Universal Base Income

Universal Base Income

Why? Why not?
Discuss!

bump

No: Some employees will be lazy fags because they can do anything and still get the base income.
Yes: Because some employers are fags and don't wanna pay their employees the money that they fucking deserve

I sure hope that this isn't a ploy to get us to do your homework

...

Not really, i just want good arguments against it.

Why? Because human jobs are disappearing and people need money to be functioning members of society

Why not? Because some organization is ultimately going to be in charge with how that income is distributed, and it will become corrupt

This.
A lot of philanthropy in the Rockafeller era came from the realization that it was in the wealthy's best interest to support the poor, before they becam desperate or bored, and thus violent.

It's a fucking retarded idea, why work when you know you'll always be taken care of? There's already loads of people that don't want to work and given this they definitely won't.

just imagine, when the development keeps going like it is, than soil there will be 1% of people with all the money and 99% without even a job.

Now for the economy to work, the 1% must spend as much as all the people in the world combined if the wealth was equally distributed, to keep a stable economy.
But one person can't consume as much as 100 persons, so all the others need money, only to keep the economy moving. That's why a basic income will some day be necessary, just for the rich to keep beeing rich

Got any proof for this? Because the last time I checked a reliable study, it states that 80% of germans (haven't read study's about other countries yet) would want to work. (While 80% of the asked thought that their neighbor won't)

And in Germany currently there are 20% of people live in poverty, and have to be helped by the government right now

So there is about nothing to loose

This guy knows whats up

Have you seen the kind of people that "need" help, giving them handouts doesn't work. What they really need is a way to be able to support themselves.
Also if that 20% of people living in poverty are already being helped by your government why do you need a universal income?

The future won't have enough jobs for the population.

Current optimal unemployment is around 6% and that will only go up as automation becomes more and more prevalent.

It's not a matter of people not wanting to work, but a matter of there not being enough jobs for people to work.

That still doesn't explain why you need a universal income. There's no need to give people that are already working a base income. Does Germany not have unemployment benefits/welfare? They're getting enough to get by.

Well first of all every help the government gives is way more expensive than a basic income. Right now you got hunderends of different reasons to get help by the gov, that means hundreds of Formulars per person, dozens of government employees to check all the Formulars.
A basic income would improve the live quality of everyone (not only the poor) by beeing way cheaper (per euro given) than any other system.

By implementing it as negative taxes, you have nearly 0 costs for the management of the system.

So if the amount of people needing social security raises (as it is doing for the last decades) a basic income is the most efficient way of realizing this. Everything else would get more expensive

Also the "they need help to help themselves" philosophy does not apply to the German economy.

The social democratic party has established a system of temporary workers where companys can skrew the workers like they want, with nearly no restrictions, that once you are a temporary worker, you nearly have no way of escaping the system. The 20% I told you about, only 5% are unemployed, the other 15% are just stuck in a system that will never let them gain any wealth

It's pretty complex but all in all it works like this:
A temporary worker gets paid less than a real worker, but after 9-18 months he need to get the same loan. So the temporary workers get fired after 8 month, and get reemployed 2 month later, but as a beginner the 9 month threshold has been resettet, and the worker does even get less than when he left.

(I won't start of with werksverträgen, this is basically a framework to dump any employee security law that exhausts in Germany)

So there us currently no legal framework to prevent this from happening, even worse, the politics in Germany is supporting this kind of employee skrewing

When you start talking about studies and optimal unemployment it makes me think you've either never done a days work in you're life or haven't actually experienced how poor people operate.

Why?

This wouldn't work because eventually you'll run out of other people's money.

Our society requires everyone to be productive in one way or another to flourish, and if people have the opportunity to take advantage of this and consume without producing, we're going to fail.

Some people are more productive, or contribute a more unique or specialized skill so they're compensated more. It's really about as fair of a system as you can get, with the exception that there will be people always on the bottom. But in a way, it's their own fault for not being smart enough, skilled enough, talented enough, etc.

