Universal Basic Income Has Never and Will Never Work OR Where Does Wealth Come From?

[Carborendum]

Imagine for a moment the land of the United States with all its natural features and all natural resources prior to any settlement of humans.  Then insert a population of about 10 million people spread about in any comfortable distribution with nothing but a covered wagon full of basic living supplies, basic tools, etc.

With that image in mind, how would that population go about creating wealth?

In such an age, no immediate medium of exchange exists.  What do they have?  Goods and services.

After their wagon supplies run out, they have no goods. But they do have services.  So how do they use their “services” (or labor) to create wealth?

Human labor is what we use to create abundance out of the natural resources.  The return on investment of laboring to grow crops and herds on vacant land is many times higher than simply gathering food from the wild.  Thus, labor increases the goods that we have available, and wealth is born.

The next level is not just labor, but knowledge.  When knowledge informs those who labor or augments labor efforts, it improves the return on investment regarding the labor-to-goods ratio.  Knowledge, for instance will develop tools (like a plow) that will make planting crops easier, and thus, quicker.  So, the same number of people can plant more crops in the same amount of time.  Wealth is increased.

This can go on for several more levels.  But for brevity, I will stop.

Now, UBI is antithetical to this pattern of the Wealth of Nations.  It says that we have such abundance, that everyone can be given free money just for living.  No labor.  With no labor, no wealth will exist.

It is true that if only a small percentage of individuals are on government welfare, then a prosperous society can manage it.  True, but why?  And is that fact sufficient to support this method of caring for the poor?  No, it is not.

The religious conservative will certainly be happy to support charities and even do things in their personal lives to help those less fortunate (sometimes called “the deserving poor”).  That sure sounds like giving a basic living to those who can’t do it on their own.  Is that any different?  Yes, it is.

Labor is what creates wealth.  And knowledge/innovation can increase the efficiency of that labor, thus increasing wealth at a greater rate.  Giving money to strangers through a faceless government agency only hurts the society.  It does little to make the world a better place.

I realize I have not gone into detail on my declarations for the latter half of the post.  But that is what I leave up to discussion.

[Still_Small_Voice]

It is a moral decision when you take money or goods from one person and give it to another. 

And if you pay people with able bodies and minds to not work then many will not.  Making people uncomfortable in their poverty may motivate more of them to put efforts in to get out of poverty.

[zil2]

24 minutes ago, Still_Small_Voice said:

Making people uncomfortable in their poverty may motivate more of them to put efforts in to get out of poverty.

The welfare state in the US has gone on for so many generations now that I fear it's no longer this simple; that people born and raised in this world literally have no idea how to get out of it, let alone any understanding of why they would want to.  The devolution of government welfare in this country is the very definition of a tragedy.

Edited December 6, 2023 by zil2

[CommanderSouth]

I would argue a post scarcity society would require a level of technology we do not have now. UBI as a concept could work, I would argue. But yes, not beyond the point that the work required to generate the revenue needed is removed. 
 

Which is to say UBI as a total replacement to income generated by work can never work. But UBI as a supplement taken from the massive accumulated wealth at the top could help. But maybe don’t do it as straight UBI. Tax the rich heavier, or close the loopholes allowing such wealth to accumulate and spread it through the lower classes through other means, tax breaks, social programs that aren’t a check, whatever.

As much as I love leisure, work is an eternal principle I would argue.  You can’t eliminate it. But you can incentivize it while still making things easier on everyone. 
 

I guess the short version is, true UBI to eliminate work would never function. Spreading the rewards of the work around to lighten the load for everyone can. 
 

But yeah, finding that balance is the trick. 

[Grunt]

3 minutes ago, CommanderSouth said:

I would argue a post scarcity society would require a level of technology we do not have now. UBI as a concept could work, I would argue. But yes, not beyond the point that the work required to generate the revenue needed is removed. 
 

