We worry about providing Universal Basic Income because people might stop working, but here's a thought: maybe, just maybe, with a little financial security, people might actually pursue work they truly choose rather than work to just not die. Imagine that world for a moment.
@scottsantens That's what all studies on UBI (even ones unceremoniously cancelled part way through) have shown. 80+ % of participants did something of value to society - caring for family (young & old), went to school, volunteered, worked part time, started a business, etc.
It's absurd that we're not doing this because a noisy minority of people are worried about some small percentage of people will take some time off.
As someone who is strongly against UBI, and strongly supportive of welfare I can earnestly say people simply not working is not at all the reason I (or most people against UBI in my opinion) are against it.
The reason i am against it is because it causes people more harm than good. People who are in a position where they need assistance need to be given the tools to get out of their situation, and the help to get there needs to be conditional on this (and we should be spending the money that goes with that). Financial assistance should be conditional with mandatory job training or mental health therapy needed to help someone succeed, not just money.
In fact when there are underlying bad habits, as can often be the case, it is possible money can even make a persons condition worse and cause them to sleep farther into poverty.
Bruh. Let's maybe go total anarcho-capitalism with no welfare? Honestly, it will be more efficient and friendly to poor people.
> it causes people more harm than good.
The shitty conditional welfare just lock poor uneducated people out of jobs. For example, someone have no job and therefore receives unemployment benefits. If this person finds a job, they will no longer receive unemployment benefits. But they only have an option to apply for a shitty job with salary lower than their unemployment benefit, therefore, it is not profitable for them to look for a job at all. This (and high minimum wages) is the exact mechanics that cause ghettos in france.
I am not suggesting welfare in its current form be used. I am suggest it be conditional on one getting the training to no longer need welfare, in which case welfare will get you through that time,
The concept of ubi didn't pop up into existence because economists were bored, it was created to address the issues with the current version of welfare and its conditioning.
Yea that was the attempt and it fails miserably at achieving it. IT proposes a state that doesnt fix the underlying problem, just dumps an infinite firehose of cash at it hoping to alleviate the symptoms. Which is hugely problematic in so many ways.
I am a strong believer in addressing root problems,and not wasting those same resources fighting a raging fire with a squirt gun.
@freemo@lonelyowl13@scottsantens The problem with your thinking is that in capitalism there are winners and losers, period. In nature it is the same. No amount of money will ever solve it because it is not a problem, it is simply reality.
Nothing except an ever increasing GDP can ever even hope to thwart reality and it's obviously unsustainable to do that.
So either we give up capitalism or we accept this reality. If you give up capitalism, what do you replace it with? This argument has been had ad infinitum and the ultimate result is capitalism sucks but it's better than every other economy that's been tried. And no amount of "not real communism bro" can make the fact capitalism is the best we have right now any less of a true statement.
The problem with your thinking is that in capitalism there are winners and losers, period. In nature it is the same. No amount of money will ever solve it because it is not a problem, it is simply reality.
Yea thats not true. In a properly function government which adopts a reasonable component of capitalism (no such thing as a pure capitalism), then everyone wins. Some win more than others, no doubt, but everyone wins. That isnt to say we currently have a good well rounded government, we dont, but if we did there would be nothing to fix.
Your incorrect premise relies on the zero-sum game fallacy of money, it is not a 0 sum game and it is trivial to demonstrate that (if it were we would all still be living in caves).
Nothing except an ever increasing GDP can ever even hope to thwart reality and it’s obviously unsustainable to do that.
Based on what? While a growing GDP is generally a good thing, the idea that it must occur to offset capitalism somehow is not something I can see any logic in. Quite the opposite, a growing GNP is an indication of wealth generation and overall a good indicator.
So either we give up capitalism or we accept this reality. If you give up capitalism, what do you replace it with? This argument has been had ad infinitum and the ultimate result is capitalism sucks but it’s better than every other economy that’s been tried. And no amount of “not real communism bro” can make the fact capitalism is the best we have right now any less of a true statement.
Since your premise doesnt seem to line up with the facts, obviously your conclusions based on the axioms are similarly invalid unless we can resolve the axioms.
@freemo@lonelyowl13@scottsantens >Yea thats not true
It is 100% true. I will not argue it with you, because it would be retarded to do so. People far smarter than me have proven it over and over and over again.
Read an economics textbook and apply some basic reasoning skills to reality.
There is no such thing as "capitalism with caveats". There is no such thing as "a government with social spending that never collapses". History proves me right too, by the way.
Also Laissez-faire capitalism. Might as well look that up too since you don't even seem to know that much.
It is 100% true. I will not argue it with you, because it would be retarded to do so. People far smarter than me have proven it over and over and over again.
Thats fine, then dont waste my time making stupid arguments you have no desire to discuss. My posts are not your soap box, they are for conversations not you to lecture people and then be too lazy to even discuss your wildlly fringe stance.
Read an economics textbook and apply some basic reasoning skills to reality.
Saying “read a text book” rather than actually being able to explain your own ideas is lazy, and quite frankly makes you look like a troll who adds no value to the conversation.Act like a mature adult or you can GTFO, we dont need your toxic shit here.
