Members banned from this thread: AssHatZombie, SmarterthanYou, USFREEDOM911, Havana Moon, PostmodernProphet, Legion, Truth Detector, Granule, I Love America, Boris The Animal, Teflon Don, Dark Soul, Irish, CFM, Ralph, Sailor, America First Abrams, Bigdog, TTQ64, Getin the ring, zymurgy, Superfreak, PraiseKek, Grumpy, katzgar, countryboy, Tommatthews, volsrock, The Ugly Truth, BodyDouble, coolzone, rhym3pays, LV426, Loving91390, Into the Night, Enlightened One, Anarchon and Arminius


Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 46

Thread: Alaska's Universal Basic Income, Supported By Liberals and Conservatives Under Attack

  1. #1 | Top
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    4,669
    Thanks
    2,447
    Thanked 2,575 Times in 1,671 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 190 Times in 174 Posts

    Default Alaska's Universal Basic Income, Supported By Liberals and Conservatives Under Attack

    "How to Hand Out Free Money
    When the robots take our jobs, we’ll need another form of income. Alaska can show us the way."

    Mother Jones

    "For nearly four decades, the Permanent Fund Dividend (PFD) program, designed to share revenue from the state’s oil wealth, has made flat annual payouts to anyone who has lived there for at least one calendar year, barring those with certain criminal convictions. While the program’s architects didn’t use the term, it’s the closest thing today to a universal basic income program that has durably existed anywhere in the world.

    The concept of universal basic income—in which governments pay residents a set sum regularly, no strings attached—has gained momentum in recent years. A growing chorus of Silicon Valley executives has called the policy inevitable, as automation threatens to displace one-third of American workers by 2030, raising the specter of unemployed masses rioting in the streets. Others have revived the idea as an efficient solution to poverty and inequality. Y Combin*ator, the tech startup accelerator, will soon test basic income with 3,000 people in two states, following a smaller study in Oakland, California. The city of Stockton, California, will launch a guaranteed income pilot in 2019, and lawmakers in Hawaii and Chicago are considering following suit. Trials have also launched in Barcelona, Canada, Finland, Kenya, Uganda, and Switzerland. In the United States, the concept is inching its way into the mainstream; Hillary Clinton’s campaign memoir disclosed she seriously considered floating a universal basic income program called “Alaska for America” during her 2016 run."

    PoliTalker anti-troll thread thief disclaimer: If this thread is stolen, plagiarized, will the thief have the nerve to use the entire OP, word for word? Including this disclaimer? If you want my take on it, you'll have to post to this original PoliTalker thread. I refuse to be an enabler for online bullies, so I won't post to a stolen thread. I won't even read it. If you don't see me, PoliTalker, posting in this thread check the author. This might be a hijacked thread, not the original.

    Eventually, most jobs as we know them will be performed by robots. Artificial Intelligence is changing the way we work. This level of automation will dwarf anything seen in the past. And it will not generate more jobs than it eliminates. We are on the precipice of having a society where there are far more willing workers than jobs.

    As if we don't have that already. We can fool ourselves by claiming jobs are abundant and unemployment is low, but it is rarely wise to fool ourselves. Yes, jobs are abundant and unemployment is low, technically, but the unemployment figures count anybody working one hour per week as not unemployed. Nobody can live on one hour's pay unless they are CEO of a major corporation, so for millions of Americans, work and paychecks are not enough to live on. There is not enough work for everybody, and much of the work that is there doesn't pay enough to live on.

    And the situation is poised to become far worse.

    The need for government assistance is about to be amplified.

    Should we continue to pay lots of government workers to be part of a huge bureaucracy to decide who gets benefits and who doesn't?

    What if there was another way? That's a lot of money to run government agencies and pay people to enforce elaborate rules to decide who is needy and who isn't. It's a lot of overhead. It costs the taxpayers a lot of money just to try to figure out who gets what.

    What if we simply handed out the money instead?

    If we had a UBI, much of the government safety net could be dismantled.

    Who is going to pay for it all?

    The ultra rich. That's who.

    The ultra rich are far richer than most. Most people don't even have any idea how rich the super-rich are. But let me tell you. They are rich. Rich enough to cover this.

    And they are about to get a lot richer. Extreme wealth inequality is not going to stop. AI is going to launch it into the stratosphere. The only people who will be able to afford the fancy AI machines that will, not only do most jobs but also service and repair the new AI machines as well as design and build improves AI machines, will be the super-wealthy. Workers will not be able to own their own 'worker machine' that goes and does their job for them. No. It will not work that way. The super-wealthy will own those machines and they won't need workers any more. The 'job creator' nonsense will be blown out of the water. The AI race will be a race to eliminate jobs.

