- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Elon Musk: Automation Will Force Governments to Introduce Universal Basic Income
Posted on 2/19/17 at 5:37 pm to Hightide12
Posted on 2/19/17 at 5:37 pm to Hightide12
Rod Serling was thinking about this very thing back in 1964 (and I doubt he was the first). LINK
(Couldn't find the entire episode, just that clip).
(Couldn't find the entire episode, just that clip).
0
Posted on 2/19/17 at 5:39 pm to bmy
quote:
I guess that depends on if you value freedom or not..
I'm not speaking as if this is what I want to happen. I am suggesting that if I were a very influential and very rich man, ie the .0001%, it would probably be the most logical and appealing course of action.
Posted on 2/19/17 at 5:47 pm to HempHead
quote:
I'm not speaking as if this is what I want to happen. I am suggesting that if I were a very influential and very rich man, ie the .0001%, it would probably be the most logical and appealing course of action.
Israel was doing this.. but only towards non-white ethnicities.
Posted on 2/19/17 at 5:49 pm to bmy
Well, non-Jewish. I don't think they take many WASPs or Germans. But yeah, I know they did that to Ethiopian Jews. Not sure if they did it to Mizrahim or not.
Posted on 2/19/17 at 5:51 pm to bonhoeffer45
quote:
And again we get back to the same question, what works then? What will work in the future based on the agreed upon premises and forces at work?
I already told you. I don't subscribe to the idea that automation will kill labor. Automation is as old as history and yet here we are. Automation creates efficiencies that grow the economy and creates new jobs. Unlike UBI, the record of history is clear on that.
Reform the social safety nets already in place and if that doesn't work, then we can have a conversation about other alternatives.
You don't experiment untested theory with an economy the size of ours.
Posted on 2/19/17 at 5:51 pm to Bench McElroy
As soon as Musk gives away all of his wealth I will pay attention to him
Posted on 2/19/17 at 5:54 pm to Loserman
quote:
As soon as Musk gives away all of his wealth I will pay attention to him
What does this have to do with UBI? Musks goal is to get the human race to become interplanetary.. I mean, look at what he did today..
Posted on 2/19/17 at 5:54 pm to Terry the Tiger
quote:
This is what Democrats fail to see. We lost so many of the blue-collar jobs because unions drove wages up that those jobs went overseas. Now they want to do the same with the minimum wage that they will lose those jobs to robots.
The minimum wage argument is based purely on politics and nothing to do with economics. Even at $15/hour, you will be considered a minimum wage worker, if you keep your job. Yet prices for everything will go up so that their is no net gain.
The twist in this is that by this boards metrics, I am probably a foaming-at-the mouth liberal lol.
Yet I agree with most of what you are saying in a broad sense. Though I would differ on some of the details and causalities.
I think even on the liberal side though there is a recognition that economically speaking, the minimum wage is a flawed concept. Though would argue the best of realistic political alternatives currently on the table. In the absence of something like a UBI I am not against having one because I think a lot of the wage-push inflation arguments are not as rigid as they are in practice vs. theory. But it is a balancing game that is just not necessary if superior alternatives exist.
I think setting aside our differences, we both seem to have the same broad conclusions and ideals. Better administer the safety net to meet the needs of a accelerating and faster changing society and in doing so we can eliminate things like the minimum wage in the process.
Posted on 2/19/17 at 5:58 pm to bmy
quote:
What does this have to do with UBI? Musks goal is to get the human race to become interplanetary.. I mean, look at what he did today..
Paying people not to work has never been successful.
Posted on 2/19/17 at 6:04 pm to Antonio Moss
quote:
Well that's completely inaccurate. The industrial revolution shifted the labor force from agriculture to manufacturing. And industrialization of agriculture allowed a minuscule percentage of the population to provide more food than 70%+ of the population did just a few generations before.
You didn't read my posts in this thread, did you?
Posted on 2/19/17 at 6:08 pm to Vacherie Saint
quote:
Reform the social safety nets already in place and if that doesn't work, then we can have a conversation about other alternatives.
