Main Menu

Support CaB

Subscribers don't see this.

Recent

Welcome to Cook'd and Bomb'd. Please login or sign up.

May 28, 2022, 12:27:10 PM

Login with username, password and session length

Tip jar

If you like CaB and wish to support it, you can use PayPal or KoFi. Thank you, and I hope you continue to enjoy the site - Neil.

Buy Me a Coffee at ko-fi.com

Workshy

Started by bgmnts, September 07, 2021, 02:38:02 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Zetetic

Quote from: touchingcloth on September 08, 2021, 10:29:43 PM
Too many stories of eligible people receiving their benefits too late, or having to jump through an unnecessary number of hoops at the least.
But think of the alternative?! Being exploited by a freeloader.

TrenterPercenter

Quote from: touchingcloth on September 08, 2021, 10:29:43 PM
There are already things which aren't means tested in the UK (I should maybe say England) like bus passes for over 60s, winter fuel allowance, basic child benefit.

Means testing isn't cost-free to administer, so I think it makes sense to avoid the burden in certain cases, and I can see why it's easier to run things with a set of universal benefits on one side of the ledger and universal taxes on the other, because the alternative is the costs and inefficiencies of means testing everyone, or at least the costs of random audits on some people, like with self-declared tax.

I could probably be persuaded by an argument for not including UBI in taxable income, which is how child benefits work as far as I understand.

I think the past decade of Tory-led austerity has put me heavily off means testing. Too many stories of eligible people receiving their benefits too late, or having to jump through an unnecessary number of hoops at the least.

Progressive taxation is a form of means testing.  UBI would give a set amount of money to everyone then you would have to means test people to see who would have to return it via taxation.

TrenterPercenter

Quote from: Zetetic on September 08, 2021, 10:33:46 PM
But think of the alternative?! Being exploited by a freeloader.

This is a different issue that doesn't go away with UBI or is related to the other problems that exist with it.

Zetetic

The main problem with means-testing is that while it's a superficially attractive idea on the basis of fairness, it rapidly makes services shit, the experience of trying to access those services even more shit and eventually everyone ends up despising the state as worse than useless.

If you're bad off enough to qualify for a service, you now have to expend extra time and energy proving that this is case - time and energy that you don't have because you're scum. When you finally do access the service it's fucking terrible because the only people who can use it are scum - who wants to make services good for scum?

If you're well off enough not to qualify for a service, you get to be told that the relationship between you and the state is entirely one-way and that the services that you've paid taxes into for decades aren't for people like you.

The former hates the state for making their awful lives even worse - seemingly as a punishment for having a shit life - and the latter hates the state for being a mechanism to distribute funds to a feckless underclass that they're strongly encouraged to other.

Zetetic

Quote from: TrenterPercenter on September 08, 2021, 10:38:51 PM
Progressive taxation is a form of means testing.
In people's experience, it absolutely isn't.[nb]Edit: Particularly in the UK, as it happens. I appreciate there are a small number of countries that make the experience of paying taxes as insane as possible as well.[/nb]

touchingcloth

Quote from: Zetetic on September 08, 2021, 10:32:25 PM
Or to be subjected to, far more importantly.

Yes, onerous on both sides.

And, Trenter, kind of the point of UBI is that there's no system to be gamed, because the eligibility is universal. I suspect it would be possible to make it subject to an assessment-free application process rather than mailing the cash to everyone, and like with bus passes there'd be people of means who chose not to apply for it. But also like with bus passes and other benefits there would almost certainly be people who would benefit from it who ended up not claiming for it, possibly due to not understanding or not being able to deal with the application process.

I think anything short of full universality just essentially becomes "why don't we widen job seekers allowance to include some employed people?" Actually, you could structure that to be tax deductions rather than paid benefits and call it something like a Working Tax Credit.

touchingcloth

Quote from: TrenterPercenter on September 08, 2021, 10:38:51 PM
Progressive taxation is a form of means testing.  UBI would give a set amount of money to everyone then you would have to means test people to see who would have to return it via taxation.

In practice, you wouldn't, not nearly for everyone.

Anyone on PAYE would (or could) end up having their UBI reflected on their payslips, and their tax would be worked out from there. Anyone filing a self assessment with no PAYE income would do the same, and the taxation system already caters for people who earn some income under PAYE and other income that they self assess.

