Home › Forums › MGTOW Central › Would basic income/welfare state work?
This topic contains 39 replies, has 22 voices, and was last updated by 
Jeremiah Johnson 3 years, 4 months ago.
- AuthorPosts
Would it work?
Don’t be stupid. It’s been tried over and over and over. It never works. Ever.
The only reason I believe the welfare state worked earlier decades in Europe was because older people who had learned skills couldnt change their direction anymore.
Don’t be stupid. Welfare states never work. Ever. Because welfare states are about consuming, not working. They are inherently parasitical. Yes it can take some time for a growing parasite welfare state to completely consume and destroy a healthy host economy, but eventually it does. Always.
In some ways, universal income is BETTER than traditional giveaway entitlements, in that, if I am, say, on welfare, and get a job, I lose the welfare and medical coverage. This acts to discourage entry into labor markets. With UI, you at least encourage individuals to get off the gravy train and take the first step on the ladder. The administrative cost is also less.
Personally, though, I’m against ALL public welfare and UI. I believe it has created a multi-generational underclass in America. I would rather see individuals give VOLUNTARILY to private charities, which in turn hold recipients ACCOUNTABLE. Unfit parents? Sure, private charities will help, but if you don’t shape up, they’ll stop giving you money & only offer to take the kids for adoption to loving parents.
If we must have entitlements, at least the Earned Income Tax Credit ENCOURAGES increased labor, unlike programs that pay only if you are NOT working. So amongst the various Statist programs all of which I dislike, it’s the least objectionable.
Robots replace our jobs? I’m not seeing it as imminent except in transportation, which is admittedly, a large sector — long-haul truck drivers especially.
Big Boss: Governments with complicit banks increasing the money supply are the cause of the inflation we see. Yes, increasing minimum wage to $15 will cause inflation and/or decreased supply of workers; fewer people will dine out at fast food restaurants for instance, or they’ll visit them less frequently.
As for the ‘robots’, if/when artificial general intelligence (AGI) is ever achieved, you may also have what von Neumann called the technology singularity. That’s when a self-updating AGI essentially evolves into something out of a science fiction novel, a superintelligence. That seems like it would be a game-changer. But you can’t predict breakthroughs — whether it might happen in 10, 100, or 1000 years, if ever.
Sidecar: Yes, eventually the welfare state fails because it has too many freeloaders and not enough workers. By the way, I love the ‘Brexit’. I see it winning more as a sign of nationalism, as opposed to a love of decentralization/freedom/self-determination. I hope the movement spreads. I’d love a plebiscite where I get to VOTE my territory OUT OF the State, Federal Government, or Municipality in which it resides! I love the Brexit, even though it was detrimental to my stock portfolio in the short term.
This is exactly how it’s going to play out. AI will take the place of around 30% of jobs within the next 5 years. In 10 years, it will be more like 50%. In 20 years, 70% is very likely. In 50 years, VERY few people will have to work and we will begin to finally break away from the capitalist system.
What we’re going into now is a transitional period. To instantly transform a society overnight would be dangerous and destructive. What’s going to happen is McDonalds for example will employ approximately 20 people per location. In 5-10 years, it will probably be more like 2-3 people per location. Let’s say that the average wage for those people is about $1,000/month. What the government is going to do is enact a new base income tax, and McDonalds will be taxed, say $850 per person it replaces with AI. Then that base income tax will be distributed to the people that are deemed “permanently unemployable.”
You will be deemed “permanently unemployable” if you’re disabled, or if you lack the skills necessary to get a job. There will always be a percentage of the population that’s not disabled and 100% fit to work, but that can’t find work because there aren’t enough jobs (they’ve been replaced by AI’s).
The base income will be undesirable at first because it will likely be more like Social Security income. But as more and more people are replaced by AI’s, and more and more people are deemed “permanently unemployable,” the base income will rise slowly but surely.
The people at the top (corporations like McDonalds) will continue to get richer, and this capitalistic paradigm will continue. Eventually we’ll wake up one day (50 years from now), and ask ourselves WHY a corporation like McDonalds even exists, and WHY we’re exchanging money for goods that are basically FREE to make. And we’ll wonder WHY money even exists.
