# Finland to pay all its citizens 800 euros a month to fight unemployment



## Kramodlog (Dec 7, 2015)

http://qz.com/566702/finland-plans-to-give-every-citizen-a-basic-income-of-800-euros-a-month/



> The Finnish government is currently drawing up plans to introduce a national basic income. A final proposal won’t be presented until November 2016, but if all goes to schedule, Finland will scrap all existing benefits and instead hand out €800 ($870) per month—to _everyone. [...]
> _It may sound counterintuitive, but the proposal is meant to tackle unemployment. Finland’s unemployment rate is at a 15-year high, at 9.53% and a basic income would allow people to take on low-paying jobs without personal cost. At the moment, a temporary job results in lower welfare benefits, which can lead to an overall drop in income.




Very interesting, but the plan is not without potential problems. 







> But those who currently receive housing support or disability benefits could conceivably end up with less under national basic income, since the plan calls for scrapping existing benefits. And as national basic income would only give a monthly allowance to adults, a single mother of three could struggle to support herself compared to, for example, a neighbor with the same government support but no children and a part-time job.


----------



## delericho (Dec 7, 2015)

Huh. It really is the country where I quite want to be.


----------



## delericho (Dec 7, 2015)

For a more serious answer: something like that is probably absolutely essential in the future, but it's _also_ probably unaffordable. I don't have a solution to that problem.

The reason it's going to become increasingly important is exactly as they say: between outsourcing and automation, an awful lot of jobs are just going to disappear in the next little while. And people still have to eat, which means the money has to come from _somewhere_.

The reason it's probably unaffordable is that it will mean higher taxes both for those people who do still remain in work and also for businesses. Both of whom are likely to respond by moving elsewhere.


----------



## Jan van Leyden (Dec 7, 2015)

delericho said:


> For a more serious answer: something like that is probably absolutely essential in the future, but it's _also_ probably unaffordable. I don't have a solution to that problem.
> 
> The reason it's going to become increasingly important is exactly as they say: between outsourcing and automation, an awful lot of jobs are just going to disappear in the next little while. And people still have to eat, which means the money has to come from _somewhere_.
> 
> The reason it's probably unaffordable is that it will mean higher taxes both for those people who do still remain in work and also for businesses. Both of whom are likely to respond by moving elsewhere.




Depends. When stopping all manners of welfare plans and subventions, folding all into the National Basic Income, you remove the hight costs incurred by managing and administering these programs.

Companies would be able to pay their employees less than now without these employees receiving less money.

A lot of problems notwithstanding, the main hurdle would probably changing the idea that only a working citizen is a good citizen.


----------



## Kramodlog (Dec 7, 2015)

I'm still not sure why people who make above a certain amount (say 100,000), should receive that money. 

I'm also wondering if this isn't way to subsidize the low paying jobs of some compagnies. Instead of having Wal-Mart or McD pay their employees a decent amount of money, society does it for them.


----------



## delericho (Dec 7, 2015)

Jan van Leyden said:


> Depends. When stopping all manners of welfare plans and subventions, folding all into the National Basic Income, you remove the hight costs incurred by managing and administering these programs.




That works today. In a decade, with the population having grown and the cost of living gone up, it's less true.



> Companies would be able to pay their employees less than now without these employees receiving less money.




The problem with that is that now those employees have the option to just walk away, and still have enough money to live. That means that employers will need to compensate them for the opportunity cost of using that time for more enjoyable exploits, which will apply an upward pressure on wages.


----------



## delericho (Dec 7, 2015)

goldomark said:


> I'm still not sure why people who make above a certain amount (say 100,000), should receive that money.




Because it's cheaper to pay a handful of rich people that money than it is to run a bureaucracy to check whether they should get it or not.



> I'm also wondering if this isn't way to subsidize the low paying jobs of some compagnies. Instead of having Wal-Mart or McD pay their employees a decent amount of money, society does it for them.




There's some truth in that. But those jobs are going away anyway. There's virtually nothing in a McDonald's kitchen that can't be automated - it's just a matter of cost, and the cost of labour goes up every year while the cost of automation comes down. As for WalMart, those self-scan checkouts are making those jobs increasingly redundant.


----------



## Kramodlog (Dec 7, 2015)

delericho said:


> Because it's cheaper to pay a handful of rich people that money than it is to run a bureaucracy to check whether they should get it or not.



I guess so. By principale it bothers me. 



> There's some truth in that. But those jobs are going away anyway. There's virtually nothing in a McDonald's kitchen that can't be automated - it's just a matter of cost, and the cost of labour goes up every year while the cost of automation comes down. As for WalMart, those self-scan checkouts are making those jobs increasingly redundant.



As much as I do think automatization is going to be a big thing, especially with an aging population and an ever growing resistance to immigration, there will still be employees to oversee the machines. Here, in groceries stores you have one clerk for four self-scan checkouts. I still find it problematic that these jobs need to be subsidized instead of the employer giving a decent wage. Seems like a variant of "public risks, private profit".


----------



## Janx (Dec 7, 2015)

So how far does a Euro go?  If it was a buck, that doesn't even pay my mortgage (and I have a cheaper house in TX).

I imagine it's a pretty low level of living.  And the issue somebody pointed out about folks with more mouths to feed.  Unless every human gets 800 a piece.

I can see the argument for rich people getting paid, they paid their taxes too (and in fact are paying for everybody else).

There's got to be an administrative break-even point where cutting checks off past a certain point can be computed efficiently enough vs. the greater tax expense of paying out even more money to everybody.  Cutting off everybody who has a decent job would shave off a goodly expense of raw money.

There's also the factor that just about every employer is going to see this as $800 they can shave off the payroll, which in turn lowers that employees tax contribution which is where that $800 ultimately comes from...

It's a bold idea, but automating tax records/collection to active employment (why am I filing taxes when my employer is submitting them) means that the computer knows if you need a check, so only hand out checks to people who need them.

This would reduce the total headcount times $800 to be paying out, which has to be a greater savings vs the people/tech it takes to do that.  Imagine that Finland only has 1000 people.  Is it better to pay $800,000 every month for a check to everyone, or to hit the 50% or so that actually need it for half that amount.  plug in Finland's actual population, and find a percentage that represents the lower portion of the income bracket, and that'll likely prove it.


----------



## delericho (Dec 7, 2015)

goldomark said:


> As much as I do think automatization is going to be a big thing, especially with an aging population and an ever growing resistance to immigration, there will still be employees to oversee the machines.




True. But that will leave a tiny number of jobs for a few skilled professionals. Those guys will still be paid a decent amount. (Indeed, the guys who maintain McDonalds' kitchen equipment are currently paid a decent amount, because that's a skilled job. But they have, and will have, one or two maintenance guys for half a dozen stores; they'll be getting rid of the dozen or so people you actually see working the counters and the kitchen.)

Assuming, of course, they don't replace the maintenance guy with a maintenance droid, or (more likely) just swap out defective machines with new ones.



> Here, in groceries stores you have one clerk for four self-scan checkouts.




Yep, one clerk for four checkouts, where previously there would have been one at each.

And that's assuming Walmart don't push people to ordering their groceries online, then have the orders delivered from a giant Amazon-style warehouse (staffed by machines) in their Google-style self-driving delivery trucks.


----------



## Cor Azer (Dec 7, 2015)

goldomark said:


> I guess so. By principale it bothers me.




At first blush it rankled me too, but then I realized (or perhaps, just hoped because I don't know how they do taxes), but a good income tax process handles this just as well - rich people may technically get richer, but if it's set up that they pay more income tax, it can work out, and you don't need two bureacracies to run two synergetic systems.


----------



## delericho (Dec 7, 2015)

Janx said:


> So how far does a Euro go?




$1.08.



> It's a bold idea, but automating tax records/collection to active employment (why am I filing taxes when my employer is submitting them) means that the computer knows if you need a check, so only hand out checks to people who need them.




You hit problems with that as soon as you move beyond people in stable full-time employment and instead to people who have irregular shift work, zero-hour contracts, multiple part time jobs, or anything like that. As soon as you're dealing with those people, the bureaucracy needs to be _much_ more complicated - and that means much more expensive.


----------



## Janx (Dec 7, 2015)

delericho said:


> $1.08.
> 
> 
> 
> You hit problems with that as soon as you move beyond people in stable full-time employment and instead to people who have irregular shift work, zero-hour contracts, multiple part time jobs, or anything like that. As soon as you're dealing with those people, the bureaucracy needs to be _much_ more complicated - and that means much more expensive.




Correction:  You hit problems with that as soon as you are working for employers for cash or ones who do not have electronically filing payroll systems in place.

A guy working for McDonalds, Walmart and Walgreens at the same time does not have a problem with those 3 corporations filing his tax witholdings with the IRS automatically.  This stuff has been in place for over a decade.  The computer can easily handle a one to many relationship for employee to employers for its record keeping.

Anybody working for a lesser employer has the onus to make sure their taxes are submitted per paycheck.  This is what payroll companies are for, to solve that need for small businesses.

Folks remaining outside of that are unemployed or working for cash.  Solve the data collection for that, and the whole system can be automated.  For unemployed folks, that can be as easy as filing a "still not employed" form online or at a check-in office (the classic unemployment office).

Folks working for cash are illegal.  No dole for them, as eventually they'll be audited when their bank account says > $800 floated through it.  Audits catch that stuff eventually.


----------



## Kramodlog (Dec 7, 2015)

delericho said:


> True. But that will leave a tiny number of jobs for a few skilled professionals. Those guys will still be paid a decent amount. (Indeed, the guys who maintain McDonalds' kitchen equipment are currently paid a decent amount, because that's a skilled job. But they have, and will have, one or two maintenance guys for half a dozen stores; they'll be getting rid of the dozen or so people you actually see working the counters and the kitchen.)



Like self-scan checkouts, you'll probably have a low skill low play employee on the floor at all time to check the machines and interact with people. You'll just have less people working, like the self-scan checkouts require less people working at the checkouts. 



> Assuming, of course, they don't replace the maintenance guy with a maintenance droid, or (more likely) just swap out defective machines with new ones.



That is going a bit too much into sci-fi for the current tech.


----------



## Kramodlog (Dec 7, 2015)

Cor Azer said:


> At first blush it rankled me too, but then I realized (or perhaps, just hoped because I don't know how they do taxes), but a good income tax process handles this just as well - rich people may technically get richer, but if it's set up that they pay more income tax, it can work out, and you don't need two bureacracies to run two synergetic systems.




If I understood correctly, the 800 euros won't be taxable.


----------



## delericho (Dec 7, 2015)

Janx said:


> Correction:  You hit problems with that as soon as you are working for employers for cash or ones who do not have electronically filing payroll systems in place.
> 
> A guy working for McDonalds, Walmart and Walgreens at the same time does not have a problem with those 3 corporations filing his tax witholdings with the IRS automatically.




Assuming they get it right 100% of the time, and assuming there's no lag time between his stopping work and his unemployment benefits restarting. Neither of these is true, which means (as the link in the OP says) people who take on temporary work have been finding themselves financially disadvantaged as a consequence.



> Folks remaining outside of that are unemployed or working for cash.  Solve the data collection for that, and the whole system can be automated.




Indeed. Unfortunately, that's easy to say...


----------



## delericho (Dec 7, 2015)

goldomark said:


> Like self-scan checkouts, you'll probably have a low skill low play employee on the floor at all time to check the machines and interact with people. You'll just have less people working




Yes, that's the point! They'll have fewer people working, which means more people not working. Those people will still need to eat, however, which means they need _some_ supply of money, or society will break down. The universal income is an attempt to fix that.



> That is going a bit too much into sci-fi for the current tech.




Yes, but we're talking about the day after tomorrow's tech. The future is closer than you think.


----------



## Janx (Dec 7, 2015)

delericho said:


> Assuming they get it right 100% of the time, and assuming there's no lag time between his stopping work and his unemployment benefits restarting. Neither of these is true, which means (as the link in the OP says) people who take on temporary work have been finding themselves financially disadvantaged as a consequence.
> 
> 
> 
> Indeed. Unfortunately, that's easy to say...




Outlaw working for cash?

Submit all payroll checks to the government so it can issue the checks (since it would be issuing $800 checks to everyone anyway, what's the difference with putting different numbers on them.  It's all just bank transfers anwyay.

Have the government issue debit cards for handling money from the government (the US now does that for welfare programs).

suddenly, the loop is closed and all money goes through a system that can know who is getting paid and when.

Once everybody is paying with debit cards from the government, cash dies, thereby killing the cash economy.


----------



## Kramodlog (Dec 7, 2015)

delericho said:


> Yes, that's the point! They'll have fewer people working, which means more people not working. Those people will still need to eat, however, which means they need _some_ supply of money, or society will break down. The universal income is an attempt to fix that.



I got interrupted by a co-worker. I wanted to say that subsidizing salaries is still a problem for those who will still have a job.

But you raise another issue. Just giving money to people who do not work is problematic. Work, a very broad definition of it, is important for self-estime, it gives a sense of purpose, keeps the body and mind sharp, etc. Does not having work for everyone mean you'll have a class of people in a sort of depressive state? It isn't like they will have tone of cash to live a life of leisure.



> Yes, but we're talking about the day after tomorrow's tech. The future is closer than you think.



Not really. We're far from a lot of stuff and some stuff is just gonna be impossible.


----------



## delericho (Dec 7, 2015)

Janx said:


> Outlaw working for cash?




Not even remotely practical. When I play my bagpipes at a wedding, I'll typically get paid on the day and in cash. I don't (and won't) have any means to handle an electronic transfer, nor to ensure that the funds have actually been transferred.



> Submit all payroll checks to the government so it can issue the checks (since it would be issuing $800 checks to everyone anyway, what's the difference with putting different numbers on them.  It's all just bank transfers anwyay.




Great. And when the government inevitably gets it wrong and takes months to sort out the mistake, what do people eat in the meantime?


----------



## Jan van Leyden (Dec 7, 2015)

delericho said:


> That works today. In a decade, with the population having grown and the cost of living gone up, it's less true.




Not necessarily so. The population of Germany, e.g., is shrinking the average age rising. The costs for maintaining the pension system and healthcare might rise until the system's breaking point while it has to be paid for by less and less people.



delericho said:


> The problem with that is that now those employees have the option to just walk away, and still have enough money to live. That means that employers will need to compensate them for the opportunity cost of using that time for more enjoyable exploits, which will apply an upward pressure on wages.




You don't think that less pressure to work results in lesser desire to get stuff and status symbols, do you? I'd rely on human greed (and neighbours' shiny new e-car) to make many people want to earn more money. Maybe earning money turns into something like a sport rather than pure necessity?

Well, idle speculation all this. If Finland really tries to change its society into something new, less based on wealth, I'll be a very curious observer.


----------



## Janx (Dec 7, 2015)

delericho said:


> Yes, that's the point! They'll have fewer people working, which means more people not working. Those people will still need to eat, however, which means they need _some_ supply of money, or society will break down. The universal income is an attempt to fix that.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, but we're talking about the day after tomorrow's tech. The future is closer than you think.




We are apparently inches away from McDonalds having robot arms to flip and serve burgers.  And there are times I'd be happy to push buttons on a screen to order than try to translate my wife's deviant request into something they can recognize.

So yes, we are definitely going to have a time soon where it is not possible for all humans to have jobs by deliberate design.

And those humans will be cranky.

We either need to start killing them so they can't outnumber us and rebel (which will cause them to rebel as well).  

Or support them in some new model that doesn't shame them for being unemployed.  This $800/month idea seems to be a step toward the latter.


----------



## delericho (Dec 7, 2015)

goldomark said:


> But you raise another issue. Just giving money to people who do not work is problematic. Work, a very broad definition of it, is important for self-estime, it gives a sense of purpose, keeps the body and mind sharp, etc. Does not having work for everyone mean you'll have a class of people in a sort of depressive state?




Yeah, this is a very serious problem. And it's one that we're doing a very poor job of addressing even now, when unemployment is relatively rare. As it becomes increasingly common, the problem is only going to get worse.

The Universal Wage can help address the "people have to eat" part of the problem, but you're right that it does nothing for the "people have to do _something_" side of it.


----------



## delericho (Dec 7, 2015)

Janx said:


> We are apparently inches away from McDonalds having robot arms to flip and serve burgers.  And there are times I'd be happy to push buttons on a screen to order than try to translate my wife's deviant request into something they can recognize.




The McDonalds in Falkirk already has the latter.



> Or support them in some new model that doesn't shame them for being unemployed.  This $800/month idea seems to be a step toward the latter.




Yep.


----------



## Janx (Dec 7, 2015)

delericho said:


> Not even remotely practical. When I play my bagpipes at a wedding, I'll typically get paid on the day and in cash. I don't (and won't) have any means to handle an electronic transfer, nor to ensure that the funds have actually been transferred.




Imagine a world where stuff works differently, but based on the stuff we already have.  Smart phones, debit cards, pay by smartphone all exist.  It is a trivial problem to bump 2 phones together to pay somebody.  In a world where Cash is Dead, this problem will be solved with a few lines of code and ATMs for folks who just have cards.  Heck, which isn't your debit card a touchscreen device?  Why doesn't the government own the merchant card network run by Visa and MasterCard?  Stuff can be different, and work.



delericho said:


> Great. And when the government inevitably gets it wrong and takes months to sort out the mistake, what do people eat in the meantime?




What do welfare people do now when the system screws up their debit card allocation?  Stuff happens.  Part of your point is FUD about GAS.  These are basic systems that generally work already.  

Some variation of the idea can be accomplished.  Whether payroll feeds to government for disbursement or payroll simply uses EDI to update government records that payment has happened.  It's all pretty trivial actually.


----------



## Kramodlog (Dec 7, 2015)

delericho said:


> Yeah, this is a very serious problem. And it's one that we're doing a very poor job of addressing even now, when unemployment is relatively rare. As it becomes increasingly common, the problem is only going to get worse.
> 
> The Universal Wage can help address the "people have to eat" part of the problem, but you're right that it does nothing for the "people have to do _something_" side of it.




So after the bread, we need some games.


----------



## delericho (Dec 7, 2015)

Janx said:


> Imagine a world where stuff works differently, but based on the stuff we already have.  Smart phones, debit cards, pay by smartphone all exist.  It is a trivial problem to bump 2 phones together to pay somebody.




Sure, _if_ they both have compatible phones and _if_ they both have the requisite software in place.



> Why doesn't the government own the merchant card network run by Visa and MasterCard?  Stuff can be different, and work.




Yes, it can. But we need to get from here to there, and _that's_ the difficult bit.



> What do welfare people do now when the system screws up their debit card allocation?




Starve.


----------



## tomBitonti (Dec 7, 2015)

Very interesting stuff.

One of the future stops in Starship Trooper had this sort of economy, with many many persons living on government handouts, but having to live in squalid and dangerous conditions.

Don't several of the Middle East oil producing countries already have this type of distribution?  I thought that in several of the countries folks received a monthly stipend of cooking oil, rice, and beans.  That seems to be a very similar thing.

I've always wondered if the big upset of the great depression was in part because production exceeded the labor supply, and since then we've been dancing around this basic problem, that is, of there not needing to be everyone working to supply the basic needs of the workforce.  With a lot of problems ensuing because of a reluctance to admit that and to simply provide a stipend to everyone.

Thx!
TomB


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Dec 7, 2015)

goldomark said:


> If I understood correctly, the 800 euros won't be taxable.




But the money that makes them rich will be taxable. Even if it's just a tax on interest. (And most likely a rich person will have more than that as income...)



delericho said:


> Yeah, this is a very serious problem. And it's  one that we're doing a very poor job of addressing even now, when  unemployment is relatively rare. As it becomes increasingly common, the  problem is only going to get worse.
> 
> The Universal Wage can help address the "people have to eat" part of the  problem, but you're right that it does nothing for the "people have to  do _something_" side of it.



The do something may happen from something else - with less pressure on the job market, people might have less reasons to work extra hours to appear as an important employee. People could take part-time jobs, or take longer vacations, for example. 
It doesn't work perfectly for all kinds of jobs. But if I could probably enjoy a 4-day work week quite well, and if 4 of my colleagues agree, there is a job for a 5th guy.

It also gives the opportunity for people to do stuff that normally just wouldn't pay for their living - becoming an artist or author, for example. A professional game master. It might even become easier to be flexible, because 2 weeks without a job isn't so terrible when you still get that government pay check guaranteed without needing to deal with bureaucracy.


----------



## Kramodlog (Dec 7, 2015)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> But the money that makes them rich will be taxable. Even if it's just a tax on interest. (And most likely a rich person will have more than that as income...)




It is time to tax assets like securities and have a Tobin tax.


----------



## RangerWickett (Dec 7, 2015)

delericho said:


> The Universal Wage can help address the "people have to eat" part of the problem, but you're right that it does nothing for the "people have to do _something_" side of it.




What do kids do when you leave them alone? They have fun, learn, explore, break things, and eat a bunch of candy. I figure something similar will happen, with a tweak that some adults will realize they can make their lives better by doing something other people find useful.

Like, it's akin to what the very first humans did when they were bumbling their way into the first ever 'economy.' Only now there's less chance of people starving.


----------



## Kramodlog (Dec 7, 2015)

In a similar vein, giving jobs to homeless people. http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/08/u...he-homeless-offers-them-jobs.html?ref=us&_r=0


----------



## Janx (Dec 7, 2015)

delericho said:


> Sure, _if_ they both have compatible phones and _if_ they both have the requisite software in place.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




I believe "what is stealing a loaf of bread?" is the correct answer we are looking for


----------



## Ovinomancer (Dec 7, 2015)

If you try to create a breakpoint at which people will have earned enough (some amount $Y) that they will not receive the handout, you need to pay close attention to what kind of perverse incentive that has.  $800 a month is $9.600 a year in non-taxed salary.  Assuming that all payroll taxes still remain to fund the program (roughly 23% in Finland), and that you're in the 21% income bracket, that's equivalent to about $16k in salary a year.  What you're going to find is that there will be a 'dead zone' in wages at the $Y to $Y+$16k range. In that space it's more profitable to take no raise and continue to draw your $800 monthly.

Of course, you can set $Y so high that the $800 monthly is small enough potatoes that no one really does this, but at that point the number of people is also a minuscule fraction of your population and the effort to cull them from automatic payments, even if mostly automated, will be more expensive to run than to pay them anyway.  Programs for universal wages should be universal -- methods to exclude people cause weird and perverse incentives or just cost more to execute than not.


----------



## Tonguez (Dec 7, 2015)

four day weeks and more time with family or on creative pursuits is awesome

what is immigration to Finland like?


----------



## Kramodlog (Dec 7, 2015)

Tonguez said:


> what is immigration to Finland like?



If you like to drink vodka, spend time in sweat lodges and have a fixation for knives, you'll fit right in!


----------



## Umbran (Dec 7, 2015)

Tonguez said:


> four day weeks and more time with family or on creative pursuits is awesome
> 
> what is immigration to Finland like?




Note that Finalnd is "land of the midnight sun" territory.  Today, the sun rose at about 9 AM, and set at about 3:15 PM in Helsinki - by the solstice, they'll be down under 6 hours of daylight for the day.  Many folks don't adapt to that well.


