The universal basic income or income: operating debate

philosophical debates and companies.
User avatar
sen-no-sen
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 6856
Registration: 11/06/09, 13:08
Location: High Beaujolais.
x 749

Re: Basic income or universal income: functioning, debate




by sen-no-sen » 12/03/17, 23:19

Ahmed wrote:It's not that difficult: you just have to agree on the content of the terms used! I would like the "natural" economy to be distinguished from the capitalist economy. Unfortunately, there is no separate phrase, but this does not pose so much of a problem, since it is a question of specifying each time the semantic scope concerned. The impermanence of the world leads us to use the same terms to designate phenomena which are formally similar, but nevertheless substantially different.


The term of exponential economism seems to me suitable for designating the process at work (since the Enlightenment).
Economyisme because the economy becomes ideology, the means being transformed into a goal, and exponential because it tends to saturate all the domains in space, time, and concepts.
What do you think?

In a world of cyborgs, the notion of capitalism would indeed be obsolete, but I was only referring to real socialism, which was only a state variant of capitalism.


One of the biggest mistakes of our time has been to consider phases of economism as possible solutions to the problems encountered and to transform them into ideologies.
Defenders of liberalism would like to settle the main ills of society with more liberalism, without understanding that this is only a period of economism as adolescence would be for a human being.
When it is cold in a room it is possible to increase the temperature of the radiator, however in summer this operation would be completely stupid, and yet, the current policy consists in wanting to fight the ecocide by more growth! : Lol:
This simple example does not seem audible to most listeners ... proof that the brains are saturated.

The same remark can obviously apply to socialism, an adjustment variable to capitalism, which explains the complete failure of politicians claiming it today, as much as wanting to disguise an old man as a toddler ...
1 x
"Engineering is sometimes about knowing when to stop" Charles De Gaulle.
User avatar
sen-no-sen
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 6856
Registration: 11/06/09, 13:08
Location: High Beaujolais.
x 749

Re: Basic income or universal income: functioning, debate




by sen-no-sen » 13/03/17, 14:02

To get back to the heart of the matter after his few digressions:

Benoît Hamon's “universal income” has no more “universal” than the name


Benoît Hamon's plan is presented as follows: first, it is to increase the RSA by 10%, and to pay it to all beneficiaries automatically. All young people between the ages of 18 and 25 must also receive this sum, without means test, which must then be increased to 750 euros (1), then, if possible, increase to approach the thousand euros. The final stage of the plan is to pay it to all citizens, without income conditions. All this for a cost of 300 billion euros per year.


March 9, evening. On the set of the Political Issue, of France 2, the candidate persists: it is the workers who perceive up to 1,9 times the minimum wage that are affected by the measure, and no longer all citizens. “Universal income has three objectives: to increase purchasing power, to eradicate poverty, and to master the transitions linked to the transformation of work which is indisputable and which today leads most young working people to find themselves often in periods white, between two short contracts […] I am making a proposal: that this RSA be increased to 600 euros, […] that 18-25 year olds and all employees who receive up to 1,9 times the minimum wage today today a universal income, which will be 600 euros when you have nothing and which will be declining to 1,9 times the minimum wage, ”he explains. And to release a false pay slip to explain what would be the gains for, for example, a couple of workers paid at minimum wage, who would, according to him, now receive 386 euros more per month. So much the better for them, but for universality, we will return.


http://www.liberation.fr/elections-presidentielle-legislatives-2017/2017/03/10/le-revenu-universel-de-benoit-hamon-n-a-plus-d-universel-que-le-nom_1554775


Here we see the difficulties posed by the concept of RU.
In the case of a minimum living income the major problem lies in the inequality which it generates between a poor worker and an unemployed person, because between 750 € / month and 1150 € net / month the temptation can be great for an employee to "give up" his job. ancillary costs to work (childcare, car maintenance) and the stress that this causes does not encourage you to work for 300 euros more.
Now as part of an income paid at low wages, it is now the employees of the so-called middle class who are injured.
Only a universal income makes it possible to buy social peace, however funding is nothing very virtuous, and that B. Hamon and consort seems to forget it.
A UK paid to everyone will allow a boost in consumption through a very significant increase in purchasing power, in short, households with an 80cm television will go to 120cm and the holidays to Palavas les Flots will turn into a resort at Marrakech.
Such a measure would self-finance the UK, at least on paper, because inflation would soon have reduced this rent so that the wealthy classes turned it into a tip to pay for the fuel of the SUV while the unemployed would soon find themselves with a really felt allowance of € 500 / month, or a return to scrappage.
AND major point, such a measure would only amplify the ecocide by an increase in consumption, without omitting the few social disappointments such as the increase in migratory flows *.



