Basic income will probably work. There are fears about what negative outcomes it might have but it's important to remember there are drawbacks to maintaining the status quo as well: millions of...
Basic income will probably work. There are fears about what negative outcomes it might have but it's important to remember there are drawbacks to maintaining the status quo as well: millions of people live in poverty or otherwise precarious situations and if we don't find a solution (where basic income is one possibility) then society suffers as a whole. Also, even though the conversation about UBI often focuses on poverty and automation, UBI has another couple of effects which I think are important as well. One is that it helps people who currently fall through the cracks of an incomplete and paternalistic welfare system that is often dependent on the arbitrary whims of caseworkers (e.g. a tragic Reddit thread full of anecdotes of people not taking their medication before applying for assistance so that they wouldn't appear "too healthy" to the person deciding their fate), and secondly a basic income would represent a necessary shift in power from bosses to workers by allowing people to leave exploitative jobs without fear of destitution.
To the worry that people will leave the work force en masse I'd ask, what are those people who will quit work doing now? Are we worried about doctors and engineers and middle class office workers quitting their jobs to sit around all day and live on an income that barely covers food and rent? Or are we more worried that the pool of cheap, underemployed, easily exploited labour will suddenly get a bit more expensive and a bit less willing to do or dirty work? And there's also the fact that some people probably should leave the work force: if more people were free to pursue unpaid labour like family child/elder care or volunteering in their communities then I think society would benefit.
Also, just as a note, this article is a few years old. The experiment in Ontario began but was cancelled by the subsequent conservative government of Doug Ford, and I believe the Finland trial ended early (or was simply not extended?) as well. On a positive note though there's the interesting case of Andrew Yang: a long shot Democratic presidential candidate with UBI as a cornerstone of his campaign who is starting to get more notice after qualifying for the first round of debates. However well he does my hope is that he can push the discussion about his "freedom dividend" into the mainstream just like Bernie Sanders did for "medicare for all".
There's zero evidence to support this position, and we've got plenty of basic income studies to look at. The best you could do is say that UBI may play out differently in a more developed context...
There's zero evidence to support this position, and we've got plenty of basic income studies to look at. The best you could do is say that UBI may play out differently in a more developed context such as a first world economy. More than that isn't born out by the data.
Basic market forces will tell you that the landlord who doesn't raise his rates will rent all of his properties in short order as people move to him from his competitors. Prices are only going to go up when properties are more scarce and therefore more valuable, just like always, and UBI has jack shit to do with it.
What UBI does for markets is provide a floor. This is the bottom. People living on the bottom are basically getting 'unemployment' level wages for free. That means instead of taking shit jobs from shit companies that pay barely anything above that level, they can walk off those exploitative jobs without worry. This puts Amazon and Walmart out of workers overnight. Power goes to the workforce, not the employers. Those who treat their employees well will be fine. Those who don't, will either rectify that problem or go under and get bought up by the winners who do.
People don't buy new cars with UBI. They buy diapers, dinner, pay rent, and that's about it. That's the point. This gives them all the time in the world to start their own projects and make them profitable, or to find a job, or retrain themselves. This money that's being taxed out of the economy is going right back in at the bottom almost immediately. Trickle-up, not trickle-down. Frankly, all that matters is that the water is flowing, the more the better, the faster the better. Gas for the market's engine.
i don't know where you live, but even a generous $1,000/mo ($12,000/yr) isn't enough to cover even the cost of rent anywhere in my town (to say nothing of food, gas, miscellaneous expenses, any...
What UBI does for markets is provide a floor. This is the bottom. People living on the bottom are basically getting 'unemployment' level wages for free. That means instead of taking shit jobs from shit companies that pay barely anything above that level, they can walk off those exploitative jobs without worry.
i don't know where you live, but even a generous $1,000/mo ($12,000/yr) isn't enough to cover even the cost of rent anywhere in my town (to say nothing of food, gas, miscellaneous expenses, any repairs that might need to be done...), and we're pretty far from being a booming metropolis, so unless you're saving money (which most people do not--and in the case of people who do, usually totals less than $400) this is wrong for the majority of people. most workers are going to be just as locked in to shitty, exploitative jobs in the sense you describe them with or without UBI, some of the will just be taking home a little bit more money than they might ordinarily because some of their costs will be effectively subsidized.
also, what you're describing is basically welfare as it already exists. don't think i need to really explain to you that it doesn't miraculously empower people to do what you describe, or that UBI isn't going to make that happen either on its own. let's not act like this suddenly creates upward mobility for people, because while it helps, most people aren't going to go anywhere socially just because the government gives them $12,000/yr with no strings attached.
oh and, in yang's case specifically, part of how he makes UBI universal is by basically abolishing what remains of our current welfare state, so...
