Universal Income, part 2(?)

[Mr. Green]

Okay, you don't want to get rid of programs in place, what is your plan for paying for UBI? And how large of an UBI per person are you suggesting? Do kids get it?

When we advance, we make more luxuries, then luxuries become necessities, more jobs are created, etc. We can always find jobs, we could alternatively find a way to allow less people to work via UBI or something, but what is the point? Jobs aren't evil

Take a breath. Whooooosssaaaaa. You misinterpreted what I said. I said it was a start. I don't know what the monetary solution is. Not my job, nor do I care. Doesn't change the fact that it will happen in some form or another.

We will simply have to disagree that "we can always find jobs." The basis of jobs is that we need something made or a service performed. For every job lost to AI, you're essentially saying we'll come up with a new good to be made that AI can't make, or a new service to be performed that AI can't provide. As AI become more and more robust, we will only accelerate the number of jobs lost and decrease the odds of finding new jobs AI can't do.

[bacchi]

It is inevitable. Think of interstate truck driving. What happens to the millions of truck drivers who are out of work?

http://techcrunch.com/2016/04/25/the-driverless-truck-is-coming-and-its-going-to-automate-millions-of-jobs/

A convoy of self-driving trucks recently drove across Europe and arrived at the Port of Rotterdam. No technology will automate away more jobs — or drive more economic efficiency — than the driverless truck.

What about taxi drivers or bus drivers? Or food service employees? Google can't hire everyone.

We can only kick so many to the curb before society becomes shitty for even well paid engineers.

[notarealdoctor]

From the experiments that have been done, the number of hours worked only declined slightly. In Canada, it was because 16 year boys stayed in school rather than dropping out to support the family. In other experiments, some people were able to quit one of their two jobs to go back to school or provide more day care to their child(ren).

In other words, counter-intuitive as it is, there's no evidence (yet) that a universal income de-incentivises work.

This is also why experiments are being done. If it turns out badly and 90% become couch potatoes, then it's a failed concept. We move on. If the poor can start making their lives better, and hospitalizations decrease, and others can become more entrepreneurial, then maybe it needs expansion.

I think that this might be the best conclusion we can come to. Instead of speculating about the specifics of a non-existent social program, the best we can hope for right now is to wait for some actual experiments.

Most of the discussion here seems to assume that this would be rolled out as a national policy, but the actual initial implementation of something like UBI could (and maybe would) begin at a state or local level. Maybe it fails and dies at the local level, but maybe there are some counter-intuitive results. If it works it could provide a map for entirely re-thinking social policy, and then maybe it could be adapted into federal policy, consolidating smaller programs (if that even makes sense at the time). Now I'm speculating.

On the other hand, as far as the MINCOME case goes, it's true that there didn't seem to be a de-incentivization of work as a result of MINCOME, but it was also an incomplete experiment in a very particular environment. What might work in a relatively remote town of 10,000 could have wildly unpredictable side-effects in a metropolitan area of 5+million people. And what worked in the 1970's, before the expanded availability of consumer credit in the 80's and 90's, might not work today.

[bobechs]

It is inevitable. Think of interstate truck driving. What happens to the millions of truck drivers who are out of work?

I guess they will just keep living in their trucks, like they do now. But without getting paid.

Except for the free shower coupons; the trucks will still need fuel and the robots & companies using them will have no need for showers.

The other bottom of the pile 'careers' you mention are more problematic, but as long as we still have bridges there will be all the shelter we really need for them.

[NoStacheOhio]

Except for the free shower coupons; the trucks will still need fuel and the robots & companies using them will have no need for showers.

Until they cover the trailers in high-efficiency solar electric panels, or go straight to stuffing a nuclear reactor under the hood. ;-)

(yes I realize there's probably not enough surface area to power a truck with solar cells alone)

[Jeremy E.]

Except for the free shower coupons; the trucks will still need fuel and the robots & companies using them will have no need for showers.

Until they cover the trailers in high-efficiency solar electric panels, or go straight to stuffing a nuclear reactor under the hood. ;-)

(yes I realize there's probably not enough surface area to power a truck with solar cells alone)

You put a disclaimer about the electric panels but not the nuclear reactor under the hood?
While I full heartedly believe that Nuclear power is the best type of generation, and we are constantly improving it. It is still far less likely than the solar panel option would be.

[Mr. Green]

It is inevitable. Think of interstate truck driving. What happens to the millions of truck drivers who are out of work?

I guess they will just keep living in their trucks, like they do now. But without getting paid.

Except for the free shower coupons; the trucks will still need fuel and the robots & companies using them will have no need for showers.

The other bottom of the pile 'careers' you mention are more problematic, but as long as we still have bridges there will be all the shelter we really need for them.

Actually we should just put them in labor camps and change the name of our country to the Democratic People's Republic of America. I like your style.

[Kaydedid]

There is something close to UBI for lots of folks around here - casino payments for members of specific Native American tribes. $20-40k/year is common.  Unfortunately, a lot of young people have used this as an excuse not grow up, and end up with drug and alcohol issues and minimal education or skills.  I'm not sure many people would have the maturity to handle UBI, especially if they haven't learned some basic money skills.

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk

[Jeremy E.]

There is something close to UBI for lots of folks around here - casino payments for members of specific Native American tribes. $20-40k/year is common.  Unfortunately, a lot of young people have used this as an excuse not grow up, and end up with drug and alcohol issues and minimal education or skills.  I'm not sure many people would have the maturity to handle UBI, especially if they haven't learned some basic money skills.

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk

If we were able to control our spending, and someone had a plan in which UBI wouldn't spiral it out of control, I would consider it, but I think $15,000/year is the absolute max you could make it, much more than that and I think it would disincentivize working too much.

[bobechs]

There is something close to UBI for lots of folks around here - casino payments for members of specific Native American tribes. $20-40k/year is common.  Unfortunately, a lot of young people have used this as an excuse not grow up, and end up with drug and alcohol issues and minimal education or skills.  I'm not sure many people would have the maturity to handle UBI, especially if they haven't learned some basic money skills.

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk

And yet the same problems of substance abuse, family dysfunction, elder and child abuse and neglect, social problems, tribal governance corruption, etc. occur to a remarkable degree in Native American communities that doe not have the means for subsidies on the scale you mention. (I am speaking particularly of my own experience in rural Alaska, but there are lots of other poor Native American tribes)  Some may have limited member help in the form of providing housing or make-work youth jobs and so on.  But it is no kind of guaranteed family  living wage and no reasonable person could mistake it for such.

Maybe, just maybe, the cause of the malaise is not what you have assigned it to be.  Otherwise why would the same result occur equally in the absence of the cause?

[Kaydedid]

There is something close to UBI for lots of folks around here - casino payments for members of specific Native American tribes. $20-40k/year is common.  Unfortunately, a lot of young people have used this as an excuse not grow up, and end up with drug and alcohol issues and minimal education or skills.  I'm not sure many people would have the maturity to handle UBI, especially if they haven't learned some basic money skills.

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk

And yet the same problems of substance abuse, family dysfunction, elder and child abuse and neglect, social problems, tribal governance corruption, etc. occur to a remarkable degree in Native American communities that doe not have the means for subsidies on the scale you mention. (I am speaking particularly of my own experience in rural Alaska, but there are lots of other poor Native American tribes)  Some may have limited member help in the form of providing housing or make-work youth jobs and so on.  But it is no kind of guaranteed family  living wage and no reasonable person could mistake it for such.

Maybe, just maybe, the cause of the malaise is not what you have assigned it to be.  Otherwise why would the same result occur equally in the absence of the cause?

I'm a youngster and a transplant, so the following is second-hand (mostly from older tribal folks and townies).

Many of the tribes here have been financially stable (mostly working class, but doing ok) since the Great Depression.  Before casinos really took off (1960s-70s) things were looking up for most tribal communities.  Employment and education rates had been steadily rising, alcohol and drug use declining, etc.  Then the casino boom started.  For a while, it seemed wonderful.  People continued to work, sometimes getting nicer jobs managing the casinos, while getting a small-but-rising yearly stipend.  Overall, the standard of living was rising, and there was a sense of 'voluntary reparations' from the mostly - white casino-goers.  Then along comes a generation at the height of the boom, who knows nothing but rising prosperity and a major sense of entitlement.  One of the first things to slide is education - why bother with all the trouble when you'll never have to work anyways, since payments are already enough to live on and sound like a lot to a teenager.  Most of the older folks had things like loans and old-age care provided for by the community, so have little need for (or knowlege of) the outside financial world.  The new generation of kids finds a wealth of financial vultures ready and willing to take a slice of their guaranteed-income pie.  Couple that with the money to try newer, more exciting drugs (mostly meth), and before you know it, you've got a lot of kids living on the rez in their shacks or trailers, maybe with a fancy car or boat for a while, but far poorer than their parents or grandparents.  Meanwhile, they can't even find enough people to take the all-expenses-paid scholarships (only qualifier being a descendant of the tribe, sometimes as little as 1/16th!).  Drug and alcohol abuse skyrocket, and families crumble.  Whole communities are hit hard, and a lot of the community-based sharing of resources disappears.

