Consolidated Business & Enterprise Computing Rant Thread

Discussion in 'Business & Enterprise Computing' started by elvis, Jul 1, 2008.

  1. OP
    OP
    elvis

    elvis Old school old fool

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2001
    Messages:
    44,058
    Location:
    Brisbane
    That was literally my point. But what I'm also suggesting is that the current situation is worse, due to how much progress is held back due to organisations wasting time and effort coddling the dead weight.

    I still maintain that smaller, leaner organisations can get more done across the entire planet with a portion of the planet paid to stay out of the way than the current setup where they clog organisations up because we get offended by the idea of people getting paid with tax dollars to stay out of the way.

    Most arguments against UBI fall under the "I don't want my tax dollars going to people who aren't working", with no concept of how it actually improves things for the truly motivated, nor how it removes waste and inefficiency for the truly needy.
     
    Last edited: Jan 9, 2021
  2. wintermute000

    wintermute000 Member

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2011
    Messages:
    2,539
    <starts twitching in libertarian>

    Not this neoliberal shit again
     
  3. caspian

    caspian Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2002
    Messages:
    11,668
    Location:
    Melbourne
    no argument from me about getting useless unproductive employees out of the way.

    that is very much my objection to it, and I understand perfectly well how it works.

    I doubt very much that anyone truly motivated is not already working. what UBI will do is enable some people to choose not to work. if you set UBI at $40,000 who would work for a $50,000 wage? they're effectively working full time, with all of the expenses and hassle that comes with it, for $10,000 a year. most of those people will go fishing. the idea that they'll somehow make a marvelous contribution to society once freed of their current financial obligations is fancifully aspirational.

    if employers aren't productive, employers should be able to shed them. if they can't attain a job elsewhere with the skills they have, or more likely won't do what they have the skills to perform, work for the dole works just fine.
     
  4. OP
    OP
    elvis

    elvis Old school old fool

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2001
    Messages:
    44,058
    Location:
    Brisbane
    I don't think you do understand how it works. The U in UBI is Universal. You don't give up your UBI to get a wage. You keep your UBI AND the wage on top.

    Who would work for more money than a bare minimum? People who want to. Which I bet would be quite a lot of them.

    And who would spend their days from here until eternity fishing? Maybe a few to start with. But I bet they'd get bored soon enough and seek something more rewarding.

    But they can't. We've made sure of that. So your hypothetical solution remains just as hypothetical as mine at this point.
     
    Last edited: Jan 9, 2021
    BAK likes this.
  5. BAK

    BAK Member

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2005
    Messages:
    1,214
    Location:
    MornPen, VIC
    As elvis said, a UBI is not means tested. So in your example, the person would receive $90,000 (less tax on the wage). https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parlia...liamentary_Library/pubs/rp/rp1617/BasicIncome

    With that said, if people are in a position to choose not to work:
    • organisations will need to pay people reasonable wages to entice quality workers
    • we might see more "profit share" arrangements where the financial benefit to workers is based on the fruits of their labor rather than an arbitrary salary
    • people may engage in enterprise for enjoyment rather than pure profitability
     
    elvis likes this.
  6. OP
    OP
    elvis

    elvis Old school old fool

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2001
    Messages:
    44,058
    Location:
    Brisbane
    A huge advantage for a number of reasons. The one that tickles me especially is the fact that Centrelink could shed 90% of its costs and staff immediately. So could a number of other rather bloated state and federal departments.

    I reckon that's 25% of your UBI funding right there. All these people offended by the idea of UBI ought to consider what their tax dollars fund right now, and if they're getting the "return on investment" they want from their public sector's bloat.

    And this is huge. Consider the two fold ramifications:

    1) The current difficulty employers face in shedding dead weight employees is entirely to keep unemployment numbers down. With UBI, that concern is gone, and it becomes easy to sack people who don't pull their weight.

    2) The amount of people unwilling to attempt new business ideas because they're stuck in a wage-slave system is high. This prevents innovation and competition, making existing businesses lazy. UBI gives people the confidence to try new business ideas, promotes competition, and forces existing businesses to pull their fingers out and work harder.

