Comments by "Titanium Rain" (@ChucksSEADnDEAD) on "Universal Basic Income FAILED In Finland" video.

@killcat1971 it's funny how to you the answer to the UBI problem is materialism and sex. Maybe if people weren't so obsessed with having the latest phone we would live in a world where a UBI wouldn't even be necessary. Also, if you want to give people a UBI just for their basic needs and nothing more, why instead of a UBI not have a state soup kitchen and rooms? You can live in poverty, but you will always have food and shelter. Want something better? Go find a job. That way you don't need to give people money and risk them misusing it.
4
"If you read the study quite a few started volunteering for charity which they could not do under welfare rules." - which kinda introduces the idea that UBI will lead to someone somewhere profiting off unpaid wages if the state is subsidizing people's income. Start a charity, you and a few friends get jobs as directors of something, use the volunteer's labour and pocket a huge chunk of donations as "operational expenses". You'd be surprised at how much charities spend on their own directors.
1
"If they save money on something they are not going to care that someone is profiting from that. It is called being rational." - no, it isn't. My point was that the UBI is like Walmart signing up people for welfare. It's a subsidy you're giving to corporations. "Also Finland monitors how charity use their money quite a lot so no that is not possible. It would be reclassified as for profit" - it's not "for profit" if the only money you spend on yourself is operational costs. There's legal ways to do whatever it needs to be done.
1
@killcat1971 the point is that even you have criticized materialism, meaning that there are obviously people in this world who do not need materialism to feel whole and will accept the neetbux.
1
@MegaPaddz travel and tourism create a lot less emissions than cattle raising. Unless you get the NEETs to go vegan people not going on vacation will not affect emissions that much.
1
@MegaPaddz "Shutting down air travel/transport and diesel powered sea travel/transport worldwide would have a huge effect on carbon emissions." - there's a big difference between shutting everything down and just ending vacations. Also, shutting everything down would make several countries collapse because they're not self-sufficient and need the road and sea transport to get supplies. "We also have to factor in global dimming caused by all the aircraft which is keeping the earths temps about 2 degrees Celsius colder than they actually would be without con trails blocking the sun" - isn't... isn't that actually a positive effect because it counters the effect of greenhouse gasses? "buying of products which are imported" - you're underestimating how much imports are needed. We import not only finished products but partially completed products and raw materials. Countries import and export machinery that allows a country to manufacture a product even though they do not manufacture the machinery themselves. Even a ban on imported finished products would be devastating, but actually trying to shut down transport would destroy living standards and send everyone into poverty because wealth generation will go back to pre-1800's levels.
1
"They are already subsiding businesses so if what you say happens, that profit is another benefit of UBI" ???????????????? for fuck's sake you're literally stating that corporations not having to pay good wages to attract employees is a positive effect of UBI?????? Oh my god don't you see that you're playing right into the hands of the ultra rich? "So it's still the rational thing to do. Profit isn't a negative side effect. It's a positive side effects." - It's not rational at all! It's completely irrational to allow someone to steal and gain from it! Profits earned illegitimately are a negative side effect! "The only problem with fake charities is that they take money that should go to real charities. But this isn't money earmarked for that." - I'm not even talking about fake charities. Very real charities have to pay their own staff. And the bigger a charity is the more work it involves to run it, so typically that is the rationalization of directors of large charities paying themselves good salaries. The issue is, at least charities dealing with volunteers are limited by the fact that people don't have unlimited time and they have to earn a living somehow. If volunteering increases simply because people have nothing to do you're essentially devaluing labour because those who benefit from it are not paying what they owe. If UBI was a thing charities should be forced to hire people with real contracts to try and limit the number of people they can use as labour.
1
@killcat1971 "but how many?" - many. Especially if there's zero effort required. "Most people want more from life then a UBI will supply" - the problem is that even even working for minimum wage involves work, so people naturally figure that if they're working might as well do some extra effort and climb the ladder. If you're ensuring people they're gonna be set for life there's no sunk cost. "When you are deaing with something as broadbased as the UBI you have to look at the population as a whole" - yeah, and the population as a whole doesn't paint a pretty picture. There's more than enough people willing to cheat the government and get benefits. If there isn't even any cheating involved, oh boy.
