Canada is considering a guaranteed universal basic income program. Here’s what that means

[eyeball]

13 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Well the nice thing about capitalism is the more people in it the better it tends to do all else being equal.

The bad thing about capitalism is that as few as 1% can influence it to a far greater extent than the rest of us can - far far away from equal. 

[Nexii]

Mixed on UBI tbh. I think part of the reason birthrates are low is income insecurity. Most employers don't guarantee long term job security. And UBI can help people get back on their feet while looking for a job. On the other hand, it can be a disincentive to work at all.

Guessing it won't be truely universal though, the cost of that would be extremely high. It'll probably be some overly complex system adding to those that we already have, therefore making the bureaucracy even worse.

Generally agree with the sentiment that most of the social assistance programs should be consolidated (EI, disability, income assistance, tax breaks, etc) and simplified. There's a huge cost to administer the complexity. It'd be easier to cut all that and just cut everyone a cheque

[CdnFox]

7 minutes ago, eyeball said:

The bad thing about capitalism is that as few as 1% can influence it to a far greater extent than the rest of us can - far far away from equal. 

It's not supposed to be equal  - it's just supposed to be better.

If capitalism makes my life 100 percent better, but it makes your life 200 percent better... how is that a bad deal for me? Should i be happier if your is only 50 percent better?  I still have the samd 100 percent either way.

Everyone's life gets better and poverty is severely reduced or eliminated. Equality just makes everyone equally poor which sucks.

 

[eyeball]

3 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

It's not supposed to be equal

Influence is supposed to be equal and it simply isn't.

[CdnFox]

6 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Influence is supposed to be equal and it simply isn't.

No, influence is not supposed to be equal at all.  TO do that you would have to make participation mandatory - most people aren't interested.

Its far CLOSER to being equal under capitalism vs any other model tho, so that should make you feel better.  ANYONE can have influence under our system -  AOC was a bartender. Harper was an economist. Other sociaistic models or communist models are FAR FAR FAR less fair.

So capitalism still wins out as the very best we have.

[CdnFox]

19 minutes ago, Nexii said:

Mixed on UBI tbh. I think part of the reason birthrates are low is income insecurity. Most employers don't guarantee long term job security. And UBI can help people get back on their feet while looking for a job. On the other hand, it can be a disincentive to work at all.

Guessing it won't be truely universal though, the cost of that would be extremely high. It'll probably be some overly complex system adding to those that we already have, therefore making the bureaucracy even worse.

Generally agree with the sentiment that most of the social assistance programs should be consolidated (EI, disability, income assistance, tax breaks, etc) and simplified. There's a huge cost to administer the complexity. It'd be easier to cut all that and just cut everyone a cheque

The thing is you can't trade insecurity for false security.  If you have a system that's unsustainable then sooner or later it crashes, and that's what tends to happen when you dump unearned dollar into the economy. Inflation goes up opportunity goes down, and sooner or later there's a downturn or crash and the whole thing blows up and everyone's left with nothing.

And i think it's not income insecurity that's the issue with childbirth - i'd point to the fact that the poorest tend to have the most children these days. It's that it's necessary for 2 people to work in order to afford to live so nobody wants to take time off to have a bunch of children. And that would require a different solution.

[taxme]

On 10/22/2023 at 9:33 AM, CdnFox said:

https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/canada-is-considering-a-guaranteed-universal-basic-income-program-here-s-what-that-means/article_98a4ee99-150c-50b5-8867-0203efc51520.html

The push for a basic income program gained more momentum during and after the COVID-19 pandemic, as the Canada Emergency Response Benefit (CERB) — which paid out $2,000 a month to millions of Canadians — raised the possibility of a permanent income program.

 

TL/DR :  We've done it before on very limited grounds and so we can do it now for everyone no problem. - the star.

They point to cerb - but fail to note that cerb drove up inflation insanely and plunged us hundreds of billions of dollars into debt. There is no universe where we could sustain that indefinitely or even for a decade.

And the studies on this kind of thing always show that it eases stress in the poor (obviously) , but shows it DOESN"T help them find work or move ahead in life, it just makes their poverty comfortable.  There's no measurable benefit to society or the taxpayer.

 

But i bet good money this is going to be trudeau's "big thing" for the next election to try to win back the woke vote.

This is socialism at work. Hook the lazy sheeple on free money, and they will go for it, but they will not realize that their asses now belongs to the government. Get out there and pizz the government off, and there goes the free money. There will always be strings attached to free money. Maybe they will have to get chipped?

It's all just a part of the WEF globalist plan of control and slavery of the sheeple and our dear Marxist dictator in Ottawa is a globalist dink dangling from their globalist sting. Nothing comes free in this world. ?

[herbie]

It's socialism because I said so. Socialism bad because I said so. The fall of the USSR proves UBI won't work. Some of my money might go to lazy people, they should just die. The feds will run it and the feds are bad because I said so. Whatever the feds study must be bad, cuz I said so.

