Universal Basic Income

Author: secularmerlin

Posts

Total: 314
#121
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@secularmerlin
No, not at all. I completely disgree.

Life is a right. Free speech is a right. All the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights are rights. Wealth is a privilege, based entirely on one's willingness and ability to acquire it lawfully. Housing is a privilege based on the same factor. Personal transportation is a privilege based on the same factor, as are clothes, food, an education beyond K-12, health care, etc.
#122
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@3RU7AL
Once I was an adult [18], that's right. I paid for my education beyond K-12]. However, I did receive an inheritance from my parents, shared with my brothers, equally. As for my children, now grown adults themselves, I have helped from time to time, but they were taught the same principles I was taught. They will receive a substantial inheritance, as well [more than I did], but for now; they're on their own, but for emergency situations, I am a safety net. I consider that an obligation because I can do it. 
#123
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@fauxlaw
safety net
Many have no such thing.
Topic's author
#124
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@fauxlaw
IF housing is a privilege AND housing is necessary to live THEN the "right" to life is dependent upon the privilege of housing. Any right that is contingent upon a privilege that can be revoked becomes a defacto revocable privilege.

#125
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@secularmerlin
becomes a defacto revocable privilege.
A right cannot be contingent on a privilege.
Topic's author
#126
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
It seems nonsensical to me to say someone has the unconditional right to life but only the conditional right to commodities that one cannot live without.
#127
Theweakeredge
Theweakeredge's avatar
Debates: 33
Posts: 3,457
4
7
10
Theweakeredge's avatar
Theweakeredge
4
7
10
-->
@secularmerlin
Yeah... how can you say that you have the right to life, but then say that its a privilege to have water? I don't get it
#128
Discipulus_Didicit
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 5,758
3
4
10
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Discipulus_Didicit
3
4
10
-->
@secularmerlin
This is not what I am suggesting. I am not arguing that everyone have PRIVATE residences but only adequate shelter. 
Okay, then it would be more efficient to take it to the other end of the sliding scale and pack as many people as possible into provided units. This is already done in the case of homeless shelters. If your plan basically boils down to providing more resources to homeless shelter projects I am all for it.
#129
Discipulus_Didicit
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 5,758
3
4
10
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Discipulus_Didicit
3
4
10
-->
@secularmerlin
I am interested in your simpler idea.
I think providing a basic income for people to acquire housing would make more sense than trying to "cut out the landlord middleman" by providing housing directly. It makes no difference to me whether my tenants pay their rent using an employment paycheck or a UBI check, money is money. For some it is simply easier and more convenient to rent.
#130
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
If your plan basically boils down to providing more resources to homeless shelter projects I am all for it.
Good plan.
#131
Discipulus_Didicit
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 5,758
3
4
10
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Discipulus_Didicit
3
4
10
-->
@3RU7AL
When your tenants pay rent you will give them a share of the building.
Sorry for being obtuse, but I genuinely do not understand the difference between this and renting. Could you give some numbers as an example for how this would look in my current situation? (4 bedroom house with 2 people giving $350 a month each for 1 bedroom each). How would this work differently under your proposal?
#132
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
Let's say your house is worth $100,000.00 or so.

For $350 you would give them a certificate worth 0.35% of the house (just for example).

This would be like selling shares of stock in your house.

After they move out, they could keep those shares and or potentially sell them to a prospective buyer.

Keep in mind, I'm actually proposing this for something more like an apartment complex.

Your own home should probably be treated more like a private club.
#133
Discipulus_Didicit
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 5,758
3
4
10
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Discipulus_Didicit
3
4
10
-->
@3RU7AL
Keep in mind, I'm actually proposing this for something more like an apartment complex.
That's fair, let's use an apartment complex as an example then. I buy a 25 unit complex for $1,000,000 (no idea how accurate this is to the apartment complex market, just using numbers to demonstrate the point) and divide it into 10,000 shares. 400 shares represents ownership of one housing unit in the complex. Someone comes along and wants to live in one of the units. How much do I charge them and how many shares do I give them each month?
#134
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
Keep in mind, I'm actually proposing this for something more like an apartment complex.
That's fair, let's use an apartment complex as an example then. I buy a 25 unit complex for $1,000,000 (no idea how accurate this is to the apartment complex market, just using numbers to demonstrate the point) and divide it into 10,000 shares. 400 shares represents ownership of one housing unit in the complex. Someone comes along and wants to live in one of the units. How much do I charge them and how many shares do I give them each month?
Whatever the going rate is, any amount, like $800 per month which would buy 0.08% of the total complex (or 2% of a $40,000 unit, if the units are of equal value).
#135
Discipulus_Didicit
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 5,758
3
4
10
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Discipulus_Didicit
3
4
10
-->
@3RU7AL
Okay so they give me enough per month for 2% of the unit and after 50 months they own enough shares to call the unit theirs. At that point they stop paying any money and once 25 people have done this I no longer have any stake and walk away from the deal with just the $1 mil (800 x 25 x 50) from selling the shares.