This puts Amazon and Walmart out of workers overnight.
it won't. amazon and walmart do just fine employing workers in countries where income inequality is less of an issue, and they'll do fine when we pass measures that seek to lessen income inequality like UBI. almost without exception, people will go where jobs exist regardless of how exploitative or non-exploitative the job is
Power goes to the workforce, not the employers.
being able to move from job to job doesn't really empower workers in any way that they aren't already technically empowered.
People don't buy new cars with UBI. They buy diapers, dinner, pay rent, and that's about it. That's the point.
yes, which is why UBI is good. that said...
This gives them all the time in the world to start their own projects and make them profitable, or to find a job, or retrain themselves.
this does not follow from the above point. UBI does not and will not give most people the ability to do this, because most if not all of the money they gain under UBI will either already be going to their expenses, or will be eaten up by people trying to be opportunistic with things like price rises. the only people this really applies to are people who will either already be making a significant surplus, or people who will be pushed to that point. it's actually likely that many people would see improvements in their livelihoods, but not necessarily material gains from policies like the one yang wants. they'll help people, absolutely--but they're not about to give most people power or empower them to do whatever the fuck they want, and treating them like they will is counterproductive and setting people up for massive amounts of disappointment.
Being able to move from job to job is pretty special though? It gives you enough security to begin the moving process rather than be perfectly lined up. Backtrack to the federal government...
Being able to move from job to job is pretty special though? It gives you enough security to begin the moving process rather than be perfectly lined up.
Backtrack to the federal government shutdown -- federal employees were already living check to check -- A UBI would clearly solve such an issue and relieve that. On your point about how it wouldn't lead to mobility, I think that's rather disproven? 12k in a year is enough to jumpstart a business and become a small business owner in plenty of cases. It's enough to finance repairs. It's enough to cover the bare minimum of surivivability most people need.
Those are costs that suddenly are covered that would come out of a paycheck that could otherwise be used for advancement -- inherently, a cost subsidization still frees up $1k to be used for something, and that's worthwhile.
And Yang's specifically doesn't seem to have the UBI killing the welfare state: given an either/or proposition, it's a far better world than say Friedman's UBI, which would be funded off the corpse of other programs.
Also, Amazon and Walmart still have to employ people in the US to run stores & deliver, at which point there is more negotiating power in strikes, etc. Because of the fact one can now internalize the costs of the missed paycheck from a strike.
As for inflation - I'll respond to that on your other comment.
I live in a major metropolitan area and my rent is under a thousand a month. What about living with roommates? Spouses? I'm married and I could pay my half of the bills with $1k a month. Now, my...
I live in a major metropolitan area and my rent is under a thousand a month. What about living with roommates? Spouses? I'm married and I could pay my half of the bills with $1k a month. Now, my clothes would rot off my back within a year, but that's a separate problem.
I think the fundamental mistake you're making is believing that housing costs are driven up primarily by speculation instead of supply shortages.
i find the idea of having to live with other people just to cover housing costs pretty fucking ridiculous, honestly (and it also materially limits how well you're going to be able to live since...
I live in a major metropolitan area and my rent is under a thousand a month. What about living with roommates? Spouses? I'm married and I could pay my half of the bills with $1k a month. Now, my clothes would rot off my back within a year, but that's a separate problem.
i find the idea of having to live with other people just to cover housing costs pretty fucking ridiculous, honestly (and it also materially limits how well you're going to be able to live since presumably you're not about to rent out a god damn mansion), so i consider that inelegant and also something that optimally wouldn't happen ever.
incidentally, though, you've just made me realize something: where are all of these people who are empowered by UBI to leave... say... their shitty renting situations going to go, housing wise, seeing as in a lot of markets there's already a shortage of housing without UBI even being a factor because rich people can buy up all the housing? are they just fucked and going to be forced to stay in their inoptimal renting situation?
