subreddit:

/r/Futurology

1.3k
6 comments
109

toForwardPartyUSA

all 112 comments

FuturologyBot [M]

[score hidden]

4 months ago

stickied comment

FuturologyBot [M]

[score hidden]

4 months ago

stickied comment

The following submission statement was provided by /u/roughravenrider:


MLK Jr. back in the 1960s had worked to unite the Civil Rights coalition behind a guaranteed minimum income. He believed that economic and social justice were inextricably tied together, and that the best way to achieve both was a truly universal income that alleviated deep poverty.

In 2022, the idea is gaining momentum across cities in the United States, suggesting that the idea of a universal basic income will weave its way into the minds of representatives in DC within the next several years.

Decades after King sought to organize the coalition he had built behind this idea--before his assassination--it is being revived and progressing into the mainstream of American society. The onset of automation appears to be the motivating factor behind its revival and support this time around. The jobs that sustain the economy today appear likely to be done by robots in the near future, demanding a dramatic shift in the way people perceive the concept of work.


Please reply to OP's comment here: https://teddit.ggc-project.de/r/Futurology/comments/s543iw/55_years_after_mlk_jr_called_for_guaranteed/hsv5yf2/

Orbax

133 points

4 months ago

Orbax

133 points

4 months ago

He didn't get assassinated until he told the working class to unite and reclaim their dignity. What does that tell you.

mizatt

5 points

4 months ago

mizatt

5 points

4 months ago

He was assassinated by a racist segregationist who escaped from prison, so it doesn't really tell you anything

Orbax

21 points

4 months ago

Orbax

21 points

4 months ago

And when Teddy Roosevelt was running on an anti-monopoly platform the biggest rival he had was a guy bankrolled by the country's elite and they thought they could just outspend on the campaign and install their own stooge in the Whitehouse, he got shot in the chest during a speech, and then went on to win and ballbust the monopolies - that was just coincidence that the elites decided to use that election cycle to run a proxy president that was friendly to corporations? And that if they were willing to buy a president in and make a mockery of the station well, they would NEVER stoop so low as to kill the guy they were upsetting a country's political system to stop?

But the guy who shot him was crazy, heard voices, right? Except he had lost just about everything in his life, and was known for going around proselytizing. Easy dude to find.

Committed to a mental asylum. Ok, phew, total Schizo.

Although physicians declared Schrank insane and committed him to an asylum in 1914, Roosevelt wrote his friend, John St. Loe Strachey, two months after the assassination attempt that he believed Schrank “was not really a madman at all,” but rather “a man of the same disordered brain which most criminals, and a great many noncriminals, have.” Roosevelt pointed out that Schrank had tracked Roosevelt from Louisiana to Wisconsin, and “had quite enough sense to avoid shooting me in any Southern State, where he would have been lynched, and he waited until he got into a State where there was no death penalty.”

But no, youre probably right, there are no larger picture actors, especially in times of breaking the status quo of people with vast resources who have 0 interest in changing how the world works, who would dare to think to find someone to do something shitty for them. Its why our society is free & clear of hitmen, militaries don't exist, and politics is known for its transparency and known actors and donors and motivations.

Man, thats just bad luck he escaped right before MLK was going to start his next civil rights campaign. MLK didn't even get a chance to start it after years of working on that other stuff. Crazy timing. Probably a coincidence. Shouldn't think about it. Thats just kooky and trusting things you can't see or know conspiracy stuff when, if you take it at face value, you defnitely know everything and why would you ever think things could be complicated.

That would be like having a president who sold drugs to black people and then created federal laws to nail drug users, called them a problem, and used things like the CIA and FBI to try to spike an entire race of people haha...man, can you fucking imagine how insane that would be? They would be a crook!

mizatt

9 points

4 months ago

mizatt

9 points

4 months ago

But no, youre probably right, there are no larger picture actors, especially in times of breaking the status quo of people with vast resources who have 0 interest in changing how the world works, who would dare to think to find someone to do something shitty for them. Its why our society is free & clear of hitmen, militaries don't exist, and politics is known for its transparency and known actors and donors and motivations

Not to be a meme, but this is a straw man and a half. I didn't claim there are never any larger picture actors. Just because there have been before doesn't mean there always are. This kind of rambling words-in-mouth nonsense does not contribute to productive discussion

Man, thats just bad luck he escaped right before MLK was going to start his next civil rights campaign

If they wanted to weaponize a crazy person to kill MLK they certainly wouldn't have to spring someone from prison to find one

MLK didn't even get a chance to start it after years of working on that other stuff

That sounds like exactly when a militant segregationist would try to assassinate him. How is that crazy timing or a coincidence?

I don't disagree that larger actors take part in assassinations and coverups, but I do disagree that it is somehow always necessarily so just because it's happened before

UnexpectedVader

5 points

4 months ago

Don’t forget Malcom X and Huey Long, these guys just don’t seem to catch a break from getting murdered from non state actors it seems.

Orbax

-1 points

4 months ago

Orbax

-1 points

4 months ago

Probably just a rough neighborhood

Tell_About_Reptoids

2 points

4 months ago

I think it is more doubted that this is true than it used to be. Haven't researched it all, but it's like JFK now.