    Looking at UBI skin deep only as a "paid vacation for the lazy" is missing so much of what it can offer every individual, and the economy as a whole.
     
    mooboyj and looktall like this.
  7. caspian

    caspian Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2002
    Messages:
    11,668
    Location:
    Melbourne
    that then makes it utterly unworkable, because it then relies on a magic money tree. where does the $40,000 come from? you'd have to significantly increase tax rates to pay for it, right there it's a dead duck. I'm certainly not paying a cent more so someone can choose not to work because they CBF.


    which money tree are we shaking to make this work?

    I think you are wrong. it costs about $5-10000 a year to work, in terms of vehicle expenses, public transport, clothing, meals etc. by the time you set a UBI high enough to actually sustain the lifestyle of someone who can't work, stick $10 on top of that and there's your break-even point below which it's zero benefit to work.

    now think of how much time and life balance is absorbed by working, and how much people would take an alternative of free money. conservatively, let's stick another $10k on top again, not to spend 40 hours a week at work plus another 10 hours commuting. so now anyone paid less than $60k a year just opts out. where's the money tree to pay for that?

    sorry, that's fanciful bordering on delusional. sure they'll do something else. they'll watch TV, or play video games, or grow veggies and look after their garden, or learn to paints, or explore their formerly unknown skills in left handed underwater lesbian yoga. who cares. what they won't be doing is contributing anything productive to society, while those who aspire to anything more than the lowest common denominator get to pay for it all.

    my solution is only hypothetical because our political system is useless. yours doesn't work because this isn't Star Trek.
     
  8. OP
    OP
    elvis

    elvis Old school old fool

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2001
    Messages:
    44,058
    Location:
    Brisbane
    1) where are you getting the $40K figure from? You got the "U" wrong above. Now you're getting the "B" wrong. "Basic" doesn't mean "paying for my jet ski". It means enough to survive.

    2) what do you think current Australia-wide welfare systems cost, including the money given as well as the cost of the red tape and record keeping combined?

    Your view on what UBI is and is not appears to be based on Murdoch media rather than the real world trials being performed all around the world right now in preparation for mass unemployment courtesy of the automation boom.

    All real world experiments have shown the exact opposite. Tests done in Europe demonstrated individuals either working the same, or taking a chance on starting a new business.

    BRB emailing the EU to tell them they're "Star Trek".

    Prediction: there will be an OECD country that implements UBI before Australia relaxes dismissal laws. And that will happen this decade.
     
    Last edited: Jan 9, 2021
    theSeekerr likes this.
  9. BAK

    BAK Member

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2005
    Messages:
    1,214
    Location:
    MornPen, VIC
    https://michael-haines.medium.com/how-to-fund-a-ubi-in-australia-e4946fc0ee39

    The TLDR of this article is that increasing GST to 17% (with the 7% used to fund the ~140bn net increase a $500/wk UBI would cost) would do it. Certainly not utterly unworkable and there are no magic money trees required.
     
  10. looktall

    looktall Working Class Doughnut

    Joined:
    Sep 17, 2001
    Messages:
    26,591
    With a UBI I wonder if we would also need to spend as much on our universal healthcare.

    People always complain about how inefficient governments are at spending their money.

    Maybe instead they give the money normally used to provide those "free" services to people in the form of a UBI
     
    Last edited: Jan 9, 2021
  11. OP
    OP
    elvis

    elvis Old school old fool

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2001
    Messages:
    44,058
    Location:
    Brisbane
    I guarantee you mental health would be dramatically improved in the advent of UBI.
     
    looktall likes this.
  12. NSanity

    NSanity Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2002
    Messages:
    18,305
    Location:
    Canberra
    Universal Healthcare >>>>>>>>>>> private. Economy of scale and all that. The absolute worst thing anyone could do is remove wholesale procurement of medicine and medical equipment.
     
    bcann likes this.
  13. caspian

    caspian Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2002
    Messages:
    11,668
    Location:
    Melbourne
    so we just need to increase the tax we pay on most purchases by 70% then? how easy is that!

    I can't see any reason the people who actually work would have a problem with that. :rolleyes:
     
    Last edited: Jan 9, 2021
  14. caspian

    caspian Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2002
    Messages:
    11,668
    Location:
    Melbourne
    what figure would you put on it? whatever it is, people - generally the ones wanting the handout - will complain it's not enough.

    no idea and don't really care. it's fixable if we stopped granting concessions left right and centre for starters.

    sorry, but my point if view is based on fact, even if you'd like to be able to write it off as something you can dismiss.

    further prediction: if they do, it will collapse in a dirty heap shortly after everyone gets sick of paying for it, the same as every previous experiment has. for the same reason - it doesn't work.
     
