobs guarantee will do it is not reassuring to me.
UBI is certainly NOT realistically addressing them. It’s a wet dream for the unproductive. If you don’t like the jobs guarantee discussion, that’s your issue, not mine.
“…banning technological advancement and forcing companies to keep people on to do mundane tasks? Good luck. If not, what does it mean? How does one guarantee jobs? By what mechanism?”
I am on record saying that the ability to automate jobs should perhaps be slowed by regulation in order to allow the jobs market to catch up. Automation can destroy jobs much faster than individuals can retrain. There is no moral imperative that forces us to allow Amazon to implement drone delivery over such a short period of time that it creates a crisis for the UPS delivery drivers.
Maybe that’s because society motivates primarily with fear. Maybe a lot of people you’re working with are only in your field
Non sequitur. I do not comment on personal experience. I comment on data.
“The creative part is an observation. Implying that it means something about my credibility is an ad hominem argument, aka a fallacy.”
That is your opinion, creatively derived from my observation. It’s false. If you choose to believe it, that is entirely your affair.
“Some of the biggest, most worthless idiots I’ve known went to ivy league schools”
“, studied econ and engineering, even working in those fields, and some of the smartest have been creatives.”
In the late 80’s, I worked in the AI industry before it was cool. Many of our technicians were musicians and artists. I don’t dispute your observation. But they chose to work in a productive field rather than an unproductive one.
Aren’t produce and create synonyms? Is the only difference between the two that one has found a market value?
No. What I have disdain for are people who actually plan how to live on the public dime. Regardless of who they are.
“Is there nothing we have an inherent right to a share of? “
Sure. We already provide a civil society. Nobody who has access to a pen and paper starves; there is help available. The most common terminal diseases of the poor are obesity-related heart conditions and diabetes. As far as human basics, we do quite well.
“These are assets of the commons. Nobody living created it.”
Granted. The spoils go to those who comprehend and use the system to its fullest extent.
This wealth is claimed by the wealthy, because they have capital to leverage. One of the main arguments about how to pay is to tax the use and profiting off of such commons, such public assets, and return that value as a dividend to the people.
True of course. The political question is “how much”. When you look at the data from our system, which the most progressive in the developed world, it begs the question “when will the income redistributors be satisfied?”
Everyone should be treated as a shareholder in this nation’s publicly owned wealth fund. They do a version of this in Alaska, brought about by a Republican governor, and they love it. Everyone (man, woman, or child) gets an equal dividend from oil profits.
Sure. When you’re in a governance district that has a small population and large natural resources wealth, you can govern any way you want. Ask Norway or Dubai. You can’t, however, scale that to an entire population. I am reminded how the Democrats trashed the Republicans on the “small country” issue when Estonia moved to a flat income tax.
Sweden, where I have relatives, actually cut back on some of their welfare spending a decade or so ago when an international study showed that they had the highest percentage of people in the developed world of working age who weren’t. They reviewed their programs and realized they were enabling sloth. So, they cut back on various aspects of their welfare structure.
Can you accept there might be a difference between embracing guaranteed income and rejecting guaranteed job schemes? Why not have both?
People already work 3 jobs and can’t pay the rent.”
Where and when is that the case, and how many people are in that situation? Please be specific.
“Good word choice. You say their work is valued at a higher level than yours is, but is it more valuable?”
I don’t really care. You’re attempting to inject subjective judgements into the system, and trust that far less than the free market which currently governs the matter.
“We do not live in a meritocracy, and our markets do not adequately reward labor, and so a jobs guarantee alone is not a sufficient solution.”
You are incorrect. We ARE a meritocracy, just not a perfect one. Let’s not toss out the baby with the bathwater.
1% of $15T is $150B, no? That’s where I came up with 22%. But what if we pay for a lot of it with commons tax and dividend policies?
What if? If you raise the dividend tax, corporations will just cut back on their dividends, because you made the shareholders want them less. This has happened several times in the last 100 years. The data is rather conclusive that taxing dividends is a bad idea, if you want to raise government revenues.
What if our economy booms because people are spending more money rather than letting it sit in inflated bank accounts?
We know the data on this one. Spending offset with redistribuion is at best a net/net.
Besides, you said yourself you want to raise the same types of funds by raising taxes, you just don’t want to spend them that way, because you don’t trust people. That seems to be your real issue with UBI.
No, I DO trust people. I trust them to adhere to their historical patterns. IOW, they will not respond well to UBI.
“Why must it be one or the other?”
Neither works, so the question is moot.”
“YES! That’s another source of funding I support.”
Of course, because you don’t know anything about it. When you talk about fintrans taxing, data is always presented that shows that retirees on pensions take the biggest hit. I don’;t know if that’s true or not, but I;m just pointing out that it requires research.
That’s back to your lack of trust, methinks.
Not at all. What you’re assuming if that if you’re not intrinsically motivated, you must be a nihilst. That’s not shown by the data in the least.
Just the opposite. Nihilism is inimicable to Islam.
I hope you’ll change your mind about human kind some day. I don’t think I could handle being you. It must be so lonely.
Er? I am very positive about humankind. Just not in the way you are.