There are a lot of older tribal folks who say they wish the casinos had never been built.  The sense of community and family as they knew it is gone, replaced by greed, entitlement, and addiction. 

Sent from my SCH-I545 using Tapatalk

[music lover]

I don't understand why a lot people on the forums here are fans of widespread social programs and I'm being super serious here so someone please explain it to me...

It's simple...they're socialists.

[ender]

I don't understand why a lot people on the forums here are fans of widespread social programs and I'm being super serious here so someone please explain it to me...

It's simple...they're socialists.

errr, what?

I suspect it's more commonly the case that people here are completely aware of how ridiculously blessed they are. The lower a percentage of your own success you assign to yourself and more you assign to luck/fate/circumstance, the more willing you are to accept social programs.

[The Happy Philosopher]

https://decorrespondent.nl/541/Why-we-should-give-free-money-to-everyone/20798745-cb9fbb39

I'm a big proponent of basic universal income. In all of the studies and experiments I have read about, there were only positive results. It puts a floor underneath people who are trapped in poverty. It can replace all the systems that don't work well and are riddled with fraud (like ssi disability). It may actually push up wages as more people opt out of work, although I suspect what it would really do is allow more families to have a stay at home parent rather than two people working. There may be some inflation, but the amount could be phased in slowly to avoid this. This is one of the few big ideas that has appeal from many different sides of the political spectrum. It has aspects of socialism, but is also very libertarian, as it empowers people to spend on what they want rather than jump through bureaucratic hoops for benefits that are not always fairly distributed.

As mentioned, there is a very real probability that AI will start massively disrupting the job market. It could be slow, or all at once - only time will tell.

[rosaz]

The experiment says that no one quit working, but I wonder to what extent that would remain true if this was actual policy. Many parents continue working even when daycare costs more than they make, because daycare doesn't last forever, but the decreased compensation from temporarily taking yourself out of the workforce does. Similarly, I think a lot of people wouldn't quit their jobs during an "experiment" that presumably will end in the near future, but would quit if this was thought to be policy continued indefinitely (and even if it ended, if a lot of other people left their jobs too while it lasted, a long stretch of unemployment might not be as stigmatized as it is now).

[Fudge102]

The experiment says that no one quit working, but I wonder to what extent that would remain true if this was actual policy. Many parents continue working even when daycare costs more than they make, because daycare doesn't last forever, but the decreased compensation from temporarily taking yourself out of the workforce does. Similarly, I think a lot of people wouldn't quit their jobs during an "experiment" that presumably will end in the near future, but would quit if this was thought to be policy continued indefinitely (and even if it ended, if a lot of other people left their jobs too while it lasted, a long stretch of unemployment might not be as stigmatized as it is now).

I think people would continue to work.  I mean a basic income would only be that, basic.  Food, water, shelter.  What do you do with the rest of your day?  You don't have the income to do anything else and sitting at home all day is boring as hell with nothing to do.  In some of the studies they said that employment rates dropped, but that was only because people went back to school.  They didn't need to work to meet the minimums of life so they went to better themselves.  I think that would happen here.  People would go and do more of what they wanted vice what they were forced to do.  I think a UBI might actually take away power from business and return it to the people because no one would "need this job" just to live.  If an employer absolutely sucked, people could walk away from the job and not worry for fear of living.  It would empower businesses to treat their people better as well as empower people to makes themselves better.

[Jeremy E.]

So it seems everyone thinks it is not currently possible in the US, but something that might come around in 40+ years when more jobs have been lost to machines and computers? Technology has been improving very quickly for the last 250 years, and jobs change a lot, but they usually are replaced by other jobs. A majority of people used to be farmers and people like Thomas Jefferson wanted the US to be an agrarian society forever, but once the US was no longer beholden to King George, they started a national bank, took on debt, became the most industrious society in the known history of man-kind. Luxuries were continuously invented, they then became the necessities and more luxuries created, which also became necessities. When jobs are lost, new jobs are generally created. I think it would be possible to have only 20% of people working in the future, but I don't think it's likely to happen within the next 100 years.

[ender]

When jobs are lost, new jobs are generally created

The biggest obstacle to this continuing is a lot of new jobs rely on creative abilities. The ability to think and your brain is now what is valued by the job market.

Days where simply being a able-bodied person allowed you to have a wide range of meaningful careers are behind us.

[Jeremy E.]

When jobs are lost, new jobs are generally created

The biggest obstacle to this continuing is a lot of new jobs rely on creative abilities. The ability to think and your brain is now what is valued by the job market.

Days where simply being a able-bodied person allowed you to have a wide range of meaningful careers are behind us.

they definitely are not, maybe they will be in the future, but not now

[ender]

When jobs are lost, new jobs are generally created

The biggest obstacle to this continuing is a lot of new jobs rely on creative abilities. The ability to think and your brain is now what is valued by the job market.

Days where simply being a able-bodied person allowed you to have a wide range of meaningful careers are behind us.

they definitely are not, maybe they will be in the future, but not now

How many new careers can you name in the past 20 years have started that your prime eligibility relies primarily on being able bodied?

[Mr. Green]

When jobs are lost, new jobs are generally created

The biggest obstacle to this continuing is a lot of new jobs rely on creative abilities. The ability to think and your brain is now what is valued by the job market.

Days where simply being a able-bodied person allowed you to have a wide range of meaningful careers are behind us.

they definitely are not, maybe they will be in the future, but not now

How many new careers can you name in the past 20 years have started that your prime eligibility relies primarily on being able bodied?

It'll be interesting to see which jobs succumb to AI first but I think they will be things like call center jobs where some thinking it combined with low grade technology to complete the task. I think complicated machinist work or something similar might outlast the low-grade "tech" jobs. It makes sense. Robotics took over the simpler physical jobs and AI will do the same with the simple thinking jobs. As AI becomes more and more robust, it will be combined with robotics to take over increasingly difficult physical and mental jobs.

I think claiming new luxuries will create new jobs is naive. Why wouldn't AI or robotics or a combination of them both be able to produce/service those new luxuries as well? As our computers get smarter and technology becomes cheaper through the adoption of technology, it will get harder and harder to justify employing a human over a machine when the bottom line is all that matters, which is the case for every publicly traded company there is.

I think in order to work, UBI as a concept cannot be enough money that people, en masse, can choose not to work and sit around all day watching their flat screen TV or driving their leased car around. It could be enough that a mustachian might not need to work but most people aren't wiling to live that frugally. People will continue to work, but ideally they'll be able to be more selective in the jobs they choose and the decreased pressure to make all the money they require to live life will spur creativity, which will the the last domino to fall to AI. More creativity is the best shot for creating more jobs that won't be lost to AI near term.

It will spur learning too. Think about what happens when you're not rushed. I sometimes pick up a newspaper or find myself taking the time to find the answer to a question that wasn't important enough to detour from my busy life to answer it. Imagine if Jimmy Kimmel could do a segment where he couldn't find one person walking down the street that didn't know who the current President is. Holy Shit, there's a novel idea!

Maybe it wouldn't really work out that way but that's how I see it in my mind.

[Goldielocks]

I just went through all the various applications for social assistance, child tax benefit, GST refund, etc with a family here in Canada.  (BC)

Family of 5, with one kid under 6.  Zero earned income (still waiting for their work permit paperwork, approved refugee claimants).

Receive $1130 per month Social Assistance
Free medical, some subsidized pharmacare, children free dental.   Youngest is in free early start preschool (3 day per week, 2.5 hr / day)
Plus $850+/- in GST / Carbon Tax Rebate / year
Plus $17,000/yr in child benefits and low income supplement for families.  (BUT, they need to wait up to a year for this to start, as it is based on last year's tax return)

So, about $31k per year.  Without a universal minimum wage policy.  Proof that the government does support people in need.


Without kids, it would be $1000/month for a couple....  So not quite enough for a 1 bedroom basement suite plus food for two.  Just enough with Food bank usage (they provide about 4-5 days / month of food),but still no money for a phone or bus fare.   Social assistance here assumes that you should be working if not disabled, so deliberately provides not enough to live on full time, but enough to bridge a several month gap.  The problem is that there is a need still, not covered for singles and adult couples, that is provided with a mishmash of other services, like housing support or private agencies.

[Jeremy E.]

When jobs are lost, new jobs are generally created

The biggest obstacle to this continuing is a lot of new jobs rely on creative abilities. The ability to think and your brain is now what is valued by the job market.

Days where simply being a able-bodied person allowed you to have a wide range of meaningful careers are behind us.

they definitely are not, maybe they will be in the future, but not now

How many new careers can you name in the past 20 years have started that your prime eligibility relies primarily on being able bodied?

This has nothing to do with you being wrong as there are plenty of labor careers that have existed for many years. We have lost more jobs to other countries than to technology. Can you name labor careers that have been obsoleted in the past 20 years?