  15. BAK

    BAK Member

    Joined:
    Jan 7, 2005
    Messages:
    1,214
    Location:
    MornPen, VIC
    Respectfully, from what you've posted here it seems mostly like your point of view is based on preconception and extrapolation rather than fact. What I mean by this is rather than heading off to the internet to look at facts (vis: studies on/and trials of UBI pilots) you rely on your existing life experience and decide it won't work. I am not saying every proposed model of UBI will work. I'm saying that the genuine benefits to society as a whole are worth pursuing. Initial trial studies suggest a basic income model improves happiness, health, school attendance, and in some studies a slight increase in employment (including volunteering), with participants more likely to take up lower paying jobs they were more likely to enjoy, or take up voluntary work for charities and similar.
    Sources: https://www.themandarin.com.au/1337...biggest-universal-basic-income-trial-to-date/
    https://www.theguardian.com/society...ot-improved-wellbeing-study-finds-coronavirus
    https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2020/2/19/21112570/universal-basic-income-ubi-map

    The other thing that it is important to remember is that much of the motivation for UBI is not as a reaction to how society and the economy is now, it's as a preemptive measure for how things WILL be as automation continues to reduce job opportunities in traditional "workhorse" industries. It is less about taking money from the hard working people and giving it to lazy people who don't want to work, and more about protecting futures of all members of society, particularly those who are in affected industries - which will allow their progeny to grow up with similar opportunities as others rather than below the poverty line as they may do within our current system once parents jobs disappear.

    Sure, that's one way of putting it. The article I linked also mentioned that such an increase was necessary to reduce inflation that would be caused by dumping ~$140 billion into the economy. Additionally, you're gaining ~$500 a week in UBI, so for you to be worse off, you'd (individually) need to be spending ~7000 a week on GST eligible products. If this is the case then I'd argue that you can likely afford such an increase anyway.
     
    fredhoon likes this.
  16. OP
    OP
    elvis

    elvis Old school old fool

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2001
    Messages:
    44,058
    Location:
    Brisbane
    *I* wouldn't put a figure on it. There's enough qualified folks working out that figure already. But I repeat: this isn't a lifestyle paycheque. It's Universal *Basic* Income. The numbers experimented with to date have been far lower than what you're positing here (which is also fascinating from a "preconceptions of actual cycles of poverty" point of view).

    Does that fact include actually reading both the research and trials performed to date? Some pretty fascinating lessons learned from both the failures and successes so far.

    Certainly not every experiment. Early ones failed, but learned valuable lessons. Recent ones have shown very positive data when improvements to the formulas were made.

    I tell you what: this conversation is really tickling my schadenfreude, knowing that UBI is inevitable, and knowing how much that's going to really annoy a certain demographic.
     
    bcann, Rass, 2SHY and 1 other person like this.
  17. PabloEscobar

    PabloEscobar Member

    Joined:
    Jan 28, 2008
    Messages:
    14,505
    It's one of the circular B&EC topics for some reason.

    In previous iterations, I recall you mentioning that the path towards UBI would probably start with a big disaster/radical upheaval... Well, 2020 was pretty much that, but no countries settled on UBI as the answer. Why do you think that is?
     
  18. Gunna

    Gunna Member

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2001
    Messages:
    7,829
    Location:
    Brisbane
    Didn't Spain introduce it?
     
  19. NSanity

    NSanity Member

    Joined:
    Mar 11, 2002
    Messages:
    18,305
    Location:
    Canberra
    Well we kinda did.

    We just didn't give it to everyone, nor work out how to pay for it. We did give it to upto 30-40% of the population. And the tests for qualification might as well have been nothing.
     
  20. tobes

    tobes Member

    Joined:
    Dec 23, 2001
    Messages:
    4,080
    Location:
    Melbourne
    You know the easiest way to see if UBI actually works?

    We try it out.

    No country has really done a proper UBI scheme across the whole populous for a decent period of time. So any conclusions we draw from current inferences will be flawed.

    Meanwhile, let's get back to business computing rants. I would like to applaud the SVR/Cozy Bear for some champagne espionage conducted via Solar Winds and others.
     

Share This Page

Advertisement: