It's just citation of sources - just so people can't bs facts by saying "a group of smart people said 'x'. Therefore, it is fact." (Not that I don't necessarily agree in part with Ezra).
especially when it comes about economics, there are different schools of tought in economics, you can choose one of them to believe in, and discredit the rest. so sayin some economist said something, is just an opinion, not a fact. and if you say "economists" you only mean a handful, as there is no concensus between economists.
The truth is that as automation produces more goods, people will want higher quality and/or quantity goods. If the spirit of consumerism isn't there, then an economy won't ever get to an automated state.
It's one thing to have money, it's another thing to know what to do with it. Basic income is ideal when implemented in a society with an advanced education system; that is, a system that provides the tools necessary for a basic income to become fully realised. However, countries plagued with extreme poverty need education as their foundation, not money.
True fact in life: you can always easily spend more money than you have. Everyone I know who doesn't have money, spends too much on bullshit. No one I know has an income problem.
+aluisious Yeah, but you live in a certain niche of the society, where you are lucky enough to become a member of the middle class. We are talking about people who could reach this status because of their education, language barrier, or lack of resources, not because they are not willing to plan ahead or work hard.
Let's take that apart: "Education:" in the US, K-12 is free. Someone who takes math and English every year and does what the teacher says will be fine. I've never seen a person who wanted to learn but was mysteriously thwarted. "Language barrier:" piss off. Don't run across borders unprepared. Not a real problem. English is easy to learn, too. I wouldn't move to China and start complaining about a language barrier, that's lacking basic intelligence. "Lack of resources:" too nebulous. No one legally in the US with any interest in doing better in life lacks resources. There is in fact a tremendous amount of public assistance available, especially to qualifying low income people.
The Education system has not failed to solve Poverty; the education system in the US is incredibly weak compared to other OECD countries. We can't accuse said system of failing to solve poverty when it is an inherently flawed system to begin with. Were the system to be improved, perhaps it could do its duty and follow through to doing what it has done in some countries that rank highly in terms of education: reduce poverty. It is also worth noting, you claim that the number made unemployed by Automation will rise to 25% and then 50%, but this is based on an assumption of today's jobs. Jobs are continuously being created - they are in excess in both the UK and US - and there is no fixed pool of jobs (Lump of Labour Fallacy). Jobs that we are yet to imagine will likely be created over the coming decades. The claims of 25% to 50% were around during the Industrial Revolution epoch; these claims were proven wrong. New Industries are created, new ideas imagined, and new types of jobs made available. It is the duty of the Education system (among others) to ensure that it can provide the best gateway to an always-changing Labour market.
MrTheeyeofone I didn't say anything about "everyone getting a PhD" or anything about technology. You're not bright enough to keep a short thread straight in your head, I'll let you wonder how much I care about your other observations.
Just *actually* help people to help themselves. Education. Transportation. Housing. Teach people how to find and take advantage of opportunities. Give them a hand to get up that ladder. Most people that whine about the poor needing to pick themselves up by their bootstraps have never been poor, and have no understanding of how difficult it is to do that with limited resources, particularly when everything in the system is designed to take what resources you have away from you. The system isn't designed for the poor. It's designed for a middle class that's getting harder to find. The poor have to work within that, and when it goes south (debt, medical, emergencies, the unexpected), they fail...and there's nothing there to stop that failure. If they are going to be law abiding citizens, they have to accept that their depleted and lose their home, their education, their transportation...their means of supporting themselves. Consequently many turn to crime or less savory tactics just to stay alive. This doesn't even account for the psychology of being poor. Ever had a bad breakup or lose someone close to you? Imagine that sorrow day in and day out as you get turned away from everything...because you're poor. Help the poverty-stricken to help themselves. I'll happily contribute my share of money to do it because once the poor are no longer poor they are providing benefits to all of us. They are spending money, they are producing things, they are contributing. That leads to a healthier, happier society. More importantly, it means we're trying to help our fellow human beings. If that's not worthwhile to you, I don't know what really is. When you die, you can't take that money with you.
Close. The system is designed for the wealthy. They own the system, and they make it do what the want to benefit them. That's why the middle class is disappearing. If we wanted a strong middle class, we'd have better trade policies.
Bigbadd Woofe What wealthy people want and will benefit from is the people's respect. Thats why most wealthy people are popular, or at least try to be. If you want to become wealthy, you must climb up a ladder and not blame the wealthy if you dont succeed.
Poverty is such an intangible that I hate to use it. I prefer tangibles, like survival. People require money to survive. When they don't get enough money to meet survival requirements (shelter, sustenance) they will do one of three things: steal, improvise, give up. Stealing and banditry are bad for everyone. Giving up (suicide) is bad but with the current population growth rates I think it's less of a concern. Obviously, improvisation and innovation are the preferable choice. How do we prevent stealing and encourage improvement? Giving money to people.
+Midironica "Suicide is bad but with the current population growth rates I think it's less of a concern" That one line ended your political dreams lmfao.
+Got Em It's just realism. The idea of being a politician is horrible to me. I'm just being realistic and stating realism. War, disease, suicide...are all inherent to human society and are some of the main factors of population control. I don't condone them...I just think that we should be so appalled at their existence because when we don't have them our population explodes and the Earth burns up like a candle.
Midironica So.... Give money to criminals so that they don't steal... wow great idea dude/dudette! You are such a genius that I think you should run for president! If a socialist quack like Sanders can do it, then so can you! Good thing that idiot Sanders is pretty much done and Clinton holds a nearly insurmountable lead over him. I bet now you feel the bern, it's called disappointment!
The problem is that, if you really wanted to end poverty, you needed to higher the taxes for the rich. Now the rich are rich, and money goes hand in hand with influence. Who ever owns money, also got influence. The rich are in the end the ones who sponsor the preelection, so the political partys will most of the time pass laws that don't affect the rich too much. If you highered the taxes for the top 1% to lets say 60% income or even higher (which would still leave them billions), they wouldn't sponsor you anymore. Problem is: way too few people understand this.
Should anywhere implement a UBI, America is the last place I'd expect to see it happen first. America is one of the most corporate dominated countries on the planet, which is reflected by their media and as result their population. Anyone who has tried to discuss solving unnecessary human suffering globally, will know it's often an American who will treat suggested solutions akin to blasphemy. The UBI is most likely to first emerge in poor countries trying to find solutions to their poverty problems, or Europe. The propaganda coming from America's wealthy elite is simply too all consuming for it to have any chance of starting there, redistribution is a very dirty word in America.
I'm an American and I think that there should be a revival of Clifford H. Douglas' ideas on 'Social Credit'. Overall, I think we as a people need to get off this bullshit idea that 'work makes everyone better' before we have a great majority of our population out of work. So, how about that?
AnnoyedDragon I agree mostly with that apart from the corporate bit. Surely it is in most bushiness' interest to have a larger customer population. More people with money mean more people who can spend money.
CyanideSovereign To paraphrase one argument. "If someone came into your business and asked for £50 from the till, promising to spend it at your business if you gave it to them. Would you? You'd be mad to, even if it technically created more economic activity; you wouldn't be better off as a business". The UBI is about tackling inequality and poverty, it mustn't be turned into a business argument because it would lose that one.
+AnnoyedDragon While I agree, one thing that makes me hopeful is actually the staunch individualism here. The Basic Income is often mistaken as a "liberal" policy. But it's equally a libertarian one, since an equal share of the value of nature -- the Citizens' Dividend version of the BIG -- is necessary for self-ownership. Once you illustrate this to a libertarian, they tend to see it in a different light. In other words, if you convert libertarians into GEOlibertarians, the idea gets traction.
This is completely wrong. You don't eradicate poverty by handing out money in the long-term. If you just gave 1000$ to every poor person in the world, the result would just be inflation, and so in the end, the people who had received the money would proportionally be as poor (if not even poorer) because all the prices would have risen.
Yeah because USA doesnt print around a billion dollars in paper every week, and the dollar is totally still backed by the gold reserve... Yes of course..... .___.
This isn't printing money. There is still the same amount of money in the economy, so there wouldn't be more inflation. The government's money will go into the general economy either way, and that money will be used either way, so isn't it better to use that money to directly fix poverty rather than to just soothe its effects somewhat?
Nope... is not printing extra money... that money would come from other places like taxes from wealthy people.. budget originaly destinated to things like the military etc.. its just redistribution of wealth.. and in my opinion it is a good idea. Of course, corporate America hates it.
This video's audio is really hard to understand. Maybe you could decrease the background noise? Because the narrator's speech pattern is already hard to make out.
I always thought that if we gave everyone universal income, we would set a standard for life. It is just a bare minimum. if someone wants to progress further and have nicer things (like what capitalism is all about) then they will have to study more or work harder. This would also let people pursue dreams instead of careers. It wouldn't replace consumer culture but could actually improve it.
"Give a man a fish and he is fed for a day,teach a man to fish and he is fed for a lifetime." We cant just give people money,they have to go out and earn it.Now if they are working,but dont have enough income,then yes give them some money.
***** That works too. Here eat this fish.Now you are all ready to go,now Im going to teach you how to fish.Because you are not going to live off society,definitely if you are not giving back to society.
CommunistDragon51 Actually, I think we can and it'll change our philosophy. Like, we confuse Work that's what you do with your life (which is fulfilling and important) and Work to survive (which kills people who're born in jobless towns, poor countries etc). In a world with better robots, which is pretty possible, we'd have to realise that it's only the FIRST kind of work that's important - a purpose, making a difference, helping people no matter the pay. And our attitude - that people must 'earn' money for the right to survive - would have to adapt.
The problem with poverty is not just that people do not have enough money. Giving people more money will over time end up in the pockets of those who own and control land and natural resources. This was understood by the political economists, such as Adam Smith and David Ricardo. This knowledge has been buried because of the political and economic power of landed interests. The real solution to poverty is to create equality of opportunity, and this type of equality requires that the potential to profit without producing anything is brought to an end. We need to change the way government raises its revenue, to begin collecting from anyone who holds land (or land-like assets, such as the broadcast spectrum) the full potential annual rental value of the land held. This will eliminate "rent-seeking" by means of land speculation and dramatically improve the level of equality of opportunity in our society.
I am not sure if I am right. To end poverty, some of the rich will fall since the government has to destroy that income gap to end it. I am sure that make sense or right or both
@@wat2206 The evidence is strong that a good portion of income that comes to those with the highest incomes is derived from various legal privileges rather than earned by producing goods or providing services to others. There is a concept in economics called "the free rider," which means that individuals (or entities) are able to consume public goods and services without paying for them. Changing the way government raises its revenue could remove these inequities. Those who work for a living will see higher wages. Those who now benefit by legal privileges would be required to work to earn income. There would no longer be extremes of wealth and poverty.
While your other solutions aren't invalid, I don't believe it's a problem like you implied that the money from a basic income will end up back in the pockets of the wealthy and powerful. The point is that progressive taxation will continually fuel the other side of that cycle, moving the money back from the wealthy to the economically disadvantaged.
This person doesn't seem to understand VERY basic economics. Money (or any resource) is valuable due to SCARCITY. If everyone had more money, money is worth less. If all people had a "minimum income", then everyone would have more money to compete for the same resources (apartments, groceries), which would drive the costs of those items up, out of reach of those poor people once again. You cannot eliminate poor people. You can only lift yourself up. In order to do better for yourself, you have to be making proportionately more money than those around you to have larger purchasing power. That's why in cities in San Francisco, you're making 6-figures, but you still can't afford an apartment, because everyone else around you is also making 6-figures and able to compete against you. The only fantasy way to end poverty completely is Star Trek, where replicators create a world with infinite resources. If resources are infinite and we no longer have to compete for them, then there will be no more poverty. Until then, some will always have more than others.
I believe you are mostly correct. You don't even need Star Trek replicators, you just need enough people working to increase available resources. As enough resources are earned by the collective whole, everyone giving their fair share of labor, then ideally, poverty would end. Giving resources to those who have done nothing to help the collective whole have them is a drain on the economy and hurts the value of the dollar however. Yet, most efforts to end poverty actually just put more people into poverty because they are allocating resources that are not coming in...
To the idiots who think basic income would ruin the economy. Actually, it's quite the contrary. Those who receive basic income will no doubt spend it, and they will spend it on products that affect the economy in the most positive way. This spending is what causes capitalism and the economy to grow and thrive What actually destroys the economy is when you have all the money in one small group, such as the 1%, as they don't spend all their money and if they do it's on things that have little to no affect on the economy. What is currently destroying the economy is the level of inequality we have today A basic income will not only help people and take them out of poverty but it will be the best thing for the economy
I agree, my economist brother in law explained the same thing to me. People here sound like sociopaths, they are salivating at the idea that this solution can't possibly work and poor people should be kept poor. No sense of empathy and basic decency at all, damn.
NatUTubeful I've had arguments with plenty of these people. They're either ceo's or people that have been manipulated by them. They have the kind of mentality that makes them do anything for an extra buck regardless of the negative impacts doing so will have. That's why you get a ruined economy, planet, and population if you give them what they want
Gregory Holmes It's "childish" because it's such simple logic. Get that through your thick skull. If people have more money what do they do with it, especially people who don't have much money? They spend it, duh. What does a billionaire do with his money? He spends a little, but does he spend most of it? And does he spend it on products other than 200 year old paintings, which have no effect on the economy? A much higher minimum wage, general increase in wages under 100k, and welfare for those who are unemployed or unable to work will bring people out of poverty. How will we pay for it? Well the 1% seem to have a lot
Gregory Holmes Ugh, another baiting idiot that's gonna force his opinions because he's under-threat of equality. Very well, I do know of tradeoffs. Yes, there will be repercussions such as the wealthy not being so wealthy anymore, oh such a big tradeoff, oh my. Nothings a perfect utopia where everyone can benefit. But the current system is almost as bad as it can get, and needs to be changed. You do realize the money that is given to the poor/middle class will always bounce back up into the wealthy's pockets?
Gregory Holmes Actually, I've heard of theories that say there'll be economic downsides to the wealthy losing their wealth. But I've never heard why or what it is. Could you perhaps explain what the economic downsides are? I'm interested
The UBI would not eliminate poverty because prices would go up with it. What is needed is UBI+ price freezes+ dramatic wage increases. Under this people will want to work, they will buy more and the corporations get richer by selling in volume instead of trying to get rich per transaction.