When everything is free, greed ceases to exist. The argument that greed exists for the sake of greed is stupid. People want things because they like the CHALLENGE of acquiring them, or because they CANNOT have them. Let me put it to you this way. Grass is free. You could literally go out and pick your neighbor’s grass and collect it in a big pile. You could travel all over the world and pick grass, flowers, branches and collect it in a big ass pile. Why would you do such a thing? Because you’re greedy, remember?
Now imagine if laptops were 100% free. You could get 5,000 laptops delivered to your door tomorrow for free. Or 5 million. Or just 1. If we all of a sudden made laptops free overnight, we’d face a worldwide shortage of laptops, and unprecedented demand. Why? Because people still think laptops have value, and they think that the “free” laptops are limited and that they might be able to sell them later. Otherwise, what would you do with 5,000 laptops? You certainly couldn’t use them all.
Eventually every asset in the world will be viewed like free cow pies, or free grass pickings. Perhaps a better analogy would be free oxygen (because you actually need and want oxygen). Do people go around trying to capture and store oxygen? Of course not! Why? Because it’s FREE and you can expect it to be free tomorrow, and until the day you die. Oxygen is a free resource. Because of that, you only use what you NEED at the present time, and you have no desire to collect or hoard it.
Robots replace our jobs? I’m not seeing it as imminent except in transportation, which is admittedly, a large sector — long-haul truck drivers especially.
Right up until the first triple trailer liquid oxygen tanker truck overturns on I95 in the middle of The Bronx.
Commercial airplanes today are extremely automated. Many can take off, fly to their destination, and land all without operator input. But we still have extremely highly trained and highly capable pilots in the c~~~pit of every flight. Why? Because no matter how good AI might become, it will never be able to handle every unexpected eventuality. And unexpected eventualities are a hell of a lot more common on the road than in the air. When the s~~~ hits the fan, and it will, you will always need a human present to make the necessary decisions.
Eventually every asset in the world will be viewed like free cow pies, or free grass pickings.
Right up until the massive overconsumption this enables and encourages uses the planet up. Then everyone gets to starve. Assuming they don’t freeze to death first.
We have an economy of scarcity because we have an ecology of scarcity. And we will always have an ecology of scarcity so long as population continues to rise to meet the technologically permitted carrying capacity.
The only prosperous way forward, and certainly the only sustainable way, is to control our population levels, and you do not accomplish that by paying selfish irresponsible women to have children they, and eventually we, cannot afford to feed with welfare and basic income and other unsustainable idiot vote buying giveaways.
^^^ Did you even read my post? This is going to happen gradually. Over consumption won’t be an issue for anything, just like it isn’t an issue for oxygen or grass clippings. If we made the products free overnight, then yes, people would hoard like you wouldn’t believe. But if they gradually begin to see that their needs and wants are met and will always be met, there will be no need for hoarding or over consumption.
People will be free to do what they WANT to do rather what they HAVE to do. Art, music, literature, and recreation will be the focus of our society.
This is going to happen gradually.
That makes no difference whatsoever. I’m talking about base consumption here over time, not “overconsumption” spikes. Unsustainable is unsustainable.
There ain’t no such thing as a free lunch.
And there never will be.
This is going to happen gradually.
That makes no difference whatsoever. I’m talking about base consumption here over time, not “overconsumption” spikes. Unsustainable is unsustainable.
There ain’t no such thing as a free lunch.
And there never will be.
It makes ALL the difference. People will only consume what they NEED at the present time, because they can always get more later if they need it. It’s the same concept of a pantry in your house. You don’t eat until you can’t eat anymore because you know that you can always go to the store and get more food to stock your pantry with. Money is nothing but an artificial limiter on how much resources you CAN consume. But people aren’t going to want more than they need because their needs will always be met. The things that people will want to hoard/acquire will be things that are NOT free, like respect, admiration, and happiness.
