Captain... Posted 8 June 2016 Posted 8 June 2016 Thought the same. Government sponsored shop has a very odd, slightly North Korea sound about it. I'm imagining the whole place is biege, the floor, the walls, the isles, the frontage, all the staff dressed in biege, all the products in plain biege packaging with only small black letters printed on the front to let you know what it is. People are walking around in straight lines staring straight ahead. There is silence but for the occasional beep from the silently manned till. The till operator is seven feet tall, he regards customers like a passport inspector, assessing them, weighing them up from a position of authority. Customers stare at the floor while he slowly processes their goods. CCTV is tracking an old lady looking at the tinned sauce selection. She has been stood there for too long. Finally, she mutters "mushroom, that's all there is: mushroom sauce. There used to be hoi sin, black bean, jalfrezi", she weeps softly, "now there's only mushroom". Quietly, but quickly, men dressed in black with covered faces grab the old lady by the arms and lead her away. It's happened so quick it takes her a second to realise what is going on, but then she looks very frightened and pleads "no, please no, please don't take me to that place again", but it doesn't help, the men taser her and drag her away. You don't complain about the selection at the government sponsored shop. If you could recreate that in an online store that would be perfect. Maybe just make the pages really slow to load and you have to click everything 10 times before you can add it to your basket. The UBI is more of a communist ideal, and everything if implemented poorly could be a disaster. The general principle that providing people with goods that they need rather than giving them money to buy what they want is sound. I don't want to cast aspersions over everyone on benefits but I reckon a lot of benefit money is wasted on over priced convenience food.
Guest MattP Posted 8 June 2016 Posted 8 June 2016 Thought the same. Government sponsored shop has a very odd, slightly North Korea sound about it. I'm imagining the whole place is biege, the floor, the walls, the isles, the frontage, all the staff dressed in biege, all the products in plain biege packaging with only small black letters printed on the front to let you know what it is. People are walking around in straight lines staring straight ahead. There is silence but for the occasional beep from the silently manned till. The till operator is seven feet tall, he regards customers like a passport inspector, assessing them, weighing them up from a position of authority. Customers stare at the floor while he slowly processes their goods. CCTV is tracking an old lady looking at the tinned sauce selection. She has been stood there for too long. Finally, she mutters "mushroom, that's all there is: mushroom sauce. There used to be hoi sin, black bean, jalfrezi", she weeps softly, "now there's only mushroom". Quietly, but quickly, men dressed in black with covered faces grab the old lady by the arms and lead her away. It's happened so quick it takes her a second to realise what is going on, but then she looks very frightened and pleads "no, please no, please don't take me to that place again", but it doesn't help, the men taser her and drag her away. You don't complain about the selection at the government sponsored shop. Brilliant, written like a piece from a a Joseph Heller novel.
danny. Posted 8 June 2016 Posted 8 June 2016 It won't work. Why would anyone work if they didn't need to? You might not, but that doesn't mean everyone wouldn't. I certainly would not sit in bed all day, there are loads of things I would love to do if I didn't have to worry about money - it could be a real boost for entrepreneurship as nothing would be that risky - you are assuming everyone is lazy and would use this as an opportunity to do nothing with their lives? They were discussing this on Newsnight last night. An economist reckons for a basic income of £8k per year we'd have to raise the basic rate of income tax to 48%. Did he factor in collecting £120 billion/year of avoided tax as another way to help fund?
Guest MattP Posted 8 June 2016 Posted 8 June 2016 Did he factor in collecting £120 billion/year of avoided tax as another way to help fund? Even if you got every single penny of that which is totally impossible you are still miles away from raising the required funds needed for any sort of citizens income. And that's before we even get into the current debt and deficit we still have to get rid of. Natalie Bennett was proposing this a while back and it fell apart under some decent questioning.
Buce Posted 8 June 2016 Posted 8 June 2016 It's an idea that will have its time. A few weeks ago, there was an article in the grauniad that said that something like 60% of jobs will be lost to robotics in the not-too-distant future. It's unacceptable that the wealth created should remain in the hands of those that own the means of production. Society will have to change.
danny. Posted 8 June 2016 Posted 8 June 2016 Even if you got every single penny of that which is totally impossible you are still miles away from raising the required funds needed for any sort of citizens income. And that's before we even get into the current debt and deficit we still have to get rid of. Natalie Bennett was proposing this a while back and it fell apart under some decent questioning. There certainly will need to be a huge shift in current thinking and how our society works, and how wealth is proportioned. Depends if people are happy for things to continue as they are or if huge changes will happen in the future.