Which is to say UBI as a total replacement to income generated by work can never work. But UBI as a supplement taken from the massive accumulated wealth at the top could help. But maybe don’t do it as straight UBI. Tax the rich heavier, or close the loopholes allowing such wealth to accumulate and spread it through the lower classes through other means, tax breaks, social programs that aren’t a check, whatever.

As much as I love leisure, work is an eternal principle I would argue.  You can’t eliminate it. But you can incentivize it while still making things easier on everyone. 
 

I guess the short version is, true UBI to eliminate work would never function. Spreading the rewards of the work around to lighten the load for everyone can. 
 

But yeah, finding that balance is the trick. 

If you steal enough from people to remove the incentive to earn more you'll have nothing left to steal.

[CommanderSouth]

41 minutes ago, Grunt said:

If you steal enough from people to remove the incentive to earn more you'll have nothing left to steal.

My knee jerk was to say "Stop putting words in my mouth"  

But, I'll be forward.  I don't believe in "taxation is theft". (Not saying you're making that claim necessarily, but that logic often goes there).

And what I was calling for was SPECIFICALLY NOT THAT.  My Statement of the balance being tricky is literally a response to the idea of what you said. You HAVE to incentivize work through some sort of gain or the very wealthy will stop working at a point, as you said.  But I am not against diminishing returns when you have more money than a vast majority of the population, or even entire nations. 

I'm sorry, I don't believe any one man should have 60+ billion dollars while nations are dying of hunger.  But it's also not a sin to be well off.  Thus, it's a balance (and a hard one to find), and to a degree, things ARE relative.  I am very wealthy compared to others, many even.  Which is why I'm talking about very high level things, not personally roughing up Elon Musk or Jeff Bezos in an alley.

And to be VERY clear, I'm not talking about some utopian vision of equality, I don't believe that will happen in this life.  But I am saying taking SOME away from the top and helping everyone.  You can make someone's burden lighter without removing their need to do anything.  I don't believe in Communism, or some idea that all work is equal in value with regards to payment.  I think a doctor should make more than a janitor.  But I very much think the CEO shouldn't make more in a year than I will in multiple lifetimes.  According to AFL CIO (summarized by Bing)

Based on the realized compensation, the average pay of a Fortune 500 CEO in 2022 was $16.7 million, according to a report by the AFL-CIO.  This was a 30% increase from the previous year, and 351 times the pay of the average worker.

Yeah, I have a problem with that.  We need to work towards change.   It's pretty bad when I can quote Weird Al with only mild sarcasm. "Don't take away money, from artists just like me, how else can I afford another solid gold Humvee.  And diamond studded swimming pools?  The things don't grow on trees."

Edited December 6, 2023 by CommanderSouth

[CommanderSouth]

And I won't say we need to "take it away" with taxes, I'm just as open to them never making it in the first place.  I feel as a society, we need to figure out how to reevaluate the value of work and the value of services, so someone working 40 hours can afford a decent apartment and food on the table.  We need to work harder to do better, absolutely, the janitor won't earn a mansion, but he shouldn't have to worry about finding a studio/1 bedroom either.

[CommanderSouth]

I suppose I would just say it simply, I believe in minimum wage as a living wage.  The family proclamation says the primary function of husband is breadwinner.  In most cases that is in NO WAY viable on a single income in our society.  If we could get to a place where I can work my 40, and my wife and I can have a decent, safe place to live (even renting), and I can afford basic needs and a few wants, then I don't care how much Elon Musk makes.

Asking Bing again, I asked if any state would have someone at 40 hours, minimum wage be under the poverty line.  Here's her summary (without the table of data) (it's source: https://www.cnbc.com/2021/08/17/income-a-single-person-needs-to-get-by-in-every-us-state.html)

There are no states where 40 hours at minimum wage would put you below the poverty line. However, there are many states where 40 hours at minimum wage would not be enough to meet the living wage, which is the income needed to cover the basic costs of living. Data wise, many places the minimum wage is just over HALF of a living wage.  