[Mr. Green]

When jobs are lost, new jobs are generally created

The biggest obstacle to this continuing is a lot of new jobs rely on creative abilities. The ability to think and your brain is now what is valued by the job market.

Days where simply being a able-bodied person allowed you to have a wide range of meaningful careers are behind us.

they definitely are not, maybe they will be in the future, but not now

How many new careers can you name in the past 20 years have started that your prime eligibility relies primarily on being able bodied?

This has nothing to do with you being wrong as there are plenty of labor careers that have existed for many years. We have lost more jobs to other countries than to technology. Can you name labor careers that have been obsoleted in the past 20 years?

I can name a ton. Every single job that is now being done with a robotic arm for starters.

[Jeremy E.]

When jobs are lost, new jobs are generally created

The biggest obstacle to this continuing is a lot of new jobs rely on creative abilities. The ability to think and your brain is now what is valued by the job market.

Days where simply being a able-bodied person allowed you to have a wide range of meaningful careers are behind us.

they definitely are not, maybe they will be in the future, but not now

How many new careers can you name in the past 20 years have started that your prime eligibility relies primarily on being able bodied?

This has nothing to do with you being wrong as there are plenty of labor careers that have existed for many years. We have lost more jobs to other countries than to technology. Can you name labor careers that have been obsoleted in the past 20 years?

I can name a ton. Every single job that is now being done with a robotic arm for starters.

there are still assemblers running all of those machines, also setups and technicians looking over the machines. We are producing more than previously, the amount of total manufacturing jobs hasn't changed much. Yes there are less in the US, but more in other countries.

[Mr. Green]

When jobs are lost, new jobs are generally created

The biggest obstacle to this continuing is a lot of new jobs rely on creative abilities. The ability to think and your brain is now what is valued by the job market.

Days where simply being a able-bodied person allowed you to have a wide range of meaningful careers are behind us.

they definitely are not, maybe they will be in the future, but not now

How many new careers can you name in the past 20 years have started that your prime eligibility relies primarily on being able bodied?

This has nothing to do with you being wrong as there are plenty of labor careers that have existed for many years. We have lost more jobs to other countries than to technology. Can you name labor careers that have been obsoleted in the past 20 years?

I can name a ton. Every single job that is now being done with a robotic arm for starters.

there are still assemblers running all of those machines, also setups and technicians looking over the machines. We are producing more than previously, the amount of total manufacturing jobs hasn't changed much. Yes there are less in the US, but more in other countries.

There are plenty of machines running completely autonomously. Maybe one or two people service the entire line of machines. That does not make up for the loss of an entire line of workers. Your argument is similar to one a developer would make when trying to entice a town to let them build 1,000 homes. "We're going to create thousands of jobs in the community." But really only a tiny fraction of them are permanent jobs. The rest are just temporary and they go away as soon as the houses are built. Sure there's a guy who set the robot up. Sure there's a team who designed it but 50 people working for 5 years to make a robotic arm and a couple (or however many) installers who travel around putting them in come no where near replacing the thousands of jobs that existed for decades before the robot was invented. I would be impressed if you could find a situation where this wasn't the case.

[ender]

This has nothing to do with you being wrong as there are plenty of labor careers that have existed for many years. We have lost more jobs to other countries than to technology. Can you name labor careers that have been obsoleted in the past 20 years?

Here's a few that are either gone or well on their way:

• Secretaries/filing clerks/etc
• Bank Tellers
• Most related to photo processing (this is a lot)
• Draftsmen
• Travel agents
• Typist related jobs
• Librarians
• Manual data entry jobs
• Phone/switchboard operators (remember those?)
• Farming (not completely going to disappear, just continue to drop)
• Utility meter readers
• Stockbrokers
• Lots of personnel associated with train operation

This doesn't even include the large numbers of menial jobs which are in the process of becoming automated such as cashiers/salespeople, factory workers, etc.

[Jeremy E.]

This has nothing to do with you being wrong as there are plenty of labor careers that have existed for many years. We have lost more jobs to other countries than to technology. Can you name labor careers that have been obsoleted in the past 20 years?

Here's a few that are either gone or well on their way:

• Secretaries/filing clerks/etc
• Bank Tellers
• Most related to photo processing (this is a lot)
• Draftsmen
• Travel agents
• Typist related jobs
• Librarians
• Manual data entry jobs
• Phone/switchboard operators (remember those?)
• Farming (not completely going to disappear, just continue to drop)
• Utility meter readers
• Stockbrokers
• Lots of personnel associated with train operation

This doesn't even include the large numbers of menial jobs which are in the process of becoming automated such as cashiers/salespeople, factory workers, etc.

literally none of these are gone, and I don't think any will be within 20 years. I don't think draftsmen will be gone for a VERY long time. I'm a draftsmen and no computer is close to being able to do my job.