There is no such thing as “capitalism with caveats”. There is no such thing as “a government with social spending that never collapses”. History proves me right too, by the way.
Saying more dumbass shit that isnt true isnt getting you anywhere.
Also Laissez-faire capitalism. Might as well look that up too since you don’t even seem to know that much.
I already have posts in my feed about this very topic and where I fall on the issue. Nice try with doubling down ont he toddler-level insults though, you can GTFO of here with that shit, the adults are talking.
I'm not educated enough to make any strong arguments here, i'm not an economist, but i reeeeally don't want to accept the idea of conditional welfare. It's always end up with something horrible and constant system abuse where people receive """help""" but live in poverty anyway, it consume shitload of money and do nothing :<
How is money along side free education help that "consume a shit load of money and do nothing".. when literally just giving them money for ever for the rest of their lives is somehow not? That makes no sense to me.
Yep it's a counterintuitive idea but ubi is actually could be cheaper:
"anyone can access the money without jumping through bureaucratic hoops, thus also theoretically making a UBI cheaper to implement than traditional welfare programs. The “poverty trap” created by traditional welfare options, which stop giving benefits after an individual reaches a certain income level, could be eliminated, and the stigma of receiving welfare would no longer be a factor"
No UBI isnt cheaper... It spends less money but gets you no solution, which is more expecive.
Cheap means value, not low cost. Paying more to solve the problem is cheaper than paying less to not solve it (and therefore need to payout for an entire persons life)
I dont want something that is the cheapest, I want to solve the problem, and will pay what it takes to do so.
I suppose our core disagreement is about which solution works at all. I don't think conditional welfare works, imo it's useless, and if i have to choose between conditional welfare and no welfare, i'll choose the latter 🤔
How would you know it doesnt work, it hasnt been implemented. What are you basing that off of? Right now welfare is not conditional, if your poor you get welfare, Which doesnt work, which proves that non-conditional aide doesnt work, so why would UBI (taking the current system to a more extreme state) suddenly start working?
Rather than doing more of the same that we already know doesnt work (unconditional help) perhaps try it the way I propose first so you actually have some data to judge it.
inb4: In my case im basing it off data, personal data in a way that isnt exactly the same, but its an educated decision. I spent my life taking many homeless and poor people into my house to get them off welfare. I've seen success and I've seen failure and im basing my position off what ive seen works.
There are no unconditional support anywhere as far as i know, you always need to apply for it and match certain criteria.
How do you see your variant then?
What's difference between current conditioning and your proposed conditioning?
You are correct, we are talking about conditional in a very different sense of how it applied.
I am not talking about conditional in the sense that "I filled out paper work and am in poverty"that is obviously a condition no one should have any issue with. I am talking about the condition that you must be taking steps to get out of poverty to accept the money. In other words you must demonstrate you are taking higher education classes, a trade-skill class, job training, psychiatric help, basically whatever it is that is needed to get you out of poverty you must persue in order to get the welfare. All of these avenues must be included free of charge with welfare.
This does not exist. I grew up on welfare, from the day i was born till the day I got my own home at 15 years old, I was on welfare that entire time. There was no conditions placed on it in terms of anything my mom had to do to get out of welfare. The only condition is you were poor enough to need money, and you would get it. Which is the very reason my mom never got off welfare, in fact, she made it a point to stay on it because to get off of it she would actually have lost money due to the welfare gap (another issue that needs addressing).
So yea, conditional welfare, in the sense that I describe it doesnt exist. But UBI is closer to what we already have (non-conditional in terms of any effort you need to make on your part to get off of it, in fact its designed to keep you on it). So why take what we already have that is broken and crank it to 11 , rather than actually trying to solve the problem for once?
But nope! It is also a working solution to a problem you described, it don't create that "poverty trap" because no one will take your money away if you get a job, you just get more money. If you will find a good job, you eventually will contribute to system more than it pay to you.
Also, i expect the pressure on poor people that they must do something to prove they're not a camel will have a huge demotivation effect, people will just mimic the activity.
I think someone must run an experiment with such conditioning to see if it does anything useful.
But nope! It is also a working solution to a problem you described, it don’t create that “poverty trap” because no one will take your money away if you get a job, you just get more money. If you will find a good job, you eventually will contribute to system more than it pay to you.
This is called the welfare gap. It trivial to solve in either solution. As long as welfare is calculated continuously, rather than in steps, and the amount your welfare goes down is less than the proportion your income goes up, problem solved.
Also since welfare is conditional on you getting our of welfare it is self solving.
So this is a moot point.
Also, i expect the pressure on poor people that they must do something to prove they’re not a camel will have a huge demotivation effect, people will just mimic the activity.
You’d be wrong. Like I said after years of trying almost every tactic when helping the poor the fact is when I just gave them moneya nd put no conditions on them they literally freeloaded forever. It was only when I paid for their university, gave them real oppertunity, and put conditions on my help that i must seem them progressing that in almost every case the people got out of poverty.
AS someone myself who was in poverty who also followed that pattern, to me it seems quite obvious what the outcome of UBI is, and its not good.
