Domingo Halliburton
Handmade in USA
"endorses"
Indian government to endorse Universal Basic Income
- Thread starter bsmooth
- Start date
No one noted that the name of the professor is "Guy Standing". 
This may be an easier way to have a safety net for people. Id be open to the idea if it was implemented right and would gladly accept the money. Question is: how much? 10k? Can't live off that.
This may be an easier way to have a safety net for people. Id be open to the idea if it was implemented right and would gladly accept the money. Question is: how much? 10k? Can't live off that.
David_TheMan
Banned
national minimum wage, nation just robbed wealth from the people by snatching up lower domination bills, now they want to kick the low end out the labor outright.
SMH
SMH
This is nonsensical. UBI is one of the most complete wealth distribution programs possible. The effects would have nothing to do with what demonetization did.
Maybe you don't understand what Universal Basic Income is? It's not a minimum wage.
There are minimum wages already, but aren't enforced. If you have a UBI then you don't have to worry about enforcement because you're giving, not regulating. And you're no longer forcing people to be treated like slaves in order to earn a slave-like income...which is what most of the low-end wage jobs in India are.
I was talking to my wife about this last night, and she's shocked that it's even possible because it would completely upend the caste system. A large part of the culture for some people is to be able to force certain people to do your bidding in certain ways, and UBI, if real, would dramatically reduce the ability of the high-caste and high-class to have their way anymore. No way the BJP party in general is for this, but it would impress me extremely if Modi means it, and it's possible he really does.
David_TheMan
Banned
Its a ridiculous, its gong to drive capital out of india, its going to incentivize none work by adults, and its going to cut low skill menial labor and skill development of the bottom rung by subsidizing laziness.
There is no such thing as a free lunch, those with money will find a way to leave and deinvest in teh area. As for treating people like slaves, when the labor market outsupplies the jobs, workers are marginal and easily replaced unless they have a marketable skill that takes time to develop or is very rare, this doesn't change, if you want to pay people to not work though, this will do a good job of that.
If you think an economic redistribution of wealth and subsidization of unemployment will upend a cultural system, you have another thing coming.
You should pray this shyt doesn't get started, its an entitlement program that will hurt worse than any good you think will come from it.
I think a UBI system would work here in NA though. Doesn't even have to be a lot.
$800 - $1000 month. Stop the raise on min. Wage. UBI + min wage would help a lot of ppl. Plus those on welfare would actually have an incentive to come off.
$800 - $1000 month. Stop the raise on min. Wage. UBI + min wage would help a lot of ppl. Plus those on welfare would actually have an incentive to come off.
UBI + mass automation = Neo feudalism...The kings of old shall have returned...A firmly entrenched ruling class and everyone below is just shyt out of luck...no social mobility,no economic mobility...
hell at that point they may even lock your UBI to a specific county and end physical mobility as well
David, I can disprove you in one example.
If sustenance-level income disincentivized work, then everyone would only work the bare minimum of hours needed to make a sustenance level income. Everyone who is working more than that, paid or unpaid, is disproving your theory that gaining a barely sustenance level of income leads to quitting work.
You're proving the exact point. The labor market vastly outsupplies jobs, because of technological advances. This will continue and get worse and worse for the rest of history.
1. Because the labor market vastly outsupplies jobs, wages are depressed so low that the poor live at barely-sustenance level despite working long hours.
2. Because they work long hours at barely sustenance level, it is extremely difficult for them to get any time or resources to develop more marketable skills
You argue for maintaining that broken system in perpetuity.
It is an absolute lie that people just give up and do nothing. Look at the internet - the vast majority of it is built on unpaid labor. Look at how many organizations are heavily staffed by volunteers. Look at how many people do activist work or run other shyt in their spare time. Look at how many people do jobs that they love, or would do a job that they love if they weren't forced to do a crap job for the money. Look at how many people do FAR more than the bare-bones work because they want to make more than bare-bones money.
If there was a UBI, more people would:
1. Spend time getting the skills and training they need to do the work they really want to do.
2. Start their own businesses without fear of starving when the business fails.
3. Stay home to farm their family's ancestral land which they love, without fear of starving with a single bad crop.
4. Do socially meaningful work like starting charities, environmental restoration, activism, etc. which often is needed in this world but capitalism doesn't pay for.
5. Use their artistic, musical, or literary talents
6. Be moms who stayed home to raise their own kids or elderly parents instead of being forced to be two-worker households supporting an already over-supplied labor market
I could go on and on. There are a ton of reasons to work besides making a sustenance level income, and most of them are a hell of a lot more meaningful than doing menial, degrading tasks for rich people that rich people can do themselves, or mind-numbing machine-like tasks that could be replaced by machines in the next 5-10 years anyway.