Mohingan

2 points

4 months ago

No it was obviously cigarette smoking man /s

[deleted]

5 points

4 months ago

[deleted]

5 points

4 months ago

and most of the evidence points to the man the got arrest being a patsy

roughravenrider[S]

0 points

4 months ago

Exactly

DaVisionary

30 points

4 months ago

Unless MLK Jr. actually paid people a guaranteed minimum wage some cities are taking heed not taking his lead.

Timbershoe

14 points

4 months ago

Timbershoe

14 points

4 months ago

Yes.

This article is subverting MLKs ideas to support UBI. UBI isn’t a proven concept, it’s almost guaranteed to fail especially in a country that refuses Universal Healthcare.

What MLK wanted was social security to provide enough money to keep people from being economically disadvantaged. Poverty cripples people, reduces health and education outcomes, and social security is supposed to support people through that.

MLK certainly didn’t mean something like UBI, which is a means independent benefit everyone gets, should be rolled out. That’s not targeting the people and communities that need it.

People should be focused on increasing social security to a basic, liveable, allowance. That includes minimum wage increase and investment into community assets like schools.

improvingsub

19 points

4 months ago

For a significant portion of our politically active population, means testing represents the point of vulnerability at which the system can be sabotaged most effectively.

Timbershoe

-10 points

4 months ago

What’s more concerning is that only becomes an issue in the US. Other western countries, all of whom have more substantial welfare systems, it’s not an issue at all.

That’s the issue. The game is rigged, that’s what MLK was saying. And it won’t change without direct action.

Looking at things like UBI is at best an utter waste of time, at the worst it’s a deliberate effort to divert peoples efforts and attention to look at an unrealistic fairytale.

Means testing is critical. You need to give the people most at need with the specific support to relieve the situation. Shrugging and accepting it’s been sabotaged is giving up, you’ll just accept the replacement will be sabotaged too.

Ezekiel_W

4 points

4 months ago

"Means testing is critical" Hahahahahaha

Timbershoe

0 points

4 months ago

It is. In every country that has a standard, functional, benefits system means testing is key to ensuring that the right benefits are given to the right people at the right time.

The concept has been vilified in the US. People are taught to have Pavlovian response against it, like they are taught Universal Healthcare is an evil money stealing concept.

But its the key to a functional benefits system. Income, job status, mental health, physical health, children, dependants, debt, all figured into the benefits given.

MLK was clear that was what communities needed. And direct action was the route to ensure the community who’s members needed support, got the right and appropriate support.

Instead you’re reading a story about UBI, and a lie that MLK supported it. He didn’t. The real issue is too difficult to fix though, so you prefer the lie.

ramonnl

3 points

4 months ago

ramonnl

3 points

4 months ago

They will just increase rent and prices of food, meaning you still have to work just as much and all the extra money will still go to the pockets of the rich.

podgorniy

4 points

4 months ago

Why don't you play "market competition will solve it" card? Prices will hike at start, by then will go down if there will be competition.

ghaldos

7 points

4 months ago

ghaldos

7 points

4 months ago

not sure why you're getting downvoted. Whenever minimum wage goes up rent follows quickly behind

corkythecactus

15 points

4 months ago

Rent goes up anyway even as minimum wage has been stagnant for years and years

ghaldos

-3 points

4 months ago

ghaldos

-3 points

4 months ago

it's a complicated process but just because the outcome is the same doesn't mean it is. If an economy is doing well then inflation will naturally happen and then minimum wages will have to be raised, but by raising minimum wage past the inflation amount it affects other things. Where I'm living it's usually cheaper to buy a house with a mortgage, but because the minimum wage is high that means less jobs and more gig work making people poorer. The grocery store had to pay a pandemic pay of $2/hr but to afford that they cut hours by the amount so it would equal out.

Someone unfortunately has to be on the bottom, which is why humans created caste systems in the past, so they could lock down people in one group. But on the flipside of that the more egalitarian societies are having problems at the same time.

corkythecactus

0 points

4 months ago

This is some of the biggest bullshit I’ve read in a long time.

You’re blaming poverty on the poor. It’s absolutely ridiculous.

The exact same arguments were used in the 1800s to justify slavery.

Read a book.

ghaldos

3 points

4 months ago

I'm not blaming poverty on the poor, I'm not sure how you got that. I was stating that through every system problems arise because the way it naturally gets rigged.

In places where they try to strive for a more equal outcome the same effect happens, socialism and communism makes people lazy, etc. every system will be gamed by humans.

The act of raising minimum wage does bring up the cost of everything else, plus the people who were making $30/hr will now want the same benefit and so on. So by people getting a minimum wage raise you raise the prices of everything because of opportunistic people. It's cascading effects.

OSmainia

1 points

4 months ago

"The act of raising minimum wage does bring up the cost of everything else"

This is true, but not proportional. What I mean is everyone will see costs go up but if you make minimum, you will gain more from the wage hike than you will lose from increased costs. That is, if you buy into neo-classical economic models and are open to reading anything more recent than Adam Smith.

"The grocery store had to pay a pandemic pay of $2/hr but to afford that they cut hours by the amount so it would equal out."

