One of the democratic candidates, Andrew Yang, proposes universal basic income of $12k a year for every person.
One of the democratic candidates, Andrew Yang, proposes universal basic income of $12k a year for every person. Is this something mustachians would support?
UBI is absolutely terrifying to me. Literally getting something for nothing.
No thanks. But if UBI does come to fruition, you can bet I'll be cashing in double by raising rent $600/mo on each of my duplex units! I know they can afford it.
No thanks. But if UBI does come to fruition, you can bet I'll be cashing in double by raising rent $500/mo on each of my duplex units! I know they can afford it.
Maybe a one-time handout of $N to everyone? Then do it again N years afterwards? Would that be a good middle ground instead of giving out UBI to everyone every year?
Maybe a one-time handout of $N to everyone? Then do it again N years afterwards? Would that be a good middle ground instead of giving out UBI to everyone every year?
No thanks. But if UBI does come to fruition, you can bet I'll be cashing in double by raising rent $500/mo on each of my duplex units! I know they can afford it.
But then, people you buy from would also raise prices on you. So everyone would raise prices on everyone, same as no one raising prices on anyone.
No thanks. But if UBI does come to fruition, you can bet I'll be cashing in double by raising rent $600/mo on each of my duplex units! I know they can afford it.
My thoughts exactly. Wouldn't UBI cause the cost of living to up?
No thanks. But if UBI does come to fruition, you can bet I'll be cashing in double by raising rent $600/mo on each of my duplex units! I know they can afford it.
My thoughts exactly. Wouldn't UBI cause the cost of living to up?
In theory, if it is fully funded through taxes then no, because the same amount of money remains in the economy. In the previous poster's example, rents are set (mostly) by supply and demand. If suddenly incomes were increased by $12,000 per year, that wouldn't cause an increase in the number of people looking for rental units. But it might increase the demand for higher end units, as some people could afford to upgrade from their current living conditions. But in that case, the previous poster would have to upgrade his units as well in order to capture that market.
No thanks. But if UBI does come to fruition, you can bet I'll be cashing in double by raising rent $600/mo on each of my duplex units! I know they can afford it.
My thoughts exactly. Wouldn't UBI cause the cost of living to up?
No thanks. But if UBI does come to fruition, you can bet I'll be cashing in double by raising rent $600/mo on each of my duplex units! I know they can afford it.
My thoughts exactly. Wouldn't UBI cause the cost of living to up?
Maybe.
Maybe not.
For UBI to increase COL aggregate UBI would have to exceed the lost income that necessitated establishment of UBI.
If as projected, 25-40% of the workforce loses their jobs won't aggregate income and spending decrease even though the 25-40% receives UBI?
No thanks. But if UBI does come to fruition, you can bet I'll be cashing in double by raising rent $600/mo on each of my duplex units! I know they can afford it.
My thoughts exactly. Wouldn't UBI cause the cost of living to up?
In theory, if it is fully funded through taxes then no, because the same amount of money remains in the economy. In the previous poster's example, rents are set (mostly) by supply and demand. If suddenly incomes were increased by $12,000 per year, that wouldn't cause an increase in the number of people looking for rental units. But it might increase the demand for higher end units, as some people could afford to upgrade from their current living conditions. But in that case, the previous poster would have to upgrade his units as well in order to capture that market.
Well, it seems to me that demand for everything would go up. Anyone selling anything (products, services, rents) would raise their prices because they know their target market has more cash now.
Not if it’s going to replace our other social benefits.
Maybe a one-time handout of $N to everyone? Then do it again N years afterwards? Would that be a good middle ground instead of giving out UBI to everyone every year?
No thanks. But if UBI does come to fruition, you can bet I'll be cashing in double by raising rent $600/mo on each of my duplex units! I know they can afford it.
My thoughts exactly. Wouldn't UBI cause the cost of living to up?
No thanks. But if UBI does come to fruition, you can bet I'll be cashing in double by raising rent $500/mo on each of my duplex units! I know they can afford it.
But then, people you buy from would also raise prices on you. So everyone would raise prices on everyone, same as no one raising prices on anyone.
No, the SS recipients (and possibly others) not receiving the UBI because they've earned a meager SS benefit through a career of paying FICA taxes are the ones really losing out because, despite not receiving any UBI, they'll still have to pay the higher taxes to fund it and pay the higher prices that result from it, yet they still have to live on their same meager earned SS benefit, so those price increases and tax hikes will be real and painful for them when they are already struggling to get by on their limited benefit which is taxed higher every year due to SS tax thresholds which are not indexed to inflation along with higher health care out of pocket costs and ever increasing Medicare parts/supplemental costs on top of their other increasing expenses. UBI would just be piling on - more bad times. It's truly a horrible thing to screw SS recipients that way.
Three thoughts:
1. This is a classic slippery-slope type of situation. Let's pretend we elect Yang and he implements his $12k/year for everyone over 18. In 2024, a candidate comes along and runs on $15k/year for everyone over 18. Who are the 22 year-olds voting for, I wonder? It would never end.
2. We already have reasonable policies in place that can be tweaked. For example, minimum wage. Raising the minimum wage would, in effect, raise the "basic income", for anyone able to work an unskilled job. We would only have to raise the minimum wage to $13/hour to get minimum-wage earners an additional $12k/year.
3. I would much rather focus on single-payer/universal health care. I am staring down the barrel of a $700/mo insurance premium starting next month for just my SO and I - $8,400/year. I know it's a stretch, but if we could radically change our insurance system and wean ourselves off of the inefficiencies of all these giant insurance companies and red tape, I think we could reduce the expense of healthcare AND improve the quality by allowing preventative access to all.
Three thoughts:
1. This is a classic slippery-slope type of situation. Let's pretend we elect Yang and he implements his $12k/year for everyone over 18. In 2024, a candidate comes along and runs on $15k/year for everyone over 18. Who are the 22 year-olds voting for, I wonder? It would never end.
2. We already have reasonable policies in place that can be tweaked. For example, minimum wage. Raising the minimum wage would, in effect, raise the "basic income", for anyone able to work an unskilled job. We would only have to raise the minimum wage to $13/hour to get minimum-wage earners an additional $12k/year.
3. I would much rather focus on single-payer/universal health care. I am staring down the barrel of a $700/mo insurance premium starting next month for just my SO and I - $8,400/year. I know it's a stretch, but if we could radically change our insurance system and wean ourselves off of the inefficiencies of all these giant insurance companies and red tape, I think we could reduce the expense of healthcare AND improve the quality by allowing preventative access to all.
1. The slippery slope argument can be used to argue against just about anything. Personally I'm supportive of some form of UBI at some point in the future, but I think starting a $1,000/month (today's dollars) is too high.
2. Raising the minimum wage pushes employers toward automation which is exactly the problem that UBI seeks to address. It's the unemployed, whether temporary or long term, that will be a problem in the future.
3. Absolutely
Three thoughts:
1. This is a classic slippery-slope type of situation. Let's pretend we elect Yang and he implements his $12k/year for everyone over 18. In 2024, a candidate comes along and runs on $15k/year for everyone over 18. Who are the 22 year-olds voting for, I wonder? It would never end.
2. We already have reasonable policies in place that can be tweaked. For example, minimum wage. Raising the minimum wage would, in effect, raise the "basic income", for anyone able to work an unskilled job. We would only have to raise the minimum wage to $13/hour to get minimum-wage earners an additional $12k/year.
3. I would much rather focus on single-payer/universal health care. I am staring down the barrel of a $700/mo insurance premium starting next month for just my SO and I - $8,400/year. I know it's a stretch, but if we could radically change our insurance system and wean ourselves off of the inefficiencies of all these giant insurance companies and red tape, I think we could reduce the expense of healthcare AND improve the quality by allowing preventative access to all.
1. The slippery slope argument can be used to argue against just about anything. Personally I'm supportive of some form of UBI at some point in the future, but I think starting a $1,000/month (today's dollars) is too high.
2. Raising the minimum wage pushes employers toward automation which is exactly the problem that UBI seeks to address. It's the unemployed, whether temporary or long term, that will be a problem in the future.
3. Absolutely
Yes, slippery slope can be a kind of B.S. "catch-all" argument, but I truly see it as a bit more acute in this case, because you're starting the central re-distribution of $X amount of no-strings-attached cash. It's just a very easy thing for any American, anywhere on the intellectual spectrum, to comprehend. "Oh, well candidate A wants to give me $12k but candidate B wants to give me $15k - I know who I'm voting for!". Unlike other, more abstract/nuanced policy points, UBI as advertised by candidates like Yang has a specific dollar amount tied to it.
Raising the minimum wage will push employers toward more automation - very true. However, I'd rather take the step now of raising it to flush out all of the employers who can/will do this anyway. At least then we have an honest assessment of where we lie in regards to automation in the retail/food service/unskilled labor pool. The alternative is to continue the farce of paying people poverty-level wages and then having to subsidize them anyway in the form of food stamps, subsidized housing, etc... because almost nobody can live on $250/week.
How much money was handed back to companies with the massive tax cuts, about 15% of trillions?
There is something wrong that I paid more federal taxes in 2018 than General Motors, Chevron, Amazon, Halliburton, Netflix, Whirlpool, Aramark, Goodyear, IBM or many other companies. We're getting it backwards when we get upset with individuals/families on welfare or food stamps - or with the idea of providing these people with more when they didn't work for it - when these corporations are literally making away like bandits.
The last thing I want is to see idiots with more free time than currently. Hard pass for me.
There is something wrong that I paid more federal taxes in 2018 than General Motors, Chevron, Amazon, Halliburton, Netflix, Whirlpool, Aramark, Goodyear, IBM or many other companies. We're getting it backwards when we get upset with individuals/families on welfare or food stamps - or with the idea of providing these people with more when they didn't work for it - when these corporations are literally making away like bandits.
Do you think we would be better off if these companies disappeared, along with the millions of jobs associated with them? Those jobs, that also entail all the tax paying jobs that go along with them?
If we all of a sudden reduced their earnings by 35%, that would basically trickle immediately down to their employees via a reduction in force or pay.. Or by simply shutting down as they no longer remain profitable as a company..
There is something wrong that I paid more federal taxes in 2018 than General Motors, Chevron, Amazon, Halliburton, Netflix, Whirlpool, Aramark, Goodyear, IBM or many other companies. We're getting it backwards when we get upset with individuals/families on welfare or food stamps - or with the idea of providing these people with more when they didn't work for it - when these corporations are literally making away like bandits.
Do you think we would be better off if these companies disappeared, along with the millions of jobs associated with them? Those jobs, that also entail all the tax paying jobs that go along with them?
If we all of a sudden reduced their earnings by 35%, that would basically trickle immediately down to their employees via a reduction in force or pay.. Or by simply shutting down as they no longer remain profitable as a company..
So the choice is binary? We either refrain from collecting taxes from them or they go out of business?
Somehow, some way, I think the companies mentioned would find a way to survive if they had to pay more in taxes. And they're not going to cut a bunch of employees if the demand for their product is still there.
There is something wrong that I paid more federal taxes in 2018 than General Motors, Chevron, Amazon, Halliburton, Netflix, Whirlpool, Aramark, Goodyear, IBM or many other companies. We're getting it backwards when we get upset with individuals/families on welfare or food stamps - or with the idea of providing these people with more when they didn't work for it - when these corporations are literally making away like bandits.
Do you think we would be better off if these companies disappeared, along with the millions of jobs associated with them? Those jobs, that also entail all the tax paying jobs that go along with them?
If we all of a sudden reduced their earnings by 35%, that would basically trickle immediately down to their employees via a reduction in force or pay.. Or by simply shutting down as they no longer remain profitable as a company..
So the choice is binary? We either refrain from collecting taxes from them or they go out of business?
Somehow, some way, I think the companies mentioned would find a way to survive if they had to pay more in taxes. And they're not going to cut a bunch of employees if the demand for their product is still there.
Yes. It’s 100% binary.
There is something wrong that I paid more federal taxes in 2018 than General Motors, Chevron, Amazon, Halliburton, Netflix, Whirlpool, Aramark, Goodyear, IBM or many other companies. We're getting it backwards when we get upset with individuals/families on welfare or food stamps - or with the idea of providing these people with more when they didn't work for it - when these corporations are literally making away like bandits.
Do you think we would be better off if these companies disappeared, along with the millions of jobs associated with them? Those jobs, that also entail all the tax paying jobs that go along with them?
If we all of a sudden reduced their earnings by 35%, that would basically trickle immediately down to their employees via a reduction in force or pay.. Or by simply shutting down as they no longer remain profitable as a company..
There is something wrong that I paid more federal taxes in 2018 than General Motors, Chevron, Amazon, Halliburton, Netflix, Whirlpool, Aramark, Goodyear, IBM or many other companies. We're getting it backwards when we get upset with individuals/families on welfare or food stamps - or with the idea of providing these people with more when they didn't work for it - when these corporations are literally making away like bandits.
Do you think we would be better off if these companies disappeared, along with the millions of jobs associated with them? Those jobs, that also entail all the tax paying jobs that go along with them?
If we all of a sudden reduced their earnings by 35%, that would basically trickle immediately down to their employees via a reduction in force or pay.. Or by simply shutting down as they no longer remain profitable as a company..
There is something wrong that I paid more federal taxes in 2018 than General Motors, Chevron, Amazon, Halliburton, Netflix, Whirlpool, Aramark, Goodyear, IBM or many other companies. We're getting it backwards when we get upset with individuals/families on welfare or food stamps - or with the idea of providing these people with more when they didn't work for it - when these corporations are literally making away like bandits.
Do you think we would be better off if these companies disappeared, along with the millions of jobs associated with them? Those jobs, that also entail all the tax paying jobs that go along with them?
If we all of a sudden reduced their earnings by 35%, that would basically trickle immediately down to their employees via a reduction in force or pay.. Or by simply shutting down as they no longer remain profitable as a company..
So the choice is binary? We either refrain from collecting taxes from them or they go out of business?
Somehow, some way, I think the companies mentioned would find a way to survive if they had to pay more in taxes. And they're not going to cut a bunch of employees if the demand for their product is still there.
Yes. It’s 100% binary.
Since it's that simple, we should collect more taxes from individual citizens, give that cash to huge companies, and then there's no way these companies will ever go out of business or layoff anyone. :)
I don't think Amazon, GM, Halliburton, etc. are all such fragile houses of cards that an uptick in their paid taxes from zero to something a bit above zero causes them to collapse, but I guess we agree to disagree. Must be tough for Bezos to be livin' paycheck-to-paycheck like that. Hope he has a solid E-fund. :)
Not if it’s going to replace our other social benefits.
Only if it replaces all other benefits.
(b) Would UBI replace Social Security? This isn't something I've heard a definitive answer for. I've heard him say that it would replace welfare programs, but SS isn't really that. I could probably get this answer by looking through how the plan is costed out, but I haven't gone to that level of detail. He says that people would have the option to opt in / out at roll out. Would that option go away in the future so other programs (including SS) disappear?
I think there is a ton of underemployment, you know the middle manager now working at Starbucks, that kind of thing, also lot's of College grads bartending etc. So I think the unemployment figures are not a true indication of current employment, but time will tell so no point really debating it.
What is blindingly clear is the amount of automation though, eg: -
ATM's replaced a lot of Bank tellers
closing retail stores & malls - millions of retail workers gone
self pump Gas stations
Ticket machines
online banking
online retail
robots in warehouses
robots on production lines
machines taking your phone calls - hate these!
Robovisors replacing Investment advisors
soon to come: -
self drive vehicles putting all truck drivers and taxi drivers to pasture
Artificial intelligence handling customer service calls
All insurance jobs will be replaced with AI
Legal search work replaced by AI
Radiology jobs will be performed by AI -
So many others, many websites and books can explain it better than I can
so if the job pool shrinks rapidly and we have very high unemployment, what should we do?
I think UBI is the answer
This has all happened before, but on a small scale. Even in the ancient world, rich landowners often stopped working and had a leisured life. Such nobles, if they had ability, sometimes followed the 'path of honor' which meant being statesmen. This happens today among aristocrats (in monarchies) or patricians (in republics).
The difference today is that machines are emerging as a slave class, and most people will eventually live like patricians of modest means, that is joining the gentleman class.
I became aware of these matters in the sixties, and assumed that most people would aspire to becoming part of the leisured class. Apparently many people do not aspire to do better. Many people do not understand that full employment in an automated economy is a sign of failure and stupidity.
This is largely a political issue and I take great pains to avoid politics.
From a historical perspective, ever since the beginning of the industrial revolution there has been a fear that automation would result in starvation, displacement, and all manner of evil. For the most part those fears haven’t materialized and as a result we live in an incredibly luxurious society. “This time is different!!” Until it isn’t.
Rather than debate the merits of yet another welfare program, I’d rather people focus on what they can do to position themselves and their own for success.
This is largely a political issue and I take great pains to avoid politics.
From a historical perspective, ever since the beginning of the industrial revolution there has been a fear that automation would result in starvation, displacement, and all manner of evil. For the most part those fears haven’t materialized and as a result we live in an incredibly luxurious society. “This time is different!!” Until it isn’t.
Rather than debate the merits of yet another welfare program, I’d rather people focus on what they can do to position themselves and their own for success.
But, but, what are all the blacksmith's and bakers and weavers doing now?? oh wait... workers found new professions when the old ones disappeared. A little thing called "progress" happened over the years and people, as they always do, adapted.
If, as predicted by some researchers and technologists, many millions of employees lose their jobs due to technological advances UBI may be indispensable.
One of the democratic candidates, Andrew Yang, proposes universal basic income of $12k a year for every person. Is this something mustachians would support? Many Americans who earn $25k or less simply have too little money to use the mustachian strategies to achieve FIRE. An extra $12K a year (for a family of 4 that would be an extra $48k a year) would definitely help with their savings. But of course, the question is could the nation even afford this? How would the stock markets, which mustachians depend on, be affected?
One of the democratic candidates, Andrew Yang, proposes universal basic income of $12k a year for every person. Is this something mustachians would support? Many Americans who earn $25k or less simply have too little money to use the mustachian strategies to achieve FIRE. An extra $12K a year (for a family of 4 that would be an extra $48k a year) would definitely help with their savings. But of course, the question is could the nation even afford this? How would the stock markets, which mustachians depend on, be affected?
UBI is a delightful rabbit hole for people who aren't very good at math to engage in a thought exercise akin to the mindset of hopeful lottery winners. I expected that Mustachians would be better at math, but there are some fans of UBI in our midst.
It's a verbal trick, that word "universal" suggests such a scheme is more fair and more moral than what we currently have: means-tests and needs-tests. Those of us who are poor, ill, disabled, very young or very old qualify for benefits. Those of us who are not, simply do not. Reflexively, I recognize that it would be horribly unfair for me, a healthy, intelligent & college educated person to collect a benefit equal to that of my neighbor, Dawn, who is developmentally disabled and needs an assortment of benefits (federal, state & county) that far exceed $12,000 annually. Baked into the 'universal' idea is that recipients would no longer have to prove their need, and thus would escape the 'shame' of being needy. The unproven assumption in this new paradigm is that we scrap the patchwork of benefits from an assortment of different sources, reaping savings in reduced overhead in administering those benefits. Section 8, SNAP, WIC, Medicaid are costly programs, but each of them sprang from need, fulfilling a well articulated purpose. If we intend to chuck these programs in order to fund a level cash payout, we need to consider what happens to the need and if cash actually fixes it.
There is also a common math error in the administration and overhead where savings are promised. In turning everyone (resident? citizen? adult?) into a recipient, we expand the population served by five. This doesn't represent a reduction in overhead. It's a five-fold expansion in client population. The idea that you could scrap the programs aimed at leveling the playing field supporting those who have less ability, skill & resources by giving them them same "universal" benefit as their highly talented, nourished and able-bodied fellow citizens is a cruel joke. People with the least ability to fend for themselves will be tossed to the wolves. UBI programs depend upon us forgetting every single thing we know about human nature and decades worth of experience in social service delivery programs.
Likewise, those who presume automation and AI will usher in an era of fewer opportunities for employment also miss the current and future demographic realities. Automation has never eliminated the net number of required workers. It only changes the nature of work, eliminating some fields and generating entirely new fields. Sure, we need fewer taxi cab drivers, but the pending avalanche of Alzheimer's in the boomer population will demand a massive number of home health aides. Where care giving, like child care, was once almost the exclusive task of an unpaid family member, it is increasingly a job for which someone must be hired. We've all had fewer children to look after us, free of charge, in our dotage. For this reason alone, our nationwide need for immigrants remains high. There aren't ever going to be enough out of work cabbies.
Current welfare and social program beneficiaries would be given a choice between their current benefits or $1,000 cash unconditionally – most would prefer cash with no restriction.
Those who served our country and are facing a disability because of it will continue to receive their benefits on top of the Freedom Dividend
Under the Freedom Dividend, those who are legally disabled would have a choice between collecting SSDI and the Freedom Dividend, or collecting SSDI and SSI, whichever is more generous.
The unproven assumption in this new paradigm is that we scrap the patchwork of benefits from an assortment of different sources, reaping savings in reduced overhead in administering those benefits. Section 8, SNAP, WIC, Medicaid are costly programs, but each of them sprang from need, fulfilling a well articulated purpose. If we intend to chuck these programs in order to fund a level cash payout, we need to consider what happens to the need and if cash actually fixes it.
There is also a common math error in the administration and overhead where savings are promised. In turning everyone (resident? citizen? adult?) into a recipient, we expand the population served by five. This doesn't represent a reduction in overhead.
UBI is a delightful rabbit hole for people who aren't very good at math to engage in a thought exercise akin to the mindset of hopeful lottery winners.
boy do I love that he's introduced UBI to the national conversation.
The overhead is somewhat necessary as it facilitates means testing. Handing out money is not good for people that cannot budget for themselves.The unproven assumption in this new paradigm is that we scrap the patchwork of benefits from an assortment of different sources, reaping savings in reduced overhead in administering those benefits. Section 8, SNAP, WIC, Medicaid are costly programs, but each of them sprang from need, fulfilling a well articulated purpose. If we intend to chuck these programs in order to fund a level cash payout, we need to consider what happens to the need and if cash actually fixes it.
There is also a common math error in the administration and overhead where savings are promised. In turning everyone (resident? citizen? adult?) into a recipient, we expand the population served by five. This doesn't represent a reduction in overhead.
Why wouldn't it? UBI requires the government to track three things: citizenship, if you are over 18, and how to send you the money. And except for the latter, they already know those things. But for example, Section 8 requires the potential landlord to fill out an application, and then the property has to be physically inspected for compliance by the housing authority. Then the prospective tenant has to fill out an application that is reviewed for eligibility, and then prospective tenant has to be screened and pass a background check. Right there, you can see UBI has way less overhead. Medicaid, I imagine, is even more complicated.
The overhead is somewhat necessary as it facilitates means testing. Handing out money is not good for people that cannot budget for themselves.
I'm so glad "mathlete" chimed in after this
The overhead is somewhat necessary as it facilitates means testing. Handing out money is not good for people that cannot budget for themselves.
The presumption is that poor people are poor not because they can't manage money, but because they have so little to manage. Scarcity makes you make poor decisions.
Many poor people have mental illness and drug problems, it's akin to saying "homeless people just need homes". I wish it were so simple.
Communism on paper could work but historically it has always devolved quickly into a totalitarian society. Simply because people suck and can't be trusted with too much power.
Our best bet for testing UBI? Eventually have AI so sophisticated that we can effectively make parallel earths simulating the behavior of millions of people living in a country. And run them through generations of life under various economic models and see which ones turn out best. I think that test is more likely to be possible than any experiment in the real world adequately showing the results of UBI without a full untested implementation.
The presumption is that poor people are poor not because they can't manage money, but because they have so little to manage. Scarcity makes you make poor decisions.
Surprised that no one mentioned Alaska. Where a similar scheme, tied to oil revenue, was (is?) in place.
I don't recall any news about the state turning Marxist, collapse of the economy, or the state sliding down the slippery slope in any other way.
Also, not very surprised that the forum where the plurality earns close to triple the national average is of the opinion that there is no problem with underemployment.
Now, I don't have a dog in this fight - but the arguments like "lazy bastards who work two minimum wage jobs will stop doing that" don't sound convincing. Neither is Yang gang fandom.
Surprised that no one mentioned Alaska. Where a similar scheme, tied to oil revenue, was (is?) in place.
I don't recall any news about the state turning Marxist, collapse of the economy, or the state sliding down the slippery slope in any other way.
Also, not very surprised that the forum where the plurality earns close to triple the national average is of the opinion that there is no problem with underemployment.
Now, I don't have a dog in this fight - but the arguments like "lazy bastards who work two minimum wage jobs will stop doing that" don't sound convincing. Neither is Yang gang fandom.
I'm ambivalent about the idea of UBI, though potentially persuadable. However, this article offers an interesting perspective.
https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2019/9/5/20849020/alaska-permanent-fund-universal-basic-income (https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2019/9/5/20849020/alaska-permanent-fund-universal-basic-income)
The presumption is that poor people are poor not because they can't manage money, but because they have so little to manage. Scarcity makes you make poor decisions.
Seems like the "Overheard at Work" and variations of that thread would be a pretty good indicator, just here on MMM, that people are poor because they can't manage money. And it has seemingly no correlation to earnings.
The presumption is that poor people are poor not because they can't manage money, but because they have so little to manage. Scarcity makes you make poor decisions.
Seems like the "Overheard at Work" and variations of that thread would be a pretty good indicator, just here on MMM, that people are poor because they can't manage money. And it has seemingly no correlation to earnings.
No. There’s no such thing as a free lunch. Why should I pay people for doing nothing?
No. There’s no such thing as a free lunch. Why should I pay people for doing nothing?
You're getting paid too.
No, I wouldn't be. I'm a massive net payer into the tax system.
No, I wouldn't be. I'm a massive net payer into the tax system.
Oh. I didn't realize we were in the presence of a Rockefeller. ;-)
If that's the case then, at the end of 2017, we committed to going nearly $2 trillion in debt over the next decade to give you free money for doing nothing too. How is UBI any different?
To me, it's different because the money goes to people with a higher marginal propensity to consume, which is probably better for the economy. That, and they derive more utility from it.
You can't tax people into prosperity...but I suspect we're on different ends of the spectrum of that philosophical debate.
I get the impression that UBI is a really good way to see how well people understand macro economics, and generally people have only a vague idea at best.Care to elaborate?
Very short answer: UBI is an incredibility complex subject and people that spend massive amount of time doing nothing but economics are arguing up a storm about how effective it may or may not be (in academic speak: there is robust discourse about the topic). It's also a macro economic topic that requires a pretty good rounding in national policy to really understand the arguments for against.
Yet, outside that discourse most of the arguments (for or against) boil down to partisan talking points that wouldn't even pass muster in a high school level course.
Kind of like how the argument that national budgets need to be run the same way as hold budgets just doesn't work. A better argument would be a comparison to corporations which need to take out bonds due to variable cashflow.
That's a social argument against UBI though and not an economic one. There have been some small scale studies into UBI and while you do end up having some bad actors (who may have been a prioi) generally you see an overall economic and educational improvmenet along with more entrepreneurship. However, there's a bit question about if the small-scale projects would even scale, or if UBI should just be used to lift some populations out of poverty.
When you get down to it, most of the arguments against UBI tend to be social as opposed to economic. It's really hard to model the economics of something that really hasn't been done at scale before.
After reading the book, "The War on Normal People" by Andrew Yang, I believe UBI is the only way to save the economy from a crash of epic proportions. Automation & AI will reduce the number of available jobs by the millions - some estimate 70%! With epic unemployment, no-one will have money so the businesses will suffer, sure there'll be some lucky people - the business owners with the robots doing all the work, but a few billionaires can only buy so many consumer goods. It's in our interests to pay UBI, to help people from starving, becoming homeless, to help them transition to a new economic model, where they can start their own small business & share in the savings created by Automation.
EG- The trucking industry which has already started some runs with zero drivers, has 3.5million drivers. The industry will save $168 Billion. The VAT of 10% on the Trucking industry would then go to pay the drivers UBI - it's a slice of the savings. Similarly, Amazon is killing off retail & automating warehousing & delivery - if they save say 20% in worker reductions, adding 10% VAT & paying it back to the people, is the people sharing in the savings of their automation.
People would spend their UBI back into the economy pumping it up & keeping it alive.
I'm surprised people seem to freak out about people 'gasp' getting money (back), yet don't mention the Trillions given to the Banks, AIG, GM, Farmers, Fossil Fuel subsidies, war games, and just recently there was a news article about sending the Ukraine $250 Million - no one was saying 'how are we going to pay for that', and 'how dare they, it's our income tax money', I'd prefer it going back to the people. I've lived in different countries & those that take the best care of their poor, with the best safety nets have the least crime, poverty, homelessness & result unrest eg Australia, Canada, Norway...
Ps Highly recommend reading the book, or listening to the Joe Rogan podcast interviewing Andrew Yang
We are at nearly full employment right now.
After reading the book, "The War on Normal People" by Andrew Yang, I believe UBI is the only way to save the economy from a crash of epic proportions. Automation & AI will reduce the number of available jobs by the millions - some estimate 70%! With epic unemployment, no-one will have money so the businesses will suffer, sure there'll be some lucky people - the business owners with the robots doing all the work, but a few billionaires can only buy so many consumer goods. It's in our interests to pay UBI, to help people from starving, becoming homeless, to help them transition to a new economic model, where they can start their own small business & share in the savings created by Automation.
We are at nearly full employment right now.
You have to be looking for work to get counted in those statistics. Prime age male labor force participation is dropping fast.
The labor force participation rate among men has been on the decline... 69 percent in June, down from 86.2 percent 70 years ago.
https://www.foxbusiness.com/economy/employment-prime-age-men (https://www.foxbusiness.com/economy/employment-prime-age-men)
I'm afraid to see what happens when it gets to 50%.
How much would 3 daily meals totalling 2200 calories, warm shelter (I'm thinking a hostel type environment), an internet connection and a VR headset cost per person? Because I think that would be the extent of the "UBI" requirements, and I think if you institute that in bulk, it wouldn't be super expensive.Looking at prisons would probably give us a good idea. (https://lao.ca.gov/policyareas/cj/6_cj_inmatecost (https://lao.ca.gov/policyareas/cj/6_cj_inmatecost)) Removing the obvious things that wouldn't be needed (liked $35k on security) it looks like you could house and feed people for about $600 per person per month excluding healthcare.
In essence, how is it different from the standard deduction, except that it can result in negative taxes for low income earners?
I was still pretty young when Canada implemented the GST (VAT), so I don't remember the effect it had on prices... I also seem to remember tax being baked into the price before the GST so the consumer didn't actually know the tax rate on specific items.In all fairness, it would be really nice if the price on the shelf was the price paid at the register. Even with out VAT or GST, we have the technology, you would think that retailers would have done this by now.
In the UK the VAT is applied based upon the final sale price and I seem to recall that the EU is the same?
So, my understanding is that all the "middlemen" have to pay taxes for the value added which would make prices inflate by more than just the rate of the tax (i.e. a 1% VAT tax would likely increase the cost of the good it was applied to by > 1%). But, I may be wrong on that part. Things are almost always more expensive in Canada than the US, but there are many reasons for that (VAT tax is one of them I think, but not the only one).
So, my understanding is that all the "middlemen" have to pay taxes for the value added which would make prices inflate by more than just the rate of the tax (i.e. a 1% VAT tax would likely increase the cost of the good it was applied to by > 1%). But, I may be wrong on that part. Things are almost always more expensive in Canada than the US, but there are many reasons for that (VAT tax is one of them I think, but not the only one).
I could be wrong, but I think you have it backwards. Sales tax has to be paid by all middlemen (and hence tends to be greater than the stated rate), whereas value added tax equals the actual tax rate applied to the final cost to the consumer.
So, my understanding is that all the "middlemen" have to pay taxes for the value added which would make prices inflate by more than just the rate of the tax (i.e. a 1% VAT tax would likely increase the cost of the good it was applied to by > 1%). But, I may be wrong on that part. Things are almost always more expensive in Canada than the US, but there are many reasons for that (VAT tax is one of them I think, but not the only one).
I could be wrong, but I think you have it backwards. Sales tax has to be paid by all middlemen (and hence tends to be greater than the stated rate), whereas value added tax equals the actual tax rate applied to the final cost to the consumer.
I'm also not an expert.
But I think the definitions and example from investipedia show how it works.
In theory, if it is fully funded through taxes then no, because the same amount of money remains in the economy. In the previous poster's example, rents are set (mostly) by supply and demand. If suddenly incomes were increased by $12,000 per year, that wouldn't cause an increase in the number of people looking for rental units. But it might increase the demand for higher end units, as some people could afford to upgrade from their current living conditions. But in that case, the previous poster would have to upgrade his units as well in order to capture that market.I think part of the reason that apartments in more expensive locals are rented at all is because folks have to be there to access the good jobs. With UBI, folks don't need to be there, and so they will spend the cash in cheap locales.
But a UBI won't reduce inequality - it will enforce it. If there's an increase in a class of people who own/control vast amounts of wealth AND an increase in the number of people for whom $12,000 is a significant part of their income then we'll have, effectively, a 2 tiered system LOCKED IN PLACE.
UBI would cause a double whammy if the main wage earner in your family suddenly dies and you lose both his or her income *AND* the $12000-a-year UBI. That would be tough for the surviving family members.The idea is that there would be one less mouth to feed.
But a UBI won't reduce inequality - it will enforce it. If there's an increase in a class of people who own/control vast amounts of wealth AND an increase in the number of people for whom $12,000 is a significant part of their income then we'll have, effectively, a 2 tiered system LOCKED IN PLACE.
You are talking about a direct transfer of wealth from the people that make enough money to pay to people that have nothing. I don't think that your math adds up. If you take someone making $6K/yr and suddenly they make $18K/yr that's a huge improvement.
But a UBI won't reduce inequality - it will enforce it. If there's an increase in a class of people who own/control vast amounts of wealth AND an increase in the number of people for whom $12,000 is a significant part of their income then we'll have, effectively, a 2 tiered system LOCKED IN PLACE.
You are talking about a direct transfer of wealth from the people that make enough money to pay to people that have nothing. I don't think that your math adds up. If you take someone making $6K/yr and suddenly they make $18K/yr that's a huge improvement.
I'm not really doing any math - nor do I think I need to to support my point.
If the argument goes that:
- Automation, AI and disruptive technologies reduce the # of jobs (especially middle class jobs)
- While at the same time enriching those who invest in them (who are almost exclusively previously wealthy people like VCs, Angel investors, etc)
- So UBI provides a basic level of income for people who find the economy excluding them due to structural changes
Then I think you necessarily get:
- A class of people with a lot of money - involved and powerful in the economy
- An shrinking middle class (as a lot of MC jobs become automated or technology'd away)
- An increasing class of people with (relatively) no money - unable to meaningfully participate in the economy either as actors or as decision makers
That seems, to me, to be LESS equality, not more. Since the middle class shrinks.
Now predicting the future is always a murky prospect, so there could be a lot of bad assumptions at play, but if the assumptions that a UBI is based on are accurate then I don't see a UBI as doing anything other than enforcing inequality.
If the argument goes that:
- Automation, AI and disruptive technologies reduce the # of jobs (especially middle class jobs)
If the argument goes that:
- Automation, AI and disruptive technologies reduce the # of jobs (especially middle class jobs)
It's interesting that people think automation and technological advances will reduce the total number of jobs. Looking back at the past 200 years, automation and technology have certainly killed off jobs, but have also created countless new ones at a far greater pace.
Perhaps the problem is that we have a good idea of the jobs that are going to be killed off, but don't know what new jobs will be created. Imagine telling a farmer 200 years ago that there was 95+% chance that his job would be eliminated. That would be terrifying since he wouldn't know the new jobs that would take its place.
UBI is a terrible idea.
It is a raised floor on the price of labour.
If there is some task out there that will pay less than UBI, then UBI is in effect saying: "doing nothing is worth more than doing something." That's insane.
Ultimately, people make choices based on the incentives and constraints placed upon them by circumstances such as market forces, laws, and social pressure. Incentivizing people to do nothing, and forcing other people to subsidize that lack of activity, is a recipe for disaster.
UBI in the manner and scale that Alaksa did it, is good! Their implementation was messed up, however. They did not diversify their portfolio and the SWR was messed around with by the political, rather than actuarial calculations. Fix that, and Alaska plan is golden. i.e. invest into a diversified portfolio that bets on the direction of the entire economy (that starts sounding very much like an index fund to me), and give out a SWR calculated conservatively. As the portfolio grows (i.e. economy grows), your share grows too!!
2. Every article I read that mentions the PFD as an example of UBI finds people who spent it on college, or stocking up on food and fuel for the winter to interview. In reality every October (when the PFD is deposited) is feeding frenzy of consumerism worthy of multiple posts on the wall of shame and comedy. This year I started hearing ads on the radio at least 6 weeks before the PFD arrived for TVs, cars, furniture, and vacations. If the PFD is our guide be prepared for UBI to massively increase consumerism.
2. Every article I read that mentions the PFD as an example of UBI finds people who spent it on college, or stocking up on food and fuel for the winter to interview. In reality every October (when the PFD is deposited) is feeding frenzy of consumerism worthy of multiple posts on the wall of shame and comedy. This year I started hearing ads on the radio at least 6 weeks before the PFD arrived for TVs, cars, furniture, and vacations. If the PFD is our guide be prepared for UBI to massively increase consumerism.
The same thing happens around tax (refund) time, or around Christmastime. When advertisers know people have money and are willing to spend. For anyone living paycheck the paycheck, the same thing happens every two weeks too. This is a fundamental issue of human psychology, rather than something specific to UBI, PFD, or any other disbursement program.
I know we have an anti-consumerist bent around here, but if we can take off our mustachian hats for a moment, and pull our economist stockings over our head, expanding consumption in a consumerist economy like the United States is probably a good thing. Money does buy happiness. At least, as contemporary research shows, until you're making north of around $80K a year.
It's good for aggregate happiness to nudge people further along the happiness/income curve. Of course, that alone isn't reason enough to implement UBI, but we have other reasons. Like workers getting a comparatively small share of the productivity gains from the past 40 years, or the impending devaluation of human labor that will come with automation.
I don't see your point here. If there is a significant class who is unable to participate in the economy due to automation they will have far less wealth than the class who owns the capital. If UBI is provided, of course that divide would still exist but it would be slightly less. This doesn't sound like an argument against UBI, it sounds like an argument for some alternative that you haven't described yet.
It's interesting that people think automation and technological advances will reduce the total number of jobs. Looking back at the past 200 years, automation and technology have certainly killed off jobs, but have also created countless new ones at a far greater pace.
Perhaps the problem is that we have a good idea of the jobs that are going to be killed off, but don't know what new jobs will be created. Imagine telling a farmer 200 years ago that there was 95+% chance that his job would be eliminated. That would be terrifying since he wouldn't know the new jobs that would take its place.
- Inequality is on the rise, which is bad for society for a host of reasons
- Inequality in the extremes is totally unnecessary and not at all advantageous
- Neither is enforcing that everyone lives on the same income despite differences in effort, skill, social value, contribution or merit (and I'd argue equally that people like teachers deserve more and CEOs deserve less based on that, but alas)
Universal Basic Income (UBI) has nothing to do with prices...
Most of the proposals for UBI would have each person getting a fixed amount of money each month (ex., $1000) which is ideally indexed to a basic cost of living (i.e., basic shelter, food, utilities)
Universal Basic Income (UBI) has nothing to do with prices...
It is a price. Specifically, it is a price floor.
Even if only working individuals are allowed to collect UBI, you are raising the price of their labour by whatever amount UBI pays out to them.Most of the proposals for UBI would have each person getting a fixed amount of money each month (ex., $1000) which is ideally indexed to a basic cost of living (i.e., basic shelter, food, utilities)
The money for UBI will have to come from a tax. The existence of that tax will prompt producers of goods and services to raise their prices in order to maintain their profit margins (the introduction of taxes always has this effect). So even in the best case scenario, people will have slightly more money, but prices will go up, including the basic cost of survival. Nothing changes, no additional safety net is created.
More likely, some of that money will be fed into public coffers to be misspent or misappropriated by bureaucrats.
The money for UBI will have to come from a tax. The existence of that tax will prompt producers of goods and services to raise their prices in order to maintain their profit margins (the introduction of taxes always has this effect). So even in the best case scenario, people will have slightly more money, but prices will go up, including the basic cost of survival. Nothing changes, no additional safety net is created.
More likely, some of that money will be fed into public coffers to be misspent or misappropriated by bureaucrats.
Arguably the Standard Deduction is an employment linked UBI since the government is earmarking sufficient funds for basic survival as non-taxable. Obviously it's not quite the same as UBI, but the basic idea is there.
Money is a measure of how much people care about something. The more money you get for what you do, the more people care about you doing it. Prices, when they are not interfered with, allow us to get a real sense of how much a society cares about this service or that, this product or that.
Correct, it is a really pained connection and is mostly used to demonstrate that conceptually the idea isn't exactly new.Arguably the Standard Deduction is an employment linked UBI since the government is earmarking sufficient funds for basic survival as non-taxable. Obviously it's not quite the same as UBI, but the basic idea is there.Arguably, anything-linked UBI is no longer universal, since it is linked to some contingent requirement. I prefer to think of the Standard Deduction as the 0% tax bracket.
Again, no, it isn't a price floor. Recall that a price floor is an externally imposed minimum price that can be paid for a product, good, commodity, or service. This means that minimum wage is a price floor (the government sets a minimum price that can be paid for labor). However, UBI fails this definition since you are receiving it without exchanging any products, goods, commodities, or services. Furthermore, under UBI minimum wage could either drastically reduced. In fact some economists are actually arguing that UBI would be a wage subsidy under that scenario which would allow the marketplace to better set price for labor.
Again, no, it isn't a price floor. Recall that a price floor is an externally imposed minimum price that can be paid for a product, good, commodity, or service. This means that minimum wage is a price floor (the government sets a minimum price that can be paid for labor). However, UBI fails this definition since you are receiving it without exchanging any products, goods, commodities, or services. Furthermore, under UBI minimum wage could either drastically reduced. In fact some economists are actually arguing that UBI would be a wage subsidy under that scenario which would allow the marketplace to better set price for labor.
UBI meets your definition of a price floor.
If you are enacting UBI (the receipt of money without exchanging any products, goods, commodities, or services in return), you are externally imposing a price floor for doing nothing.
The non-imposed normal market payout for doing nothing is $0.
Edit: I understand that UBI does not meet the strict definition of a price floor - it's closer to a subsidy. I see this as a semantic matter.
Money is supposed to be an abstract representation of concrete value created via work. I have a problem with money being paid when no work has been done to justify it. That is what UBI is, and I have not seen compelling evidence that justifies its implementation.
If your choice was binary, current system vs. UBI, what would be your arguments specifically against UBI?
Are you saying that you are against all forms of welfare?
Are you opposed to paying for the basic necessities for those who cannot provide for themselves?
If your choice was binary, current system vs. UBI, what would be your arguments specifically against UBI?
Again, no, it isn't a price floor. Recall that a price floor is an externally imposed minimum price that can be paid for a product, good, commodity, or service. This means that minimum wage is a price floor (the government sets a minimum price that can be paid for labor). However, UBI fails this definition since you are receiving it without exchanging any products, goods, commodities, or services. Furthermore, under UBI minimum wage could either drastically reduced. In fact some economists are actually arguing that UBI would be a wage subsidy under that scenario which would allow the marketplace to better set price for labor.
UBI meets your definition of a price floor.
If you are enacting UBI (the receipt of money without exchanging any products, goods, commodities, or services in return), you are externally imposing a price floor for doing nothing.
The non-imposed normal market payout for doing nothing is $0.
Edit: I understand that UBI does not meet the strict definition of a price floor - it's closer to a subsidy. I see this as a semantic matter.
Money is supposed to be an abstract representation of concrete value created via work. I have a problem with money being paid when no work has been done to justify it. That is what UBI is, and I have not seen compelling evidence that justifies its implementation.
I found some very compelling evidence for the implementation of money being paid when no work has been done to justify it:
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1037/0002-9432.72.2.182
There is a wealth of similar and related studies.
I found some very compelling evidence for the implementation of money being paid when no work has been done to justify it:
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1037/0002-9432.72.2.182
There is a wealth of similar and related studies.
From the abstract (the rest is behind a paywall): "Three policy implications are discussed: (a) increasing access to federal food programs, (b) promoting breastfeeding, and (c) working toward reducing child poverty."
I can get onboard with (a) and (b). As for (c), it could improve child nutrition, but not in the absence of improved knowledge of nutrition and responsible spending by the parents. In other words, what percentage of the supplemental income would actually be spent on nutrition? Meanwhile, the U.S. government has these programs in place: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_and_Nutrition_Service#Nutrition_assistance_programs (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_and_Nutrition_Service#Nutrition_assistance_programs).
Very tangentially related: I find the poverty line to be an interesting statistic if MMM in his early blogging/retirement days could be counted under that statistic, as seems likely from this information: https://www.census.gov/topics/income-poverty/poverty/guidance/poverty-measures.html (https://www.census.gov/topics/income-poverty/poverty/guidance/poverty-measures.html) and https://www2.census.gov/programs-surveys/cps/tables/time-series/historical-poverty-thresholds/thresh11.xls (https://www2.census.gov/programs-surveys/cps/tables/time-series/historical-poverty-thresholds/thresh11.xls). (Especially when one considers that capital gains are not factored into the equation.)
A second argument from UBI enthusiasts is that people could be creating great things if they didn't have to spend their time groveling for jobs (which the current welfare system requires). I don't disagree that there might be some people like this out there, but I would argue they are so few and far between as to be immaterial to the argument.
...snip...
Until evidence emerges, preferably historical examples, of UBI being applied both beneficially and with no equal-or-greater negative side effects, we must be skeptical of it, however much it may appeal to our sensibilities as charitable people.
I found some very compelling evidence for the implementation of money being paid when no work has been done to justify it:
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1037/0002-9432.72.2.182
There is a wealth of similar and related studies.
From the abstract (the rest is behind a paywall): "Three policy implications are discussed: (a) increasing access to federal food programs, (b) promoting breastfeeding, and (c) working toward reducing child poverty."
I can get onboard with (a) and (b). As for (c), it could improve child nutrition, but not in the absence of improved knowledge of nutrition and responsible spending by the parents. In other words, what percentage of the supplemental income would actually be spent on nutrition? Meanwhile, the U.S. government has these programs in place: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_and_Nutrition_Service#Nutrition_assistance_programs (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_and_Nutrition_Service#Nutrition_assistance_programs).
Very tangentially related: I find the poverty line to be an interesting statistic if MMM in his early blogging/retirement days could be counted under that statistic, as seems likely from this information: https://www.census.gov/topics/income-poverty/poverty/guidance/poverty-measures.html (https://www.census.gov/topics/income-poverty/poverty/guidance/poverty-measures.html) and https://www2.census.gov/programs-surveys/cps/tables/time-series/historical-poverty-thresholds/thresh11.xls (https://www2.census.gov/programs-surveys/cps/tables/time-series/historical-poverty-thresholds/thresh11.xls). (Especially when one considers that capital gains are not factored into the equation.)
The bolded part sounds suspiciously like people getting stuff without the work to justify it.
After reading through many of the comments on this thread I listened to a 2 hour interview with Yang. He makes the best argument for the need to do something before the next technological revolution I've heard. If someone is going to convince me UBI is a good idea it will probably be him. I might be biased by the MATH hat though...
Still, I have to wonder why we as a society shouldn't pay people to actually make the world we live in nicer instead. Why hand out free money to able bodied people when there is still trash along our roadways, graffiti on the walls, dilapidated buildings in many towns, and 100% of our waste isn't recycled. Not to mention all the bike paths and hiking trails that could be built. Maybe the robots will do all of those jobs eventually, but until then I think I'd rather spend a trillion a year something like the CCC instead of a UBI.
Still, I have to wonder why we as a society shouldn't pay people to actually make the world we live in nicer instead. Why hand out free money to able bodied people when there is still trash along our roadways, graffiti on the walls, dilapidated buildings in many towns, and 100% of our waste isn't recycled. Not to mention all the bike paths and hiking trails that could be built. Maybe the robots will do all of those jobs eventually, but until then I think I'd rather spend a trillion a year something like the CCC instead of a UBI.
After reading through many of the comments on this thread I listened to a 2 hour interview with Yang. He makes the best argument for the need to do something before the next technological revolution I've heard. If someone is going to convince me UBI is a good idea it will probably be him. I might be biased by the MATH hat though...
Still, I have to wonder why we as a society shouldn't pay people to actually make the world we live in nicer instead. Why hand out free money to able bodied people when there is still trash along our roadways, graffiti on the walls, dilapidated buildings in many towns, and 100% of our waste isn't recycled. Not to mention all the bike paths and hiking trails that could be built. Maybe the robots will do all of those jobs eventually, but until then I think I'd rather spend a trillion a year something like the CCC instead of a UBI.
Because people need incentives to do unpleasant tasks. See: highly paid plumbers.
People don't just go out of their way to do unpleasant work.
See: company lunchrooms (communism)
If you don't have any and all of your arguments are against any form of government assistance, there's nothing wrong with that, but it would benefit the discussion if that was made clear.
I found some very compelling evidence for the implementation of money being paid when no work has been done to justify it:
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1037/0002-9432.72.2.182
There is a wealth of similar and related studies.
From the abstract (the rest is behind a paywall): "Three policy implications are discussed: (a) increasing access to federal food programs, (b) promoting breastfeeding, and (c) working toward reducing child poverty."
I can get onboard with (a) and (b). As for (c), it could improve child nutrition, but not in the absence of improved knowledge of nutrition and responsible spending by the parents. In other words, what percentage of the supplemental income would actually be spent on nutrition? Meanwhile, the U.S. government has these programs in place: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_and_Nutrition_Service#Nutrition_assistance_programs (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_and_Nutrition_Service#Nutrition_assistance_programs).
Very tangentially related: I find the poverty line to be an interesting statistic if MMM in his early blogging/retirement days could be counted under that statistic, as seems likely from this information: https://www.census.gov/topics/income-poverty/poverty/guidance/poverty-measures.html (https://www.census.gov/topics/income-poverty/poverty/guidance/poverty-measures.html) and https://www2.census.gov/programs-surveys/cps/tables/time-series/historical-poverty-thresholds/thresh11.xls (https://www2.census.gov/programs-surveys/cps/tables/time-series/historical-poverty-thresholds/thresh11.xls). (Especially when one considers that capital gains are not factored into the equation.)
The bolded part sounds suspiciously like people getting stuff without the work to justify it.
Yes, the stuff that directly addresses the need. Money indirectly addresses the need, and I'd argue substituting an equivalent amount of UBI money (or even double the money) for these nutrition programs would not improve the nutrition of the poor.
If you don't have any and all of your arguments are against any form of government assistance, there's nothing wrong with that, but it would benefit the discussion if that was made clear.
Yes. I am against any and all forms of tax-payer-funded assistance: UBI, subsidies to farmers, welfare, social security, etc. The same basic arguments apply to all of them.
If you don't have any and all of your arguments are against any form of government assistance, there's nothing wrong with that, but it would benefit the discussion if that was made clear.
Yes. I am against any and all forms of tax-payer-funded assistance: UBI, subsidies to farmers, welfare, social security, etc. The same basic arguments apply to all of them.
This is a slippery slope. Would you be ok with people literally dying in the streets because they could not afford food?
You seem to assume that private charity would eliminate this possibility, but then if this were the case we wouldn't see so many advertisements for charities showing starving people, would we?
If you don't have any and all of your arguments are against any form of government assistance, there's nothing wrong with that, but it would benefit the discussion if that was made clear.
Yes. I am against any and all forms of tax-payer-funded assistance: UBI, subsidies to farmers, welfare, social security, etc. The same basic arguments apply to all of them.
Are we giving this $1,000 a month to everyone and continuing the same amount of payments from all the other welfare programs?
Is the $1,000 per person in the household?
Is there an age limit?
I suggest there should be, otherwise, get your childs birth paid for by hardworking taxpayers then get $12,000 a year for the next 18 years. Do that 5 or 6 times and you could have a nice standard of living and still not take care of the kids.
And, are all the mustachians sitting on their $1M+ collecting their Obamacare going to get another $12,000 a year from hardworking taxpayers.
Note" US population 329.8M, US workers 131.7M, Percent of workers that actually pay Federal income Taxes, 51%. 131.7/329.8=40%. That means that only 20% of the US population are hardworking taxpayers supporting the system. We might want to think seriously about how hard we squeeze them.
I personally don't like taxing corporations, but, that is the only way we get some money out of those that don't pay Federal income taxes.
Yes, you're correct, I misread that paragraph.After reading through many of the comments on this thread I listened to a 2 hour interview with Yang. He makes the best argument for the need to do something before the next technological revolution I've heard. If someone is going to convince me UBI is a good idea it will probably be him. I might be biased by the MATH hat though...
Still, I have to wonder why we as a society shouldn't pay people to actually make the world we live in nicer instead. Why hand out free money to able bodied people when there is still trash along our roadways, graffiti on the walls, dilapidated buildings in many towns, and 100% of our waste isn't recycled. Not to mention all the bike paths and hiking trails that could be built. Maybe the robots will do all of those jobs eventually, but until then I think I'd rather spend a trillion a year something like the CCC instead of a UBI.
Because people need incentives to do unpleasant tasks. See: highly paid plumbers.
People don't just go out of their way to do unpleasant work.
See: company lunchrooms (communism)
Perhaps I misunderstand your message, but the primary incentive would be to earn money to purchase food and other necessities. The same reason most of us work jobs.
Re: social security, I'll admit many people get back more than they paid in and maybe even more than if the money had been invested well.
But, if your going to be against it as "tax-payer-funded assistance", please send me a check for all the FICA I paid in over the last 50 years, also, I'd like to get a decent growth rate on the money that was taken from me.
- 18+ year olds would receive UBI
- yes, everyone would receive UBI regardless of their other sources of income
I agree with a lot of what you wrote. Above is the passage that I disagree with.This is a slippery slope. Would you be ok with people literally dying in the streets because they could not afford food?If you don't have any and all of your arguments are against any form of government assistance, there's nothing wrong with that, but it would benefit the discussion if that was made clear.Yes. I am against any and all forms of tax-payer-funded assistance: UBI, subsidies to farmers, welfare, social security, etc. The same basic arguments apply to all of them.
People are already dying in the streets because they cannot afford food or shelter, despite the availability of social programs. Have a look a New York City. The city has thousands of rent-controlled derelict properties currently in state repossession, and dozens of homeless dying every winter like clockwork. Social programs haven't fixed that problem.
But social programs aren't intended to save everyone ("No Child Left Behind" excepted...). Social programs are intended to save the people who want saving.
But social programs aren't intended to save everyone ("No Child Left Behind" excepted...). Social programs are intended to save the people who want saving.
This is really the core of what I've been getting at. Intention.
It doesn't matter what a program is intended to do. It only matters what it actually does.
On the whole, social programs suck. They're mismanaged, their funding is misappropriated, and their ultimate outcomes are a distortion of their stated goals.
If our aim is to promote the greatest social good, then (idiosyncratically) the best course of action is to do nothing and let people's ingenuity, determination, and hard work solve their own problems without forcibly siphoning the ingenuity, determination, hard work of other people.
Percent of workers that actually pay Federal income Taxes, 51%. 131.7/329.8=40%. That means that only 20% of the US population are hardworking taxpayers supporting the system. We might want to think seriously about how hard we squeeze them.
But social programs aren't intended to save everyone ("No Child Left Behind" excepted...). Social programs are intended to save the people who want saving.
It doesn't matter what a program is intended to do. It only matters what it actually does.
On the whole, social programs suck. They're mismanaged, their funding is misappropriated, and their ultimate outcomes are a distortion of their stated goals.
If our aim is to promote the greatest social good, then (idiosyncratically) the best course of action is to do nothing and let people's ingenuity, determination, and hard work solve their own problems without forcibly siphoning the ingenuity, determination, hard work of other people.
Small inflation associated with UBI, combined with a VAT WOULD absolutely hurt HIGH spenders (people who spend 6 figures plus per year) and financially benefit all others. There is no logical argument about that.
If you're earning $200,000 previously and min wage is $25,000, and now with the passage of the UBI you're earning $212,000 (we will put aside the fact that you probably have to pay more tax to make it work) and min wage + UBI is $37,000, your spending power has just gone from 8x min wage to 5.7x min wage. This doesn't account for tax, but the point is obvious: you suddenly have less spending power, and this affects all transactions you make other than perhaps luxury goods/services which were not market-priced anyway. So now you want a cheap take-out meal, or an Uber, or someone to mow your lawns, or someone to babysit, or any other basic good/service: suddenly your relative purchasing power has shrunk by a third relative to what you previously had.
If you're earning $200,000 previously and min wage is $25,000, and now with the passage of the UBI you're earning $212,000 (we will put aside the fact that you probably have to pay more tax to make it work) and min wage + UBI is $37,000, your spending power has just gone from 8x min wage to 5.7x min wage. This doesn't account for tax, but the point is obvious: you suddenly have less spending power, and this affects all transactions you make other than perhaps luxury goods/services which were not market-priced anyway. So now you want a cheap take-out meal, or an Uber, or someone to mow your lawns, or someone to babysit, or any other basic good/service: suddenly your relative purchasing power has shrunk by a third relative to what you previously had.
Uh no. Your spending ability went from $200K/year to $212K/year. That is NOT a decrease.
The above sentence says nothing regarding the notion that UBI is a good idea or not, but your purchasing ability would not decrease by a third. Come on!
If you're earning $200,000 previously and min wage is $25,000, and now with the passage of the UBI you're earning $212,000 (we will put aside the fact that you probably have to pay more tax to make it work) and min wage + UBI is $37,000, your spending power has just gone from 8x min wage to 5.7x min wage. This doesn't account for tax, but the point is obvious: you suddenly have less spending power, and this affects all transactions you make other than perhaps luxury goods/services which were not market-priced anyway. So now you want a cheap take-out meal, or an Uber, or someone to mow your lawns, or someone to babysit, or any other basic good/service: suddenly your relative purchasing power has shrunk by a third relative to what you previously had.
Uh no. Your spending ability went from $200K/year to $212K/year. That is NOT a decrease.
The above sentence says nothing regarding the notion that UBI is a good idea or not, but your purchasing ability would not decrease by a third. Come on!
I'm not sure if you're wilfully ignoring my argument, or just incapable of understanding the term "relative".
I cant argue that a UBI is absolutely a perfect thing that needs to be enacted instantly. But logically, giving EVERYONE $12,000 per year on top of their income reduces income inequality. A person making minimum wage now makes nearly double off UBI plus work and I would make like 8% more. No way prices would raise drastically (logically there would be some inflation) because most people make more than minimum wage and so their income would not go up anywhere close to double. Again, I cant say that this is the perfect solution. The people on here who vehemently disagree with it ARE giving illogical reasons why it wouldn't work. If you're idealogically opposed to $ for nothing then fine. Please stop posting B.S. about how this wouldn't improve income inequality and how prices would just go up $12,000 per person. Small inflation associated with UBI, combined with a VAT WOULD absolutely hurt HIGH spenders (people who spend 6 figures plus per year) and financially benefit all others. There is no logical argument about that.
I cant argue that a UBI is absolutely a perfect thing that needs to be enacted instantly. But logically, giving EVERYONE $12,000 per year on top of their income reduces income inequality. A person making minimum wage now makes nearly double off UBI plus work and I would make like 8% more. No way prices would raise drastically (logically there would be some inflation) because most people make more than minimum wage and so their income would not go up anywhere close to double. Again, I cant say that this is the perfect solution. The people on here who vehemently disagree with it ARE giving illogical reasons why it wouldn't work. If you're idealogically opposed to $ for nothing then fine. Please stop posting B.S. about how this wouldn't improve income inequality and how prices would just go up $12,000 per person. Small inflation associated with UBI, combined with a VAT WOULD absolutely hurt HIGH spenders (people who spend 6 figures plus per year) and financially benefit all others. There is no logical argument about that.
When 'everyone' qualifies for a subsidy, the prices do rise. That's exactly what happened to college tuition.
Inequality would still exist and become even more extreme. Because 'everyone' is not actually everyone. There is going to be zero support for a UBI entitlement to be extended to immigrants. None. And yet they are a large part of the poorest of the poor in our communities. Among our immigrant populations, about 12 million or so are undocumented. Those are the very poor, often scraping by without access welfare or SSI, without access to banking on whom prices will have gone up by 12,000 per year (or whatever the mythic number) at the same time that the champions of UBI believe that we no longer have need of foodbanks, shelters or charity medical care because 'everyone' just got a raise.
We already have the EITC, which is a marvelous method of boosting the income of the working poor in an unrestricted manner. As a bonus, it gives more to those with dependents. Other need-based aid options offer incentives to producers and parts of the supply chain. ie... Housing subsidies ensure housing availability & standards, Ag Subsidies (that's what SNAP is) ensure that farmers grow food and stores that serve the poor stock things besides liquor. WIC checks are the reason that specific nutritious foods & baby formula is available in poor neighborhoods instead of something like the paint thinner that has been passed off in other countries.
My opposition to UBI is about more than an ideological opposition to handouts. I believe that aid should be means tested because some people need more than others and they always will. It is immoral for those of us who don't need anything to give ourselves a boost that ultimately takes away from those who are in need. And to do this systemically and fund it with a regressive tax as we seek to close the programs that were devised in response to need is cruel.
I have a few loved ones scraping by below poverty levels. And if you took away their subsidized apartment, their welfare & their food stamps, they would starve or die of exposure. You see, they aren't poor because the economy is tough or because of technology. They are poor because they aren't equipped to manage the activities of daily living. They need food & shelter provided by someone else. All their available cash gets frittered away in a manic cycle of their bipolar illness or on a daily basis on lottery tickets or on booze & eating at the diner. My uncle is a nice guy. He drops $20/daily at the diner. Which accounts for most of his $800/month check. The rest of it goes for gas & car insurance. He's always going to need his free housing. Always.
My beef with every UBI proposal I've read (including Yang's) is that they are touted as a solution to poverty when they are nothing of the sort. You should spend a heck of alot more time with actual poor people before concluding that what they need is $1000/month in cash. For most of them, it will never be enough. And the consequences of eliminating all the other patchwork of services is a catastrophe.
Uh no. Your spending ability went from $200K/year to $212K/year. That is NOT a decrease.
The above sentence says nothing regarding the notion that UBI is a good idea or not, but your purchasing ability would not decrease by a third. Come on!
Uh no. Your spending ability went from $200K/year to $212K/year. That is NOT a decrease.
The above sentence says nothing regarding the notion that UBI is a good idea or not, but your purchasing ability would not decrease by a third. Come on!
I’m not intelligent enough to comment about the societal benefit of UBI, but what I can comment on is what would happen to me if UBI is implemented for all 18+ year olds irrespective of other sources of income
From what I’ve read, most low income people spend their UBI on groceries and other necessities
https://futurism.com/basic-income-money-spent-necessities
UBI is uninteresting in increasing my purchasing power. That wasn’t even what I was thinking about when I heard about UBI
If UBI is implemented I would happily collect it
But I wouldn’t be using my UBI for groceries and necessities. It would all be invested. All of it
Eventually I would quickly achieve a return from UBI that would give me passive income equivalent to my annual UBI and increase my purchasing power without having to even touch my UBI
UBI would just be cash flow source #23 for me. And would use it to generate cash flow source #24 and so on
After few years I will have done far more for my net worth with the UBI than a low income person will have done with theirs
Personally I don’t see UBI having any significance when it comes to addressing inequality. Not the way I would use it anyway
In reality, the money would have to come from somewhere, and it would be coming from your other sources of income either in the form of higher taxes and/or in the form of higher costs on certain goods/services.
I hate that "but they pay payroll taxes" argument, meaning FICA taxes. Taxes paid into FICA is a fee that funds you and your family in a disability program and it provides money for your children should you die or be disabled. At retirement age it pays you a livable income in your old age. The legislators may have mixed the pools of money, but it still stands, they look at what you paid in to see what you receive.Percent of workers that actually pay Federal income Taxes, 51%. 131.7/329.8=40%. That means that only 20% of the US population are hardworking taxpayers supporting the system. We might want to think seriously about how hard we squeeze them.
That is such a intellectually dishonest argument that I'm not sure any further retort is warranted.
https://www.cbpp.org/research/misconceptions-and-realities-about-who-pays-taxes
I cant argue that a UBI is absolutely a perfect thing that needs to be enacted instantly. But logically, giving EVERYONE $12,000 per year on top of their income reduces income inequality. A person making minimum wage now makes nearly double off UBI plus work and I would make like 8% more. No way prices would raise drastically (logically there would be some inflation) because most people make more than minimum wage and so their income would not go up anywhere close to double. Again, I cant say that this is the perfect solution. The people on here who vehemently disagree with it ARE giving illogical reasons why it wouldn't work. If you're idealogically opposed to $ for nothing then fine. Please stop posting B.S. about how this wouldn't improve income inequality and how prices would just go up $12,000 per person. Small inflation associated with UBI, combined with a VAT WOULD absolutely hurt HIGH spenders (people who spend 6 figures plus per year) and financially benefit all others. There is no logical argument about that.
When 'everyone' qualifies for a subsidy, the prices do rise. That's exactly what happened to college tuition.
Inequality would still exist and become even more extreme. Because 'everyone' is not actually everyone. There is going to be zero support for a UBI entitlement to be extended to immigrants. None. And yet they are a large part of the poorest of the poor in our communities. Among our immigrant populations, about 12 million or so are undocumented. Those are the very poor, often scraping by without access welfare or SSI, without access to banking on whom prices will have gone up by 12,000 per year (or whatever the mythic number) at the same time that the champions of UBI believe that we no longer have need of foodbanks, shelters or charity medical care because 'everyone' just got a raise.
We already have the EITC, which is a marvelous method of boosting the income of the working poor in an unrestricted manner. As a bonus, it gives more to those with dependents. Other need-based aid options offer incentives to producers and parts of the supply chain. ie... Housing subsidies ensure housing availability & standards, Ag Subsidies (that's what SNAP is) ensure that farmers grow food and stores that serve the poor stock things besides liquor. WIC checks are the reason that specific nutritious foods & baby formula is available in poor neighborhoods instead of something like the paint thinner that has been passed off in other countries.
My opposition to UBI is about more than an ideological opposition to handouts. I believe that aid should be means tested because some people need more than others and they always will. It is immoral for those of us who don't need anything to give ourselves a boost that ultimately takes away from those who are in need. And to do this systemically and fund it with a regressive tax as we seek to close the programs that were devised in response to need is cruel.
I have a few loved ones scraping by below poverty levels. And if you took away their subsidized apartment, their welfare & their food stamps, they would starve or die of exposure. You see, they aren't poor because the economy is tough or because of technology. They are poor because they aren't equipped to manage the activities of daily living. They need food & shelter provided by someone else. All their available cash gets frittered away in a manic cycle of their bipolar illness or on a daily basis on lottery tickets or on booze & eating at the diner. My uncle is a nice guy. He drops $20/daily at the diner. Which accounts for most of his $800/month check. The rest of it goes for gas & car insurance. He's always going to need his free housing. Always.
My beef with every UBI proposal I've read (including Yang's) is that they are touted as a solution to poverty when they are nothing of the sort. You should spend a heck of alot more time with actual poor people before concluding that what they need is $1000/month in cash. For most of them, it will never be enough. And the consequences of eliminating all the other patchwork of services is a catastrophe.
Or, perhaps, “if we took away their subsidies”...they would figure out they need to provide for themselves?
Why should we pay for your uncle’s $20/day diner habit? Why is that our responsibility?
I support UBI, and actually think it flow logically from "human dignity", and my belief is based on observation among friends and family:
- One family member wanted to starts a business but was worried about "losing her benefits" (housing assistance), even though income from the side hustle would be volatile. End result: either she's doing the side hustle illegally (ie without paying tax) or didn't do it (I'm not 100% positive how this turned out).
- I know tons of artists (again, volatile income) for whom UBI would be a game-changer. Being able to create without having to worry about being able to make rent would lead to more and better work.
- One friend reached the top of the corporate ladder in his specific field but hit burnout. UBI would have helped him re-educate and re-tool towards the job he really wanted to do, which involved full-time courses and schooling without having to worry about money too much on top of a major life crisis.
- It would force companies to pay salaries for jobs that are hard/undesirable that are enough to attract and keep people in those jobs.They'd also have to treat employees better because they'd have the ability to walk away.
- I think it would be a major boon for small start-ups and businesses and overall entrepreneurship. More art and literature.
- Automation will take lots of jobs away. UBI and upskilling ("lifelong learning") can help weather that change.
- It would prevent countless misery in the benefits system. In the UK, lots of disabled and people on benefits have killed themselves when their benefits were halted. There's hunger in the sixth-largest economy on the planet - UBI would literally save lives (see "human dignity").
- More people might be able to afford to look after their children or elderly/infirm relatives instead of having to go to work to make rent.
- I still believe that people would go to work, but the collective mental fug and pressure would lift, arguably making society on the whole happier and more relaxed. It's kind of funny how our productivity has increased so much over the past couple generations but we work the same amount of hours. I'd be quite happy with that 10- or 20-hour workweek that Keynes prophesied for our age. I'd spend the time getting more skills, creating more art, travelling more and spending time with friends and family.
How does UBI work on a small scale?
Say you have 10 people on an island and they agree on a UBI. What happens when all 10 go on UBI?
Who gathers the fish and coconuts, who keeps the fire going?
This is the part I really don't understand but perhaps at some larger scale it does work.
Can you also see that an illegal underground capitalist society often develops because human achievement will find a way to produce to improve their condition. It happens in all societies that have tight controls to enforce equality, no matter how
poor that equality is on the economic scale.
I agree with it in principle and see how it would help lots of people and don't necessarily believe that it would reduce the incentive to work.
But my understanding is that the "U" in UBI means that it will ~ double the US budget.
I don't think that's feasible.
Meh. Shut down a couple of aircraft carriers, maybe only have enough nuclear missiles to kill the whole planet 3x over instead of 10x, maybe don't invade random countries for stupid reasons. Still be the world's most powerful country and also have zero poverty. Sounds like a win.
Roland you have it right, don't doubt yourself.
Can you image how productivity would drop if everyone got the same income no matter how much or how little you produce.
Can you also see that an illegal underground capitalist society often develops because human achievement will find a way to produce to improve their condition. It happens in all societies that have tight controls to enforce equality, no matter how
poor that equality is on the economic scale.
If my understanding of UBI is correct, everyone gets $12,000 a year.
A family of four where one person worked as a janitor and the other worked as a maid, and two children would get $48,000.
UBI is absolutely terrifying to me. Literally getting something for nothing.
Sure there will still be the 1% that still work (I think in your example of Buffett, Bezos, and Gates it is more like the 0.00001%)
The problem is nobody will want to do the crap jobs and we are not at the point where we can have robots remove used tampons from public toilets or clean up vomit from the bathroom walls in bars and stadiums.
If my understanding of UBI is correct, everyone gets $12,000 a year. A family of four where one person worked as a janitor and the other worked as a maid, and two children would get $48,000. I do not see them continuing these jobs if $48,000 is as much or even more than they were earning while working. It is also super unlikely that they will suddenly be compelled to take up C# programming even though that would be super awesome. The likely scenario is they stay at home, get bored, do drugs or have more children to increase their share of UBI.
Perhaps this is a very dark view of the world but when you have 40% or something of the US population that don't even know who the current speaker of the house is or even that the earth is round, Idiocracy is where you will end up.
Well, what would happen is that yes, a lot of folks cleaning the sheethouse would decide "no thanks", thereby forcing the employer to raise the wage to motivate someone to come do it, and also putting in a wonderful economic incentive to entrepreneurs to develop a robot to do this.
I agree with it in principle and see how it would help lots of people and don't necessarily believe that it would reduce the incentive to work.
But my understanding is that the "U" in UBI means that it will ~ double the US budget.
I don't think that's feasible.
Meh. Shut down a couple of aircraft carriers, maybe only have enough nuclear missiles to kill the whole planet 3x over instead of 10x, maybe don't invade random countries for stupid reasons. Still be the world's most powerful country and also have zero poverty. Sounds like a win.
- I know tons of artists (again, volatile income) for whom UBI would be a game-changer. Being able to create without having to worry about being able to make rent would lead to more and better work.
Well, what would happen is that yes, a lot of folks cleaning the sheethouse would decide "no thanks", thereby forcing the employer to raise the wage to motivate someone to come do it, and also putting in a wonderful economic incentive to entrepreneurs to develop a robot to do this.
So essentially wage inflation, right? The cleaning jobs, which require no lengthy training, would command $X and then the jobs which require training and even more stess that used to pay $X would need to pay $X + $Y and so on and so forth until we would need to raise the UBI because even the basics of living were driven up in cost.
Every year I increase my fees by an amount which takes into account inflation. If UBI were implemented, I'd increase my fees by an amount which takes that into account the increase in cost of menial services and basic goods. So the answer to your question is, yes.
Every year I increase my fees by an amount which takes into account inflation. If UBI were implemented, I'd increase my fees by an amount which takes that into account the increase in cost of menial services and basic goods. So the answer to your question is, yes.
That's great. You can increase your fees as much as you'd like.
Prove that a UBI would increase your costs by $12k/year. Note that you're also getting a $12k UBI so maybe prove that you'd be paying $24k more? Or is this, ya know, slightly more complicated?
God no!
I'm a slush reader for a pro-paying SF market. There's already enough bad writing (Sturgeon's Law) out there. If we're going to subsidize people's lives they ought to thank us my making positive contributions to society: pick up garbage by the side of road, visit homebound seniors, plant a garden, adopt a shelter animal.
The last thing this world needs is more bad artistic endeavors. Ideally we'd tax fan fiction, poetry slams, garage bands, abstract art, etc. to pay for UBI. Also go sic the tax man on online poker, amateur porn, college sports, reality tv shows, and talk radio, all things that generate negative externailites that we also have an overabundance of.
I've discussed the issues surrounding costs upthread; I'm sure you're capable of searching back a few posts.
P.S. My fees are set by what I think the market will bear, but at the same time, my competitors and I also discuss our rates, so there's an element of reflexivity and reciprocity going on - it is, as you say, complicated because of multiple pricing mechanisms. But at the end of the day. you want your clients thinking, "Gee, he's expensive. If he were any more expensive I wouldn't use him any more." And part of the equation for what counts as expensive or not is the general consumer inflation figure. So if general inflation is 2%, professional fee inflation (on top of that) is 3% and UBI inflation were 2%, I'd be putting it up 7% a year, unless market forces dictated otherwise.
It's buying votes, just like much of what Warren is promising.
It'd be better to rework some existing programs. The safety net is very wide in the U.S.
Just a way to increase the size of government. Govt never does something more efficiently. So, for example, looking at Medicare for all....even if the increase in taxes matches the reduction in costs (i.e. citizen is $ neutral), why would anyone want to give up their choices.
Same as free college or forgiving college loans.......too many people go to college unnecessarily as it is.....again, attempts at buying votes.
In reality, the money would have to come from somewhere, and it would be coming from your other sources of income either in the form of higher taxes and/or in the form of higher costs on certain goods/services.
Of course. And that’s fine
I’m not one who complains about higher taxes when I increase rent on my tenants, company dividend checks increase, or my properties appreciate. It’s not difficult for a person with means to reduce, shelter or defer taxes
The point is that investors would be using the UBI in a vastly different manner than the poor
My UBI won’t go to $0 paying for groceries, utilities and other necessities
The difference in net worth gain from deployed $1000/mo UBI between someone like myself and a low income person would be obvious sooner than later
(And removal of UBI after it’s implemented would hurt a low income person a lot more)
https://globalnews.ca/news/4365399/ontario-cancels-basic-income-pilot-project/
UBI in the hands of a low income person will go to $0 just for them to survive. Extra money in an affluent investor’s hands just creates more money above and beyond the extra money received
UBI has benefits for low income individuals, but addressing financial inequality isn’t one of them
How does UBI work on a small scale?
Say you have 10 people on an island and they agree on a UBI. What happens when all 10 go on UBI?
Who gathers the fish and coconuts, who keeps the fire going?
This is the part I really don't understand but perhaps at some larger scale it does work.
Meh. Shut down a couple of aircraft carriers, maybe only have enough nuclear missiles to kill the whole planet 3x over instead of 10x, maybe don't invade random countries for stupid reasons. Still be the world's most powerful country and also have zero poverty. Sounds like a win.
Quit being world police also. Why do we have to protect South Korea and Japan from North Korea? Why do we have to protect Taiwan from China? Why do we have to protect Europe from a renewed and expanding Russia?
If UBI were to pass, I would immediately buy airline stocks.
Because, just think about all the flights packed with 8.75 month pregnant women. A guaranteed income for life for your kid, and all you have to do is give birth in the lobby or ER of a hospital on US soil! Unpaid of course, since the hospital won't be able to track them down afterwards. Quite a return on a ~$2-3K investment. Who wouldn't be tempted by that?
It works exactly the same, regardless of the scale. "Free stuff" isn't free. Someone has to catch the fish or collect the coconuts, whether the island tribe has 10 people or 300 million people in it.
UBI forces people who are more productive to subsidize the lives of people who are less productive.
It works exactly the same, regardless of the scale. "Free stuff" isn't free. Someone has to catch the fish or collect the coconuts, whether the island tribe has 10 people or 300 million people in it.
UBI forces people who are more productive to subsidize the lives of people who are less productive.
Under Andrew Yang's plan, it actually forces people who consume more to subsidize everyone, as it's paid for by a VAT tax. Incidentally, this is probably a net win for the type of people who visit this site, given that we pride ourselves on low levels of consumption.
Secondly, we are in charge of the country and the economy. And we can make that economy reward whatever it is we want to reward. The low tax crowd likes to say that our economy, in it's purest and most uninhibited state, rewards productivity. Or to put a friendlier, pro-labor spin on it, it rewards "hard work". This isn't true though. Capitalism rewards capital. It rewards owning things. And our tax code is explicitly friendlier to the rewards of capital than it is to the rewards of labor.
Many of us on here plan to sit on our asses and carve wooden birds or something once we get to a million dollars. Because a million dollars means $40K a year in dividends and cap gains. Our economy actually taxes this at a lower rate than a person fishing or collecting coconuts for a living. Because we decided that this should be the case.
I just got a rent check yesterday. I did not work for that money. I worked for the money to buy the property, but I think that's neither here nor there. Should I even be allowed to own that land? Do I have a legitimate claim? The government says I do. But only because we organized together and decided that should be the case.
We can simply choose to make another decision yet again. That human life is inherently valuable. To reward people just for drawing breath instead of how many widgets they produced that day, or how much in dividends grandpa's old stocks paid them. We don't need to box ourselves in by how things have been done in the past.
We can simply choose to make another decision yet again. That human life is inherently valuable. To reward people just for drawing breath instead of how many widgets they produced that day, or how much in dividends grandpa's old stocks paid them. We don't need to box ourselves in by how things have been done in the past.
We can simply choose to make another decision yet again. That human life is inherently valuable. To reward people just for drawing breath instead of how many widgets they produced that day, or how much in dividends grandpa's old stocks paid them. We don't need to box ourselves in by how things have been done in the past.
First, our society already considers human life to be valuable. We currently spend vast sums of money to provide security, justice, and welfare (for the needy), among other things. However, our society also acknowledges that it requires work to survive, and to reward someone for not working is a perverse incentive.
Second, we don't reward somebody for the number of widgets that they make; we reward them for the value those widgets provide to people's lives. If you don't believe this, picture a society without any division of labor (it's no surprise that such a thing does not exist).
UBI doesn't reward people for "not working". It rewards them (under Yang's model) for being Americans between the ages of 18 and 64. Working (i.e., electing to not not work) doesn't preclude you from the UBI.
...we are in charge of the country and the economy. And we can make that economy reward whatever it is we want to reward.
Capitalism rewards capital. It rewards owning things.
I just got a rent check yesterday. I did not work for that money. I worked for the money to buy the property, but I think that's neither here nor there. Should I even be allowed to own that land? Do I have a legitimate claim? The government says I do. But only because we organized together and decided that should be the case.
We can simply choose to make another decision yet again. That human life is inherently valuable. To reward people just for drawing breath instead of how many widgets they produced that day, or how much in dividends grandpa's old stocks paid them. We don't need to box ourselves in by how things have been done in the past.
If UBI were to pass, I would immediately buy airline stocks.
Because, just think about all the flights packed with 8.75 month pregnant women. A guaranteed income for life for your kid, and all you have to do is give birth in the lobby or ER of a hospital on US soil! Unpaid of course, since the hospital won't be able to track them down afterwards. Quite a return on a ~$2-3K investment. Who wouldn't be tempted by that?
Clarification: no requirement to immigrate. Just a visiting visa and a week or so stay. This essentially makes any consideration of UBI a complete impossibility in the US.
If UBI were to pass, I would immediately buy airline stocks.
Because, just think about all the flights packed with 8.75 month pregnant women. A guaranteed income for life for your kid, and all you have to do is give birth in the lobby or ER of a hospital on US soil! Unpaid of course, since the hospital won't be able to track them down afterwards. Quite a return on a ~$2-3K investment. Who wouldn't be tempted by that?
Clarification: no requirement to immigrate. Just a visiting visa and a week or so stay. This essentially makes any consideration of UBI a complete impossibility in the US.
Under the current proposal, only those 18 years and older would receive UBI.
You've missed that poster's point. We live in an arbitrary world where we decide what we (as a society) will commit to and what will be permissible. Perhaps the roots of some of those things are more easily traced than others, but regardless since most of our systems, institutions and laws are made up we can simply make up different ones when our priorities shift.
Under Andrew Yang's plan, it actually forces people who consume more to subsidize everyone, as it's paid for by a VAT tax. Incidentally, this is probably a net win for the type of people who visit this site, given that we pride ourselves on low levels of consumption.
...
Obviously many people here DO think that the UBI will decrease wealth inequality. So maybe it will.
Okay. Let's come at this from a different angle...
What's so bad about wealth inequality?
Wrong. Dead wrong.
Tell that to Jeff Bezos circa 1999. Or the two engineers that started Google. Or to young James Cash Penney, who barely had a penny to his name.
If you don't believe in property rights, then you also must believe that theft isn't a crime. After all, if you don't have a legitimate claim to the stuff in your house, then I should be able to just come and take it from you. And burn your house down too.
There will always be inequality in the universe. This will not change, no matter how noble and well-intentioned we are.
Things will never be fair, if only because what constitutes "fair" is ever-changing. Human ingenuity creates some cool new thing that only the wealthy can afford (at first), and everyone else cries and declares it unfair. There's no end to that treadmill.
I don't think any of the UBI proponents are suggesting we should completely eliminate wealth inequality.
In my mind, the economy prospers with some level of wealth inequality; too much wealth inequality, and conditions get ripe for revolution; too little wealth inequality, and people lose the incentive to work.
But the relationship between value creation and overall compensation is fuzzy and nebulous enough, that I don't think this defeats the idea of a UBI. i.e., people in this thread have and will ask, "Why should we pay people who don't create value?" To which I respond, that we pay people all the time for things that don't create value (in the market sense). Rent collecting (regulatory or otherwise), arbitrage, etc.
I don't work the properties. In fact, I've never even seen some of them. I don't interface with tenants. I didn't build the house. All I have is claim to a piece of property that ultimately came to me through the combination of
1.) having money
2.) buying it from someone who either "got there first", or was able to take it from someone else and successfully defend their claim through the use or threat of violence
People should be in a perpetual state of demanding better and more equitable treatment.
At some point, we decided that the government should provide free public education to children up to the twelfth grade. In 2010, we decided that the government should guarantee health insurance issues regardless of pre-ex, and provide subsidies for people who have difficulty affording it. UBI is another step on that continuum.
Because I don't want to be having these conversations when it's absolutely necessary for survival in a world where machines out compete us for nearly every job.
Given that, we're better off talking about what improves the net wealth of a society, regardless of how that wealth is statistically distributed.
And history shows us that net societal wealth increases when governments back off of social programs.
Okay. Let's come at this from a different angle...
What's so bad about wealth inequality?
But the relationship between value creation and overall compensation is fuzzy and nebulous enough, that I don't think this defeats the idea of a UBI. i.e., people in this thread have and will ask, "Why should we pay people who don't create value?" To which I respond, that we pay people all the time for things that don't create value (in the market sense). Rent collecting (regulatory or otherwise), arbitrage, etc.
the value of my house and my rentals is protected through the very undemocratic, anti-capitalist practice of big money interests lobbying for friendlier landlording laws and blocking the development of competing residential projects.
At some point, we decided that the government should provide free public education to children up to the twelfth grade. In 2010, we decided that the government should guarantee health insurance issues regardless of pre-ex, and provide subsidies for people who have difficulty affording it. UBI is another step on that continuum.
There is still debate as to whether government-sponsored "free" education and "free" healthcare results in better or more equitable treatment. Putting aside the particulars of that debate, if "free" healthcare was eliminated in the next five years, would we come to the conclusion that eliminating government-run "free" education is the next step on that continuum? I don't think so, and I believe that each public benefit should be analyzed in its own right.
the value of my house and my rentals is protected through the very undemocratic, anti-capitalist practice of big money interests lobbying for friendlier landlording laws and blocking the development of competing residential projects.
See, this is what I'm trying to communicate.
Even here, you readily agree that government fucks things up because it is comprised of individual representatives whose duty to public service can be compromised by outside incentives.
And yet your proposal for UBI involves implementing more government.
Do you see why that doesn't make any sense?
I don't think the argument here is that it's the next step in the continuum and therefore it's a good idea, but rather, it is a step in the continuum and not a complete change of direction.
Many of the arguments against UBI are fundamental in nature. For example, giving something for nothing can only lead to worse outcomes. But we do give something for nothing. Education, healthcare, assistance for the disabled, so unless someone believes that all of these things lead to worse outcomes, then the fundamental argument is off the table. The bolded still holds true.
There is still debate as to whether government-sponsored "free" education and "free" healthcare results in better or more equitable treatment. Putting aside the particulars of that debate, if "free" healthcare was eliminated in the next five years, would we come to the conclusion that eliminating government-run "free" education is the next step on that continuum? I don't think so, and I believe that each public benefit should be analyzed in its own right.
I think this is the largest fallacy I hear in the argument for UBI. There has been no trend I'm aware of that is pointing in this direction, and I doubt there ever will be. Now I will say that I think it's government's role to help provide employment or welfare for those willing to find work, which may be more or less necessary from time to time, but assuming a vast number of people cannot provide any value to the lives of others is contrary to all historical and current trends.
Okay. Let's come at this from a different angle...
What's so bad about wealth inequality?
Extreme wealth inequality (eg feudal systems, oligarchies like Russia, South Africa, Namibia, etc) results in:
- Increased crime
- Decreased health outcomes (for all members of society)
- Reduced innovation
- Reduced competitiveness
- Capital and political being strongly tied together (ie, buying votes or not having representation at all)
- Reduced educational outcomes
- Decreased wellbeing
- Generational poverty and entrenched social stratification
These are not desirable to me, at all. We see clearly that - in our currently world - and increase in wealth inequality leads to those things.
Now I know reductionists will say 'well if we slide inequality to 0 there'd be problems too' to which the answer is 'of course, so it's good no one wants that'. We just want LESS inequality which, and I've been clear on this previously, comes from building up the middle class, making it easier for poorer people to enter that and consistently and unashamedly regulating and taxing wealth.
There is still debate as to whether government-sponsored "free" education and "free" healthcare results in better or more equitable treatment. Putting aside the particulars of that debate, if "free" healthcare was eliminated in the next five years, would we come to the conclusion that eliminating government-run "free" education is the next step on that continuum? I don't think so, and I believe that each public benefit should be analyzed in its own right.
Your point is well taken. The continuum thing was a little lazy on my part. However, I think the benefit of the UBI does stand on its own right. On balance, we're putting money in places where it has higher marginal utility. Research suggests that direct cash transfers are a very efficient form of public assistance. It braces us against our oncoming robot overlords, ;), etc.I think this is the largest fallacy I hear in the argument for UBI. There has been no trend I'm aware of that is pointing in this direction, and I doubt there ever will be. Now I will say that I think it's government's role to help provide employment or welfare for those willing to find work, which may be more or less necessary from time to time, but assuming a vast number of people cannot provide any value to the lives of others is contrary to all historical and current trends.
I think there is good reason to think that the future will not follow alongside historical and current trends. The industrial revolution didn't, nor did the development of the microprocessor. The common argument is that those developments meant more jobs, not less. But there's reason to believe that an AI boom would be different.
All it would take is for an emulation of a human brain to run 1% faster than the flesh based competition. And that's one of the more cumbersome and inefficient ways that it could happen. The reality is that we're finding much more efficient ways to automate jobs. Everyone knows about self-driving cars, but think about the last time you called customer service at a large company. I'm guessing an automated program answered the call and said, "In a few words, describe why you're calling. Try something like, 'I want to pay my bill' or 'I want to change my reservation.'" And I'm guessing that this worked reasonably well. If not to completely satisfy your reason for calling, then at least to "triage" you to the right person reasonably fast. Half a million people work in call-centers in the US.
And it's not just customer service reps either. There are a lot of start-ups gaining traction based on the idea that much of the labor attorneys do can be handled through optical character recognition, natural language processing, and good old fashioned flow-charting.
I don't know when all service reps, lawyers, and truck drivers will be out of a job. Whether it's 10 years, or 100. But I think a future where most labor is automated is pretty likely.
I'm cribbing from a book called Superintelligence by Nick Bostrom here.
QuoteAnd history shows us that net societal wealth increases when governments back off of social programs.
This type of debate was carried out during the framing of the US Constitution. The framers specified a limited number of social institutions that were deemed to be essential for normal functioning, which was more or less defined as providing a supportive environment and level playing field for commerce to thrive.
These included a court system, a "well-armed militia", and a common monetary system. To this we've added things like interstate highways, public schools, and (to an extent) a patchwork medical system that any individual can access (sort of).
I agree that the yardstick should be whether society would function better with a given social program in place. And would it *really* function better, not just in someone's imagination. I think it is not beyond reason to hypothesize that a UBI might become necessary in a world where automation has developed to the extent that it is no longer possible to keep >95% of the working age population employed. Our continued high rate of expansion of the underclass combined with steadily increasing hiring costs is only going to accelerate this scenario. (To give a small idea of the problem: almost a third of New York state residents are on Medicaid, and it's increasing fast.)
So, we're already supporting a large class of people who effectively can't support themselves. I'm not sure it's reasonable to ask whether we should do this, so much as HOW to do it. UBI is probably more efficient than several hundred random, uncoordinated welfare programs, so it's probably going to become inevitable at some point.
Your definition of value is very narrow.
A thing doesn't have to be physically tangible in order for it to have value, or even to create value.
Think about an engineering education, for example. The education itself can produce tremendous value, even though it's just a configuration of thoughts inside your head.
Or how about a musical performance? It has a transient form, temporarily altering the state of air molecules and vibrating your eardrum. But hearing it might improve your mood, or inspire you to be productive at work, or to create music on your own which in turn inspires others. It's not tangible either, but it still creates value.
Even rent is valuable. I rent my apartment because I cannot afford a house, I am not interested in owning a house in my area, and my only alternative is living on the street. The rented apartment provides shelter, warmth, and privacy, all of which I value and am willing to pay money for.
The key here is that a thing is valuable if people are willing to pay money for it.
No one thinks sitting on your ass is valuable. No one is willing to pay money for it.
See, this is what I'm trying to communicate.
Even here, you readily agree that government fucks things up because it is comprised of individual representatives whose duty to public service can be compromised by outside incentives.
And yet your proposal for UBI involves implementing more government.
Do you see why that doesn't make any sense?
I'm all for automation when more effective than human labor. But I cannot conceive of a scenario where automation completely eliminates the value that humans can provide to other humans owing to the division of labor. Now, if I were to be proven wrong, then I could probably be convinced that UBI is a good idea; however, I am very skeptical it will ever happen, and I certainly don't feel that it is an issue currently given the low unemployment rate.
So the logical conclusion of your statement is "corruption exists; therefore anarchy is the best option"
if reducing inequality is the goal, the first thing we should do is stop all low-skilled immigration. Every low-skilled immigrant who enters the county by definition increases the Gini coefficient and adds to inequality.
Okay. Let's come at this from a different angle...
What's so bad about wealth inequality?
Extreme wealth inequality (eg feudal systems, oligarchies like Russia, South Africa, Namibia, etc) results in:
- Increased crime
- Decreased health outcomes (for all members of society)
- Reduced innovation
- Reduced competitiveness
- Capital and political being strongly tied together (ie, buying votes or not having representation at all)
- Reduced educational outcomes
- Decreased wellbeing
- Generational poverty and entrenched social stratification
These are not desirable to me, at all. We see clearly that - in our currently world - and increase in wealth inequality leads to those things.
Now I know reductionists will say 'well if we slide inequality to 0 there'd be problems too' to which the answer is 'of course, so it's good no one wants that'. We just want LESS inequality which, and I've been clear on this previously, comes from building up the middle class, making it easier for poorer people to enter that and consistently and unashamedly regulating and taxing wealth.
if reducing inequality is the goal, the first thing we should do is stop all low-skilled immigration. Every low-skilled immigrant who enters the county by definition increases the Gini coefficient and adds to inequality.
Also it will be easier to create a UBI, if it's not being handed out to immigrants.
I'm all for automation when more effective than human labor. But I cannot conceive of a scenario where automation completely eliminates the value that humans can provide to other humans owing to the division of labor. Now, if I were to be proven wrong, then I could probably be convinced that UBI is a good idea; however, I am very skeptical it will ever happen, and I certainly don't feel that it is an issue currently given the low unemployment rate.
if reducing inequality is the goal, the first thing we should do is stop all low-skilled immigration. Every low-skilled immigrant who enters the county by definition increases the Gini coefficient and adds to inequality.
But then who would vote the tax-grabbing authoritarians into office? /s
Okay. Let's come at this from a different angle...
What's so bad about wealth inequality?
Extreme wealth inequality (eg feudal systems, oligarchies like Russia, South Africa, Namibia, etc) results in:
- Increased crime
- Decreased health outcomes (for all members of society)
- Reduced innovation
- Reduced competitiveness
- Capital and political being strongly tied together (ie, buying votes or not having representation at all)
- Reduced educational outcomes
- Decreased wellbeing
- Generational poverty and entrenched social stratification
These are not desirable to me, at all. We see clearly that - in our currently world - and increase in wealth inequality leads to those things.
Now I know reductionists will say 'well if we slide inequality to 0 there'd be problems too' to which the answer is 'of course, so it's good no one wants that'. We just want LESS inequality which, and I've been clear on this previously, comes from building up the middle class, making it easier for poorer people to enter that and consistently and unashamedly regulating and taxing wealth.
if reducing inequality is the goal, the first thing we should do is stop all low-skilled immigration. Every low-skilled immigrant who enters the county by definition increases the Gini coefficient and adds to inequality.
Also it will be easier to create a UBI, if it's not being handed out to immigrants.
The US has an ugly history of blaming poor people for its social issues while being hamstrung and run by wealthy, shadowy, non-elected individuals and companies who are more than happy to sit back and use their wealth to direct the country.
Don't buy into the rhetoric that poor people are to blame. The gini co-efficient is one measure, manipulating it doesn't necessarily change much (as per your example, life would be no better for someone in the USA living on the poverty line) even if it looks good on paper. The goal is not to pat ourselves on the back that things appear better, but for them to actually be better. Reducing the bottom 1-2% doesn't really affect the lived experiences of others. Bring the bottom 50% up affects a huge number of lived experiences for the better.
Look at horses. They have comparative advantages to humans. But after the introduction of the internal combustion engine, the value that the vast majority of horses could provide could no longer pay for their room and board.
Automation doesn't have to eliminate the value that humans can provide, all it has to do is drive down wages to a level where it's impossible for a human to survive.
Look at horses. They have comparative advantages to humans. But after the introduction of the internal combustion engine, the value that the vast majority of horses could provide could no longer pay for their room and board.
Correct, horses have comparative advantages that were essentially eliminated by the invention of the engine. But there are two flaws to the argument: 1) Horses are extremely specialized, being able to do just a couple of tasks really well; in this way, they are more similar to individual jobs or technologies rather than to humans. 2) Humans are running the show (horses weren't); unless we are going to task our robot overlords with running the show, we don't have to worry about being put out to pasture.QuoteAutomation doesn't have to eliminate the value that humans can provide, all it has to do is drive down wages to a level where it's impossible for a human to survive.
This is true, and where I feel government may need to step in to bridge the gap at times. But I still feel that these people can add value to society, in which case jobs can be created (with or without government subsidy).
The problem is more and more people are going to be in a position that they won't be able to provide the value to earn a surviving wage for two reasons.
1. Minimum wage laws and other regulations that price their labor out of the market.
2. The increasing cognitive demands of the jobs that are created. 100 years ago, a guy with an IQ of 85 could make it as a farmer. Not today. In a few years folks with IQs of 100 are going to be in the same boat.
The problem is more and more people are going to be in a position that they won't be able to provide the value to earn a surviving wage for two reasons.
1. Minimum wage laws and other regulations that price their labor out of the market.
2. The increasing cognitive demands of the jobs that are created. 100 years ago, a guy with an IQ of 85 could make it as a farmer. Not today. In a few years folks with IQs of 100 are going to be in the same boat.
But this hasn't happened. If people with an IQ of 85 or lower weren't able to find a job, we'd have pretty significant unemployment. Ditto for minimum wage.
One idea that has been floated, which I'd be much less opposed to than UBI, is a negative income tax rate at low incomes, and a concurrent lowering of the minimum wage to offset high unemployment (should that come to pass). (A negative income tax is more or less the case currently with the EITC, so really it would just be acknowledging reality.)
And we can best help bring up the folks from the bottom not forcing them to compete with low-skilled immigrants.
As immigration has increased, wages have stagnated for the middle and lower classes.
Meanwhile the one-percenters have benefited enormously. Notice that across the political spectrum: Kochs, Adelson, Bloomberg, Zuckerberg, Bezos, Buffet, Gates, etc. almost all the billionaires preach more immigration. Even Trump's businesses take advantage of guest workers and illegal aliens. What does that tell you?
I disagree - low skilled immigrants perform menial, low paying work that very few people born into a society want to do, even as a way to earn a crust. Trying to bring up everyone by cutting off the bottom end seems a lot like a manager saying they've grown a company by firing 1-2% of the workforce, ok costs have shrunk, but are the workers any better off?
But maybe there's a configuration in which people still got shelter, warmth, and privacy, but without ceding a 15% IRR to a nameless, faceless landlord. Perhaps your municipality could decide to be friendlier to co-ops and less friendly to landlords. Then you could elect a board of directors that spent that money that would be a dividend to the landlord on some capital improvements that the apartment needs. Or maybe they just lower rents.
I'm not fundamentally against landlording. As I said, I'm a landlord myself. But I strongly feel that any value that my properties provide comes from builders, contractors, gardeners, the management company, etc. I'm pretty passive. I mostly just sit back and collect checks.
The problem is more and more people are going to be in a position that they won't be able to provide the value to earn a surviving wage for two reasons.
1. Minimum wage laws and other regulations that price their labor out of the market.
2. The increasing cognitive demands of the jobs that are created. 100 years ago, a guy with an IQ of 85 could make it as a farmer. Not today. In a few years folks with IQs of 100 are going to be in the same boat.
But this hasn't happened. If people with an IQ of 85 or lower weren't able to find a job, we'd have pretty significant unemployment. Ditto for minimum wage.
One idea that has been floated, which I'd be much less opposed to than UBI, is a negative income tax rate at low incomes, and a concurrent lowering of the minimum wage to offset high unemployment (should that come to pass). (A negative income tax is more or less the case currently with the EITC, so really it would just be acknowledging reality.)
Percentage of US population with IQ < 85: 16%
Percentage of US population in workforce: 63.2%
I don't know, poor people lean blue in the USA, gerrymandering and voter suppression leans red. I'd argue preventing people from voting is pretty authoritarian and there are so many examples of the Republicans doing it one cannot have allegiance with that party in good faith.
Interesting phrasing--sounds like we already have a UBI, but it's for companies and people who don't want to compete in a Western labor market, so they import desperation to protect their margins.And we can best help bring up the folks from the bottom not forcing them to compete with low-skilled immigrants.
I disagree - low skilled immigrants perform menial, low paying work that very few people born into a society want to do
I don't know, poor people lean blue in the USA, gerrymandering and voter suppression leans red. I'd argue preventing people from voting is pretty authoritarian and there are so many examples of the Republicans doing it one cannot have allegiance with that party in good faith.
You are conflating the voters of one party label (Democrats) with the representatives of another party label (Republicans) and making a blanket moral comparison of all "Republicans" and "Democrats" by deliberately confusing what the labels refer to.
Voters and representatives are two different groups of individuals, with different sets of incentives and constraints influencing their behaviour.
You must be careful in how you use your words, otherwise you might inadvertently contribute to misinformation, confusion, and misdirection.
And we can best help bring up the folks from the bottom not forcing them to compete with low-skilled immigrants.
As immigration has increased, wages have stagnated for the middle and lower classes.
Meanwhile the one-percenters have benefited enormously. Notice that across the political spectrum: Kochs, Adelson, Bloomberg, Zuckerberg, Bezos, Buffet, Gates, etc. almost all the billionaires preach more immigration. Even Trump's businesses take advantage of guest workers and illegal aliens. What does that tell you?
So the logical conclusion of your statement is "corruption exists; therefore anarchy is the best option"
Your logical fallacy here is the False Dilemma (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma)).
"Governmental control" and "total anarchy" are not two opposites on a linear continuum.
To suggest that they are is to suggest that two (or more) individuals cannot reach a mutually-advantageous and mutually-acceptable compromise without influence from an outside authority.
I don't know, poor people lean blue in the USA, gerrymandering and voter suppression leans red. I'd argue preventing people from voting is pretty authoritarian and there are so many examples of the Republicans doing it one cannot have allegiance with that party in good faith.
You are conflating the voters of one party label (Democrats) with the representatives of another party label (Republicans) and making a blanket moral comparison of all "Republicans" and "Democrats" by deliberately confusing what the labels refer to.
Voters and representatives are two different groups of individuals, with different sets of incentives and constraints influencing their behaviour.
You must be careful in how you use your words, otherwise you might inadvertently contribute to misinformation, confusion, and misdirection.
I'm not going to pretend that voters who support an anti-democratic part are making a moral choice. Voters make their choices, they get to be held accountable. Vote in a party that suppresses voters en masse, gerrymanders districts our the whazoo repeatedly, etc, that's making an objectively harmful choice. A vote is an endorsement, a vote is a choice, a vote is a say, a vote is support.
But thanks for the condescension!
So the logical conclusion of your statement is "corruption exists; therefore anarchy is the best option"
Your logical fallacy here is the False Dilemma (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma)).
"Governmental control" and "total anarchy" are not two opposites on a linear continuum.
To suggest that they are is to suggest that two (or more) individuals cannot reach a mutually-advantageous and mutually-acceptable compromise without influence from an outside authority.
Fine, anarchy was not the correct term. But then you are advocating for a complete lack of government control?
So the logical conclusion of your statement is "corruption exists; therefore anarchy is the best option"
Your logical fallacy here is the False Dilemma (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma)).
"Governmental control" and "total anarchy" are not two opposites on a linear continuum.
To suggest that they are is to suggest that two (or more) individuals cannot reach a mutually-advantageous and mutually-acceptable compromise without influence from an outside authority.
Fine, anarchy was not the correct term. But then you are advocating for a complete lack of government control?
I am advocating for a reduction in government interference. The government's sole responsibility is to safeguard the rights of the people - that's all. I cite the Declaration of Independence as my source.
So the real question being discussed here is, "Is universal basic income a right that the government is sanctioned to defend?"
My answer to this question is no. UBI cannot be a right, because it conflicts with the other rights stated in the Declaration of Independence. Declaring UBI to be a right is logically inconsistent - that is, it produces a contradiction.
If you would like to hear more, just let me know. Otherwise I won't belabour the point.
I am advocating for a reduction in government interference. The government's sole responsibility is to safeguard the rights of the people - that's all. I cite the Declaration of Independence as my source.
So the real question being discussed here is, "Is universal basic income a right that the government is sanctioned to defend?"
My answer to this question is no. UBI cannot be a right, because it conflicts with the other rights stated in the Declaration of Independence. Declaring UBI to be a right is logically inconsistent - that is, it produces a contradiction.
If you would like to hear more, just let me know. Otherwise I won't belabour the point.
So the logical conclusion of your statement is "corruption exists; therefore anarchy is the best option"
Your logical fallacy here is the False Dilemma (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma)).
"Governmental control" and "total anarchy" are not two opposites on a linear continuum.
To suggest that they are is to suggest that two (or more) individuals cannot reach a mutually-advantageous and mutually-acceptable compromise without influence from an outside authority.
Fine, anarchy was not the correct term. But then you are advocating for a complete lack of government control?
I am advocating for a reduction in government interference. The government's sole responsibility is to safeguard the rights of the people - that's all. I cite the Declaration of Independence as my source.
So the real question being discussed here is, "Is universal basic income a right that the government is sanctioned to defend?"
My answer to this question is no. UBI cannot be a right, because it conflicts with the other rights stated in the Declaration of Independence. Declaring UBI to be a right is logically inconsistent - that is, it produces a contradiction.
If you would like to hear more, just let me know. Otherwise I won't belabour the point.
My point in asking was to clarify your baseline. Given that you feel the government should only exist to protect rights, I don't think there's really any point in discussing UBI. The disagreement is in something much more fundamental and now that we know that we can respond accordingly.
I would still be interested in your evidence that government assistance has only ever resulted in worse outcomes. If there is no evidence, I'll have to assume that you did not reason your way into this belief and therefore no amount of evidence will reason you out of it.
I am advocating for a reduction in government interference. The government's sole responsibility is to safeguard the rights of the people - that's all. I cite the Declaration of Independence as my source.
So the real question being discussed here is, "Is universal basic income a right that the government is sanctioned to defend?"
My answer to this question is no. UBI cannot be a right, because it conflicts with the other rights stated in the Declaration of Independence. Declaring UBI to be a right is logically inconsistent - that is, it produces a contradiction.
If you would like to hear more, just let me know. Otherwise I won't belabour the point.
I've never heard anyone say UBI is a right, have you?
I am advocating for a reduction in government interference. The government's sole responsibility is to safeguard the rights of the people - that's all. I cite the Declaration of Independence as my source.
So the real question being discussed here is, "Is universal basic income a right that the government is sanctioned to defend?"
My answer to this question is no. UBI cannot be a right, because it conflicts with the other rights stated in the Declaration of Independence. Declaring UBI to be a right is logically inconsistent - that is, it produces a contradiction.
If you would like to hear more, just let me know. Otherwise I won't belabour the point.
I've never heard anyone say UBI is a right, have you?
The government's sole responsibility is to protect the rights of the people.
If you are recruiting the government to provide UBI, then you are implicitly declaring UBI to be a right.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America
The government's sole responsibility is to protect the rights of the people.
If you are recruiting the government to provide UBI, then you are implicitly declaring UBI to be a right.
Or perhaps someone could disagree with the part of the Declaration of Independence which says the government's sole responsibility is to protect the rights of the people?
Not that they would need to disagree, as the Declaration of Independence doesn't actually say that.
What it says is:QuoteWe hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed
Saying the purpose is to secure rights is not the same as saying it is the sole purpose.
AND even if it did say that, shouldn't we put more weight on what is said in the constitution than the Declaration of independence?
According to the Constitution:QuoteWe the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America
The government's sole responsibility is to protect the rights of the people.
If you are recruiting the government to provide UBI, then you are implicitly declaring UBI to be a right.
Or perhaps someone could disagree with the part of the Declaration of Independence which says the government's sole responsibility is to protect the rights of the people?
Not that they would need to disagree, as the Declaration of Independence doesn't actually say that.
What it says is:QuoteWe hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed
Saying the purpose is to secure rights is not the same as saying it is the sole purpose.
AND even if it did say that, shouldn't we put more weight on what is said in the constitution than the Declaration of independence?
According to the Constitution:QuoteWe the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America
Indeed. The key here is recognizing how the powers of government are laid out (in the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the Declaration of Independence, which functions like a "statement of intent").
Firstly, the powers given to the government are enumerated powers - meaning they are designated with specificity, and they are finite in number.
Secondly, any rights not enumerated to the government are reserved for the states, or with the people (tenth amendment). The people are meant to have the greatest amount of freedom and discretion possible in their daily lives.
Thirdly, the Bill of Rights as a whole functions as a set of restrictions on what the federal government may NOT do. The potential for abuse is high when power is supreme. The intent is to limit the scope of what the federal government may do precisely because it is the supreme authority within its scope.
All of this is hardly surprising. A cursory reading of the Declaration of Independence, or of colonial history, will show that the colonies were dissatisfied with the king because he disobeyed his own laws whenever he liked, selectively enforced laws across his domain, made seeking a redress of grievances tremendously inconvenient, and outright ignored those requests for redress whenever he wanted. The colonists were keenly aware of what can happen when authority is both centralized and absolute, because they experienced its effects.
Limiting the scope of government was their fundamental intent.
I'm a little confused here. None of this seems to refute the 3 reasons I gave for why
"If you are recruiting the government to provide UBI, then you are implicitly declaring UBI to be a right."
is a false statement.
Do you have an argument against any of these 3 reasons?
1) What is written in the founding documents is not fact.
2) The Declaration does not say what you claim it says.
3) The Constitution directly contradicts what you claim the Declaration says.
I'm a little confused here. None of this seems to refute the 3 reasons I gave for why
"If you are recruiting the government to provide UBI, then you are implicitly declaring UBI to be a right."
is a false statement.
Do you have an argument against any of these 3 reasons?
1) What is written in the founding documents is not fact.
2) The Declaration does not say what you claim it says.
3) The Constitution directly contradicts what you claim the Declaration says.
First, let me ask you question, just so that I am clear on your perspective.
What do you think a right actually is? How would you define the word?
a solid definition of "rights" is not needed
I would stand by them no matter what definition you'd like to use.
I'm not sure what your concern is regarding the status quo of landlording. You provided value to somebody else in your job in order to earn the money which you then saved until you had enough to purchase the property that the builders made. You exchanged value to the builders, and in turn the renters are now exchanging value to you. If you feel guilty about it, feel free to lower rent and meet face to face with your tenants.
a solid definition of "rights" is not neededYes it is. We cannot have a productive conversation about the purpose of governments (and indeed of civilization) without a working definition of what a "right" is.
Let me put it this way: I can explain to a five year old tenant what value the home builder brings. I can explain to her the value that the plumber brings. Or the management company. In fact, those things hardly even need an explanation. It's much more difficult to explain the value that I bring as the owner.
I have capital. So I bought the property form the guy who bought it form the gal who bought it from the guy who got there first. The five year old is scratching her head on where the value comes from.
I'm not sure what your concern is regarding the status quo of landlording. You provided value to somebody else in your job in order to earn the money which you then saved until you had enough to purchase the property that the builders made. You exchanged value to the builders, and in turn the renters are now exchanging value to you. If you feel guilty about it, feel free to lower rent and meet face to face with your tenants.
I don't feel guilty about it. I just don't think I bring much value to the situation. It's just "the way things are".
But I think a world in which people can own land that they have no intention of living on or using, other than to charge other people who do have a use for the land a fee probably has less "value" in it than a hypothetical world where we have a different configuration around land use.
Let me put it this way: I can explain to a five year old tenant what value the home builder brings. I can explain to her the value that the plumber brings. Or the management company. In fact, those things hardly even need an explanation. It's much more difficult to explain the value that I bring as the owner.
I have capital. So I bought the property form the guy who bought it form the gal who bought it from the guy who (murdered the people who) got there first. The five year old is scratching her head on where the value comes from.
The way we've set things up, I'm greatly rewarded for my ability to manage capital. So that's what I do. Just because this set-up benefits me, doesn't mean it's the only way to set things up, or even the best way. It's just the way things are.
But we can do it differently if we want to.
Here's how I would explain it to a five year old: You bring value in two ways as a landlord: 1) first, through your primary employment, you presumably brought somebody else value, by which you were able to afford the house, and 2) second, by not spending your money on things for yourself, you paid the home builders, carpenters, plumbers, etc. to build you a house*, which you then let somebody else use for shelter (and which that person gladly paid you rent for the benefit of that shelter).
In other words, if capital didn't exist, who would pay the home builders to build the houses? (Note that capital is simply shorthand for deferred spending on personal consumption in favor of consumption for somebody else.)
*Or one of the previous capitalists from which you bought the home paid these tradesmen.
The bolded bit should at least get a small mention in this back and forth.
The hangup* is that I believe there's probably paradigm in which the present-day renter, or a collective of present day renters, pay the home-builders and the maintenance people and whoever else. And it's cheaper because fat cat capitalists like me aren't skimming our 15% off the top.
I'm probably describing something similar to a housing co-op.
The hangup* is that I believe there's probably paradigm in which the present-day renter, or a collective of present day renters, pay the home-builders and the maintenance people and whoever else. And it's cheaper because fat cat capitalists like me aren't skimming our 15% off the top.
*a secondary hangup is that I think anyone's right to own land is extremely tenuous at best. But we're already getting into super-heady territory. Truthfully, I accept and participate in the concept of land ownership and land lording because it's served us well. But maybe there's a better way to do it.Is there really a difference between property tax and a perpetual lease from the governing authority/society?
The paradigm in which the present day renter (singular) pays the home-builder and maintenance people is quite common, and is called home ownership. Instead of paying the landlord who had purchased the house, they pay the bank through their mortgage over the amortization schedule.
If your renters had the capital to pay the builder I presume they would do so on another plot of land? If they had the trust of the builder they could promise to pay over time, but that's just inventing credit and making the builder the capitalist.
Landlords also adopt risk and renters generally pay some premium for this.
Here's a question: if vacancies spike and rental rates drop below mortgage payments, are the tenants now profiteering?
Landlords risk far more than the capital they've already sunk into a property; there are plenty of potential liabilities that come with land ownership.Landlords also adopt risk and renters generally pay some premium for this.Of course. Capital risk is a thing. People can and do lose money when going into landlording or investing. But on the macro, capital risk is largely mitigated by the way we choose to run things. States and municipalities love landowners. And the Federal government showed some love too in the housing crash. Even if places where that love is written less explicitly into legislative register or the tax code, it's shown implicitly in the form of zoning.
Here's a question: if vacancies spike and rental rates drop below mortgage payments, are the tenants now profiteering?
The more obvious and less esoteric example is with equities. Yes, there is theoretical risk inherent in investing in US equities. But does anyone on here really even consider that risk beyond short-term volatility? I know I don't. Because the last time equities went south, the Federal government bought up troubled assets and the Fed put us in a low interest rate environment for the next ten years. And what do you know? A quick turnaround in equities and a subsequent 10 year bull run.Yes, when buying broad based index funds, most of us here believe our primary risk is volatility - not long term capital loss. Plenty of individual stock pickers do risk long term capital loss, the saving grace of index funds is the diversification. A landlord diversifying over many properties (especially if diversifying over multiple types of properties and regions) can similarly reduce risks. Of course both diversifying over thousands of stocks and diversifying over thousands of properties is very difficult to do as an individual investor, so somebody invented mutual funds and real estate investment trusts.
Andrew Yang has put together a pretty good case for why we should pay all Americans between 18-64 a monthly dividend. We can decide to do this in the same way that we routinely decide to do things that benefit capital.I agree with this premise; but I also agree that the Federal government has grossly overstepped the Constitution over the past 100-150 years (including basically all of the other examples of what "we" decided to do).
Indeed. The key here is recognizing how the powers of government are laid out (in the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, and the Declaration of Independence, which functions like a "statement of intent").
Firstly, the powers given to the government are enumerated powers - meaning they are designated with specificity, and they are finite in number.
Secondly, any rights not enumerated to the government are reserved for the states, or with the people (tenth amendment). The people are meant to have the greatest amount of freedom and discretion possible in their daily lives.
Thirdly, the Bill of Rights as a whole functions as a set of restrictions on what the federal government may NOT do. The potential for abuse is high when power is supreme. The intent is to limit the scope of what the federal government may do precisely because it is the supreme authority within its scope.
All of this is hardly surprising. A cursory reading of the Declaration of Independence, or of colonial history, will show that the colonies were dissatisfied with the king because he disobeyed his own laws whenever he liked, selectively enforced laws across his domain, made seeking a redress of grievances tremendously inconvenient, and outright ignored those requests for redress whenever he wanted. The colonists were keenly aware of what can happen when authority is both centralized and absolute, because they experienced its effects.
Limiting the scope of government was their fundamental intent.
No one thinks sitting on your ass is valuable. No one is willing to pay money for it.
No one thinks sitting on your ass is valuable. No one is willing to pay money for it.
I realize the conversation has moved on, but this stood out to me so I wanted to comment on it.
I actually disagree with this point. There are many people who currently engage in activities that are harmful to society. There is value in paying those people to sit on their asses.
For anyone who currently engages in prostitution, drug dealing, theft, etc., not because they find those activities intrinsically valuable, but because they meet their need to earn money, I think we would be better off as a society to simply pay enough that they don't need to commit crimes.
We currently disincentive these behaviors, by making them illegal. However, this turns out to be very expensive, and judging by the number of people that are currently incarcerated, not all that effective.
I'm not saying UBI wouldn't eliminate crime, but a lot of crime is committed by people who are trying to meet their financial needs. Paying these people to do nothing is valuable.
No one thinks sitting on your ass is valuable. No one is willing to pay money for it.
I realize the conversation has moved on, but this stood out to me so I wanted to comment on it.
I actually disagree with this point. There are many people who currently engage in activities that are harmful to society. There is value in paying those people to sit on their asses.
For anyone who currently engages in prostitution, drug dealing, theft, etc., not because they find those activities intrinsically valuable, but because they meet their need to earn money, I think we would be better off as a society to simply pay enough that they don't need to commit crimes.
We currently disincentive these behaviors, by making them illegal. However, this turns out to be very expensive, and judging by the number of people that are currently incarcerated, not all that effective.
I'm not saying UBI wouldn't eliminate crime, but a lot of crime is committed by people who are trying to meet their financial needs. Paying these people to do nothing is valuable.
Your logic rests on several assumptions:
1) Most people engage in these illegal activities because they currently have no other means to make money.
2) The income from UBI ($12k per year) would be enough to encourage people to stop performing these behaviors (or not perform them to begin with).
3) UBI would reduce overall crime, rather than increase crime.
4) UBI would reduce overall poverty, rather than increase poverty.
Without getting too deep, I don't think any of these assumptions are a foregone conclusion with UBI.
But paying someone to sit on their ass doesn't guarantee they will. So the incentive issues still remain.No one thinks sitting on your ass is valuable. No one is willing to pay money for it.
I realize the conversation has moved on, but this stood out to me so I wanted to comment on it.
I actually disagree with this point. There are many people who currently engage in activities that are harmful to society. There is value in paying those people to sit on their asses.
For anyone who currently engages in prostitution, drug dealing, theft, etc., not because they find those activities intrinsically valuable, but because they meet their need to earn money, I think we would be better off as a society to simply pay enough that they don't need to commit crimes.
We currently disincentive these behaviors, by making them illegal. However, this turns out to be very expensive, and judging by the number of people that are currently incarcerated, not all that effective.
I'm not saying UBI wouldn't eliminate crime, but a lot of crime is committed by people who are trying to meet their financial needs. Paying these people to do nothing is valuable.
Your logic rests on several assumptions:
1) Most people engage in these illegal activities because they currently have no other means to make money.
2) The income from UBI ($12k per year) would be enough to encourage people to stop performing these behaviors (or not perform them to begin with).
3) UBI would reduce overall crime, rather than increase crime.
4) UBI would reduce overall poverty, rather than increase poverty.
Without getting too deep, I don't think any of these assumptions are a foregone conclusion with UBI.
I totally agree. My main point is that sitting a person sitting on their ass is actually more valuable to society than the alternative for a subset of the population.
I totally agree. My main point is that sitting a person sitting on their ass is actually more valuable to society than the alternative for a subset of the population.
No one thinks sitting on your ass is valuable. No one is willing to pay money for it.
I realize the conversation has moved on, but this stood out to me so I wanted to comment on it.
I actually disagree with this point. There are many people who currently engage in activities that are harmful to society. There is value in paying those people to sit on their asses.
For anyone who currently engages in prostitution, drug dealing, theft, etc., not because they find those activities intrinsically valuable, but because they meet their need to earn money, I think we would be better off as a society to simply pay enough that they don't need to commit crimes.
We currently disincentive these behaviors, by making them illegal. However, this turns out to be very expensive, and judging by the number of people that are currently incarcerated, not all that effective.
I'm not saying UBI wouldn't eliminate crime, but a lot of crime is committed by people who are trying to meet their financial needs. Paying these people to do nothing is valuable.
The evidence already disagrees with you.I agree that many more crimes are committed out of greed rather than need. The only hope I'd have for UBI reducing crime is that those who would have entered a life of crime due to need (then escalated) would never take the first step into it - I don't think it would amount to much.
Drug dealers presently take advantage of existing social programs like food stamps supplemental income provided by the state. The existence of these programs in no way dissuades them from seeking other illegal sources of income.
The only hope I'd have for UBI reducing crime is that those who would have entered a life of crime due to need (then escalated) would never take the first step into it - I don't think it would amount to much.
The only hope I'd have for UBI reducing crime is that those who would have entered a life of crime due to need (then escalated) would never take the first step into it - I don't think it would amount to much.
All socialist-style policies are passed with hope and good intentions.
And those policies always end disastrously.
You'd think that the historical evidence of socialism's failures would have clued people in by now. But our drive to feel good and virtuous is more powerful than reason, evidently.
While the philosophical argument is interesting its not really relevant IMO. We have to ask 2 questions:
1) Can we afford to instantaneously double the expenses of the largest government in human history?
2) Is Yes above, what is the opportunity cost of UBI vs any other use of the huge amount of money required.
UBI seems mostly like a political ploy to buy the broadest spectrum of voters possible. Especially if you believe that there's no chance that it actually happens because the price tag is basically unimaginably high.
The only hope I'd have for UBI reducing crime is that those who would have entered a life of crime due to need (then escalated) would never take the first step into it - I don't think it would amount to much.
All socialist-style policies are passed with hope and good intentions.
And those policies always end disastrously.
You'd think that the historical evidence of socialism's failures would have clued people in by now. But our drive to feel good and virtuous is more powerful than reason, evidently.
So the public school system, electric grid, police/fire departments, and every form of financial assistance for the disabled and elderly, all disastrous?
Or perhaps you're referring to a more strict definition of "socialist-style policies" only including instances where the public owns the means of production of some good? But then that would have nothing to do UBI. Help me out here, can you be more specific?
While the philosophical argument is interesting its not really relevant IMO. We have to ask 2 questions:
1) Can we afford to instantaneously double the expenses of the largest government in human history?
2) Is Yes above, what is the opportunity cost of UBI vs any other use of the huge amount of money required.
UBI seems mostly like a political ploy to buy the broadest spectrum of voters possible. Especially if you believe that there's no chance that it actually happens because the price tag is basically unimaginably high.
To put it simply, the "commons" are a resource from which common people benefit, but where access cannot be restricted solely to "subscribers" (for practical reasons).
As an example, the fire department is a resource of the commons. That is, firefighting protection cannot be restricted only to people who pay for the service. If it were, then it would produce results that defeated its purpose.
Say for example that firefighting were a pay-for-protection service. Now suppose your house and my house were next to each other, and you were a subscriber to firefighting protection and I was not. If my house caught fire, then the firefighters would not come extinguish my house. But this would pose a problem because, since your house is adjacent, it might also catch fire as a result of mine catching fire. A subscriber's house would be placed in jeopardy because a non-subscriber's house was not being protected. So all houses must be protected, because fire spreads and it doesn't distinguish.
To put it simply, the "commons" are a resource from which common people benefit, but where access cannot be restricted solely to "subscribers" (for practical reasons).
As an example, the fire department is a resource of the commons. That is, firefighting protection cannot be restricted only to people who pay for the service. If it were, then it would produce results that defeated its purpose.
Say for example that firefighting were a pay-for-protection service. Now suppose your house and my house were next to each other, and you were a subscriber to firefighting protection and I was not. If my house caught fire, then the firefighters would not come extinguish my house. But this would pose a problem because, since your house is adjacent, it might also catch fire as a result of mine catching fire. A subscriber's house would be placed in jeopardy because a non-subscriber's house was not being protected. So all houses must be protected, because fire spreads and it doesn't distinguish.
Private fire protection actually is a thing. https://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-private-firefighters-20181127-story.html
I don't agree that government introduces inefficiency everywhere. Healthcare is a good example. Medicare has lower administrative costs than most private plans.
And on the whole, it's silly to think that there can exist a marketplace where consumers, with inelastic demand, can make informed market choices on healthcare; a subject that people study for a decade in order to comprehend.
Furthermore, we ask consumers to navigate a cumbersome insurance system with deductibles and OOP maxes, in-network, out of network. We do this because life-saving care is unaffordable for virtually allAmericanspeople, so we need a cost sharing scheme. For most people, this comes from their job, which creates additional friction in the labor market. The result is that we spend more than double the OECD average per-capita for very mixed outcomes.
Public education is similar. Everyone agrees that an educated populace is ideal, but where is the free market solution for that?
The existence of private services to supplement public services isn't necessarily evidence of inefficiencies.
While the philosophical argument is interesting its not really relevant IMO. We have to ask 2 questions:
1) Can we afford to instantaneously double the expenses of the largest government in human history?
2) Is Yes above, what is the opportunity cost of UBI vs any other use of the huge amount of money required.
UBI seems mostly like a political ploy to buy the broadest spectrum of voters possible. Especially if you believe that there's no chance that it actually happens because the price tag is basically unimaginably high.
I don't believe those are the appropriate questions to ask, necessarily. First, federal expenditures nearly quadrupled after the 1930's, and in retrospect we were able to afford it (https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/FYFRGDA188S (https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/FYFRGDA188S)). Second, those expenses aren't being spent by the government, but rather act as a redistribution of wealth, so measuring the opportunity cost really doesn't make a lot sense (in my opinion).
Personally, I don't think UBI is the best way to redistribute wealth. But I think the calculation of a price tag could only be estimated through macroeconomic principles (with an associated large range of uncertainty), rather than microeconomic ones (such as opportunity cost).
While the philosophical argument is interesting its not really relevant IMO. We have to ask 2 questions:
1) Can we afford to instantaneously double the expenses of the largest government in human history?
2) Is Yes above, what is the opportunity cost of UBI vs any other use of the huge amount of money required.
UBI seems mostly like a political ploy to buy the broadest spectrum of voters possible. Especially if you believe that there's no chance that it actually happens because the price tag is basically unimaginably high.
I don't believe those are the appropriate questions to ask, necessarily. First, federal expenditures nearly quadrupled after the 1930's, and in retrospect we were able to afford it (https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/FYFRGDA188S (https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/FYFRGDA188S)). Second, those expenses aren't being spent by the government, but rather act as a redistribution of wealth, so measuring the opportunity cost really doesn't make a lot sense (in my opinion).
Personally, I don't think UBI is the best way to redistribute wealth. But I think the calculation of a price tag could only be estimated through macroeconomic principles (with an associated large range of uncertainty), rather than microeconomic ones (such as opportunity cost).
But if you had all that money, why would you not ask "is this the best way to spend it"?
The point I was trying to make (perhaps poorly) was that there is an opportunity cost, but calculating it is not straightforward at all. Probably similar to social security in this respect. What is the opportunity cost of the social security program?
healthcare stuff
Home-schooling? Private schools? Online resource academies? YouTube tutorials? You've never heard of any of these things?
I wonder how it is you simultaneously have such dismal regard for the judgment of consumers, and high regard for the judgment of elected officials. They're mostly ignorant of the issues they make decisions on, and they follow personal incentive just as anyone else would.
I wonder how it is you simultaneously have such dismal regard for the judgment of consumers, and high regard for the judgment of elected officials. They're mostly ignorant of the issues they make decisions on, and they follow personal incentive just as anyone else would.
Healthcare is complicated, important, and expensive enough that I think it's beyond the capacity of a majority of people (if not everyone) to effectively "shop" for it.
An effective alternative is to have lawmakers, checked by voters and advised by experts, come up with a plan that covers everyone. Then the plan is administered by bureaucrats.
I'm not automatically repulsed by words like government and bureaucracy, so I can see how this has worked out well in other countries. It's not perfect, of course. There are queues and care rationing, to some extent. But the big picture outcomes are better for most people.
Many countries with basic, single payer healthcare still have a private market for non-emergency care. Under such a system everyone has access to essential medical care, but those who pay privately don't have to spend as much time waiting in queues and may have some non-essential care options that are not considered cost effective in the public system.
While I appreciate the comparison with veterinary medicine, there is a big difference in the cost of lifesaving intervention people are willing to pay for people vs. what people are willing to pay for pets.
I appreciate Thomas Sowell's work very much and I can't shake his assessment that economics is really about incentives. This video is only tangentially related but it does make a similar point:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dd3ly0u8ipg
I think it's hard work to be a doctor. Takes lots of training, patience, dedication and there's a huge pile of responsibility! I don't think it's as glamorous as it's made out to be, and when the negotiating power for the individuals that have the audacity to pursue medical practice gets pulled out from under them by central planners that try to make healthcare a right(?) it shouldn't be expected that a quality healthcare system would be the outcome.
It's a nice idea in theory but there isn't a vast surplus of medical practitioners so I believe their value will have to be established through some type of consensual price discovery. It's not reasonable to think that something of high value to society can somehow have its price reduced by involving third parties.
Many countries with basic, single payer healthcare still have a private market for non-emergency care. Under such a system everyone has access to essential medical care, but those who pay privately don't have to spend as much time waiting in queues and may have some non-essential care options that are not considered cost effective in the public system.
While I appreciate the comparison with veterinary medicine, there is a big difference in the cost of lifesaving intervention people are willing to pay for people vs. what people are willing to pay for pets.
And it must be said that if you move across the border to Canada, or any other first world country for that matter, the socialized medical system provides objectively better health care outcomes by almost every measure, but at half the cost.
So yes, our system is better if you want worse health care at double the cost, but is ideologically more pure. So if you care about ideology our system is better.
If you care about being alive, and the ability to pay for it all, then not so much.
Canadian doctor average salary is 50% to 70% of that of the average doctor salary in the USA.
I appreciate Thomas Sowell's work very much and I can't shake his assessment that economics is really about incentives. This video is only tangentially related but it does make a similar point:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dd3ly0u8ipg
I think it's hard work to be a doctor. Takes lots of training, patience, dedication and there's a huge pile of responsibility! I don't think it's as glamorous as it's made out to be, and when the negotiating power for the individuals that have the audacity to pursue medical practice gets pulled out from under them by central planners that try to make healthcare a right(?) it shouldn't be expected that a quality healthcare system would be the outcome.
It's a nice idea in theory but there isn't a vast surplus of medical practitioners so I believe their value will have to be established through some type of consensual price discovery. It's not reasonable to think that something of high value to society can somehow have its price reduced by involving third parties.
I think the bolded is a reasonable hypothesis, but how do you explain the empirical data to the contrary?
No one thinks sitting on your ass is valuable. No one is willing to pay money for it.37% of British workers think their jobs are meaningless. Another 13% are unsure. Source 1 (https://yougov.co.uk/topics/lifestyle/articles-reports/2015/08/12/british-jobs-meaningless). Thus, 37-50% of total work hours are spent doing nothing productive.
I suppose I'd have to see the data. I think there are places where socialist policies can be useful, mostly-it seems-where people can be reduced to simple units; where precision is unnecessary. In the medical system this would probably be stuff like vaccines and generic prescriptions. Our dental system seems to work pretty well as well, but that is not free.I appreciate Thomas Sowell's work very much and I can't shake his assessment that economics is really about incentives. This video is only tangentially related but it does make a similar point:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dd3ly0u8ipg
I think it's hard work to be a doctor. Takes lots of training, patience, dedication and there's a huge pile of responsibility! I don't think it's as glamorous as it's made out to be, and when the negotiating power for the individuals that have the audacity to pursue medical practice gets pulled out from under them by central planners that try to make healthcare a right(?) it shouldn't be expected that a quality healthcare system would be the outcome.
It's a nice idea in theory but there isn't a vast surplus of medical practitioners so I believe their value will have to be established through some type of consensual price discovery. It's not reasonable to think that something of high value to society can somehow have its price reduced by involving third parties.
I think the bolded is a reasonable hypothesis, but how do you explain the empirical data to the contrary?
No one thinks sitting on your ass is valuable. No one is willing to pay money for it.37% of British workers think their jobs are meaningless. Another 13% are unsure. Source 1 (https://yougov.co.uk/topics/lifestyle/articles-reports/2015/08/12/british-jobs-meaningless). Thus, 37-50% of total work hours are spent doing nothing productive.
By an assessment of people's digital devices, white collar workers spent about 12.5hr a week - or 2.5hr a day for a 5 day week - actually working Source 2 (https://medium.com/swlh/what-we-learned-about-productivity-from-analyzing-225-million-hours-of-working-time-in-2017-7c2a1062d41d). A survey of white collar workers gave similar results Source 3 (https://www.vouchercloud.com/resources/office-worker-productivity), and I note with amusement that they were searching for other jobs for 26 minutes a day - perhaps they felt overworked?
So, only 50-63% of people are doing jobs where they produce anything of value, and even those producing something of value are only doing it 30% of the time. Thus, only about 1 in 6 of the hours people are working is producing anything of value. This is by their own assessment, mind you. This isn't some Marxist idea of labour being meaningless unless it produces tangible goods - it's people's own assessment of their work.
Now, it may be that some people feel their job is unproductive but it's actually useful in less than obvious ways (for example, most workplace safety planning), but by the same token someone else will feel they're very productive but actually be useless or even destructive of other people's productivity, like a micromanager. But anyway: 1 in 6 white collar work hours are productive. Or if we got fewer people to do the same total work, 1 in 6 workers are productive.
Put another way, 5 in 6 white collar workers are being paid to sit on their arse. Evidently, someone thinks sitting on your arse is valuable.
The average white collar wage in the US is about $45,000. Is it better to pay people $45,000 to do nothing productive, or pay them $12,000 to do nothing productive? I don't know about you, but I'd go for the cheaper option, myself.
I'm trying to apply the principle of charity here and argue to the strongest interpretation of your statement. But I'm at a loss here.
If healthcare is, as you say, too complicated for most people to shop for it, how does adding more people to the process (most of whom are just as unqualified to shop for it) make things better? The answer is, it doesn't.
Healthcare has become complicated because we have gotten government involved. We've intertwined disparate conflicting agendas and interests using law as an instrument of coercion, and now we're left with a spaghetti mess which only becomes more tangled as we try to use more law to "fix" it.
To compare, have a look at veterinary medicine. If my cat gets sick, I can take him to the vet, wait my turn, and pay for an examination. I can explain from my direct experience what is wrong, and the vet can make a judgment call unfiltered by non-medical considerations. If medical imagery or a special procedure are needed, I can make an appointment within days and I can afford to pay those costs out of pocket. All of this involves filling out one or two forms, and it doesn't involve insurance companies. And all of this pertains to fixing the specific problems of my cat. I have the most relevant knowledge about how my cat is suffering, and the person I am doing business has the most specific knowledge about how to remedy that suffering. We deal with one another directly.
Animals get simpler and cheaper care because no one is wound up about trying to protect them. They're just the responsibility of their owners. The vet wants to make a profit. I want my cat to get better. We negotiate on a price.
It might be easy to look retroactively on the economy and see this 1 in 6 number, but you're going to have a hard time finding the 1 in 6 and keeping them employed and incentivized when the other five get to eff around on the dole, so to speak. Incentives are the problem with UBI but I do still see UBI as some type of inevitability.You are imagining that only 1 in 6 are productive. That's not what I said. I said that 37-50% of people were doing entirely unproductive jobs, and that even those doing productive jobs were only working 12.5hr pw, ie one-third of the time. Of every 6 people in a company we don't have 1 super-productive person and 5 freeloaders, rather we have 2-3 freeloaders and 3-4 people third-arsing things.
Perhaps this is part of the opposition to UBI: managers thinking that it would be harder to find people to do pointless jobs with shitty conditions. "We would actually have to provide meaningful fulfilling work... dear God, is it possible?" Fear not! The appetite for pointless work will be kept up. There'll always be someone who wants to be a stockbroker or a diversity manager.
It might be easy to look retroactively on the economy and see this 1 in 6 number, but you're going to have a hard time finding the 1 in 6 and keeping them employed and incentivized when the other five get to eff around on the dole, so to speak. Incentives are the problem with UBI but I do still see UBI as some type of inevitability.You are imagining that only 1 in 6 are productive. That's not what I said. I said that 37-50% of people were doing entirely unproductive jobs, and that even those doing productive jobs were only working 12.5hr pw, ie one-third of the time. Of every 6 people in a company we don't have 1 super-productive person and 5 freeloaders, rather we have 2-3 freeloaders and 3-4 people third-arsing things.
Thus, "but we'd be paying people to do nothing!" is not a valid objection to UBI, because we already do that - we'd just be paying them less to do nothing than we are now.
Most UBI proposals are for something like $12,000 annually. US white collar jobs average $45,000. If being paid FOUR TIMES the UBI is not an incentive to stick with your job, then you must have a truly awful job, and your employer needs to figure out how they can improve the quality of the job, the pay and conditions, to get people to want to do it.
Perhaps this is part of the opposition to UBI: managers thinking that it would be harder to find people to do pointless jobs with shitty conditions. "We would actually have to provide meaningful fulfilling work... dear God, is it possible?" Fear not! The appetite for pointless work will be kept up. There'll always be someone who wants to be a stockbroker or a diversity manager.
even if workers are averaging 1 person-output in six, it's not as flagrant as paying people to actually do nothing. The perception matters.So it doesn't matter if they're actually productive or not, only that they look busy?
I think the point is, if we pay people a survivable wage to do nothing, no one will want to do (or have any incentive to do) the shitty jobs like Uber Eats and cleaning and fruit picking and whatever that they currently have in order to have a survivable wage. Or if they do it, they will do it for a higher wage. So every time you go to the grocer for fruit, or want your meal delivered, or your office cleaned, you'll pay more.
Now you're playing the other side. No one was producing 0% output in your post, were they? Because a UBI reflects money for nothing.Quoteeven if workers are averaging 1 person-output in six, it's not as flagrant as paying people to actually do nothing. The perception matters.So it doesn't matter if they're actually productive or not, only that they look busy?
You wouldn't by chance be a middle manager?
But if I have an extra $12k annually, I can afford to pay more for this stuff.
I am prepared to believe that some jobs will not be viable in different economic conditions. Since economic rationalism and free trade destroyed millions of jobs and people were told, "oh well, do something else, then," I am not sure why this is an objection to a UBI (or a carbon tax, or many other suggestions people have).
No one thinks sitting on your ass is valuable. No one is willing to pay money for it.37% of British workers think their jobs are meaningless. Another 13% are unsure. Source 1 (https://yougov.co.uk/topics/lifestyle/articles-reports/2015/08/12/british-jobs-meaningless). Thus, 37-50% of total work hours are spent doing nothing productive.
By an assessment of people's digital devices, white collar workers spent about 12.5hr a week - or 2.5hr a day for a 5 day week - actually working Source 2 (https://medium.com/swlh/what-we-learned-about-productivity-from-analyzing-225-million-hours-of-working-time-in-2017-7c2a1062d41d). A survey of white collar workers gave similar results Source 3 (https://www.vouchercloud.com/resources/office-worker-productivity), and I note with amusement that they were searching for other jobs for 26 minutes a day - perhaps they felt overworked?
So, only 50-63% of people are doing jobs where they produce anything of value, and even those producing something of value are only doing it 30% of the time. Thus, only about 1 in 6 of the hours people are working is producing anything of value. This is by their own assessment, mind you. This isn't some Marxist idea of labour being meaningless unless it produces tangible goods - it's people's own assessment of their work.
Now, it may be that some people feel their job is unproductive but it's actually useful in less than obvious ways (for example, most workplace safety planning), but by the same token someone else will feel they're very productive but actually be useless or even destructive of other people's productivity, like a micromanager. But anyway: 1 in 6 white collar work hours are productive. Or if we got fewer people to do the same total work, 1 in 6 workers are productive.
Put another way, 5 in 6 white collar workers are being paid to sit on their arse. Evidently, someone thinks sitting on your arse is valuable.
The average white collar wage in the US is about $45,000. Is it better to pay people $45,000 to do nothing productive, or pay them $12,000 to do nothing productive? I don't know about you, but I'd go for the cheaper option, myself.
The rise in costs will be a lot more than $12k a year. Because all the cheap things in life will no longer be cheap. Plus, UBI will be taxed at marginal rates, so that $12k after tax will be only $6k.
Because the UBI is not economic rationalism or free trade. A UBI is directly counter to meritocracy and I won't support it for that reason.We don't have a meritocracy. 5 in 6 work hours are, by the assessment of the people doing them, spent unproductively. For at least 5 in 6 work hours, the only "merit" anyone is asked to demonstrate is to persuade others that actually they're being productive and useful, honest.
Talk about bullshit statistics. Sure, I won't argue that a bunch of people are completely unproductive. But that doesn't mean that the work that they are supposed to be doing is unproductive.I'm going by their own assessment. Firstly, of whether their job is in itself at all productive and useful: 37% of people say it's not, and 13% aren't sure. Secondly, of how much of their work day is spent doing productive work: the average is 2.5hr.
Talk about bullshit statistics. Sure, I won't argue that a bunch of people are completely unproductive. But that doesn't mean that the work that they are supposed to be doing is unproductive.I'm going by their own assessment. Firstly, of whether their job is in itself at all productive and useful: 37% of people say it's not, and 13% aren't sure. Secondly, of how much of their work day is spent doing productive work: the average is 2.5hr.
Obviously, some people will feel their job is bullshit but it's actually important, but the reverse is also true. And some people will do much more than 2.5hr a day of productive work, and some much less. These are averages after surveying many tens of thousands of people.
I've no doubt that you have a very important and productive job, and that you are productive for 10 of your 8 work hours each day; you would not, of course, be so indignant about this if you were one of the people doing a pointless job, or doing a useful job but slacking. But some people have bullshit jobs, and even some of the people with productive jobs are only productive for a small fraction of each day.
UBI won't happen, so calm down.
But it's still economically sensible, and still fair.
Because the people you add to the process are better equipped to help navigate the process.
The same way our educational outcomes are much better when we have a bureaucratic system that considers and decides what to teach in free public schools, and then hires people to teach these things.
We already have so many working models for how more government involvement helps. I feel like my work there is done.
The value of animal life is so much lower than the value of human life. That's not me saying this, that's what we've all decided as a society. We make decisions about animals that we would never make about humans. We do not round up and euthanize homeless people, nor do we sterilize people to prevent the cost that future human births might inflict upon us.
Abolish the dole. Abolish the aged pension. Abolish disability pensions. Abolish childcare subsidies. Replace them all with UBI, keep the tax brackets the same so that people on high incomes get small net benefit.
Of course if we did all that then we would have to abolish our judgement of who is "worthy" poor, and who "unworthy." The admin fraction of the budget would be considerably reduced without having all those people to decide who is worthy and who not.
Abolish the dole. Abolish the aged pension. Abolish disability pensions. Abolish childcare subsidies. Replace them all with UBI, keep the tax brackets the same so that people on high incomes get small net benefit.
I would keep the NDIS to help people with disabilities.
I would remove the two lowest tax rates as well to help pay for it.
Of course if we did all that then we would have to abolish our judgement of who is "worthy" poor, and who "unworthy." The admin fraction of the budget would be considerably reduced without having all those people to decide who is worthy and who not.
This is the main reason I support a UBI. Remove the decision of who is worthy for welfare.
I.e if you earn a dollar, then in addition to paying the income taxes on that dollar your welfare payments will be reduced by 60 cents.
Some people engage in work just to make ends meet, i.e. because they have no other choice. If they suddenly have another choice, they may not choose to do certain work which is low-paid or undesirable. Or they may do fewer hours a week. If currently someone does 40 hours a week of Uber and in future he receives a UBI equivalent to say 25 hours a week of that work, he might choose to only do 25 hours a week of Uber on top of that. The result is that there is less supply of labour. Less supply of labour means higher unit price. That means inflation.
Not if it’s going to replace our other social benefits.
Some people engage in work just to make ends meet, i.e. because they have no other choice. If they suddenly have another choice, they may not choose to do certain work which is low-paid or undesirable. Or they may do fewer hours a week. If currently someone does 40 hours a week of Uber and in future he receives a UBI equivalent to say 25 hours a week of that work, he might choose to only do 25 hours a week of Uber on top of that. The result is that there is less supply of labour. Less supply of labour means higher unit price. That means inflation.
They may, they might. I don't know how people would react and how their behavior would change if UBI became a reality. That's one of the main reasons I don't have a firm opinion on UBI. But I see an awful lot of people argue against UBI based on their assumptions of how people would behave.
Do you have evidence that suggests people would work less* or is it just the way you feel?
*Not to mention, people working less while "low wage or undesirable" jobs become automated is the primary argument for a UBI. But let's stick to one point at a time.
Abolish the dole. Abolish the aged pension. Abolish disability pensions. Abolish childcare subsidies. Replace them all with UBI, keep the tax brackets the same so that people on high incomes get small net benefit.
I would keep the NDIS to help people with disabilities.
I would remove the two lowest tax rates as well to help pay for it.
Of course if we did all that then we would have to abolish our judgement of who is "worthy" poor, and who "unworthy." The admin fraction of the budget would be considerably reduced without having all those people to decide who is worthy and who not.
This is the main reason I support a UBI. Remove the decision of who is worthy for welfare.
I.e if you earn a dollar, then in addition to paying the income taxes on that dollar your welfare payments will be reduced by 60 cents.
Curious as to how one maintains the necessary robust support system for those with disabilities while also eliminating those who determine who is worthy ie... disabled. How do we know who is disabled or in need of more without staff who could discern? How would we evaluate exactly what level of support is needed. Most of the people who posit UBI as a solution to poverty or income inequality seem to be either unfamiliar with the poor with or intentionally oblivious to the diverse causes of poverty and inequality.
"We invent a process, which has not been demonstrated to be more effective, and then staff it with people who are familiar with the process. This makes it more efficient."
If your goal is to persuade me that government involvement is superior to free market solutions, then no, your work is not done. I have not been persuaded.
Meanwhile, for evidence of the failures of central planning, please see the 20th/21st century histories of: the former Soviet Union, former East Germany, Ukraine, Poland, Cuba, North Korea, Cambodia, Venezuela...
Some people engage in work just to make ends meet, i.e. because they have no other choice. If they suddenly have another choice, they may not choose to do certain work which is low-paid or undesirable. Or they may do fewer hours a week. If currently someone does 40 hours a week of Uber and in future he receives a UBI equivalent to say 25 hours a week of that work, he might choose to only do 25 hours a week of Uber on top of that. The result is that there is less supply of labour. Less supply of labour means higher unit price. That means inflation.
They may, they might. I don't know how people would react and how their behavior would change if UBI became a reality. That's one of the main reasons I don't have a firm opinion on UBI. But I see an awful lot of people argue against UBI based on their assumptions of how people would behave.
Do you have evidence that suggests people would work less* or is it just the way you feel?
*Not to mention, people working less while "low wage or undesirable" jobs become automated is the primary argument for a UBI. But let's stick to one point at a time.
If it's the primary argument for a UBI, then that would suggest that UBI proponents are happy to agree to the same assumptions I've made.
People are driven by economic necessity to take undesirable jobs. If that necessity is taken away, they will be less driven to do so. There's a reason those jobs are undesirable. But it's the undesirable jobs that need filling and doing. Not everything can be automated.
You didn't respond to my question. If people would be not driven to change anything about their jobs or rate of pay, then what's the point of instituting a UBI?
the argument in favor of UBI is that those jobs will be automated whether people choose to stop doing them or not
As for my assertion:
- Currently in Australia you have to apply for 20 jobs a month and take any reasonable job in order to get the dole, which is set at approximately similar to the UBI level ($12,000 a year).
- This, I am sure you would agree, creates a ready supply of labour at the very bottom end of the job market.
- If we gave out the dole unconditionally, without requiring any job-taking or job-seeking, then I am sure the fruit picking, cleaning and Uber roles would diminish.
"To elaborate, the point is to provide income to individuals who no longer have the means to provide value in the job market."
1. Firstly, those individuals are not yet automated out of existence. So let's postpone the UBI debate till it happens.
2. Secondly, automation does not necessarily lead to loss of work. In the case of Uber and Uber Eats, huge global platforms are developed that actually provide more work - as drivers and couriers - to people. Likewise AirBnB and Airtasker.
3. Finally, the value of giving a conditional based payment like the dole (I have mentioned the idea of conditionality in each of my posts yet you glide over it - picking and choosing what you want to reply to) is that a dole can still provide income to individuals who no longer have the means to provide value to the job market - that's what you want, isn't it? - but it forces them to prove that they really can't get even the most basic jobs, before getting it. A UBI doesn't require that "proof". Therefore, a UBI is market-inefficient. With a dole, you can be reasonably certain that someone is on it out of true market necessity. With a UBI, you have no such information. Hence, market distortion.
No and I think Yang hasn't fully thought any of this through.
-Approx. 40 million Americans live below the poverty line.
-Technology is quickly displacing a large number of workers, and the pace will only increase as automation and other forms of artificial intelligence become more advanced. ⅓ of American workers will lose their jobs to automation by 2030 according to McKinsey. This has the potential to destabilize our economy and society if unaddressed.
-Good jobs are becoming more and more scarce and Americans are already working harder and harder for less and less.
-There are many positive social activities that are currently impossible for many to do because they lack the financial resources to dedicate time to it, including taking care of a child or sick loved one, and volunteering in the community.
No and I think Yang hasn't fully thought any of this through.
I think this is among the most well thought through and well articulated policy proposals I've ever heard during a presidential election cycle. At least since Ross Perot's infomercials.
I understand that this is faint praise though. Democrats struggle to clearly articulate how they want to get healthcare access to all Americans. Bernie Sanders is the exception, since he wants to move everyone on to an already existing government program, but with his plan losing popularity in public poling lately, the other candidates are left struggling to explain why their plan covers everyone, but also doesn't have the drawbacks of Bernie's plan. And Republicans griped about the ACA for 7 years before revealing that they had no alternative that either wasn't more expensive, or caused millions of people to lose coverage.
But Yang clearly articulates on his website, the problems UBI is supposed to address.Quote-Approx. 40 million Americans live below the poverty line.
-Technology is quickly displacing a large number of workers, and the pace will only increase as automation and other forms of artificial intelligence become more advanced. ⅓ of American workers will lose their jobs to automation by 2030 according to McKinsey. This has the potential to destabilize our economy and society if unaddressed.
-Good jobs are becoming more and more scarce and Americans are already working harder and harder for less and less.
-There are many positive social activities that are currently impossible for many to do because they lack the financial resources to dedicate time to it, including taking care of a child or sick loved one, and volunteering in the community.
He clearly explains how he plans to pay for the UBI: A VAT tax on certain goods + offsets from previously existing welfare programs.
He provides sources for why things that sound good like job retraining are not complete solutions. He provides sources showing the effectiveness of direct cash transfers. etc.
I still have lots of questions for Yang, but I don't think it's fair to say the he hasn't thought it through.
He hasn't sold me on the idea of UBI yet, but he's doing a decent job of selling me on Yang... Even though my observations of Alaska's PFD don't really support a UBI working as advertised, I would vote for Yang which I can't say for most of the candidates. I will not vote for anyone who promises to penalize me $50K for paying off my student loans instead of buying a giant truck. Money is fungible and at least with a UBI the government isn't in the business of deciding which choices to reward.
"To elaborate, the point is to provide income to individuals who no longer have the means to provide value in the job market."
1. Firstly, those individuals are not yet automated out of existence. So let's postpone the UBI debate till it happens.
I think waiting until the problem is upon us is a bad idea. And again, I am not arguing in favor of UBI, I'm only arguing against incorrect or unfounded assertions.
Many folks that fall off the economic edge get into a criminal lifestyle out of necessity and I think that $12K a year would keep many folks away from that.
1. Firstly, those individuals are not yet automated out of existence. So let's postpone the UBI debate till it happens.
I think waiting until the problem is upon us is a bad idea. And again, I am not arguing in favor of UBI, I'm only arguing against incorrect or unfounded assertions.
Your first sentence contradicts your second. We know that people have worried that jobs will be lost due to technological advances for a long, long time, and yet it's always been shown to be an incorrect and unfounded assertion. Hence, by induction, it is unlikely this time will be different. As Bloop Bloop says, let's not place the foundation of a sweeping policy proposal on something that does not and, if history is any guide, is unlikely to exist.
He hasn't sold me on the idea of UBI yet, but he's doing a decent job of selling me on Yang... Even though my observations of Alaska's PFD don't really support a UBI working as advertised, I would vote for Yang which I can't say for most of the candidates. I will not vote for anyone who promises to penalize me $50K for paying off my student loans instead of buying a giant truck. Money is fungible and at least with a UBI the government isn't in the business of deciding which choices to reward.
I think we should move away from the idea that someone getting a benefit means that you're being penalized. Insisting that the next generation be saddled with a problem just because we were also saddled with it is cutting our nose to spite our face.
I'm certainly open to the idea that there are better uses of money than canceling debt, but the practice is generally pro worker and pro middle class (though skewed to people who actually went to college, meaning it's skewed towards upper middle class). I'm not going to refuse to vote for say, Elizabeth Warren over this issue (in the general) because that's effectively a vote for the group that went trillions into debt for share buybacks. Going into debt to boost capital is at least as silly as cancelling student debt. And the beneficiaries are largely rich people.
I like Yang as a candidate. I like that he has no interest in identity politics and clearly cares about people. I like that that he argues that capitalism should be human focused, not just blindly about the money . He is open to new information and not too interested in the usual pretense of politicians. He is solutions focused not politically focused,he is not a divider like the dickhead in office, it's very refreshing. I'd vote for him in a heartbeat.
The Alaska dividend has attracted a whole bunch of total losers ( dumb rednecks) here that have made our dysfunctional politics even worse. I wish we'd do away with it because it has distorted local politics beyond belief. It wasn't always thus but the rise of Palin and subsequent influx of idiots is rapidly eroding our quality of life. Giving it to every person is motivating people bad at math and worse at raising kids to have as many kids as they can, compounding issues.
So, I want the Alaska dividend to go away so we can adequately fund basic public services and education, BUT I am FOR a UNIVERSAL basic income. UNIVERSAL ( that is age 18 and up) being the keyword. In the simplest of terms I think it is the simplest way to start to put a dent into income inequality and I think it would radically improve our society. Many folks that fall off the economic edge get into a criminal lifestyle out of necessity and I think that $12K a year would keep many folks away from that.
It seems to me like many people on this site have no idea of how many Americans live in abject poverty, telling people to pull themselves up by their bootstraps when they have no boots. $12K a year would give a lot of people a place to start, some food, some gas, breathing room. It's hard to grow when you are only barely surviving.
This is not to say this wouldn't create problems akin to the recent one we had here, when the mini trump running for Governor just promised everyone $6700 and got elected, even though the math doesn't add up. So yeah whats from keeping the next guy promising $20K a year from getting elected? I don't know, but it's not like we aren't almost at a trillion dollar deficit that appears to only be benefiting the rich ( Rich includes everyone who owns some VTI by the way, even though it doesn't feel that way sometimes).
Yes there are potential issues with UBI, but the issues with the way our country currently "functions" are way greater IMO than any potential downsides from UBI. Slackers will still be slackers, super productive people will still be super productive, people who were stealing to buy drugs might not "have to steal" anymore.
I'll vote for Yang with or without UBI, in fact I think it's unfortunate that UBI is all people know about him.
Sorry this reads like a ramble, it's late.
It's not the next generation, but rather my peers who went of fancy vacations, bought fancy cars and houses while I dutifully paid off my loans. It's the alternative me who could have spent an extra two years traveling the world if I'd skipped paying back my student loans that I don't like. It's also my friends who didn't go to college and chose a trade missing out on a windfall just because Senators Warren and Sanders decided they are not 'worthy".
I could accept your argument as applied to UBI, but not to student loan forgiveness. I do believe we should return to allowing student loans to be discharged in bankruptcy, but blanket forgiveness is no less unfair to people who made responsible choices than the bailouts that went to buybacks were.
I think this is why the discussion of UBI (and lots of other policy issues) goes in circles. There are multiple ideas up for debate. Will there always be enough jobs in the future? Is extreme inequality a bad thing? What effect would there be on inflation? Will people work less if we give them enough to cover the basics?
I think this is why the discussion of UBI (and lots of other policy issues) goes in circles. There are multiple ideas up for debate. Will there always be enough jobs in the future? Is extreme inequality a bad thing? What effect would there be on inflation? Will people work less if we give them enough to cover the basics?
It's bizarre that you wrote in a way that implies 'extreme inequality' is some hypothetical situation and not a reality that we have reams of studies, evidence, historical context, modern examples and first person lived experience regarding.
If anyone concludes that extreme inequality is good they are simply ignorant. No one experiencing bottom 1% poverty likes it. No on is enriched by it. No one is stronger, more able, more motivated or more capable because of it.
Do you know what the bottom of society is like? Even here in Australia the bottom 1% is this:
- Obviously, you can't afford anything - barely even rent and food, often not rent, and public housing is scarce, so you're homeless
- Your rates of: domestic violence, neglect, childhood trauma, development delays, high school drop out, drug use, addiction, learning disorders, incarceration, unemployment, health risks, heart disease, etc are sky high compared to everyone else
- Your mental health is a shit show
- Incidences of child abuse, molestation, rape, assault are through the roof
- You're generally unliked by society, very few people accept or want you around - socially isolated, publicly maligned
- You're miserable
- Systems don't support you and have little interest in changing to do so
- You die 30 years younger than everyone else
It's shit. I've spent way too much of my life trying to help people in the bottom 1% here and they suffer every fucking day. It's miserable and ugly and unpleasant and so hard. Almost all of them have developmental trauma so severe we can see a reduction in brain development in an MRI scan - and when you've got developmental delays, abnormal brain development and developmental trauma you're not learning much.
Reducing human suffering should be a social aim the world over - extreme inequality (where the # of people at the bottom increases) increases human suffering. Perhaps not everyone should be at the top, but as few people as possible should be at the bottom.
Extreme inequality is terrible, it's ugly, if it ever was natural (and I don't think that's a good argument) we have the money to stop it right now. It is unethical, immoral and disgusting that in rich countries like ours it still happens.
Some people engage in work just to make ends meet, i.e. because they have no other choice. If they suddenly have another choice, they may not choose to do certain work which is low-paid or undesirable. Or they may do fewer hours a week. If currently someone does 40 hours a week of Uber and in future he receives a UBI equivalent to say 25 hours a week of that work, he might choose to only do 25 hours a week of Uber on top of that. The result is that there is less supply of labour. Less supply of labour means higher unit price. That means inflation.
Some people engage in work just to make ends meet, i.e. because they have no other choice. If they suddenly have another choice, they may not choose to do certain work which is low-paid or undesirable. Or they may do fewer hours a week. If currently someone does 40 hours a week of Uber and in future he receives a UBI equivalent to say 25 hours a week of that work, he might choose to only do 25 hours a week of Uber on top of that. The result is that there is less supply of labour. Less supply of labour means higher unit price. That means inflation.
It's fascinating that the often used main argument against UBI are the fear that undesirable work will not be done anymore or that their price will increase. I think it's market failure that these jobs are done for low wages even though they are undesirable. The only reason that this is possible is because the market can threaten people with starvation if they don't accept the low wage.
It's price negotiation with a gun pointed at the worker... sounds not that fair.
In my case, what I note is that a commonly-suggested amount in the West is something like $12,000 annually - which just happens to be what we in Australia spend on all social welfare together when divided by the adult citizen population. These come to: unemployment and student benefit ($13k for each recipient), disability and aged pensions ($22k), and of course childcare subsidies (varies hugely).
Thus, $12k for each adult citizen would not increase the overall social welfare benefit. Obviously, initially some would be worse off if they changed over, but it'd also be nasty to force them to change to the lower payment. I note too that for the current pensions, what you get is means-tested, dropping with income. This can act as a disincentive to seek work (in normal times, obviously there's bugger-all work now).
So I'd do it as follows,As for disability, etc, we already have Medicare and the National Disability Insurance Scheme, and so their ongoing care needs, expensive wheelchairs, etc, can be covered by those.
- on registering to vote, you are offered the chance to sign up for the $12k UBI
- but if you do so, you are signing away your right to receive any other pension for the rest of your life
- likewise if later you leave one pension (because you were unemployed but now started work, etc) you can sign up for the UBI, again renouncing your right to other pensions for life
- the UBI counts as income, but all tax brackets are moved up $12k, so that the benefit for lower-income people is great, and for higher-income very little
My aim here is simplicity, and removing the moral judgement from various benefits, where those getting childcare subsidies get endless sympathy, and those who are unemployed endless scorn - but at the same time I would not want to disincentivise people seeking paid work if they can.
I would at the same time do some changes around superannuation, so that those who don't need the UBI today could set it aside for the future, to draw on as they need, so that their decision to renounce any other kind of pension would not necessarily disadvantage them at some point years in the future.
It's fascinating that the often used main argument against UBI are the fear that undesirable work will not be done anymore or that their price will increase.
If we replaced targeted social programs with universal ones but don't increase spending, doesn't that end up redistributing money from people who need it more to those that need it less
(1) The cost is enormous. I'm going by Yang's plan (I think new spending of ~$3T / year) which would increase the US budget by ~ 80% (currently ~$4.8T) and more than double discretionary spending (~$1.3T). Note that it doesn't double the total budget, but if they wanted to pay for it without increasing the deficit, they would have to basically double revenues (~$3.5T).
Maybe UBI phases out some social spending in mandatory spending initiatives (~ $0.64T: UI, etc), but I think those changes were already accounted for in Yang's costing.
(3) There's no reason that we should have a "U" in UBI. Mustacians like us don't need extra money from the government, nor do really anyone in the upper middle class and above.
... People who are already wealthy enough not to need a UBI, coupled with people who hope/expect to become that wealthy someday, make up a very large portion of the American electorate.
If people can literally vote themselves more money, what incentive is there not to do so?
I think the implied difference is now the rich are voting themselves more money but in a UBI world it might be the poor voting themselves more money.If people can literally vote themselves more money, what incentive is there not to do so?
How is that different than today?
I think the implied difference is now the rich are voting themselves more money but in a UBI world it might be the poor voting themselves more money.If people can literally vote themselves more money, what incentive is there not to do so?
How is that different than today?
The difference is a more explicit link, and one that would affect all or most voters instead of a small subset.
Politicians are generally not in favor of just direct cash payments, it's usually for some particular group - especially one that supports them with votes and fundraising.
Young people with free college or student loan payments wiped out.
Old people with Medicare Part D.
Families with children with higher child tax credits.
Investors and rich people with lower capital gains.
Business owners with accelerated depreciation.
etc.
Even though governments aren't perfect (or sometimes even good) at designing programs that work well (as Kyle Schuant points out above).Actually, they design them very well. It's just that you assume they're designed to deal with poverty or inequity or something. They're not. Government programmes are designed to reward supporters. That's why in Australia an unemployed person has to jump through a lot of hoops on a regular basis to get $13k in dole and be scorned for it, while a middle-class couple has a single hoop to jump through annually to get $13k in childcare subsidy and be praised for it.
Even though governments aren't perfect (or sometimes even good) at designing programs that work well (as Kyle Schuant points out above).Actually, they design them very well. It's just that you assume they're designed to deal with poverty or inequity or something. They're not. Government programmes are designed to reward supporters. That's why in Australia an unemployed person has to jump through a lot of hoops on a regular basis to get $13k in dole and be scorned for it, while a middle-class couple has a single hoop to jump through annually to get $13k in childcare subsidy and be praised for it.
...
Even though governments aren't perfect (or sometimes even good) at designing programs that work well (as Kyle Schuant points out above).Actually, they design them very well. It's just that you assume they're designed to deal with poverty or inequity or something. They're not. Government programmes are designed to reward supporters. That's why in Australia an unemployed person has to jump through a lot of hoops on a regular basis to get $13k in dole and be scorned for it, while a middle-class couple has a single hoop to jump through annually to get $13k in childcare subsidy and be praised for it.
...
I think that's cynical, but probably not unfair.
Even though governments aren't perfect (or sometimes even good) at designing programs that work well (as Kyle Schuant points out above).Actually, they design them very well. It's just that you assume they're designed to deal with poverty or inequity or something. They're not. Government programmes are designed to reward supporters. That's why in Australia an unemployed person has to jump through a lot of hoops on a regular basis to get $13k in dole and be scorned for it, while a middle-class couple has a single hoop to jump through annually to get $13k in childcare subsidy and be praised for it.
...
I think that's cynical, but probably not unfair.
Yep, same way in America and I'm sure most other representative governments.In every country regardless of political system. The above video mentions The Dictator's Handbook (https://www.bookdepository.com/Dictators-Handbook-Alastair-Smith/9781610391849), which I recommend to any person interested in politics. Every leader remains in power by rewarding supporters - if they stop rewarding them, they stop getting support. The only difference between a dictatorship and a democracy is how many people they have to reward, and that makes all the difference.
This is a remarkably helpful description. Thanks for sharing.Yep, same way in America and I'm sure most other representative governments.In every country regardless of political system. The above video mentions The Dictator's Handbook (https://www.bookdepository.com/Dictators-Handbook-Alastair-Smith/9781610391849), which I recommend to any person interested in politics. Every leader remains in power by rewarding supporters - if they stop rewarding them, they stop getting support. The only difference between a dictatorship and a democracy is how many people they have to reward, and that makes all the difference.
Imagine I am in a room with 100 people and want to rule over them. If I had 5 men with guns and the other 95 are unarmed, I only have to reward those 5 men. If the room is run as a wholly-armed or wholly-unarmed democracy, then I have to reward at least 51 of them.
This also explains why democracies spend more on things like hospitals and roads. Let's say I run a town of 100,000 people, each contributing $1,000 in taxes to me, $100 million in all. How should I distribute this? Well, if I run a tyranny with 100 armed men, I can give them $500,000 each - I can easily find 1 man in 1,000 who is willing to shoot unarmed protesters for $500,000. And I keep the other $50 million for myself. I need not concern myself with the public good.
But if I have a democracy, then I need the support of 50,001 of the 100,000 people. Simply giving them $1,000 each won't impress them, that's what they paid in taxes. Even if I give them $2,000 each, they're only $1,000 better off and probably won't be too impressed, and certainly when the other 49,999 protest at getting $0, none of that majority will be willing to shoot those unarmed protesters just for that extra $1,000.
And so I am better off taking the $100 million and spending it on schools and hospitals and roads and so on.
Thus, widening the franchise tends to make the government work better for the public good.
Of course, it is a lot harder to please 50,001 people than it is to please 100 people. And so it's natural for leaders to try to reduce the franchise. For example, what if not all 100,000 vote? Well, let's get rid of compulsory voting, that impinges on your freedoms! Now only 80,000 vote. How about we spend some time arguing publicly about trivial matters while ignoring more serious ones, that should make some of them turn off. Now only 70,000 vote. Of course, what about voter fraud? Better bring in some ID laws, and let's put the electoral roll in the hands of a private company, that should knock it down to 60,000 or so. Even better, let's identify where the people who vote for me live, and redraw electoral boundaries a bit so that the 20,000 people who will vote for me no matter what get 50 seats, and the other 80,000 get 50 seats between them.
Now I only have to please 10,000 people and I can get in easily. I'll give my 20,000 rusted-on supporters their $1,000 back, that leaves me $80 million to spread around another 10,000 people - $8k each! - and I can be in power for a very, very long time.
All leaders will try to restrict the franchise, because they want to restrict how many people they have to reward to remain in power. So if you want to achieve the public good, you will want to increase the franchise. If you want to achieve only your good, you won't.
People will indulge in all sorts of silly rationalisations to dodge this, but that's what it comes down to. ME WANT BIGGER PIECE OF PIE. Strong institutions are required to offset this.
Yang's plan would have given $12,000 per year to all US citizens age 18 or over (https://www.yang2020.com/what-is-freedom-dividend-faq/).
Yang's plan would have given $12,000 per year to all US citizens age 18 or over (https://www.yang2020.com/what-is-freedom-dividend-faq/).
Not exactly. Because the people that need it that most, would have seen their other benefits cut. So the people that truly got the extra $12,000 were the ones who needed it least.
Yang's plan would have given $12,000 per year to all US citizens age 18 or over (https://www.yang2020.com/what-is-freedom-dividend-faq/).
Not exactly. Because the people that need it that most, would have seen their other benefits cut. So the people that truly got the extra $12,000 were the ones who needed it least.
Which would matter, if they were getting more than $12k/yr in government assistance.
So, you think if someone is already getting $11,000 in benefits, and UBI only gives them, in effect, an extra $1000, while a rich person receives a full $12,000, that's going to help poor people, who will be paying the higher regressive taxes that pay for the rich person to receive the extra $12,000??? That's absurd that you think that doesn't matter.
The US needs universal health insurance before UBI.
So, you think if someone is already getting $11,000 in benefits, and UBI only gives them, in effect, an extra $1000, while a rich person receives a full $12,000, that's going to help poor people, who will be paying the higher regressive taxes that pay for the rich person to receive the extra $12,000??? That's absurd that you think that doesn't matter.
Who said that we have to fund it with higher regressive taxes? That's completely undecided.
What about all the single folks making $6k/yr with no kids that get zero TANF? It would triple their income. I'm 100% in support of UBI.
Yup. In the US we should raise the minimum wage to $15, double the standard deduction for federal taxes, tax stock, bond and derivative trades and address universal healthcare before thinking about UBI.The US needs universal health insurance before UBI.
I completely agree, but the rest of the developed world already has universal health "insurance."
A minimum wage of $15USD ($23AUD) would be pretty ridiculous. Here in Australia our min wage is close to AU$20 and it's already causing a lot of distortions at the low end, with entire unskilled fields of work (fruit picking, hospitality) subject to cash payment because everyone knows that unskilled labour is not worth that much, on any realistic view of the market.Results will vary by location/region, but I think I’d prefer this over UBI.
I think someone of median skill level might be worth US $25-30 an hour, give or take, so who would ever be willing to pay someone 2 standard deviations below that level over half that wage at $15/hour? Doesn't make sense, would just lead to greater outsourcing, automation etc
Yup. In the US we should raise the minimum wage to $15, double the standard deduction for federal taxes, tax stock, bond and derivative trades and address universal healthcare before thinking about UBI.The US needs universal health insurance before UBI.
I completely agree, but the rest of the developed world already has universal health "insurance."
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Yup. In the US we should raise the minimum wage to $15, double the standard deduction for federal taxes, tax stock, bond and derivative trades and address universal healthcare before thinking about UBI.The US needs universal health insurance before UBI.
I completely agree, but the rest of the developed world already has universal health "insurance."
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Raising the minimum wage to $15 essentially cuts the bottom off the ladder and guarantees the least skilled workers will be permanently unemployed - at least in the formal economy. Is standing behind a register at a McDonald's in Mississippi really worth $15 an hour? No, so you will either replace those workers with technology or hire a more qualified worker who is actually worth $15. Meanwhile the teenager trying to get their first job, or the recent immigrant, or the person who's on the low side of the IQ spectrum is left with no opportunities. Why would an employer hire them when $15 an hour might get them a skilled worker with a bit of experience. Now those workers are either forced into the welfare system in some form or fashion or forced into the informal economy to work for less than $15 an hour under the table where they're much more likely to get taken advantage of by an unscrupulous employer.
Raising the minimum wage to $15 essentially cuts the bottom off the ladder and guarantees the least skilled workers will be permanently unemployed - at least in the formal economy. Is standing behind a register at a McDonald's in Mississippi really worth $15 an hour? No, so you will either replace those workers with technology or hire a more qualified worker who is actually worth $15. Meanwhile the teenager trying to get their first job, or the recent immigrant, or the person who's on the low side of the IQ spectrum is left with no opportunities. Why would an employer hire them when $15 an hour might get them a skilled worker with a bit of experience. Now those workers are either forced into the welfare system in some form or fashion or forced into the informal economy to work for less than $15 an hour under the table where they're much more likely to get taken advantage of by an unscrupulous employer.I generally agree with this. I do understand the argument that the person standing behind the register at McDonalds these days is offten someone who is trying to support a family and has been in the position (or similar) for years. I think rather than setting a living wage as a minimum wage, we should have minimum increases to wages with experience until reaching a living wage. Our economy needs a way to hire inexperienced low skill workers and making a living wage the minimum wage largely prevents this.
Unless I missed it, I'm surprised no one has mentioned reducing the U.S. military budget and redirecting that money towards a fund for UBI. The military budget has been increased yet again for next year and no one blinks an eye.
We can't ignore that financing 18 years of continuous war in the middle East, among all of our other military bases and interventions around the world, impacts how we fund our civil society at home.
Military budget for upcoming fiscal year is $934 Billion according to this source:
https://www.thebalance.com/u-s-military-budget-components-challenges-growth-3306320
Second largest item in the federal budget after Social Security.
People's definition of poverty differs. For me poverty means not having adequate warmth, shelter, food, education, hygiene.I agree with this definition, of course we still need to define adequate.
The Alaska fund reminds me of the oil revenue of Norway's North sea being used for the benefit of all of its citizens.
Not sure if I have this right, but I believe that contrasts with the oil revenue of the United Kingdom being enjoyed by a few billionaires.
I was always fascinated by the difference in the two.
The Land Grant Permanent Fund (LGPF), also known as the Permanent School Fund, is one of the largest funds of its kind in the country, and every year provides more than a half-billion dollars in benefits to New Mexico’s public schools, universities and other beneficiaries ($784.2 million in FY20).
Established through New Mexico’s entry into statehood in 1912, the LGPF has evolved and grown over time due to revenue from leases and royalties produced by non-renewable natural resources in New Mexico (primarily oil and gas), and income from returns on invested capital.
The 11-member State Investment Council and its staff are fiduciaries to the Fund, and invest the LGPF in accordance with the Uniform Prudent Investor Act standard.
The Severance Tax Permanent Fund (STPF) was created by the New Mexico Legislature in 1973, as a way to save and invest the severance taxes not being used that year to bond capital projects. The taxes originate from oil, gas and other natural resources as they were taken (severed) from the state.
Voters later approved constitutional protections for the STPF against legislative appropriation from the corpus of the fund, which coupled with investment returns, allowed the fund to grow. The STPF annually distributes 4.7% of its 5-year average, or about $225 million per year (FY 20) to the state’s general fund.
Combined distributions from the Permanent Funds essentially deliver, on average, about $1,000 in value annually for every household in New Mexico. Without the distributions produced by these Funds every year, New Mexicans would face much higher taxes, a significant reduction in government services, or both.
Yep, same way in America and I'm sure most other representative governments.In every country regardless of political system. The above video mentions The Dictator's Handbook (https://www.bookdepository.com/Dictators-Handbook-Alastair-Smith/9781610391849), which I recommend to any person interested in politics. Every leader remains in power by rewarding supporters - if they stop rewarding them, they stop getting support. The only difference between a dictatorship and a democracy is how many people they have to reward, and that makes all the difference.
Imagine I am in a room with 100 people and want to rule over them. If I had 5 men with guns and the other 95 are unarmed, I only have to reward those 5 men. If the room is run as a wholly-armed or wholly-unarmed democracy, then I have to reward at least 51 of them.
This also explains why democracies spend more on things like hospitals and roads. Let's say I run a town of 100,000 people, each contributing $1,000 in taxes to me, $100 million in all. How should I distribute this? Well, if I run a tyranny with 100 armed men, I can give them $500,000 each - I can easily find 1 man in 1,000 who is willing to shoot unarmed protesters for $500,000. And I keep the other $50 million for myself. I need not concern myself with the public good.
But if I have a democracy, then I need the support of 50,001 of the 100,000 people. Simply giving them $1,000 each won't impress them, that's what they paid in taxes. Even if I give them $2,000 each, they're only $1,000 better off and probably won't be too impressed, and certainly when the other 49,999 protest at getting $0, none of that majority will be willing to shoot those unarmed protesters just for that extra $1,000.
And so I am better off taking the $100 million and spending it on schools and hospitals and roads and so on.
Thus, widening the franchise tends to make the government work better for the public good.
Of course, it is a lot harder to please 50,001 people than it is to please 100 people. And so it's natural for leaders to try to reduce the franchise. For example, what if not all 100,000 vote? Well, let's get rid of compulsory voting, that impinges on your freedoms! Now only 80,000 vote. How about we spend some time arguing publicly about trivial matters while ignoring more serious ones, that should make some of them turn off. Now only 70,000 vote. Of course, what about voter fraud? Better bring in some ID laws, and let's put the electoral roll in the hands of a private company, that should knock it down to 60,000 or so. Even better, let's identify where the people who vote for me live, and redraw electoral boundaries a bit so that the 20,000 people who will vote for me no matter what get 50 seats, and the other 80,000 get 50 seats between them.
Now I only have to please 10,000 people and I can get in easily. I'll give my 20,000 rusted-on supporters their $1,000 back, that leaves me $80 million to spread around another 10,000 people - $8k each! - and I can be in power for a very, very long time.
All leaders will try to restrict the franchise, because they want to restrict how many people they have to reward to remain in power. So if you want to achieve the public good, you will want to increase the franchise. If you want to achieve only your good, you won't.
People will indulge in all sorts of silly rationalisations to dodge this, but that's what it comes down to. ME WANT BIGGER PIECE OF PIE. Strong institutions are required to offset this.
Universal childcare’s primary benefit is to keep parents in the workforce. As many developed countries with low birth rates have shown, it doesn’t move the needle that much in increasing births (though certainly it is a bare minimum if your goal is to have a sustained population). Increase labor participation rate is a significant benefit for society overall, far exceeding the cost of childcare. Not to mention savings had by reducing the achievement gap that starts before kids even reach school due to the lack of quality preschool for the poor.
I do support targeted programs revolving around children in ways that don't incentivize having more children like universal day care programs and health care (this also for adults).
Universal childcare’s primary benefit is to keep parents in the workforce. As many developed countries with low birth rates have shown, it doesn’t move the needle that much in increasing births (though certainly it is a bare minimum if your goal is to have a sustained population). Increase labor participation rate is a significant benefit for society overall, far exceeding the cost of childcare. Not to mention savings had by reducing the achievement gap that starts before kids even reach school due to the lack of quality preschool for the poor.
I do support targeted programs revolving around children in ways that don't incentivize having more children like universal day care programs and health care (this also for adults).
Just look at the US labor participation rate as compared to other developed countries. We have a thing or two to learn.
https://tradingeconomics.com/country-list/labor-force-participation-rate
UK: 79.8%
Sweden: 74.4%
France: 69.4%
US: 61.7%
Similarly with healthcare, society benefits overall and saves money by vaccinating children and otherwise catching medical issues early in life when they are cheaper and easier to fix.
Not to mention it is the morally upstanding thing to do. Good grief.
I think to make UBI work you need to make a condition: it is only payable to people who work. So if you work, you get topped up. If you don't work you're eligible for welfare or for disability if you qualify.
This would also inspire the govt to keep minimum wages higher, since they pay less top-up that way.
I haven’t read the entire thread yet, but I noticed the recent parts about the Alaska PFD. I have lived in Anchorage for 5 years now and it’s always a hot topic each year. Most Alaskans consider it something they are entitled to, and not something of a privilege. They treat it as free money, which I would expect from a UBI as well. Instead of paying for bills or saving it to an emergency fund, the majority of people I see use their PFD on crap purchases. New rei equipment, new atv, new iPhone, booze, etc.An annual payment is quite different from a regular monthly (or semi-monthly/biweekly) payment. I imagine that those who are in the most need would use the money quite differently if they received regular small payments.
Every year when the PFD is distributed, and you go to the Apple store in the mall, there is a massive line with homeless people who get a brand new iPhone.
Sorry, I read that totally backwards for some reasonUniversal childcare’s primary benefit is to keep parents in the workforce. As many developed countries with low birth rates have shown, it doesn’t move the needle that much in increasing births (though certainly it is a bare minimum if your goal is to have a sustained population). Increase labor participation rate is a significant benefit for society overall, far exceeding the cost of childcare. Not to mention savings had by reducing the achievement gap that starts before kids even reach school due to the lack of quality preschool for the poor.
I do support targeted programs revolving around children in ways that don't incentivize having more children like universal day care programs and health care (this also for adults).
Just look at the US labor participation rate as compared to other developed countries. We have a thing or two to learn.
https://tradingeconomics.com/country-list/labor-force-participation-rate
UK: 79.8%
Sweden: 74.4%
France: 69.4%
US: 61.7%
Similarly with healthcare, society benefits overall and saves money by vaccinating children and otherwise catching medical issues early in life when they are cheaper and easier to fix.
Not to mention it is the morally upstanding thing to do. Good grief.
? I agree with all that. That's why I said it.
...
I think to make UBI work you need to make a condition: it is only payable to people who work. So if you work, you get topped up. If you don't work you're eligible for welfare or for disability if you qualify.
This would also inspire the govt to keep minimum wages higher, since they pay less top-up that way.
Who was making the food? What you saw were fewer cashiers, but that isn’t a net loss of jobs. Automation in some things changed the nature of much of work. But demographics shifted, too. Things people used to do for themselves are now hired out at every level. Haircuts, nails, lawn care, childcare, Dining, housecleaning, driving across town, etc. Still, all done by humans. Now it’s done for pay when it used to be done for ‘free’ by unpaid labor force in the family. The other demographic shift that creates jobs which can’t be fully automated is the aging of the population. More of us will spend years or decades in physical decline and need physical help from a human. Again, this used to be done by family members. But most of us will need to hire that kind of help, whether it is in-home care, assisted living facility or nursing home....
I think to make UBI work you need to make a condition: it is only payable to people who work. So if you work, you get topped up. If you don't work you're eligible for welfare or for disability if you qualify.
This would also inspire the govt to keep minimum wages higher, since they pay less top-up that way.
But that's another big reason for UBI - as Artificial Intelligence advances, the number of jobs decreases. I think I mentioned before that I visited a fast food place about a year or two ago where there was only one cashier for the lobby, but there were 4 kiosks where you could order. It was a store on the exit ramp of a main interstate so it was plenty busy, but I bet the number of staff is way down from even a few years ago.
I think Americans are still in denial about how fast this is happening and how quickly jobs are being lost and are not coming back.
UBI just means you can eat and keep a roof over your head, even if you have to have a few roommates.
People get so scrupulous with how the poors spend their money and never apply the same level of scrutiny to the top end of town, who often receive substantial corporate welfare and estate windfalls.
Why be shitty a poor person mis-spent (by your view) a couple of hundred dollars when Bezos uses his billions to crush his workers and their attempts to collectivise?
We're so good at applying judgement at a the level of a personal decision and so much less practiced in examining more wide-spread and hidden decisions, which often have larger and more problematic logic.
Fuck it, so someone isn't motivated to work a dead end job, what's the problem? Those jobs suck, and don't even keep a lot of people out of poverty. If someone can't live wholesomely from what they earn the job isn't worth doing. Kill the existence of billionaires and make regular jobs lots of people have to do better. Make society WAY better and substantially more liveable, affluent and caring.
Won't the "invisible hand" take care of this? If a lot of people don't want to work because they can survive on UBI then, as employers have a hard time finding workers, salaries will rise. And more people will find it worthwhile to start working again. Alternatively, if there just aren't enough jobs, then the unemployed have to be supported one way or another. The whole idea with UBI, as I understand it, is that it would be more efficient to just give people a check directly rather than administer complicated need-based programs and fund a massive justice system to arrest and incarcerate people who commit crimes because of poverty, etc. The money will be spent either way. (Whether that assertion is true is above my pay grade, but it doesn't seem manifestly crazy.)
Won't the "invisible hand" take care of this? If a lot of people don't want to work because they can survive on UBI then, as employers have a hard time finding workers, salaries will rise. And more people will find it worthwhile to start working again. Alternatively, if there just aren't enough jobs, then the unemployed have to be supported one way or another. The whole idea with UBI, as I understand it, is that it would be more efficient to just give people a check directly rather than administer complicated need-based programs and fund a massive justice system to arrest and incarcerate people who commit crimes because of poverty, etc. The money will be spent either way. (Whether that assertion is true is above my pay grade, but it doesn't seem manifestly crazy.)
This is exactly my beef with UBI. It will immediately be "undone" by "special cases". Whether it's the disabled, shitty parents who will neglect to feed their kids, doesn't matter. It will instantly need to be supplemented with more targeted help. So what's the point?
Lawyers, engineers, bankers, consultants, dentists, physiotherapists, social workers, nurses, doctors, etc...will never be worthless. The labour will always be paid. The effects of automation are far overstated in my view.
Unemployment hasn't risen greatly despite all of our technological advances.
Right, can I imagine a world where a lot of labor is worthless? Sure. Is it coming any time soon? I seriously doubt it. We can barely keep websites running or issue voice commands to our pocket computers today.
On the other hand we have existential problems that are going to require a shit ton of ingenuity and labor to solve.
Right, can I imagine a world where a lot of labor is worthless? Sure. Is it coming any time soon? I seriously doubt it. We can barely keep websites running or issue voice commands to our pocket computers today.
The bold as a concept took fewer than 14 years to go from science fiction to generally accepted reality.On the other hand we have existential problems that are going to require a shit ton of ingenuity and labor to solve.
What percentage of today's labor force do you think has the ingenuity required to solve existential problems?
And it works horribly despite billions of dollars poured into R&D. I used to work a company that's one of the key players in that space, and got to see how the sausage gets made. Believe me when I say it is an incredibly poor outcome considering the amount of engineering talent that's been thrown at the problem.Right, can I imagine a world where a lot of labor is worthless? Sure. Is it coming any time soon? I seriously doubt it. We can barely keep websites running or issue voice commands to our pocket computers today.
The bold as a concept took fewer than 14 years to go from science fiction to generally accepted reality.
What percentage of today's labor force do you think has the ingenuity required to solve existential problems?That's a good question. I don't know. I'm an elitist snob who thinks a majority of people are net negatives or barely pulling their own weight, but I'm also not too worried about their ability to find a job. I would rather we didn't spend time on the airwaves of public discourse focusing on hypothetical problems that haven't even begun to show up yet. Right until March 2020 unemployment was at historical lows despite millions of software engineers trying our best to destroy other people's jobs for fun and profit.
And it works horribly despite billions of dollars poured into R&D. I used to work a company that's one of the key players in that space, and got to see how the sausage gets made. Believe me when I say it is an incredibly poor outcome considering the amount of engineering talent that's been thrown at the problem.
That's a good question. I don't know. I'm an elitist snob who thinks a majority of people are net negatives or barely pulling their own weight, but I'm also not too worried about their ability to find a job. I would rather we didn't spend time on the airwaves of public discourse focusing on hypothetical problems that haven't even begun to show up yet. Right until March 2020 unemployment was at historical lows despite millions of software engineers trying our best to destroy other people's jobs for fun and profit.
In the interest of having something concrete to discuss, here is the bls's latest employment projections: https://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/ecopro.pdf (https://www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/ecopro.pdf)
Notably, employment is expected to grow over the next decade. But in a way, I think it tells the first chapters of the story that I see coming to pass. The occupations with the biggest declines are production and administrative support occupations; median salaries in the mid to high 30s. The occupations with the biggest projected growth are healthcare support and food service; median salaries in the mid to high 20s. For lower end workers, cushier and higher paying jobs are being automated while newly created jobs are some combination of more difficult and lower paying.
This speaks to what Andrew Yang was getting at in his campaign. By far, the job with the highest projected growth is healthcare aid. These are the people tasked with caring for our ever aging population. Intrinsically, I think all of us think that's a very worthwhile thing to do, but the market as presently constructed doesn't reward that work, paying just $25K at the median. If we want the United States to continue being a place where aggregate prosperity continues to increase across generations, we need to address that. UBI is one way to do that.
You can imagine the same kind of future for lawyers. Sure, human lawyers still exist, but the reading, interpreting, decision tree stuff is handled by software. The same can be said about my job, which, to be reductive, is getting paid a lot of money to sit at a computer and do mental labor all day.
Right, it helps to frame things in terms of increased specialization. As societies get richer, we trade our own time for access to other people's time and expertise. But the downside is that there is less of a baseline knowledge.You can imagine the same kind of future for lawyers. Sure, human lawyers still exist, but the reading, interpreting, decision tree stuff is handled by software. The same can be said about my job, which, to be reductive, is getting paid a lot of money to sit at a computer and do mental labor all day.
I can comment on law as it's my field. The stuff that's being automated is very low level stuff (like standard form wills and insurance claims) and drudge work that no one wants to do (like discovery). That only affects the very bottom of the tree. And it actually creates its own work. For example automated wills could well lead to more will disputes down the track. And the proliferation of computer-assisted discovery has not, of course, made the process of discovery cheaper, or easier. It has just made it more voluminous. This leads to big interlocutory disputes about discovery down the track and it also means that at some stage human eyes still have to go through the important bits of discovery.
In other words, automation, though it replaces human labour, can still lead to a greater, or at least the same, requirement for human labour down the track. We no longer dictate or require secretaries as typists; most everyone types their own letters now. But that hasn't led to secretarial staff becoming obsolete, nor has it led to lower working hours now that our computer skills are more efficient.
The quantum of work expands to fit improvements in efficiency.
This is exactly my beef with UBI. It will immediately be "undone" by "special cases". Whether it's the disabled, shitty parents who will neglect to feed their kids, doesn't matter. It will instantly need to be supplemented with more targeted help. So what's the point?
Okay, let's take the more reasonable expectation that maybe it doesn't replace highly specialized help like SSDI, but it is meant to replace the three programs you listed: food stamps, housing vouchers, and UI.This is exactly my beef with UBI. It will immediately be "undone" by "special cases". Whether it's the disabled, shitty parents who will neglect to feed their kids, doesn't matter. It will instantly need to be supplemented with more targeted help. So what's the point?
The idea that UBI could replace the need for the entire rest of the social safety net is a right-wing fantasy. It's not a failure just because it doesn't become the only way that the government helps people. It could replace the programs that provide direct financial assistance with typical living expenses (food stamps, housing subsidies, unemployment insurance, etc.). Whatever programs we have to provide targeted assistance for people with disabilities, or social workers to check on child welfare would need to continue.
Who was making the food? What you saw were fewer cashiers, but that isn’t a net loss of jobs. Automation in some things changed the nature of much of work. But demographics shifted, too. Things people used to do for themselves are now hired out at every level. Haircuts, nails, lawn care, childcare, Dining, housecleaning, driving across town, etc. Still, all done by humans. Now it’s done for pay when it used to be done for ‘free’ by unpaid labor force in the family.Uh, I just can't resist to get the old story out here.
Second, the classic UBI really flows from dependency and scarcity mindset.No, it flows from an abundance mindset: We have so much, why don't we give everyone what they need regardless of any factor?
And who gets to determine the "fair" share? Politicians of course, who will predictably use these payments as patronage system. "Be sure to vote for me because I'll keep the payments coming" is the future relationship.How is that different from the current patronage systems ($insert health care, lower taxes, immigrants in/out, or $whatever)? The only difference I can see is that the politician would be beholden for more people than with any other issue, wich is a good point from democracy theory.
There are creative people out there who are always looking to hustle, to add value and grow the overall size of the economy. That's the behavior that we want.That is where an UBI helps. If there is anything to be seen in every single of the many experiments, then that people try more stuff. More start ups.
Where I think we need to go as a society is more towards where everyone has a private UBI, aka investments, and has some skin in the game.Why not skip that tedious and unfair collecting phase and go right to the goal?
The Fed does an awesome job of providing liquidity to publicly listed corporations and the .1%. Why not have them provide the liquidity for state and city level sovereign wealth funds?You mean an UBI for cities to finance personal UBIs?
The problem with UBI is that it entails a massive redistribution of wealth. There are people with chronic disabilities who would need a very high welfare payment to survive. These people right now qualify through, for example, disability pension and national disability plans (here in my country). As another example, there are single parents with 5 kids who get various children's supplements on top of their basic welfare payment. If welfare were to be universal then in order to meet everyone's needs the UBI would have to be pegged at the level that suits these people - a very high level, and an unsustainable (and unnecessary) level for, say, an able-bodied person with only one dependant.First of all, you are aware that "1 worker & 1 depended" is the reality in all "western" states today? (And, with slight fluctuation, has been as far as we have written history.)
This is exactly my beef with UBI. It will immediately be "undone" by "special cases". Whether it's the disabled, shitty parents who will neglect to feed their kids, doesn't matter. It will instantly need to be supplemented with more targeted help. So what's the point?Save 80% of the work that is needed for the non-special-cases.
You can imagine the same kind of future for lawyers. Sure, human lawyers still exist, but the reading, interpreting, decision tree stuff is handled by softwareThere are already "software laywers" for certain situations. Most prominent I think about parking ticket.
Part of the tragedy of the modern workplace is that it does such a poor job of encouraging and harnessing creativity.Another part is that it is centered around producing unneccessary stuff. Another part is that it is around producing something that is actually negative for society or at least superfluous work. (Read Bullshit Jobs for more information)
The whole idea with UBI, as I understand it, is that it would be more efficient to just give people a check directly rather than administer complicated need-based programs and fund a massive justice system to arrest and incarcerate people who commit crimes because of poverty, etc. The money will be spent either way. (Whether that assertion is true is above my pay grade, but it doesn't seem manifestly crazy.)
You can imagine the same kind of future for lawyers. Sure, human lawyers still exist, but the reading, interpreting, decision tree stuff is handled by software. The same can be said about my job, which, to be reductive, is getting paid a lot of money to sit at a computer and do mental labor all day.
I can comment on law as it's my field. The stuff that's being automated is very low level stuff (like standard form wills and insurance claims) and drudge work that no one wants to do (like discovery). That only affects the very bottom of the tree. And it actually creates its own work. For example automated wills could well lead to more will disputes down the track. And the proliferation of computer-assisted discovery has not, of course, made the process of discovery cheaper, or easier. It has just made it more voluminous. This leads to big interlocutory disputes about discovery down the track and it also means that at some stage human eyes still have to go through the important bits of discovery.
In other words, automation, though it replaces human labour, can still lead to a greater, or at least the same, requirement for human labour down the track. We no longer dictate or require secretaries as typists; most everyone types their own letters now. But that hasn't led to secretarial staff becoming obsolete, nor has it led to lower working hours now that our computer skills are more efficient.
The quantum of work expands to fit improvements in efficiency.
The whole idea with UBI, as I understand it, is that it would be more efficient to just give people a check directly rather than administer complicated need-based programs and fund a massive justice system to arrest and incarcerate people who commit crimes because of poverty, etc. The money will be spent either way. (Whether that assertion is true is above my pay grade, but it doesn't seem manifestly crazy.)
I have a suspicion we would end up with both UBI and a "complicated need-based programs", sooner or later.
Someone mentioned politicians promising to keep and increase the UBI for votes, I'm of the opinion that votes are already cast in the direction of those politicians promising increases in the "complicated need-based programs".
I know it's extremely controversial, but on some days, I feel that if you don't contribute to the pie, you shouldn't have any input as to how it is spent.
People say that we can afford a UBI, as if paying people a basic wage (that provides every single adult with the means to pay for him- or herself plus a dependant) can come out of nowhere. It can't. Our current welfare budget can't manage that basic wage PLUS all the special circumstances payments (disability payments, payments for single parents with 5 children etc, payments for people who gamble away their UBI on day 1 of the month and then need shelter) that would accrue. There would need to be a massive amount of redistribution.
In theory you could just draw it all from Google or Amazon or whatever mega-corp. In practice everyone on a good income will be paying higher taxes, higher prices (for low-end goods and services), or both.
UBI proponents act as if it'll essentially be free but it won't be. Redistribution always comes at a cost. As far as I can tell, those of us who are very highly paid professionals, and/or those of us whose share portfolios have megacorp shares, will be paying a pretty high cost.
You can imagine the same kind of future for lawyers. Sure, human lawyers still exist, but the reading, interpreting, decision tree stuff is handled by software. The same can be said about my job, which, to be reductive, is getting paid a lot of money to sit at a computer and do mental labor all day.
I can comment on law as it's my field. The stuff that's being automated is very low level stuff (like standard form wills and insurance claims) and drudge work that no one wants to do (like discovery). That only affects the very bottom of the tree. And it actually creates its own work. For example automated wills could well lead to more will disputes down the track. And the proliferation of computer-assisted discovery has not, of course, made the process of discovery cheaper, or easier. It has just made it more voluminous. This leads to big interlocutory disputes about discovery down the track and it also means that at some stage human eyes still have to go through the important bits of discovery.
In other words, automation, though it replaces human labour, can still lead to a greater, or at least the same, requirement for human labour down the track. We no longer dictate or require secretaries as typists; most everyone types their own letters now. But that hasn't led to secretarial staff becoming obsolete, nor has it led to lower working hours now that our computer skills are more efficient.
The quantum of work expands to fit improvements in efficiency.
Yeah that's generally how it has worked for all of civilization. Automation takes care of the crappy and mindless stuff so that the person who used to do that work can focus on bigger and better things. I just think we're gonna hit a wall at some point, where computer software is better at the "bigger and better" stuff too.
It's going take a pretty big breakthrough in artificial intelligence before a computer can replace an engineer, a doctor an MBA or a lawyer in their end to end role. Moving from object avoidance, route finding and IVR to a more general ability to make intelligent decisions and learn through experience is a pretty big gap.
The machine learning systems that do this now (learn through experience) work in highly structured frameworks that seems best suited to playing games like Atari, Chess and Go. Futurists have been promising that artificial general intelligence is just around the corner for the last 30 years, but what we actually get is improvements in very specific areas of machine learning.
UBI proponents act as if it'll essentially be free but it won't be. Redistribution always comes at a cost. As far as I can tell, those of us who are very highly paid professionals, and/or those of us whose share portfolios have megacorp shares, will be paying a pretty high cost.And that would be directly bad for about 10% of the people, yes. But it would be directly or indirectly good for 100% of people. (And we can actually "proof" that by comparing the countries with the lowest official taxes (USA) with those with the highest official taxes (North Europe).
It seems a lot of mainstream UBI proponents like to focus on the benefits (in fact, many even claim the UBI will be "revenue neutral" which I think is a complete joke, unless it's a really watered-down UBI)It's so hard to put a number on that because of the many factors. And most of them, when brought on by the proponents, the enemies of an UBI would never agree to the numbers.
If you're a high earner, looking only to have immediate pennies in your pocket is pretty shortsighted, when you can already afford a better lifestyle than anyone else, and the creativity and innovation that UBI would make space for will improve your life too.
If you're a high earner, looking only to have immediate pennies in your pocket is pretty shortsighted, when you can already afford a better lifestyle than anyone else, and the creativity and innovation that UBI would make space for will improve your life too.
QuoteIf you're a high earner, looking only to have immediate pennies in your pocket is pretty shortsighted, when you can already afford a better lifestyle than anyone else, and the creativity and innovation that UBI would make space for will improve your life too.
Call me cynical but I somehow doubt that there are musical, creative, artistic or technological geniuses just waiting to be unleashed who can't currently afford a subsistence level job.
And I suspect market forces would improve my life more than the type of forces that would be liberated if no one had to work. Market forces have driven so much advancement.
I like the free market a lot. I consider myself a capitalist.
But what's the free market solution to 30 million people without healthcare and half a million homeless in the richest country on earth?
I like the free market a lot. I consider myself a capitalist.
But what's the free market solution to 30 million people without healthcare and half a million homeless in the richest country on earth?
Re. the homeless situation. I've spent a lot of time thinking and reading about the situation and possible solutions. Unfortunately no easy answers. And I don't think UBI is the answer either. Due to substance abuse issues, I expect a lot of that UBI would be ingested, not used for housing.
Definitely some people would use it for housing but probably not the majority of those with chronic housing issues.
Canada Recovery Benefit (CRB)
Open for application
The Canada Recovery Benefit (CRB) gives income support to employed and self-employed individuals who are directly affected by COVID-19 and are not entitled to Employment Insurance (EI) benefits. The CRB is administered by the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA).
If you are eligible for the CRB, you can receive $1,000 ($900 after taxes withheld) for a 2-week period.
If your situation continues past 2 weeks, you will need to apply again. You may apply up to a total of 13 eligibility periods (26 weeks) between September 27, 2020 and September 25, 2021.
I like the free market a lot. I consider myself a capitalist.
But what's the free market solution to 30 million people without healthcare and half a million homeless in the richest country on earth?
Re. the homeless situation. I've spent a lot of time thinking and reading about the situation and possible solutions. Unfortunately no easy answers. And I don't think UBI is the answer either. Due to substance abuse issues, I expect a lot of that UBI would be ingested, not used for housing.
Definitely some people would use it for housing but probably not the majority of those with chronic housing issues.
There's a difference between UBI proponents and those of us who are happy for people to have means-tested welfare. The difference is that the latter is more tailored to each person's needs, doesn't "overpay" anyone, and requires some form of validity testing, all of which mean less wastage and less market distortion / inflationary pressure as a result. I don't think people should expect a society where things (beyond the very basics) are provided to you obligation free even if you don't work, assuming you're able-bodied. That's not my vision of a good society.
The interesting thing about the CRB is you still get your $500/week even if you would normally make less than $500 per week. The minimum eligibility income seems to be $5000/year. So if you made $5000 in the last year, you could quality for up to $13000 in CRB benefits this year.
The only way I could see something like UBI to actually work is with the following prerequisites in place:No population control needed. Why??? Putting aside that western countries shrink without any birth control, the process is the same if you have 100 people or 100 million.
- automization of pretty much all the shit jobs in the world
- both population control and border control (geo-arbitrage issues)
I expect neither during my lifetime.
There's a difference between UBI proponents and those of us who are happy for people to have means-tested welfare. The difference is that the latter is more tailored to each person's needs, doesn't "overpay" anyone, and requires some form of validity testing, all of which mean less wastage and less market distortion / inflationary pressure as a result.In theory. In practice though it is more like... the opposite. Not to meantion that "means tested" often means "we decide who deserves, and poor/enthnic don't deserve".
I half agree, but with the right tax structure you can claw back every single dollar of UBI from higher earners. Eg, make it a pre-paid refundable tax credit that high earners don't get to keep with some phase-out.
This is something I agree with 100%. Many of us still in the workforce feel tied to our jobs/carreers because of healthcare benefits. If these basic human benefits weren't tied so closely to our jobs, many would indeed feel free to explore other carreer avenues. It would free up minds to be used for innovation, not minds doing mindless work for a huge, slow corporation.QuoteIf you're a high earner, looking only to have immediate pennies in your pocket is pretty shortsighted, when you can already afford a better lifestyle than anyone else, and the creativity and innovation that UBI would make space for will improve your life too.
Call me cynical but I somehow doubt that there are musical, creative, artistic or technological geniuses just waiting to be unleashed who can't currently afford a subsistence level job.
And I suspect market forces would improve my life more than the type of forces that would be liberated if no one had to work. Market forces have driven so much advancement.
Just pay UBI to only the members of the state.
That is laughably naive in the face of all the social spending already goes to non-citizens.But that would not be UBI. If you are a university student from a different, you don't get UBI. If you seek asylum, you don't get UBI.
And if the answer is yes, what is the NPV of an inflation-adjusted U$12,000 lifetime annuity. Then solve for the equilibrium when a couple billion third worlders hear the news.
Well, it wouldn't be billions of migrants. The standard of living and quite probably the gov't would collapse before 2 billion showed up.
But as posited in an earlier comment if you offer UBI and no border security, the equilibrium will shift significantly.
https://news.gallup.com/poll/124028/700-Million-Worldwide-Desire-Migrate-Permanently.aspx
Seven hundred million want to migrate. Now the US is the not first choice for a majority of them. But beggars can't be choosers. Add in spouses and dependent childrenand you fundamentally destroy the nation as it now is and any ability to provide UBI to current residents.
I don't think people should expect a society where things (beyond the very basics) are provided to you obligation free even if you don't work, assuming you're able-bodied. That's not my vision of a good society.
Well, it wouldn't be billions of migrants. The standard of living and quite probably the gov't would collapse before 2 billion showed up.Where do I start?
But as posited in an earlier comment if you offer UBI and no border security, the equilibrium will shift significantly.
https://news.gallup.com/poll/124028/700-Million-Worldwide-Desire-Migrate-Permanently.aspx
Seven hundred million want to migrate. Now the US is the not first choice for a majority of them. But beggars can't be choosers. Add in spouses and dependent children and you fundamentally destroy the nation as it now is and any ability to provide UBI to current residents.
Well, it wouldn't be billions of migrants. The standard of living and quite probably the gov't would collapse before 2 billion showed up.Where do I start?
But as posited in an earlier comment if you offer UBI and no border security, the equilibrium will shift significantly.
https://news.gallup.com/poll/124028/700-Million-Worldwide-Desire-Migrate-Permanently.aspx
Seven hundred million want to migrate. Now the US is the not first choice for a majority of them. But beggars can't be choosers. Add in spouses and dependent children and you fundamentally destroy the nation as it now is and any ability to provide UBI to current residents.
First of all, just because people want, they don't do it. Or they would be on their way today, right?
And if they come, they are at the same time a market and a producer, too (and generally the most determined, which is the reason economies have higher growth with more immigrants).
Again there is also the misconception of money/production. Germany has an overproduction (stuff we produce but isn't used here) that is sufficient to take in ~10 million people. (Or, if you want to stretch it a bit, 10% of our population.)
Of course it doesn't work if they come all at once, as it doesn't work if you would start an UBI from zero to 100%.
Some, but not all are on their way today. But the scenario proposed is no border controls and a UBI. How many of that 700 million would move, knowing that once they arrived, the could stay forever with free education for their kids, a lifetime annuity for any kids born in the US, and the potential for free medical care?
If we do get a UBI, a real livable UBI not some Alaska-style permanent find dividend, then I think it only fair that we overhaul vagrancy/panhandling laws.
No more begging on the street corner, sleeping on the sidewalk, camping in the city, etc. You're getting enough money to put a roof over your head. There's no excuse for ruining the quality of life for the rest of us.
If we do get a UBI, a real livable UBI not some Alaska-style permanent find dividend, then I think it only fair that we overhaul vagrancy/panhandling laws.While I am with your meaning, unfortunately it doesn't work that way. Even the "famous socialist" states in Europe have people sleeping on park benches even when there is a homeless shelter just a km away.
No more begging on the street corner, sleeping on the sidewalk, camping in the city, etc. You're getting enough money to put a roof over your head. There's no excuse for ruining the quality of life for the rest of us.
If we do get a UBI, a real livable UBI not some Alaska-style permanent find dividend, then I think it only fair that we overhaul vagrancy/panhandling laws.While I am with your meaning, unfortunately it doesn't work that way. Even the "famous socialist" states in Europe have people sleeping on park benches even when there is a homeless shelter just a km away.
No more begging on the street corner, sleeping on the sidewalk, camping in the city, etc. You're getting enough money to put a roof over your head. There's no excuse for ruining the quality of life for the rest of us.
Some people are simply unable to function "normally".
Also in some areas the prices for housing have gone up just way too much. But that is a different topic and you could at least argue that with an UBI they could move away, even if that hurts their career. And in the US the health costs are another potential problem.
https://www.businessinsider.com/jamba-using-robot-arm-smoothies-blendid-walmart-2020-12#in-total-the-robot-arm-and-its-respective-tech-can-make-45-drinks-in-one-hour-1And I completely fail to understand this.
A robot is now making Jamba smoothies in a California Walmart in less than 3 minutes
https://www.businessinsider.com/jamba-using-robot-arm-smoothies-blendid-walmart-2020-12#in-total-the-robot-arm-and-its-respective-tech-can-make-45-drinks-in-one-hour-1And I completely fail to understand this.
A robot is now making Jamba smoothies in a California Walmart in less than 3 minutes
What is Jamba?
Did it take longer than 3 minutes before?
If we do get a UBI, a real livable UBI not some Alaska-style permanent find dividend, then I think it only fair that we overhaul vagrancy/panhandling laws.
No more begging on the street corner, sleeping on the sidewalk, camping in the city, etc. You're getting enough money to put a roof over your head. There's no excuse for ruining the quality of life for the rest of us.
If we do get a UBI, a real livable UBI not some Alaska-style permanent find dividend, then I think it only fair that we overhaul vagrancy/panhandling laws.
No more begging on the street corner, sleeping on the sidewalk, camping in the city, etc. You're getting enough money to put a roof over your head. There's no excuse for ruining the quality of life for the rest of us.
Under the First Amendment begging is protected speech.
If we do get a UBI, a real livable UBI not some Alaska-style permanent find dividend, then I think it only fair that we overhaul vagrancy/panhandling laws.
No more begging on the street corner, sleeping on the sidewalk, camping in the city, etc. You're getting enough money to put a roof over your head. There's no excuse for ruining the quality of life for the rest of us.
Under the First Amendment begging is protected speech.
but the USA is woefully bad at building a sufficient amount of housing recently.Not just the US. Everywhere where the "private is always better than state!" mantra has been dominant in the last decades.
Aside from UBI being a really big experiment with someone's economy, I don't see how you're going to get rid of all the boutique tax credits and deductions. For example, from my last tax return, I see deductions for:
Annual union, professional or like dues.
Universal child chare benefit repayment
Child care expenses
Disability supports
Clergy residence deduction
Canadian Forces and police deduction
Northern residents deduction
and there are even more credits.
volunteer firefighters
S&R volunteer
Canada employment amount
home buyer's amount
home accessibility expenses
interest on student loans
and so on.
Will UBI eliminate the need for all of these? Or am I unclear on the concept?
Aside from UBI being a really big experiment with someone's economy, I don't see how you're going to get rid of all the boutique tax credits and deductions. For example, from my last tax return, I see deductions for:An UBI has (directly) nothing to do with the tax code except that you may e.g. exchange it for the tax free amount.
Annual union, professional or like dues.
Universal child chare benefit repayment
Child care expenses
Disability supports
Clergy residence deduction
Canadian Forces and police deduction
Northern residents deduction
and there are even more credits.
volunteer firefighters
S&R volunteer
Canada employment amount
home buyer's amount
home accessibility expenses
interest on student loans
and so on.
Will UBI eliminate the need for all of these? Or am I unclear on the concept?
If we do get a UBI, a real livable UBI not some Alaska-style permanent find dividend, then I think it only fair that we overhaul vagrancy/panhandling laws.
No more begging on the street corner, sleeping on the sidewalk, camping in the city, etc. You're getting enough money to put a roof over your head. There's no excuse for ruining the quality of life for the rest of us.
Under the First Amendment begging is protected speech.
If we do get a UBI, a real livable UBI not some Alaska-style permanent find dividend, then I think it only fair that we overhaul vagrancy/panhandling laws.
No more begging on the street corner, sleeping on the sidewalk, camping in the city, etc. You're getting enough money to put a roof over your head. There's no excuse for ruining the quality of life for the rest of us.
Under the First Amendment begging is protected speech.
Sure, but sleeping on the sidewalk isn't. Of course, if that's the only place you have to sleep I'm not sure that a UBI is going to help. I mean, it will help. Less people will be sleeping rough, but the USA is woefully bad at building a sufficient amount of housing recently.
Nobody say every problem. But a lot of them will practically disappear, and saving a lot of costs in that process.If we do get a UBI, a real livable UBI not some Alaska-style permanent find dividend, then I think it only fair that we overhaul vagrancy/panhandling laws.
No more begging on the street corner, sleeping on the sidewalk, camping in the city, etc. You're getting enough money to put a roof over your head. There's no excuse for ruining the quality of life for the rest of us.
Under the First Amendment begging is protected speech.
Especially if you are a multi-billion corp begging for taypayer money harhar!Quotebut the USA is woefully bad at building a sufficient amount of housing recently.Not just the US. Everywhere where the "private is always better than state!" mantra has been dominant in the last decades.
Famously Vienna has not followed this style of housing develepment, and you can get city build living space at very fair conditions. 62% of Viennese life in public or "subsidized" housing. And they love it. Damn Socialists!
A real UBI (not an Alaska-style Permanent Fund) would allow for enough money to shelter: move to a small town, find a cheap apartment and get a couple of roommates. No more sleeping on the sidewalk.As a first hand witness to how Alaskans generally spend their PFD checks each year I am genuinely interested in hearing why we should expect people to spend a UBI check differently. It is true that some Alaskans do spend the PFD to buy necessities, but based on the massive ad campaigns each year around PFD season most of the spending would be considered facepunch worthy on this forum. Also, based on what I've witness on the streets each October, giving people with a substance abuse problem a fat pile of money results in a bender until the money is gone.
If you are such an iconoclast or so mentally ill that you refuse to live in a shelter, then head out to the Public Lands. There are literally hundreds of millions of acres to live on in this country where no one will bother you.Based on the condition of the green spaces in Anchorage this is a terrible idea. I'd have no issue with allowing or even encouraging people building a homestead and a life on piece of public land, but that's not what is happening. Most people no longer have the skills to make a home in the wilderness and would just create a pile of garbage that someone else will have to clean up.
Alaska Permanent Fund dividend is distributed annually. To be effective at providing a basic income, UBI would need to be paid monthly (like Social Security).A real UBI (not an Alaska-style Permanent Fund) would allow for enough money to shelter: move to a small town, find a cheap apartment and get a couple of roommates. No more sleeping on the sidewalk.As a first hand witness to how Alaskans generally spend their PFD checks each year I am genuinely interested in hearing why we should expect people to spend a UBI check differently. It is true that some Alaskans do spend the PFD to buy necessities, but based on the massive ad campaigns each year around PFD season most of the spending would be considered facepunch worthy on this forum. Also, based on what I've witness on the streets each October, giving people with a substance abuse problem a fat pile of money results in a bender until the money is gone.
Alaska Permanent Fund dividend is distributed annually. To be effective at providing a basic income, UBI would need to be paid monthly (like Social Security).A real UBI (not an Alaska-style Permanent Fund) would allow for enough money to shelter: move to a small town, find a cheap apartment and get a couple of roommates. No more sleeping on the sidewalk.As a first hand witness to how Alaskans generally spend their PFD checks each year I am genuinely interested in hearing why we should expect people to spend a UBI check differently. It is true that some Alaskans do spend the PFD to buy necessities, but based on the massive ad campaigns each year around PFD season most of the spending would be considered facepunch worthy on this forum. Also, based on what I've witness on the streets each October, giving people with a substance abuse problem a fat pile of money results in a bender until the money is gone.
Alaska Permanent Fund dividend is distributed annually. To be effective at providing a basic income, UBI would need to be paid monthly (like Social Security).A real UBI (not an Alaska-style Permanent Fund) would allow for enough money to shelter: move to a small town, find a cheap apartment and get a couple of roommates. No more sleeping on the sidewalk.As a first hand witness to how Alaskans generally spend their PFD checks each year I am genuinely interested in hearing why we should expect people to spend a UBI check differently. It is true that some Alaskans do spend the PFD to buy necessities, but based on the massive ad campaigns each year around PFD season most of the spending would be considered facepunch worthy on this forum. Also, based on what I've witness on the streets each October, giving people with a substance abuse problem a fat pile of money results in a bender until the money is gone.
While I that does appear to make a difference in practice, I'm uncomfortable with the implication that a significant portion of society can't be trusted to plan ahead for even a year. If that is true then how can we possibly expect a sustainable UBI system when any politician can promise more money right now regardless of future costs? This isn't a hypothetical, it's happening right now in Juneau. Our current governor was elected in no small part on his promise to restore the old more generous system for calculating the PFD despite the state's massive drop in oil revenue.
If that is true then how can we possibly expect a sustainable UBI system when any politician can promise more money right now regardless of future costs?That is indeed a big problem, but not much different from the ones today. Look at the tax code. 90% of code lines are there to give a certain group more money. It's the main reason why tax codes always get more complicated. For the rest read the book in my signature :D
A real UBI (not an Alaska-style Permanent Fund) would allow for enough money to shelter: move to a small town, find a cheap apartment and get a couple of roommates. No more sleeping on the sidewalk.As a first hand witness to how Alaskans generally spend their PFD checks each year I am genuinely interested in hearing why we should expect people to spend a UBI check differently. It is true that some Alaskans do spend the PFD to buy necessities, but based on the massive ad campaigns each year around PFD season most of the spending would be considered facepunch worthy on this forum. Also, based on what I've witness on the streets each October, giving people with a substance abuse problem a fat pile of money results in a bender until the money is gone.
QuoteIf that is true then how can we possibly expect a sustainable UBI system when any politician can promise more money right now regardless of future costs?That is indeed a big problem, but not much different from the ones today. Look at the tax code. 90% of code lines are there to give a certain group more money. It's the main reason why tax codes always get more complicated. For the rest read the book in my signature :DA real UBI (not an Alaska-style Permanent Fund) would allow for enough money to shelter: move to a small town, find a cheap apartment and get a couple of roommates. No more sleeping on the sidewalk.As a first hand witness to how Alaskans generally spend their PFD checks each year I am genuinely interested in hearing why we should expect people to spend a UBI check differently. It is true that some Alaskans do spend the PFD to buy necessities, but based on the massive ad campaigns each year around PFD season most of the spending would be considered facepunch worthy on this forum. Also, based on what I've witness on the streets each October, giving people with a substance abuse problem a fat pile of money results in a bender until the money is gone.
First of all an UBI would not come on top(??) of everything else in a yearly flush of money like a Christmas present. It would distributed monthly and such people would be used to it and use it for normal life.
That would also make away with all the extra ads. (And the normal ones are a problem that is there anyway).
Regarding substance abuse: All UBI experiments I know of about had either no increase in drugs or (more often) a reduction in substance abuse. That is because - surprise! - people tend to do drugs if they feel hopeless. If they are busy (but not stressed), the rate is lower. Also, getting off drugs is a lot easier if you know that you don't lose all your income if people (at work) find out about it.
I can't think of anything worse or more economically damaging than limiting migration.
Jesus... A lot of this thread reads like some rich people that are offended that poor people dare to exist in public spaces. Some real unregulated capitalism takes. Makes sense, considering the forum, but still somewhat shocking how little people care for the lives of others. I mean, calling people NPCs because they literally do the shit that people are taught to do by our society is gross, to put it bluntly. Capitalism does not extract value for shareholders without both underpaying people for their labor, and asking the population to spend spend spend. If everyone saved like they were to retire early, many sectors of the economy would take heavy losses. How much of those companies that would be hurt would be in your index funds?
For me - I think a stronger social safety net in general would improve the lives of a lot of people. For one, it's batshit that healthcare is tied to the employer. I have a HDHP for my husband and I through my employer, and that costs $19k between myself and my employer. That's absolutely outrageous for literally only preventive care, and it would likely be cheaper in total to have universal healthcare. Even if it costs me a bit more personally in taxes, I would be fine with that if more people would have to suffer less, or not have to choose between dying of malnutrition or dying of uncontrolled illnesses.
Also, for all of the anti-immigrant, anti-migrant sentiment: undocumented immigrants pay at least $7bil a year into social security, something from which they'll likely never benefit. How's that for a social safety net?
In my ideal society we would provide free healthcare, childcare, education, mental health services and homeless shelters. The money would be funded by a gift/estate tax.
Two immediate perks:
1. Decreases the intergenerational transfer of wealth.
2. Gives everyone a decent safety net.
Two less obvious perks:
3. Funding services is better than giving people money in their hand, in my view. Give someone the equivalent amount of money in his hand and he can still spend it on other things and then lack money for the services.
4. Funding the basics in society makes any anti-meritocratic argument harder. If we tax estates, and we give everyone free education, our meritocratic foundation is stronger.
3. Don't lose your UBI for committing crime (except UBI fraud)Now that is a strange mix.
4. If you take the UBI, you give up your right to vote until you've stopped taking UBI for 4 years.
5. Creditors can't attach/seize your UBI
In my ideal society we would provide free healthcare, childcare, education, mental health services and homeless shelters. The money would be funded by a gift/estate tax.Don't say that in public you freaking commie!!!!!!!!!! ;)
The reason that health insurance is tied to employment goes back to the gov't classifying that income as non-taxable. A good reminder that gov't solutions often create problems larger that the ones they were designed to fix.Sounds more like a "Free Market" solution to me, delivered through pressuring the state, but whatever: Just change the "solution". There is not reason why non-taxable has to be tied to employer-paid or whatever you mean with that.
4. Doesn't come close to covering gov't expenditures on their behalf. Hell, the education per pupil expenditure in my district is U$13,000/yr, and that doesn't include, debt service, capital spending, and pension contributionsWell, just make them legal then, so they can pay taxes.
That would encourage even more people to go to college, when it's clear less people should be attending.Funnily enough your stance against "unskilled labor" immigrants makes the "problem of of too many college students" even worse. You know, because unskilled labor generally does not go to college except to clean there.
4. If you take the UBI, you give up your right to vote until you've stopped taking UBI for 4 years.
4. If you take the UBI, you give up your right to vote until you've stopped taking UBI for 4 years.
Trying to make sure poor people can't vote? No more need for gerrymandering I guess.
4. If you take the UBI, you give up your right to vote until you've stopped taking UBI for 4 years.
Trying to make sure poor people can't vote? No more need for gerrymandering I guess.
I did indicate that many of my requirements would require constitutional amendments. A compromise would be that folks on UBI couldn't vote for members of one of the houses of Congress.
Barring exercise of the franchise for the class receiving UBI would violate the 14th Amendment's principle of "equal protection of the laws."
"The 'fundamental interest' in voting and the electoral process suggested (somewhat obscurely) by Harper has flourished vigorously since that decision" which militates against any electorally disparate treatment of persons receiving UBI.Harper v. Virginia Board of Elections (1966)
"The political franchise of voting [is] a fundamental right because preservative of all rights."
"A State violates equal protection whenever it makes the affluence of the voter...an electoral standard."
"But we must remember that the interest of the State, when it comes to voting,is limited to the power to fix qualifications.Wealth, like race, creed, or color, is not germane to one's ability to participate intelligently in the electoral process. Lines drawn on the basis of wealth or property, like those of race, are traditionally disfavored."
"To introduce wealth...as a measure of a voter's qualification is to introduce a capricious or irrelevant factor."
3. Don't lose your UBI for committing crime (except UBI fraud)Now that is a strange mix.
4. If you take the UBI, you give up your right to vote until you've stopped taking UBI for 4 years.
5. Creditors can't attach/seize your UBI
3. and 5. are in the name of "Unconditional", so no reason to point it out.
At the same time 4. is about the farthest away from Unconditional (and both the societal and moral purpose) of an UBI as can be.
That would encourage even more people to go to college, when it's clear less people should be attending.
Funnily enough your stance against "unskilled labor" immigrants makes the "problem of of too many college students" even worse. You know, because unskilled labor generally does not go to college except to clean there.
It's astounding that anti-immigration stances are generally argumented with economical reasons, which clearly show that immigration is a net win in the long run; while pro-immigration never talks about economy (first) but more about humanitarian, friendship, equality and all that other "leftist" stuff.
Quote4. Doesn't come close to covering gov't expenditures on their behalf. Hell, the education per pupil expenditure in my district is U$13,000/yr, and that doesn't include, debt service, capital spending, and pension contributionsWell, just make them legal then, so they can pay taxes.
Immigrants in the US have always been the most studious class, their children outperforming their non-immigrant peers.
And education expenses are the most profitable investments a government can make, with ROI of 10%+ for low age (college "only" 4%-6% I think), according to the OECD.
Well, in German it's Unconditional and I prefer that. Because universal could mean 99% don't get it because of conditions ;)3. Don't lose your UBI for committing crime (except UBI fraud)Now that is a strange mix.
4. If you take the UBI, you give up your right to vote until you've stopped taking UBI for 4 years.
5. Creditors can't attach/seize your UBI
3. and 5. are in the name of "Unconditional", so no reason to point it out.
At the same time 4. is about the farthest away from Unconditional (and both the societal and moral purpose) of an UBI as can be.
I always though the U in UBI was for universal, not unconditional. And I'm pretty sure that any UBI scheme is going to have some exceptions. I mean we're not going to hand out UBI checks to tourists, so "Universal" Basic Income.
QuoteQuote4. Doesn't come close to covering gov't expenditures on their behalf. Hell, the education per pupil expenditure in my district is U$13,000/yr, and that doesn't include, debt service, capital spending, and pension contributionsWell, just make them legal then, so they can pay taxes.
Immigrants in the US have always been the most studious class, their children outperforming their non-immigrant peers.
And education expenses are the most profitable investments a government can make, with ROI of 10%+ for low age (college "only" 4%-6% I think), according to the OECD.
Legalizing isn't going to help. If you're not in the 60-70th income percentile, the gov't is "losing money". But sure import millions more, we'll make it up in volume.
Also notice that billionaires from across the political spectrum: Adelson, Kock, Bezos, Zuckerberg, Gates, Bloomberg, etc all are for a more expansive immigration policy. I am sure their interest in depressing wages is just a coincidence.Well, the left is not known for saying "all follow the billionaires!", regardless of what you are saying. They are more for "higher minimum wage".
I did indicate that many of my requirements would require constitutional amendments. A compromise would be that folks on UBI couldn't vote for members of one of the houses of Congress.
I generally oppose UBI, because every proposal I have heard of is not truly universal.
The only form of UBI that I could support is if senior citizens don't have to give up their SS, and poor people didn't lose their other benefits. It makes no sense to take away those people's benefits and rightly and deservedly earned SS benefits from senior citizens while we give UBI handouts to wealthy people on top of their high incomes, and then increasing taxes, including on senior citizens and poor people to pay for it. It's illogical, and there's plenty of online info the supports my view on this.
Of course, I also strongly oppose canceling out student loan debt, which is another government handout I've heard more about lately.
oppose UBI, not truly universal.
we give UBI handouts to wealthy people on top of their high incomes
I generally oppose UBI, because every proposal I have heard of is not truly universal.
The only form of UBI that I could support is if senior citizens don't have to give up their SS, and poor people didn't lose their other benefits. It makes no sense to take away those people's benefits and rightly and deservedly earned SS benefits from senior citizens while we give UBI handouts to wealthy people on top of their high incomes, and then increasing taxes, including on senior citizens and poor people to pay for it. It's illogical, and there's plenty of online info the supports my view on this.
Of course, I also strongly oppose canceling out student loan debt, which is another government handout I've heard more about lately.Quoteoppose UBI, not truly universal.
we give UBI handouts to wealthy people on top of their high incomes
Are you aware you are contradicting yourself here?
Of course even Jeff Bezos would get his $1000 UBI. But he would (at least thats the plan) also pay millions more in taxes.
And why are opponents always oppose the UBI based on the worst combination of factors they can think of? Just make sure you implement a good one. Or at least look at it with a mediocre setup. Poor people would only lose benefits that are not covered by the amount of the UBI. Of course you will be able to find a fringe case where someone is worse of or that is "unfair" - as it is in every single system. Don't tell me you think the current income distribution is fair!
I’m really excited because pretty soon I’ll have privately funded UBI. I’ve been working on this for years now and it’s nearly here. I highly recommend UBI for anyone out there who wants to give it a try. It takes some personal effort and a lot of time, but it’s worth it to give it to yourself.
I’m really excited because pretty soon I’ll have privately funded UBI. I’ve been working on this for years now and it’s nearly here. I highly recommend UBI for anyone out there who wants to give it a try. It takes some personal effort and a lot of time, but it’s worth it to give it to yourself.
Isn't this just called investing?
I generally oppose UBI, because every proposal I have heard of is not truly universal.
The only form of UBI that I could support is if senior citizens don't have to give up their SS, and poor people didn't lose their other benefits. It makes no sense to take away those people's benefits and rightly and deservedly earned SS benefits from senior citizens while we give UBI handouts to wealthy people on top of their high incomes, and then increasing taxes, including on senior citizens and poor people to pay for it. It's illogical, and there's plenty of online info the supports my view on this.
Of course, I also strongly oppose canceling out student loan debt, which is another government handout I've heard more about lately.
Are you aware you are contradicting yourself here?
And why are opponents always oppose the UBI based on the worst combination of factors they can think of? Just make sure you implement a good one. Or at least look at it with a mediocre setup. Poor people would only lose benefits that are not covered by the amount of the UBI. Of course you will be able to find a fringe case where someone is worse of or that is "unfair" - as it is in every single system. Don't tell me you think the current income distribution is fair!
I’m really excited because pretty soon I’ll have privately funded UBI. I’ve been working on this for years now and it’s nearly here. I highly recommend UBI for anyone out there who wants to give it a try. It takes some personal effort and a lot of time, but it’s worth it to give it to yourself.
Isn't this just called investing?
Bingo.
Walmart will use fully autonomous box trucks to make deliveries in Arkansas starting in 2021. The big-box retailer has been working with a startup called Gatik on a delivery pilot for 18 months. Next year, the two companies plan on taking their partnership to the next level by removing the safety driver from their autonomous box trucks.
Gatik, which is based in Palo Alto and Toronto, outfitted several multitemperature box trucks with sensors and software to enable autonomous driving. Since last year, those trucks have been operating on a two-mile route between a “dark store” (a store that stocks items for fulfillment but isn’t open to the public) and a nearby Neighborhood Market in Bentonville, Arkansas. Since then, the vehicles have racked up 70,000 miles in autonomous mode with a safety driver.
Next year, the companies intend to start incorporating fully autonomous trucks into those deliveries. And they plan on expanding to a second location in Louisiana, where trucks with safety drivers will begin delivering items from a “live” Walmart Supercenter to a designated pickup location where customers can retrieve their orders. Those routes, which will begin next year, will be longer than the Arkansas operation — 20-miles between New Orleans and Metairie, Louisiana.
“Our trials with Gatik are just two of many use cases we’re testing with autonomous vehicles, and we’re excited to continue learning how we might incorporate them in a delivery ecosystem,” said Tom Ward, Walmart’s senior VP of customer product.
[/quote]
I did indicate that many of my requirements would require constitutional amendments. A compromise would be that folks on UBI couldn't vote for members of one of the houses of Congress.
The United States of America is specifically a constitutional republic and also a liberal democracy.
The bedrock of liberal democracy (Western democracy) is the franchise, the recognition and assurance that all qualified persons have the right to unimpeded, equitable, and voluntary participation in free and fair elections which at the ballot box reflect "the consent of the governed," the indispensable way of political self-determination.
A proposed amendment to the Constitution that purposively discriminates to disenfranchise a certain class as beneficiaries of democratically established, redistributionist policy, is a collisive repugnancy writ largest, an antithesis so glaring that its possibility of passage is virtually zero.
Handouts do not benefit anyone except the unmotivated and hurts people that are motivated and creating their American dream."You can't give handouts to people, they only lose motivation to work"
Handouts do not benefit anyone except the unmotivated and hurts people that are motivated and creating their American dream."You can't give handouts to people, they only lose motivation to work"
"You can't put high taxes on people, it will only make them lose motivation to work".
That is semething I always find puzzling (and it is said sooo often!). The argument is both that giving people money makes them work less, and giving them more money is making them work harder.
Care to explain that conundrum to me? How can it be that the same action has different results?
These things happen all the time at both ends of a scale.Handouts do not benefit anyone except the unmotivated and hurts people that are motivated and creating their American dream."You can't give handouts to people, they only lose motivation to work"
"You can't put high taxes on people, it will only make them lose motivation to work".
That is semething I always find puzzling (and it is said sooo often!). The argument is both that giving people money makes them work less, and giving them more money is making them work harder.
Care to explain that conundrum to me? How can it be that the same action has different results?
Handouts do not benefit anyone except the unmotivated and hurts people that are motivated and creating their American dream."You can't give handouts to people, they only lose motivation to work"
"You can't put high taxes on people, it will only make them lose motivation to work".
That is semething I always find puzzling (and it is said sooo often!). The argument is both that giving people money makes them work less, and giving them more money is making them work harder.
Care to explain that conundrum to me? How can it be that the same action has different results?
Andrew Yang prepares to dive into New York City politics with mayoral run
https://www.kten.com/story/43068373/andrew-yang-prepares-to-dive-into-new-york-city-politics-with-mayoral-run
Handouts do not benefit anyone except the unmotivated and hurts people that are motivated and creating their American dream."You can't give handouts to people, they only lose motivation to work"
"You can't put high taxes on people, it will only make them lose motivation to work".
That is semething I always find puzzling (and it is said sooo often!). The argument is both that giving people money makes them work less, and giving them more money is making them work harder.
Care to explain that conundrum to me? How can it be that the same action has different results?
Handouts do not benefit anyone except the unmotivated and hurts people that are motivated and creating their American dream."You can't give handouts to people, they only lose motivation to work"
"You can't put high taxes on people, it will only make them lose motivation to work".
That is semething I always find puzzling (and it is said sooo often!). The argument is both that giving people money makes them work less, and giving them more money is making them work harder.
Care to explain that conundrum to me? How can it be that the same action has different results?
Looking at it from my perspective (business owner and hard worker). If freeloaders are sitting home and collecting enough free money to not have to work and support their family, while simultaneously the government is taking more taxes out of the money I'm working for to support that, yes, you'll have loss of motivation on both ends.
I don't want to work harder only to give more of it away to people that sit on their asses all day and do nothing to earn a dime they're receiving. At the same time, the freeloaders won't want to work at all because they can sit at home and collect a paycheck that can sustain their lifestyle.
That's how I see the same action having different results. I hope that makes sense.
Edit: Grammar
Yes, but for the majority of mustachian's they worked and sacrificed for their money to earn the right to invest and create more wealth from the investing. They aren't having money handed to them simply for breathing.
I also can't imagine the freeloaders are going to start investing into a portfolio with their new "investment income". The smart ones would (or at a bare minimum pay off debts), but I can't imagine the majority would.
Just playing devils advocate here.
Yes, but for the majority of mustachian's they worked and sacrificed for their money to earn the right to invest and create more wealth from the investing. They aren't having money handed to them simply for breathing.
I also can't imagine the freeloaders are going to start investing into a portfolio with their new "investment income". The smart ones would (or at a bare minimum pay off debts), but I can't imagine the majority would.
Just playing devils advocate here.
Well, the people who do work and invest get more money, which would be an incentive because $1000/mo isn't even minimum wage. The real value from a Mustachian's perspective would be from tax savings on welfare programs. UBI would replace food stamps, welfare cash assistance, WIC, etc. The downside of that would be the poor people who would choose to spend the money on scratch tickets and casinos instead of feeding their kids, which is definitely something that UBI could not prevent.
Yes, but for the majority of mustachian's they worked and sacrificed for their money to earn the right to invest and create more wealth from the investing. They aren't having money handed to them simply for breathing.
I also can't imagine the freeloaders are going to start investing into a portfolio with their new "investment income". The smart ones would (or at a bare minimum pay off debts), but I can't imagine the majority would.
Just playing devils advocate here.
Well, the people who do work and invest get more money, which would be an incentive because $1000/mo isn't even minimum wage. The real value from a Mustachian's perspective would be from tax savings on welfare programs. UBI would replace food stamps, welfare cash assistance, WIC, etc. The downside of that would be the poor people who would choose to spend the money on scratch tickets and casinos instead of feeding their kids, which is definitely something that UBI could not prevent.
Maybe it's ok as a purely theoretical concept. But... we've already explored how it would be impossible to get rid of the boutique entitlements and tax credit/deduction programs that exist today.
And here's another thinking point. People have to work to earn their money today, and only a small fraction manage their money in a way that enables them to achieve a degree of financial independence. With a stream of UBI, would you expect people to be more or less motivated to incur debt to buy things (like full size SUVs and iPhones)? How about to invest?
Yes, but for the majority of mustachian's they worked and sacrificed for their money to earn the right to invest and create more wealth from the investing. They aren't having money handed to them simply for breathing.
I also can't imagine the freeloaders are going to start investing into a portfolio with their new "investment income". The smart ones would (or at a bare minimum pay off debts), but I can't imagine the majority would.
Just playing devils advocate here.
Well, the people who do work and invest get more money, which would be an incentive because $1000/mo isn't even minimum wage. The real value from a Mustachian's perspective would be from tax savings on welfare programs. UBI would replace food stamps, welfare cash assistance, WIC, etc. The downside of that would be the poor people who would choose to spend the money on scratch tickets and casinos instead of feeding their kids, which is definitely something that UBI could not prevent.
Maybe it's ok as a purely theoretical concept. But... we've already explored how it would be impossible to get rid of the boutique entitlements and tax credit/deduction programs that exist today.
And here's another thinking point. People have to work to earn their money today, and only a small fraction manage their money in a way that enables them to achieve a degree of financial independence. With a stream of UBI, would you expect people to be more or less motivated to incur debt to buy things (like full size SUVs and iPhones)? How about to invest?
I think the majority of people would do a great deal of splurging on materialistic things knowing they have an extra $1000 coming in each month that they didn't have before. I think for the people that would pay off debt and invest wouldn't have to take that 2nd or 3rd job in order to make it happen. I think at the end of the day it would accentuate their current habits and desires with money.
Handouts do not benefit anyone except the unmotivated and hurts people that are motivated and creating their American dream."You can't give handouts to people, they only lose motivation to work"
"You can't put high taxes on people, it will only make them lose motivation to work".
That is semething I always find puzzling (and it is said sooo often!). The argument is both that giving people money makes them work less, and giving them more money is making them work harder.
Care to explain that conundrum to me? How can it be that the same action has different results?
Looking at it from my perspective (business owner and hard worker). If freeloaders are sitting home and collecting enough free money to not have to work and support their family, while simultaneously the government is taking more taxes out of the money I'm working for to support that, yes, you'll have loss of motivation on both ends.
I don't want to work harder only to give more of it away to people that sit on their asses all day and do nothing to earn a dime they're receiving. At the same time, the freeloaders won't want to work at all because they can sit at home and collect a paycheck that can sustain their lifestyle.
That's how I see the same action having different results. I hope that makes sense.
Edit: Grammar
The downside of that would be the poor people who would choose to spend the money on scratch tickets and casinos instead of feeding their kids, which is definitely something that UBI could not prevent.Scientific proven truth:
At least with welfare programs, the aid goes directly for food and shelter and healthcare.Which makes them generally more expensive. The overhead for "means proven"(?) ais bigger than the amount that would be "wasted" or frauded.
So... why not ditributing the work and pay evenly? Why do we have some people work 60 hours a week and other cannot find a job?
At least with welfare programs, the aid goes directly for food and shelter and healthcare.
Giving people direct, recurring cash payments, no questions asked, is a simple idea — and an old one. Different formulations of a guaranteed income have been promoted by civil rights leaders, conservative thinkers, labor experts, Silicon Valley types, U.S. presidential candidates and even the Pope. Now, it’s U.S. cities that are putting the concept in action.
Fueled by a growing group of city leaders, philanthropists and nonprofit organizations, 2021 will see an explosion of guaranteed income pilot programs in U.S. cities. At least 11 direct-cash experiments will be in effect this year, from Pittsburgh to Compton. Another 20 mayors have said they may launch such pilots in the future, with several cities taking initial legislative steps to implement them.
“We are at a moment right now where city leaders, residents policymakers, and activists are all looking for big ideas to begin to chip away at some glaring structural problems in our systems and institutions,” said Brooks Rainwater, senior executive and director of the National League of Cities’ Center for City Solutions. “This new wave of pilots is different because of the groundswell of support for guaranteed income we are seeing in cities across America.”
These programs are often called UBI, for Universal Basic Income, but with each distributing monthly payments to just some households, they aren’t yet truly universal, and there’s disagreement over whether they should be. Instead, they’re “unconditional,” a contrast to many existing government programs that tie benefits to work requirements, or set parameters on how recipients can use the money. Still, the idea isn’t to replace the existing safety net, but build upon it.
Anything other than "universal" on the payments will be met with fraud/scams.
I personally don't see how universal works either but if you are going to do ubi, it has to be universal.
Interesting thought, has 2 fundamental errors similar to the death penalty:Anything other than "universal" on the payments will be met with fraud/scams.
I personally don't see how universal works either but if you are going to do ubi, it has to be universal.
I don't see why fraud wouldn't happen with a "Universal" UBI, as well.
That's why even though I don't support a UBI, I advocate that if you are convicted of UBI fraud, you are forever barred from the system. Murderers and rapists once out of prison still qualify, but UBI fraud gets you blacklisted forever.
Interesting thought, has 2 fundamental errors similar to the death penalty:Anything other than "universal" on the payments will be met with fraud/scams.
I personally don't see how universal works either but if you are going to do ubi, it has to be universal.
I don't see why fraud wouldn't happen with a "Universal" UBI, as well.
That's why even though I don't support a UBI, I advocate that if you are convicted of UBI fraud, you are forever barred from the system. Murderers and rapists once out of prison still qualify, but UBI fraud gets you blacklisted forever.
A) It's unconstitutional (well, at least in most developed countries)
B) errors
There have been people already with the date of their execution set that have been proven to be innocent.
Also that would be a great way for autocrats and despots to ensure loyality. Easy to fake, big stigma.
Excited to get as much data as possible on UBI. I think it could be a very important part of prosperity going forward.
Nationally though, we still have so much low hanging fruit to address. Healthcare needs to be universal. Universal childcare/pre K. Make school quality less zip code dependent.
(you'll never find the sewage treatment plant in the richest neighborhood), elevation (lowlands = flood plains = poor people, hills = nice views = rich people), etc.
(you'll never find the sewage treatment plant in the richest neighborhood), elevation (lowlands = flood plains = poor people, hills = nice views = rich people), etc.
This is the reason UBI probably won't work as well as people dream it might. Our society is built on gaining an advantage over others and there is an inherent envy in those who have the nice view by those who live down by the sewage plant.
UBI gets everyone a base house by the sewage plant but not much more. It just sets a floor and there will still be crime and anger as people try to get the hill view they think they are entitled.
Classic monkey experiment shows this very clearly (just think of the cucumber as a UBI payment):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?reload=9&v=-KSryJXDpZo (https://www.youtube.com/watch?reload=9&v=-KSryJXDpZo)
Some help could be on the way to address the Bull City’s problem with poverty.
Durham has made the shortlist of cities selected to participate in a Guaranteed Basic Income pilot program.
Mayor Steve Schewel made the announcement at a work session last week that the Bull City could receive $500,000 worth of funding from Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey to fund the pilot program.
The city would receive the funding in March and Schewel has selected council members Mark-Anthony Middleton and Pierce Freelon to lead this effort.
“It’s really difficult to overstate how big of a deal this is for Durham,” said Councilman Mark Anthony Middleton.
Middleton said right now they don’t know how many individuals or families will get to participate in the Guaranteed Basic Income Program, but the participants are expected to get between $500 to $1,000 a month.
Middleton aid they have some ideas on how they’ll select these families.
“We’re looking at possibly a census tracker,” Middleton said. “We could look at single mothers and single parents who are raising children by themselves in economically impoverished areas.”
Middleton and Freelon are currently meeting with other cities that have already implemented a Guaranteed Basic Income program.
