Where does technological progress come from? How will a GBI affect the cost of technological progress?
I wouldn’t necessarily argue otherwise, but we’ve been having this discussion in something of a vacuum. The topic is Basic Income (or GBI, if you prefer; I don’t); by gum, we’re talkin’ BI/GBI.
I haven’t completely failed to state the benefits, either. It acknowledges the reality of the 21st-century employment situation. It has the potential to cost less than our current system through greatly reduced bureaucracy and waste. (In part by replacing some substantial part of Social Security.) It reduces competition for too few jobs and leaves the field to those skilled and motivated enough to compete. (Emphasis on motivation - those who want to do those jobs, not just those chasing any paycheck.) And the real benefit is that it frees some unknown but large number of people to do something more productive and beneficial to the common good than slave for a wage to buy toys.
Good enough, for a narrow discussion? You don’t have to agree, but that’s all restatement of things I’ve said BI/GBI would bring, and goes way beyond just saying our present system sucks.
The idea that only traditional industry drives progress is nonsense, by the way. You are like most in tech, and the millions of others who are tech-drunk: only tech can lead the way to more tech, so tech is all we need. (Wrong.)
Progress come from people motivated to do something productive in return for a reward, be it financial or social. Progress does not come from malingerers who hate their job, cause drama and liability, and are only there because the alternative is homelessness and starvation. If one motivated and skilled employee spends 5 minutes a day listening to you bitch about your job, and then you go on and spend the day producing the work he could do in 3 minutes, then it is a net loss for everyone involved. You may even make a mistake through your disillusionment with your employment that costs everyone hours of labor. Everyone would have been better off had you not come in that day, or any day for that matter.
It comes down to the fact that if you hate your job, then at the end of the day, you probably are doing more harm than good. If you hate your job, it would be better for everyone in society if you didn’t continue doing it. Dropping out of the labor force, allowing your employer to hire someone who actually want to be there would be an obvious benefit.
And maybe, down the line, you will find a job, or something productive that you do enjoy. Because you are not tied to this employment that you hate, but need to prevent impoverishment, you can try other things that may give you a sense of fulfillment that you currently lack. Without even knowing it, you might accidentally find yourself doing something useful and rewarding.
The idea that people who dislike their jobs are counterproductive is nonsensical. If more could get done with less people, guys like me would be fired at the first sign of lack-of-passion.
Again, didn’t say that. Traditional industry is just the yard stick I’m using.
There are many who dislike their job, who still are productive at it, sure. Most people love to dislike their job, it is what makes them feel productive and useful socially. They don’t actually hate, or even really dislike their job, they just like to point out how hard it is, and that society is lucky that they do it so some other poor smuck doesn’t have to. But given the option, they would actually rather work than not work.
Some people would rather stay home, sure, but they would get bored not having anything useful to do, and they like having small luxuries, so they trade their option of not working in exchange for financial reward, and with good management and supervision, can be motivated to be productive while working.
I am talking about people like yourself, who dislike your job enough that you would rather live in spartan accommodation and accomplish nothing the rest of your life than continue working, had you that option. It is very rare that the malingerers of the company end up contributing a net productivity during their employment. The only reason that they are not fired is because management does not have perfect information, and cannot identify the worse than useless employee until a pattern or obvious incident emerge, at which point, they are fired.
If you have ever had a “talking to” or a write-up from you management, be advised that that means they suspect that you are that sort of employee, and they would be happy to let you sit at home and work on your own code all you like, while they replace you with someone who wants to be there.
You’ve twisted the discussion again. If you have 1,000 workers, the baseline would be getting some optimum contribution from each of them. Each disaffected worker who does less not only contributes less, but tends to pull down the productivity of others. That’s “counterproductive.” Maybe more is getting done because some cranky sloth is warming that seat instead of leaving it empty, but the company as a whole is paying a price for not having a more contented person doing the chairwarming.
Far too many companies don’t get that. At all. They see 1,000 cranky, disaffected, distracted and unhappy people as the “cost effective” approach, instead of wasting money keeping those thousand happier and possibly doubling productivity, innovation, customer satisfaction… and profits.
I’ve worked for both. I’ve run the latter.
You’ve implied multiple times that innovation can’t come from individuals. In your case and industry, you might be right. Even the most skilled worker at a NASA contractor can’t build a whole rocket or satellite and would have few useful skills as a one-person business.
But innovation tends to come from one mind, sometimes a very small group. It never comes from the masses or “a company.” Nor do ideas and innovations need “a company” to foster them. (Implement, perhaps, but not foster, invent or develop.)
Can you prove that, or it just your guess/opinion?
I’ll just suggest that arguing about the price of large eggs in a completely revamped economic system is to focus a bit too tightly and miss the point. (Whether it’s taxes, cable service, or whatever.)