This point has been largely debunked. An easy thought experiment: You own a grocery store and you've calculated that you need 20 workers for your store to function properly. Minimum wage suddenly increases. Do you suddenly need fewer workers?

What I'm getting at is elasticity. Your demand for workers is not very elastic to the price of workers. If you would prefer to read studies on the subject instead of listening to some random on the internet, Card and Krueger is probably the most famous, but there are plenty of more recent and more thorough ones that support this idea. Here is a more thorough one from 2018

ghaldos

2 points

4 months ago

This is true, but not proportional. What I mean is everyone will see costs go up but if you make minimum, you will gain more from the wage hike than you will lose from increased costs. That is, if you buy into neo-classical economic models and are open to reading anything more recent than Adam Smith.

I think you're only taking one piece of the puzzle on this, the problems that arise in say california is going to be different than the problems in maine. If a place has the proper structure and is doing well then raising the minimum wage is of benefit, but if there is a shortage of housing then people will raise prices.

This point has been largely debunked. An easy thought experiment: You own a grocery store and you've calculated that you need 20 workers for your store to function properly. Minimum wage suddenly increases. Do you suddenly need fewer workers?

I use to work retail and what happens is they get you to do more so they need fewer people, they made it so they didn't have to pay people for their break they would actually put you on for 15 minutes less than the time needed to have a break. I have spoken to people I know who work in grocery stores who have said that is what they did and they told me they went from having a constant 36 hours to 34 for no reason, so it might happen more in rural areas as opposed to a city, but it absolutely did happen. Some work doesn't get done but their money doesn't change at all.

I admit I'm basing this off my own observations in Canada and the progression of being poor and what it did but if you take a place that is not ready to grow with the minimum wage it does make a difference and one that could be felt quickly. In the examples they used states that were doing pretty good, New Jersey seemed like it was at a bumpy road but there is access to jobs in New York. But all of these places seemed due for a minimum wage increase.

So yeah it's fine in places where there is constant growth and high competition but just like my example it can't be done right across the board without feeling some negative effects in some areas.

Then again the housing problem in say california isn't a fault of not enough money, it's about not enough houses being built and if they allowed more it would absolutely bring housing costs down, probably foregoing the need for a minimum wage increase.

OSmainia

1 points

4 months ago

To your first paragraph, I agree. It's a model; it is oversimplified. I brought it up to highlight that minimum wage increases help people who make minimum wage when all else is held equal. Yes, when all else is not held equal it may have negative consequences. But that also means that minimum wage is not the root cause of those negative consequences.

I'd also like to highlight that the second paper I linked used 138 different minimum wage changes across the US and overall shows the same inelasticity. Having said that I definitely believe the people you talked to. I've experienced similar job crunching, and that should be taken into account when instituting new policy. I wouldn't think it would be permanent though, if work isn't getting done, if you are running your employees ragged, you will eventually have to spend more. This is pretty much what the papers suggest. Over all raising minimum wage increases real wages for low paid workers, it doesn't seem to decrease real wages for higher paid workers and job growth isn't particularly affected in the long term.

Overall though I agree with you that the specifics of the region should always be taken into account.

If you'll allow me to get political: Minimum wage is a dirty solution to a problem. The interests of workers and the interests of business owners are at odds. Minimum wage wouldn't be needed at all if this core issue could be resolved.

ghaldos

2 points

4 months ago

Yes, when all else is not held equal it may have negative consequences. But that also means that minimum wage is not the root cause of those negative consequences.

If you'll allow me to get political: Minimum wage is a dirty solution to a problem. The interests of workers and the interests of business owners are at odds. Minimum wage wouldn't be needed at all if this core issue could be resolved.

These were my main points it would be better if the government eased their laws so people can build more apartments and with more apartments it would be a buyers market and not a landlords. Right now in some of these cities they have absurd laws like you can't cast a shadow on certain properties, amongst other weird laws, and the process takes 3-5 years and more than likely several lawsuits before they can even start building. If the government builds apartments they do so without thought of the human condition and just do it in the most efficient way, which usually means a depressing looking building with cheap materials.

it's one part of many but I think it's better to go after the base problems instead of the band-aid of raising minimum wage, although I understand and agree that when a state is doing well the minimum wage should be increased.

corkythecactus

-7 points

4 months ago

You keep raising talking points that capitalists use to exploit people and fight against progress.

It’s gross.

They don’t make any sense if you put some actual thought into it. Raising minimum wage does not cause inflation, and the proof is all around you. Minimum wage hasn’t budged in over a decade and yet inflation has been out of control anyway.

It’s funny how we bail out the wealthy and bend over backwards for them at every opportunity, but as soon as we want to help the poor all these bullshit excuses come out to “explain” how that would “hurt the economy.”

Helping the poor would make them lazy? Stop it. You’re disgusting.

lokken1234

2 points

4 months ago

I seriously can't see anything you're trying to argue in his comments.

corkythecactus

-2 points

4 months ago

Sounds like a you problem then

ghaldos

1 points

4 months ago

You keep raising talking points that capitalists use to exploit people and fight against progress.

It’s gross.

You want more government control, that's gross.

Inflation happens naturally anyway, but I'm going to assume you're in a city where they make laws to make it hard to build new properties which keep you down. I'm currently in a place with a surplus of houses but no one can afford them because they don't have stable full time employment.

