Universal basic income: forced early retirement

[Left]

Now what do you want people (including you) do for "work"? And WHY do you want them to work? Their work will quite literally accomplish nothing.

if they accomplish nothing, what's the point of even keeping them around?

round them up and ship them off somewhere... that's the entire argument for prisons, criminals work against society, are not productive and so we lock them up where they are apart from society

you don't see my view point that I think if people are not forced to contribute to society if they have UBI, they would spend the money on self indulgence... at this point, what's the point of having a large population? The govt could selectively kill the population and have no effect on society, they would simply not be missed. Who would miss Joe, John, Jane, Etc if all they did was sit around the house?

[waltworks]

Now what do you want people (including you) do for "work"? And WHY do you want them to work? Their work will quite literally accomplish nothing.

if they accomplish nothing, what's the point of even keeping them around?

round them up and ship them off somewhere... that's the entire argument for prisons, criminals work against society, are not productive and so we lock them up where they are apart from society

Ok, how about if it's your job that robots take over? You want to be shipped off "somewhere"?

I'm starting to think you're just trolling. That response can't be serious.

-W

[Left]

Ok, how about if it's your job that robots take over? You want to be shipped off "somewhere"?

I'm starting to think you're just trolling. That response can't be serious.

-W

lol I'm a troll because you don't agree with me? if you want to insult me, i'm sure you can do better, put some effort into it

if my job is taken over by robots, i will find another job to do. Or hell, live off my investments because this is MMM forums and I will have hit FI by then

You seem to think UBI is equivalent to FI? If everyone has UBI, they can do whatever they want without any obligations to the people who provide them the UBI? Sorry, I see UBI as another form of a paycheck, the recipients have an obligation to the entity that provides the UBI because they have not earned the money for free

[waltworks]

Well, I'm FI. So I don't need a UBI for money.

But I want one anyway if lots of people are desperate and unemployed, because desperate unemployed people tend to turn violent and take away all that nice wealth from the wealthy violently. Ask a Russian nobleman...

Also, because I'm not a dick...

[Left]

how is it a dick move to expect people to work for their money? if they want UBI, then give it to them on the condition that they work for it
if someone wants to paint, let them paint public office space and roads...
if they want to create something, let them build public housing/etc
if they want to garden, let them take care of public parks

yes robots can do this, but so again so what? people can still work for the money <--- address this part, why shouldn't people have to work for UBI money?

why would they be "unemployed" if what I want is for them to be employed to get the ubi? if they don't like not having the freedom to choose their jobs, then they can find a way to earn money and decline the UBI money

[goateeman]

how is it a dick move to expect people to work for their money? if they want UBI, then give it to them on the condition that they work for it
if someone wants to paint, let them paint public office space and roads...
if they want to create something, let them build public housing/etc
if they want to garden, let them take care of public parks

yes robots can do this, but so again so what? people can still work for the money <--- address this part, why shouldn't people have to work for UBI money?

why would they be "unemployed" if what I want is for them to be employed to get the ubi? if they don't like not having the freedom to choose their jobs, then they can find a way to earn money and decline the UBI money

It is a dick move to force people to waste time and energy on meaningless tasks just to survive. That's freaking sadistic.  Holy damn.

This is what's wrong with the world. People are illogical. They want to see others suffer needlessly to suit some "ideal".  Very sickening.

Employment is not some "holy grail" that makes one person better than another person. There are tons of people born into silver spoons who will never have to work a day in their life because they had parents who somehow made money off the backs of others.  Just because they have some money "legitimate or ill-gotten", somehow they are better than someone born into a very poor family / environment with no means to advance.  This is better? How?

I'm a compassionate human being because I hate to see people suffer. This story brings in some lessons:  https://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/12/magazine/the-mixed-up-brothers-of-bogota.html

Two twins mixed up at birth.  One twin was accidentally adopted by a wealthier family and got a nice cushy desk job.  The other one wanted to go to school desperately and couldn't afford it, and ended up being a butcher in a very poor village.

Is one better than the other?  This is sick if we think one twin is better than the other.  All human beings are valuable, they shouldn't have to suffer needlessly.

Those who hold the opinion "let them have jobs" like Marie Antoinette who said "let them have cake!" will be sorry sooner or later, when their inhumanity causes them to be destabilized by those who are oppressed.

[JLee]

Ok, how about if it's your job that robots take over? You want to be shipped off "somewhere"?

I'm starting to think you're just trolling. That response can't be serious.

-W

lol I'm a troll because you don't agree with me? if you want to insult me, i'm sure you can do better, put some effort into it

if my job is taken over by robots, i will find another job to do. Or hell, live off my investments because this is MMM forums and I will have hit FI by then

You seem to think UBI is equivalent to FI? If everyone has UBI, they can do whatever they want without any obligations to the people who provide them the UBI? Sorry, I see UBI as another form of a paycheck, the recipients have an obligation to the entity that provides the UBI because they have not earned the money for free

What if I have one of these ridiculous mandatory UBI jobs, like digging a hole and filling it back in, but in my spare time I build a robot and then install the robot to do the job I was doing previously.  Am I then no longer working, and as such not "earning my money" because I devised a superior tool to accomplish the same task?

[swashbucklinstache]

Taken to an extreme...

What if there were one robot that could do every single thing that ever needs to be done, better and faster than all humans in the entire world combined ever could? Should we have all of humanity work for essentially no benefit to anyone, or could we find better things for them to do? Even if that's relax and do nothing but the {legal, non-deleterious} things that make you and those around you happy?

This is coming from someone who is not a proponent of outright UBI by any means by the way. And no I don't think the above item is going to happen anytime soon or is generally useful in this conversation, but it is merely to address this specific argument about implementing UBI.

[BTDretire]

Interesting post, so why don't we add a dissenting opinion:

I'm completely against the concept of UBI!

To sum up why:

1. It's immoral to take by force from one and give to another
2. Government administration of such a program is guaranteed to be politically motivated and inefficient
3. Private charity is welcome to fund such a program if they can get enough voluntary donations to do so
4. Perhaps human over-population is the root cause that we should be discussing a strategy for?

I believe UBI's basic concept is everyone gets a basic stipend for basic rent and food, and nothing more.

It's not taking from one another to give to someone else, it's to give everyone the same amount to start with.

But you have to have someone work/produce and then take their earnings in order to give it to those that don't work/produce and earn their own food and housing.  Then you're going to give the earner back some of his own money as part of this basic income.

There would be minimal administration since everyone gets a flat amount, period.  Very little room for abuse. 

Little room for abuse, unless you call not working because you can live on the flat amount given to you.
Also, already a lot of people working for cash, that would continue with a Universal basic income.

Private charity is often inefficient and scam ridden.  I have volunteered at charities where there are certain people who gain incredible perks or money that outsiders know nothing about.  If you are against inefficiency then you should be against most charities which waste so much money on marketing and administration, amongst other hidden costs.  Each charity, even if efficient, has its own administration costs and overhead that is duplicated at every organization. 

Yep, I once got a call from a boiler room for a donation, I ask what percentage of my donation will go to the charity, the answer was 5%. Whether that was true or a smart ass remark I don't know but, I do know the call was from one of those rooms where you can hear a dozen other calls in the background.

[/quote]

[starguru]

If current entitlements are any indication,  thinking people will accept a base amount that only covers necessities might be wishful thinking.  As soon as a majority tastes this "free" money they will want more. 

On the other hand,  in some sort of hypothetical future where machines can do most or all jobs better than people, I feel the cost of food and shelter would have to be much less than they are now.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[JLee]

Thought exercise -- let's say you have a company ran by one person and employing 1050 people.  The owner replaces 1000 of his employees with 10 robots, and the 50 remaining people are able to handle all of the operations of the company, robot maintenance, etc.  They charge the same amount for their services.  With the savings from not paying 1,000 salaries, the company owner's earnings increase dramatically.

Now imagine that scenario playing out thousands of times.  We now have thousands of wealthy business owners and millions of unemployed people. All the money in the economy that would've gone to worker salaries is now padding the investment accounts of the business owners.

Someone suggested creating jobs to perform menial tasks so that way people had to "work" for their money.  If I am a business owner with a robot that can replace 100 people, why on earth would I employ any people - and pay them money - if my robot can do a better job for almost no money at all?

[gerardc]

Some of you seem to not understand that if robots are more intelligent & capable than humans and are replicable, and they take care of everything... not only is there no need to work, but there is no need for money. In fact, money will have no value and won't even be used anymore. So in the end, there won't be a UBI at all, just a total "communist" state where all needs are met and people simply don't care what belongs to whom because it has no value. Kinda like air now; it is necessary but has no cost because it's easily accessible for free anywhere. If everything becomes like that, there won't even be an incentive for "people who own the companies that own the robots" to make more money, because there's literally nothing that this money could buy them.

[Prairie Stash]

how is it a dick move to expect people to work for their money? if they want UBI, then give it to them on the condition that they work for it
if someone wants to paint, let them paint public office space and roads...
if they want to create something, let them build public housing/etc
if they want to garden, let them take care of public parks

yes robots can do this, but so again so what? people can still work for the money <--- address this part, why shouldn't people have to work for UBI money?

why would they be "unemployed" if what I want is for them to be employed to get the ubi? if they don't like not having the freedom to choose their jobs, then they can find a way to earn money and decline the UBI money

So a SAHP shouldn't get money? A retiree shouldn't get UBI? The disabled? Or what about the current people getting unemployment checks?

Currently in Canada there's several forms of UBI, a child born today will get UBI for over 40% of their life. Children are guaranteed $5000 a year till 18. Seniors get Guaranteed Income Supplements at 65. How do you reconcile your views when you realize that most people already have guaranteed income.

