Obama Touts Universal Income

[kevon67 2,368]

Well if Bethesda's vision of the future via Fallout series comes to pass shortly after 2077..........Institue Scientists will be kidnapping our loved ones and replacing them with synths.........now maybe 2 people may get this.......shocks my brain and mcloofus........the rest will have to google?

[augolf1716 21,222]

1 hour ago, SaltyTiger said:

   Hey @augolf1716 @homersapien   Nola has a question for you guys.

 that made me laugh.............

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

1 hour ago, kevon67 said:

Well if Bethesda's vision of the future via Fallout series comes to pass shortly after 2077..........Institue Scientists will be kidnapping our loved ones and replacing them with synths.........now maybe 2 people may get this.......shocks my brain and mcloofus........the rest will have to google?

Considering I work in the gaming industry, I gotcha

[kevon67 2,368]

1 hour ago, Brad_ATX said:

Considering I work in the gaming industry, I gotcha

You sir are my hero❤.............nothing like a good story driven game to pass the time.

[AU64 10,122]

4 hours ago, HVAU said:

I've made this argument over and over, but it still seems nobody gets it.  These labor shortages aren't an all of the sudden phenomenon.  The job market, and economy as a whole, increased remarkably well under Obama.  Any 10 year economic chart will reveal that most gains occurred under Obama and a small percentage under Trump.  

Note that the economy was muddling along at about 1.5% growth rate and we were told that was the new normal and the employment rate was stable because of the number of people who were dropping out of the labor market.  The workforce participation rate was on a constant slide until 2017 where it has leveled out and started to increase again gradually.   Granted it's not much but the trend has been reversed....

[HVAU 673]

2 hours ago, AU64 said:

The workforce participation rate was on a constant slide until 2017 where it has leveled out

That's not even what your chart shows.

[AU64 10,122]

32 minutes ago, HVAU said:

That's not even what your chart shows.

What do you think it shows.?  Back several years ago, the unemployment rate was improving but with lots of part time jobs and also fewer people in the work force.  That's gradually changed....

[HVAU 673]

8 minutes ago, AU64 said:

What do you think it shows.?  Back several years ago, the unemployment rate was improving but with lots of part time jobs and also fewer people in the work force.  That's gradually changed....

It shows a leveling off in 2014 with a downward spike in the third quarter of 2015 and stasis from 2016 on.  In other words, the equilibrium was achieved before Trump was even in office.

What, pray tell, do you see?

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

Great discussion in this thread. Refreshing to see it can happen. I'm not smart enough to see the future nor have a strong opinion. I did get the impression (maybe wrongly) that Obama was proposing it now rather than way down the road. to me it does come across as paying people not to work. just wish we could more now for our vets who need financial help.

[Mikey 16,640]

This afternoon, a short drive drive down the main street of this small town I live in (population about 3,000) revealed six, that's SIX! Help wanted signs in store, shop and restaurant windows. I've never seen anything like this before now. I wonder how many have a job opening they aren't advertising in their storefronts? Teenagers are working at auto repair and other places where they aren't normally seen. When school starts back there really will be a crunch. I see no need to pay anybody to not work. Opportunity is out there.

[TitanTiger 20,499]

8 hours ago, Mikey said:

This afternoon, a short drive drive down the main street of this small town I live in (population about 3,000) revealed six, that's SIX! Help wanted signs in store, shop and restaurant windows. I've never seen anything like this before now. I wonder how many have a job opening they aren't advertising in their storefronts? Teenagers are working at auto repair and other places where they aren't normally seen. When school starts back there really will be a crunch. I see no need to pay anybody to not work. Opportunity is out there.

I don't think anyone is saying this needs to happen now.  They are saying that the advances in AI, machine learning and robotics likely will make such an idea something we have to consider in the future.  And not the far off future.

[Mikey 16,640]

54 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

I don't think anyone is saying this needs to happen now.  They are saying that the advances in AI, machine learning and robotics likely will make such an idea something we have to consider in the future.  And not the far off future.

I think it was Heinlein that wrote a short story about a future society in which every family was required to consume a large amount of goods just to keep the factories working. Maybe such changes to society will happen but I don't see that or the need for a guaranteed income for everybody to happen very soon.

A guaranteed income won't fix things anyway. Poor money managers and slackers will always need "just a little more". I haven't noticed mention of who, exactly, will pay for this either. At some tipping point those working will simply file the paperwork for their EBT card and go home. This very subject came up in one of my classes at Auburn. Prof. named some amount as the point where he'd quit and go home. That amount wasn't outrageous.

[AU64 10,122]

10 hours ago, HVAU said:

It shows a leveling off in 2014 with a downward spike in the third quarter of 2015 and stasis from 2016 on.  In other words, the equilibrium was achieved before Trump was even in office.

What, pray tell, do you see?