It's how most human beings, in most places, in most times have lived. The alternative is demanding trillions of labor hours of construction and huge amounts of resource usage to not only ensure...
i find the idea of having to live with other people just to cover housing costs pretty fucking ridiculous
It's how most human beings, in most places, in most times have lived. The alternative is demanding trillions of labor hours of construction and huge amounts of resource usage to not only ensure that there is enough single person housing for potentially everyone, but that that housing is also in the right place.
seeing as in a lot of markets there's already a shortage of housing without UBI even being a factor because rich people can buy up all the housing
It depends on the market. Exclusionary zoning and rent control kill a lot of construction possibilities. The problem is really supply side. Some countries have tried government construction of high density housing, with varying degrees of success.
I want to point out that living on UBI is not supposed to be pretty. It is supposed to mean that you can survive. It means splitting a small apartment. It means lots of rice and beans. It probably...
I want to point out that living on UBI is not supposed to be pretty. It is supposed to mean that you can survive. It means splitting a small apartment. It means lots of rice and beans. It probably means no cars and thriftshop clothes.
But its always there. You have the knowledge that you can fall back and survive if need be. It means you can attempt to make art or start a business. It means you can quit a bad/unsafe job even without a new one lined up.
For housing - a market is going to appear for UBI housing if/when there a whole bunch of people with a reliable monthly income. I imagine someone will take a hotel or dorm room and turn it into cheap housing that provides, say, 3 cafeteria meals per day and a room for $800-1000 a month.
so... literally the same as it already is? then what's the point of UBI? if it doesn't change anything for most people, why would we bother to make it policy? the entire reason people push for UBI...
I want to point out that living on UBI is not supposed to be pretty. It is supposed to mean that you can survive. It means splitting a small apartment. It means lots of rice and beans. It probably means no cars and thriftshop clothes.
so... literally the same as it already is? then what's the point of UBI? if it doesn't change anything for most people, why would we bother to make it policy? the entire reason people push for UBI is to make people's situation better, not so they can just implement a shitty, gimmicky version of the welfare state that already exists.
But its always there. You have the knowledge that you can fall back and survive if need be. It means you can attempt to make art or start a business. It means you can quit a bad/unsafe job even without a new one lined up.
i don't know what it is with y'all and thinking that 12,000 dollars a year is enough to quit your job or start a business, but it has like, no basis in reality. at all. literally just ask a person who's on welfare. it's not that different from how UBI would work--and it does not empower you to do that at all. nor will UBI.
For housing - a market is going to appear for UBI housing if/when there a whole bunch of people with a reliable monthly income. I imagine someone will take a hotel or dorm room and turn it into cheap housing that provides, say - 3 cafeteria meals per day and a room for $800-1000 a month.
that doesn't really solve the problem though...? and also if it's 800 to 1,000 a month, that means the overwhelming majority of the income you get under UBI is going straight into rent, which makes it completely pointless and means it straight up cannot make people's situation better--which is kinda the point of UBI.
I don't think we agree on the point of UBI. In my mind, at least - it is not going to magically solve income inequality or raise people out of poverty. It is raising "rock bottom" to something...
I don't think we agree on the point of UBI. In my mind, at least - it is not going to magically solve income inequality or raise people out of poverty. It is raising "rock bottom" to something that isn't as bad as is was - while reducing overhead and increasing options by making it universal.
so... literally the same as it already is? then what's the point of UBI? if it doesn't change anything for most people, why would we bother to make it policy? the entire reason people push for UBI is to make people's situation better, not so they can just implement a shitty, gimmicky version of the welfare state that already exists.
Part of the problem with regular welfare is that at a certain point, you lose it if you raise your income. Why should someone look for a job or better job if they lose their benefits? There is currently incentive to NOT move upward. UBI removes that incentive, as you will always get the income. So you can actually consider a better job.
I'll also disagree that it is a "shitty, gimmicky" version of our current welfare. It reduces a lot overhead by not needing to do means testing or investigating people who might try to abuse it.
i don't know what it is with y'all and thinking that 12,000 dollars a year is enough to quit your job or start a business, but it has like, no basis in reality. at all. literally just ask a person who's on welfare. it's not that different from how UBI would work--and it does not empower you to do that at all. nor will UBI.