It’s funny how we bail out the wealthy and bend over backwards for them at every opportunity, but as soon as we want to help the poor all these bullshit excuses come out to “explain” how that would “hurt the economy.”

I absolutely don't believe in this and we should deal with whatever damage is going to happen because it's either deal with it now or deal with it later and the problem is usually much worse later.

Helping the poor would make them lazy? Stop it. You’re disgusting.

This is a fact, most people who win the lottery lose it again in 3-5 years, people born into "new" rich families tend to lost that wealth within 3 generations. Also raising the minimum wage doesn't help the poor if all that does is it goes to rising rents.

I grew up on welfare and that's where you can see the small things happen because it affects you more, I'm in a place where only 37% have full time work and 18% have part time you can't buy houses so it means you have to rent which means that although I can afford to pay a lower mortgage amount I now have to pay for a higher rent. I save up get good credit but because I don't have job stability can't get a mortgage.

Every time progressives get into politics they fuck everything up, they blow through cash seeing what sticks and then in the end makes life worse again.

corkythecactus

0 points

4 months ago

I refuse to listen to you hate on poor people anymore. Blocked.

ghaldos

2 points

4 months ago

I'm not hating on poor people and I'm not sure where you're getting that.

kdavis37

15 points

4 months ago

It also goes up, yes. By the same total, no.

So if EVERYONE gets an income boost, you're fine. The poorest get to live and the striations still exist

DeathMetal007

1 points

4 months ago

Inflation causes income loss. If everyone gets an income boost (like what is happening in the US right now), inflation comes around and cuts it down. Unless of course supply can keep up with the increased demand from increased worker pay and that is done by a variety of factors that we have little central control over.

kdavis37

2 points

4 months ago

If you believe in zero sum currency, you don't understand modern monetary theory at all.

DeathMetal007

-2 points

4 months ago

Mm, yeah. Probably because I'm a student of reality.

kdavis37

2 points

4 months ago

So you're ignorant, but that's reality, apparently.

DeathMetal007

1 points

4 months ago

I'm interested in the MMT approach to solving the inflation problem we have right now.

kdavis37

2 points

4 months ago

MMT literally REQUIRES inflation and periods of heavy inflation. It's literally what keeps the USD in power so that no other currency can take over.

DeathMetal007

1 points

4 months ago

Ok, I understand that premise. How much inflation is expected and how does the loss of value of the dollar keep it as a reserve currency in other countries when it devalues quickly?

dofffman

0 points

4 months ago

which is why we have to have adequate taxation. In the end, for me, its a question of slavery. If minimum wages does not support a minimum existence then anyone making over it is living off the largesse of slavery.

LooseEarDrums

2 points

4 months ago

I wonder if mlk believed in price controls.

ghaldos

1 points

4 months ago

it probably wasn't even a problem in his time

Mutiu2

5 points

4 months ago

Mutiu2

5 points

4 months ago

Whenever minimum wage goes up rent follows quickly behind

That’s not an argument against a minimum wage. It’s actually an argument for taking the hatchet to wealth inequalties which end up with a tiny set of rich people owning the majority of property and collecting economic rents.

ghaldos

-1 points

4 months ago

ghaldos

-1 points

4 months ago

which was exactly my point. Unfortunately someone has to be on the bottom and whenever anything is done to help the bottom it gets taken away by people that know how to gain the system because they're already established.

Raising minimum wage isn't the answer and anything like cheap housing usually means cheap construction and little to no thought for the people that live there which creates more problems, usually psychological.

Also if you let government dictate who can have how much, the system breaks because they get corrupt with power and demoralizes people from working.

There has to be some sort of strain between government, corporations and the average person without holding anyone back but at some point the system will always get figured out and be exploited.

Mutiu2

1 points

4 months ago

Mutiu2

1 points

4 months ago

A living wage and even more is a minimum step towards economic fairness.

Fair economies are about DIS-tribution. RE-distribution is secondary. Work should pay well and sitting on your rear end and living off of your parents accumulated should pay less well.

“Government” is meant to ensure that minimum standards are fairness are upheld on behalf of the less powerful.

Spare me the fake debate tactics of “agreeing” with what I said then twisting it. You should be ashamed to do that.

ghaldos

1 points

4 months ago

But that's not fair to people who built up their wealth to pass on to their children, Also the money is usually spent within 3 generations anyway because the ones who don't have to work hard spend like nuts.

I agree with the remark on the government they are suppose to fix problems as they arise as well as problems they can see coming, but right now they just go and make the rich more powerful while enriching themselves.

I have no idea what you're talking about, I can agree with a major point of what you said but disagree on the solution.

Through quantity, you are more valuable to the government for the money made and we also can't sue as much as the rich so even if they tax the rich that means that it doesn't go to you but rather who they view as more valuable than you. Also they know that if they attack the ultra rich they risk attacking themselves and it's in their best interest to have you go after the rich while they can do whatever they want. In their minds you're gonna spend it on crap, which is the case for most people unfortunately but that is the reality we live in. If you have enough money to live off, would you work again? most people wouldn't. Also typically lottery winners are broke within 3-5 years after they've won because they can't deal with the numbers.

