Universal basic income vs government provided living utilities

Well, many people would point out the Industrial Revolution, and others will point out that there was no historical precedent for men walking on the Moon before they did. But more to the point: What factors do you believe outweigh the reduced need for human labour?

Yes, but it just meant people were free to pursue other endeavors. And entry level jobs were no longer as shitty as they were.

IIRC, Monopoly evolved from something called "The Landlord Game" which was basically socialistic in attitude and outlook.

And I'll take National Review's economic logic over that of Karl Marx any day.

History has already shown clearly who has the better argument there.

Yeah, right, that's all that happened there.

^I've no sympathy for people willing to use violence just over some job.

Yes, and the answer is a resounding "Marx!" Of course, I get the idea that asking you to explain why you think the National Review's argument is better would be largely pointless. Like I said though, their argument - as you stated it - is fatally flawed. And that's true whether Marx is in the picture or not.

How about people willing to use violence because capitalist rentiers are depriving them of the things they need to keep themselves alive, and also won't hire them so they can earn the money to buy those things because it isn't profitable?

You can't seriously defend Karl Marx. His theories have been total failures where ever applied.

And to the latter, no I don't support violence even then.

Your constant war mongering suggests otherwise.

I can, and did. and do. Like I said, kneejerk rejection because you saw the phrase "Karl Marx" is so much easier than thinking.

You only don't support the violence of the oppressed against their oppressors. As for the violence going the other way, you support it by pretending it isn't there.

I only support war to advance or defend American national interests or to liberate the oppressed worldwide or to defend those unable or unwilling to defend themselves.

Is this what you meant?

As an example:

US talks about invading Afghanistan
Says it will liberate Afghan women
Afghan feminist orgs say "please don't invade bro"
US says shut up you will be liberated

If they won't defend themselves, then they aren't worth fighting for.

Holocaust victims weren't worth fighting for (not that we were, in fact, fighting for them...)?

Human lives have an intrinsic value regardless of their willingness to fight.

The funny thing is I bet Federal Farmer claims to be Christian!

Like you said, we weren't fighting for them, but once we found them, we couldn't just leave them there. But we shouldn't start invading countries so we can "liberate" people.

Um, no.

Oh ok, guessed wrong but the statistics were definitely on my side. At least you're honest, unlike most of the US right which claims to be Christian while simultaneously worshipping the Golden Calf.

I had similar concerns when I first investigated UBI some years back, but those concerns can be put aside by ensuring that recipients are doing something useful - being in work, education, training, donating their time, etc. Essentially something useful.

That, along with the fact it leads to a smaller government and lower governmental overheads, made it quite the winner for me.

How do you figure that?

And having "make work" jobs for people receiving government benefits hardly adds economic value.

it's more to make people feel good than anything else.

Why do so many seem to think being a "Christian" largely involves how much free stuff you can give people?

The problem being that not everyone is capable of doing that. And establishing exactly where that line should be drawn is, of course, always problematic.

Perhaps I should yield the floor to @Senor Hoint on the subject of Modern Monetary Theory. MMT suggest a guaranteed job --- the same idea of sort of endeavour useful to society --- for people who are between jobs.

Oh, I don't know, probably because that's exactly what it says in the Bible or something. There is that one part where Jesus instructs his followers to sell their possessions and give the proceeds to the poor, if they want to enter the kingdom of Heaven.

That's not an "only" thing, that's a whole lot of reasons to go to war.

Hence why people think you're a warmonger, "Dayton".

Case closed.

We've been through this before.

We've historically created force multipliers, designed to free up workers to become something else vital to the evolution of society. Nurses, doctors, teachers... Currently we're at nail technicians and people who do yoga at stupid temperatures. These roles are increasingly founded on a wealthy society rather than a functioning one.

We're also accelerating at what we can automate. The point will come when we can automate a new industry faster than we can train people up in it - and any new industry has to be seen be marketable and then you train people up, there isn't a 6 month turnaround on these things.

People will always seek utility, so yes, there will always be work, but the amount of workers society can cope will start to reduce over the next 13 years and by around 2030 will start cratering. Roles that require actual intelligence or artistry will be the last to go - don't believe the hype over AI - but a raft of jobs will disappear at a rate will we simply not be able to accommodate, and whilst new jobs will appear there are no guarantees we will be able to cross-train.

As I've said before, tomorrow's burger flippers will be today's butlers.

A UBI is a matter of self-interest at this point.

A lot of the MMT people do advocate for a job guarantee. Functionally I don't think this is too different from a UBI because the 'endeavor useful to society' thing is just too hard to figure out objectively. I'm in favor of both, but the implication of what I've argued upthread is that a job guarantee is at best a stopgap solution to the problem of there not being enough work to go around.

As a former professor of mine was fond of saying, at this point, full employment is punitive. I'm not sure I fully agree with that, but I sure don't think it's a good idea to pay people to engage in drudgery for the sake of drudgery.

That could hardly been seen to apply to Christians in general as a rich man (and a tax collector at that) Zaccheus was highly commended by Jesus himself.

And not told to disperse his wealth to the poor.

You want them to earn their money? Have them go to work, or learn something. You have to ensure it's not a right to sit on their arse at home.

That wasn't what I meant. Is your job "make work"? Well, maybe your colleagues it is, but not for you. You'd be entitled to the UBI.

Go to university? Work for free in a charity shop? Go do voluntary socially useful stuff? You qualify.

Sit at home drinking and smoking. Sorry. Get off your arse or find a gutter.