There's already a huge labor surplus in India, and at least half the jobs are completely useless things that only exist because every rich person likes having half-a-dozen servants to do their bidding and because human labor has become so cheap that it's easier than machines. Even if half the labor dropped out, all that would mean is that mechanization would start a decade sooner and rich people would have to wipe their own asses.
Very little of the capital coming into India is basing their business model on no-skill menial labor. If it is, the business model is just going to get thrown out in favor of robots within the current workers' lives anyway. And the idea that UBI subsidizes laziness is ridiculous. You seriously claiming that human beings are so brain dead that they only thing that keeps them from sitting home and masturbating all day on barely-sustenance income is the threat of starvation?
No one wants to barely survive unless they got mental issues. But people who are desperate to make ends meet are forced to do mind-numblingly stupid, degrading tasks in India just because the rich people artificially keep the money supply low. A UBI would actually allow people to get an education, develop skills, start inventive businesses, do meaningful work, etc. because they're aren't living hand-to-mouth from the age of 13 anymore.
I have a friend, 22 years old, brilliant kid, can read and write in four languages (English, Hindi, Urdu, Arabic). He's been working since he was 10 years old and his dad died. At first he worked 10 hours/day after school making about a dollar a day, then when he finished 8th grade when he was 13, he dropped out of school completely to work 16 hours/day making $2.50. When he was 16 he was able to move out of sweatshop screen-printing labor (breathing toxic fumes all day) into sales, and then a year ago he got a job driving a car for a rich person. Now he's been working full-time for ten years, is up to about $3.50 a day, though he doesn't have to work quite as many hours anymore. His dream is that he will slowly build up more and more work that he will one day, in the far future, save up enough to buy his own car and then work as a driver full-time.
That's the dream available for hundreds of millions of Indians right now, even the brilliant ones, if they grew up in the wrong situation. Best-case scenario, you do menial labor driving rich people around crowded streets so that they can maintain the status symbol of never driving themselves.
If a society builds a tractor which used to do the work of 100 men, then it's not a "free lunch", it is the benefit of society.
Apparently, you operate in a world where only rich people get a free lunch, just sitting around all day on their "investments" while real working people do the work that makes their money. It's not like those rich people invented the fukking tractor. Yet you want the rich people to reap the entire benefit of every labor-saving device that is ever invented, while poor people are forced to do meaningless labor....just because.
The collaborative work of society has developed tons of labor-saving devices in the last 200 years which should mean that we all only work 15-20 hours a week tops in money-chasing jobs and spend the rest of our time pursuing meaningful work that may or may not pay a wage. Rich people keep the money supply artificially low just to ensure that the poor people stay slaves.
If sustenance-level income disincentivized work, then everyone would only work the bare minimum of hours needed to make a sustenance level income. Everyone who is working more than that, paid or unpaid, is disproving your theory that gaining a barely sustenance level of income leads to quitting work.
You're proving the exact point. The labor market vastly outsupplies jobs, because of technological advances. This will continue and get worse and worse for the rest of history.
1. Because the labor market vastly outsupplies jobs, wages are depressed so low that the poor live at barely-sustenance level despite working long hours.
2. Because they work long hours at barely sustenance level, it is extremely difficult for them to get any time or resources to develop more marketable skills
You argue for maintaining that broken system in perpetuity.
It is an absolute lie that people just give up and do nothing. Look at the internet - the vast majority of it is built on unpaid labor. Look at how many organizations are heavily staffed by volunteers. Look at how many people do activist work or run other shyt in their spare time. Look at how many people do jobs that they love, or would do a job that they love if they weren't forced to do a crap job for the money. Look at how many people do FAR more than the bare-bones work because they want to make more than bare-bones money.
If there was a UBI, more people would:
1. Spend time getting the skills and training they need to do the work they really want to do.
2. Start their own businesses without fear of starving when the business fails.
3. Stay home to farm their family's ancestral land which they love, without fear of starving with a single bad crop.
4. Do socially meaningful work like starting charities, environmental restoration, activism, etc. which often is needed in this world but capitalism doesn't pay for.
5. Use their artistic, musical, or literary talents
6. Be moms who stayed home to raise their own kids or elderly parents instead of being forced to be two-worker households supporting an already over-supplied labor market
I could go on and on. There are a ton of reasons to work besides making a sustenance level income, and most of them are a hell of a lot more meaningful than doing menial, degrading tasks for rich people that rich people can do themselves, or mind-numbing machine-like tasks that could be replaced by machines in the next 5-10 years anyway.