Let me say that this video was an very brief overwiev of the _idea_ of basic income. I invite you to research the foundation and the many concepts behind it. Don't judge idea after such a short video, the idea is actually quite a good one!! :)
The reason we have these complex poverty systems in this country is to avoid people abusing the system, because some of the biggest things that ruin people's lives are drugs and alcohol, and money is the only way to get back on those. Ideally we would just get rid of these systems and let people make what they actually work for, and it would be their own choice if they want to throw away their lives, not our taxpayers' money.
GalapagooseonSteam This is bs. Imo the system should try to catch and rehabilate people who are addicted to drugs, not try to punish them. And just taking away their money is the most stupid system imaginable. There are other ways to do this. They are already used in countries like switzerland, where I live. You're probably going to lose your job. The state handles you, gives you money. If you try to get a job, you get a little bit more money. You only get a very tiny amount of money. Just enough to live. But there are of course people who can't handle it, often drug addicts. Those poeople get the money in a special way - they have to go fetch their money on a daily basis for instance, if they can't manage their cash. Or they can only buy food with their money ( = with their card), because they are to tempted to buy drugs.
GalapagooseonSteam No, no its not. Its because of loans. Reset the system: loan me 1000$ (All the money in the world = this 1000$) Now I owe you 1000$ + money that doesn't even exist. Banking system is fcked Interest is a SCAM.
Maybe it'll become mainstream again when unemployment hits 80% due to automation and advanced AI. Also, what's with all the people complaining about audio quality? I mean it's not crystal-clear TV quality, but it's perfectly understandable. Did they all damage their hearing from playing their Justin Bieber too loud, or do they just need to buy new headphones?
it might be that the US is not developed enough to implement a system like this, people aren't educated and informed enough to think in the bigger picture, especially the very poor might not work at all because they always had to work so hard to survive, then they can suddenly do nothing and be fine. But in principle, of course this is a solution. In a society where this can work, it is simply immoral not to raise taxes and distribute money.
***** mixture of irrelevant response and random rant? I can see what you were trying to say (even though it makes no sense) but I can't see how it's relevant
Yea but in reality it makes people lazy. I work on council housing in Britain and believe me, you give a human a television and enough money to live on then they soon become coach potatoes. Not everyone of course. But quite a big chunk of society.
+Karlo Daniels in fact I ask myself daily what the hell I'm doing busting my hump at a job I hate 6days a week so I can afford to do on a Sunday what these lazy bastards get to do everyday for free.
Karlo Daniels that's not universally true. It might be true in many situations but they've done multiple experiments in Scandinavia and the people were more productive and happy. I think they'll also try in Ontario soon
Just give them money for nothing? Where does that money come from? Probably taxes. So you're extorting people's money that they worked for from them with the threat of violence, and giving it to people who haven't worked at all and who will probably use it irresponsibly. Wonderful idea.
***** Some people don't exactly earn money equal to their efforts. UBI acts as both a safeguard for increasing unemployment from automation while redistributing the wealth of CEOs to people that actually worked for their money.
+TheEndergun Indeed, and who will decide what is fair and what is not? Is there some cosmic understanding of fairness to which only special people have access? I guess they must be the elite; the God chosen few made to govern us all with the secret knowledge to know what everyone deserves. Or instead of imposing your own idea of "fairness", is it actually economic freedom that generates and spreads more wealth? This Thanksgiving, let's choose freedom, and thank God for the wealth it has given to more people than any other system in history.
+Steve Doetsch I think we can at least agree that everyone in the developed world deserves somewhere to live, 3 meals a day, clothing, and basic utilities at the bare minimum. We don't currently provide this...that is what UBI would do.
It actually scares me incredibly that we do not even have this sort of conversation about a UBI. Especially considering what automation imposes, it becomes a solution, or we risk perhaps the greatest economic depression in human history. First, some facts: Money isn't *real*. This is to say it's not real wealth. Real wealth are the objective resources of the earth, and money is the human invention projected over that. This understanding is crucial, for not getting that money is made and invented absolutely paralyzes people on what we can do about it. The simple fact is we use it because we have agreed, socially, to use it. If these can be grasped, let's move on to the problems this system has by the ideas we fail to realize as ideas. Our central problem begins with a double-bind, and I feel I should take the time to explain what I mean by that term. A double-bind, quite simply, is to assert something as a mandate but subconsciously infer a volunteering will towards it. An example would be if I said "you *must* love me"; this infers you have to - you have no choice - but it's only ideal if you *want* to, if you sincerely love me. The mandate breeds conflict, yet allowing it to happen of itself breeds sincerity. This double-bind exists in labor, for we say you *have* to work, but it's only great if you *want* to do something you like. It's this specific idea that creates poverty in the developed world, for the mandate also infers a situation of "Have", and rejection of the mandate infers a "Have Not". Don't work? You don't have money and all of the benefits we've ascribed it to have, so you suffer. Intellectually, this is the progenitor to poverty in any developed nation of the 21st century, for it's not the lack of wealth, of real resources, that produces the problem. As I tried to explain earlier, money isn't lumber or iron, or any resource of the earth. We have those to care for our people, easily. It's that we linked all of that to being a "Have", and thus the "Have Not" is merely the natural contrast to that. The problem with our mandate is for the first time in human history, we have produced technology that actually makes our imposition on what people must do in incredible danger. Automation, and in particular deep learning automation, which is self-learning computerization doing cognitive work, are going to destroy all low and middle-skilled jobs this century. 12 million Americans have to be taken out of the labor force for a depression to occur, and with automative technologies *today*, this can easily be accomplished; create a technological cocktail of driving, retail, warehousing, image diagnostics, lawyer busywork, and importing/exporting jobs to easily hit that number. Just driving alone has 9 million truck jobs: fully automating that gets us 75% there to the number to create a depression. One may wonder what's stopping this from happening right now, and the answer is costs; the machines simply cost more than people. But, if you're an American, you should also know that there's a big talk about increasing wages. This is where the seesaw will even itself out: as more Americans have more costs to them as persons - wages, health care, overtime, comp pay, etc - machines only get less as time goes on. When the costs of the machines match the cost of the person, and the machine can hit baseline human levels, the human is replaced. This is not a question of if this aligns, but where and when. Driverless cars already outclass human drivers, and we're talking prototypes with dated camera technology. Warehousing *has* happened as of a few years ago, as Amazon has made a few facilities solely run by orange drones that follow QR codes on the ground, and importing/exporting bays have been automated as of this year; the vehicles are all run by deep learning, and only one person works at those docks, as an overwatcher to make sure nothing bad occurs. These exist today, now. This isn't the Jetsons, this is 2015, and it's here. So, what happens when you mix our social attitude that humans must work with a technological bump that replaces people? The people suffer, and the system suffers, so long as that ideal is held. The point of technology and the purpose of the machine is to increase production and be more efficient, yet we've devised a system where this positive comes with a negative. That negative should *NOT* exist, for its reasons to exist are petty. Why must man be a cog in the labor machine when literal machines can do it better? There's no point in that, and thus there's no point in creating that as the society. Furthermore, this all starts with the double-bind, for by inferring necessity to this entire social framework, we've created suffering and misery when there should be wonder and empowerment. If you stop people from being forced into the rat race and empower them to do what they value, they'll live more productive lives. Demanding labor doesn't empower people to be more productive or better off, because the hole in the ditch *was made by us*. That bottom, that spook, that uh oh, is a function of this system to keep people in line. People would be able to be far better off if that hole was filled, you gave everyone the basic necessities of life, and didn't double-bind them with work, with have tos and musts. Instead, true freedom is found in desire, in wants, in wishing things to be so but never fighting, demanding, forcing it to be so. Our systems and successes are absolute failures, for they are fought to be evoked, erected, and maintained. They are an affront to anything any other species does, in which other species have far more of a level of harmony with the world than what we make of ours. They allow growth and natural prosperity to occur, yet we demand it, and in our demands absolutely destroy it. If we had a society where we instilled in people "what would you like to do with your time?", we'd be far better off than one that demands "you *must* use your time this way!". The former empowers people to value their lives, to get with present reality, and to live on one's values. The latter demands assimilation, burns out people, forced people to acquire and chase to make up for the vapidity given to their lives, and is ultimately an insoluble proposition. Technology allows the former to occur *while* killing the latter. Will we choose to embrace that or fight it with our egoic ignorance, to stay in our ways that don't work?
+ShakinJamacian Fucking great comment, I wish I had some friends that spoke and thought like you, can't seem to find many yet. I'm too busy being surrounded by people who don't even know they are racist. Where are you from and how old are you?
onecentnickel I am from New York, and I'm 25, if you really wanted to know. Unfortunately, I seem to be an outlier. Both my understanding and desire of a lifestyle that matches the world naturalistically seem to be impeded upon by our social affronts, for we continue to confuse subjectivity with objectivity. It is frustrating because, to me, it is so obvious almost all of our issues exist specifically because of the ideas we hold, that we do not examine. Poverty and worthiness are two perfect examples of this.
+ShakinJamacian It isn't a choice; we're going to have to go that way at some point. The question is more of "when will it happen" not a if. Our political discourse has and will continue to be, a debate between those mired in wanting to recover nostalgia, and those wanting to create a new kind of future. It's always going to be that way, its a matter of hoping America makes the choice voluntarily. Its the curse of capitalism being the central philosophy: "what does this cost me?" and not "what does this cost us?"
+ShakinJamacian You should look into Geoism, or sharing the market value of nature, or "land" in economics. The capstone work is "Progress and Poverty" by Henry George. You can find an abridged version -- which I recommend to a first-time reader over the original -- online. Basically, there are three factors of production: (1) Land, (2) Labor, and (3) Capital. As society and technology advance, the returns to labor decrease -- obvious to the modern observer. Less obvious is that, assuming huge monopoly patent windows aren't granted to the creators of capital (machinery), returns to capital also decrease over time because new competitors can always enter and increase supply. It may seem counterintuitive, but over time, more and more of our GDP will come from Land. This wealth is unearned by the individual but owed to nature and society, i.e., the division of labor, infrastructure, the historical acquisition of human knowledge, etc.; it should, frankly, be shared via Citizens' Dividend -- the geoist version of the Basic Income.
Jobs wouldnt be lost to robots since people would still need to fix, upgrade, and program the robot. Also robots cant do everything so human labor is still needed.
Joep Jacobs Its more of an opinion base topic since robotics are farely new to the job world. The "research" available is more speculation than actual factual evidence. If you find anything that is not just conjecture, please feel free to share it.
It seems like it is inevitable that this will pass at some stage in the not so distant future considering the fact that robots will replace all the unskilled jobs pretty soon.
Have you seen the Humans Need Not Apply video by CGP grey? Interesting idea. I think right now though there are still enough jobs and work that can be done that robots have not replaced.
Lemenks & Trevor Lindgren After watching the CGP Grey video I'm also convinced that we need a min income. But to make it work we would have to control the population with it. Allow for anyone to sign up for Gov't Income with the requirement that you be permanently sterilized. If you have already had children you are not applicable. This will allow those who don't want the responsibility of fighting in the economy to get a nice 1 person apt and live the life of a college kid. That mentality ends with them and you don't have neglected or abandoned children from people who don't have the mindset to take care of them. Only those who which to work for the rest of their lives would reproduce as they want that burden. It would stop generational welfare and reduce poverty. Opinions from two people who have seen both videos?
I still don't think we need a minimum income. I think just giving people something for no effort on their part destroys their soul, character, and sense of self worth. I have no problem with temporary help or help for people who are disabled but some amount of work is good for us. I disagree with CGP Grey and don't think the situation is as dire (yet) as he makes it out to be for the job situation--but I still liked his video. The only thing I don't like about your idea is that it is too closely related to what Hitler tried to do with eugenics--I am not trying to compare you with him, and I know its not the same thing. Your idea makes some logical sense but morally I am opposed to it--I also think there would be enough people that would be so fearful of being sterilized by the government that they would chose to remain in poverty and not take the minimum income. Honestly I don't know what the answer is. I think we all have a responsibility to help those in need and this is a responsibility that gives us the chance to be good people without the government forcing us to do so. I think if we take the opportunities to help others we will be happier than if we pay more taxes and tell the government to do it for us.
Trevor Lindgren Yes, I definitely don't support the Hitler solution of forcing people to do anything. They already kinda do it in India to curb their population problems. You can get a one time payout if you get sterilized (women only), but the doctors there do shoddy work and people are getting sick. It would be great for people like priests, nuns, or those with dangerous genetic disorders who don't plan on having children anyways. It could help those who have mental disorders and can't work a regular job or raise a family. May I ask if your moral objection is to the act of sterilizing or that it is being done by a government agency? Is it a religious objection or a philosophical one? Thank you for a honest and respectful reply.
Hi Harvey, I don't know why. Mostly it just seems weird to me that the government would pay someone to remove their future ability to have children. I think mostly because of the government involvement and the power it gives them to possibly abuse or manipulate people in the future. In some cases because of the immediate "pay out" for the here and now some people would become sterilized who otherwise could have been a great parent. There are people who overcome poverty and decide they want to make something of their life. What if they change their mind, decide to start working and would have liked to have a family but because they had to take the government money due to their desperate circumstances they went ahead and got sterilized. I think it is wrong to force people to make that hard choice that cannot be undone. I am not morally opposed if a woman on her own decides to get a hysterectomy or a man a vasectomy for example because they know that they have a severe genetic mutation or are done having children. In this case the man or woman who decides to no longer have children don't have any incentive for the surgery other than preventing future problems. I guess it could be religiously I am opposed because I believe having a family is an important part of life and an important component to living a full and happy life--but you are right that for some people it may be more responsible for them not to have children. Overall I think a limited government is a better government.
I think some of the problem has to do with distribution of power. People with the power to make the universal basic income a reality also have a massively disproportionate share of the wealth. They also know that having money enables people to come into power and opens a lot of doors. If the poorest people of the country, often the ones most disillusioned and angry with the establishment, suddenly have dispensable income and therefore a means of changing the system, the people in power could very well lose that power, which is not in their interest. Poverty doesn't affect people with the power to end poverty, so why would they?