----------



## Mallus (Dec 7, 2015)

goldomark said:


> If you like to drink vodka, spend time in sweat lodges and have a fixation for knives, you'll fit right in!



I always imagined Finland as being like Iceland, only with more death metal and fewer trolls (but the same amount of speaking Elvish).

Basic incomes schemes are certainly one antidote to the unfortunate way present-day capitalism is concentrating more wealth in fewer hands than can be good for its long-tern sustainability. Is any developed nation trying something else, say like really beefing up labor's bargaining power/workforce participation levels?


----------



## Kramodlog (Dec 7, 2015)

Mallus said:


> Basic incomes schemes are certainly one antidote to the unfortunate way present-day capitalism is concentrating more wealth in fewer hands than can be good for its long-tern sustainability.



Giving people money feeds consummerism, so it doesn't solve capitalism's environmental sustainability problem.



> Is any developed nation trying something else, say like really beefing up labor's bargaining power/workforce participation levels?



It seems to be a race for the bottom right now, with only cosmetic variations depending on whom is in power. Politicians are subservient to the economic elite. Our ritualistic elections are just a variant of Saturnalias when Roman masters served their slaves for a day. 

There was a federal election here not too long ago. The Trans-Pacific Partnership was agreed upon during the election. The treaty wasn't made public during the election and no party really said that they would refuse to sign it. We didn't have an option to chose. It was inevitable.


----------



## Umbran (Dec 8, 2015)

RangerWickett said:


> What do kids do when you leave them alone? They have fun, learn, explore, break things, and eat a bunch of candy.




What do adults do when you leave them alone?  Some of them act like the kids you describe.  Many others watch TV and occasionally go bowling.

A hurdle we will have to get past is what, for lack of a better term, I'll call the Protestant Work Ethic.  In the past, when we used outright human muscle power to provide the energy to most production, we assigned a moral value to labor.  And that makes sense in a world largely driven by scarcity - if the welfare of the community depends on everyone working, then working is pretty darned important.

However, as we become more and more efficient, the welfare of the community depends less and less on the labors of individual people.  In fact, you can come to the point where it is better for the community if you *don't* work, that you let the more efficient machinery do the job instead.  Standing aside, then, can become the more valuable thing.  The question is whether we recognize when we reach that point, or if we maintain the belief that someone who isn't working is morally inferior.


----------



## Umbran (Dec 8, 2015)

goldomark said:


> Giving people money feeds consummerism, so it doesn't solve capitalism's environmental sustainability problem.




Giving people money well beyond their needs feeds consumerism.  Giving them enough to just barely scrape by without much security feeds discontent.  Giving them enough to survive with a basic and dignified quality of life... we don't know what this feeds, because we've not done it on any scale.


----------



## Kramodlog (Dec 8, 2015)

Umbran said:


> Giving people money well beyond their needs feeds consumerism.  Giving them enough to just barely scrape by without much security feeds discontent.  Giving them enough to survive with a basic and dignified quality of life... we don't know what this feeds, because we've not done it on any scale.




I knew I should have been clearer. The people with low or no income aren't so much at the heart of the problem as a good chunk of the middle class, who will be able to buy more crap with the extra money, is.


----------



## Umbran (Dec 8, 2015)

goldomark said:


> I knew I should have been clearer. The people with low or no income aren't so much at the heart of the problem as a good chunk of the middle class, who will be able to buy more crap with the extra money, is.




Well, let's remember that this is a measure to deal with a rising unemployment rate.  That probably isn't happening without other attendant issues - it probably isn't like they have a healthy and robust middle class that isn't having any issues.  That middle class is probably feeling a squeeze, and that leads to them not spending as much, which can lead to a further economic contraction, which is the way into a downward spiral.

Finland only has about five and a half million people.  In a population that small, you won't feel many of the negative impacts of consumerism, and those impacts they do feel may be preferable to the impacts of a 10% unemployment rate.


----------



## Kramodlog (Dec 8, 2015)

Umbran said:


> Well, let's remember that this is a measure to deal with a rising unemployment rate.  That probably isn't happening without other attendant issues - it probably isn't like they have a healthy and robust middle class that isn't having any issues.  That middle class is probably feeling a squeeze, and that leads to them not spending as much, which can lead to a further economic contraction, which is the way into a downward spiral.
> 
> Finland only has about five and a half million people.  In a population that small, you won't feel many of the negative impacts of consumerism, and those impacts they do feel may be preferable to the impacts of a 10% unemployment rate.




We all feel the impact of consummerism. Global warming is one of them. The problem is that economic growth fueled by consumption doesn't always go hand in hand with our* desire to have a better relationship with our environement. One will have to give way. If we chose the environment, we have to accept that our standards of living and buying power will go down while making sure our less fortunate still will have decent living standards. Not an easy act to do and I can't say I have any solution in the context of representative democracies. 


*Western countries and some other like Japan, Russia and China.


----------



## Tonguez (Dec 8, 2015)

Umbran said:


> However, as we become more and more efficient, the welfare of the community depends less and less on the labors of individual people.  In fact, you can come to the point where it is better for the community if you *don't* work, that you let the more efficient machinery do the job instead.  Standing aside, then, can become the more valuable thing.  The question is whether we recognize when we reach that point, or if we maintain the belief that someone who isn't working is morally inferior.




Civ taught me that when your population isn't working as labourers they convert to Artist, Scientist and Tax collectors. Its really then about whether Art and Science are valued as 'work' that contributes to overall wellbeing rather than applying primarily economic measures.

To me having more Artists and Scientist in the population seems like a great outcome of UBI, more Tax collectors may be not so much...


----------



## delericho (Dec 8, 2015)

goldomark said:


> I knew I should have been clearer. The people with low or no income aren't so much at the heart of the problem as a good chunk of the middle class, who will be able to buy more crap with the extra money, is.




It's very likely that Finland's tax regime will be revised alongside the introduction of the universal income, meaning that those in the middle class will pay more taxes to offset their gain from UI (and the upper classes will pay _considerably_ more). For those in the middle, their net income will probably end up about the same as it was before.


----------



## Umbran (Dec 8, 2015)

goldomark said:


> We all feel the impact of consummerism. Global warming is one of them.




I'm well aware.  But, then we have to consider several factors.  For instance:

1) Finland seems to be doing pretty well on emissions already, so maybe they can afford it:  http://www.stat.fi/til/khki/2014/khki_2014_2015-05-22_tie_001_en.html

2) Theirs is a policy for five million, not five billion.  What they're doing may not be manageable if scaled up to the whole planet right now, but it *isn't* scaled up to the whole planet - it may be that this will actually maintain their economy by maintaining confidence, and that may provide the resources to continue to reduce emissions, where a recession would be a roadblock to reduction.

The simple fact is, "more money tends to lead to consumerism" is not sufficient to analyze a particular policy choice.  Context matters, and we aren't informed on the Finnish economic landscape enough to really know what the impact would be.




> The problem is that economic growth fueled by consumption doesn't always go hand in hand with our* desire to have a better relationship with our environement. One will have to give way




With respect, there's a logical failure there - "A doesn't always go with B" does *not* imply that you can't have both.  It means that *sometimes* you can't have both.  In order to get that one *must* give way, you must demonstrate that they *never* can go hand in hand, which you haven't done.  Otherwise, the absolute phrasing doesn't hold, you see.

As noted, consumerism can help keep an economy healthy enough to continue the transition to alternative energy sources (which is an investment - if your economy doesn't have room for investment, you have a problem going green) and can also drive adoption of alternative technologies - consumerism aimed at the right products can lead to reduction in energy usage - so long as those things you consume are using less energy than what you used to do.  For example, in the US, consumerism can be )(and is) used to drive folks to purchase new, more efficient cars and other transportation.

So, maybe it can be done, with careful management.


----------



## CapnZapp (Dec 8, 2015)

goldomark said:


> I'm still not sure why people who make above a certain amount (say 100,000), should receive that money.
> 
> I'm also wondering if this isn't way to subsidize the low paying jobs of some compagnies. Instead of having Wal-Mart or McD pay their employees a decent amount of money, society does it for them.



At that level you pay so much in taxes, it essentially disappears. It might appear to be an issue, but really isn't.


----------



## CapnZapp (Dec 8, 2015)

delericho said:


> That works today. In a decade, with the population having grown and the cost of living gone up, it's less true.
> 
> 
> 
> The problem with that is that now those employees have the option to just walk away, and still have enough money to live. That means that employers will need to compensate them for the opportunity cost of using that time for more enjoyable exploits, which will apply an upward pressure on wages.



Many people won't be content to have only 800 euros per month, not in a high cost country.


----------



## CapnZapp (Dec 8, 2015)

delericho said:


> Because it's cheaper to pay a handful of rich people that money than it is to run a bureaucracy to check whether they should get it or not.
> 
> 
> 
> There's some truth in that. But those jobs are going away anyway. There's virtually nothing in a McDonald's kitchen that can't be automated - it's just a matter of cost, and the cost of labour goes up every year while the cost of automation comes down. As for WalMart, those self-scan checkouts are making those jobs increasingly redundant.



And again, it disappears once you pay tax.


----------



## CapnZapp (Dec 8, 2015)

delericho said:


> Because it's cheaper to pay a handful of rich people that money than it is to run a bureaucracy to check whether they should get it or not.
> 
> 
> 
> There's some truth in that. But those jobs are going away anyway. There's virtually nothing in a McDonald's kitchen that can't be automated - it's just a matter of cost, and the cost of labour goes up every year while the cost of automation comes down. As for WalMart, those self-scan checkouts are making those jobs increasingly redundant.



Yes, the idea that McJobs and "full employment" is the solution is something that will crash and burn with technological automation. 

The very idea that everyone should work is fundamentally unsustainable. 

Finland is simply first. Probably because the Nokia debacle has crashed their country so suddenly and thoroughly. 

Basic income should be viewed as the alternative to forcing people into crime.


----------



## CapnZapp (Dec 8, 2015)

goldomark said:


> So after the bread, we need some games.



Yes, since without the bread, what would those games be...?


----------



## CapnZapp (Dec 8, 2015)

RangerWickett said:


> What do kids do when you leave them alone? They have fun, learn, explore, break things, and eat a bunch of candy. I figure something similar will happen, with a tweak that some adults will realize they can make their lives better by doing something other people find useful.
> 
> Like, it's akin to what the very first humans did when they were bumbling their way into the first ever 'economy.' Only now there's less chance of people starving.



Obviously nobody is saying the change won't mean short term problems. 

Paying for children is perhaps the biggest one. If you only get money between 18-65 you basically can't live an honest life if you get kids unless you get a job.

But these issues are transitory.  They are not fundamental to the system.


----------



## CapnZapp (Dec 8, 2015)

Ovinomancer said:


> If you try to create a breakpoint at which people will have earned enough (some amount $Y) that they will not receive the handout, you need to pay close attention to what kind of perverse incentive that has.  $800 a month is $9.600 a year in non-taxed salary.  Assuming that all payroll taxes still remain to fund the program (roughly 23% in Finland), and that you're in the 21% income bracket, that's equivalent to about $16k in salary a year.  What you're going to find is that there will be a 'dead zone' in wages at the $Y to $Y+$16k range. In that space it's more profitable to take no raise and continue to draw your $800 monthly.
> 
> Of course, you can set $Y so high that the $800 monthly is small enough potatoes that no one really does this, but at that point the number of people is also a minuscule fraction of your population and the effort to cull them from automatic payments, even if mostly automated, will be more expensive to run than to pay them anyway.  Programs for universal wages should be universal -- methods to exclude people cause weird and perverse incentives or just cost more to execute than not.



You get the €800 no matter what you do.

Even if you're only paid one dollar at your job, that still leaves you with more.

Perhaps you assumed each dollar earned would mean one dollar less on welfare?


----------



## CapnZapp (Dec 8, 2015)

goldomark said:


> Giving people money feeds consummerism, so it doesn't solve capitalism's environmental sustainability problem.
> 
> It seems to be a race for the bottom right now, with only cosmetic variations depending on whom is in power. Politicians are subservient to the economic elite. Our ritualistic elections are just a variant of Saturnalias when Roman masters served their slaves for a day.
> 
> There was a federal election here not too long ago. The Trans-Pacific Partnership was agreed upon during the election. The treaty wasn't made public during the election and no party really said that they would refuse to sign it. We didn't have an option to chose. It was inevitable.



It's not designed to solve capitalism. It's designed to keep the unemployed out of crime and rebellion. 

Not saying your problems don't deserve to be solved  but please don't mix them into this discussion. Thank you.


----------



## CapnZapp (Dec 8, 2015)

Umbran said:


> Giving people money well beyond their needs feeds consumerism.  Giving them enough to just barely scrape by without much security feeds discontent.  Giving them enough to survive with a basic and dignified quality of life... we don't know what this feeds, because we've not done it on any scale.



And this is precisely why we need somebody to be first out the gate.

Hopefully to shut up those critics whose main argument boils down to "it's never been done, so let's not even try"


----------



## CapnZapp (Dec 8, 2015)

goldomark said:


> I knew I should have been clearer. The people with low or no income aren't so much at the heart of the problem as a good chunk of the middle class, who will be able to buy more crap with the extra money, is.



Their wages can be lowered by €800.

The point isn't to hand out free money to the already well off.


----------



## delericho (Dec 8, 2015)

CapnZapp said:


> Paying for children is perhaps the biggest one. If you only get money between 18-65 you basically can't live an honest life if you get kids unless you get a job.




The article linked in the OP suggested it would replace the state pension, as well as other benefits, so it probably doesn't stop paying out at 65. Which is sensible.

You're right that about the problem for people with kids. It would seem there's a relatively easy solution to that one, though: an addition payment for those with children (probably a certain amount for the first child and then an additional, but lesser, amount for each additional child beyond the first).


----------



## Ovinomancer (Dec 8, 2015)

CapnZapp said:


> You get the €800 no matter what you do.
> 
> Even if you're only paid one dollar at your job, that still leaves you with more.
> 
> Perhaps you assumed each dollar earned would mean one dollar less on welfare?



You've failed to understand what I was responding to, which is funny because...


CapnZapp said:


> Their wages can be lowered by €800.
> 
> The point isn't to hand out free money to the already well off.



... this is the idea I was responding to.  At no point did I suggest you'd get less welfare for earning a wage, I pointed out that if you're going to have a cut off where someone is 'well off' enough to not get the money, then you'd be creating a perverse incentive to NOT earn between whatever amount 'well off' is and whatever amount 'well off + $16k a year" is.



CapnZapp said:


> It's not designed to solve capitalism. It's designed to keep the unemployed out of crime and rebellion.
> 
> Not saying your problems don't deserve to be solved  but please don't mix them into this discussion. Thank you.




You should take some time to read and understand the concepts of positional goods.  That's one of the better arguments against this plan keeping people out of crime and rebellion.  It will maybe keep people fed and housed, but it's not going to touch many of the causes of crime, of which things like positional goods are a strong motivator.


----------



## Maxperson (Dec 8, 2015)

delericho said:


> The article linked in the OP suggested it would replace the state pension, as well as other benefits, so it probably doesn't stop paying out at 65. Which is sensible.
> 
> You're right that about the problem for people with kids. It would seem there's a relatively easy solution to that one, though: an addition payment for those with children (probably a certain amount for the first child and then an additional, but lesser, amount for each additional child beyond the first).




I've never understood that logic.  If you've determined that the minimum needed to sustain a kid is X dollars, would you give the second kid less than X.

Government: Here's enough for you to survive.  Here's enough for your first child to survive.  Here's not enough for your second child to survive.  Enjoy watching him slowly fail!

Parent: I need to take my money and go buy a gun so I can feed him.

Give all the kids enough to survive or don't give any of them money, but don't jerk the parents around like that.


----------



## delericho (Dec 8, 2015)

Maxperson said:


> I've never understood that logic.  If you've determined that the minimum needed to sustain a kid is X dollars, would you give the second kid less than X.




It's not linear. Supporting two children costs more than supporting one, but costs less than double the amount.


----------



## Maxperson (Dec 8, 2015)

delericho said:


> It's not linear. Supporting two children costs more than supporting one, but costs less than double the amount.




You have to buy all the same food and clothing you did before.  Electric and such would have been paid anyway.  Schooling is not less if you have to pay for it.  Diapers and toys are different for different age groups, so those have to be re-bought. 

What costs less for the second kid?


----------



## delericho (Dec 8, 2015)

Maxperson said:


> You have to buy all the same food and clothing you did before.  Electric and such would have been paid anyway.  Schooling is not less if you have to pay for it.  Diapers and toys are different for different age groups, so those have to be re-bought.
> 
> What costs less for the second kid?




There's a lot of stuff you _don't_ have to re-buy, because the second child can re-use the same toys, pram, crib, clothes, etc that the first child used two years previously. And demand on things like electricity, phone bills and the like _will_ go up as the number of children increases - but adding that first child is disproportionately more expensive.


----------



## CapnZapp (Dec 8, 2015)

Ovinomancer said:


> At no point did I suggest you'd get less welfare for earning a wage, I pointed out that if you're going to have a cut off where someone is 'well off' enough to not get the money, then you'd be creating a perverse incentive to NOT earn between whatever amount 'well off' is and whatever amount 'well off + $16k a year" is.



You seem to suggest this "perversity" is a good reason to not introduce basic income. 

If you by this mean it's better to sustain the feelings of hopelessness and failure by the unemployed in order to not have to question the holy Work Ethic, then I guess we're done talking. 

If, however, you mean something else, feel free to further qualify and I'll listen.




Ovinomancer said:


> You should take some time to read and understand the concepts of positional goods.  That's one of the better arguments against this plan keeping people out of crime and rebellion.  It will maybe keep people fed and housed, but it's not going to touch many of the causes of crime, of which things like positional goods are a strong motivator.



Why do you assume I'm not aware the desirability of certain goods is predicated on not everyone getting them?

As for the rest; if you're going to become a criminal anyway, I don't see why this scheme changes anything. I was commenting on how to cut down on the frequency of people that commit crimes out of necessity. But basic income isn't primarily about reducing crime.

Let's focus on the fact basic income takes away the stigma of not being a "contributor", and removes all the thousands of positions where you essentially pry in people's private lives and get to decide how they should lead their lives.

The basic fact is that most of our young is basically not needed as cogs of the great machine. If we remove the requirement to be such a cog, we achieve several important things:
1) we can investigate other ways of achieving success and self-worth
2) we eliminate the worst McJobs, since nobody will want to take them since the alternative is no longer starvation (some jobs will still require human workers; pay them and they will come)

It's an initiative that shows great promise to upend the current situation, where people is treated like s**t.


----------



## delericho (Dec 8, 2015)

CapnZapp said:


> You seem to suggest this "perversity" is a good reason to not introduce basic income.




I'm pretty sure you've misinterpreted - he's saying that if you're going to introduce a basic income than it should be a _universal_ basic income. Because odd things happen if it isn't.



> The basic fact is that most of our young is basically not needed as cogs of the great machine. If we remove the requirement to be such a cog, we achieve several important things:
> 1) we can investigate other ways of achieving success and self-worth
> 2) we eliminate the worst McJobs, since nobody will want to take them since the alternative is no longer starvation (some jobs will still require human workers; pay them and they will come)




Now, that's an interesting point. There are some jobs in #2 that we might _not_ be able to find people to do if a basic income is introduced, and indeed it's possible that some of those may both require an actual human to do them and be essential for the running of society. I guess Finland will find out for us.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Dec 8, 2015)

CapnZapp said:


> You seem to suggest this "perversity" is a good reason to not introduce basic income.
> 
> If you by this mean it's better to sustain the feelings of hopelessness and failure by the unemployed in order to not have to question the holy Work Ethic, then I guess we're done talking.
> 
> If, however, you mean something else, feel free to further qualify and I'll listen.



Considering my point was directed only at the idea of a cut-off earning level at which the basic income shall not be paid, where did you get that I'm using that as an argument against basic income.  "Perverse incentive" is an economic term only meaning that the incentive created is counter to the intent, it makes no value statements as to any merits for or against at all.  I made the value statement when I pointed out that setting a ceiling does weird things and actually encourages people to avoid earning in the band of  cutoff to cutoff+basic income.  You're just itching for a fight if you think that's an argument against basic income rather than an argument against cutoff values for basic income.





> Why do you assume I'm not aware the desirability of certain goods is predicated on not everyone getting them?



Most people aren't.  Apologies.



> As for the rest; if you're going to become a criminal anyway, I don't see why this scheme changes anything. I was commenting on how to cut down on the frequency of people that commit crimes out of necessity. But basic income isn't primarily about reducing crime.



Right, which was my point that a basic income is unlikely to reduce crime.  It may, but most crime isn't predicated on acquiring the basic necessities of life, but on gaining status or status goods.



> Let's focus on the fact basic income takes away the stigma of not being a "contributor", and removes all the thousands of positions where you essentially pry in people's private lives and get to decide how they should lead their lives.



I don't see how it removes the stigma of not being a contributor.  I do agree that it's a streamlined welfare program that will be far less intrusive and cheaper to execute.



> The basic fact is that most of our young is basically not needed as cogs of the great machine. If we remove the requirement to be such a cog, we achieve several important things:
> 1) we can investigate other ways of achieving success and self-worth
> 2) we eliminate the worst McJobs, since nobody will want to take them since the alternative is no longer starvation (some jobs will still require human workers; pay them and they will come)
> 
> It's an initiative that shows great promise to upend the current situation, where people is treated like s**t.



A basic income doesn't remove that need to work, though, if your goal is to do better than you're doing.  It (should) provide a safety net of minimum needs met, but that's not a fun or worthwhile life.  Sure, you can choose to find other entertainment, but you will always be limited by the amount of the basic income, and that will be pretty limiting.  You will live in tenements, most likely, as better housing costs are likely to levelize at a point where basic income won't be sufficient.  You'll eat, sure, but not steak, as those prices will also likely trend higher.  You'll be locked into a sustenance lifestyle within a few years of adjustment.  That may be fine, but basic income will not solve any of the problems of the current welfare schema except government costs to implement.  All of the other, attached possible ills of welfare follow basic income.

None of that is to say that I might not be very wrong.  I'm looking forward to Finland's experiment with interest.  If it does end up maintaining the current status quo with much less management expense, I'll at least be a great fan of importing it to the states (in some form, probably run at state level with some funding from the Feds to balance things out) for that one reason alone.  However, I think it's far to optimistic to preach that it will solve many ills of the current welfare schema without evidence.  You can make too many well supported arguments either way.

TL;DR: I like the idea, but I'm not sold on it.  I'm interested to see how Finland's plan works out in a decade or so.


----------



## Neonchameleon (Dec 8, 2015)

Just to pick up on a couple of the issues raised.

First the "Subsidising Wall-Mart wages". This is actually not a problem. Wall-Mart tries to treat its employees on a citizens income the way it does in the US and the answer is walking out. Possibly accompanied by a raised middle finger and language that I won't use on ENworld. The €800 (plus free healthcare) is meant to be enough to live on. Therefore the workplaces need to threat their 

Now it will cause parasitic charities and cults to be able to pay their workers nothing. And it will probably create an internship grind that makes the current one look sensible.

But most people like doing _something_. And what will happen is that the midlist of books will suddenly rebound, full of people with pretensions of being authors and able to support themselves. And barely professiona LoL players will be more popular - as will game designers and other semi-vanity jobs and almost all forms of art.

