So much for "progress" : microblogmemes

[–] [email protected] 21 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago) (2 children)

Basically what it says is that new developments - like electricity, cars, computers - cause a temporary increase in demand for labor - and therefore higher wages.

As the technology becomes routine, optimization and automation remove the need for labor - demand for labor decreases and by the rule of the market wages go down.

This development is natural and has nothing to do with who's currently president, policies or anything like that. To quote from the link above:

Stephen Cullenberg stated that the TRPF (Tendency of the rate of profit to fall) "remains one of the most important and highly debated issues of all of economics" because it raises "the fundamental question of whether, as capitalism grows, this very process of growth will undermine its conditions of existence and thereby engender periodic or secular crises."

The only thing that guarantees that the population in the US can continue to live in the long-term is Universal Basic Income - which says that the state should distribute resources among the population even if the people don't work. Basically a form of state-backed social welfare. Without it, the issue will continue to get worse, until people will die on the streets by hunger and cold in masses. UBI is a necessity for the person and for peace.

[–] [email protected] 3 points 6 days ago (1 children)

Serious question: wouldn't Universal Basic Income rely on everyone paying their taxes instead of certain groups trying to hide or avoid paying it? I can't see governments affording this without a serious look at their spending to pull back om somethings, or there being a sufficient amount in the coffers from taxation.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 6 days ago

There's some monetary theory that suggests careful creation of money is actually fine and won't lead to hyperinflation. So potentially, measured money printing to support UBI and stabilize the world economy might actually be fine? Honestly I don't know enough about the theory and proofs to really say, but there's some interesting possibilities if you allow for measured money creation

[–] [email protected] 2 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago) (4 children)

We have UBI in my country.

600-1300€ (depending number of children) as of this year. Over that you have to add up another series of subsidies. Most important one probably rent one that halves the cost of renting a house (the government takes care of about 50% of your rent if your income is bellow some threshold)

For reference minimum wage is 1134€

Most common salary is around 1200€

And healthcare is obviously free at the point of service.

But life is not as golden as you may thing. I used to be hardcore defendant of UBI until it became a reality. Now I'm not really into that. I think is faulty and actually bad for society. Many people are starting to have a feeling that breaking their asses 40 hours a week for getting the exactly same level of life quality that someone that does not work at all is just unfair. And tensions are on the rise. And I see a bad ending for it, it's like a ticking bomb. And it's bringing the contrary of peace, is creating confronting groups among our society.

Nowadays I am more defendant of reducing number of workhours. If there's not enough work for everyone then maybe instead of working 40 hours a week people should be working just 20 hours a week, but everyone capable of doing work should be working, so everyone could work less hours and enjoy more life. I think it is more fair than UBI. And more likely to create social harmony.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 6 days ago (1 children)

That doesn't sound like UBI. Someone working and earning a wage would earn that wage on top of the UBI so would not have the same quality of life as someone not working. What you described sounds more like a welfare program.

[–] [email protected] -4 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago) (1 children)

It's the application of the proposed UBI in any welfare economy out there.

The proposed UBI does not make much sense. On that scenario the instant inflation of giving everyone X extra money would make the UBI irrelevant and unsuitable for a living.

What you are talking were proposed by some groups when IMV was implemented. But it was promptly taken out of consideration as it makes no economical sense whatsoever.

Difference between welfare programs and this UBI is that welfare programs are subject to other considerations. Like only first 5000 applicants get it, or the distribute X amount of millions between the Y people with more points, or they are subject to any other criteria. We have those here too. Difference is that UBI has no other criteria. If you don't have that income that income is given to you. It's how a UBI is applied. Giving 500€ to everyone just to take 500€ out of taxes from most to maintain it and letting inflation make UBI quantity irrisorium would make no sense.

In order to UBI to work the quantity given must be a living wage. And a living wage would always be close the most common wage in a developed country. I don't see how it would be possible por a UBI to be a living wage and then the most common wage being approximately double that, it doesn't seem feasible.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 6 days ago (1 children)

The U in UBI is universal. If not everyone gets it, it's not UBI.