* Migration flows which are only the social constituent of thermodynamic flows.
Extractivism on third world countries (cold source) in favor of industrial countries (hot source) leads like a magnet a mass of populations wanting in the end to recover their "due" .... a point that seems to "forget" a certain candidate for the presidency of the republic ... : roll:
0 x
"Engineering is sometimes about knowing when to stop" Charles De Gaulle.
User avatar
Remundo
Moderator
Moderator
posts: 15992
Registration: 15/10/07, 16:05
Location: Clermont Ferrand
x 5188

Re: Basic income or universal income: functioning, debate




by Remundo » 13/03/17, 18:21

Isn't there a candidate who suggests that everyone shave for free? : Oops:
0 x
Image
Ahmed
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 12298
Registration: 25/02/08, 18:54
Location: Burgundy
x 2963

Re: Basic income or universal income: functioning, debate




by Ahmed » 13/03/17, 18:33

The term exponential economism seems to me to be suitable for designating the process at work (since the Enlightenment).
Economism is because the economy becomes ideology, the means turning into a goal, and exponential because it tends to saturate all areas in space, time, and concepts.

The process was actively at work before the conquest of the New World, but this invasion and the looting that went with it was an essential contribution to its development. The Enlightenment will endorse this evolution by constituting it as an ideology. So, with these few details, I completely agree with your analysis and I find the formula of exponential economism particularly relevant (provided, as with any formula, that it is, as you do, explained).
Of course, the perception of the overwhelming majority of our contemporaries of these phenomena is anachronistic: many doubted capitalism at the beginning of the XX century, only to rally overwhelmingly afterwards when it was already in decline!

Another downside of the UK which has not been pointed out so far is that, replacing all previous social aid and its conditionalities (and the breakdown into budget items that this implies), the UK "beneficiary" finds itself delivered to all the temptations that the agents of the market system (in the restricted sense of the term) will deploy to steal it from him: let us not forget that it is a question of helping the weakest and therefore those who are least able to manage this monthly nest egg.
0 x
"Please don't believe what I'm telling you."
User avatar
chatelot16
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 6960
Registration: 11/11/07, 17:33
Location: Angouleme
x 264

Re: Basic income or universal income: functioning, debate




by chatelot16 » 13/03/17, 20:27

I am not in favor of the idea of ​​paying for doing nothing ... but it already exists it is the rmi then rsa, and I believe that it is worse than the universal income

universal income you get it regardless of income! if we work we benefit from what we earn

the rsa is absurd: you touch it when you earn nothing, and if you earn a little while working you earn nothing since it is subtracted from the rsa!

universal income seems shocking because we will also give to those who do not need it, but no matter who earns enough tax pay and if the system is well balanced they will pay enough tax

the word universal income is a communication error: it should rather be presented as a negative tax: the taxman makes those who earn a lot pay, and gives a little to those who have nothing to avoid starvation, with a progressiveness such that 'there is never a situation or when you work more you earn less, as is unfortunately the case with current social assistance

additional advantage of universal income: it is managed by the taxman, so to take advantage of it you must be in good standing, therefore ready to pay tax when there is a real income ... unlike the management of rsa by a completely different system both expensive in duplicate administrative work and allowing fraud

I don't like social assistance, I would prefer the real right to work for everyone: I find that the right to work is better than the right to an indemnity ... but if we have to be content with what is proposed, we can see that the universal income is less bad than the rsa
1 x
Petrus
I posted 500 messages!
I posted 500 messages!
posts: 586
Registration: 15/09/05, 02:20
x 312

Re: Basic income or universal income: functioning, debate




by Petrus » 13/03/17, 23:07

sen-no-sen wrote:Here we see the difficulties posed by the concept of RU.
In the case of a minimum living income the major problem lies in the inequality which it generates between a poor worker and an unemployed person, because between 750 € / month and 1150 € net / month the temptation can be great for an employee to "give up" his job. ancillary costs to work (childcare, car maintenance) and the stress that this causes does not encourage you to work for 300 euros more.