12,000/year IS enough to quit your job and not starve over the next few months as you look for a new one. 12,000/year IS enough to survive while you spend your time on other endeavors. It isn't supposed to be the seed money for your business. Its so that you don't max your credit cards paying the bills while your business is still getting off the ground. Its so that you don't need to take "extra" student loans to eat while getting a degree - but it isn't going to pay for your degree.
I'll note that it ISN'T supposed to be "everyone quits their job and does nothing". Its supposed to be that NOT having a job isn't as scary as it is right now. People will still want a job. But they can perhaps be a bit more selective on the job they take. Maybe they make do with 20 hours/week instead of 40.
that doesn't really solve the problem though...? and also if it's 800 to 1,000 a month, that means the overwhelming majority of the income you get under UBI is going straight into rent, which makes it completely pointless and means it straight up cannot make people's situation better--which is kinda the point of UBI.
Having a roof over your head and food in your belly regardless of your situation IS the point of UBI in my mind. It increases what you can do with your time - so that you aren't spending every waking hour working so that you don't wonder where your next meal will come from. What people do with their time is up to them. They could spend it working on themselves with exercise or going to the library or teaching themselves a skill. They could also spend it on doing not much of anything. Thats not really my business and its not really something you can enforce.
then yeah, we don't. i support things that will materially improve people's situation--because otherwise, there's like no point in implementing something like UBI. if it does nothing for the...
I don't think we agree on the point of UBI. In my mind, at least - it is not going to magically solve income inequality or raise people out of poverty. It is raising "rock bottom" to something that isn't as bad as is was - while reducing overhead and increasing options by making it universal.
then yeah, we don't. i support things that will materially improve people's situation--because otherwise, there's like no point in implementing something like UBI. if it does nothing for the overwhelming majority of people when the whole point is that it's supposed to economically better people, then you might as well just stick with the current welfare system and improving its deficiencies.
There is currently incentive to NOT move upward. UBI removes that incentive, as you will always get the income. So you can actually consider a better job.
there is. welfare is dogshit, and speaking as someone who is on welfare: nobody living on welfare wants to be on welfare literally because of what you describe. if we could move up the social ladder, we fucking would do so--but most people don't get opportunities to do that, and most people are not going to be in a position where UBI would change that under something like yang's proposal. a very slim window will be bumped into the next social class, but most people will stay where they are and see pretty much no change to how they currently live unless they're on the very extreme end of poverty.
I'll also disagree that it is a "shitty, gimmicky" version of our current welfare. It reduces a lot overhead by not needing to do means testing or investigating people who might try to abuse it.
why in the name of god would anybody care about the overhead costs of our welfare system when there are things which take up infinitely more money to be used pointlessly? legitimately, this is like caring about how much we allocate to arts in the budget because it takes too much away from the military or whatever.
12,000/year IS enough to quit your job and not starve over the next few months as you look for a new one. 12,000/year IS enough to survive while you spend your time on other endeavors.
uh, no it's... really not. as i've stated a few times in this thread, 12k a year is literally the amount you pay in rent and nothing else in a lot of places. my family, which lives on like, 23k a year, pays probably about that amount yearly to live in our current apartment, actually. even for an individual, going cold turkey and living on that for even a single month would be basically impossible in most cities without something like food rationing.
It isn't supposed to be the seed money for your business. Its so that you don't max your credit cards paying the bills while your business is still getting off the ground.
then it's probably useless for that purpose. 12k is probably not going to cover the costs that make starting most businesses unprofitable endeavors for their first few years. it buys them more time, maybe, but that doesn't really help very much.
Its so that you don't need to take "extra" student loans to eat while getting a degree - but it isn't going to pay for your degree.
my dude, i go to a pretty average college and i do it in-state and i don't live on campus because i can commute, and 12k a year still would not cover all of my tuition and textbooks this year (or next year), meaning i'd have to take out a loan or get scholarships to make up the difference. and my school is pretty fucking cheap relative to a lot of other schools. most people are still going to be taking out fairly significant student loans, so this also doesn't really make a difference other than they'll maybe be slightly more manageable for some people? but seeing as college tuition really never goes down, this will only probably be true for a few years before being rendered pretty useless.
I'll note that it ISN'T supposed to be "everyone quits their job and does nothing". Its supposed to be that NOT having a job isn't as scary as it is right now. People will still want a job. But they can perhaps be a bit more selective on the job they take. Maybe they make do with 20 hours/week instead of 40.
that's a fantasy, and moreover the people who would be in a position to do that if it wasn't are going to all be middle class or better, predominantly white, and already in a position of privilege. nobody who goes from, say, 20k a year to 32k a year is really going to be able to do any of what you suggested--actually, what might happen is they'll get to take on the burden of all the work since the people who have better class status can afford to just fuck off and lower class people can't.
Having a roof over your head and food in your belly regardless of your situation IS the point of UBI in my mind. It increases what you can do with your time - so that you aren't spending every waking hour working so that you don't wonder where your next meal will come from.
unfortunately, it doesn't really do that any more than welfare currently does--and basically all the people who would get increased time to do shit? middle class, almost certainly white. the idea that people will suddenly have the ability to do things they can't right now is a perspective that pretty much ignores the reality of any poor person--particularly minority poor people, but also the white and rural poor. those people see the biggest gains on paper from UBI--after all, jumping from say 20k to 32k is no small jump in income--but the climb for people in those income brackets to reach a status of decent living is far steeper than the climb for someone at even 32k, who gets raised to an income that's just below where median income used to be with 12,000 supplemental dollars a year. and the reality is, while that income helps people that far down in the social order, it's not about to suddenly liberate them from their reality. they'll live a bit better, sure, but they're not going to have their material status changed--and if they're not, what's the point, of implementing UBI really? otherwise, the people who benefit the most from it are people who basically don't need the benefits at all.
You're making a pretty good case for universal education and universal health care to go along with basic income and complete the social support package.
You're making a pretty good case for universal education and universal health care to go along with basic income and complete the social support package.
well yes, that's like, my whole point. UBI unto itself isn't going to solve a lot of these problems, which is the gigantic failing point a lot of people seem to be missing in this thread....
well yes, that's like, my whole point. UBI unto itself isn't going to solve a lot of these problems, which is the gigantic failing point a lot of people seem to be missing in this thread. presenting UBI as the silver bullet is stupid, because you really can't make UBI work just by passing some bill that establishes UBI and being done with--UBI after all isn't about to fix your healthcare costs or education costs or whatever else. it has to go with other shit, or else you basically just paint over the actual problems.
Maybe the pitch is wrong. Instead of calling it UBI in the USA, perhaps it makes more sense to pitch it as universal unemployment coverage, or perhaps as universal social security. We already have...
Maybe the pitch is wrong. Instead of calling it UBI in the USA, perhaps it makes more sense to pitch it as universal unemployment coverage, or perhaps as universal social security. We already have social systems intended to do this for some segments of the population part of the time depending on age, disability, circumstance, state programs, and other factors. We're talking less about something truly new to America than we are about updating, formalizing, and regularizing existing social support systems into a better framework. Our welfare systems here are a gigantic mess and more than a few of them have exploitative elements. How much of that can we fix, and how much administrative overhead can we lose moving over to a more modern welfare system? Quite a lot, I'd wager.
...of all the points you can take from my argument that setting up UBI as this godsend to workers which will suddenly empower them out of shitty situations and give them time to do whatever is...
...of all the points you can take from my argument that setting up UBI as this godsend to workers which will suddenly empower them out of shitty situations and give them time to do whatever is setting people up for massive disappointment because many people in america aren't in a position where even 1,000/mo with no strings attached would do much more than allow them to worry less about bills (i.e. improve their lives where they are now and make them less worrisome, but most likely not improve their material situation any in the long term), you're going to raise one that has like, no bearing on anything even topical to this thread?
I think you're jumping to conclusions that it was intended as a way to discredit your argument. People ask off-topic questions all the time. That's why we have the "Offtopic" label. Be charitable...
I think you're jumping to conclusions that it was intended as a way to discredit your argument. People ask off-topic questions all the time. That's why we have the "Offtopic" label. Be charitable and assume other people are behaving in good faith, I'm sure you'd prefer that they do the same to you.