Having UBI as something which is means tested would result in everyone being assessed for it, rather than a relatively small proportion of people, a little like how in the US everyone has to file a tax return.

I guess means testing also raises the question of how minors and adolescents are treated. I don't know how things are handled now, but my student loan was means tested based on my parents income. Would you do the same with UBI, and build income inequality into the system from birth?

TrenterPercenter

Quote from: Zetetic on September 08, 2021, 10:45:05 PM
The main problem with means-testing is that while it's a superficially attractive idea on the basis of fairness, it rapidly makes services shit, the experience of trying to access those services even more shit and eventually everyone ends up despising the state as worse than useless.

If you're bad off enough to qualify for a service, you now have to expend extra time and energy proving that this is case - time and energy that you don't have because you're scum. When you finally do access the service it's fucking terrible because the only people who can use it are scum - who wants to make services good for scum?

If you're well off enough not to qualify for a service, you get to be told that the relationship between you and the state is entirely one-way and that the services that you've paid taxes into for decades aren't for people like you.

The former hates the state for making their awful lives even worse - seemingly as a punishment for having a shit life - and the latter hates the state for being a mechanism to distribute funds to a feckless underclass that they're strongly encouraged to other.

Appreciate the rant and I'm not going to argue that the current system is shit but I don't think this is really looking at anything possible and just stating you think that current means testing is shit.  Im talking about means testing in the broad sense because we are talking about the broad problems with UBI not the specifics of the current situation in this sense working out how much to tax someone and how much to give someone are two sides of the same coin.

TrenterPercenter

Quote from: touchingcloth on September 08, 2021, 10:55:35 PM
In practice, you wouldn't, not nearly for everyone.

Anyone on PAYE would (or could) end up having their UBI reflected on their payslips, and their tax would be worked out from there. Anyone filing a self assessment with no PAYE income would do the same, and the taxation system already caters for people who earn some income under PAYE and other income that they self assess.

Having UBI as something which is means tested would result in everyone being assessed for it, rather than a relatively small proportion of people, a little like how in the US everyone has to file a tax return.

I guess means testing also raises the question of how minors and adolescents are treated. I don't know how things are handled now, but my student loan was means tested based on my parents income. Would you do the same with UBI, and build income inequality into the system from birth?

Im just pointing out the problems, I'm not pretending I have the solution. You are doing a form of means testing retrospectively that is all.

This is just one of the problems I raised.

Zetetic

Quote from: TrenterPercenter on September 08, 2021, 10:56:20 PM
Im talking about means testing in the broad sense
And I don't think you should, because as a specific tool in social democracies it has a particular history and that history is helping kill them.

touchingcloth

Quote from: TrenterPercenter on September 08, 2021, 10:59:40 PM
Im just pointing out the problems, I'm not pretending I have the solution. You are doing a form of means testing retrospectively that is all.

This is just one of the problems I raised.

It's quite a different form of means testing, though. Having a UBI payment on the income side of all of the payslips I've ever had and then being taxed from accordingly on the deductions side would have made not a jot of difference to my life, because I've never not worked as PAYE. On the other hand, I can still remember sitting with my parents one evening filling in that means testing form for the student loan.

We're probably getting a bit distracted by what means testing is in essence versus in practice. If it were somehow possible to accurately assess every single person while not requiring more than five seconds of their effort or thoughts then I'd maybe be more in favour of it, but then you don't solve the problems Zetetic mentions around the taxation and benefits systems becoming one way things - pay tax, get benefits.

You know how you hear people say "why should I pay for cycle lanes? I don't use them, and cyclists don't pay road tax"? Or "why should I pay for job seekers allowance? Working my fingers to the bone so they can get their massive tellies"? Or "Where is the fairness, we ask, for the shift worker, leaving home in the dark hours of the early morning, who looks up at the closed blinds of their next door neighbour sleeping off a life on benefits?"? UBI being properly universal takes away the ability for talking about it in those terms. Or makes it much harder to, at least, I'm not optimistic enough to think it would disappear.

Zetetic

There would, and I do think Trenter is right to highlight this, be an extremely painful period of "why are we giving all this money to billionaires when we could be buying new legs for the attractive daughters of veterans" and this period would likely last forever.

It's still preferable to indulging this sentiment, which doesn't make it go anyway.

