New California Bill Proposes $1,000-a-Month Universal Basic Income (newsweek.com) 459
1 out of 8 Americans live in California. Now a proposed California law "would provide most adults in the state with a universal basic income of $1,000 per month, similar to the proposed plan of former presidential candidate Andrew Yang," reports Newsweek:
The California Universal Basic Income (UBI) Program was introduced by Democratic California State Assemblymember Evan Low on Thursday. Low was the co-chair of Yang's campaign and the proposal bears a striking similarity to the former candidate's national plan... The program would be paid for with a state value-added tax of 10 percent on goods and services, with exemptions for groceries, medicine, medical supplies, clothing, textbooks and other items. Recipients of several programs, including the state's Medicaid plan, would be ineligible...
Funding the program with a value-added tax has been blasted by some who believe such a tax would disproportionately burden the poor. Concerns have also been raised over potentially forcing people to choose between UBI and other existing public assistance programs... Proponents of UBI argue that the Yang plan and others could counter the anticipated problem of increasing automation inevitably leading to widespread unemployment.
Experts warn that a large percentage of the workforce is likely to be decimated by automation, with some studies estimating as many as 73 million jobs eliminated by 2030.
The California Universal Basic Income (UBI) Program was introduced by Democratic California State Assemblymember Evan Low on Thursday. Low was the co-chair of Yang's campaign and the proposal bears a striking similarity to the former candidate's national plan... The program would be paid for with a state value-added tax of 10 percent on goods and services, with exemptions for groceries, medicine, medical supplies, clothing, textbooks and other items. Recipients of several programs, including the state's Medicaid plan, would be ineligible...
Funding the program with a value-added tax has been blasted by some who believe such a tax would disproportionately burden the poor. Concerns have also been raised over potentially forcing people to choose between UBI and other existing public assistance programs... Proponents of UBI argue that the Yang plan and others could counter the anticipated problem of increasing automation inevitably leading to widespread unemployment.
Experts warn that a large percentage of the workforce is likely to be decimated by automation, with some studies estimating as many as 73 million jobs eliminated by 2030.
Funded by VAT (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Another question, are they not already bankrupt? (California that is)
While I am asking questions, how is this similar to Alaska's Permanent Fund Dividend which is not money that has been stolen from hard working Americans via tax.
Re:Funded by VAT (Score:4, Insightful)
One question here, Illegal immigrants?
Illegal immigrants pay VAT (and sales tax), so no problem there.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
They pay income tax too. They just can't declare it, and of course no refund.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Of course, if they are smart, they declare a zillion dependents to get their withholding reduced.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Heh, doesn't work like that, but I guess you are free to throw them out, and then I'm sure you'll be perfectly happy picking your own lettuce, or maybe you prefer to pay twenty bucks a head. You're gonna need more than a thousand a month though.
Re: Funded by VAT (Score:5, Insightful)
Ethics. Try them out some time. You might like them. But they don't come free.
Re: (Score:3)
I think the "statue of limitations" of worrying about things like that SO far back in the past, have passed.
I'm not terribly worried about anything the happened more than maybe 75-80 years ago, it is what it is, deal with it and move on.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Heh, doesn't work like that,
I don't remember my employers ever asking for social security numbers or other proof of the number of dependands I claim. They don't care if the witholding is correct or not, it will be your burden to fix it at the end of the year.
Unless of course you don't plan to file. Then it's definitely in your best interest to minimize the witholding.
Re:Funded by VAT (Score:4, Insightful)
Many do not pay income tax, since they are often paid cash "under the table".
Re: (Score:3)
It's worse than that. Something like 20% of eligible taxpayers do not claim the EITC, which is specifically designed to help low income people. That's like 6m people who could have gotten a couple thousand dollars if they'd either filed taxes or if they did they'd claimed it.
Regarding the GP, the thing about cash under the table is that it plateaus really fast as you either make more money or as the business you're in grows, unless maybe you're a drug dealer. People just don't tend to carry around thousands
Re:HEY EDITORDAVID! (Score:5, Insightful)
Socialism, yes. Communism, no. This is more Norway than Stalin.
Re:HEY EDITORDAVID! (Score:5, Insightful)
Why don't we wait for record unemployment and wage losses to try and fix it?