Wow, Vox, thank you, thank you. Thank you two times because there are two sources I have randomly heard promoting universal basic income: this video, and another video interviewing Bernie Sanders which happened to also be Vox. I congratulate you because it's such a no-brainer that no one else is mentioning. Thank you for mentioning it to Bernie, what better a person to mention it to.
Poverty comes from a lack of applicable skills, resources, and personal choices. It cannot be ended, the same way that all diseases cannot be stopped; they just evolve.
+James Russell Self interest. Your life can improve if others aren't in poverty. Crime rates tend to be lower, so you're less likely to be a victim of crime. Diseases spread more easily in impoverished areas (especially if vaccines aren't readily available), so if you want to be able to travel freely with less risk, it would be better for you. Also, it allows people who would otherwise be trapped succeed in life, which means a better work force, more innovations, and more stability in general. Oh, and tomorrow you could get hit by a bus, lose your ability to work, and end up becoming impoverished yourself. So if anything goes wrong for you, this would mean you're not complete and utterly screwed.
UBI increases bargaining power for workers because a guaranteed, unconditional income gives them leverage to say no to exploitative wages and abusive working conditions. Employers can't push workers around as much. UBI would be the greatest catalyst for new jobs, entrepreneurship, and creativity we have ever seen.
I disagree with most Vox videos, but as a capitalist, I think this is a good idea. People always spend their own money better than they spend others. I know its not really their own money, and I'm not saying its a perfect system, but It would still be a lot more efficient than how the government spends money. Of course we still need more money management education in public schools, and some will inevitably spend it on drugs and alcohol, but that's the cost of freedom.
Do was Julius Ceaser did, he proposed land reform which strengthened the roman economy, you just have to give people a boost up and help them start their own business or even a farm.
That's very useful for an era when land is wealth - not so much now. And another issue with land reform is, it's actually quite easy to reverse as slightly wealthier farmers buy a bit more land, and then buy some more land, until we're back at a situation where 1% of the people own 50% of the land.
It's videos like this we need to share more with each other. Everyone should be earning more. Everyone isn't earning more because of globalization and technology mostly. We used to have things called middle class jobs. Those don't exist anymore like we think they do. We lost a ton of them because we no longer need people here to do them. Instead we have cheap labor overseas. Because we have a consumer economy, this decrease in middle class jobs has an adverse effect on the economy through lower spending. Meanwhile jobs have transitioned to part-time work (because profits) and service industry work (because we can't move those jobs overseas for the most part). Look at the numbers. Unemployment may be lowering, but this is due to all those jobs that once paid good wages having been replaced by jobs that pay shit or jobs that only want you for 20 hours a week. We are only now just starting to realize where we are after decades of structural change. If we want a stronger economy, people have to recieve more income, so they can spend more into the economy. Saying shit like people should just work smarter, or get more educated, or that the "free market" will save us all if only we abolish taxes is like clicking your heels together and wishing to go home. Sorry Toto, this ain't Kansas. We're in Oz, where all those manufacturing jobs that created the middle class no longer exist and are never coming back in any substantial quantity. Automation has arrived. We have reached a pivotal point in human history. Human labor is no longer required to the degree it once was and it never will be again. We're living in a crazy and exciting time where we have to come to realize that we're going to need to pay people enough to sustain a middle class and we have to make sure we have a strong enough safety net in place to catch all those people who can't find the jobs that no longer exist, and both needs can be accomplished through the establishment of a basic income guarantee. Not only would this substantially reduce poverty, additionally it would supplement the incomes of all jobs and so rebuild, even grow, the middle class. No min wage required. No unions required. Just smaller, smarter government. It's 2014 now and we need to start acting like it. We know how to abolish poverty, reduce inequality, stimulate the economy, grow the middle class, and strengthen our democracy, all through one policy. So what are we waiting for?
"There's always this tooone? when you read aaarticles about poooverty? that this is this intraaactable proooblem? that we baarely understaaand? let alone like, have the tools to deeeal with?" And that's where I stopped listening.
Why wait for the government? Those who believe in a "guaranteed basic income" should form a charity, donate a percentage of their wages, and use the pooled money to start paying those in poverty in their own neighborhoods.
you can't end poverty, there will always be a class of people at the bottom, you can reduce the size of it by allowing a free market, but it'll always be there. basic income already exists under another name, minimum wage, and it's not working because whenever they raise the minimum wage, they also raise the poverty line which coincides with the economy's market, effecting food and prices for other necessities whenever it's raised. it's just a fact and anyone who believes you can somehow successfully get rid of it needs to get a reality check.
Minimum wage is nothing to do with basic income. Basic income is basically the government giving you money for being alive. So you would get a check monthly like a social security check. You don't need anything to get the check, in fact you can be sleeping in bed 24/7 and you would still get the check. This would not fix or end poverty because in the real world things don't work like that. You would also be paying taxes to help fund it's check because they need to get the money from somewhere. I am a fan of Reaganomics because it works.
Ending poverty means ending homelessness and hunger. And yes, we are more than capable of doing that if so many people on this Earth weren't so fucking greedy and selfish.
Comparing Minimum Wage and Basic Income is pretty ignorant. They aren't really that similar. Minimum wage only affects a minority of people giving them a leg up whereas it does nothing to those who make more than it. Basic Income affects everyone equally in that everyone gets the same amount and there are no conditions. So one is liberating and the other restricts some peoples liberty while increasing it for others.
This video needs a new title. Poverty will not end simply by giving a basic income. I do not want to be one of those negative RUclips Comments but I must add that poverty will not change for good (especially in developing nations) until corruption is dealt with. There are many comments saying that education and teaching those in poverty to think for themselves will work. You are totally right. But first we must take the gun away from their heads before they can focus on anything but finding their next meal.
I want to begin by saying poor people should be provided a way to receive money. Now how's the best way to go about that is the question. Should the government tax the rich ridiculously? Well, that is what we call communism. The government controlling everybody's income isn't the solution but what is? What if we tried to create jobs for as many of them as possible? Now, that won't work in lots of poverty problems because people are already working and just can't provide for themselves. So what if after those jobs were provided and people who work still need money. I think the best solution is work on *local* levels to help support and provide for them. Handing people money with out accountably can be dangerous. By doing this poverty would be eliminated and instead of just throwing money at people, we can provide them with a work place. Anyone agree?
I'd have to say no, I respectfully disagree. It is no sign of progress to continue creating wage slaves out of people just so they can get what they need in life, especially when it's only in an effort to prop up a dying economic model. I think transitioning to a resource based economy (RBE) per Jacque Fresco, further outlined by The Zeitgeist Movement (see their orientation guide on the official website) is the best way that people can have their needs met. It's not money that people need, it's access to resources. The monetary system is no longer needed, through advancements in technology we've transcended the situation of scarcity that it was borne out of. On a purely practical, technical level, we have the capability to take care of everyone on the planet--so everyone can have food, a place to live, and some nice extras (communication technologies, access to free, online education, healthcare, etc.) This is totally doable NOW. We now have the ability to produce a global abundance with much less human involvement needed to create that production. The game of labor for income is fast becoming irrelevant. Our current socioeconomic system is no longer useful, it doesn't serve the majority of us well and is too prone to inefficiencies, corruption and elitism. If we'd use the technology that we already have for the benefit of all people, there'd be much less crime and aberrant behavior, there'd be less illness from stress, there'd be less abuse and corruption. Please look into the idea of a resource based economy (also known as a natural law economy) where the necessities of life are provided through technology and intelligent resource management for the good of all people without a price tag.
MC Well like I already stated these "resources" as you call them are already being provided to those in need in this country through the various programs already in place.
Once a homeless man asked me for money so he could get something to eat. I went to a resturant across the street, and got a large meal to go. When I brought him the meal, he called me a "fucking smartass" and walked away, leaving the meal I had purchased. You see, he didn't want the food. He wanted me to give him cash to buy Booze and Crack. As long as people like this exist, you will NEVER end Poverty.
ERMAHGERD!! People work less? You mean, actually have a work/life balance and work to live and afford luxuries rather than live to work just to survive!?! OH MY GOSH THE HORROR!!! Look, the idea that a UBI would destroy the incentive to work is BS. You give everyone an income as a right of being a citizen that's very basic. If someone wants to be a bum and do nothing all day and live a barebones lifestyle on that income, then so be it, it's their life. MOST people however would like to be able to afford nicer luxuries and simply put wouldn't want to waste their life away sitting at home doing nothing, so you'd still see more people working (less hours too in most cases, which is good), and they'd be working to buy luxuries, not to simply have the basics. I love the idea of a UBI and I'd love to see it instituted sooner rather than later. Billionaires have more money than they could ever need yet they still "work" everyday like their employees. So clearly there's no loss of motivation to produce for them. We need a UBI.
If we did this it would inflate prices of things, kind of like how the price of collage is so high because of the guaranteed money students get through grants. Also, less people would have jobs and it would have to be taxpayers carrying the burden. We have things to battle poverty already; minimum wage, earned income tax credit, child tax credit, WIC, SNAP, medicaid and CHIP.
EnigmaHood money supply growth does not necessarily cause inflation. Also, who is to say that if this was done on a large scale that it would be coming out of 'money that you already have'. Since when does the government have that much liquid money that it doesn't get through 'printing money'?
Basic income is giving people money just because they BREATHE. We only do this to our CHILDREN under the condition they prove themselves GOOD hardworking kids that will become successful in sustaining themselves through their own effort one day: we INVEST in our kin’s potential. We should never give stuff to our kids without expecting anything in return. They would never outgrow it. They would forever live dependent on us. Basic universal income is structural slavery. People would rather do nothing than work if they had their basic needs covered up.
Poverty is not due to not having money. It is due to making bad choices, repeatedly. People who make poor choices then win lottery millions (not just a meager $12k) for example, end up poorer than before they won.
this is completely ridiculous, one of the fundamental laws of economics is if you subsidise something, you get more of it, not less of it. in a capitalistic environment, taxing an economy's industry and production to sustain an economic underclass only perpetuates the problem. big business moves elsewhere, and you have less people to tax, and more people to feed. despite this, welfare for the unemployed should be conditional, welfare recipients put to work on public projects are returned the dignity of work, a new skill can be learned, and society benefits as a whole. widespread welfare programs without work create complacent and inefficient societies, poverty in underdeveloped regions like africa is a result of government corruption, and the insatiable greed of international mining and resource groups that support them. instead of an organised U.N intervention into government corruption and human rights offences in africa, nothing is done, because the banks and industrial groups that broker the real power behind the U.N are addicted to the blood diamonds and mineral wealth that they can plunder. Africa is the most materially rich continent on earth, and they can't sustain a standard of living because of the same people that demand you donate to support them. even in the face industrial innovation and less demand for human labour, widespread welfare (for nothing) is not conducive to an efficient society.
I could explain it again in simpler terms, but i think you'd probably benefit more from reading comprehension classes than having somebody hold your hand every time you encounter a word in excess of 3-syllables.
I've also failed to see you back up your statement with anything even closely resembling an actual half hearted discussion. if creating a welfare class is good for an economy, explain to me why? or perhaps you'd prefer to further detract from any actual discussion and propagate your bullshit in a tone befitting somebody of your disposition?
-welfare is a major contributing factor in juvenile violence and crime www.cato.org/publications/congressional-testimony/relationship-between-welfare-state-crime-0 -why welfare programs are bad for an economy hanseconomics.com/2012/02/14/mit-professor-may-be-kind-spirited-but-is-definitely-a-bad-economist/ let me re-iterate. government taxation and spending is not inherently bad, but only if it contributes to the overall well-being of the nation, including those disenfranchised by it. a welfare state cripples industry through excessive taxation and creates a workless populace reliant on government handouts.
Exactly, a government can not spend it population out of poverty. We have spent the last 50 years pumping vast amounts of money into Johnson "Great Society" plan and the percentage of poverty has increased. We need to stop giving the working mans money away to lazy couch potatoes.
I used to think that it would cause inflation, but if it's just done by taxing the rich, or cutting other programs, the money just moves. There's not really inflation if we don't print money to do this. There may be more money in circulation, but that would just fuel the economy. But really, we don't know if that's what would happen, because different people would use their money in different ways.
Whenever I’m trying to understand an issue I always check a neutral- ish source, a right leaning source, and a left leaning source. I wasn’t expecting Vox to be this subjective and to not shove an agenda down our throats
I suppose when you crunch the numbers the bureaucracy to ensure only really poor people get welfare ends up being more expensive than just giving everyone, rich or poor the same amount of money.
the video is very vague, it's not clear whether they mean a guaranteed income (which you get only if you are below the threshold with your income) or a universal basic income, which everybody gets regardless of how much money they make, which is what you mean I guess.
I wouldn't think so as devaluation occurs when there's an increase in the supply of currency as a whole, and a decrease or no sudden change in goods to purchase, with people having more money or would allow for the economy to expand and inflate healthily, not at a sudden and drastic pace everyone's worried about, but at a pace that would strengthen the economy and the dollar as well.
There is no realistic way to provide the poor majority with a guaranteed income without damaging the economy. The fact of the matter is: money is only worth what we collectively agree it is worth, so the divvying up of the stuff without there being an equal exchange means that those who work hard their whole lives to earn it are receiving less or paying more taxes as a result of a guaranteed income, which discourages the hard work that would otherwise support the funds, therefore equalizing the gain received by the poor through inflation. It sucks, but the truth of the matter is: we live in a world of limited resources; all of which we all scramble for. For few to thrive means the suffering of many. This is nature, and humanity just happens to be adept at exploiting advantages no matter what system of government is in place.There will always exist bad people, but the majority are inherently good. The systems ad institutions we create are what are rapacious, indifferent, exploitive, and amoral.
This would be a very bad idea. Tons of people reliant on the government like children to parents. People today will work harder to stay on welfare benefits by working around the rules than to improve their standard of living to dig out of poverty. It's the young bird in the nest syndrome. They will never fly unless they get pushed out. I hope this video was made to be a joke.
lee brondum This would perpetuate the current system. We need to scale back the hand outs so they can find jobs and work for a living like everyone else.
