Political Enabling

[MrMoogle]

@OP perhaps a better topic to discuss would be Lyndon B Johnson's Great Society since there's actually more data to  evaluate its affect on dependency. All this talk about UBI is conjecture. None of us are policy experts or economists. Even if we were, it's almost impossible to predict what will actually happen without taking into consideration unknown variables that will be encountered when it's tested. All we can do is make assumptions about people behaving rationally, which we know they don't always do.

Maybe.  In general I find it hard to make conclusions with historical data.  The environment changes too much, and the policies change, it's hard for me to figure out what is the cause for what effect.  The timeframes are too short before something else changes. 
Welfare has increased since the 1950s and consumer debt has too:
http://static5.businessinsider.com/image/4f11b38b69bedd3f56000007/household-debt-to-gdp.png
Does this mean welfare drives consumer debt, or does society and technology changes make up a bigger piece of that?  The data rarely is cut and dry.

[daverobev]

Are some seeing the irony of "no, the government shouldn't guarantee a basic living for everyone" vs "I'm going to work for ten years, save, invest in stocks and never (have to) work again"?

I mean, part of the whole frugality thing.. no, not frugality. Early Retirement, whatever - is that, by taking some specific actions in probably-not-that-hard fields of work, you can just "be done"? How is that any different? You COULD argue that school=work - if you can get through school, haven't you "earned" your income just like people who had half decent, well paid office jobs for ten years?

I know it's not absolutely the same, but there are a lot of parallels. It's just awareness (and perhaps willpower, but perhaps not - just sheer luck that you're born white/English speaking/in a decent enough family).

Yeah, I'M ok I've WORKED for a few years. But fuck those (other people), they shouldn't get FUCKING HANDOUTS, they might be UNPRODUCTIVE!

[Yokan]

@OP perhaps a better topic to discuss would be Lyndon B Johnson's Great Society since there's actually more data to  evaluate its affect on dependency. All this talk about UBI is conjecture. None of us are policy experts or economists. Even if we were, it's almost impossible to predict what will actually happen without taking into consideration unknown variables that will be encountered when it's tested. All we can do is make assumptions about people behaving rationally, which we know they don't always do.

Maybe.  In general I find it hard to make conclusions with historical data.  The environment changes too much, and the policies change, it's hard for me to figure out what is the cause for what effect.  The timeframes are too short before something else changes. 
Welfare has increased since the 1950s and consumer debt has too:
http://static5.businessinsider.com/image/4f11b38b69bedd3f56000007/household-debt-to-gdp.png
Does this mean welfare drives consumer debt, or does society and technology changes make up a bigger piece of that?  The data rarely is cut and dry.

Agree, but there are more peer reviewed studies on the current welfare systems that work to isolate causation rather than correlation. It's definitely more fun to extrapolate what might happen on theory than actually evaluating the real life data like some PHD candidate. None of us have the time or expertise to evaluate reality with 100% certainty. Instead we just align with policies that reaffirm our moral values rather than how effective they are. Nothing wrong with that IMHO, but from what I've read it's hard to make a case for our current status quo welfare system being the best solution. You can find studies supporting and disproving it's effectiveness. This disagreement on UBI/social safety nets is one of values, not effectiveness. Both sides agree poverty exists. Both sides agree that there should be some mechanism to keep people from starving to death. We just disagree on how to deliver that service.

Ours is a world where scarcity is a fact of life, as long as this is true there will be poverty. Instead of focusing on what the government should or can do, I think it's more productive (if you actually care about people in poverty) to actually do something to help those in that position. Especially when you look outside of our own experience outside of rich western countries, there's plenty of low hanging fruit with regard to helping those in need. In actual 3rd world countries do we have to worry about dependence being an issue? Why not, as individuals do we focus our attention there? This is a financial independence board, I'm sure some of us have this in mind in our post retirement lives. Would you consider actually doing something to give those in real poverty (by global standards) a hand up personally? I'd like to think I would, but it's hard to say until I'm completely FI.

[Jack]

Are some seeing the irony of "no, the government shouldn't guarantee a basic living for everyone" vs "I'm going to work for ten years, save, invest in stocks and never (have to) work again"?

Similarly, consider this: if you could afford to set your kids up with a trust fund such that they'd have a guaranteed "basic income" for life, would you? Now, if you answered yes, what if you could afford to set everyone up with such a trust fund? Why should that be any different?

[Yokan]

Are some seeing the irony of "no, the government shouldn't guarantee a basic living for everyone" vs "I'm going to work for ten years, save, invest in stocks and never (have to) work again"?

I mean, part of the whole frugality thing.. no, not frugality. Early Retirement, whatever - is that, by taking some specific actions in probably-not-that-hard fields of work, you can just "be done"? How is that any different? You COULD argue that school=work - if you can get through school, haven't you "earned" your income just like people who had half decent, well paid office jobs for ten years?

I know it's not absolutely the same, but there are a lot of parallels. It's just awareness (and perhaps willpower, but perhaps not - just sheer luck that you're born white/English speaking/in a decent enough family).

Yeah, I'M ok I've WORKED for a few years. But fuck those (other people), they shouldn't get FUCKING HANDOUTS, they might be UNPRODUCTIVE!

I think the difference between what we're doing and UBI is that one isn't predicated on coercion. We are using our resources efficiently and setting up pensions (in substance) to reduce our exposure to risk early in our careers. The gov't has no money, it can only take from others, or borrow and give to those who they perceive need it, it takes alot of overhead redistributing these resources in the meantime. It's very difficult for them to use resources as efficiently as we can and assess the effectiveness of this redistribution.

[Yokan]

Are some seeing the irony of "no, the government shouldn't guarantee a basic living for everyone" vs "I'm going to work for ten years, save, invest in stocks and never (have to) work again"?

Similarly, consider this: if you could afford to set your kids up with a trust fund such that they'd have a guaranteed "basic income" for life, would you? Now, if you answered yes, what if you could afford to set everyone up with such a trust fund? Why should that be any different?

The difference is that an individual can make the choice to set up a trust fund for their kids. With the basic income scenario, if you want to remain in a country that enacts it, you are coerced to contribute to this trust fund.

[Jack]

Are some seeing the irony of "no, the government shouldn't guarantee a basic living for everyone" vs "I'm going to work for ten years, save, invest in stocks and never (have to) work again"?

Similarly, consider this: if you could afford to set your kids up with a trust fund such that they'd have a guaranteed "basic income" for life, would you? Now, if you answered yes, what if you could afford to set everyone up with such a trust fund? Why should that be any different?

The difference is that an individual can make the choice to set up a trust fund for their kids. With the basic income scenario, if you want to remain in a country that enacts it, you are coerced to contribute to this trust fund.

I'm coerced to do a lot of things. It is unclear to me how that would be any worse than what we already have now.

[Yokan]

Are some seeing the irony of "no, the government shouldn't guarantee a basic living for everyone" vs "I'm going to work for ten years, save, invest in stocks and never (have to) work again"?

Similarly, consider this: if you could afford to set your kids up with a trust fund such that they'd have a guaranteed "basic income" for life, would you? Now, if you answered yes, what if you could afford to set everyone up with such a trust fund? Why should that be any different?

The difference is that an individual can make the choice to set up a trust fund for their kids. With the basic income scenario, if you want to remain in a country that enacts it, you are coerced to contribute to this trust fund.

I'm coerced to do a lot of things. It is unclear to me how that would be any worse than what we already have now.

Not saying it's better or worse, just emphasizing that setting up a trust fund voluntarily is materially different than being coerced into contributing to a basic income. If you're saying that UBI is a better alternative to the status quo that's one thing, but saying it's the same as a voluntary decision is another.

[Kris]

Are some seeing the irony of "no, the government shouldn't guarantee a basic living for everyone" vs "I'm going to work for ten years, save, invest in stocks and never (have to) work again"?

Similarly, consider this: if you could afford to set your kids up with a trust fund such that they'd have a guaranteed "basic income" for life, would you? Now, if you answered yes, what if you could afford to set everyone up with such a trust fund? Why should that be any different?

The difference is that an individual can make the choice to set up a trust fund for their kids. With the basic income scenario, if you want to remain in a country that enacts it, you are coerced to contribute to this trust fund.

I'm coerced to do a lot of things. It is unclear to me how that would be any worse than what we already have now.

Agreed.

And for my money, given the fact that one of the biggest problems our country is facing is a profound rip in the social fabric due to political polarization, profound I-got-mineism and income inequality, I think we could really do with something that we all put into that works on at least the last two.

[ender]

Are some seeing the irony of "no, the government shouldn't guarantee a basic living for everyone" vs "I'm going to work for ten years, save, invest in stocks and never (have to) work again"?

Why is this irony?

How is "I'm going to live below my means and save for the rest of my life so I don't have to work" compared to "I want people to pay so that everyone has a basic income for their entire lives" ironic?"

I mean, part of the whole frugality thing.. no, not frugality. Early Retirement, whatever - is that, by taking some specific actions in probably-not-that-hard fields of work, you can just "be done"? How is that any different? You COULD argue that school=work - if you can get through school, haven't you "earned" your income just like people who had half decent, well paid office jobs for ten years?