One chart does not tell the story but I see labor participation rate increasing and better still, the civilian labor force is increasing.  Despite the famous Stimulus Act of almost a trillion dollars and the Fed keeping interest rates artificially low, the country crept out of the recession of 2008 with a mostly stagnant economy showing very low growth rate, no increase in average wage for .....and many more stats you can easily find at the BLS site that show a definite upswing.  The previous administration spent five years and six trillion dollars in deficit spending and barely got back to it's economic starting point....primarily because other policies had pretty much offset the spending efforts. 

As for the past 18 months, the improvements have occurred with no help from the dems who have fought every effort by the current administration to improve the business climate and instead have tried to focus of such actions as raising the minimum wage....and other policies that have the unintended consequence of making labor more expensive and will hasten the advent of robotics such that we have the ridiculous prospect of robots cooking hamburgers at fast food places. 

[AU64 10,122]

10 minutes ago, Mikey said:

I think it was Heinlein that wrote a short story about a future society in which every family was required to consume a large amount of goods just to keep the factories working. Maybe such changes to society will happen but I don't see that or the need for a guaranteed income for everybody to happen very soon.

A guaranteed income won't fix things anyway. Poor money managers and slackers will always need "just a little more". I haven't noticed mention of who, exactly, will pay for this either. At some tipping point those working will simply file the paperwork for their EBT card and go home. This very subject came up in one of my classes at Auburn. Prof. named some amount as the point where he'd quit and go home. That amount wasn't outrageous.

This very subject came up in one of my classes at Auburn. Prof. named some amount as the point where he'd quit and go home. That amount wasn't outrageous.

Just about everyone starts the process of making that decision when they get to about age 60 or 62......for which the question arises......is now a good time to retire ?     So,  how much retirement income does it take to convince a person that now is the time?    My wife and I talked that over many times before we decided that not working and drawing my pension was better than being employed by someone.    We made the right decision at the right time I think. .  

JMO but already there are folks with lower aspirations who apparently think that the combination of available benefits is enough to just hang around the house and watch TV or something....not sure it's a good idea to make the "early retirement" option too attractive...especially if someone else is paying for it. 

[HVAU 673]

4 hours ago, AU64 said:

One chart does not tell the story but I see labor participation rate increasing and better still, the civilian labor force is increasing.  Despite the famous Stimulus Act of almost a trillion dollars and the Fed keeping interest rates artificially low, the country crept out of the recession of 2008 with a mostly stagnant economy showing very low growth rate, no increase in average wage for .....and many more stats you can easily find at the BLS site that show a definite upswing.  The previous administration spent five years and six trillion dollars in deficit spending and barely got back to it's economic starting point....primarily because other policies had pretty much offset the spending efforts. 

As for the past 18 months, the improvements have occurred with no help from the dems who have fought every effort by the current administration to improve the business climate and instead have tried to focus of such actions as raising the minimum wage....and other policies that have the unintended consequence of making labor more expensive and will hasten the advent of robotics such that we have the ridiculous prospect of robots cooking hamburgers at fast food places. 

You posted the chart.  I thought it was to illustrate something that disproves the economic debates I've had ad nauseum here.

I have posted a good many charts illustrating just how well the Obama administration handled the recession that it inherited, and how Trump was gifted a golden goose.  An argument can be made that the moderate growth rate under Obama is preferable to rapid expansion which may shorten the growth periods in a boom/bust cycle.

[AUloggerhead 2,241]

6 hours ago, TitanTiger said:

I don't think anyone is saying this needs to happen now.  They are saying that the advances in AI, machine learning and robotics likely will make such an idea something we have to consider in the future.  And not the far off future.

Except ... how does Universal Basic Income work exactly?  Who will pay for it?  Are there any successful examples we can look at today?  Finland recently abandoned their attempt at it.  And the Finns are practical people, if anything. 

[AU64 10,122]

34 minutes ago, HVAU said:

An argument can be made that the moderate growth rate under Obama is preferable to rapid expansion which may shorten the growth periods in a boom/bust cycle.

My argument is that while Wall Street enjoyed the Obama recovery, most average/ working Americans did not fare so well.   In my view, his policies and the effect of them rewarded a narrow section of the population........and meanwhile, as a person who was retired throughout those years, those artificial Fed rates were killing my retirement program and those of millions of other people in similar situations..  Main street America experienced 5 + years of stagnation.

[TitanTiger 20,499]

1 hour ago, AUloggerhead said:

Except ... how does Universal Basic Income work exactly?  Who will pay for it?  Are there any successful examples we can look at today?  Finland recently abandoned their attempt at it.  And the Finns are practical people, if anything. 

I'm not sure to be honest.  More than likely it would be in the form of some kind of tax on the machinery and automation employed, but I can't give a detailed analysis of it yet.  

But even if you don't like the idea, you will still most likely have to deal with the implications of why some are talking about it - the potential for historically high unemployment rates, not due to a failing economy or massive depression, but because automation, AI and machine learning have simply made taken over too many industries and career fields.  Even ones that were previously believed to be immune to such things.  When you have 30-50% unemployment where the jobs simply no longer exist for human beings, a deadly spiral develops.  Broke people can't buy goods and services, thus companies start failing for lack of sales (they don't have enough customers with the money to buy things), which puts more people out of work, and so on.  

