Is Momentum Growing for Universal Basic Incomes? (msn.com) 322
"A successful basic-income trial in Stockton, California, has inspired a chain of similar pilots in other cities," reports Business Insider:
The city council of Saint Paul, Minnesota, voted to approve funding for a pilot there on Wednesday. The program is set to begin this fall and will give up to 150 low-income families $500 per month for up to 18 months — no strings attached... "I think there's a budding realization that not only is this a good thing for us to try, but that we may not have any other option," St. Paul mayor Melvin Carter said on a Wednesday press call...
"We're obviously seeing an unprecedented crisis in our communities across our country," Carter said. "We're coming to a recognition that we don't have a funding problem. We have a priorities problem."
Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey announced he was donating $3 million to a coalition of "Mayors for a Guaranteed Income." The group currently has 25 mayors -- two who are already overseeing pilot programs in their own cities -- while Chicago, Newark, and Atlanta "have created task forces to help design their programs," and the mayor of Pittsburgh would like to launch one of their own by the end of the year.
In another article, Business Insider created a map showing the locations of 48 basic income programs that have happened around the world (based on data from the Stanford Basic Income Lab). But they also provide this summary of their current state: So is basic income the real deal or a pipe dream? The results are still unclear. Some, like the initial pilots for Uganda's Eight program, were found to result in significant multipliers on economic activity and well-being. Other programs, however, returned mixed results that made further experimentation difficult. Finland's highly-touted pilot program decreased stress levels of recipients across the board, but didn't positively impact work activity.
The biggest difficulty has been in keeping programs going and securing funding. Ontario's three-year projects were prematurely cancelled in 2018 before they could be completed and assessed, and the next stages of Finland's program are in limbo. Likewise in the U.S., start-up incubator Y Combinator has been planning a $60M basic income study program, but can't proceed until funding is secured.
"We're obviously seeing an unprecedented crisis in our communities across our country," Carter said. "We're coming to a recognition that we don't have a funding problem. We have a priorities problem."
Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey announced he was donating $3 million to a coalition of "Mayors for a Guaranteed Income." The group currently has 25 mayors -- two who are already overseeing pilot programs in their own cities -- while Chicago, Newark, and Atlanta "have created task forces to help design their programs," and the mayor of Pittsburgh would like to launch one of their own by the end of the year.
In another article, Business Insider created a map showing the locations of 48 basic income programs that have happened around the world (based on data from the Stanford Basic Income Lab). But they also provide this summary of their current state: So is basic income the real deal or a pipe dream? The results are still unclear. Some, like the initial pilots for Uganda's Eight program, were found to result in significant multipliers on economic activity and well-being. Other programs, however, returned mixed results that made further experimentation difficult. Finland's highly-touted pilot program decreased stress levels of recipients across the board, but didn't positively impact work activity.
The biggest difficulty has been in keeping programs going and securing funding. Ontario's three-year projects were prematurely cancelled in 2018 before they could be completed and assessed, and the next stages of Finland's program are in limbo. Likewise in the U.S., start-up incubator Y Combinator has been planning a $60M basic income study program, but can't proceed until funding is secured.
The problem with universal basic income (Score:4, Insightful)
is that you eventually run out of other people's money
Re: The problem with universal basic income (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: The problem with universal basic income (Score:5, Insightful)
Keep on attacking the people dude, one day they are going to turn around and elect someone insane and destroy you and America. Oh look, perhaps they already have.
You are lying or you are misinformed https://www.epi.org/publicatio... [epi.org] In the three decades following World War II, hourly compensation of the vast majority of workers rose 91 percent, roughly in line with productivity growth of 97 percent. But for most of the past generation (except for a brief period in the late 1990s), pay for the vast majority lagged further and further behind overall productivity. From 1973 to 2013, hourly compensation of a typical (production/nonsupervisory) worker rose just 9 percent while productivity increased 74 percent. This breakdown of pay growth has been especially evident in the last decade, affecting both college- and non-college-educated workers as well as blue- and white-collar workers. This means that workers have been producing far more than they receive in their paychecks and benefit packages from their employers.
Re: The problem with universal basic income (Score:5, Interesting)
An ancedote to support your stagnant/decreasing pay comment:
In the early 1990s, I was a part-time college student working part-time as a general office temp (receptionist, filing clerk, mail room, etc.) thru Manpower temporary services. No special skills, just show up a couple days a week to various places and fill in for people who were out... paid $20 / hour. I lived in a 2 bedroom apartment in a "luxury" complex for $720 / month. After college, my first tech job (junior system admin & pc tech support) started at $75,000 / year with a $50,000 two-year retention bonus.
Basic starting jobs do not pay that now. Housing costs have gone up as well.
Re: The problem with universal basic income (Score:4)
Back in the 70s/80s, I made $5-7/hr bailing hay, milking, mucking, etc, while making minimum wage working in restaurants as dishwasher/bus buy.