You don't experiment untested theory with an economy the size of ours.
You aren't laying out what these reforms are and why/how they would be superior to a UBI or just why they would be better in general?
And I already said in my last post, if we assume that automation will not cause a negative shift in the overall labor demand curve, how does your reform square with an accelerated society where these technological changes are happening at a much faster rate then historically? Or are you denying that too?
You don't just stop being a truck driver and start programming software or start fixing wind turbines, you need training, freedom of movement to re-locate, basic needs to sustain that transition.
Posted on 2/19/17 at 6:14 pm to bonhoeffer45
quote:
You aren't laying out what these reforms are and why/how they would be superior to a UBI or just why they would be better in general?
Why the hell do you keep insisting that I provide a detailed welfare reform program for you? As if I need to stack my ideas up against yours. This thread is about automation and UBI. Automation creates jobs in the greater economy and UBI has never been employed successfully anywhere over time.
Our system has worked for about 100 years and if properly managed, could work for 100 more. You can't even cite an example of UBI working for 10 years.
quote:
You don't just stop being a truck driver and start programming software or start fixing wind turbines, you need training, freedom of movement to re-locate, basic needs to sustain that transition
That type of economic transition doesn't happen that quickly. New people with new skills flood into the labor force continually as older workers drop out. In my lifetime, I've seen this country transform from a manufacturing economy, to a service economy, and into a tech economy with virtually seamless ease. Smart company's adapt. They always have.
This post was edited on 2/19/17 at 6:26 pm
Posted on 2/19/17 at 6:35 pm to Vacherie Saint
quote:
This thread is about automation and UBI. Automation creates jobs in the greater economy and UBI has never been employed successfully anywhere over time.
Our system has worked for about 100 years and if properly managed, could work for 100 more. You can't even cite an example of UBI working for 10 years.
You would make for a very poor venture capitalist lol.
You sound like someone trying to defend the horse and buggy as someone shows you concepts of the Model T.
The underlying concept is the same function as any other welfare program, its mechanics are just more streamlined and economically sound. And this "system" you speak of for a 100 years is a myth. How many means-tested welfare programs are there? Like 80+ I think? Very few, if any, have been around for 100 years. And the welfare state has been a constantly evolving thing since 1935 and the first major reforms.
Though I do find the irony of someone many would likely label a liberal(me) arguing about reducing the bureaucracy of the welfare state and giving businesses more flexibility with a seemingly conservative person trying to defend and prop it up.
This post was edited on 2/19/17 at 6:44 pm
Posted on 2/19/17 at 6:51 pm to bonhoeffer45
Oh my god, go away! You are arguing textbook theory in the face of generations of proven, hardened economic and governmental concepts. Paying people to do nothing is not going to help this country. It's an asinine idea. Humans are still voting for other humans who administer these programs. Look at how out of control government spending is now, much of it in entitlements and you are proposing an entitlement that would more than double the number of beneficiaries that we have today. Inflation would quickly erase any benefit to the added income. Our constitution does not grant positive rights.
Marxism worked on paper too, you know. Go out and live a little.
Marxism worked on paper too, you know. Go out and live a little.
Posted on 2/19/17 at 7:00 pm to Vacherie Saint
quote:
Oh my god, go away! You are arguing textbook theory in the face of generations of proven, hardened economic and governmental concepts. Paying people to do nothing is not going to help this country. It's an asinine idea. Humans are still voting for other humans who administer these programs. Look at how out of control government spending is now, much of it in entitlements and you are proposing an entitlement that would more than double the number of beneficiaries that we have today. Inflation would quickly erase any benefit to the added income. Our constitution does not grant positive rights.
Marxism worked on paper too, you know. Go out and live a little.
What you say here is a major indictment of the current system, yet you are arguing to sustain it and not put major reforms in place?
This comes off like talking out both sides.
It can't both be perfectly fine as is with minor tweaks, while simultaneously creating what you seem to think is half the population of moochers that only vote for more hand outs while creating ever increasing out-of-control government spending? These notions are at complete odds with one another.
This post was edited on 2/19/17 at 7:01 pm
Posted on 2/19/17 at 7:09 pm to bonhoeffer45
You annoying as frick. I've never seen someone argue in circles like this.
First: our social safely net system needs reform. There are many good reform proposals out there. You are free to look them up.
Second: no, it's not perfect and it's rife for political gamesmanship (see above)
Third: doubling down in entitlements takes a manageable problem and makes it unmanageable
Look at what the Germany government had to say about UBI:
Sounds like a bunch of unhinged American conservatives doesn't it?
I'm done with you.
First: our social safely net system needs reform. There are many good reform proposals out there. You are free to look them up.
Second: no, it's not perfect and it's rife for political gamesmanship (see above)
Third: doubling down in entitlements takes a manageable problem and makes it unmanageable
Look at what the Germany government had to say about UBI:
quote:
it would cause a significant decrease in the motivation to work among citizens, with unpredictable consequences for the national economy
it would require a complete restructuring of the taxation, social insurance and pension systems, which will cost a significant amount of money
the current system of social help in Germany is regarded more effective because it's more personalized: the amount of help provided is not fixed and depends on the financial situation of the person; for some socially vulnerable groups the basic income could be insufficient
it would cause a vast increase in immigration
it would cause a rise in the shadow economy
the corresponding rise of taxes would cause more inequality: higher taxes would translate into higher prices of everyday products, harming the finances of poor people
no viable way to finance basic income in Germany was found
Some economists have expressed concern about the basic income. Daron Acemoglu, who has expressed uncertainty about his views on basic income has stated "Current US status quo is horrible. A more efficient and generous social safety net is needed. But UBI is expensive and not generous enough."[49] Eric Maskin has stated that "a minimum income makes sense, but not at the cost of eliminating Social Security and Medicare."[50] The Economist notes that raising the income floor would have no impact on the wealth gap. While cash transfers would make the most difference to those on the bottom of the pile, they posit it would be instead of existing welfare benefits.[51]
Sounds like a bunch of unhinged American conservatives doesn't it?
I'm done with you.
Posted on 2/19/17 at 7:27 pm to bonhoeffer45
quote:When did the government come to owe anyone an economic standing?
So the problem will still remain that UBI is uniquely poised to address.
The ultimate fail here is the presumption that government has any duty whatsoever to provide to the citizens. It doesn't. And it can't.
Posted on 2/19/17 at 7:34 pm to Taxing Authority
quote:The their half of this stupidity is thinking that "automation" is the driver for mooching. It isn't. If it were governments would be out banning technology right and left and enjoying the riches, full employment, and thriving economies derived from it--you know--like it's worked so well in North Korea.
Automation Will Force
I'm unsurprised that Elon Musk has no idea how (real, not scammy) wealth is created...
Posted on 2/19/17 at 7:37 pm to Bench McElroy
If the US every implements this, I feel as if there is going to be a huuuge problem with people spending not getting a job, spending all they have immediately, and getting in lots of trouble because of it.
Posted on 2/19/17 at 7:44 pm to Vacherie Saint
quote:
First: our social safely net system needs reform. There are many good reform proposals out there. You are free to look them up.
I did, I have. How else would one come to even be aware of something like the UBI without doing so?
The only circular argument taking place is that every time we get to the point where you would naturally propose your alternative solutions to the problems you see, you refuse to do so.
You want to scrutinize others ideas but not open up scrutiny for your own. I am not letting you do that. I get why you are frustrated at that.
....Though I am glad you can quote wikipedia and a bunch of bureaucrats. I'll offer you an amusing counter, Milton Friedman:
LINK
This idea has certainly evolved since 1968 and shifted in structure and thinking, but like always, he doesn't think lightly about his ideas and speaks to things like gamesmanship and wasting the funds like you and others talk about.
This post was edited on 2/19/17 at 7:48 pm
Page 5 of 6
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News