Talk to any rich person that can literally have anything they want. They do NOT want things. They want power, prestige, a good public image, and respect. Why do they live in a mansion? Because not everyone can and they want other people to envy them. They want to feel special. What they want is to experience a particular emotion, NOT to hoard physical objects. Hoarding physical objects is a means to an end.
But when resources have no value, then people don’t want any more than they need to survive. THIS is why art, literature, and music will become so popular. NOT because people are lazy and want to watch TV all day, but because making those works of art will be the only way to distinguish oneself and gain the respect of ones peers.
Imagine good TV, art, and music again. Nowadays such things are made for the sole purpose of making money, hence why all of it is such s~~~ nowadays. But if money isn’t a motivator, we’ll focus on actually making GOOD things again.
I’ll give you a good analogy here. Imagine you own a zoo and you just captured a wild monkey. You decide to run an experiment. You put out an absolute assload of food for the monkey. Every type of fruit you can think of, and piles and piles of it. Seeing as the monkey just came from the wild, where resources are scarce, he’ll probably almost eat himself to death the first time. At the end of the day you’ll take it all away and feed him the same amount the next day. Eventually the monkey will get very picky and only eat the stuff it really likes, and it won’t eat a lot of it. Why? Because it knows that tomorrow it’ll get another huge pile of food, way too big for it to eat in one sitting. So over time, he’ll get used to it and only take what he needs. The same thing will happen with people.
Now we can’t do this sort of experiment with people nowadays because the Earth’s resources would be depleted in a matter of months. It’s going to start with the children of tomorrow. The children of tomorrow will have no wants or needs that are unsatisfied, except emotionally. THAT is what’s going to be valuable in the future. Emotional needs. Material possessions will literally have ZERO value.
It makes ALL the difference.
No. It doesn’t.
People will only consume what they NEED at the present time, because they can always get more later if they need it.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
No. Wrong.
This is me openly mocking your ignorance and naiveté of economics and human nature, and believe me, it takes quite a bit of ignorance to achieve that.
So you say: “People will only consume what they NEED at the present time”? Seriously? And you really believe that?
Clearly you have never once in your life ever looked inside any woman’s shoe closet, or you would know how ridiculously laughable that statement is.
It makes ALL the difference.
No. It doesn’t.
People will only consume what they NEED at the present time, because they can always get more later if they need it.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
No. Wrong.
This is me openly mocking your ignorance and naiveté of economics and human nature, and believe me, it takes quite a bit of ignorance to achieve that.
So you say: “People will only consume what they NEED at the present time”? Seriously? And you really believe that?
Clearly you have never once in your life ever looked inside any woman’s shoe closet, or you would know how ridiculously laughable that statement is.
Our society will undergo a fundamental change in the way we look at things. It won’t happen overnight, and it won’t happen with the people that are alive today right at this moment. But it will happen.
Did women have 200 different pairs of shoes at ANY time in our history other than today? A lot of the wastefulness is perpetuated by the corporations of today for PROFIT.
The main reason why people want things is because they can’t have them, or they enjoy attempting to obtain them. Once people’s basic needs are met, those things lose value. Women like nice clothes and shoes and such because she’s comparing herself to her “friends” and everything they have.
The value of something is relative. To you, water is virtually worthless. It costs $0.018 per gallon out of your faucet. But to a poor family in Africa that has to travel 20 miles to a well, or who only has access to filthy infested water, the water out of your faucet is worth a LOT. You could literally go there and trade your virtually worthless water for gold. Not much gold as it’s very hard for them to get it, but a LOT more gold than you could get in a 1st world country.
In Africa, you could trade 1 gallon of your tap water for 1 of these little gold nuggets:
http://www.naturalgoldtrader.com/-p-5-ozt-p–Nevada-Coarse-Gold-Nuggets–a–Pickers.html
But in America, you would have to trade 200 gallons to get 1 of the little gold nuggets (assuming anyone would want your 200 gallons, as water is virtually worthless here and they have their own taps).
This is going to happen gradually.
That makes no difference whatsoever. I’m talking about base consumption here over time, not “overconsumption” spikes. Unsustainable is unsustainable.
There ain’t no such thing as a free lunch.
And there never will be.