Because we have already been waiting 300 years for automation to cause poverty and mass unemployment. Yet, disappointingly, incomes have soared twenty-fold and unemployment has remained stubbornly low. We are sick of waiting.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:HEY EDITORDAVID! (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
I work at a place that writes poetry. They write poetry with only paper and pencils. When their pencils become dull, there are workers that come and sharpen the pencils for the writers (the writers are to busy writing to be bothered to sharpen a pencil), using mechanical pencil-sharpeners. When the mechanical pencil-sharpeners break, there are other workers that repair the pencil-sharpeners. In order to organize all of this into a profitable effort, there are managers, and committees in place. All in a
Re:HEY EDITORDAVID! (Score:5, Insightful)
Why don't we wait for record unemployment and wage losses to try and fix it?
Because we have already been waiting 300 years for automation to cause poverty and mass unemployment. Yet, disappointingly, incomes have soared twenty-fold and unemployment has remained stubbornly low. We are sick of waiting.
Let us ignore the fact that for the last 40 years, GDP has been growing but the median purchasing power (let alone median salaries) haven't caught up to inflation and the above-average increase in rent or home ownership. Complex socio-economic shit ain't that well cut and dry, but slogans are truly cathartic.
Re:HEY EDITORDAVID! (Score:5, Informative)
"Low unemployment is not what it seems. 94% of jobs created between 2005-2015 were temp or contractor jobs without benefits; people working gigs to make ends meet is increasingly the norm. Real wages have been flat or even declining."
The Unemployment Rate might be the worst. Labor force participation rate down to 62.9% same as El Salvador and Dominican Republic. 1 in 5 prime working age men hasn’t worked in a year. 94 million out of the workforce. 44% of recent grads underemployed. 94% of new jobs are temp. 57% of Americans can’t afford an unexpected $500 bill. Financial insecurity reigns. Suicides at record highs. Life expectancy declining 3 straight years in part because 8 Americans die of drugs every hour. Business starts, marriage, interstate migration all at record lows. Median wages have been stagnant for decades. Meanwhile housing costs, education and healthcare costs have skyrocketed. This economy is increasingly punitive. Putting rosy stats on it just shows how perverse the stats are. We need new measurements for a human-centered economy.
Quoting Andrew Yang.
Re: HEY EDITORDAVID! (Score:3)
Sometimes I wonder why is it that reasonable candidates don't have a chance regardless of which side of the spectrum they come from.
Gosh, I'd love to hear politicians talk like normal people for a change (I saw mr. Yang on Rogan's and liked quite a bit what he had to say).
Their own party will push the reasonable people aside. I've seen it happen in different countries too. As if the political class's immune system attacks anything that is sane...
Re:HEY EDITORDAVID! (Score:5, Insightful)
FUCK THE STATS!!! THEY DONT SUPPORT MY NARATIVE! IT "FEELS" BAD (ORANGE MAN BAD)!!!! This is the weakest argument ever. We are landing rockets. More people are living better lives. Sorry if that fact is inconvenient for you.
Really? Didn't we just elected a pussy-grabbing nationalist because 'Murka ain't winning no more and that millions of uneducated males are having a "deaths of despair" social epidemic?
Some people are living better lives (I've almost doubled my salary since 2008 for instance, and I was already well off back then.)
Others, not so much. Sure, it's great that people are working in great numbers. But it is not so great when they have to juggle two (or even three) part-time jobs with no benefits and no chance to acrue wealth through education or home ownership.
I entered the job market in 1989, did all kinds of jobs and prospered. If I had started it today, I'd be fucked.
There are deep structural issues affecting African-American and Latino communities as well as while males in the Rust Belt and Rural areas. Regardless of the reasons why (self-defeating cultural issues maybe, or the game is rigged maybe?), I cannot pretend that shit ain't happening just because by luck, timing and circumstances my very hard work has panned out a life of prosperity for me.
A society that is built like that is not one that can prosper forever. We are more and more resembling Brazil in terms of disparity than a first world nation.
Hell, EU countries are beating us at the American Dream even though we post much nicer numbers at every quarterly report. I don't know about you all, but that kind of shit can't go on for long without bad shit happening down the road when our kids (educated or not) are old enough to enter the workforce.
Re:HEY EDITORDAVID! (Score:5, Interesting)
Most people voted for him because he was the only that even said the word jobs, even if he have no intention to fix it.