1
@killcat1971 "if there is no "system" to cheat you save on compliance costs" - but you lose on the fact that nobody feels the shame of being dishonest "there is a very generous social welfare system, and we still only have ~4% unemployment" - or maybe, it's a very productive country/society and the wealth generated allows for a generous welfare system. If the factories were going bankrupt, the banks failed and the services industry slowed down suddenly there would be no way to afford that welfare system. "some women would be likely to stop working and be stay at home moms, but this could actually raise wages (fewer workers willing to work for so little)" - but I thought that people wouldn't feel whole staying at home? Wouldn't the woman go back to work to provide a better life for her child because according to your logic we all strive for it?
1
@killcat1971 "The kind of people that care about "honest work" aren't likely to stop working due to a UBI" - I never said anything about honest work. Cheating the government is, go figure, a crime. Many people who cheat the government are absolutely shameless and have no problems being dishonest on any aspects of their lives. Other people would rather work hard not because of valuing honest work but because they're not willing to tell a huge lie nor commit an infraction. "When you look at most welfare systems they spend a LOT of money on compliance" - the money you save on compliance will be offset by the extra UBI you'll be paying. "And employers take advantage of that" - how? "I've seen people suggest that there should be no welfare state and no minimum wage, can you imagine what that would look like?" - yes, I can. If jobs paid so little it was preferable to move to the countryside and grow your own food, employers wouldn't be able to attract any workers and businesses would be forced to either pay worthwhile wages or perish.
1
are you playing dumb just for the argument's sake? Why should Finnish business be supported if it doesn't want to support itself? Hell, forget about Finish businesses. All businesses will be affected by this, even foreign businesses. The state is PAYING for the wages that corporations should be paying. Why not transition into communism, then? If the state is paying. Might as well expropriate the businesses. Why should be profits be privatized and costs socialized? I mean, corporations cheat the system by forcing the state to pay what they're not willing to pay and you applaud it??? You're actually applauding the Walmart model of not paying enough and singing up people for welfare? Making EVERYONE pay what they're not willing to pay and pocketing the money for themselves? You think this is good? You think this is sustainable? "There are no any evidence that volunteerism devalue the value of labor." - 1. There is no evidence because we're talking about a system that has never been implemented in a true scale. 2. It's basic economics. If people are willing to labour for free it decreases the value of labour. It doesn't take evidence to realize that if I start giving away computers the companies charging 600 dollars for a computer will not be able to compete because I devalued computers as a commodity. The same thing that happens to products also happens to labour.
1
IT'S NOT INDIRECT. IT'S BUSINESS SHIFTING THEIR COST OF OPERATION TO THE GOVERNMENT. JESUS CHRIST, PEOPLE. IS THIS REAL LIFE? IT'S LITERAL CORPORATE WELFARE, USING STATE MONEY TO SUPPORT BUSINESSES. "And no that's not basic economics. That's not how demand and supply works. Which is very studied and proven. Your systement contradicts thousands of published peer review papers." - no, it doesn't. It literally obeys supply and demand. Are you saying that according to supply and demand, if I give away computers for 0 dollars then will 600 dollar computers be worth 800? No. If you start giving something away for free, it reduces value. "If people work for free then the supply of workers decrease and prices for paid labour goes up." - for that people will have to refuse to work for free, aka the initial conditions have changed. If people are working for free, it devalues labour. Once the conditions change by the previously unpaid labourers demanding wages, price of labour will go up. With price of labour going up, more people will be willing to work meaning that labour will devalue back to roughly the starting position. It is a cycle. But taking a snapshot in time where people are giving away free labour, labour is devalued. If then the supply of labour decreases then yes you may see a severe hike in the value of labour - but your argument hinged on people being willing to work even when there are no wages involved, essentially killing the normal cycle I just mentioned if what you said was true.