Goldentony

you need to make people understand jobs are a bunch of fucking shit and only worth being proud of if you do maybe some standard agreed upon chart of worthwhile things first off, that's how you rein them in, as soon as they understand jobs are shit and theyre fucking idiots for being duped into thinking it was anything worth doing or being proud of in the first place you completely break down their defenses and thats when you swoop in and take all their earnings and fuck off immediately without warning, had off

Mobbd

#103
Quote from: TrenterPercenter on September 08, 2021, 09:00:04 PM
Yes that is the kind of additional aspects that need to be added that I was alluding to but it still has big problems.  So you need aggressive taxation, something that generally doesn't go down well.  Giving rich people UBI and then taking it away via taxation, basically just adds another amount of money rich people can claim is being taxed from them.

Progressive, not aggressive. And a single individual's annual UBI payment is such a small amount of money by the standards of the rich that they should scarcely be concerned about the "loss." The common good case for it can also be made clear [to the rich]. And if there are still objections from the 1% or the 5%, it doesn't matter so long as the informed majority consents. A minority of people currently object to vaccination but we do it anyway for the common good.

Quote from: TrenterPercenter on September 08, 2021, 09:00:04 PM
This is basically the same as means testing UBI prior to handing it out; and by recouping UBI after by taxation you are essentially making a set of bullshit job.......someone that is having to take back money that didn't need to be given in the first place.  I've got a question for you on this; what benefit does giving rich people money you are later going to remove have? are there not potential logistical problems in ensuring the money is returned?

It is not the same as means testing at all. See Zetetic's notes about that because they are correct. Taxation does not have to create a set of bullshit jobs: it is debatable whether ensuring a tax take is bullshit at all since it is so important, but even if it is this cast of characters already exists. A tax system could be almost fully-automated (and we're already well on our way to that).

The advantage to giving to the rich and then taking away has already been explained: that it reduces bureaucratic complexity to a single non-means-tested and potentially automated system (elegant simplicity) and removes the stigma of a "handouts" system seen to benefit only the poor.

Quote from: TrenterPercenter on September 08, 2021, 09:00:04 PM
Why is this an advantage to the rich? How is this not more expensive than the current system? the cost savings are in a streamlined service that deposit money into accounts; like Uber for social security (non-health related ESA doesn't cost a lot; it never did; there is no grand scale benefit fraud team and there never has been - unemployment benefits amounts to 1% (£2bn) of welfare expenditure). 

I almost made the mistake of saying that the system of UBI is not supposed to advantage the rich but it actually does! It advantages everyone including the rich. Here's how. The rich should not want to live in a world (a) of suffering and (b) in which a malnourished, over-stressed, bored, unhealthy, uncomprehending, and angry population are providing services for the rich. A world in which people don't have the basics on which to live is dangerous to the rich (and before we go down this line, please remember that not all rich people are sadistic bastards - some of them are but get real). The rich need culture and clean tap water and cars that don't explode just like anyone else; and they are more likely to live in that better, safer world if everyone has the material basics.

Quote from: TrenterPercenter on September 08, 2021, 09:00:04 PM
What it does is sound great for people that just do not want to work, receive a citizens payment and take up hobbies or personal interests; this is not the whole population, it doesn't' fit in with lots of other problems; like the very well known relationship between inactivity, poor mental health and early death.

It allows people to walk away from bad working situations. Your boss who doesn't care about bad working conditions or only cares about the bottom line will no longer be able to hold you hostage. You can walk away and either become part of the hobbyist community you describe but you might also become a self-starter or, simply, look for a better job.

It will also economically empower women (and other home-based/non-employed partners) to walk away from bad relationships/marriages to which they are currently economically tied.

Quote from: TrenterPercenter on September 08, 2021, 09:00:04 PM
I'm be interested to know the problems with it; most things have consequences and it is the consideration of these consequences and solutions to them that are interesting

There are several convincing downsides. The main one is that, if something unforeseen happens and we've dismantled the current welfare state to fund or otherwise make room for UBI, we'd be royally fucked. This sort of major potential downside to counterbalance the major potential upsides is why UBI is considered a radical proposal. We should approach UBI with caution but not, in my opinion, hostility. There is potentially too much to be gained. We should be extremely careful but have courage (not faith).

Another often-discussed downside is that UBI could lead to mass inflation (bad news for people with mortgages and bad news for general purchasing power and quality of life). While this is a real concern, I don't find it entirely convincing because it would surely only be the case if we were printing new money and dumping it into the economy (essentially a People's Quantitative Easing). If we finance UBI more responsibly, we might be able to avoid mass inflation. There are other ways to avoid mass inflation but those are unpopular and would have to be ratified somehow, which is another head-scratcher or a problem we'd have to face - but, one might say, that's what State economists are paid to do and they should scratch their heads while the rest of us get back to spending our UBI.

