"Basic Income" is a terrible idea

[Endus]

However, some have argued these drops may be artificially low because participants knew the guaranteed income was temporary.[6] This represents an important limitation to the knowledge of the impact of a guaranteed annual income; little is known about the long term effects on willingness to work.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mincome

best you read your own source before you make the claim it was a success

Because the test was ended. There was no evidence either way. Those saying "people would just not work" are still wrong, because it didn't happen under Mincome.

Which should be obvious. The same reasons anyone wants to work for more than minimum wage still apply in any society with a basic income.

[alturic]

You realize there was a link in that post, right? To a Wiki page, with sources and everything? It's all there.

There was no "surplus of cash" required. Mincome payed for itself.

I don't see any mention of how all this surplus of cash was there to pay everyone? I know it was a test and all, but roll it out, where does the cash come from?

[Endus]

I don't see any mention of how all this surplus of cash was there to pay everyone? I know it was a test and all, but roll it out, where does the cash come from?

I'm not sure why you're insisting there was a "surplus of cash" to begin with. There wasn't. It paid for itself.

[Tyrianth]

I see, would middle and upper middle class income people get basic income? Why should they support it?

Because if they don't support it, millions of people will be in poverty which will increase crime and weaken their economy.

If they don't want to support it they are more than free to quit their jobs and live a basic lifestyle with the basic income they receive from the government. This means no nice houses, no nice cars, no vacations, no toys, no eating out or going to the movies. Have fun trying to date people when you can't afford much of any entertainment.

And when they do quit for their basic lifestyle, their job will open up to someone who's forced to live on the basic income due to lack of jobs and they will fill their position.

[Vyxn]

I'm not sure you understand how economies work.

It simply isn't possible for every single potential worker to go out and get a STEM degree and make a middle-wage income. That's a fantasy that cannot happen.

First, there aren't enough STEM jobs; that would just devalue STEM education and crater the wages for that kind of work. They'd BECOME the new minimum-wage jobs.

Second, the currently-minimum-wage jobs would still need to be done. Why do we have baristas with MAs in liberal arts? Because there aren't enough jobs for liberal arts grads. If everyone has a STEM degree, you'd see MEng grads working as baristas, instead.

Third, if you choke off the workers wages at that low end, you're restricting the consumer class' buying power, which stifles consumer economies. Even Adam Smith knew this. Capitalism doesn't work if the consumer class is hosed. When it comes to a conflict between the interests of the consumers and the interests of the producers, capitalist theory says to tell the producers to go to hell, and support the consumers. That's not socialism, that's capitalism.

and what you don't understand the labor market works like any other product they follow the rules of supply and demand
the more you have with no skills the cheaper the wage can be on those no skill jobs
you thin the pool of no skill workers the more companies will have to pay so to attract people to fill those jobs

- - - Updated - - -

Because the test was ended. There was no evidence either way. Those saying "people would just not work" are still wrong, because it didn't happen under Mincome.

Which should be obvious. The same reasons anyone wants to work for more than minimum wage still apply in any society with a basic income.

so how do you make the claim it was successful like you did? social programs like that takes decades even generations before consequence and repercussion take effect

for example the effect of single mother statistic rise because government under welfare was paying mothers not to get married didn't show up till at least a decade after welfare was implemented

[Jademist]

I'm more a democratic socialist myself but basic universal income is really a terrible idea. I don't know why people think that would be something beneficial to society?

[alturic]

I'm not sure why you're insisting there was a "surplus of cash" to begin with. There wasn't. It paid for itself.

So "Mincome" wasn't welfare, the little info on this Wiki article makes getting any sort of info out of it, but it sounds like you were given "Mincome" based on how much money you earned at a job, the 35, 50 and 75% tax rate thing?

I'm apparently stuck on the US welfare systems because you can give money to a bunch of people (money that was never accounted for before) and it somehow all ends up being a wash.

Let me put it this way, yea dumb it dumb for me, 10 people have never worked in their life. We end up giving each one $1,000/m. Where did the $10,000 come from?

[melodramocracy]

Because the test was ended. There was no evidence either way. Those saying "people would just not work" are still wrong, because it didn't happen under Mincome.

Which should be obvious. The same reasons anyone wants to work for more than minimum wage still apply in any society with a basic income.

Mincome eligibility still required folks to work, and was done on a very small scale. It would not "pay for itself" under any circumstance if applied on a larger scale without some pretty serious mindset changes.

Just look back a handful of years to when unemployment was what...10% in 2010 or so, and how people perceived that.

[Endus]

nd what you don't understand the labor market works like any other product they follow the rules of supply and demand

I literally described exactly that.

Wages are largely determined through supply and demand. Trained workers with skills for which there is greater demand than supply will earn higher wages. If you increase that supply of trained workers, those wages will fall back down, because supply is overstepping demand.

the more you have with no skills the cheaper the wage can be on those no skill jobs you thin the pool of no skill workers the more companies will have to pay so to attract people to fill those jobs

At this point, you're literally arguing for a world where burger flippers get paid more than engineers, because everyone gets an engineering degree and stops being burger flippers, and somehow you think this makes sense.

[Faloestin]

Last question, what happens when prices rise to where the "basic income" is no longer above the poverty level? Keep taxing the middle class and "rich" to subsidize people unwilling to work? (we already have a welfare system in place for people who want to work but cant due to injury, illness, looking for work etc).

Except we don't really have a welfare system anymore, we got rid of it under Clinton. What we have now is a short-term work support and training program that helps you for a bit but then goes away unless you're permanently disabled. So in fact if you need cash welfare, you can't get it. You can get some other pieces that used to be lumped under welfare (food stamps, or home heating oil in cold areas), but those programs are chronically underfunded.

[Tyrianth]

So "Mincome" wasn't welfare, the little info on this Wiki article makes getting any sort of info out of it, but it sounds like you were given "Mincome" based on how much money you earned at a job, the 35, 50 and 75% tax rate thing?

I'm apparently stuck on the US welfare systems because you can give money to a bunch of people (money that was never accounted for before) and it somehow all ends up being a wash.

Let me put it this way, yea dumb it dumb for me, 10 people have never worked in their life. We end up giving each one $1,000/m. Where did the $10,000 come from?

From taxes obviously. In a future where automation has potential to replace millions of jobs putting people out of work you will need away to support them. Unless of course you want record high poverty along with all the benefits that come with it (increased health care costs, increased crime, weakened economy).

[PC2]

Because if they don't support it, millions of people will be in poverty which will increase crime and weaken their economy.

If they don't want to support it they are more than free to quit their jobs and live a basic lifestyle with the basic income they receive from the government. This means no nice houses, no nice cars, no vacations, no toys, no eating out or going to the movies. Have fun trying to date people when you can't afford much of any entertainment.

And when they do quit for their basic lifestyle, their job will open up to someone who's forced to live on the basic income due to lack of jobs and they will fill their position.

No thanks, UBI or the social programs we currently have is a better system.

[Tyrianth]

No thanks, UBI or the social programs we currently have is a better system.

UBI has even less of a chance to be unsustainable and the current system has no chance in hell in being able to support the mass unemployment that would come with automation. But go ahead and keep burying your head in the sand. It can barely support current unemployment rates. So again, if the future goes how you want it, enjoy the depression era economy and record high crime rates.

[alturic]

From taxes obviously. In a future where automation has potential to replace millions of jobs putting people out of work you will need away to support them. Unless of course you want record high poverty along with all the benefits that come with it (increased health care costs, increased crime, weakened economy).

To be completely honest, I don't know what the solution is. Tax businesses using robots a "Robotic Usage" tax to help pay for the robot taking away X jobs? Stupid thought but in a way I know what you, and others mean, I just don't know a solution.

I just can't stand the thought of people, as much as I know it's happening now just on a smaller scale, getting money and food and healthcare for contributing nothing to society, nor "earning" it.

I don't know if your "From taxes obviously" was meant towards KNOWING Mincome came from taxes or not, but that's exactly what I mean. The money didn't just show up, someone paid for it to give to these people.

[Endus]

so how do you make the claim it was successful like you did?

Because for its entire duration, it worked just fine, and no real problems arose. There's no evidence of any issues with it.

You want to claim there's a structural problem, the onus is on you to provide evidence to support that claim.

So "Mincome" wasn't welfare, the little info on this Wiki article makes getting any sort of info out of it, but it sounds like you were given "Mincome" based on how much money you earned at a job, the 35, 50 and 75% tax rate thing?

I'm apparently stuck on the US welfare systems because you can give money to a bunch of people (money that was never accounted for before) and it somehow all ends up being a wash.

Let me put it this way, yea dumb it dumb for me, 10 people have never worked in their life. We end up giving each one $1,000/m. Where did the $10,000 come from?

The same place all government revenue comes from.

I really don't understand what your question is. Are you under the impression that governments don't have revenues to spend?

[alturic]

Except we don't really have a welfare system anymore, we got rid of it under Clinton. What we have now is a short-term work support and training program that helps you for a bit but then goes away unless you're permanently disabled. So in fact if you need cash welfare, you can't get it. You can get some other pieces that used to be lumped under welfare (food stamps, or home heating oil in cold areas), but those programs are chronically underfunded.

You do know that none of the current welfare programs are temporary, right? The initial (good) idea of them being temporary solution has been long gone.

[Berengil]

Eventually, there will be no choice.

Automation + nanotech + cold fusion = no one will have to work who doesn't want to; barring of course things that can't be synthesized such as original works of art and hand-cooked meals, or live artistic performances.

For further reading, check out Physics of the Future by Dr Michio Kaku.

[Jaylock]

I'm not sure why you're insisting there was a "surplus of cash" to begin with. There wasn't. It paid for itself.

Oh so there was some sort of money printing machine that the government set up to "pay for itself?" No. You don't understand how taxes work obviously. SOMEONE has to pay for a program like this. Money has to move from one hand to another, and that happens in the form of TAXES. To think that a program like "basic income" just magically "pays for itself" is just an illogical notion.

[Vyxn]

I literally described exactly that.

Wages are largely determined through supply and demand. Trained workers with skills for which there is greater demand than supply will earn higher wages. If you increase that supply of trained workers, those wages will fall back down, because supply is overstepping demand.



At this point, you're literally arguing for a world where burger flippers get paid more than engineers, because everyone gets an engineering degree and stops being burger flippers, and somehow you think this makes sense.

and the lower paid jobs wages increase because you have less to fill those jobs
so low wage paid jobs wages increase and higher paid skilled jobs wages decrease so guess what you have happen the dreaded income gap shrinks and isn't that what you been advocating needing to happen

[PC2]

UBI has even less of a chance to be unsustainable and the current system has no chance in hell in being able to support the mass unemployment that would come with automation. But go ahead and keep burying your head in the sand. It can barely support current unemployment rates. So again, if the future goes how you want it, enjoy the depression era economy and record high crime rates.

Crime isn't going up if you look at the decade time scale. Society is doing fine, most of the depression doomsday talk is just entitled millennials thinking the world is going to end if they don't get free stuff.