So what ? A worker preferring to leave his job for a more sober lifestyle rather than sacrificing his time and often his physical and / or mental health in a job which only brings him enough to survive, I do not see where the PB is.
The poorly paid telemarketing operator consoles will disappear and useful jobs will be reassessed upward.

sen-no-sen wrote:Such a measure would self-finance the UK, at least on paper, because inflation would soon have reduced this rent so that the wealthy classes turned it into a tip to pay for the fuel of the SUV while the unemployed would soon find themselves with a really felt allowance of € 500 / month, or a return to scrappage.

Price inflation is already known, the UK will also lead to wage inflation.
The wealthy classes will pay more than the UK in additional taxes, so no bonus for refueling the SUV.

The “don't give money to the poor, they'll spend it anyhow” stunt reminds me of this class contempt, which is very fashionable at the moment and already used to justify the reduction in social assistance. This is the typical speech of the bourgeois complaining of no longer finding workers servile enough for his taste. Discourse taken up by the middle and lower-middle class (identifying with the middle class but in fact much closer to poverty) who think that one day they are also part of this elite and therefore defend its interests.

chatelot16 wrote:universal income seems shocking because we will also give to those who do not need it, but no matter who earns enough tax pay and if the system is well balanced they will pay enough tax

+1 Universal income is a means of distributing wealth. I am fed up with these "journalists", "experts" who only talk about the cost, pretending not to understand that the UK is not a gift but a means of distribution.

chatelot16 wrote:I don't like social assistance, I would prefer the real right to work for everyone: I find that the right to work is better than the right to an indemnity ...

The work is not about to disappear, but it will inevitably become scarce (automation, zero / negative growth). We must therefore find another way of distributing wealth than work alone, from which more and more people will be excluded. A well-managed UK would help rebalance the power balance already very unfavorable to workers.
0 x
Ahmed
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 12298
Registration: 25/02/08, 18:54
Location: Burgundy
x 2963

Re: Basic income or universal income: functioning, debate




by Ahmed » 14/03/17, 15:31

On what you want, I approve you, Pétrus, however there is a flaw in your point of view.
You write:
A well-managed UK would help rebalance the power balance already very unfavorable to workers.

The situation is very unfavorable to workers and the poor in general, because of the current social balance of power, which means that the possible UK would be managed, not well, but according to this same balance of power. It would therefore not have the favorable effects hoped for, but rather those which I have already deplored above.
0 x
"Please don't believe what I'm telling you."
User avatar
sen-no-sen
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 6856
Registration: 11/06/09, 13:08
Location: High Beaujolais.
x 749

Re: Basic income or universal income: functioning, debate




by sen-no-sen » 14/03/17, 16:47

Petrus wrote:So what ? A worker preferring to leave his job for a more sober lifestyle rather than sacrificing his time and often his physical and / or mental health in a job which only brings him enough to survive, I do not see where the PB is.


I am not talking about the human aspect here, but the political aspect of implementing such a measure.
B. Hamon is himself obliged to back off because to consider by a part of his camp as being too far to the left. : Lol:
A large part of the electorate (and not necessarily the big bourgeoisie!) Is very hostile to the concept of social assistance and this is confirmed by the voting intentions ...

Obviously there would be nothing to blame a person who leaves a shitty job to refocus his life on other more fundamental points.
However, this possibility is only possible within the framework of a system highly focused on productivism and it seems to me quite contradictory to speak of a more sober way of life when it is deployed in a technical system totaling all aspects of life. .

The poorly paid telemarketing operator consoles will disappear and useful jobs will be reassessed upward.


I would not speak of disappearances, but rather of relocations in the form of platforms off shore abroad, which is already largely the trend.

