Universal Basic Income

[Daelak]

So we just continue to outwardly expand, consuming more and more resources for no other reason except for the sake of consuming? I mean, yeah Adam Smith woo, but just because he got everything mostly right doesn't mean that there aren't flaws. Let's not venerate every single word he says without question like some like to do with the founding fathers when it comes to things like gun control. Smart people make mistakes, especially when they can't predict every possible outcome of the future.

No, if we actually paid attention to tenured, critically acclaimed economists, mathematicians, scientists, we would immediately start migrating our current economic system based on consumption and "growth at any costs", into a global model that accounts for all environmental and societal costs to make the infant sectors of the economy to parity to the old world behemoths.

[Endus]

Yeah, I have no idea where that line should be either, but the premise is a good one.

I was taking a look at the test pilots being ran in Canada, and like you were saying, there isn't anything that is majorly negative, at least that I can find. I even found this, from the late 70s: http://www.utpjournals.press/doi/abs...8/cpp.37.3.283

Abstract states: "This paper has two purposes. First, it documents the historical context of MINCOME, a Canadian guaranteed annual income field experiment (1974 to 1979). Second, it uses routinely collected health administration data and a quasi-experimental design to document an 8.5 percent reduction in the hospitalization rate for participants relative to controls, particularly for accidents and injuries and mental health. We also found that participant contacts with physicians declined, especially for mental health, and that more adolescents continued into grade 12. We found no increase in fertility, family dissolution rates, or improved birth outcomes. We conclude that a relatively modest GAI can improve population health, suggesting significant health system savings."

Was this program similar to the one being ran today?

In rough design, yes, they shared the same kind of "based on the LIM, reducing benefits at $0.50 per $1 of work income earned" design. The new pilots have better monitoring plans built into their frameworks to better capture data that wasn't captured during Mincome, to make these analyses better and deeper.

[Theinquisition]

Naaa, think I'd take a hard pass.

[oplawlz]

I didn't say it was. I simply said rich people don't care about poor people not having enough money.

I'm going to blow your mind here - "rich" people are the only ones who care about poor people not having enough money. The poor have absolutely no leverage - if it weren't for wealthy philanthropists none of the economic support systems we have would exist.

[The One Percent]

You're using "consumption" in two different senses, here. It's particularly odd because we're not resource-poor to begin with. The Earth is bombarded by tons of energy, for "free", from sources that will last billions of years. A lot of what we produce can be recycled, and we're on the cusp of being able to access extraplanetary resources (not in the next decade, but quite possibly in the next century).

A better way to look at it is that animals exist by consuming. Whether plants or animals or both, they consume other creatures. Has this led to a drying up of resources leaving the Earth a desolated desert planet? Obviously not. Because consumption in that sense does not lead to resource destruction, automatically.

Animals do not have the capabilities of exploiting resources that humans do. Completely different ballgame. Hopefully the technologies we need in order to continue consumption in the ever expanding rate that we are now are developed in time. Recycling, while better than manufacturing from scratch, still leaves a large footprint. Solar power and wind turbines are a long way from being able to support our energy needs, needs which are only becoming greater (and I don't have anything against renewable energy, I invest large sums of money into the industry). I also don't have anything against UBI, I just have concerns about sustainability.

[Total Crica]

I'm going to blow your mind here - "rich" people are the only ones who care about poor people not having enough money. The poor have absolutely no leverage - if it weren't for wealthy philanthropists none of the economic support systems we have would exist.

Nope. If rich people cared about poor people not having enough money, there wouldn't be any poor people.

[Theinquisition]

Nope. If rich people cared about poor people not having enough money, there wouldn't be any poor people.

It's not the Rich peoples obligation to provide for every poor person.

[Scathbais]

Plus, it's hardly the only one. The Mincome experiment in Canada was pretty much a complete success, with basically no negative outcomes. The current pilot program in Ontario is based on that, and if it works out comparably, will be implemented province-wide.

Curious. The government didn't actually issue a final report, so not sure how you conclude that it was a complete success. Also I don't see any economic analysis to determine the impact on government spending and any debt spending to fund the program, nor the impact on the national debt through deficit spending if the program were to be rolled out nationally.

Edit: It was a success in the sense that those receiving the benefits did not seem to alter their labor participation rate (although I assume it was a small, homogeneous sample size). The cost to roll something like that out in the US, particularly with the welfare moms and moochers, might show very different results.

For example: McDonald's franchise owners in NYC reporting that in response to the $15 minimum wage, some workers asked to cut their hours back to part time, so that they could remain eligible for welfare.

[melodramocracy]

It is absolutely fucking hilarious to see certain pro-piracy folks from the other thread feeling indignant about UBI here. LMAO.

[Total Crica]

It's not the Rich peoples obligation to provide for every poor person.

I never said anyone was obligated to care about anyone. I simply said rich people don't care about poor people not having enough money.

[melodramocracy]

They do care about them now, they want them working for them.

The entire automation scare has proven to be a bit of a false narrative since the early 1900's. Instead of just causing mass unemployment, people are largely opting to work less. The work week now is a standard 40 hours and many people work far less than that living comfortably. Two people are doing the same job one person did many years ago because people just don't want to work as much. Don't be surprised if in another 50 years we're down to 20 hour work weeks.

Where?

Salaried positions are a workaround so companies can insist that you work more than 40/week and not get the benefit of 1.5x pay from it. If there are people actually putting less than 40 / week in total, and still having a comfortable living, they make up a very small portion of the population.

Productivity has gone up, but hours worked have not, because average income, for the most part, also has not (once you factor in inflation). Even lowering the standard work week to 32 hours would be viewed as the end of all life as we know it by capitalists.

[LanToaster]

I think he answered that before, not entirely sure: By e.g. creating driverless cars, then forcing companies to have 1 driver in the car.

WHY!?

Why would you invest in a Driverless car, if you are required to put a Driver in. This makes no Sense.

[Theinquisition]

Curious. The government didn't actually issue a final report, so not sure how you conclude that it was a complete success. Also I don't see any economic analysis to determine the impact on government spending and any debt spending to fund the program, nor the impact on the national debt through deficit spending if the program were to be rolled out nationally.

Edit: It was a success in the sense that those receiving the benefits did not seem to alter their labor participation rate (although I assume it was a small, homogeneous sample size). The cost to roll something like that out in the US, particularly with the welfare moms and moochers, might show very different results.

For example: McDonald's franchise owners in NYC reporting that in response to the $15 minimum wage, some workers asked to cut their hours back to part time, so that they could remain eligible for welfare.

Not only that, but im sure the participants were also made aware that it would be temporary, even if I received a UBI, if I knew it was for a limited time, I wouldn't go changing jobs either.

As far as the McD's thing goes, yeah thats the backwards bending labor curve for ya.

- - - Updated - - -

WHY!?

Why would you invest in a Driverless car, if you are required to put a Driver in. This makes no Sense.

Because insurance companies won't insure it unless there is a driver present.

[Krastyn]

No the problem is exactly what i described and you support. freeloaders doing nothing while living on the backs of others. plain and simple. again, basic 3rd grade math. You cant deny or give any proof to how this just wont create massive inflation(rendering the UBI worthless) and worse simple math proves it add nothing to the overall to close the gap between bums and working ppl. God damn son, you have literally zero shame. Wtf did your parents do to you as a child? they def didnt teach you to adult at all.

So what would freeloaders do with UBI, that they currently can't do now?

[d00mGuArD]

You'd earn X for doing nothing, and X+Y for working. The whole point of a basic income system is that you get it in addition to work income and such.

I am missing something here, and since you usually explain things nicely, help me out

-Right now people get X for doing nothing (in the form of welfare, stamps or whatever) and people that work get Y-T (T = taxes)
-UBI will make that: X for doing nothing (but instead of welfare or stamps it will be called UBI and be cash?) and X+Y-T for those that work

Basically it only adds to people that work?
And won't it probably increase the tax on people that work to cover it, thus negating the UBI benefit for those that work (or part of it)?

How about a *Progressive* UBI based on how much each person contributes to society and how much value they add to their place of work? That should give people incentive to try and contribute instead of slacking

[Deleted]

Unless they change immigration laws and governments actually act on them, what would stop millions of refugees to storm the borders for free money?

[Total Crica]

should give people incentive to try and contribute

What are you wanting people to contribute? And what are you offering them for that contribution?

The answers you give to those questions IS the incentive people have to contribute.

If your answers suck in comparison to other people's answers, so much for your incentive!

[Krastyn]

I am missing something here, and since you usually explain things nicely, help me out

-Right now people get X for doing nothing (in the form of welfare, stamps or whatever) and people that work get Y-T (T = taxes)
-UBI will make that: X for doing nothing (but instead of welfare or stamps it will be called UBI and be cash?) and X+Y-T for those that work

Basically it only adds to people that work?
And won't it probably increase the tax on people that work to cover it, thus negating the UBI benefit for those that work (or part of it)?

How about a *Progressive* UBI based on how much each person contributes to society and how much value they add to their place of work? That should give people incentive to try and contribute instead of slacking

Typically the bolded is true. Everyone gets X amount of money. Then taxes work as normal.

You can adjust your tax rates as needed to cover the costs. Just subtract the savings from the removal of redundant programs and services such as welfare, unemployment, food stamps, reduced health care burden, etc.

I really don't understand why people thing everyone is all of a sudden going to slack off because they now have UBI. It's not like you would be making a six figure UBI. Your basics are covered. You still need to work if you want to travel, have disposable income, or enjoy the standard of living you have now if you're making median income or higher.

Maybe it's just my circle, but I don't know anyone who doesn't want to work. They may not want to work their job their doing right now, but want something. Having a UBI allows a person to pick a job they want, instead of one that they need. Anyone who is truly a slacker is likely not an all-star productive worker as it is right now.

As pointed out by Endus several times, persons financial value to a society is not only what they bring in for income tax, but also what they spend into society. You could have someone on welfare and someone with a 6 figure income have a similar financial value.

[bakntyme]

WHY!?

Why would you invest in a Driverless car, if you are required to put a Driver in. This makes no Sense.

Why do airlines invest in airliners with autopilot systems when they are required to have pilots in the cockpit?

[DrMcNinja]

How can anyone expect this to be a positive thing in long term, If I can earn X doing nothing, or X doing hard work, why would I choose hard work? This just leads to an unsustainable system where no one pays enough tax to pay it out.

I think Elon Musk and someone else who's name eludes me have suggested that the inevitable automation, which leads to masses losing their job, would force a universal basic income.

Might sound like a bunch of far-off hippie thing but who knows.