ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 24 ก.ค. 2024
- The colossal problem with universal basic income
New videos DAILY: bigth.ink
Join Big Think Edge for exclusive video lessons from top thinkers and doers: bigth.ink/Edge
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Universal basic income is a band-aid solution that will not solve wealth inequality, says Rushkoff.
Funneling money to the 99% perpetuates their roles as consumers, pumping money straight back up to the 1% at the top of the pyramid.
Rushkoff suggests universal basic assets instead, so that the people at the bottom of the pyramid can own some means of production and participate in the profits of mega-rich companies.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
DOUGLAS RUSHKOFF:
Douglas Rushkoff is the host of the Team Human podcast and a professor of digital economics at CUNY/Queens. He is also the author of a dozen bestselling books on media, technology, and culture, including, Present Shock, Program or Be Programmed, Media Virus, and Team Human, the last of which is his latest work.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TRANSCRIPT:
DOUGLAS RUSHKOFF: For a long time I was a fan of universal basic income. And the logic I had was that I always hear politicians talking about, 'Let's create jobs for people. That's what we need is jobs, more jobs,' as if that's what's going to solve the economic problem. So the government is supposed to lend money to a bank, who can then lend money to a corporation, who will then build a factory in order for people to have jobs. Do we really need more jobs? In California, they're tearing down houses as we speak, because the houses are in foreclosure, and they want to keep market values high. The US Department of Agriculture burns food every week in order to keep the prices of that food high, even though there's people who are starving and people who need homes. We can't just let people have those homes. Why? Because they don't have jobs. So now we're supposed to create jobs for people to make useless stuff for other people to buy plastic crap that we're going to throw away or stick in storage units or end up in landfill just so those people can have jobs so that we can justify letting them participate in the abundance. And that's kind of ass backwards.
So I thought, well, shoot, rather than creating useless jobs, what if we just let people have the stuff that's in abundance? Just let people have the houses. What's the problem with this? And UBI kind of goes along that lines of, well, if we have more than enough stuff, if we don't need everybody working all the time, then why don't we just let people have income? Or at least go to a four-day workweek or a three-day workweek or a two-day workweek. If work is the thing that's scarce, then why don't we mete that out and say, 'OK, we've got these 10 days that you're allowed to work this year. So come on, come onto the farm and do that work, and then you'll have to find something else for you to do the rest of the time.' But in reality, it's not like that. If we were really that efficient, then we wouldn't be destroying the planet with pollution. What we've done is found ways of making stuff and doing things that require very little labor, but externalize a host of other problems to a whole lot of other places. So we could 3D print or something, but where do you get the plastic goop for your 3D printer? What mine in Africa is it coming out of, and which topsoil is it destroying? You know, when we're going to run out of topsoil in 60 years, it means that we're not actually using the appropriate labor intensive permaculture solutions in agriculture and all that. So first off, that whole idea that we're moving towards lower employment is a myth. We've faked lower employment through extremely extractive, exploitative, polluting, and unsustainable business practices.
And second, I was giving a talk at Uber, and I was talking to them about the problems with their business model and how they're putting all these drivers out of work. And here they are, these freelancers working for the company, basically training the algorithms that will be replacing them without any profit participation in the end-game company. And one of the guys got up and basically quoted back to me a passage from my own book, "Throwing Rocks at the Google Bus" he said, well, what about universal basic income? And when I heard it coming out of their mouths, I realized, 'Oh.' So universal basic income isn't just a way to help people have the money they need to survive and have time to innovate and come up with other solutions. It's becoming an excuse for companies like Uber to not pay a living wage to their workers. So what's the idea? Oh, we'll get the government to...
For the full transcript, check out bigthink.com/videos/the-colos...
![เปิดบ้านสุดหรู "เเจ็ค the ghost" ลั่นถ้าป๋องกพลลำบากผมเลี้ยงเอง!! l [Nickynachat]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/1xbW4vULqGc/mqdefault.jpg)
Want to get Smarter, Faster?
Subscribe for DAILY videos: bigth.ink/GetSmarter
Unsubscribing due to this nonsense seriously did he have to suggest that we just print money for universal basic income instead of you know acting like an educated adult which supposedly is and you know thinking of hey how can we pay for it where it's not just printing money how about closing loopholes for billionaires and billion dollar corporations how about another means of paying for it such as a tax on AI units in the workforce...
Universal base income allows the average person a chance to write a novel start a small business online or start a TH-cam channel where they get people to send them a small piece of their universal basic income and then after a year or two years they have thousands of people sending them $5,000 every month meaning they're making five to $10,000 a month... Possibly more as time goes on.
Dude useless jobs suck but ppl need to work... I believe a 6hr work day may be part of the next step seeing as it's devisable in to 24... But people will need to continue to work for say 30yr and then ideally the next generation will do the same and so on... All taking care of each other... If u don't you can wait in a jail/rehab like in some countries until ur ready or your 55...
Also my numbers are not random (except for 30🤫)
@@mikebar42 dude people want to work even if they have universal basic income it's a part of being human feel free to look at elderly people who retire the ones who have a hobby that it is involved enough to be classified as work or get another job live longer and are happier...
Feel free to look into studies of universal basic income the people on universal basic income are more likely to get a job they enjoy that pays decent because they have the time to actually search for a good job instead of accepting whatever they can get in the moment to pay the bills.
Not only that people with universal basic income can say start a TH-cam channel and get a patreon account allow people to send them one to five dollars at a time and eventually get a real income from that...
Or they could write a book...
They could make some arts and crafts or art in general and sell it online...
They can save up by working a dead-end job that they hate to have enough money to start a small business where they don't actually have to work for someone else for the rest of their life..
@@mikebar42 also if people don't want to work then why is Wikipedia so full of information even if it's sometimes inaccurate that's work to put the information on there or alter it...
Yet not one person was paid one single dime to do any of the work
Other than programmers who designed the website in the first place.
The fact that corporations abuse the idea of universal basic income to keep their unsustainable practices is not actually a problem of the universal basic income, rather it is a problem of the political structure being corrupted by the money of big companies and corporations that makes it impossible to regulate them and make them internalize the externalities.
We wouldn't need UBI if corporations paid a living wage. Corporations don't pay a living wage because they don't have to. If the government made corporations pay a living wage we wouldn't need UBI. See the point?
The Real UBI is ALWAYS paid by taxing ownership of Wealth. UBI payed by any other means is not a Real UBI in terms of Indefinite Sustainability and Sufficiency.. Do you get it? It is important to get it right! The amount of the Real UBI must be Independent from the Government.. Any UBI set by the Government is not the real UBI. Do you get that too or are you struggling?
WE need to tie UBI to GDP at 30% or more to robotics as well so if robotics and GDP increase everyone's income increases... Robotics becomes more efficient anyway in the end... and less production from humans is needed and more fun realms will happen for humans instead of just work! So that's how we have to think...
@@catvisiontv855 Gross domestic product (GDP) is a monetary measure of the market value[ of all the final goods and services produced and sold in a specific time period by a country
THEREFORE,
GDP is not good for UBI because when the wealthy stop producing the poor DO NOT GET UBI.
Also, GDP demands for something to be sold, aka transacted, in order the measure of GDP to exist. GDP is not good for UBI because when the Wealthy stop transacting the poor DO NOT GET UBI.
ANY UBI BASED ON TRANSACTIONS IS A FAKE UBI. The real UBI is always based on Wealth owned.
What's the obsession with ubi? No wonder, billionaires are supporting UBI. UBI will ensure democracy is ended. What is actually needed is better wealth income distribution, that the productivity gains are distributed to the labour market and not only the billionaires and that unions must become stronger and more representative of public.
What you're also neglecting is the fact that when people have a floor to stand on (e.g. UBI) they can leave exploitative working environment
To do what? Most people are not able to do something with their lives.
@@srfrg9707 So keep them inprisoned in rat race,how charming.
Manyx I don't keep them. They are afraid of freedom. Real freeedom, not the ersatz presented as freedom by society.
@@srfrg9707 this is a point but it's not necessarily fear of freedom it's what do we do with all of our 'spare time ?' Marxist said that we spend our afternoons hunting and fishing! ☺
@@srfrg9707 I didn't meant that you keeping them.This Is how I see it,if you are free, you Can decide to work,but you are not inforced by necesity.I however think that responsebility Is crucial either way.
Unemployment isn’t the entire problem like he’s suggesting. It’s the OVERWHELMING amount of people who have jobs and some money but still live in poverty or paycheck to paycheck despite being employed or on disability or welfare. It’s not about printing more cash either, it’s about reallocation of cash.
@easterndundrey that all might be true, or not. Either way, your personal attacks on me don’t automatically make your opinion correct. That’s a logical fallacy on your part, and in all honesty, kind of botches your opinion overall. Maybe study communication if you’re going to engage in conversations, then people might take you more seriously.
@easterndundrey Where do you live ?
If corporations paid a livable wage we wouldn't need UBI. Corporations don't pay out because they don't have to by law. If the government made corporations pay a livable wage then we wouldn't need UBI. Does that make sense?
