Post APZUdXfo5peuoL0KNE by PhoBingas@chudbuds.lol
(DIR) More posts by PhoBingas@chudbuds.lol
(DIR) Post #APZIjdwyTBXeZ9B2RM by openscience@mastodon.social
2022-11-13T17:43:08Z
0 likes, 4 repeats
❓ As a follow-up to the last survey:Where do you stand on the subject of:unconditional basic income#opinion #poll #science #openscience #economics #research #basicincome Feel free to #share / #boost the post, we'd love to get as broad of an opinion as possible!!
(DIR) Post #APZIjehlfCyKuH4PNQ by amerika@noagendasocial.com
2022-11-13T17:50:07Z
1 likes, 0 repeats
@openscience Communism failed for a reason broslice :)
(DIR) Post #APZK0CFonQHfXrRqwC by jugendverfuhrer@freespeechextremist.com
2022-11-13T18:04:20.231041Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@openscience Wow, a lot of retards are voting that it’s a good idea. Not only did this fail literally every single time that it was implemented, but it fails to take into account the rampant inflation that would occur. On top of that, if it’s “unconditional,” that means no job is required. Why would people have any incentive to work of the government just hands them money? It’s not sustainable, as so many people will stop working that the government isn’t getting the money they need in taxes, and the taxes are what would pay this UBI. We also would not be producing any sort of domestic products, such as food, nor would be exporting anything. So what’s the solution to that? Simple - the government forces people to work jobs to sustain the economy. The problem with that is once you have the government paying everyone the same amount and forcing everyone to work jobs, you have communism.
(DIR) Post #APZKfNpudf6VL6yE8u by h4890@liberdon.com
2022-11-13T18:11:44Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@openscience Exceptionally bad idea that has also been disproven logically, financially and in trials in finland. If you think inflation and debt is high now, just wait until the money presses start rolling to finance this. When will humanity learn? Socialism is not the solution, never was, never will be.
(DIR) Post #APZMY9JIRotaAXOPT6 by swashberry@social.linux.pizza
2022-11-13T18:32:51Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@openscienceUnconditional income is an affront to the Second Law of Thermodynamics. You get back from a system proportional to what you put in. A break from that system in either direction has shown to result in disaster in the short and/or long term on numerous occasions. Income is entirely conditional, even in systems which claim it is not.
(DIR) Post #APZOPXt7tkKzhLB2XY by Ceceboike@maly.io
2022-11-13T18:53:40Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@swashberry @openscience I disagree. You are basically saying that people's lives are nothing more than their economical value. I find this to be a very depressing view on life. 'What people are putting in' is not measured by some absolute universal standard as implied by you equating human value to unchanging thermodynamic laws.
(DIR) Post #APZPYHzUTPVqxBt3OC by radiojammor@mastodon.scot
2022-11-13T19:06:25Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@h4890 @openscience Everything you just posted is false.1. The Finnish trials were cut short but demonstrated that UBI recipients actually worked slightly more than those without it and had greater well being. 2. There was a lot of right wing press saying it failed prior to the final results being announced. 3. Inflation you say? Go read this:https://www.scottsantens.com/would-unconditional-universal-basic-income-cause-inflation-ubi/4. UBI is not socialism. Socialism is socialism.
(DIR) Post #APZPtQxiJU44rK8e8G by LeastConcern@chudbuds.lol
2022-11-13T18:59:36.603253Z
1 likes, 0 repeats
81%? Really? Even on the Mastodon-branded instances I didn't think there'd be such a high ratio of idiots.UBI would cause an instant and incredibly harmful rush of inflation, which, presuming it leveled off before the UBI amount got raised again, would leave us all no better than we were before. Just think about this critically for ten seconds. It's really not that hard.
(DIR) Post #APZPtRP0fztoDyuRg8 by sj_zero@social.fbxl.net
2022-11-13T19:10:20.116616Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
Not to mention, even if you assume arguendo that inflation doesn't become a problem, you're lining up society for a crime, drug and suicide epidemic.Take away someone's life's work, their reason to get up in the morning and get their head screwed on straight, and you'll have murdered them just as surely as shooting them with a gun.