Dodgy Bob Posted 8 June 2016 Posted 8 June 2016 It's an idea that will have its time. A few weeks ago, there was an article in to e grauniad that said that something like 60% of jobs will be lost to robotics in the not-too-distant future. It's unacceptable that the wealth created should remain in the hands of those that own the means of production. Society will have to change. Luddites. Maybe "it's different this time", but then again maybe it's not.
The Railway Man Posted 8 June 2016 Posted 8 June 2016 It may happen, but it's not going to be in anybody alive nows lifetime. the problem no matter how far technology advances no one is going to want to do the millions of shit jobs we need, for that reason alone any sort of citizens income is going to be very difficuly, not to mention you won't actually then be collecting the tax to have to pay it, although as soon as you stop people trying to earn and achieve you'll probably destroy any sort of advances in technology anyway.
Captain... Posted 8 June 2016 Posted 8 June 2016 It may happen, but it's not going to be in anybody alive nows lifetime. the problem no matter how far technology advances no one is going to want to do the millions of shit jobs we need, for that reason alone any sort of citizens income is going to be very difficuly, not to mention you won't actually then be collecting the tax to have to pay it, although as soon as you stop people trying to earn and achieve you'll probably destroy any sort of advances in technology anyway. What is being proposed is not going to stop people from profiteering and making money, the problem is progress always means making things obsolete, one of those things is labour skilled and unskilled, but it also creates jobs. Computers and mechanical and robotic engineering have increased productivity, safety and efficiency but with it comes new requirements, data analysts, systems analysts, maintenance and support for the new technology as well as project teams, implementation experts, training specialists. These jobs will continue as companies will always look to upgrade to give them a cutting edge. Having a section of society paid a basic income for not working is not going to stop companies seeking to progress unless we do away with the capitalism thing. It is not just about profit but prestige and acclaim. What will happen when we become more automated and progress is that unskilled jobs will disappear, when it is more efficient for an automaton to perform the role, when this happens it is the governments duty to ensure that millions of unskilled workers are not thrown on the scrap heap. Whether it is UBI, subsidised wages so they can compete in the job market, re-education and training programs, the artificial creation of jobs, the artificial lowering of the cost of living or a shorter working week, or higher taxes on the profits of companies that a re benefiting from replacing humans with robots, but collecting taxes from big business is not a strength of our governments. It is not as far away as we think, companies are all the time investing in software that increases efficiency and the result is always in the loss of jobs.
Webbo Posted 8 June 2016 Posted 8 June 2016 They've been predicting that technology will replace jobs for as long as I can remember and yet we have record numbers in work.
Strokes Posted 8 June 2016 Posted 8 June 2016 They've been predicting that technology will replace jobs for as long as I can remember and yet we have record numbers in work. It's when the the immigrant cyborgs come over, you need to worry.
Rincewind Posted 8 June 2016 Posted 8 June 2016 Record numbers in work? There certainly has been an increase in part time, ZHC and people being taken of the unemployed list with work programmes. It is all to do with how figures are worked out and whether you believe everything politicians say and what is in papers. Yes you can quote 'official' figures but even those come from the same sources. I have seen them all so no need to reproduce them. Anyway back on topic. Even after re-training there still will be a great number of people who simply do not have the capability to be highly skilled and compete with others. We all cannot be Einsteins. The menial jobs will still need to be done. It is also human nature for some to be less motivated than others. There will still be the lazy sods who make no effort but if they are happy to just exist then it is their loss. It is a difficult thing with the Universal income.Those that are able to contribute to their own living costs and able to work should do. On the other hand it is also the moral responsibility of those in a better position to help those that are unable to work. Saw someone post something about a young woman in a wheelchair who was on a night out with mates have 'scrounger' shouted at her in a pub. There have always been stupid ignorant people though and it seems they are on the increase. The question is what the limit is set at. There will still be those that complain about them supporting those not working and paying for their drug and alcohol habits.You can never please all of the people all of the time.
ozleicester Posted 29 October 2017 Posted 29 October 2017 Just heard the Hilary Clinton wanted to introduce a UBI as part of her election policies in 2016.... her advisors took it off the table. Safe bet this is going to happen in the major countries eventually.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.