The left is so shoved down into the social justice nonsense they can't hear what people have to say anymore, so they can't promise things the people want.
Yang was probably the only candidate that could counter the jobs jobs jobs talk from trump, but "muh socialism".
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: HEY EDITORDAVID! (Score:4, Insightful)
I do not want them moving to my state. Part of the reason the California is fucked is because of immigration. Not in the way you think Im saying. People are migrating from a somewhat socialist environment, fleeing the shit holes that they came from. However, they come here and collectively think that they should embrace the same ideas that fucked over their previous country.
I do not want any Californians moving to my state because they trashed their own. They wont learn a lesson, and will only resume trashing their new area. They are like a virus. They consume all the resources where they live until it dies. Then they move to a new area and consume all those resources.
Suddenly the expectation of more socialist programs, or gun control in a state that has never had a problem with a proliferation of crime, becomes a thing for no reason. To the californian - its just common sense- to have these policies. Yea, right. Lets see, it is a smoking turd there, so you left. Now you want to bitch about why this place isnt just like there. Common sense my ass. When in Rome do as the romans. Sit down, shut up, learn a way of life that has not yet failed. Stop doing the exact same thing and expect a different result.
Re: HEY EDITORDAVID! (Score:5, Funny)
Yeah California is fucked. Now if only those Californians would stop enjoying their wealth and high standard of living and get with the program of actually being fucked. You can't trust those bastards to do anything right.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:HEY EDITORDAVID! (Score:5, Informative)
Christ you wingnuts are getting dumber and dumber.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:HEY EDITORDAVID! (Score:5, Interesting)
The velocity of money absolutely causes economic growth, and the lack of velocity can absolutely damp it down. If you give me $1k, I'm going to stick it in the bank and think about what I want to do with it. My needs are more than met at the moment, and I have many times that saved up.
But give someone making minimum wage $1k, and they're going to spend it. Why? Because their needs aren't met, and they're not living comfortably. They're going to spend it on car repairs, dentist visits, new furniture, a fancy dinner, etc.
This is why taking money from the rich and giving it to the poor absolutely helps the economy. All that stuff the minimum wage employee is going to spend their money on helps the economy. The people getting that money have more themselves, and they're going to spend it on other things, benefiting yet more people. And along the way, it's taxed repeatedly.
So now that $1k has been turned over a bunch of different times, been taxed a bunch of times, and is actively part of the economy. While my $1k is still sitting in my bank account, because I've decided I want to redo the bathroom, and I'll need to save up a bit more until I can do that. Sure, at some point it will enter the economy, but until then that other $1k has impacted the finances of a dozen or more people.
Money velocity is economic activity, but more importantly, poor to middle class economic activity. That's what lets people climb their way out of poverty. You can definitely have a lot of economic activity in the stock market, but that's neither money velocity nor poor and middle class economic activity. I think money velocity as a more specialized measure and driver of economic growth among the non-wealthy, which should be a primary focus of ours, as that's the bulk of the population.
You're missing something important (Score:3)
About the only time cash is just "sitting around" is if someone specifically takes it out of the system and physically puts
Legal immigrants (Score:4, Insightful)
One question here, Illegal immigrants?
Actually I would have thought that legal immigrants would be the bigger concern for the success of the system. If the system initially starts to work well then there is a risk that California would start attracting lots of low-income immigration from other states would could put the system under a lot of strain.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Of course they mean illegal aliens, too, that can safely be assumed
Yes, we are already bankrupt, and the cost appears to be *240 billion a year*, but that has no bearing on how many people think this is a great idea.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
One question here, Illegal immigrants?
Does it matter? They pay taxes.
Another question, are they not already bankrupt? (California that is)
They run a similar debt/GDP ratio as Texas, so no, likely not.
While I am asking questions, how is this similar to Alaska's Permanent Fund Dividend which is not money that has been stolen from hard working Americans via tax.
Isn't it a central conservative argument that taxing business is just taxing the little guy in the end? How do you think the APF is funded?
The APF is funded by oil money (Score:4, Insightful)
> How do you think the APF is funded?
Since you asked, to simplify things a bit, the APF was funded from the state's oil revenues, then invested and managed by a corporation. It produces checks for about $1-2k per year to each person eligible. There are also certain standards for who is eligible (resident for 1 year+ and intend to remain indefinitely, are not in jail for or convicted of a felony or certain misdemeanors that year).
There are a little over 30 million adults in California [census.gov] based on the latest figures I can see from the Census (n.b. you will have to do some math, taking the total population and subtracting the percentage under 18). I don't know what this proposal means by "most" adults, so let's say that implies at least 50% are eligible. 15M * $1,000 = $15 billion dollars every month. California's budget for 2020-2021 is $222.2 billion [ca.gov], so using another $180 billion (or more) in UBI payments would nearly double that.
I really want to know just how big a sales tax increase it would take to basically double the state's budget. Would they have to double all taxes, or just go crazy with a VAT/sales tax? What's to stop businesses from moving out of state/country? I mean, don't Google & co. already use Ireland as a tax shelter?
Incidentally, if you had Alaska's entire fund, you'd drain it in less than half a year with this spending (its website says that it's worth about $67 billion).
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
California's finances do differ from most states in a crucial way: Their taxation is more progressive than most and raises a higher proportion from corporation tax, which means the tax they raise is highly variable and dependent on wider economic productivity. When the economy is doing well, California's tax revenue benefits more than most and they are swimming in money. When the economy is doing poorly, California is hit hard.
Re: Funded by VAT (Score:5, Informative)
Similar debt to GDP ratio to TX?
Only if you're basically lying: https://www.forbes.com/sites/p... [forbes.com]
California's real ratio is closer to Greece and Italy.
Not to mention that while constantly increasing obligations, California is hemorrhaging people. Good luck with that.
Re: (Score:3)
We were discussing bankruptcy, and I brought up the fact that California's total outstanding debt to GDP ratio was close to Texas (17% to 16%)
Then you dredge up some article that counts every single unfunded pension liability for every level of government in the state?
That's intellectually dishonest.
You're an idiot.
Re:Funded by VAT (Score:4, Insightful)
>">> One question here, Illegal immigrants?"
>"Does it matter? They pay taxes."
They pay sales tax. They usually do not pay Fed or State income taxes, or any other taxes. Working under the table also means there is no money going into SSI or Medicare either. So it doesn't amount to much they are paying.
Re: (Score:3)
One question here, Illegal immigrants?
Does it matter? They pay taxes.
They might pay sales tax but that's it. Then they get benefits from the government for their anchor babies. They take far more than they bring by all accounts. The total cost to the US, including taxes paid by illegals, is around $116 Billion a year. Each illegal costs more money than they bring in, and the open borders folks are dumb enough to try and make up for that loss with more volume. The link below has the details on tax revenue vs costs at both the state and Federal levels. Citation: https:// [fairus.org]
Re: (Score:3)
One question here, Illegal immigrants?
Given California's current policies, of course illegals will be eligible.
A bigger issue is how many people will it attract from other states. We already attract excessive number of homeless. Only natural since it's better to be homeless in California weather than most other states. A thousand a month is a pretty big chunk of money if you are already homeless, but it's not going to help not be homeless given housing costs.
Re:Funded by VAT (Score:5, Insightful)
Funding it with VAT or sales tax is more or less like taking money from people, and giving it back to them. Poorer people pay a higher percentage of their income on sales tax than rich people.
It's true that sales tax is regressive, i.e. poorer people pay a higher percentage of their income on sales tax than do rich people.
Nevertheless, UBI funded from sales tax is progressive, i.e. poorer people get more benefit than richer people. Here's a worked example:
Poor person, income $20, pays $10 in sales tax, gets $25 in UBI
Rich person, income $1000, pays $40 in sales tax, gets $25 in UBI
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Pretty much all the major population centers in California are hours away from the state border... and if gas prices are any indicator, the places just over the border will jack up their prices so there's not really any savings.
And for any truly large purchases, you either have so much money that you're not fussed about a few thousand or you would've been shopping around to begin with... and with current California taxes, and location premiums, you're almost always better shopping out of state (or, dependin
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
For some people, it will help them avoid weeks or months living "between apartments." However, most long term homeless are crazy and/or addicted to drugs. UBI isn't going to change that. There will just be a spike in OD deaths the day the payments hit their accounts. So, in a way, it will reduce homelessness. Giving people who are not competent to handle their own affairs a bunch of cash isn't going to solve the problem. That will have to be done a different way.
Of course UBI won't fix everything, homelessness included. But there are those people who really just can't afford rent, and many of those addicts wouldn't be addicted in the first place if they had a steady income and didn't constantly live on the edge of disaster.
