A UBI pays everyone, MMT's JGP is better because it only pays those working in the JGP & its admin. - Page 2 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

"It's the economy, stupid!"

Moderator: PoFo Economics & Capitalism Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please.
#15145842
BeesKnee5 wrote:
UBS (Universal basic services). The aim being to reduce the cost of living rather than raise the amount of money paid out, in this regard it is anti-inflationary and so the money spent by the state isnt devalued and doesn't devalue the income of existing workers (Although it does devalue capital, which is no bad thing).



Puffer Fish wrote:
Not really, since those people doing the services still have to be paid.
I think your logic on this point is off.

Unless you are talking about recouping the costs through higher taxes.



This is just right-wing alarmism / reaction -- you suddenly snap at the idea of government spending when it comes to *left-wing*, and *workers'* interests, and benefits.

Which is more important, *providing* food, or *profiting* from food -- ?

Housing, or the real estate market?
#15149118
Wolvenbear wrote:Or we could just let businesses pay people to work and stop discussing the merits of lesser plans.


They may not need to.
Think of how many businesses are looking to remove people from their business.

Off the top of my head automation / robotics are eating into already or are about to eat into

Banking and Finance - pretty much all automated
Office Cleaning - Cleaning robots are becoming more and more common and reducing number of cleaners required
Warehouse management - Automated warehouse picking is common place, this will only expand and reduce human input
Manufacturing - Automated production lines are now the norm.
Deliveries - Wont be long now, this pandemic has accelerated the move towards it
Transport - One of those always tomorrow technologies that sooner or later will burst through and replace drivers
Farming - Places like the Netherlands are leading the way on automated farming and other countries are taking note that such a small country has become one of the biggest exporters of produce in the world.

More than that, when the choice is a dozen people paid almost nothing to break their backs or one person paid well to operate\ supervise a machine then I prefer the latter to win out rather than see a system that chews up people and spits them out.

Perhaps it's time to recognise that people should spend more time contributing to society, more time being productive at what they do best and less time grinding themselves down for corporate profit when their are better means of achieving those profits.

Ultimately the system eats itself, the strive for more profit that leads to efficiencies and the reduction in manpower leaves less people being paid and therefore less people able to afford the goods, while at the same time an earth with finite resources gets treated as if those resources are infinite until there is nothing left.
#15149317
And yet, all of these automations require people to design, build, program, deliver, upkeep, etc the robots and machines. This creates as many jobs as it displaces.

You're the guy complaining that we can't have refrigerators because the ice delivery guy will be put out of work.

How dare we have progress? We must live in the past forever!
#15149490
Wolvenbear wrote:And yet, all of these automations require people to design, build, program, deliver, upkeep, etc the robots and machines. This creates as many jobs as it displaces.

You're the guy complaining that we can't have refrigerators because the ice delivery guy will be put out of work.

How dare we have progress? We must live in the past forever!


Considering I am advocating progress that's an odd reply.

My job is to automate financial systems, the software I have written has contributed to 90% of staff being surplus to requirement in banking and local government. The number of staff working in software houses are a small fraction of the jobs replaced

In many regards the reduction of working age people as a proportion of the population has been able to hide these changes, as has the increase in part time and self employed work.

Unlike you I don't see this continuing, the numbers required to design, build and maintain robots and even electric vehicles is much, much lower than the current machinery we use. I see this as a good thing and progress.
#15161838
ckaihatsu wrote:This is just right-wing alarmism / reaction -- you suddenly snap at the idea of government spending when it comes to *left-wing*, and *workers'* interests, and benefits.

Which is more important, *providing* food, or *profiting* from food -- ?

I wasn't questioning giving money to these causes; I was just questioning how and where this money was going to come from, and what the extraneous (unintended) effects of that proposed policy would be.
#15161849
BeesKnee5 wrote:
UBS (Universal basic services). The aim being to reduce the cost of living rather than raise the amount of money paid out, in this regard it is anti-inflationary and so the money spent by the state isnt devalued and doesn't devalue the income of existing workers (Although it does devalue capital, which is no bad thing).



Puffer Fish wrote:
Not really, since those people doing the services still have to be paid.
I think your logic on this point is off.

Unless you are talking about recouping the costs through higher taxes.



ckaihatsu wrote:
This is just right-wing alarmism / reaction -- you suddenly snap at the idea of government spending when it comes to *left-wing*, and *workers'* interests, and benefits.

Which is more important, *providing* food, or *profiting* from food -- ?

Housing, or the real estate market?



Puffer Fish wrote:
I wasn't questioning giving money to these causes; I was just questioning how and where this money was going to come from, and what the extraneous (unintended) effects of that proposed policy would be.



The money's going to come from the military budget because the U.S. no longer has to invade and bomb Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, and Syria.

Bolstering the *public* sector pays for itself since there's no tacked-on extra cost of having to provide for private *profits*, to private-property concerns.

Here's a good example, from the news:


Syria’s Assad offers stimulus to public workers as crisis deepens

https://www.aljazeera.com/economy/2021/ ... is-deepens
Israel-Palestinian War 2023

@JohnRawls No. Your perception of it is not. I g[…]

Russia-Ukraine War 2022

I'd be totally happy for us to send ground troop i[…]

Any of you going to buy the Trump bible he's promo[…]

There were formidable defense lines in the Donbas[…]