Hahahah, oh mannnn, this is so far from a reality. There would be too many libs on the fence about it, whilst virtually every conservative would reject the idea outright. I can just see Bill O'Reilly ranting about people sitting on their asses and getting paid for it. And... I would kind of agree with him. The article is certainly right; there are tens of millions of overly-worked Americans trapped in cycles of poverty. Moms and dad working to support their several children that they couldn't afford to have had, but they're Catholic and uneducated (or whatever other scenario), so can we really blame them? I dunno. But I can guarantee you that if we were to hand out paychecks Oprah style, we would have tens of millions of Americans unmotivated to do anything other than watch TV and post about it on Facebook. It's arguably human nature... if there's nothing chasing you, why run? I would be all for a "mincome" if there were some kind of criteria wherein you had to demonstrate self-improvement. But how the hell are we going to evaluate that? People would point to finger paintings, terrible haikus, and awful music productions as evidence of their "progress" in life. Dauphin serves as a poor example for a case study. If they have around 12,000 residents now, I'd wager that they had maybe about 5,000 during the case study in the 1970's (very generous estimate). An isolated town of 5,000 does not scale to an interconnected country of 320 million. I'd really like to see wealth redistributed more evenly, I really would, but just like every other idealist idea, human nature is just going to shit all over it. Please, I'm all for debate on this, because deep down I want a basic income to work. I just doubt that it would.
So, here's the main problem I have with you argument: Now hold on while I say the next sentence: why is that a bad thing? Yeah, obviously the people that do that are pretty much worthless at that point, but do you know of many people that given a basic income will sit on the couch for the entirety of their lives. 50 plus years of doing nothing? That sounds unreasonable to me. Perhaps some will, statistically it's possible, but not beyond the first generation, that won't continue. The basic income would allow people to do what they want. Want to pursue a career in something you truly enjoy? Congratulations! Making a living wage is no longer a concern, you don't have to worry about funding it. Want to take up a high paying job to be able to supplement your income? Congratulations! You now have the time to study for that job, or pay for the schooling needed to get there. Want to travel the world and not have to stop to work? Congratulations! It enables people to contribute to society as they feel they should, not as they have to. It solves the other issue of people being worried about losing their jobs to robots because all those low skill, replaceable jobs can be now without concern, because those previously displaced employees still pull an income, so technology advances. It would also cut the government spending on social wellness programs like welfare, as it was determined that if everyone had a basic income, the costs of administration and enforcement of welfare and all similar programs is eliminated, so the overall cost would be lower. Will it happen anytime soon? No, you're right, the right would whine like pissbabies until their heads burst, but it doesn't make it something we shouldn't fight for. But I can guarantee you that if we were to hand out paychecks Oprah style, we would have tens of millions of Americans unmotivated to do anything other than watch TV and post about it on Facebook. It's arguably human nature... if there's nothing chasing you, why run?
All fair arguments, to be sure. Ahh, yes, but who will maintenance these robots? Eventually other robots, but for decades, we will need millions of people to work technician jobs to service the fleets of robots pivotal to our society. Obviously, these people would have to be offered an additional wage in order to give them incentive to work. I don't see a problem there, I think that should work out. I just think you're generally giving people entirely too much credit. Look at the lifestyles of the rich and the famous, especially people who are born into a huge monetary inheritance. There are some elitists advancing society, yes, but there are also some people leading seriously harmful lifestyles. It's kind of a mode splitting. Anyway, thank you for your thoughts, I enjoyed that. :)It solves the other issue of people being worried about losing their jobs to robots because all those low skill, replaceable jobs can be now without concern, because those previously displaced employees still pull an income, so technology advances.