Basically, you can't have nothing but leeches in your society and people will take advantage if you let them.

It still sounds like you're vomiting a load of bullshit. If you're concerned about the cost then why give people that can support themselves a universal income? They don't need it so it'll save money to not give it to them. You'll only need to give the poorest 20% of people that basic income.
I'm not surprised Germany is in the state it's currently in if this is the way people think.

Because I'm on my mobile phone I was only focusing on one argument, but there are many more.
For example if you want to become a craftsman in Germany (e.g. Baker) you need to first make you Gesellenprüfung (bachelor exam) which takes you 3 years in a masters lead company.
If you want to open up your own company, you need to acquire the so called Meisterbrief (masters degree)

The meisterbrief takes 2 years and about 5000€-15000€, just for the degree.

So if you want to open up a bakery, you have to do 5 years st a really shitty paying job, pay about 7000€, and still have to do an investment to open up your bakery.
And baker is a really bad paying job with terrible work conditions.

no one with any other options would like to get a meisterbäcker because it just makes you poor.

If you know, your living is safe, you can do what you like to.

There are still many more arguments, but the economic need (when jobs are getting rare), the efficiency of the system (compared to other welfare systems), and that this gives you the ultimate freedom to become what you want to, are the best.

That sounds like a problem with government bureaucracy if the regulations on becoming a baker are that high and expensive.

>If you know, your living is safe, you can do what you like to.

See this is the problem. Unfortunately, not everyone gets to do what they want to, but what they have to.

Maybe I really like streaming video games on Twitch, but my content isn't good enough, or my following isn't big enough to be able to live on it. Well, that's fine but then it's just a hobby and not a career. You need to work a regular job to support yourself and if you're really passionate about your hobby, put the effort in to maybe one day make it a career.

Really that mentality goes for everything. You can't expect the government to support everyone to do whatever they want. Somebody out there has to serve fries and pump gas while working to achieve something better.

>Somebody out there has to serve fries and pump gas while working to achieve something better.

Yes but do they really? imagine a future where machines take over the jobs. This is, in my opinion a reality we're heading for. Look at supermartkets and taxidrivers for example, all these jobs will be taken over by machines. There's a lot more jobs that will become obsolete.

>No: Some employees will be lazy fags because they can do anything and still get the base income.
Company implements an "efficiency" score to keep your job. If you aren't meeting your goal you get fired. Employees ALREADY do this.

Employers*
Also, employers would pay higher than the base income in that scenario above.

Well, people used to deliver ice for freezers years ago, it was a whole industry. Then the refrigerator came along and destroyed it.

But new jobs and opportunities come out from that.

The whole issue comes down to, I need to contribute in some way to society to be able to live. That contribution needs to be meaningful, even if it isn't glamorous. Otherwise you'll run out of other people's money while people are doing whatever they fuck they feel like, instead of whatever is necessary for the society as a whole.

Back to my Twitch streamer example. Maybe someone wants to sit around and play video games all day and get paid for it, but that doesn't mean they should.

>That sounds like a problem with government bureaucracy if the regulations on becoming a baker are that high and expensive.

no thats not the problem you dump fuck, what do you think why germany has the best bakers? The system is good, to ensure a great quality of craftsmanship. The problem is that the job of a baker is to shitty paid to be a real alternative. The basic income would fix this

>See this is the problem. Unfortunately, not everyone gets to do what they want to, but what they have to.

You are really uninformed. Many jobs, like for example nurses, barber, and many more, have the problem of having a too shitty loan, so no one is doing them. But there are many people who would wan't these jobs.
The problem is right the other way. No one want's to do the shitty jobs, but these are just blackmailed, by not beeing able to make a living instead.

The basic income would encurage people to take the shitty job, without the need of dying as a consequence of not taking these jobs.