[driftwood]

Can you really compare a US-wide UBI with Alaska's Permanent Fund or a casino paying out to a tribe?

Both of those are money-making ventures which can in turn use their profit to pay the members of the state/tribe...

Is our Gov't making enough profit on it's investments that it can fund a UBI out of that profit?

If we're talking about funding an UBI by taxing other citizens, then everyone who pays taxes will fund the UBI, not a money-making investment.

[shotgunwilly]

This has nothing to do with you being wrong as there are plenty of labor careers that have existed for many years. We have lost more jobs to other countries than to technology. Can you name labor careers that have been obsoleted in the past 20 years?

Here's a few that are either gone or well on their way:

• Secretaries/filing clerks/etc
• Bank Tellers
• Most related to photo processing (this is a lot)
• Draftsmen
• Travel agents
• Typist related jobs
• Librarians
• Manual data entry jobs
• Phone/switchboard operators (remember those?)
• Farming (not completely going to disappear, just continue to drop)
• Utility meter readers
• Stockbrokers
• Lots of personnel associated with train operation

This doesn't even include the large numbers of menial jobs which are in the process of becoming automated such as cashiers/salespeople, factory workers, etc.

literally none of these are gone, and I don't think any will be within 20 years. I don't think draftsmen will be gone for a VERY long time. I'm a draftsmen and no computer is close to being able to do my job.

Yea. None of those are gone.

And I was going to comment the same thing about Drafters. They will never be gone, atleast not for a very long time. Drafting is designing, which will never be automated. They will just use different tools to do it.  Just as a lot of the other jobs will.

[mak1277]

Can you really compare a US-wide UBI with Alaska's Permanent Fund or a casino paying out to a tribe?

Both of those are money-making ventures which can in turn use their profit to pay the members of the state/tribe...

Is our Gov't making enough profit on it's investments that it can fund a UBI out of that profit?

If we're talking about funding an UBI by taxing other citizens, then everyone who pays taxes will fund the UBI, not a money-making investment.

What's the difference though in terms of impact?  People are talking about the results of those payouts, not the source of the money.  If you give people "free money" why does it matter (to them) where it comes from? 

[Jeremy E.]

Can you really compare a US-wide UBI with Alaska's Permanent Fund or a casino paying out to a tribe?

Both of those are money-making ventures which can in turn use their profit to pay the members of the state/tribe...

Is our Gov't making enough profit on it's investments that it can fund a UBI out of that profit?

If we're talking about funding an UBI by taxing other citizens, then everyone who pays taxes will fund the UBI, not a money-making investment.

In terms of Alaska, it's usually only around $1,000/year, not enough to be considered a basic income as it's not enough to cover the basic living expenses and they still have to work.

What's the difference though in terms of impact?  People are talking about the results of those payouts, not the source of the money.  If you give people "free money" why does it matter (to them) where it comes from?

[Drifterrider]

[How does it differ from all existing handouts by way of  welfare. subsidies, tax breaks, financial aid etc

It doesn't, we are just changing the name to make is sound better (as income is usually associated with working).

I'm just wondering where is all the free money some people want to give away.  Put me on the list.

[2lazy2retire]

Swiss vote coming up soon - not expected to pass

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/world/2016/05/05/switzerland-referendom-monthly-income-tax-free/83940610/

[bacchi]

[How does it differ from all existing handouts by way of  welfare. subsidies, tax breaks, financial aid etc

It doesn't, we are just changing the name to make is sound better (as income is usually associated with working).

I'm just wondering where is all the free money some people want to give away.  Put me on the list.

If you're really interested, links have been posted previously.

[elysianfields]

I don't understand why a lot people on the forums here are fans of widespread social programs and I'm being super serious here so someone please explain it to me...

It's simple...they're socialists.

Your assertion clearly lacks any validity.  No less a free-market liberal (in the classical, laissez-faire sense) than Milton Friedman supported a Mincome (AKA "negative taxation") (cf. Capitalism and Freedom), and his intellectual successors, such as Charles Murray (cf. In Our Hands: A Plan To Replace The Welfare State, argue for the same as a more efficient and transparent means to reduce poverty.

The US has partially implemented negative taxation as the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC), which, I might add, was enacted under the Ford Administration and vastly expanded under Reagan.  France has a similar measure, the RSA ("revenu de solidarité active").  Both the EITC and RSA seek to encourage work and help the poor escape the poverty trap.

Others here have mentioned obliquely how Mincome would correct a shortcoming of free-market capitalism: so much valuable and indispensable work, especially cooking, cleaning, and child and elder care, is unpaid.  It also falls disproportionately on women, even in the "enlightened" West, in the auspices of the "double burden" - salaried women in two-adult households also complete most of the housework after their remunerated workday.

I should think that a solution that proposes to increase the efficiency of the social safety net would appeal to people of all political stripes, keeping in mind, of course, this proposal carries the danger of reduced motivation to work, substitution effects, increased unwanted immigration, along with the need to restructure our social safety net and tax policies.  This points, in my view, to a need to experiment further, perhaps through tweaks to the EITC or other existing policies.

 

[Drifterrider]

[How does it differ from all existing handouts by way of  welfare. subsidies, tax breaks, financial aid etc

It doesn't, we are just changing the name to make is sound better (as income is usually associated with working).

I'm just wondering where is all the free money some people want to give away.  Put me on the list.

If you're really interested, links have been posted previously.

I haven't found anyplace willing to give me free money.  I've read quite a few postings that suggest a lot of people think there is such a thing as free money.  Most of those people also think "the government" gives money (from the free money bank I guess).

[bacchi]

[How does it differ from all existing handouts by way of  welfare. subsidies, tax breaks, financial aid etc

It doesn't, we are just changing the name to make is sound better (as income is usually associated with working).

I'm just wondering where is all the free money some people want to give away.  Put me on the list.

If you're really interested, links have been posted previously.

I haven't found anyplace willing to give me free money.  I've read quite a few postings that suggest a lot of people think there is such a thing as free money.  Most of those people also think "the government" gives money (from the free money bank I guess).

If you're really interested in how a universal income works, links have been posted previously.

[Telecaster]

You probably would not do this plus social security, either.

Agreed. UBI obsoletes Social Security.

Well, the retirement benefits part yes, but there is a decent portion of SS that effectively is disability insurance and resulting payments for that, too.

True, but that's technically a different pot of money than SS retirement funds. Probably fairly easy for them to split disability off into its own program.

But with UBI you don't need disability insurance either, right?   

[Drifterrider]

[How does it differ from all existing handouts by way of  welfare. subsidies, tax breaks, financial aid etc

It doesn't, we are just changing the name to make is sound better (as income is usually associated with working).

I'm just wondering where is all the free money some people want to give away.  Put me on the list.

If you're really interested, links have been posted previously.

I haven't found anyplace willing to give me free money.  I've read quite a few postings that suggest a lot of people think there is such a thing as free money.  Most of those people also think "the government" gives money (from the free money bank I guess).

If you're really interested in how a universal income works, links have been posted previously.

I already know how it works.  As with all things "FREE", someone has to pay for all this "free" stuff.

The government (any government) isn't a someone.  I am a someone.  I don't want to pay for more "free" stuff.  I'd like you to pay for my "free" stuff. 

[thd7t]

Here is a question/idea for people who worry that UBI would undercut innovation: what about coupling it with a regressive tax system? Very high taxes on lower incomes (to recoup some cost and help pay for infrastructure, military, etc.) And lower tax brackets for higher incomes (to incentivise harder work/innovation/entrepreneurship).

[GuitarStv]

Here is a question/idea for people who worry that UBI would undercut innovation: what about coupling it with a regressive tax system? Very high taxes on lower incomes (to recoup some cost and help pay for infrastructure, military, etc.) And lower tax brackets for higher incomes (to incentivise harder work/innovation/entrepreneurship).

Is there evidence that lowering taxes on the wealthy incentivizes harder work, innovation, or entrepreneurship?

[thd7t]

Here is a question/idea for people who worry that UBI would undercut innovation: what about coupling it with a regressive tax system? Very high taxes on lower incomes (to recoup some cost and help pay for infrastructure, military, etc.) And lower tax brackets for higher incomes (to incentivise harder work/innovation/entrepreneurship).

Is there evidence that lowering taxes on the wealthy incentivizes harder work, innovation, or entrepreneurship?

No, but if the tax brackets are calibrated well, it covers the cost of a major social program while removing a major argument against it. It also looks at how other programs get funded.
I am a fan of a (more) progressive tax system, given current tax code, but under UBI, I don't know if I would think that it was ideal.