Cash payments to the poor is actually one of the most effective ways to reduce poverty. Well off economists and pundits on their high horses like to worry about the poor's ability to spend their money wisely but they are often mistaken. One benefit is definitely eliminating the bureaucracy of the welfare state, but as Tyler Cowen points out in the post below that you are going to lower in the incentive to work more than the earned income tax credit or other tapered incentives already adjust the income curve. I have mixed feelings about this. In one way I think it is inevitable in another I think we can transform ourselves into an economy where everyone's productive capacity is at their fingertips and they can be higher earners than they imagine. We may just be at an awkward turning point where digitalization and automation are upending the world and we need to adjust to the new economy as whole in a similar way as the world adjusted during the industrial revolution. Initially the luddites were out of a job but eventually they had more earning potential than ever. Marginal Revolution - What are some of the biggest problems with a guaranteed annual income? I highly recommend keeping up with marginal revolution if you are interested in economics.
I have seen this type of proposal before, and I am curious: How does this prevent people from squandering the UBI money on non-necessities and then still requiring welfare? I'm not saying everyone would do it, but there would definitely be some who don't manage the money well and require extra support. Aren't we just paying more then to fix the same problem?
the reality is there would still have to be social programs for the mentally ill, children, addicts etc.
To a large extent it absolves my giving a shit, at least financially, about such people. Education, rehabilitation services etc -sure... but directly giving them additional money or even resources that could be purchased with money, yeah... sorry not happening.
As someone who fully supports BI, I say, unreservedly, we should not maintain these expensive, inefficient social programs for the minority who are too foolish to buy food and shelter with their BI. And research increasingly suggests it is a minority. BI also doesn't preclude non-monetary social programs, such as addiction treatment and money management classes.How does this prevent people from squandering the UBI money on non-necessities and then still requiring welfare?
It doesn't. If you get your BI check and immediately blow it at the casino, you don't eat that week. One of the benefits of BI is the dissolution of unemployment, food stamps, welfare, and every other inefficient social welfare program.
For me, this is a problem. Though it is a minority, the fact still remains there will be people who are starving. Ideally, a welfare system (which I understand BI is not) should make sure that those on it can only spend the money on necessities (accomplished through things like food stamps). If we eliminate current systems and replace them with things that are not welfare (ie BI), we are allowing for a subset of the population, who may have never learned good personal finance or are not used to such a system, to starve. I am not comfortable with such a program. I certainly see the benefits of BI, and I agree that the current welfare system is in need of overhaul. We must ask ourselves what the final goal of these programs is though, and if we conclude it is to provide the basic necessities for the people in our society, we should be sure the programs are actually achieving those goals.
I don't think any program can completely prevent people from harming themselves. If someone is so fantastically stupid, or so horribly addicted that they will spend money on something other than food, when they are literally starving to death, no social program can fix that. If they're that desperate, they'll find some way to turn what you give them into money to buy their non-food with.Though it is a minority, the fact still remains there will be people who are starving
I hate to use a Libertarian trope, but that's what charities are for.we should be sure the programs are actually achieving those goals.
I agree completely. I believe strongly in evidence-based policy. If we implement BI and find the homeless rate, the poverty rate, the starvation rate goes up, then we should definitely reevaluate the policy. But I suspect the rates will steadily drop, as more poor and homeless people apply for and receive their BI. They'll never reach zero, but again, I don't think that's possible. I'm not one to lightly say something is impossible.
I think it is something definitely worth considering. The current system is in need of overhaul, and UBI is one of the better solutions that I have heard. I just have concerns with it, as with many other policy proposals. I would be very interested to see it implemented and then monitored for a while.
There's definitely a huge string attached. Where the hell is all the money coming from? There's only so much money to go around. So you'd either have to make/print more, which reduces the value of current owners. Or you'd have to take it from people who already have money, which isn't cool IMO. The last option would be to stop spending it on roads and such. But IMO, I'd rather pay taxes for roads and public utilities than paying someone to be a bit lazier. Also the "reduce poverty" reason is bullshit. of course it would. If you define poverty as having 'X' amount of money, and then give them over that amount of money, by definition they'd be out of poverty.
