Income Inequality

[Speaker to Animals]

Yeah, except that one way or another, an "universal income" to some will still be considered welfare, because there is no way in hell they are going to accept money that they didn't "earn"...

It's not welfare by any definition of the word welfare. Welfare is for people down on their luck. It's designed to keep people in poverty. Universal income is for everybody. You get that no matter who you are, whether you work, or whatever. A universal income does not create an incentive to avoid work at all.

That would only work if the income is greater than a living wage... otherwise you may as well call it welfare.

You need to learn what welfare means.

And we are talking about something greater than the living wage. Our economy is not yet sufficiently advanced to support anything like a UBI. So it's still just speculative. This is likely how the next economic system will evolve, in my opinion.

[The Conservative]

It's not welfare by any definition of the word welfare. Welfare is for people down on their luck. It's designed to keep people in poverty. Universal income is for everybody. You get that no matter who you are, whether you work, or whatever. A universal income does not create an incentive to avoid work at all.

That would only work if the income is greater than a living wage... otherwise you may as well call it welfare.

You need to learn what welfare means.

And we are talking about something greater than the living wage. Our economy is not yet sufficiently advanced to support anything like a UBI. So it's still just speculative. This is likely how the next economic system will evolve, in my opinion.

To some, any money not earned but given is considered welfare.

[Martin Hash]

People need to "work" enough to earn enough to survive at the level they choose. If productivity is great enough, Star Trek Replicator shit, then a couple hours a week of "work" could mean lying on the beach all day writing in your diary how awesome life is, but make no mistake, productivity must exceed consumption, and people are people, so parasites will not be well-accepted.

[Speaker to Animals]

That would only work if the income is greater than a living wage... otherwise you may as well call it welfare.

You need to learn what welfare means.

And we are talking about something greater than the living wage. Our economy is not yet sufficiently advanced to support anything like a UBI. So it's still just speculative. This is likely how the next economic system will evolve, in my opinion.

To some, any money not earned but given is considered welfare.

Well, they are fucking morons, then.

[The Conservative]

People need to "work" enough to earn enough to survive at the level they choose. If productivity is great enough, Star Trek Replicator shit, then a couple hours a week of "work" could mean lying on the beach all day writing in your diary how awesome life is, but make no mistake, productivity must exceed consumption, and people are people, so parasites will not be well-accepted.

If you get rid of welfare and do a Universal Income, that would be quickly figured out who the parasites are... I just have an issue just being told you don't have to "do anything" to earn this income. Yes you could still do what you want, but it just doesn't feel right to me... I guess I'm old school that way.

I was always instilled with the idea that you earn what you make, nothing is given freely without conditions.

[DBTrek]

Furthermore, (2) does not comport to historical evidence in which aristocratic or otherwise very privileged classes still chose to work on their own pursuits, increasing culture, science, and even medicine on their own. Most of the Enlightenment aristocracy, for example, devoted themselves to intellectual pursuits. Jefferson, who lived off the labor of slaves, spent his time in political, scientific, and philosophical pursuits.

Whether one sustains themselves by the work of slaves or by Section 8 housing and government cheese, they remain equally free to innovate. Furthermore, Thomas Jefferson was far from the only slaveholder of his time - yet where is this cultural, scientific, and social Renaissance of Southern plantation owners who likewise lived off the labor of slaves. According to your theory they, like Jefferson, should've devoted their lives to intellectual pursuits and innovation.

But it didn't happen.

Ergo the entire premise is flawed.

[Speaker to Animals]

Furthermore, (2) does not comport to historical evidence in which aristocratic or otherwise very privileged classes still chose to work on their own pursuits, increasing culture, science, and even medicine on their own. Most of the Enlightenment aristocracy, for example, devoted themselves to intellectual pursuits. Jefferson, who lived off the labor of slaves, spent his time in political, scientific, and philosophical pursuits.

Whether one sustains themselves by the work of slaves or by Section 8 housing and government cheese, they remain equally free to innovate. Furthermore, Thomas Jefferson was far from the only slaveholder of his time - yet where is this cultural, scientific, and social Renaissance of Southern plantation owners who likewise lived off the labor of slaves. According to your theory they, like Jefferson, should've devoted their lives to intellectual pursuits and innovation.