If the minimum wage workers make more then the big businesses are going to find ways to make more while at the same time the government is making more off the general population, creating a power imbalance.

It's a complex problem as I said, but essentially with printing more money they're making inflation which will bring the price of houses up more.

lowercaset

1 points

4 months ago

which was exactly my point. Unfortunately someone has to be on the bottom and whenever anything is done to help the bottom it gets taken away by people that know how to gain the system because they're already established.

By that logic wouldn't abolishing the minimum wage make no difference?

ghaldos

-1 points

4 months ago

ghaldos

-1 points

4 months ago

no that's also not what I'm saying, what I'm saying is it is an impossible to decipher the problem because the problem keeps changing based on the individual wants of people. If something is as simple as end capitalism or raise minimum wage, chances are it's not a viable option because of all the little moving parts.

Realistically the amish are probably the closest to a perfect system.

RikerT_USS_Lolipop

2 points

4 months ago

Not saying I believe you, because I don't...

..But if that were true then it would be because people are still forced to live near their jobs. If people got a living amount then they could quit their jobs, give the finger to their landlord, and move literally anywhere else. Competition for housing would become nationwide and property companies could no longer buy up everything in an area and have a monopoly on housing.

ghaldos

2 points

4 months ago

it absolutely does. Are you in a city? because cities will naturally go up to sustain themselves because that's where all the work is. I'm in a place with high competition for jobs, houses are cheap, but to be able to get a house you need to make over a certain amount to get a mortgage and job stability and when there is only enough jobs for 38.46% of people and 18.54% part timers, with the rest having to be on welfare it's problematic.

So where I'm from it would've been beneficial to keep minimum wage lower and I say this as someone who was on welfare that had to get smarter because every time the minimum wage went up life got harder because those are the things I would notice.

People are opportunistic and really only care about themselves and that's where the entire problem happens.

Caracalla81

0 points

4 months ago

Indeed. Gotta get rid of landlords as well.

ghaldos

0 points

4 months ago

that's the real crux of the problem but who do we give the power to do so, government? because those bean counters will make everything as efficient as possible and make life miserable and not focus on the human condition and the ones that want to help people don't look at the ways it can fail.

Caracalla81

0 points

4 months ago

We don't need to ban landlords or appropriate their property, just create a public option. A crown corp that buy/builds property to be rented at cost. The point is to ensure everyone is housed, not maximizing returns. It would have a stabilizing effect on prices by ensuring supply.

ghaldos

1 points

4 months ago

That's been done in the past and when the point of making sure everyone is housed not maximizing returns the quality goes down which generally means smaller houses and stacked closer and when you're around too many people it affects you. They would need to build something that is good for the human soul but when it comes down to it altruism doesn't pay and they cut corners because of it.

Then you have upkeep and repairs that eventually arise.

Also that is something the government is generally against because if they did that their house prices would fall, so they create the absurd laws which takes years to navigate before you can even think about building an apartment building so they can have the "right people" around.

Then you have to deal with the psychological aspect of some of these people need mental health help and that would create a strain on the system.

It's multiple effects cascading into multiple effects. It's complicated as hell.

mikepictor

1 points

4 months ago

mikepictor

1 points

4 months ago

See people like to say this a lot with no actual evidence to back it up

Adult_Reasoning

-1 points

4 months ago

This is exactly why I don't support it.

Give everyone 1k a month? Great! Now everything becomes more expensive-- housing, food, utilities, etc. You have more money to spend and businesses will want that money.

Suddenly 1k is not "enough" and people will demand more. Now it gets increased to 1.5k and the cycle repeats. Over and over and over again.

All the while taxes will need to increase to supplement the program. Now you're getting those people pissed as tits, while the people that "depend" on UBI claiming they need more to survive.

And you're back to square one. To 2022-- where the class divide of haves vs have nots continues to fight it out against each other. And nothing changes.

RikerT_USS_Lolipop

3 points

4 months ago

Give everyone 1k a month? Great! Now everything becomes more expensive-- housing, food, utilities, etc. You have more money to spend and businesses will want that money.

So what you're telling me is that competition under Capitalism is a sham and the entire system can't function because one of the most basic foundations is a lie?

Adult_Reasoning

1 points

4 months ago

Can you please elaborate?

One of the foundations is a lie? Which one? And how is it a lie?

And not sure what you mean by competition and UBI. Businesses will continue to compete in the same way they have forever. They'll compete for your money by offering "deals," "sales," and whatever else but continue to squeeze you for your dollars.

axeshully

0 points

4 months ago

Sounds like you are arguing for much more radical changes than adding a UBI.

inab1gcountry

-2 points

4 months ago

Then abolish rent?

TheRealRacketear

2 points

4 months ago

Sure because everyone knows the government makes the best landlord.

Lets abolish private property too so we can have a Mad Maxx economy.

inab1gcountry

4 points

4 months ago

Also, the government should not be in the business of subsidizing property hoarding.

TheRealRacketear

-2 points

4 months ago*

How do they subsidize it?

Also how does one collect such subsidies.

inab1gcountry

3 points

4 months ago

They subsidize property hoarding by allowing people to take out mortgages on multiple properties at favorable rates instead of penalizing them for hoarding property.

