The benefits of a basic income // much higher min wage

Intended for constructive conversations. Exhibits of polarizing tribalism will be deleted.
Campitor
Posts: 1033
Joined: Thu Aug 20, 2015 11:49 am

Re: The benefits of a basic income // much higher min wage

Post by Campitor »

It is an incomplete discussion to only point to income inequality without looking at a complete economic picture of the United States. A single site or report can never encapsulate all the vectors that apply pressure to income inequality. And any talk of income inequality needs to include a discussion on why we need to have UBI or an increase in forced income redistribution when the metrics regarding poverty and standard of living shows that most Americans are living better than they have in the past and that we enjoy a standard of living better than 90% of the world's population.

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2 ... mmigrants/

The US is the largest recipient of immigration in the world. Our largest immigration pool comes from Mexico of which 25% are here illegally. The constant influx of unskilled workers is going to affect poverty statistics which I'd like to point out is at 12.3% despite the constant wave of immigration from poor nations; this would indicate that poor immigrants are able to rise above poverty because of the advantages available in this country. If this wasn't the case, then poverty rates would be increasing instead of decreasing. And this also indicates that the individuals had the capacity to generate income but the systems of their former countries were incapable of providing the network for income escalation. People come here to make money and they are able to do so because of the economic infrastructure we have. And when discussing income inequality notice how absent the income thresholds are. To be in the top 15% in income only requires earning 100k a year or more - very doable for a 2 person household (being married is a key factor).

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affluen ... ted_States:
Two income-earner households are more common among the top quintile of households than the general population: 2006 U.S. Census Bureau data indicates that over three quarters, 76%, of households in the top quintile, with annual incomes exceeding $91,200, had two or more income earners compared to just 42% among the general population and a small minority in the bottom three quintiles. As a result, much of the rising income inequity between the upper and lower percentiles can be explained through the increasing percentage of households with two or more incomes.
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2 ... ng-adults/:
In the past 10 years, the share of U.S. adults living without a spouse or partner has climbed to 42%, up from 39% in 2007, when the Census Bureau began collecting detailed data on cohabitation.

Divorce has likely not contributed to the growing share of unpartnered adults over this short period. Though divorce statistics are complicated, many argue that the divorce rate has generally been stable or falling since the 1980s.

This trend has important implications for the economic well-being of U.S. adults, as research has shown the financial benefits of marriage and cohabitation. The median household income (adjusted for household size) for partnered adults, either married or cohabiting, is $86,000. By contrast, the median household income for unpartnered adults is roughly $61,000. In addition, unpartnered adults are about twice as likely as partnered adults to be living in poverty (17% versus 7%).
https://singlemotherguide.com/single-mother-statistics/:
Single mothers are much more likely to be poor than married couples. The poverty rate for single-mother families in 2017 was 34%, nearly five times more than the rate (6%) for married-couple families.

Among children living with mother only, 40% lived in poverty. In contrast, only 12% of children in two parent families were counted as poor.
There are many factors affecting income inequality and putting the blame only on the rich is a half-truth. The stats above are only a small slice of what is behind the inequality. And beware stats that use median instead of averages and visa-versa - both get switched out depending on which one is more beneficial to the side doing the arguing.

Campitor
Posts: 1033
Joined: Thu Aug 20, 2015 11:49 am

Re: The benefits of a basic income // much higher min wage

Post by Campitor »

daylen wrote:
Fri Jun 28, 2019 5:54 pm
So one point I am trying to make is that not everyone has the same "focus", "actions", "positives", or "steps", and that these differences are significant to every waking moment of our lives. All political disagreement and misunderstanding can be thought to emerge from what the ratio between genetic and cultural selection is assumed to be. Do we let our genes guide us or do we use memes to condition or avoid them.
I believe that our genetic programming is extremely hard to subvert but it can be channeled. Someone may anger your enough that you want to punch them in the face, it's very hard to stop that "emotion" from existing because of genetic programming , that anger however can be redirected to a punching bag. We don't have to be victims to our urges - we can channel them to positive avenues - this part of the OS is within our control.