Right but at the same time we're cutting (or at least in my country) all the sectors where they would find good steady jobs. So first you cut off these people's hand outs that they depended on because they couldn't get work, and then you tell them that they should go get a job. Why do you think a lot of these people were on bloody handouts in the first place? So funny how people like you have a hard time seeing that this is like a patch fix to a flawed economy. And then you say "don't do this, it will only cost us a bunch of money (where does that money go? they spend it right back in to the economy) LET THEM GET A JOB" Also about perpetuating the current system? What is more perpetuating the current system than being dismissive of any changes to it? This is a shift of funds, if executed correctly, from tax cuts to the ultra rich, to the people that are actually starving in some cases or perhaps bound to a life of just getting by day to day because no well paying job will have you. Because they're old, don't speak the language, sick, of a different ethnicity, disabled, uneducated or set back in this society in any other way. It's strange how when we speak about great numbers of people we assume everybody is at their top doing great always able to find a job, has a stable home, etcetera. We forget that there is a large group that's struggling. They need this funding quite badly.
People work to remain on welfare benefits because getting off of them often means a net loss. Benefits are a set amount given to anyone below a certain annual income. Whether you're making $5,000 a year or $10,000, you'll receive the same benefits. The second you make more than the specified annual income, the benefits get cut off. More often than not, the increase in annual income does not make up for the loss of benefits leaving beneficiaries with less money than when they were on welfare. The solution to this problem is not to cut people off. Doing that will only lead to more people struggling to keep food on the table and a roof over their heads.
eeeeh, no? Because they would have more money than they would were they not on benefits, you said so yourself? So they would be struggling worse if not for those benefits.. But I agree the whole benefit system is flawed and is yet another beautiful example of a human mind blindly trying to make categorical sense of an infinitely complex problem. You can't just make a model and say "if you earn 1 dollar more than so and so, we will cut you off".
Sounds well on the surface, but, where does the money come from... The answer is everyone else. I don't mean to be rude by this, but poverty is often a result of bad spending habits, and just fueling habits won't make them go away. This plan was pretty much tried in the Soviet Union Russia, and they went bankrupt.
Get the money the banks get in 'quantitative easing' which is BILLIONS PER MONTH. In 2013 that number was 85 billion a month. If we got the money for that, we have the money for UBI when the funds are moved from QE to the UBI. Cutting the military budget too would help with the cost. As well as a tarriff on largely automated business to contribute to the Citizens Dividend...any more questions?
Or, we minimize the government, remove ridiculous income taxes, and let people WORK FOR THEIR MONEY. If this is to happen, there would be literally 0 people abusing social security and other subsidies, so they would stop wasting their free money on drugs and alcohol and actually get to work, and everyone else that was already working wouldn't be choked every time they received a paycheck because of the ridiculous taxes and government involvement in this country.
I posit that instead of merely pointing out that people waste money on drugs and alcohol, we attempt to examine WHY people resort to this behavior in the first place. What causes the conditions for people to behave a certain way? There are many who work tirelessly and still cannot manage to lift themselves out of indigence because the economy does not allow for this to happen generally. If we minimize or maximize the influence of government, this will not change the fact that there is a hierarchy that benefits those at the top. It's a top-down power dynamic that regardless of the apparatuses used will adhere to the structure that has always managed to work, but at a great cost.
What I'm attempting to point out is that there are reasons people to resort to this behavior. I never said that there was no such thing. And the reasons why are not always and penultimately attributed to a fault in their character but by factors found in the social machine, in other words, society. Yes human beings have some sort of agency/free will, or at the very least a sense of it. But this is very relative, based on a subjectivity that by default cannot easily grasp the complex interplay of things that are outside of our heads. Adults are capable of being independent, but not in the way you might think. Even as an adult, you cannot consider yourself entirely self-sufficient because we are placed in a world in which we HAVE to depend on other beings, otherwise would you be able to call yourself living? If "babying" means to care about the wellbeing of others and being understanding of their plights, then maybe I find it to be a more suitable way of existing in a place much bigger than I.
The experiment was flawed. Of course people aren't going to immediately quit their jobs if they're told the government will be running a temporary experiment of handing them money. It was not carried out in enough major areas, with enough citizens, nor was it done over a long period of time. Please, don't get your economic arguments from the likes of Vox.
Bullshit. Then why are there poor people in America? Do they not exist? Are they lying? Are 14.5% of Americans either not exist or are freeloading off the government?
Penmin _ You must be crazy to think that america has free enterprise.. America is not economicaly free, it is ranked much lower than most European nations in Economic freedom,.. kinda surprising
Miguel Alberola Cano Even fairly smart people may not make enough money to subsist since they *just* weren't smart enough to get a scholarship and their parents were poor, and high school degrees get you less and less these days. The highest paying job I could find was a program coordinator in Baltimore ($27 an hour at most), and to get that with a high school degree, you need 5 years of applicable experience. Which you don't have if you're just out of high school and can't go to college. Everyone is deluded by rags to riches stories and thinks that will be them if they just work hard, but in reality, most rich people were born rich.
It's not that difficult of an idea to understand, dude. It's pretty simple. The government gives you income. There's not much more to it. Yes there are far more things to take into account but that's the basic idea.
US population: 300 Million Povery Line: ~$12,000 300 Million * $12,000 = $3.6 Trillion Total U.S. spending 2015: $3.8 trillion So for this one policy, it would cost the entirety of the current federal Government spending.
You can't just give people money for not having any when there are ways for them to go and work for money. If you really want money, go and work for it. People who already worked for their money can give money to the poor, but should never have to. If you are working for your money, you shouldn't have to help someone because they don't have as much money as you. That's stupid.
What if people are already working but their jobs won't pay them enough? The universal minimum wouldn't eliminate people's desire to earn more, it would just help people to survive in circumstances where they would otherwise have no other option but abject poverty. They proposed something similar in Switzerland recently, and I think one of their conditions was that the minimum would only be provided for up to two years, and only if you could prove that you were actively looking for work.
our system is not designed to provide a job for every person. there is no mechanism in place to make that happen. we have the resources to care for the needs of everyone. the people who will be paying for this basic guaranteed income are not regular people like you, it's Nike and Walmart and Anheuser Busch and Phillip Morris. American institutions that control vast resources.
Ronald Dregan That's why people have to work for their jobs. They can't just be handed something, they need to put forth the effort and get money, rather than being guaranteed to get something just for showing up, they need to strive to earn that money.
Tom Parry-Jones If your job refuses to pay you more for your hard work, that's not the system's fault. You just need to either negotiate with your boss, or find a job that appreciates what you do. "The universal minimum wouldn't eliminate people's desire to earn more" That's been said about welfare, but I know people that abuse the system, just so they don't have to work. Something like that could work in Switzerland, but not in america.
Capitilism works because between a combination of luck, knowledge, social status' as well as capability to handle money allows people who are skilled to hold and represent the wealth of a country. Corruption is what undermines this system more easily than anything else. If we just GAVE away cash to everyone who needed it, try to imagine all of the NEGATIVE ramifications before trying to justify this action. I'll give you a minute.
works pretty well for Saudi Arabia. They get 40k each per year. But you know they just sit around and do nothing. They don't use it to fund new ideas or start business or anything lol. This hole idea if people aren't hungry they won't do anything is ridiculous. They may not necessarily always do something profitable . But as automation means mas unemployment is definitely going to increase . whats the alternative let people starve when we dont have to? O well we ere need to create more jobs and stuff lol. we already manufacturer more things than we ever need . A 3rd of all food goes in the bin while people starve. Theres plenty resources for everyone on the planet . its just that less than 1% of people own half of it. we only need to redistribute a small fraction of that to end poverty. Open your mind for one tiny second you brain washed fool!!
Is your idea that until we solve "corruption" nothing else should be attempted? I mean if that isn't what your point is, why mention corruption at all? It isn't like you're bringing a secret to light.
Nobody Lurker hah! So, that's 50 people out of 319 million. I'm convinced, the same arguments against all other forms of wellfare (food stamps, section 8 housing, healthcare, scholastic grants, and on and on and on) have been brought up and proven wrong over and over ... but now when you raise them I'm convinced! Dude, get a history book.
weird how you define a Good system as one that allows the lucky and the rich to remain powerful. I'd say the opposite; a system where people born into a wealthy family have the same chance to become powerful as people who weren't is a good one, but then what do I know I don't have swastika tattoos so I'm no sociological expert
Yeah. It's human nature to want to work for what you get. But, in every system there will always be some people taking advantage and skating by doing as little as possible for as little reward as possible. People living at that income level would basically become the new standard for poverty. Living in the worst neighborhoods, only really having access to poor quality goods and services. Or, you can work a job you'll enjoy and accept the negative income tax as a financial boost
Nobody Lurker It's cool man. You left a similar comment in reply to another comment. I get it, you have poor morals. That's ok. There are enough good people in the world to where people like you are statistically insignificant. You know, like psychopaths and stuff. You should go back to lurking.
Finland just did a experiment with basic income, aiming at people that were unemployed. All of them got jobs, something that they had no incentive to do earlier because the unemployment benefit was bigger than the wages proposed to them. So it was better for them to keep being unemployed (So they wouldn't lose their benefits, that made up most of their income). Now that they had the BUI no matter what, all of them got jobs to help having a bigger income at their house, consuming more, therefore stimulating demand and helping the economy.
These guys are thinking about the system we have now where one could hide income by getting it under the table, have more babies to qualify for more benefits, etc. Basically all things that every person who hates entitlements believe that everyone on welfare is doing; gaming the system. They don't seem to understand the concept of basic income which all citizens would qualify for and would be a uniform amount, thereby removing all waste fraud and abuse that we see in the current system.
well, I agree with Kai Widman. CMIIW, but AFAIK communism has the same concept where the country provide everybody food and money so no matter how hard you work, you will get the same pay
fasol dorem NO, by introducing an UBI, you still have a classes (middle and upperclass) still have a goverment, still have money and still have private property, therefore no communism. It also has nothing to do with socialism, it could be if the UBI is financed with "state owned enterprises" but I doubt it.
What is with the narrator's voice? I could barely understand him. It just sounded like mumbling.
That explains why he thought this made sense.
Nope. But you think it makes sense to do this?! WOW. Don't know your political affiliation, but you must not be thinking straight.
ikr, i had exactly yhe same
I had to read the subtitles to make out what he said.
it's so monotonous.
can you talk a little bit louder so that the music didn't mask your sound
Economists say that as more human labor becomes automated, a universal basic income will become necessary to help people live at the very least.
Your statement is discredited by prefacing with "economists say."
It's just citation of sources - just so people can't bs facts by saying "a group of smart people said 'x'. Therefore, it is fact." (Not that I don't necessarily agree in part with Ezra).
especially when it comes about economics, there are different schools of tought in economics, you can choose one of them to believe in, and discredit the rest. so sayin some economist said something, is just an opinion, not a fact. and if you say "economists" you only mean a handful, as there is no concensus between economists.
Tn_Gamer_Jr I was mostly taking my opportunity for a shot against economics, the lamest "science."
The truth is that as automation produces more goods, people will want higher quality and/or quantity goods. If the spirit of consumerism isn't there, then an economy won't ever get to an automated state.
It's one thing to have money, it's another thing to know what to do with it. Basic income is ideal when implemented in a society with an advanced education system; that is, a system that provides the tools necessary for a basic income to become fully realised. However, countries plagued with extreme poverty need education as their foundation, not money.
True fact in life: you can always easily spend more money than you have.
Everyone I know who doesn't have money, spends too much on bullshit. No one I know has an income problem.
+aluisious Yeah, but you live in a certain niche of the society, where you are lucky enough to become a member of the middle class. We are talking about people who could reach this status because of their education, language barrier, or lack of resources, not because they are not willing to plan ahead or work hard.
Let's take that apart:
"Education:" in the US, K-12 is free. Someone who takes math and English every year and does what the teacher says will be fine. I've never seen a person who wanted to learn but was mysteriously thwarted.
"Language barrier:" piss off. Don't run across borders unprepared. Not a real problem. English is easy to learn, too. I wouldn't move to China and start complaining about a language barrier, that's lacking basic intelligence.
"Lack of resources:" too nebulous. No one legally in the US with any interest in doing better in life lacks resources. There is in fact a tremendous amount of public assistance available, especially to qualifying low income people.
The Education system has not failed to solve Poverty; the education system in the US is incredibly weak compared to other OECD countries. We can't accuse said system of failing to solve poverty when it is an inherently flawed system to begin with. Were the system to be improved, perhaps it could do its duty and follow through to doing what it has done in some countries that rank highly in terms of education: reduce poverty.
It is also worth noting, you claim that the number made unemployed by Automation will rise to 25% and then 50%, but this is based on an assumption of today's jobs. Jobs are continuously being created - they are in excess in both the UK and US - and there is no fixed pool of jobs (Lump of Labour Fallacy). Jobs that we are yet to imagine will likely be created over the coming decades. The claims of 25% to 50% were around during the Industrial Revolution epoch; these claims were proven wrong. New Industries are created, new ideas imagined, and new types of jobs made available. It is the duty of the Education system (among others) to ensure that it can provide the best gateway to an always-changing Labour market.
MrTheeyeofone I didn't say anything about "everyone getting a PhD" or anything about technology. You're not bright enough to keep a short thread straight in your head, I'll let you wonder how much I care about your other observations.
Just *actually* help people to help themselves. Education. Transportation. Housing. Teach people how to find and take advantage of opportunities. Give them a hand to get up that ladder. Most people that whine about the poor needing to pick themselves up by their bootstraps have never been poor, and have no understanding of how difficult it is to do that with limited resources, particularly when everything in the system is designed to take what resources you have away from you.
The system isn't designed for the poor. It's designed for a middle class that's getting harder to find. The poor have to work within that, and when it goes south (debt, medical, emergencies, the unexpected), they fail...and there's nothing there to stop that failure. If they are going to be law abiding citizens, they have to accept that their depleted and lose their home, their education, their transportation...their means of supporting themselves. Consequently many turn to crime or less savory tactics just to stay alive. This doesn't even account for the psychology of being poor. Ever had a bad breakup or lose someone close to you? Imagine that sorrow day in and day out as you get turned away from everything...because you're poor.
Help the poverty-stricken to help themselves. I'll happily contribute my share of money to do it because once the poor are no longer poor they are providing benefits to all of us. They are spending money, they are producing things, they are contributing. That leads to a healthier, happier society. More importantly, it means we're trying to help our fellow human beings. If that's not worthwhile to you, I don't know what really is. When you die, you can't take that money with you.