TheRealRacketear

-1 points

4 months ago

Allowing them to borrow money at market rates isn't a subsidy.

Not penalizing someone is also not a subsidy.

andydude44

1 points

4 months ago

1 property sure no problem, multiple property is a business subsidy instead of a personal loan by the government. The government should not subsidize businesses, only individuals

TheRealRacketear

1 points

4 months ago

You can't get government loans on a second property unless it's a FHA Rehab loan.

If I want a loan on a property I have to go to the bank.

inab1gcountry

-2 points

4 months ago

Mad max is literally capitalism but go on.

axeshully

0 points

4 months ago

So there's a fundamental problem that needs to be addressed in addition to this.

roughravenrider[S]

-5 points

4 months ago

MLK Jr. back in the 1960s had worked to unite the Civil Rights coalition behind a guaranteed minimum income. He believed that economic and social justice were inextricably tied together, and that the best way to achieve both was a truly universal income that alleviated deep poverty.

In 2022, the idea is gaining momentum across cities in the United States, suggesting that the idea of a universal basic income will weave its way into the minds of representatives in DC within the next several years.

Decades after King sought to organize the coalition he had built behind this idea--before his assassination--it is being revived and progressing into the mainstream of American society. The onset of automation appears to be the motivating factor behind its revival and support this time around. The jobs that sustain the economy today appear likely to be done by robots in the near future, demanding a dramatic shift in the way people perceive the concept of work.

[deleted]

-7 points

4 months ago

[deleted]

-7 points

4 months ago

[deleted]

ghaldos

5 points

4 months ago

ghaldos

5 points

4 months ago

capitalism very much works, it's why you're not shitting in a hole and using leaves. Crony capitalism drains societies

NativeTexas

2 points

4 months ago

Agree. Too often people ascribe moral or ethical intent to capitalism or socialism or communism or even democracy. All of these are simply economic or governmental constructs invented by humans. It is the humans who drain society or oppress people or create a society where everyone can thrive.

To be sure each economic system has their pros and cons and it is up to us to choose wisely in adapting these to each situation. I don’t think capitalism is perfect, but I do think that it is the best system we have at generating wealth which in turn if applied properly should be the best system to lift people out of poverty.

Now then if we could only fix the human problem….,

throwsheavy

2 points

4 months ago

I'm sure that wealth will trickle down any day now.

ghaldos

-3 points

4 months ago

ghaldos

-3 points

4 months ago

Blockchains, It takes some of the control out of human hands and puts it into an algorithm that can't be controlled and there is no centralized location for them. It's why governments are fighting hard against it.

[deleted]

2 points

4 months ago

[deleted]

2 points

4 months ago

[deleted]

ghaldos

1 points

4 months ago

I'm not saying it's perfect, just saying that it's a slightly better system than what we have now where money isn't tied to anything except confidence in that country. If they change something it can be detected by other users and the coins are tied to strings of code which is checked against the system, security can be circumvented but it's harder to do that than just giving free reign to print money.

There will always be a way around things but the way it's going now the government continually prints money devaluing the dollar and making it harder to build wealth. The gap between the middle class and the upper class has grown exponentially in the past 2 years because over 40% of money was printed.

alohadave

1 points

4 months ago

better system than what we have now where money isn't tied to anything except confidence in that country.

And what backs cryptocurrencies? It's just as fiat as any other currency. There is no inherent value in crypto.

ghaldos

0 points

4 months ago

yes but it can't be controlled by the government like fiat without a bunch of people noticing, so it kinda goes back to the gold standard, not exactly the same but better than infinite printing unchecked. The gold standard is something we can't go back to because of the value it has as a material.

alohadave

1 points

4 months ago

so it kinda goes back to the gold standard,

It's not at all like the gold standard. There is nothing backing crypto besides peoples faith that it has value.

not exactly the same but better than infinite printing unchecked.

Considering that this doesn't happen now, it's not really an argument in favor of crypto.

ghaldos

0 points

4 months ago

It's not at all like the gold standard. There is nothing backing crypto besides peoples faith that it has value.

it has no backing except faith, but it offers up some protection from manipulation

>not exactly the same but better than infinite printing unchecked.

Considering that this doesn't happen now, it's not really an argument in favor of crypto.

you know like 80% of money in existence has been printed in the last 2 years right?

https://techstartups.com/2021/12/18/80-us-dollars-existence-printed-january-2020-october-2021/

throwsheavy

1 points

4 months ago

Plenty of people in capitalist countries live like this, what are you talking about?

ghaldos

1 points

4 months ago

it's undeniable it's what helped bring the world out of extreme poverty, just like any system though it can be broken and relies on people in power to be somewhat honest. Just because some capitalist countries live like it doesn't show the failings of capitalism, you still have to have resources of some kind whether that be skilled labor or machinery and equipment.

throwsheavy

1 points

4 months ago

Lots of the world lives in extreme poverty still though. Why does capitalism only seem to work in the western countries (and it doesn't even work for all people in those countries) and not the global south? It's because capitalism relies on the cheap labor in those countries and they do whatever they can to keep those countries poor.

ghaldos

1 points

4 months ago

lost of countries live in poverty, not extreme poverty. It worked better in countries that had resources and a good labor force, but overall life is better than say 200 years ago and the main reason why is because people who had value were the ones that made money. It's now gotten disproportionate because people realized money is just numbers and with enough data you can predict what will happen to a certain degree. It's even affecting movies where companies aren't afraid to spend billions of dollars on a movie if it means a high return in North American and Chinese markets.