It was probably just an honest, albeit offtopic, question and IMO there is nothing inherently wrong with offtopic questions. And I have honestly wondered that about your comments myself too, TBH,...
It was probably just an honest, albeit offtopic, question and IMO there is nothing inherently wrong with offtopic questions. And I have honestly wondered that about your comments myself too, TBH, since the lack of capitalization seems so incongruous with the effort you generally seem to put in to them.
Not scientific and totally just a correlation, but rents in student areas of Wellington (perhaps elsewhere in NZ, I can't quite remember the reporting) went up by about $50/week shortlist after...
Not scientific and totally just a correlation, but rents in student areas of Wellington (perhaps elsewhere in NZ, I can't quite remember the reporting) went up by about $50/week shortlist after the student allowance also went up by $50/week.
The landlord who will raise rents by $1000 will have to hope their tenant has not shopped at the baker who is charging $1000 for a loaf of bread or that they have not already paid off their $1000...
The landlord who will raise rents by $1000 will have to hope their tenant has not shopped at the baker who is charging $1000 for a loaf of bread or that they have not already paid off their $1000 phone bill. Realistically, prices will behave the same way they always have: businesses will charge whatever they think will yield the most profit, tempered by demand and competition and regulation. There are different proposals for UBI but most of them are redistributive—the net effect would be to take money from wealthier individuals and corporations and give it to poorer people as part of a no-strings-attached form of welfare with the purpose of ensuring every member of society is able to meet their basic needs for food, shelter, etc. Rising prices would not swallow up these redistributions to leave people as poor as they were for the same reason that does not happen with increased wages achieved by unions or minimum wage laws.
Yeah right, all landlords are evil people trying to rip every penny out of you. While i think that some are, some arent and maybe some rents will go up but not all of them. This argument is always...
Every landlord would raise their rents by 1000$ a month.
Yeah right, all landlords are evil people trying to rip every penny out of you. While i think that some are, some arent and maybe some rents will go up but not all of them.
This argument is always there something like this is proposed but it was never true.
For example Germany just recently implemented a minimum wage, it started at 8,5€/hour. The most brought up argument against was that all companies will just raise their prices accordingly and you would be left with the same, none *of that happened
See, that's a much more true form of the argument you made above. It's absolutely not as simple as that dollar to dollar gain, too many variables, too many layers. That's also why it won't simply...
See, that's a much more true form of the argument you made above. It's absolutely not as simple as that dollar to dollar gain, too many variables, too many layers. That's also why it won't simply drive up the rent. I think it far more likely that a UBI will drive down debt. It'd be nice to get some proper first world empirical studies and see what actually happens, rather than relying on guesswork.
Automation is complicating the minimum wage issue. Minimum wage is now a big red flag saying 'automate me immediately' to any company. I look at that as a good thing.
you're correct, they're not. but the commodification of housing that creates them and creates a power dynamic where they can extort you of any additional money you would gain through something...
Yeah right, all landlords are evil people trying to rip every penny out of you.
you're correct, they're not. but the commodification of housing that creates them and creates a power dynamic where they can extort you of any additional money you would gain through something like UBI with essentially no obligation to do anything to improve your living conditions absolutely is, and if we lived in a just world there would probably not be any landlords because of that. unfortunately, if most landlords could get away with it (and if the law did not compel them to at least provide the necessities of living for people), they would probably do literally nothing for you, because you have zero leverage over them unless there's so much available housing on the market to go around that you can actively shop around to your heart's desire--and that is almost never a situation that develops in the modern world.
for example: i live in an apartment, and we only live in the one we do because that's the only one that was available to us when we had to sell our old home--my family in this case has really no ability to leverage the landlords here if they decide to tell us to fuck off or don't fix something that's broken. there are no better options because there is nowhere near enough housing in this city that is currently vacant and available to the market to go around. if the landlords in this city want to raise your rent and you want to move out because of that? you'd better have something lined up already, or you're going to have to just eat that raise, because there are no other options.
So the landlords raise rent: let's say you pay $2500/mth for the apartment, and the landlord (conservatively) wants then an extra $750 because they know you have a UBI. Ignoring the bizarre logic...