I agree - as long as the help comes through benefits of education, healthcare, etc & not just a monthly check
Yeah, all those things are good, but also adding to all that, money can also help get them started. Just make sure what the money is for.
agreed
Close. The system is designed for the wealthy. They own the system, and they make it do what the want to benefit them. That's why the middle class is disappearing. If we wanted a strong middle class, we'd have better trade policies.
Bigbadd Woofe What wealthy people want and will benefit from is the people's respect. Thats why most wealthy people are popular, or at least try to be. If you want to become wealthy, you must climb up a ladder and not blame the wealthy if you dont succeed.
That is a terrible solution...
+Kris S Yep, totally agree
+Kris S What the fuck are you doing here?
jusk I'm everywhere ;)
Kris S Welp, keep at it.
ikr
Poverty is such an intangible that I hate to use it. I prefer tangibles, like survival.
People require money to survive. When they don't get enough money to meet survival requirements (shelter, sustenance) they will do one of three things: steal, improvise, give up.
Stealing and banditry are bad for everyone. Giving up (suicide) is bad but with the current population growth rates I think it's less of a concern. Obviously, improvisation and innovation are the preferable choice.
How do we prevent stealing and encourage improvement? Giving money to people.
+Midironica wow never become a politician
+Midironica "Suicide is bad but with the current population growth rates I think it's less of a concern" That one line ended your political dreams lmfao.
Who was your economics teacher? Someone fire him!
+Got Em It's just realism. The idea of being a politician is horrible to me. I'm just being realistic and stating realism. War, disease, suicide...are all inherent to human society and are some of the main factors of population control. I don't condone them...I just think that we should be so appalled at their existence because when we don't have them our population explodes and the Earth burns up like a candle.
Midironica So.... Give money to criminals so that they don't steal... wow great idea dude/dudette! You are such a genius that I think you should run for president! If a socialist quack like Sanders can do it, then so can you! Good thing that idiot Sanders is pretty much done and Clinton holds a nearly insurmountable lead over him. I bet now you feel the bern, it's called disappointment!
This guy sounds like a more mature 'casually explained' guy
"we know how to end poverty. so why don't we?"
easy...
because people don't give a %$#@ about poverty until it effects them.
The problem is that, if you really wanted to end poverty, you needed to higher the taxes for the rich. Now the rich are rich, and money goes hand in hand with influence. Who ever owns money, also got influence. The rich are in the end the ones who sponsor the preelection, so the political partys will most of the time pass laws that don't affect the rich too much. If you highered the taxes for the top 1% to lets say 60% income or even higher (which would still leave them billions), they wouldn't sponsor you anymore. Problem is: way too few people understand this.
LPStarkus
The top 1% does not earn billions, nor does the top 0.01%.
I dislike this video not because of its content but due to how it was presented.
Should anywhere implement a UBI, America is the last place I'd expect to see it happen first. America is one of the most corporate dominated countries on the planet, which is reflected by their media and as result their population. Anyone who has tried to discuss solving unnecessary human suffering globally, will know it's often an American who will treat suggested solutions akin to blasphemy.
The UBI is most likely to first emerge in poor countries trying to find solutions to their poverty problems, or Europe. The propaganda coming from America's wealthy elite is simply too all consuming for it to have any chance of starting there, redistribution is a very dirty word in America.
I'm an American and I think that there should be a revival of Clifford H. Douglas' ideas on 'Social Credit'.
Overall, I think we as a people need to get off this bullshit idea that 'work makes everyone better' before we have a great majority of our population out of work.
So, how about that?
AnnoyedDragon I agree mostly with that apart from the corporate bit. Surely it is in most bushiness' interest to have a larger customer population. More people with money mean more people who can spend money.
CyanideSovereign To paraphrase one argument.
"If someone came into your business and asked for £50 from the till, promising to spend it at your business if you gave it to them. Would you? You'd be mad to, even if it technically created more economic activity; you wouldn't be better off as a business".
The UBI is about tackling inequality and poverty, it mustn't be turned into a business argument because it would lose that one.
AnnoyedDragon actually UBI could easily win it, if you frame it as a subsidy for (small) businesses and corporations.
+AnnoyedDragon
While I agree, one thing that makes me hopeful is actually the staunch individualism here. The Basic Income is often mistaken as a "liberal" policy. But it's equally a libertarian one, since an equal share of the value of nature -- the Citizens' Dividend version of the BIG -- is necessary for self-ownership. Once you illustrate this to a libertarian, they tend to see it in a different light. In other words, if you convert libertarians into GEOlibertarians, the idea gets traction.
This is completely wrong. You don't eradicate poverty by handing out money in the long-term. If you just gave 1000$ to every poor person in the world, the result would just be inflation, and so in the end, the people who had received the money would proportionally be as poor (if not even poorer) because all the prices would have risen.
Yup! I think that the actual way to end poverty is to give them education and opportunities to get a stable job and break the poverty cycle.
+I Love Kpop exactly
Yeah because USA doesnt print around a billion dollars in paper every week, and the dollar is totally still backed by the gold reserve... Yes of course..... .___.
This isn't printing money. There is still the same amount of money in the economy, so there wouldn't be more inflation. The government's money will go into the general economy either way, and that money will be used either way, so isn't it better to use that money to directly fix poverty rather than to just soothe its effects somewhat?
Nope... is not printing extra money... that money would come from other places like taxes from wealthy people.. budget originaly destinated to things like the military etc.. its just redistribution of wealth.. and in my opinion it is a good idea. Of course, corporate America hates it.
Videos like these makes me wonder whether I should stay subscribed to Vox or not
alright, keep us posted!
Dingus Flotbottom I have decided to stay.
Their short documentaries are cool
Vox has their moments but I stay subbed just to laugh at their ridiculous radical views.
What part of any of it is "radical"? Other than some of the political pieces, Vox sticks to the facts.
This video's audio is really hard to understand. Maybe you could decrease the background noise? Because the narrator's speech pattern is already hard to make out.
I always thought that if we gave everyone universal income, we would set a standard for life. It is just a bare minimum. if someone wants to progress further and have nicer things (like what capitalism is all about) then they will have to study more or work harder. This would also let people pursue dreams instead of careers. It wouldn't replace consumer culture but could actually improve it.
I can barely hear you
This guy talks like the male version of Paris Hilton.
he sounds like that crazy Lyft woman.
😂😂😂😂
"Give a man a fish and he is fed for a day,teach a man to fish and he is fed for a lifetime."
We cant just give people money,they have to go out and earn it.Now if they are working,but dont have enough income,then yes give them some money.
Someone builds a fishing robot. The man realises he hated fishing and becomes the master painter he was born to be.
LowestoftheDead Now we need someone to maintain the robot.We cant just keep building robots to fix robots....can we?
***** That works too.
Here eat this fish.Now you are all ready to go,now Im going to teach you how to fish.Because you are not going to live off society,definitely if you are not giving back to society.
CommunistDragon51 Actually, I think we can and it'll change our philosophy. Like, we confuse Work that's what you do with your life (which is fulfilling and important) and Work to survive (which kills people who're born in jobless towns, poor countries etc).
In a world with better robots, which is pretty possible, we'd have to realise that it's only the FIRST kind of work that's important - a purpose, making a difference, helping people no matter the pay. And our attitude - that people must 'earn' money for the right to survive - would have to adapt.
LowestoftheDead Interesting....*strokes beard*Very interesting....
i cant understand the narration without the caption
The problem with poverty is not just that people do not have enough money. Giving people more money will over time end up in the pockets of those who own and control land and natural resources. This was understood by the political economists, such as Adam Smith and David Ricardo. This knowledge has been buried because of the political and economic power of landed interests. The real solution to poverty is to create equality of opportunity, and this type of equality requires that the potential to profit without producing anything is brought to an end. We need to change the way government raises its revenue, to begin collecting from anyone who holds land (or land-like assets, such as the broadcast spectrum) the full potential annual rental value of the land held. This will eliminate "rent-seeking" by means of land speculation and dramatically improve the level of equality of opportunity in our society.
I am not sure if I am right. To end poverty, some of the rich will fall since the government has to destroy that income gap to end it. I am sure that make sense or right or both
@@wat2206 The evidence is strong that a good portion of income that comes to those with the highest incomes is derived from various legal privileges rather than earned by producing goods or providing services to others. There is a concept in economics called "the free rider," which means that individuals (or entities) are able to consume public goods and services without paying for them. Changing the way government raises its revenue could remove these inequities. Those who work for a living will see higher wages. Those who now benefit by legal privileges would be required to work to earn income. There would no longer be extremes of wealth and poverty.
You're a smart man
@@arandomuser3329 Not really, but I have studied and learned from some very smart people (men and women).
While your other solutions aren't invalid, I don't believe it's a problem like you implied that the money from a basic income will end up back in the pockets of the wealthy and powerful. The point is that progressive taxation will continually fuel the other side of that cycle, moving the money back from the wealthy to the economically disadvantaged.
This person doesn't seem to understand VERY basic economics. Money (or any resource) is valuable due to SCARCITY. If everyone had more money, money is worth less. If all people had a "minimum income", then everyone would have more money to compete for the same resources (apartments, groceries), which would drive the costs of those items up, out of reach of those poor people once again.
You cannot eliminate poor people. You can only lift yourself up. In order to do better for yourself, you have to be making proportionately more money than those around you to have larger purchasing power. That's why in cities in San Francisco, you're making 6-figures, but you still can't afford an apartment, because everyone else around you is also making 6-figures and able to compete against you.
The only fantasy way to end poverty completely is Star Trek, where replicators create a world with infinite resources. If resources are infinite and we no longer have to compete for them, then there will be no more poverty. Until then, some will always have more than others.
I believe you are mostly correct. You don't even need Star Trek replicators, you just need enough people working to increase available resources. As enough resources are earned by the collective whole, everyone giving their fair share of labor, then ideally, poverty would end. Giving resources to those who have done nothing to help the collective whole have them is a drain on the economy and hurts the value of the dollar however. Yet, most efforts to end poverty actually just put more people into poverty because they are allocating resources that are not coming in...
Thank You!!
Thank You!!
that didnt happen in scandinavia.
Except we aree not trying to end inequality, we are trying to provide all people with AT LEAST the basic necessities of life.
To the idiots who think basic income would ruin the economy. Actually, it's quite the contrary. Those who receive basic income will no doubt spend it, and they will spend it on products that affect the economy in the most positive way. This spending is what causes capitalism and the economy to grow and thrive
What actually destroys the economy is when you have all the money in one small group, such as the 1%, as they don't spend all their money and if they do it's on things that have little to no affect on the economy. What is currently destroying the economy is the level of inequality we have today
A basic income will not only help people and take them out of poverty but it will be the best thing for the economy
I agree, my economist brother in law explained the same thing to me. People here sound like sociopaths, they are salivating at the idea that this solution can't possibly work and poor people should be kept poor. No sense of empathy and basic decency at all, damn.
NatUTubeful I've had arguments with plenty of these people. They're either ceo's or people that have been manipulated by them. They have the kind of mentality that makes them do anything for an extra buck regardless of the negative impacts doing so will have. That's why you get a ruined economy, planet, and population if you give them what they want
Gregory Holmes It's "childish" because it's such simple logic. Get that through your thick skull. If people have more money what do they do with it, especially people who don't have much money? They spend it, duh. What does a billionaire do with his money? He spends a little, but does he spend most of it? And does he spend it on products other than 200 year old paintings, which have no effect on the economy?
A much higher minimum wage, general increase in wages under 100k, and welfare for those who are unemployed or unable to work will bring people out of poverty. How will we pay for it? Well the 1% seem to have a lot
Gregory Holmes Ugh, another baiting idiot that's gonna force his opinions because he's under-threat of equality. Very well, I do know of tradeoffs. Yes, there will be repercussions such as the wealthy not being so wealthy anymore, oh such a big tradeoff, oh my. Nothings a perfect utopia where everyone can benefit. But the current system is almost as bad as it can get, and needs to be changed. You do realize the money that is given to the poor/middle class will always bounce back up into the wealthy's pockets?
Gregory Holmes Actually, I've heard of theories that say there'll be economic downsides to the wealthy losing their wealth. But I've never heard why or what it is. Could you perhaps explain what the economic downsides are? I'm interested
The way he's talking reminds me of greg reading that story in diary of a wimpy kid
The background music is too loud, the guy is hard to understand without it let alone with it being so loud
The UBI would not eliminate poverty because prices would go up with it. What is needed is UBI+ price freezes+ dramatic wage increases. Under this people will want to work, they will buy more and the corporations get richer by selling in volume instead of trying to get rich per transaction.
Let me say that this video was an very brief overwiev of the _idea_ of basic income. I invite you to research the foundation and the many concepts behind it. Don't judge idea after such a short video, the idea is actually quite a good one!! :)
Agree!
The perfect plan for the big ass sloth infested satanist country USA!
The reason we have these complex poverty systems in this country is to avoid people abusing the system, because some of the biggest things that ruin people's lives are drugs and alcohol, and money is the only way to get back on those. Ideally we would just get rid of these systems and let people make what they actually work for, and it would be their own choice if they want to throw away their lives, not our taxpayers' money.
GalapagooseonSteam This is bs. Imo the system should try to catch and rehabilate people who are addicted to drugs, not try to punish them. And just taking away their money is the most stupid system imaginable. There are other ways to do this. They are already used in countries like switzerland, where I live.
You're probably going to lose your job. The state handles you, gives you money. If you try to get a job, you get a little bit more money. You only get a very tiny amount of money. Just enough to live. But there are of course people who can't handle it, often drug addicts. Those poeople get the money in a special way - they have to go fetch their money on a daily basis for instance, if they can't manage their cash. Or they can only buy food with their money ( = with their card), because they are to tempted to buy drugs.
GalapagooseonSteam No, no its not. Its because of loans.
Reset the system: loan me 1000$
(All the money in the world = this 1000$)
Now I owe you 1000$ + money that doesn't even exist.
Banking system is fcked
Interest is a SCAM.
Maybe it'll become mainstream again when unemployment hits 80% due to automation and advanced AI.