@freemo@scottsantens I think you’re saying the same thing, that if people are given money without any strings attached then they will not start working but use that money for nefarious purposes. There’s been quite a lot of research showing that unconditional cash donations are very effective at easing extreme poverty, which counters your point that it makes things worse: https://poverty-action.org/impact/cash-transfers-changing-debate-giving-cash-people-living-poverty
I think you’re saying the same thing, that if people are given money without any strings attached then they will not start working but use that money for nefarious purposes.
No I wouldnt go that far at all. I think most people who are poor have very poor financial hygene. It is not nefarious, or even intentional. They probably spend the money on things they feel really are the important and right things to spend money on, when in fact it isnt
It also depends ont he amount, at minimal levels and among the poor it may be spent on food, which is a good purchase, but doesnt help get the person out of poverty, so in those cases its less about spending hygiene and more about needing more resources (like education/training) and not about the money.
There’s been quite a lot of research showing that unconditional cash donations are very effective at easing extreme poverty
Yes there has, and thats my point, simply easing poverty is treating the symptoms not the problem, and requires and infinite infusion of money to sustain never resolving the problem. We dont want to “ease poverty” we want to break people free of poverty all together, to not need the financial help at all in the end. Easing poverty with an endless firehose of cash doesnt accomplish that.
@freemo@jkxyz@scottsantens You can always tell when someone's never been poor because they say things like "most people who are poor have very poor financial hygene."
I grew up in extreme poverty that continued into adulthood. I lived in the ghetto, on welfare in section 8 housing in a home with my grandparents, cousins, uncle, and mother all in the same small home.
Thank you for the QED though regarding your own bias.
@freemo@jkxyz@scottsantens You might be the exception that proves the rule. But I do wonder how representative the samples you've taken are of financial hygiene for people in different income brackets.
It would be a tricky thing to show in an experimental objective fashion. But i alw
So pointed out in thread ive taken in some dozen poor homeless people over my life and got them back on their feet. Myself now being financially successful in life and having learned to get out of poverty i feel it is important to help others do the same.
Having been in poverty and helped .any others get out id say i have a far better sampling than most people at least.
@freemo@BernieDoesIt@jkxyz@scottsantens Poverty will lead to improved money management skills. Before I started college I bought around $400 dollars in hand tools and a laptop. It took a lot of saving up to buy but good hand tools are an investment that pay themselves off.
I still have those tools and that laptop. A Craftsman 354 piece Mechanics Tool Set and some Toshiba Satellite with an AMD C-50 "Ontario" APU.
Poverty is something that I've never been able to escape. It gets rough but I would like to think it will all pay off one day. I can only say stay sharp, say nawt. One needs every bit of leverage they can get.
@kenmarable Huh, I thought you wanted citations? But you are exempt? Ok... I mean usually the one makign the original claim is the one with the onus, but suite yourself.
@freemo [hachyderm censors blob] problem is that administrators tend to not have a local understanding of which tools the person needs. there are many stories on BBC of british orgs going to africa to give government determined handouts only to realize nobody there has supply for gas ovens or the town wanted a post office and shoes and they tried to dig another well
Absolutely. There is no doubt that actually providing real assistance is a more nuanced and complex thing to do than just piling a bunch of paper bills on someone.
But something that is simple, that doesnt fix the problem (and in fact makes it worse) is not a good argument for the simpler approach. Solving problems for real takes more effort and nuance, but since it actually stands a chance of solving problems (and hopefully with improvement more so over time) its still the way to go.
This is a big problem with society in almost everything, they deny things simply due to complexity in excahange for something simple that isnt a solution at all.
@freemo typically the alternative to "piling bills" is the gift card/ commmunism approach. which is summed up by an episode of MASH where logistics says they can give out a pizza oven if you scratch out the field and write pizza on it, but can't give out what they were actually requesting for the field unit
@icedquinn No, I dont care if people get cash for food or a "gift card". its not about if they get the money or not, its about the conditions placed on that money. We will give you money (in whatever form, including cash) but only if you go to free job training, or go to university, or go to a trade school, or go to a psychiatrist. You do the things you need to do to ensure you are less likely to need welfare in the future, and then youll get whatever resources you need.
@freemo i think wisconsin does some of those things but its tied in to unemployment benefits. i didn't get to use them while i was there because i hadn't gotten fired in-state
unemployment benefits is a bit different than poverty based welfare. Im not even trying to address unemployment, benefits, thats another ball of wax we would need to address on its own.
@freemo i think the typical objection to ubi is just a trauma response. "i had to scrape salt off the roads for six cents a day so you should too!!"
realistically what i worry about looks more like HUD housing's issue. when the state says we'll subsidize up to 500$ a month, all the housing here went up by exactly 500$ a month. the market just sees the free money as free real estate and adapts to soak it all. so ubis keep working well in limited episodes where the market doesn't get the chance to figure out how to soak it all, but i'm fairly sure everyone's rent would go up the day ubi happened, probably by however much it was :/
> i think the typical objection to ubi is just a trauma response. "i had to scrape salt off the roads for six cents a day so you should too!!"
There could a bit of people who think that.. i mean there are plenty of grump old crumudgeons.