(DIR) Post #APZQZ2JAMmcaYh0h7o by RealAkoSuminoe@poa.st
2022-11-13T19:17:28.143052Z
2 likes, 0 repeats
@openscience @sj_zero @LeastConcern @openscience Except you aren't taking away anything from anyone. You are giving them money. They still have their jobs. They just also have some additional breathing room that they can use to accumulate savings, pay off debts, or have more children. They also have a fallback income incase they lose their job and need to look for a new one, with the ability to take more time, get new training, and change industries.Many people get sucked into drugs and crime (see: catalytic converter theft) because they don't have the ability to make ends meet. Many people end their own lives because they see their economic situation as hopeless. It's simply a better form of welfare than what we currently have.
(DIR) Post #APZQvA7ZzwZVA48oXw by swashberry@social.linux.pizza
2022-11-13T19:21:50Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@Ceceboike @openscienceNothing that you just said follows from what I said. Peoples' lives are a lot more than their income or economic value. I find it extremely disturbing that you even felt the need to bring up something so self-evidently true. You appear to be trying to equate the notion of income as being a function of work quality to a devaluation of human life in general, even though what I said was essentially that anyone has the power to negotiate their own desired income with care.
(DIR) Post #APZQyBGwAwAXbExQau by richturnermusic@mastodonapp.uk
2022-11-13T17:48:09Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@openscience The correct term is Universal Basic Income.
(DIR) Post #APZQyBlQLaYV7nDm76 by john@liberdon.com
2022-11-13T19:22:22Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@richturnermusic @openscience That term is misleading as it makes it sound like everyone would get it.
(DIR) Post #APZT5Ut1qcsWMsOIim by LeastConcern@chudbuds.lol
2022-11-13T19:17:35.921377Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
I get where you're coming from but I think that it wouldn't really be a concern because the cost of living would increase such that you wouldn't be able to live off of solely UBI anyway - you'd still need to have a job to have a roof over your head.That is, if the current baseline cost of living is $X, and a UBI of $Y were put into place, that baseline cost of living would very quickly jump to $X + $Y. Maybe you got a free $Y every month but unless you were dependent on someone else you'd still need a job to cover that $X.
(DIR) Post #APZT5VQLqjX82Dyuf2 by sj_zero@social.fbxl.net
2022-11-13T19:46:07.305567Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
I think it'd be surprised the industriousness of people trying to not have to work. I could absolutely see entire apartments filled with potential Reddit moderators, figuring out exactly how to live off of whatever Ubi provides without needing to work. You might be shocked to discover how many people are willing to live in the pod and eat the bugs if it means they don't need to go to work. That however is a problem. Just because people find out a way to survive doesn't mean that they're living a good life, and it certainly doesn't mean that they're living a meaningful life. I think that widespread adoption of Ubi would lead to this, billions of people living nihilistic existences consooming internet vaccuosity.
(DIR) Post #APZTPiPHI2BY5k7FRo by sj_zero@social.fbxl.net
2022-11-13T19:49:46.706120Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
We lived throughout most of history with much worse quality of life than the poor of today, but many of those people lived just lives without turning to crime and went on to be paragons of their communities.I'd argue that turning to drugs and crime today isn't usually a problem of poverty, it's a problem of meaning. They felt like they were contributing to their communities, and that contribution made them feel like they had a stake in the proper running of society.If you give everyone UBI, it might shock you the number of people who look at that money and go "Ok, I can figure out a way to live off of this" and do so, even if it means cramming themselves into terrible living conditions. They'll live in the pod and eat the bugs because it means they don't need to work, but in the process of giving them the opportunity to do so you do take something away from them -- the mandatory requirement to contribute to society to continue being is a benefit because it gives people meaning in some way. Take that meaning away, and their lives become nihilistic and meaningless.You don't just see this with the poor, you see it with the children of the super-rich. Many end up nihilistic and live terrible lives because they never need to do anything to survive and even thrive. They could live their entire lives in luxury but hedonistic pleasure doesn't help achieve eudaemonia, the condition of human flourishing or of living well.
(DIR) Post #APZU7ivshDC8SqLo0W by LeastConcern@chudbuds.lol
2022-11-13T19:52:52.716844Z
1 likes, 0 repeats
>Except you aren't taking away anything from anyone. You are giving them money.So the money would be just printed, then? How would that not cause inflation?
(DIR) Post #APZUdXfo5peuoL0KNE by PhoBingas@chudbuds.lol
2022-11-13T20:03:29.546868Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
Exactly. Printing more money to throw at problems just makes inflation worse. People pushing UBI have zero concept of economics to the point where they can't even keep track of their own budgets.