But when resources have no value, then people don’t want any more than they need to survive. THIS is why art, literature, and music will become so popular. NOT because people are lazy and want to watch TV all day, but because making those works of art will be the only way to distinguish oneself and gain the respect of ones peers.
This has already been happening. Young men have lower education than their fathers generation. Productivity has increased so much that even low income can givve you almost all material goods that you can think of. Social status of high wage has thereby plummeted. Instead of pursuing high paying hard working careers many talented young men pursuit social status by putting effort in becoming a band musician, a “good guy” or something that is releated to recreation and leisure instead of work. When productivity increases this trend will only accelerate.
I don’t see it ever happening. Robots will replace jobs for sure, but we’ll see other jobs pop up in it’s place. Or, as the cost of goods lowers, we will see demand rise in it’s place.
Just look at clothing for example. Clothes are extremely cheap to make. Really, they should be free by now…but they are not. Why? Instead of being satisfied with what we have now, we want more. People are owning more and more clothes…that they don’t need. Fashion continues to change making people by more clothes when the clothes they currently have meets the functional needs. If your theories hold true, we should see very few people working in clothing/fashion…just enough people to buy the material and run the machines…but that’s not what happens.
You see that everywhere. Food is readily available, yet instead of being satisified we want more…better quality and more options. We want new, not satisfied with status quo. Why do we still get new models of cars, isn’t what we have good enough?
If we are heading to a place where society gets by without working, we should start seeing signs of industries that are done and satisfied by now…but we don’t. As are ability to supply increases, so does are demand for new, more complex, and a wider variety of goods. Our houses are only getting bigger. The poor people of today live better then middle class did 50 years ago, and yet they want more.
Nope we already know that people need to be motivated to work…and that means capitalism. The idea that work will not be needed someday as just as ridiculous as people will always want more.
Ok. Then do it.
A lot of you are overthinking the future theories and possibilities yet are clearly not understanding the present problems and how they came about. “Chasing unicorns” metaphor comes to mind.
Our society will undergo a fundamental change in the way we look at things.
HAIL UTOPIA!
Too bad it will never, EVER happen.
Because that is not how people work.
Did women have 200 different pairs of shoes at ANY time in our history other than today?
Yes, actually they did, but that’s besides the point.
What matters is that even women without 200 pairs of shoes would happily have 200 pairs of shoes if they could. And then 201 pairs of shoes. Then 202. Always n+1. All you’re doing is making it possible for them to have unlimited shoes. Made from the resources of a limited planet. It really shouldn’t be so hard for you to see how that will eventually collapse.
The point is that modern manufacturing methods (and also Asian slave labor) have made shoes so inexpensive that even poor women in the west can have a closet full of hundreds of the damn things. And this has been the case for generations. By your reasoning this means that shoes are so cheap now that women would give up their interest in collecting them and settle for just a single functional pair of work boots.
That hasn’t happened. And it won’t happen. Because women don’t work that way. Nor will they ever.
A lot of the wastefulness is perpetuated by the corporations of today for PROFIT.
Bulls~~~. Corporations are not forcing women to overindulge in footware. They are merely supplying a pre-existing market. Yes they exploit that market to maximize their profits, but they by no means create it or control it. Trust me, show makers are constantly trying to guess where the market is going to run ahead of it, and those that don’t usually lose big. Because they don’t control that market; suppliers rarely do. The consumers control it.
The value of something is relative. To you, water is virtually worthless. It costs $0.018 per gallon out of your faucet. But to a poor family in Africa that has to travel 20 miles to a well, or who only has access to filthy infested water, the water out of your faucet is worth a LOT. You could literally go there and trade your virtually worthless water for gold. Not much gold as it’s very hard for them to get it, but a LOT more gold than you could get in a 1st world country.
I note how you completely ignore the growing water shortages around the world in your argument.