There's already a huge labor surplus in India, and at least half the jobs are completely useless things that only exist because every rich person likes having half-a-dozen servants to do their bidding and because human labor has become so cheap that it's easier than machines. Even if half the labor dropped out, all that would mean is that mechanization would start a decade sooner and rich people would have to wipe their own asses.
Very little of the capital coming into India is basing their business model on no-skill menial labor. If it is, the business model is just going to get thrown out in favor of robots within the current workers' lives anyway. And the idea that UBI subsidizes laziness is ridiculous. You seriously claiming that human beings are so brain dead that they only thing that keeps them from sitting home and masturbating all day on barely-sustenance income is the threat of starvation?
No one wants to barely survive unless they got mental issues. But people who are desperate to make ends meet are forced to do mind-numblingly stupid, degrading tasks in India just because the rich people artificially keep the money supply low. A UBI would actually allow people to get an education, develop skills, start inventive businesses, do meaningful work, etc. because they're aren't living hand-to-mouth from the age of 13 anymore.
I have a friend, 22 years old, brilliant kid, can read and write in four languages (English, Hindi, Urdu, Arabic). He's been working since he was 10 years old and his dad died. At first he worked 10 hours/day after school making about a dollar a day, then when he finished 8th grade when he was 13, he dropped out of school completely to work 16 hours/day making $2.50. When he was 16 he was able to move out of sweatshop screen-printing labor (breathing toxic fumes all day) into sales, and then a year ago he got a job driving a car for a rich person. Now he's been working full-time for ten years, is up to about $3.50 a day, though he doesn't have to work quite as many hours anymore. His dream is that he will slowly build up more and more work that he will one day, in the far future, save up enough to buy his own car and then work as a driver full-time.
That's the dream available for hundreds of millions of Indians right now, even the brilliant ones, if they grew up in the wrong situation. Best-case scenario, you do menial labor driving rich people around crowded streets so that they can maintain the status symbol of never driving themselves.
If a society builds a tractor which used to do the work of 100 men, then it's not a "free lunch", it is the benefit of society.
Apparently, you operate in a world where only rich people get a free lunch, just sitting around all day on their "investments" while real working people do the work that makes their money. It's not like those rich people invented the fukking tractor. Yet you want the rich people to reap the entire benefit of every labor-saving device that is ever invented, while poor people are forced to do meaningless labor....just because.
The collaborative work of society has developed tons of labor-saving devices in the last 200 years which should mean that we all only work 15-20 hours a week tops in money-chasing jobs and spend the rest of our time pursuing meaningful work that may or may not pay a wage. Rich people keep the money supply artificially low just to ensure that the poor people stay slaves.
David_TheMan
Banned
People do work bare minimum to maximize the personal benefit of government subsidy and they do that now in the US with just welfare, that has checks in place,, unlike a UBI, which would be even worse.
Scientific also backs up the basic logical inferences that I've made
http://conference.nber.org/confer/2015/Macro15/Barnichon_Figura.pdf
I'm speaking of reality, so if you think you can counter reality by government program I feel bad for you, because you are going to fail. What you are suggesting isn't something new, entitlements in Rome, England, you don't ease poverty by redistributing the wealth of the productive class. You decrease it by increasing productivity, by increasing markets, and easing regulation and allowing capitalism to thrive. To blame technology for labor shortage is a old school luddite argument that has long been debunked, and a perfect example of debunking it would be Milton Friedman's answer to chinese economist about jobs, you can get more jobs by eliminating ditch diggers and machinary, have people dig with spoons, there will be jobs for days, but would that increase prosperity and economic mobility? No it would simply work people needlessly for minimum wage as possible. Now as a result of money leaving china for cheaper markets, india has become a viable alternative, on top of that outsourcing has sent large swatches of technical and service sector related jobs, it takes time but india experience real wage growth for 2 years straight, does this mean everyone will live happily ever after? No, will the competition tend to drive down wages? Yes, but if open trade occured and you removed regulatory hurdles that cripple the private sector their, legallly, you would probably see more job opportunities open up for those there.
Indian Economy: Population, Facts, GDP, Corruption, Business, Trade, FDI
Heritage foundation review of economic policy and freedom in India point to a very broken system, I would think if you want improvement you would act to actually change the system, not payoff the poor to support it even more with a wealth transfer, that we know will disincentivize work based on its very principle of operation and humans want to get as much for as little work as they can get away with.
Not to mention the tax burden is already very high, this would increase that burden, and there is no doubt the UBI once implemented would steadily have pressure to increase and burden the wage earning class massively.
It isn't a lie at all, its documented and I have posted said documentation and research on it. Volunteers volunteer because they have the financial ability to do so, if you need money you dont have the luxury to give your time and labor for free. WE are talking about workers who need to earn, and if you give them an option of getting something for nothing they will do the nothing, espescially if it works out better for them financially to keep their private productivity below a certain rate so they have no tax penalty or lose no money doing the least possible. Just think if I can get a subsidy as long as I make $200 and under a month, if I got a raise to say 250 a month, but that incurred a tax penalty of say 20% why would I ever do more work or even take a job that would increase my skill level to at that rate? I'm incentivized not to, because I do more work for the same amount of money.
A UBI doesn't encourage people to do any of those things, because there is no incentive to better one's self.
On top of again acknowledging that it will actually attack and hurt the productive class, and drive those in the low end of the productive class to not work because the marginal benefit of doing so has been erased. It makes a permanant welfare subsidy class who will support the status quo because they are no dependent on it, and drives high earners out of country and disincentivizes them from even trying to get marginally better because of penalty. This isn't good on the logical level, we've seen it play out on the actual level with the poor laws in england and with the farming entitlements in Rome that drove farmers out of business and to the Roman's government dole.
If there is a labor surplus then you act in ways to engage the surplus, not try to milk those who have stored or earned wealth. Again a UBI will not change anything, it will produce more societal fracture though, because you will have the always larger lower dependent class increasing their demand for more and more at the expense of the working class.
David_TheMan
Banned
From my study it seems very little capital comes in because of government regulation
Heritage article.
We get it no one wants to barely survive, its easier to live off confiscated goods of others. We know that. We also know that subsidization of an activity leads to more of that activity. You want less productivity and more labor surplus, institute a UBI and watch how it absolutely wrecks your economy. The people will be forming food lines off this.
So what good for him.
Good for them, its their life to live, not yours.
society doesn't build a tractor. a company of men or a person builds a tractor. Its used for the benefit of a property owner, it increases that person's efficiency and hopefully pays for itself in the long run. It isn't a free lunch, its capital investment and it has a return. So even equating that to a free lunch shows a fundamental ignorance of basic economics.
Free people get "free lunch" because they have access to the reins of power to tilt the game in their favor, in getting government subsidy for themselves or their companies. I"m against that just as much as I'm against giving the poor subsidy, and I know for a fact the poor subsidy is less than the rich men's subsidy. That said emotional appeals to stealing money from the productive to the non-productive class doesn't sway me, and using flawed economic examples based on a complete lack of understand for capital investment and innovation and the benefit of that investment and innovation definitely won't change my opinion. You want better life, open of trade and remove barriers, this will drive the cost of goods down and lower the cost for the standard of living. This lowered cost allows more disposable income, disposable income allows for capital investment and/or more retail opportunity which enlarges consumer market and creates more jobs, which feeds into itself in creating higher efficiency, driving the cost of goods down, and feeding into itself lifting all of society up, instead of killing all economic growth with a UBI, and driving people out of the labor force and disincentivizing them from ever even getting in.
Society isn't a person, body, or corporation. Its just a term we used for grouping, it is incorporeal. In being incorporeal it has no ability to "own", "develop", or "be owed" anything. Individuals or groups of individuals of society do have the ability to develop, create, break, own, or be in debt. It is those individuals who reap the benefit of labor saving devices and the market of individuals they have the capacity to serve reap the benefit of that, but the ownership ends outside those who used their capital to invest in those advancement. You work what it takes to live what you need to live, period, you aren't entitled to a specific amount of time to work, you aren't entitled to the money of others that you haven't worked on. So your whole last section reaps of a attitude and arrogance of entitlement based off economic ignorance in my view.
As for the money supply it is better it is finite than the alternative to too large or hyperinflated, you think a low money supply is bad ask the millionaires in Zimbabwe if you would like the alternative. Look at the historical example of the Weimer Republic. Look at the Roman debasing of the denarius, a debased currency is worthless and is used to ensure the poor always stay where they are, it doesn't help anyone either. Its far better to have a currency fixed that maintains its value that the alternative, which taxes the earning power of the money held in storage by decreasing its value constantly.
David_TheMan
Banned
Hayek was a defector of the Austrian school. He switched to the Chicago monetarist strain of economics, his mentor Mises was very hurt by his defection. That said I believe Hazlitt had an excellent take down of a UBI or Negative Income Tax. Hazlitt supported a UBI initially but turned against it later.
Fallacies of the Negative Income Tax
Friedman's Mistake