Also, what's with all the people complaining about audio quality? I mean it's not crystal-clear TV quality, but it's perfectly understandable. Did they all damage their hearing from playing their Justin Bieber too loud, or do they just need to buy new headphones?
it might be that the US is not developed enough to implement a system like this, people aren't educated and informed enough to think in the bigger picture, especially the very poor might not work at all because they always had to work so hard to survive, then they can suddenly do nothing and be fine. But in principle, of course this is a solution. In a society where this can work, it is simply immoral not to raise taxes and distribute money.
***** mixture of irrelevant response and random rant? I can see what you were trying to say (even though it makes no sense) but I can't see how it's relevant
+ultimateredstone I think I might just pour some knowledge and statistics in these little kids
Yea but in reality it makes people lazy. I work on council housing in Britain and believe me, you give a human a television and enough money to live on then they soon become coach potatoes. Not everyone of course. But quite a big chunk of society.
+Karlo Daniels in fact I ask myself daily what the hell I'm doing busting my hump at a job I hate 6days a week so I can afford to do on a Sunday what these lazy bastards get to do everyday for free.
Karlo Daniels that's not universally true. It might be true in many situations but they've done multiple experiments in Scandinavia and the people were more productive and happy. I think they'll also try in Ontario soon
If you want to give somebody a basic income, please start with a voiceover artist for your videos.
One who doesn't end every sentence with an inflection.
That is damn funny!
Just give them money for nothing? Where does that money come from? Probably taxes. So you're extorting people's money that they worked for from them with the threat of violence, and giving it to people who haven't worked at all and who will probably use it irresponsibly. Wonderful idea.
They're already doing that...
I know right???
You're right, we should just take it all from you cause you're clearly too ignorant to ever have anything useful to use your money on
Okay, what am I ignorant of? Enlighten me.
Where do they get the money they will give away?
+marcus davenport By stealing it from other people.
***** Some people don't exactly earn money equal to their efforts. UBI acts as both a safeguard for increasing unemployment from automation while redistributing the wealth of CEOs to people that actually worked for their money.
+TheEndergun Indeed, and who will decide what is fair and what is not? Is there some cosmic understanding of fairness to which only special people have access? I guess they must be the elite; the God chosen few made to govern us all with the secret knowledge to know what everyone deserves. Or instead of imposing your own idea of "fairness", is it actually economic freedom that generates and spreads more wealth? This Thanksgiving, let's choose freedom, and thank God for the wealth it has given to more people than any other system in history.
+Steve Doetsch I think we can at least agree that everyone in the developed world deserves somewhere to live, 3 meals a day, clothing, and basic utilities at the bare minimum. We don't currently provide this...that is what UBI would do.
Jon Hoffman No one deserves anything. Life's not fair.
It actually scares me incredibly that we do not even have this sort of conversation about a UBI. Especially considering what automation imposes, it becomes a solution, or we risk perhaps the greatest economic depression in human history.
First, some facts: Money isn't *real*. This is to say it's not real wealth. Real wealth are the objective resources of the earth, and money is the human invention projected over that. This understanding is crucial, for not getting that money is made and invented absolutely paralyzes people on what we can do about it. The simple fact is we use it because we have agreed, socially, to use it. If these can be grasped, let's move on to the problems this system has by the ideas we fail to realize as ideas.
Our central problem begins with a double-bind, and I feel I should take the time to explain what I mean by that term. A double-bind, quite simply, is to assert something as a mandate but subconsciously infer a volunteering will towards it. An example would be if I said "you *must* love me"; this infers you have to - you have no choice - but it's only ideal if you *want* to, if you sincerely love me. The mandate breeds conflict, yet allowing it to happen of itself breeds sincerity. This double-bind exists in labor, for we say you *have* to work, but it's only great if you *want* to do something you like. It's this specific idea that creates poverty in the developed world, for the mandate also infers a situation of "Have", and rejection of the mandate infers a "Have Not". Don't work? You don't have money and all of the benefits we've ascribed it to have, so you suffer. Intellectually, this is the progenitor to poverty in any developed nation of the 21st century, for it's not the lack of wealth, of real resources, that produces the problem. As I tried to explain earlier, money isn't lumber or iron, or any resource of the earth. We have those to care for our people, easily. It's that we linked all of that to being a "Have", and thus the "Have Not" is merely the natural contrast to that.
The problem with our mandate is for the first time in human history, we have produced technology that actually makes our imposition on what people must do in incredible danger. Automation, and in particular deep learning automation, which is self-learning computerization doing cognitive work, are going to destroy all low and middle-skilled jobs this century. 12 million Americans have to be taken out of the labor force for a depression to occur, and with automative technologies *today*, this can easily be accomplished; create a technological cocktail of driving, retail, warehousing, image diagnostics, lawyer busywork, and importing/exporting jobs to easily hit that number. Just driving alone has 9 million truck jobs: fully automating that gets us 75% there to the number to create a depression. One may wonder what's stopping this from happening right now, and the answer is costs; the machines simply cost more than people. But, if you're an American, you should also know that there's a big talk about increasing wages. This is where the seesaw will even itself out: as more Americans have more costs to them as persons - wages, health care, overtime, comp pay, etc - machines only get less as time goes on. When the costs of the machines match the cost of the person, and the machine can hit baseline human levels, the human is replaced. This is not a question of if this aligns, but where and when. Driverless cars already outclass human drivers, and we're talking prototypes with dated camera technology. Warehousing *has* happened as of a few years ago, as Amazon has made a few facilities solely run by orange drones that follow QR codes on the ground, and importing/exporting bays have been automated as of this year; the vehicles are all run by deep learning, and only one person works at those docks, as an overwatcher to make sure nothing bad occurs. These exist today, now. This isn't the Jetsons, this is 2015, and it's here.
So, what happens when you mix our social attitude that humans must work with a technological bump that replaces people? The people suffer, and the system suffers, so long as that ideal is held. The point of technology and the purpose of the machine is to increase production and be more efficient, yet we've devised a system where this positive comes with a negative. That negative should *NOT* exist, for its reasons to exist are petty. Why must man be a cog in the labor machine when literal machines can do it better? There's no point in that, and thus there's no point in creating that as the society. Furthermore, this all starts with the double-bind, for by inferring necessity to this entire social framework, we've created suffering and misery when there should be wonder and empowerment.
If you stop people from being forced into the rat race and empower them to do what they value, they'll live more productive lives. Demanding labor doesn't empower people to be more productive or better off, because the hole in the ditch *was made by us*. That bottom, that spook, that uh oh, is a function of this system to keep people in line. People would be able to be far better off if that hole was filled, you gave everyone the basic necessities of life, and didn't double-bind them with work, with have tos and musts. Instead, true freedom is found in desire, in wants, in wishing things to be so but never fighting, demanding, forcing it to be so. Our systems and successes are absolute failures, for they are fought to be evoked, erected, and maintained. They are an affront to anything any other species does, in which other species have far more of a level of harmony with the world than what we make of ours. They allow growth and natural prosperity to occur, yet we demand it, and in our demands absolutely destroy it.
If we had a society where we instilled in people "what would you like to do with your time?", we'd be far better off than one that demands "you *must* use your time this way!". The former empowers people to value their lives, to get with present reality, and to live on one's values. The latter demands assimilation, burns out people, forced people to acquire and chase to make up for the vapidity given to their lives, and is ultimately an insoluble proposition. Technology allows the former to occur *while* killing the latter. Will we choose to embrace that or fight it with our egoic ignorance, to stay in our ways that don't work?
Long comment, but worth it!
+ShakinJamacian Fucking great comment, I wish I had some friends that spoke and thought like you, can't seem to find many yet. I'm too busy being surrounded by people who don't even know they are racist. Where are you from and how old are you?
onecentnickel I am from New York, and I'm 25, if you really wanted to know.
Unfortunately, I seem to be an outlier. Both my understanding and desire of a lifestyle that matches the world naturalistically seem to be impeded upon by our social affronts, for we continue to confuse subjectivity with objectivity. It is frustrating because, to me, it is so obvious almost all of our issues exist specifically because of the ideas we hold, that we do not examine. Poverty and worthiness are two perfect examples of this.
+ShakinJamacian It isn't a choice; we're going to have to go that way at some point. The question is more of "when will it happen" not a if. Our political discourse has and will continue to be, a debate between those mired in wanting to recover nostalgia, and those wanting to create a new kind of future. It's always going to be that way, its a matter of hoping America makes the choice voluntarily.
Its the curse of capitalism being the central philosophy: "what does this cost me?" and not "what does this cost us?"
+ShakinJamacian You should look into Geoism, or sharing the market value of nature, or "land" in economics. The capstone work is "Progress and Poverty" by Henry George. You can find an abridged version -- which I recommend to a first-time reader over the original -- online.
Basically, there are three factors of production: (1) Land, (2) Labor, and (3) Capital. As society and technology advance, the returns to labor decrease -- obvious to the modern observer. Less obvious is that, assuming huge monopoly patent windows aren't granted to the creators of capital (machinery), returns to capital also decrease over time because new competitors can always enter and increase supply.
It may seem counterintuitive, but over time, more and more of our GDP will come from Land. This wealth is unearned by the individual but owed to nature and society, i.e., the division of labor, infrastructure, the historical acquisition of human knowledge, etc.; it should, frankly, be shared via Citizens' Dividend -- the geoist version of the Basic Income.
We're going to need garanteed income anyway with the rise of robots and all that, there's just not gonna be enough jobs for everyone
***** Dig holes and fill them!!!
Joep Jacobs I personally think people should just work less, but according to the video that seems to be how the scheme will work out.
Jobs wouldnt be lost to robots since people would still need to fix, upgrade, and program the robot. Also robots cant do everything so human labor is still needed.
Andrew Canon No, do your research
Joep Jacobs Its more of an opinion base topic since robotics are farely new to the job world. The "research" available is more speculation than actual factual evidence. If you find anything that is not just conjecture, please feel free to share it.
This is one of the silliest suggestions I've ever watched.
Happiness does not come from "getting money"
It comes from KNOWING THAT YOUR BASIC NEEDS ARE MET
it's like someone just didn't feel like doing any research on the topic
It seems like it is inevitable that this will pass at some stage in the not so distant future considering the fact that robots will replace all the unskilled jobs pretty soon.
Have you seen the Humans Need Not Apply video by CGP grey? Interesting idea. I think right now though there are still enough jobs and work that can be done that robots have not replaced.
Lemenks & Trevor Lindgren
After watching the CGP Grey video I'm also convinced that we need a min income. But to make it work we would have to control the population with it.
Allow for anyone to sign up for Gov't Income with the requirement that you be permanently sterilized. If you have already had children you are not applicable.
This will allow those who don't want the responsibility of fighting in the economy to get a nice 1 person apt and live the life of a college kid.
That mentality ends with them and you don't have neglected or abandoned children from people who don't have the mindset to take care of them.
Only those who which to work for the rest of their lives would reproduce as they want that burden. It would stop generational welfare and reduce poverty.
Opinions from two people who have seen both videos?
I still don't think we need a minimum income. I think just giving people something for no effort on their part destroys their soul, character, and sense of self worth. I have no problem with temporary help or help for people who are disabled but some amount of work is good for us. I disagree with CGP Grey and don't think the situation is as dire (yet) as he makes it out to be for the job situation--but I still liked his video. The only thing I don't like about your idea is that it is too closely related to what Hitler tried to do with eugenics--I am not trying to compare you with him, and I know its not the same thing. Your idea makes some logical sense but morally I am opposed to it--I also think there would be enough people that would be so fearful of being sterilized by the government that they would chose to remain in poverty and not take the minimum income. Honestly I don't know what the answer is. I think we all have a responsibility to help those in need and this is a responsibility that gives us the chance to be good people without the government forcing us to do so. I think if we take the opportunities to help others we will be happier than if we pay more taxes and tell the government to do it for us.
Trevor Lindgren
Yes, I definitely don't support the Hitler solution of forcing people to do anything.
They already kinda do it in India to curb their population problems. You can get a one time payout if you get sterilized (women only), but the doctors there do shoddy work and people are getting sick.
It would be great for people like priests, nuns, or those with dangerous genetic disorders who don't plan on having children anyways.
It could help those who have mental disorders and can't work a regular job or raise a family.
May I ask if your moral objection is to the act of sterilizing or that it is being done by a government agency?
Is it a religious objection or a philosophical one?
Thank you for a honest and respectful reply.
Hi Harvey, I don't know why. Mostly it just seems weird to me that the government would pay someone to remove their future ability to have children. I think mostly because of the government involvement and the power it gives them to possibly abuse or manipulate people in the future. In some cases because of the immediate "pay out" for the here and now some people would become sterilized who otherwise could have been a great parent. There are people who overcome poverty and decide they want to make something of their life. What if they change their mind, decide to start working and would have liked to have a family but because they had to take the government money due to their desperate circumstances they went ahead and got sterilized. I think it is wrong to force people to make that hard choice that cannot be undone. I am not morally opposed if a woman on her own decides to get a hysterectomy or a man a vasectomy for example because they know that they have a severe genetic mutation or are done having children. In this case the man or woman who decides to no longer have children don't have any incentive for the surgery other than preventing future problems. I guess it could be religiously I am opposed because I believe having a family is an important part of life and an important component to living a full and happy life--but you are right that for some people it may be more responsible for them not to have children. Overall I think a limited government is a better government.
WOW! I had no idea it was so simple! Just give them money. I'm sure that couldn't have any unintended consequences!
Was there narration for this video?
Best American Express advert I've ever seen!
I think some of the problem has to do with distribution of power. People with the power to make the universal basic income a reality also have a massively disproportionate share of the wealth. They also know that having money enables people to come into power and opens a lot of doors. If the poorest people of the country, often the ones most disillusioned and angry with the establishment, suddenly have dispensable income and therefore a means of changing the system, the people in power could very well lose that power, which is not in their interest. Poverty doesn't affect people with the power to end poverty, so why would they?
Yep
Wow, Vox, thank you, thank you. Thank you two times because there are two sources I have randomly heard promoting universal basic income: this video, and another video interviewing Bernie Sanders which happened to also be Vox. I congratulate you because it's such a no-brainer that no one else is mentioning. Thank you for mentioning it to Bernie, what better a person to mention it to.
