Well maybe they would be better off spend the day with their family instead of a government office all day. Maybe that way they can raise their kids instead of the government, as is the case with most families today.
All the middle management jobs that just create more complexity for no real reason. All the jobs needed in order to comply with arbitrary government regulations, etc…
2:50 "doorman, receptionists, chauffeurs and assistants" ... "and could easily be replaced with some kind of technology that's if they're really needed at all"
That's not a list. What about call centre staff at the ATO? That's a job that is needed to assist in complying with legislation. My wife spent 1 hour and 17 min on hold with the ATO regarding a BAS enquiry. So your solution to that problem would be to get rid of all call centre staff, pay some 21 yo kid a UBI and just jope they happen to pop into the ATO on their way to the pub to take a couple of calls and we wouldn't have to wait 1 hour and 17 min on the phone?
That’s true, but it’s not what is “needed” but what is wanted by people. So maybe someone prefers the human interaction of a door man, that’s not for me to say. All I care is the job is created due to someone’s need/desire and not by what the government thinks people should do.
Isn't that related to another post in another thread we were rambling on about around robots in the service industry? I can't see a droid replacing caring for an 18 yo mentally retarded kid in a wheelchair unless they have fantastic tits and a luscious set of lips. Is Lara Croft still a thing?
I guess my point is that the Gov isn't forcing anyone to do anything. They are legitimately competing with private industry and succeeding in convincing otherwise productive people that they can be happy as non-contributors. That was always Aldous Huxley's thesis in 'Brave New World.
No, my solution would be there should been no need to call the ATO, as there would be no complex tax system. A complex tax system is just there to create more BS jobs.
There are enough other retarded individuals who get suicidal when their internet girlfriend or chatbot girlfriend gets shut down, so yes the sexual market place is a huge target especially for obsolete males with zero sexual value to women.
Common ground is refreshing. But to clarify, the Austrian economists (and maybe the Classical I'm not sure) don't distinguish between "needs" and "desires" "wants" because to them all value is subjective. Edit to add: "wants" is more accurate than "desires"
Well it’s good to have so much discussion on this topic. It’s like the good old MMT days. Wonder if Mosler has any input on UBI? I might search for a good for and against debate.
I think you'll find that he opposes a UBI, instead favouring their "Job Guarantee" program. They argue that the job guarantee is supposed to be the first step in the process of creating a job where a need/want is currently going unmet by the private sector, then moving the worker into the private sector at some later time where it's acknowledged more efficient use of resources (both human and natural) occur. The worker's wage then moves from a liability of the State to the private sector. Edit to add: and good luck finding much from Mosler that's more than one or two off-the-cuff lines let alone a debate. Kind of the Wayne Bennet of economics.
We have UBI now, pension, dole, disability, tax thresholds etc, nobody pays tax from $0. UBI just brings it all together. I’m 72 with 4 or 5 income streams and pay tax, it’s the ones against UBI who have a bludgers attitude.
Our social welfare system already demonstrates the absurdity of UBI. It dumbfounds me that proponents of UBI believe that government is capable of delivering a system such as UBI (in their minds) when all the evidence before them points to complete disaster. UBI is a utopian dream that completely eliminates a fundamental aspect of human nature to thrive, minimum necessary struggle. You believe that freeing all people of their burden to ensure their minimum needs to survive are met will just magically come together and thrive without any self direction brought about by necessity. Nothing could be further from the truth. Minimum necessary struggle is the idea that without the responsibility for managing their own basic needs, individuals will not develop the drive to aspire towards fulfilling self generated endeavours that benefit themselves and others around them. Thus you end up with the population of the majority of individuals that make up our current social welfare system, aspiring to nothing, engaging in wilful adversity and lack of the burden of responsibility. Raging against the machine is what causes people to WANT to do things that provide value for themselves and others. You rage against the machine effectively by getting an education, getting a job that pays and holding that job, which provides you the ability to fulfil responsibility for yourself and generate your own free ideas of what to pursue that keeps you moving forward in a productive and healthy manner. This is why dole bludgers and trust fund babies alike are equally degenerate, they don't earn anything for themselves.
People are gonna need more dole. I was reading about our new affordable housing project just completed in the paper today being a disaster. Come to find out poor people cant afford a 400k house at 7%. People on the list have been backing out and many are asking who they were built for. Our median single family home price is 500k here. The city also bought the land and built the project during the height of the market which didnt help. The govt sure is good at creating problems for themselves.
Funny thing is they were all worthless teachers and govt worker types being interviewed in that article. White collar non producer type jobs and all with college degrees applying for affordable housing benefits.
Interesting take on things there, so if we're oppposed to a UBI based on sound economic theory we're bludgers? Anyway, here's the logic of those in favour of a UBI: 1. We already have a welfare program. 2, It's not efficient enough. 3. So let's give everyone welfare. Problem solved.