So the landlords raise rent: let's say you pay $2500/mth for the apartment, and the landlord (conservatively) wants then an extra $750 because they know you have a UBI. Ignoring the bizarre logic of the landlord considering tenants would still have other money and they could raise their prices more - hell, they would, considering the monopoly you're describing - there's no reason why a UBI would change the calculus to raise rent.
However, they did. Now you're paying $3250/mth. Maybe even $3500. Choosing to up and leave, while expensive, is now far more manageable than it would be before - you would have extra income you wouldn't have otherwise to go to another city. To actually make ends meet, etc., which you wouldn't have had otherwise. The actual ability for movement has net increased.
Also what? Renters have plenty of leverage -- cities have created rent control for a reason, there are limits in plenty of states for how much a landlord can raise rents in a given year, etc.
And if anything that makes Yang's other policies make more sense - he wants to force a whole bunch of homebuilding and redevelopment in low-density zones.
Tone the hostility down. You can have a conversation without things like "if you actually think about this for literally two seconds" (and worse, in your other comment). You're turning reasonable...
Tone the hostility down. You can have a conversation without things like "if you actually think about this for literally two seconds" (and worse, in your other comment). You're turning reasonable discussions into antagonistic arguments.
This is too simplistic of an analysis. Some number of people are $1,000 a month or less away from buying their own property instead of renting. So the landlord can't raise rent by $1,000 because...
The day after after Yang’s $1,000/month “freedom dividend” is signed into law is the day every landlord in the country raises their rents by $1,000.
This is too simplistic of an analysis. Some number of people are $1,000 a month or less away from buying their own property instead of renting. So the landlord can't raise rent by $1,000 because they will just skew the calculation on whether it's worth it to rent vs. own in favor of ownership, taking people out of the rental market for good.
Moreover, it's not like landlords are the only ones competing for your dollar. People also need food, clothes, school supplies, tuition fees, medical bills, person affects, etc. The landlord doesn't have space to squeeze every dollar out, people don't spend that way.
It’s telling that the Musks, Zuckerbergs, Yangs and other UBI boosters of the world aren’t pushing for things like public housing and rent control as well.
There's no reason you can't do that AND provide a UBI.
FWIW, the big theoretical detriment of a UBI is that it increases demand while lowering supply. So you'll see inflation, but it's more likely to be in the realm of consumer products than on rent. Most orthodox economists would prefer a job guarantee, which is a like a UBI but requires you to show up to work and produce something in exchange (whether whatever you would produce under a jobs guarantee would actually be value-adding is anyone's guess though). I think concerns about deflation are overblown though, largely because most Americans are drowning in student, housing, and medical debt anyway. So it's not like their money is going to finance demand for consumption anyway. But that still is a give-away to their creditors, which is unfortunate. But if we fund the UBI by expropriating their gains then problem solved I guess. It can be a backdoor redistribution scheme.
Somehow I don't see UBI being a solution. I see it more like a bandage that might be needed to win some extra time. It is something different than what we have now and it might one day lead us to...
Somehow I don't see UBI being a solution. I see it more like a bandage that might be needed to win some extra time. It is something different than what we have now and it might one day lead us to a "permanent" solution.
because it explicitly isn't. it works as a stopgap, but anybody expecting it to lift people into being business owners or out of crushing poverty is greatly overstating its impact for the...
Somehow I don't see UBI being a solution.
because it explicitly isn't. it works as a stopgap, but anybody expecting it to lift people into being business owners or out of crushing poverty is greatly overstating its impact for the overwhelming majority of people, because it addresses none of the underlying issues that make things the way they are. the reality is that there is no UBI plan that will ever solve the problems UBI tries to solve that doesn't also include radical restructuring of how we currently do things.
This is a pretty bold statement, AFAIK there is not much in terms of evidence for it being true. Most pilot studies have been rather inconclusive and/or ended early, as you wrote. Maybe it is...
Basic income will probably work.
This is a pretty bold statement, AFAIK there is not much in terms of evidence for it being true. Most pilot studies have been rather inconclusive and/or ended early, as you wrote. Maybe it is true, but it's too early to say.
As @Yugioh_Mishima wrote, the fundamental economic issue with just giving everyone money is inflation. Landlords won't necessarily all increase their rental prices by the amount of the monthly payment, but the general effect would be in that direction.