As he says in the video, it's not that there isn't work to be done, because the way we've removed the need for work is unsustainable for the environment and unethical for foreign, post-colonial countries. We've "externalized" the need for a lot of our jobs. The work still needs to be done, but we've let corporations decide to send those jobs to countries where there are fewer labor protections and environmental regulations. A UBI alone would fix none of the systemic problems that I just mentioned. A UBI alone would be putting the working class on "life support" so that they can keep buying, raising the GDP, and further increasing the wealth divide between the richest and poorest. Even if the UBI was funded with increased taxes and getting rid of other forms of welfare, that money is still meant to be spent, and when it's spent it primarily returns to the wealthy corporations.
I personally like the idea of a government allowance, but an allowance without systemic change is not a fix for the reasons why an allowance seems like a good idea in the first place.
A gov't mandated wage to workers by employers will send the jobs overseas again. The US is trying to reverse that.
@easterndundrey You can't even use a spell-checker to write one sentence to someone while you try to sound smart. Go back to the circus.
???? Print more cash?
Isn't it supposed to be tax & redistribute wealth? UBI is a tax structure, where instead of taxing for a social service you are taxing for a direct redistribution
I wouldn't call it direct redistribution, rather a flat distribution. Just saying. The slight implication of wording weights heavily on the way Economists create incentives and disincentives. Flat tax (VAT is almost the most efficient way to tax).
@Silver Chariot And they'd go where exactly? Every single first world country in the world has higher income taxes than the US. Unless they're content with Botswana as their next destination, they're not going anywhere.
It's easy to forget inflation is not total currency, but total _circulated_ currency. So, regardless if the money comes from taxes or not, it will be inflationary. Yang even admits to this.
@@jadakiss98682 european millionaires move to switzerland and other nations all the time. with offshore accounts, you cant touch their money. especially if they personally have no "income".
I always understood that UBI could be funded by a multiple means. When I think of a UBI, I do not think of a straight up tax and redistribute. I more see it along the lines of what Alaska did and what Alberta attempted to do. High tax on non-renewable resources or "the winners" as Andrew Yang calls them. These taxes are then invested. The UBI is drawn off the dividends of these investments, allowing for a "renewable" resource out of non-renewable resource. Or at least that is the idea from Alaska and the model which in my mind works the best. If you only tax and redistribute, then it will be one and done. If you tax, invest and then live off the excess... well that is smart...
“Workers owning the means of production” where have I heard that before?
Yeah this guy is 100% a Marxist.
[USSR ANTHEM PLAYING]
Try as hard as you want....you ca'nt escape Marx.
UBI is socialism. Yang has simply put his own spin on it.
Socialism is an economic and political system where the ways of making a living (factories, offices, etc.) are owned by a society as a whole.
Thats the socialism most people are familiar with.
Yang has realized that society doesnt have to own the ways of making a living (factories, offices, etc.) the government can just tax those factories, offices, etc and distribute that money amongst the citizenry which will accomplish the goal of socialism which is as you know to transfer the value produced by the factories, offices, etc. to everyone in that society, instead of a group of private owners.
Its still socialism.
I thought Socialism initially but had to rewatch several times before I started to feel it more. UBI is redistribution in a slightly more capitalistic way. It favors corporate interests. My fear with UBI is when we start getting it the corporations just raise prices to recapture these dollars causing run away inflation and a giant win for them. Universal ownership is better give me some shares to participate in the growth and get dividends. Like a share of a US index fund? Just thinking out loud help me out people! Thanks I love the intellectual challenge this video gave me. Wonderful!
I’m confused on if he knows what he is arguing against
You took the words right out of my mouth
What are you confused about? It’s simple. UBI keeps people in the bondage of consumerism. Capitalism’s golden egg. Universal Basic Assets would counter that and allow people to LIVE more fruitfully.
@@oscarrivas7240 we are on the same page
@@oscarrivas7240 You magic us to that system with out harming people in the process, and I'll happily support that. However as we're currently in a Capitalistic society UBI will stop people from being harmed.
@@oscarrivas7240 Who is the government to decide UB Assets. Free markets with UBI should decide that.
I tuned out as soon as he said "government prints more money"
Was expecting a mixed bag of right wing arguments against UBI, instead I got to watch a convoluted disjointed mess of left wing arguments against UBI
There is no rightwing arguement. Its a rightwing scam itself.
@@adlucem9845 Can you elaborate on that? I lean right on economics and I'm for UBI if implemented properly. But I'm curious why you think it would be a scam? Calling free money a scam sounds like an oxymoron to me.
@@craigdaubbeats-rapinstrume9185 your tax return in april is not free money. Its a rebate. UBI is not free money. You must pay much more for everything to fund it. Not some corporation, not some rich guy. The tax is on YOU.
If you funded it without a VAT and just raised income taxes across the board as they are, the average earner making $30k a year would be paying an additional 20% in taxes. That would be much more fair. The average person would see a net $500 a month. But the wealthy would see a large net negative and that defeats the real hidden purpose; ending any sort of socialism and progressive taxation.
But thats not how its funded. Its funded by a VAT on "luxury" items. Meaning everything but food. The corporations pay the tax. And they in turn pass it to the final product price. Shifting the tax burden to YOU, the consumer. You pay $1000 to get $1000 while disincentivizing purchasing creating a deflationary effect. Which could force prices lower, except we all work at the places that are affected creating unemployment.
The whole thing is then a fast track to ruin.
I love Americans. They have to figure out if something is left wing or right wing before they know if they can support it or not.
@@adlucem9845 wait... you mean that people that have a higher consumption rate would have a problem, but those with no jobs would get guarantee of food? How is that a disaster?
I would like to hear a discussion between him and Andrew Yang about UBI, hosted by Joe Rogan
Yes!!!!
"Pull that shit up Jamie"
For godsake. No. In the middle of the 4-hour talk session one of them will take joint out. Fun but not accurate.
Mr Rushkoff argument against UBI is that it will not hold Big Tech accountable. And printing money to support UBI is bad (I agree).
Andrew Yang’s policies include a VAT, taxation that help close loopholes Big Tech are using to avoid paying tax. The VAT will be needed because, in part, Big Tech pays for UBI. Also keep inflation minimal.
UBI (print more money) = Bad
UBI (supported with VAT) = Good
I'd prefer it hosted by Jocko
This guy is all over the place.
While I disagree with what he’s saying, his being all over the place is probably the result of his thoughts being shrunk into a 5 minute video.
At 2:15 the guy asked what mine plastic comes from.
Im just kinda noticing how the title 'big think' is kind of ironic. This is one of those talks that really highlights this. It's like ted talks for people who have only 5 minutes.
AZTEC MAN yeah it’s a very dishonest argument
This guy doesn't know what he's talking about. Yeah he's very much all over the place. He mentioned 10 days work out of the year? Who said that?. He also mentioned we tear down houses to control the market, then mentioned anything besides that is half ass backwards?!?
UBI doesn’t involve printing money... I think he’s completely mistaken
He wants communism and UBI gives power to actual people so he isn't for it. When he says he wants people to own the means of production he means, government and therefore not really the people, but a subset of the people. Same as it currently is. And the part about "getting government to print money" 🤣😂 That's like saying getting a fish to swim.
I'm curious to know where the money for uni comes from if you don't print money? On a national scale what other ways is there. Would it be a case of private corporations financing it as with Alaska? Thanks for your thoughts.
@@moglimogify Currently, the Yang proposal is a VAT on consumer goods other than food and necessities.
Uh, dunno. Why not reallocate most of the resources that are being spent on wars with other countries 🤔 it's been 20-21 years since 9/11. Isn't it about time we stopped invading other countries and selling weapons to militias??? If that's of no concern to you, and should be left as is. Then, you have no say in UBI. What about the constant 🤔 supply of money that gets sent to other countries??? If that's also of no concern to you then you might as well as not type at all. All of these wasted resources could be use to make America truly great again instead of wasting your time talking about printing money. It's also like you guys totally disregard what the guy says in the video. He clearly mentions the destruction of homes 🏡 to keep the market value high, the destruction of food that could go to use. There are more homes than homeless people. Think again.
@@YeikyRivera Historically, never in the past has so little of the US budget been spent on the military, so it's already going the way you're suggesting. That's mostly thanks to innovation. And well, you should talk to some Iraqis, talk to some Libyans, talk to some Kosovan Muslims, talk to South Koreans... they'll all say the same thing! "Thank god for the US intervention".
Universal basic income is Capitalism where income doesn't start at 0.
If everyone now has $1000 more by default, $1000 becomes the new 0. You are still starting at 0.
@@KamuiAlmighty Thats simply not true. Consumer goods only goes 1 way in the long run: down.
@@BENCHI_Official You're right. Barring external forces acting on the market (e.g. UBI), the market will drive the cost of consumer goods down. You can't apply the laws of supply and demand the way you want them to if you're interfering with the market by imposing what basically amounts to a price floor.
@@KamuiAlmighty
"Consumer goods". Basic income is for food and paying 1/2 your rent. $500 a month Basic income (6k a year) in essence would only help lower poverty and crime.
Actually let’s be honest. It’s really a more advanced way to grow the drug trade. After all, the welfare expansion under LBJ’s Great Society program is directly correlated with the massive growth of the illicit drug market and overall dependency on government. We now have multiple generations of people who have never seen their parent(s) motivated to do anything productive with their life. We’ve created a peasant class that wasn’t there before, both in the ghettos and the trailer park. Hayek’s road to serfdom has become a reality. UBI will just be the next phase of that.
I completely agree but if this is in response to Andrew Yangs ubi progress then I feel this is misplaced. Yang himself has indicated he know this isnt an actual solution but just a push towards an actual human driven economy instead of humans just being another capital resource but he also acknowledges to the change needed to get to a true post scarcity society would be likely way too violent or quick to be implemented during his presidency.
As shown in some of their videos, Big Think is funded by Charles Koch ( i.imgur.com/5gWOMEg.png) , so I've been wondering for a while whether this video channel is just part of a larger propaganda machine.
Implementation of UBI is a political equivalent of an evolutionary dead end. The people lose all bargaining power.
The reason he says that the actual solution would be "too violent or quick" even though by the end of his potential presidency jobs will be cut by a third or more is because it would negate the wealth of the billionaires and millionaires.
"Too violent " means that his ilk would react violently, possibly even using mercenaries" too quick" means that he wants the solution to be worked only after he dies of old age.
Hence UBI is meant to perpetually extend the lifespan of capitalism at the cost of democracy and the misery of millions because for the rich abandoning capitalism will always be "too violent and too quick".
It all boils down to who should nations serve, a small group of rich people or everyone else.
Mr Rushkoff’s problem with UBI is that printing money to support UBI won’t hold Big Tech accountable and a bad idea in general. I agree.
But with Andrew Yang’s VAT, it will close many loopholes Big Tech is using to pay zero tax.
If UBI is funded mostly by Big Tech with the VAT, I believe Mr Rushkoff would, at least, entertain that idea.
@@chillindylan99 bro , have you checked yang programs and platforms?
He is far more progressive than Bernie, if you ever bother to read his books
Yang contradicts himself on housing being treated like a commodity. You don't have to equate any critical thought of ubi to a post human society.
UBI would not be implemented by printing more money. It would replace the entire welfare system plus the collected taxes from automation.
Rika how are you going to tax an artificial intelligence?
why does it have to replace the entire welfare system ?
@@thrisbt1 because there's not enough money to support it and administrative infrastructure that will distribute it
@@thrisbt1 Few reasons from what I know of.
1. When people are not 'stressed' or in a 'scarcity mindset' as they don't have enough resources they make better decisions (This i got from reading Rutger Bregman's 'Utopia for realists', interesting read). So they take better care of themselves, this can include exercise, less consumption of harmful substances which COULD mean that the money going into the healthcare system is now not as necessary. Whether it can replace 100% of it, highly doubtful.
Main point being - poor people make poor decisions because of the mindset a human being usually enters when not having enough or when they live on a month-by-month-paycheck basis. So then if this isn't an issue and you can live without the stress, you will make better decisions.
Personal note: It's true for me. The more i earn, the less substances I consume and more active I become - trying to consistently search for things that make me happier which make me more productive overall.
2. It's expensive. For 1 thing to be paid, others cannot continue to exist as they do now, something has to give way.
3. You're probably right and it won't actually replace the entire welfare system :)
@@irgids, so i can't use it to buy food from my local farmer's market - i can only use it to buy things from banks and landlords ?
My teacher linked this in one of our assignments about UBI, but I'm starting to wonder if he watched the video first...
UBI will not work and it will create dependence on the government. This is dangerous because they can deny you UBI if you oppose them. This is a very bad idea.
The housing crisis is caused by demand exceeding the supply. If I want to rent an apartment and so does someone else, our UBI will cancel each other out. Then whoever earns more from their job will be able to rent. If people must work to afford rent, then the UBI is worthless.
@@oneguy4253 We're talking about a democracy here, where the elected officials are supposed to be relying on their voters satisfaction. If you have a proper democracy, then you can throw the idea about an evil government right out the window.
The USA is not a proper democracy however... but if they implemented UBI, there is no way they would use that as a leverage against its own people, that's just complete political suicide.
He probably didn't.
@@oneguy4253 Really? Where is your proof?
“printing more money” and “income” are different things: this guy needs Econ 101 lessons.
Why do people talk about things they have no knowledge about!?? I do not go around and talk about medicin if I am not a doctor, but many people are expert in economics i guess :/ I agree he needs Econ 101
@@danielandrebunckenburg9397 You statement sounds like the description statement under r/badeconomics
??? it doesn't matter. the point is that people would have more money than now. Why would you want that? the same fucking retards that could not get a house loan are now suddenly able to do it. What happens with real estate prices? they go to the moon. What happens with rents? same thing. everybody is suddenly a buyer. we need poor people to keep the prices down for the rest of us.
@@sten260 I don’t want to die a slave to capitalism. I need something to assist me financially while I learn new skills.
@@christopherestrada2474 well nobody cares, you figure it out on your own or you don't get anything. Life doesn't give you lemons just by spawning
the idea of basic income was never to print more money, the funds are not supposed to come from the government. The idea is, if a company replaces a human being with a machine, the machine keeps producing revenue but does not get a wage, so that wage could then still be given to the former employee. COMPANIES are going to pay UBI, not the government.
What happens during a recession?
@@3089280288 1% of people on earth own 50% of the wealth
The amount of tax evasion by large companies atm is unfathomable
There is no recession for those global players
@Jyoeru Zaberu They still need us very much. they can produce and outsource certain services to asia, but they are still selling their products mainly in the west, and if the east catch up enough to be an equal market when it comes to buying power, well then the wages in these countries will be high enough that it doesnt matter where these companies produce.
the power of these companies stems from lobbyism and corupt politicians. Obviously a huge hurdle to overcome, but not impossible. take that away from them and they are powerless.
"Let machines work on behalf of the human" - Alan Watts
Instead of paying to the old employee what about paying to all people who live within 5 sq.miles of that company. Here too, we can give importance to jobless youth, homeless and aged people.
Tldr: the video professes that the problem with UBI is that it's not communism
Literally!!
SEIZE THE MEANS OF PRODUCTION!!!
Yep
And it's correct. Economic power comes mostly from wealth, not income. If the importance of labour, particularly less-skilled labour, is going to decline, then it is all the more important to sieze the means of production a.k.a. redistribute wealth before the economic power of workers is completely lost
@@oliverwilson11 seize the means of production .. 1969 some guy in jail ... how about instead we go back to first principals ... withering of the state is the goal but let us just agree to skip the dictorship of the proletariat this time ... things always seem get stuck on that pesky dictatorship step
I agree that UBI may increase consumerism, but it also encourages entrepreneurship and risk-taking. More people will end up living instead of surviving.
Producing unnecessary goods that are way more than anyone needs and go broken after like half a year is the reason our planet is dying.
The Real UBI is ALWAYS paid by taxing ownership of Wealth. UBI payed by any other means is not a Real UBI in terms of Indefinite, both, Sustainability and Sufficiency. Do you get it? It is important to get it right! The amount of the Real UBI must be Independent from the Government. Any UBI set by the Government is not the real UBI. Do you get that too or are you struggling?
What's the obsession with ubi? No wonder, billionaires are supporting UBI. UBI will ensure democracy is ended. What is actually needed is better wealth income distribution, that the productivity gains are distributed to the labour market and not only the billionaires and that unions must become stronger and more representative of public.
You had me until the last minute, "You just print more..." UBI isn't just printing more cash
So was bailing out Wall Street, the banks, and big business to the tune of $4 trillion in the last “CARES” bill
Bruh, this is exactly how it works. money is littarily being made up in digits, so when we are at half communism why not just go communism all the way huh?
What makes a dollar a dollar is the fact that a dollar is relatively hard to get. The more and more common a dollar is, especially for the lowest echelons in society, the less and less value that dollar has. I'm going to give multiple examples.
1. Diamonds aren't rare. Cartels and governments all over the world collude to make it rare. So if they made it easier to buy more diamonds, it would lose its value. Weimar Germany was a big example of overspending and hyperinflation with huge welfare spending. The more government spends and puts into the market, the more accessible the currency is, the cheaper it gets.
2. if the government gave everyone 1 trillion dollars would a can of coca cola be $1? The answer is no. In the 1950s 1 bottle of coca cola cost around 5 cents, this is because the 50s didn't have skyrocketing government spending on welfare and lower minimum wages. Every time we increased the minimum wage the value of our dollar goes down and prices have to inflate according. A ubi would cause hyperinflation and destroy the value of the dollar .
Uh, every government “stimulus package” involves printing more money. If you think UBI is any different, you’re living in a fantasy.
@@KamuiAlmighty not the way Yang is planning to do it, he’s not printing MORE MONEY, he’s taking money that’s already circulating in the economy and re-distributing it. Big difference from just adding more, than taking what’s already there and just giving it to different people instead of it all going to 1 huge business owner
To be honest, I am just reading the comments (after watching the video) and I do not agree with many--and many others bring points and ideas I never really thought of--but overall I am glad most people are engaging in rational discussion rather than mocking one another. Kinda surprised.
Ridan Wise wut?
@@freeman7079 there. it's edited. better?
I personally feel this channel is one of the more productive ones when it comes to promoting positive political discourse online from both sides. Much better than a lot of polarized areas such as other channels or social media platforms.
Then please take this complimentary flame, kind Sir: “ur mom”.
I find that he froze UBI a bit in the past. Imagine a world where automation dominates every industry and all part-time jobs are gone. We’re talking about the first fully functional self-driving cars hitting the market in 3-5 years and it will put 3 million people out of a job. What solution do we have to alleviate this rapid rise of unemployment, and prevent the inevitable total collapse of society, other than UBI? UBI will be the only conceivable solution of maintaining the flow of capital in the economy.
UBI is being implemented in Canada right now, curious to see the long term economic effects of this program.
Inflation to the mean. If we all get $1000 a month raise, demand increases. Eventually the cost of goods will follow suit and it will end up being a wash.
CERB was not UBI. I didn't get a penny and had to keep working. It has failed now because instead of taxing the wealthy, the government has decided to increase inflation to drive down the middle and poor class. It failed, not because of the concept, but because out the execution.
Someone correct me if I’m wrong but I heard they scrapped it
@@johnjacobs216 Not necessarily. Its not about printing new cash. It's a reallocation of cash. Social security is already a massive government spend. Majority of that would go towards UBI.
Didn't turn out too well I suppose.
You missed the core concept of UBI.
What do you believe the core concept is that the guy doesn't express?
@@prestonhall5171 UBI does not involve just printing more cash. He basically has just committed reducto ad absurdum on the whole notion of UBI.
@JC Denton I don’t think you understand UBI.
Why does he keep saying that UBI will be financed by printing more cash. This would cause inflation in the currency and would dilute the purchasing power of the UBI thereby having a lesser impact. Wouldn't UBI come from the existing government budget. In my opinion, increasing taxes on wealthier individuals and companies to help fund UBI would help resolve the issue of severe income inequality. The need for existing welfare programs would be reduced with UBI so this part of the gov't budget could go towards UBI as well.
Why did Big Think choose someone to speak on a topic that they are not a specialist in? Surely an economist would have more knowledge of the intricacies of UBI. I'm no expert on the topic either but its hard to take someone seriously in a debate when some of their statements are ignorant assumptions.
USA is constantly operating with budgetary deficit so the only way to finance UBI would be to print more money ... and its not just USA in fact most contries have bugetary deficit or operate near zero.
You just can't solve every problem with taxing either ...
in all likelyhood you'd need to raise taxes on the very people and corporations who own so much of the wealth. sure the money will go back TO them and then it'll get cycled back into the economy when they get taxed again.
This guy also made a talk on transhumanism earlier and and it was just as misguided. Immediately upon hearing his voice I remembered this guy is dumdum and he delivered as expected.
@@Ren33469 The issue is, if you were to divide up all of the money of the 1% evenly among the other 99% in just the USA alone, i think the number comes out that everyone gets a few hundred bucks. UBI would cost trillions of dollars every year. I feel like everyone who is saying to simply "tax the rich" havnt looked at the actualy numbers and how unfeasable that really is.
@@Mornys This 'dumdum' is literally the guy who coined most of the academic phrases of the modern internet and essentially built the philosophical foundations that let it be the wild west it was before Social Media began spying. He's far more connected to technology than most of us.
It makes me wonder how bad it will have to actually get before automation has replaced so many jobs that even the most devout fiscal conservatives would start supporting something like Universal Basic Income...
For almost a decade now I have been fearing that things could get incredibly bad, before automation is able to provide enough abundance for everyone to finally benefit from it. If we don't have something in place like Universal Basic Income during this transition, things could get pretty freak'n bad!
I can guarantee that most people are pretty ignorant to just how advanced automation is going to be in the very near future. When it comes to understanding technology, most people seem like complete imbeciles. When companies just don't need workers, where are people going to work???
New industries come along all the time. Just look back at the level of automation from the 50s to now, unemployment has remained fairly steady, and may have even gone down during recent periods, so your comment sounds a little alarmist.
Aggree. I think in future people wont have to have a job in order to sustain themselves. People will only work if they want to and not because they have to. But paradocsically as it may sound people will become more productive because of that. In all industries we will witness another renneaissance. A huge boost in development of science and art. And thats is when the real interstellar space travel will begin.
@@NAUM1 lol how the hell will you compete with massive robot corporations?
UBI is not the solution.
It creates the power structure of feudalism.
We have to replace capitalism.
And no conservatives are too brainwashed to understand, hence why they should be swept aside as they were when the reasonable people ended slavery.
@@NAUM1 Robots can be creative and create things like music, but either way you're never going to have a massive creative class there just isn't a need for it. Automation will wreck too many jobs and will create more competition for the creative jobs which will drive down wages
From my point of view, people's awareness has shrunk due to the 40 hours working week. We are less happy and more depressed. We are having trouble finding meaning in most of the jobs we do.
We need badly to increase our overall awareness by having the time to step back and filter all the bullshit that we are fed upon and for that, we need to get rid of the scarcity mind set and develop on a new level our cognitive abilities and critical judgement. UBI will definitely help us develop our brains in order to make better decisions and find meaning in our lives.
There was not a single completed thought in this entire video . Adjust that man's medication .
Yeeees. 100%.
Oh man the Yang Gang brain rot is strong. Essentially the argument is that UBI provides cover for capital to provide cash to consumers to just feed back into the system to make them rich. Other universal systems, whether it be healthcare, housing, food, water, etc shouldn’t be commodified and so instituting universal programs for those things should be priority. Im sure this guy would agree that UBI would be great as long as needs are met, especially in a market economy
Agreed. The title is grossly misleading.
"If the workers owned the means of production" where have I heard that before? Oh yeah
Where?
@@FIshfood500 Karl Marx
Communism
Rushkoff is a champion at word salad and issue-mish-mash. If he kept it tight, rather than a stream of consciousness diatribe, maybe he might make a point someday. The single idea he does get through is wrong. UBI doesn't imply deficit spending or devaluation. It implies channelling taxation.
Succinctly stated!
it's reverse taxation
The Real UBI is ALWAYS paid by taxing ownership of Wealth. UBI payed by any other means is not a Real UBI in terms of Indefinite, both, Sustainability and Sufficiency. Do you get it? It is important to get it right! The amount of the Real UBI must be Independent from the Government. Any UBI set by the Government is not the real UBI. Do you get that too or are you struggling?
I agree with you to an extent, but then I ask, what alternatives are there for those who can't work due to disability, or caring for those with a disability?
Some of us have no real means of getting ahead, even if we want to.
Negative income tax, watch the “not an economist” channel’s video on it
"For a long time, I was a fan of universal basic income... but then the Koch brothers cut me a cheque."
Koch companies are the very worst to work for, Been there, I know.
I was enthusiastically awaiting a presentation of alternatives to UBI for redistribution of wealth but all I got was a muddled rant that mistakes the fundamentals of UBI (by assuming it comes from printing more money rather than from higher marginal tax rates) with *no* alternative presented. Very disappointing.
Big Think you can do better!
He put up the idea of universal basic assets
I believe that what the argument against UBI is implying is that when the government starts giving the people money for doing nothing, it's only going to incentivise people to demand more without working or doing anything in return to "earn" that money. Like many socialist ideas I've heard, this is the kind of behavior policies like that push. The US is a free market economy, meaning that individuals like you and me run it with little gorvernment intervention, but the way the government starts getting involved in it really hurts how the country earns its wealth. Take minimum wage for example, the government implemented it to prevent prices from being too low(its called a price floor). Say that im an unskilled worker in my first job and i get hired at a Mcdonalds. Since ive had no experience in working before, the employer and i will agree on what price is right to be paid for my labor, say its 8 dollars per hour. But the goverment wont allow it, its 15 dollars. Id get paid more than what my labor is worth and there the problem arises. My labor is worth 8 but the legal minimum is 15; and if im not a good worker, my employer cant lower my pay so theres no other choice but to let me go, creating space for another unskilled worker to go in. But since price isnt flexible, there would be a larger gap in the employment, creating a surplus of working positions but a shortage of workers because the employer is not willing to pay a bad worker the same amount as a good worker. While the Government says the giving free money to the poorer people will incentivise them to start working. But only 5 percent of the population is in poverty and the majority of unemployment is due to the youth because of ideas like minimum wage. This incentivises people to live off the government and to only demand instead of earning the service. Although im not good at an argument ive stated what i know because im starting to understand this country. I also wonder why there are no economists running in politics ever, because they are the ones who really know how the government should be run but there hasnt been any in my knowledge.
The title never promised what you were expecting. But it DID offer the alternative of universal basic assets, so your assessment of the video was just as unfair and unreasonable as your expectations.
@@adamdominguez656 & @JordanP ok, sure. what WTF does that mean?
Do "we all" own the given asset?
Who is "we"?
What do we own?
How is that asset taxed?
Is it?
How much?
WHO is being taxed on that asset?
Does that asset have a depreciation rate?
If so, what?
I'm not an accountant or finance guy and I have a dozen-hundred questions about this concept.
But I seriously doubt the OP has given that concept any serious thought, it's just a fancy word for
"Let's do communism.. I know it didn't work the last 10 times, and is completely anti-thetical to human nature.. but *THIS* time we can get it right!"
@@machinshin2253 I actually agree with you 100%. Universal basic assets is probably even worse than UBI.
Congratulations! Achievement unlocked: long way around to say, "capitalism is bad. Lets do communism one more time."
that's why yang is great he doesn't hate capitalism but its doing its job and it's doing it a bit to well so yang wants human capitalism. make capitalism take people into the data
It sounds less stupid than the short way around. And capitalism is bad doesnt necessarily mean socialism is good
But it’s never actually been done though.
@Luis D. technically it's true depending on how you look at. Communism is the theoretical world/utopia that Karl Marx describes. It's when the means of production are owned by everyone and there's also no state anymore. A lot of communists (and other leftists like anarchists but anarchists want to skip the totalitarian gov part) see communism as the goal and socialism (dictator/authoritarian gov) as the way to achieve that goal. That's why the USSR called themselves socialist not communist.
However in more recent times because of the effects of the cold war some people see communism as the way to achieve the goal of Marxism (which would be the utopia), so basically they've switched the terms around. I imagine that the person ur replying to follows the original definition while you think that communism is not the utopia but a left wing totalitarian state.
Sorry if my comment is like mean or rude or something, personally I think that communism means the dictator part and the utopia is Marxist but that's because I'm not tankie lmao.
Lol, ye that went well......in reality its capitalist
That was weird not making much sense except that he is worried about a lot of stuff that already happened lol.
The main problem with UBI is that when the government gives you $1000 a month, the landlords will just increase rent by $1000
well no. really.
Because of basic income and also the self driving cars which will come, you are extremly more flexible to change where you live. Because of the fact that this flexibility isn't there right now prices can go up. you are bound and they can do anything. like pharma. But if there is basic income than the rents will become a true market. a market is just a market when you can say yes AND no. Now you can not really say no because you are bound to the place because of job and family. With basic income you can take the whole family, or maybe your parents will stay where they are because for them the situation got better with basic income. and so on.
And because of the self driving car people will be able to drive longer to their job because they lose no time because they can do anything in the car. Learn, work, chill. so this will increase the radius in which you can live which will better supply and demand.
With basic income and the self driving car we first will have a little real estate crisis but not a big one like 2008. But there will be houses sold because they lose value. This will not be a big problem for tenants but for landlords. Some of that issues may spread to the tenants but again, it will not be a thing like losing your living because of real estate crisis because the credit goes wild or something like that.
Actually there is really NO study... NOT ONE... which shows a negative outcome of universal basic income. It is just talk. Every study indicates positive results. EVERYONE.
I understand that in the first 10 years of the universal basic income movement supporters had to bring some studies and proofs, but really, now the critics are responsible to substantiate their claims.
I don't mean you. :-)
I mean this lazy thinker in the video.
Greetings.
He lost me at the government will just print more money
They already do that. They just do it really, REALLY carefully. He has no concept of the walk oftightrope made of bomb-attached tripwire that is.
You weren't paying attention.
we make more money from nowhere every day.
Don't worry, we can just do what the baby boomers did and cut taxes while increasing spending. We'll just get our kids and grandkids to foot the bill as adults, like the baby boomers did!
Well that's the treasuries job?
😳😳😳 this is literally the best comment thread I’ve ever come across on TH-cam. Very informative and just about everybody is using the art of the argument.
@Believe on Jesus Christ for Eternal Life~John 3:16
And yet it is back down to 99 as I write this
back on 100
The Real UBI is ALWAYS paid by taxing ownership of Wealth. UBI payed by any other means is not a Real UBI in terms of Indefinite, both, Sustainability and Sufficiency. Do you get it? It is important to get it right! The amount of the Real UBI must be Independent from the Government. Any UBI set by the Government is not the real UBI. Do you get that too or are you struggling?
UBI: "YOU decide what you need."
UBS: "WE decide what you need."
Not against providing services, but from this POV money is more appealing because it offers more options and freedom.
So people can squander their free money on drugs and continue to complain about inequality? Universal basic assets is not necessarily providing services, its providing resources that people need to have opportunity for life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness
I don’t know if I’m on board with the idea that UBI is printing more money but I agree that a UBI will be taken advantage of by corporations and is a temporary solution to a problem at best.
The government will become the heart that keeps money flowing through the economy through corporate taxes and UBI. But then the people running the companies will be some sort of incentive to keep going...
Unless we just AI automate it all and make it publicly owned.
We might be naturally drifting to a sort of futuristic communism. As long as people aren't oppressed by others and it solves a lot of otherwise unavoidable problems, I don't see a problem.
He speaks with pazaaz but ultimately is trying to pull unrelated stories and personal intuition to argue his point rather than using math and statistics. I wish society were smart enough to dismiss people like this
Since you brought up science and statistics.
Why not abandon the monetary model and instead use a system managed that way via algorithms?
Bc math and statistics are the most useful route to epistemic wherewithal when studying a concept that’s never been implemented...
@@ryanapodaca9042 It actually is, math is the language of the universe.
@@fl00fydragon And who gets to write the algorythm? And how to make sure its impossible to interfere with it? (especially in case of a war, you dont want the opponent to meddle with your whole society).
Also math isnt the language of the universe. It is the language we chose to describe it. Big nuance here.
@@guillaumelandaburu1784
A mathematician and programmers would do. A statistical analysis of consumption is extremely easy to do.
It's a network, you know, the thing designed to survive nuclear attack.
As for security a combination of block chain technology and quantum encryption will make hacking/meddling impossible. (you would literally have to violate the uncertainty principle for every single computer in the network and to hack a block chain network you'd need to simultaneously hack all computers in it.)
There is no case where you will see matter or energy violate math even on the quantum level.
Macroscopic resources obey simple laws of addiction.
Instead of trying to throw a smart quip present an example where one something and another of the same something doesn't make 2 somethings.
We're not taking philosophy here but a practical solution.
I have to disagree.
For me basic Income really clicked, when I heard a talk from Yanis Varoufakis. He said something like basic income is the best method to undermine the rich because you give the poor the power of choice.
Meaning if I get money without working, I don't give a damn about a job at Uber that pays bad. No you better pay me waaay more, cause if not why the hell would I do it.
Isn't that a good argument against what's Douglas Rushkoff is saying?
It all depends on how UBI is funded and how much it allocates to each citizen. But yeah, people like Varoufakis and David Graeber defend a different kind of UBI than - say - Milton Friedman. And those differences matter.
Actually I've heard a leftist critique of UBI that points out the opposite. At the moment there is an incentive 'problem' with current welfare programs, meaning if you start working part time while on welfare, your welfare check gets cut. So high welfare works currently works the way you described: it gives poor people the power to not accept menial low paying jobs, because government welfare grants them a higher standard of living, and this forces companies to raise their employees' wages. Under UBI all work is worth taking, even the shitty jobs that pay next to nothing. That is why I think UBI won't increase median wages, it will actually decrease them.
I think what he's saying is that the UBI would be around equivalent to the current federal budget, which is already effectively funded through lending (treasury bonds/bills) because the US spends a bit more than it brings in (the deficit). He might be just saying vague shit about materialism in the hopes to get people to think about what it all means, life and stuff? I don't know.
The instant you give everyone an allowance is the same instant that our money becomes worth that much less. Two things happen. 1 - The value of working falls apart and thus no one will do it. 2 - Now that the government pays you to live, they employ you. They own you. 3.That money is also now completely worthless. What can be gotten for nothing is worth nothing.
@@ActuatedGear If the government paid me enough that I didn't need to work, I'd still do the career I do anyways. Nothing would stop me from working unless there was some debilitating health problem.
Though I figure this cannot be said for the vast majority of people... then again they probably haven't found what they'd love to do and this opens up a whole new discussion.
So well put. Its also a control mechanism. What do you need to do to participate in UBI?
Everything
Work. Otherwise we'll have to offer further incentive to those who work, just go through a scarcity of labor and products, or automate everything and go post-capitalist.
4:14 "What if the workers owned the means of production..." UMM. I've DEFINITELY heard this somewhere before, and I'm pretty sure it DID NOT go well last time.
What if americans Seize the means of toilet paper production?? 🤣
And nah ubi has nothing to do with production.. it's like a basic right if everyone gets it equally, the amount sustainable is subject for debate, but in general a base income seems to me as the way to solve poverty through capitalism that doesnt start at zero..
@@tamriel_x Damn I sure hope base income will work :D . With "owning the means of production" I think he meant something like owning shares of companies involved in the production. Shares gives money based on the company's performance, while basic income will have its own rules, so it may be a fixed amount or otherwise. But to me the basic income sounds implementable and not just some abstract idea.. and people can buy shares with it if they want to anyway except they may find better uses too :s .
how is capitalism going?
@@jman75234 its going fine, would be a lot easier if the capitalism didn't start at zero tho, eventually people will get it, little by little... Americans will always do the right thing, after they have done everything else...
@@tamriel_x considering socialism consitantly has to bailout capitalism I would disagree.
The model of Universal Basic Income I had in mind was that the money it needs will come from taxes from rich!
This way Wouldn’t be nearly enough to cover not even a fraction of its costs
@@willy4170 Do you have any idea how much money this would be if billionaires payed as many taxes as us in the same % relation?
Oh yea- I forgot that they are the 0.01% of us.
If that's not enough (which it probably is), retrieve conglomerate's profits.
They don't need those anymore right?
After all they do receive an UBI too.
We have UBI. It is called the Alaskan Permanent Dividend.
Is 4k a year enough for a basic income in Alaska?
does that work well in Alaska, I just heard about it....sounds too good to be true.
@@DarkMustard1337 yes
No, the Alaska dividend is a UPI..Universal Partial Income. BUT, through its implementation, it disproves many of the talking points stated by UBI detractors...inflation, laziness, etc.
because alaska collects royalties on its crude. if we adopt nuclear fusion tomorrow, there is no APD.
"What if the workers owned the means of production?"
That model is the cooperative. If you want to see a successful model of an industrial cooperative then look at the Mondragon Cooperative, because they've been doing it successfully for more than half a century.
The funny thing is, UBI would allow more people to create their own co-ops. This guy is a fuckin loony toon.
Also, check out Equal Exchage, another successful co-op.
"Professor of media theory" thats all u need to know guys.
*and Digital Economics, wtf lol how the hell did he get hired as an economics professor when he has no background on it at all lmaoo
Two notes. First, the government shouldn't be printing more money (unless it wants rampant inflation). UBI relies on heavy *redistribution.* And economically, it makes sense. As less and less jobs are in existence, less and less people will have incomes that will allow them to purchase anything other than the necessities of life. To keep the economy functioning, we need people to spend money. So redistribution makes sense in this light - nobody can be a successful entrepreneur if nobody is able to afford their products. In effect, this is the dream of high-tax liberal democracies, and it works really well in certain unnamed European countries (though for how long remains to be seen).
And secondly, UBI is a band-aid. It is a way to prop up an economic system (in the way described in my first point) that cannot be self-sustaining much longer. Work, voluntary work for money, just isn't going to be a factor in the future, at least not at levels seen in the past. And climate change is going to make refugees of hundreds of millions of people (making the Syrian crisis seem like a walk in the park), people who are going to need places to live, medical care, and support to re-start their lives. The lack of work, and the influx of refugees will break modern economies. UBI just can't fix this.
If we weren't so committed to the way things are (sunk-cost fallacy), people would be ecstatic at a future where unpleasant jobs, dangerous jobs, boring jobs are mostly done by robots and computer programs. Our basic worldview, instilled upon us from birth, is that the world is hierarchical...and that this is not only the way things are, it's the way things SHOULD be. So the few people who manage to have jobs, or to make money via self-employment, they must DESERVE the wealth they get, the opportunities they have. But there is an alternative here. If you ask most people what they'd be doing with their time on Earth if they didn't have to work a crappy job 40+ hours a week, most would have a ready answer, and it's not usually something that requires a lot of capital to attain. People like to garden. To play instruments. To learn new things. Productivity need not just be defined as doing things that are valued by the market, that are...marketABLE. A future where people contribute 10 hours a week to the well-being of their society, in any number of approved ways (from volunteering with youth or senior citizens, to helping grow food, to working in any number of professions that will exist after peak automation, to TRAINING for said professions) is a future I can get behind. A future where basic needs like food, accomodation and healthcare are free, and where being productive, not only during those 10 hours a week, but in your spare time (doing other things you value) can earn you luxuries like travel vouchers, fancy meals, etc. A future where leadership exists to help keep things running smoothly, and is not elected, but instead mandatory for every member of society (everyone spends one year out of every 10 years in a position of leadership).
We are a co-operative species. We evolved to be social animals. People WANT their society to be better than it is now, and are frustrated that there's so much division, so much hatred. A communal lifestyle like this would obviously not meet EVERYONE'S needs, but it would be a lot better and more moral than what we have now (which, in the US, is a system that effectively allows poor people to die premature deaths because they don't have health care, or access to proper nutrition, for example). Currently, capitalism is mandatory - if you want to eat, if you want to have medical care, you have no choice but to participate in the economy. But a communal system would be genuinely optional. With the efficiency of modern farming and food production methods, communes could support a small number of people who were unwilling to work even 10 hours a week with basic food, medicine and shelter...but the incentives to take part and share in the common good would be pretty tempting to most people.
Volcanoman If you “redistribute wealth” you destroy incentive for people to create things and provide services of value. To keep the economy functioning, you need people motivated to take financial risks to innovate. Those who take the right risks deserve the rewards. Those who make foolish ones must be allowed to fail. By robbing successful people and burning the ladder of success, all you do in the long run is doom the poor and middle class to poverty.
Well said Volcaoman! Things people don’t get is that everyone wants to feel valued and wants to do something with their life. I don’t know a single person who would be happy with their life sitting around and not contributing to society in any way. People want to work, but not everyone can in our modern age. Why? Because there aren’t enough jobs and not everyone has the skills or physical capacity to do the jobs around. We need to value different things than profits. Yang has a lot of the right ideas about UBI. I think we need to look at UBI a lot more seriously as robots are taking 10k jobs and replacing them with 100 or so. Or in some cases millions of jobs and replacing them with 10k or less. UBI is to make capitalism work indefinitely. If you want more than basic survival you gotta contribute to society. People want fulfillment.
@@Ghost_Hybrid its not about taking away everything someone has earned, it is about them giving back to the structures that allowed their success bin the first place, education and infrastructure, social security for their employees and their relatives, chances for the following generations.
also, it creates an incentive to stay successful. if you made a lot of money once and secured a position of monopoly it will be very hard for others to catch up because you have your money working for you. if however your successes of the past diminish over time and your competitors are strengthened you have to stay successful to stay on top. so it is even more competitive as you have to compete through quality more than through market value. in that regard it is even more rewarding, except if your only measure for success is your bank record, which will still reflect it but to a lesser degree. thank God not all people measure their success through acquired wealth, otherwise we wouldn't have things like FOSS, the internet, neighborhood help programs etc.
if however you are successful and afraid of competition at the cost of depriving the people of the best possible products and their right to determine what to do with their life outside of economic pressure your argument appears valid.
i would argue that the work most beneficial to society as a whole are not those that generate the most wealth and in quite a few cases the opposite is true.
i would even argue that more people would be willing to take a risk and create even better services and goods or fail at it than in our current society. capability is not the main factor in success but empowerment and financial background, starting at the time of education but not stopping at the point of creating your company. connections, marketing, monetary and financial skills - and to some degree ruthlessness - have a lot more influence on success than the actual quality of your services. a model like this would at the least increase diversity of goods and services and likely also improve their quality and positive impact on the world.
Government is not printing money in UBI. They are taxing NEW tech wealth.
@@Ghost_Hybrid That is the story we're told by people who have an incentive to keep the system the way it is. If an entrepreneur who is risking $30,000 to start his business knows that if he becomes ludicrously successful (say with an income of $10+ million a year) he will be taxed at 90%, will he be less incentivized to innovate? Somehow I doubt it. If the same entrepreneur knew that in the event he becomes a multi-millionaire, 75% of his estate when he dies would go to the government, leaving just 1/4 for his family, would he stop working and just sit around all day doing nothing? People don't innovate because of extrinsic motivation like the vast sums of money they could make. They do it for intrinsic reasons, because they're curious, they need a creative outlet, they enjoy tinkering, etc. The money is just a nice bonus after the fact.
The problem here is the wealth GAP. A CEO who earns $30 million a year isn't doing work that is actually VALUED at that cost. He is reaping the rewards for having been lucky, having either had the right idea at the right time, or INVESTED in the right idea at the right time. People don't take financial risks because they know that they could be so lucky that they become billionaires. They take financial risks hoping to end up with enough money to support their families, maybe live a nice life. Nobody NEEDS hundreds of millions of dollars. Nobody DESERVES it. And nobody would change anything about their behavior now if they knew that 90% of their income would be taken away in taxes if they are fortunate enough to have multi-million dollar incomes in the future.
The American Lie is that people get what they deserve. The rich earn their money, the poor earned their poverty. But in a world where nobody chooses their nationality of birth, where nobody chooses what kind of abilities and interests they will have, where nobody chooses the influences that will interact with their neurobiology to create a personality type...there is no earning in this world. There is just luck of the draw. How many people work hard all their lives only to be laid off, in debt and unable to pay medical bills because they were unlucky enough to get cancer or something? How many people with the intellectual capacity of a Bill Gates can never hit on the right idea at the right time, and lose all of the money they invested in their businesses? And how many people never have to work a day in their life because of the massive trust fund their parents left them? Do they deserve that? Does anyone deserve anything? I argue NO.
The philosopher John Rawls came up with a concept called the "Veil of Ignorance". He argues that the best way to design a society is to assume that you are ignorant of what your ROLE in that society will be. You could be a captain of industry or a homeless person. So you create a system that ensures that everyones' needs are met, no matter their station, since you yourself could end up in an unenviable position should there BE unenviable positions.
America today has so much wealth concentrated in so few hands, that if there isn't redistribution, the system will collapse. Redistribution is the only way keep capitalism functioning without massive market crashes, recessions and depressions - it has worked out very well in various Northern European countries (Denmark, Sweden, Luxembourg, Norway). People can still get rich. Nobody has stopped trying to innovate because of taxes. In fact, knowing there's a social safety net there to catch them if they are unlucky and their financial risk doesn't pay off may actually encourage people to invest their time and money in new creative ventures.
If the wealthy disproportionately pay taxes in a progressive tax system, then they will basically subsidize universal basic income. It's a form of wealth redistribution. It's not just printing more money.
This guy is talking about multiple subjects that aren't 100% related
Many countries try it out and fail. Look at Finland, Brazil, and currently Venezuela
He's creating a word salad so that he can conveniently slip in his argument for communism. Conveniently that is the only part of his argument that he explains clearly Karma but he also conveniently doesn't call it communism. And I'm not against communism because it's called communism, I'm against it because it always leads to gross atrocities. And if we think anything that we are experiencing today in America is anything closed to the horrors of communism, we really need to do some research and realize just how great we have it right now.
You are right on that UBI should coming from a progressive tax system. A redistribution of wealth. But another important fact of UBI is that you as employee will so the say emancipated. You will ask a CV from the company. If the company is doing something you can back up the company has to adapt. The power of companies will become much less. People will have more to say and that is where my movement , The Social Human Movement , is aiming for.
He definently lost credibility by saying UBI is executed by printing money. That's idiotic to say, if the stories about wheelbarrow loads of money for a loaf of bread in Germany's depression are to be believed. It's the worst argument against UBI I've ever heard. I don't think even the blindest socialists in the US are proposing that. Lol
This is why the Value Added Tax is so important.
It's actually scary that this has more thumbs up than thumbs down,
Like, goddamn how asinine can a society get?
But he has ALOT of thumbs down relative to thumbs up. Thank goodness.
So, how many IQ points do you have?
The host: *No*
This guy has the same economic expertise as the crazy guy on the bus.
@Ambesh Pratik he was talking about of instead of ubi, the workers could own the means of production. That is the definition of communism, utopian societies never work
Exactly! He thinks that by smiling we are too stupid to see that. I'm actually insulted watching this video, and scared
@@demetriusmiddleton1246 I'm insulted that he thinks jobs won't exist after UBI, when things like parenting have always existed, and they don't deserve any compensation for raising the future of their country?? This man isn't very intuitive I'll say
You did not think that uber example trough. If drivers already have a basic income, they would not be forced to take a bad, risky, low paying job at uber. So it will be MUCH harder for uber (and other bad companies) to get employees, or at least they have to pay WAY higher wages to get people that don't really need a job to work for them. This is the democratization of jobs and labor. Bad jobs will pay more than interesting and fun jobs. And that's one of the many beauties of UBI.
No it won't be hard for a ride share company that has deep pockets to buy autonomous cars and trucks. That is their real business modem
3089280288 yes, and that’s bad why exactly? You don‘t need people anymore to do bad jobs. They get the UBI and don’t have to drive cars anymore.
@@3089280288 And the futuristic "robots will take over works" of UBI dictates that those aotonomous cars will be taxed to pay for UBI
C T Uber isn’t a bad job, nor is it risky. I’ve been driving part time for 4 years with 6k rides, it’s pretty fun talking to people from all over the place.
Uber dont need to find any worker at all. They are going to use driverless cars. Now what？We dont need that much programmer to train a driverless car we only need gpu to do that. how we prove our value to the world？How we decide who can take the Uber car to a place everyone want to go？
2.5 min in and he hasn't begun to discuss the problem with UBI.
The funding is easily the biggest issue with UBI but I fully admit that this video covers another glaring issue, especially when considering the motivation behind its support from the mega corporations.
This was a rant, not even about the topic...
I known right just click bait
How was it not about the topic.
@@DSQueenie he dident talk about universal basic income this is just a anti socialist rant
the closest he came to talking about it was saying the word universal basic income a few times before reverting to anti socialist rant
I have heard something about universal basic dividend which is similar to the permanent fund in Alaska. Every year each Alaska citizen gets a payment based on oil revenue and typically it's between 1k and 2k per year. Not UBI but it's like a little bonus. Something to consider nation wide
@@cynthiamarquez3370 thats just ubi but it wouldn't really help anyone
We don’t just need jobs we need better jobs. My job at a juice bar making smoothies and connecting with the local community was happy and productive. I made enough to get by, had creative expression and was able to use compost from the juice bar to improve the soil quality in my yard. We need more jobs like this! (Sadly I left to work at a corporation, which I now regret) 🙄
What's the obsession with ubi? It's literally begging and becoming dependant on billionaires or govt. No wonder, billionaires are supporting UBI. UBI will ensure democracy is ended. What is actually needed is better wealth income distribution, that the productivity gains are distributed to the labour market and not only the billionaires and that unions must become stronger and more representative of public.
But what if i decide to keep my ubi and save or invest it?
I’m a boomer and I believe in UBI. I think it’s a cop out to believe people will refuse to work. If you want/need more cash, you find a job that isn’t already done by AI. If not, you live how you live on UBI. And make a law that companies can’t penalize employees because of UBI.
If they can write checks to other countries to buy loyalty, they can take care of their own.
This is like your high friend that starts on topic then just tangents off and gets really general and broad...
It’s needs to be funded with a Value Added Tax rather then printing more money.
Yang 2020
all 92 👌
nonsense. the VAT will only be paid by the bottom 90%
jamc666 nope, it’s a consumption tax so the more you buy the more you pay. Rich people buy more thing so naturally they pay more
@@jamc666 nope. The vat he proposed won't be on every day Goods.. luxury items only
A few thoughts that crossed my mind during this video.
1. UBI shouldn’t be executed by printing more money. That will have the opposite effect of redistributing the wealth in this country.
2. When you give more power(which is money in the USA) to workers, we are then able to demand more fair businesses practices because we now have the option to leave the exploitative job.
Yeah but why not just own the means of production
The way Yang structures UBI is through an active VAT, so that participation IS paid. You're looking at the funding question wrong,
3:55
This dude has no idea what he's talking about.
Out of all the invested and thoughtful comments on this video I believe yours to be the most concise.
Complete opposite.
Of course he does ! He's found an issue. IT DOES NOT MEAN HE HAS THE PERFECT SOLUTION he doesn't make any claims. A society where people are rewarded for their hard work is a much better society. The rich will still be rich , but maybe the extra labour costs ( added to less staff turnover and motivated staff ) will knock a few million off their share dividend but will help generate a fair and just capitalist economy. The way it's going now will mean the USA will implode in the next 20 years... I guarantee
i clicked this comment the second i started the video, and heard "print more money" and i immediately turned it off lol
@@nopants4259 "A society where people are rewarded for their hard work" is not exactly what we are living in.
There are many people who have worked harder than any of us in these comments could imagine, and still have no path out of poverty. There are some people who have enough of a pile of money that they can sit on it, doing little 'work' and reap major benefit.
Search 'Monster's inc argument for ubi' on youtube for a more in depth argument here. The issue is wage slavery.
Most people are working themselves into the ground out of fear of death by poverty. Don't work > dont have money > dont pay bills > be homeless and die. People are forced to do jobs they dont care for (or hate) for the sake of not starving or freezing to death.
People are given enough to eat, enough to pay rent, enough to neglect their higher order needs, and make it to work the next week to start the cycle over.
If someone is holding a gun to your head, telling you to flip burgers; your choices are life and death.
If someone is holding the paycheck you need not to be homeless and starving, and telling you to flip burgers; your choices are also life and death.
UBI is about decoupling the work needed by one man from the survival of another.
People won't just stop working. People will start doing work that is *voluntary* instead of doing whatever work they can get their hands on to survive. Everyone idealizes having a career where you "never work a day in your life" because you are passionate about it.
UBI makes that more possible.
Did someone say SEIZE THE MEANS OF PRODUCTION!?
Did someone say Venezuela!?
nope. He said "What if the workers owned the means of production?" (not seized as in forcefully taken). Basically the question is, why do only a few people own stock in a company and profit from it growing, while the average employee keeps making the same amount of money. This just creates a growing inequality. It's a natural consequence of unchecked capitalism. It can't go on forever because there is a flaw in its design.
@@willfrank961 how else could you take away the stocks from the shareholders? Unless you are talking about setting up new coops, ofc, but those would hardly be competitive against the likes of Amazon and Uber whose whole competitive edge relies on worker exploitation
I agree with your point about universal ownership being a good solution, but I have to point out that UBI actually IS a form of universal ownership if it is based on progressive taxes. It is basically saying we all own the wealth and we each get dividends as a result. The real problem with the UBI is deciding what level to make it and making sure it is paid from higher taxes not by cuts to basic services. But just like tax cuts in the US are popular, I expect that once the UBI is experienced, most people will vote for a higher one.
I couldn't stop laughing at this guy during this video. Well done, I must say.
We already have a universal basic income, its 0$.
It's actually 0.00
"get the gov to print more money to give it to us" this is incredibly disingenuous.
Brandon McGowan Not the way Andrew Yang wants to fund it. freedom-dividend.com/
@@brandonmcgowan4897 UBI taxes people with money and redistributes it. You don't need to print more. It's the same pool of money
@@MaaveMaave no matter the origin, it will lead to incredibly fast currency deflation
3D printing can be done in-house where you recycle plastics you find and use that to make your filaments.
I still have yet to "see" an argument for or against ubi. I'm asking, how would it really work, or how would it really not work?
Show me! Draw flow charts, show me projections for outcomes.. give me an accounting argument for or against it.
These are interesting thoughts, but seemed kinda disjointed. It was like he was trying for a theme, but couldn't quite make it. Not sure how universal basic assets would allay any of the environmental problems associated with consumerism. I would also argue that it's not capitalism that causes environmental ills, rather it is production of anything under any economic structure, which is a necessary side effect of being alive.
As to the environmental detriment of capitalism mentioned in the video, why not offer the money that would be in a UBI fund to workers who actively participate in environmental remediation roles? That way you both improve the economy and take on the problems with the commons that are often ignored by business.
Agree, however I'd argue that capitalism has the potential to incentivize more rapid waste production driven by incentives for maximal profit and growth. Potentially fixing the incentives, even within a capitalist structure, could be an answer to this.
I'd like to hear a more cohesive set of thoughts from Rushkoff though... sparks my curiosity
Capitalism is directly related toward the ills of the environment; as its core foundations were built upon the idea that untamed land is wasted land.
I agree, there should be less people on the planet. I would say previous levels of population that were here 500 to 1000 years ago.