But of all the people I've debated UBI with, the ones that were against UBI were largely against it for the reasons I've stated, that it enables bad habits rather than fixing them. Not saying poor people are drug addicts, but its a similar mentality, you give a drug addict cash all you do is enable their bad habit, you pay for their rehab you might actually fix their problem. Most poor people in my experience were never taught the skills they need to get out of poverty. With the right skills its easy (I've done it for myself and many other people), but obtaining those skills are non-trivial. Worse yet most poor people are taught its not the skills that is the problem but the system is just against them, so quite often they will push back on the very things they need to do to fix the problem.
In short, more money tends to make poor people just reinforce their bad habits and makes things worse not better most of the time.
The beleife of a person who has taken in homeless drug addicts into his own home and have a remarkably good track record of them leaving sober and self-sufficient actually.
I grew up in a family of drug addicts (heroin & crack)... I know drug addiction all too well as someone the victim of it without being a drug addict myself. I am probably uniquely experienced to talk abotu getting out of poverty and addiction as I've personally worked with so many people in that respect.
I'm very curious to see how the various experiments with UBI turn out. What about the Alaska oil revenue per capita distribution? Has this led to the issues you're concerned about?
@freemo I've never seen any argument for folk not working when getting UBI, but that it sits under incomes as a financial safety net for most cases. Some cases may need more money or other forms of welfare but UBI would catch most cases.
I agree, i neve rheard the argument of not working used against UBI. Actually i have heard that argument, but it is always int he form of those for the concept fabricating it as an argument of those against. I never legitimately heard it used as an argument against.
As for it being a safety net, in theory sure. But considering the harm it does as I already explained in thread, and considering there are non-harmful ways to accomplish the same safety net. Also considering it isnt really sufficient even as a safety net for most, I simply cant support the idea under this premise.
@SteelFolk Again, easy and not a solution, vs harder and actually a solution... yea its easier to mess up when you actually try to solve problems (rather than just opening up a hose of money which is hard to screw up, other than not solving anything and making things literally worse).
Yea solutions mean they need to be done right, and thats a given.
@freemo Yes, most of them feature a desire to make them punitive. We moved on from 'debtors prison' and workhouses, but only just. There remains a view that folk will work harder to avoid an unpleasant system but they never have.
@SteelFolk Punitive how exactly? I've certainly heard a few callous things before, but never a common stance where it should be punitive.
My own stance is not there there are punishments. Do what is required of you (like enroll in school for free),a nd get the money as long as your going. If you stop going you dont get punished other than not receiving the benefits you got for going.
I'd also make the absolute minimal level of food needed not to die (soup kitchens) plus a cot in a gym with 100 other people to sleep on as always available no questions asked. But if you want a home and food you buy yourself and some of the basic needs beyond just keeping you alive, yea that should have conditions.
Another way to describe this depiction of "welfare" is "we should all pay with our taxes to keep the reserve army of labour up to date, so that the employers can keep all wages as low as possible".
In fact, I would be fine with that IFF taxes would be proportional to one's income percentile: you are in the first income percentile (the poorest percentile), you pay 1% of your income in taxes; you are in the last income percentile, you pay 99% of your income in taxes.
In this way, the richest would pay for the upgrade of the reserve army of labour they need.
Anyway, the real problem with #UBI is that, everything else unchanged, it would be completely cancelled by inflation. With a caveat: when the UBI becomes the new zero, governments would be able to blackmail people depending on it.
Incidentally, this is also the obvious reason why many USA billionaires say they want UBI.
Another way to describe this depiction of “welfare” is “we should all pay with our taxes to keep the reserve army of labour up to date, so that the employers can keep all wages as low as possible”.
That would not be a fair or accurate description of how economic systems work. An educated and well trained populace is one most enabled to start new businesses and create new inovation, not just a supply of work force. So the idea that it keeps the workforce uptodate while ignoring the fact that it actually converts (over time) a large portion of the workforce into business owners themselves is a completely inaccurte idea and not at all in line with the reality of the situation.
In fact, I would be fine with that IFF taxes would be proportional to one’s income percentile: you are in the first income percentile (the poorest percentile), you pay 1% of your income in taxes; you are in the last income percentile, you pay 99% of your income in taxes.
Progressive vs flat tax is another issue and I wont address that as I dont want to derail things off on a tangent. But to be clear I am not arguing for flat taxes here so this is largerly a moot point.
Anyway, the real problem with #UBI is that, everything else unchanged, it would be completely cancelled by inflation.
No it doesnt work that way for two reasons 1) everything else is not unchanged, the act of educating the populace has mass wide spread changes on every aspect of economy for the better 2) it would not cause inflation as it isnt increasing the money supply. If you printed money to cover the UBI then sure, but when it is coming from taxes this is not a correct statement.
With a caveat: when the UBI becomes the new zero, governments would be able to blackmail people depending on it.
This caveat certainly has some validity to it.
Incidentally, this is also the obvious reason why many USA billionaires say they want UBI.
Honestly, I doubt you have any idea what billionaires want or what motivated them. And I suspect you have a very twisted/biased view about them that makes it impossible for you to make such statements objectively and accurately. Then again I’d say that about most people.
come on @freemo, turning "mandatory job training or mental health therapy" into "educating the populace" is a very poor attempt at changing your argument.