Poverty comes from a lack of applicable skills, resources, and personal choices. It cannot be ended, the same way that all diseases cannot be stopped; they just evolve.
You can massively decrease poverty though. There is substantial evidence of this, just look at global poverty rates over time.
Cleodel But why should I be responsible for it?
+James Russell
Self interest.
Your life can improve if others aren't in poverty.
Crime rates tend to be lower, so you're less likely to be a victim of crime.
Diseases spread more easily in impoverished areas (especially if vaccines aren't readily available), so if you want to be able to travel freely with less risk, it would be better for you.
Also, it allows people who would otherwise be trapped succeed in life, which means a better work force, more innovations, and more stability in general.
Oh, and tomorrow you could get hit by a bus, lose your ability to work, and end up becoming impoverished yourself. So if anything goes wrong for you, this would mean you're not complete and utterly screwed.
@@cleodello I'm tired of people saying that if you're poor it's cause you're stupid
UBI increases bargaining power for workers because a guaranteed, unconditional income gives them leverage to say no to exploitative wages and abusive working conditions. Employers can't push workers around as much. UBI would be the greatest catalyst for new jobs, entrepreneurship, and creativity we have ever seen.
I disagree with most Vox videos, but as a capitalist, I think this is a good idea. People always spend their own money better than they spend others. I know its not really their own money, and I'm not saying its a perfect system, but It would still be a lot more efficient than how the government spends money. Of course we still need more money management education in public schools, and some will inevitably spend it on drugs and alcohol, but that's the cost of freedom.
Do was Julius Ceaser did, he proposed land reform which strengthened the roman economy, you just have to give people a boost up and help them start their own business or even a farm.
Helped to steal land with legions to give it away.
no
That's very useful for an era when land is wealth - not so much now. And another issue with land reform is, it's actually quite easy to reverse as slightly wealthier farmers buy a bit more land, and then buy some more land, until we're back at a situation where 1% of the people own 50% of the land.
+TimTalksTV compelling arguement, job well done.
***** Exactly, you give a shitty culture something nice and it gets chewed apart.
It's videos like this we need to share more with each other. Everyone should be earning more. Everyone isn't earning more because of globalization and technology mostly. We used to have things called middle class jobs. Those don't exist anymore like we think they do. We lost a ton of them because we no longer need people here to do them. Instead we have cheap labor overseas. Because we have a consumer economy, this decrease in middle class jobs has an adverse effect on the economy through lower spending. Meanwhile jobs have transitioned to part-time work (because profits) and service industry work (because we can't move those jobs overseas for the most part). Look at the numbers. Unemployment may be lowering, but this is due to all those jobs that once paid good wages having been replaced by jobs that pay shit or jobs that only want you for 20 hours a week.
We are only now just starting to realize where we are after decades of structural change. If we want a stronger economy, people have to recieve more income, so they can spend more into the economy. Saying shit like people should just work smarter, or get more educated, or that the "free market" will save us all if only we abolish taxes is like clicking your heels together and wishing to go home. Sorry Toto, this ain't Kansas. We're in Oz, where all those manufacturing jobs that created the middle class no longer exist and are never coming back in any substantial quantity. Automation has arrived. We have reached a pivotal point in human history. Human labor is no longer required to the degree it once was and it never will be again. We're living in a crazy and exciting time where we have to come to realize that we're going to need to pay people enough to sustain a middle class and we have to make sure we have a strong enough safety net in place to catch all those people who can't find the jobs that no longer exist, and both needs can be accomplished through the establishment of a basic income guarantee. Not only would this substantially reduce poverty, additionally it would supplement the incomes of all jobs and so rebuild, even grow, the middle class. No min wage required. No unions required. Just smaller, smarter government.
It's 2014 now and we need to start acting like it. We know how to abolish poverty, reduce inequality, stimulate the economy, grow the middle class, and strengthen our democracy, all through one policy. So what are we waiting for?
"There's always this tooone? when you read aaarticles about poooverty? that this is this intraaactable proooblem? that we baarely understaaand? let alone like, have the tools to deeeal with?"
And that's where I stopped listening.
Why wait for the government? Those who believe in a "guaranteed basic income" should form a charity, donate a percentage of their wages, and use the pooled money to start paying those in poverty in their own neighborhoods.
I was all for this until I realized inflation is a real thing 😒
also see CGP Grey's video "Humans Need Not Apply" for another important factor for why a Basic Income should be implemented.
you can't end poverty, there will always be a class of people at the bottom, you can reduce the size of it by allowing a free market, but it'll always be there. basic income already exists under another name, minimum wage, and it's not working because whenever they raise the minimum wage, they also raise the poverty line which coincides with the economy's market, effecting food and prices for other necessities whenever it's raised. it's just a fact and anyone who believes you can somehow successfully get rid of it needs to get a reality check.
Minimum wage is nothing to do with basic income. Basic income is basically the government giving you money for being alive. So you would get a check monthly like a social security check. You don't need anything to get the check, in fact you can be sleeping in bed 24/7 and you would still get the check. This would not fix or end poverty because in the real world things don't work like that. You would also be paying taxes to help fund it's check because they need to get the money from somewhere.
I am a fan of Reaganomics because it works.
Ending poverty means ending homelessness and hunger. And yes, we are more than capable of doing that if so many people on this Earth weren't so fucking greedy and selfish.
Comparing Minimum Wage and Basic Income is pretty ignorant. They aren't really that similar. Minimum wage only affects a minority of people giving them a leg up whereas it does nothing to those who make more than it. Basic Income affects everyone equally in that everyone gets the same amount and there are no conditions. So one is liberating and the other restricts some peoples liberty while increasing it for others.
Thats it? I didn't realize it was only a 2 minute video and i was expecting more. kinda disappointed.
This video needs a new title. Poverty will not end simply by giving a basic income. I do not want to be one of those negative RUclips Comments but I must add that poverty will not change for good (especially in developing nations) until corruption is dealt with. There are many comments saying that education and teaching those in poverty to think for themselves will work. You are totally right. But first we must take the gun away from their heads before they can focus on anything but finding their next meal.
that didn't explain anything.
Basic income is the equivalent of plugging a power strip into itself, and calling it a generator...
I want to begin by saying poor people should be provided a way to receive money. Now how's the best way to go about that is the question. Should the government tax the rich ridiculously? Well, that is what we call communism. The government controlling everybody's income isn't the solution but what is? What if we tried to create jobs for as many of them as possible? Now, that won't work in lots of poverty problems because people are already working and just can't provide for themselves. So what if after those jobs were provided and people who work still need money. I think the best solution is work on *local* levels to help support and provide for them. Handing people money with out accountably can be dangerous. By doing this poverty would be eliminated and instead of just throwing money at people, we can provide them with a work place. Anyone agree?
Taxing the rich is not communism-in communism the state owns everything.
I'd have to say no, I respectfully disagree. It is no sign of progress to continue creating wage slaves out of people just so they can get what they need in life, especially when it's only in an effort to prop up a dying economic model. I think transitioning to a resource based economy (RBE) per Jacque Fresco, further outlined by The Zeitgeist Movement (see their orientation guide on the official website) is the best way that people can have their needs met. It's not money that people need, it's access to resources. The monetary system is no longer needed, through advancements in technology we've transcended the situation of scarcity that it was borne out of. On a purely practical, technical level, we have the capability to take care of everyone on the planet--so everyone can have food, a place to live, and some nice extras (communication technologies, access to free, online education, healthcare, etc.) This is totally doable NOW. We now have the ability to produce a global abundance with much less human involvement needed to create that production. The game of labor for income is fast becoming irrelevant. Our current socioeconomic system is no longer useful, it doesn't serve the majority of us well and is too prone to inefficiencies, corruption and elitism. If we'd use the technology that we already have for the benefit of all people, there'd be much less crime and aberrant behavior, there'd be less illness from stress, there'd be less abuse and corruption. Please look into the idea of a resource based economy (also known as a natural law economy) where the necessities of life are provided through technology and intelligent resource management for the good of all people without a price tag.
Yes I agree. Much better solution than just giving them money. See my comments.
MC Well like I already stated these "resources" as you call them are already being provided to those in need in this country through the various programs already in place.
Once a homeless man asked me for money so he could get something to eat. I went to a resturant across the street, and got a large meal to go. When I brought him the meal, he called me a "fucking smartass" and walked away, leaving the meal I had purchased. You see, he didn't want the food. He wanted me to give him cash to buy Booze and Crack. As long as people like this exist, you will NEVER end Poverty.
Where would this wealth come from? *Why wouldn't you address this pivotal point in your video?*
From you
People tried this and we aren't sure about the results, The End - GREAT VIDEO!
ERMAHGERD!! People work less? You mean, actually have a work/life balance and work to live and afford luxuries rather than live to work just to survive!?! OH MY GOSH THE HORROR!!!
Look, the idea that a UBI would destroy the incentive to work is BS. You give everyone an income as a right of being a citizen that's very basic. If someone wants to be a bum and do nothing all day and live a barebones lifestyle on that income, then so be it, it's their life. MOST people however would like to be able to afford nicer luxuries and simply put wouldn't want to waste their life away sitting at home doing nothing, so you'd still see more people working (less hours too in most cases, which is good), and they'd be working to buy luxuries, not to simply have the basics. I love the idea of a UBI and I'd love to see it instituted sooner rather than later.
Billionaires have more money than they could ever need yet they still "work" everyday like their employees. So clearly there's no loss of motivation to produce for them. We need a UBI.
Don't give them free money! Give them jobs!
The HRT of the narrators voice makes it impossible for me to watch the whole video. I'm fine with accents, but HRT makes me almost homicidal.
+Delvin Arikadan Hormone replacement therapy
He sounds like one of those, like, really valley girls who cannot grammer properly?!?
Very sorry, I'll stop.
What the hell are you talking about?
high rising tail
That + the vocal fry
If we did this it would inflate prices of things, kind of like how the price of collage is so high because of the guaranteed money students get through grants. Also, less people would have jobs and it would have to be taxpayers carrying the burden. We have things to battle poverty already; minimum wage, earned income tax credit, child tax credit, WIC, SNAP, medicaid and CHIP.
Watch the video again. They ran the experiment and what you're saying would happen and destroy the system didn't seem to happen.
Maybe if the government... controlled inflation the problem wouldn't be as profound as some thing it would.
I did re-watch the video. The speaker conceded that people worked less hours and did not mention whether or not it actually reduced poverty.
No, you don't understand how inflation works. Inflation goes up when you print more money, not when you dispense money that you already have.
EnigmaHood money supply growth does not necessarily cause inflation. Also, who is to say that if this was done on a large scale that it would be coming out of 'money that you already have'. Since when does the government have that much liquid money that it doesn't get through 'printing money'?
Basic income is giving people money just because they BREATHE. We only do this to our CHILDREN under the condition they prove themselves GOOD hardworking kids that will become successful in sustaining themselves through their own effort one day: we INVEST in our kin’s potential.
We should never give stuff to our kids without expecting anything in return. They would never outgrow it. They would forever live dependent on us.
Basic universal income is structural slavery. People would rather do nothing than work if they had their basic needs covered up.
I know u like ur background music but TURN IT DOWN I CANT HEAR HIM SPEAKING
Poverty is not due to not having money. It is due to making bad choices, repeatedly. People who make poor choices then win lottery millions (not just a meager $12k) for example, end up poorer than before they won.
"Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day; teach a man to fish and you feed him for a lifetime."
this is completely ridiculous, one of the fundamental laws of economics is if you subsidise something, you get more of it, not less of it. in a capitalistic environment, taxing an economy's industry and production to sustain an economic underclass only perpetuates the problem. big business moves elsewhere, and you have less people to tax, and more people to feed. despite this, welfare for the unemployed should be conditional, welfare recipients put to work on public projects are returned the dignity of work, a new skill can be learned, and society benefits as a whole. widespread welfare programs without work create complacent and inefficient societies, poverty in underdeveloped regions like africa is a result of government corruption, and the insatiable greed of international mining and resource groups that support them. instead of an organised U.N intervention into government corruption and human rights offences in africa, nothing is done, because the banks and industrial groups that broker the real power behind the U.N are addicted to the blood diamonds and mineral wealth that they can plunder. Africa is the most materially rich continent on earth, and they can't sustain a standard of living because of the same people that demand you donate to support them. even in the face industrial innovation and less demand for human labour, widespread welfare (for nothing) is not conducive to an efficient society.
I could explain it again in simpler terms, but i think you'd probably benefit more from reading comprehension classes than having somebody hold your hand every time you encounter a word in excess of 3-syllables.
I've also failed to see you back up your statement with anything even closely resembling an actual half hearted discussion. if creating a welfare class is good for an economy, explain to me why? or perhaps you'd prefer to further detract from any actual discussion and propagate your bullshit in a tone befitting somebody of your disposition?
-welfare is a major contributing factor in juvenile violence and crime
www.cato.org/publications/congressional-testimony/relationship-between-welfare-state-crime-0
-why welfare programs are bad for an economy
hanseconomics.com/2012/02/14/mit-professor-may-be-kind-spirited-but-is-definitely-a-bad-economist/
let me re-iterate. government taxation and spending is not inherently bad, but only if it contributes to the overall well-being of the nation, including those disenfranchised by it. a welfare state cripples industry through excessive taxation and creates a workless populace reliant on government handouts.
XD
Exactly, a government can not spend it population out of poverty. We have spent the last 50 years pumping vast amounts of money into Johnson "Great Society" plan and the percentage of poverty has increased.
We need to stop giving the working mans money away to lazy couch potatoes.
It’s a good concept, explained horrendously badly
I used to think that it would cause inflation, but if it's just done by taxing the rich, or cutting other programs, the money just moves. There's not really inflation if we don't print money to do this. There may be more money in circulation, but that would just fuel the economy. But really, we don't know if that's what would happen, because different people would use their money in different ways.
Yang time 💰💰💰
Whenever I’m trying to understand an issue I always check a neutral- ish source, a right leaning source, and a left leaning source. I wasn’t expecting Vox to be this subjective and to not shove an agenda down our throats
wouldn't a guaranteed income simply result in a devaluation of that currency by the average individual amount evenly distributed?