Basically with the ability of everyone to walk out of their job without starving crap jobs have to get a whole lot less crap - dangerous jobs have to pay more and customer service jobs have to treat their staff better. This also boosts the economy because people with little have to spend most of their money on stuff, meaning that the customer service jobs will still need to be done.


----------



## CapnZapp (Dec 8, 2015)

delericho said:


> I'm pretty sure you've misinterpreted - he's saying that if you're going to introduce a basic income than it should be a _universal_ basic income. Because odd things happen if it isn't.



Right. Sorry.



delericho said:


> Now, that's an interesting point. There are some jobs in #2 that we might _not_ be able to find people to do if a basic income is introduced, and indeed it's possible that some of those may both require an actual human to do them and be essential for the running of society. I guess Finland will find out for us.



Not sure I see it as a problem if this upends the way there currently exist a  job at a  pay that someone is doing only because he or she will otherwise fall out of society...

Chances are, that job could be eliminated if only the organization responsible gave a rat's arse about fixing it. And if the job is one of those rare ones that you actually need to get it done, but you can't just put a machine or robot on it... then chances are exceedingly high it was severely underpaid from the start, and everything's still golden - the organization is simply forced to increase the paycheck until they get applicants for the position.

Since every job effectively starts at €800 (even when your paycheck says zero) this shouldn't be hard to do.

Applied to America, one great benefit would be to eliminate the way companies take advantage of people, forcing them to take more than one job, or even to subsist on welfare. With basic income, you're empowered to say frack off to the Walmarts of the world if you don't like their job offer.

And to the pro-Walmarts in the audience: perhaps you can pay your workers even less now, since your pay checks now does not need to cover the essentials. Only whatever positional good that motivates your employee to work at all. (Hint: at €800 in today's Finland, I would guess everything except rent and basic nutrition would qualify as a "positional good")


----------



## Ovinomancer (Dec 8, 2015)

I'm always interested to watch other people engaging in grand experiments to change fundamental conceits of economics and see how it shakes out.  I wish Finland luck, but I'm glad I'm not in Finland.  Maybe I'll change my mind after this shakes out a bit.


----------



## CapnZapp (Dec 8, 2015)

Neonchameleon said:


> Just to pick up on a couple of the issues raised.
> 
> First the "Subsidising Wall-Mart wages". This is actually not a problem. Wall-Mart tries to treat its employees on a citizens income the way it does in the US and the answer is walking out. Possibly accompanied by a raised middle finger and language that I won't use on ENworld.



We think alike!

Yes, the problem isn't that companies try to get away with paying as little as possible. I realize that's merely rational, and that attempting to characterize companies using human emotions is futile. 

The problem is instead that people have no other choice than taking them up on their offers. 

With basic income, if people are alright with working at Walmart at whatever pay they're willing to give you, that irks me much less. 

Walmart will then still take advantage of your desire to own shiny objects. But that's not nearly as bad as taking advantage of your desire to eat and be warm at night.

Assuming €800 is enough to cover a modest apartment and at least borderline-healthy foodstuffs, Walmart can lower their salaries to €1 a month for what I care.


----------



## CapnZapp (Dec 8, 2015)

Ovinomancer said:


> Maybe I'll change my mind after this shakes out a bit.



The thing is it doesn't need to be perfect, and you don't need to change your mind.

The important thing is that someone somewhere tries it out at all.

That it might be Finland, which is a country whose living conditions I would assume most of us find relatively relatable is a huge bonus!

(I mean; if it were a dependency, such as an overseas territory of, say, France or the U.S., or a third-world country operating on a subsistence economy, that would make it much more difficult to translate any effects onto my or your situation)


----------



## Ovinomancer (Dec 8, 2015)

CapnZapp said:


> The thing is it doesn't need to be perfect, and you don't need to change your mind.
> 
> The important thing is that someone somewhere tries it out at all.
> 
> ...




Did you think we disagree, or where you just using my statement as a launching point?


----------



## delericho (Dec 8, 2015)

CapnZapp said:


> Not sure I see it as a problem if this upends the way there currently exist a  job at a  pay that someone is doing only because he or she will otherwise fall out of society...
> 
> Chances are, that job could be eliminated if only the organization responsible gave a rat's arse about fixing it. And if the job is one of those rare ones that you actually need to get it done, but you can't just put a machine or robot on it... then chances are exceedingly high it was severely underpaid from the start, and everything's still golden - the organization is simply forced to increase the paycheck until they get applicants for the position.




I was thinking of something like sewage workers - a job that absolutely has to be done and probably can't be automated, but which is also deeply unpleasant. And while it probably is badly underpaid, I suspect it's also one that local governments would have a hard time paying at a high enough level to make it attractive.

I may, of course, be wrong.


----------



## Tonguez (Dec 8, 2015)

delericho said:


> I was thinking of something like sewage workers - a job that absolutely has to be done and probably can't be automated, but which is also deeply unpleasant. And while it probably is badly underpaid, I suspect it's also one that local governments would have a hard time paying at a high enough level to make it attractive.
> 
> I may, of course, be wrong.




sewerage pretty much is automated now though. The only human element is turning the tap. 
Water treatment is a semi-skilled job which primarily involves water testing, checking gauges and some basic science (chemical mixing, identifying microbes) a senior operator is probably looking at around $50-60k


----------



## Kramodlog (Dec 8, 2015)

delericho said:


> It's very likely that Finland's tax regime will be revised alongside the introduction of the universal income, meaning that those in the middle class will pay more taxes to offset their gain from UI (and the upper classes will pay _considerably_ more). For those in the middle, their net income will probably end up about the same as it was before.




Maybe, maybe not. We'll see either of our point might be valid.


----------



## Kramodlog (Dec 8, 2015)

CapnZapp said:


> At that level you pay so much in taxes, it essentially disappears. It might appear to be an issue, but really isn't.




Are you Finnish or from somewhere else? From Québec, I can say it doesn't disappear at that level.


----------



## Maxperson (Dec 8, 2015)

delericho said:


> There's a lot of stuff you _don't_ have to re-buy, because the second child can re-use the same toys, pram, crib, clothes, etc that the first child used two years previously. And demand on things like electricity, phone bills and the like _will_ go up as the number of children increases - but adding that first child is disproportionately more expensive.




Sure, if you plan the second child immediately and have room to save the stuff.  That often doesn't pan out, though, and the amount you spend on electricity and phone is negligible compared the the amount you are losing.


----------



## Kramodlog (Dec 8, 2015)

CapnZapp said:


> Yes, since without the bread, what would those games be...?




Hide the baguette?


----------



## Kramodlog (Dec 8, 2015)

CapnZapp said:


> It's not designed to solve capitalism. It's designed to keep the unemployed out of crime and rebellion.
> 
> Not saying your problems don't deserve to be solved  but please don't mix them into this discussion. Thank you.




What are my problems?


----------



## Maxperson (Dec 8, 2015)

goldomark said:


> What are my problems?




Not knowing what your problems are for one.  You shouldn't have to ask


----------



## Kramodlog (Dec 8, 2015)

Umbran said:


> Theirs is a policy for five million, not five billion.



So what? It is a global problem, we all have to do our part. If as individuals we all say our acts do not matter, we'll solve nothing. 



> What they're doing may not be manageable if scaled up to the whole planet right nowbut it *isn't* scaled up to the whole planet - it may be that this will actually maintain their economy by maintaining confidence, and that may provide the resources to continue to reduce emissions, where a recession would be a roadblock to reduction.



That isn't my point. Its that our life style is the problem. Giving more money to people might solve some problems, but it will not solve the more important one that can only be tackled by lowering our living standards and buying power. 

Capitalism is about fufilling unlimited needs by using a planet with limited resources. That doesn't work on the long term. 



> With respect, there's a logical failure there - "A doesn't always go with B" does *not* imply that you can't have both.  It means that *sometimes* you can't have both.



I know. I've chosen that sentence to avoid the opposite reaction: "Using an absolute is not good, because it just takes ones case that says otherwise to invalidate it".  

Realistically (yup, I'm exposing myself to other critiques on form, but not content), we can't have both. 



> So, maybe it can be done, with careful management.



Many things are possible.


----------



## Umbran (Dec 8, 2015)

goldomark said:


> So what? It is a global problem, we all have to do our part. If as individuals we all say our acts do not matter, we'll solve nothing.




But "all do our part" does not mean "all do the same thing", or "all do things that can scale up to the entire planet.  Allow for local solutions to local problems, man!

On that issue, results matter more than methods - if they can manage to decrease greenhouse gasses sufficiently while doing a bit of consumerism-driving of their economy, who the heck are we to naysay them?  You worry about how the Canadians manage it, and let the Finns figure out what works for them.



> but it will not solve the more important one that can only be tackled by lowering our living standards and buying power.




With respect, there is no proof that we need to lower our living standards and buying power.  That's one fairly simplistic route, but there are others.



> Capitalism is about fulfilling unlimited needs by using a planet with limited resources. That doesn't work on the long term.




That is... a definition of capitalism of which I was previously unaware, and that I, at least, have not bought into.  Capitalism is about how you finance your industry.  That's it.  There's nothing about "unlimited needs" in there.  We have, to date, generally aimed at fulfilling whatever needs and desires that you can afford, but there's nothing saying that capitalism must be about consumption without caps.  There are even ways to manage consumerism - carbon sin taxes, for example, which will tend to direct consumers to appropriate products.



> Realistically (yup, I'm exposing myself to other critiques on form, but not content), we can't have both.
> 
> Many things are possible.




I see what you did there.


----------



## tomBitonti (Dec 9, 2015)

I thought the problem was not capitalism, but in forcing payments for externalities.  If you believe in capitalism as an efficient mechanism, then you just need to feed in accurate costs and let the market figure out the best practices for those costs.

See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Externality, for just one example.  There is a huge amount of discussion of externalities and how they apply to pollution.

I've always thought that this is the key problem of pollution: Letting folks (both industry, government, and individuals) know what are the external costs and finding mechanisms to remove external costs (to turn them into actual costs).

Seems to be an ideal place for regulation, if you asked me, and a strong argument for not letting specific groups (e.g., energy producers, farmers, commuters) make decisions without input from all persons affected by a behavior.

Thx!
TomB


----------



## Umbran (Dec 9, 2015)

tomBitonti said:


> I thought the problem was not capitalism, but in forcing payments for externalities.  If you believe in capitalism as an efficient mechanism, then you just need to feed in accurate costs and let the market figure out the best practices for those costs.




That is one route - I mentioned the carbon sin tax above.  That is, in essence, assigning a real cost to the external cost.


----------



## Umbran (Dec 9, 2015)

And, as for whether we can have capitalism and do what we need to do...

It is possible we have hit peak carbon emissions - as in, next year we may emit *less* carbon than the year before - and done the turnaround in a time of general economic expansion.

http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/nclimate2892.html

"The projected change of -0.6% (from a range of -1.6% to +0.5%) in global CO2 emissions for 2015 follows the surprisingly low growth of 0.6% in 2014, and contrasts with average growth of 2.4% per year fo rthe previous decade.  What makes the 2014 nd 2015 data so unusual is the pairing of relatively stable C02 emissions with continued global economic expansion."


----------



## Ovinomancer (Dec 9, 2015)

Maxperson said:


> Sure, if you plan the second child immediately and have room to save the stuff.  That often doesn't pan out, though, and the amount you spend on electricity and phone is negligible compared the the amount you are losing.




There's some research out there using Dept Ag numbers that pretty clearly show that the marginal cost of a child drops significantly.  I think one of the numbers was that two kids costs about 25k a year, but a third kid only ups it by about 3k.  The thing is that you stop spending on the expensive luxuries that have high cost per person, and really cooking a meal for one more is usually a fractional cost of cooking normally (a meal for 4 is only a little more expensive to cook than a meal for 3, frex).  My experience matches that.  When we had no kids, we did expensive stuff all the time. When we had the first, a bunch of that stuff dropped, but we still did some.  When the second came along, seven years later, we did even less of the expensive trips, but the daily costs didn't rise much at all (after diapers, mind).  

So, yeah, the marginal cost of additional kids is lower.


----------



## delericho (Dec 9, 2015)

Maxperson said:


> Sure, if you plan the second child immediately




Most people do have their children fairly close together.



> That often doesn't pan out, though, and the amount you spend on electricity and phone is negligible compared the the amount you are losing.




It's not negligible. It's one of a multitude of little savings that add up to an overall saving of just over 10% for the second and subsequent child - an average of £52 vs £46 per week in the UK.


----------



## delericho (Dec 9, 2015)

Tonguez said:


> what is immigration to Finland like?




Actually, that's a really good point.

Finland is part of the EU, and any EU citizen is entitled to move to any EU country and must be treated the same as a citizen in terms of employment rights, benefit payments, and so forth. Which means that, in theory at least, the entire population of Greece could move to Finland and would become eligible for the payment.

I would presume, though, that the lawmakers have considered this, so they'll probably put a residency requirement on it - that is, whether you're a citizen or not, you have to live in Finland for X years before you become eligible for the payment.


----------



## Maxperson (Dec 9, 2015)

delericho said:


> Most people do have their children fairly close together.




Most people don't have room to save old toys, cribs and clothes.  



> It's not negligible. It's one of a multitude of little savings that add up to an overall saving of just over 10% for the second and subsequent child -




10% is negligible. Instead of $800 you give $720.  Big deal.


----------



## delericho (Dec 9, 2015)

Maxperson said:


> 10% is negligible. Instead of $800 you give $720.  Big deal.




Not to the person on welfare.


----------



## Maxperson (Dec 9, 2015)

delericho said:


> Not to the person on welfare.




Then why screw them like that?  Give them the $80 and teach them a skill to get a job that makes even more and move that person into being a productive member of society.


----------



## delericho (Dec 9, 2015)

Maxperson said:


> Then why screw them like that?  Give them the $80 and teach them a skill to get a job that makes even more and move that person into being a productive member of society.




Because giving _them_ the 80 euros means not spending that same money on schools, or hospitals, or rehabilitating prisoners, or any number of other worthy causes.

The principle should be that people should be given welfare money according to their need. The need in this case is 10% lower for the second child than for the first, so it is right to at least _consider_ whether that money can be better spent elsewhere.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Dec 9, 2015)

delericho said:


> Actually, that's a really good point.
> 
> Finland is part of the EU, and any EU citizen is entitled to move to any EU country and must be treated the same as a citizen in terms of employment rights, benefit payments, and so forth. Which means that, in theory at least, the entire population of Greece could move to Finland and would become eligible for the payment.



But the Greek will not suddenly all want to move to a different country, so it's a purely theoretically thing. People don't uproot that easily. You need basically a shooting war in your country to see mass movement like that.
And if it were to happen, there would suddenly be a big Greek Community in Finland that needs all kinds of goods and services provided to them, and will pay taxes and what not. It will create new jobs, basically.
And any type of already existing welfare system has to deal with the same principle.



> I would presume, though, that the lawmakers have considered this, so they'll probably put a residency requirement on it - that is, whether you're a citizen or not, you have to live in Finland for X years before you become eligible for the payment.



I don't know the exact details, but I suspect that you must have registered your primary residency in the country to get access to its entire welfare system. In some (if not all) countries this requires you to have a home (rental, owned, shared) and to be in the country a certain number of days.


----------



## delericho (Dec 9, 2015)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> But the Greek will not suddenly all want to move to a different country, so it's a purely theoretically thing.




Well, I did say it was theoretical. But not _entirely_ - because of the difficulties in Greece in recent years, significant numbers of young people have been leaving for other parts of the EU. Though I should hasten to add that such movement has been in search of work, not benefits.



> I don't know the exact details, but I suspect that you must have registered your primary residency in the country to get access to its entire welfare system. In some (if not all) countries this requires you to have a home (rental, owned, shared) and to be in the country a certain number of days.




Yep, that's what I was thinking about when I mentioned a residency requirement.


----------



## Umbran (Dec 9, 2015)

delericho said:


> Not to the person on welfare.




Yeah, really.  If losing 10% of your income is no big deal for anyone here, please, by all means, give it to me!


----------



## Neonchameleon (Dec 9, 2015)

goldomark said:


> So what? It is a global problem, we all have to do our part. If as individuals we all say our acts do not matter, we'll solve nothing.
> 
> That isn't my point. Its that our life style is the problem. Giving more money to people might solve some problems, but it will not solve the more important one that can only be tackled by lowering our living standards and buying power.




The people for whom 800 euros a month is lifechanging aren't the problem. This has a minimal impact on that especially as those better off lose that 800 euros back in progressive taxation. However it allows more people to go into e.g. writing rather than onto the treadmill which keeps their consumption down.

This has if anything a negative impact on hyperconsumption.


----------



## Maxperson (Dec 10, 2015)

delericho said:


> Because giving _them_ the 80 euros means not spending that same money on schools, or hospitals, or rehabilitating prisoners, or any number of other worthy causes.




There aren't many causes more worthy than helping kids in need.  Not schools, hospitals, or prisoners.  Welfare already doesn't cover what is needed, making it even worse just creates situations where those kids end up in hospitals, as prisoners, and they drop out of schools.  Better to just keep them from ending up in situations that are "worthy" causes.



> The principle should be that people should be given welfare money according to their need. The need in this case is 10% lower for the second child than for the first, so it is right to at least _consider_ whether that money can be better spent elsewhere.




They don't get what they need even with the full amount.


----------



## Maxperson (Dec 10, 2015)

Umbran said:


> Yeah, really.  If losing 10% of your income is no big deal for anyone here, please, by all means, give it to me!




Who said anything about 10% of income?  10% of one kid......$80.  That's no big deal.


----------



## delericho (Dec 10, 2015)

Maxperson said:


> There aren't many causes more worthy than helping kids in need.  Not schools, hospitals, or prisoners.  Welfare already doesn't cover what is needed...




We're talking about a proposed (and major) change to the way welfare is handled. The inadequacies of the current system are clear to me, but they're also not relevant to the discussion at hand.


----------



## delericho (Dec 10, 2015)

Maxperson said:


> Who said anything about 10% of income?  10% of one kid......$80.  That's no big deal.




To quote Dickens: "Mr Micawber's famous, and oft-quoted, recipe for happiness: "Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure nineteen [pounds] nineteen [shillings] and six [pence], result happiness. Annual income twenty pounds, annual expenditure twenty pounds ought and six, result misery.""

It's not the _amount_ of the difference that makes it a big deal.


----------



## CapnZapp (Dec 10, 2015)

To maxperson and everyone else questioning the wisdom of granting less and less for each additional child: please go read up on basically every child welfare policy in use in the western world.

Please just accept that the costs per child goes down as you get more children. Just get over it. Or at the very least, start a new thread about it (that I don't have to read).


----------



## CapnZapp (Dec 10, 2015)

Neonchameleon said:


> This has if anything a negative impact on hyperconsumption.



You say that as if it were a bad thing


----------



## CapnZapp (Dec 10, 2015)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> But the Greek will not suddenly all want to move to a different country, so it's a purely theoretically thing. People don't uproot that easily. You need basically a shooting war in your country to see mass movement like that.
> And if it were to happen, there would suddenly be a big Greek Community in Finland that needs all kinds of goods and services provided to them, and will pay taxes and what not. It will create new jobs, basically.
> And any type of already existing welfare system has to deal with the same principle.
> 
> ...



There's another aspect to consider as well.

Not only do poor people (that are still within the EU, and thus are allowed to move wherever they want) find Finland attractive (including the so-called "migrants" from Romania and Bulgaria, significantly the oppressed romani minorities)...

...but you also need to take into account wealthy Finns taking the money... to live off it on a paradise beach in a low-cost country!  800 dollares might not get you very far in the US (or Finland), but it sure as hell gets you all the way at the beach in, say, Indonesia, India or Thailand.

Just to pick three wonderfully countries I personally know are warm and friendly and most importantly: when you can live on 10 bucks a day, €800 will allow you to idle away your life in relative luxury - as long as you only need booze, food, and the friendship of locals; no imported goods like cars and computers


----------



## Maxperson (Dec 10, 2015)

CapnZapp said:


> To maxperson and everyone else questioning the wisdom of granting less and less for each additional child: please go read up on basically every child welfare policy in use in the western world.
> 
> Please just accept that the costs per child goes down as you get more children. Just get over it. Or at the very least, start a new thread about it (that I don't have to read).




As long as you accept that those welfare policies don't work.  Those kids don't get anywhere close what they need and eat like crap, wear crap, and are generally very unhealthy.


----------



## CapnZapp (Dec 10, 2015)

Maxperson said:


> As long as you accept that those welfare policies don't work.  Those kids don't get anywhere close what they need and eat like crap, wear crap, and are generally very unhealthy.



Please start a new thread.You're derailing the subject.

Instead, maxperson, what are your opinions on Finland's basic income proposal?


----------



## Maxperson (Dec 11, 2015)

CapnZapp said:


> Please start a new thread.You're derailing the subject.
> 
> Instead, maxperson, what are your opinions on Finland's basic income proposal?




I think it should apply to children as well.  Give the family of four $800 per person.


----------



## CapnZapp (Dec 11, 2015)

Maxperson said:


> I think it should apply to children as well.  Give the family of four $800 per person.



Thank you for sharing. 

At least for the initial experiment, that won't happen (I believe it's limited to people between the ages of 17 and 63)

Do you have opinions on any other part of basic income, not related to the minors issue?


----------



## Maxperson (Dec 11, 2015)

CapnZapp said:


> Thank you for sharing.
> 
> At least for the initial experiment, that won't happen (I believe it's limited to people between the ages of 17 and 63)
> 
> Do you have opinions on any other part of basic income, not related to the minors issue?




Sure.  Whenever you just hand out free money with no strings like that, it provides incentive for people to be lazy and not work.


----------



## CapnZapp (Dec 11, 2015)

Maxperson said:


> Sure.  Whenever you just hand out free money with no strings like that, it provides incentive for people to be lazy and not work.



Interestingly enough, one of the main motives for basic income, is to increase the drive to work. 

Based on how the current wefare system of some western european states disincentivizes you to find work, since you gain so little over remaining in the welfare system. 

(That is, if you find an income, you no longer get welfare)

What do you think about the other suggested benefits of basic income? Such as

- "reduces (if not eliminates) government bureaucracy regarding welfare systems such as unemployment, sickness, maternity, pensions etc"

- "reduces (if not eliminates) feelings of hopelessness, not being worth anything and humiliation when you no longer are viewed as a burden, when you're treated as an equal, and when nobody interferes in your personal life"

- "reduces (if not eliminates) the sector of jobs that can be argued is the least productive of all: those involved in determining other humans' worth, i.e. their eligibility for the various current welfare systems (often arbitrarily and invasively).  

- "solves the question of what to do with the shrinking number of workers required by the ever-more automated society" which is arguably reason #1, #2 and #3 combined

- "allows cultural sectors to exist without government sanction; artists no longer need to (but still can) cater to the commercial market without worry of not getting food on their table"

(I'm sure more arguments pro and con have been discussed, consider this list non-comprehensive)

Regards,


----------



## Maxperson (Dec 11, 2015)

CapnZapp said:


> Interestingly enough, one of the main motives for basic income, is to increase the drive to work.
> 
> Based on how the current wefare system of some western european states disincentivizes you to find work, since you gain so little over remaining in the welfare system.
> 
> (That is, if you find an income, you no longer get welfare)




I understand that, and allowing it to stack with a job will work for some and get them to improve themselves.  Many people are just plain lazy, though, and no amount of being allowed to work is going to get them to get a job when they have free money rolling in.  



