Universal Basic Income Study

[abrakamowse]

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/mar/03/california-universal-basic-income-study

I think this can be very good... I don't believe what people say that if you get an income, that would incentive people to get "free money" and don't work.

This is a proof that it can help people to leave poverty and get real jobs.

What do you think?

[commie]

Individuals can get out of poverty. But poverty has a social function, and so that's no basis for public policy. If your economy requires people to do "unreal" jobs (and it does!), you basically have a two choices:

-punitive welfare and/or inadequate basic income

-have foreigners who aren't entitled to such benefits do these jobs

Option 2 being unappealing even if it's largely adopted in practice, a decent basic income remains a non-starter. What the scum is introducing instead are inadequate basic incomes as a pretext to cut other benefits. And since some people need a lot more benefits than others due to disabilities and so forth, basic incomes are currently harmful.

This is a structural demand-side labor market issue. Liberal supply-side policies are not an answer.

[DocWatts]

I've read other studies about UBI trial runs (such as the one they did in Ontario), which concluded that it had very little effect on people's willingness to work. If I remember offhand, the only groups where it had a notable impact were for full time students, and for mothers with young children (where arguably its completely understandable why both would prefer to work less hours if given the choice).

Most UBI proposals I've seen have incomes of anywhere from $500 to $1200 a month, which is a significant boost for people already working a normal job, yet not nearly enough to live comfortably off from on its own.

If anything, I see UBI incentivizing more people to work because of the improvements it brings to the Labor Market, in that it gives workers more leverage to negotiate from (ie not having to accept the first crappy job offer available due to financial desperation).

Edited March 4, 2021 by DocWatts

[abrakamowse]

The good thing is that it was done with studies and investigations, so we have interesting facts, like this:
 

Quote

 

The researchers said that the extra $500 per month was enough for people with part-time jobs to take time off so they could interview for full-time jobs that offered better pay. They also said the money could have helped people who weren’t working at all find jobs by allowing them to pay for transportation to interviews.

 

 

It is something that is proven to help the economy and the individuals. I thinks is a good thing.

Edited March 4, 2021 by abrakamowse

[commie]

And who chose to look at that fact instead of a more relevant one in order to mislead us?

EDIT: a study suggests people enjoying financial priviledges rarely end up doing the worst jobs... who'd have thought? Liberalism is awesome, innit?

Edited March 4, 2021 by commie
spelling it out now that I have a minute

[DocWatts]

Also the fact that it costs money to be able to work is something that's overlooked by people who've never had any experience with Poverty; just try applying to a job without being able to provide a Home Address or a Phone Number, and see how far that gets you. That's of course leaving aside Costs like Transportation and Child Care. 

Saying that someone is too poor to be able to work sounds like hyperbole or a joke, but sadly it's absolutely true in countries lacking basic support structures for people (such as the United States).

UBI would go a long way towards addressing this, and far from deincentivizing work, it would give many people the financial resources to actually be able to begin participating in the Labor Market.

[aurum]

@abrakamowse

I've been a proponent of UBI for a while now.

It would have huge ramifications, especially when implemented at a nation-state level.

The conservatives who argue that people "won't want to work" if everyone gets UBI are partially correct. Our current economic system essentially runs on wage slavery, i.e your work this job or you won't have money and you'll starve. We soften this with a welfare state, but it is nonetheless still the paradigm we operate in.

How else do you get someone to drive a garbage truck for 8 hours a day, for 30 years? You need a gun to their head.

So essentially what we have is a carrot and stick approach to economics. Work, and you'll be rewarded. Don't work, be severely punished.

UBI is us moving into a new paradigm. It's us saying "there is nothing you have to do. We trust that you are intrinsically motivated to do the things society needs to be done." No more carrot, no more stick.

This is of course dangerous if you have a low consciousness population that only understands the carrot and stick. But as we move closer to stage Green, these ideas are beginning to surface.

So will people work if they get UBI? The answer is yes and no.

In many cases, no they will not work. They will not work degrading jobs for slave wages anymore. Those jobs will either have to be removed from society or there will have to be a drastic rise in wages for them.

We also must consider that it's not desirable for people to work so much. Much of the work being done right now is not only totally unnecessary, i.e David Graber's "bullshit job" theory, it actually is causing harm. It's destructive towards the environment and it makes everyone always busy. This degrades community and makes it so people cannot focus on higher spiritual needs. Given our technology, there is no reason people should have to work as much as they do, except for that we keep choosing to do so.

But of course, there is still work to be done. But with UBI, much of this work will be done outside the market economy.

For instance, if I'm an artist who is getting UBI, maybe I don't need to worry about whether I should monetize my art or not. Maybe I can just create it and share. Or maybe I want to spend my time restoring a local ecosystem, even if no one pays me. In both cases, work is still being done, it's just not being done in the market.

This is desirable. Markets encourage a transactional mindset, and we want to be shifting people towards a giving, relational mindset.

UBI is also unlikely to be such a high amount that everyone quits their job. It will cover some of the basics and that's about it. Most people will of course still need to work in a traditional sense in the market, but we're very slowing moving away from that.

So yes, I'm very excited about UBI. I don't think it's going to solve everything, there certainly need to be many other policies than a UBI implemented. But I feel it's a step in the right direction. It's not just another welfare state policy, it will actually disrupt society.

[abrakamowse]

On 3/4/2021 at 11:21 AM, DocWatts said:

Also the fact that it costs money to be able to work is something that's overlooked by people who've never had any experience with Poverty; just try applying to a job without being able to provide a Home Address or a Phone Number, and see how far that gets you. That's of course leaving aside Costs like Transportation and Child Care. 

Saying that someone is too poor to be able to work sounds like hyperbole or a joke, but sadly it's absolutely true in countries lacking basic support structures for people (such as the United States).

UBI would go a long way towards addressing this, and far from deincentivizing work, it would give many people the financial resources to actually be able to begin participating in the Labor Market.

Totally agree @DocWatts

 

@aurum Excellent points! I agree is not going to solve everything but is a step in the right direction. 

[Matt23]

I'm in favor of UBI... But I'm wondering, what do you think are downsides of UBI or even examples where it didn't or wouldn't work?  

Attempting to strongman the other argument to see how others think about it.  Gain more perspective.  

Like, if you were against UBI, how would you argue against it?

[Leo Gura]

People who whine that UBI would make people lazy and not work have no idea how human motivation works.

If UBI makes people lazy, then stock options and lavish compensations packages should make CEOs lazy.

Why do Bill Gates, Elon Musk, and Jeff Bezos still work when they have what is effectively an infinite personal UBI?

The bottom line is that these are just talking points to keep the wealth at the top.

[aurum]

54 minutes ago, Matt23 said:

I'm in favor of UBI... But I'm wondering, what do you think are downsides of UBI or even examples where it didn't or wouldn't work?  

Attempting to strongman the other argument to see how others think about it.  Gain more perspective.  

Like, if you were against UBI, how would you argue against it?

This is a good theoretical game to play.

The most common argument against UBI besides “people will be lazy” is “how do we pay for it?”

Financing is of course a real question. There does need to be a plan to finance UBI. But ultimately, I find this argument holds little weight.

If we want it, we can find a way to finance it. I’ve various plans that have been proposed, from Andrew Yang’s VAT tax to a cryptocurrency direct deposit. Most of them I feel would work fine.

I think the most credible argument is that UBI is just too radical. It’s too big a shift for society to make all at once. It needs to be further tested at smaller levels before it should considered at the nation-state.

There are many other critiques worth mentioning too. One is that UBI could be used to dismantle the welfare state, when in reality you likely want some of both. Another critique is that UBI is just another redistributive policy and isn’t radical enough. And I’ve also heard people who argued that UBI will reduce tax revenue for the government, actually making it harder to pay for UBI in the future.

I think all these critiques are relatively straight forward to solve. But people do make them and so they should be addressed.

 

[Enlightenment]

@abrakamowse It's not a question of if but when for UBI. Only some percentage of people have mental capabilities to become let's say a programmer and blue-collar jobs will slowly decline due to AI and technology

IMO we should work towards implementing extremely basic UBI, so you can never worry about food and shelter and that's it. If you want more then you can work for it. UBI beyond food and shelter can wait even 1000 years cause it's not that important

[mmKay]

My friend gets 500€ a month from his dad. Hes 25 and lives with his mom an spends the day smoking weed and playing videogames and watching Natflix. Hes a cool guy though. 

Then again he was like that before his dad decided to give hin that income. Just he was putting some effort to find a job from time to time. 

[Leo Gura]

1 hour ago, mmKay said:

Hes 25 and lives with his mom an spends the day smoking weed and playing videogames and watching Natflix.

There will always be people like that. Many employed people are like that too.

The ultimate solution is not just UBI, it's UBI in combination with a reformed education and social system which guides people towards finding their life purposes so they don't need to smoke weed and play video games.

[Preety_India]

2 hours ago, mmKay said:

My friend gets 500€ a month from his dad. Hes 25 and lives with his mom an spends the day smoking weed and playing videogames and watching Natflix. Hes a cool guy though. 

Then again he was like that before his dad decided to give hin that income. Just he was putting some effort to find a job from time to time. 

Hey there will always be people like that. But doesn't mean others issues should be downplayed. 

Many people need a basic income to just survive. 

[Thought Art]

UBI works.

[Woke456]

18 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

People who whine that UBI would make people lazy and not work have no idea how human motivation works.

If UBI makes people lazy, then stock options and lavish compensations packages should make CEOs lazy.

Why do Bill Gates, Elon Musk, and Jeff Bezos still work when they have what is effectively an infinite personal UBI?

The bottom line is that these are just talking points to keep the wealth at the top.

Stock options actually MOTIVATE insiders to make the company succeed.  One of my criteria before investing is to see how much insider ownership the company has.  They'll often move mountains to make the company increase sevenfold in value!

[Lyubov]

Doubt I'll see this in my lifetime but you never know. It's going to start with an overhaul of social security in the US. My generation, millennial, is gonna be near broke or have very little come retirement age. In 40 years I don't know what society is going to do about the massive amounts of elderly with almost no savings. I hope by then healthcare has been expanded and comprehensive including medications. Elderly currently get Medicaid which is decent and we see this system being advocated for expansion to other groups and universally. I'm guessing some sort of UBI system will start with the huge amount of poor elderly and will then be expanded eventually universally, think 100 years from now. 

Edited March 7, 2021 by Lyubov

[Thought Art]

I canada have a UBI bill just entering parliament. The majority of Canada is pro -UBI

[Heart of Space]

UBI as a flat unchanging amount of money for everyone is a very poor idea.

Economies fluctuate and constantly change, with that so does the need for income redistribution.  You have to monitor a lot of variables, the most important being inflation rates, and tie your level of income redistribution to said variables.  

Something better would be tax rates that fluctuate based on constantly monitoring of economic variables, where it is possible to have a negative tax rate for people lower on the socioeconomic ladder.

An Andrew Yang style UBI would be a terrible idea.  You'd end up overheating the economy at some point and because of how slow the legislative process is and the popularity of free money for the masses you would have an extremely hard time getting rid of UBI, meanwhile damage is being done to your economy as the value of your currency dwindles down the toilet.  Not to mention you're giving the UBI to everyone, including the hyper wealthy?  That's an utter waste of spending.  

Far better to do a targeted wealth redistribution that can be turned up or down based on where the economy is at.