I suppose when you crunch the numbers the bureaucracy to ensure only really poor people get welfare ends up being more expensive than just giving everyone, rich or poor the same amount of money.
the video is very vague, it's not clear whether they mean a guaranteed income (which you get only if you are below the threshold with your income) or a universal basic income, which everybody gets regardless of how much money they make, which is what you mean I guess.
Maurazio Yeah, the first is just another name for welfare.
I wouldn't think so as devaluation occurs when there's an increase in the supply of currency as a whole, and a decrease or no sudden change in goods to purchase, with people having more money or would allow for the economy to expand and inflate healthily, not at a sudden and drastic pace everyone's worried about, but at a pace that would strengthen the economy and the dollar as well.
There is no realistic way to provide the poor majority with a guaranteed income without damaging the economy. The fact of the matter is: money is only worth what we collectively agree it is worth, so the divvying up of the stuff without there being an equal exchange means that those who work hard their whole lives to earn it are receiving less or paying more taxes as a result of a guaranteed income, which discourages the hard work that would otherwise support the funds, therefore equalizing the gain received by the poor through inflation. It sucks, but the truth of the matter is: we live in a world of limited resources; all of which we all scramble for. For few to thrive means the suffering of many. This is nature, and humanity just happens to be adept at exploiting advantages no matter what system of government is in place.There will always exist bad people, but the majority are inherently good. The systems ad institutions we create are what are rapacious, indifferent, exploitive, and amoral.
This would be a very bad idea. Tons of people reliant on the government like children to parents. People today will work harder to stay on welfare benefits by working around the rules than to improve their standard of living to dig out of poverty. It's the young bird in the nest syndrome. They will never fly unless they get pushed out. I hope this video was made to be a joke.
Is it any worse than the system we have now
lee brondum This would perpetuate the current system. We need to scale back the hand outs so they can find jobs and work for a living like everyone else.
Right but at the same time we're cutting (or at least in my country) all the sectors where they would find good steady jobs. So first you cut off these people's hand outs that they depended on because they couldn't get work, and then you tell them that they should go get a job. Why do you think a lot of these people were on bloody handouts in the first place?
So funny how people like you have a hard time seeing that this is like a patch fix to a flawed economy.
And then you say "don't do this, it will only cost us a bunch of money (where does that money go? they spend it right back in to the economy) LET THEM GET A JOB"
Also about perpetuating the current system? What is more perpetuating the current system than being dismissive of any changes to it? This is a shift of funds, if executed correctly, from tax cuts to the ultra rich, to the people that are actually starving in some cases or perhaps bound to a life of just getting by day to day because no well paying job will have you. Because they're old, don't speak the language, sick, of a different ethnicity, disabled, uneducated or set back in this society in any other way.
It's strange how when we speak about great numbers of people we assume everybody is at their top doing great always able to find a job, has a stable home, etcetera.
We forget that there is a large group that's struggling. They need this funding quite badly.
People work to remain on welfare benefits because getting off of them often means a net loss. Benefits are a set amount given to anyone below a certain annual income. Whether you're making $5,000 a year or $10,000, you'll receive the same benefits. The second you make more than the specified annual income, the benefits get cut off. More often than not, the increase in annual income does not make up for the loss of benefits leaving beneficiaries with less money than when they were on welfare.
The solution to this problem is not to cut people off. Doing that will only lead to more people struggling to keep food on the table and a roof over their heads.
eeeeh, no? Because they would have more money than they would were they not on benefits, you said so yourself? So they would be struggling worse if not for those benefits..
But I agree the whole benefit system is flawed and is yet another beautiful example of a human mind blindly trying to make categorical sense of an infinitely complex problem.
You can't just make a model and say "if you earn 1 dollar more than so and so, we will cut you off".
Apparently, this video has proved many people _don't_ know how to end poverty. so don't force it upon people to implement failing plans.
35,000,000 people tried in Brazil. The worked for a while, and doesn't work anymore
without the "The"
F33bs Exactly. As I said, worked for a while, I mean, many don't had money for basic food, so it helped. But wasn't attached to change the situation.
Inflation Vox, INFLATION
Sounds well on the surface, but, where does the money come from... The answer is everyone else. I don't mean to be rude by this, but poverty is often a result of bad spending habits, and just fueling habits won't make them go away. This plan was pretty much tried in the Soviet Union Russia, and they went bankrupt.
It's been implemented in a city in the US and it's working, so....
+Iain Paul just out of curiosity what city?
Keystone Science I'm gonna concede my bad, it's Canada testing it out, not the US, in Ontario. It's been a little bit since I read the article.
soviet union went bankrupt because of military expense
Get the money the banks get in 'quantitative easing' which is BILLIONS PER MONTH. In 2013 that number was 85 billion a month. If we got the money for that, we have the money for UBI when the funds are moved from QE to the UBI. Cutting the military budget too would help with the cost. As well as a tarriff on largely automated business to contribute to the Citizens Dividend...any more questions?
Poverty is a state of mind, a steady income will fix some things but not the underlying problem.
A Vox video using Milton Friedman negative income tax and referencing The Bell Curve??! NEEEEO NAZZZZIIIIEE
or end money in general and make a star trek like utopia world..
Yang2020
why does everyone at vox have a terrible voice?
this is a good topic to talk about
Or, we minimize the government, remove ridiculous income taxes, and let people WORK FOR THEIR MONEY. If this is to happen, there would be literally 0 people abusing social security and other subsidies, so they would stop wasting their free money on drugs and alcohol and actually get to work, and everyone else that was already working wouldn't be choked every time they received a paycheck because of the ridiculous taxes and government involvement in this country.
I posit that instead of merely pointing out that people waste money on drugs and alcohol, we attempt to examine WHY people resort to this behavior in the first place. What causes the conditions for people to behave a certain way? There are many who work tirelessly and still cannot manage to lift themselves out of indigence because the economy does not allow for this to happen generally. If we minimize or maximize the influence of government, this will not change the fact that there is a hierarchy that benefits those at the top. It's a top-down power dynamic that regardless of the apparatuses used will adhere to the structure that has always managed to work, but at a great cost.
Linda, people resort to those behaviors are adults. Let people be responsible and you Linda need to quit trying to babying adults.
What I'm attempting to point out is that there are reasons people to resort to this behavior. I never said that there was no such thing. And the reasons why are not always and penultimately attributed to a fault in their character but by factors found in the social machine, in other words, society. Yes human beings have some sort of agency/free will, or at the very least a sense of it. But this is very relative, based on a subjectivity that by default cannot easily grasp the complex interplay of things that are outside of our heads. Adults are capable of being independent, but not in the way you might think. Even as an adult, you cannot consider yourself entirely self-sufficient because we are placed in a world in which we HAVE to depend on other beings, otherwise would you be able to call yourself living? If "babying" means to care about the wellbeing of others and being understanding of their plights, then maybe I find it to be a more suitable way of existing in a place much bigger than I.
Basic income will not eliminate poverty and simply destroy the economy.
Watch the video again. They ran the experiment and what you're saying would happen and destroy the system didn't seem to happen.
Lol how does a guaranteed basic income destroy the economy?
The experiment was flawed. Of course people aren't going to immediately quit their jobs if they're told the government will be running a temporary experiment of handing them money. It was not carried out in enough major areas, with enough citizens, nor was it done over a long period of time.
Please, don't get your economic arguments from the likes of Vox.
Assertion fallacy.
EnigmaHood explain
Free enterprise ends poverty....
Bullshit. Then why are there poor people in America? Do they not exist? Are they lying? Are 14.5% of Americans either not exist or are freeloading off the government?
Penmin _ You must be crazy to think that america has free enterprise..
America is not economicaly free, it is ranked much lower than most European nations in Economic freedom,.. kinda surprising
+Alex Singh Source?
www.heritage.org/index/ranking
guess what, the spread of free enterprise lifted 400million people out of poverty in china between 1986 and 2006
Miguel Alberola Cano Even fairly smart people may not make enough money to subsist since they *just* weren't smart enough to get a scholarship and their parents were poor, and high school degrees get you less and less these days. The highest paying job I could find was a program coordinator in Baltimore ($27 an hour at most), and to get that with a high school degree, you need 5 years of applicable experience. Which you don't have if you're just out of high school and can't go to college. Everyone is deluded by rags to riches stories and thinks that will be them if they just work hard, but in reality, most rich people were born rich.
lol 2 minutes to expound on an idea that should take hours and days to even understand
preach!
It's not that difficult of an idea to understand, dude. It's pretty simple. The government gives you income. There's not much more to it. Yes there are far more things to take into account but that's the basic idea.
US population: 300 Million
Povery Line: ~$12,000
300 Million * $12,000 = $3.6 Trillion
Total U.S. spending 2015: $3.8 trillion
So for this one policy, it would cost the entirety of the current federal Government spending.
You can't just give people money for not having any when there are ways for them to go and work for money. If you really want money, go and work for it. People who already worked for their money can give money to the poor, but should never have to. If you are working for your money, you shouldn't have to help someone because they don't have as much money as you. That's stupid.
What if people are already working but their jobs won't pay them enough? The universal minimum wouldn't eliminate people's desire to earn more, it would just help people to survive in circumstances where they would otherwise have no other option but abject poverty. They proposed something similar in Switzerland recently, and I think one of their conditions was that the minimum would only be provided for up to two years, and only if you could prove that you were actively looking for work.
our system is not designed to provide a job for every person. there is no mechanism in place to make that happen. we have the resources to care for the needs of everyone. the people who will be paying for this basic guaranteed income are not regular people like you, it's Nike and Walmart and Anheuser Busch and Phillip Morris. American institutions that control vast resources.
Ronald Dregan That's why people have to work for their jobs. They can't just be handed something, they need to put forth the effort and get money, rather than being guaranteed to get something just for showing up, they need to strive to earn that money.
Tom Parry-Jones If your job refuses to pay you more for your hard work, that's not the system's fault. You just need to either negotiate with your boss, or find a job that appreciates what you do.
"The universal minimum wouldn't eliminate people's desire to earn more"
That's been said about welfare, but I know people that abuse the system, just so they don't have to work.
Something like that could work in Switzerland, but not in america.
+Blockboy nnnnnooooo
Capitilism works because between a combination of luck, knowledge, social status' as well as capability to handle money allows people who are skilled to hold and represent the wealth of a country. Corruption is what undermines this system more easily than anything else. If we just GAVE away cash to everyone who needed it, try to imagine all of the NEGATIVE ramifications before trying to justify this action. I'll give you a minute.
^^
works pretty well for Saudi Arabia.
They get 40k each per year.
But you know they just sit around and do nothing.
They don't use it to fund new ideas or start business or anything lol.
This hole idea if people aren't hungry they won't do anything is ridiculous.
They may not necessarily always do something profitable .
But as automation means mas unemployment is definitely going to increase .
whats the alternative let people starve when we dont have to?
O well we ere need to create more jobs and stuff lol.
we already manufacturer more things than we ever need .
A 3rd of all food goes in the bin while people starve.
Theres plenty resources for everyone on the planet .
its just that less than 1% of people own half of it.
we only need to redistribute a small fraction of that to end poverty.
Open your mind for one tiny second you brain washed fool!!
Is your idea that until we solve "corruption" nothing else should be attempted? I mean if that isn't what your point is, why mention corruption at all? It isn't like you're bringing a secret to light.
Nobody Lurker hah! So, that's 50 people out of 319 million. I'm convinced, the same arguments against all other forms of wellfare (food stamps, section 8 housing, healthcare, scholastic grants, and on and on and on) have been brought up and proven wrong over and over ... but now when you raise them I'm convinced!
Dude, get a history book.
weird how you define a Good system as one that allows the lucky and the rich to remain powerful.
I'd say the opposite; a system where people born into a wealthy family have the same chance to become powerful as people who weren't is a good one, but then what do I know I don't have swastika tattoos so I'm no sociological expert
cool, not having to work and still get money ?
Yeah. It's human nature to want to work for what you get. But, in every system there will always be some people taking advantage and skating by doing as little as possible for as little reward as possible. People living at that income level would basically become the new standard for poverty. Living in the worst neighborhoods, only really having access to poor quality goods and services. Or, you can work a job you'll enjoy and accept the negative income tax as a financial boost
Nobody Lurker It's cool man. You left a similar comment in reply to another comment. I get it, you have poor morals. That's ok. There are enough good people in the world to where people like you are statistically insignificant. You know, like psychopaths and stuff.
You should go back to lurking.
Sooo....Communism?
Quite the opposite. It would actually reduce government control.
Quite the opposite. It would actually reduce government control.
+ninjagomaster312 And the earth doesn't go around the sun, idiot.
oh lord a vox video explaining basic income
Finland just did a experiment with basic income, aiming at people that were unemployed. All of them got jobs, something that they had no incentive to do earlier because the unemployment benefit was bigger than the wages proposed to them. So it was better for them to keep being unemployed (So they wouldn't lose their benefits, that made up most of their income). Now that they had the BUI no matter what, all of them got jobs to help having a bigger income at their house, consuming more, therefore stimulating demand and helping the economy.
vox you socialist rebels
Good ideal, but easy to abuse
There's actually only a small amount of waste fraud and abuse, and if you o abuse the system you'll lose your benefits.
These guys are thinking about the system we have now where one could hide income by getting it under the table, have more babies to qualify for more benefits, etc. Basically all things that every person who hates entitlements believe that everyone on welfare is doing; gaming the system.
They don't seem to understand the concept of basic income which all citizens would qualify for and would be a uniform amount, thereby removing all waste fraud and abuse that we see in the current system.
I love the idea of a negative income tax system, it's just that no one studied further into it.
Anyone who has actually studied economics and sociology understands that poverty cannot be eliminated completely.
#Communism
Basic income has nothing to do with communism bonobo
well, I agree with Kai Widman. CMIIW, but AFAIK communism has the same concept where the country provide everybody food and money so no matter how hard you work, you will get the same pay
fasol dorem NO, by introducing an UBI, you still have a classes (middle and upperclass) still have a goverment, still have money and still have private property, therefore no communism. It also has nothing to do with socialism, it could be if the UBI is financed with "state owned enterprises" but I doubt it.
That's literally only a punchline if you're from the US. Everywhere else, people are just like.. "yeah, I guess".
fasol dorem p