> What do you think about the other suggested benefits of basic income? Such as
> 
> - "reduces (if not eliminates) government bureaucracy regarding welfare systems such as unemployment, sickness, maternity, pensions etc"




So it puts more working people on the free $870 euros as they lose their government positions.  Ultimately, it will probably save expenses in those areas, but it remains to be seen if that savings will overcome the increase in the numbers of people being given the free cash.



> - "reduces (if not eliminates) feelings of hopelessness, not being worth anything and humiliation when you no longer are viewed as a burden, when you're treated as an equal, and when nobody interferes in your personal life"




I don't see it.  Being given free money the way they are planning would make me a burden.  How am I suddenly worth more just because more people are now burdens on the government?  It's a nice theory.



> - "reduces (if not eliminates) the sector of jobs that can be argued is the least productive of all: those involved in determining other humans' worth, i.e. their eligibility for the various current welfare systems (often arbitrarily and invasively).




Costing jobs and putting people on the universal welfare program who weren't on it before.



> - "solves the question of what to do with the shrinking number of workers required by the ever-more automated society" which is arguably reason #1, #2 and #3 combined




Solving the question would be re-training them to be able to do new jobs.  Making them burdens on society is not solving the problem, even if you make everyone a burden.



> - "allows cultural sectors to exist without government sanction; artists no longer need to (but still can) cater to the commercial market without worry of not getting food on their table"




Or they could have gotten a job and done their art in their free time until they made enough money to go solo.  Free handouts so people can do art is not something a government should be doing.  If a private foundation wants to fund artists, that's great.  It's not the responsibility of a government to give handouts so people can refuse to work while they paint or what have you.


----------



## Neonchameleon (Dec 15, 2015)

Maxperson said:


> Sure. Whenever you just hand out free money with no strings like that, it provides incentive for people to be lazy and not work.




And yet every test I'm aware of (like Canada's Mincome or Namibia's BigNam) shows this not to be the case. Indeed both showed economic activity to rise as (a) people had money to spend things on for minor luxuries (like e.g. cleaners or artwork) and (b) you no longer pay people not to work.

What you don't get is people working 80 hour weeks other than on a vocation. But it's well known that hours after about fourty actively decrease total productivity anyway due to more tiredness and mistakes.

As for being a burden on society, you miss the whole raft of psychological issues that things like food stamps create.


----------



## delericho (Dec 15, 2015)

Neonchameleon said:


> As for being a burden on society, you miss the whole raft of psychological issues that things like food stamps create.




Yep. Last year we had instances in Scotland where people (mostly older people) literally starved to death because they refused to ask for help. They didn't want to be a burden on others, see, but their pension just wasn't enough to pay for both food and heating.


----------



## Maxperson (Dec 15, 2015)

So being given free money (Euros) is not a burden, but being given free money (food stamps) is a burden?


----------



## Neonchameleon (Dec 15, 2015)

Maxperson said:


> So being given free money (Euros) is not a burden, but being given free money (food stamps) is a burden?




OK. You've managed to flip subject and object in that sentence. And confuse two things.

If all you receive is the same money everyone else does then you don't consider yourself a burden (hence the issue about pensioners dying because they woldn't apply for winter fuel). And this dn't matter even if the government collects it back in income tax from most people. You're just receiving what everyone else does rather than being a special burden above and beyond that of everyone else.

Food stamps are even worse because using obvious food stamps is a humiliation as everyone can see you are on food stamps. Money in your account? No one cares. It's the same money everyone else has.


----------



## Maxperson (Dec 15, 2015)

Neonchameleon said:


> If all you receive is the same money everyone else does then you don't consider yourself a burden (hence the issue about pensioners dying because they woldn't apply for winter fuel). And this dn't matter even if the government collects it back in income tax from most people. You're just receiving what everyone else does rather than being a special burden above and beyond that of everyone else.




I don't deserve free money for nothing.  Nobody deserves free money for nothing.  The extreme poor should be helped out and taught how to get back on their feet, though.  Were I to be given something I don't deserve by the government, which has to use taxes to do it, I would feel like a burden.  I would be a burden.  Do it for the whole country and the entire country is a burden.  Are they all a burden equally?  Yes.  That doesn't mean that they are not, every last one of them, a burden on the government.



> Food stamps are even worse because using obvious food stamps is a humiliation as everyone can see you are on food stamps. Money in your account? No one cares. It's the same money everyone else has.




I don't know how they do it there, but here in California food stamps haven't been stamps in years.  It's been a card that gets swiped like everyone else's card.  If you're humiliated by doing what everyone else is doing, then getting the same free money everyone else is getting is not likely to change that.


----------



## Neonchameleon (Dec 15, 2015)

Maxperson said:


> I don't deserve free money for nothing. Nobody deserves free money for nothing.




And this is where the right wing and the left wing will never see eye to eye.

To put it simply there are two factors in play here.

1: No one deserves to starve to death or die of exposure. That is far, far more important than any penny pinching worry that people might get things they don't deserve that are nice.

2: If we're talking about what we _deserve_ then based on the history of the world I don't deserve anything more than to be a subsistence farmer earning less than the equivalent of $1000/year if I'm extremely lucky. If I'd been born at most times and in most places of history that's what I'd be. Likewise you. And I don't _deserve_ more than that - but I'm lucky enough to be born in the West in the late 20th Century with a working body and good mind and to a well off family.

I therefore have a lot more than I deserve by the good fortune of where and when I was born. It seems to me therefore mean-spirited to deny others similar benefits.



> The extreme poor should be helped out and taught how to get back on their feet, though.




The easiest and cheapest way of doing this is giving them money to let them break poverty traps. Just as the easiest, cheapest, and most effective way of solving homelessness is ... to give people houses.



> Were I to be given something I don't deserve by the government, which has to use taxes to do it, I would feel like a burden. I would be a burden. Do it for the whole country and the entire country is a burden.




I trust you don't use the roads and never took advantage of the education system by going to school? I trust you aren't using any government funded research in your use of the internet? I trust you have never in your life taken advantage of any sort of tax break. That whatever you work for has never had any form of corporate subsidy. And that they don't use roads put up by the government or food that passes government inspection.

Yes, I'm prepared to say categorically that you personally are a burden on the government and the rest of society if your only measure is how much you take. And the same is true for me. And every other human being that has ever lived. And that anyone who thinks they aren't is fooling themselves by not seeing the interconnected nature of society.

This doesn't mean it's impossible to give back more than you take. Far from it. If that were impossible we'd be in a Malthusian situation. But the idea you don't actually use resources is silly.



> I don't know how they do it there, but here in California food stamps haven't been stamps in years. It's been a card that gets swiped like everyone else's card. If you're humiliated by doing what everyone else is doing, then getting the same free money everyone else is getting is not likely to change that.




In the UK? We don't use them. In the US? Sometimes it's literal stamps.


----------



## Kramodlog (Dec 15, 2015)

One of the problems with food stamps is that you have to spend them all. You can't save up money if you are good at balancing a budget on food stamps. You have to use them all or get nothing in return.

Food stamps aren't a tool that fight inequality or help people pull themselves out of poverty. It just alleviates a bit poverty and doesn't motivate employers to give their employees a decent wage.


----------



## delericho (Dec 15, 2015)

Maxperson said:


> I don't deserve free money for nothing.  Nobody deserves free money for nothing.




I was born in a state-funded hospital, and educated in state-funded schools and universities. If I'm lucky, in thirty years I'll draw on a state-funded pension. Unless I'm hit by a bus, or otherwise die suddenly, it's likely the end of my life will be under state-funded care. If I lose my job, or I become too ill to work, I'll again be reliant on the provision of the state.

In exchange for this, in the middle section of my life I pay significant taxes that go to fund all those things _for other people_. When my time comes, it will be _other people_ who pay the taxes to fund all those things for me.

We're all connected. That "free money for nothing" is an illusion - it's free money for the expectation that people will contribute at some other time. And while there will, inevitably, be some people who game the system and become net recipients through their lives, _most_ people will be net contributors - and they must be, because otherwise the whole thing will come crashing to a halt.



> The extreme poor should be helped out and taught how to get back on their feet, though.




That's nice in theory, but in practice it doesn't work. It's called the poverty trap, where a person who is extremely poor finds that as soon as they start digging themselves out of it they find all the systems work against them - if their earnings go above _this_ threshold then their benefits disappear, while if they go above _that_ threshold then their debts must be paid back, and so on. With the net effect that they're better off _not_ digging themselves out of poverty - because they _could_ slave away for five years for no benefit, or they could do nothing, enjoy the free time that results, and have the same standard of living for those same five years.



> Were I to be given something I don't deserve by the government, which has to use taxes to do it, I would feel like a burden.  I would be a burden.  Do it for the whole country and the entire country is a burden.  Are they all a burden equally?  Yes.




No. If I receive 800 euros a month from the government but I pay 1,000 euros a month in taxes, I'm still a net contributor to the system.



> I don't know how they do it there, but here in California food stamps haven't been stamps in years.  It's been a card that gets swiped like everyone else's card.  If you're humiliated by doing what everyone else is doing, then getting the same free money everyone else is getting is not likely to change that.




In the case of California, the humiliating bit will be going to get the card in the first place and/or going to get it loaded with the 'free' money. And, yes, some people would rather starve than be thought of as being so poor as to need that handout.


----------



## RangerWickett (Dec 15, 2015)

I see people using the phrase, "being given free money," often in the context of "being given free money makes people lazy."

If you have a million dollars in the stock market, and you get enough in dividends to just live a comfortable life without working, are you 'lazy'? The sense I get is that Western society is totally okay with you 'getting free money' if you own something that is invested and are making a profit from it. Now, the government owns a lot of stuff, and it's a government of, by, and for the people, so is it fair justification to say that the citizens are getting a dividend of the 'stock' they all communally have in the government?

I've advocated for the idea of 'birthright capitalism.' Like, American society is very pro-investment, anti-labor. As more jobs disappear, maybe the best way to get people money they need to survive but have them do at least some sort of work would be for everyone to get a small amount of money when they turn 16, in a slow trickle until they're 18, with the requirement that they invest it in the stock market. Public school would care less about educating drones on how to work in offices, and more about teaching people to recognize sound long-term investment opportunities. We'd become a nation of investors, everyone owning a few shares in the robots that make everything for us.


----------



## Istbor (Dec 15, 2015)

I don't get the thought process of a burden to the Government at all.  The Government is there to administer and serve the people.  It is the duty and purpose of the Government to do this, not a 'choice' it has to make to take on burdens.  

This would certainly alleviate a sense of being a drain on society though.  You are no longer some special corner case, in regards to receiving the financial aid.  Everyone has that same access to what you are getting. Some people, just want to feel like they are normal and belong to something.  I think this helps that, while being unemployed either because you are unable to work or find work, sets you apart and only adds to a feeling of alienation that being poor can bring. 


I think there will be many people watching this closely to see what comes of it.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Dec 15, 2015)

There is also another view on this whole "burden" or "free money" thing:
There are things we deem every human to have - in the US it's for example the Pursuit of Happiness. Even if you never did anything for anyone else, we claim you have the right to the pursuit of happiness. We don't expect people to first work their asses off before they can get a chance to do something for themselves - no, we (or rather, the US constitution) says everyone has a right to try that.

Basically, there seems to be already some form of consensus that a human has an innate worth. 
We're just haggling the price - can he be worth 800 € a month? Is it a few food stamps and emergency care? Or is he not even allowed to walk the tax-funded boardwalk?


----------



## Cristian Andreu (Dec 15, 2015)

In principle, I have no ideological objections to the measure, though it's clear the effectiveness will be critically dependent on how responsible the people are in using this extra money to fit into their basic budget. 

However, I do wonder about the impact this would have on inflation within the short-to-mid term, with so many millions of euros suddenly being available for spending among the populace.


----------



## Maxperson (Dec 16, 2015)

Neonchameleon said:


> And this is where the right wing and the left wing will never see eye to eye.
> 
> To put it simply there are two factors in play here.
> 
> ...




1: That's a strawman.  I said money for *nothing* and you give an example of exposure or starvation, clearly indicating that something is going on, probably being poor or insane.  

Money for nothing is a horrible thing and is the product of an entitled society that is getting worse as more and more entitled people are created.  Money for being poor (with strings of course) I can understand.  Money for being disabled I can understand.  Money for being elderly I can understand.  Money for nothing?  Nope.

2: Is just plain false. This is not 100 or 200 years ago.  I work and earn my keep.  I don't sponge free money that I'm not entitled to.



> I therefore have a lot more than I deserve by the good fortune of where and when I was born. It seems to me therefore mean-spirited to deny others similar benefits.




Then let them earn it.  



> The easiest and cheapest way of doing this is giving them money to let them break poverty traps. Just as the easiest, cheapest, and most effective way of solving homelessness is ... to give people houses.




The math proves this false.  $800 a month is $9600 a year or $96000 in 10 years.  You can train someone to be a contributing member of society by giving them money for a year and spending 10-20k teaching them a marketable skill.  There's no way in hell that spending hundreds of thousands on every person for multiple decades of dependence is cheaper than 20-30k.



> I trust you don't use the roads and never took advantage of the education system by going to school? I trust you aren't using any government funded research in your use of the internet? I trust you have never in your life taken advantage of any sort of tax break. That whatever you work for has never had any form of corporate subsidy. And that they don't use roads put up by the government or food that passes government inspection.
> 
> Yes, I'm prepared to say categorically that you personally are a burden on the government and the rest of society if your only measure is how much you take. And the same is true for me. And every other human being that has ever lived. And that anyone who thinks they aren't is fooling themselves by not seeing the interconnected nature of society.




I pay my taxes and have for decades.  I contribute my share to the roads, etc. that I use.


----------



## Maxperson (Dec 16, 2015)

delericho said:


> That's nice in theory, but in practice it doesn't work. It's called the poverty trap, where a person who is extremely poor finds that as soon as they start digging themselves out of it they find all the systems work against them - if their earnings go above _this_ threshold then their benefits disappear, while if they go above _that_ threshold then their debts must be paid back, and so on. With the net effect that they're better off _not_ digging themselves out of poverty - because they _could_ slave away for five years for no benefit, or they could do nothing, enjoy the free time that results, and have the same standard of living for those same five years.




Eh, no.  In practice it does work.  It has just never been practiced due to those systems you mentioned.  That's why I said it SHOULD be done, not that it is currently being done. 



> In the case of California, the humiliating bit will be going to get the card in the first place and/or going to get it loaded with the 'free' money. And, yes, some people would rather starve than be thought of as being so poor as to need that handout.




It gets mailed to you and there is no going to get it loaded.  It's attached to the card though some sort of system.  The money just shows up in an account that the card accesses.  California went out of its way to remove the humiliation.


----------



## Maxperson (Dec 16, 2015)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> There is also another view on this whole "burden" or "free money" thing:
> There are things we deem every human to have - in the US it's for example the Pursuit of Happiness. Even if you never did anything for anyone else, we claim you have the right to the pursuit of happiness. We don't expect people to first work their asses off before they can get a chance to do something for themselves - no, we (or rather, the US constitution) says everyone has a right to try that.
> 
> Basically, there seems to be already some form of consensus that a human has an innate worth.
> We're just haggling the price - can he be worth 800 € a month? Is it a few food stamps and emergency care? Or is he not even allowed to walk the tax-funded boardwalk?




You have the right to *pursue* happiness.  That does not mean you will catch it.  Happiness not guaranteed to you.


----------



## delericho (Dec 16, 2015)

You say...



Maxperson said:


> Money for nothing is a horrible thing and is the product of an entitled society that is getting worse as more and more entitled people are created.  Money for being poor (with strings of course) I can understand.  Money for being disabled I can understand.  Money for being elderly I can understand.  Money for nothing?  Nope.




And then...



> I pay my taxes and have for decades.  I contribute my share to the roads, etc. that I use.




Question: where do you think the proposed 800 Euros per month is going to come from?

For the majority, that 800 Euros won't be "free money", it will be a refund of part of the money they have paid in taxes. They will already have contributed their share.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Dec 16, 2015)

Maxperson said:


> You have the right to *pursue* happiness.  That does not mean you will catch it.  Happiness not guaranteed to you.



The point is that this right is unconditional. 

You don't need to do something special to get this right. Just exist, and you have this right to pursue your happiness. You don't need to prove your worth to the community to get this right.
Your pursuit of happiness _might_ create worth to the community, but it might also not.


----------



## Neonchameleon (Dec 16, 2015)

Maxperson said:


> 1: That's a strawman. I said money for *nothing* and you give an example of exposure or starvation, clearly indicating that something is going on, probably being poor or insane.




Given that you can always create a fig leaf justification for anything then your "money for nothing" clause is meaningless. 



> Money for nothing is a horrible thing and is the product of an entitled society that is getting worse as more and more entitled people are created. Money for being poor (with strings of course) I can understand. Money for being disabled I can understand. Money for being elderly I can understand. Money for nothing? Nope.




And what you are blatantly ignoring here is that money is a consensual myth. Those pieces of paper in your wallet, those bank notes, even those coins, are utterly worthless without the context of the society you live in. (Pennies actually cost more than a penny to make, but I digress). Most currencies are fiat currencies - i.e. backed purely by mythmaking.

And apparently you can understand money for being elderly or for being young but not for being human.



> 2: Is just plain false. This is not 100 or 200 years ago. I work and earn my keep. I don't sponge free money that I'm not entitled to.




The "free money that I'm not entitled to" is irrelevant. With a citizens income we are talking about changing the rules so everyone is entitled to some money.

And just because you don't think you are a sponger doesn't mean you aren't. What's your environmental impact like? How many earths would it take to support everyone the way you live? (One reason our current economy is simple is we just externalise most pollution).

So. You earn your keep. Based on technologies created by other people. You are fortunate to live in the early 21st Century and in America. And unwilling to have others be fortunate so far as I can tell.



> The math proves this false. $800 a month is $9600 a year or $96000 in 10 years. You can train someone to be a contributing member of society by giving them money for a year and spending 10-20k teaching them a marketable skill. There's no way in hell that spending hundreds of thousands on every person for multiple decades of dependence is cheaper than 20-30k.




The math doesn't prove that false. First Citizens Income is a gamechanger, allowing them to make more out of any skills they have that they want to market (e.g. professional music). Second it's paid for by progressive taxation. When you're earning more than $40k or so you end up paying the citizens' income back in tax anyway. So it costs nothing for that group. Third, Congratulations! You've just solved unemployment! What an amazing thing no one has tried setting up "marketable skill" schemes. Riiight. Fourth money from a citizens' income circulates amazingly well through an economy. It's an even better economic stimulus than infrastructure building.



> I pay my taxes and have for decades. I contribute my share to the roads, etc. that I use.




And to fixing global warming?


----------



## Janx (Dec 16, 2015)

Maxperson said:


> 1: That's a strawman.  I said money for *nothing* and you give an example of exposure or starvation, clearly indicating that something is going on, probably being poor or insane.
> 
> Money for nothing is a horrible thing and is the product of an entitled society that is getting worse as more and more entitled people are created.  Money for being poor (with strings of course) I can understand.  Money for being disabled I can understand.  Money for being elderly I can understand.  Money for nothing?  Nope.
> 
> ...




I hope your job  is replaced by robots tomorrow.

You are not getting that in our modern economy, there are not enough jobs for everybody.  If we could force everybody to work, there wouldn't be enough positions to actually employ them.

And that jobs are continuously made obsolete, meaning whatever skillset you had, especially if it was one that took specific training, is likely going away after awhile.

And that in the USA, you cannot force somebody into a skillset.  I can't take you and force you to go to plumber school and be a plumber.


What I can do is create the opportunity for you to decide what you want to learn and decide how you want to contribute to society.


And remember 1-2 centuries ago, the answer to not giving people money for nothing was they would rise up and have a revolution and chop off some heads.

Given that Eugenics is frown upon, my next option is to keep them fed so they don't rise up and chop my head off.  I should also encourage them to use birth control.

What can happen is that children born in poor, but stable families have a chance to get an education, get some student loans and go to college, and enter the middle class job market.  That only happens if we throw some money at poor people to stabilize their situation so the single mothers can do a better job raising their kids. (drop your snide comment, this is how I got to where I am).


I would bet, only 10% of poor people are looking to get a free ride.  Most humans are properly wired and WANT to contribute.  But life keeps them down.  They don't make enough to afford a better car, so every other paycheck is a crisis to cover an expensive car repair or medical issue, etc, so they drop out of school so they can work more, to stay on the treadmill.  Achieving escape velocity is not easy.


----------



## Maxperson (Dec 16, 2015)

Neonchameleon said:


> Given that you can always create a fig leaf justification for anything then your "money for nothing" clause is meaningless.




Valid reasons =/= weak justifications.



> And what you are blatantly ignoring here is that money is a consensual myth. Those pieces of paper in your wallet, those bank notes, even those coins, are utterly worthless without the context of the society you live in. (Pennies actually cost more than a penny to make, but I digress). Most currencies are fiat currencies - i.e. backed purely by mythmaking.




Entirely irrelevant.  You're throwing up smoke screens and I see through them.  Where money comes from and how it is valued has no bearing on whether or not people should get free money.



> And apparently you can understand money for being elderly or for being young but not for being human.




You don't deserve money for being human.  You deserve money that you earn.  Children, the elderly and the disabled can't earn like the rest of us.  The poor who need some education to be productive can be helped, but only to teach them to be productive.



> The "free money that I'm not entitled to" is irrelevant. With a citizens income we are talking about changing the rules so everyone is entitled to some money.




Everyone is not entitled to free money.  The rules should not be changed for reasons of entitlement.  That way lies Greece and other countries who are drowning in their entitlement programs.



> So. You earn your keep. Based on technologies created by other people. You are fortunate to live in the early 21st Century and in America. And unwilling to have others be fortunate so far as I can tell.




Um, no.  I'm willing to have them be just as fortunate as I am.  I learned a skill and earn my keep.  They can be just as fortunate.



> Third, Congratulations! You've just solved unemployment! What an amazing thing no one has tried setting up "marketable skill" schemes. Riiight.




Nobody has tried it here in America.  We have many, many jobs just sitting around because people who are skilled aren't out there to take them.  The current programs for the poor are designed to keep them poor.  The programs slap down anyone who tries to get that schooling. 



> And just because you don't think you are a sponger doesn't mean you aren't. What's your environmental impact like? How many earths would it take to support everyone the way you live? (One reason our current economy is simple is we just externalise most pollution).
> 
> And to fixing global warming?




The environment does not belong here.  If you want to discuss it, you should create a new thread.  I'm not going to engage.


----------



## Maxperson (Dec 16, 2015)

Janx said:


> I hope your job  is replaced by robots tomorrow.
> 
> You are not getting that in our modern economy, there are not enough jobs for everybody.  If we could force everybody to work, there wouldn't be enough positions to actually employ them.
> 
> And that jobs are continuously made obsolete, meaning whatever skillset you had, especially if it was one that took specific training, is likely going away after awhile.




There are tons of jobs sitting idle because people don't have the skills to meet demand.  When jobs go away, others open up.  Re-training is the key.  Not entitlement programs.



> And that in the USA, you cannot force somebody into a skillset.  I can't take you and force you to go to plumber school and be a plumber.




Sure, but you should starve and be homeless if you refuse to go learn a skill to earn your way.  If my job went away tomorrow, I would be in school learning a new skill at the start of the next semester.



> What I can do is create the opportunity for you to decide what you want to learn and decide how you want to contribute to society.




Did you think that I was suggesting that the government pick the skill for you to learn?  No.  You should be given a choice from the marketable skills available for a certain cost to train.  i.e. no being paid to become a doctor or lawyer.



> And remember 1-2 centuries ago, the answer to not giving people money for nothing was they would rise up and have a revolution and chop off some heads.




Um, that's a load of manure.  Had those people been given a way to earn their money and eat, they wouldn't have revolted.  It wasn't because they didn't get "free money for nothing."



> What can happen is that children born in poor, but stable families have a chance to get an education, get some student loans and go to college, and enter the middle class job market.  That only happens if we throw some money at poor people to stabilize their situation so the single mothers can do a better job raising their kids. (drop your snide comment, this is how I got to where I am).




It can also happen if you throw less long term money at them, but increase the short term money and require them to learn a marketable skill.  The cost overall is less and you get more productive people.


----------



## Neonchameleon (Dec 16, 2015)

Maxperson said:


> Entirely irrelevant. You're throwing up smoke screens and I see through them. Where money comes from and how it is valued has no bearing on whether or not people should get free money.




Your entire argument is a smoke screen. There is no moral reason that the people of a country can not decide to give money to all the people of that country. 



> You don't deserve money for being human. You deserve money that you earn.




I assume therefore that you support an inheritance tax of 100%. That's unearned money based on who you were born and who your parents were. Unfair, unjust, perpetutates and accentuates inequality, and has bad effects on the economy.

Tell me, do you support 100% Inheritance Tax?



> Children, the elderly and the disabled can't earn like the rest of us. The poor who need some education to be productive can be helped, but only to teach them to be productive.




You seem to assume that the work



> Everyone is not entitled to free money. The rules should not be changed for reasons of entitlement. That way lies Greece and other countries who are drowning in their entitlement programs.




The problem Greece has is fraud, going right to the top. Such a program actually helps reduce fraud.



> Um, no. I'm willing to have them be just as fortunate as I am. I learned a skill and earn my keep. They can be just as fortunate.




Apparently all my comments have gone right over your head.



> Nobody has tried it here in America. We have many, many jobs just sitting around because people who are skilled aren't out there to take them.




.

You have many, many jobs sitting around because penny-pinching companies are not prepared to pay market wages. "I can't find someone to fill this job" means "I am not prepared to pay enough to have this job filled, and am not prepared to provide training". Mysteriously the corporations aren't prepared to pay for their own workers and want even more corporate welfare than they already get.



> The current programs for the poor are designed to keep them poor. The programs slap down anyone who tries to get that schooling.




Equally mysteriously when people suggest programs that are explicitly designed to not keep people poor we get people like you demanding strings on any assistance given. It's a classic Catch 22.



> The environment does not belong here. If you want to discuss it, you should create a new thread. I'm not going to engage.




I'll take that as demonstrating that you know you are leeching more than your share of natural resources out of the world.


----------



## delericho (Dec 16, 2015)

Neonchameleon said:


> I assume therefore that you support an inheritance tax of 100%. That's unearned money based on who you were born and who your parents were. Unfair, unjust, perpetutates and accentuates inequality, and has bad effects on the economy.




Hell, you need to go further even than that.

One of the favoured tricks of the very rich is the unpaid internship - Junior spends a year working, unpaid, for some prestigious company. He thus builds up a long list of contacts within the elite, who then put in a good word for him wherever he goes next. The poor, of course, can't afford to support their children as they do that unpaid work, which means that the network is forever closed off to them.

And, actually, even that comes after Junior has spent many years in private education and so can coast through life on the strength of his old school tie.

Really, if you want to curb the unearned benefits of money, you need all children to be taken from their parents shortly after birth and raised by the state.


----------



## Orlax (Dec 16, 2015)

Maxperson said:


> There are tons of jobs sitting idle because people don't have the skills to meet demand.  When jobs go away, others open up.  Re-training is the key.  Not entitlement programs.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




You get that some people can't learn an advanced skill right?  Like we try to sugar coat it, and say people can do whatever they put their minds to, but that's some touchy feely BS you say to kids to try and motivate them to have aspirations.  In reality though some people just aren't as useful as other people as far as the work force is concerned.  It's just the hard facts.  Everyone is different, and for some their differences make them not an ideal worker.  They may know everything and have all the requisite skills to be able to do the work, but are slow to getting that work done (making any skill they contribute totally useless as the with is never done on time), heck they might be the hardest worker that gets their work done quickly, but constantly screws up because they just can't properly grasp the advanced topics required for this new skill.  Sometimes people's inherent skill sets are not suited to the current requirements of the work force.  In your estimation those people deserve death, no matter the emotional connection they may be providing for others, or the fact that they are a human being.  In your reasoning if they aren't in the workforce they hold no value as a human being and therefore deserve nothing.  It's social Darwinism at its worst.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Dec 16, 2015)

As a right wing person myself, I dislike the assumed dichotomy that the right uniformly considers welfare a bad thing.  

The way I look at it, a safety net is useful to maintaining a constant economic growth.  If you cushion the failures at the point that it causes significant harm (starvation, lack of shelter), you effectively ensure that accidents of fate do not cripple otherwise productive members of society.  So providing a safety net is a social good, and a legitimate (if not strictly necessary) function of government.

Then you dive into the ways to provide that safety net.  I feel fairly confident that no one is satisfied with the current methods of doing so.  For myself, it fails in that it creates a poverty loop -- it rewards gaming the system to remain within it indefinitely while it punishes attempts to escape it.  I believe this was mentioned a few times upthread.  So what the current systems generate is the occasional success story where someone falls into the net due to an accident of fate, recovers their footing, and escapes (a success!) and also where someone is born into the net or falls there, and either cannot or will not escape the net (a failure).  Given that there have been nonproductive members of society throughout time -- there's always someone unwilling to work -- it is not sensible to build a system that does not at least consider what to do with those people.  Functionally, a system that removes them and allows them to fail on their own is a working system, but this falls clearly afoul of modern moral sensibilities.  While I do not subscribe to the idea that everyone is owed a basic living (I subscribe to negative rights, not positive ones -- you are not owed work by anyone else as a right), I do, however, subscribe to the idea that if those people exist, then it is better to plan to deal with them rather than allow them to die in the streets.

And all of that falls under the problem of how to run and fund such a program.  They are clearly costly and incapable of managing fraud and abuse, yet they would seem to be unavoidable (you cannot end them).  So that's a serious issue.

That brings us to the premise of a basic stipend for everyone.  This has the benefit of addressing the need for a safety net and for dealing with the malcontents that will not work (or cannot), while also being far easier to implement and fund than existing, bloated, fraud-filled systems.  So my inner 'leaner more efficient government' demon is satisfied alongside my 'safety nets are a social good' demon.  I'd love to see this program in action.

However, there remain a number of serious questions with such a program that remain to be seen before I would endorse such a plan.  Primarily is that by providing a fungible basic salary, you cannot be certain that people will spend it in ways that actually meet their needs.  One of the few benefits of the current welfare programs is that they are targeted at specific needs and are not easily made fungible.  Housing assistance is paid to landlords to provide housing.  Food stamps can only be used to purchase food items.  And so on.  I am very concerned that if you eliminate the targeted and nonfungible programs in favor of just a direct cash payment that there will be many people buying circus tickets instead of bread, and the number of people in dire straights will increase.  Yes, for those that are frugal and make good decisions, the universal stipend is a godsend -- it solves many of the issues that plague the current welfare programs in that it is fungible, so the disciplined persons can apply it as best fits their needs, and it doesn't create the poverty trap -- you can earn as much as you can and still receive benefits.  But for the generational poor, I'm not sure that it would be a workable system.

A second concern is that the government, also in the guise of welfare, imposes itself upon the labor market in very distorting ways.  Minimum wage comes to mind as such an imposition on similar reasons  to welfare.  If you implement a universal stipend, but maintain an aggressive minimum wage, you will still lose a great deal of the transitory space that could exist.  Therefore, to achieve the social climbing necessary, I believe that you must relax the minimum wages while you implement an universal stipend to achieve the maximum transitional space from full assistance to no assistance.  Otherwise, jobs will still be difficult to get with limited skills and you will have more people relying solely on the universal stipend for their income.

So, as a right winger, I'm keenly interested in watching the outcome of Finland's experiment.  If they can enact a system and it manages to avoid the pitfalls I've mentioned, I will be very pleased to strongly recommend that the US adopt such a program.  However, I am, at best, cautiously optimistic that they will do so.  Nothing in the program addresses the root causes of poverty, but maybe those will lessen under the program or additional assistance to address those causes will be implemented to success.  In the meantime, I'm waiting to see.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Dec 16, 2015)

Orlax said:


> You get that some people can't learn an advanced skill right?  Like we try to sugar coat it, and say people can do whatever they put their minds to, but that's some touchy feely BS you say to kids to try and motivate them to have aspirations.  In reality though some people just aren't as useful as other people as far as the work force is concerned.  It's just the hard facts.  Everyone is different, and for some their differences make them not an ideal worker.  They may know everything and have all the requisite skills to be able to do the work, but are slow to getting that work done (making any skill they contribute totally useless as the with is never done on time), heck they might be the hardest worker that gets their work done quickly, but constantly screws up because they just can't properly grasp the advanced topics required for this new skill.  Sometimes people's inherent skill sets are not suited to the current requirements of the work force.  In your estimation those people deserve death, no matter the emotional connection they may be providing for others, or the fact that they are a human being.  In your reasoning if they aren't in the workforce they hold no value as a human being and therefore deserve nothing.  It's social Darwinism at its worst.




To be fair, that is a very utilitarian point of view.  It's the stuff utopias are made of (for the survivors, at least).  Take a soma and you'll forget your point.


----------



## Kramodlog (Dec 16, 2015)

Ovinomancer said:


> I am very concerned that if you eliminate the targeted and nonfungible programs in favor of just a direct cash payment that there will be many people buying circus tickets instead of bread, and the number of people in dire straights will increase.



Well, there are plenty of countries who all their social programs consist of giving money to their citizens. Like Canada. Do they have less or more poor than the US?


----------



## Ovinomancer (Dec 16, 2015)

goldomark said:


> Well, there are plenty of countries who all their social programs consist of giving money to their citizens. Like Canada. Do they have less or more poor than the US?




Canada also has targeted assistance programs alongside that stipend, such as the public housing programs.  The Finnish proposal will replace ALL of those welfare programs with a straight universal stipend.  So, in Canada, you do give money, yes (we do that in the US as well, with disability and social security as two easy examples), but you also still provide a large chunk of assistance via targeted and non-fungible programs that focus on the core needs of life, food and shelter.


----------



## PurpleDragonKnight (Dec 16, 2015)

On a related note, let's keep printing more money to cover our national debts.  Just keep an eye on who's buying land, and you'll know your future masters.


----------



## Istbor (Dec 16, 2015)

PurpleDragonKnight said:


> On a related note, let's keep printing more money to cover our national debts.  Just keep an eye on who's buying land, and you'll know your future masters.




Ooooo! I recently bought land! 

Serve me?


----------



## PurpleDragonKnight (Dec 16, 2015)

Istbor said:


> Ooooo! I recently bought land!
> 
> Serve me?




LOL! sure!! print some more money and call me! (keep an eye on your fellow land owners to make sure your holdings are not just 'acquired' one day...)


----------



## RangerWickett (Dec 16, 2015)

I . . . I think that a universal basic income would warrant removing the minimum wage.

And really, school ought to do a better job teaching people how the world works. Hell, I graduated at the top of my class in high school and I didn't understand how banking or investment worked, or how to write a resume, how much savings I ought to have, how to repair anything in my house, or really how to cook anything more complicated than ramen. Part of that's on my parents, coddling me so I never knew I needed those skills, and part's on me for not being self aware enough to realize I wouldn't always be at home. But school could have helped.

Teach people how to be good shepherds of their money, or else any social program won't be as efficient as it could be.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Dec 16, 2015)

RangerWickett said:


> I . . . I think that a universal basic income would warrant removing the minimum wage.



I don't, but it certainly should be greatly reduced.  There is a useful point where protection from abuse is warranted, but we're already past that.  Minimum wage is a horrid method for achieving a 'livable wage', whatever that means.


----------



## Maxperson (Dec 17, 2015)

Neonchameleon said:


> I assume therefore that you support an inheritance tax of 100%. That's unearned money based on who you were born and who your parents were. Unfair, unjust, perpetutates and accentuates inequality, and has bad effects on the economy.
> 
> Tell me, do you support 100% Inheritance Tax?




You shouldn't assume.   You know what that does.  No.  I do not support a 100% inheritance tax.  Nor do I support a 0% inheritance tax.  The difference here is that the money was earned by an individual and he has the right to give it to who he wants.  It should be taxed as gift income.  The government does not earn the money it gives out.  It takes it from those who do.  One does not equal the other.



> The problem Greece has is fraud, going right to the top. Such a program actually helps reduce fraud.




The problem with Greece is the entitlements.  It gives waaaaaaaaaaaay too much to the people who don't earn what they are given.



> Apparently all my comments have gone right over your head.




No.  I get them.  I just don't agree with them.



> You have many, many jobs sitting around because penny-pinching companies are not prepared to pay market wages. "I can't find someone to fill this job" means "I am not prepared to pay enough to have this job filled, and am not prepared to provide training". Mysteriously the corporations aren't prepared to pay for their own workers and want even more corporate welfare than they already get.




False.  These are high paying skilled worker positions.  We lack skilled workers to fill them.



> Equally mysteriously when people suggest programs that are explicitly designed to not keep people poor we get people like you demanding strings on any assistance given. It's a classic Catch 22.




LOL  What a joke.  The only people trying to keep people poor with programs is the left.  The strings I'm suggesting are required training so that the person can actually contribute to society instead of being a sponge.



> I'll take that as demonstrating that you know you are leeching more than your share of natural resources out of the world.




You can take it to be a pile of presents if you want.  It won't make either statement true.  It's exactly as I said.  It does not belong here so I won't engage.  If you want me to talk about the environment, start a new thread.


----------



## Maxperson (Dec 17, 2015)

Orlax said:


> You get that some people can't learn an advanced skill right?  Like we try to sugar coat it, and say people can do whatever they put their minds to, but that's some touchy feely BS you say to kids to try and motivate them to have aspirations.  In reality though some people just aren't as useful as other people as far as the work force is concerned.  It's just the hard facts.




Somebody in that position is mentally or physically disabled and would be covered by disability.


----------



## Kramodlog (Dec 17, 2015)

Ovinomancer said:


> but you also still provide a large chunk of assistance via targeted and non-fungible programs that focus on the core needs of life, food and shelter.



Like which programs? I'm curious to learn about Canada's food stamp program.


----------



## Ovinomancer (Dec 17, 2015)

goldomark said:


> Like which programs? I'm curious to learn about Canada's food stamp program.



Sorry, but I'm not the least interested in a discussion over the specific forms of assistance Canada provides as a diversion to the topic.  If you'd like me to say that Canada doesn't have a governmental food assistance program, fine, I misspoke.  You do have public housing programs, so my point stands.


----------



## Janx (Dec 17, 2015)

RangerWickett said:


> I . . . I think that a universal basic income would warrant removing the minimum wage.
> 
> And really, school ought to do a better job teaching people how the world works. Hell, I graduated at the top of my class in high school and I didn't understand how banking or investment worked, or how to write a resume, how much savings I ought to have, how to repair anything in my house, or really how to cook anything more complicated than ramen. Part of that's on my parents, coddling me so I never knew I needed those skills, and part's on me for not being self aware enough to realize I wouldn't always be at home. But school could have helped.
> 
> Teach people how to be good shepherds of their money, or else any social program won't be as efficient as it could be.




That's probably part on your parents for not showing you some stuff, and some on being in the top-end of high school.

I was an average student at a small school.  I took wood shop, cooking, sewing, welding, small engine repair among the many classes I took.  As such, I apparently have a better real world education.  I have met other folks, who didn't get any of those classes, because that's where the hoodlums were.  They were instead taking Advanced Placement classes. Given that I ended up in a Fortune 20-something corporate right out of college, I'd say that AP crap wasn't worth it...

An argument could be made that high school students don't need to learn resumes.  No job only requiring a high school diploma should have more than an application form (elitist, but somewhat true).  College should be teaching that skill (and mine did) because jobs requiring college degrees SHOULD be applied for with a resume (barring the internet era where it's all a form online).

I should also note I learned about the stock market (and played and won the stock market game in class).  Pretty sure there's a basic math class for balancing checkbooks, but that class was remedial (for kids who couldn't hack trig and beyond).


Education is complex.  Clearly we aren't all getting the same material.  Sometimes, that's a problem.  And for all the stuff RW cites that he missed, has he caught up?  Buy a house, and one usually learns quite a few skills if you can't afford to keep hiring a handyman for everything.


----------



## PurpleDragonKnight (Dec 17, 2015)

I think the main problem these days is the insistence on companies to be headquartered in big cities.  This artificially jacks up real estate, which results in people having to rent forever or do a 2 hour commute each way.  You also have some collusion between banks (who issue the mortgages), municipalities (who can increase municipal taxes if your house is worth more), and real estate companies (who get bigger bonuses when you sell/buy houses).  I don't think these three sectors (in Canada anyway) are hurting at all.  They're rolling out record profits each year.

Now, if enough companies could be convinced to move to small towns or rural areas, lower house prices in these regions would help people have a more reasonable lifestyle.  More savings for retirement.  Mortgage paid sooner so your net worth can increase and you end up investing more instead of just turning your whole income to banks who do the investing for themselves, thank you very much.  Basically the small guys end up with a piece of the pie again.  Which the banks probably don't want... so... yay for supercities! 

Companies moving to small towns would benefit them as well (low office rents or straight out ownership of building).  However there would be challenges in relocating all those workers from big cities.  A lot of people working in cities are born and raised there and are not willing to trade that lifestyle for small town suburbs.  They also lose access to ethnic/religious community support that the big cities give them.  However I'm aware of a few organizations that have made the switch successfully, after a lot of cajoling to those employees (field trips to those towns and "welcome" receptions by local small town mayors).  The main draw for everyone is that you trade your million dollar house for an even bigger house in the country that's worth half of your city house... and singlehandedly finish off your mortgage in the process, and then you're in the black from then on...


----------



## tomBitonti (Dec 17, 2015)

> False. These are high paying skilled worker positions. We lack skilled workers to fill them.




The idea applies for skilled positions.  Most often it seems to be coupled with requests to increase H1B visa quotas (non-immigrant speciality worker visas).

Anyways, from an economics view, a shortage is viewed as a result of combinations of supply and demand and substitutability.  Economically, saying there is a shortage is the equivalent of complaining about high prices as a buyer.

Read more: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showth...th-to-fight-unemployment/page15#ixzz3uaSIURRL

Thx!
TomB


----------



## Maxperson (Dec 17, 2015)

tomBitonti said:


> The idea applies for skilled positions.  Most often it seems to be coupled with requests to increase H1B visa quotas (non-immigrant speciality worker visas).
> 
> Anyways, from an economics view, a shortage is viewed as a result of combinations of supply and demand and substitutability.  Economically, saying there is a shortage is the equivalent of complaining about high prices as a buyer.
> 
> ...




Regardless of why the shortage exists, training poor people to fill those spots is win-win.  They get filled, people are no longer poor, and the economy gains functional contributors instead of people having to be given money to survive.  It's also cheaper to do since it doesn't take all that long to train people, so the increased short term expense is less than the long term expense we currently have.


----------



## Janx (Dec 17, 2015)

Maxperson said:


> Regardless of why the shortage exists, training poor people to fill those spots is win-win.  They get filled, people are no longer poor, and the economy gains functional contributors instead of people having to be given money to survive.  It's also cheaper to do since it doesn't take all that long to train people, so the increased short term expense is less than the long term expense we currently have.




It depends on what skill.

I can't find competent developers.  Not that programmers don't exist, but the good ones cost too much, and anybody cheaper really lacks the lobes for understanding the language and learning a business (every programming gig involves learning somebody else's industry to write the code for it).


Let's get more practical.  Where are the shortages right now?  Nursing is one that's been around for awhile.

anybody under 110 IQ need not apply.  Too stupid to cram all that book learning in and apply it to real world situations where legal liability for mishandling medical situations is high.

So bam, half the population is out on qualifying for that job (100 IQ or something is average, which means half the population is below the average).

Burger flipping?  Sorry, I got robots coming in to do that.

trash man?  Just replaced the guys in back with a robot arm and special cans.  Google is working on killing the driver as we speak.

Right now, the US is at about 5% unemployment (per the # I heard a week ago).  Pretty good improvement since the big crash under Bush and Repubs called Americans lazy when we were at record highs for unemployment due to the crash because nobody was hiring.

This quite possibly mostly covers folks who are actually lazy, or are truly unemployable (low IQ, brains baked on pot, whatever).  These folks, if left alone, will starve to death or turn to crime like Jean ValJean did.  So paying them off is a small sacrifice to ease the last bit of the crime rate down since, as I said, Eugenics is frowned upon.  They are the noise in the system.  Just like having folks speed on the highways.  They are mis-using what my tax dollars paid for, but I can't kill them in a gas chamber for a variety of excellent reasons.

I once heard a quote. Dogs get trained.  People are taught.  Anybody you "train" for a job, ain't a job that anybody should want.  It'll be a crap burger flipping dead end.  The servitor caste we have needs more money to make ends meet, because they are stuck in jobs they were trained for, and don't qualify for anything better, and can't get into school to be taught for a career because they don't have money, and they are stuck working 2 McJobs to make ends meet.

It sucks for people on the bottom, and ideas like "train them for jobs that are in demand" are often lacking logistical completeness.  The same issue those same folks decry about "handing out free money".

So present an idea that actually solves the entire problem, not just a platitude.  Try to sound like you've got some compassion, rather than disdain for folks in the situation.


----------



## Maxperson (Dec 17, 2015)

Janx said:


> It depends on what skill.
> 
> I can't find competent developers.  Not that programmers don't exist, but the good ones cost too much, and anybody cheaper really lacks the lobes for understanding the language and learning a business (every programming gig involves learning somebody else's industry to write the code for it).
> 
> ...




You don't need a 110 IQ to be a nurse, EMT, or many other skilled jobs.



> Google is working on killing the driver as we speak.




That's what I'm afraid of 

Seriously, though, my car will never drive for me.



> Right now, the US is at about 5% unemployment (per the # I heard a week ago).  Pretty good improvement since the big crash under Bush and Repubs called Americans lazy when we were at record highs for unemployment due to the crash because nobody was hiring.




That's a phantom number to make the government look good.  It doesn't count people who are discouraged and have stopped looking for work.  



> This quite possibly mostly covers folks who are actually lazy, or are truly unemployable (low IQ, brains baked on pot, whatever).  These folks, if left alone, will starve to death or turn to crime like Jean ValJean did.  So paying them off is a small sacrifice to ease the last bit of the crime rate down since, as I said, Eugenics is frowned upon.  They are the noise in the system.  Just like having folks speed on the highways.  They are mis-using what my tax dollars paid for, but I can't kill them in a gas chamber for a variety of excellent reasons.
> 
> I once heard a quote. Dogs get trained.  People are taught.  Anybody you "train" for a job, ain't a job that anybody should want.  It'll be a crap burger flipping dead end.  The servitor caste we have needs more money to make ends meet, because they are stuck in jobs they were trained for, and don't qualify for anything better, and can't get into school to be taught for a career because they don't have money, and they are stuck working 2 McJobs to make ends meet.
> 
> It sucks for people on the bottom, and ideas like "train them for jobs that are in demand" are often lacking logistical completeness.  The same issue those same folks decry about "handing out free money".




A lot of people are poor due to making some bad choices when young.  Having a baby, dropping out of school for one reason or another, or some other circumstance.  Once poor and in the system, the system is currently designed to make it prohibitively hard to get educated and pull yourself out.  Lots of people are in that situation.  The need to be "taught" a skill so that they can contribute.


----------



## Orlax (Dec 17, 2015)

Maxperson said:


> You don't need a 110 IQ to be a nurse, EMT, or many other skilled jobs.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Actually yes you do need to be highly intelligent to be a nurse or an emt, you not only need to be intelligent you need to be able to cope with high stakes, high stress, situations where people's lives are literally on the line, and you often need to do it while being under rested and under paid (and to thankless patients no less).  Not everyone can be trained or taught the skills for that job.  I'm a fairly intelligent individual, and I'm not going to even remotely say I can do a nursing or emt job.  I can remember all the medical knowledge, but I couldn't deal with the on the ground ins and outs of actually doing the job.  There is a reason that there is a nursing shortage, and its because it takes a special kind of person to do that job.

While the 5% number is a BS number that ignores those no longer looking for work (making it at best an estimation), it does represent something... The number of people that should be looking for a job.  Let's face it we live in the damn future and robots are taking our jobs.  Heck my last programming/qa job was writing automation.  A.K.A. creating a robot to eventually do my job for me.  I was quite literally programming my own replacement.  The plus side of that is that we don't all need to work anymore we have robots to do the menial and repetitive labor.  All we need to be able to do is repair the robots, and that takes significantly less manpower.  A reality of the future we are entering is that in that future, in the advanced countries, people without advanced degrees, and skills, won't have a lot to do work wise.  As we automate and allow tech to solve more and more of our problems the need for people to also do the tasks we've set up robots to do evaporates.  It is important to keep passing the skills on to humans as a means of redundancy, but robots can assemble a burger and fries for me as well as clean the table and mop the floor of the dining area I eat my food in.  We've already basically removed the cashier position in a lot of stores (especially the grocery store), we replaced 5 to 10 jobs with 1 job, and those 4 to 9 other jobs are never coming back.

The jobs we are going to need filled moving forward are skilled trades like mechanics, carpenters, plumbers electricians, masons, welders, and many other things you can learn at a vocational high school (which after long enough will be eliminated by still more robots though those are a bit more down the road), and high end careers such as doctors, lawyers, nurses and the programmers and engineers that make the robots that eliminate the need for other workers.  Not all of these positions are things that all people can do, there are barriers to entry, both physical and mental (depending upon the position we are talking about), and there is the simple fact that some people can't do any of those things.  It isn't due to any real disability just a lack of exceptionality.

As we bustle into that future (ludite all you want that's where we are headed) we have to accept that a lot of people aren't going to be working anymore, and there literally won't be anything for them to do in the actual workforce because the need for the jobs they could do no longer exists.  Those people don't deserve death by starvation simply because they are not exceptional human beings, their mediocrity is not a sin punishable by death, and as we evolve our society we need to take care of those that we've actively taken work away from via advancement in both technology and geopolitics.

Essentially your constant insistence that everyone needs to "contribute" or work towards "contributing" in order to warrant their being kept alive is an old way of thinking that just needs to go because it doesn't take into account the issue of there actively not being any work for them to do.  It also ignores contributions outside of productivity within the workforce such as supporting those that are exceptional and do the jobs that require some level of exceptionality.

I'm not even saying it is a totally bad idea.  More training available to those in poverty helps in a lot of ways, it not only might find people that otherwise never would have attempted work in a trade it also gives jobs to those that know a trade, but can't actually hack it on the job site (those that can't do teach).  However the simple fact is that even if we train a million plumbers we won't ever need a million plumbers, and again not every person can learn any skill.  I went to a vocational school, I've actively watched people that couldn't grasp ohms law, and its further implications (things you need to know to be a competent electrician), there are barriers to entry for skilled positions that some people just can't get past, and insisting that people must be trained for whatever the market demands of them ignores the simple fact that not every person can do everything.

Like I'm not saying people shouldn't try or anything like that.  You'll never know for a fact that you shouldn't be doing something until you've tried doing that thing and failed at it, but it's okay to not be good at things, we aren't fighting for life in the mud anymore.  I'm just saying that sometimes someone's best really isn't good enough, and we should stop trying to live by utter BS we feed children to motivate them to try things, and develop solutions that confront the cold realities.


----------



## tomBitonti (Dec 17, 2015)

Something I'm thinking is happening here in the US which works against the notion of giving out money is that there seem to be a lot of forces which push people in entirely the other direction: Forces which make folks continuously short on money and as a result forced to work harder to make ends meet, or resulting in general disenfranchisement.

Giving out money short circuits those forces and creates pathologies.

I'm generally for making it easier to assist people, but I think at the same time we have to work on the forces which are making it harder for people, or, we won't solve many problems.

For example, if you have half decent credit, there seems to be no end to loan offers.  (Back in the day of easy mortgage money I had a 3/4 mil loan thrown at me.  It was ludicrous and would have been a foolish loan for both me and the lender.)

Or, look at the legal environment around Ferguson, where the civil government was setup as an extortion racket.  Or at the problems relating to student loans.  Or the disproportionate impact of law enforcement on minorities.

Thx!
TomB


----------



## Cor Azer (Dec 17, 2015)

One societal role that I haven't seen mentioned that I think is prime for such a guaranteed income is that of a stay-at-home parent. Such a person is not lazy, or disabled, or very often under any other condition that 'warrants' government assistance. Teaching them a skill is superfluous, because they're choosing to stay home to raise their kids; they're already doing a job - notably one that's not simply 9-5 weekdays - but generally speaking, society hasn't seen fit to reward such parents with income.

Some places (such as Canada) do have government child benefits, but they're meant to support the child, not the parent providing care.


----------



## Maxperson (Dec 17, 2015)

Orlax said:


> Actually yes you do need to be highly intelligent to be a nurse or an emt, you not only need to be intelligent you need to be able to cope with high stakes, high stress, situations where people's lives are literally on the line, and you often need to do it while being under rested and under paid (and to thankless patients no less).  Not everyone can be trained or taught the skills for that job.  I'm a fairly intelligent individual, and I'm not going to even remotely say I can do a nursing or emt job.  I can remember all the medical knowledge, but I couldn't deal with the on the ground ins and outs of actually doing the job.  There is a reason that there is a nursing shortage, and its because it takes a special kind of person to do that job.




Average intelligence is all that is required.  You don't need to be highly intelligent to cope.  You don't need to be highly intelligent to learn what to do to save lives.  I've met many nurses who aren't highly intelligent.  You're going to need to back up your claim.



> While the 5% number is a BS number that ignores those no longer looking for work (making it at best an estimation), it does represent something... The number of people that should be looking for a job.  Let's face it we live in the damn future and robots are taking our jobs.  Heck my last programming/qa job was writing automation.  A.K.A. creating a robot to eventually do my job for me.  I was quite literally programming my own replacement.  The plus side of that is that we don't all need to work anymore we have robots to do the menial and repetitive labor.  All we need to be able to do is repair the robots, and that takes significantly less manpower.  A reality of the future we are entering is that in that future, in the advanced countries, people without advanced degrees, and skills, won't have a lot to do work wise.  As we automate and allow tech to solve more and more of our problems the need for people to also do the tasks we've set up robots to do evaporates.  It is important to keep passing the skills on to humans as a means of redundancy, but robots can assemble a burger and fries for me as well as clean the table and mop the floor of the dining area I eat my food in.  We've already basically removed the cashier position in a lot of stores (especially the grocery store), we replaced 5 to 10 jobs with 1 job, and those 4 to 9 other jobs are never coming back.




I'm not sure how talking about unskilled labor being replaced is a counter to my argument that we have a large surplus of skilled jobs just sitting there.  



> The jobs we are going to need filled moving forward are skilled trades like mechanics, carpenters, plumbers electricians, masons, welders, and many other things you can learn at a vocational high school (which after long enough will be eliminated by still more robots though those are a bit more down the road), and high end careers such as doctors, lawyers, nurses and the programmers and engineers that make the robots that eliminate the need for other workers.  Not all of these positions are things that all people can do, there are barriers to entry, both physical and mental (depending upon the position we are talking about), and there is the simple fact that some people can't do any of those things.  It isn't due to any real disability just a lack of exceptionality.




If and when we start replacing skilled positions like those with robots, we can re-examine things.  As it stands, all that is needed is to train, I mean "teach" people skills to take these jobs.



> As we bustle into that future (ludite all you want that's where we are headed) we have to accept that a lot of people aren't going to be working anymore, and there literally won't be anything for them to do in the actual workforce because the need for the jobs they could do no longer exists.  Those people don't deserve death by starvation simply because they are not exceptional human beings, their mediocrity is not a sin punishable by death, and as we evolve our society we need to take care of those that we've actively taken work away from via advancement in both technology and geopolitics.




We aren't anywhere close to this.  Replacing burger flippers with a robot is a lot easier than replacing a nurse or paralegal.  We may never get there.



> Essentially your constant insistence that everyone needs to "contribute" or work towards "contributing" in order to warrant their being kept alive is an old way of thinking that just needs to go because it doesn't take into account the issue of there actively not being any work for them to do.  It also ignores contributions outside of productivity within the workforce such as supporting those that are exceptional and do the jobs that require some level of exceptionality.




There is work for them to do.  As things currently stand, you do not need to be exceptional for most of these skilled positions.  



> I'm not even saying it is a totally bad idea.  More training available to those in poverty helps in a lot of ways, it not only might find people that otherwise never would have attempted work in a trade it also gives jobs to those that know a trade, but can't actually hack it on the job site (those that can't do teach).  However the simple fact is that even if we train a million plumbers we won't ever need a million plumbers, and again not every person can learn any skill.  I went to a vocational school, I've actively watched people that couldn't grasp ohms law, and its further implications (things you need to know to be a competent electrician), there are barriers to entry for skilled positions that some people just can't get past, and insisting that people must be trained for whatever the market demands of them ignores the simple fact that not every person can do everything.




I'm not now, nor have I ever advocate for just forcing people to become plumbers.  Aptitude tests exist and can be used to help the person who can't grasp ohms law, but who can remember medications, traumas, and cope with life threatening emergencies, become a nurse.

If these people are "taught" skills, and we remove the mentally ill from the streets and take care of them as we should be doing, there will be plenty of charity shelters with room for those who are lazy and don't want to work to find free food and lodging.  The government doesn't need to be giving free money for nothing.


----------



## Istbor (Dec 17, 2015)

What are these piles of skilled jobs that are just laying around please?  Can you cite us with some information.  I am more curious than anything. Considering how rough it is for some people to find work that are looking, what trades do you think they should reeducate themselves in, so they can cash in on these positions that are just waiting to be filled.


----------



## Maxperson (Dec 17, 2015)

Istbor said:


> What are these piles of skilled jobs that are just laying around please?  Can you cite us with some information.  I am more curious than anything. Considering how rough it is for some people to find work that are looking, what trades do you think they should reeducate themselves in, so they can cash in on these positions that are just waiting to be filled.



http://www.cnbc.com/2014/06/10/jobs-are-available-but-americans-lack-skills.html

"If we still didn't have this large supply of surplus labor that doesn't have the required skill set, the JOLTs data would say something much more powerful," said Ward McCarthy, chief financial economist at Jefferies.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/john-bridgeland/americas-job-surplus_b_840148.html

"Today, America has only 45 million workers who have the training and skills to fill 97 million jobs that require some post-secondary education."



There's a lot more, but that should be sufficient I think.  The second article is more than 4 1/2 years old.  The first from last year.  This has been going on a for a while.  45+ million surplus jobs is more than 5% of the population.  If the government is to be believed, and it isn't because this administration is the least trustworthy since Nixon, that's enough jobs to end unemployment in this country.


----------



## Janx (Dec 17, 2015)

Maxperson said:


> http://www.cnbc.com/2014/06/10/jobs-are-available-but-americans-lack-skills.html
> 
> "If we still didn't have this large supply of surplus labor that doesn't have the required skill set, the JOLTs data would say something much more powerful," said Ward McCarthy, chief financial economist at Jefferies.
> 
> ...




So let's assume that's accurate, though I'm not sure what kind of jobs those were.

Perry liked to tout how he made more jobs in TX during the recession, but guess what, those jobs paid less than the ones that were lost, so "skilled workers" weren't going to settle, they were going somewhere else.

That means jobs as numbers aren't enough.  They have to not suck.  Roustabout jobs in the Dakota's may be high paying and recruiting, but not everybody's willing to leave their family for 6 months to live in their pickup truck to take a shift down there (and yes, that's what those jobs are like).  They are also dangerous.

I'm not going to shame somebody for not wanting certain kinds of jobs, even though I was plenty willing to move 1500 miles to get my big job.  That ain't how most people are wired.


----------



## Maxperson (Dec 17, 2015)

Janx said:


> So let's assume that's accurate, though I'm not sure what kind of jobs those were.
> 
> Perry liked to tout how he made more jobs in TX during the recession, but guess what, those jobs paid less than the ones that were lost, so "skilled workers" weren't going to settle, they were going somewhere else.
> 
> ...




Most of Perry's jobs were fast food, retail and unskilled factory work.  He attracted that sort of business to Texas.  The number of jobs like you are talking about in the Dakota's is very small compared to the huge surplus of skilled work available at good wages for those who become trained.  There's no shaming involved.  There's plenty of work.  We should be training (yes I'm back to that word) people to do them.


----------



## Janx (Dec 17, 2015)

Maxperson said:


> Most of Perry's jobs were fast food, retail and unskilled factory work.  He attracted that sort of business to Texas.  The number of jobs like you are talking about in the Dakota's is very small compared to the huge surplus of skilled work available at good wages for those who become trained.  There's no shaming involved.  There's plenty of work.  We should be training (yes I'm back to that word) people to do them.




Where I was going with this, is that if we're not willing to "give people money" we aren't going to be be willing to "give people money for training".  Flat out, the pattern that actually happens is that there is resistance to spending money on the demographic of people who need help.

So somebody like you will say "they just need to be trained, problem solved" and not actually get to the spending of money to do so because those people are lazy, should do it themselves, etc.

regardless of how it is phrased, getting people unstuck requires giving them money in some fashion, whether directly or on their behalf.

All that remains then, is do you want to spend money on poor people or not.  The particulars are of course up to discussion, but that's what people who really want to say "no" are using to avoid saying "yes"


----------



## Maxperson (Dec 17, 2015)

Janx said:


> Where I was going with this, is that if we're not willing to "give people money" we aren't going to be be willing to "give people money for training".  Flat out, the pattern that actually happens is that there is resistance to spending money on the demographic of people who need help.




Yes and no.  Yes, there is resistance to getting people help.  That's very true.  The no portion is that there are degrees of unwillingness.  I'm not very willing to hand a homeless guy money, but I am sometimes willing to buy a homeless guy a hamburger.  You will find it easier to persuade people to do something useful, than to do something that is not useful at all.  Throwing money at people to get them trained and become productive members of society is much more preferable than just throwing money at people for nothing.



> So somebody like you will say "they just need to be trained, problem solved" and not actually get to the spending of money to do so because those people are lazy, should do it themselves, etc.




If I could enact the program tomorrow, I would.  It's not "somebody like me", but rather the politicians.  What I am suggesting would solve the problem and would be easier to enact than to just hand money out to everyone in the country for nothing,



> regardless of how it is phrased, getting people unstuck requires giving them money in some fashion, whether directly or on their behalf.




Yes, I agree with that.



> All that remains then, is do you want to spend money on poor people or not.  The particulars are of course up to discussion, but that's what people who really want to say "no" are using to avoid saying "yes"



If you're suggesting that I am saying they need training in order to avoid saying yes, then you are very wrong on that.  I very much want to say yes, with the strings attached that I've been advocating here.  If you aren't suggesting that, then I'm not sure what you are trying to say there, so please rephrase.


----------



## Janx (Dec 18, 2015)

Maxperson said:


> If you're suggesting that I am saying they need training in order to avoid saying yes, then you are very wrong on that.  I very much want to say yes, with the strings attached that I've been advocating here.  If you aren't suggesting that, then I'm not sure what you are trying to say there, so please rephrase.




This answer is sufficient.  Let's assume that you and I now agree that we need to spend money on poor people.  Probably everybody on this thread now agrees with that stance.

All that differs is "how are we spending that money and possibly where does it come from.  The US spends much more on foreign aid than it does on social programs, so for continuing discussion, we could all temporarily agree to screw helping other countries while we help ourselves.  Thus, "what are the ways to spend the money" is the only discussion of merit for our purposes.

What I don't like to see is extremist positions that say "no that way is wrong, won't work, my way is right"  Something in the middle is more often the correct solution, in my experience.

What that means is, $800/month to everybody isn't perfect, but it will help some % of the target demographic (aka the poor people we want to help).

Let's acknowledge the positive benefit, not just argue we're right that it'll totally suck and it's the wrong solution.

So what's the next idea?  Offer $800/month as college support (tuition, books, room and board, etc)?  That's just me taking Finland's idea and MaxPerson's preference to emphasize retraining.

Framing the discussion this way is less absolute, and more likely to sway people to your way of thinking, or keep an open mind on alternatives.

I'm not any better at it, but I am sure it'd be a better way to have the discussion that doesn't frame everybody as a bunch of losers who won't go learn a new trade.  Which is what we're at risk of if we think "training" is the absolute solution, and it turns out the people don't take to it.  Situations are far more complex than that on why somebody doesn't seem to do something to better themselves.


----------



## Maxperson (Dec 18, 2015)

Janx said:


> This answer is sufficient.  Let's assume that you and I now agree that we need to spend money on poor people.  Probably everybody on this thread now agrees with that stance.




We agreed all along on that much. 



> All that differs is "how are we spending that money and possibly where does it come from.  The US spends much more on foreign aid than it does on social programs, so for continuing discussion, we could all temporarily agree to screw helping other countries while we help ourselves.  Thus, "what are the ways to spend the money" is the only discussion of merit for our purposes.




If we aren't going to spend other money on it, then yes, I'm for using foreign aid on our people.  I think there are other areas we can draw from, though.  



> What that means is, $800/month to everybody isn't perfect, but it will help some % of the target demographic (aka the poor people we want to help).
> 
> Let's acknowledge the positive benefit, not just argue we're right that it'll totally suck and it's the wrong solution.
> 
> ...




I think that the rules need to be changed to make the money you receive contingent on going to and passing your classes.  Rather than give $800 a month in tuition and such, I'd like to see government funded trade schools created specifically for people who are on cash aid.  Let them go to the school for free.  I'd even be for giving additional money to people who are in school getting A's and B's as an incentive.


----------



## Janx (Dec 18, 2015)

Maxperson said:


> I think that the rules need to be changed to make the money you receive contingent on going to and passing your classes.  Rather than give $800 a month in tuition and such, I'd like to see government funded trade schools created specifically for people who are on cash aid.  Let them go to the school for free.  I'd even be for giving additional money to people who are in school getting A's and B's as an incentive.




So let's work on this idea, it has more specific parts, which unfortunately means I can point out concerns, but please understand I'm trying to see if they are show stoppers.

You'd like a requirement to only pay for success.  What happens to the folks who fail?  Example, my boss's son is using is GI bill money to do a computer science class.  He's failing.  badly.  It's a mismatch, and he doesn't have the right stuff.  GI bill has rules, that if he fails, he can lose the whole enchilada.

Shipping "candidates" to a special school isolates them.  That kills any networking chance they would have had by going to the same school as other people.  Not just in what school the recruiters come to, but also in meeting people from better walks of life and seeing role models for higher classes of living.  It also may have the issue of stigmatizing students from there (as in "oh, I see you're from GovSchool, those guys are low class")

I suspect its valuable to set deadlines/goals for these candidates, which is what I think you're aiming for.  Somebody can't be a professional student to suckle at the government teat forever.  But we might need a little buffer on what failing a class or two might mean, as a student tries a study, sees they suck at it, and needs to switch majors.  That's actually what failure should mean, is that you're in the wrong program...

Are any of these concerns show stoppers, or can the idea be shifted to better handle them?

I'd be more in favor of paying to put candidates into existing schools.  perhaps not harvard, but the US has plenty of schools already with more reasonable rates and decent results.  Blending these people in with existing population will give them mentors and peers they can look up to and perhaps connect them.  It's hard to get out of the ghetto when everybody you know lives in the same ghetto.

What if everybody got a bucket of money to spend on school.  Your choice on when/where to go, so long as the money is spent on tuition, room & board while enrolled.  It lasted 5 years because it's handed out on a per month basis while enrolled.  Bonus on any money not spent providing you get a diploma.

One kid could go to harvard, where this supplements his loans, scholarships.  Still owes money to Harvard, but much less.

One kid goes to welding school.  Gets done in 6 months, and gets the rest as a bonus that he uses to buy a new truck (with warranty) so he can reliably get to work.

One kid goes to A&M, mostly covers his bills, gets a small loan to cover the gap and graduates with a BS in 4.5 years because he flunk a math class and retook it.


----------



## delericho (Dec 18, 2015)

Maxperson said:


> I think that the rules need to be changed to make the money you receive contingent on going to and passing your classes.




Who gets to choose which classes are worthy of the 800/month subsidy? And what is the sanction if the recipient _doesn't_ pass those exams?


(Because if we're talking about poor people, they're not going to be able to repay the money. And if we cut off their funding for the _next_ set of classes we've just created someone with no means of income and no means of training for one. That person still has to eat, so either needs a subsidy (money for nothing) or will turn to crime.)


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Dec 18, 2015)

I guess the biggest problem with a 800 € flat money might really be that people could still use it completely irresponsible. But how many would that really be? 

Finland will figure it out, I think.


----------



## CapnZapp (Dec 18, 2015)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> I guess the biggest problem with a 800 € flat money might really be that people could still use it completely irresponsible. But how many would that really be?
> 
> Finland will figure it out, I think.



Why is that a problem? 

I mean, isn't it a self-correcting problem?

(I am continually astonished how some people favor freedom for all. Except the poor, who apparently need to be micromanaged beyond all limits of human decency... You would almost think all the concern for what they spend their welfare checks on isn't concern at all, and instead an intentional effort to making life on welfare as humiliating as possible...?)


----------



## delericho (Dec 18, 2015)

CapnZapp said:


> Why is that a problem?
> 
> I mean, isn't it a self-correcting problem?