Nobody can be againg universal education, but you want to condition people survaival to job training, which is way less than education.
Or maybe I misunderstood your words: did you mean that anyone pursuing higher education in any possible field should be financially supported by the collectivity?
It would be great to see univerisities full of poor people studying history, phylosophy, music, math and so on, not only for free but with a decent income.
I totally agree that educating the populace in such way would benefit society in many way, maybe even economically, in the long run.
But if you just meant to condition people survival on "job training", you are really proposing to collectivize the cost of upgrading the reserve army of labour so that, the employers could keep the wage as low as possible.
Uhm... if you actually meant that people studying whatever they decide to study to any degree should earn a decent income that make them independent, then I agree that this is a better alternative to #UBI.
But note: the income should be granted to anyone studying whatever they are interested into, not to people studying "what the market need".
If that's what you meant, I'm sorry for misunderstanding your words (but I also suggest you to be more clear next time: "job training" is a very specific kind education, designed to only teach people how to perform a specific job, not for example how to run a company that could compete in the market or create innovative technologies).
Yet the "who pays?" issue persist: you know that such "Universal Culture & Income" would have a huge economical cost: how do you think it could be payed through taxation?
Uhm… if you actually meant that people studying whatever they decide to study to any degree should earn a decent income that make them independent, then I agree that this is a better alternative to #UBI.
No not exactly, but not too far off. People should be able to study whatever marketable skill they want, but it should be totally up to them which skill it is. Do i think someone should be able to go to school to become a the best bubblegum chewer in the world, no, but they should be able to pick and choose their career between any of the choices that will allow them to provide enough utility to society that they can sustain themselves without welfare in the future.
But note: the income should be granted to anyone studying whatever they are interested into, not to people studying “what the market need”.
No that is non-sensical and literally doesn’t solve the problem. The goal is produce people who have something to offer society that is of value to its fellow members. That can represent art, music, and plenty of fields that are all marketable skills. It doesnt mean you can learn how to become the best weed smoker in the world and expect people to pay for it or whatever other silly nonsense you might come up with.
Or maybe I misunderstood your words: did you mean that anyone pursuing higher education in any possible field should be financially supported by the collectivity?
Almost, all marketable subjects (read: subjects with utility where the skill has use to others) should be free and tax payer paid to any level.
Yet the “who pays?” issue persist: you know that such “Universal Culture & Income” would have a huge economical cost: how do you think it could be payed through taxation?
The same people who pay for everything else, the tax payers. Which is exactly who should be paying to improve society (tax payers being both corporations, and individuals since both pay taxes).
Well, our society needs people who can reason about ethics, for example. We need people who knows history. We need people who can create poetry and art. But capitalist market fear ethics, as it would conflict with profit maximization. It also fears history because it shows that there have been plenty of alternatives to capitalist market. As for poetry and art in general, the greatest artists tend to be poor and misunderstood, and in no way create their masterpiece for the market (that tends to exploit them after their death).
The value of the greatest artists is often really understood decades after their death. So being able to provide value to the society is pretty different from being əble to make society understand and recognise such value.
And the converse is also true: the market pays for all sort of non-sense, that provide no value to the society, From drugs to gamers.
So pursuing only marketable skills as a condition to survival is, again, a way to produce a reserve army if labour to keep wage low.
"Educating the populace" is a better alternative than #UBI if (and only if) the people can earn a living by studying any human field of knowledge. And this does not include weed smoking or any of the strawman you picked, but might include several different fields with very low market demand, such as, say, theorethical phylosophy, history of music, or artic biology or programming in #Oberon or #HolyC.
This because the market do not know what will be valuable for the society.
Well, our society needs people who can reason about ethics, for example.
If society needs a thing then it has utility, if it has utility then it is marketable. That said wit snot just “does society need some number of these people” as it is about having the correct number of them.
Sure society needs (and will pay for) people who study ethics. It is a marketable skill as long as there are not enough such people, at some point you have too many and its no longer marketable.
Every nobel peace prize winner could be argued is likely an expert on ethics in a marketable position.
We need people who can create poetry and art. But capitalist market fear ethics, as it would conflict with profit maximization.
All of those are example of things that provide utility to society and are marketable. In fact I explicitly listed these as examples of marketable skills.
People buy poetry books, people buy art. It nis an example of a marketable skill.
As for poetry and art in general, the greatest artists tend to be poor and misunderstood, and in no way create their masterpiece for the market (that tends to exploit them after their death).
The fact that you think they are good doesnt mean they are good. But if they are truly good then either they dont have marketable skills (for example they suck at art, or dont know enough about business to sell their art, or some other needed skill they lack to make themselves marketable)… or they refuse to work for someone. There are plenty of jobs for artists, in the world , particularly if you are trained.
The value of the greatest artists is often really understood decades after their death.
Providing some benefit long after everyone is dead isnt helping us now. You want to do things that will be appreciated in 100 years, do that as a hobby. We have enough things we need now to not worry about a what if far intot he future.
Also for every artist that becomes well known after their death there are a million artists which provided little or no value because they were always objectively crappy.
So pursuing only marketable skills as a condition to survival is, again, a way to produce a reserve army if labour to keep wage low.
You just proved the opposite, literally everything you listed are examples of marketable skills when highly trained and not oversaturated. So umm, no.
This because the market do not know what will be valuable for the society.
If society needs a thing then it has utility, if it has utility then it is marketable. That said wit snot just “does society need some number of these people” as it is about having the correct number of them.
This has a caveat. It is only true if monopolies are broken up effectively. Also, you need to have enough people actually solvent.
Otherwise, you might not get to market your utility due to a broken market.
"An individual who has to make things for the use of others, and with reference to their wants and their wishes, does not work with interest, and consequently cannot put into his work what is best in him. Upon the other hand, whenever a community or a powerful section of a community, or a government of any kind, attempts to dictate to the artist what he is to do, Art either entirely vanishes, or becomes stereotyped, or degenerates into a low and ignoble form of craft. A work of art is the unique result of a unique temperament. Its beauty comes from the fact that the author is what he is. It has nothing to do with the fact that other people want what they want. Indeed, the moment that an artist takes notice of what other people want, and tries to supply the demand, he ceases to be an artist, and becomes a dull or an amusing craftsman, an honest or a dishonest tradesman. He has no further claim to be considered as an artist."
that the beauty of it, being marketable does not mean they have to design to a particular persons whims..
An artist who is good, but follows their own internal vision will usually create great works, and that will be more marketable than a design intended to target a particular person.
So even here it is in support of what Im saying, creating good art, by whatever mechanisms createt he best art, is inherently marketable because we value that as a people.
In other words you have the cause and effect wrong, an artist is marketable because we put value in good art... he doesnt create good art and is marketable because he is designing for the market.
You said I know nothing about art or its history and then said absolutely nothing that contradicted what I said… In fact you agreed perfectly with what I said.
The ability of the market to pay for value is well shown in the cases of van Gogh, Meucci, Olivetti and so on…
Yes those are all examples of artists who made far more after their life. Which I already said occurs… you literally just insult me, say i wrong, then just went on to say how i was wrong and didnt actually disagree with a word I said…
The market is not rational.
Never said it was, or that it needs to be. The market is based on utility, but you clearly do not understand what utility means, it doesnt mean something is rational. It means it serves a purpose to someone, and bringing enjoyment is a valid purpose and would be an example of utility.
Meucci was a inventor (invented the phone) and Olivetti was a visionary enterpreneur (his company invented the first programmabke desktop computer, then illegally copied by HP).
The market was unable to understand the utility provided, because it simply does not work as in the classical economy models.
There is an annoying feature of the market called information asymmetry that makes often impossible to understand (and thus pay for) what provide value. It's a slightly advanced topic in microeconomics (that in fact, I studied at the University, in the course of Political Science, decades ago).
But while I'm trying to provide you with a different perspective (and actually a well informed one on the topic) it seems that you feel insulted.
So there is no need to continue this convesation: keep thinking that I confirmed your opinion if it make you feel better than understanding what I actually wrote..
Sorry, yes I mispoke. I should have said “people” not artist. Otherwise my poiunt stands
Meucci was a inventor (invented the phone)
I am aware of who is. He had the marketable skill of being able to create a device that was more less a telephone, but lacked the complete set of marketable skills needed to market it. Namely, he was not particularly skillful in how to create or file patents and thus was unable to monetize his invention.
Which is again in strong support of my position, you need marketable skills, not just some random melange of skills that might create genius, but will prevent that genius from having utility since you lack the needed, and complete, skills to take it there.
and Olivetti was a visionary enterpreneur (his company invented the first programmabke desktop computer, then illegally copied by HP).
Olivette is in fact the strongest example in support of my point. He managed to start a company, it was quite successful during his lifetime (albeit it more so after too). In fact in his own words he praised the capitalist system, specifically the USA where he moved to be the pinnacle of modern economies.
The market was unable to understand the utility provided, because it simply does not work as in the classical economy models.
What are you talking about, the market cant “understand” utility, again thats not what utility is… The market can not exist in any state other than one in which utility is represented in the market, it is by definition.
Not to mention these are all examples of things where the market literally did demonstrate the utility. Van gogh had his paintings sold for millions. The fact that it was after his death only means they had utility to people later and not before… When he was alive his paintings brought people less joy, and thus had less utility,a nd people paid less for it. Later after his death people enjoyed his paintings more, meaning they had more utility then they had during his life, and as such their price reflected it.
Similarly with Meucci, his invention certainly had utility to people, but since he poorly documented the patent his invention it had less utility for people. A well documented good idea has more utility (by a large margin) then a less documented one.
And finally again Olivette literally had a very successful company and very much realized the utility of his work in his life.
There is an annoying feature of the market called information asymmetry that makes often impossible to understand (and thus pay for) what provide value. It’s a slightly advanced topic in microeconomics (that in fact, I studied at the University, in the course of Political Science, decades ago).
Again you seem to fail to understand the meaning of utility here. The utility of a thing is intimitatly related to the information attached to it. If your product is not well documented or have the info needed to show its value it objectively has less utility, the information you attach to a thing is a large part of how much utility that thing has. Things dont exist in a vacuum.
So there is no need to continue this convesation: keep thinking that I confirmed your opinion if it make you feel better than understanding what I actually wrote..
I mean, you can also just actually listen to what i said and try to understand it rather than disagreeing with concepts you clearly never bothered to understand before you decided if you agreed with it… that works too.
(not to consider the passage on ethics.. do you really think that if there are more ethical people than the market demand for, such people should stop being ethical? :-D
And yes, to be really ethical you need to study a lot! It's a very rich field of human knowledge, with thousands years of work!)
@Shamar@toiletpaper@scottsantens > not to consider the passage on ethics.. do you really think that if there are more ethical people than the market demand for, such people should stop being ethical? 🚸
You really need to try to hear what I say rather than what you want to hear please.
We talked about people who “studied ethics”.. not people who “acted ethically” these are two very different things. Having a skill in understanding the topic of ethics is not the same as being ethical.
And yes, to be really ethical you need to study a lot! It’s a very rich field of human knowledge, with thousands years of work!)
No, studying ethics and being ethical are very different things. Studying of ethics is great, but it doesnt mean your ethical, and being ethical doesnt mean you understand the scholarly knowledge around the subject.
There are mentally challenged people who cant even read who are more ethical than the greatest scholars on the subject.
Uhm.. no: to act ethically you (reasonably) need to study ethics.
Do not confuse ethics and morality.
Studing ethics is not enouth to be ethical, sure, but it is required.
Being good is different from being ethical, for example. Adherence to a certain form of morality is not being ethical. But ethics is a deep branch of phylosophy and for sure I'm not qualified to teach it (over mastodon :-D)
Uhm.. no: to act ethically you (reasonably) need to study ethics.
I have studied ethics quite a bit, both in university where we had quite a few classes on it and in my own time.
Studing ethics is not enouth to be ethical, sure, but it is required.
No its literally not required. Obviously it can help if your trying to solve large complex problems, sure. But I know people with downsyndom who cant even read who exhibit better ethics than most people I know. If you care about people and show kindness you will likely be more ethical than someone no matter how well studied they are on the subject. At least in your day to day life. I dont expect such a person to define the ethical considerations of a nation, but that is far from saying they cant be ethical.
Being good is different from being ethical, for example. Adherence to a certain form of morality is not being ethical.
Wrong… To quote wikipedia: “Ethics or moral philosophy is the philosophical study of moral phenomena.” Similar to be ethical is the adherence to ethics. that is, the expression of moral phenomena.
But ethics is a deep branch of phylosophy and for sure I’m not qualified to teach it (over mastodon :-D)
Yes it is a deep branch of philosophy… and we are agreed, you are not qualified since you are getting even the fundamental concepts wrong, let along the deep study of the branch of philosophy which goes well beyond that.
For the record I also dont consider myself qualified to be an expert on philosophy, though I am well studied on the topic.
That assumes the fault lies with your own lack of clarity. It is also possible people are so biased they will hear what they want to hear regardless of what you say.
Not at all, quite the opposite it proves my point and part of the basis for it.
You are assuming my points incorrectly most likely. For example I never claimed UBI wont cause an apparent decrease in poverty, it will, so long as you maintaint he infinite unending firehose of money, people will (obviously) have more money and less poverty. That is not, however, a demonstration that the root cause has been solved, in fact it allows the root cause to get worse and be masked, since your just dumping money on top and not solving the problem, but are effectively masking it.
@freemo@scottsantens Rubbish. This is nanny-state stuff. The best tool IS money. The best person to decide their needs and priorities is the person themselves - see homeless people that were given UBI.
Your claims might apply only to the few with mental health/incapacity issues. Not people in general.
And job training for what? Whatever you say?
People should have the choice to engage in that or not. Some people might actually need time away to recharge or address their own wellbeing.
Giving people help is "nany state stuff" regardless. I'd rather an effective nanny than an ineffective one.
> Your claims might apply only to the few with mental health/incapacity issues. Not people in general.
No, poor people generally have poor skills that contribute strongly to their situation, some combination of lacking marketable skills or having poor financial hygene (which is also a skill).
> And job training for what? Whatever you say?
Training for high paid work, in that i include high education, trade schools, and even training in the arts
> People should have the choice to engage in that or not. Some people might actually need time away to recharge or address their own wellbeing.
If thats what you need then thats why I include psychiatry int he list of things that one may need to do instead of job training. if a licensed therapist says you need it I dont mind that help being provided, but its too easilya bused otherwise.
Giving people money to make their OWN choices is not nanny stuff
Disagree, giving people money absolutely is nanny stuff. Nanny state stuff is, as the name would imply, any time the state is trying to take care of a person (with someone elses money) rather than assuming people can take care of themselves.
forcing YOUR POV on them is.
Right, like taking their money at gun point (under threat of arrest) in order to redistribute it to everyone else… like that?
Ineffective? Go read. There are NUMEROUS studies showing the effectiveness of a UBI. This claim is fatuous and without foundation.
Go read? You mean like the examples I’ve already cited in this thread. Yes they are ineffective at solving the root problem 100% of the time, as I’ve pointed out they only act as an infinite fire hose that alleviates symptoms while doing nothing to address the underlying problems that cause it to arrise.
