Silver Stackers logo

Silver Stackers

Discussion forum for those
who love to stack precious metals

You are not logged in.

Announcement

This forum is archived. Please visit the new forums at www.silverstackers.com. Password reset may be required!

#126 2016-11-24 22:36:47

mmm....shiney!
Silver Stacker
From: 昆士蘭
Registered: 2010-11-15
Posts: 16,000
Trades :   102 
Website

Re: Universal basic income

Big A.D. wrote:

I never said churn creates wealth.

My question is what do we do when improving economic efficiency doesn't involve human input any more and, in fact, requires that there is actually less human involvement?

My apologies, I thought you were advocating a UBI as it would put more money in the hands of everyone, thereby increasing their spending capacity.

What evidence do you have that improving efficiencies (by that I assume you are referring to technological efficiencies) will lead to job losses? Because this is what "less human involvement" means and is the main argument used in defending a UBI.

Big A.D. wrote:

Or put another way, how do we continue to keep putting people out of work without introducing some way of leveling the playing field?

I think you'll have to examine why industries are putting people out of work. Look at Ford as an example.

Last edited by mmm....shiney! (2016-11-24 22:39:09)


The woolgrower's target shall be the good thriving of his flock and its pastures, and so of himself and those whose livelihoods depend on his enterprise.
"The Woolgrower's Companion", 1906.

Offline

#127 2016-11-24 22:37:05

Phil_Stacker
Member
From: Brisbane, QLD, Australia
Registered: 2016-11-05
Posts: 266
Trades :   12 

Re: Universal basic income

A more efficient economy means, by definition, more people working but working in industries most efficient for them to be working in.

Would you rather we got rid of all computers and had thousands of typing-pool people, thousands of accountants and thousands of auditors for even a medium sized company?  All those jobs are gone but we sill have relatively low unemployment.  In fact, computers facilitate companies to grow to the point they can employ more people than if they had all that admin overhead.

What makes you think that making the things even more efficient - that may remove people from MANY jobs - will mean that the net effect is less people in jobs?

Offline

The following 2 users say thank you for this post: mmm....shiney!, bordsilver

#128 2016-11-24 22:48:05

Jislizard
Silver Stacker
From: Australia
Registered: 2011-04-07
Posts: 7,479
Trades :   57 

Re: Universal basic income

The question is, what do we do when every job that can be made casual has been and automation means that very few people need to do any actual, full-time work? We already have a problem with under-employment.

We have a nice country, great weather, unique wildlife, low population, tourism should be a main focus, lots of people want to come to Australia for a holiday so the service industry should be given as much prominence as it can. People can explore their creative sides, produce art and books and films and TV shows or invent something, work on a cure for something in all that spare time.

The problem isn't with under employment, we do not exist in order to work, it is with money. Money is a human invention and it has certainly served a purpose as our civilization has evolved. When it stops being useful and becomes a barrier then it needs to be changed.

Money isn't a force of nature, it isn't like King Canute commanding the tide to turn back. We invented it and we can keep improving it.

The problem is with the power that money gives to some people and their desire to keep that power. Money and debt are a great way of controlling people.

The UBI would solve the lack of money. If there is not enough work to be done because machines have done it all then I would say that is a goal worth working towards. The work is still being done but it is freeing humans up to do more worthwhile things.


Now stacking: World Junk Silver Coins.
Swap your older, worn, dirty fractional silver coins for fiat, .999 rounds or legal tender. 
Individual coins, mixed lots or bulk. 
Not looking for Australian, bent, holed or damaged coins, thanks!

Offline

#129 2016-11-24 23:45:20

mmm....shiney!
Silver Stacker
From: 昆士蘭
Registered: 2010-11-15
Posts: 16,000
Trades :   102 
Website

Re: Universal basic income

Jislizard wrote:

The work is still being done but it is freeing humans up to do more worthwhile things.

Which is already happening and has been occurring since the wheel was invented because of technological innovation alone, without the need to resort to a permanent line of credit courtesy of the government printing presses or wealth redistribution policies.


The woolgrower's target shall be the good thriving of his flock and its pastures, and so of himself and those whose livelihoods depend on his enterprise.
"The Woolgrower's Companion", 1906.

Offline

The following user says thank you for this post: Jislizard

#130 2016-11-25 00:45:56

Big A.D.
Silver Stacker
From: Sydney
Registered: 2009-10-29
Posts: 6,449
Trades :   52 

Re: Universal basic income

mmm....shiney! wrote:
Big A.D. wrote:

I never said churn creates wealth.