[undercover]

if they have to sweep and paint all the highways to get it, to clean up the sidewalks, they should be doing it for the income. If they want a basic income provided by the country, they should be doing something to benefit the country in return

This.

if they accomplish nothing, what's the point of even keeping them around?

Not only is your point irrelevant, but you're venturing into philosophy. What's the point of anything we do? Is there necessity in any particular person eating or breathing?

The replacement of menial type jobs is only the beginning. We're not talking about just "keeping up" a degenerate part of the society that's completely useless to the elite that still have jobs and are "valuable". We're talking about the fact that most every job that anyone does will likely be replaced in some capacity. You don't wait until that eventuality comes to fruition. You do something about it now. Again, I think this is fairly inevitable. If you extrapolate any rate of progress and the likely inevitability of all of this happening based on said progress then there's only one or two conclusions.

Some of you seem to not understand that if robots are more intelligent & capable than humans and are replicable, and they take care of everything... not only is there no need to work, but there is no need for money.

Also this. UBI, whether it happens or not, is a mere stepping stone to the "actual" future. Money will become antiquated since resources are abundant and automatically produced. Obviously resources are not unlimited so there will have to be some sort of cap, but the cap will still be well beyond anything anyone could possibly need or desire. Not technically unlimited, but virtually unlimited. I also think AR/VR will play a major role in all of this where most physical items we associate with being "real" are perfectly simulated.

Kinda like air now; it is necessary but has no cost because it's easily accessible for free anywhere.

I think most of the critics here are getting too caught up on the word "free" as if A) giving someone something for free is morally/ethically/logically wrong or B) actually free. We can debate "A" all night long but nothing is actually free. Years and years of sweat and collective human innovation has gone into increasing productivity, efficiency, standard of living, and the eventual antiquation of money. A lot of America has such a focus on "independence" culturally that we forget we're all humans and all working together for the same shit and we're all in the same boat.

We already collectively benefit form all of the technological improvements that have been made over the years to where a lot of things are already "technically" free.

[Drifterrider]

I believe UBI's basic concept is everyone gets a basic stipend for basic rent and food, and nothing more.

It's not taking from one another to give to someone else, it's to give everyone the same amount to start with.

[/quote]

So, everyone lives for free AND just where does this "free" money come from.  You can't "give" anyone anything unless you have it to begin.  You must either create it, or get it from elsewhere.

So again, where does this "free stipend" come from?

[Metric Mouse]

Thought exercise -- let's say you have a company ran by one person and employing 1050 people.  The owner replaces 1000 of his employees with 10 robots, and the 50 remaining people are able to handle all of the operations of the company, robot maintenance, etc.  They charge the same amount for their services.  With the savings from not paying 1,000 salaries, the company owner's earnings increase dramatically.

Now imagine that scenario playing out thousands of times.  We now have thousands of wealthy business owners and millions of unemployed people. All the money in the economy that would've gone to worker salaries is now padding the investment accounts of the business owners.

Someone suggested creating jobs to perform menial tasks so that way people had to "work" for their money.  If I am a business owner with a robot that can replace 100 people, why on earth would I employ any people - and pay them money - if my robot can do a better job for almost no money at all?

If nobody has salaries, who is paying the same price for the products these business owners are having their robots make? Wouldn't prices begin to fall at some point, thus reducing profit?

[talltexan]

Isn't this kind of what they have in Alaska where they pay every resident a dividend 1ce/year based on the oil revenue. Rather than spending it on necessities, Alaskans are using the money as a chance for a 1ce/year upgrade to their durable goods, such as snow-mobiles.

[golden1]

I agree.  I am against it too.  Why are we doing away with human jobs.  People need those jobs to make a living and feed their families. I don't think they are working those jobs because they love them. You are talking millions of people.  I really would hate to see the day.  I understand efficiency, etc but honestly how efficient do we need to be and how much more money do these people need to make. Let folks earn some money.

See, this is why I think that UBI will never happen, not without violence.  The mindshift involved in really understanding how quickly and abruptly our complex world is changing is too much for people to handle emotionally.   A lot of people can't imagine life any other way and what is coming is going to break people psychologically in many cases.  Frankly, people are too petty.  They won't see that all people will be better off, they will see that someone is getting something for doing nothing, and that can't be tolerated.  They can't see the forest for the trees. 

I see the arguement of UBI being an action of "force" - taking your money away that you earned and giving it to someone else.  Well, imagine you are a truck driver, and that is the ONLY skill you have.  Your friends are all truck drivers.   Then your company, who has been testing automated trucks gives you a pink slip.  You go to look for another job, and maybe you get one.  Six months later they automate too.  Soon you are looking at having to relocate, or work a completely non skilled job for less than half of what you made before.   You don't have the money or time to retrain.  All your friends and family are in a similar boat, all within a few years of each other.  They see people in cities or the CEO getting richer and richer while everyone they know suffers through no fault of their own.  This is how riots start.  If we don't come up with a way, as a society, to address these types of issues, violence is going to happen anyway. 

The types of industry shifts that are going to happen in the next 5-20 years are going to leave a lot of people who trained their whole lives for a profession without a profession.  Without a plan for that, our society will crumble. 

[Prairie Stash]

I believe UBI's basic concept is everyone gets a basic stipend for basic rent and food, and nothing more.

It's not taking from one another to give to someone else, it's to give everyone the same amount to start with.

So, everyone lives for free AND just where does this "free" money come from.  You can't "give" anyone anything unless you have it to begin.  You must either create it, or get it from elsewhere.

So again, where does this "free stipend" come from?
[/quote]
Where does the money come for the current 37.1% of Americans who could be working and aren't? The labor force participation rate is a measure of the number of Americans who could be working but choose not to, the unemployment rate only measures Americans who are looking for work. When you go to work today keep in mind that 37% of your fellow citizens are voluntarily not seeking work.     https://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS11300000

UBI evens out the difference, instead of some people getting money everyone gets treated the same. Then the money is heavily taxed and taken back into government coffers from those who can earn a better living.

In Canada there is UBI for children. All children receive $5400/year that is reduced for high income families. My youngest daughter has already been guaranteed support of $100,000+ by being born Canadian, she also has free healthcare for life. University costs are heavily subsidized, if I invest in a gov't program called RESP they will also cover 20% of her costs, I cover 80% of the expected $40,000 total costs (adjusted for inflation). After that she needs to work 40 years and then qualifies for guaranteed income support till death. Its expected she will have UBI for more than 50% of her life under the current system.

Can you tell me where the money for all children and all the elderly came from? Its there, but can you explain it? Its a tough Macroeconomic concept to explain, if you can't explain the "free stipend" that currently exists, is it reasonable to expect others to explain the future stipend?

[Left]

After that she needs to work 40 years and then qualifies for guaranteed income support till death. Its expected she will have UBI for more than 50% of her life under the current system.

Can you tell me where the money for all children and all the elderly came from? Its there, but can you explain it? Its a tough Macroeconomic concept to explain, if you can't explain the "free stipend" that currently exists, is it reasonable to expect others to explain the future stipend?

seems like Canada was investing in her so she could work those 40 years...

that's where the money is coming from, ask if they would have such a system if no Canadians work instead

the elderly, have already worked, and paid into the system so they get money as well, or most of them. The ones that are unable to work are exempted, I'm fine with that. But why should abled bodied people who are capable of working but choose not to be allowed to receive money?

[JLee]

After that she needs to work 40 years and then qualifies for guaranteed income support till death. Its expected she will have UBI for more than 50% of her life under the current system.

Can you tell me where the money for all children and all the elderly came from? Its there, but can you explain it? Its a tough Macroeconomic concept to explain, if you can't explain the "free stipend" that currently exists, is it reasonable to expect others to explain the future stipend?

seems like Canada was investing in her so she could work those 40 years...

that's where the money is coming from, ask if they would have such a system if no Canadians work instead

the elderly, have already worked, and paid into the system so they get money as well, or most of them. The ones that are unable to work are exempted, I'm fine with that. But why should abled bodied people who are capable of working but choose not to be allowed to receive money?

You seriously think that nobody would work...?

[OurTown]

UBI is in our future, like it or not.  Resistance is futile.

[Left]

not everyone no, but people already choose to not work if they can skate by life, why would UBI change this?

or rather, why do you think providing UBI will make people want to work/be productive?

as it stands, it doesn't matter if you point out that my argument is flawed, or not because UBI is not implemented yet. You can argue against me all you want, but unless you point out the positives to UBI, I don't have to vote for it (or vote for people who will)

to me, living a life of self indulgence does not help the country, so why spend tax money enabling it? what services will people who receive UBI give in return? I offered my suggestion of making them work and people didn't like the idea of working for ubi. So what else is left?

if people can somehow "be creative" as a service to the country to UBI, then isn't that going to be their "job" that they have to keep performing to keep getting UBI? still not seeing how this is different than my idea of making people work for ubi. If they can't offer a service/skill, then make them do menial labor is okay with me. They get UBI still

----------------------

why would UBI be the future? it is no different than forming breadlines in Venezuela, stand in line for UBI money, then use it to go buy the bread instead of getting the bread handout directly. If UBI is given out, govt can cut other areas of social net, business owners can increase prices... "inequality" will not be leveled out by giving people money because all it does it move the numbers around. The poor people will still remain poor, with or without UBI.

do people really think ubi is some magic solution to end poverty? when everyone has the same $100 in their wallets, they are no better off than when they had $5 because they still can't out spend each other on the economic ladder. and a business can price out goods to account for the extra $95 they have to spend. Paint a toy a different color and get them to spend $10 here, and $10 for another color. In the end, they are no better off

the least people who want UBI can do is to suggest providing some financial education as a condition to get the money so they can use the UBI money in a way to get ahead, and yet, no... no extra education, nothing but hand them money and trust they will do better than they have with the money they have now when they don't have ubi

[golden1]

as it stands, it doesn't matter if you point out that my argument is flawed, or not because UBI is not implemented yet. You can argue against me all you want, but unless you point out the positives to UBI, I don't have to vote for it (or vote for people who will)

I don't understand why you think work itself, without producing anything of value or providing any service, is something of value.   I believe you, and everyone else, have inherent value despite any work you do or don't do.

The positives to UBI are basically to avoid the suffering and death and social unravelling if (and likely when) we get to the point where our current needs and wants are being produced with minimal human labor.  Personally, I think that UBI is an imperfect solution, because unlike most Mustachians, most people need something structured to do with their time in order to be mentally healthy, and most aren't self motivated enough to find that occupation on their own without external proddings.  People also need purpose and meaning to their lives.  I am not sure UBI does enough to solve that core problem.   

[golden1]

Funny enough, one of my favorite blogs ahs an article about this very subject today - not a bad summary of the whole issue.

https://weeklysift.com/2017/03/06/jobs-income-and-the-future/

[Left]

the article gave this as an example

GiveDirectly is an upstart charity funded by Silicon Valley money, and it has tossed aside the old teach-a-man-to-fish model of third-world aid in favor of the direct approach: Poor people lack money, so give them money. It has a plan to provide a poverty-avoiding basic income — about $22 a month — for 12 years to everybody in 40 poor villages in Kenya. Another 80 villages will get a 2-year basic income. Will this liberate the recipients’ creativity? Or trap them in soul-destroying dependence and rob them of self esteem?

my question to the experiment, can they leave the village and keep getting the $22/month? Or are they isolated to living only in the village if they want to keep getting it. Because no company will open a store in a village where people only have $22/month to spend, so what will they spend the money on?

my guess, the impact will be about the same as volunteer tourism... some will use money to buy a pump/farm animal, use it to make additional income on the side. But those that do will move away from the village once they have enough income. the village will remain unchanged

hoping they take the money and buy books/study and move out of the village myself, and they can come back once they are successful and build community. But the scope of the experiment would not facilitate this

[Prairie Stash]

After that she needs to work 40 years and then qualifies for guaranteed income support till death. Its expected she will have UBI for more than 50% of her life under the current system.

Can you tell me where the money for all children and all the elderly came from? Its there, but can you explain it? Its a tough Macroeconomic concept to explain, if you can't explain the "free stipend" that currently exists, is it reasonable to expect others to explain the future stipend?

seems like Canada was investing in her so she could work those 40 years...

that's where the money is coming from, ask if they would have such a system if no Canadians work instead

the elderly, have already worked, and paid into the system so they get money as well, or most of them. The ones that are unable to work are exempted, I'm fine with that. But why should abled bodied people who are capable of working but choose not to be allowed to receive money?

GIS (aka UBI for elderly) is not tied to working. Its Canada's solution to reducing elderly poverty rates. In the USA its known as SSI, it has nothing to do with working. How do you feel about people that never worked, perhaps a non-working spouse, getting SSI?

As for the Governments investment, they are investing in all children that's true. But they also guarantee UBI to all children, on top of the educational investment. The UBI is free and not tied to future workloads, you can collect and still never work a day in your life. Is it fair that some in society get UBI and others don't because some people work while others don't?

How about trust fund babies, they too get free government money and yet some never work a day in their lives. Is that an equitable system? Should the amount of work you need to do be based on hereditary birthrights? Should Lord Left's children be exempted from future contributions because Lord Left was awesome? Such a system has been tried in the past; it resulted in Revolutions in France, Russia etc. Eventually people get angry if some are treated better just because of birthrights.

[Left]

How about trust fund babies, they too get free government money and yet some never work a day in their lives. Is that an equitable system?

so I ask again, are you trying to use UBI as a way to make life "fair"?

I could care less about things being "equitable", being in the US, we are already doing better than people born in poorer countries with more opportunities to get ahead

if the only goal for UBI is because people feel jaded that they weren't born wealthy, then no I will not support UBI. All it sounds like when someone says this is they are jealous and want to play robin hood

so what if a rich kid gets to lounge around, you want the same lifestyle and want to play keeping up with the jones on someone else's dime

I want to know how the ubi recipient will benefit the country in return for the country giving them the money.

[Prairie Stash]

After that she needs to work 40 years and then qualifies for guaranteed income support till death. Its expected she will have UBI for more than 50% of her life under the current system.

Can you tell me where the money for all children and all the elderly came from? Its there, but can you explain it? Its a tough Macroeconomic concept to explain, if you can't explain the "free stipend" that currently exists, is it reasonable to expect others to explain the future stipend?

seems like Canada was investing in her so she could work those 40 years...

that's where the money is coming from, ask if they would have such a system if no Canadians work instead

the elderly, have already worked, and paid into the system so they get money as well, or most of them. The ones that are unable to work are exempted, I'm fine with that. But why should abled bodied people who are capable of working but choose not to be allowed to receive money?

You seriously think that nobody would work...?

Its funny, I would receive $10,800/year for the next 15 years if I stopped working (child benefit cheques). With what I have saved that would be enough to have a subsistence lifestyle and I'm actually at the point where my investments would grow to cover the gap when the money stops (15 years is a lot of compounding time) Yet here I am still working....

I want a bit more in retirement than staying in my house doing nothing. So I work even though I have UBI guaranteed to my family. The amount that UBI pays is generally not enough for a fun life, ask people on Welfare how many vacations they go on. UBI isn't fun, by current standards, that's the incentive to work. People are greedy, myself included, greedy people aren't satisfied with the paltry amounts the government hands out.

[Prairie Stash]

How about trust fund babies, they too get free government money and yet some never work a day in their lives. Is that an equitable system?

so I ask again, are you trying to use UBI as a way to make life "fair"?

I could care less about things being "equitable", being in the US, we are already doing better than people born in poorer countries with more opportunities to get ahead

if the only goal for UBI is because people feel jaded that they weren't born wealthy, then no I will not support UBI. All it sounds like when someone says this is they are jealous and want to play robin hood

so what if a rich kid gets to lounge around, you want the same lifestyle and want to play keeping up with the jones on someone else's dime

I want to know what benefit the ubi recipient will provide to the country in return for the country giving them the money.

I thought your point was everyone should work if capable, obviously many capable people don't work. You seem okay with people of wealth not working but poor people should work? I may be misinterpreting you, that's how your point is coming off.

[JLee]

How about trust fund babies, they too get free government money and yet some never work a day in their lives. Is that an equitable system?

so I ask again, are you trying to use UBI as a way to make life "fair"?

I could care less about things being "equitable", being in the US, we are already doing better than people born in poorer countries with more opportunities to get ahead

if the only goal for UBI is because people feel jaded that they weren't born wealthy, then no I will not support UBI. All it sounds like when someone says this is they are jealous and want to play robin hood

so what if a rich kid gets to lounge around, you want the same lifestyle and want to play keeping up with the jones on someone else's dime

I want to know what benefit the ubi recipient will provide to the country in return for the country giving them the money.

I thought your point was everyone should work if capable, obviously many capable people don't work. You seem okay with people of wealth not working but poor people should work? I may be misinterpreting you, that's how your point is coming off.

That's the impression I get as well. The opinion seems to be that everybody should work for their money unless they were born into it, then they're welcome to reap the benefits of society without contributing at all because they already happen to have a whole bunch of money from their parents.

[Metric Mouse]

How about trust fund babies, they too get free government money and yet some never work a day in their lives. Is that an equitable system?

so I ask again, are you trying to use UBI as a way to make life "fair"?

I could care less about things being "equitable", being in the US, we are already doing better than people born in poorer countries with more opportunities to get ahead

if the only goal for UBI is because people feel jaded that they weren't born wealthy, then no I will not support UBI. All it sounds like when someone says this is they are jealous and want to play robin hood

so what if a rich kid gets to lounge around, you want the same lifestyle and want to play keeping up with the jones on someone else's dime

I want to know what benefit the ubi recipient will provide to the country in return for the country giving them the money.

I thought your point was everyone should work if capable, obviously many capable people don't work. You seem okay with people of wealth not working but poor people should work? I may be misinterpreting you, that's how your point is coming off.

That's the impression I get as well. The opinion seems to be that everybody should work for their money unless they were born into it, then they're welcome to reap the benefits of society without contributing at all because they already happen to have a whole bunch of money from their parents.

Is there something wrong with rich people not working?

[JLee]

How about trust fund babies, they too get free government money and yet some never work a day in their lives. Is that an equitable system?

so I ask again, are you trying to use UBI as a way to make life "fair"?

I could care less about things being "equitable", being in the US, we are already doing better than people born in poorer countries with more opportunities to get ahead

if the only goal for UBI is because people feel jaded that they weren't born wealthy, then no I will not support UBI. All it sounds like when someone says this is they are jealous and want to play robin hood

so what if a rich kid gets to lounge around, you want the same lifestyle and want to play keeping up with the jones on someone else's dime

I want to know what benefit the ubi recipient will provide to the country in return for the country giving them the money.

I thought your point was everyone should work if capable, obviously many capable people don't work. You seem okay with people of wealth not working but poor people should work? I may be misinterpreting you, that's how your point is coming off.

That's the impression I get as well. The opinion seems to be that everybody should work for their money unless they were born into it, then they're welcome to reap the benefits of society without contributing at all because they already happen to have a whole bunch of money from their parents.

Is there something wrong with rich people not working?

Nope. Please read my post in context before you start off on ridiculous tangents.

