Discussing Basic Income from Forbes Article
-
@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:
@dustinb3403 said in Non-IT News Thread:
Would GBI continue every 4 or 8 years in the US with the way politicians are? How would it be supported and paid for? Who would pay for it? Would you tax the GBI income from the very same people you're saying "don't work, we don't need you"?
You probably don't tax people at all, that's not an efficient system. You'd tax corporations or products. You definitely don't tax incomes, that's insane. That would, literally, just create more work for no gain. The opposite of the goal.
Talk to NYS about taxation then. . . they literally tax income at every opportunity. . . Oh you have a job, 30%, oh you're unemployed 30% of your unemployment check. . .
-
It would phase itself pretty naturally, I think. Loads of government workers would have to do it immediately, with zero negative effects, only positive ones. As the government stopped wasting money and hundreds of thousands of workers got to stay home. That would produce a natural reduction in needs for mass transit, gas station workers, lunch restaurants, etc. All those jobs that basically just support those government bloat jobs would reduce, pretty rapidly.
Those that crave productive work will move to other positions, displacing other people that want to stay home on GBI.
-
@dustinb3403 said in Non-IT News Thread:
@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:
@dustinb3403 said in Non-IT News Thread:
Would GBI continue every 4 or 8 years in the US with the way politicians are? How would it be supported and paid for? Who would pay for it? Would you tax the GBI income from the very same people you're saying "don't work, we don't need you"?
You probably don't tax people at all, that's not an efficient system. You'd tax corporations or products. You definitely don't tax incomes, that's insane. That would, literally, just create more work for no gain. The opposite of the goal.
Talk to NYS about taxation then. . . they literally tax income at every opportunity. . . Oh you have a job, 30%, oh you're unemployed 30% of your unemployment check. . .
Right, because NY is big on the bloat. The more you tax, the more you can skim. The more you have to hire useless jobs.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:
@dustinb3403 said in Non-IT News Thread:
@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:
@dustinb3403 said in Non-IT News Thread:
Would GBI continue every 4 or 8 years in the US with the way politicians are? How would it be supported and paid for? Who would pay for it? Would you tax the GBI income from the very same people you're saying "don't work, we don't need you"?
You probably don't tax people at all, that's not an efficient system. You'd tax corporations or products. You definitely don't tax incomes, that's insane. That would, literally, just create more work for no gain. The opposite of the goal.
Talk to NYS about taxation then. . . they literally tax income at every opportunity. . . Oh you have a job, 30%, oh you're unemployed 30% of your unemployment check. . .
Right, because NY is big on the bloat. The more you tax, the more you can skim. The more you have to hire useless jobs.
They literally tax the thing, you're paying for through having a job. It's double taxation. It's a ripoff and should be completely illegal, yet somehow. . .
-
@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:
@penguinwrangler said in Non-IT News Thread:
Also before automation was available we needed humans to do it so we might eventually see pharmacists phased out but it does take time for things to adjust. So you can't say people are just employed as pharmacists to occupy their time.
Yes, but "phased out" would have been long ago. It's been a long time since the field was only to occupy peoples' time.
Many fields have lobbies to keep jobs in place through government intervention because it makes money for the people involved. It's more complex than ONLY being a hidden form of deceptive welfare. It's also straight up corruption, through lobbyists. But the lobbyists aren't dissuaded to heavily, since it also creates a way to reduce the welfare roles. The government benefits, too.
Okay, so there is a lobbyist group on behalf of pharmacists created to protect pharmacists and slow down automation of their field and keep their jobs. That is typical human behavior to preserve their jobs and fields from automation and not some big conspiracy just to employ people in useless jobs.
-
@penguinwrangler said in Non-IT News Thread:
@scottalanmiller said in Non-IT News Thread:
@penguinwrangler said in Non-IT News Thread:
Also before automation was available we needed humans to do it so we might eventually see pharmacists phased out but it does take time for things to adjust. So you can't say people are just employed as pharmacists to occupy their time.
Yes, but "phased out" would have been long ago. It's been a long time since the field was only to occupy peoples' time.
Many fields have lobbies to keep jobs in place through government intervention because it makes money for the people involved. It's more complex than ONLY being a hidden form of deceptive welfare. It's also straight up corruption, through lobbyists. But the lobbyists aren't dissuaded to heavily, since it also creates a way to reduce the welfare roles. The government benefits, too.
Okay, so there is a lobbyist group on behalf of pharmacists created to protect pharmacists and slow down automation of their field and keep their jobs. That is typical human behavior to preserve their jobs and fields from automation and not some big conspiracy just to employ people in useless jobs.
I actually disagree with you, there are lobbyist to protect the entire field, not just the pill-pusher behind the counter. If all prescriptions were run through a massive database every conceivable drug interaction would be reported immediately to the doctor prescribing the medication.
Instead the doctor just prescribes away, and hopes the pharmacists notices if there are going to be bad reactions.
-
The pharma world, lives on sales people. Pushing medicine to trial or live sales. It's scary what side effects "safe" medications actually have that you'll never see a commercial notice for.
-
Locking to split.
-
Here we are, moved the GBI discussion out here.
-
The bottle filler, is literally the last stop for the bus. Eliminating the need for a pharmacist, would also eliminate the need for Prescription reviewers and many other "filler" jobs in between.
It's not just "let's get rid of that job" it's "let's get rid of half or more of the industry as there is a ton of wasted effort here".
-
@dustinb3403 said in Discussing Basic Income from Forbes Article:
The bottle filler, is literally the last stop for the bus. Eliminating the need for a pharmacist, would also eliminate the need for Prescription reviewers and many other "filler" jobs in between.
It's not just "let's get rid of that job" it's "let's get rid of half or more of the industry as there is a ton of wasted effort here".
Right, exactly. It is an ecosystem of jobs. Each step costs money, and adds risk.
-
You wouldn't even need sales people to talk to Hospitals any longer as older, more risky medicine would simply no longer be available for order if the sales system was revamped.
New and improved with less risk (and/or side effects) would be the norm, and prescribed to be exact to the patient.
-
@dustinb3403 said in Discussing Basic Income from Forbes Article:
You wouldn't even need sales people to talk to Hospitals any longer as older, more risky medicine would simply no longer be available for order if the sales system was revamped.
That should be fixed, I agree. But it would be slightly different. The pharmacy system is not what pushes the medicines, that's actually the doctors. The doctors are the primary "salesmen" for medicines. Pharmacists just close the transaction. So you'd need other steps to stop pharmaceuticals from incentivizing doctors to push drugs.
-
Still talking about the pharmacist, imagine how many times a singular wrong pill of similar shape gets mixed in and makes for an extremely dangerous concoction.
Scan every pill to the exact amount, confirm the marking on the pills etc and count the exact quantity needed.
And do it way faster, more accurately and with way less risk. You'll never get a machine that sneezes on your pills.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Discussing Basic Income from Forbes Article:
Here we are, moved the GBI discussion out here.
So are we talking about GBI? My main point was it was obvious that the author looks down on blue collar jobs, why else would you call them shit jobs? I agree there are useless jobs. I don't agree that there are people that actively work to create these jobs to keep people from being idle. I believe they are an outgrowth of human inefficiency, government bureaucracy, and people trying to protect their jobs from automation. Just to sum up my points.
So what I want to know is this and I am trying to approach GBI with an open mind so these are my genuine questions.
1.) If everyone has GBI, do other government benefits go away? Food stamps, SNAP, etc since you should have the money to buy food and basic needs?
2.) where does the money come from? The government gets it money from taxing. People's income, sale's tax, etc. If someone works are they excluded from GBI? Is your GBI taxed? Are they taxed higher than those of GBI in order to pay for GBI.
3.) On a philosophical note, does the government not control you once they give you a GBI?
-
@dustinb3403 said in Discussing Basic Income from Forbes Article:
Still talking about the pharmacist, imagine how many times a singular wrong pill of similar shape gets mixed in and makes for an extremely dangerous concoction.
SO many steps between the doctor and the bottle for things to go wrong. And technically, even handing out the wrong bottle is possible!
-
@scottalanmiller I'm specifically talking about the sales people from the companies like Sanofi or boehringer ingelheim.
They have their own sales teams that go and sell in droves to hospitals, those hospitals then get their doctors to prescribe.
-
@scottalanmiller You are arguing with @PenguinWrangler when he doesn't even understand hte concept being discussed.
He is locked up on "free money" and has zero understanding of then entire concept.
-
@penguinwrangler said in Discussing Basic Income from Forbes Article:
I believe they are an outgrowth of human inefficiency, government bureaucracy, and people trying to protect their jobs from automation. Just to sum up my points.
Sure, but that's basically the same thing. As long as we don't have GBI, we have a strong incentive to have all of those things. Inefficiency is rewarded, bureaucracy is rewarded, protecting jobs is needed. Since GBI is a choice the choice to not have it is a design for those things.
-
@penguinwrangler said in Discussing Basic Income from Forbes Article:
@scottalanmiller said in Discussing Basic Income from Forbes Article:
Here we are, moved the GBI discussion out here.
So are we talking about GBI? My main point was it was obvious that the author looks down on blue collar jobs, why else would you call them shit jobs? I agree there are useless jobs. I don't agree that there are people that actively work to create these jobs to keep people from being idle. I believe they are an outgrowth of human inefficiency, government bureaucracy, and people trying to protect their jobs from automation. Just to sum up my points.
So what I want to know is this and I am trying to approach GBI with an open mind so these are my genuine questions.
1.) If everyone has GBI, do other government benefits go away? Food stamps, SNAP, etc since you should have the money to buy food and basic needs?
2.) where does the money come from? The government gets it money from taxing. People's income, sale's tax, etc. If someone works are they excluded from GBI? Is your GBI taxed? Are they taxed higher than those of GBI in order to pay for GBI.
3.) On a philosophical note, does the government not control you once they give you a GBI?
4.) Also what about child support? Considering the government is now giving you income for your basic needs and I would assume your children, child support wouldn't be needed after a divorce.