[Telecaster]

Here is a question/idea for people who worry that UBI would undercut innovation: what about coupling it with a regressive tax system? Very high taxes on lower incomes (to recoup some cost and help pay for infrastructure, military, etc.) And lower tax brackets for higher incomes (to incentivise harder work/innovation/entrepreneurship).

I'm pretty sure that would have the opposite effect.  For example, Bill Gates was a trust fund baby.  But instead of discouraging him, it allowed to take the risk of dropping out of college to start Microsoft. 

[Brokenreign]

I listened to the Freakonomics podcast on UBI and was doing a little bit of reading on it thereafter. It seems like an inevitability to me, with the rate at which jobs (or at least wages) are being lost to technological progress. It also seems to tie in nicely with the recently discussed phenomenon of bullshit jobs. For example, my job benefits um....no one and I'd rather not be doing it. Everyone would be better off if I were paid a basic living wage and instead spent my time volunteering (which would make several people better off) or recreating (which would at least make me better off). This is essentially my goal for FIRE - to generate a much lower level of income than my current job while allowing much more time for volunteering and recreating.

I find these arguments over how UBI will be paid for to be a little misguided and antiquated. Wealth is generated by productivity, not by labour. Indeed, you could argue that a lot of "labour" is actually counter-productive in that many administrative tasks and bureaucratic processes (that employ tens of millions of people) contribute nothing and drain resources and time from productive people/tasks. Again, this ties back to the whole bullshit job phenomenon. Wouldn't everyone be better off if these people were paid to simply enjoy their lives or help their fellow man?

Sadly, I see little hope for UBI in North American due to the puritanical obsession with the nobility of work. Whenever I bring up UBI with someone, the first arguments is "won't it remove the incentive to work?" I don't think that they've ever considered that not all work is worth doing.

[thd7t]

Here is a question/idea for people who worry that UBI would undercut innovation: what about coupling it with a regressive tax system? Very high taxes on lower incomes (to recoup some cost and help pay for infrastructure, military, etc.) And lower tax brackets for higher incomes (to incentivise harder work/innovation/entrepreneurship).

I'm pretty sure that would have the opposite effect.  For example, Bill Gates was a trust fund baby.  But instead of discouraging him, it allowed to take the risk of dropping out of college to start Microsoft.

I only brought this up, because a number of earlier comments mentioned that they think UBI would disincentivize work and innovation. It's a scheme that I think would act as a foil for that thinking.

[Cassie]

It seems like Canada provides more social benefits/$ then the States do.  Then you have to compare all the costs to administer all the programs with what you would spend by just giving $ to everyone.  Also the UBi would need to be about the same as most retirees get from SS or they will not be happy since they are counting on that $ or you need to exclude them.

[Fudge102]

Here is a question/idea for people who worry that UBI would undercut innovation: what about coupling it with a regressive tax system? Very high taxes on lower incomes (to recoup some cost and help pay for infrastructure, military, etc.) And lower tax brackets for higher incomes (to incentivise harder work/innovation/entrepreneurship).

I'm pretty sure that would have the opposite effect.  For example, Bill Gates was a trust fund baby.  But instead of discouraging him, it allowed to take the risk of dropping out of college to start Microsoft.

I only brought this up, because a number of earlier comments mentioned that they think UBI would disincentivize work and innovation. It's a scheme that I think would act as a foil for that thinking.

I hear people say this but why do you think that?  Your food, housing, and basic medical needs are covered by this.  So what else do you do with your time?  You don't have any extra money to go out.  You don't have money for cable or internet or anything beyond your basic utilities (power, water, gas).  So what would you do with your time?  You have no money to spend on anything.  The incentive is still there.  Now a job is a path towards doing what you want vice being required just to live.  There's plenty of incentive to work, just not to work in a crappy job that you hate. 

[thd7t]

My comment is a response to people who suggest that UBI could have an impact on innovation. I think that UBI wouldn't necessarily provide a no-frills existence, but even at a high tax rate (which I think is reasonable for everyone under universal basic income) they would get the benefit of money to use as they liked. In terms of what kind of job, I don't know what people would do, but I doubt that there would be an issue filling even boring or crappy jobs.

[bacchi]

Another experiment is happening. This time it's in Oakland.

http://money.cnn.com/2016/05/31/technology/y-combinator-basic-income-oakland-pilot/index.html

Unfortunately, unless it's long term, it's tough for the studies to actually come to any substantive conclusions. Would you quit your job to work on an equity-only startup if the experiment only lasted 6 months? What about 1 year? Same with a career transition -- is 1 year enough to quit work and start school? It'll still be fascinating to see what happens, especially if they include people from all different socioeconomic backgrounds.