Quote from: TrenterPercenter on September 08, 2021, 09:00:04 PM
Yes but you need people to do them; how do you construct a society that on one hand gives out money for people to live comfortable lives, with no stigma of not working and pay people enough to look after people that need that support?

UBI provides the material basics. People (those not in the hobbyist mindset you described above and those with higher material standards or consumer desires) will still want to work in order to finance the lifestyle to which they are accustomed or to which they aspire.

There is also the fact (as you have yourself suggested) that money is not the only motivator to work. People work for personal satisfaction, to enjoy working in a team of like-minded people with shared goals, and to play a part in serving the common good. People would be less ashamed to work in, say, a care home if their take-home pay (including their UBI payment) allowed them to live well and if jobs like care work were now more central to life after the pushback against (and hopefully the extinction of) bullshit jobs.

Jockice

#104
It does worry me sometimes that I haven't had a proper job for a decade. But I did work for more than a quarter of a century before that and it was the DWP and doctors who decided I wasn't 'fit for work.' When I got made redundant I was on Jobseekers Allowance for a few weeks, they suggested I apply for ESA, so I did...and got it for life without even an assessment. Which came as quite a shock. It wasn't like my DLA application in the early 90s when I didn't want it and actively tried to sabotage it (yet still got it for life) but I didn't go out of my way to go: "Oh, I'm so terribly disabled I couldn't possibly work." Yet, they decided that was the case. So I thought: 'oh well, I can get on with my PhD now.' Which never happened. So, apart from the very odd bit of freelance stuff - some paid but mainly not - I've been more of less at a loose end for the last five years.

I have applied for several (part-time) jobs in the last couple of years and the only interview I've had was for the charity I do voluntary stuff for and I think that was just as a courtesy as they had already decided to give the job to someone else. Which is actually fair enough. She's more qualified for that particular role than I am. But other jobs I've applied for (like stuff for local magazines) I've been rejected out of hand. This might be because I'm honest in my application about the physical challenges I face (especially with my speech deteriorating) but you know, I'm not thick. Strangely enough, these publications don't object to me writing articles for them, as long as I don't want paid. But they can fuck off. I'm fed up of doing favours.

And I also hate (and have always hated) the amount of sheer creeping that goes into getting and retaining jobs, all the laughing at the boss's jokes and making sure everyone knows how hard you're - apparently - working. I can't do the former without sounding insincere and I used to deliberately downplay whatever effort I made to the extent I once had a stand-up shouting row with a colleague who fell for another guy doing the same job as me who went round telling people he was 'holding it all together' while I just messed about. If Trevor had bothered checking the computer work logs he'd have seen what utter bollocks that was. It was pretty rare for me to react like that though. I just didn't care enough. I really have an aversion to that sort of thing.

Anyway I'm now in my mid 50s (or late 50s from next Friday) and more people I know are retiring or whatever. Some to do freelance stuff and others for health reasons. Two old friends of mine of the same age have had to give up their jobs in the last year or so because of that. One because of arthritis (which doesn't look too bad to me - at least not compared to how my mum was affected - but who am I to judge? I occasionally go for a drink with him. I don't know the full details of his  day-to-day life) and the other because of mental health problems. Again, who am I to judge? Meanwhile my girlfriend got booted out of her job because of her health problems. There may be a constructive dismissal case coming up, and I sincerely hope she puts them out of business. Although, as they are a very wealthy multinational it seems unlikely. We live in hope though.

So in summary, yes I am workshy. Very much so.




Mobbd

Quote from: Jockice on September 09, 2021, 10:55:58 AM
So I thought: 'oh well, I can get on with my PhD now.' Which never happened.

If you don't mind me asking, what happened? Could you still do it? Would you want to?

I sometimes wrestle with that option too. For me it's a lack of personal motivation because I don't like the increasingly corporate/managerial style of the university at which I'd most likely do it.

Quote from: Jockice on September 09, 2021, 10:55:58 AM
I have applied for several (part-time) jobs in the last couple of years and the only interview I've had was for the charity I do voluntary stuff for and I think that was just as a courtesy as they had already decided to give the job to someone else. Which is actually fair enough. She's more qualified for that particular role than I am.