1
@killcat1971 "But so what? you'd (hopefully) end up with a system where everyone was covered for the basics and if you were willing to work you could live fairly well on even a minimum wage job, as stated it would also cover maternity leave and students, veterans, the mentally ill etc." - then why not just implement communism? You're just a few steps removed. Because it seems to be a clusterfuck in terms of morality. On one hand you have capitalism assuming all interactions without government intervention are voluntary and it's immoral to force unwanted relationships/contracts with "society", on the other hand you have communism which despite my disagreement has created a morality that attempts to be internally consistent and justifies it's existence. With your system... it's madness. Seems like there's no method or logic, just people clicking buttons and adjusting sliders like real like is just a game of SimCity where you don't care about law or fairness or morality. People are just mindless drones with a specific set of wants and needs and the government just gives it to keep people happy. Forget principles, only objectives and how to complete them. Say what you want about communism... but at least there's a purpose, there's principle. I don't want to live in this hellhole where we get the problems of communism AND the problems of megacorporations trying to get us to consume. The only justification being utilitarian arguments. "where would they get the land?" - people could get together and purchase land that has completely devalued so it's cheap. Does it sound like a commune? It does. I wholeheartedly support communes as long as they're voluntary.
1
"In Finland. Yes. They require evidence." - I literally do not know what the hell you're talking about or why you keep talking about Finland. I'm talking about the world in general. "Yes it's indirectly. They pay this to citizens not to corporations. No one wants to give corporations UBI." - You can refuse to see the facts. But if we have a friend, and I owe you 10 Euro, and I say I do not have money but our friend can pay my debt and he gives you the 10 Euro, you can call it "indirect" but I essentially took money from him and gave it to you. Sure, I didn't touch the money directly but I still benefited from his money because now I don't owe you money. If we do that with corporations, that is corporate welfare. Deny it. You can try. But the state covering for costs that businesses should be FORCED to pay and then the rich pocket the money they earned through this practice. It's a fucking joke. Privatized profits, socialized costs. Businesses become leeches. "And no if computers are given away that doesn't bring down the price of computers." - yes, it does. If everyone gets a computer for free this steals sales from competitors. If competitors have product on the shelves that they can't move the prices go down. Since better computer components are released almost every year, a computer that doesn't get sold will eventually have to compete with better models. Keeping product that doesn't sell in storage costs money. Have you ever seen any supermarket running deals on products that might be nearing their best before date? They typically cost less. Why? Because things that do not get bought are lower value. "And we are discussing labor here not computers. There is a limited demand for computers" - and there is no limited demand for labour? "Work on the other hand is not something that buyers get enough of." - then why does unemployment exist? Clearly there's a limiting factor for employment so there's no infinite demand for labour. "If they get some workers for free that doesn't mean that they wouldn't hire the rest of the workforce." - if I can get free workers to make all my products why would I waste money on hiring anyone else? Especially if hiring more people and making more product would lead to... saturation? "The number of available paid jobs are set by the central bank" - the what now? "Also when you hire someone on welfare you do get subsidies from the government. So how is what you describe different from what's already happening?" - well, it is different because I would hope it is a temporary measure to get people OFF the welfare. A permanent UBI? it would turn the human race into cattle. With the added criticism of being corporate welfare. Here's an interesting take on the subject: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nuRuFj5c0bE
1
@killcat1971 "Can you actually point me to an area with decent farm land hat's that cheap? Anyone who'd be in a better position to leave town than work is unlikely to have much money." - again, there's small plots of land, people can pool resources, etc it doesn't need to be "farm land" as long as there's no zoning laws bullshit people can grow food on home gardens - it's gonna grow on any appropriate soil. Also, there's plenty of wealthy leftists, ask them to contribute. And I am just saying, but for example in the US you used to be able to homestead public land but that was outlawed in the 1970's so that's a government putting a barrier on self-sufficiency, not capitalism. "As to Communism the issue with it is that it states that everyone is equal" - I'm not going to focus on that idealistic side of communist theory, according to the core tenants of communism the needy will be taken care of and the workers will keep the full profits of their labour, which would fulfill the stated goal of UBI. In theory it's