Am I understanding right? I want to be sure I understand you correct before I respond.
#136
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@secularmerlin
Housing is necessary to live? Said who? We have plenty of ancestral heritage of living off and in the land. People who were truly self-sufficient. Self-sufficiency comes in many guises. If necessary, I have trained to eliminate all my comforts of home in the sense you understand it to return to that ancient heritage. Literally. I know how, and I know where. It ain't necessarily pretty, and it it certainly is not easy, but I know how to do it. So, who says a house is necessary to live? Bullshyte. Try re-thinking that entitled myth. If you're too lazy to figure that out, what makes you think you deserve anything else? Some things maybe you have not learned, and maybe you should before the decision is made for you. Then you will be up the literal creek and it will not be kind.  Get to work. I'll wager you have never been anywhere where you are literally no longer at the top of the food chain. Sobering experience. I have it, my friend. So appreciate what you have. Get to work to survive without it. Hint: that takes some capital behind your arse, and it's time to start working for it. 

UBI is a pitiful urban myth
#137
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
Okay so they give me enough per month for 2% of the unit and after 50 months they own enough shares to call the unit theirs. At that point they stop paying any money and once 25 people have done this I no longer have any stake and walk away from the deal with just the $1 mil (800 x 25 x 50) from selling the shares.

Am I understanding right? I want to be sure I understand you correct before I respond.
The value of the property and therefore the proportional value of the shares will fluctuate with natural market forces.

So if after one year, your complex is appraised at $2 million, then each $800 per month payment would buy 0.04% of the total complex (or 1% of a $40,000 unit, if the units are of equal value).

You would maintain your profit potential.

And it would also be reasonable that each owner would pay some property maintenance fee based on how many shares they owned.

In the same way that a landlord who owns 100% of a property is responsible for 100% of the maintenance, a 1% owner would pay 1% of the maintenance.
Topic's author
#138
secularmerlin
secularmerlin's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 7,093
3
3
3
secularmerlin's avatar
secularmerlin
3
3
3
-->
@fauxlaw
Are you trying to suggest that the entire homeless population, given the skill and determination, could live off the land ... in all the PRISTINE WILDERNESS left in America? I may have some bad news for you concerning the numbers of homeless people, the amount of wilderness we have left and the number of people it will support.

As for housing, well I'm actually only talking about shelter.
#139
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@fauxlaw
We have plenty of ancestral heritage of living off and in the land.
It is illegal to live in a "public" park.
#140
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@fauxlaw
UBI is a pitiful urban myth
Imagine a future where there are no delivery driver jobs, no taxi driver jobs, no warehouse jobs, no retail jobs, no fast-food jobs.

Currently, the #1 occupation of adult males is "driver" and those driverless vehicles will make them obsolete.

And don't try to pretend all humans will become novelists and screenwriters and artists.

GPT3 is making human labor AND human creativity obsolete.
#141
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@secularmerlin
Are you trying to suggest that the entire homeless population, given the skill and determination, could live off the land ... in all the PRISTINE WILDERNESS left in America? I may have some bad news for you concerning the numbers of homeless people, the amount of wilderness we have left and the number of people it will support.

As for housing, well I'm actually only talking about shelter.
#142
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@secularmerlin
 I may have some bad news for you
Show me

Here's what I've found:

36M acres of wilderness in America. https://www.fs.fed.us/land/staff/lar/2008/TABLE_7.htm


I'll let you calculate the acreage each homeless would have available. It's six times the acreage I have for each one of them. I think that is sufficient.

2% of land use in America is urban. 82% of the population lives in urban areas. I live in a forest [27% of US, and roughly 30% of US population lives in or within 50 miles of forest land]. Choices, my friend. Individual, personal, responsible choices. Not made for me, but by me. Get ity, yet?