My question is what do we do when improving economic efficiency doesn't involve human input any more and, in fact, requires that there is actually less human involvement?

My apologies, I thought you were advocating a UBI as it would put more money in the hands of everyone, thereby increasing their spending capacity.

What evidence do you have that improving efficiencies (by that I assume you are referring to technological efficiencies) will lead to job losses? Because this is what "less human involvement" means and is the main argument used in defending a UBI.

Rising under-employment.

There's still stuff to be done and we're still creating jobs, but we're getting so efficient at doing some much stuff that we now create more part time jobs than full time jobs. It used to be the other way around. Now, that fine for businesses that want flexibility and don't want to be paying full-timers where a part-timer would suffice, and it's good for workers if they also want flexibility rather than being tied down with a 9-to-5 job, but there's an increasing number of people who want to be working more than they are and those jobs aren't there for them.

Wages growth is both low and less than inflation. People who are working are effectively going backwards.

Put those two together and you basically have a situation where people aren't needed as much as they used to be. Wages aren't rising because employers don't need stuff done because part-timers can't afford to buy much stuff because employers don't need them to do stuff because...

There's local data on this trend and it's also starting to occur in other comparable Western counties. It hasn't really happened before either. We've just got a lot of surplus human capital knocking around that's more expensive to deploy than machines, so it isn't.

Big A.D. wrote:

Or put another way, how do we continue to keep putting people out of work without introducing some way of leveling the playing field?

I think you'll have to examine why industries are putting people out of work. Look at Ford as an example.

Exactly. It used to take hundreds of people to assemble a Ford car. Then they were able to introduce robots to do some of the work and didn't need as many people. Then they found cheaper people and went there instead. As soon as they can build better robots, they'll get rid of some of the cheaper people and eventually they'll build robots that can assemble a car by themselves.

All of that is really quite amazing, but Henry Ford was the guy who started building cars cheap enough so that the people who built them would also be able to afford to buy them.


I am the Leafy Sea Dragon.

Offline

#131 2016-11-25 01:06:24

radiobirdman
Silver Stacker
Registered: 2011-04-25
Posts: 2,300
Trades :   59 

Re: Universal basic income

Maybe we should all share in the Common Wealth of Australia

Australians that is not the someotherforeignshitholecountry  australians

Offline

#132 2016-11-25 01:43:02

mmm....shiney!
Silver Stacker
From: 昆士蘭
Registered: 2010-11-15
Posts: 16,000
Trades :   102 
Website

Re: Universal basic income

Big A.D. wrote:

Rising under-employment.

There's still stuff to be done and we're still creating jobs, but we're getting so efficient at doing some much stuff that we now create more part time jobs than full time jobs. It used to be the other way around. Now, that fine for businesses that want flexibility and don't want to be paying full-timers where a part-timer would suffice, and it's good for workers if they also want flexibility rather than being tied down with a 9-to-5 job, but there's an increasing number of people who want to be working more than they are and those jobs aren't there for them.

Wages growth is both low and less than inflation. People who are working are effectively going backwards.

Put those two together and you basically have a situation where people aren't needed as much as they used to be. Wages aren't rising because employers don't need stuff done because part-timers can't afford to buy much stuff because employers don't need them to do stuff because...

There's local data on this trend and it's also starting to occur in other comparable Western counties. It hasn't really happened before either. We've just got a lot of surplus human capital knocking around that's more expensive to deploy than machines, so it isn't.

None of those are indicators of technologically created labour obsolescence - they're actually indicators of the failure to centrally plan an economy.

Big A.D. wrote:
mmm....shiney! wrote:
Big A.D. wrote:

Or put another way, how do we continue to keep putting people out of work without introducing some way of leveling the playing field?

I think you'll have to examine why industries are putting people out of work. Look at Ford as an example.

Exactly. It used to take hundreds of people to assemble a Ford car. Then they were able to introduce robots to do some of the work and didn't need as many people. Then they found cheaper people and went there instead. As soon as they can build better robots, they'll get rid of some of the cheaper people and eventually they'll build robots that can assemble a car by themselves.

All of that is really quite amazing, but Henry Ford was the guy who started building cars cheap enough so that the people who built them would also be able to afford to buy them.

And in the process Ford enhanced the wealth and lifestyles of everyone in the world.

