How do you feel about Andrew Yang's UBI of 1,000 a month for every US Adult

[derpkitteh]

i support UBI, because i think it's entirely feasible in our current system.

tax businesses for automated workers, the worth of each worker they've replaced. tax the rich their fair share. maybe could cut social security, since it'd be redundant. WIC.

i'd be more than happy to get $1k a month for doing fuck all.

[jeezusisacasual]

i support UBI, because i think it's entirely feasible in our current system.

tax businesses for automated workers, the worth of each worker they've replaced. tax the rich their fair share. maybe could cut social security, since it'd be redundant. WIC.

i'd be more than happy to get $1k a month for doing fuck all.

I think that the UBI will just be called social security in a marketing move. I can see things like SNAP, rent allowences and the like of public welfare gets retracted in that sense. The metrics to pay for it are bit more tricky since the US is currently on a race to the bottom ( despite being 1 of 2 nations to tax overseas income almost as heavily as domestic earned ).

[Spectral]

i support UBI, because i think it's entirely feasible in our current system.

tax businesses for automated workers, the worth of each worker they've replaced. tax the rich their fair share. maybe could cut social security, since it'd be redundant. WIC.

i'd be more than happy to get $1k a month for doing fuck all.

This really just seems like you're saying, "I support UBI because I personally don't want to work".

[derpkitteh]

I think that the UBI will just be called social security in a marketing move. I can see things like SNAP, rent allowences and the like of public welfare gets retracted in that sense. The metrics to pay for it are bit more tricky since the US is currently on a race to the bottom ( despite being 1 of 2 nations to tax overseas income almost as heavily as domestic earned ).

i'd say most things like WIC and other forms of welfare would probably have to be cut to make UBI work. it's like 300bil a month or something like that, maybe even more. but taxing appropriately the rich, and businesses for their automated workers, is a big dent in the cost.

This really just seems like you're saying, "I support UBI because I personally don't want to work".

Yes.

also, it's just a more sensible system than having 20 different things you have to apply for. wellfare, wic, snap, whatever the fuck all that shit is. it's just more simple to have one single thing going out each month.

[Endus]

This really just seems like you're saying, "I support UBI because I personally don't want to work".

And here's the core of the issue;

So what if she is?

There aren't enough jobs for everyone who wants one, let alone everyone who can work.
The economy only survives if consumers have money to use on consumption.
Pushing more people into hardship and thus into the labor force to attempt to escape hardship doesn't create any jobs, it just makes everything more difficult for everyone who's unemployed.

[Spectral]

And here's the core of the issue;

So what if she is?

There aren't enough jobs for everyone who wants one, let alone everyone who can work.
The economy only survives if consumers have money to use on consumption.
Pushing more people into hardship and thus into the labor force to attempt to escape hardship doesn't create any jobs, it just makes everything more difficult for everyone who's unemployed.

That's an argument for the policy, but still an indictment of the character of someone that just brazenly says, "Yeah, I want to raise your taxes to give me money so I don't have to work". It's one thing to say "it's a good thing to help people who can't find work" and very different to just openly make it plain that the goal is to encourage sloth.

[jeezusisacasual]

That's an argument for the policy, but still an indictment of the character of someone that just brazenly says, "Yeah, I want to raise your taxes to give me money so I don't have to work". It's one thing to say "it's a good thing to help people who can't find work" and very different to just openly make it plain that the goal is to encourage sloth.

This is a case of you must work as hard as i do otherwise you do not get anything or do not deserve that pay. My job is a breeze compared to my brothers and yet i make twice as much money and live abroad, but that never gets talked about either. Its a punching down kind of complaint which to me is pointless in the grand scheme of things. Just because someone else is having an easier time does not make your struggle worse or less valuable is the point of the message.

[Spectral]

This is a case of you must work as hard as i do otherwise you do not get anything or do not deserve that pay. My job is a breeze compared to my brothers and yet i make twice as much money and live abroad, but that never gets talked about either. Its a punching down kind of complaint which to me is pointless in the grand scheme of things. Just because someone else is having an easier time does not make your struggle worse or less valuable is the point of the message.

I don't think this is the mistake I'm making. I word harder than some and less than others, I have no delusions that amount of work correlates tightly to worth, value, or quality of life. I expect to participate in a shared system where we mitigate bad luck, differential success, and so on to provide reasonable lives to live for my countrymen that aren't as fortunate as I am. I don't object to that in any way. What I do object to is someone just openly stating that they'd like to take what I work for because they don't really want to work at all.

[Endus]

That's an argument for the policy, but still an indictment of the character of someone that just brazenly says, "Yeah, I want to raise your taxes to give me money so I don't have to work". It's one thing to say "it's a good thing to help people who can't find work" and very different to just openly make it plain that the goal is to encourage sloth.

That you're calling it "sloth" is an attempt to appeal to emotion, rather than reason.

There are myriad reasons why someone might not want to be part of the labor force. And many people aren't part of the labor force, and don't get accused of "sloth" for their decision.

You're trying to approach economic policy from a point of view that lets you be condescending and judgemental towards individuals for their decisions. That's not a reasonable approach.

Plus, let's consider the alternative. Even if an individual is slothful and exploitative, do you really think that them being made to work a job to get by is going to be a valuable hire for their employer, over someone who actually wants the job? They'll do as little as they can and find ways to exploit their job, too. Wouldn't the job market just be better off if people like that weren't expected or obliged by hardship to participate? I don't see what we gain, here, other than trying to cause suffering to people because we don't like them.

[Spectral]

That you're calling it "sloth" is an attempt to appeal to emotion, rather than reason.

There are myriad reasons why someone might not want to be part of the labor force. And many people aren't part of the labor force, and don't get accused of "sloth" for their decision.

You're trying to approach economic policy from a point of view that lets you be condescending and judgemental towards individuals for their decisions. That's not a reasonable approach.

The person in question is literally just saying they don't want to work. There's not even a pretense that they need to do something socially important or that it's a challenge for some reason - just a flat statement that they don't wanna work, so giving them money would be nice.

Yes, I'm going to be condescending and judge that.

[Endus]

The person in question is literally just saying they don't want to work. There's not even a pretense that they need to do something socially important or that it's a challenge for some reason - just a flat statement that they don't wanna work, so giving them money would be nice.

And again; so what?

You haven't made an argument why they should work. You made an emotional appeal to this being a character defect, but that both doesn't speak to why they should be made to work, and it explains why they likely shouldn't. All you've really said is you don't like them as a person, but that's not a position you can base systemic economic policy upon.

[Spectral]

And again; so what?

You haven't made an argument why they should work. You made an emotional appeal to this being a character defect, but that both doesn't speak to why they should be made to work, and it explains why they likely shouldn't. All you've really said is you don't like them as a person, but that's not a position you can base systemic economic policy upon.

I'm not making a comment on policy, I'm literally just saying that I don't like them. I think they've expressed a selfish, anti-social, downright childish sentiment. You're reading too much more into it.

[jeezusisacasual]

I don't think this is the mistake I'm making. I word harder than some and less than others, I have no delusions that amount of work correlates tightly to worth, value, or quality of life. I expect to participate in a shared system where we mitigate bad luck, differential success, and so on to provide reasonable lives to live for my countrymen that aren't as fortunate as I am. I don't object to that in any way. What I do object to is someone just openly stating that they'd like to take what I work for because they don't really want to work at all.

My biggest complaint about a UBI is how people will react afterwards. For instance alot of people find their own self worth in whatever field they work in and once that field is automated or shipped out of the nation for cheaper labor or what have you the reason starts to creep in that they are worthless which leads to higher suicide rates/drug use among others. That is why finding dignified work is important but as we move closer to a automated world which i think will skyrocket during the next recession but since GDP is king in the US that is all that matters. The better question is at what level does the floor for the underclass need to be before you feel they get to much?

[Spectral]

My biggest complaint about a UBI is how people will react afterwards. For instance alot of people find their own self worth in whatever field they work in and once that field is automated or shipped out of the nation for cheaper labor or what have you the reason starts to creep in that they are worthless which leads to higher suicide rates/drug use among others. That is why finding dignified work is important but as we move closer to a automated world which i think will skyrocket during the next recession but since GDP is king in the US that is all that matters. The better question is at what level does the floor for the underclass need to be before you feel they get to much?

I agree with the front half of this.

I don't have a strong feeling on the question. I don't begrudge paying for a reasonable standard of living including basic healthcare, housing, and food for everyone in a rich country. The exact right quantity of spending is right seems like a technical question and I ultimately don't care that much what the number is.

As mentioned earlier in the thread though, my main skepticism derives from a strong suspicion that people will fail to provide themselves with basic healthcare, housing, and food if there aren't programs in place that are more paternalistic than UBI. We have a fair few people that aren't good decision makers; a close friend of mine has a brother who has severely impaired executive function and he simply cannot plan ahead at all. Obviously that's an edge case, but weak executive function isn't exactly a rare trait.

[jeezusisacasual]

I agree with the front half of this.

I don't have a strong feeling on the question. I don't begrudge paying for a reasonable standard of living including basic healthcare, housing, and food for everyone in a rich country. The exact right quantity of spending is right seems like a technical question and I ultimately don't care that much what the number is.

As mentioned earlier in the thread though, my main skepticism derives from a strong suspicion that people will fail to provide themselves with basic healthcare, housing, and food if there aren't programs in place that are more paternalistic than UBI. We have a fair few people that aren't good decision makers; a close friend of mine has a brother who has severely impaired executive function and he simply cannot plan ahead at all. Obviously that's an edge case, but weak executive function isn't exactly a rare trait.

For instance if we started a UBI tomorrow would Skid Row move away? Would they gravitate towards a Greyhound bus and move to another section of the nation? This is an honest question that deserves some attention but that being said i think that some people are to far gone that no singular program or plan of action will fix. I know from my own experience i get some very decently sized dividend checks i reinvest them right away which i would likely do to a UBI. Also i am currently living in New Castle Australia should i get a US UBI even tho i am a citizen but not living in the states? Sure my home is in Cheyenne but it wont be lived in anytime soon. Those are important questions that will need a more nuanced response that we can only have if we think that a UBI is more of a boon then a burden.

The brain function part is very real and not to sound rude or mean towards people with less cognitive functions but would a payee be the fair and or better way to approach that? Will they still find dignity in that? How will this impact those at the margins etc. Is SNAP better then a UBI because it forces those people to buy groceries ( excluding the thought that some sell the card allotment )? Its an interesting set of questions that i enjoy discussing simply because of my background in finance alone.

[Endus]

The brain function part is very real and not to sound rude or mean towards people with less cognitive functions but would a payee be the fair and or better way to approach that? Will they still find dignity in that? How will this impact those at the margins etc. Is SNAP better then a UBI because it forces those people to buy groceries ( excluding the thought that some sell the card allotment )? Its an interesting set of questions that i enjoy discussing simply because of my background in finance alone.

I feel the "dignity" argument just doesn't have any merit at all.

Artists and such find dignity and value in what they do, even if it isn't financially profitable.

Homemakers find value and dignity there, as well.

Same for those volunteering with some organization or another.

The fact that we try and tie self-worth and dignity to a paycheck is, itself, indicative of a deep rot within modern society. By that measure, Vincent Van Gogh was terrible failure and no one should respect anything he accomplished. Instead, he's recognized as one of the greatest artists who ever lived. And on the other side, you're saying that people like the Kardashians, who make a ton of money, have more value and dignity than a high school teacher dropping his first paycheck on school supplies for his classroom.

I find the entire idea to be utterly ludicrous as the basis for anything.

[derpkitteh]

That's an argument for the policy, but still an indictment of the character of someone that just brazenly says, "Yeah, I want to raise your taxes to give me money so I don't have to work". It's one thing to say "it's a good thing to help people who can't find work" and very different to just openly make it plain that the goal is to encourage sloth.

i mean, the "yes." was mostly a meme. i'd have used the actual meme, but sticks are firmly in anuses about memes here.

the main reason i don't want to work is because i kinda can't. online's the only place i can really speak with any clarity, and functioning at any normal level in public is pretty much entirely out of the question. idk what's wrong with me, but i'd most likely actually qualify for wellfare if i could go to get checked out.

i want UBI because i'm too scared to go get check out for it though. there's several reasons i don't want to have to talk to a doctor for it, but the main is what it'd cause in my home life. someone i live with wouldn't exactly be understanding of my problem, and i can't live on my own. it's self-defeating.

[BeepBoo]

And again; so what?

If you want society to give you something, you better be willing or able to give something to society. Simply existing isn't enough.

[Shadowferal]

If you want society to give you something, you better be willing or able to give something to society. Simply existing isn't enough.

Got of few red states that disagree with you.

[BeepBoo]

Got of few red states that disagree with you.

Good thing I'm not a party line whore, nor a "red" (at least insofar as current red is concerned). You seem to think I'm for whatever it is you're talking about just because of where it is or who it impacts. I assure you, I'm not.