    Your job could be going away.

    And you might not be able to get another one.

    The very need for whatever you are trained for will be going away.

    And so will your paychecks.

    And revenue.

    We are going to have to raise taxes on the super-wealthy, and we are going to have to tax them enough to pay for the UBI.

    There's no other way to do it.

    Unless you have a better idea.
    Personal Ignore Policy PIP: I like civil discourse. I will give you all the respect in the world if you respect me. Flame on me, mouth off to me, or express overt racism, you go on my PERMANENT Ignore List. Zero tolerance. No exceptions. I won't participate in your threads, you will be banned from mine. ... Ignore the shallow. Cherish the thoughtful. Long Live Civil Discourse, Mutual Respect, and Good Debate! ps: if you like my PIP, feel free to use it. It works well.

  2. The Following User Says Thank You to PoliTalker For This Post:

    ThatOwlWoman (01-10-2019)

  3. #2 | Top
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Posts
    7,893
    Thanks
    733
    Thanked 2,954 Times in 2,234 Posts
    Groans
    371
    Groaned 227 Times in 208 Posts

    Default

    The Alaskan largess is under attack by democrats who want to ban fossil fuels. Without oil, Alaska is the land of pirates.

  4. The Following 2 Users Groan At Kacper For This Awful Post:

    Nordberg (01-07-2019), Phantasmal (01-07-2019)

  5. #3 | Top
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    4,669
    Thanks
    2,447
    Thanked 2,575 Times in 1,671 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 190 Times in 174 Posts

    Default

    Hello Kacper,

    Quote Originally Posted by Kacper View Post
    The Alaskan largess is under attack by democrats who want to ban fossil fuels. Without oil, Alaska is the land of pirates.
    It is not just Democrats who want to ban fossil fuels. It is people who understand we cannot extract and burn everything that's in the ground without destroying our atmosphere and habitat.

    If we look beyond the primary source of funding for this, on an existential level, the State taxed the RICH and handed out MONEY TO EVERYBODY.

    And it WORKED.

    So once you get past all the loaded partisan arguments, Alaska has proven that the concept works quite well.

    Now that we know it does, we should institute it for the entire nation.

    Because we are going to need to sooner or later.

    This is one instance where we could do something BEFORE the damage of avoiding it wreaks havoc.

    Side note.

    Do you protect and defend the super-rich?

    If so, why?

    They don't need your help.

    We are going to have to gang up on them and share the wealth.
    Personal Ignore Policy PIP: I like civil discourse. I will give you all the respect in the world if you respect me. Flame on me, mouth off to me, or express overt racism, you go on my PERMANENT Ignore List. Zero tolerance. No exceptions. I won't participate in your threads, you will be banned from mine. ... Ignore the shallow. Cherish the thoughtful. Long Live Civil Discourse, Mutual Respect, and Good Debate! ps: if you like my PIP, feel free to use it. It works well.

  6. #4 | Top
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Posts
    7,893
    Thanks
    733
    Thanked 2,954 Times in 2,234 Posts
    Groans
    371
    Groaned 227 Times in 208 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by PoliTalker View Post
    Hello Kacper,



    It is not just Democrats who want to ban fossil fuels. It is people who understand we cannot extract and burn everything that's in the ground without destroying our atmosphere and habitat.

    If we look beyond the primary source of funding for this, on an existential level, the State taxed the RICH and handed out MONEY TO EVERYBODY.

    And it WORKED.

    So once you get past all the loaded partisan arguments, Alaska has proven that the concept works quite well.

    Now that we know it does, we should institute it for the entire nation.

    Because we are going to need to sooner or later.

    This is one instance where we could do something BEFORE the damage of avoiding it wreaks havoc.

    Side note.

    Do you protect and defend the super-rich?

    If so, why?

    They don't need your help.

    We are going to have to gang up on them and share the wealth.
    Alaska has not shown that basic income works because it doesn't have a sustainable source of revenue outside of oil to support the program.

    I don't protect and defend the super rich. You do. You just don't see it. "Basic Income Guarantee" means "Corporate profits guarantee". It alters the natural dynamics of the market that otherwise check excess. You are not defending the little guy. You are defending replacing the little guy with a robot and still guaranteeing there is money for the products made by the robot.