The problem seems to me is that he is conflating two separate problems that are related but still different. By the same token where he is said UBi will only subsidize companies like Uber that would also be true of a worker owned co-op. Without Ubi it's either government creating useless jobs or the private sector creating useless jobs. With either one that is a problem with the structure of our economy as a whole. UBI is the promotion of the income side of it where if jobs aren't available or people can't work then UBI helps with that issue. It seems to me to be two separate issues.
1p6t1gms what makes those population levels (of 1000 CE to 1500 CE) seem appropriate to you? Why not 500 CE or 500 BCE?
To be honest, I didn't really get anything of substance from this conversation.
I really didn't see the connection with what he was saying, and ubi.
He thinks UBI is bad because he thinks internet startup douche-bags will be able to pay their gig-economy employees less. This is stupid because UBI will give workers more bargaining power in employment negotiations by providing supplemental income while they search for employment. It will also reduce their dependence on side-gig income.
@@shivasrightfoot2374 I mean I would be open to the idea of a certain amount of ubi.
I heard Andrew Yang talk about his idea on the Joe Rogan podcast, and I actually kinda liked the idea.
Because he didn't actually address Yang's proposal. He just set up a generic straw-man UBI argument to conveniently knock down.
@@austinm419 Hmm, maybe that's why.
When I heard Andrew Yang on Joe Rogan's podcast I will say, he laid out a fairly decent case for UBI.
I don't know what the country would look like with it though.
Basically what he said is: UBI bad, Communism good! He swung and missed, strike one!
You had me at "people should own the means of production".
I do think you make a very interesting argument, in that we may see companies use more and more volunteers instead of paying their employees. That's a very good thing to think about.
But I do think that most UBI proponents are arguing for ways to prevent tax evasion and syphon the required money off the wealthiest. So they are not saying we'll just print more money. It is a redistribution of wealthfare more in line with current rules in place.
My concern is mostly this: If you ensure that the lower class gets a sum of money they could theoretically live with, is that going to affect pricing in a way that this doesn't work out as intended?
(I am someone currently in favor of UBI btw. I don't think you can make changes to the economy without running into some problems that you'll have to deal with as you go, and the problems our biggest critics come up with don't seem that impressive.)
Just make the Waltons (Walmart) pay for UBI. They'll just get it back anyway. LOL
Eric Thomsen and then they will lose it all again
@@TERRORSPEED Oh no! What will they do slightly less than 100 million dollars a day? Bahaha
Well, thats the problem.
Isn’t that “buying from the company store”?
The rambling argument and the exasperated tone make this guy sound completely unconvincing.
Fraser MacDonald fair enough, personally I felt he was more engaging to me but I suppose I can see what you mean as well though :)
LOL and here I was thinking it was his total disconnect from the facts and theories.
I think the idea is that since the "powers that be" won't change the system because of the wealth they're amassing at the expense, UBI becomes the band aid that at least allows those on the bottom to survive. Sure if we had a system that caused the wealth to be more universally distributed, the idea of UBI wouldn't arise.
Feed it into the bottom, tax it out at the top. There is no government printing money but lots of super wealthy suddenly having to pay tax.
I don't know why i watched this video😬
To help add some wonder to your life.
Probably because you assumed, as I did, that Big Think continues to make thoughtful videos like they did in the past, as opposed to this nonsensical drivel
Think so
This was one of the most intellectually lazy talks I've ever seen from 'Big Think'
its all a bunch of leftist bullshit on big think
Where do they even get this people? Experts at punditry of topic they obviously don't understand
Workers owning a part of the companies? Will they stand some losses, or they will. receive only profits?
1) Cash is not being “printed”. It comes from a tax on value creation.
2) The money won’t simply be flowing to the top, it will flow to the bottom as well since the top will largely fund the UBI. Money going full circle instead of concentrating at one point is the definition of a healthy economy.
Why not congestion-price?
Guy Standing should give the talk on UBI. He's written books about it and has worked on pilot programs in various countries. 30+ years of experience with UBI.
UBI would improve my life immensely. Right now, I don’t have the money to go out, but if I had UBI, I could form a stronger relationship with society, something that I don’t have now. Over the next few years, I could save my income, eventually having enough to live independently.
Joseph Logsdon unfortunately this country had become anti poor. Instead of being the land of opportunity it’s become the land of “what have you been doing this whole time?”
If everyone had UBI prices will skyrocket leaving you in exactly the same place as you are now
We should pass a law that says every employee will receive shares of stock in the company as soon as they're hired. This would fix all of that.
I'm not an expert, but the implementations of UBI I've heard of are absolutely not about printing money for big companies like Uber. The money comes from these big companies via value-add taxes and ends up being spent in the local (city) economy. That said, big companies may get some back since it won't all be spent locally, but it came from their taxes to begin with.
There are a lot of inaccuracies in this video...that said, I do appreciate Big Think posting a variety of thoughts/viewpoints.
You never learn anything if you're surrounded by those who agree with you.
i mean yeah.... but you also dont learn from someone straw manning your position either.... Big Think needs to release longer content
You know what's great about UBI? It's flexible. So flexible that people can buy assets.
Tony de Veyra if it ever passes, use every penny to buy gold. The inflation will triple the value of the gold. After a year, the 36,000 you put into gold may well be worth $100k. After 2 years it could be worth half a million. In 3 years that 1.5 million could buy a weeks worth of food.
@@mhail7673 or do drugs, having sex, party. you think those dumb ass will buy gold? lmao. of course those people who really need it to support their families will have great relief.
What ever happened to raising and eating mealworms?
Easy. Simply kill them quickly and painlessly.
Assets cost alot more than $1000/month (or $12,000/yr). In reality, the same people will still be owning the assets, and your money will flow to these people.
Also, if everyone gets $1000/mo, then prices, wages, taxes, etc would adjust to making that amount of money useless.
vshah1010 If UBI is introduced you will need a money hedge.
4x account
Stock trading account
Gold in either stock or physical
Property
Or my least favorite...debt.
If UBI leads to inflation, dry goods gain value. Canned food, bottled water, or anything a preper is already buying becomes an asset that gains value
I believe there needs to be a newly structured zero-risk online survey job opportunity in which everybody is entitled to... as for earning a basic amount of income... maybe similar to UBI. The world united in such a way could boost progression a whole lot more.
One other problem with UBI: it never, ever, ever, ever works. Any time it has been tried without any attachment to production… (such as shared oil income in Alaska) it has ended up backfiring and ultimately abandoned.
We cannot escape the need for supply no matter how much we want to demand.
Universal Basic Assets sounds like a step in the right direction.
I don't know if I'm for that or not. If the intent is to increase the quality of life for the poor, I question whether or not that's a lasting solution. If the intent is to transfer wealth, I would have concern about assets being sold for money to use on unhelpful products.
How would that work? Would everyone who owns anything have to give up partial ownership to their stuff? UBI seems more practical. We are all already very accustomed to the idea of donating a portion of our wealth to the government through taxation. UBI would simply send some of that money back to the people in a way that's fair and even.
Universal basic income would work for the low income people. The rich people already know that money is not eliminating passion or struggle to realize dreams.
Basic income could be also given as tax return on all the VAT tax to the amount of 1000 USD per month. Lot's of bureaucracy would be involved :-)
Therefore just giving out the 1000 USD is more cost effective.
i say welfare for people with heavy burden like parents having illness, taking care of disability child, etc. This are the real poor. Another poor is not wanting to climb the ladder when they can. Spending everything they earn, not wanting to learn to invest. and btw not everyone will realize their dreams. if it does, no one will be cleaning the airport toilets. you think thats their dream? utopia leftist will always ruin the first world country into shit hole country.
@@Ian-hn8ty In the case of airport toilets, companies would just need to raise the wages to make it worthwhile.
Douglas Mark Rushkoff is an American media theorist, writer, columnist, lecturer, graphic novelist, and documentarian. He is best known for his association with the early cyberpunk culture and his advocacy of open source solutions to social problems.
Education: American Film Institute, Utrecht University, Scarsdale High School, California Institute of the Arts, Princeton University
Hmmm can't find where he studied economics anywhere in this long list!
Is it true that houses are being demolished and food being burnt for those reasons?
Great points! While I'm a proponent of UBI, we need rigorous debate about the topic so it can be implemented in a non exploitative fashion.
Agreed!
There were points in the video?
Yes, it would be a disaster if we just create inflation to run it. It would only do its job if it's a true redistribution of income.
UBI will not help the consumer culture alive. It will help people to survive in a consumer culture. It won't affect the spending habits of rich people, and poor people will only spend on necessities.
The obsession with consuming is a problem. But UBI is unlikely to make it worse or make it better.
We know that hard cash helps people make their lives better and start their own businesses, much more efficiently than any distribution of goods.
Yes poor people are so obsessed with food consumption
DesiBookLover so just let em die? Ok you dumb pos. 🤣🤣🤣🙄🙄🙄
DesiBookLover It makes it worse for say NYC taxi drivers who can’t make a living because Uber undercuts their pay. It’s created a wave of suicides in the yellow cab industry. I would rather take the bus than support Uber and the micro economy nonsense.
@David Smith Which will disappear
Hard cash will go too if they have it their way.
We will end up
Cashless
Jobless
Driverless
Helpless
Mindless
Brainless
To summarize:
Print money and give it to billionaires - good
Print money and give it equally to everyone - bad
Why is the cover image, a hook pulling a bundle of 500 rupees notes.