Price inflation is already known, the UK will also lead to wage inflation.
The wealthy classes will pay more than the UK in additional taxes, so no bonus for refueling the SUV.


Wage inflation can only be envisaged in the context of economic stability, directly correlated to the quantity of energy and raw material available.
I do not see how wages could increase (promise made since 1980!) While the near future will unfold in a world in depletion. :?:

The "don't give money to the poor, they'll spend it anyhow" stunt reminds me of this class contempt, very fashionable at the moment and already used to justify the reduction in social assistance.


I don't think that was the way to interpret it.
There is, and it is a citizen from the lower classes speaking, a tendency for the human being to naturally pull himself down in the absence of a goal.
On the contrary, it is very bourgeois to think that people who will live in the UK will learn theater, painting and sculpture ...
The trend that is confirmed daily in the poorest classes is that of the consumption of alcohol, cannabis and reality TV both in the suburbs and in the countryside where there is high unemployment.

Universal income is a way to distribute wealth. It swells me these "journalists", "experts" who only talk about the cost while pretending not to understand that the UK is not a gift but a means of distribution.

Yes, except that this distribution is established within a limited economic domain.
However, to allow such a distribution, it is necessary to resort to exacerbated extractivism and therefore to ecocide.
An increase in purchasing power can only translate into a revival of growth, therefore how to reconcile such a concept in a depleting world?

The work is not about to disappear, but it will inevitably become scarce (automation, zero / negative growth).


Not necessarily, there is no fatality.
The scarcity of employment will only occur if the policy of exponential economic growth continues, leading us in fact to a recession clogged up by economic artifices (like the UK ...).
On the contrary, in a (voluntary) decreasing world there will be a very significant increase in the number of jobs, a fortiori in a less energy consuming world.
Structural unemployment is a consequence of overproduction, and how did our elites try to fight it? By more growth (overproduction)! : Lol:
1 x
"Engineering is sometimes about knowing when to stop" Charles De Gaulle.
Petrus
I posted 500 messages!
I posted 500 messages!
posts: 586
Registration: 15/09/05, 02:20
x 312

Re: Basic income or universal income: functioning, debate




by Petrus » 14/03/17, 20:43

Ahmed, I can see that you only consider the UK in its liberal version which is only a Trojan horse to cut welfare payments, we agree on that. But we have to start from a fairer hypothesis to discuss the UK as a tool otherwise we just repeat that everything is done by making a noose.

sen-no-sen wrote:I am not talking about the human aspect here, but the political aspect of implementing such a measure.
B. Hamon is himself obliged to back off because to consider by a part of his camp as being too far to the left. : Lol:
A large part of the electorate (and not necessarily the big bourgeoisie!) Is very hostile to the concept of social assistance and this is confirmed by the voting intentions ...

We discussed the difficulty of questioning the dogma of growth not so long ago, it seems that the dogma of work is even more difficult to criticize.

sen-no-sen wrote:Obviously there would be nothing to blame a person who leaves a shitty job to refocus his life on other more fundamental points.
However, this possibility is only possible within the framework of a system highly focused on productivism and it seems to me quite contradictory to speak of a more sober way of life when it is deployed in a technical system totaling all aspects of life. .

Going to work alone consumes significant resources, the lack of time means giving priority to solutions with the least effort and the temptations are also stronger (meat in the canteen for example).

sen-no-sen wrote:I would not speak of disappearances, but rather of relocations in the form of platforms off shore abroad, which is already largely the trend.

Most of the unwanted calls I receive actually come from abroad, but there are still some who call me with a local number and without accent, a total relocation would facilitate filtering, so I am for : Cheesy:

sen-no-sen wrote:Wage inflation can only be envisaged in the context of economic stability, directly correlated to the quantity of energy and raw material available.
I do not see how wages could increase (promise made since 1980!) While the near future will unfold in a world in depletion. :?:

I see things in a much simpler way: why raise wages if you find low-wage workers and they are ready to go into debt to buy what is sold to them?
The high wages when they increase indeed!

sen-no-sen wrote:I don't think that was the way to interpret it.
There is, and it is a citizen from the lower classes speaking, a tendency for the human being to naturally pull himself down in the absence of a goal.
On the contrary, it is very bourgeois to think that people who will live in the UK will learn theater, painting and sculpture ...
The trend that is confirmed daily in the poorest classes is that of the consumption of alcohol, cannabis and reality TV both in the suburbs and in the countryside where there is high unemployment.