But that's not my intention when I identified Ford in my previous post. Ford Australia, an example of an industry that benefitted to the tune of $billions of taxpayer's money because Unions and governments couldn't get their heads around the concept of comparative advantage. Rather, the Unions and successive governments attempted to stem the tide of technological change, clinging to an old-world protectionist policy that diverted valuable and scarce resources (allocation inefficiency) to the manufacture of goods that consumers didn't want (economic inefficiency).

What's that got to do with a UBI? Government subsidies to Ford were effectively a UBI guarantee for Ford workers.


The woolgrower's target shall be the good thriving of his flock and its pastures, and so of himself and those whose livelihoods depend on his enterprise.
"The Woolgrower's Companion", 1906.

Offline

#133 2016-11-25 01:51:53

radiobirdman
Silver Stacker
Registered: 2011-04-25
Posts: 2,300
Trades :   59 

Re: Universal basic income

Ford payed his workers enough to be able to afford his cars, he didn't make cheap cars his workers could afford

Offline

#134 2016-11-25 02:55:47

Big A.D.
Silver Stacker
From: Sydney
Registered: 2009-10-29
Posts: 6,449
Trades :   52 

Re: Universal basic income

mmm....shiney! wrote:
Big A.D. wrote:

Rising under-employment.

There's still stuff to be done and we're still creating jobs, but we're getting so efficient at doing some much stuff that we now create more part time jobs than full time jobs. It used to be the other way around. Now, that fine for businesses that want flexibility and don't want to be paying full-timers where a part-timer would suffice, and it's good for workers if they also want flexibility rather than being tied down with a 9-to-5 job, but there's an increasing number of people who want to be working more than they are and those jobs aren't there for them.

Wages growth is both low and less than inflation. People who are working are effectively going backwards.

Put those two together and you basically have a situation where people aren't needed as much as they used to be. Wages aren't rising because employers don't need stuff done because part-timers can't afford to buy much stuff because employers don't need them to do stuff because...

There's local data on this trend and it's also starting to occur in other comparable Western counties. It hasn't really happened before either. We've just got a lot of surplus human capital knocking around that's more expensive to deploy than machines, so it isn't.

None of those are indicators of technologically created labour obsolescence - they're actually indicators of the failure to centrally plan an economy.

When I started work, my company used to employ a full time bookkeeper.

Then they spent thousands of dollars on a fancy software package and employed a bookkeeper for two days a week.

Today, I have a app on my phone that cost $9.99 and I spend a few hours a month double-checking the figures myself.

It really isn't hard to see examples of human labour being made redundant. What comes next is human intelligence being made redundant. It simply isn't safe to assume that better machines will just result in better jobs that don't involve heavy lifting.

It wasn't that long ago that you could finish Year 10, get a trade and be okay. Now we have large numbers of people finishing degrees and not being able to find full time work. And not just arts degrees either.


Big A.D. wrote:
mmm....shiney! wrote:

I think you'll have to examine why industries are putting people out of work. Look at Ford as an example.

Exactly. It used to take hundreds of people to assemble a Ford car. Then they were able to introduce robots to do some of the work and didn't need as many people. Then they found cheaper people and went there instead. As soon as they can build better robots, they'll get rid of some of the cheaper people and eventually they'll build robots that can assemble a car by themselves.

All of that is really quite amazing, but Henry Ford was the guy who started building cars cheap enough so that the people who built them would also be able to afford to buy them.

And in the process Ford enhanced the wealth and lifestyles of everyone in the world.

But that's not my intention when I identified Ford in my previous post. Ford Australia, an example of an industry that benefitted to the tune of $billions of taxpayer's money because Unions and governments couldn't get their heads around the concept of comparative advantage. Rather, the Unions and successive governments attempted to stem the tide of technological change, clinging to an old-world protectionist policy that diverted valuable and scarce resources (allocation inefficiency) to the manufacture of goods that consumers didn't want (economic inefficiency).

What's that got to do with a UBI? Government subsidies to Ford were effectively a UBI guarantee for Ford workers.

Actually, those subsidies were given to workers at specific companies in specific industries and therefore about as far from universal as you can get without changing the definition of the word "universal". And I agree, they weren't good use of taxpayer funds at all.


I am the Leafy Sea Dragon.

Offline

#135 2016-11-25 03:43:47

mmm....shiney!
Silver Stacker
From: 昆士蘭
Registered: 2010-11-15
Posts: 16,000
Trades :   102 
Website

Re: Universal basic income

Big A.D. wrote:

It really isn't hard to see examples of human labour being made redundant. What comes next is human intelligence being made redundant. It simply isn't safe to assume that better machines will just result in better jobs that don't involve heavy lifting.

Your book keeper would be reallocated to other employment - that's if the government didn't interfere and create high levels of underemployment because of inefficient workplace labour laws and central planning folly.

Big A.D. wrote:

Actually, those subsidies were given to workers at specific companies in specific industries and therefore about as far from universal as you can get without changing the definition of the word "universal".

A UBI is a subsidy. A subsidy that promotes inefficiency.

Last edited by mmm....shiney! (2016-11-25 03:44:13)


The woolgrower's target shall be the good thriving of his flock and its pastures, and so of himself and those whose livelihoods depend on his enterprise.
"The Woolgrower's Companion", 1906.

Offline

#136 2016-11-25 03:51:03

alor
Silver Stacker
From: Pulau Alor ;)
Registered: 2011-06-16
Posts: 4,541
Trades :   39 

Re: Universal basic income

government-debt-snowball.jpg


Hear Say See -> N o t h i n g
May this stacking hobby be my blessing smile

Offline

#137 2016-11-25 04:47:55

millededge
Member
From: camp x-ray, spelling division
Registered: 2010-09-04
Posts: 2,474
Trades :   16 

Re: Universal basic income

Life is a struggle. Our brains are wired for it. Even if it is taken away by UBI, someone has to pay and ultimately, struggle resurfaces.

No way round it. Equalism is humbug.

Offline

#138 2016-11-25 05:06:49

millededge
Member
From: camp x-ray, spelling division
Registered: 2010-09-04
Posts: 2,474
Trades :   16 

Re: Universal basic income

It is better to promote success and adversity is a requisite.

UBI is a form of encouragement of failure.

Some people are born to failure and basic income is ok by me for this group, as there is no option.

But, those of us who remember the generous Hawke era dole recall the fact that minimal evidence was necessary to demonstrate employment-seeking behaviour.

I had several intelligent friends who opted for a life of the dole to their latter detriment. Since there was UBI, why bother?

Now it is more serious. UBI is exploited by those in our country that will procreate and in great numbers, often with a diametrically opposed religion to the one which is evident in our country from inception.

UBI is communism. History shows the mass homicide that comes next and who profits.

Offline

The following user says thank you for this post: bordsilver

#139 2016-11-25 05:13:19

millededge
Member
From: camp x-ray, spelling division
Registered: 2010-09-04
Posts: 2,474
Trades :   16 

Re: Universal basic income

willrocks wrote:

More talk of a basic income. Sounds like communism to me.

The case for a universal basic income, no questions asked
What if the right to an income was as basic as the right to vote?

In Australia you don't get money unless you work, or can prove you've been trying to find work or are disabled or jump through some other sort of hoop. At 65 you get the pension.

...

http://www.smh.com.au/comment/the-case- … ssj23.html

I didn't even read the OP and you came to the same conclusion! big_smile

Offline

#140 2016-11-25 10:06:12

radiobirdman
Silver Stacker
Registered: 2011-04-25
Posts: 2,300
Trades :   59 

Re: Universal basic income

JulieW wrote:
mmm....shiney! wrote:
JulieW wrote:

As I understand it, the Universal Basic Income model is proposing that it replace social service benefits (and its associated industry - meaning of course more unemployment), so it encourages work, in that, what you earn working as an employee or entrepreneur is the cream on the Mare Antoinette Cake.

How does paying someone not to work encourage someone to work?

I think that the ceiling on earnings for social service recipients no longer applies - that is the incentive to sit on your verandah disappears because you don't get a pay drop in your dole or whatever, when you earn, such as happens currently. ie. you can never earn more than the dole plus $100 (?) per week if you're on the dole without your rate of pay reducing.

So you sit on the veranda for $400 (?) a week and do 6 hours work to add $100 to your paycheck, or work 40 hours for $600 a week, giving up 32 hours of your time for an extra $100 in the extremely rewarding career that pays you your $15 an hour. That's a bad deal no matter how you view it.

Doesn't seem to be much incentive in that picture, but if everyone including you gets say (400) a week and you work 40 hours to get 600 you get to keep 1000, which looks more attractive from my point of view. (Unless your aim is to sit on the verandah all your life which some will do. But at least they wont have to rob and steal for food and lodging).