[Left]

You took mine out of context too, I said people who want ubi should work for it, not require everyone to work

The rich have worked for their money, and in doing so, made the country rich

What have ubi wanting people done to help the country? Anyone who has done much are well off enough to not need ubi

[JLee]

You took mine out of context too, I said people who want ubi should work for it, not require everyone to work

The rich have worked for their money, and in doing so, made the country rich

What have ubi wanting people done to help the country? Anyone who has done much are well off enough to not need ubi

I'm pretty sure everybody in this thread who's in favor of considering UBI is well off enough to not need it.

[waltworks]

I want to know how the ubi recipient will benefit the country in return for the country giving them the money.

From my (rich FI person) perspective, the benefits are:
1) They don't get really pissed and revolt and kill me/my family (or just vote to take my money away).
2) For those folks who are smart/creative/driven but born without money, they have a much better opportunity to contribute and invent neat stuff/cure a disease that affects my family/make great art that enriches my life.

Those are pretty obvious direct benefits to me, even if I don't personally need any free money, and setting aside the "human beings have inherent worth and dignity" sort of religious/philosophical side of it entirely.

-W

[Metric Mouse]

What have ubi wanting people done to help the country? Anyone who has done much are well off enough to not need ubi

Nothing. Absolutely nothing. But the argument is that the vast majority of people are inherenetly worth a basic standard of living; i.e. it is better for everyone (and the country) to have people survive rather than to have them dying in the street. And, since this is better, UBI is one way to address that. Since, in the USA, there also happens to be so much extra money floating around, literally enough to support everybody, while leaving rich people fantastically rich, that there is little argument against not doing it.

Now if one believes that it is better if people are left to die in the street if they don't work, even though it is almost certainly better for society, then UBI will not have a great leg to stand on.

[JLee]

What have ubi wanting people done to help the country? Anyone who has done much are well off enough to not need ubi

Nothing. Absolutely nothing. But the argument is that the vast majority of people are inherenetly worth a basic standard of living; i.e. it is better for everyone (and the country) to have people survive rather than to have them dying in the street. And, since this is better, UBI is one way to address that. Since, in the USA, there also happens to be so much extra money floating around, literally enough to support everybody, while leaving rich people fantastically rich, that there is little argument against not doing it.

Now if one believes that it is better if people are left to die in the street if they don't work, even though it is almost certainly better for society, then UBI will not have a great leg to stand on.

That seems to be the sentiment, though your phrasing of that perspective was pretty tame in comparison!

if they accomplish nothing, what's the point of even keeping them around?

round them up and ship them off somewhere... that's the entire argument for prisons, criminals work against society, are not productive and so we lock them up where they are apart from society

you don't see my view point that I think if people are not forced to contribute to society if they have UBI, they would spend the money on self indulgence... at this point, what's the point of having a large population? The govt could selectively kill the population and have no effect on society, they would simply not be missed. Who would miss Joe, John, Jane, Etc if all they did was sit around the house?

[talltexan]

For you conservatives who oppose UBI as an entitlement, how would you feel if we paired the UBI with abolishing the minimum wage? Why would we need a minimum wage once there was a UBI?

[Left]

I dont oppose ubi, I oppose having it given out unconditionally

Working is part of the basic living standard to me, if they want to stop working, they should work to save their own money.

I see ubi as a paycheck from the govt, so they are employed and have to do work for the country. This is no different than getting paid by a company and having to work for the paycheck

When they decide they dont want the ubi work conditions, they can find their own jobs and turn it down

[Metric Mouse]

For you conservatives who oppose UBI as an entitlement, how would you feel if we paired the UBI with abolishing the minimum wage? Why would we need a minimum wage once there was a UBI?

Interesting. I haven't seen this suggestion before, but it would seem to imply that there would be no need for an artificial minimum wage, since everyone would be taken care of. Some of that money could be re-captured to use to fund UBI, I suppose.

[mm1970]

Ok, how about if it's your job that robots take over? You want to be shipped off "somewhere"?

I'm starting to think you're just trolling. That response can't be serious.

-W

lol I'm a troll because you don't agree with me? if you want to insult me, i'm sure you can do better, put some effort into it

if my job is taken over by robots, i will find another job to do. Or hell, live off my investments because this is MMM forums and I will have hit FI by then

You seem to think UBI is equivalent to FI? If everyone has UBI, they can do whatever they want without any obligations to the people who provide them the UBI? Sorry, I see UBI as another form of a paycheck, the recipients have an obligation to the entity that provides the UBI because they have not earned the money for free

What if you can't?

I mean, what if you aren't able to find another job, because there aren't very many, and there are people more qualified than you?  And say, your investments are gone.  Someone stole your identity, the market crashed, you got cancer and insurance refused to pay, whatever.

The point being addressed here isn't necessarily that "people are lazy and what someone for nothing".  The point is "there isn't enough work". 

Hard work is a good thing, but it's not necessarily PAYING work.  I mean, look at the kind of work my mother did for decades.  It's a lot of manual labor to maintain a household and raise kids - but it was a lot less work for her than her mother and grandmother, and it's a lot less work for me than for her.

So, someday, we have robots.  They clean the streets, clean the bathrooms, grow the food, calculation insurance payouts for car accidents, whatever.  The only jobs left are the people who build the robots and program the robots.  And then you have the owners of the corporations who build the robots.

There's still "work" to be done in raising kids, making food, washing dishes, doing laundry, mowing your own lawn.  There's plenty of unpaid work (volunteering) that doesn't get done because people are busy working. 

You seem to be missing the point that it's not a laziness factor, it's a "lack of available work" factor that is being discussed.  Someone else mentioned it above - do you pay people to dig holes and fill them back in?

[Left]

There isnt a job? I said govt would issue one. raising the next generation to me would count as a "benefit to the country". I don't see your argument that stay at home moms would be excluded from ubi because you don't see it as a "job", the govt can classify raising kids as a ubi job

And yes, if they want ubi and cant do anything but dig holes, then they can dig holes for light poles and graves

You seem to be hung up on there not being jobs because of robots when you can make a robot not do a job with a switch. There, job is back

A robot is a machine, you operate it, it doesnt operate you. If we dont want a robot to do a job, we dont have to use one.

[JLee]

There isnt a job? I said govt would issue one. If raising kids is a job, then govt can classify it as a ubi job and solve that issue

And yes, if they want ubi and cant do anything but dig holes, then they can dig holes for light poles and graves

You seem to be hung up on there not being jobs because of robots when you can make a robot not do a job with a switch. There, job is back

A robot is a machine, you operate it, it doesnt operate you. If we dont want a robot to do a job, we dont have to use one.

Why should my taxes pay the salaries for 100 people to dig holes instead of the salary for 1 person to operate an excavator and perform the same amount of work? 

Your goal is to deliberately introduce massive inefficiencies solely because you have an irrational feeling that people have to "do something" in order to "deserve" money -- even if that "something" is stupid. Is that correct?

Still waiting for your response here, btw.

Ok, how about if it's your job that robots take over? You want to be shipped off "somewhere"?

I'm starting to think you're just trolling. That response can't be serious.

-W

lol I'm a troll because you don't agree with me? if you want to insult me, i'm sure you can do better, put some effort into it

if my job is taken over by robots, i will find another job to do. Or hell, live off my investments because this is MMM forums and I will have hit FI by then

You seem to think UBI is equivalent to FI? If everyone has UBI, they can do whatever they want without any obligations to the people who provide them the UBI? Sorry, I see UBI as another form of a paycheck, the recipients have an obligation to the entity that provides the UBI because they have not earned the money for free

What if I have one of these ridiculous mandatory UBI jobs, like digging a hole and filling it back in, but in my spare time I build a robot and then install the robot to do the job I was doing previously.  Am I then no longer working, and as such not "earning my money" because I devised a superior tool to accomplish the same task?

[Prairie Stash]

You took mine out of context too, I said people who want ubi should work for it, not require everyone to work

The rich have worked for their money, and in doing so, made the country rich

What have ubi wanting people done to help the country? Anyone who has done much are well off enough to not need ubi

How exactly have the people who inherited wealth made the country rich? its a tangent but lets be honest, its a double standard. For that matter, rich Lottery winners haven't worked either, there's lots of other people who haven't contributed work to society that would get a free pass. 

Regardless, have you done much research on WorkFare, its the program where people have to work for Welfare benefits. I think it would interest you, its basically what you're promoting.

[Left]

Regardless, have you done much research on WorkFare, its the program where people have to work for Welfare benefits. I think it would interest you, its basically what you're promoting.

no, I didn't know about it, but sure it would be what I'm promoting. UBI is welfare...

[JLee]

Regardless, have you done much research on WorkFare, its the program where people have to work for Welfare benefits. I think it would interest you, its basically what you're promoting.

no, I didn't know about it, but sure it would be what I'm promoting. UBI is welfare...

Not by the definition of the word, it isn't.

[Left]

Not by the definition of the word, it isn't.

by the way it would be used, it is

welfare is defined as a "social effort designed to promote the basic physical and material well-being of people in need."

is this not what UBI is meant to do? to provide a basic physical/material need for people? I'm good with it, but again, back to it having conditions to be met. Like other welfare systems in existence

say what you want about how welfare should be  freely given, but it isn't. that's the world we live in

[JLee]

Not by the definition of the word, it isn't.

by the way it would be used, it is

welfare is defined as a "social effort designed to promote the basic physical and material well-being of people in need."

is this not what UBI is meant to do? to provide a basic physical/material need for people?

The typical definition of "welfare" in a derogatory context is the following:

NORTH AMERICAN
financial support given to people in need.
synonyms:   social security, social assistance, benefit, public assistance; More

If you want to pull a nonstandard definition to fit your views, I suppose I can't stop you.

[Left]

synonyms:   social security, social assistance, benefit, public assistance;

didn't someone say SSI was already basic income for elderly people? so... it is welfare