I'm all for a living wage, combined with social programs for those unable to work.  I'm not advocating a free ride as it were, just easing the burden on all those work, while not forgetting those who can't.

I'm simply saying the system as it sits is unbalanced, and we need to work to rectify it.  And I'm sorry if I'm being ranty, I just got riled up as I don't feel these ideas constitute "theft".  

Edited December 6, 2023 by CommanderSouth

[CV75]

3 hours ago, Carborendum said:

Imagine for a moment the land of the United States with all its natural features and all natural resources prior to any settlement of humans.  Then insert a population of about 10 million people spread about in any comfortable distribution with nothing but a covered wagon full of basic living supplies, basic tools, etc.

With that image in mind, how would that population go about creating wealth?

In such an age, no immediate medium of exchange exists.  What do they have?  Goods and services.

After their wagon supplies run out, they have no goods. But they do have services.  So how do they use their “services” (or labor) to create wealth?

Human labor is what we use to create abundance out of the natural resources.  The return on investment of laboring to grow crops and herds on vacant land is many times higher than simply gathering food from the wild.  Thus, labor increases the goods that we have available, and wealth is born.

The next level is not just labor, but knowledge.  When knowledge informs those who labor or augments labor efforts, it improves the return on investment regarding the labor-to-goods ratio.  Knowledge, for instance will develop tools (like a plow) that will make planting crops easier, and thus, quicker.  So, the same number of people can plant more crops in the same amount of time.  Wealth is increased.

This can go on for several more levels.  But for brevity, I will stop.

Now, UBI is antithetical to this pattern of the Wealth of Nations.  It says that we have such abundance, that everyone can be given free money just for living.  No labor.  With no labor, no wealth will exist.

It is true that if only a small percentage of individuals are on government welfare, then a prosperous society can manage it.  True, but why?  And is that fact sufficient to support this method of caring for the poor?  No, it is not.

The religious conservative will certainly be happy to support charities and even do things in their personal lives to help those less fortunate (sometimes called “the deserving poor”).  That sure sounds like giving a basic living to those who can’t do it on their own.  Is that any different?  Yes, it is.

Labor is what creates wealth.  And knowledge/innovation can increase the efficiency of that labor, thus increasing wealth at a greater rate.  Giving money to strangers through a faceless government agency only hurts the society.  It does little to make the world a better place.

I realize I have not gone into detail on my declarations for the latter half of the post.  But that is what I leave up to discussion.

I think wealth (abundance) is different from prosperity (well-being), and that abundance tends to have comparative (competitive, prideful) elements, while well-being and self-sufficiency require a more balanced or relationship between individual and community stewardships. Labor creates both wealth and prosperity. Since the Lord labors too, it is best to go about it His way!

[Grunt]

1 hour ago, CommanderSouth said:

My knee jerk was to say "Stop putting words in my mouth"  But, I'll be forward.  I don't believe in "taxation is theft". (Not saying you're making that claim necessarily, but that logic often goes there).
 

Taxation is LITERALLY theft.  Money is taken from someone who earned it under threat of violence.  I'm not saying I don't believe we shouldn't have taxation, I'm just saying we should be honest about what it is.

Quote

And what I was calling for was SPECIFICALLY NOT THAT.  My Statement of the balance being tricky is literally a response to the idea of what you said. You HAVE to incentivize work through some sort of gain or the very wealthy will stop working at a point, as you said.  But I am not against diminishing returns when you have more money than a vast majority of the population, or even entire nations. 

I'm sorry, I don't believe any one man should have 60+ billion dollars while nations are dying of hunger.  But it's also not a sin to be well off.  Thus, it's a balance (and a hard one to find), and to a degree, things ARE relative.  I am very wealthy compared to others, many even.  Which is why I'm talking about very high level things, not personally roughing up Elon Musk or Jeff Bezos in an alley.

My neighbor has more land than me.  Should I be able to gather a group of armed men and take it?

Quote

And to be VERY clear, I'm not talking about some utopian vision of equality, I don't believe that will happen in this life.  But I am saying taking SOME away from the top and helping everyone.  You can make someone's burden lighter without removing their need to do anything.  I don't believe in Communism, or some idea that all work is equal in value with regards to payment.  I think a doctor should make more than a janitor.  But I very much think the CEO shouldn't make more in a year than I will in multiple lifetimes.  According to AFL CIO (summarized by Bing)

Why not?  If that is their worth, then why artificially restrict their pay?  Because you don't like it?

Quote

Based on the realized compensation, the average pay of a Fortune 500 CEO in 2022 was $16.7 million, according to a report by the AFL-CIO.  This was a 30% increase from the previous year, and 351 times the pay of the average worker.

Yeah, I have a problem with that.  We need to work towards change.   It's pretty bad when I can quote Weird Al with only mild sarcasm. "Don't take away money, from artists just like me, how else can I afford another solid gold Humvee.  And diamond studded swimming pools?  The things don't grow on trees."

I have a problem with groups of people banding together and taking money from people who earned it.     I have a problem with people who aren't paying me taking money from me simply because they feel the people who DO pay me are paying me too much.

Edited December 6, 2023 by Grunt

[askandanswer]

I haven't seen any credible work on the inflationary effects of UBI. It seems to me that if more people had more money, prices would go up, with the net effect being that the poor would have more money but their purchasing power would stay about the same. 

[LDSGator]

7 minutes ago, askandanswer said:

I haven't seen any credible work on the inflationary effects of UBI. It seems to me that if more people had more money, prices would go up, with the net effect being that the poor would have more money but their purchasing power would stay about the same. 

Correct. Also, to oversimplify, money isn’t a pie. Just because a wealthy person has more does not mean there is less for others.   

Edited December 6, 2023 by LDSGator

[Carborendum]

5 minutes ago, askandanswer said:

I haven't seen any credible work on the inflationary effects of UBI.

I'd recommend re-evaluating what you consider "credible" to include studies that produce results that you disagree with.

5 minutes ago, askandanswer said:

It seems to me that if more people had more money, prices would go up, with the net effect being that the poor would have more money but their purchasing power would stay about the same. 

By simple math that covers ratios, this is a false statement.

[Grunt]

13 minutes ago, askandanswer said:

I haven't seen any credible work on the inflationary effects of UBI. It seems to me that if more people had more money, prices would go up, with the net effect being that the poor would have more money but their purchasing power would stay about the same. 

I would argue we got a taste of that during covid, when people were suddenly getting checks in the mail.

[CommanderSouth]

-Taxation is LITERALLY theft.  Money is taken from someone who earned it under threat of violence.  I'm not saying I don't believe we shouldn't have taxation, I'm just saying we should be honest about what it is.-

And I would argue that if you have agreed upon it, it isn't theft, by participating in the system (society), you agreed that was never yours to begin with "caesar's to caesar's" as it were.  I would further argue it's a needed function of the society we live in, which you can feel free to work to change.  But under your terms specifically, yes, it is theft. Realistically we are going to agree to disagree on every point for the most part.  Which is fine.

-My neighbor has more land than me.  Should I be able to gather a group of armed men and take it?-

That's how it worked in the past, but no, typically I don't think you should.  Reality is that all communal behavior in this life is enforced by force.  I mean, it's in the word.  Again, as a society, we have agreed to the rules, and the option for voting to change the rules.  If you wish to stay in that society, then you abide those rules, leave, or are forced out.  And by virtue of this logic, taxation is theft, it's an agreed upon sharing.  At the base, all rules of any kind are based on the threat of violence.  That's the nature of our lives.  It shouldn't be that way, we should all just work together on our own, but we don't so it's one of the best ways we can think of TO work together.  Thankfully we're at a point now that we seek to compromise through words and not force.  And I think your analogy is a gross misrepresentation of the situation of wealth inequality, but still good enough for the discussion.

-Why not?  If that is their worth, then why artificially restrict their pay?  Because you don't like it?-

Because it isn't in my opinion, I feel strongly that they are NOT worth that when compared to rest society, and I am advocating that like minded people come together and change the rules.  Ironically I think the CEOs SHOULD function at the top of society in terms of wealth, simply because they bring great value to the table which helps a great deal.  But that doesn't lead me to conclude they need as much as they get.  So, I try to change it.  At which point the cycle will repeat, you love it, change it, or leave it (by choice or by force).

-I have a problem with groups of people banding together and taking money from people who earned it.  I have a problem with people who aren't paying me taking money from me simply because they feel the people who DO pay me are paying me too much.-

Well, it comes back to the idea that it is part of our society, which you can work to change, leave, or be forced to.

I guess the end of it all is the idea of what SHOULD be and what ARE, are different, and we have to do our best to figure it out.  I agree in a way, this level of "force" shouldn't be needed, but unfortunately to one degree or another, it is.  It's a byproduct of our fallen nature, and if you can't get enough people to cooperate by persuasion, you have to do it with force.

It's basically why the United Order failed and we live a lower law I suppose.

[askandanswer]

19 minutes ago, Carborendum said:

I'd recommend re-evaluating what you consider "credible" to include studies that produce results that you disagree with.

By simple math that covers ratios, this is a false statement.

Could you elaborate on what you mean by this Carb? I think its a generally well accepted principle in economics that more money in the hands of more people generally leads to prices going up, which reduces the purchasing power of that money. 

[LDSGator]

Just now, askandanswer said:

Could you elaborate on what you mean by this Carb? I think its a generally well accepted principle in economics that more money in the hands of more people generally leads to prices going up, which reduces the purchasing power of that money. 

You aren’t wrong, but inflation is a very complicated subject with many factors 

[CommanderSouth]

1 hour ago, Grunt said:

Taxation is LITERALLY theft.  Money is taken from someone who earned it under threat of violence.  I'm not saying I don't believe we shouldn't have taxation, I'm just saying we should be honest about what it is.

I guess the majority of my issue is this.  You say it's theft, and theft is generally considered morally wrong.  But then you say you believe we should.  This confuses me.  Unless you're thinking in terms of all theft isn't wrong?  Then if that is the case I am more understanding of this position.

Do you mean like all theft isn't stealing as in all killing isn't murder? 

Edited December 6, 2023 by CommanderSouth

[Grunt]

4 minutes ago, CommanderSouth said:

 

That's how it worked in the past, but no, typically I don't think you should.  Reality is that all communal behavior in this life is enforced by force.  I mean, it's in the word.  Again, as a society, we have agreed to the rules, and the option for voting to change the rules.  If you wish to stay in that society, then you abide those rules, leave, or are forced out.  And by virtue of this logic, taxation is theft, it's an agreed upon sharing.  At the base, all rules of any kind are based on the threat of violence.  That's the nature of our lives.  It shouldn't be that way, we should all just work together on our own, but we don't so it's one of the best ways we can think of TO work together.  Thankfully we're at a point now that we seek to compromise through words and not force.  And I think your analogy is a gross misrepresentation of the situation of wealth inequality, but still good enough for the discussion.

That's untrue.  It may have been true when I could pack up and sail to new lands to live my life in solitude, but now my choices are to live in a community or die.   There is no "forced out" because there is no place for the displaced.   

Quote

 

Because it isn't in my opinion, I feel strongly that they are NOT worth that when compared to rest society, and I am advocating that like minded people come together and change the rules.  Ironically I think the CEOs SHOULD function at the top of society in terms of wealth, simply because they bring great value to the table which helps a great deal.  But that doesn't lead me to conclude they need as much as they get.  So, I try to change it.  At which point the cycle will repeat, you love it, change it, or leave it (by choice or by force).

Your belief exists in opposition to the facts, though.  What is worth?  Worth is what people are willing to pay for service.  With a CEO, worth is the value they bring to their stakeholders.   If I'm paying you 10 million dollars a year, and you're bringing me 100 million dollars a year, that is your value TO ME.  Since I'm the one paying you, I determine your value.   The same with the garage that changes my oil.  Some garages will change my oil, do a safety inspection, and have me out in 30 minutes by cost 90 bucks.  Others require me to drop my truck off and pick it up later after the oil is changed.  They charge 50 bucks.  Since I'm paying, I pay the garage that provides me my perceived value.   If you don't see perceived value, you don't have to pay for their service.  That doesn't mean you're in the right if you go to the garage and take 20 of the extra 40 dollars I gave him because YOU don't see the value.  I saw it so I paid.

Quote

 

I guess the end of it all is the idea of what SHOULD be and what ARE, are different, and we have to do our best to figure it out.  I agree in a way, this level of "force" shouldn't be needed, but unfortunately to one degree or another, it is.  It's a byproduct of our fallen nature, and if you can't get enough people to cooperate by persuasion, you have to do it with force.

It's basically why the United Order failed and we live a lower law I suppose.

We don't have to figure it out.  The market figures it out.  

[Grunt]

Just now, CommanderSouth said:

I guess the majority of my issue is this.  You say it's theft, and theft is generally considered morally wrong.  But then you say you believe we should.  This confuses me.  Unless you're thinking in terms of all theft isn't wrong?  Then if that is the case I am more understanding of this position.

Theft is a legal term and really doesn't apply here.  I benefit from the work of others, whether I choose to or not.  I benefit from roads, police, welfare, etc.   I agree that because I benefit, willingly or not, it's fair to require my contribution.   I DON'T think it's fair to require my contribution to the healthy neighbor's longterm upkeep because someone things he is entitled to my money.

[LDSGator]

@Grunt, I absolutely agree with you that taxation is theft. But since you are paid by tax dollars, does that make you party to it?

[Grunt]

2 minutes ago, LDSGator said:

@Grunt, I absolutely agree with you that taxation is theft. But since you are paid by tax dollars, does that make you party to it?

100%.  I would liken it to the example I gave above about individuals benefitting from the labor of others.  I benefit from my police department whether I ever use them personally or not.  I benefit from the military.  The EXTENT we should have or use a military, police, roads, etc is really the question, in my opinion.  

Edited December 6, 2023 by Grunt

[CommanderSouth]

1 minute ago, Grunt said:

Theft is a legal term and really doesn't apply here.  I benefit from the work of others, whether I choose to or not.  I benefit from roads, police, welfare, etc.   I agree that because I benefit, willingly or not, it's fair to require my contribution.   I DON'T think it's fair to require my contribution to the healthy neighbor's longterm upkeep because someone things he is entitled to my money.

But you were the one who brought the term theft in.  So are you saying now you don't think taxation is theft?  You just disagree with how it's being used?  I'm not trying to be antagonistic, but you literally said...

1 hour ago, Grunt said:

Taxation is LITERALLY theft.  Money is taken from someone who earned it under threat of violence.  I'm not saying I don't believe we shouldn't have taxation, I'm just saying we should be honest about what it is.

 

[LDSGator]

Just now, Grunt said:

The EXTENT we should have or use a military is really the question, in my opinion.

I feel the same way about the military industrial complex, but I don’t get pay my salary with tax dollars! 

[Grunt]

1 minute ago, CommanderSouth said:

But you were the one who brought the term theft in.  So are you saying now you don't think taxation is theft?  You just disagree with how it's being used?  I'm not trying to be antagonistic, but you literally said...

 

No, you did right here:  

2 hours ago, CommanderSouth said:

 

But, I'll be forward.  I don't believe in "taxation is theft". (Not saying you're making that claim necessarily, but that logic often goes there).