Sure, I understand that not all acreage is livable. But what you define as livable, and what actually is livable when pressed, is greater than you think. We used to be tough as humans. Convenience has softened us. The tough will survive; the weak will not. That's life, bud.
#143
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@3RU7AL
It is illegal to live in a "public" park.
who said anything about a public park. See my stats in my post #142
#144
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@3RU7AL
Currently, the #1 occupation of adult males is "driver" and those driverless vehicles will make them obsolete.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equestrian_use_of_roadways. the horse, and horse-drawn carriage, are still legal as transportation on public roads. We, by choice, prefer cars, but, the former mode is still used today.

And don't try to pretend all humans will become novelists and screenwriters and artists.
Why not? I did it by my own free choice. Argue for your limitations; they're yours. There are plenty of other occupations available, as well. That many require an education... well, what has been my mantra on this thread? Get an education.

GPT3 is making human labor AND human creativity obsolete.
Part of that limitation routine is believing what you've just noted re: GPT-3. Bullshyte. You apparently have no clue of the potential of human creativity. You're thinking is exactly like the joke the US Patent Office made in 1899, when it said in the NYT that the office would close at the end of the year because everything that could be invented had been invented already. Pessimist. Fear will kill you. Come on, man!
#145
Discipulus_Didicit
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 5,758
3
4
10
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Discipulus_Didicit
3
4
10
-->
@3RU7AL
The value of the property and therefore the proportional value of the shares will fluctuate with natural market forces.

So if after one year, your complex is appraised at $2 million, then each $800 per month payment would buy 0.04% of the total complex (or 1% of a $40,000 unit, if the units are of equal value).
One problem I see with this is the fact that my example started with me paying full price for a building, what is not stated outright is the fact that I am not Donald Trump and obtaining a small loan of a million dollars is not easy for me and someone like me would have to pay interest on that loan. If all I get back is the value of the house (even if my income is adjusted for real estate market growth) I am still left in the red by however much interest is charged.

I have a problem with how the maintenance costs are handled in your plan but we can talk about that separately.
#146
Discipulus_Didicit
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 5,758
3
4
10
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Discipulus_Didicit
3
4
10
-->
@fauxlaw
And don't try to pretend all humans will become novelists and screenwriters and artists.
Why not?
Because such jobs are only profitable when a small enough portion of the population has them. If everyone has such a job then it is not possible for everyone to be profitable at it.

I already know you are going to disagree and force me to write a paragraph explaining why this is true but I am busy now so I will do so later today. You could save me some time by thinking about it closely and figuring out for yourself why this is the case between now and then.
#147
fauxlaw
fauxlaw's avatar
Debates: 77
Posts: 3,565
4
7
10
fauxlaw's avatar
fauxlaw
4
7
10
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
I re-quote from my post #144:

Why not? I did it by my own free choice. Argue for your limitations; they're yours. There are plenty of other occupations available, as well. That many require an education... well, what has been my mantra on this thread? Get an education.
Bold added, because, clearly, it was ignored the first time.
#148
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@Discipulus_Didicit
Because such jobs are only profitable when a small enough portion of the population has them. If everyone has such a job then it is not possible for everyone to be profitable at it.
Great point.

ALSO,

GPT3 and DALL-E have demonstrated a machine's ability to imitate creative work.

An executive at a studio could ask the machine, "write me a blockbuster script for the next big franchise movie" and GPT3 would write the script and DALL-E would create the entire film from that script.

The executive could then view that film, and give DALL-E specific feedback, just like they give to human movie directors.

INDIVIDUALS AND OPEN AI COULD POTENTIALLY CREATE THEIR OWN HIGH-QUALITY MAJOR MOTION PICTURES, PUTTING THE EXECUTIVES OUT OF A JOB.

The record executives could do the same thing to create their next hit single.

GPT3 has already been used to create news articles and even entire niche content websites that outcompete other "human creativity" driven projects.

All accounting, financial projection, auditing, even computer programming and software design is going to be obsolete.
#149
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@fauxlaw
You apparently have no clue of the potential of GPT3.
#150
Discipulus_Didicit
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Debates: 9
Posts: 5,758
3
4
10
Discipulus_Didicit's avatar
Discipulus_Didicit
3
4
10
-->
@fauxlaw
Actually I did read your post in full but didn't read all of the post you were responding to until just now and therefore did not realize at the time that you and he were talking specifically about a potential future highly automated society. I would agree with the general sentiment that such anti-automation concerns are over exaggerated at best.