But it didn't happen.

Ergo the entire premise is flawed.

You left out the rest of the argument because it specifically refutes what you just posted. Try again with the entire quote. Thanks.

[Ex-California]

Why does "work" have to be part of the equation? If society has the means to provide basic necessities to everyone, why continue with the farce of wage slavery?

Perhaps you're familiar with the maxim "Whatever you subsidize, you will get more of".
Think of cash for clunkers which stimulated the auto industry by subsidizing the sale of inefficient old cars to encourage the purchasing of newer, more fuel efficient vehicles. Likewise, subsidizing the lifestyles of non-productive citizens we, by default, encourage the production and proliferation of more non-productive citizens.

How long can that cycle continue before the system collapses?
Not long, I think.

That's a good example of how this kind of thinking goes wrong. Cash for Clunkers was envisioned as a program that both cleaned up the environment and helped the working poor. It not only did neither, it made getting transportation that much more difficult for the poor.

By law, these used cars had to be rendered inoperable. The law took countless vehicles that working poor could afford off the market, forcing them to look for more expensive vehicles (or do without). It also shrunk the supply of vehicles in general, which drove up prices.

When you consider how vital transportation is in America due to how we planned our cities, this turned out to be one of the most anti-poor laws passed in generations.

Somewhat related, our wonderful smog laws have also rendered transportation difficult for the working poor.

[Ex-California]

We are faced with two negative potentials argued from each side: (1) automation will result in the vast majority of people being disenfranchised from jobs. (2) If people have access to a universal income, then a lot of people would choose not to work, innovate, or contribute to society in any way. That's what each side is basically arguing.

But if the ability to feed yourself, raise a family under a roof in a safe neighborhood, and so on, remains contingent upon access to a job, then most people will essentially be told to die or shuffled to a welfare state where you have to spend money on them anyway. So argument (2), in my opinion, is rubbish from the start if you accept automation as inevitable.

Furthermore, (2) does not comport to historical evidence in which aristocratic or otherwise very privileged classes still chose to work on their own pursuits, increasing culture, science, and even medicine on their own. Most of the Enlightenment aristocracy, for example, devoted themselves to intellectual pursuits. Jefferson, who lived off the labor of slaves, spent his time in political, scientific, and philosophical pursuits.

The reason you don't see that in the welfare state is because: (A) the welfare state actually requires that people not work in any way. If they show any aptitude for innovation or work, the rug is pulled from beneath them and they starve or find work (which in our near future is not going to be possible). (B) the welfare state creates further disincentives by drastically cutting welfare/disability funds if the person can manage part-time work. It's not economically feasible for people on these programs to work part-time even when they can or want to do so. The system is designed top-to-bottom to keep people out of the workforce and dependent upon the bureaucracy. (C) most of the people in the welfare systems were already compromised by a corrupt and useless government school system that denied them in many case of even literacy. (D) Other government policies encourage some classes of people (especially women) to become totally dependent upon the system in order to farm them for votes, further increasing the cancer of the welfare state.

If we continue down this current path, we are going to get a fuck ton of (1), with increasingly ignorant people driven to hopelessness and despair (and likely to crime). (2) Has it's pitfalls, but it's not an obvious dead-end like (1).

Great post.

There are many "craftsman" and "artist" type pursuits that barely earn enough money to survive. With UBI, people could pursue these activities without fear of losing their gubment benefits like they do today. Hell, I was on unemployment once for a couple months and picked up a quick weekend side gig because I was going crazy. Because I earned something like $600 that day I lost my $1800 for the month.

I've recently changed my views on a lot of things, for example, its obvious that the Great Society totally fucked the poor and welfare class, especially the blacks. However, UBI is not welfare and needs to be seen as such.

[Martin Hash]

Where do you UBI people live? I personally don't know anybody who would "work" if they didn't have to. I sure as hell wouldn't. I would be down at the beach writing in my dairy how awesome life was while drinking a marguarita someone else paid for. I'd also fuck around a lot doing shit I wanted to do but wouldn't be of use to anyone else, like "art."