I don’t think that’s an argument for your position.
Seriously - all that says is that markets will reach an equilibrium, it’s doesn’t say that the vast majority of people are total slackers willing to live in hovels rather than work to improve their situation.
Try again.
In the quote you linked I was describing a shift in the supply curve:
Ok, I get that…
Now where is your proof that MOST PEOPLE ARE LAZY and would rather live in spartan, minimal conditions rather than do some work for a better standard of living?
You haven’t PROVED that’s the case, only discussed what might happen if that is true.
You still haven’t supported your position.
I, for one, would not be content with the hypothetical 4x8 foot studio apartment (that’s 32 square feet of living space) proposed as minimal housing by other posters. I’d be willing to “lay cable” or do quite a few other things for something larger. Say, 1000 or 1200 feet. Or maybe so I can own a small car. Or maybe both those things.
But, would you be happy to have such accommodations short term while you learned a new trade, wrote a book or other art, wrote some useful program, started a business, or just recovered from a financial setback. You would not be content with the situation, and would seek to improve it through personal effort, but it could still be useful to remove the stress and fear of impoverishment while you did these things. I feel the majority of people, or at least a large enough minority would feel the same way.
Oh, sure, it beats fears of homelessness and/or hunger (speaking as someone who experienced a major financial upset this past decade). Lots of people would take advantage of this temporarily - hell, I would have leapt at it just out of college when I was getting started in life - but CinnamonBabka is suggesting a LOT of people would live in such conditions for their lifetime rather than work at something (the example being “lay cable”) to get more than three hots and a cot.
I’m asking him to prove that the vast majority of people in the US would be that lazy. So far he has not.
Just on a lark, I tried to lay out a 4’ x 8’ living space, along with “kitchenette and RV style bathroom”. I can’t figure out how to make this space work, not with the included “bathette”. Do you have an example of such a space?
Standard twin bed is 38 inches wide, which would leave a mere 10 inches between the edge of the bed and the wall, and the average twin bed is 75 inches long, which leaves a slight wider 21 inches between the foot of the bed and the other wall down there. That doesn’t leave a heck of a lot of space. Even if you make the bed more narrow you’ll need at least 24 inches, that’s still a mighty small clearance, I don’t know how you fit a toilet in there. I suppose you can utilize a loft for the bed, but then you have the problem of climbing up there in a very narrow space.
It certainly won’t accommodate the disabled or elderly, two groups who might have a relatively high percentage of users. Also, it won’t accommodate the married or those with children. I’m not comfortable with telling people who are experiencing a temporary setback (which is one reason this system will get use) that sorry, spouses have to split up, families have to be split up, etc. You should not be barred from having a family just because you’re poor. Indeed, the poor need those sort of connections more than the wealthy. Not to mention that housing people in groups is almost always more cost-effective than housing them as individuals.
A bit of a tangent, but it would quickly become a nightmare for any implementation of such a system.
Of course the devil is in the details, but I completely support the idea of a basic income.
If everyone has a basic income, other programs we spend money on would no longer be necessary, like food stamps and welfare, so that’s a ton of money that can be redirected to the basic income program.
And our tax system is messed up. It needs major change. A system that makes me pay 15% with an income of about $75k a year and makes the millionaires like Romney only pay 14% is totally unjust.
Some people are lazy, some are stupid. I’d rather they have enough to survive on. Crime might go down if people are not so hard up. If we could have universal health care, I’d be happy to pay more than the 15% I currently do, but only if rich people pay a more fair percentage also.
I also don’t believe most people would stop working. That’s boring after awhile and most people do want more than a bare minimum anyway.
The people who would stop working would largely be the unemployable or the perpetual-problem employees anyway. Right now, we have to put up with the lazy, the stupid, the addicted and others not really suited to formal employment struggling to maintain jobs, at a cost to all of us - including the cost of dealing with them as customers or clients. It’s this whole class that nails down just how nonsensical the vague notion of “a good job for everyone” is.
Making it worthwhile - but just barely - for the unable and the unwilling to opt out of the labor force has only positive benefits. At lower net cost to the rest of us than the current system of propping them up, subsidizing their minimal income, endlessly trying to train and place them, keep them detoxed, etc.
[QUOTE=Broomstick;18444452Now where is your proof that MOST PEOPLE ARE LAZY and would rather live in spartan, minimal conditions rather than do some work for a better standard of living?
[/QUOTE]
I haven’t given proof for that because that has never been my assertion.
A non-zero number of people would take their spartan conditions instead of, say, laying cable. A non-zero number is enough to shift the demand curve. I’ve discussed what would happen if it’s true because, well, it is.