You're probably being hard on yourself there. I doubt they were just being pointlessly kind. I suspect that, even if there really was a favourite, they valued your skills and wanted to hear the case for them, to see if they trumped the favourite. It sounds to me like you were at least a player (naff term, sorry, but you know what I mean).

Jockice

#106
Quote from: Mobbd on September 09, 2021, 11:08:15 AM
If you don't mind me asking, what happened? Could you still do it? Would you want to?

I sometimes wrestle with that option too. For me it's a lack of personal motivation because I don't like the increasingly corporate/managerial style of the university at which I'd most likely do it.

You're probably being hard on yourself there. I doubt they were just being pointlessly kind. I suspect that, even if there really was a favourite, they valued your skills and wanted to hear the case for them, to see if they trumped the favourite. It sounds to me like you were at least a player (naff term, sorry, but you know what I mean).

Of course I don't mind. I've discussed it several times on here anyway. Basically it was just the worst possible time in my life to do something of that scale. I was in my early 40s when I started it, had medical problems. It's a very complicated story but I have a degenerative condition that has never been fully diagnosed. At one point a couple of years into my PhD doctors thought it was an extremely rare syndrome that can actually be treated, so tested me for that. It turned out not to be that so now they think it's a more common - but still pretty damned rare - thing that can't be treated and is only going to get worse. Didn't exactly fill me with confidence.

In addition I'd lost both my parents in the space of just three years. From cancer so I basically watched them deteriorate. My mum went while I was doing my degree (just as we started the summer break, so I didn't defer or anything) and my dad the week I started my MA, which happened to be exactly a week after my 40th birthday. I did a few months of that then deferred it for a year. I got an award from my department on finishing it, basically I think because they didn't think I'd come back.

I started off quite well with the PhD but I then got hit by a mid-life crisis/slow motion delayed reaction nervous breakdown and found it impossible to concentrate or write anything. Total mental block, which went on for years.  And losing my long-term job - a long-drawn out process in itself - and being told I was unfit for work during this didn't help much either.

And the final straw...the girlfriend situation. Only mentioned because she's told me she feels guilty about this. I was single all through my studies until near the end. I'd been dumped by the woman I thought was 'the one' in my early 30s (ironically, she was a PhD student. Bumped into her last year for the first time in 22 years and it turned out she didn't get hers either, although she did get an MPhil) and basically disappeared up my own arse. I've said it many a time but I was basically single for 17 years and totally celibate for the last 13 of them. Then I met my first teenage crush for the first time since school (during which I didn't say a single word to her) and we ended up getting together. Which completely took my mind off things like studying. I've never been one of those people who has to be in a relationship - which is good news as I rarely was - but adjusting to this took up quite a bit of my time. I blame her. For everything.

Thanks for the therapy session. As for finishing it, I'd basically have to start the thing again as my topic is dated and has now been covered elsewhere. I did see the department head at a meeting a couple of years ago and he suggested I return (after I'd reminded him who I was. I'd only met him once before, as I rarely physically went into the department, despite it being  less than a mile away) but I don't know. My supervisor (a lovely bloke) retired and died a year later, so god knows who I'd have in charge. Plus it sort of brings back bad memories. I did do a presentation for a different university on the subject earlier this year (just to prove I could really) and I've spoken to another university about it as well. But it's committing myself to it that's the difficult part. The last time was such a car crash that I'm very very wary.

As for the job, I think I'm fairly well-liked there but they'd more or less offered the job to this other person when I expressed an interest. But unless I did an absolutely spectacular interview I wasn't going to get it. The boss has said if there is any paid work that would be suitable for me in the future they'll definitely interview me again. Fair enough. But I'm not desperate for it. Lack of ambition has always been a central tenet of my life.

God, I don't half ramble on given half the chance. So tell me, what would yours be in?

chveik

working sucks, i always feel like vito in the sopranos, can't stand it. the only work i enjoyed while being a student is of no use for society at large sadly cause i don't want to be a teacher. there's also the problem of having to be overqualified for anything these days since there's so much competition for any work that is somewhat meaningful, and i don't have a competitive spirit.

living off state benefits is thoroughly humiliating and each meeting with job centre people/social workers tends to make me consider suicide seriously, it's better than actually looking for shit work though. i guess it's looked down upon to say that you consider some jobs to be beneath you but that's how i feel.

i would gladly do my share in a communist society if i could be left alone the rest of the time.

jamiefairlie

It's a tricky one that should work from an economic perspective but will probably fail because of human nature. I was brought up a Catholic (the best training to become a strict aetheist) but even at the age of five and being taught the parable of the prodigal son, I was 'hang on, how's that fair?'. Following that up with the one about the guy who turns up at the end of the week and gets paid the same as the mugs who worked all week and you can see that this Jesus guy's a bit off in his thinking.