(DIR) Post #APZV2t6NYjNIVgWEOu by RealAkoSuminoe@poa.st
2022-11-13T20:03:25.076703Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@sj_zero @LeastConcern @openscience We haven't had a requirement to contribute to society to receive benefits since the 1960s. Your critique of UBI is really just a critique of all welfare systems in general. The actual root of the meaninglessness of modern life isn't the presense of welfare programs, but the presense of diversity and multiculturalism. Europe had welfare programs for decades before their governments forcibly diversified them, and during those decades there were stories of parents disowning their children if they wanted to mooch. This is because the people viewed themselves as having a coherent identity and these programs existed to strengthen the tribe as a whole. In the US, a lot of the pushback against welfare programs was because everyone understood that these were just racial wealth transfers.
(DIR) Post #APZV2tXJwYvRrF7kOW by sj_zero@social.fbxl.net
2022-11-13T20:08:03.787298Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
It certainly can be a critique of all welfare, but the difference here is that you're taking something given to a fraction of the population and making it universal.There presumably isn't a choice, you're just going to collect the cheque. Period. At that point, the question isn't whether you sign up for the money, it's how do you use the money you're getting either way?I suspect that in the longer term, it would end up shaking out that you'd end up with an even more stratified society -- You'd have the masses of have-nots, and you'd have a tiny minority of people who make overwhelming amounts of money by providing services to the masses. We started to see something like that during the pandemic, where the poor got poorer and the rich became insanely richer.
(DIR) Post #APZVJjhLm7H6GfqUyG by h4890@liberdon.com
2022-11-13T20:11:04Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@radiojammor @openscience Incorrect. For gods sake, use your head. Shall we multiply 7 billion with 1000 USD or so? That's 7 trillion. I need no more arguments than that. Add to that keynsianism, fiat currency, and a 3 year old can predict the consequences. Last but not least, have a look at mises.org for some basic economic reasoning.
(DIR) Post #APZY5f7oHUpbtPCdYO by LeastConcern@chudbuds.lol
2022-11-13T20:09:11.122163Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
Nah, homie. Bad economic policy doesn't suddenly become good when it's only huwite people participating in it. You can't reshape sound economic theory with pure Aryan force of will.
(DIR) Post #APZY5fjO1mtBlwme7k by RealAkoSuminoe@poa.st
2022-11-13T20:22:33.389257Z
1 likes, 1 repeats
@LeastConcern @openscience @sj_zero But you haven't proven that it's bad economic policy. Giving people money so that they have more contorl over what they do with their lives is actually good economic policy. Trapping people in shitty dead end gig-economy jobs is bad economic policy.If you paid attention to what I wrote, you'd see that I was addressing the concern that UBI would make people's lives meaningless. I was responding that work doesn't add meaning to people's lives, collectivism does. People already feel like their lives are meaningless WITHOUT UBI.
(DIR) Post #APZY5gGi1tXnRING40 by LeastConcern@chudbuds.lol
2022-11-13T20:28:56.559776Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
You are asking for someone to explain to you why giving people free money is bad policy?You need to look at the whole system and not just at the individual experience. Imagine you sell apples and you try to price your apples such that you sell out your stock of apples every day; if you price them too high, you will have leftover apples at the end of the day, but if you price them too low, you sell out of apples too soon and don’t make a profit, or not as much profit as you could have made. Now imagine that your customers suddenly have a bunch of free money; you’re going to need to raise your apple prices to avoid selling out. And while it might initially seem like you made more profit, your apple suppliers are going to be seeing the same effect and raise their prices as well, as will the people you pay rent to, the people you buy your clothes from, etc. Everyone will have more money, but everyone will raise their prices, and in relative terms you’re no better off than you were before. This is before we even start considering the effect on international trade…
(DIR) Post #APZY5gkqDreAwkTK1w by RealAkoSuminoe@poa.st
2022-11-13T20:37:51.823241Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@LeastConcern @openscience @sj_zero Thanks for the explanation on microeconomics 101. Unfortunately for you, this is not the way that supply chains actually work. Typically, companies purchase more supply than they need, and try to price whatever it takes to make a profit without scaring away customers.Companies like In-N-Out, that verticly integrate their entire supply chain, are still able to sell burgers for super cheap, still have long lines of people trying to buy them, and haven't been suffering ill consequences.The main factors causing companies to raise their prices is because they need the extra money to pay off debt, higher interest rates, and deal with actual supply shortages. It's not because there is suddently more demand for products as if people were given more money.
(DIR) Post #APZY5hBQd0ukHCuYTI by sj_zero@social.fbxl.net
2022-11-13T20:42:10.910244Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
Do you have a Butler or something who does your shopping for you?You seem to be living in a parallel universe where food hasn't been getting massively more expensive every single month.
(DIR) Post #APZZYWimhkRCBIpCk4 by DocScranton@chudbuds.lol
2022-11-13T20:58:23.087147Z
1 likes, 0 repeats
lmfao you subsist on cookies
(DIR) Post #APZcDG0zvGOO9ItSYC by richturnermusic@mastodonapp.uk
2022-11-13T21:28:19Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@john @openscience All citizens would.
(DIR) Post #APZxzFxTXEeMuUyVX6 by john@liberdon.com
2022-11-14T01:32:20Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@richturnermusic That's not universal. My wife isn't a citizen of my country, despite having made a life here for the last 15 years, raising our children here, etc.. And I'm not a citizen of hers, though when her country does broad-based payments like that, they exclude those living abroad anyhow.But even if you handed out citizenship to 8 billion people... I've also not come across a proposal to pay prisoners and political dissidents who are (almost by definition) on the lam.
(DIR) Post #APcrrbVfVTWLBRoexM by opendna@mastodon.sdf.org
2022-11-15T11:07:46Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@swashberry @openscience Your reply could be read as "the industrial revolution is a lie because thermodynamics".In real-world (time & geographically-limited) trials, universal basic income has had high economic multipliers and produced lasting gains in education, wages, labor productivity, childhood nutrition, and poverty reduction. IOW, what we get out *is* proportional to what we put in: roughly 20% more.
(DIR) Post #APd78TkN7XMNLKCLJI by swashberry@social.linux.pizza
2022-11-15T13:58:59Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@opendna @openscienceMy reply could not be read like that at all. We're talking about the government ostensibly making money out of nothing in order to ensure a basic income regardless of labor, not building tools to make the production of wealth from which citizens can benefit easier.The question nobody seems to ask when these hypothetical scenarios are dreamed up is always "where is the government getting the value for the money it's paying?"
(DIR) Post #APd7IVQLjwvRRLc8SO by swashberry@social.linux.pizza
2022-11-15T14:00:48Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@opendna @openscienceThe reason no one asks this question is because the answer is always from you. They get it by either taxing the money that you have available already or by creating inflation, which reduces the value of the money you have. The government never produces anything except by taking something away from someone else. That's not at all comparable to the industrial revolution.
(DIR) Post #APdSKY9AgYQxVAOY76 by EverEarnest@mastodon.online
2022-11-15T17:56:24Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@john @richturnermusic Well, John from a libertarian server, you are equivocating.If you say something is universal, it can mean several things. Like made by a film company called Universal Studios. (One of the definition of universal I just looked up.)But in the modern realm of public policy, universal means applicable to all cases for all people in the world or among some group. Like, citizens.See universal adult suffrage compared to universal human rights. Both uses are valid.
(DIR) Post #APdfckR527U8EPmOUC by john@liberdon.com
2022-11-15T20:25:25Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@EverEarnest It's somewhat misleading. One could make a similar argument about "unconditional", but I believe it to be closer to the truth. If one is choosing between the two terms, I prefer unconditional.
(DIR) Post #APdh0sCrtR3FEiCRiC by john@liberdon.com
2022-11-15T20:40:59Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@EverEarnest Though I do acknowledge this distinction would be less of a concern if my country's immigration policies weren't insane and counter-productive. We have plenty of people paying taxes without citizenship. I don't believe just being born here gives me a right to their money.
(DIR) Post #APfUQoxJgxojaxt6wa by EverEarnest@mastodon.online
2022-11-16T17:29:24Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@john I also dislike some terms/phrases. And I'm also someone who has trouble understanding what people mean in everyday speech.But I don't think it's misleading. Both public policy experts and the population at large would intuitively understand what was meant. And its standard language.That people who have trouble with communication and specific subcultures might be confused about it says more about us, them and you than the word choice.But your reasons for not preferring it are valid.
(DIR) Post #AQcI8KnZJ310eUDCWO by maikelthedev@hachyderm.io
2022-12-15T02:09:11Z
0 likes, 0 repeats
@openscience unconditional basic income could allow me to study or specialise EXACTLY on what I want to do. And like me, everybody else, which means people would be happier because they would end up being paid by doing whatever they love doing instead of getting a job just to ensure a roof above their head and food on their dish.
(DIR) Post #AQcI8LVseIScruwaae by meowski@fluf.club
2022-12-15T02:19:27.204242Z
1 likes, 1 repeats
@maikelthedev @openscience