Although specifically for homelessness, "housing first [theguardian.com]" is probably the better solution. And that's certainly one of issues, since proponents tend to advocate for stopping all other programs.
Re:Funded by VAT (Score:4, Insightful)
Also, a lot of life necessities are exempt from sales tax (and this VAT proposal). A big relevant category is groceries---if you are eating at a restaurant or buying prepared hot food, you would be paying sales tax (and possibly this VAT), but if you are buying the ingredients to prepare for yourself, you are already not paying sales tax on those (and you will continue to not pay any tax, at least not directly through this VAT).
Sales tax being regressive isn't exactly a surprise for policy-makers; they try to make it less regressive by exempting basic needs categories from sales tax.
Re: (Score:3)
Nevertheless, UBI funded from sales tax is progressive, i.e. poorer people get more benefit than richer people. Here's a worked example:
Poor person, income $20, pays $10 in sales tax, gets $25 in UBI
Rich person, income $1000, pays $40 in sales tax, gets $25 in UBI
What, actual facts? How dare you counter propaganda lies with actual facts! And solid math at that, no less.
Re: (Score:3)
Funding it with VAT or sales tax is more or less like taking money from people, and giving it back to them.
Not quite... The VAT would reduce the purchasing power of the $1000/month, but there would still be some purchasing power left, And in absolute terms, those earning more than 1000/month Would be paying more VAT than those on the UBI.
Poorer people pay a higher percentage of their income on sales tax
That is irrelevant. What is relevant is that poorer people pay a Lower number of dollars in sa
Re:Funded by VAT (Score:5, Insightful)
Poorer people pay a higher percentage of their income on sales tax
That is irrelevant.
It's not irrelevant. VAT always gives the rich a free pass. No matter how you arrange it, it's either the poor or middle class who end up paying most of it. Same goes for sales tax.
Re: (Score:3)
That's just not true. The truly ultra-rich (as opposed to the low-grade rich) don't control the means of production. Rather, they make their money off of the stock market, indirectly profiting from the hard work of others who either control the mea
Re: Funded by VAT (Score:3)
That's what a wealth tax is for. No need to dick around with income sources.
What about my tent? (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
No of course not. Go buy the one you want. Isn't that the whole point here?
If you're making $250K a year (Score:2)
an extra $12K would go a long ways toward paying for your foie gras and truffles. Maybe even some cake.
Re: (Score:2)
How will they fund this? (Score:2)
California is currently facing a $1.5T debt and needs to raise upwards of $20B in taxes just to leave its current budget with a modest surplus. All the while, people are sleeping on the streets and under bridges everywhere. And now you're proposing to add on $40B+ in taxes just to give it back to the people you took it from?
Re: (Score:2)
That number consists largely of “estimated unfounded liabilities” by Moody’s and not any of the respective agencies. It also conflates state and local debt, and is based on a few selective overly-negative data points (mixing years mainly).
While I am happy to no longer be a California resident, the state is in a healthy position.
Re: (Score:3)
All the while, people are sleeping on the streets and under bridges everywhere.
Worse yet these politicians are trying to solve an "anticipated problem".
Doesn't seem like an anticipated problem to me.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
If you want more people to be homeless... pay people to be homeless. Great idea. Oh and also have lax immigration inforcement so people come from all over to take advantage of the free money.
And so (Score:2)
with some studies estimating as many as 73 million jobs eliminated by 2030.
I assume people in 2030 reading this are having a good laugh.
Can't wait for the $2000+ tax increase (Score:2)
well considering what, 1/3 pay some taxes, then it's more like a $5k+ tax hike.
State wide HaHaHaHaHaHaHa (Score:2)
Just my 2 cents
Welcome back, money fairy! (Score:2, Insightful)
People deserve the government they elect.
I find it very unlikely that the state of California has a money printing press in the basement of their Capitol building, which will be used to print all this money. The California state government cannot print all this money. They must obtain this money from somewhere. The only source of money for the CA state government is income and property taxes. They must get this money in form of new income or property taxes from their current residents, or borrow that money,
Let's do some arithmetic (Score:5, Insightful)
California has 40 million people. At least half of them are adults (more, actually, since the birth rate is so low, but it's a nice round number).
