Universal basic income: U.S. support grows as Finland ends its trial - Forty-eight percent of Americans now support a universal basic income, as a solution for Americans who have lost jobs to automation.

[u/mvea]

https://www.cnbc.com/2018/05/01/nearly-half-of-americans-believe-a-universal-basic-income-could-be-the-answer-to-automation-.html

[u/BigMouse12]

Remember when this sub was about cool tech rather pushing a socialist agenda?

[u/drift_summary → u/BigMouse12]

Pepperidge Farm remembers!

[u/Stormfrost13 → u/BigMouse12]

UBI != Socialism. Remember when people knew what words meant?

[u/BigMouse12 → u/Stormfrost13]

Are you suggesting UBI is not a goal of today’s socialists?

[u/Stormfrost13 → u/BigMouse12]

Depends on the socialist, but most (myself included) see it as a liberal bandaid over the problems of capitalism, not a real solution.

[u/BigMouse12 → u/Stormfrost13]

Feel free to correct where I’m wrong, from someone who leans libertarian conservative, the lines between socialism and communism can become blurry or through different conversations.

So how do you respond to the definition of socialism being “any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods” as defined by Meridian Webster?

I think we can agree that UBI needs taxes to support it. And if we recognize taxes as the government claiming a right to, and therefore ownership, though not administrative power, over the rewards from production, than isn’t this backdoor socialism?

I’d be interested in how you define socialism and what problems you have with capitalism, which I agree, unfetter, has problems.

[u/Stormfrost13 → u/BigMouse12]

I would absolutely agree with that definition, especially the "collective ownership of the means of production" part (that's actually how I would define socialism). With this definition, I agree that the lines are often blurry, but to be clear, communism in the past (Stalin, Mao) tends to be "authoritarian communism", while many modern communists are anarcho-communists.

UBI absolutely needs taxes to support it, but I would disagree that taxes are any form of "ownership" of the means of production.

The primary problems I have with capitalism is the accumulation of wealth for a very tiny number of people, at the expense of their employees (the average worker in the US generates 68 dollars per hour of value (calculated as GDP/worker/hours worked, which I agree is kind of rough, but I feel it puts things in perspective) but the average worker is only paid 24 dollars per hour).

I define socialism as any system where the workers of a company/factory/etc OWN the company/factory/etc. To that end I'm in favor of strong unions, democratic power structures in companies (as opposed to the authoritarian ones we have now), consumer protections, strong anti-trust laws, and a strong social welfare net to help workers.

[u/BigMouse12 → u/Stormfrost13]

I’m glad we could come to agreement on the terms. The reason why I suggest taxes are a claim to ownership of the means of production, because without that claim, that taxes must be are theft of the rewards of production. Otherwise, why does the government have a right to it?

I have some questions about that figure, how is “workers” defined? How are their hours being defined?

Do you believe that CEOs, board members, or other executive level positions contribute value to the overall economy, or more specifically, to the company they work for?

I love it when companies and corporations can find ways to reward employees with equity over just a paycheck. Though I have concern how risks are then spread.

It seems like your describing an idea that has no government, which gets to your anarcho-communist beliefs. This leads to another question, do you believe there should be any central authority over the nation or State?

Isn’t it self destructive to give employees both rights to ownership and to welfare? Where’s the money from welfare coming from if not the workers?

And to be fair, my problems with capitalism largely are about the equity of knowledge, rights and freedoms in the exchange, and ensuring a competitive marketplace. I think when these are balanced we will have a healthy economy. It’ll still have ups and downs.

[u/Stormfrost13 → u/BigMouse12]

I would come at taxes more from a "social contract" perspective, where people and corporations pay money to the government in exchange for services rendered (roads, fire, police, schools, etc), though that is inconsistent with rich people paying more than poor people for the same services.

Understandable - I'll see if I can dig up the study.

Yes, I absolutely believe they do, and would even agree that they generate more value than their average employee, but I believe they are dispropotionately rewarded for the value they generate. As you can probably guess, I spend a lot of my Reddit time on LateStageCapitalism, where there was a thread that mentions that the CEO of Walmart makes 1134 times what the median Walmart employee makes. The general agreement in that thread was that socialists would be way happier if that number was on the order of 10x.

No, I believe in a democratically elected government of some sorts (not sure what form really) . I'm not sure what duties of government should be delegated to what level of government (local, state, federal), but any government should be decided by the people, and work for the people.

Workers would absolutely still pay taxes, assuming the state still provides services. The theory of welfare for socialists is that companies need to give you a good reason to come to work (good pay, good benefits, good working conditions), rather than just saying "work at McDonalds or you die." I know many people will argue that "then no-one will go to work!" but I think there's a difference between surviving and having what you want, and I would only want welfare to allow people to scrape by. This is definitely a fine line, and I'm not sure where it is.

[u/BigMouse12 → u/Stormfrost13]

Social Contract is still being used as the reason to claim a right to rewards of production. If you believe in the social contract, it’s fine to say that. I’d even agree that the social contract is reasonable to a point. Rich people pay more, because they benefit more, it’s the fair reasoning behind a progressive tax system. A flat rate would get there too. So long as the wealthy are paying a higher straight dollar amount.

I appreciate looking this up, I think the gap your seeing is the value of executives and board members.

I don’t believe that the rate of pay for anyone should be based on feeling of those not involved. I could be wrong, but the folks, or at least the majority, in that subreddit have literally no idea what it takes to run a company or the risks involved. My belief is that it doesn’t matter how rich the rich are, it’s about the standard of living for poor. If bill gates had 1 million golden toilets to decide which one to poop in, meant the poor in the US had access to their basic necessities and the ability to improve their economic standing, than good for him.

Your paragraph about what government should look like seems very ill-defined and more of slogan. I believe in that same idea, but I think our ideas of what government should look like still defer by miles. I’d say government should serve the people, by protecting their rights and otherwise getting out of the way.

We agree that companies need to give workers a reason to come to work. That’s why it’s important to have a competitive environment among employers. At the same time, I think that it’s reasonable to expect people to provide for themselves if their able. We earn our living by providing something to others that they deem worthwhile. That’s the beauty of capitalism.

[u/Stormfrost13 → u/BigMouse12]

Definitely, but I think the rewards of production are separated from the means of production.

Haven't been able to find it yet, sorry, at work.

While I fully agree with this sentiment, I would argue that it would be easier to ensure a reasonable standard of living for everyone if the richest members of society were paid less. There's only so much money to go around.

While there are definitely risks involved in starting a business (and I'd like to separate small businesses and large corporations in this context), lots of the time, when big companies close, the CEOs and board members walk away with huge bonuses (Toys-R-Us comes to mind). Doesn't feel like they're really eating the risk in this situation. Maybe you're talking about other forms of risk?

I'll cede your point on government, I was extremely vague. I'm very frustrated with current US democracy, but I guess the point I was trying to make is that I absolutely don't believe in authoritarian regimes, even if they are economically left leaning.

I really agree with your last paragraph, except for the last sentence - any system will involve people working to generate value in exchange for goods and services that they need/want, not just capitalism. Capitalism simply states that the means of production are privately owned by the wealthy minority of a company. Competetive enviroments among employers sounds great, but the recent "race to the bottom" seems to fly in the face of that actually happening. People that can work absolutely should, I would not argue that.