My point is that when you make water cheap, you increase consumption. You don’t decrease it as you believe. You cannot claim a poor family in Namibia uses anything like the amount of water a single New Yorker consumes in a day (70 gallons). Regardless of how much the Namibians or New Yorkers would “value” the water, you still increase consumption by increasing availability. Until, that is, you drain the aquifers dry. Then everyone goes thirsty. And if you somehow manage to boost the supply through tapping new sources, all you do is put things off until the day when the population grows to exceed whatever capacity you’ve created. You eventually reach a point where you cannot keep up with the demand.
lern2malthus
But in America, you would have to trade 200 gallons to get 1 of the little gold nuggets (assuming anyone would want your 200 gallons, as water is virtually worthless here and they have their own taps).
And so Americans consume F~~~LOADS of the stuff, not just the bare minimum you claim that would through your great fantastical “societal change”. Americans consume so much water that they are draining the Ogallala Aquifer, and if you know anything about hydrogeology then you’d know how scary that is. Hell, the Colorado River doesn’t even reach the ocean any more.
Sidecar writes: Right up until the first triple trailer liquid oxygen tanker truck overturns on I95 in the middle of The Bronx.
Well, we already have driverless trains — eg JFK Airtrain and other international lines. I’d be more concerned about Chlorine tanker trailers than Oxygen. Where I live, there are no double cryo trailers, let alone triples — at least I’ve never seen/heard of any or ordered bulk cryo gases in a double or triple. The turning radius is a problem in addition to safety. I think driverless vehicle adoption will depend on whether accident frequency is lower or higher than human driver vehicles. A lot of private companies are betting on it. You also may see baby step adoption; controlled highways or lanes allocated only for driverless vehicles. Adoption is also, not only limited by technology, but in the case of trains, by unions/labor/political pressure. And I realize a fixed track is a lot more predictable than a highway shared with human drivers.
Eventually every asset in the world will be viewed like free cow pies, or free grass pickings.
Sidecar writes: Right up until the massive overconsumption this enables and encourages uses the planet up. Then everyone gets to starve. Assuming they don’t freeze to death first.
We have an economy of scarcity because we have an ecology of scarcity. And we will always have an ecology of scarcity so long as population continues to rise to meet the technologically permitted carrying capacity.
The only prosperous way forward, and certainly the only sustainable way, is to control our population levels, and you do not accomplish that by paying selfish irresponsible women to have children they, and eventually we, cannot afford to feed with welfare and basic income and other unsustainable idiot vote buying giveaways.
Malthus talked like that too — 220 years ago — saying we’d all starve if population grew. But of course, agricultural productivity exploded due to unforeseen breakthroughs (fertilizer, mechanization, etc — most importantly fossil fuel utilization) that increased yield per acre. So it’s a question also of whether technology advances faster than population, and before we run out of fossil fuels and other expendable resources. If we can ever harness genetic technology, we could make oil with algae — maybe not petroleum oil, but certainly seed oil that can produce biodiesel.
I would contend part of the issue is how voting is structured; I don’t agree with one man, one vote: I believe your vote should be proportional to your labor and/or taxes.
I’m against UBI. But I don’t think we necessarily need to control population. It is looking like it may control itself (e.g. birth rates declining).
Would basic income/welfare state work?
Essentially that type of state does have a political name (communism)
Communist states work for a certain time but sooner or later they end up having no surplus. No surplus is
a death for societies advancement and therefore death for the said state.If a state wants to go down the road of basic income/welfare, it needs to go the socialist route.
Socialist rout allows competition and develops surplus and will work if allowed and if checks and
balances are set in stone so ordinary worker is not made a slave.This is the favorite feminist type of government/state. Living wage or basic income has been
discussed for at least 3 decades but only now since feminists have gotten power is it seriously
being discussed again. Reason being that it gives them equal outcome but not equality which men prefer.
Why ? Because men can do 75% of work but women will get equal share of earnings for less work done.F~~~ basic income and welfare state.
Zero Tolerance
Well, we already have driverless trains — eg JFK Airtrain and other international lines.
Even if they don’t have a “driver”, they all still have brakemen. Someone still has to be able to deal with it when humorous locals put another couch on the tracks. At the very least companies always like to have a fall guy around to take the blame when things go catastrophic. Blaming an automation system for a failure is tantamount to blaming themselves for approving the automation system in the first place. Handing some worker drone a golden parachute to take the blame is easier and less expensive in the long run.