TLDR, fairness seems to be an instinctive concept in primates (monkeys show it too in studies), so that would be a big problem to overcome.

TrenterPercenter

#109
Might seem like I'm giving you rough ride here but at least you tried to answers some of the problems rather than just going ah so you want people to starve ay! My feelings are pretty radical on this I just don't see UBI as radically advantageous to poor people.

Quote from: Mobbd on September 09, 2021, 10:23:03 AM
Progressive, not aggressive. And a single individual's annual UBI payment is such a small amount of money by the standards of the rich that they should scarcely be concerned about the "loss." The common good case for it can also be made clear [to the rich]. And if there are still objections from the 1% or the 5%, it doesn't matter so long as the informed majority consents. A minority of people currently object to vaccination but we do it anyway for the common good.

Sorry I'm not sure that this is a realistic way of looking at it i.e. "individuals".  I'm not sure why this would be the focus when it would be the total increase in expenditure that would be the concern obviously, which is clearly going to be more expensive; there are no "cost savings" at the monetary benefit level; the costs savings as I mention would be in the universal digital administration of UBI (the Uberisation of the social security) which I would want to see projections of what it costs now compared to what the excess costs of the total UBI system is - this is an important but not like-for-like comparison because the other solution is to give people that need social security a proper amount and rather than putting cash in 10s of millions of peoples accounts that don't need it; spending it on proper infrastructure to makes sure the people that need it get it and deal with all of the problems that seems to be cited as UBI being the only solution too.

There is also another problem here it that you appear to be using "rich" as in people that wouldn't notice 18k (outside London) deposited in their bank account each year and therefore wouldn't begrudge an individual poor person receiving this ("chicken feed" as someone once said) but the real problem is with "rich" people making 60k-100k a year that have just received between a 1/3 or 1/5 of their wage a year.  This just increases inequality; 18k to someone with nothing is not the same as 18k for someone with 100k and another 100k in assets (we'll come back to assets in a bit); this is just basic capitalism.

QuoteIt is not the same as means testing at all. See Zetetic's notes about that because they are correct.

Nope sorry I'm not buying this; for intents and purposes it is your talking to someone that has worked as both an accountant and in the welfare to work industry; taxation is easy in PAYE and simple tax arrangements but you are ignoring assets and a whole range of other things that would come into play if you wanted to recoup UBI from people that were earning 60k+ which you would absolutely want to do if you didn't want to increase inequality (this is really basic so I'm surprised this is not being considered - if I earn 60k a year, I get 18k UBI, I put 18k a year in assets because I can live on my own wage in less than years I've bought a 200k house that has appreciated in value and I'm on to the next).  This seems like a great deal for the middle classes and hobbyists that don't want to work but really shit for actual poor people; the point is not to be "hostile" to UBI as you seem to think my criticisms might be but to make sure it doesn't fuck poor people over even more. 

Me, personally, I would have a lot gain from it me and my partner could buy our house outright in less than 4 years and then would start accumulating wealth at an incredible pace whilst others would be even more fucked when house prices rocketed - I don't think I should the able too

QuoteThe advantage to giving to the rich and then taking away has already been explained: that it reduces bureaucratic complexity to a single non-means-tested and potentially automated system (elegant simplicity) and removes the stigma of a "handouts" system seen to benefit only the poor.

It hasn't been explained any further than how it works; this isn't an explanation of its impact; there hasn't even been a discussion on assets which is a massive issue; very little about house prices other than your belief that it might result in a house price crash as if markets remain stable when money is injected into them; house prices would obviously go up because assets would be more desirable.  This is obvious; what have a shitload people done with any excess cash over the last 30 years.......bought property and become landlords.  This is massively advantageous policy for middle class as it increases their relative purchasing power; only focusing on the super rich is silly for lots of reason let alone they're isn't that many of them.

