If UBI is only available for people who already receive some form of assistance, then it's nothing more than federalizing minimum wage. THAT won't go well. And it's not really a change. Giving people the same money they are already receiving from a different source. It's just a federal power grab from the states.
I find it jarring that the perspectives voiced in the original 3 articles posted were so vastly different in their evaluations of the same study.
I also noticed that the study was done during COVID (when unemployment and joblessness was at an enormous peak).
I don't know how to interpret the data, and it looks like a lot of qualified professionals don't either.
That's a really expensive way to find out that you haven't found out anything.
SV reX said:In reply to alfadriver :
Police, firemen, and building inspectors DO contribute to the productivity of the country, because the cost of failure or anarchy is far more expensive than paying them.
Ask any businessman who owns a business in a crappy part of town if he's willing to do business without law enforcement. It's literally impossible.
Thats significantly different than paying someone to stay home and play video games. (Even if it's in the form of a taxation)
The cost of failure really only hurts society, not business. As a country, we survived our first 100 or so years without a real organized police or fire service. There was some, it was hardly universal, and it was not even close to the huge thing we have now. And there was not anarchy or any of that. It did result in companies "cutting corners" to make more money in what they did- which resulted in society being really angry and forcing our government to put oversight over pretty much everyone. While the oversight is great for society, it really does cost businesses money to make sure they are meeting those standards.
Thankfully, people are very creative, and know how to deal with rules really well, and some have even figured out how to use them as a competitive advantage.
But, yea, paying given person X money to be a consumer to do nothing but consume and paying person Y to constrain business to make sure society isn't harmed isn't the same thing. They are not different enough to really bring up "the honor of working" though.
And it's funny how we all can imagine that sitting in your basement playing video games is such a great life compared to working and getting out in the world. Personally, playing video games all day would be torture to me. If you want to waste your precious time and energy doing that- go for it. I'd rather get out, see, and experience the world.
In reply to alfadriver :
I agree. I would find a life of playing video games abhorrent.
But I sure know a lot of people who do it.
SV reX said:If UBI is only available for people who already receive some form of assistance, then it's nothing more than federalizing minimum wage. THAT won't go well. And it's not really a change. Giving people the same money they are already receiving from a different source. It's just a federal power grab from the states.
Why?
Especially if you claim it's not really a change. How can it go so very wrong if it changes almost nothing in your opinion?
And why is it a federal power grab? Isn't most welfare coming from the federal government, anyway? Shouldn't the source of the funding have some say in how it's spent?
SV reX said:In reply to alfadriver :
I agree. I would find a life of playing video games abhorrent.
But I sure know a lot of people who do it.
So why is it such a thing to prevent someone else to wasting their time doing it? They are not out running organized crime, or harming anyone. If you are not working, finding a safe way to keep off teh streets sure seems to be a good thing.
In reply to alfadriver :
State unemployment compensation??
We can't even decide what would be fair minimum wages regionally. It's defined by states. How would we define UBI?
alfadriver said:SV reX said:In reply to alfadriver :
I agree. I would find a life of playing video games abhorrent.
But I sure know a lot of people who do it.
So why is it such a thing to prevent someone else to wasting their time doing it? They are not out running organized crime, or harming anyone. If you are not working, finding a safe way to keep off teh streets sure seems to be a good thing.
I don't care what they do. Doesn't mean I want to pay them to do it.
And I don't expect anyone to want to pay me to do the stuff I want to do that doesn't earn them money either.
alfadriver said:SV reX said:In reply to alfadriver :
I agree. I would find a life of playing video games abhorrent.
But I sure know a lot of people who do it.
So why is it such a thing to prevent someone else to wasting their time doing it? They are not out running organized crime, or harming anyone. If you are not working, finding a safe way to keep off teh streets sure seems to be a good thing.
They aren't wasting their time, they are wasting mine because I'm the guy that's going to be on the hook to pay for it. Why would anyone be ok with the government stealing their labor for the benefit of others?
If a man isn't capable of working to feed himself or needs help when he's down on his luck, I'll help in any way I can. Local food banks are my largest charitable donation by far.
If a man isn't willing to work to feed himself, I don't mind if he starves while living under a bridge. Root, hog, or die.
Giving people money is frequently called enabling and enabling is almost always a bad thing.
SV reX said:If UBI is only available for people who already receive some form of assistance, then it's nothing more than federalizing minimum wage. THAT won't go well. And it's not really a change....
Actually no. What I am realizing is, other then the "universal" aspect (which is generally unnecessary except for simplicity sake) it's essentially the same as Welfare. I am not even sure at this point what the difference really would be other than, theoretically, everyone automatically gets it (?)
It's not a minimum wage because there is no work involved. I am really unsure what it's advantage is over welfare now.
I guess I'm having trouble with the most basic math in this. But first, a clarification...
UBI is not an assistance program for low income earners. It's universal. It would go to everyone (including high income earners). The articles are very clear about that (although the study was about its impact on low wage earners).
So, here's my math problem...
Each participant received $1000 per month. I'm assuming UBI would in fact be universal, and therefore available to everyone. That would mean that the Federal government would have to receive $1000 per month in revenue per person more than it is now, in order to distribute it. The labor force participation rate is currently 62.4%. That means that the average wage earner would have to pay almost $2000 more per month in taxes to fund this (assuming all other benefits remained equal).
So who's gonna pay it?? That's the core problem with the idea. The tax code would be manipulated to charge some people one rate, and others another. (Some people would definitely not be able to pay an additional $2000 in taxes per month, so higher wage earners would have to pay a much higher percentage).
I don't get it.
Toyman! said:In reply to alfadriver :
Are you suggesting that the UBI is only for those already on the dole? My impression is that UBI goes to every citizen, hence the Universal part of the name. If it's only going to the poor, it's not universal.
This. The important part is UNIVERSAL. Otherwise it's just federalized welfare.
I mean, that's effectively what it is anyway, but you should at least pretend that it's not.
In reply to SV reX :
Eat the rich, the willing, and the able. That's what it always comes down to, no matter how you try to veneer it.
In reply to SV reX :
You and me, that's who. Just like every other vote-buying scheme out there.
SV reX said:I guess I'm having trouble with the most basic math in this. But first, a clarification...
UBI is not an assistance program for low income earners. It's universal. It would go to everyone (including high income earners). The articles are very clear about that (although the study was about its impact on low wage earners).
So, here's my math problem...
Each participant received $1000 per month. I'm assuming UBI would in fact be universal, and therefore available to everyone. That would mean that the Federal government would have to receive $1000 per month in revenue per person more than it is now, in order to distribute it. The labor force participation rate is currently 62.4%. That means that the average wage earner would have to pay almost $2000 more per month in taxes to fund this (assuming all other benefits remained equal).
So who's gonna pay it?? That's the core problem with the idea. The tax code would be manipulated to charge some people one rate, and others another. (Some people would definitely not be able to pay an additional $2000 in taxes per month, so higher wage earners would have to pay a much higher percentage).
I don't get it.
Considering how much corruption, tax dodging, and other issues there are in the US Tax Code, I don't see a problem here that actual reform cant fix. Considering that would be needed anyways in order to get UBI working...
In reply to Mr_Asa :
You aren't going to get tax reform. The legislature has no more interest in that than they do in term limits. They will do nothing that limits their power or their ability to skim the cream off the top. Why do you think all the politicians end up millionaires? The average congress critter's net worth increases something like 70% over their term. They sell those loopholes to the rich and sell the money to the poor for votes.
Toyman! said:In reply to Mr_Asa :
You aren't going to get tax reform. The legislature has no more interest in that than they do in term limits. They will do nothing that limits their power or their ability to skim the cream off the top. Why do you think all the politicians end up millionaires? The average congress critter's net worth increases something like 70% over their term. They sell those loopholes to the rich and sell the money to the poor for votes.
You misunderstood.
The question was "where is the money going to come from." The question was not "how do we purge our govt of leeches in order to enact this."
One is a question that can be discussed here, the other is not.
Duke said:SV reX said:In reply to RX Reven' :
Owners of robots want to be paid, and have no interest in paying people for being non-productive.
THAT will never change.
Again, THIS.
Not to mention mineral rights, petroleum rights, land area for sustainable raw material production and waste disposal. Even if you factor labor costs out 100%, you can't create a thriving industrial economy out of thin air.
If they don't want to pay anyone to be non-productive and most people don't have any opportunity to be productive because there are no jobs for them, then we're headed for a dystopia where most people are impoverished so that the owners of the robots can afford space vacations or something silly like that. That's the route to the Advantageous --> Manna --> Elysium pipeline.
I think Gameboy is getting at the real relevance here. UBI, as the study seems to indicate, does not seem terribly useful or effective in "rasing up" the poor, at least in this country (in more desperate situations / countries, more so, but still not sure how it's different than a welfare system).
In a future, work restricted situation, it becomes far more relevant. Lest we want the some of the Sci-Fi predictions to become reality. The financing for it really can only come from some aspect of the massive efficiencies of automation. As with many things, it's the transition (from mostly full eligible worker participation, to almost zero) that is the question (though there was a reasonable answer to that presented also).
As to who owns the robots, and how the flow of the economy works, that gets a bit strange (though I suspect someone has put some thought into it).
Perhaps, the robots, being almost sentient at that point, become independent beings, and just take care of use out of the goodness of their (well programed with the laws of robotics) hearts.... (insert numerous sci-fi movie and book plots here).
For those who haven't read it, I thought THIS was an interesting read on the subject. However, I respect Jordan Peterson's take on it as well.
Call me undecided.
Gosh, this is a really good and timely thread. Improvements in automation have made it so that a smaller and smaller percentage of jobs are actually essential. There's also a significant permanent lower class, where whole families lack some combination of opportunities, motivation and environment to see any improvement in their lot. Those people are way disproportionately using public resources such as police, public aid and hospitals. I live in Oakland, CA, so believe me, I know. Some points that have already been raised but really resonate to me are:
-Any program that doesn't adequately allow for human nature will inevitably become a sh-t show.
-Motivation is the great equalizer. Take away that, and see above.
-There is a point to be made that getting rid of most of the bureaucracy and associated waste would make a lot of resources more broadly available. This can apply to public aid, medicine and taxation for starters.
It's a simple math problem. My current monthly taxes + $2000= my future monthly taxes. The answer to this simple math question is not a nebulous "I'm sure we can eliminate enough inefficiencies SOMEWHERE to pay for it!". That's a load of baloney.
Come on guys! Some of you are really smart!
My current rate of taxation is about $2000 a month, and it REALLY pisses me off. It's way too much. This would literally DOUBLE my taxation. And the game plan is to do this for 100% of the working population so a few people can be non-productive? It's a recipe for disaster. Pitchforks and torches in the streets.
Can anybody offer a simple math answer to a simple math question? Or is the best answer that we'll accomplish this with rainbows and unicorn farts?
How would it be possible to pay for this?
Some interesting points from the study, and related articles, that seem to be missing from the conversation.
Two-thirds of the recipients only received $50 per month. The other 1/3 got $1000.
Eighty-five percent had at least one job: annual income of $36,000, which is right at the US median. An increase of 40% (guessing) of take home pay would be huge. Worked hours were reduced by, on average, 1 hour per week. That could easily be accounted for due to Covid-related issues, at home or the job. We experienced that in our house, and we were "essential".
The vast majority of the money (81%) was spent on improving their housing situation.
Another article about this came to the conclusion that the freedom to search for a better job was the biggest benefit. One person took a lower-paying, better-fitting job in a different field. He progressed rapidly, and was making 6 figures by the end of the study. Obviously a star example, but 5-10% of some demographics started their own business. Good for them.
The US population is 337 million today, so that would be $337 Billion dollars. Federal spending on welfare (including medicare) last year was $1.1 Trillion, or 3 times as much. (Fraud within the federal welfare system was estimated at $279B in 2021). State welfare varies wildly, but every state spends more than $1k per recipient.
I don't know if UBI would be good, bad or just a blip on humanities trajectory. Some countries seem to do versions of it really well. Maybe we can learn something useful here.
SV reX said:I guess I'm having trouble with the most basic math in this. But first, a clarification...
UBI is not an assistance program for low income earners. It's universal. It would go to everyone (including high income earners). The articles are very clear about that (although the study was about its impact on low wage earners).
So, here's my math problem...
Each participant received $1000 per month. I'm assuming UBI would in fact be universal, and therefore available to everyone. That would mean that the Federal government would have to receive $1000 per month in revenue per person more than it is now, in order to distribute it. The labor force participation rate is currently 62.4%. That means that the average wage earner would have to pay almost $2000 more per month in taxes to fund this (assuming all other benefits remained equal).
So who's gonna pay it?? That's the core problem with the idea. The tax code would be manipulated to charge some people one rate, and others another. (Some people would definitely not be able to pay an additional $2000 in taxes per month, so higher wage earners would have to pay a much higher percentage).
I don't get it.
That's the key, though, the "pay for it" comes from eliminating the current infrastructure we have to determine who is "worthy" or not. We're already paying for it.
IIRC, Nixon had a study done in the 60s and found that the US could fund a UBI by eliminating government welfare infrastructure. So the idea is certainly nothing new.
Realistically, I don't see it working out well, unless some serious tariffs were put into place on imported goods. Not from a "pay for it" sense but a "increase local production" sense. Otherwise it'd just be a great way to funnel US wealth overseas. High tariffs invite trade wars and nobody wins a trade war.
In reply to llysgennad :
So, paying UBI would mean we would no longer pay for Medicare? Are you literally saying "Lets just let the old sick people die without medical care so we can pursue a financial social experiment"??
Al those expenses you outlined would still exist.
In reply to SV reX :
I didn't say anything even remotely like that.
You'll need to log in to post.