>Maybe I really like streaming video games on Twitch, but my content isn't good enough, or my following isn't big enough to be able to live on it. Well, that's fine but then it's just a hobby and not a career. You need to work a regular job to support yourself and if you're really passionate about your hobby, put the effort in to maybe one day make it a career.

You know, there are jobs that doesn't make a living, but are still required for a society to function. For example cleaning womans. They can't make a living with only this job, but still this job is required.

The only reason there are any cleaning womans is, because there are many people who can't make a living, and living on the salary of a cleaner is still better than nothing.

So this system only works because some people are loosing. Without them the whole System would collapse. And this is a failed system.

There is enough, no one needs to loose, but still most of the people do.

>no thats not the problem you dump fuck, what do you think why germany has the best bakers? The system is good, to ensure a great quality of craftsmanship. The problem is that the job of a baker is to shitty paid to be a real alternative. The basic income would fix this

Except a free market already does this without the government. I go to a bakery and the product is terrible, guess what? I don't go back and he goes out of business. The bread is fresh and delicious? I'll go back and so will others and he'll be successful. No need for all this red tape and nonsense from the government to determine the quality of a craftsman.

>You know, there are jobs that doesn't make a living, but are still required for a society to function. For example cleaning womans. They can't make a living with only this job, but still this job is required. The only reason there are any cleaning womans is, because there are many people who can't make a living, and living on the salary of a cleaner is still better than nothing.

Define making a living. For example, someone who works at a fast food restaurant serving fries is not meant to be a career. It's a starting point to learn responsibility and basic skills while they go to school, or pursue something else. Not raise a family of three on. If they don't like the job, they can find something else. If they can't find something else, they're probably not skilled or talented enough for something better. Sorry, that's the way of the world.

Again, if people consume more than they produce, society fails. Money isn't free, if people have a guaranteed income, who is paying for that?

>Somebody out there has to serve fries and pump gas while working to achieve something better.

Well no one needs to server fries in the future or do gas pumping because of machines doing this job. So this argument is invalid

>Well no one needs to server fries in the future or do gas pumping because of machines doing this job. So this argument is invalid

It's not really invalid because we're not there yet. There will always be low skill, entry level jobs. Somebody is going to have to design, build, maintain these fry serving robots of your future.

>Except a free market already does this without the government. I go to a bakery and the product is terrible, guess what? I don't go back and he goes out of business. The bread is fresh and delicious? I'll go back and so will others and he'll be successful. No need for all this red tape and nonsense from the government to determine the quality of a craftsman.

I love how every conservative does always the great argument "the free marked will do it".

The free market has a lot of problems, just to name one: To reduce the cost of production companys move from industry nations to developing countries with a lower salary to produce cheaper. Because of this people in the industry nation are loosing their jobs, and the consumption falls. So the companies earn less, try to reduce their costs even more, which let the consumption in the industry nation fall even more.
This paradox is repeating itself for hundreds of years now.

If you take a look at the eurozone, which is basically a completely free market (most of the regulations are national so every company can pick the best nation). Germany, with the highest low income sector in the whole EU, is the strongest economy. Guess why.

This is just one of the many contratictions in the capitalism of the last few hundred years.

But trusting a system that fails over and over again, to the same problems for hundreds of years, doesn't seem like the most trustworthy system.

>Define making a living. For example, someone who works at a fast food restaurant serving fries is not meant to be a career. [...]

to be able to live from your salary. The idea of a job beeing only a starting point would be nice, if not millions of people rely on those jobs for their living. How should you ever get a better job, if you have to work 12 hours a day on a shitty paying job to not die? I mean if you have a basic income, you could still start off by making fries for a shitty salary, but you can live with it.

we are nearly there yet. Japan is currently replacing most of the nurses with robots, and nurses are higher qualified than someone at a fast food chain serving fries.

I think you havent realized, in a few decades about 50% of the jobs will be replaced by machines.

This is reality. If you want to be ready for it, you need to start to think about this now. Politics is way to slow, to wait until this is reality