Has anyone got an actual reasoned argument against it?

[CdnFox]

2 minutes ago, herbie said:

It's socialism because I said so. Socialism bad because I said so. The fall of the USSR proves UBI won't work. Some of my money might go to lazy people, they should just die. The feds will run it and the feds are bad because I said so. Whatever the feds study must be bad, cuz I said so.

Has anyone got an actual reasoned argument against it?

Reasoned arguments have already been presented against it.  The challenge is that you have no idea what reason looks like so you didnt' notice

Rather than address the issue in a serious fashion - or present an argument FOR it - you choose to act like a child and stomp your feet.

Go home child -the adults are talking.

[herbie]

I asked for reasoned argument against.

Not more "I know you are but what am i?". Seems like only the children are talking in this thread as I so bluntly pointed out.

 

[CdnFox]

20 minutes ago, herbie said:

I asked for reasoned argument against.

Which has already been provided.  Unfortunately your intellectual level hasn't risen high enough to be able to tell a reasoned argument if it bit you in the ass.

And you're the only child talking here.  Everyone else was actually discussing the matter.

And i notice you don't have an intelligent argument for it.  Shocking.  Yawn.

[eyeball]

2 hours ago, CdnFox said:

It's not supposed to be equal  - it's just supposed to be better.

Capitalism's playing field is supposed to be flat not tilted in the direction of the filthy rich - better for them IOW.

[CdnFox]

18 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Capitalism's playing field is supposed to be flat not tilted in the direction of the filthy rich - better for them IOW.

No, the free market is supposed to be flat and it is.

If it was only tilted in favor of the rich - there would be no new people getting rich. But there are - tonnes of new wealthy people all the time. In fact - the majority of muti-millionare rich people came from poor or middle class backgrounds.

the OPPORTUNITY is equal - not the outcomes. 

And again  it's vastly more equal in capitalism than it is under any other system by far.

[eyeball]

6 hours ago, CdnFox said:

No, influence is not supposed to be equal at all.

 Well so much for equal representation I guess.

3 hours ago, CdnFox said:

No, the free market is supposed to be flat and it is.

If it was level, the rate at which the wealth and income gap widens would be much more even and fluctuate one way and the other over time - all else being equal, like representation and influence for example.

Instead however...

Quote

 

Gap between Canada’s rich and poor increasing at record speed, new StatCan data shows

The wealthiest 20% of households controlled nearly 68% of the total net worth in Canada in the first quarter of 2023, while the least wealthy 40% accounted for 2.7%.

https://www.thestar.com/business/gap-between-canada-s-rich-and-poor-increasing-at-record-speed-new-statcan-data-shows/article_c1477d8f-4961-5691-9179-a5b8cabaace9.html#:~:text=The wealthiest 20% of households,40% accounted for 2.7%.

 

 

[CdnFox]

19 minutes ago, eyeball said:

 Well so much for equal representation I guess.

 

i don't think you even realize what you're saying any more.

Representation is equal - but that's not what you'd said previously. Nor is "representation' got anything to do with 'capitalism' which is an economic not a political model.  So now you're just making crap up to try to justify you feeling sorry for yourself.  Most of us grow out of that phase when we get past puberty.

Quote

If it was level, the rate at which the wealth and income gap widens would be much more even and fluctuate one way and the other over time - all else being equal, like representation and influence for example.

No it wouldn't - what the hell gave you that idea? That would only be the case if there was a fixed never changing amount of wealth and that's not how wealth works.

Honestly it's like you have this view of the world that reads like a grade 2 reader. Do i need to get you a ball? A big ball? A big red ball?

 

Quote

Instead however...

Yeah. That's how it works. But EVERYONE is better off. The "poor" have more access to health, food, opportunity, etc than ever before.

The very wealthy create that wealth.  It's not taken from others - others benefit from it.

I get it. You don't want the system to be working. You want things to be bad to justify your ideology and discontent.

But it isn't. Capitalism works - it works very well

[eyeball]

52 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

I get it. You don't want the system to be working. You want things to be bad to justify your ideology and discontent.

Sure that must be it.

You're such a dilettante, it's sunny ways when countering other doubtful viewpoints and the opposite when you're whining about something. Your only real interest in the discussion is to hear the sound of yourself blowing it out your ass.

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, eyeball said:

Sure that must be it.

You're such a dilettante, it's sunny ways when countering other doubtful viewpoints and the opposite when you're whining about something. Your only real interest in the discussion is to hear the sound of yourself blowing it out your ass.

Awwww - look who's cranky after getting called out again    Hey - don't get mad at me just because you have the emotional and intellectual capacity of a teen going through puberty.  'Snif!  Everything's ruined and nobody understands me, and all the nice girls hate me.... Waaaaaaaahhhh!!!"

Capitalism works amazingly and consistently well, your inarticulate rantings aside.

[eyeball]

11 hours ago, CdnFox said:

Capitalism works amazingly and consistently well, your inarticulate rantings aside.

I'm sure it works fine as well when its conducted above board and transparently.

Take that away however and it's guaranteed to crash and burn. There's a certain consistency to that too. 

[impartialobserver]

I wish that I was wrong but I can see a UBI coming in a decade or two. The days where someone worked the repetitive job at the factory are coming to an end. Mining.. is becoming automated. A lot of repetitive cognitive jobs are being automated.. payroll processing being the best example. I could see certain landscaping tasks going to automation.. mowing lawns and trimming of trees. 

[CdnFox]

36 minutes ago, eyeball said:

I'm sure it works fine as well when its conducted above board and transparently.

 

Any system faces corruption - Capitalism actually works very well even with that.

There is NOTHING stopping you from starting your own enterprise and increasing your wealth.

There is NOTHING stopping you from working with political parties to get your views heard and elect the represenation you want.

there is NOTHING stopping you from creating a special interest group to lobby for change. like BLM or whatever.

Now - capitalism is an economic model, unlike socialistic models which are econoimc AND political models. So don't blame economics for politics. They are not the same and you keep kind of trying to shoe horn political structure into capitalsm where it doesn't' belong.

But capitalism  works perfectly well as it is and the only model that does economically.  Most capitalist model countries also work very well politically. 

Your complains are vague and seem to boil down to 'i don't like it if people earn more than me'. 

[SpankyMcFarland]

Here are Musk and Sunak talking about the future of work. 

Quote

Rishi Sunak clashed with Elon Musk on the value of having a job, after the tech mogul told him artificial intelligence (AI) would mean people would no longer have to work.

The billionaire caused embarrassment for the PM during a discussion at the end of his AI summit by predicting that the “magic genie” would bring a time when “no job is needed”.

Mr Sunak, under pressure from his own party to get more Britons back into work, asked Mr Musk about “changes in the labour market” – saying the idea of AI stealing jobs was “still a concern”.

 

 

[eyeball]

On 10/25/2023 at 9:46 AM, CdnFox said:

Your complains are vague and seem to boil down to 'i don't like it if people earn more than me'. 

That's because you're not listening. I don't like it when an individual's advantage and opportunity stem from their having a greater ability to influence the regulation of an economic playing field that everyone should rightly assume is level and true.

[CdnFox]

3 hours ago, eyeball said:

That's because you're not listening.

I"m listening. It just doesn't always help as much with you,

Quote

I don't like it when an individual's advantage and opportunity stem from their having a greater ability to influence the regulation of an economic playing field that everyone should rightly assume is level and true.

A couple of problems with that. First - you say that as if the fact they succeeded "more" than you somehow is proof that their success is from a "greater" ability to influence regulation.  And to be blunt, that sounds like bullshit. 

And second if other people's success opens more doors for you than would have been there before and helps improve the opportunities you DO have, then that's still a net benefit to you.  So how is that bad.

And finally, you'd have to show that the person getting ahead somehow took AWAY from you to have any right to whine. Even if someone has better opportunities in one area than you do if it doesn't change your opportunities so what?  I'm never going to be a pro NBA player. Some other guy will have way better opportunites there, Doesn't change what i can do.

At the end of the day if you're trying to tell me you don't have path's to strong financial success i'm going to have to say that's unlikely to be true.

The field is level and true - but that doesn't mean everyone's got the exact same opportunities. Just that they have opportunities.

[eyeball]

41 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

A couple of problems with that. First - you say that as if the fact they succeeded "more" than you somehow is proof that their success is from a "greater" ability to influence regulation.  And to be blunt, that sounds like bullshit. 

It usually does to lickspittles.

You act as if corruption is a nothingburger - or that people actually like it. And frankly, I'm doing well enough to know there are people who likely resent me. I also know my good fortune counts on there being lots of other economically healthy people out there.

49 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

And finally, you'd have to show that the person getting ahead somehow took AWAY from you to have any right to whine.

I've suggested several sound fairly simple measures to improve transparency and make influence peddling/pandering more difficult.

You usually counter that by saying it wouldn't matter because people don't care about public officials doing favours for friends. Which of course explains the increasing levels of public regard for Doug Ford.

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, eyeball said:

It usually does to lickspittles.

No, lickspittles think that sounds perfectly reasonable. 

Quote

You act as if corruption is a nothingburger -

You literally vote for corruption. And every time i bring it up you cry like a  baby how unfair it is that you, a humble voter, should be expected to do something about it.

You have never once suggested a reasonable 'transparency' solution - but worse, you have never explained why it would be worth bothering if people like you don't take action on the corruption we find already.

You're a complete hypocrite.

Any failure in your life is 100 percent on you - not some imaginary oppressor.  And all your whining about 'more transparency' and evil faceless people will more ability to influence regulation is just you trying to cope with your own failures and inabilities and inadequecy.