Oh, really?!. Wake up, the richest people on the planet are holding back the species. It's quite obvious that we could finance a basic income with a hyper-progressive tax system that would level the playing field to something closer to the "ideal". A global basic income would relieve everyone of having to be in constant fear of not making rent or not being able to afford food. It would give everyone power. Fuck the vote (unless we can have a system where the people vote on ideas and not on corrupted politicians/parties). Voting doesn't change anything, it isn't real power. Basic income for everyone is more important than the vote. This is about creating a world where everyone wins. Where everyone can live the one life they have in the way they would like. Right now we are all slaves.Or you'd have to take it from people who already have money, which isn't cool IMO.
A few people hold a lot of money, so? A few people also hold rare video games (1 of a kind and all that), a few people hold all sorts of rare things. Hell, one company owns pretty much all the diamonds. Because they own all of the mining operations. So? My point still stands. It isn't cool to take someone's stuff because you want it. That's called theft. No one asked me what my ideal was. I'd say that "ideal" is absolutely awful. My ideal is completely random/arbitrary. You don't start with a curve and distribute the wealth that way. You distribute the wealth and then draw up the curve on what you see. Basically your idea is to.... what exactly? Tax more as you get more? We already do that. Tax a super high amount once you pass a border? How do you determine when that happens? How do you prevent people from staying right below it? Is it a one time tax? If so, how can people be sure another one time tax won't suddenly appear to take their money? Have you ever considered that the reason these people have so much more money might possibly be because they deserve it? I'd be more worried about where they are going to take money from. Who gets chosen? How do you determine amongst the rich? What happens if you get that much money after this income thing starts? Also, what happens after the wealth is the "ideal"? A better solution would be to have people paid correctly and enough to support themselves. Which is what minimum wage is for. But as minimum wage gets pushed up, the price of products increases (as I'm guessing will happen if a basic income was made). Only if you keep distributing the wealth in the same way, constantly, and increase the amount each time. Which is ultimately unsupportable. I agree here. I'd much rather have an online digital voting site/program. And vote directly on topics which can be suggested through that one government petition site (where after a certain amount of votes it warrants a response). I think having people submitted things like that, followed by a digital voting system would work well, rather than voting on politicians. At the very end of the video: "This video is an invitation to critical thinking about poverty and inequality. It does not present a blueprint for social action." Win everyone wins, there are no winners. And thus, everyone is a loser. The way I'd like to live life is not be stolen from. I'm sure there are plenty of rich folk who think the same thing. Regardless of how much money I currently have, I'm living the life I want. Provide equal opportunity to children, and we're good. Who's a slave? The guy who grew up and settled for minimum wage? There's a difference between lazily opting for the minimum and actually being forced to be poor.Oh, really?!
It's quite obvious that we could finance a basic income with a hyper-progressive tax system that would level the playing field to something closer to the "ideal".
A global basic income would relieve everyone of having to be in constant fear of not making rent or not being able to afford food.
It would give everyone power.
Fuck the vote (unless we can have a system where the people vote on ideas and not on corrupted politicians/parties). Voting doesn't change anything, it isn't real power.
Basic income for everyone is more important than the vote
This is about creating a world where everyone wins.
Where everyone can live the one life they have in the way they would like.
Right now we are all slaves.
The experiments have already been run. IMO this is the obvious solution to wealth inequality and technological unemployment.
Where does the money end up? We give 10,000 people UBI, where does that money accumulate? Was it tracked in those studies? What happens if this turns into the Wallstreet bailout all over again where the money just ended up in the retirement funds and bonuses of execs?
It ends up in your bank account. Unconditionally -- every month -- just for being alive. You shouldn't have to pay to exist. You should be able to spend your one life doing what you want. End of discussion. We wouldn't be giving "10,000" people UBI. Everyone would get a minimum income.Where does the money end up?
Well hopefully a UBI would boost the economy, especially for small business, as it would promote greater middle class spending. Right now our money is accumulating in the off-shore bank accounts of a few hyper-wealthy people. Now that money could just circulate fairly in the actual marketplace.