going to allow for inequality, you just wouldn't be able to use property to achieve it. You'd have to work for it, not manage or hire people. "and then creates a hierarchy with the "party" on top" - not to sound like a communist, but communism is a stateless society. The communist party leading a country is socialism. That's why the USSR was lead by Communist parties, but the countries were Socialist republics. Minor nitpick, but my point is that communism ties the value of commodities to labour. I disagree with the labour theory of value because it only works if you add social necessity or "socially necessary labour", which is basically just Supply and Demand with added steps. But at least there's an economic theory behind it. Morality, even. It's important to realize that whoever pays the money that is used to give people UBI (the ultra rich, the mega corporations) will become The Party. They will have 100% of control over society. "The reason I prefer a UBI over Communism is it allows individuals free choice" - it really won't. UBI will be used to control the population. It's basically an allowance that you will have to spend on corporations so that they can profit and grow so that they can be taxed and you get your UBI again. What's going to happen when people are given UBI but they realize there's a big advantage in not consuming and simply saving the money? "In short Communism has never worker, democratic socialism (like Norway) does" - Norway isn't democratic socialism. It's a capitalist country with welfare. It works on a highly productive country with strong industries, meanwhile the same system is implemented in the PIGS and they're always in the brink of collapse. And plus, the same pitfalls of communism will affect UBI. One of the reasons the Soviet Union had so many problems was that people preferred to save their money than consuming, the ruble was more valuable than the goods produced by the Soviet Union. This means that industries could not sustain themselves and generate the wealth required to pay people's wages, this almost brought down the Soviet Union several times. Like I said before, if the economy depends on people spending their UBI but they realize that it's better to save money the economy will stagnate and there will be no taxable profits to distribute as UBI. "I don't know what your situation is but what would being able to get $1000/month do for you" - it would be about the same I'm gonna make once I graduate college later this year, and about double than I made working my ass off full time without a degree.
1
@M A "And what if that money would barely make you able to afford food and rent for 10 square meter room?" - how does that differ from "first world" poverty? If you're not going to change the human condition what's the point of UBI? I thought the point was preventing exactly that situation. "I doubt anyone is arguing UBI so high that it would start competing with actual work salaries" - a lot of jobs pay low enough that sitting on your ass for a little less money sounds attractive.
1
@killcat1971 well higher min wage would have screwed me over - the economic crisis meant that nobody would risk giving me a job and I was out handing in resumes daily. As soon as the economy got better I got hired right on the first application I sent. A higher min wage would have delayed my employment, during which time I'd be getting paid 0€.
1
@killcat1971 but in the actual cases where the father is MIA you'd basically need an allowance for each kid. Maybe with some sort of function that diminished returns, because if you gave the same set amount for every kid economies of scale kick in and it becomes a welfare scam.
1
@AltCTRLF8 you do not know how many people have hundreds of Steam games on backlog, do you?
1
but we're talking about a Finnish experiment as a small scale reproduction of the concept in itself and we started debating the concept. "Well, in Finland..." let me stop you right there. The rest of the world isn't Finland.
1
"By that reasoning public schools are corporations shifting their costs to the government" - but public schools are owned and controlled by the state. Do you want Walmart and Amazon to become state-owned enterprises? That's a different argument. My point is that people get jobs so they can afford to live, giving people welfare means employees are not longer trying to attract people who need to make a living, but people looking to get extra allowance. This lowers the costs of employment and shifts that burden into the UBI system. "But that's still an indirect subsidy." - it's indirect through semantics alone. If a corporation spends less money on employment costs the benefits are pretty direct. If a bank has debt and the government bails out the bank by paying their debt, you can call it indirect all you want but you still gave welfare to a bank.
1
@Tuatara1989 >"we need UBI or else people will live in poverty!" >"ahahah you think you'll be a deadbeat when we get UBI? YOU'LL BE FUCKING POOR HAHAHA!" "why don't they work less hours than they do now?" - because employment isn't a thing that you sign up for to be busy during the day, having a job means serving a need. There are some jobs you get to pick hours in part time but the vast majority of people are needed to man their station. The employer is not looking to have people who'll only show up for half a day and go home.
1
@asdrt6405 it was a small scale study. Try it on a few million people and see how it goes.
1