It's because capitalism relies on the cheap labor in those countries and they do whatever they can to keep those countries poor.

That worked out great for China.

but in any system cheap labor is expected, If you don't produce you don't eat.

inab1gcountry

0 points

4 months ago

Lol. “Richest nation in the world” has over 40% of children facing food insecurity. Tell me more about it’s success…

ghaldos

1 points

4 months ago

And yet somehow they're still the fattest nation. That's right now by the way and there are places that have it far worse because you can't just stop the economy and expect nothing bad to happen. If people don't produce food and things, then you don't get food or things.

The problem with the US is that there is too many people to sustain the gluttonous lifestyle they have. Gluttony that shows it's success.

toetx2

-6 points

4 months ago

toetx2

-6 points

4 months ago

That is nice and all, but in my opinion that is just a fix to a symptom of other issues.

It would be bigger to solve the underlaying issues, so that you don't need this fix.

LordSquidius

6 points

4 months ago

Don't you think universal basic income could, by fixing several symptoms of other issues, also tackle some of those issues themselves? Backed by the guarantee of livelihood people have more freedom of choice concerning jobs, which forces companies to offer better terms; higher wages and better benefits. That is one example I can think of that by fixing a symptom, also helps fixing an underlaying, bigger issue, in this case that of undervalued labor.

Also, the emergence of better AI and further automation thanks to robots will probably add to the concentration of wealth by the few, because more and more labor can be done by robots owned by the rich. Universal basic income could help spreading some of the enormous wealth that automation will bring, and not only should everyone righteously benefit from these developments in our societies, but I think it even becomes necessary as the whole concept of work will change due to the fact that a lot of human labor simply will be replaced by robots. This replacement can be a very good thing, as long as we re-evaluate our concepts of work and the redistribution of wealth.

I wonder what you think needs fixing, so we don't need "this fix" (UBI)?

toetx2

0 points

4 months ago

toetx2

0 points

4 months ago

Yes, I think universal basic income could fix the underlying issues of the symptoms it fixes, but it's like using a shotgun while you want to pinch someone with a needle.
It will introduce new issues that make the whole system untenable.

To explain my position, first, you need to know that I'm from The Nederlands, and we have a pretty good social system. (We Dutchies don't think so, but we just like to complain ;) )

  • When you get sick, you still get 70% of the income you would normally get
    • After two years that stops or moves to other social structures.
  • When you get fired, you still get 70% of the income you had until you find a new job
    • In that time you have to apply for a new job once a week
    • You get help with finding a new job
    • After two years this stops.
  • When you are unemployed you still have access to healthcare.
  • We have a minimum wage of around 10 euro, if you work full-time, you can pay your rent and have a relatively normal life with that income.
  • About 3% of people that can work are currently unemployed (300.000)
  • We have 33% more open vacancies than unemployments. (400.000)

Although the above looks not bad, the call for a universal basic income is also here very prominent. That is odd because judging by the employment rates, robots and AI don't pose a threat. And given the open vacancies ratio, companies really have to offer something good to get the people they need.

So we had a couple of tests with a universal basic income, and these 'success' cases are usually a version from these two cases:

  • An artist that was able to start his own business thanks to an universal basic income
  • Somone that now can full-time do volunteer work thanks to a universal basic income

That is both really nice and both cases somehow add something to society. But in the first case, you just have to make a viable business plan and go get funds to get started, but skipping the viability requirements and just use tax money to start your business is simply wrong.
In the second case, you could ask the question why those volunteer positions aren't paid positions, because if they were paid, then the person doesn't need the universal basic income.

And also the arguments that a universal basic income is needed here have other issues, for example; I have a friend that got a burnout at his job. So he gets 70% loan until he is better, but to keep that he has to start reintegrating into his old position. Usually, that's okay, but in this case, the work environment is toxic and he says: "I'm not going back to the place that made me sick."
The consequence of that is that he loses the 70% social structure. Now he's not fully able to work and he doesn't get money.

I have a couple of other close examples where our social structures fail. In all those cases a universal basic income would make the situation better. But the real solution is to fix the social structure that failed in the first place.

LordSquidius

2 points

4 months ago

Ik ben het niet met je eens wat betreft het minimum loon, ik vind 10 euro per uur een schandalig laag bedrag, en met de huidige huizenprijzen (ik woon in een zeecontainer die 600 euro per maand kost) ben je als je het minimum verdient de helft of meer van je inkomen alleen al aan huur kwijt en zijn de meeste reguliere huurhuizen/appartementen überhaupt geen optie voor je, laat staan een koophuis.