Middleton said he has received some letters from people in opposition of a program that hands out free money, but he argues that this is private money from the CEO of Twitter and that it will be given to people in need.
“We’re not talking about handing out yachts, or mansions, or luxury cars, we’re talking about food, shelter, and clean water,” Middleton said.
Ryan Fehrman is the executive director of Families Moving Forward, an organization that helps shelter 60 to 80 homeless families with children in the Bull City every year.
“We see many families that have large family sizes that have single-parent heads of households and so there’s not a second partner that can help bring in an income that will self sustain housing in the community,” Fehrman said.
He said the money that the Guaranteed Basic Income program will distribute will not be a lot, but he said it is a step in the right direction to curbing poverty in Durham.
“I don’t think universal basic income will be a silver bullet, but I think it will be very helpful, especially when combined with a job for helping people get out of homelessness and lift them out of poverty,” Fehrman said.
If Durham is approved for this program, the city will receive the funding in March.
The program is expected to last about a year.
After that Middleton said he hopes to encourage philanthropists to donate to this cause so they can keep the program going in the city.
The main problem with all those pilot programs is that they don't run for a long time. If you want real results, you need to do it for at least 20 years.
Same goes for the German trial that is starting now. A bit above 100 people, but only 3 years.
We've basically just had a huge UBI income experiment in the form of the largest unemployment expansion ever.
This got us more netflix subscriptions, more trading on Robinhood, and people complaining that it wasn't enough.
He plans to roll out a similar plan guaranteeing cash payments to half-a-million New Yorkers up to $5,000 annually when he launches his campaign in Morningside Heights — a program that will carry a $1 billion price tag, according to a document reviewed by The Post.
https://nypost.com/2021/01/13/andrew-yang-to-jump-into-2021-nyc-mayoral-race/QuoteHe plans to roll out a similar plan guaranteeing cash payments to half-a-million New Yorkers up to $5,000 annually when he launches his campaign in Morningside Heights — a program that will carry a $1 billion price tag, according to a document reviewed by The Post.
Ayanna Pressley
@AyannaPressley
The people deserve, demand and require $2,000 recurring monthly survival checks.
https://twitter.com/AyannaPressley/status/1350159028563881984QuoteAyanna Pressley
@AyannaPressley
The people deserve, demand and require $2,000 recurring monthly survival checks.
U$2,000 times 12 months times 330 million people = 7.92 billion dollars.
Your calculation is off by a factor of 1000.
The correct figure is $7.92 trillion.
Federal Gov't Tax Revenues in 2019 = 3.863 billion dollars.
If 3.863 is correct it would have to be in $trillions.
https://twitter.com/AyannaPressley/status/1350159028563881984QuoteAyanna Pressley
@AyannaPressley
The people deserve, demand and require $2,000 recurring monthly survival checks.
U$2,000 times 12 months times 330 million people = 7.92 billion dollars.
Your calculation is off by a factor of 1000.
The correct figure is $7.92 trillion.
Federal Gov't Tax Revenues in 2019 = 3.863 billion dollars.
If 3.863 is correct it would have to be in $trillions.
Right, I used the UK version of billions. My goof. But the point remains that the cost of her checks is two times larger than all the taxes collected by the feds.
https://twitter.com/AyannaPressley/status/1350159028563881984QuoteAyanna Pressley
@AyannaPressley
The people deserve, demand and require $2,000 recurring monthly survival checks.
U$2,000 times 12 months times 330 million people = 7.92 billion dollars.
Your calculation is off by a factor of 1000.
The correct figure is $7.92 trillion.
Federal Gov't Tax Revenues in 2019 = 3.863 billion dollars.
If 3.863 is correct it would have to be in $trillions.
Right, I used the UK version of billions. My goof. But the point remains that the cost of her checks is two times larger than all the taxes collected by the feds.
The amount of Pressley's proposed stimulus is staggering.
I doubt such an enormous stimulus would ever be passed by both chambers of Congress.
https://twitter.com/AyannaPressley/status/1350159028563881984QuoteAyanna Pressley
@AyannaPressley
The people deserve, demand and require $2,000 recurring monthly survival checks.
U$2,000 times 12 months times 330 million people = 7.92 billion dollars.
Your calculation is off by a factor of 1000.
The correct figure is $7.92 trillion.
Federal Gov't Tax Revenues in 2019 = 3.863 billion dollars.
If 3.863 is correct it would have to be in $trillions.
Can we even fathom what that kind of injection of cash would do to the actual economy. You know, the one where people use money as a tool to facilitate the exchanging of goods and services?
https://twitter.com/AyannaPressley/status/1350159028563881984QuoteAyanna Pressley
@AyannaPressley
The people deserve, demand and require $2,000 recurring monthly survival checks.
U$2,000 times 12 months times 330 million people = 7.92 billion dollars.
Your calculation is off by a factor of 1000.
The correct figure is $7.92 trillion.
Federal Gov't Tax Revenues in 2019 = 3.863 billion dollars.
If 3.863 is correct it would have to be in $trillions.
Can we even fathom what that kind of injection of cash would do to the actual economy.
I think we can via an economic model of this enormous amount of money injected into this economy in its present state taking into account factors such as propensity to spend and velocity of money.
You people are writing your answers in your quotes.
Anyway, this is just the same old "an UBI is not affordable". Which is wrong. We afford it today, as is visible by all the people not starving or freezing to death. Think in production not money.
The rest is purely a "how" question of distribution. Today we do it by paying salaries or dividends (as broad categories). With an UBI we might be doing it by paying the same sum in by UBI and by salaries. Or some other method of distribution.
So if people aren't starving to death or freezing to death let's just strengthen that safety net and call it a day. Oh, and add universal healthcare and education in and then what's even the point of having a UBI?
So if people aren't starving to death or freezing to death let's just strengthen that safety net and call it a day. Oh, and add universal healthcare and education in and then what's even the point of having a UBI?
I much prefer your proposal. I think it will more effectively provide the rudiments of life to the poor.
There is no point of having UBI. It makes no sense, we can't afford it, and it would only help people that don't need it while hurting the most needy by taking away their social safety net and taxing them higher in order to fund "free" cash bonuses going to more wealthy people.
My understanding is that initially, the Libertarian argument for UBI was based on elimination of the welfare state and its bureaucracy: UBI would be substituted for the welfare state.
But according to Hoynes and Rothstein's findings, and other articles I've read, I conclude that UBI would be an addition to current welfare-state benefits so I agree with H. and R. that “A truly universal UBI would be enormously expensive."
Re: Why did anyone ever think UBI would work?
« Reply #79 on: May 08, 2019, 10:43:11 AM »
As of now, in a word, I find UBI problematical.
VOX has an article on UBI that was posted on 2/3/19.
Hilary Hoynes and Jesse Rothstein analyzed issues of UBI. They submitted some of their findings to the National Bureau of Economic Research.
From the VOX piece, here are their statements and findings:
"There is a lack of clarity on what makes a UBI, what problem it is meant to solve, whether the social safety net can or is providing these benefits, and what (if anything) can be learned from the pilot programs that we don’t already know."
“Our paper seeks to fill this gap.”
"Attention may be running ahead of actual policy development."
Speaking of the recent Finnish study of UBI, Rothstein said studies like it are “meant to tell us whether a UBI is a good idea, but it’s not clear what results would lead to you saying, ‘Yes, it’s a good idea’ or, ‘No, it’s not a good idea.’"
“A truly universal UBI would be enormously expensive.”
“The kinds of UBIs often discussed would cost nearly double current total spending on the ‘big three’ programs (Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid).”
“Moreover, each of these programs would likely be necessary even if a UBI were in place, as each addresses needs that would not be well served by a uniform cash transfer.”
“A universal payment of $12,000 per year to each adult U.S. resident over age 18 would cost roughly $3 trillion per year."
“This is about 75 percent of current total federal expenditures, including all on- and off-budget items, in 2017. (If those over 65 were excluded, the cost would fall by about one-fifth.) Thus, implementing this UBI without cuts to other programs would require nearly doubling federal tax revenue.”
“Replacing existing anti-poverty programs with a UBI would be highly regressive.”
You people are writing your answers in your quotes.
Anyway, this is just the same old "an UBI is not affordable". Which is wrong. We afford it today, as is visible by all the people not starving or freezing to death. Think in production not money.
The rest is purely a "how" question of distribution. Today we do it by paying salaries or dividends (as broad categories). With an UBI we might be doing it by paying the same sum in by UBI and by salaries. Or some other method of distribution.
So if people aren't starving to death or freezing to death let's just strengthen that safety net and call it a day. Oh, and add universal healthcare and education in and then what's even the point of having a UBI?
Because we learned from either life in general or "The Millionaire Next Door" that economic outpatient care makes your kids lazy af.You can't compare a basic living and a luxurious life.
Plenty of passionate opinions in favor of UBI.
Still, I venture that none of us really support Universal Basic Income, at least, not enough to commit to giving someone else $1000/month (or whatever) such that they could live without having to work. Plenty of us are saving more than $1000/month, and we could, alternatively just give it away to one person, no strings attached. And we don't. Why don't we give either a random stranger or even our own, young adult children a $1000/month allowance (guaranteed, no strings attached)? Because we learned from either life in general or "The Millionaire Next Door" that economic outpatient care makes your kids lazy af. When we are giving our money away, we either put conditions on it or perform some kind of due diligence on the recipients. Don't we? Aren't we looking at the evaluations of various non-profits before we write them a check? Aren't we directing money that we control to specific causes or projects that we determine are valuable? We don't just turn it over and let someone else decide. And yet, that's what UBI is. Give the money to someone else and let them dictate how to spend it. What could possibly go wrong?
Because we learned from either life in general or "The Millionaire Next Door" that economic outpatient care makes your kids lazy af.You can't compare a basic living and a luxurious life.
The first one takes away the stress and bad things that makes being poor so very bad. The latter tells you "don't work or your money will go away". (Not to mention that oupatient care is only given to a small part of the population, which is also a huge difference.)
It's a bit like the jail system in the US and Northern Europe. If you treat them like animals, they behave like animals. If you treat them with dignity, most of them act with dignity.
Drug usage goes down with an UBI. (As go psychic, chronic and other very costly illnesses caused by people going to work when they shouldn't.)Because we learned from either life in general or "The Millionaire Next Door" that economic outpatient care makes your kids lazy af.You can't compare a basic living and a luxurious life.
The first one takes away the stress and bad things that makes being poor so very bad. The latter tells you "don't work or your money will go away". (Not to mention that oupatient care is only given to a small part of the population, which is also a huge difference.)
It's a bit like the jail system in the US and Northern Europe. If you treat them like animals, they behave like animals. If you treat them with dignity, most of them act with dignity.
So what happens when someone spends the $1,000 a month (or whatever) on drugs on the first day a month? Do you let that person starve, or do you commit to that person the same safety net (and thus the same cost of resources) that we already have in place?
I'd love to have $1,000 a month in free money for drugs.
That's a pretty certain statement for something that has never been tried on state level scale.Drug usage goes down with an UBI. (As go psychic, chronic and other very costly illnesses caused by people going to work when they shouldn't.)Because we learned from either life in general or "The Millionaire Next Door" that economic outpatient care makes your kids lazy af.You can't compare a basic living and a luxurious life.
The first one takes away the stress and bad things that makes being poor so very bad. The latter tells you "don't work or your money will go away". (Not to mention that oupatient care is only given to a small part of the population, which is also a huge difference.)
It's a bit like the jail system in the US and Northern Europe. If you treat them like animals, they behave like animals. If you treat them with dignity, most of them act with dignity.
So what happens when someone spends the $1,000 a month (or whatever) on drugs on the first day a month? Do you let that person starve, or do you commit to that person the same safety net (and thus the same cost of resources) that we already have in place?
I'd love to have $1,000 a month in free money for drugs.
And yes, of course you will still have medical help. It's there with or without UBI. In well organized states at least. So that medical system saves money, which pays in part for the UBI
Drug usage goes down with an UBI. (As go psychic, chronic and other very costly illnesses caused by people going to work when they shouldn't.)Because we learned from either life in general or "The Millionaire Next Door" that economic outpatient care makes your kids lazy af.You can't compare a basic living and a luxurious life.
The first one takes away the stress and bad things that makes being poor so very bad. The latter tells you "don't work or your money will go away". (Not to mention that oupatient care is only given to a small part of the population, which is also a huge difference.)
It's a bit like the jail system in the US and Northern Europe. If you treat them like animals, they behave like animals. If you treat them with dignity, most of them act with dignity.
So what happens when someone spends the $1,000 a month (or whatever) on drugs on the first day a month? Do you let that person starve, or do you commit to that person the same safety net (and thus the same cost of resources) that we already have in place?
I'd love to have $1,000 a month in free money for drugs.
I saw an ashtray dump in the parking lot at the grocery store last week. It was definitely a "wow, I haven't seen that in a long time" moment. Sadly, there was a trash can within a 100 ft.
Drug usage goes down with an UBI. (As go psychic, chronic and other very costly illnesses caused by people going to work when they shouldn't.)Because we learned from either life in general or "The Millionaire Next Door" that economic outpatient care makes your kids lazy af.You can't compare a basic living and a luxurious life.
The first one takes away the stress and bad things that makes being poor so very bad. The latter tells you "don't work or your money will go away". (Not to mention that oupatient care is only given to a small part of the population, which is also a huge difference.)
It's a bit like the jail system in the US and Northern Europe. If you treat them like animals, they behave like animals. If you treat them with dignity, most of them act with dignity.
So what happens when someone spends the $1,000 a month (or whatever) on drugs on the first day a month? Do you let that person starve, or do you commit to that person the same safety net (and thus the same cost of resources) that we already have in place?
I'd love to have $1,000 a month in free money for drugs.
And yes, of course you will still have medical help. It's there with or without UBI. In well organized states at least. So that medical system saves money, which pays in part for the UBI
Drug usage goes down with an UBI. (As go psychic, chronic and other very costly illnesses caused by people going to work when they shouldn't.)Because we learned from either life in general or "The Millionaire Next Door" that economic outpatient care makes your kids lazy af.You can't compare a basic living and a luxurious life.
The first one takes away the stress and bad things that makes being poor so very bad. The latter tells you "don't work or your money will go away". (Not to mention that oupatient care is only given to a small part of the population, which is also a huge difference.)
It's a bit like the jail system in the US and Northern Europe. If you treat them like animals, they behave like animals. If you treat them with dignity, most of them act with dignity.
So what happens when someone spends the $1,000 a month (or whatever) on drugs on the first day a month? Do you let that person starve, or do you commit to that person the same safety net (and thus the same cost of resources) that we already have in place?
I'd love to have $1,000 a month in free money for drugs.
And yes, of course you will still have medical help. It's there with or without UBI. In well organized states at least. So that medical system saves money, which pays in part for the UBI
Drug usage goes down with an UBI. (As go psychic, chronic and other very costly illnesses caused by people going to work when they shouldn't.)That's a pretty certain statement for something that has never been tried on state level scale.
And yes, of course you will still have medical help. It's there with or without UBI. In well organized states at least. So that medical system saves money, which pays in part for the UBI
How have you been able to keep this kept secret?!!!!?!?!?!??! Who else knows???!!?? Why don't we give more money to people addicted to drugs so that they use less drugs? Why have we been struggling with countless other methods and treatments for substance abuse when you knew the answer, all along?I can't say if it would have much effect on people who are already addicted (though you could argue drug related crimes would go down).
The effect an UBI has is on the reasons why people start (abusing) drugs. It's a difference if you have a hopeless, miserable life or only a hard one.
I like doing things, solving mysteries, but I don't like the structure of work - the structure of 9-5 as others have said and the complete lack of flexibility of my time. I have very autonomous setup, no direct reports, report directly to a very senior person in the org, can do my duties in 2-3 hrs daily, and still, I really have the expectation of the 9-5 and only 2 weeks vacation. If I were a writer (and not need the income that much), or an independent scientist (like it was in the middle ages), or a private detective (like in the show Elementary) or an artists or some profession where i can set my own hours an am not a cog in the greater machinery of an organization, I would be happy to do "work." Being part of an organization is extremely limiting.
That is why I am here, I think, and for the financial security.
Since that post is a nice description, I quote it here:I like doing things, solving mysteries, but I don't like the structure of work - the structure of 9-5 as others have said and the complete lack of flexibility of my time. I have very autonomous setup, no direct reports, report directly to a very senior person in the org, can do my duties in 2-3 hrs daily, and still, I really have the expectation of the 9-5 and only 2 weeks vacation. If I were a writer (and not need the income that much), or an independent scientist (like it was in the middle ages), or a private detective (like in the show Elementary) or an artists or some profession where i can set my own hours an am not a cog in the greater machinery of an organization, I would be happy to do "work." Being part of an organization is extremely limiting.
That is why I am here, I think, and for the financial security.
Of course not all people are like that, but many are, and that they are shackled is a loss to all people.
I shudder when thinking what Leonardo da Vinci could have done if he didn't had to spend half of his time working to earn money (though many of those works are great stuff too, of course).
Since that post is a nice description, I quote it here:I like doing things, solving mysteries, but I don't like the structure of work - the structure of 9-5 as others have said and the complete lack of flexibility of my time. I have very autonomous setup, no direct reports, report directly to a very senior person in the org, can do my duties in 2-3 hrs daily, and still, I really have the expectation of the 9-5 and only 2 weeks vacation. If I were a writer (and not need the income that much), or an independent scientist (like it was in the middle ages), or a private detective (like in the show Elementary) or an artists or some profession where i can set my own hours an am not a cog in the greater machinery of an organization, I would be happy to do "work." Being part of an organization is extremely limiting.
That is why I am here, I think, and for the financial security.
Of course not all people are like that, but many are, and that they are shackled is a loss to all people.
I shudder when thinking what Leonardo da Vinci could have done if he didn't had to spend half of his time working to earn money (though many of those works are great stuff too, of course).
https://harvardpolitics.com/against-ubi-in-america/
A concise, but balanced take on UBI.
There is no moral argument for a program that ignores what we already know about poverty and proposes to reduce the benefit that some poor people are receiving right now to free up money for otherwise healthy, educated and able bodied people to give them the option of not working.
Let's be frank.Yes. That's what all other stuff mentioned here is about, too. Practically every political decision is about the distribution of wealth.
Proponents of a UBI simply want more welfare and redistribution of wealth/income.
They say a UBI will be cost neutral -No.
Why don't we give either a random stranger or even our own, young adult children a $1000/month allowance (guaranteed, no strings attached)?I do, in the form of the GiveDirectly charity. But it's not all to one individual.
By traditional metrics, Andrew Yang’s 2020 presidential bid ended in defeat. But the political newcomer’s legacy endures, as his campaign centerpiece, universal basic income, slowly becomes more mainstream in cities across the country.
Now, as Yang embarks on a new campaign for mayor of New York City, he’s again made cash relief a pillar of his platform. It’s unclear yet how Yang will fare against an early slate of nearly three dozen candidates — thus far, he’s garnered criticism for wrongly identifying a bodega, and for comments viewed as out of touch with regular New Yorkers. But as during his national run, he’s bringing serious policy attention to the concept of giving residents recurring cash payments, no strings attached.
This time, he’s talking less about the threat of automation to America’s jobs, and more about the economic devastation wrought locally by the coronavirus. Yang’s New York City proposal is not nearly as expansive as the “Freedom Dividend” of $1,000 a month for all American adults he pitched as a presidential hopeful. And it would not be “universal,” instead targeting half a million of New York City’s lowest-income residents. Recipients would receive an average of $2,000 annually, depending on income, costing the city $1 billion a year, with the potential for expansion through private funding.
“Most everyone knows that if I had my way, we’d all be getting $1,000 a month from the federal government,” Yang told Bloomberg CityLab. “I’m thrilled to make it happen in the biggest, greatest city in the country.”
What Andrew Yang’s UBI Proposal Would Mean for NYC
Yang popularized universal basic income during his presidential run. Now he’s bringing new attention to cash relief in his campaign for New York City mayor.QuoteBy traditional metrics, Andrew Yang’s 2020 presidential bid ended in defeat. But the political newcomer’s legacy endures, as his campaign centerpiece, universal basic income, slowly becomes more mainstream in cities across the country.
Now, as Yang embarks on a new campaign for mayor of New York City, he’s again made cash relief a pillar of his platform. It’s unclear yet how Yang will fare against an early slate of nearly three dozen candidates — thus far, he’s garnered criticism for wrongly identifying a bodega, and for comments viewed as out of touch with regular New Yorkers. But as during his national run, he’s bringing serious policy attention to the concept of giving residents recurring cash payments, no strings attached.
This time, he’s talking less about the threat of automation to America’s jobs, and more about the economic devastation wrought locally by the coronavirus. Yang’s New York City proposal is not nearly as expansive as the “Freedom Dividend” of $1,000 a month for all American adults he pitched as a presidential hopeful. And it would not be “universal,” instead targeting half a million of New York City’s lowest-income residents. Recipients would receive an average of $2,000 annually, depending on income, costing the city $1 billion a year, with the potential for expansion through private funding.
“Most everyone knows that if I had my way, we’d all be getting $1,000 a month from the federal government,” Yang told Bloomberg CityLab. “I’m thrilled to make it happen in the biggest, greatest city in the country.”
The rest here:
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-01-28/what-s-in-andrew-yang-s-ubi-proposal-for-nyc
What Andrew Yang’s UBI Proposal Would Mean for NYC
Yang popularized universal basic income during his presidential run. Now he’s bringing new attention to cash relief in his campaign for New York City mayor.QuoteBy traditional metrics, Andrew Yang’s 2020 presidential bid ended in defeat. But the political newcomer’s legacy endures, as his campaign centerpiece, universal basic income, slowly becomes more mainstream in cities across the country.
Now, as Yang embarks on a new campaign for mayor of New York City, he’s again made cash relief a pillar of his platform. It’s unclear yet how Yang will fare against an early slate of nearly three dozen candidates — thus far, he’s garnered criticism for wrongly identifying a bodega, and for comments viewed as out of touch with regular New Yorkers. But as during his national run, he’s bringing serious policy attention to the concept of giving residents recurring cash payments, no strings attached.
This time, he’s talking less about the threat of automation to America’s jobs, and more about the economic devastation wrought locally by the coronavirus. Yang’s New York City proposal is not nearly as expansive as the “Freedom Dividend” of $1,000 a month for all American adults he pitched as a presidential hopeful. And it would not be “universal,” instead targeting half a million of New York City’s lowest-income residents. Recipients would receive an average of $2,000 annually, depending on income, costing the city $1 billion a year, with the potential for expansion through private funding.
“Most everyone knows that if I had my way, we’d all be getting $1,000 a month from the federal government,” Yang told Bloomberg CityLab. “I’m thrilled to make it happen in the biggest, greatest city in the country.”
The rest here:
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-01-28/what-s-in-andrew-yang-s-ubi-proposal-for-nyc
I cannot wait to get layed off and collect free money. I refuse to work only to have it transferred to others in a disregard for the value of my time and effort.Well, you are free to set up yourself in the Inner Mongolia, the Australian outback or the Sahara if you don't like the thing called society.
I cannot wait to get layed off and collect free money. I refuse to work only to have it transferred to others in a disregard for the value of my time and effort.Well, you are free to set up yourself in the Inner Mongolia, the Australian outback or the Sahara if you don't like the thing called society.
Roughly half of the people in modern societies live off of the production of others. Even more if you count such unproductive things like opera or corporate laywer.
Conservative Think Tank hates progressive policy! Up next: Water is wet!
https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Institute_for_Family_Studies (https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Institute_for_Family_Studies)
See, that's why I brought up these examples.I cannot wait to get layed off and collect free money. I refuse to work only to have it transferred to others in a disregard for the value of my time and effort.Well, you are free to set up yourself in the Inner Mongolia, the Australian outback or the Sahara if you don't like the thing called society.
Roughly half of the people in modern societies live off of the production of others. Even more if you count such unproductive things like opera or corporate laywer.
I guess it kind of means what it means to '"live off the production of others." Unless you are some mountain man , off the grid in back-country Utah, some of what you consume is the production of others.
Also, I am not sure why opera and corporate lawyers are considered unproductive. People pay money to be entertained by the opera singer. The corporation who employs the lawyer presumably benefits from the lawyer's expertise and output.
With the only drawbacks that it is expensive and often does not work (admittedly because the "conservatives" try to make it that way, like demanding a driver's license (or some hard to get costly other document) to get food stamps. Real case.)Conservative Think Tank hates progressive policy! Up next: Water is wet!
https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Institute_for_Family_Studies (https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Institute_for_Family_Studies)
A progressive policy (UBI?) that hurts the most needy while giving to the most to the people that don't need it? Targeted assistance to the truly poor, particularly the elderly relying on SS (or nothing), makes a lot more sense to me.
Conservative Think Tank hates progressive policy! Up next: Water is wet!
https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Institute_for_Family_Studies (https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Institute_for_Family_Studies)
BS article does absolutely nothing but paint a picture of a subset workers being lazy - tell me how that matters at all to this discussion.
Conservative Think Tank hates progressive policy! Up next: Water is wet!
https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Institute_for_Family_Studies (https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Institute_for_Family_Studies)
A progressive policy (UBI?) that hurts the most needy while giving to the most to the people that don't need it? Targeted assistance to the truly poor, particularly the elderly relying on SS (or nothing), makes a lot more sense to me.
+1 - and I'd think in the short term, you don't take anything away from anyone. This idea that UBI has to be paid for by reducing existing social services assumes this somehow has to be "paid for" and further is a very specific way to pay for it. Sure doesn't seem that the federal government has any compelling reason to balance the budget on any time scale. Start the UBI without a bunch of other changes and see what happens. If we do need to net out the expense somehow, tax the rich before cutting other social programs.Conservative Think Tank hates progressive policy! Up next: Water is wet!
https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Institute_for_Family_Studies (https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Institute_for_Family_Studies)
A progressive policy (UBI?) that hurts the most needy while giving to the most to the people that don't need it? Targeted assistance to the truly poor, particularly the elderly relying on SS (or nothing), makes a lot more sense to me.
I think a good UBI would probably be progressive. i.e., it wouldn't do away with programs that are better handled at scale (like free healthcare and childcare ideally). And at the higher incomes, it'd effectively be taxed away anyway.
See, that's why I brought up these examples.I cannot wait to get layed off and collect free money. I refuse to work only to have it transferred to others in a disregard for the value of my time and effort.Well, you are free to set up yourself in the Inner Mongolia, the Australian outback or the Sahara if you don't like the thing called society.
Roughly half of the people in modern societies live off of the production of others. Even more if you count such unproductive things like opera or corporate laywer.
I guess it kind of means what it means to '"live off the production of others." Unless you are some mountain man , off the grid in back-country Utah, some of what you consume is the production of others.
Also, I am not sure why opera and corporate lawyers are considered unproductive. People pay money to be entertained by the opera singer. The corporation who employs the lawyer presumably benefits from the lawyer's expertise and output.
What is productive? Only if you get paid?
That would mean the same work done is productive if paid (like swindling researchers out of their scarce funds for publishing their papers) and unproductive if not paid (like the standard peer-review process which normally does not pay hte reviewers).
Or only if you produce something? Then opera certainly is unproductive, because it only consumes (a lot).
And corporate laywers? For the society they actually provide negative worth, even though they get paid a lot.With the only drawbacks that it is expensive and often does not work (admittedly because the "conservatives" try to make it that way, like demanding a driver's license (or some hard to get costly other document) to get food stamps. Real case.)Conservative Think Tank hates progressive policy! Up next: Water is wet!
https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Institute_for_Family_Studies (https://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Institute_for_Family_Studies)
A progressive policy (UBI?) that hurts the most needy while giving to the most to the people that don't need it? Targeted assistance to the truly poor, particularly the elderly relying on SS (or nothing), makes a lot more sense to me.
It seems UBI is really just a front for greater welfare (that's what a "progressive UBI" would entail).
I don't see the point of welfare unless it's to:
- Provide basics (healthcare, education, shelter, warmth, food)
- Ameliorate general inequality of opportunity (free childcare, free tuition for disadvantaged children, preferential university admission for poor students)
But then once those things are in place I don't want any more redistribution. If even with these systems in place you fail, then, well, you kinda deserve it. And beyond a safety net, I'm not interested in catering or pandering to the middle class.
That's not true at all because Americans are so split that you can generalize about their political beliefs. There are a large number of socialists, but there are many capitalists as well that don't believe the government should be distributing their income to the rich or the poor. Personally, I'm more supportive of health care services being provided and shoring up the system to help senior citizens rather than paying off student loans and giving UBI to young people that have decades ahead of them to earn a decent living rather than depending on taxpayers to a pay their way. Eventually, they will be senior citizens themselves and need the assistance. For now, they should be working without expecting handouts.But then once those things are in place I don't want any more redistribution. If even with these systems in place you fail, then, well, you kinda deserve it. And beyond a safety net, I'm not interested in catering or pandering to the middle class.
It is interesting how different countries view it. US people practically all directly jump to "I don't want to pay rich people /middle class anything" while Europeans generally go the "I don't give money to people who not want to work" road.
I just can't understand why people want redistribution...
I just can't understand why people want redistribution...
...other than toI think this blog post does a good job explaining why a UBI makes a better safety net: https://www.scottsantens.com/engineering-argument-for-unconditional-universal-basic-income-ubi-fault-tolerance-graceful-failure-redundancy
1. Provide a safety net
2. Shore up equality of opportunity, education, etc (and prevent excessive transmission of family wealth among generations)
I just can't understand why people want redistribution other than to
1. Provide a safety net
I just can't understand why people want redistribution other than toUBI is one of the worst ideas I've ever heard of, and I've heard of some pretty bad ones. I heard the other day that some "mothers" took out a full page ad in the New York Times because they are wanting the Biden admin to handout $2400/mo to mothers on top of all of the other tax credits and stimulus money they are already getting. And for men who are raising kids on their own, they say, "screw them" because it affected more women, so the men don't count. It's outrageous.
1. Provide a safety net
I just can't understand why people want redistribution...
devils advocate:
I just can't understand why people don't want redistribution.
What's so good at having a lot of people with not enough money, and a lot of people with more money than they need? It's bad for both sides!
I just can't understand why people want redistribution...
Another thought is that the productivity of society has increased greatly over the last 10/20/50/however many years. Some of those productivity increases have trickled down, but a lot of the benefits have been collected by those at the very top. I think it is reasonable that more of that benefit should be redistributed to society as a whole. Kind of like a dividend for everyone, not just those who own the capital. Not full blown communism, just capitalism where no one starts from zero.
For example, you work in widget factory. In 1990 your factory turned out 1000 widgets per factory worker per year. Now it's 2021 your factory produces 2000 widgets per worker per year. This is great news for the shareholders of the widget factory. For you on the factory floor though, it's probably not so great. You may have had your hours cut or your position eliminated, because demand was somewhat fixed, but your hourly rate hasn't changed in real terms. Or maybe the company now needs robot technicians instead of manual labor, and you don't have that skill set.
If there if a portion of the improved productivity is redistributed from the stockholders to everyone through a UBI, getting your hours cut isn't so big of a deal. Or you could even use your UBI to help you save up to go back to school so you could learn the skills you need to get a job more suited to the modern economy....other than toI think this blog post does a good job explaining why a UBI makes a better safety net: https://www.scottsantens.com/engineering-argument-for-unconditional-universal-basic-income-ubi-fault-tolerance-graceful-failure-redundancy
1. Provide a safety net2. Shore up equality of opportunity, education, etc (and prevent excessive transmission of family wealth among generations)
I think estate taxes should start at a lower threshold and be more progressive and would be a good way to fund a UBI, along with a small value added tax and maybe a carbon tax.
Here is another argument for why someone might want redistribution: https://www.scottsantens.com/wouldn-t-a-basic-income-just-be-stealing-from-those-who-earned-their-money
On a more fundamental level, why should the factory floor worker share the gains of improved efficiency processes he had no hand in developing?
Pretty much that. If someone is young and capable of working, they shouldn't be getting free handouts. People with jobs shouldn't be getting a UBI funded on the back of seniors and poor people who will lose their other social services, receive no net gain, and pay higher taxes to pay UBI to the wealthy people that don't need it.
It's on the worker to bargain with the employer. If he or she thinks productivity has gone up but wages haven't, then there's a gap there and it needs to be bargained for. To be clear, I'm not against unions, so the worker can either bargain individually or bargain with unions. But life entails bargains.You know why unions even exist? Because there is an inherent difference in bargaining power. And that is even with bargaining.
Give every poor family with children $20k a year for all I care, in the form of tuition vouchers, food vouchers, scholarships, music lesson vouchers, etc.Why not just the money instead and safe all that inefficiency inherent to vouchers?
On a more fundamental level, why should the factory floor worker share the gains of improved efficiency processes he had no hand in developing?I guess you have never heard of "idea management"?
You know why unions even exist? Because there is an inherent difference in bargaining power. And that is even with bargaining.
Why not just the money instead and safe all that inefficiency inherent to vouchers?As I stated before, I have absolutely no issue with giving someone $20k in cash a year instead of $20k in vouchers; the problem is, though, we'd have to agree that if they misspend the $20k or use it on shit (drugs, gambling) instead of what it's meant to be used for, there's no more in reserve. Otherwise we're paying people multiple instalments of UBI.
I guess you are from the US? because that sounds so like it.QuoteWhy not just the money instead and safe all that inefficiency inherent to vouchers?As I stated before, I have absolutely no issue with giving someone $20k in cash a year instead of $20k in vouchers; the problem is, though, we'd have to agree that if they misspend the $20k or use it on shit (drugs, gambling) instead of what it's meant to be used for, there's no more in reserve. Otherwise we're paying people multiple instalments of UBI.
So that's the issue really - UBI is never enough, if given solely in cash form, unless you're going to tell me that someone who spends it immediately on drugs is then going to be turned away from the food bank?
Here in Europe we have a different tradition, the humanism.For emergency medical services, you can't be turned away in the US either. One problem with our system is that too many things end up in the emergency department that would be better and cheaper to deal with elsewhere earlier. Generally the poor do have some access to government sponsored healthcare which should provide all necessary medical care (necessary defined by bureaucrats not the patient's doctor, limited available providers, often long wait times, may be difficult to navigate coverage, might not be available to undocumented foreigners residing here).
Here you have a right to be treated for your illness even if you cannot afford it and caused it courself - may it be because of drugs (legal or illegal), behavior (skiing is the main reason for some types of operations on under 30 year olds) or stupidity (driving too fast).
The cash transfer reduced income volatility, for one: Households getting the cash saw their month-to-month earnings fluctuate 46 percent, versus the control group’s 68 percent. The families receiving the $500 a month tended to spend the money on essentials, including food, home goods, utilities, and gas. (Less than 1 percent went to cigarettes and alcohol.) The cash also doubled the households’ capacity to pay unexpected bills, and allowed recipient families to pay down their debts. Individuals getting the cash were also better able to help their families and friends, providing financial stability to the broader community.
The best way to get people out of poverty is just to get them out of poverty; the best way to offer families more resources is just to offer them more resources.