I don't get how you can trial UBI and get much out of it. Being universal is the key concept. If everyone had it, the entire economy would change direction. Do they do these just to say "look, we tried, and it didn't work"?
Having it time-limited, here two years, is another challenge that gets brought up when trialing UBI. It's more of a temporary bonus than something participants can depend on.
(not making a point one way or another for UBI itself)
Are you saying because everyone gets it, it's a wash? Isn't it more about how the money moves around the economy? Others are pointing out the small sample size, which makes this seem pretty insignificant to impact the economy, and more about the people's experience and change in living/living quality.
The whole point of UBI is that it is universal, and therefore causes those at the very bottom to immediately renegotiate their pay to quality of life ratio. Without this action on a mass scale, it cannot flow up the chain to properly adjust the supply and demand curves to fulfill the goals of UBI.
Whether that is what GP was saying or not, I don't know. But everyone receiving a basic income guarantee, with no other economic changes, would mean that the amount that landlords and other rent-seekers could expect to charge would dramatically increase, and almost all of the benefits would go to those who hold all the bargaining power by controlling the essentials of life.
Money isn't wealth. Bargaining power is wealth. Adding more magic numbers in a broad-based way doesn't change the bargaining power. The main change is that funds would be diverted from productive enterprises to rent-seeking ones.
UBI would drastically shift supply/demand curves for all sorts of things. It's hard to predict what all the nth order effects would be. I'm generally in favor of some kind of broad assistance to establish a floor that preserves people's dignity, but the cynic in me also expects the rich to play games with supply and demand if it's implemented to paint the effort as destructive to the economic order.
Because the concept itself is a lie and panderous ploy for voters. If UBI was universal, nobody would work and UBI would have no funding source since government can only ever be funded by tax revenue by people who work.
If you take a literal definition of "nobody", this is 100% wrong.
UBI should only give you a bare minimum. Cheap food. Cheap housing. Cheap clothes. The bare essentials, with very little discretionary income.
There are a lot of people where this is all they want. They have no ambitions. No life goals. These people would take UBI and not work.
But most people want more. They want better food. Better housing. More entertainment options. Funds to fuel a hobby. Money to travel. These people will still work. And they'll be happier about it, knowing that they don't have to work.
Minimum wage jobs are filled with people that can't get anything better and are just taking what they can get. You could swap them out with people that are there because they want to be.
We don't even have it yet and already we are seeing people complaining that the proposed amounts are too low. It's pretty obvious to anyone who has paid attention to the current situation that this rate would immediately become a/the major political issue and would get ratcheted up preceding every election.
How is it different than any other political initiative? There several ways to objectively/scientifically establish an amount that matches the poverty threshold.
Middle class people already have the equivalent of UBI from their families. Not only do they still work, they are more productive and pay more taxes than people without that support.
My parents provided me with free housing and food for over 20 years with no strings attached. They never told me to get a job or to help pay the bills. While my less fortunate peers wasted their lives working at McDonald's, I had the privilege of being able to study and experiment with different careers without needing to worry about food and shelter.
Behind every highly productive worker is hundreds of thousands of dollars of FREE support that they did not work for or earn in any way.
The only problem is that how much support you get depends on what family you happen to be born into. When the government provides that support instead, it means everyone gets equal opportunity and it doesn't matter what family you come from.
Your parents literally created you. You didn’t just happen to be born. Also someone has to work at McDonald’s and do other dangerous or otherwise undesirable and uncompetitive jobs. Unless we all have the same genetics, we can’t have equality even with communism.
Alaska doesn't have UBI. The dividend doesn't even cover the increased cost of living of Alaska relative to the rest of the US, let alone the entire cost of living. UBI is supposed to be consistent, but Alaska's dividend is heavily dependent on the price of oil.
This is the true meaning behind most bullshit arguments against UBI. And it sort of shows why most people that probably think of themselves as fair and honest are actually pretty cruel.
They count on existing people poor enough to work miserable jobs that no one would do if not for the threat of homelessness and starvation. They count on the coercion inherent to the system to keep things chugging along.
Someone gotta collect that garbage, and the sewer won't unclog itself.
>Someone gotta collect that garbage, and the sewer won't unclog itself.
What's your answer then? Robots? "These dirty but necessary jobs should pay better" would be a reasonable take, "let's give free money to everybody" seems a bit less so to me.
My answer is that a system that forces people into miserable jobs for miserable payment is inherently an unfair system.
Would you be alright with slavery because no one else would pick cotton or cut sugar cane while being threatened with a whip because "these dirty but necessary jobs should should be better"?
> would be a reasonable take, "let's give free money to everybody" seems a bit less so to me.
Giving free money to everybody would result in undesirable jobs either having their conditions improved or eliminated entirely. If unclogging sewers is necessary, people would only do it for the proper payment.
I can only speak for myself, but the instant I start getting 2k a month for doing nothing I'm quitting. Especially when I look at my paycheck and see how much more is being taken in taxes than before. Why should I be one of the suckers? I'll just reduce my expenses and coast as long as I can, which is probably indefinitely since I've been saving for a while. Maybe have a few buddies put our free money together to move in and cover rent/mortgage. And I'm willing to bet a large proportion of my peers will do the same. When all your friends are getting stoned and playing video games all day while you work your ass off, in part to support their lifestyle, it'll be very tempting to join them and tell 'em to pass the bong.
The argument was that "if everyone gets UBI no one will work".
Many people choose not to work even without UBI. Many people would still work even with UBI.
I probably still would work, mostly because I'm greedy. I like money. It's colorful and buy things.
Personal perspective in this discussion is less than useful as it fails to address the reason why UBI is a good thing. It attempts to remove the coercion inherent to the existing system, where people are essentially forced into servitude under threat of homelessness and starvation.
>Many people choose not to work even without UBI. Many people would still work even with UBI.
What would the actual difference be though? How many more people would choose not to work if they received UBI? This is just hand-waving that question away with a "more, but it doesn't matter" answer. I understand GP said "if everyone gets UBI no one will work", which was clearly an exaggeration and shouldn't be taken verbatim. But the number of people who would stop working is not 0, nor can you say with any certainty it wouldn't be enough to cause major problems.
>Personal perspective in this discussion is less than useful as it fails to address the reason why UBI is a good thing.
Ah so personal perspectives are only useful if they reinforce that UBI is a good thing, gotcha
>It attempts to remove the coercion inherent to the existing system, where people are essentially forced into servitude under threat of homelessness and starvation.
Which system are you referring to? Physical reality? Resources are finite. Every living thing on this planet has to work to survive, with the possible exceptions of pets and zoo animals, neither of which are conditions I aspire to. It's a great testament to our kindness and empathy that we're willing to help those who are unable to provide for themselves, and we should. But until we're able to replicate matter like Star Trek this concept of "I have the inherent right to be provided for indefinitely regardless of circumstance" is nonsensical and destructive
> What would the actual difference be though? How many more people would choose not to work if they received UBI?
Why does this matter? I suppose people should be free to choose to work without threat of homelessness and starvation. Do you disagree with this notion?
> Which system are you referring to? Physical reality? Resources are finite.
The current system that society uses to organize itself in democratic countries where discussion of UBI is a thing, obviously.
Resources being finite is true, but meaningless to this discussion. Market forces should cause the cost of things and align incentives So that goods and services are still produced, but without forcing people in a system of coercion.
> Ah so personal perspectives are only useful if they reinforce that UBI is a good thing, gotcha
This line clearly shows you are unwilling to argue in good faith. I will reply no further. Feel free to have the last word.