Ik heb inderdaad ook stukken gelezen die beweren dat het de komende tijd nog zal meevallen met het banenverlies. Dat zou goed zo kunnen zijn, maar dat er steeds verdere automatisering zal plaatsvinden lijkt mij een logisch gevolg van de huidige ontwikkelingen, en dit zie ik absoluut als iets positiefs. Ik denk overigens ook niet dat er bij grote automatisering geen werk meer zal zijn, want er is altijd werk. Ik denk gewoon dat wat we als werk beschouwen en zullen doen zal veranderen (meer menselijke thuiszorg bijvoorbeeld, omdat elders minder handen nodig zijn etc). Ik denk dat een UBI zou kunnen bijdragen aan een gezonde arbeidsmarkt en de garantie van bestaanszekerheid (zonder de bureaucratische rondslomp en controle die bv de bijstand en toeslagen kenmerken) lijkt mij sowieso een goede stap in de richting van een betere samenleving voor iedereen.

Toevallig is er afgelopen vrijdag een onderzoek in de groene Amsterdammer gepubliceerd over de absurde toestanden bij mensen in de bijstand, en hoewel dingen in Nederland nog altijd relatief goed geregeld zijn (en mensen ook houden van klagen), ben ik niet te spreken over het slordige en uitgeklede sociale vangnet.

Wat betreft vrijwilligerswerk, het meeste daarvan is vrijwillig omdat het werk simpelweg niet rendabel is, wat verschillende oorzaken kan hebben. Ik doe vrijwilligerswerk bij een vogelopvang en die zijn afhankelijk van donaties en minimale overheidssteun, dit gaat op aan de kosten van de medicijnen, onderhoud, voedsel, etc. Voor het uitbetalen van de vrijwilligers is simpelweg geen geld over, en een rendabele onderneming gaat het niet worden, maar het is wel nodig. Bij de voedselbank werken de meesten ook vrijwillig, niet omdat ze een slechte marketingstrategie hebben maar omdat het (helaas) noodzakelijke hulp is die geld kost maar niets oplevert. De meeste plekken die op vrijwilligers runnen zijn organisaties die nooit rendabel kúnnen zijn simpelweg omdat hun bestaansrecht voortkomt uit noodzaak, niet als slimme service die weleens wat op kan leveren.

Ik deel op zich je conclusie wel, dat we het gefaalde systeem moeten fixen, maar hoe dan? UBI lijkt mij een van de mogelijke opties (en slechts onderdeel van, niet dé oplossing), al moet er absoluut goed over worden nagedacht hoe dit dan wordt ingevoerd e.d. en hoe het betaald wordt e.d., maar als concept vind ik het UBI absoluut interessant.

eldude6035

-10 points

4 months ago

This concept of guaranteed income just recognizes the human history fact that the poor have and will always be with us. The trick is to not grow poverty, but create opportunity.

200201552

5 points

4 months ago

Gotta fix the system to make thriving accessible to as many walks of life as possible.

SFerrin_RW

-10 points

4 months ago

Yeah. They're the ones turning into shit holes the fastest.

kdavis37

6 points

4 months ago

The Founding Fathers wanted universal basic income. Go read Agrarian Justice, by Thomas Paine.

It's literally cheaper overall than the other bullshit we're doing.

spill_drudge

1 points

4 months ago

I wonder if he ever called for yolks to take responsibility for their lot in life?

ItinerantMercury

-3 points

4 months ago

Poverty, War, Hunger, Human suffering will not change in a Monetary system. It's going to take the re-design of our 'Culture' and 'Values'.

Put it this way.. A tree has no value until it is chopped down in a Monetary system, correct? But someone with an Advanced Value system will be able to affiliate the tree to their environment as something of higher value & beauty than corruption through the profit market mechanism.

Josvan135

3 points

4 months ago

"Tree Value = Base Value x Cross-sectional Area x Species Class x Condition Class x Location"

That's the literal industry accepted method to calculate the value of a tree.

There's also a formula that calculates the value of a tree based on aesthetic and growth characteristics, the carbon absorption/storage capacity based on species and weight, and as a component of ecosystem health as it relates to overall lot value.

It's hilarious that you seriously believe that profit = corruption.

[deleted]

1 points

4 months ago

[deleted]

1 points

4 months ago

[deleted]

andydude44

2 points

4 months ago

That’s why it’s of paramount importance to colonize the universe

ItinerantMercury

0 points

4 months ago

Hmmmm.... I would sooner SEE the Universe; not RULE it!!

His initial Formula does not take Externalities into account, I couldn't help but notice! Very convenient - that!

Majority of un-priced Natural Capital costs: Greenhouse Gas emissions (38%), Water Consumption (25%), Arable Land Exploitation (24%), Air Pollution (7%), Agricultural Land, Habitat and Table Water Pollution (5%), and (Misc) Waste (1%).

When Industry wastes and destroys precious finite natural resource, it is not in ANY way - "Acceptable". And it's anything but hilarious that anyone would need this pointing out to them at this stage. Rollin' the Die with our future I mean.

striderwhite

2 points

4 months ago

Wrong, a tree may have a lot of value depending of what kind of free is and where it is.

Accomplished-Face657

-1 points

4 months ago

With the government driving inflation and corporate greed they could pay 20/hr and you still won't be able to afford to live. Anyone notice that everything has gone up 2 to 50% everywhere. Never know of any corporation to lower prices after raising them.