The Population Problem

ChicagoBlue said:
UBI sounds like a hint of a panacea, but it MUST be tied to providing service to society. The notion that UBI becomes the new social welfare paradigm cannot be allowed to get even a nose in the tent.
Click to expand...
UBI is a neo-liberal idea that does nothing to improve wages, it reinforces neoliberal narratives about accepting structural unemployment, accepting underemployment and provides a flawed definition of full employment that agrees with a “natural” rate of unemployment. For those of us on the left that see full employment as the goal then UBI does not achieve that. In effect it acts as a Government subsidy for private business.

Instead introduce a dignified income that applies to those unable to work or are retired and introduce a Job Guarantee, then full employment is achieved and those unable to work or who have retired have a worthwhile safety net.

UBI used to appeal to me, but the more I looked into it the less it appealed. It could create a permanent underclass of people unwilling to work and as a Socialist I believe everyone who can work should work and if that means the state creating work and then buying up all available labour to do that work then it is fine by me. In theory we could have a whole army of carer's for the aged through the job guarantee and whilst that may not be productive in itself, the wages spent can help the economy grow.

As we approach a neo-Malthusian world, then dignity for those of age becomes increasingly important and that has to be provided by economic growth and a Job guarantee can help growth far more than UBI.
 
Population density as an issue is a bit of a red herring. Many cities have population densities of greater than 5000 per sq km with some much more which is ten times England’s average. There are some countries that are city states like Hong Kong and Singapore that seem to manage ok. South Korea and Taiwan are much more densely populated than England and they get by. In England we still manage to fit in the Lake District, Northumberland, Yorkshire Dales, Peak District, Dartmoor etc where population densities are still low. Of our cities, none are in the top 50 for population density unless you count the inner London boroughs by themselves. Places like Paris and Athens are much more densely populated than anywhere here. Taking an average over the whole country is a bit pointless.
 
Rascal said:
UBI is a neo-liberal idea that does nothing to improve wages, it reinforces neoliberal narratives about accepting structural unemployment, accepting underemployment and provides a flawed definition of full employment that agrees with a “natural” rate of unemployment. For those of us on the left that see full employment as the goal then UBI does not achieve that. In effect it acts as a Government subsidy for private business.

Instead introduce a dignified income that applies to those unable to work or are retired and introduce a Job Guarantee, then full employment is achieved and those unable to work or who have retired have a worthwhile safety net.

UBI used to appeal to me, but the more I looked into it the less it appealed. It could create a permanent underclass of people unwilling to work and as a Socialist I believe everyone who can work should work and if that means the state creating work and then buying up all available labour to do that work then it is fine by me. In theory we could have a whole army of carer's for the aged through the job guarantee and whilst that may not be productive in itself, the wages spent can help the economy grow.

As we approach a neo-Malthusian world, then dignity for those of age becomes increasingly important and that has to be provided by economic growth and a Job guarantee can help growth far more than UBI.
Click to expand...
Is permanent growth possible in a world of finite resources?
 
PannickAtTheDisco said:
We don't promote and instill the fundamentals of a supportive family structure and teach the value of bringing up a stable family and incentivise it.

Instead we've created a culture where a couple have to both work to get by, where responsibility and parenting are not taught and trained, where a woman choosing family over career is anti-feminist and condoning the "patriarchy", where love is quick and easy and romanticism and idealism is the way to live and where the punishment for it going wrong leaves men in the abyss of facing suicide as the only way out of the intolerable burden.

No surprise it's the immigrants from parts of the world with old-fashioned views that provide the population spurts. It has its downside with their fundamentalist, outdated, less democratic beliefs though.
Click to expand...
Who has fundamentalist, outdated, less democratic beliefs?
 
west didsblue said:
Population density as an issue is a bit of a red herring. Many cities have population densities of greater than 5000 per sq km with some much more which is ten times England’s average. There are some countries that are city states like Hong Kong and Singapore that seem to manage ok. South Korea and Taiwan are much more densely populated than England and they get by. In England we still manage to fit in the Lake District, Northumberland, Yorkshire Dales, Peak District, Dartmoor etc where population densities are still low. Of our cities, none are in the top 50 for population density unless you count the inner London boroughs by themselves. Places like Paris and Athens are much more densely populated than anywhere here. Taking an average over the whole country is a bit pointless.
Click to expand...
Some of us want to keep the countryside though and adding to a population consistently is a sure fire way of losing it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top
✖
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.