When an inaccessible lifestyle is given as a sole goal, it is not surprising to observe these self-destructive behaviors, the cause is not poverty or unemployment, but an impossible goal. The decreasing volunteers do not sink into alcohol and reality TV it seems to me.

sen-no-sen wrote:Yes, except that this distribution is established within a limited economic domain.
However, to allow such a distribution, it is necessary to resort to exacerbated extractivism and therefore to ecocide.
An increase in purchasing power can only translate into a revival of growth, therefore how to reconcile such a concept in a depleting world?

Current social inequalities make me think that there is a "small" room for maneuver.

sen-no-sen wrote:Not necessarily, there is no fatality.
The scarcity of employment will only occur if the policy of exponential economic growth continues, leading us in fact to a recession clogged up by economic artifices (like the UK ...).
On the contrary, in a (voluntary) decreasing world there will be a very significant increase in the number of jobs, a fortiori in a less energy consuming world.
Structural unemployment is a consequence of overproduction, and how did our elites try to fight it? By more growth (overproduction)! : Lol:

And concretely, how does it translate? I see how it is possible in agriculture where less intensive production methods employ more people (even if we take into account the desirable drop in meat consumption, not that the overall result will be positive). But with regard to the other sectors, how is it going?
0 x
User avatar
sen-no-sen
Econologue expert
Econologue expert
posts: 6856
Registration: 11/06/09, 13:08
Location: High Beaujolais.
x 749

Re: Basic income or universal income: functioning, debate




by sen-no-sen » 14/03/17, 22:58

Petrus wrote:I see things in a much simpler way: why raise wages if you find low-wage workers and they are ready to go into debt to buy what is sold to them?
The high wages when they increase indeed!


High wages are increasing due to the phenomenon of monopolization, the people who earn the best living are generally those who destroy the jobs of others ...
Automation of the means of production and the disappearance of part of the jobs will only increase this phenomenon.
The use of mass immigration by putting workers in competition, offshoring, then automation and ultimately all of its measures are part of the processes at work in the system due to the downward trend in profits.
The UK is therefore part of a logic of adjustment variable to this "disappointment" (see below).

And concretely, how does it translate? I see how it is possible in agriculture where less intensive production methods employ more people (even if we take into account the desirable drop in meat consumption, not that the overall result will be positive). But with regard to the other sectors, how is it going?


Concretely, it is very simple: less energy dissipation (in the context of a policy focused on sobriety) results in a limitation of economic coalescence *, and therefore in an increase in the number of jobs.
Several ex: the number of butcher's shops has evolved in a manner inversely proportional to the consumption of meat, ditto, the increase in yield per hectare in agriculture has resulted in a sharp decrease in the number of farmers (2000 in 000 against less than 1970 today), the list of examples is endless and demonstrates how the ideology + of growth = + of jobs is wrong.


* Economic coalescence or phenomenon of monopolization is a preponderant concept in the understanding of contemporary economy.
A society which dissipates energy in a stable phase (1950/2020 period) will favor the emergence of large structures (1), called monopolies, which will engulf other companies to form large conglomerates saturating the space.
Its structures have only the only chance of survival as the forward race in order to prevent the inevitable collapse to which they are condemned.
This forward race results in a standardization of the means of production and a downward trend in profits. This last point obliges them to constantly redefine their means of generating more valuable via the use of poor workers, offshoring, automation etc ... which explains, in fact, for what reasons its companies or its sectors then dismissed who / they reaped miraculous benefits.

(1) not only companies but more broadly sectors of the economy.
0 x
"Engineering is sometimes about knowing when to stop" Charles De Gaulle.

 


  • Similar topics
    Replies
    views
    Last message

Back to "Society and Philosophy"

Who is online ?

Users browsing this forum : No registered users and 193 guests