20 million people x $1,000/month is 20 billion dollars per month
They're talking about doubling the state's budget, plus whatever "administrative" graft and corruption it takes to administer the program (which will be considerable).
The VAT would need to be something on the order of 100% to support that. Maybe higher.
They'll try, and the chickens will finally come home to roost. And states cannot file bankruptcy.
Should be a spectacular shit show. From afar.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Maybe this is more complex than 'some basic arithmetic'.
No doubt this will relieve a number of social welfare programs, both reducing money given out, and staff working on these issues, reducing a lot of budgetary expenses.
For many people, that small boost will result in much less reliance on other government support programs, and also possibly reduce crime if not feeling 'forced' into it due to lack of income (and so a reduction in policing and prison costs). Maybe with a little extra people can do more pr
Re:Let's do some arithmetic (Score:5, Insightful)
Here's the problem with reducing other government programs to compensate; if the poor person blows the entire UBI on drugs or gambling, they still need all of the government programs they're currently on. For some reason 'personal responsibility' is anathema to the modern day left, so those programs will remain to cater to the irresponsible, while *also* having to spend money on UBI.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
20 million people x $1,000/month is 20 billion dollars per month
Close but off by a bit. Let's strive for accuracy. The Googles say there are 30,000,000 adults, times $12k a year is $360 billion. I think our annual budget is around $200 billion. As a result, you're basically right, this UBI would triple our current budget. There may be 30 million adults in California but Assemblyman Low apparently isn't one of them.
The only way a UBI is even remotely possible is if we cancel all other social safety net program to fund it (which I think is an interesting but still problem
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Maybe I'm mistaken but I thought the entire point was for UBI to replace all other social safety net programs. Which has the added benefit of saving time, money, and effort from administering the various programs.
No Gain (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
That's a terrible idea; leave existing programs alone and don't dispense money in a publicly known way. Rents would rise, as well as other costs, eating up the whole "giveaway".
I think it will be quite complicated to predict how markets would react. "Quite complicated" is a polite way of saying "impossible." This proposal uses a very large VAT and God only knows how that will affect prices. Some things will go up a lot, others (in very competitive markets) not so much. Similarly, this would shift an enormous amount of spending power around and it would be very hard to predict what that will do with any precision.
That being said, my guess is this would wind up helping those at the
VAT? (Score:2)
Hm, just off hand I can think of few things that are better for expanding the barter economy.
It is time for Californians to wake up and "fire" the lunatics they have running the show here. Alas, I don't think there are any California politicians who have the sanity required to do what is needed.
{O.O}
And don't forget to offer it to illegals as well (Score:2, Insightful)
And don't forget to offer it to illegals as well, for more comedic effect and self-pwnage.
Isn't that around $500 billion per year? (Score:2)
I have no idea what will happen (Score:2)
Perhaps they Should Decriminalize Homelessness (Score:2)
This will be a great boon to the surfers (Score:3)
UBI, like college loans..... (Score:3, Insightful)
Provide "free money", and the costs will rise in tandem. College loans keep rising, but the COST of college rises even faster. A $1K "UBI" will just cause rents to rise to match. "You can afford more? Then it'll COST more!"
Re:Automation killing jobs (Score:5, Insightful)
There’s a reason many industrial revolution era cotton mills in England were built like fortresses, with gun slits and made out of stone and iron - because they were routinely destroyed by the people who thought they were entitled to live the same way as their parents and grand parents did, earning a pittance doing back breaking work in cottage industries rather than earning a wage working in a mill for someone else.
It’s called progress, and society adapted then as it will adapt now. We’ve survived the powered loom, the farm tractor and combine harvester, the printing press, the steam engine, containerisation of shipyards, the spreadsheet and accounting software and many other things without society collapsing because of “automation”, and we will survive whatever comes next.
Re: (Score:2)
Eventually it will be solved, we will survive. But that doesn't mean it will be pretty.
1. UBI
2. Go back to living off the land growing and making your own stuff because you have no money. (progress)
3. Some kind of learning drug to make everyone as smart as you so they can train for the few jobs left once the machines take over. (bonus
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
You don't have to train me. I can probably already do whatever it is you want with maybe just a bit of self-learning at home before I start the job. Just give me a few months to study up on whatever it is.
Also we are very far from any sort of real AI. So humans can still do many many things robots will not be able to do for many years. Only the most boring, menial jobs will go to robots.