So you've got accounting for differentials in local rates, pay, how much people have left to pay on their mortgage, what do you do about kids? what about adults that are in shared households paying shared rents, landlords........there is basically a lot of things to consider if you are trying to target the funds towards people that need it; and if you aren't because you think the cultural value of not working is most important then you are dumping excess capital into the hands of people that can then use that (and not necessarily consciously) to create more not less inequality, and all perhaps in the name of "elegant simplicity".  Of course if you do want try and stop this then you are doing something approximates to means testing; I've no idea why suddenly people think this is a bad thing (and can only see it through the lens of a callous and crap current 'benefits' system which is a design not the basis of means testing) lots of neoliberals think the same and would go for a universal payments because of exactly the advantageous points to the rich which I've outlined.

QuoteI almost made the mistake of saying that the system of UBI is not supposed to advantage the rich but it actually does!.....The rich should not want to live in a world (a) of suffering and (b) in which a malnourished, over-stressed, bored, unhealthy, uncomprehending, and angry population are providing services for the rich...

These paragraphs here are really just the case for Socialism; yet you are promoting a financial model that is problematic to some of the fundamentals, the idea that this system provides advantages to groups that already have an advantage should give you some pause for thought here.

Is the idea to bribe rich people with money (and in doing so give them greater financial advantages over poor people) to have a conscious? Is the idea to give them 18k, that they don't care about but will vote for because they don't care about it but will also vote for higher taxes that are actually punitive to them in reality.  I find this quite mad; like rich people aren't massively better situated to pay people to take advantage of the excess money.  My partner and I would be able to buy our house outright in 4 years and sell it at premium because we would need it for the increase in house prices that would occur - net win for me, mega loss for poor people.

QuoteIt allows people to walk away from bad working situations. Your boss who doesn't care about bad working conditions or only cares about the bottom line will no longer be able to hold you hostage. You can walk away and either become part of the hobbyist community you describe but you might also become a self-starter or, simply, look for a better job.

It will also economically empower women (and other home-based/non-employed partners) to walk away from bad relationships/marriages to which they are currently economically tied.

These are good goals, they are socialist goals (again), they don't belong to UBI you and few others in this thread are talking about UBI as if it is the ONLY way these things problems can be solved.  This isn't like universal healthcare where health is a largely equalised and static thing; this is more akin to quantitative easing for people; it is debt in the grand scheme of things and an accelerant for inequality for the reasons laid out.  Maybe there are solutions to these problems but I'm not seeing any answers to them (I'm sure Srnciek must consider these as I read his other stuff and he is pretty good on how capitalism operates).

QuoteThere is potentially too much to be gained. We should be extremely careful but have courage (not faith).

This is debatable and needs to be considered comparing UBI to other solutions not UBI to the status quo (or some emotive appeal); it also needs to answer its problems around taxation, asset seeking and how effectively raising the minimum wage for everyone working or not translates to people seeking to do jobs that people would neither need or want to do.

Before some more unconscious individualism gets thrown back at me with "but why should I or anyone do a job I hate" I'm asking what do you do about things like social care where there isn't enough staff; you'll say pay them more to make it such an attractive industry to work in........you can do this without UBI and all of the problems that it would create.  At a macro level you would need to direct funds and subsidies from the government bank roll towards these industries when you are literally haemorrhaging money into rich peoples pockets who will then convert this into assets and take it out of the real economy.  The UK isn't the global economy; internal economies are different but there are still thing like trade balances that would need to be considered.  Again would want some actual considerations and answers here if you could.

Alberon

Too much free time is apparently not good for people.

QuoteResearchers have found that while levels of subjective wellbeing initially rise as free time increases, the trend does not necessarily hold for very high levels of leisure.

"The sweet spot is a moderate amount of free time," said Dr Marissa Sharif, a co-author of the study from the University of Pennsylvania. "We found that having too much time was associated with lower subjective wellbeing due to a lacking sense of productivity and purpose."

https://www.theguardian.com/science/2021/sep/09/study-links-too-much-free-time-to-lower-sense-of-wellbeing

TL;DR - Get back to work, drone!

chveik

Quote from: jamiefairlie on September 09, 2021, 04:17:49 PM
It's a tricky one that should work from an economic perspective but will probably fail because of human nature. I was brought up a Catholic (the best training to become a strict aetheist) but even at the age of five and being taught the parable of the prodigal son, I was 'hang on, how's that fair?'. Following that up with the one about the guy who turns up at the end of the week and gets paid the same as the mugs who worked all week and you can see that this Jesus guy's a bit off in his thinking.