Poor skills? BS. SNOB! THERE AREN’T ENOUGH JOBS FOR EVERYONE & JOBS ARE DIMINISHING.
Already addressed this in the thread as well. Your lacking understanding of the system. By educating people you dont just increase their skill set, and pay, but you create more jobs as well. More educated and well earning populace means more innovative people starting new businesses as well.
PEOPLE IN WORK ARE IN POVERTY BECAUSE OF LOW PAY!
Duh. And that low pay is often due to lack of marketable skills which, if they had that they wouldnt have low pay.
YOU BLAME PEOPLE FOR THAT?
I do not, I blame a system that doesnt have conditional welfare like I described, and provided a solution to that. No it isnt the peoples fault, but it is yours for trying to promote a system that perpetuates these problems.
Get in the sea.
QED on the fact that you are, in fact, not a mature adult.
The state is supposed to be looking after everyone. Your definition means everything it does is nanny state stuff. Your definition is naff.
Whether something is a nanny state or not is an entierly different argument than if it is supposed to be a nanny state or not.
You arguing for what it is supposed to do is in no way an argument against it being a nanny state.
Silly response
Silly response to a silly statement, you should expect that when you make silly statements.
It’’s OUR money. Where do you think Gov money comes from? And BTW, cost is not an issue for most Govs because they can create as much as they like.
Its literally not “our” money if your poor, you didnt pay taxes if your poor. It is someone else money in that case. I am not saying thats bad, or that we shouldnt take other peoples money to help the poor, we absolutely should (which is why i am strongly pro-welfare)… but have some respect for the fact that people are doing you a charity by doing so rather than pretending like you are entitled.
@freemo@scottsantens You'd have a massively pedantic, bureaucratic and MORE COSTLY system than just giving people money.
There's no abusing that, no unnecessary oversight, let adults be adults. At the very least, they are better placed to be consumers, helping money cycle, instead of being faced with starvation, as your inhumane system would have it.
You’d have a massively pedantic, bureaucratic and MORE COSTLY system than just giving people money.
Costs more per person, short term. Costs less long-term as it actually solves the problem and thus doesn’t require and infinite firehouse of money lasting forever into the future.
There is no doubt UBI is cheaper per person, but not cheaper for society overall, in fact it is far more costly by not solving the problem.
There’s no abusing that, no unnecessary oversight, let adults be adults. At the very least, they are better placed to be consumers, helping money cycle, instead of being faced with starvation, as your inhumane system would have it.
When adults are “adults” they dont need financial support from a nanny state. If they need support then they already arent capable of being adults. Which is fine, but instead of pretending they are lets get them help so they can start being adults.
"Costs more per person, short term. Costs less long-term as it actually solves the problem and thus doesn’t require and infinite firehouse of money lasting forever into the future."
DUH, these bureacracies are what we have now, and you are still advocating starvation to people who fall outside your parameters, which are set by Gov, which depends on its politics.
Do you know the stats for people the UK Gov have killed with your methodology?
"If thats what you need then thats why I include psychiatry int he list of things that one may need to do instead of job training. if a licensed therapist says you need it I dont mind that help being provided, but its too easilya bused otherwise."
Right there, you provide conditions for your welfare, which are unacceptable.
What do you do if an individual says "I need rest"? How can the therapist determine that? WHY SHOULD SOMEONE NEED PERMISSION?
Right there, you provide conditions for your welfare, which are unacceptable.
I have literally called it “conditional welfare” and yes, that is intentional and not just acceptable in my eyes, but required to be effective at all.
What do you do if an individual says “I need rest”? How can the therapist determine that? WHY SHOULD SOMEONE NEED PERMISSION?
Because your asking everyone else to pay for your rest. If you are a productive member of society enough so you can finance your own rest time then you dont need permission. Once you start asking others to pay for your down time then yes, you should need permission.
Nope, if you are smart in how you invest your time you get ample rest time and can work and afford both. For atleast a decade I was working 6 months a year and sitting on an island the other 6 months (as a person who started his life on welfare).
@freemo@scottsantens BS. When are you going to get it through your head that isn't enough work and jobs are disappearing and vacancies are oversubscribed? Qualifications don't help if there's no job to go into.
And some people prefer their own businesses. UBI enables that.
The highest paid jobs require the least amount of work
Yes, and requires the most upfront, unpaid work (aquiring the skills). Which is exactly th point. People who work smarter, not harder (which is what we want) invest in skills so they can make more money and do less worse. Yes this is the whole POINT of what I said.
Your position is demonstrably false.
How is a fact you admit is a fact that is directly identical to my point proving I am demonstrably false? What?
I mean your network isnt the skill, your networking skills are. I started out on welfare and in poverty, I had to specifically invest time into building my network (who I know). It involved years of going to events, engaging and even giving talks.
The #scifi book "Manna" expounds on the difference between the monopoly-style rich-get-richer and the open-source open-access approach to society. It's looking everyday less and less scifi – the rich-get-richer part.
Wall Street doesn't like that world. They've have to offer living wages and other benefits if people had UBI, universal health insurance, and decent social security retirement.
Add comment