The anger the poor feel towards the rich would be better directed to actions within their sphere of control such as skill and knowledge acquisition or perhaps working 2 jobs to elevate their standard of living; this positive redirection is certainly within their control. Hating on the rich and waiting for a handout has never made anyone rich.

daylen
Posts: 1626
Joined: Wed Dec 16, 2015 4:17 am

Re: The benefits of a basic income // much higher min wage

Post by daylen »

I haven't said anything about the rich or UBI, and I just said that our genetic coding can be conditioned. Clearly you are missing my point that control is mostly an illusion.

Campitor
Posts: 1033
Joined: Thu Aug 20, 2015 11:49 am

Re: The benefits of a basic income // much higher min wage

Post by Campitor »

7Wannabe5 wrote:
Fri Jun 28, 2019 1:17 pm
Might be easier to go sideways emotionally from envy to admiration. For instance, I admire Claude Shannon, but I don't admire John D. Rockefeller, and I know that a goodly amount of money flowed towards Claude Shannon due to his highly innovative work, and I know that a very large amount of money flowed towards John D. Rockefeller due in some part to underhanded thug-like behavior...
Shannon and Rockefeller are consequences of the same framework that allows either to exists. We can't have Shannons without producing Rockefellers anymore than we can have honey producing insects without some having stingers. The systems that allow a Shannon, Marie Curie, and Louis Pasteur to exist are the same that allow Rockefeller, Fritz Haber, and Robert Koch to exist - to eliminate the framework is to eliminate all of them. The goal is to develop a framework where Marie Curie is the better incentive and not so much Fritz Haber.
Last edited by Campitor on Sun Jun 30, 2019 3:30 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Campitor
Posts: 1033
Joined: Thu Aug 20, 2015 11:49 am

Re: The benefits of a basic income // much higher min wage

Post by Campitor »

bigato wrote:
Sun Jun 30, 2019 2:38 pm
Interesting how you switch from pointing flaws in data methodology to "I believe that..."
The comparative smallness of what we know today as gravitational effects is not a conclusive reason for ignoring the principle of general relativity in theoretical investigations of a fundamental character. In other words, I do not believe that it is justifiable to ask: What would physics look like without gravitation? - Albert Einstein

We believe in the possibility of a theory which is able to give a complete description of reality, the laws of which establish relations between the things themselves and not merely between their probabilities ... God does not play dice. - Albert Einstein

You believe in the God who plays dice, and I in complete law and order in a world that objectively exists, and which I, in a wildly speculative way, am trying to capture - Albert Einstein

@bigato
  1. That I believe something doesn't mean it's an uniformed belief unsupported by honest data. It's possible to fudge data on both sides via deliberate selection and/or exclusion of data and metrics. For example, the poverty rate for blacks is 9.9% in the US and it's half of that for whites. However since there are more whites than blacks in the population, there are almost 3 poor whites for every black person. So a war on poverty means redirecting resources to more white people than black people in the US. It would be dishonest of me to talk about the black poverty rate without mentioning the absolute number of white people in poverty just as it would be dishonest of me to point out the absolute number of white people in poverty without talking about how black poverty percentages are higher.
  2. Thanks for the implied ad-hominem. I believe you to be a smart man debating your view point honestly - don't spoil it with an ad-hominem no matter how polite it may be.
Last edited by Campitor on Sun Jun 30, 2019 3:25 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Campitor
Posts: 1033
Joined: Thu Aug 20, 2015 11:49 am

Re: The benefits of a basic income // much higher min wage

Post by Campitor »

daylen wrote:
Sun Jun 30, 2019 2:45 pm
I haven't said anything about the rich or UBI, and I just said that our genetic coding can be conditioned. Clearly you are missing my point that control is mostly an illusion.
I don't believe control is an illusion otherwise we'd still be sophisticated monkeys beating each other with sticks. I'm framing my argument within the UBI context because we're in a thread about UBI.

daylen
Posts: 1626
Joined: Wed Dec 16, 2015 4:17 am

Re: The benefits of a basic income // much higher min wage

Post by daylen »

From my perspective, we still are sophisticated monkeys beating each other with memes. Statistics, optimization, and so forth are what we resort to when we want to justify what we were programmed to unconsciously do.

Campitor
Posts: 1033
Joined: Thu Aug 20, 2015 11:49 am

Re: The benefits of a basic income // much higher min wage

Post by Campitor »

bigato wrote:
Sun Jun 30, 2019 3:47 pm
Campitor: have you considered the possibility that you may be missing the point sometimes? Like, when a big, crowdsourced wikipedia page full of links to peer-reviewed studies, documentaries and data is dismissed as being "a single source", do you think there is the possibility that you may be slightly biased here? I get it you are the success example of an immigrant who succeeded, but do you think it may be possible that you have survivor bias?
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1420798/:
So we have little evidence on the effectiveness of peer review, but we have considerable evidence on its defects. In addition to being poor at detecting gross defects and almost useless for detecting fraud it is slow, expensive, profligate of academic time, highly subjective, something of a lottery, prone to bias, and easily abused.
I'm not dismissing the fact that I may be biased. That a source is an amalgamation of peer-reviewed studies doesn't mean the data is accurate, has been reviewed accurately, or hasn't been peer reviewed by those with similar bias. And it's possible that I have survivor bias but considering that the US is the richest country on earth with a very high standard of living for most of its citizens, and it's still the highest immigration destination in the world, that means the that likelihood of survival is very high; in other words my success isn't a fluke. I'm not arguing my point because I think the rich need protecting, I'm arguing my points because I believe I'm protecting the poor. The rich are a necessary "evil" and without them our tax revenues will drop which will affect those below the poverty line the most; I don't think the rich are anymore evil than the average citizen.

I'll close with a quote from the French economist Frédéric Bastiat:

“There is only one difference between a bad economist and a good one: the bad economist confines himself to the visible effect; the good economist takes into account both the effect that can be seen and those effects that must be foreseen.”

*** Edit ***
Also, are you really comparing your opinion to Einstein's?
No - just highlighting the fact that smart men have beliefs which are informed by examination of data and research. I wouldn't put myself anywhere near Einstein but I can try to emulate his logic and his habit of examination and research. The moral being - be more like Einstein - do the research and examine the data dispassionately. If the data supports your view then I'll change my mind. But income, wealth, and the associated statistics are co opted by bias and politics on both sides (for and against redistribution) so they have to be examined carefully and independently.
Last edited by Campitor on Sun Jun 30, 2019 7:26 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Campitor
Posts: 1033
Joined: Thu Aug 20, 2015 11:49 am

Re: The benefits of a basic income // much higher min wage

Post by Campitor »

daylen wrote:
Sun Jun 30, 2019 3:42 pm
From my perspective, we still are sophisticated monkeys beating each others with memes. Statistics, optimization, and so forth are what we resort to when we want to justify what we were programmed to unconsciously do.
That we are beating other with memes/statistics/etc., and not sticks means we are at least choosing our weapons. The OS may be in charge but we've managed to install drivers and APIs that affect outcomes and actions.
Last edited by Campitor on Sun Jun 30, 2019 5:22 pm, edited 1 time in total.

7Wannabe5
Posts: 6231
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 9:03 am
Location: Clinton River Watershed

Re: The benefits of a basic income // much higher min wage

Post by 7Wannabe5 »

Campitor wrote: We can't have Shannon's without producing Rockefellers anymore than we can have honey producing insects without some having stingers.
So, Rockefeller was like a Queen Bee, because Queen Bees only use their stingers to kill other potential rival Queen Bees, often before they even hatch. OTOH, Marie Curie was more like an outlier worker bee who takes on the risk of flying more than 5 miles from the hive in search of new source of pollen, even though she might run out of enough energy to keep her wings beating before she achieves success, and then fall to the ground dead of radiation poisoning. Thus, it follows that your typical corporate middle-manager is like a drone bee, highly specialized to perform just one function, his greatest hope being that he will rise close enough to a Queen that the opportunity to break off the bulbous end of his endophallus as result of massive ejaculation followed shortly by death will occur. Not the first analogy I would have chosen, but I agree it has some merit.

OTOH, even though we must applaud the valiant efforts of the most far flying worker bee, it does not seem to me that this behavior constitutes the full range (see what I did there?-see "embodied mind" theory) or complexity of what we mean when we speak of human innovation. It's just more "pollen piled upon pollen" like the "wooden plows piled upon wooden plows" in the bit I quoted above. OTOH, it is easy to see that the risk-taking worker bee is of greater long-term net benefit to the hive than, for instance, the worker bee who simply works twice as many hours without taking risk of flying further out, because any other worker bee could have just as easily harvested those nearby flowers.

ether
Posts: 211
Joined: Sat Nov 17, 2012 1:50 am
Location: Tempe AZ
Contact:

Re: The benefits of a basic income // much higher min wage

Post by ether »

Let's say magically communism is achieved and all wealth is equally given to every man woman and child in the USA.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_c ... tal_wealth

In the USA there is an estimated 100 trillion in wealth and 316 million citizens that means everyone gets $316k and magically the government annuitizes that with a 4% withdrawal rate since people aren't good with money and might blow it. That gives everyone about $1k a month in basic income. So your normal american family of four could live pretty nice simply on the national dividend.

But this only works in really rich countries, if global communism was achieved the wealth of the entire world is only 317 trillion and there are 7.5 billion people which works out to only $140/month for everyone.
Last edited by ether on Mon Jul 01, 2019 7:04 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Campitor
Posts: 1033
Joined: Thu Aug 20, 2015 11:49 am

Re: The benefits of a basic income // much higher min wage

Post by Campitor »

ether wrote:
Sun Jun 30, 2019 5:51 pm
In the USA there is an estimated 100 trillion in wealth and 316 million citizens that means everyone gets $316k and magically the government annuitizes that with a 4% withdrawal rate since people aren't good with money and might blow it. That gives everyone about $1k a month in basic income. So your normal american family of four could live pretty nice will not having to work.
If you seized the entire wealth of the country and redistributed it equally for UBI, how would you pay for future liabilities and servicing the debt without printing more money which would erode the buying power of all annuities? I've read that future liabilities (75 year projection) add up to roughly 240 to 300 trillion depending on the source. And does your math include funding defense, foreign aid, etc?
Last edited by Campitor on Sun Jun 30, 2019 7:41 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Campitor
Posts: 1033
Joined: Thu Aug 20, 2015 11:49 am

Re: The benefits of a basic income // much higher min wage

Post by Campitor »

bigato wrote:
Sun Jun 30, 2019 7:09 pm
Campitor, you're missing the point even when it is in your favor, chill out dude
I am chilled out. Not sure why you feel otherwise. People are making assertions, observations, and proffering opinions on a thread whose purpose is to invite discussion. I'm participating in the discussion. Perhaps I should have used smiley emojis in my responses (see the emoji thread for reference). :D

Campitor
Posts: 1033
Joined: Thu Aug 20, 2015 11:49 am

Re: The benefits of a basic income // much higher min wage

Post by Campitor »

7Wannabe5 wrote:
Sun Jun 30, 2019 4:22 pm
...his greatest hope being that he will rise close enough to a Queen that the opportunity to break off the bulbous end of his endophallus as result of massive ejaculation followed shortly by death will occur...
Seems like a glorious death. If you're going to die no better way than having a life ending orgasm. :lol: :lol: :lol:

At least some of us get to go that way: https://youtu.be/VVlkavFb-aU?t=73

7Wannabe5
Posts: 6231
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 9:03 am
Location: Clinton River Watershed

Re: The benefits of a basic income // much higher min wage

Post by 7Wannabe5 »

@Campitor:

Not so funny if you've ever had the thought "What if it happens while he's with me and then I have to call his wife?" :oops:

Campitor
Posts: 1033
Joined: Thu Aug 20, 2015 11:49 am

Re: The benefits of a basic income // much higher min wage

Post by Campitor »

7Wannabe5 wrote:
Mon Jul 01, 2019 2:34 pm
@Campitor:

Not so funny if you've ever had the thought "What if it happens while he's with me and then I have to call his wife?" :oops:

That would be brutal but the goal would be a mutually deadly orgasmic paroxysm under that scenario. :shock:

ether
Posts: 211
Joined: Sat Nov 17, 2012 1:50 am
Location: Tempe AZ
Contact:

Re: The benefits of a basic income // much higher min wage

Post by ether »

Campitor wrote:
Sun Jun 30, 2019 7:05 pm
If you seized the entire wealth of the country and redistributed it equally for UBI, how would you pay for future liabilities and servicing the debt without printing more money which would erode the buying power of all annuities? I've read that future liabilities (75 year projection) add up to roughly 240 to 300 trillion depending on the source. And does your math include funding defense, foreign aid, etc?
heheh you discovered the flaw with universal income. At 100 trillion total wealth, a safe withdrawal rate is only 4 trillion but total state and federal spending stands at 7.2 trillion. We're dipping into the trust fund of national wealth and soon there won't be as much wealth to go around at current spending level :twisted:

Source: https://www.usgovernmentspending.com/

Campitor
Posts: 1033
Joined: Thu Aug 20, 2015 11:49 am

Re: The benefits of a basic income // much higher min wage

Post by Campitor »

ether wrote:
Mon Jul 01, 2019 7:02 pm
We're dipping into the trust fund of national wealth and soon there won't be as much wealth to go around at current spending level :oops:
This is like watching those videos of cars trying to beat the railroad crossing gate but they get stuck on the tracks - you know the train is coming and they are screwed. In this case it's the American economy on the tracks and the unfunded liabilities are the train. :(

daylen
Posts: 1626
Joined: Wed Dec 16, 2015 4:17 am

Re: The benefits of a basic income // much higher min wage

Post by daylen »

Campitor wrote:
Sun Jun 30, 2019 3:22 pm
I'm framing my argument within the UBI context because we're in a thread about UBI.
..we are at least choosing our weapons.
I suppose I have not been attempting to deconstruct your frame, but to offer counter-assumptions for another frame. Multiple frames can help paint a more complete picture of an issue or situation. The frame I presented leans more towards a deterministic + relativistic view.

7Wannabe5
Posts: 6231
Joined: Fri Oct 18, 2013 9:03 am
Location: Clinton River Watershed

Re: The benefits of a basic income // much higher min wage

Post by 7Wannabe5 »

@daylen:

My note would be that nobody questions the deterministic + relativistic view as it applies to the far left of the curve. For obvious instance, everybody accepts that a child with severe autism will need financial assistance for life and should not be subject to standard punishment when he does something dangerous with a pair of scissors he grabbed from his teacher's desk. So, it seems to me that most boundaries imposed by "means testing" also describe the line at which frame-work is given hard-flip.


**********

Anyways, my position on the subject of UBI is that it should be linked to median "head tax." IOW, it should be a universal rebate of the de facto tax imposed by governmental bodies on an imagined "any citizen" attempting to survive, like an animal might survive, but suffering loss in this attempt due to zoning and vagrancy codes, etc. So, for instance, if legal occupancy maximum is 2 humans per bedroom plus one couch surfer* and minimum otherwise unsubsidized rent is $800, and maybe the fine for dumpster diving or foraging berries in the public park is $5 for each occurrence, then UBI should be something like $310/month = $3720/year. This would leave open the option to change/reduce legislation prohibiting behaviors such as tent camping in the park in order to reduce tax burden on more affluent members of society. Otherwise, there is a sort of hypocrisy in asserting that less government force is good when it mainly affects the affluent, but more government force is good when it mainly affects the poor.

My take on this matter was somewhat influenced by the reactions I witnessed when I played hostess to 3 young Iranian women, who had grown up under sanctions, when they first saw the conditions and all the wandering homeless people in Detroit. As in, "How can this happen in such a wealthy country?" (OTOH, they did love Costco.)

*Another factor that is interesting to consider would be social (or maybe even anthropological)restrictions on efficient use of housing. For instance, think about how rarely it occurs that two 30-something couples share a two bedroom apartment vs. 4 20-something same gender students.

Post Reply