What do you do to resolve this problem?  We've mentioned a few approaches - legal restrictions on how much of a given industry or field can be run by non-human means is one.  You basically say that efficiency for efficiency's sake runs into the Law of Diminishing Returns and must be curtailed after a certain point.  A certain level of employment is essential to the survival of human society and so you're not going to permit it to be taken over by automation to that degree.  Another is that you permit the automation but through a system of taxes, generate money that is doled out as universal income and then people use that income to purchase the goods and services provided by automation thus continuing the cycle.  Are there other approaches I'm not thinking of?  Probably.  What do you think?

[AUloggerhead 2,241]

15 minutes ago, TitanTiger said:

... Are there other approaches I'm not thinking of?  Probably.  What do you think?

Rough numbers:  US GDP (2016) = $18.57 T.  Population (2017 est) = 325.7 M.  Poverty Level (2017) = $12,060.  Low Income = 200% of Poverty Level (2017) = $24,120. 

Number of US millionaire households (2017) = 11 M (approx.)   I'm assuming a "means test" would be applied to any Universal Basic Income -- perhaps it may be at the millionaire household level, perhaps something lower.  Say 300 M population x $12,060 = $3.618 T.  That's approx 20% of the US GDP.  Double that to the Low Income level takes us up to 40% of GDP.  What's considered a Universal Basic Income -- Poverty level?  Low Income?  More than that?  Don't forget Margeret Thatcher's comment about "the problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money." 

 

 

[TitanTiger 20,499]

Just now, AUloggerhead said:

Rough numbers:  US GDP (2016) = $18.57 T.  Population (2017 est) = 325.7 M.  Poverty Level (2017) = $12,060.  Low Income = 200% of Poverty Level (2017) = $24,120. 

Number of US millionaire households (2017) = 11 M (approx.)   I'm assuming a "means test" would be applied to any Universal Basic Income -- perhaps it may be at the millionaire household level, perhaps something lower.  Say 300 M population x $12,060 = $3.618 T.  That's approx 20% of the US GDP.  Double that to the Low Income level takes us up to 40% of GDP.  What's considered a Universal Basic Income -- Poverty level?  Low Income?  More than that?  Don't forget Margeret Thatcher's comment about "the problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money." 

Probably whatever level would keep the economy sustainable.  Because, again, this isn't about people being unwilling to work, it's about automation literally killing off a huge swath of jobs.  If you don't have enough people in an economy with the disposable income to purchase your products, you go out of business.  Businesses have got to have customers.  So how do you maintain some sort of workable equilibrium?

But again, what would you propose as an alternative?

[homersapien 11,393]

It's amusing to see how folks who have no problem with "trickle down" economic policies balk at the idea of "trickle up" economics.

[SaltyTiger 7,816]

4 hours ago, TitanTiger said:

Because, again, this isn't about people being unwilling to work, it's about automation literally killing off a huge swath of jobs.  

I can see a real market for "made or serviced by humans". Not ready to buy in to all the automation Titan. Are we looking at a future where people,30% or 50% , have no self esteem derived from life of work? 

[Mikey 16,640]

Like many other situations, I wouldn't be at all surprised if solutions presented themselves even before this problem materializes. That's if indeed automation ever does cause unemployment. It clearly hasn't so far and there's a lot of automation out there.

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

1 hour ago, Mikey said:

Like many other situations, I wouldn't be at all surprised if solutions presented themselves even before this problem materializes. That's if indeed automation ever does cause unemployment. It clearly hasn't so far and there's a lot of automation out there.

There's a lot more coming, and it's coming fast.  I just left a professional event where the focus was on AI.  Literally mentioned everything from house cleaning, to production lines/truck packing, to pizza delivery, to ordering a meal at the restaurant, to self-checkout and how it can all be done without humans already.  The boom you will see in AI and augmented reality in the next 5-10 years will be staggering.  Its inevitable that jobs will be lost, mostly at the lower end of the spectrum.

[TitanTiger 20,499]

10 hours ago, SaltyTiger said:

I can see a real market for "made or serviced by humans". Not ready to buy in to all the automation Titan. Are we looking at a future where people,30% or 50% , have no self esteem derived from life of work? 

I think there may be some artisan products like that out there no matter how much automation there is.  For people who can afford to buy such things.  We have that now.  You can buy furniture, leather goods, soaps, foods that are handcrafted and non-processed and non-factory made.  They tend to be more expensive, sometimes significantly so, but people who want something that's higher quality, non-cookie cutter will pay for it.

But the problem being looked at here is that there won't be very many customers left for such people.  And it's not that 30+% of the people don't want to work, it's that automation, AI and machine learning will render them jobless no matter what.  And those lucky enough to have jobs will either fight for the dwindling few remaining in their industry, or they will take whatever few scraps of jobs that are left that won't pay much.