This analogy only works with people who add enough value to society to overcome the "drain" they take by receiving UBI.

[/quote]Yeah, I'M ok I've WORKED for a few years. But fuck those (other people), they shouldn't get FUCKING HANDOUTS, they might be UNPRODUCTIVE!
[/quote]

Why is it bad to reward someone who works vs someone who does not work? Or, in a more cynical way of phrasing it, provides a tangible value to society vs someone who does not?

[MrMoogle]

Are some seeing the irony of "no, the government shouldn't guarantee a basic living for everyone" vs "I'm going to work for ten years, save, invest in stocks and never (have to) work again"?

Similarly, consider this: if you could afford to set your kids up with a trust fund such that they'd have a guaranteed "basic income" for life, would you? Now, if you answered yes, what if you could afford to set everyone up with such a trust fund? Why should that be any different?

In general, the closer you (emotionally and physically) are to someone the more you are willing to make sacrifices for them.  So a person would be very willing to make sacrifices for their own children.  They would be likely to make lesser sacrifices for neighbor's children.  And make hardly any sacrifices for a stranger's children.  So I can see how someone might be willing to make a trust fund for their children, but not others.

Personally, I would rather spend time with and teach my children, than spend it working so they can have a trust fund.  Even if it would only take maybe an extra year of work per child (by the time my hypothetical children are born).

[Northwestie]

I always find it interesting that aid to the lower class is considered "enabling" while items for the upper class - low tax rate on dividends, mortgage deduction, tax subsidies for any number of businesses from corn growers to defense contractors - is considered "good for business".  Yea.

Northwestie, you're trying to take my question to the extreme, which it was not.  I didn't say it was enabling for everyone, for all programs. 

Or maybe I am misunderstanding you: are you arguing that it is always beneficial to the recipient, no matter what is given?

I would say no, I was not taking the narrative to the "extreme".  It's just that there is a very different lens put over social programs for the poor compared to the social programs we provide for the well-off.  The term "enabling" isn't applied to hedge fund managers who pay very little taxes on their income but it is applied so some wretched soul who gets food stamps.   

So the narrative is very skewed - all the time.  I'm pretty fiscally conservative (as most on this site I would suppose) so I don't like programs that in my view, don't have productive outcomes for wider society.  Huge tax breaks for dividends, crop subsidies (that then damage the environment), defense contractors, etc.  The amount of "enabling" of social programs ends up as pencil dust compared to these corporate tax breaks and subsidies.  Hell - aren't we enabling the middle class with a mortgage tax deduction - the bigger the house the more deduction?

Forbes listed the tax breaks for the Fortune 500 as $63B (with a B) in 2014.   But those damn poor people need to pull their weight already!

Are there any numbers for how much economic activity/tax revenue/jobs etc. is generated by F500 companies versus the recipents of SNAP?  And farm subsidies help everyone, especially the poor, through lower food prices.

Yea - we're being saved by getting all that cheap high fructose corn syrup to the market while screwing up the Mississippi Delta with fertilizer and pesticides.  Win - win!

[Jeremy E.]

I'm an odd duck, I consider myself a libertarian, but I think most of our social programs are good, with only a few of them needing to be removed and a few that need partially cut. I think it makes more sense for a subset of people that we believe need the assistance, to get it, instead of giving it to everyone. Even if this means we have to spend a little bit to find out who these people are, and even if this means we might be giving benefits to the wrong people a percentage of the time. I believe we just need to identify measure and improve to find out the most cost effective way to help the people that need it most. A lot of people think drug testing should be done in order for someone to receive welfare or other benefits, however it was measured that this would waste more money than it would save, so we should not do it. Even though we shouldn't do it, it's good to think this way and try and find other ways to improve our system, to keep trying to find the most cost effective way to help the people that need it most. I don't believe that UBI in the US is the most cost effective way to help the people that need it most, the US cannot even afford a reasonable UBI, period.

I do believe that if we could magically give everybody $1,500 per month that we could magically make appear without going into debt, that it would benefit society(even though the value of the US dollar would go slightly down), but that's not possible and we can't afford it otherwise.

[Metric Mouse]

Are there any numbers for how much economic activity/tax revenue/jobs etc. is generated by F500 companies versus the recipents of SNAP?  And farm subsidies help everyone, especially the poor, through lower food prices.
[/quote]

Yea - we're being saved by getting all that cheap high fructose corn syrup to the market while screwing up the Mississippi Delta with fertilizer and pesticides.  Win - win!
[/quote]

Well said. It's not exactly perfect, but it's impossibly better than the alternative...