This is all theoretical of course, since the Protestant Work Ethic is so entrenched in Australia et al, that any politician following through on this will only last til the next election or lynch mob.

Spot on Jules, when I moved to Melbourne I was in-between jobs about 17 yrs old went to social security got on the rock n roll got sent to the CES across the road and got asked if I wanted to do casual work
said yes offcourse, got told not to report any income casual jobs don't count, was clearing $600 a week the dole payed me tax.
Then hawkie f&cked it for all the Fabien prick

Offline

#141 2017-03-06 06:37:58

JulieW
Silver Stacker
From: Australia
Registered: 2010-10-14
Posts: 11,132

Re: Universal basic income

Some positive research has been unearthed.

The experiment had started in Dauphin, a town north-west of Winnipeg, in 1974. Everybody was guaranteed a basic income ensuring that no one fell below the poverty line. And for four years, all went well. But then a conservative government was voted into power. The new Canadian cabinet saw little point in the expensive experiment. So when it became clear there was no money left for an analysis of the results, the researchers decided to pack their files away. In 2,000 boxes.

When Forget found them, 30 years later, no one knew what, if anything, the experiment had demonstrated. For three years she subjected the data to all manner of statistical analysis. And no matter what she tried, the results were the same every time. The experiment – the longest and best of its kind – had been a resounding success.

Forget discovered that the people in Dauphin had not only become richer, but also smarter and healthier. The school performance of children improved substantially. The hospitalisation rate decreased by as much as 8.5%. Domestic violence was also down, as were mental health complaints. And people didn't quit their jobs – the only ones who worked a little less were new mothers and students, who stayed in school longer.

The great thing about money is that people can use it to buy things they need, instead of things experts think they need
So here's what I've learned. When it comes to poverty, we should stop pretending to know better than poor people. The great thing about money is that people can use it to buy things they need instead of things self-appointed experts think they need. Imagine how many brilliant would-be entrepreneurs, scientists and writers are now withering away in scarcity. Imagine how much energy and talent we would unleash if we got rid of poverty once and for all.

While it won't solve all the world's ills – and ideas such as a rent cap and more social housing are necessary in places where housing is scarce – a basic income would work like venture capital for the people. We can't afford not to do it – poverty is hugely expensive. The costs of child poverty in the US are estimated at $500bn (£410bn) each year, in terms of higher healthcare spending, less education and more crime. It's an incredible waste of potential. It would cost just $175bn, a quarter of the country's current military budget, to do what Dauphin did long ago: eradicate poverty.


Utopia for Realists and How We Can Get There by Rutger Bregman – digested read
Read more
That should be our goal. The time for small thoughts and little nudges is past. The time has come for new, radical ideas. If this sounds utopian to you, then remember that every milestone of civilisation – the end of slavery, democracy, equal rights for men and women – was once a utopian fantasy too.

We've got the research, we've got the evidence, and we've got the means. Now, 500 years after Thomas More first wrote about basic income, we need to update our worldview. Poverty is not a lack of character. Poverty is a lack of cash.

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr … sic-income

Offline

The following user says thank you for this post: Davros10

#142 2017-03-06 11:27:31

Stoic Phoenix
Silver Stacker
From: little things big things grow.
Registered: 2014-11-12
Posts: 3,024
Trades :   187 
Website

Re: Universal basic income

^ Cute story Jules but far from true.
When I saw "statistical analysis" in that piece it immediately raised a red flag.

University of Manitoba economist Evelyn Forget  conducted an quasi-experimental analysis that compared health outcomes of Dauphin residents with other Manitoba residents. This research did not use the Mincome data directly, but under the assumption that if a high proportion of Dauphin residents participated in Mincome, one should be able to discern differences in social, economic and health outcomes for that group, compared to the general population.

There are 3 types of lies in this world...lies, damn lies and statistics.


www.searchnstay.com    ....for all your accommodation needs worldwide

Offline

The following user says thank you for this post: bordsilver

#143 2017-03-06 12:17:55

whay
Member
Registered: 2016-01-08
Posts: 49
Trades :   

Re: Universal basic income

>There are 3 types of lies in this world...lies, damn lies and statistics.

Not forgetting the most fashionable type....
"I did not have sexual relations with that woman" 42nd Pres :0)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KiIP_KDQmXs

Offline

Board footer

Powered by FluxBB