[–] [email protected] -2 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago) (1 children)

Universal means that ALL people universally have access to that basic income. By their own ways or with help.

Getting radical with the definition makes no sense.

Give everyone 500€, then take everyone who is working 500€ in taxes. Dafuck? No need for the unreasonable and additional paperwork of doing it the long way.

The purpose is ensuring everyone have at minimum 500€ (example) of disposable income. And that is rationally achieve the way I have explained that's being done in all welfare countries that are taking this as an objective.

Still against it, one way or the other. But the other way seems unnecessarily convoluted for no rational reasons.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 6 days ago (1 children)

You are describing GMI and not UBI. Not sure what its confusing about universal

[–] [email protected] 0 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago) (1 children)

A lot is confusing.

What issue does it solve to give Elon Musk $500?

How it's supposed to be kept a livable wage from that kind of proposed UBI without working salary when UBI+Minimum wage would result in the most common income, making automatically just UBI way below the minimum for a decent living in that society?

How does a more convoluted way of giving money solves any of the issues that arises from just giving money until a threshold?

Why it makes any sense to make it like that anyway?

I call an UBI the law that ensures that there is an Universal Basic Income. So if we set out universal basic income in 500€, no person in this country will have less than 500€ a month, simple as that.

And anyway that has severe issues. So I really think that we should be "giving jobs", by reducing working hours of everyone, instead of money.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 6 days ago

You can call it UBI but that's not what anyone else means by UBI, so you're just confusing the debate by calling it that.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 6 days ago (1 children)

Which country?

[–] [email protected] 1 points 6 days ago

Spain

[–] [email protected] 3 points 6 days ago (1 children)

What country has UBI?

[–] [email protected] 0 points 6 days ago (1 children)

Spain.

It's known as "Ingreso mínimo vital". It's money given to everyone under X income. Without any other considerations. Everyone who doesn't have that money by themselves is given it by the government.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 6 days ago (1 children)

We also have RSI in Portugal and it works in a similar way. It is not UBI. The U stands for Unconditional. What you describe is just welfare.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago) (1 children)

Giving everyone, even millionaires, 500€ a month is an unreasonable application of UBI. It makes no sense doing it that way. No sense whatsoever.

Traditional welfare can run off, as it's a program with X amount of money attached to it, UBI is not linked to allocated resources, so it doesn't run off.

This the difference between traditional welfare and UBI is that UBI is given to EVERYone who needs it. As before welfare programs traditionally ran of of money before reaching everyone. There's no need, and it makes no sense to just give everyone money that it's going to instantly vaporize (via taxes or inflation)

[–] [email protected] 2 points 6 days ago

I'm not debating the merits of UBI. All I'm saying is UBI is, by definition, unconditional.

[–] [email protected] 2 points 6 days ago (1 children)

Universal Basic Income. No strings attached. Everybody gets it. There is no income threshold.

Regular human: UBI
McDonalds worker: UBI + McDonalds income
Bus driver: UBI + Bus driver income
Doctor: UBI + Doctor's income
Billionaire tech CEO: UBI + Tech CEO money

Yeah, the inflationary pressure would probably be insane and would constantly negate any progress. I'm not an economist so I don't really know.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 6 days ago

I think that's a faulty interpretation of what an UBI should be.

Universal Basic Income should mean everyone Human has at minimum that basic wage. By their own means or with help.

Meaning ultimately that there are no humans living under X amount of money.

[–] [email protected] 14 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago) (2 children)

The first stat is a little misleading IMO. While the median car cost has increased ~2x (inflation adjusted), an entry level car price has only gone up ~1.2x (1971 AMC Gremlin vs 2023 Kia Rio LX; $1.8k/$14.8k vs $17.8k) and that's more important for measuring relative quality of life.

Of course add on to that the fact that there's easy access to second hand car markets and the number of features included with that base model vs the 1971 AMC Gremlin and it doesn't seem like things are much worse.