  7. #5 | Top
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    4,669
    Thanks
    2,447
    Thanked 2,575 Times in 1,671 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 190 Times in 174 Posts

    Default

    Hello Kacper,

    Quote Originally Posted by Kacper View Post
    Alaska has not shown that basic income works because it doesn't have a sustainable source of revenue outside of oil to support the program.
    The UBI does work. Alaska has shown that because it has not destroyed the Alaskan economy. All the fears and worries about such a concept causing people to die from laziness have been proven moot. It doesn't matter what the source is. In this case, the source has been from taxing oil extraction. It could be from taxing a different kind of wealth, and be just as effective.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kacper View Post
    I don't protect and defend the super rich.
    The question was not directed at you.


    Quote Originally Posted by Kacper View Post
    You do.
    That's interesting. But I suppose I can see how this could be said.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kacper View Post
    You just don't see it.
    I just said I did.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kacper View Post
    "Basic Income Guarantee" means "Corporate profits guarantee".
    No it doesn't.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kacper View Post
    It alters the natural dynamics of the market that otherwise check excess.
    The natural dynamics of the market are self-destructive. They need to be constantly altered by proper regulation, without which, capitalism would self-implode.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kacper View Post
    You are not defending the little guy.
    I am defending society and a sustainable economy.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kacper View Post
    You are defending replacing the little guy with a robot
    No, I am realistically acknowleding that this is unavoidable.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kacper View Post
    and still guaranteeing there is money for the products made by the robot.
    Unless we want to go back to hunter-gatherer / subsistence-farmer status, society will produce and consume products. All I have done has been to recognize this.
    Personal Ignore Policy PIP: I like civil discourse. I will give you all the respect in the world if you respect me. Flame on me, mouth off to me, or express overt racism, you go on my PERMANENT Ignore List. Zero tolerance. No exceptions. I won't participate in your threads, you will be banned from mine. ... Ignore the shallow. Cherish the thoughtful. Long Live Civil Discourse, Mutual Respect, and Good Debate! ps: if you like my PIP, feel free to use it. It works well.

  8. #6 | Top
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Posts
    7,893
    Thanks
    733
    Thanked 2,954 Times in 2,234 Posts
    Groans
    371
    Groaned 227 Times in 208 Posts

    Default

    [QUOTE=PoliTalker;2810195]Hello Kacper,



    The UBI does work. Alaska has shown that because it has not destroyed the Alaskan economy. All the fears and worries about such a concept causing people to die from laziness have been proven moot. It doesn't matter what the source is. In this case, the source has been from taxing oil extraction. It could be from taxing a different kind of wealth, and be just as effective.
    The Alaskan checks are $2K per person. It isn't a basic income and you have yet to explain how they would fund that without oil revenue.

  9. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Kacper For This Post:

    America First Abrams (01-17-2019), anonymoose (01-10-2019)

  10. #7 | Top
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    4,669
    Thanks
    2,447
    Thanked 2,575 Times in 1,671 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 190 Times in 174 Posts

    Default

    Hello Kacper,,

    Quote Originally Posted by Kacper View Post

    The Alaskan checks are $2K per person. It isn't a basic income
    Well, some actually live on it, but it takes more grit than money to live where they do. It isn't enough for most to live on, but it is a regular payment from the State to everybody for doing nothing, and the money comes from taxing the wealthy. The basics of my argument are all there. You're simply debating proportions.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kacper View Post
    and you have yet to explain how they would fund that without oil revenue.
    I explained that in the OP.

    "Who is going to pay for it all?

    The ultra rich. That's who.

    ...

    We are going to have to raise taxes on the super-wealthy, and we are going to have to tax them enough to pay for the UBI."
    Personal Ignore Policy PIP: I like civil discourse. I will give you all the respect in the world if you respect me. Flame on me, mouth off to me, or express overt racism, you go on my PERMANENT Ignore List. Zero tolerance. No exceptions. I won't participate in your threads, you will be banned from mine. ... Ignore the shallow. Cherish the thoughtful. Long Live Civil Discourse, Mutual Respect, and Good Debate! ps: if you like my PIP, feel free to use it. It works well.

  11. #8 | Top
    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    Location
    Central New Jersey
    Posts
    11,273
    Thanks
    5,357
    Thanked 5,183 Times in 3,316 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 346 Times in 334 Posts

    Default

    Something akin to a Universal Basic Income will be the norm throughout the world...IN EVERY COUNTRY, INCLUDING THE UNITED STATES...at some point relatively soon. My guess is it will happen well within the lifetimes of poeople now alive...in fact, well within the lifetimes of people now adults.

    The notion of "earning one's living" is an anachronism that we are well rid of.

    The notion of working is fine...but not to earn a living. Not today...not with what we have going for us.

    Experiments will happen along these lines...some will be more successful than others...some will be total flops.

    But it is the only way to go.

  12. #9 | Top
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    4,669
    Thanks
    2,447
    Thanked 2,575 Times in 1,671 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 190 Times in 174 Posts

    Default

    Hello Frank,

    I didn't think it would take long for you to want to be part of this important discussion. Thanks for your interest.

    Quote Originally Posted by Frank Apisa View Post
    Something akin to a Universal Basic Income will be the norm throughout the world...IN EVERY COUNTRY, INCLUDING THE UNITED STATES...at some point relatively soon. My guess is it will happen well within the lifetimes of poeople now alive...in fact, well within the lifetimes of people now adults.

    The notion of "earning one's living" is an anachronism that we are well rid of.

    The notion of working is fine...but not to earn a living. Not today...not with what we have going for us.

    Experiments will happen along these lines...some will be more successful than others...some will be total flops.

    But it is the only way to go.
    Oh, it's coming alright.

    No matter how far into past economies the right wants to cling.

    From the OP link:

    "Y Combin*ator, the tech startup accelerator, will soon test basic income with 3,000 people in two states, following a smaller study in Oakland, California. The city of Stockton, California, will launch a guaranteed income pilot in 2019, and lawmakers in Hawaii and Chicago are considering following suit. Trials have also launched in Barcelona, Canada, Finland, Kenya, Uganda, and Switzerland. In the United States, the concept is inching its way into the mainstream"
    Personal Ignore Policy PIP: I like civil discourse. I will give you all the respect in the world if you respect me. Flame on me, mouth off to me, or express overt racism, you go on my PERMANENT Ignore List. Zero tolerance. No exceptions. I won't participate in your threads, you will be banned from mine. ... Ignore the shallow. Cherish the thoughtful. Long Live Civil Discourse, Mutual Respect, and Good Debate! ps: if you like my PIP, feel free to use it. It works well.

  13. The Following User Says Thank You to PoliTalker For This Post:

    Frank Apisa (01-07-2019)

  14. #10 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    13,096
    Thanks
    143
    Thanked 6,439 Times in 4,361 Posts
    Groans
    2,549
    Groaned 1,309 Times in 1,220 Posts

    Default

    Automation has been called a threat to jobs for 70 years. Automation and robotics are huge industries. If you are paying attention, there are still lots of jobs. I remember the predictions of a paperless society.. How did that work out?
    If it ever comes to fruition, something will have to be done to appease the masses, The wealthy want to be safe and travel freely.

  15. #11 | Top
    Join Date
    Jan 2018
    Location
    Central New Jersey
    Posts
    11,273
    Thanks
    5,357
    Thanked 5,183 Times in 3,316 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 346 Times in 334 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nordberg View Post
    Automation has been called a threat to jobs for 70 years. Automation and robotics are huge industries. If you are paying attention, there are still lots of jobs. I remember the predictions of a paperless society.. How did that work out?
    If it ever comes to fruition, something will have to be done to appease the masses, The wealthy want to be safe and travel freely.
    Captain Smith: "Don't worry about icebergs, we are unsinkable. Full speed ahead."

  16. #12 | Top
    Join Date
    Mar 2018
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    4,669
    Thanks
    2,447
    Thanked 2,575 Times in 1,671 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 190 Times in 174 Posts

    Default

    Hello Nordberg,

    Quote Originally Posted by Nordberg View Post
    Automation has been called a threat to jobs for 70 years. Automation and robotics are huge industries. If you are paying attention, there are still lots of jobs. I remember the predictions of a paperless society.. How did that work out?

    Automation is not the new part.

    Artificial Intelligence is.

    We have not perfected it yet but it appears we are on the precipice of it.

    Once it is achieved, it changes much.

    The new machines will service themselves, repair themselves, program themselves. And far more. Not only will they not generate many new jobs as they eliminate millions, they will also have the ability to design better replacements for themselves, and build those replacements.

    This is not the same old story of automation. This is a game changer. There have never been machines that learn and improve themselves. Machines were always designed with a specific purpose in mind. These new machines will be able to adapt and improve themselves. Once given a task, they will be able to decide if the way they are doing it is the most efficient, and if not, they will be able to modify themselves, improve, adapt, learn, figure things out better. They could even figure out new tasks to be done which were not originally preconceived.

    It will begin with the elimination of truckers and delivery drivers. Warehouse pickers, landscapers, construction people, etc. That's just the beginning of the iceberg. The tip. This is not just 'Automation 2.0.' This is 'Automation X,' where X is an expandable number, an ever-expanding number.

    Quote Originally Posted by Nordberg View Post
    If it ever comes to fruition, something will have to be done to appease the masses, The wealthy want to be safe and travel freely.
    Yes. Something will have to be done. That something is a UBI. And there is only one place the funding for that can come from.

    Capitalism and technological advancement have been very efficient at eliminating work. Already there is not really enough good paying work for everybody. That's why we have so many people on government assistance. When AI is conquered, and most paychecks are eliminated, the UBI will be the only thing that can possibly keep the economy from imploding.

    It's OK if you want to deny this. It doesn't matter if everyone understands the implications yet. All too soon it will be all too apparent. There isn't much buzz around this right now. It can be ignored for a while. But it's not going away. You are going to be hearing more and more about this. Mark my words.
    Last edited by PoliTalker; 01-07-2019 at 04:23 PM.
    Personal Ignore Policy PIP: I like civil discourse. I will give you all the respect in the world if you respect me. Flame on me, mouth off to me, or express overt racism, you go on my PERMANENT Ignore List. Zero tolerance. No exceptions. I won't participate in your threads, you will be banned from mine. ... Ignore the shallow. Cherish the thoughtful. Long Live Civil Discourse, Mutual Respect, and Good Debate! ps: if you like my PIP, feel free to use it. It works well.

  17. #13 | Top
    Join Date
    Feb 2018
    Posts
    18,149
    Thanks
    8,748
    Thanked 8,047 Times in 5,520 Posts
    Groans
    94
    Groaned 478 Times in 473 Posts
    Blog Entries
    4

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kacper View Post
    The Alaskan largess is under attack by democrats who want to ban fossil fuels. Without oil, Alaska is the land of pirates.

    You do know that Sarah Palin killed 4 Exxon projects before she quit as governor of Alaska.
    He who is the author of a war lets loose the whole contagion of hell and opens a vein that bleeds a nation to death. Thomas Paine

  18. The Following User Says Thank You to kudzu For This Post:

    ThatOwlWoman (01-10-2019)

  19. #14 | Top
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Posts
    7,893
    Thanks
    733
    Thanked 2,954 Times in 2,234 Posts
    Groans
    371
    Groaned 227 Times in 208 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kudzu View Post
    You do know that Sarah Palin killed 4 Exxon projects before she quit as governor of Alaska.
    So? Does not change that 1) The Alaskan checks are not a basic income and 2) Alaska is completely dependent on oil for those checks. Alaska has a very high cost of living. a couple grand a year isn't going to put a dent in that.

  20. #15 | Top
    Join Date
    Feb 2018
    Posts
    18,149
    Thanks
    8,748
    Thanked 8,047 Times in 5,520 Posts
    Groans
    94
    Groaned 478 Times in 473 Posts
    Blog Entries
    4

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Kacper View Post
    So? Does not change that 1) The Alaskan checks are not a basic income and 2) Alaska is completely dependent on oil for those checks. Alaska has a very high cost of living. a couple grand a year isn't going to put a dent in that.
    You're right.. Palin killed the Exxon projects and increased the checks that year by $2,000... and she considers herself to be a conservative Republican.
    He who is the author of a war lets loose the whole contagion of hell and opens a vein that bleeds a nation to death. Thomas Paine

  21. The Following User Says Thank You to kudzu For This Post:

    ThatOwlWoman (01-10-2019)

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 154
    Last Post: 07-20-2018, 02:21 PM
  2. Facebook Co-Founder Wants Universal Basic Income
    By cawacko in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 85
    Last Post: 04-24-2018, 06:44 AM
  3. Stockton CA goes to guaranteed basic income - New name for WELFARE
    By Text Drivers are Killers in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 02-01-2018, 08:34 PM
  4. Zillionaire Zuckerberg wants a guaranteed basic income for everyone.
    By Text Drivers are Killers in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 52
    Last Post: 05-27-2017, 10:30 AM
  5. Two basic types of Conservatives
    By Topspin in forum General Politics Forum
    Replies: 69
    Last Post: 03-23-2009, 07:54 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Rules

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •