frame

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

DebateIsland.com is the largest online debate website globally where anyone can anonymously and easily debate online, casually or formally, while connecting with their friends and others. Users, regardless of debating skill level, can civilly debate just about anything online in a text-based online debate website that supports five easy-to-use and fun debating formats ranging from Casual, to Formalish, to Lincoln-Douglas Formal. In addition, people can improve their debating skills with the help of revolutionary artificial intelligence-powered technology on our debate website. DebateIsland is totally free and provides the best online debate experience of any debate website.





Should the U.S. Provide a Universal Basic Income to its Citizens?

Debate Information

Universal Basic Income, as proposed by Andrew Yang(Democratic Candidate), has become increasingly popular. Yang believes that UBI is necessary because "we are experiencing the greatest technological shift the world has ever seen" and because "a third of all working Americans will lose their job to automation in the next 12 years."

This idea is not new and has garnered support from both conservatives and liberals.
At the beginning of our country, Thomas Paine writes, "there shall be paid to every person, when arrived at the age of twenty-one years, the sum of fifteen pounds sterling...to every person, rich or poor."
Fast forward to Martin Luther King Jr., who said at a speech, "a guaranteed annual income, a guaranteed minimum income for all people, and for all families of our country."
Milton Friedman, said "[A negative income tax] would provide an assured minimum to all persons in need, regardless of the reasons for their need"
A thousand economists signed a letter to Congress detailing why a UBI would be beneficial
A bill for UBI passed the House of Representatives twice under Richard Nixon.
Today, Alaska, a deep red state, has a yearly dividend called the Alaska Permanent Fund.

Andrew Yang's proposal and/or his candidacy has gained support of many notable people, including Tesla CEO Elon Musk and Professor of Economics at Harvard University Economist Greg Mankiw(11th most cited economist and probably wrote your Econ textbooks). 

The benefits of a universal basic income has been demonstrated through multiple studies.
A study of Alaska's dividend showed that full-time employment did not change and that part-time employment increased by 17%
In Kenya, there were a "wide range of outcomes including food security and educational attainment, investment in small businesses and long-term earnings. Even short-term infusions of capital have significantly improved long-term living standards, psychological well-being, and life expectancy."
The Roosevelt Institute projects that a UBI of $1000/month would create 4.6 million jobs and grow the economy by 12 percent continuously
More studies on basic income here.
 


qwerrtyCorruptedWaffle
i fart cows



Debra AI Prediction

Predicted To Win
Predicted 2nd Place
11%
Margin

Details +




Post Argument Now Debate Details +

    Arguments


  • qwerrtyqwerrty 42 Pts   -  
    Yes! We should.
    There are many more benefits. 
    An Indonesian study showed an 18% decrease in suicide. 
    UBI also pays for itself. Some studies have found that a $1 cash transfer can lead to a $2.6 increase. 

    It also helps with increasing IQ and decreasing stress. Stress and economic insecurity have been found to decrease IQ by 13 points

    There is also a perspective where people shouldn't have to work a job they hate just to get by. This allows for people to have economic mobility and to find things they are truly passionate about. 

    BaconToespiloteerCorruptedWaffle
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 5971 Pts   -   edited December 2019
    In the age of cryptocurrencies, communications, cloud technology and neural networks, even seriously discussing ancient pseudo-scientific ideas such as UBI makes no sense. It is like dancing around with totems, trying to call down rain. This is not the 8th century, folks; grow up.

    Automation is not going to increase unemployment; it never has, and never will. Automation will merely increase our productivity at unbelievable rate, and if today one person can feed, say, a 1000 people, then tomorrow one person will be able to feed the entire Earth's population.

    Keynesian economics never worked, never uplifted a single country and caused countless crises all over the world. On the other hand, actual, scientific schools of economics, such as the Chicago/Austrian schools, uplifted countless economies throughout the 20th century, and even today the most prosperous economically countries (Hong Kong, Singapore, the US, Switzerland) are the ones that have largely eskewed Keynesianism and employed a more pragmatic free market approach.

    That people still cling to the old ideas of forceful redistribution of wealth, going as far back as to the Sumer times, baffles me. It is like those people who refuse to read books on digital devices and cling to the paper format, despite all the inconveniences and expenses it brings: keep up with time folks, we are not in caves any more.

    I doubt UBI has a chance of ever being implemented in the US, and people around the world have been very clear over the last few years with their votes: they are sick of governments putting their nose everywhere and want to be left alone. The more politicians try to manipulate people into supporting expanding welfare, the more Brexits and Trumps will there be, and it will keep continuing until the politicians get the message, wake up, look around, realise that it is not 1600-s any more, and that it is time to enact policies based on current technological trends and real challenges.

    There is no issue of wealth inequality; in First World countries, 99.999% of the population lives better than virtually anyone lived just 100 years ago. The real issues are much finer: big data challenges, large scale cloud system conflicts, confidentiality in international electronic transactions... Even Obama seemed to realise that, and in an interview with a couple of cybersecurity specialists he said that a few decades from now economics will be not about redistribution of wealth, but about organisation of the digital infrastructure the economy is built on.
    Some governments are realising it and taking action, enacting the necessary reforms. China and Japan are the most notable examples, but also the UK has recently been taking some serious steps in that direction. If the US government keeps sticking to ancient Keynesian ideas, then we will be outcompeted by those who keep up with time, and become irrelevant.
    qwerrtyall4actt
  • qwerrtyqwerrty 42 Pts   -  
    MayCaesar said:
    Automation is not going to increase unemployment; it never has, and never will. Automation will merely increase our productivity at unbelievable rate, 
    Studies that prove this wave of automation won't increase unemployment? There have been 4 million manufacturing jobs automated. How many of them got new jobs?  Why are you assuming this automation will be similar to the last? Even if it was, there were massive riots last time. Let's say there will be enough jobs, they wouldn't be for the people who lost them. "While some dispute the dire predictions on grounds new positions will be created to offset the job losses, the fact that all these major studies report significant workforce disruptions should be taken seriously." It is the pace that also causes massive disruption. It is still a problem that addresses income insecurity during this time. 


    Even if this wasn't the case, wealth transfers have been shown to be beneficial. See posts above. (all the sources and don't ignore all the benefits such as suicide reduction, massive increase in GDP, new jobs and buying power, reduced ecnommic insecurity and increases IQ, etc). 
    MayCaesar said:
    Keynesian economics never worked, never uplifted a single country and caused countless crises all over the world. On the other hand, actual, scientific schools of economics, such as the Chicago/Austrian schools, uplifted countless economies throughout the 20th century, and even today the most prosperous economically countries (Hong Kong, Singapore, the US, Switzerland) are the ones that have largely eskewed Keynesianism and employed a more pragmatic free market approach.

    That people still cling to the old ideas of forceful redistribution of wealth, going as far back as to the Sumer times, baffles me. It is like those people who refuse to read books on digital devices and cling to the paper format, despite all the inconveniences and expenses it brings: keep up with time folks, we are not in caves any more.

    If the US government keeps sticking to ancient Keynesian ideas, then we will be outcompeted by those who keep up with time, and become irrelevant.
    Please provide sources. The US has used Keynesian economics (2009 is so obvious). The New Deal is largely based on this too. Please, please, provide sources. I'm going to just leave this here: https://www.forbes.com/sites/timothysiegel/2011/04/01/the-truth-about-keynesian-economics-it-works/. Also, this has no impact on the discussion at all. 

    Wealth transfers work around the world. Social policies work. Many countries have universal programs. Many of the most prosperous countries (for the people) have regulations and large social programs. 
    MayCaesar said:
    The more politicians try to manipulate people into supporting expanding welfare, the more Brexits and Trumps will there be, and it will keep continuing until the politicians get the message, wake up, look around, realise that it is not 1600-s any more, and that it is time to enact policies based on current technological trends and real challenges.
    UBI is the complete opposite of the government stepping into our lives. There are very little bureaucracy and no requirements. It just provides for more economics freedom and gives everyone money to participate in our economy. That is why there are people from all sides of the political spectrum that support this. UBI isn't an idea of the past, it is an idea of the future. 
    MayCaesar said:
    There is no issue of wealth inequality; in First World countries, 99.999% of the population lives better than virtually anyone lived just 100 years ago. The real issues are much finer: big data challenges, large scale cloud system conflicts, confidentiality in international electronic transactions. Even Obama seemed to realise that, and in an interview with a couple of cybersecurity specialists he said that a few decades from now economics will be not about redistribution of wealth, but about organisation of the digital infrastructure the economy is built on.
    We can have both UBI and changing our economy for the 21st century. That is exactly what one of the main proponents of UBI, Andrew Yang, wants to do. We don't see any of the benefits of automation, companies collecting our data, etc. Wages are stagnant and we just have our privacy violated. We can do both! 
    We do have an issue of wealth inequality. It is at the level of the 1920s. Conditions may be better than 100 years ago because of the advancements in science (funded mostly by governments) but it doesn't mean current conditions are ideal or can't be improved. Many people can't afford basic things like healthcare and many people work jobs they hate. We can easily change these things. 

    UBI is beneficial no matter what! (see all the sources above). 
    BaconToesMayCaesar
  • qwerrtyqwerrty 42 Pts   -  
    MayCaesar said:
    Automation is not going to increase unemployment; it never has, and never will. Automation will merely increase our productivity at unbelievable rate, 
    Studies that prove this wave of automation won't increase unemployment? There have been 4 million manufacturing jobs automated. How many of them got new jobs?  Why are you assuming this automation will be similar to the last? Even if it was, there were massive riots last time. Let's say there will be enough jobs, they wouldn't be for the people who lost them. "While some dispute the dire predictions on grounds new positions will be created to offset the job losses, the fact that all these major studies report significant workforce disruptions should be taken seriously." It is the pace that also causes massive disruption. It is still a problem that addresses income insecurity during this time. 


    Even if this wasn't the case, wealth transfers have been shown to be beneficial. See posts above. (all the sources and don't ignore all the benefits such as suicide reduction, massive increase in GDP, new jobs and buying power, reduced ecnommic insecurity and increases IQ, etc). 
    MayCaesar said:
    Keynesian economics never worked, never uplifted a single country and caused countless crises all over the world. On the other hand, actual, scientific schools of economics, such as the Chicago/Austrian schools, uplifted countless economies throughout the 20th century, and even today the most prosperous economically countries (Hong Kong, Singapore, the US, Switzerland) are the ones that have largely eskewed Keynesianism and employed a more pragmatic free market approach.

    That people still cling to the old ideas of forceful redistribution of wealth, going as far back as to the Sumer times, baffles me. It is like those people who refuse to read books on digital devices and cling to the paper format, despite all the inconveniences and expenses it brings: keep up with time folks, we are not in caves any more.

    If the US government keeps sticking to ancient Keynesian ideas, then we will be outcompeted by those who keep up with time, and become irrelevant.
    Please provide sources. The US has used Keynesian economics (2009 is so obvious). The New Deal is largely based on this too. Please, please, provide sources. I'm going to just leave this here: https://www.forbes.com/sites/timothysiegel/2011/04/01/the-truth-about-keynesian-economics-it-works/. Also, this has no impact on the discussion at all. 

    Wealth transfers work around the world. Social policies work. Many countries have universal programs. Many of the most prosperous countries (for the people) have regulations and large social programs. 
    MayCaesar said:
    The more politicians try to manipulate people into supporting expanding welfare, the more Brexits and Trumps will there be, and it will keep continuing until the politicians get the message, wake up, look around, realise that it is not 1600-s any more, and that it is time to enact policies based on current technological trends and real challenges.
    UBI is the complete opposite of the government stepping into our lives. There are very little bureaucracy and no requirements. It just provides for more economics freedom and gives everyone money to participate in our economy. That is why there are people from all sides of the political spectrum that support this. UBI isn't an idea of the past, it is an idea of the future. 
    MayCaesar said:
    There is no issue of wealth inequality; in First World countries, 99.999% of the population lives better than virtually anyone lived just 100 years ago. The real issues are much finer: big data challenges, large scale cloud system conflicts, confidentiality in international electronic transactions. Even Obama seemed to realise that, and in an interview with a couple of cybersecurity specialists he said that a few decades from now economics will be not about redistribution of wealth, but about organisation of the digital infrastructure the economy is built on.
    We can have both UBI and changing our economy for the 21st century. That is exactly what one of the main proponents of UBI, Andrew Yang, wants to do. We don't see any of the benefits of automation, companies collecting our data, etc. Wages are stagnant and we just have our privacy violated. We can do both! 
    We do have an issue of wealth inequality. It is at the level of the 1920s. Conditions may be better than 100 years ago because of the advancements in science (funded mostly by governments) but it doesn't mean current conditions are ideal or can't be improved. Many people can't afford basic things like healthcare and many people work jobs they hate. We can easily change these things. 

    UBI is beneficial no matter what! (see all the sources above). 
    CorruptedWaffle
  • piloteerpiloteer 1577 Pts   -   edited December 2019
    @MayCaesar

    I don't disagree with your argument, except that I think you misrepresented Keynesian economics. Keynes was not a communist and didn't believe in any redistribution of wealth. He said that he was an economist, and since communism is not an economic system, it's just a distribution system, then his economic policies have nothing to do with communism. He did believe in centralized planning in the hopes of decreasing the severity of depression and recession, which did cause the stagnation in the 60s and 70s, and increased inflation, but he was not a communist.         
    MayCaesar
  • BaconToesBaconToes 236 Pts   -  
    MayCaesar said:
    In the age of cryptocurrencies, communications, cloud technology and neural networks, even seriously discussing ancient pseudo-scientific ideas such as UBI makes no sense. It is like dancing around with totems, trying to call down rain. This is not the 8th century, folks; grow up.

    Automation is not going to increase unemployment; it never has, and never will. Automation will merely increase our productivity at unbelievable rate, and if today one person can feed, say, a 1000 people, then tomorrow one person will be able to feed the entire Earth's population.
    It's great to have another discussion with you. It not being the 8th century is exactly the issue we are facing.

    Technology and automation will wipe out an estimated 25-50% of all jobs in the United States(source here and here and here and here and here). Due to this widespread displacement of the labor market, UBI is an important discussion to have. Don't believe empirical studies? Go to your local CVS or Target. Go to an Amazon warehouse. Go into any manufacturing plant. The speed and expanse automation is occurring today is much different than before. 

    This is a good eye-opening video to watch by Kurzgesagt: 

    The Rise of the Machines – Why Automation is Different this Time

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WSKi8HfcxEk


    MayCaesar said:
    Keynesian economics never worked, never uplifted a single country and caused countless crises all over the world. On the other hand, actual, scientific schools of economics, such as the Chicago/Austrian schools, uplifted countless economies throughout the 20th century, and even today the most prosperous economically countries (Hong Kong, Singapore, the US, Switzerland) are the ones that have largely eskewed Keynesianism and employed a more pragmatic free market approach.

    That people still cling to the old ideas of forceful redistribution of wealth, going as far back as to the Sumer times, baffles me. It is like those people who refuse to read books on digital devices and cling to the paper format, despite all the inconveniences and expenses it brings: keep up with time folks, we are not in caves any more.

    So you believe that because redistribution is old and has failed in the past, then it means that we shouldn't do it. By no means do I advocate for a complete socialist or communist country, but let's examine how well free-market capitalism is working.


    Source: https://www.epi.org/productivity-pay-gap/

    What we need is a mixture of free-market capitalism and social programs, such as UBI. Both complement each other, with UBI being a catalyst for economic growth.
    Perfect description by Andrew Yang: "Universal basic income is necessary for the continuation of capitalism through the wave of automation and worker displacement. Markets need consumers to sell things to. UBI is capitalism with a floor that people cannot fall beneath."

    MayCaesar said:
    I doubt UBI has a chance of ever being implemented in the US, and people around the world have been very clear over the last few years with their votes: they are sick of governments putting their nose everywhere and want to be left alone. The more politicians try to manipulate people into supporting expanding welfare, the more Brexits and Trumps will there be, and it will keep continuing until the politicians get the message, wake up, look around, realise that it is not 1600-s any more, and that it is time to enact policies based on current technological trends and real challenges.
    I see where you are coming from and I understand your viewpoint. However, the reason many libertarians support Yang is because his UBI will decrease the bureaucracy in our current welfare system. It is also one of the reasons why Milton Friedman(who opposed Keynesianism as you do) supports a negative income tax(a variation of UBI). Yang's UBI has an opt-in rule. If you want to opt-in and receive $1000/month, you forego welfare benefits such as food stamps. UBI is not means-tested like traditional welfare programs. This allows people to break through the vicious cycle of poverty because traditional welfare programs make it hard for people to earn more money and keep their benefits. Usually, this ends in a net loss, so people stay in poverty for their entire life.
      
    Image result for welfare cliff

    UBI is different.
    The universality of UBI allows everyone, regardless of economic status, to receive the income. In addition, UBI will cut the excess bureaucracy from the hundreds of welfare programs.

    And as said previously, technological changes will cause massive damages, and UBI is a measure to allow people to transition. 
    However, UBI goes beyond automation. Andrew Yang's UBI can eradicate poverty because $12,000 is right at the poverty line. This allows people to build on a floor, not a ceiling like traditional welfare programs. I think @qwerrty did a good job at pointing at other benefits of a basic income.

    MayCaesar said:
    There is no issue of wealth inequality; in First World countries, 99.999% of the population lives better than virtually anyone lived just 100 years ago. The real issues are much finer: big data challenges, large scale cloud system conflicts, confidentiality in international electronic transactions... Even Obama seemed to realise that, and in an interview with a couple of cybersecurity specialists he said that a few decades from now economics will be not about redistribution of wealth, but about organisation of the digital infrastructure the economy is built on.
    Some governments are realising it and taking action, enacting the necessary reforms. China and Japan are the most notable examples, but also the UK has recently been taking some serious steps in that direction. If the US government keeps sticking to ancient Keynesian ideas, then we will be outcompeted by those who keep up with time, and become irrelevant.
    Wealth inequality is 100% an issue. I don't know how you can come to this conclusion.
    Income Gains Widely Shared in Early Postwar Decades - But Not Since Then
    Income Gains at the Top Dwarf Those of Low and Middle-Income Households

    Of course, those "real" problems you brought up have been addressed by Andrew Yang. 

    https://www.yang2020.com/policies/quantum-computing/

    According to Andrew Yang: "Our current AES-based encryption standards are very secure from attacks using transistor-based computers that store information in bits. It would take an inordinate amount of time to break that encryption.

    However, quantum computers, using qubits, will theoretically be able to perform the calculations necessary to break our current encryptions standards in under a day. When that happens, all of our encrypted data will be vulnerable. That means our businesses, communications channels, and banking and national security systems may be accessible."


    Yang: "Other nations are investing heavily in quantum computing technology while simultaneously using their signal intelligence capabilities to collect and store as much encrypted data as possible...we need to invest in and develop new encryption standards and systems, and immediately shift to using these quantum computing-resistant standards to protect our most sensitive data."

    Thanks for the discussion. 
    MayCaesarqwerrty
    i fart cows
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 5971 Pts   -  
    @qwerrty ;

    The assertion of automation increasing unemployment contradicts evidence. There has been found no correlation between technological level and unemployment: technological level steadily increases, and automation along with it, yet unemployment rates mostly stay at the same level everywhere in the world. In the US we have one of the lowest unemployment rates over the last 100 years, despite the degree of automation today being orders of magnitude above what we had 100 years ago.
    When jobs become automated, new, more productive, jobs are created. When there is supply of workers on the market, the market will evolve in a way that utilises that supply, unless that supply cannot be utilised in a productive way, which can never be the case in the real world. Every human being can do something productive, and unless all market participants already have all of their demands met (which will never be the case, for psychological reasons, for example), there will be employment opportunities for them.
    This assumes that the market is free, and people are free to negotiate employment contracts freely, without any governmental bureaucracy getting in the way. This does not have to be the case in the economy where the government has a habit of routinely intervening in people's negotiations. This is what we should be moving away from, and introduction of the UBI would be a step in the wrong direction.

    I do not have a habit of participating in source wars. You can find a lot of related materials on the Mises Institute website, for example. I would also heavily recommend Friedman's "The Great Contraction" book, which goes in depth into the reasons behind the Great Depression and how Keynesian policies directly caused it. The basic idea is that the free market has self-correcting mechanisms in place that takes care of minor crises and prevents major crises from happening in the first place, and the governmental intervention undermines those mechanisms and deepens the crisis. Which has been found to be true again and again around the world. The recent example is the crisis of 2008, which would have ended fairly quickly, had the government not started bailing out failing banks and other companies, making sure that the very issues responsible for the crisis are conserved and perpetuated by the market players.
    Free market capitalism is based on the principle of competition: more effective business models win and lead to the more efficient economical performance, while less effective business models fail under the pressure of competition. Keynesian economics is based on the exact opposite principle: that, in fact, less effective business models must be conserved, and the businesses must not be allowed to fail in crisis times, because of the instability it creates on the market. Yet this instability is the essence of the free market, and without it the whole idea falls apart.
    Social policies do not work well, if you analyse them carefully. They give the appearance of working because the results are there, but they always end up costing far more than the market solution would, and they always have severe unintended consequences. I already brought up the example from my own state, where the governmental "affordable housing" program actually led to housing shortages and skyrocketing prices for the vast majority of the population. A similar example can be found in Los Angeles, where the city administration invested over a hundred millions dollars to tackle the problem of homelessness, which resulted in the number of homeless growing by whooping 33% in just 5 years.
    You will find that, among the First World countries, the most prosperous ones are the ones in which social policies are minimal: the US, Singapore, Hong Kong and Switzerland. While those in which social policies are heavy and funded through extensive taxation, such as Denmark or Finland, are actually doing quite a bit worse in terms of the average person's purchasing power.

    When the government charges me and my trade partner 10% of each trade's value, then it is a HUGE interference in our lives. It is not idea of the future; the ideas of the future are based on people's ability to utilise their resources in the most efficient way. Taking people's money and redistributing it is a very crude economical idea, not fit for the 21st century.
    I do not want to interact with the government; I want to interact with the people. And the government has always done as much as it could to make this interaction as hard as possible. 
    There is no place for the government in the decentralised digital economy of the future. And the more we cling to the old mercantile model, the more edge our competitors will get over us. Look at what China is doing: while we argue over how much more equality we need to guarantee, there the government is investing trillions into building the economy that will run itself through neural networks and cloud technology. What will the welfare-ridden West have to show in 50 years in response to a fully autonomous economy run by robots, with the entire population working as scientists, engineers and programmers?

    Wages are by no means stagnant. What is stagnant is costs of unqualified labor, which is how it should be. The economy should move in the direction where people acquire modern skills at an increasing rate and utilise them in a more and more efficient way. There is no reason for wages of cashiers at McDonalds to grow, and such jobs should be automatised as soon as possible.
    As far as qualified labor goes, the wages are increasing at a rapid rate, as does economical mobility, as more and more people from lower classes manage to make it into the upper classes. Which, incidentally, causes increase in inequality. This is something to celebrate, not vilify.

    People focus far too much on wealth redistribution, and not enough on wealth creation. Redistribution does not make economies; it halts them. It creates perverse incentives and causes stagnation and lack of innovation. 
    Wealth creation is incompatible with redistribution, and wealth creation is what makes economies tick. Creating wealth is harder than redistributing it, which is why most politicians focus on the latter, including Yang - but ultimately much more rewarding.

    @piloteer ;

    Correct, and I did not intend to imply that he was a socialist/communist. He was an interventionist, however, and the school of thought that he founded ultimately welcomed socialist ideas, because fundamentally it is based on the same core principle of manual control over the economy. I would say that Keynes' ideas differ from socialism quantitatively, rather than qualitatively.
    qwerrtypiloteerCorruptedWaffle
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 5971 Pts   -  
    BaconToes said:

    It's great to have another discussion with you. It not being the 8th century is exactly the issue we are facing. 

    Technology and automation will wipe out an estimated 25-50% of all jobs in the United States(source here and here and here and here and here). Due to this widespread displacement of the labor market, UBI is an important discussion to have. Don't believe empirical studies? Go to your local CVS or Target. Go to an Amazon warehouse. Go into any manufacturing plant. The speed and expanse automation is occurring today is much different than before. 

    This is a good eye-opening video to watch by Kurzgesagt: 

    The Rise of the Machines – Why Automation is Different this Time

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WSKi8HfcxEk

    Likewise!

    All of these predictions are based on loose models and are not supported by any hard evidence. Again, the unemployment rates in the US are below 4%, which is nearly unprecedented in the modern Western world. Despite automation happening very rapidly, unemployment does not increase.
    That is the beauty of the free market: it always finds a way to utilise the existing human resources.

    BaconToes said:

    So you believe that because redistribution is old and has failed in the past, then it means that we shouldn't do it. By no means do I advocate for a complete socialist or communist country, but let's examine how well free-market capitalism is working. 

    Source: https://www.epi.org/productivity-pay-gap/

    What we need is a mixture of free-market capitalism and social programs, such as UBI. Both complement each other, with UBI being a catalyst for economic growth.
    Perfect description by Andrew Yang: "Universal basic income is necessary for the continuation of capitalism through the wave of automation and worker displacement. Markets need consumers to sell things to. UBI is capitalism with a floor that people cannot fall beneath."
    Oh, no, not at all. I believe that we should not do redistribution for a large variety of reasons, and its disfunctionality is far from being the first one on the list. Most of all, I believe that economical equality is an absolutely abhorrent idea that runs against everything we humans are.

    It is natural that worker compensation does not grow as fast as productivity does. Productivity, at least, is dependent on the resources provided by the employer, and the cost of those resources' maintenance grows much faster than the labor market value, for various reasons, but mostly due to the exponential increase in sophistication of technology.

    That is the problem: there must be a floor people can fall beneath. Otherwise the entire idea of free market capitalism is undermined. Free market capitalism is based on the idea that competition will reward the effective economical activities and punish the less effective ones, hence maximising everyone's productivity in the long run. If one cannot fail, then there is no real competition, and we might as well be living in a socialist state.

    BaconToes said:

    I see where you are coming from and I understand your viewpoint. However, the reason many libertarians support Yang is because his UBI will decrease the bureaucracy in our current welfare system. It is also one of the reasons why Milton Friedman(who opposed Keynesianism as you do) supports a negative income tax(a variation of UBI). Yang's UBI has an opt-in rule. If you want to opt-in and receive $1000/month, you forego welfare benefits such as food stamps. UBI is not means-tested like traditional welfare programs. This allows people to break through the vicious cycle of poverty because traditional welfare programs make it hard for people to earn more money and keep their benefits. Usually, this ends in a net loss, so people stay in poverty for their entire life.
      

    UBI is different.
    The universality of UBI allows everyone, regardless of economic status, to receive the income. In addition, UBI will cut the excess bureaucracy from the hundreds of welfare programs.

    And as said previously, technological changes will cause massive damages, and UBI is a measure to allow people to transition. 
    However, UBI goes beyond automation. Andrew Yang's UBI can eradicate poverty because $12,000 is right at the poverty line. This allows people to build on a floor, not a ceiling like traditional welfare programs. I think @qwerrty did a good job at pointing at other benefits of a basic income.
    Friedman's negative tax idea had a very different purpose: to support people at the bottom, disadvantaged by failed governmental welfare policies, so they could once again enter the job market and make a life for themselves. It had little to do with addressing inequality, which Friedman believed to be a natural state of any healthy economy. He also saw it as merely a stepping stone towards a true free market; this is not something that was supposed to last for long.

    I have never understood how people supporting Yang's proposal could call themselves libertarians; this term is used in many different contexts these days. Now, I personally would get behind Yang's idea if all other welfare programs were simultaneously abolished (fully, for everyone), and if the amount was lowered to, say, $300-400 a month. And if he rejected the VAT tax proposal. But that is not what he advocates for.

    You are forgetting that UBI is going to induce a severe price inflation. It will not eradicate poverty, as the poverty line will increase significantly.
    You cannot solve poverty by moving resources around. You can only solve poverty by giving opportunities to people at the bottom to rise up through hard work. Solutions to serious problems not involving hard work on the part of the affected should not be considered seriously, in my opinion.


    BaconToes said:

    Wealth inequality is 100% an issue. I don't know how you can come to this conclusion.

    Of course, those "real" problems you brought up have been addressed by Andrew Yang. 

    https://www.yang2020.com/policies/quantum-computing/

    According to Andrew Yang: "Our current AES-based encryption standards are very secure from attacks using transistor-based computers that store information in bits. It would take an inordinate amount of time to break that encryption.

    However, quantum computers, using qubits, will theoretically be able to perform the calculations necessary to break our current encryptions standards in under a day. When that happens, all of our encrypted data will be vulnerable. That means our businesses, communications channels, and banking and national security systems may be accessible."


    Yang: "Other nations are investing heavily in quantum computing technology while simultaneously using their signal intelligence capabilities to collect and store as much encrypted data as possible...we need to invest in and develop new encryption standards and systems, and immediately shift to using these quantum computing-resistant standards to protect our most sensitive data."

    Thanks for the discussion. 
    I have addressed it in the previous comment. Wealth gains only apply to people doing more effective jobs, that were not available in the past. Someone working at McDonalds' counter are not supposed to see any wealth gains, because their labor value has not increased, and the only reason they see any gains at all is the minimum wage policies - which are harmful in many ways, but especially pertinent to this discussion, they disincentivise people from improving their skills and moving up to more efficient jobs.

    Yang is only talking about security issues; it is a backwards, reactionary approach. I am talking about very different things: about investing in new economical production modes. For example, currently the government is doing its best to regulate and suppress cloud-based direct human interaction services, such as AirBnb or Uber. Yet those services are the future. The government should not regulate/suppress them; quite the opposite, the government should invest in them and incentivise creation of new such services.
    However, doing so would create a runaway effect, where the economy starts running itself, putting the government out of business. It is not a problem, say, for the Chinese government, as it maintains a tight control over the infrastructure itself, as well as the information space. But this is not the case in the democratic world, and here these services can actually take the economy back from the government and give it to the people. Obviously, this makes it a very unpopular political narrative.

    Likewise, always happy to discuss complex subjects!
    qwerrtyjoemama69smoothie
  • qwerrtyqwerrty 42 Pts   -  

    MayCaesar said:
    @qwerrty ;
    I do not have a habit of participating in source wars. You can find a lot of related materials on the Mises Institute website, for example. I would also heavily recommend Friedman's "The Great Contraction" book, which goes in depth into the reasons behind the Great Depression and how Keynesian policies directly caused it.
    So, you don't have a habit of backing up your claims? Got it!
    MayCaesar said:
    @qwerrty ;

    The assertion of automation increasing unemployment contradicts evidence. There has been found no correlation between technological level and unemployment: technological level steadily increases, and automation along with it, yet unemployment rates mostly stay at the same level everywhere in the world. In the US we have one of the lowest unemployment rates over the last 100 years, despite the degree of automation today being orders of magnitude above what we had 100 years ago.
    When jobs become automated, new, more productive, jobs are created. When there is supply of workers on the market, the market will evolve in a way that utilises that supply, unless that supply cannot be utilised in a productive way, which can never be the case in the real world. Every human being can do something productive, and unless all market participants already have all of their demands met (which will never be the case, for psychological reasons, for example), there will be employment opportunities for them.
    This assumes that the market is free, and people are free to negotiate employment contracts freely, without any governmental bureaucracy getting in the way. This does not have to be the case in the economy where the government has a habit of routinely intervening in people's negotiations. This is what we should be moving away from, and introduction of the UBI would be a step in the wrong direction.
    The unemployment rate is flawed. It does not take into account the people who have given up find work (a lot of the 4 million people who lost their jobs due to automation). Here is a more accurate statistic: Labor Force Participation rate. It is at 63%! 
    You keep making assertions with no evidence. What evidence shows this? Studies are pretty inconsistent but have one underlying factor: very disruptive. UBI will help ease the transition. We know from previous industrial revolutions that there will be riots. UBI has many other benefits as well which you still fail to counter. (See the posts above). 
    MayCaesar said:
    @qwerrty ;
     The basic idea is that the free market has self-correcting mechanisms in place that takes care of minor crises and prevents major crises from happening in the first place, and the governmental intervention undermines those mechanisms and deepens the crisis. Which has been found to be true again and again around the world. The recent example is the crisis of 2008, which would have ended fairly quickly, had the government not started bailing out failing banks and other companies, making sure that the very issues responsible for the crisis are conserved and perpetuated by the market players.
    Free market capitalism is based on the principle of competition: more effective business models win and lead to the more efficient economical performance, while less effective business models fail under the pressure of competition. Keynesian economics is based on the exact opposite principle: that, in fact, less effective business models must be conserved, and the businesses must not be allowed to fail in crisis times, because of the instability it creates on the market. Yet this instability is the essence of the free market, and without it the whole idea falls apart.
    Social policies do not work well, if you analyse them carefully. They give the appearance of working because the results are there, but they always end up costing far more than the market solution would, and they always have severe unintended consequences. I already brought up the example from my own state, where the governmental "affordable housing" program actually led to housing shortages and skyrocketing prices for the vast majority of the population. A similar example can be found in Los Angeles, where the city administration invested over a hundred millions dollars to tackle the problem of homelessness, which resulted in the number of homeless growing by whooping 33% in just 5 years.
    Can you provide sources to ANY of these claims? The free market led to many of the problems in the 1890s. The free market isn't some holy than thou system. You need regulations to protect people. Just look at the 1890s and 1920s. 
    MayCaesar said:
    You will find that, among the First World countries, the most prosperous ones are the ones in which social policies are minimal: the US, Singapore, Hong Kong and Switzerland. While those in which social policies are heavy and funded through extensive taxation, such as Denmark or Finland, are actually doing quite a bit worse in terms of the average person's purchasing power.

    Wages are by no means stagnant. What is stagnant is costs of unqualified labor, which is how it should be. The economy should move in the direction where people acquire modern skills at an increasing rate and utilise them in a more and more efficient way. There is no reason for wages of cashiers at McDonalds to grow, and such jobs should be automatised as soon as possible.
    As far as qualified labor goes, the wages are increasing at a rapid rate, as does economical mobility, as more and more people from lower classes manage to make it into the upper classes. Which, incidentally, causes increase in inequality. This is something to celebrate, not vilify.
    What do you consider prosperous? Economic security in the US is way lower than other countries. The US doesn't look like a developed country in many regards. 

    HALF the country makes 31k or less. The US doesn't even provide universal healthcare (see what the free market did there) and so the 31k doesn't go as far. The US spends 18% of its GDP on healthcare. We pay way more basic needs. That is because of the littler government intervention we have. We live shorter lives yet pay twice that of other countries. 


    Many of the new jobs created are part-time or gig contract work. That means no benefits and worse conditions (free market doesn't fix this. See 1890s). "We find that 94% of net job growth in the past decade was in the alternative work category,” said Krueger. “And over 60% was due to the [the rise] of independent contractors, freelancers and contract company workers.” In other words, nearly all of the 10 million jobs created between 2005 and 2015 were not traditional nine-to-five employment."
    Wages aren't stagnant? Funny.

    MayCaesar said:
    People focus far too much on wealth redistribution, and not enough on wealth creation. Redistribution does not make economies; it halts them. It creates perverse incentives and causes stagnation and lack of innovation. 
    Wealth creation is incompatible with redistribution, and wealth creation is what makes economies tick. Creating wealth is harder than redistributing it, which is why most politicians focus on the latter, including Yang - but ultimately much more rewarding.
    UBI creates 2x as much wealth as you put in. Could you not ignore all the benefits that we have posted? 

    I'm going to repost what other people have said so you don't ignore it. 
    BaconToes said:
    Universal Basic Income, as proposed by Andrew Yang(Democratic Candidate), has become increasingly popular. Yang believes that UBI is necessary because "we are experiencing the greatest technological shift the world has ever seen" and because "a third of all working Americans will lose their job to automation in the next 12 years."

    This idea is not new and has garnered support from both conservatives and liberals.
    At the beginning of our country, Thomas Paine writes, "there shall be paid to every person, when arrived at the age of twenty-one years, the sum of fifteen pounds sterling...to every person, rich or poor."
    Fast forward to Martin Luther King Jr., who said at a speech, "a guaranteed annual income, a guaranteed minimum income for all people, and for all families of our country."
    Milton Friedman, said "[A negative income tax] would provide an assured minimum to all persons in need, regardless of the reasons for their need"
    A thousand economists signed a letter to Congress detailing why a UBI would be beneficial
    A bill for UBI passed the House of Representatives twice under Richard Nixon.
    Today, Alaska, a deep red state, has a yearly dividend called the Alaska Permanent Fund.

    Andrew Yang's proposal and/or his candidacy has gained support of many notable people, including Tesla CEO Elon Musk and Professor of Economics at Harvard University Economist Greg Mankiw(11th most cited economist and probably wrote your Econ textbooks). 

    The benefits of a universal basic income has been demonstrated through multiple studies.
    A study of Alaska's dividend showed that full-time employment did not change and that part-time employment increased by 17%
    In Kenya, there were a "wide range of outcomes including food security and educational attainment, investment in small businesses and long-term earnings. Even short-term infusions of capital have significantly improved long-term living standards, psychological well-being, and life expectancy."
    The Roosevelt Institute projects that a UBI of $1000/month would create 4.6 million jobs and grow the economy by 12 percent continuously
    More studies on basic income here.

    MayCaesarBaconToesCorruptedWaffle
  • qwerrtyqwerrty 42 Pts   -   edited December 2019
    My other post is up for review so I can't edit it. 
    Here are some things that robots can do: 
    https://www.neocis.com (does dental implants). 
    Parts of law and medical jobs are being automated as well though we are not yet at the position to completely replace them. Doctors may be in less demand though because an AI can do parts of the job better
    The most terrifying (and not even close to the best): Baxter. https://robots.ieee.org/robots/baxter/ It learns how to do a job and costs less than one person's salary. 

    Also, you won't be able to find 3 million truck drivers new jobs. Retraining programs aren't good enough and the average age of them is about 50. 

    I also like this analogy relating to automation. Imagine horses before the invention of cars. They would say "we can't be replaced. Everything has made our lives easier. Even if our city jobs are gone, we will get new ones". But look at them now. Their population took a steep dive. 
    joemama69BaconToesCorruptedWaffle
  • RickeyDRickeyD 953 Pts   -  
    @BaconToes ; If a man does not work, he should not eat. If a man is capable of producing and contributing he must do so and not rely on any government for sustenance. Sustenance void labor when labor is possible is welfare and the devastation of the welfare-state upon human psychology, community, the family unit, is self-evident in the ghettos throughout the United States.


    BaconToessmoothieCorruptedWaffle
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 5971 Pts   -  
    qwerrty said:

    So, you don't have a habit of backing up your claims? Got it!
    I prefer to back up my claims with logical reasoning. This is not a peer-reviewed scientific discourse; this is an online debate, and I use my knowledge and logical ability to make my arguments.

    qwerrty said:

    The unemployment rate is flawed. It does not take into account the people who have given up find work (a lot of the 4 million people who lost their jobs due to automation). Here is a more accurate statistic: Labor Force Participation rate. It is at 63%! 
    You keep making assertions with no evidence. What evidence shows this? Studies are pretty inconsistent but have one underlying factor: very disruptive. UBI will help ease the transition. We know from previous industrial revolutions that there will be riots. UBI has many other benefits as well which you still fail to counter. (See the posts above). 
    Labor participation rate means nothing, as it includes a lot of categories of people who, in principle, are not supposed to work. Unemployment rate is as accurate a statistics as it gets, and people who are not trying to find work, obviously, should not be considered.
    My claims are based on plenty of evidence; in fact, it is basic economics that anyone can learn from an undergraduate-level economics book.

    qwerrty said:

    Can you provide sources to ANY of these claims? The free market led to many of the problems in the 1890s. The free market isn't some holy than thou system. You need regulations to protect people. Just look at the 1890s and 1920s. 
    Once again, it is basic economics. I am not saying anything controversial; all of it is known to any economics student.

    Well, the US at the end of the 19th century was by far the most prosperous country in the world, with average income in the US being approximately 50% above the second runner, the UK. Does not look like a disaster to me.
    As for 1920-s, read the book I suggested; the Great Depression happened because of the governmental intervention, not the free market.

    There is nothing holy about the free market; it is just a system based on common sense. I have yet to see a compelling argument challenging the notion that free competition produces the best outcome.

    qwerrty said:

    What do you consider prosperous? Economic security in the US is way lower than other countries. The US doesn't look like a developed country in many regards. 

    HALF the country makes 31k or less. The US doesn't even provide universal healthcare (see what the free market did there) and so the 31k doesn't go as far. The US spends 18% of its GDP on healthcare. We pay way more basic needs. That is because of the littler government intervention we have. We live shorter lives yet pay twice that of other countries. 

    Many of the new jobs created are part-time or gig contract work. That means no benefits and worse conditions (free market doesn't fix this. See 1890s). "We find that 94% of net job growth in the past decade was in the alternative work category,” said Krueger. “And over 60% was due to the [the rise] of independent contractors, freelancers and contract company workers.” In other words, nearly all of the 10 million jobs created between 2005 and 2015 were not traditional nine-to-five employment."
    Wages aren't stagnant? Funny.
    Measuring poverty as percentage of people earning below half the median income makes no sense, as median income varies from country to country. Poverty rate in Zimbabwe may be lower than in the US if we use this metric, which does not really mean anything.

    $31,000 a year, especially given low taxes in the US for the respective tax bracket, is a very sizeable amount. I earn less than that, and I manage to put over half of my income into savings. Have no problem paying for healthcare either, and do not know anyone who does.

    Part-time work does not mean no benefits or worse conditions; it depends on the particular contract.

    qwerrty said:

    UBI creates 2x as much wealth as you put in. Could you not ignore all the benefits that we have posted? 

    Selecting some of the poorest economies in the world and claiming that some measure of success in them proves that UBI works is ridiculous. In the economy in such a terrible state, there is going to be growth pretty much no matter what, and connecting that growth to UBI policies alone is disingenuous.

    UBI cannot "create wealth"; this is not how wealth creation works. Wealth is created through market activities, not through welfare.
    Now, people who receive welfare checks can, in principle, invest those checks into improving their skills, so they can later create more wealth - but I have never seen studies suggesting that this is what a significant fraction of people does. I have seen multiple studies suggesting that the opposite happens, and people become content with their place in life and stop any self-improvement activities altogether.

    qwerrty said:

    I'm going to repost what other people have said so you don't ignore it. 
    BaconToes said:
    Universal Basic Income, as proposed by Andrew Yang(Democratic Candidate), has become increasingly popular. Yang believes that UBI is necessary because "we are experiencing the greatest technological shift the world has ever seen" and because "a third of all working Americans will lose their job to automation in the next 12 years."

    This idea is not new and has garnered support from both conservatives and liberals.
    At the beginning of our country, Thomas Paine writes, "there shall be paid to every person, when arrived at the age of twenty-one years, the sum of fifteen pounds sterling...to every person, rich or poor."
    Fast forward to Martin Luther King Jr., who said at a speech, "a guaranteed annual income, a guaranteed minimum income for all people, and for all families of our country."
    Milton Friedman, said "[A negative income tax] would provide an assured minimum to all persons in need, regardless of the reasons for their need"
    A thousand economists signed a letter to Congress detailing why a UBI would be beneficial
    A bill for UBI passed the House of Representatives twice under Richard Nixon.
    Today, Alaska, a deep red state, has a yearly dividend called the Alaska Permanent Fund.

    Andrew Yang's proposal and/or his candidacy has gained support of many notable people, including Tesla CEO Elon Musk and Professor of Economics at Harvard University Economist Greg Mankiw(11th most cited economist and probably wrote your Econ textbooks). 

    The benefits of a universal basic income has been demonstrated through multiple studies.
    A study of Alaska's dividend showed that full-time employment did not change and that part-time employment increased by 17%
    In Kenya, there were a "wide range of outcomes including food security and educational attainment, investment in small businesses and long-term earnings. Even short-term infusions of capital have significantly improved long-term living standards, psychological well-being, and life expectancy."
    The Roosevelt Institute projects that a UBI of $1000/month would create 4.6 million jobs and grow the economy by 12 percent continuously
    More studies on basic income here.

    We have already been through this. Friedman's proposal has nothing to do with the idea of the UBI. Other proposals are singular cases not representing the overall sentiment in any way, and I do not see why appeal to them is relevant in the first place; people make awful proposals all the time. UBI in Alaska is very tiny and, in such a rich oil state, has little impact on anything. Kenya is an impoverished economy, hardly something to base economical policies on.

    I have read the Roosevelt Institute paper, and it is a simple numerical simulation with mock data. Numerical simulations happen to be one of my areas of expertise, and I know first-hand the danger of trying to overinterpret their results.

    None of the linked papers seem to be peer-reviewed. The most comprehensive and up-to-date study on UBI that I can find is this one:
    https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev-economics-080218-030237
    It, among other things, analyses some of the other existing studies and issues with them. The general conclusion is that UBI of a decent amount would be unaffordably expensive.
    qwerrty
  • How does it do so without counterfeiting the dollar? 

    Keep in mind credit is not individually valued federal note they the credits assume an unfixed value based on the verbal and written connection to the registered Federal Reserve Dollar Note. The saying is, the money is ours for the fact we work to receive it as registered receipt on an open exchange to all dept. both domestic and foreign. However, the money I am given as receipt is clearly not mine because my receipts would include a 7.00 and 8.00 dollar Note. This means someone else's owns the Note. A denomination on registered spending documented to reduce an inefficacy of controlling in a second value that is documented by the National debt which is now in the trillions of dollars.

    1,000,000,000,000.00 divided by ( 100.00, 50.00, 20.00,10.00, 5.00, 2.00, 1.00) will always by a higher number then 1,000,000,000,000.00 divided by the numbers ( 100.00, 50.00, 20.00, 10.00, 8.00, 7.00, 5.00, 2.00, 1.00) meaning nothing more than the cost to the tax payer is lower. So we are clear in understanding the Tax payer not those who receive deduction for taxation, be it returns or abatement the focus is on the efforts not the technical end of management of public taxation.


    BaconToes
  • piloteerpiloteer 1577 Pts   -  
    @MayCaesar

    Although I don't disagree with your overall argument, I still have to be a thorn in your side because I believe we disagree on Keynesian economics. The idea that Keynes policy directly caused the great depression is totally unfounded and from an empirical perspective it can be easily argued that Keynesian economics could not have been the main culprit for the great depression (although it could have elongated the depression in the UK). 

    First off, the great depression was a global economic collapse that effected countries that did not adhere to Keynes policies, most notably the US. Herbert Hoover tried to use a hands off approach with the belief the economy would correct itself. There was nothing even resembling a Keynesian policy in the US at the start of the depression. The Austrian economist Friedrich Hayek had visited the US in the mid 1920s and was horrified to find how easy it was for anybody to get a lavish bank loan. He concluded that those banking practices were not economically sustainable and eventually it would cause the market to crash. Hayek had predicted the great depression in a time when most economists had believed we had reached a golden age of economics that would never end. Hayek's predictions centered around America's reckless policy of giving out loans to anybody who had a face, his predictions were not centered around Keynesian economics (although he believed Keynes made the depression worse).

    Another glaring point that takes the wind out of the sails of the argument that Keynes caused the great depression is the fact that the UK went into depression years before any other countries did, but it wasn't because of Keynesian economics, it was because the UK returned to the gold standard in the mid 20s. That was a policy that Keynes absolutely rejected and he warned that it would throw Britain's economy into a tail spin. He was right. By the time the stock market crashed in 1929, the British were already there to welcome everybody else into that boat.

    I don't disagree with your viewpoint that Keynesian economics may have worsened the great depression, and I also am not convinced of the merits of a UBI, but we disagree about what Keynesian economics really was. Both Keynes and Hayek agreed that the world had a distorted view of the nazis being a capitalist tyranny. They were both very vocal about making the world realize that nazi Germany was not a capitalist country, they were socialists through and through, and Keynes warned against the nazi system of economics.      
  • BaconToesBaconToes 236 Pts   -  
    MayCaesar said:
    BaconToes said:

    It's great to have another discussion with you. It not being the 8th century is exactly the issue we are facing. 

    Technology and automation will wipe out an estimated 25-50% of all jobs in the United States(source here and here and here and here and here). Due to this widespread displacement of the labor market, UBI is an important discussion to have. Don't believe empirical studies? Go to your local CVS or Target. Go to an Amazon warehouse. Go into any manufacturing plant. The speed and expanse automation is occurring today is much different than before. 

    This is a good eye-opening video to watch by Kurzgesagt: 

    The Rise of the Machines – Why Automation is Different this Time

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WSKi8HfcxEk

    Likewise!

    All of these predictions are based on loose models and are not supported by any hard evidence. Again, the unemployment rates in the US are below 4%, which is nearly unprecedented in the modern Western world. Despite automation happening very rapidly, unemployment does not increase.
    That is the beauty of the free market: it always finds a way to utilise the existing human resources.
    There are many hard evidences to suggest that automation will displace many jobs. Even just looking at the present, many jobs are being automated.

    Like @qwerrty mentioned, since 2000, 4 million manufacturing jobs have been automated or replaced due to technology. Before you blame outsourcing, 85% of manufacturing job loss between 2000 and 2010 are due to automation, not outsourcing.

    Looking into the future, most experts agree that automation will wipe out more jobs than it will create. 



    The reality is that automation exists, and will continue to replace workers in many fields, not just manufacturing. We are at the beginning of the fourth industrial revolution, and this time it is much different from before. Before, robots replaced mostly manual and repetitive jobs, but this time around, it's different. Artificial intelligence and automation are going to wipe out jobs that require complex thinking as well.


    Let's assume from the perspective of a 50-year-old truck driver with a high school diploma making 50k a year. Automated trucks are already on the highway, once AI is able to detect normal roads and navigate them, they are going to lose their job. Why? Capitalism. If you can replace 10-20 truckers with one person who can monitor the AI for cheaper, why won't you? 

    Now, compare the chart above with the most common jobs in America.
    Image result for most common jobs in america
    We are seeing similar effects of automation on these jobs. 

    The problem with the "automation didn't displace jobs before" argument is that before, automation only made certain jobs quicker and more efficient, not entirely displace them. The people in that industry, for example, manufacturing, will continue to find another job in the same industry. This time, using the analogy of the trucker, their entire job will be replaced. They will not find another job in their work of expertise. 


    Let's assume that you are right, that automation will not cause mass unemployment.
    Even the people who believe this agree that automation will be disruptive. UBI is a measure to transition us into a fully automated society. Andrew Yang embraces automation, however, he recognizes that the effects of it are real. Even without mass unemployment, integrating those displaced workers into other sectors will be difficult. UBI is one of the ways to do that.

    MayCaesar said:

    BaconToes said:

    So you believe that because redistribution is old and has failed in the past, then it means that we shouldn't do it. By no means do I advocate for a complete socialist or communist country, but let's examine how well free-market capitalism is working. 

    Source: https://www.epi.org/productivity-pay-gap/

    What we need is a mixture of free-market capitalism and social programs, such as UBI. Both complement each other, with UBI being a catalyst for economic growth.
    Perfect description by Andrew Yang: "Universal basic income is necessary for the continuation of capitalism through the wave of automation and worker displacement. Markets need consumers to sell things to. UBI is capitalism with a floor that people cannot fall beneath."
    Oh, no, not at all. I believe that we should not do redistribution for a large variety of reasons, and its disfunctionality is far from being the first one on the list. Most of all, I believe that economical equality is an absolutely abhorrent idea that runs against everything we humans are.

    It is natural that worker compensation does not grow as fast as productivity does. Productivity, at least, is dependent on the resources provided by the employer, and the cost of those resources' maintenance grows much faster than the labor market value, for various reasons, but mostly due to the exponential increase in sophistication of technology.

    That is the problem: there must be a floor people can fall beneath. Otherwise the entire idea of free market capitalism is undermined. Free market capitalism is based on the idea that competition will reward the effective economical activities and punish the less effective ones, hence maximising everyone's productivity in the long run. If one cannot fail, then there is no real competition, and we might as well be living in a socialist state.

    This is one of the fundamental differences between our beliefs. Yang believes that we should change the incentives of the economy, to serve humans and not the market. We can still have capitalism with competition while having a floor. 

    Read: https://www.yang2020.com/policies/human-capitalism/

    Listen: "Death to the Meritocracy With Andrew Yang"
    https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/13/opinion/the-argument-andrew-yang-2020.html?

    Watch: Ben Shapiro Debates With Andrew Yang On Human Capitalism (Recommended!) 
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4gFjvm5bu-g
    Ben Shapiro asks many of the same arguments you made

    Andrew Yang's book "The War on Normal People" also talks about this topic as well as automation. There is also a free audiobook on YouTube if you want to listen instead: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MC25cPvp4zg

    MayCaesar said:
    BaconToes said:

    I see where you are coming from and I understand your viewpoint. However, the reason many libertarians support Yang is because his UBI will decrease the bureaucracy in our current welfare system. It is also one of the reasons why Milton Friedman(who opposed Keynesianism as you do) supports a negative income tax(a variation of UBI). Yang's UBI has an opt-in rule. If you want to opt-in and receive $1000/month, you forego welfare benefits such as food stamps. UBI is not means-tested like traditional welfare programs. This allows people to break through the vicious cycle of poverty because traditional welfare programs make it hard for people to earn more money and keep their benefits. Usually, this ends in a net loss, so people stay in poverty for their entire life.
      

    UBI is different.
    The universality of UBI allows everyone, regardless of economic status, to receive the income. In addition, UBI will cut the excess bureaucracy from the hundreds of welfare programs.

    And as said previously, technological changes will cause massive damages, and UBI is a measure to allow people to transition. 
    However, UBI goes beyond automation. Andrew Yang's UBI can eradicate poverty because $12,000 is right at the poverty line. This allows people to build on a floor, not a ceiling like traditional welfare programs. I think @qwerrty did a good job at pointing at other benefits of a basic income.
    Friedman's negative tax idea had a very different purpose: to support people at the bottom, disadvantaged by failed governmental welfare policies, so they could once again enter the job market and make a life for themselves. It had little to do with addressing inequality, which Friedman believed to be a natural state of any healthy economy. He also saw it as merely a stepping stone towards a true free market; this is not something that was supposed to last for long.

    I have never understood how people supporting Yang's proposal could call themselves libertarians; this term is used in many different contexts these days. Now, I personally would get behind Yang's idea if all other welfare programs were simultaneously abolished (fully, for everyone), and if the amount was lowered to, say, $300-400 a month. And if he rejected the VAT tax proposal. But that is not what he advocates for.

    You are forgetting that UBI is going to induce a severe price inflation. It will not eradicate poverty, as the poverty line will increase significantly.
    You cannot solve poverty by moving resources around. You can only solve poverty by giving opportunities to people at the bottom to rise up through hard work. Solutions to serious problems not involving hard work on the part of the affected should not be considered seriously, in my opinion.
    UBI is similar to NIT. UBI will also stimulate local economies, as said before. The Roosevelt Institute projects that a UBI of $1000/month would create 4.6 million jobs and grow the economy by 12 percent continuously. The reason this can occur is that if everyone in a community gets $1000/month, aggregate demand increases. This creates more jobs that are not ready to be automated yet. 

    Libertarianism is a spectrum. I would consider myself slightly libertarian. The reason why many people are supporting Yang is that UBI is much better than the current welfare system. I talked before about how UBI appeals to libertarians because it replaces the welfare benefits of people who opt-in. This overall makes Yang much more attractive to libertarians than some of the other candidates in the race, including Trump. 

    I agree that there will be a certain amount of price inflation, but technological changes will eventually bring costs down. 

    MayCaesar said:
    BaconToes said:

    Wealth inequality is 100% an issue. I don't know how you can come to this conclusion.

    Of course, those "real" problems you brought up have been addressed by Andrew Yang. 

    https://www.yang2020.com/policies/quantum-computing/

    According to Andrew Yang: "Our current AES-based encryption standards are very secure from attacks using transistor-based computers that store information in bits. It would take an inordinate amount of time to break that encryption.

    However, quantum computers, using qubits, will theoretically be able to perform the calculations necessary to break our current encryptions standards in under a day. When that happens, all of our encrypted data will be vulnerable. That means our businesses, communications channels, and banking and national security systems may be accessible."


    Yang: "Other nations are investing heavily in quantum computing technology while simultaneously using their signal intelligence capabilities to collect and store as much encrypted data as possible...we need to invest in and develop new encryption standards and systems, and immediately shift to using these quantum computing-resistant standards to protect our most sensitive data."

    Thanks for the discussion. 
    I have addressed it in the previous comment. Wealth gains only apply to people doing more effective jobs, that were not available in the past. Someone working at McDonalds' counter are not supposed to see any wealth gains, because their labor value has not increased, and the only reason they see any gains at all is the minimum wage policies - which are harmful in many ways, but especially pertinent to this discussion, they disincentivise people from improving their skills and moving up to more efficient jobs.

    Yang is only talking about security issues; it is a backwards, reactionary approach. I am talking about very different things: about investing in new economical production modes. For example, currently the government is doing its best to regulate and suppress cloud-based direct human interaction services, such as AirBnb or Uber. Yet those services are the future. The government should not regulate/suppress them; quite the opposite, the government should invest in them and incentivise creation of new such services.
    However, doing so would create a runaway effect, where the economy starts running itself, putting the government out of business. It is not a problem, say, for the Chinese government, as it maintains a tight control over the infrastructure itself, as well as the information space. But this is not the case in the democratic world, and here these services can actually take the economy back from the government and give it to the people. Obviously, this makes it a very unpopular political narrative.

    Likewise, always happy to discuss complex subjects!
    I agree with your position on minimum wage. Yang is the only major candidate in the Democratic race who does not support a federal $15 minimum wage increase. 
    "Because their labor value has not increased." Neither has the top earners of the economy. Their labor value has not changed either, however, inequality is still rising.

    I agree we should invest in those services. In fact, Yang has spoke about exactly what you are saying right now in the Democratic Debate. He talked about how China is winning the arms race, and that we need to catch up by investing heavily in technology.

    https://youtu.be/J1ZO8EzJ3zE?t=30

    I think our beliefs have a lot more in common than not
    CorruptedWaffle
    i fart cows
  • BaconToesBaconToes 236 Pts   -  
    MayCaesar said:
    qwerrty said:

    The unemployment rate is flawed. It does not take into account the people who have given up find work (a lot of the 4 million people who lost their jobs due to automation). Here is a more accurate statistic: Labor Force Participation rate. It is at 63%! 
    You keep making assertions with no evidence. What evidence shows this? Studies are pretty inconsistent but have one underlying factor: very disruptive. UBI will help ease the transition. We know from previous industrial revolutions that there will be riots. UBI has many other benefits as well which you still fail to counter. (See the posts above). 
    Labor participation rate means nothing, as it includes a lot of categories of people who, in principle, are not supposed to work. Unemployment rate is as accurate a statistics as it gets, and people who are not trying to find work, obviously, should not be considered.
    My claims are based on plenty of evidence; in fact, it is basic economics that anyone can learn from an undergraduate-level economics book.

    qwerrty said:

    Can you provide sources to ANY of these claims? The free market led to many of the problems in the 1890s. The free market isn't some holy than thou system. You need regulations to protect people. Just look at the 1890s and 1920s. 
    Once again, it is basic economics. I am not saying anything controversial; all of it is known to any economics student.

    Well, the US at the end of the 19th century was by far the most prosperous country in the world, with average income in the US being approximately 50% above the second runner, the UK. Does not look like a disaster to me.
    As for 1920-s, read the book I suggested; the Great Depression happened because of the governmental intervention, not the free market.

    There is nothing holy about the free market; it is just a system based on common sense. I have yet to see a compelling argument challenging the notion that free competition produces the best outcome.
    I don't want to interrupt this argument, but I would like to note that Greg Mankiw, who is extremely well known for his work and wrote many economic textbooks, is "attracted" to Yang's UBI proposal. He is conservative and has served as an economic advisor to many Republican politicians. 

    Here he supports why he believes Yang's UBI proposal would be effective at Harvard University: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4cL8kM0fXQc
    CorruptedWaffle
    i fart cows
  • @BaconToes ;

    There are a lot of figures with complicated reasons why things should be a certain way after everyone starts getting 1,000.00 credits to not work. The first hurdle is going to be that a Federal Note of $1,000.00 dollars cost the same as Federal note of $1.00, $5.00,$10.00, $20.00 as a registered receipt. This basic idea does not translate to a UBI even if the credit is called a dollar as the individual nodes of credit are not registered by independent serial number. 
    BaconToesCorruptedWaffle
  • qwerrtyqwerrty 42 Pts   -  
    MayCaesar said:
    Labor participation rate means nothing, as it includes a lot of categories of people who, in principle, are not supposed to work. Unemployment rate is as accurate a statistics as it gets, and people who are not trying to find work, obviously, should not be considered.
    My claims are based on plenty of evidence; in fact, it is basic economics that anyone can learn from an undergraduate-level economics book.
    What? Why shouldn't they be considered? If there aren't any job opportunities then people will naturally stop looking. And that is what happened (see graph below). 1/4 people in their prime working-age aren't working. This isn't reflected in the U3 unemployment rate. The labor force participation rate includes everyone, even if the terrible economic climate caused them to stop. Our labor force participation rate is much lower compared to other countries

    "One Department of Labor survey in 2012 found that 41 percent of displaced manufacturing workers between 2009 and 2011 were either still unemployed or dropped out of the labor market within three years of losing their jobs. Another study out of Indiana University found that 44 percent of 200,000 displaced transportation equipment and primary metals manufacturing workers in Indiana between 2003 and 2014 had no payroll record at all by 2014, and only 3 percent graduated from a public college or university in Indiana during that time period. The study noted, 'Very few went back to school, and relatively few seemed to avail themselves of a lot of the government programs available to assist displaced workers.'"

    MayCaesar said:
    Part-time work does not mean no benefits or worse conditions; it depends on the particular contract.

    Selecting some of the poorest economies in the world and claiming that some measure of success in them proves that UBI works is ridiculous. In the economy in such a terrible state, there is going to be growth pretty much no matter what, and connecting that growth to UBI policies alone is disingenuous.

    UBI cannot "create wealth"; this is not how wealth creation works. Wealth is created through market activities, not through welfare.
    Now, people who receive welfare checks can, in principle, invest those checks into improving their skills, so they can later create more wealth - but I have never seen studies suggesting that this is what a significant fraction of people does. I have seen multiple studies suggesting that the opposite happens, and people become content with their place in life and stop any self-improvement activities altogether.

    Let's see other countries then.  A study in Canada shows the same effects. 


    "The CCB’s contribution to GDP amounts to 2.1% of Canada’s total GDP. Every $1 disbursed through the program to Canadian families has translated to a $1.97 contribution to GDP, meaning that the economic activity generated by the CCB is almost twice the size of the CCB payments themselves. This economic stimulus also generates tax revenue which can help offset the cost of the program. For every $1 disbursed to Canadian families through the CCB, over half ($0.55) is recuperated through taxes, $0.30 to the federal government and $0.25 to provincial governments."


    It seems like it does increase the economy. 

    What studies have you seen? Many have shown no reduction in work or slight reduction because people go back to school. This study proves that. The Alaskan Oil Dividend also showed no impact on full-time employment. However, there was a 17% increase in part-time work. 

    UBI is great for your Capitalist ideals as well! A study in Namibia showed a reduction in poverty, a reduction in malnutrition, double the amount of people attending school, and a 42% reduction in crime. But it also has a story of a woman started a business and was able to start it because of UBI. However, the only reason it was successful and she was able to improve is because UBI put the money in people's hands and it created costumers. 

    Here is another chart: 


    BaconToesCorruptedWaffle
Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

DebateIsland.com

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
© 2023 DebateIsland.com, all rights reserved. DebateIsland.com | The Best Online Debate Experience! Debate topics you care about in a friendly and fun way. Come try us out now. We are totally free!

Contact us

customerservice@debateisland.com
Terms of Service

Get In Touch