Basically, average car prices increasing could just indicate that people are willing to spend more on cars for whatever reason that may be (better features, more car-centric culture, etc.). For this reason I'd like to see similar stats but about entry level options within each category. Probably less sensationalistic but still interesting.

That being said, I bet stats for the housing market and others would still show a notable increase even at the entry level, but I'd still like to verify this before blindly jumping on the sensationalist bandwagon.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago)

There's another important part of this equation: these are the things being sold. If someone can't afford any car at all, they still wouldn't show up in the entry-level car stats. But I think with how car-centric the US is, there won't be many people going carless? But like you said, if the second hand market is good, everyone could be driving a barely used BMW and they still wouldn't show up in any stats about new cars.

Basically, the only thing these stats tell us is that some people would have to spend a higher proportion of their income if they want to buy these things new. It doesn't tell us if that means they don't buy it, they buy it and go hungry, they buy an alternative, or they buy it without issue (because some other expense is cheaper or disappeared).

Inflation calculations try to account for this by considering a mix of products and services. If everything goes up across the board, people will get in trouble no matter their exact spending habits. You could also look at buying power or discretionary income to see if a population is doing alright.

The prices above increased a little harder than inflation, so you'd expect to see that as a decrease in discretionary income. The same would happen if wages didn't keep up with inflation, which is a happy coincidence? Or exactly what the discretionary income stat is designed to do: show how much financial breathing room people have.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 6 days ago

I also want to know what those $25k houses are selling for now. Comparing to houses built in 2024 is stupid.

[–] [email protected] 14 points 6 days ago (1 children)

Don't forget that Medicaid and Social Security Disability still have the same $2,000 MAX asset limit (aside from a car and low-value residence). Back in 1974, that was a down payment on a house. Now that isn't enough to rent a place to live, not enough to fix a car, and if you somehow have more than $2k in assets,( (DHS does bank and tax monitoring) they take your medical and food away, despite being disabled. If adjusted for inflation, it would be about $13k. Enough to put a down payment on a small house. A 2k limit enough for people with disabilities is BARBARIC.

I've written to so many politicians about this archaic rule and Lisa McClain told me that it's that low, so that only the truly destitute use it... despite us paying taxes all our lives to protect us from starving. I was told that the disabled weren't as important as older voters who deserve retirement disability.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago)

I was told that the disabled weren’t as important as older voters who deserve retirement disability.

As a voting block with UBI (Social security) and Medicare, lifting the ladder up after them as a class is a reliable voting influence, and they turn out to vote. A lifetime of Israel first warmongering rulership brainwashing makes them an important constituency.

[–] [email protected] 11 points 6 days ago (1 children)

The land of the free and the poor \o/

[–] [email protected] 7 points 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago)

Free*

*Terms and conditions apply

[–] [email protected] 12 points 6 days ago (1 children)

Also was the 1971 household income number a single income or dual income like today? If not dual then we are working twice as muchh to make the 5.5x increase

[–] [email protected] 6 points 6 days ago

I hate the "household income" statistic for this exact reason. It obfuscates the number of people working. Not just both parents but also adult children living with their parents and working.

If you look at Canada's single income household data from 2000-2020, the average income for males went from $30k to $34k CAD and females were roughly $17k to $25k. I would bet the US wages went up by a similar amount.

[–] [email protected] 9 points 6 days ago

And the difference went to fill the coffers of the rich.

[–] [email protected] 7 points 6 days ago

The most disturbing stat is that our contempt for the rich hasn’t really multiplied at all.

[–] [email protected] 5 points 6 days ago

But screens have gotten cheaper per unit of area!

[–] [email protected] 1 points 6 days ago

Also, "family income" now includes the wife, kids and dog. It used to be that ONE person could earn enough to pay for housing, food, car, Healthcare, etc.

So "family income" is NOT "keeping up with the cost of inflation" despite what the business world wants us to think.

Microblog Memes