Likewise, as a construction laborer up in Vail Colorado in 1979, I was making something like $8-11/hr (and that was just being a laborer, painter, framer). Regular framers were making IIRC, $12-20/hr. In fact, just looked this up (back then union and non-union were paid similar):
Jobs were plentiful and wages more than tripled from $5.49 in 1969 to 16.52 by 1982. [carpenterslocal308.org]
Now? Average Framer - Construction with Tools Skills Hourly Pay $16.81 [payscale.com]
Why is this so? Because illegals were allowed to come here and take jobs that could not be offshored, without paying taxes. [latimes.com]
Who is to blame? CONgress and presidents.
Even now, a simple bill to phase in a strong e-verify would have solved many issues and yet, CONgress/Trump refuse to do so.
The Dems want to simply increase minimum wage, without dealing with illegals. Nothing could be worse.
Until we solve the issues of illegals, minimum wage, AND a balanced budget (via fair taxation), then UBI will NEVER happen, or it will bankrupt America.
Re: The problem with universal basic income (Score:4, Informative)
Not everything is Marxism, there are many other things in the world.
Re:The problem with universal basic income (Score:5, Insightful)
is that you eventually run out of other people's money
And yet, we never seem to run out of taxpayer money to repeatedly bail out multi-billion dollar corporations who repeatedly blow their tax cuts on frivolous things such as stock buybacks and executive bonuses [cnn.com]. Perhaps if these companies hadn't squandered their money [forbes.com] they would have had a 3 - 6 month cushion of emergency money like people making minimum wage are supposed to have and wouldn't need to welfare queens.
Re: (Score:3)
Having a three-to-six-month cushion of emergency money is not great business sense, because that's a giant pile of money that could otherwise be invested in something. A pile of emergency money is just an opportunity cost.
Re: (Score:2)
is that you eventually run out of other people's money
The General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money [wikipedia.org] disagrees. When you give people money and they immediately spend most of it, that money goes back into the system to be passed along multiple times. An oversimplification but the basic premise is widely regarded as true. Looking at historic instead of theory, governments give away money to their people all the time. In these cases governments don't normally "run out of money" when they give it away. So why is it any different in this case?
The real fear o
Re:The problem with universal basic income (Score:5, Interesting)
So if the governments simply increase the money they give away then everything will be better?
Most of the arguments for UBI include removing other social programs. It's not clear this will be an increase, or that it will make things "better". That boils down to implementation and not something we can easily generalize here.
So where does the government GET that money from? Simply printing money never works.
When a government operates a treasury and central bank, all money is in some sense the government's money. Printing money is often unnecessary in this day and age. Money is created from nothing frequently without tying it to hard currency, and the mechanisms around this virtual money differs because it can also be destroyed easily. Every time someone gets a bank loan, money is created out of nothing. There are a lot of scenarios where this happens.
Taking that further. If you were given a UBI account to spend money, as a debit card. An additional restriction can be created that makes it difficult for that money to be put into a savings account. If for example you put an expiration on the money, most people would end up spending it (or losing it). Some clever people would hack around the restrictions but it's assumed this wouldn't be the majority of cases.
None of the UBI's have been able to be scaled up.
There are a lot of parameters to UBI. Not every one of them has been tried and the theories around it have not been disproven yet. We'll eventually have some example of success, and that particular argument goes away.
I'd recommend arguing against UBI on other grounds. Perhaps the principle is bad. Or it is less effective than an alternative social program. Or a more severe argument is that giving agency to people who seem bad with money doesn't help them in the long term. Maybe spending the money on something like job programs, or housing, or healthcare is more effective.
The closest is when the US government increased financial grants to students, then all those schools immediately increased the fees the students have to pay - this did nothing to benefit the students.
That's not a particularly close example. It didn't put money in the hands of debtors, or allowed them to make decisions on how the money was spent. But I do understand what you're getting it, the increase of consumer prices coincides with an increase of minimum wage. I would expect the same to occur with UBI. I guess you'd have to argue that the relationship is linear and never flattens out before you could really destroy the arguments in favor of UBI.
Taking minimum wage as a better model, cranking minimum wage up tends to close the wealth gap. The consequence to high minimum wage is that it can reduce growth (through higher consumer prices) and additionally make capital more difficult to obtain for business (through reduced growth). Neither extreme of minimum wage is good (zero versus 100% of median income), but most of the arguments come from the extremes. I'm of the school that thinks that optimizing only for growth or only for stability gets you neither. Compromise between economic growth and social stability is probably the right answer to every political and macroeconomic problem.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
If we're throwing radical ideas around, a solution to this would be to mandate birth control use with UBI, or even more audaciously, introduce licenses for child bearing similar to the Chinese one-child policy.
You never run out of other-peoples-money if 'other people' is a perpetually shrinking pool.
And forced abortions if a means tests is not passed.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I hope that a basic income is established so that I can increase rents and make bank.
No, you wont. What will happen is that all those vacancies will go away. And more people will chose to live on their own instead of cramming all together like they do now. There will be greater demand for housing because more people will be able to afford to live on their own.