TLDR, fairness seems to be an instinctive concept in primates (monkeys show it too in studies), so that would be a big problem to overcome.

all this stuff about 'human nature' is exactly how conservatives want you to think

TrenterPercenter

There are lots of survival advantages for groups that partake in communal work (fairness is just a factor involved in this) individualism has been the destructive force in this; hence why wanting to never work but then wanting someone else to work in providing you care and support when you are old or fucked is a lot closer than they'll admit to the Brexiteer expats doing fuck all but moaning about how the NHS ain't wot it used to be.

Mobbd

Quote from: TrenterPercenter on September 09, 2021, 04:22:48 PM
Might seem like I'm giving you rough ride here but at least you tried to answers some of the problems rather than just going ah so you want people to starve ay! My feelings are pretty radical on this I just don't see UBI as radically advantageous to poor people.

Haha, well I "tried" to answer your questions based on a lot of reading and experience on my part. I'm sorry my answers didn't ring true to you. Never mind! As you were.

TrenterPercenter

Quote from: Mobbd on September 09, 2021, 05:03:17 PM
Haha, well I "tried" to answer your questions based on a lot of reading and experience on my part. I'm sorry my answers didn't ring true to you. Never mind! As you were.

Well they didn't really address anything like assets, and impact of UBI in relation to inequality and the residual workforce doing jobs that are not "bullshit".  I'm not being bitchy I'm genuinely interested in what the answers are to these questions are; probably things that would need to be considered for any workable version of UBI to be implemented.

As I was trying to highlight all the advantages of UBI; empowerment of women, mobility with work, increase in base rate income for unemployed are achievable without UBI and the associated problems; it was the advantages of UBI beyond what could be done with an improved social security system, apart from the Uberisation element which would have been more interesting to know.

touchingcloth

So you just want people to starve?

TrenterPercenter


Mobbd

Quote from: TrenterPercenter on September 09, 2021, 05:21:46 PM
Well they didn't really address anything like assets, and impact of UBI in relation to inequality and the residual workforce doing jobs that are not "bullshit".  I'm not being bitchy I'm genuinely interested in what the answers are to these questions are; probably things that would need to be considered for any workable version of UBI to be implemented.

But you didn't ask me those questions. If you had, I would have answered. But no more, buddy! You've made me very sleepy. Nighty-night.

Quote from: TrenterPercenter on September 09, 2021, 05:21:46 PM
As I was trying to highlight all the advantages of UBI; empowerment of women, mobility with work, increase in base rate income for unemployed are achievable without UBI and the associated problems; it was the advantages of UBI beyond what could be done with an improved social security system, apart from the Uberisation element which would have been more interesting to know.

I don't really know what you mean by Uberisation, by the way. If I heard the word in isolation, I'd assume it means the Silicon Valley-inspired disruption or privitisation of what were once public goods or intangibles. But from the context in which you deploy it, I think it means something else.

TrenterPercenter

#118
Quote from: Mobbd on September 09, 2021, 06:08:04 PM
But you didn't ask me those questions. If you had, I would have answered. But no more, buddy! You've made me very sleepy. Nighty-night.

Mate.

Quote
I don't really know what you mean by Uberisation, by the way. If I heard the word in isolation, I'd assume it means the Silicon Valley-inspired disruption or privitisation of what were once public goods or intangibles. But from the context in which you deploy it, I think it means something else.

Uber is an example of disruptive technology yer mate Srnicek has a bit to say about it and how it relates to his theories on Platform Capitalism.  Disruptive technologies are technologies or innovations that disruptive the established business ecosystem. This is not by default a bad thing but usually involves the streamlining and automation of processes to make cost savings which in practice usually translates to the removal of the need to employ people, pay them fairly or give them decent terms and conditions; Uber is often seen as the poster boy for this for the way they "elegantly simplified" the taxi industry.  Again that seems pretty obvious as does UBI not being bad news for people with mortgages but an absolute boon; however you've decided that you've been made "sleepy now" and seem to want to behave like a 5 year old so I guess we'll never know if that's true or not.  Have a nice kip.

Goldentony

money - would not wipe my arse on it, get rid. Can an economist here detail me the pros and cons of getting rid of money entirely? my main one is someone from Chiswick saying something about incentive but thats as far as ive got