While I might be just about okay with letting a foolish adult learn the error of his ways like that, I'm much less cavalier about it if that foolish adult has children to look after.



> You would almost think all the concern for what they spend their welfare checks on isn't concern at all, and instead an intentional effort to making life on welfare as humiliating as possible...?




To an extent. But there is also a genuine issue there. It's not so long ago that payday at the shipyards in Glasgow would see a number of women waiting at the gates for their husbands, because too many of those hard-working, hard-drinking men would come home drunk and penniless if they weren't stopped.

That's one of the reasons why child support in the UK is paid to the primary carer (usually the mother) rather than to the household as a whole - because when it was set up the father was the main, and often sole, bread-winner and, sadly, couldn't always be trusted. And so the powers-that-be took steps to ensure that the mother had at least _some_ money coming in.

(You might also want to read "Angela's Ashes" by Frank McCourt, which also shows much the same issue. Actually, you might just want to read it for it's own sake - it's very good.)

For the overwhelming majority of people, rich and poor, it's not an issue. But there's a small minority for whom this is a genuine issue, and if we're talking about a real-world policy rather than a thought experiment, it is worth some consideration.


----------



## CapnZapp (Dec 18, 2015)

delericho said:


> To an extent. But there is also a genuine issue there. It's not so long ago that payday at the shipyards in Glasgow would see a number of women waiting at the gates for their husbands, because too many of those hard-working, hard-drinking men would come home drunk and penniless if they weren't stopped.



Yeah, well... these women would nowadays get their own €800, so not sure how this is applicable.



> That's one of the reasons why child support in the UK is paid to the primary carer



And for those programs where children are included in basic income it's reasonable to expect that to continue.

In other words, we're not discussing "let's protect the weak and defenseless" (women historically; children). 

We're discussing whether it's a good argument or not to be against basic income because it would mean paying real money to people instead of food stamps and other directed payments (since nobody is seriously suggesting basic income should be payed out in anything other than cash*)

_*) Not actual cash. I guess Finland is way too automated to offer actual cash payouts..._


----------



## Ovinomancer (Dec 18, 2015)

CapnZapp said:


> Yeah, well... these women would nowadays get their own €800, so not sure how this is applicable.
> 
> 
> And for those programs where children are included in basic income it's reasonable to expect that to continue.
> ...



Yup, that's my concern, which is why I'm so interested in someone doing the cash only route.


----------



## Neonchameleon (Dec 18, 2015)

Maxperson said:


> You shouldn't assume. You know what that does. No. I do not support a 100% inheritance tax. Nor do I support a 0% inheritance tax. The difference here is that the money was earned by an individual and he has the right to give it to who he wants. It should be taxed as gift income. The government does not earn the money it gives out. It takes it from those who do. One does not equal the other.




And those who make the money are the people who, in a democracy, the government is responsible to. You aren't one of these people who thinks that the allocation of money through capitalism is completely _fair_ are you?



> The problem with Greece is the entitlements. It gives waaaaaaaaaaaay too much to the people who don't earn what they are given.




The problem with Greece is fraud. It was lying and encouraged to lie about what it was doing. It wasn't giving out more money than Scandinavia, for example. It was just not telling the truth and it was encouraged to lie by the people in charge of the Euro. Reality finally caught up.



> False. These are high paying skilled worker positions. We lack skilled workers to fill them.




This is rubbish. If an individual company paid more than market rates and with decent pay and conditions it could get the skilled workers from other companies. If a company actually valued skilled workers it could train them up itself - but a lot of companies are far too penny-pinching to want to train their own workforce.

So what you are suggesting is that companies get to externalise their training costs and make the government pay to train workers that they are too cheap to train. This isn't as blatant corporate welfare as some (and it's certainly not as blatant corporate welfare as keeping the minimum wage low and letting Wal-Mart supplement its wages via food stamps). But what you are arguing for here is for corporate welfare for companies that are too cheap to either pay market rates or to train up their own workforce.



> LOL What a joke. The only people trying to keep people poor with programs is the left.




If keeping people poor means keeping them alive, possibly. But that's because the alive appears at best optional for the worst of the right.



> The strings I'm suggesting are required training so that the person can actually contribute to society instead of being a sponge.




You're suggesting spending money on corporate welfare, letting corporations sponge off the state. And then mysteriously claiming that depressing wages for corporations not prepared to either do their own training or pay market rates for skilled workers is going to help poor people.


----------



## Maxperson (Dec 19, 2015)

Janx said:


> So let's work on this idea, it has more specific parts, which unfortunately means I can point out concerns, but please understand I'm trying to see if they are show stoppers.
> 
> You'd like a requirement to only pay for success.  What happens to the folks who fail?  Example, my boss's son is using is GI bill money to do a computer science class.  He's failing.  badly.  It's a mismatch, and he doesn't have the right stuff.  GI bill has rules, that if he fails, he can lose the whole enchilada.




The way I would do it is to have them fail twice (semesters, not classes) to bomb out.  If they're having troubles, they should know it fairly early and be able to switch/drop classes and get new ones.



> Shipping "candidates" to a special school isolates them.  That kills any networking chance they would have had by going to the same school as other people.  Not just in what school the recruiters come to, but also in meeting people from better walks of life and seeing role models for higher classes of living.  It also may have the issue of stigmatizing students from there (as in "oh, I see you're from GovSchool, those guys are low class")




This is true, but there aren't always classes available at regular schools and waiting to get into such a school is not an option.  If they can find a regular school for a comparable price and get in right away, I would not have an issue with them being able to go to one.  Otherwise, it's better to get them trained and out into the market.  Recruiters would come to these schools, too.  



> I suspect its valuable to set deadlines/goals for these candidates, which is what I think you're aiming for.  Somebody can't be a professional student to suckle at the government teat forever.  But we might need a little buffer on what failing a class or two might mean, as a student tries a study, sees they suck at it, and needs to switch majors.  That's actually what failure should mean, is that you're in the wrong program...




Not a class or two.  Two semesters.  Many people have problems with a class or two.



> I'd be more in favor of paying to put candidates into existing schools.  perhaps not harvard, but the US has plenty of schools already with more reasonable rates and decent results.  Blending these people in with existing population will give them mentors and peers they can look up to and perhaps connect them.  It's hard to get out of the ghetto when everybody you know lives in the same ghetto.




First, these people are going to often have to get through high school before they can go on to a trade.  Second, I'm not talking about universities.  I'm talking about trade schools.  Teaching them a trade like nursing, programming, homeland security, etc.



> What if everybody got a bucket of money to spend on school.  Your choice on when/where to go, so long as the money is spent on tuition, room & board while enrolled.  It lasted 5 years because it's handed out on a per month basis while enrolled.  Bonus on any money not spent providing you get a diploma.
> 
> One kid could go to harvard, where this supplements his loans, scholarships.  Still owes money to Harvard, but much less.
> 
> ...




I'm not in favor of paying for more than 2 years.  People can learn most trades in 6-18 months.


----------



## Maxperson (Dec 19, 2015)

delericho said:


> Who gets to choose which classes are worthy of the 800/month subsidy? And what is the sanction if the recipient _doesn't_ pass those exams?
> 
> (Because if we're talking about poor people, they're not going to be able to repay the money. And if we cut off their funding for the _next_ set of classes we've just created someone with no means of income and no means of training for one. That person still has to eat, so either needs a subsidy (money for nothing) or will turn to crime.)




They aren't going to have to repay the money.  This is about helping them become productive members of society, not putting them into m ore debt.  If they fail out of school, they can go into the charity shelters that give free food and a roof to people on the street.  Remember, this is not the only thing I think needs to be addressed.  Ideally, if America gets its act together and starts taking care of its people, the crazy people that Reagan tossed onto the streets would be put back into institutions and cared for, leaving much more room in those shelters for the poor people who have decided to be homeless rather than pass classes.


----------



## Maxperson (Dec 19, 2015)

Neonchameleon said:


> And those who make the money are the people who, in a democracy, the government is responsible to. You aren't one of these people who thinks that the allocation of money through capitalism is completely _fair_ are you?



The government is responsible to (and for) everyone, not just those who make money.



> The problem with Greece is fraud. It was lying and encouraged to lie about what it was doing. It wasn't giving out more money than Scandinavia, for example. It was just not telling the truth and it was encouraged to lie by the people in charge of the Euro. Reality finally caught up.




So their moronic entitlement programs which bankrupted them have nothing to do with it.  Got it.



> This is rubbish. If an individual company paid more than market rates and with decent pay and conditions it could get the skilled workers from other companies. If a company actually valued skilled workers it could train them up itself - but a lot of companies are far too penny-pinching to want to train their own workforce.




I provided links showing that I am right on this.  There aren't nearly enough skilled workers to cover all of the jobs.  If you have anything other than "Nuh uh!" as a response, show the links.



> So what you are suggesting is that companies get to externalise their training costs and make the government pay to train workers that they are too cheap to train. This isn't as blatant corporate welfare as some (and it's certainly not as blatant corporate welfare as keeping the minimum wage low and letting Wal-Mart supplement its wages via food stamps). But what you are arguing for here is for corporate welfare for companies that are too cheap to either pay market rates or to train up their own workforce.




No I'm not.  You don't get to twist helping poor people become skilled into corporate welfare.


----------



## Neonchameleon (Dec 19, 2015)

Maxperson said:


> The government is responsible to (and for) everyone, not just those who make money.




Which is why assuring that everyone has their feet under them is a good thing.



> So their moronic entitlement programs which bankrupted them have nothing to do with it.  Got it.




Their entitlement program is a whole lot less moronic than e.g. spending money to hold wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Or even wasting money on a nuclear arsenal that can blow up the world several times over. For one thing it's a decent fiscal stimulus and for another it provides actual benefit to the citizens.

And now we've established that both Britain and America do things sillier than the Greek entitlement programme and waste far more money doing them we need to look at the difference. Which is fraud - the Greek Government lying about things.



> I provided links showing that I am right on this.  There aren't nearly enough skilled workers to cover all of the jobs.  If you have anything other than "Nuh uh!" as a response, show the links.




Where?

Because the simple fact is the employers who are whining that there aren't enough skilled workers aren't doing the obvious thing. They aren't raising wages. This has been checked. In a market here there are genuinely too few skilled workers then, if you pay any attention to market forces at all, those skills are more valuable. So there should be a bidding war between employers to get those workers. (Hint: average pay increases <5% in a sector aren't really that much)

Show me those bidding wars. Show me cases where employers have tried doubling salaries in a market and still come up with nothing. Because if you can't it means one of two things. Either that the employers are acting as a cartel to try to keep prices down or that they are unwilling to follow the laws of supply and demand and are therefore not paying market rates.

And in either of those cases my heart bleeds for the employers. Who can't find skilled employees _for a price they are eager to pay_ - and so are moaning that they aren't out there at all.



> No I'm not.  You don't get to twist helping poor people become skilled into corporate welfare.




Then you don't get to palm off your training expenses onto the government - and then claim that you aren't getting government handouts. Companies can train people - and indeed should train people. The government training people in work skills quite literally is the company externalising its costs.


----------



## Maxperson (Dec 19, 2015)

Neonchameleon said:


> Their entitlement program is a whole lot less moronic than e.g. spending money to hold wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. Or even wasting money on a nuclear arsenal that can blow up the world several times over. For one thing it's a decent fiscal stimulus and for another it provides actual benefit to the citizens.




Sure.  Letting the U.S.S.R. be the only ones with nuclear weapons would have been a fantastic idea.  That way they could have taken us over and we would have been so much better off under their socialistic rule.  Why didn't we think of that?  The war in Iraq was a waste.  The war in Afghanistan was not.  



> And now we've established that both Britain and America do things sillier than the Greek entitlement programme and waste far more money doing them we need to look at the difference. Which is fraud - the Greek Government lying about things.




Eh, no.  Greece couldn't afford their silly spending, which is the problem.



> Where?
> 
> Because the simple fact is the employers who are whining that there aren't enough skilled workers aren't doing the obvious thing. They aren't raising wages. This has been checked. In a market here there are genuinely too few skilled workers then, if you pay any attention to market forces at all, those skills are more valuable. So there should be a bidding war between employers to get those workers. (Hint: average pay increases <5% in a sector aren't really that much)




In this thread is where.  Go look it up.  Raising wages won't do jack as there aren't enough skilled people to fill all the jobs.  A billion dollars an hour won't suddenly force that skill into people.  Perhaps wages need to be raised, but that isn't the primary problem.  Training is.



> Then you don't get to palm off your training expenses onto the government - and then claim that you aren't getting government handouts. Companies can train people - and indeed should train people. The government training people in work skills quite literally is the company externalising its costs.




Am I getting that training?  No.  I'm not getting a government handout.  If you are going to falsely equate training with corporate welfare, then you have to falsely equate handing out money with corporate welfare.   Giving people $800 a month will allow those corporations to pay lower wages.  Corporate welfare!!!!!!  

Except not.  Corporate welfare is directly given to corporations.  Tax breaks, money grants, and so on.


----------



## Neonchameleon (Dec 19, 2015)

Maxperson said:


> Sure.  Letting the U.S.S.R. be the only ones with nuclear weapons would have been a fantastic idea.  That way they could have taken us over and we would have been so much better off under their socialistic rule.  Why didn't we think of that?




At the peak of the cold war the United States had more than 31,000 nuclear missiles. That's not "Enough for a deterrent" - even the current almost 5000 is an addiction. Not helped much by the chain of command and pork barrelling being ridiculous.



> Eh, no.  Greece couldn't afford their silly spending, which is the problem.




And they thought they could spend it because of the fraud involved.



> In this thread is where.  Go look it up.  Raising wages won't do jack as there aren't enough skilled people to fill all the jobs.  A billion dollars an hour won't suddenly force that skill into people.  Perhaps wages need to be raised, but that isn't the primary problem.  Training is.




OK.

If you raise the wages to a billion dollars per hour _lots of people will go through training_ and people will be going for speed records getting trained. It's called supply and demand. And the classic way to get a skilled workforce is to train your own. At which point you don't complain there are too few skilled workers - you are responsible for your workforce.

But the cheapskate employers would rather whine than either raise wages or train enough people.



> Am I getting that training?  No.  I'm not getting a government handout.




And this is you demonstrating how short-sighted you are. You are getting the government to cover _your_ costs. You want the trained workers. But you want the government to do it for you. It's a corporate subsidy that replaces a large chunk of your training budget or your wages bill.

The government is covering your costs.


----------



## Maxperson (Dec 20, 2015)

Neonchameleon said:


> At the peak of the cold war the United States had more than 31,000 nuclear missiles. That's not "Enough for a deterrent" - even the current almost 5000 is an addiction. Not helped much by the chain of command and pork barrelling being ridiculous.




Who cares.  Governments do silly things.  We can afford it.  Greece can't, yet does it anyway.



> If you raise the wages to a billion dollars per hour _lots of people will go through training_ and people will be going for speed records getting trained. It's called supply and demand. And the classic way to get a skilled workforce is to train your own. At which point you don't complain there are too few skilled workers - you are responsible for your workforce.




Current demand vastly outweighs supply.



> But the cheapskate employers would rather whine than either raise wages or train enough people.




It's not the employers job to train people.  Stop trying to put the burden where it doesn't belong.


----------



## Mustrum_Ridcully (Dec 20, 2015)

Maxperson said:


> It's not the employers job to train people.  Stop trying to put the burden where it doesn't belong.



Whose job is it then? Government? The individual?


----------



## Neonchameleon (Dec 20, 2015)

Maxperson said:


> Who cares.  Governments do silly things.  We can afford it.  Greece can't, yet does it anyway.




In short the problem is not to do with how silly things are (whether or not they are silly). I'm glad you agree. The problem is spending beyond what you can actually afford. On paper before the crash Greece could afford what it was spending. The problem was that its books were a work of fiction. I.e. fraud.



> Current demand vastly outweighs supply




Current demand 



> It's not the employers job to train people.  Stop trying to put the burden where it doesn't belong.




There are four ways of getting a trained workforce.
1: You can pay enough to recruit an already trained workforce, luring them away from rivals if necessary.
2: You can pay enough to make it worthwhile for people to fund their own training (possibly mixed with some advertising)
3: You can train unskilled people yourselves.
4: You can go cap in hand to the government and beg them to train people for you.

What we have is a bunch of whiny employers who think that fully trained people mspring fully formed from Zeus' brow and are unwilling to pay enough to poach people, unwilling to pay enough to get people to train themselves, and unwilling to set up their own training courses. I'm putting the blame exactly where it belongs. On the whiny employers who have decided in a vacuum what rates for a skilled person are and think that their ideas can set that wage and that they are immune to market forces.

And for the record every company I have ever worked for has either paid for or directly provided at least some training because they aren't stupid and have found it saves them money and improves their workforce loyalty if their staff can get extra skills. Small business, large business, public sector. It doesn't matter.


----------



## Maxperson (Dec 20, 2015)

Mustrum_Ridcully said:


> Whose job is it then? Government? The individual?




It's the job of the individual.  However, if the government is forced to decide between paying someone to sit on his rear forever or pay much less to get that person trained and able to pay for himself, training is the better option.


----------



## Maxperson (Dec 20, 2015)

Neonchameleon said:


> In short the problem is not to do with how silly things are (whether or not they are silly). I'm glad you agree. The problem is spending beyond what you can actually afford. On paper before the crash Greece could afford what it was spending. The problem was that its books were a work of fiction. I.e. fraud.




No. No.  No.  The problem is not the lies.  All governments lie, America's current one is among the worst.  The problem is that they couldn't afford their spending.  Failure to afford is what caused the crash, not the lies.  They would have crashed with the truth as well.



> Current demand




And supply is nowhere is sight.



> There are four ways of getting a trained workforce.
> 1: You can pay enough to recruit an already trained workforce, luring them away from rivals if necessary.



False.  These skilled positions already pay a lot.  If pay were the reason, we wouldn't have a problem.  Also, luring people away fixes nothing. It just shifts the empty jobs around.



> 2: You can pay enough to make it worthwhile for people to fund their own training (possibly mixed with some advertising)




Er, how does this work?  If they don't have jobs, they can't afford to fund their own training no matter how much jobs pay.




> 3: You can train unskilled people yourselves.




A few companies do this, but it's not their job to do so.



> 4: You can go cap in hand to the government and beg them to train people for you.




Nope, or if they've done this, the government has told the companies to go pound sand.

5: the government can just train people itself, rather than hand out free money forever.



> What we have is a bunch of whiny employers who think that fully trained people mspring fully formed from Zeus' brow and are unwilling to pay enough to poach people, unwilling to pay enough to get people to train themselves, and unwilling to set up their own training courses. I'm putting the blame exactly where it belongs. On the whiny employers who have decided in a vacuum what rates for a skilled person are and think that their ideas can set that wage and that they are immune to market forces.




The employers aren't getting anything done and what I am saying has nothing to do with companies other than to note that jobs are available for trained poor people.  Maybe companies are being whiny, and maybe they aren't.  Who cares.  Their whines have nothing to do with this issue.


----------



## Neonchameleon (Dec 20, 2015)

Maxperson said:


> And supply is nowhere is sight.




And where are the training companies? After all people will pay for training. Both employees and companies.

Or is the real shortage one of skilled training companies? In which case that can be fixed.



> False.  These skilled positions already pay a lot.  If pay were the reason, we wouldn't have a problem.




The skilled positions clearly do not pay enough for people to think it's worth taking out a loan to get the training to fill them. Which means they don't pay what is needed for the position.



> Also, luring people away fixes nothing. It just shifts the empty jobs around.




False. Luring people away raises wages in the sector. Which means that investing in training for it becomes a more sensible choice.



> Er, how does this work?  If they don't have jobs, they can't afford to fund their own training no matter how much jobs pay.




Loans. And cascade as people with unskilled jobs instead pay for training for the skilled ones, and the unskilled ones open up.



> A few companies do this, but it's not their job to do so.




Only tangentally.

A company's job is to _do the job it wants to_. If the company requires a skilled work force then its job is to ensure it has one so it can produce the end product. Providing pay and conditions that are good enough to get already skilled workers is one of the two main ways it can do this. Taking people and training them is the other way.

Being a whiny jobsworth who sits round and bitches that there aren't the skilled workers available is an excuse for the company not doing its job. 



> Nope, or if they've done this, the government has told the companies to go pound sand.




And that's entirely within the government's right. To not provide the companies the subsidies they want. Looking after the people not the corporations.



> 5: the government can just train people itself, rather than hand out free money forever.




The government does not do lean in any way, shape, or form (which is just as well because lean cuts things to the bone and requires supervision by adults not politicians). Training people to program in FORTRAN wouldn't be much use to anyone.

Are you really saying that the government is more effective at both sorting out skills-based training and giving people that training than the private sector is? That the private sector is that inefficient? In which case why not just nationalise those companies?



> The employers aren't getting anything done




If they aren't prepared to pay enough to get trained workers and they aren't prepared to train workers themselves then their business isn't profitable without government support in which case if the market is any use at all they should go bust. Or if it is 



> and what I am saying has nothing to do with companies other than to note that jobs are available for trained poor people.  Maybe companies are being whiny, and maybe they aren't.  Who cares.  Their whines have nothing to do with this issue.




!

The only way the government can train the right numbers of people is to create a Command Economy. The government doesn't know who is going to need training or in what skills. And it certainly isn't the government's job to ensure that any business has the workers it wants on hand. The main reason for the suppposed shortage of skilled workers is the whines of the business owners and their desire to have skilled workers without paying for them. 

And that you say that it's the employee's responsibility to get training without saying that it's the employer's responsibility to pay enough to make sure that being trained is a smart economic decision for those people to get trained shows a lot about your assumptions and how little you understand even right wing economics.


----------



## Maxperson (Dec 20, 2015)

Neonchameleon said:


> And where are the training companies? After all people will pay for training. Both employees and companies.




They are everywhere.  Just look for anything with college, school, tech, etc. in the name.



> Or is the real shortage one of skilled training companies? In which case that can be fixed.




Nope.  There are schools all over that provide training.  The problem is money.



> The skilled positions clearly do not pay enough for people to think it's worth taking out a loan to get the training to fill them. Which means they don't pay what is needed for the position.




You should try being poor sometime.  Getting loans and the ability to go to school instead of survive is rather hard for them.



> Loans. And cascade as people with unskilled jobs instead pay for training for the skilled ones, and the unskilled ones open up.




You clearly don't know what it's like to be poor and unskilled or you wouldn't be suggesting things like that.



> And that's entirely within the government's right. To not provide the companies the subsidies they want. Looking after the people not the corporations.




This discussion is not about companies or subsidies.  It's about training the poor to be contributors instead of takers.



> The government does not do lean in any way, shape, or form (which is just as well because lean cuts things to the bone and requires supervision by adults not politicians). Training people to program in FORTRAN wouldn't be much use to anyone.
> 
> Are you really saying that the government is more effective at both sorting out skills-based training and giving people that training than the private sector is? That the private sector is that inefficient? In which case why not just nationalise those companies?



If you've been paying attention, you know that I've been saying that the government should provide money to people to become trained.