And we don't even have relatively dumb general purpose robots yet although that is only for commercial reasons since clear
Re: (Score:3)
So you think people can't find jobs because they aren't smart enough or don't have enough "training" whatever the fuck that is supposed to be? How did you get your first job?
A lot (about 4M) of 50 year-old professional drivers are going to lose their jobs in the next decade or so. They don't have any education beyond high school. It's not that they're stupid, but retraining for a completely different career at middle age is... hard, to say the least. And for many types of work, they're going to be competing directly with young people in low-wage countries, people who can work for far less money. The only realistic outcome for them is going to be a massive decline in their s
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
It's also worth noting that the jobs that require the least training are the jobs that are simplest to automate, which means the farther we go down the path towards full automation, the harder it will be for workers to retrain, because the new jobs will require progressively more skill, knowledge, and intellect.
Retraining is already starting to get hard. It's just a matter of time before it becomes completely impractical.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
If they want it to have a chance in you-know-where of succeeding, it also needs to not apply to people from other states.
The biggest risk with a state like California trying UBI is that people will come from other states to claim their $12k a year. The only way this can work is if there is a minimum residency period before it kicks in.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
UBI is just a form of inflation. At first it looks like a stimulus and later when the rent goes up by the same amount as the UBI check then its just inflation - no matter where the money to pay for it comes from. Seems like a pretty dumb idea. And I'm sure you would consider me liberal.
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah, but since you now don't _have_ to live there why wouldn't you go live somewhere where the rent is cheaper? Cali is a pretty big state... Having that baseline income could certainly give you the freedom to roam around to more places.
Re: (Score:2)
So lets ban the backhoe, think of all those workers needing to dig trenches out in the hot sun, shovel and wheel barrow. What other truly shite jobs can we de-automate, make people do them, all those really, really shitty jobs paying crap wages.
All through the fifties and sixties they used to rave on about automation, about how it would reduce the work week, provide people with more time off, to learn, for hobbies. Now in the 21st century of infinite greed, ohh, no, automation evil, we must make workers do
Re: (Score:2)
That post reads like a failed IQ test. Kudos!
Re: (Score:3)
Consumers are required and reliability of consumer demand is an asset created by UBI.
Wait... what? This is just crazy. If consumers are required we could just automate consumption. There is an economic fallacy here similar to the broken window fallacy.
I have yet seen a UBI'er explain why we don't just adjust to automation by gradually lowering the retirement age or reduce the hours in a workweek.
Re: (Score:3)
You don't want ALL of California to go. You want to keep Edwards Air Force Base and Naval Air Warfare Center China Lake.
Now, if you could just ditch San Francisco, that would be a good start. (And cutting San Francisco loose would also get rid of Nancy Pelosi, which would NOT be a Bad Thing...)
does a PO box count? (Score:2)
Once again it must be said: actually, no, most of us don't live in CA
They will soon if this passes :)
Re:VAT is a mistake (Score:5, Insightful)
funded by payroll tax and taxes on large corporations it can work, but keep the (directly) costs off the consumers.
That's completely idiotic and ignorant.
Please explain how to tax a corporation and they don't just pass that cost onto a consumer?
Go ahead, we've got all day.
False (Score:3)
That's a false statement.
They cannot even put together convincing articles of impeachment because they were too much in a hurry to wait for the SCOTUS to rule on anything. Why the hurry? Why did the Speaker suddenly have a change of heart about the impeachment (she went from "no way" to "as fast and simple as possible"?)
The state of California did not have anything to do with the impeachment of Dipshit Donnie.
Re:False (Score:4, Informative)
It's already the state receiving the most federal spending.
That's a false statement.
That's completely dependent on which metric one chooses. As an absolute, California receives the most money from the federal government, but it is well down the list in per capita funding.
40. California
Net federal funding: $12 per resident
Total revenue from fed. gov.: $436.1 billion (the most)
SNAP benefit recipiency: 8.9 percent (tied - 12th lowest)
Median household income: $71,805 (8th highest)
https://www.usatoday.com/story... [usatoday.com]
For those not following the link who care:
1. Virginia
Net federal funding: $10,301 per resident
Total revenue from fed. gov.: $176.8 billion (5th most)
SNAP benefit recipiency: 8.1 percent (8th lowest)
Median household income: $71,535 (9th highest)