I’d be more concerned about Chlorine tanker trailers than Oxygen.
I specifically mention oxygen because most people don’t realize how unpleasant it can be. Everyone knows chlorine is bad, but “Oxygen is good for you, right?”
I think driverless vehicle adoption will depend on whether accident frequency is lower or higher than human driver vehicles.
It depends a lot more on who gets sued in the inevitable eventuality of an accident. Do you sue the owner of the vehicle? Do you sue the maker of the AI? Do you try to sue the human in the accident because “machines don’t make mistakes”? (Trust me, that won’t go over well at trial.)
But of course, agricultural productivity exploded due to unforeseen breakthroughs (fertilizer, mechanization, etc — most importantly fossil fuel utilization) that increased yield per acre.
Which is only kicking the can down the road. It doesn’t address the fundamental problem. it also ensures that when the crash happens, it will happen HARD.
So it’s a question also of whether technology advances faster than population
Until you come up hard on the limit imposed by this one single planet we all have to live on. Technology cannot make finite resources infinite.
But if we intentionally limit our population levels to well below the carrying capacity then we don’t need to f~~~ around racing over the cliff to get in front of it technologically. And that effort can be used instead for better things.
I would contend part of the issue is how voting is structured; I don’t agree with one man, one vote: I believe your vote should be proportional to your labor and/or taxes.
Close. One taxpayer one vote, regardless of the amount of taxes paid. Making it proportional to amount of taxes paid etc is too easy to game. Also tax consumers like welfare mothers should be excluded from the franchise due to their inherent conflict of interest.
I’m against UBI. But I don’t think we necessarily need to control population. It is looking like it may control itself (e.g. birth rates declining).
Birth rates always decline as you approach carrying capacity in any population. But being right at carrying capacity is a very dangerous and unstable place to be. Also hungry. It’s much preferable to have a safety margin by being at, say, one tenth of carrying capacity. It’s also a lot more prosperous.
And you have to look closer at where the birth rates are declining. When productive citizens aren’t having children while unproductive parasites are, the overall birth rate may decline, but it still bodes ill for the future.
Now I’m not proposing anything like a human cull or anything like that. Far from it. I’m simply saying that we need to stop enabling irresponsible and unsustainable breeding by people who cannot afford to pay for it themselves. That should solve the problem nicely (and soooo many other problems as well).
If a minimum income gave you $2000 a month, rent would eventually raise to $2500 a month.
No I believe it will never work.
Why? you ask.1. Who pays for this?
2. When those who pay get fed up with paying. S~~~ will hit the fan.
3. Other peoples money WILL run out.
4. Mass migration from all over the world to countries that support this bulls~~~.Parasites looking for a new host. They’ll suck the host dry regardless of the consequences
There was a time in my life when I gave a fuck. Now you have to pay ME for it
Basic pay is socialism/communism
Heaping more “responsibility” onto the government and demanding the responsible citizen to shoulder the burdens for the irresponsible only destroys the incentive to be responsible and lowers their “production” until poverty becomes the “standard”.
He IS Speaking REALITY….This is the truth, and exactly the issue in America today…The f~~~ing communism experiment has NEVER F~~~ING WORKED EVER!!! QUIT F~~~ING TRYING!!! IT DOES NOT WORK!!! Socialist state has never, will never, cannot ever work…You cannot get SOMETHING for f~~~ing NOTHING, how much more simple can it be f~~~ing said!!!???
Men are at a time when panning for gold in a urinal has a higher probability of success than finding a faithful and loving woman, it is time to go your own way.....
- AuthorPosts
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
921526
921524
919244
916783
915526
915524
915354
915129
914037
909862
908811
908810
908500
908465
908464
908300
907963
907895
907477
902002
901301
901106
901105
901104
901024
901017
900393
900392
900391
900390
899038
898980
896844
896798
896797
895983
895850
895848
893740
893036
891671
891670
891336
891017
890865
889894
889741
889058
888157
887960
887768
886321
886306
885519
884948
883951
881340
881339
880491
878671
878351
877678