> The only way the government can train the right numbers of people is to create a Command Economy. The government doesn't know who is going to need training or in what skills. And it certainly isn't the government's job to ensure that any business has the workers it wants on hand. The main reason for the suppposed shortage of skilled workers is the whines of the business owners and their desire to have skilled workers without paying for them.
> 
> And that you say that it's the employee's responsibility to get training without saying that it's the employer's responsibility to pay enough to make sure that being trained is a smart economic decision for those people to get trained shows a lot about your assumptions and how little you understand even right wing economics.




The government does in fact know what skills are needed.  It tracks these things.  And no, I never said it was the employee's responsibility to get training.  I said it was the individual's responsibility.  They aren't an employee until AFTER the training and have no employer for that position before then.


----------



## Neonchameleon (Dec 20, 2015)

Maxperson said:


> Nope.  There are schools all over that provide training.  The problem is money.




Indeed. The problem is money. The problem is that employers would rather bitch, moan, and not get things done than pay the employees what they are worth or pay to get employees trained.



> You should try being poor sometime.  Getting loans and the ability to go to school instead of survive is rather hard for them.
> ...
> You clearly don't know what it's like to be poor and unskilled or you wouldn't be suggesting things like that.




Actually this was a leading question for you. I'm glad you've got half a clue and realise that claiming it's the individual's responsibility to get training is (a) silly and (b) impractical.

Which doesn't make it the government's responsibility to ensure that the employees that corporations need are trained.



> This discussion is not about companies or subsidies.  It's about training the poor to be contributors instead of takers.




No it's not. It's about whether companies should base their training programs on government handouts or whether they should either be allowed to play chicken with the welfare system or be allowed to go bust through not actually wanting to pay fair wages.



> If you've been paying attention, you know that I've been saying that the government should provide money to people to become trained.




And this is why education should be free to all without strings.



> The government does in fact know what skills are needed.  It tracks these things.  And no, I never said it was the employee's responsibility to get training.  I said it was the individual's responsibility.  They aren't an employee until AFTER the training and have no employer for that position before then.




So it's the individual's responsibility to be trained on the offchance a job might be availale. And the company doesn't have a responsibility to make sure it has a workforce that's trained in doing the job it needs done?


----------



## Maxperson (Dec 20, 2015)

Neonchameleon said:


> Actually this was a leading question for you. I'm glad you've got half a clue and realise that claiming it's the individual's responsibility to get training is (a) silly and (b) impractical.




It's not silly at all.  It is very much the responsibility of the individual.  Not every is capable of meeting that responsibility is all.



> Which doesn't make it the government's responsibility to ensure that the employees that corporations need are trained.




It's certainly not the responsibility of the companies.  Since the government has chosen to step in to help the poor, helping the poor meet their training responsibility is a part of that.



> No it's not. It's about whether companies should base their training programs on government handouts or whether they should either be allowed to play chicken with the welfare system or be allowed to go bust through not actually wanting to pay fair wages.




Training the poor has nothing to do with a company other than to help the poor person get a job.  It's not about welfare chicken.  It's not about corporate welfare.  



> And this is why education should be free to all without strings.




Through high school, sure.  The wealthy, even the middle class, should not be given a free ride.  They don't deserve it as it is their responsibility to become trained post high school.  Only the poor are disadvantaged to the point where they are unable to meet their responsibility.



> So it's the individual's responsibility to be trained on the offchance a job might be availale. And the company doesn't have a responsibility to make sure it has a workforce that's trained in doing the job it needs done?



If the person is too stupid to look up what jobs are out there, that person deserves what he gets.


----------



## Neonchameleon (Dec 20, 2015)

Maxperson said:


> It's not silly at all.  It is very much the responsibility of the individual.  Not every is capable of meeting that responsibility is all.




And here you were saying that actually affording training was a problem for poor people.



> It's certainly not the responsibility of the companies.




The companies are the ones who claim that workers need training. And the ones that profit because the workers are trained. But mysteriously the costs required for this aren't something that the companies should ever shoulder - instead they should be given all they want on a silver platter.



> Since the government has chosen to step in to help the poor, helping the poor meet their training responsibility is a part of that.




Because the government has decided to do something it must do everything you can think of? Riiiight. Your logic is not earth logic.



> If the person is too stupid to look up what jobs are out there, that person deserves what he gets.




If a company is too cheap to pay market rate for wages and too stupid to train its own workers it deserves what it gets.


----------



## Maxperson (Dec 21, 2015)

Neonchameleon said:


> The companies are the ones who claim that workers need training. And the ones that profit because the workers are trained. But mysteriously the costs required for this aren't something that the companies should ever shoulder - instead they should be given all they want on a silver platter.




It's not a claim.  It's a fact.



> Because the government has decided to do something it must do everything you can think of?




Are you seriously saying that the government should pay several times more to someone than it would cost to train him, in order to avoid training him?  What sense does that make?


----------



## Neonchameleon (Dec 21, 2015)

Maxperson said:


> It's not a claim. It's a fact.




It may be a fact that the companies need skilled workers. It's also a fact that it is their responsibility to ensure they get them and no one else's. And that they are failing to actually do the work they consider they are supposed to because they aren't fulfilling their responsibilities. They are just sucking up skilled workers from the environment, trying to externalise costs. And I'm shocked, shocked that this doesn't work indefinitely.

Why are you so determined to help companies shirk their responsibilities? Why do you think it isn't the responsibility of companies to train their workforce.

After all if we followed your methods then _no company could ever work out a new way of doing things and implement it._ You'd kill innovation - after all people don't come ready trained for new methods that were created at a company. They can't. Because it's new - and on the job training is at first the only method of training available.

And indeed by ensuring that instead of training people in the jobs that were needed people get trained before they start in methods that were appropriate a few years ago you are actively harming innovation. If training is a responsibility that companies palm off on the workers and the government then there is a huge competitive disadvantage to training. If you want to do something the old way you have a cheaper workforce _even if the new way is better, all else being equal_. This is because any innovation you make for your workforce means that you need to train all new workers even if they come trained to industry standards. Whereas doing things the standard way means that corporate subsidies give you a pre-trained workforce. Any innovation you make doesn't just have to be better. It has to be better by enough to justify a training budget. If the company takes responsibility for its own training rather than externalises it it just has to change the training it uses, making the marginal cost much much lower.

Your twisted corporate morality and attempt to pass off responsibility is something that discourages companies to innovate.



> Are you seriously saying that the government should pay several times more to someone than it would cost to train him, in order to avoid training him? What sense does that make?




I'm saying that this is moving the goalposts. If we're interested merely in what has positive effects then giving cash handouts to people in poverty has _huge_ positive impacts on the economy - it gets spent and circulated fast. It's right up there with infrastructure spending with training coming in third place.

So if we're going by pragmatic effects on spending then Finland's approach is highly effective and you should be in favour of it based on the effects everywhere it has been tried.

If we're arguing on points of principle and responsibilities then you're arguing for a bunch of scrounging leeches to duck out on their responsibility to actually do the job they claim to want to - and instead to suckle on the government teat. And it is far far more immoral to let companies do this than it is to let people do this to put food on the table.


----------



## delericho (Dec 21, 2015)

Neonchameleon said:


> I'm saying that this is moving the goalposts. If we're interested merely in what has positive effects then giving cash handouts to people in poverty has _huge_ positive impacts on the economy - it gets spent and circulated fast. It's right up there with infrastructure spending with training coming in third place.




Yep.

Indeed, one could consider whether society shouldn't do both - a universal income so that everyone has at least the basics required to live _and_ low cost (or, better, free) training courses for those who want to try to better themselves. And so, those who are determined not to work can subsist without having to turn to crime while those who want to seek a better life have the tools to do so.


----------



## Neonchameleon (Dec 21, 2015)

delericho said:


> Yep.
> 
> Indeed, one could consider whether society shouldn't do both - a universal income so that everyone has at least the basics required to live _and_ low cost (or, better, free) training courses for those who want to try to better themselves. And so, those who are determined not to work can subsist without having to turn to crime while those who want to seek a better life have the tools to do so.




I agree entirely here.  That training from the government is a sensible way of doing things - as long as it isn't merely an excuse for corporate parasitism and something that's going to make innovation a lot less economical locally. But employers should not set things up so they rely on others to do their jobs for them.


----------



## Maxperson (Dec 21, 2015)

Neonchameleon said:


> It may be a fact that the companies need skilled workers. It's also a fact that it is their responsibility to ensure they get them and no one else's. And that they are failing to actually do the work they consider they are supposed to because they aren't fulfilling their responsibilities. They are just sucking up skilled workers from the environment, trying to externalise costs. And I'm shocked, shocked that this doesn't work indefinitely.




This has never been the case, and still isn't.  It has never been the responsibility of the companies to put you (or anyone else) through college or trade school.



> Why do you think it isn't the responsibility of companies to train their workforce.




Because post high school education is the responsibility of the person being educated and no one else.



> After all if we followed your methods then _no company could ever work out a new way of doing things and implement it._ You'd kill innovation - after all people don't come ready trained for new methods that were created at a company. They can't. Because it's new - and on the job training is at first the only method of training available.




Companies can choose to train in this fashion, and some do.  Notably the ones who do things differently than anyone else.  However, even they don't go pick a homeless guy off of the street to teach their proprietary stuff.  They pick someone who has been trained in their field and then add their proprietary information to that base skilled training.  It's that base skilled training that they are not responsible for.



> Your twisted corporate morality and attempt to pass off responsibility is something that discourages companies to innovate.




LOL  Wow.  You're..............out there.



> I'm saying that this is moving the goalposts. If we're interested merely in what has positive effects then giving cash handouts to people in poverty has _huge_ positive impacts on the economy - it gets spent and circulated fast. It's right up there with infrastructure spending with training coming in third place.




It has far lower positive effects than training them to get a job and contribute to society.  $800 forever is lower than $800 for a few years and then a lot more than $800 after that.


----------



## Maxperson (Dec 21, 2015)

delericho said:


> Yep.
> 
> Indeed, one could consider whether society shouldn't do both - a universal income so that everyone has at least the basics required to live _and_ low cost (or, better, free) training courses for those who want to try to better themselves. And so, those who are determined not to work can subsist without having to turn to crime while those who want to seek a better life have the tools to do so.




Nobody has to turn to crime.  There are free shelters and food places out there.  If we remove the mentally ill from the streets like we should, and train people like we should, there will be even more space for them in these places.


----------



## delericho (Dec 21, 2015)

Maxperson said:


> Nobody has to turn to crime.  There are free shelters and food places out there.




Then you're back to giving people free money for nothing. You may not call it that, but that's what it amounts to.


----------



## Maxperson (Dec 21, 2015)

delericho said:


> Then you're back to giving people free money for nothing. You may not call it that, but that's what it amounts to.




Not the government.  If charities want to help people, more power to them.

Edit: It's also not money.  It's goods.  You can't spend free shelter and food on drugs.


----------



## Janx (Dec 21, 2015)

Maxperson said:


> This has never been the case, and still isn't.  It has never been the responsibility of the companies to put you (or anyone else) through college or trade school.
> 
> 
> 
> Because post high school education is the responsibility of the person being educated and no one else.




Actually, the big corporations have been quite willing to pay for schooling for their employees.  My friend got her masters degree that way.  Some folks lacking bachelors who still got into engineering positions, have been sponsored to get those.

Granted, times have changed and budgets have tightened up where that's more rare, but I assure you,it used to be a thing in the 90's at least.


----------



## Maxperson (Dec 21, 2015)

Janx said:


> Actually, the big corporations have been quite willing to pay for schooling for their employees.  My friend got her masters degree that way.  Some folks lacking bachelors who still got into engineering positions, have been sponsored to get those.
> 
> Granted, times have changed and budgets have tightened up where that's more rare, but I assure you,it used to be a thing in the 90's at least.




Yes, I know.  That's an optional bonus offered by those corporations, though.  It's not a responsibility that they have.


----------



## delericho (Dec 21, 2015)

Maxperson said:


> Not the government.  If charities want to help people, more power to them.




That's a circular argument.

The bottom line is that some small number of people will _refuse_ to support themselves. One way or another, society _will_ have to pay for them: either the government pays, or charities provide, or they'll turn to crime. Those are the choices - funnily enough, they won't simply choose to starve.

Since society will end up paying one way or another, the question becomes one of how best to do that.


----------



## Maxperson (Dec 21, 2015)

delericho said:


> That's a circular argument.
> 
> The bottom line is that some small number of people will _refuse_ to support themselves. One way or another, society _will_ have to pay for them: either the government pays, or charities provide, or they'll turn to crime. Those are the choices - funnily enough, they won't simply choose to starve.
> 
> Since society will end up paying one way or another, the question becomes one of how best to do that.




Train them to work or let the charities support them.  Free money for them to buy drugs and alcohol is a poor solution.


----------



## delericho (Dec 21, 2015)

Maxperson said:


> Train them to work or let the charities support them.




The charities giving them support is no different from the government giving them support - they're still getting what amounts to free money. With the difference that the government has a responsibility to ensure that everyone is covered, where charities inevitably have gaps in their provision.

And if people fall through the cracks, they will turn to crime.



> Free money for them to buy drugs and alcohol is a poor solution.




Your prejudices are showing.

And if it eliminates the petty crime that would otherwise result, it pays for itself handsomely.


----------



## Janx (Dec 21, 2015)

delericho said:


> That's a circular argument.
> 
> The bottom line is that some small number of people will _refuse_ to support themselves. One way or another, society _will_ have to pay for them: either the government pays, or charities provide, or they'll turn to crime. Those are the choices - funnily enough, they won't simply choose to starve.
> 
> Since society will end up paying one way or another, the question becomes one of how best to do that.




If we consider examples like where terrorists get their bad guys...it's a few small steps to feeling marginalized, like society isn't helping you to society is the problem, so attack it and take what you need.

Hence, why at some point, paying poor people is basicaly to keep them from robbing you.

If you pay it before they do they become a threat, it's support.

If you pay it after, it's bribery.


----------



## delericho (Dec 21, 2015)

Janx said:


> If we consider examples like where terrorists get their bad guys...it's a few small steps to feeling marginalized, like society isn't helping you to society is the problem, so attack it and take what you need.
> 
> Hence, why at some point, paying poor people is basicaly to keep them from robbing you.
> 
> ...




There's a lot of truth in that.

Ideally, the situation would be that society would put in a mechanism to protect the very weakest and _also_ provide a whole lot of mechanisms to help people better their lives - "yes, we will pay you to subsist if that's what you want, but why not do this, or this, or this, for a chance of a better life?"

That way, while it's true that your minimum payment to the poor can be seen as a bribe to stop them robbing you, you're also giving them plenty of opportunities to stop being poor altogether.

Too often with our systems at present, people fall into a trap of hopelessness - they're dependent on government money and/or charity support to survive, but the moment they start improving their circumstances that support starts to get pulled away. Meaning they've applied a whole lot of effort to end up back where they started - and that's if pulling the support hasn't left them worse off than they were before.


----------



## Neonchameleon (Dec 21, 2015)

Maxperson said:


> This has never been the case, and still isn't. It has never been the responsibility of the companies to put you (or anyone else) through college or trade school.




OK.

When Henry Ford came up with the production line he did not expect to have people he hired already skilled in using a production line. How could they be? Using a more recent example one of my friends is a professional fishmonger for a supermarket - they trained her. When someone joined her on the meat counter having previously been a professional butcher _they had to retrain him_ because how he handled meat wasn't how they wanted it handled.

Skills based training has always been the job of the employer. Right back to apprentices and guild systems. Your claims to the contrary are ignorant of history, and of most modern successful workplaces- as far as I know the only major exceptions are startups, and most of those go bust and that mode certainly isn't sustainable.



> Because post high school education is the responsibility of the person being educated and no one else.




1: We've switched from training skills to general education here. You've moved the goalposts from learning a skill into a college education. This is an entirely different kettle of fish.

2: Soaring costs of tuition fees, the inability to discharge student loans into bankruptcy, and other factors are making the cost of education rise fast. Average student debt has in the US been rising at more than twice the rate of inflation.

3: Because student debt is much more crippling than it used to be, pay needs to rise to compensate. Otherwise graduates need to jump ship for more lucrative businesses.

And despite the cost of education increasing, and the student debt increasing, and even profits increasing and CEO pay increasing markedly wages have been stagnant for a long time. Other than at the top (during 2012 the income of the richest 1% increased by almost 20% - while everyone else didn't keep up with inflation).

So despite the increasing cost of general education, companies aren't paying more. Which means they aren't paying enough to afford the general educational level they want. The owners and boards are just extracting more and more money and trousering it while complaining that by not paying more when costs are rising they aren't getting what they want and they will pout and scream until they get their way.

If the cheap-ass companies want actual skilled workers they can either pay for them (they aren't - the costs are rising and pay isn't) or they can work on cutting the cost of education. Or they can sit round whining and making sure that going to college is a deal that is getting steadily worse. The long and the short of it is that not paying what it costs means you don't get the thing.

And general education requires a lot more than you are suggesting spending. It also leads to an experience trap.

Oh, and the only way I can interpret your statement about "if charities want to help people more power to them" is as you not actually caring if people die in the streets. Charity income is pathetic - especially once you take into account that much charitable giving in the US is to Churches, and most of that money goes to support the Church itself.

I wondered how long it would take before "Let them starve" was on the table in addition to economic and historical ignorance.



Janx said:


> Actually, the big corporations have been quite willing to pay for schooling for their employees. My friend got her masters degree that way. Some folks lacking bachelors who still got into engineering positions, have been sponsored to get those.
> 
> Granted, times have changed and budgets have tightened up where that's more rare, but I assure you,it used to be a thing in the 90's at least.




Absolutely. And in Britain a _lot_ of companies have graduate training schemes following that (although few pay for degrees because until about 15 years ago we didn't even _have_ tuition fees, and student loans are currently repayable as an effective grad tax of 9% over £15,000 p.a. until paid off). I'm unsurprised that companies in the US are trying to abdicate their responsibility to train staff. Disappointed but unsurprised.


----------



## Neonchameleon (Dec 21, 2015)

Janx said:


> If we consider examples like where terrorists get their bad guys...it's a few small steps to feeling marginalized, like society isn't helping you to society is the problem, so attack it and take what you need.
> 
> Hence, why at some point, paying poor people is basicaly to keep them from robbing you.
> 
> ...




If you want to start with threats "You don't have a roof over your head, and you probably won't get to eat" is a pretty nasty one. Attacking the people who are benefitting from you starving and taking what you need from them is not attacking so much as defending yourself.

And one of the points of a basic income is to ensure that that doesn't happen.


----------



## Janx (Dec 21, 2015)

Neonchameleon said:


> If you want to start with threats "You don't have a roof over your head, and you probably won't get to eat" is a pretty nasty one. Attacking the people who are benefitting from you starving and taking what you need from them is not attacking so much as defending yourself.
> 
> And one of the points of a basic income is to ensure that that doesn't happen.




Just saw in the news today.  baltimore cop shoots a guy who tried to rob him with a fake gun. the guy had been without a home for a couple of weeks.

So, an example of how being desperate leads to crime and somebody getting hurt.


----------



## tomBitonti (Dec 21, 2015)

> It has never been the responsibility of the companies to put you (or anyone else) through college or trade school.




In effect, it has.  Folks who have paid for education charge more for their employment.

I'm not saying that government sponsored training is a bad thing, but it does shift a cost from the employer to the taxpayer.  (How that works out depends on the distribution of taxes.)

Similarly, student loans shift risk from employers to employees.  I'm not saying that we ought not have student loans.  We do need to understand the value they provide to employers.

Thx!
TomB

Read more: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showth...th-to-fight-unemployment/page20#ixzz3uyJwKOc1


----------



## Maxperson (Dec 22, 2015)

delericho said:


> The charities giving them support is no different from the government giving them support - they're still getting what amounts to free money.




Saying charities giving money is no different than the government giving money, because it still amounts to free money is like saying that murder is no different than killing in self-defense since the person still ends up dead.  It's flat out bupkis.



> And if people fall through the cracks, they will turn to crime.




Then they will get three hots and a cot.  If they choose to fall through the cracks and not go to a shelter, then they have chosen jail.  This thinking that somehow giving people money is going to make them into paragons of spending so that they don't turn to crime is naive.  Most of those who turn to crime have mental problems and/or are substance abusers.  Those people aren't going to miraculously fix themselves because we give them $800 a month.



> And if it eliminates the petty crime that would otherwise result, it pays for itself handsomely.



If it eliminates petty theft, it will also fix global warming and land a man on Mars.


----------



## Maxperson (Dec 22, 2015)

tomBitonti said:


> In effect, it has.  Folks who have paid for education charge more for their employment.
> 
> I'm not saying that government sponsored training is a bad thing, but it does shift a cost from the employer to the taxpayer.  (How that works out depends on the distribution of taxes.)




No it doesn't.  Those employers are going to pay for the skills just the same as if the government has not paid.  There is no shift in cost.  There is only ADDED money from the government to help people learn skills and fill the massive deficit in skilled workers this country is facing.



> Similarly, student loans shift risk from employers to employees.  I'm not saying that we ought not have student loans.  We do need to understand the value they provide to employers.




Student loans won't go away.  We'd be adding in an avenue of training so that people who can't go to school to even get a loan will be able to join the workforce as a contributor.


----------



## delericho (Dec 22, 2015)

Maxperson said:


> Saying charities giving money is no different than the government giving money, because it still amounts to free money is like saying that murder is no different than killing in self-defense since the person still ends up dead.




It's not remotely like saying that.



> If it eliminates petty theft, it will also fix global warming and land a man on Mars.




I'll repeat: If it eliminates the petty crime _that would otherwise result_, it pays for itself handsomely. I didn't claim it would eliminate all petty theft.


----------



## Maxperson (Dec 22, 2015)

delericho said:


> It's not remotely like saying that.




Yes it absolutely is.  You equated two completely different methods of getting to a single end result.  I did the same.  Free money is free money, and dead is dead.



> I'll repeat: If it eliminates the petty crime _that would otherwise result_, it pays for itself handsomely. I didn't claim it would eliminate all petty theft.




And I will repeat.  You don't.  In any case, petty crime is not a good reason to bankrupt a country and/or give out free money.  It's violent crime that the actual problem, and you're not going to eliminate that with $800 a month.


----------



## delericho (Dec 22, 2015)

Maxperson said:


> Yes it absolutely is.  You equated two completely different methods of getting to a single end result.  I did the same.  Free money is free money, and dead is dead.




If you really think that equating charity vs government provision for the poor is to equate murder with self-defense, then we have nothing more to say to one another.


----------



## tomBitonti (Dec 22, 2015)

> No it doesn't. Those employers are going to pay for the skills just the same as if the government has not paid. There is no shift in cost. There is only ADDED money from the government to help people learn skills and fill the massive deficit in skilled workers this country is facing.




What happens is a bit more complicated than that.  Companies pay according to the supply of workers. Have an oversupply and wages fall.

Thx!
TomB

Read more: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showth...th-to-fight-unemployment/page21#ixzz3v3wSLPGK


----------



## Maxperson (Jan 1, 2016)

tomBitonti said:


> What happens is a bit more complicated than that.  Companies pay according to the supply of workers. Have an oversupply and wages fall.




I missed this and saw it when looking for another thread.  We're are a looooooooooong way from even meeting demand.  there is no surplus and likely never will be.


----------