Rental owners will have reduced carrying costs as a result.
And local businesses will have more customers - as we saw when we had the $600 week unemployment. Rental owners an small business owners are SCREAMING for another stimulus pack
Re:Rent. (Score:5, Insightful)
No, you wont. What will happen is that all those vacancies will go away. And more people will chose to live on their own instead of cramming all together like they do now. There will be greater demand for housing because more people will be able to afford to live on their own.
How, exactly, do you conclude that a scenario with no vacancies will not cause rents to increase?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
No, you wont. What will happen is that all those vacancies will go away. And more people will chose to live on their own instead of cramming all together like they do now. There will be greater demand for housing because more people will be able to afford to live on their own.
How, exactly, do you conclude that a scenario with no vacancies will not cause rents to increase?
More building. AND...we have no idea what the UBI would be. It may never be enough to cover housing costs. $1,500/month here in my town of Bumfuck, Potatohoe.
Jesus Fucking Christ! This is a social media site not an academic journal! I am laying out broad ideas! You fuckers seem to think that the economy works like some sort of dipshit retarded simpleton chart we had shoved down our throats in Econ 101/102!
You want a fucking argument FOR UBI/Stimulous? Here the fuck it is: https://www.ajc.com/news/unpai.. [ajc.com]
Re:Rent. (Score:5, Insightful)
Here's my argument against it: The rich - the ones who are going to foot the bill for UBI - will leave. A billionaire can easily live anywhere on the planet that they want. See what happened to France [dailymail.co.uk] and NYC. [foxbusiness.com]
Also, your argument about "more building" falls flat since you are saying that rent won't go up because there will be more building - but don't explain why the cost of building wouldn't go up when people have more money. (Also: "We have no idea what the UBI would be" just says that you have no idea, and no argument, and are just hand waving support for your argument.)
Re: Rent. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Jesus Fucking Christ! This is a social media site not an academic journal! I am laying out broad ideas!
Oh, you're an ideas man? Is that you, PHB?
Maybe if you thought through the details more, people would find your ideas more convincing. For you, the details are exactly the weakness of your ideas.
Re:Rent. (Score:5, Interesting)
No, you wont. What will happen is that all those vacancies will go away. And more people will chose to live on their own instead of cramming all together like they do now. There will be greater demand for housing because more people will be able to afford to live on their own.
How, exactly, do you conclude that a scenario with no vacancies will not cause rents to increase?
Because if there is less need to cram together, there will also will be less demand for living in cities in general. More demand overall does not necessarily mean more demand in any given location, and particularly not in areas where there are already approximately no vacancies.
The reality is that although some people choose to live in cities because they want to live in cities, most people live in cities because they work in cities. If they don't have to work just to survive, a lot of them won't bother to keep living in cities.
Don't believe me? Take a look at the Bay Area housing market collapse caused by just a couple of companies declaring that people can work from wherever they want for one year. Imagine what would happen if all of the Bay Area's low-wage workers all said, "You know what, the UBI is enough to live on anywhere else in the country. Screw you all. I'm moving to Idaho."
And of course, the temporary skyrocketing cost of goods and services because of lack of workers would then drive a lot of the tech workers to say, "Screw you all. I'm moving to Nebraska." And now you have a new equilibrium with lots more vacancies than you had before, at least in big cities.
Re: (Score:2)
I hope that a basic income is established so that I can increase rents and make bank.
Excellent. A lot of other people hope that a basic income is established so that their businesses will flourish. This is good. Increased rent will lead to increased construction. This is also good. If rents go up and supply is artificially restricted, democracy will eventually fix the restrictions. This is also good.
Some people imply (like you?) that rents will increase dollar-for-dollar the same as the basic income. Economics do not work that way. If rents suddenly double and construction is limited, some
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
panem et circenses (Score:5, Interesting)
This phrase originates from Rome in Satire X of the Roman satirical poet Juvenal (c. AD 100). In context, the Latin panem et circenses (bread and circuses) identifies the only remaining interest of a Roman populace which no longer cares for its historical birthright of political involvement. Here Juvenal displays his contempt for the declining heroism of contemporary Romans, using a range of different themes including lust for power and desire for old age to illustrate his argument.[6] Roman politicians passed laws in 140 BC to keep the votes of poorer citizens, by introducing a grain dole: giving out cheap food and entertainment, "bread and circuses", became the most effective way to rise to power.
When a 2000 year old theory cynically predicts this behavior, perhaps you need to go home and rethink your life. 250 years later, Rome was sacked.
In a word, no (Score:3, Insightful)
If everyone was honest, knew how to manage their finances, didn't expect any handouts from the government, took responsibility and accountability for their own situation, well being, etc... a UBI may in fact be beneficial.
But reality is completely different. We have people in the US who, when they lost their job due to COVID-19 and started receiving unemployment plus the extra $600 a week from the US Government, they were making more than when they were working, so their new short-term career was to live it up while the money was coming.
We also live in the "me me me" society. If anything, COVID-19 has demonstrated how society cannot even work together on a single goal - managing the spread of COVID-19.
Get rid of the greed, the pride, the "me me me" mentality, the hubris, the not being accountable for your own situation, not expecting the government to provide for you mentality, and maybe UBI would in some form work.
Not going to happen in my lifetime.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
But reality is completely different. We have people in the US who, when they lost their job due to COVID-19 and started receiving unemployment plus the extra $600 a week from the US Government, they were making more than when they were working, so their new short-term career was to live it up while the money was coming.
Living it up on $600 a week? I guess if you live in the slums of Delhi.
Get rid of the greed, the pride, the "me me me" mentality, the hubris, the not being accountable for your own situation, not expecting the government to provide for you mentality, and maybe UBI would in some form work.
Not being accountable for your own situation. Riiiigghht. Because the Universe is completely fair and not capricious at all. Our situation is 100% of our own doing. There is no propability or just plain stupid luck in the universe.
See, people who have lived through shit -adults - understand that one can do everything right and still get ones teeth kicked in because that is the nature of life.
Get rid of the greed, the pride, the "me me me" mentality, the hubris, the not being accountable for your own situation, not expecting the government to provide for you mentality, and maybe UBI would in some form work.
After the rest of your comment, that state
Re: (Score:3)
One of my favorite sayings: "Luck is when opportunity meets preparation."
One of two predicates, preparation, is sort-of or mostly under control of an individual. To comment on "mostly"... there are many who believe a good education is part of preparation. Even in that part of the equation, luck is a significant determinant. (Lots of people grow up in an environment where early and secondary education are well supported, lots of people grow up in an environment where it's spotty at best.)
The other predicate
Re: (Score:3)
Those who are unable or unwilling to put in the effort to benefit from such opportunities get what they deserve.
When you are 20 or so, taking the risk on those opportunities that arise is much much easier than when you are middle-aged.
The other thing is that in our society, the successes are broadcast loud and wide and every successful person (just about always one-hit-wonders who have yet to fail)
Re: (Score:3)
I am indeed someone sitting behind my computer, (could if I wished to be) working from home at a W2 job.
I was also "UP" once, having worked for a '90's startup, with plenty of stock options, then stock. Then 20010/2001 happened.
My wife and I are pathological savers, we live simply and frugally, and never overspent when we thought we had it. (except for the *really* nice workstation and monitor. :-) ). If I could offer one piece of advice to anyone: Follow the lessons learned by Mr. Micawber in Charles Dicke
Re: (Score:3)
Another factor is how many schemes and scams are skillfully made to look like opportunities, yet are carefully skewed such that if you work them for all they're worth, all you get is burned out. See also: gig economy, MLM.
The entire middle class has been working their opportunities hard, but the rewards haven't even kept up with inflation for decades. They don'e even get to start at zero anymore. Instead they start deep in debt for student loans. More work for less reward is Pavlov's recipe for slowly extin
it appeals libertarians (Score:4)
Libertarians love the aspect of replacing the welfare system with anarchy; being a flavor of anarchist themselves. Not all UBI schemes do this; just the most supported ones... I'm surprised more support isn't out there given all the tons of free market graft to be had suckering $ from people for services that are presently non-profit.
UBI can have a positive role but can not be a whole solution. Even in the USA, UBI can do a *little* good; for example, it's far more economically stimulating than any tax cut scheme (this should be obvious.) It surely helps more than massive subsidies to industries with many lobbyists which distorts the marketplace and often raises prices for consumers. One good use of UBI would be to feed it with tariffs for a win-win situation; that is, if you could competently apply tariffs (so USA can't try this.)
Furthermore, if you combine it with limited work hours (like 30 per week,) increased minimum wages, and responsible strong tariffs, UBI can be a transition tool for balancing out all those other plans. People will resent working while others do not and while that could be OK someday it won't be for a long time - so you need to invent more gainful employment as AI and physics force a cap on this. UBI can create some resentment while other schemes develop but in heavy use the resentful will use their $$ power to fight the system including encouraging corruption (as the established elites historically always do.)
Re: (Score:2)
Even in the USA, UBI can do a *little* good; for example, it's far more economically stimulating than any tax cut scheme (this should be obvious.)
It's not obvious, there's not a lot of data to support it, and the way you stated it, it's completely false (as an absolute it is false, because some tax cut schemes are more stimulating than some UBI schemes. The details of the schemes matter a lot and you say they don't).
Re: (Score:2)
Please explain mathematically how taking $10 from my pocket and putting it in someone else's pocket can be more economically stimulating than just my spending it. (This assumes no middle-man cut for the gov.)
Re: it appeals libertarians (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
The "rich guy invests it" part is how the wealth gets increased (to be partially taken) in the first place. The more of that you take, the less wealth you end up with overall in the longer term.
I mean, sure, you can tell (for example) all the car companies to sell all their factories for scrap and lay off all their workers in order to collect a bunch of stuff from them to hand out to others right away, but if you keep doing that, eventually you run out of people to take stuff from, because they are investin
Re: In a word, no (Score:4, Interesting)
tl:;dr of your comment: UBI would be great, if it weren't for the FSA.
Seriously, the biggest problem with UBI are irresponsible people. What do you do with the person who blows their UBI on booze and weed? Society ought to let them starve, but won't. So we wind up with welfare *on* *top* of UBI.
Re: (Score:3)
You underestimate the power of society to not-care. Just consider how many homeless people we have on the streets already, and how good everyone else is at ignoring them.
Re:In a word, no (Score:5, Insightful)
Is that what you would do if you got a guaranteed $600 per week? Just "live it up"?
You wouldn't go back to school, or start a business, or quit your job and take up painting full time? You'd just sit at home and watch T.V.? Wouldn't you get bored?
No, I think if people weren't so worried about how to pay the rent, a lot of them would suddenly have the courage and the time to start new endeavors. You know, like rich people do because they aren't so worried about how to pay the rent!
And we could finally get rid of the minimum wage.
Re: (Score:3)
Assertions are fun.
Re: (Score:3)
Perhaps because the richest Haves grabbed it all.
Uncertain... (Score:3, Insightful)
The problem that it is intended to address is real, but I'm not sure it would really address the problem. At least not unless accompanied by extensive price controls. Otherwise some folks will just say "Well, they can afford more now, so lets raise the rent" (modify this for every commodity that is both necessary and locally limited).
Sometimes there doesn't seem to be a really good answer. There are usually easy answers to social problems if you can just assume that everyone will behave honestly and ethically, but that assumption is worse than the "spherical cow".
Tuition. (Score:2)
The problem that it is intended to address is real, but I'm not sure it would really address the problem. At least not unless accompanied by extensive price controls. Otherwise some folks will just say "Well, they can afford more now, so lets raise the rent" (modify this for every commodity that is both necessary and locally limited).
Which reminds me of how scholarship and student loan programs are claimed to have led, not so much to improved access to colleges, as to massive increases in college tuition (a
Universal Basic Services > UBI (Score:2, Insightful)
Universal basic services would completely eliminate the traversal of unexplored economic territory involved in universal basic income - no worries about the potential for inflation or the possibility of advertising price floors to landlords etc. Start with healthcare, food and utilities - set up government-owned corporations to provide these to the population free of cost.
Re:Universal Basic Services UBI (Score:3)
Good luck with that. It's not a bad idea. But it isn't going anywhere in today's economy. UBI is all about putting more money in the hands of the public. Where the increased demand translated into higher prices. Which benefit the businesses providing services.
Seattle saw this with its $15 per hour minimum wage. Once passe into law, landlords began increasing rents in anticipation of their tenants having more spending money. Before the law was even implemented. Result: more homeless people.
Same thing in h
Re:Universal Basic Services UBI (Score:2, Troll)
Start with healthcare, food and utilities - set up government-owned corporations to provide these to the population free of cost.
No, please don't.
When the government took over control of the private health insurance industry, healthcare costs exploded - taking over the rest of the industry would be very bad.
What problem would government-run utilities solve? A reminder, the water crisis on Flint Michigan occurred when the local government, which controlled water for every resident, tried to save money and started up their long-shuttered water processing plant, added the wrong chemicals, and poisoned their community -all because Detroi
Re: (Score:2)
Who do you think had a hand in writing these healthcare laws? The insurance companies. We seriously do need universal healthcare like every other civilized country but I have zero faith in the government to operate it. Look at how the VA is run for a good example.
Re: (Score:3)
The US certainly didn't nationalize health insurance.
Government-run utilities, funded with taxpayer money and provided for free, could solve the problem of people losing their water or power or communications if they can't pay the bills. The Flint disaster shouldn't be a warning against government-owned utilities in general, just the danger of electing conservatives who may be stingy and reckless enough to effectively sabotage such systems. Private utilities are just as capable of, and even more motivated t
Re: Universal Basic Services UBI (Score:3)
Re:Universal Basic Services UBI (Score:2)
Start with healthcare, food and utilities - set up government-owned corporations to provide these to the population free of cost.
The only thing we're lacking of those three is housing (I assume that's what you mean by utilities), and some places in the US are trying that out, too [npr.org]
Re: (Score:2)
I'm talking about cutting out the middleman, not using government money to pay for privately produced things, but having the government produce these things directly. Money wasted on advertising, executive compensation, and shareholder dividends could be redirected to productive use, massively reducing the cost to taxpayers and/or providing superior products and services.
Look up "housing projects" (Score:2)
I'm talking about cutting out the middleman, not using government money to pay for privately produced things, but having the government produce these things directly.
With the usual efficiency and quality of government programs.
This was tried, and is still being tried. Look up "housing projects" just for starters. Then think about the way things worked in The Former Soviet Union. (How I LOVE that "former" was added to that during my lifetime.)
An additional problem with government supplied big-ticket items
(continuing) (Score:2)
(Continuing after another Lenovo Trackpad palm-posting...)
This is similar to one of the ways people who'd LIKE to work would get stuck on welfare - when the welfare payments were reduced, dollar-for-dollar, by the amount they were paid at the job, while going to work imposed extra costs - kid care, transportation, upgraded clothing, etc. - so their effort and loss of their time from their own pursuits actually makes their situation worse.
Re:Universal Basic Services UBI (Score:4, Interesting)
After the USSR, China's early days, Venezuela's recent examples of nationalization destroying its industries... there are plenty of examples.
I note that you still haven't explained why "this time it'l be different". Surely you can come up with at least some form of attempt to distinguish your proposal for us...
Re:Universal Basic Services UBI (Score:2)
oxymoron
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, it's taxpayer money, obviously.
Sure. Why not. (Score:4, Insightful)
We already use the socialist policy of UBI for multi-billion dollar corporations, why not hand over a few bucks to people who will use the money more effectively than stock buybacks and executive bonuses.
Re:Sure. Why not. (Score:5, Insightful)
That says a UBI financed by the wealthy would be good for the economy. Call it "trickle-up economics".
In other words, the sales tax is bad for the economy.
Re: (Score:2)
Who is going to pay for it? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
You do realize that you would still get the basic income in addition to your wages, right?
For those on the fence (Score:4, Interesting)
On the one hand, there are already 40 million to 60 million jobs that barely pay or pay less than a subsistence income. These jobs are completely undignified, not the least of which because they are repetitive and unskilled - ripe for automation. It is for this reason alone that a moral imperative for UBI can be observed.
On the other hand there is an economic imperative. Whether you choose to believe it or not, the fact is, there are millions of highly skilled, talented, creative, and completely unutilized or underutilized people in our economy, who spend every waking hour of their day, not producing the amazing ideas in their heads, but instead doing menial jobs trying to afford basics. You may think that if these people existed, surely they'd have no problem getting a high paying job. The problem is, those jobs don't actually exist. For those that do have their skills "harnessed" by an employer, they are directed to and focused on completely economically useless zero-sum endeavours. Think about it, all the companies that call themselves "tech companies". Do any of them actually produce anything? Do any of them innovate? No, All any of them does is sell ads; hoover people's data; manipulate people; entice them to buy (consume) more and more things. This is destructive activity, not productive activity. It should be no surprise then, that these ultra-smart, ultra-productive people, avoid then their talents being used for evil destructive purposes. Though many of them, again for survival reasons, take a devil's bargain and do end up working for these non-productive super-companies.
So what does all that really mean? What it means is that their is a truly unfathomable amount of human productivity that is being squandered. The amount of productivity being squandered is so high, that even if 80% of UBI recipients were partying useless sacks of meat (which research shows is not the case, it's a very tiny percentage in fact), but even if it were 80%, the total productivity of the remaining 20%, the net productivity, would be astronomically high. Because those people currently being underutilized are in fact the best and brightest that humanity has to offer.
Once UBI finally goes into effect, and it is inevitable, there will be a new renaissance that makes the old one look like a tiny scale model. Population sizes are much higher now and if only 0.1% of the population is super-productive geniuses that's still a huge number of people, way more than there has ever been in history.
Re: (Score:2)
On the one hand, there are already 40 million to 60 million jobs that barely pay or pay less than a subsistence income. These jobs are completely undignified, not the least of which because they are repetitive and unskilled - ripe for automation
Those are kind of good jobs for teenagers, though.
Re: (Score:2)
I really hope you are joking. First of all, there aren't that many teenagers. Secondly, we have a limited number of hours to enjoy this wonderous existence called life. Just because the young have so much more of it left doesn't mean it should be wasted doing stupid shit a robot could do. We are humans! We are creators and fantasists. We are sapiens sapiens. We are not "beasts of burden". That's what robots are for.
In fact, the only reason those jobs haven't been already automated is because (certain) huma
Re: (Score:2)
You are also don't understand automation.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm a technology consultant, so yes I understand automation. ;)
I was raised by a single mother making $25k/yr. Is that rich and privileged?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What matters is you said there are 40 million jobs that can be automated with today's technology, and that's not anywhere close to true.
Re: (Score:2)
What it means is my function is to tell decision makers, usually small business owners, what technology is available and applicable to enhance a given business process. (enhance being deliberately generic here, it could mean efficiency, it could mean reduced labor, it could mean increased sales, it could mean increased profits, it could mean more customer satisfaction, it could mean better ergonomics, it could mean so many different things depending on the goals of the decision maker). Point is, it couldn't
Re: (Score:2)
That's called projecting.
Re: (Score:2)
Select negligible supplemental income (Score:2)
How in the world is $500/month, less than $20/day anything other than a bit of spending cash?
It can feed, provide transportation, or very basic shelter, but not all three.
The program is set to begin this fall and will give up to 150 low-income families $500 per month for up to 18 months — no strings attached...
A test that involves only people in a single situation is in no way "universal", and limiting it to 150 people further undermines the "universal" claim.
Five hundred dollars a month is less, about one-fifth, of what tens of millions of Americans received from the COVID stimulus package in the US, and most of it was given to workers in state
"150 low income families" (Score:2)
As a conservative, I support it (Score:5, Interesting)
If...
1- All other forms of entitlements go away
2- The same payment goes to every citizen
Re: (Score:2)
No. (Score:2)
It's the moment to kill the megacorps and make smaller companies so everyone gets a chance of getting employed.
But it would be wise to have free food and water available for everyone that needs it, fuck turning the "game of capitalism" in a game you bet your life.
Say no to communistic doleists. (Score:2, Funny)
This is a right!
That's a right!
I want this to be a right too!
No.
It won't be done "right" (Score:2)
Let me be clear at the start: I am reasonable certain that UBI is a very bad idea at this point in history and I do not support it. But this is a comment section on the interwebs so I'm going to pontificate anyway.
If we're doing to do universal basic income, the following needs to come with it (and this is why limited pilot programs in the past have failed):
* eliminate all minimim wages
* eliminate unemployment benefits
* eliminate publicly funded pensions
* eliminate welfare (supports for people who can't wor
Yes, people should learn about fractional banking. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This is not UBI. This is giving away $1,350,000 to 150 poor families over 18 months. The basic principle of UBI is that everybody, rich and poor, get it. But it would just cause massive inflation since everyone now has 500 more to spend.
Only if we make that the only safety net (Score:3)
I'd be all for a generous UBI, as long as all of the other safety nets go away and we let people die in the streets if they can't manage their money. Problem is we will end up with all of the programs we have now + UBI and nothing will change for most people.... Except the ones who's tax rates will go up to pay for another program.
Conservative aguement for it - worker mobility (Score:2)
I doubt it (Score:2)
UBI has 2 big flaws:
1) someone has to pay for it.
2) once everyone gets UBI, there will be no more welfare.
Now I've crunched some numbers and found that a reasonable level of UBI is possible, solely based on what we (in the UK at least) spend on welfare. So it is possible to give citizens UBI, but not if its on top of welfare. So all those claiming benefits will suddenly find that they only have the UBI.
Whilst I would consider the level of UBI I worked out to be quite acceptable, somehow I doubt the left/lib
Unhappy (Score:3)
UBI is bunk (Score:2)
We don't need UBI. We need to fix the tax structure that allows the richest folks to keep more of their income every year - we've created a funnel of money to rich people through the tax system and it shows after 40 years. We are also need to fix wages, where not all of the money goes to the top, which might be helped by fixing taxes.
No it isn't. Stop lying. (Score:3)
The UBI 'trials' don't matter AT ALL (Score:3)
The entire concept of UBI depends on one idea that will never happen: redistribution of wealth from the richest people and corporations in the United States; THAT IS NEVER GOING TO HAPPEN AND YOU ARE LIVING IN A FANTASY WORLD IF YOU BELIEVE OTHERWISE. The rich and powerful in this country will use their wealth and influence to hold on to their wealth because that is what the wealthy and powerful do
There have been some of you who have actually unironically stated "We'll just print more money, it won't be a problem! It's all just numbers anyway!" somehow thinking that it won't devalue the Dollar to the point where you'd have to spend $1000, $10000, $100000 to buy a loaf of bread. If you're not a clinical moron and actually say this, then you're either a complete fool without even a basic understanding of economics, or you're an anarchist who actively seeks to burn the United States to the ground.
I am a registered Democrat. I am not a 'leftist', as the extremist Conservative types would claim all Democrats are, I am a Progressive. But I DO NOT BELIEVE in 'welfare' of this type or of this magnitude, which is what UBI really is: massive, institutionalized welfare, that will not benefit anyone or anything. As previously stated, it will not 'scale up', not in the least, and would wreck the U.S. economy within two years -- assuming you could put a gun to the heads of The Rich and mug them of their money.
People need to WORK. They need to EARN THEIR OWN LIVING, not have it handed to them. They need to understand the VALUE of WORK and develop a WORK ETHIC. More importantly than that, their children need to be taught that work is important, work is valuable, work will get them ahead in life, and therefore work is worth doing. Having money handed to you by the government will do none of that, it will create a dependency on handouts from the government that will inevitably develop into a sense of entitltement that will grow like a cancer. That sense of entitlement will grow over time and the populace will demand more and more free money from the government, as the populace becomes less and less inclined to actually contribute to the national economy. When you have no reason to work towards any sort of goal, why should you even bother getting an education? Why spend 4 years at a University, and perhaps another 4 after that, working hard to make good grades (there's that evil word again: 'WORK') when you have no driving reason to use that education for anything because you're handed a basic existence from the government, tax-free? At most people would do casual, unskilled labor for a few hours a week just to supplement their partying money -- and likely be ridiculued and shamed for it by their peers, for 'wasting their time' doing 'unnecessary' work.
Meanwhile as the general populace grows more and more idle, demanding and consuming more and more money from the government while contributing less and less to the national economy, the dwindling numbers of actual contributors have to work harder and harder not only to create and produce the ideas and things that the country needs just to operate, but will be taxed more and more to satisfy the economic black hole that the non-working UBI recipients and their work-averse offspring have become. Eventually the whole 'system' falls apart, as the dwindling number of actual producers find they can barely survive on what money they're left with after taxes, not living much better than the average UBI recipient -- and perhaps quitting and becoming one of them.
While this is going on, The Rich are continuing to exert their power and influence with the government to protect and retain their assets rather than give them up to be redistributed to the burgeoning masses of non-working UBI recipi
NO (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Crab in a bucket.
Probably works in something useless like advertising, or actively destructive like fossil fuels.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Depends on whether you define the bucket as "not being able to achieve a decent, dignified, and productive life" or "not being able to achieve ridiculous hyperwealth through exploitation." Could work either way I suppose.
Re: (Score:2)
The day that I have to pay for some fat ass to stay home and play pokemon all day, is the day I become a greeter at walmart.
How will that work? Your wages as a greeter will be taxed to pay for some fat asses to come in to buy chips and beer.
We producers will go full atlas shrugged and strike.
That won't matter. You will have to find someplace to park your savings in the face of an inevitable wealth tax. There won't be any place like Galt's Gulch where you can retreat to continue a productive life absent the grubby hands of looters.
Re: (Score:2)
Greeters are a very low productivity job, it won't add any real wealth to consume to the economy. If the output of the economy drops, the consumption also has to drop.
As for wealth taxes ... hiding wealth is not just for rich people, lots of people do it. Without a total surveillance society getting some gold out of your deposit box can keep you in comfort.
Re:I will not abide. (Score:5, Insightful)
Your comment could be written by every coal mine worker in my eastern Ohio community back in the '70's. Your comment could be written by every steel worker in my western Pennsylvania community back in the '60's. Your comment could be written by every auto worker in Michigan in the '80's.
They were consistently proud, diligent, worked their asses off (especially toward the end of their respective industrial powers), and when shit went south they were totally fucked.
They all got royally fucked by the assholes who really do wield control. Those formerly proud workers are now pissed off about how the damn socialists and libruls and elites have taken over the country, while never recognizing that the libruls and SJWs have been advocating all along about limiting the damage caused by industrial and financial dislocation.
I have put in good work for 44+ years and once had the same attitude you show in your comment. During that time, I have seen what happens to the families of workers who were bypassed by automation, or had their work shipped by corporate "managers" to places where governments treat their workers like slaves.
If you have a better idea than forcing people who have no idea how to translate their physical strength and determination into a job in a service or information economy, we are all ears. Have you EVER talked with a dislocated steelworker? Have you EVER talked with a mine worker? There is no way in hell a real man would ever tolerate being stuck in a little office pushing bullshit buttons for a "living". Or cooking/serving meals for 2.15/hour plus tips.
Producers, the ones who actually deliver the work, products and services that keep things running are producers until they are not. That transition comes with warnings that sound like "writing on the wall" but nothing concrete, and certainly no transition plan. Once fucked over people do lose motivation, so that's one small way that you have a point. You should try being unable to buy a job that pays the bills after the factory or mine closes and 40% of the men in the community are all simultaneously trying to fill 8 auto mechanic jobs. Or trying to sell a house with mortgage that's 30% underwater so you can move your family to a possible job elsewhere where rents or property prices are sky high because that community still has paying employment.
Re: (Score:2)
For a while there was fracking, wind and solar are still taking vast amounts of labour. The most productive workers in industrial work will find some other cart to pull.
The problem with UBI is that it will make really clear that there are superstars and hangers on, this isn't just true for trained labour. There's always a couple of people doing more work with greater productivity and pulling everyone else along. With UBI the natural consequence will be those superstars will stay behind in employment and eve
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Didn't anybody pay attention in math class when they taught us that performing the same operation on both sides of the equation doesn't change the result?
Economics and society do not work like a simple algebraic equation.
Duh liberals duh leftists.....
If you boost every household's income by $500 a month, rents will increase so that they're still 2% of median income. The same will happen with all products and services. The end result being no net effect other than higher inflation.
Oh! My! God! You solved an economic problem that has been never been solved. No one has ever even considered that! Oh wait. Every economist since FOREVER!!!! (Read that in an Adam Sandler voice)
Duh liberuls...leftists....duh.....duh.....
This is why these experiments are being done to get DATA. EVIDENCE.
Duh...loberuls.....leftists...
Re: (Score:2)
Oh you boy, reality will hit you hard later on in life.
Re: (Score:3)
UBI would have to be many times the $12K or whatever B.S. number those papers "proving" its affordability use. We can't afford it. Stop looking for a handout. Get your ass to work.
Re: (Score:3)
Betsy DeVos and others fighting for vouchers and charter schools (and other forms of school choice) are the only current solution to the problem you describe. There's a reason why more than 70% of black parents are in favor of school choice [usatoday.com]. It's the only thing they've seen actually work to help their kids.