"There is no free lunch" is a common axiom which seems to apply here I think, as it will be difficult to increase the real wealth of society simply by printing more tokens.
A NIT is a better way to implement the same thing. That being said my objections to an UBI are purely pragmatic, in principle I think it's great. I think the biggest danger is short term before...
A NIT is a better way to implement the same thing. That being said my objections to an UBI are purely pragmatic, in principle I think it's great. I think the biggest danger is short term before people psychologically acclimate to a UBI payment not being disposable income, but as being a source of cash for basic needs.
Tbh thiss is probably the most valid complaint against a UBI. That being said, I think other welfare programs generate the same issue a bit so the net effect is still probably beneficial? While an...
Tbh thiss is probably the most valid complaint against a UBI. That being said, I think other welfare programs generate the same issue a bit so the net effect is still probably beneficial? While an NIT might be better I think a UBI would do a fine enough job aligning incentives to continue work.
One aspect where a NIT is vastly inferior to UBI, is that UBI requires virtually 0 administrative overhead, and is easier to distribute monthly or weekly. UBI is simple: Provide address and SSN,...
One aspect where a NIT is vastly inferior to UBI, is that UBI requires virtually 0 administrative overhead, and is easier to distribute monthly or weekly. UBI is simple: Provide address and SSN, get check. Maybe throw in direct deposit as an option.
NIT on the other hand, has all those factors, plus means testing. Once means testing is in place, it's easier to make subtle changes that slowly reduce it's effectiveness. Over time, other tests like "well we should make recipients pass drug tests too" get implemented, and we're back to having a shitty welfare system. Maybe even worse, as other systems will probably have been cut by that point.
Isn't the administration of a NIT handled by the existing tax return process? What I mean is: you file your tax return normally, and if the lowest bracket(s) are changed to have a negative rate,...
Isn't the administration of a NIT handled by the existing tax return process?
What I mean is: you file your tax return normally, and if the lowest bracket(s) are changed to have a negative rate, you obtain a larger tax refund via the IRS's current refund infrastructure.
Yes, but I would say the existing tax return process is one of the worst tax collection systems in any first world nation, and should probably be fixed first The only refund structure in place for...
Isn't the administration of a NIT handled by the existing tax return process?
Yes, but I would say the existing tax return process is one of the worst tax collection systems in any first world nation, and should probably be fixed first
file your tax return normally, and if the lowest bracket(s) are changed to have a negative rate, you obtain a larger tax refund via the IRS's current refund infrastructure.
The only refund structure in place for the IRS is lump-sum checks, which are terrible for a wide variety of reasons. UBI works because it's a fixed amount that you receive no matter what, every month (or possibly more frequently). The reason it can work at all is because one can be certain that they will always have a fixed minimum amount of income, no matter the circumstances.
Say for example someone works a job that gives them income just over the NIT threshold annually, but they still live mostly paycheck to paycheck (aka, a very large population of the USA). They are laid off in the middle of June. How would NIT accommodate for the fact that this person now have 0 projected income for the foreseeable future, but already has earned enough for the year that NIT would be substantially reduced? With UBI it is simple: Come July, they will have their UBI, just as they always have. With NIT, it could be horrendously complex to get a payment to them of a reasonable amount, in a time frame that will help them pay bills without resorting to shady middlemen like payday loan companies.
If a UBI is ever implemented in the USA, it'd likely take the place of social security someday and build on top of that system. Makes sense to hand it all over to the Social Security...
If a UBI is ever implemented in the USA, it'd likely take the place of social security someday and build on top of that system. Makes sense to hand it all over to the Social Security Administration and let them manage whatever administrative work comes with the program. Saddling the IRS with the workload doesn't really make sense, as the tax system isn't really intended to handle that sort of thing. If you're below the NIT threshold, the IRS would just pass you over to the SSA rather than trying to dispense UBI within a tax-refund framework, which isn't ideal for a system that would maintain weekly or monthly payments to millions of individuals.
Largely agree... UBI is most likely to take root in the USA by a large expansion of Social Security. NIT means more beauracratic hoops for those who need the money most. Another factor is the...
Largely agree... UBI is most likely to take root in the USA by a large expansion of Social Security.
NIT means more beauracratic hoops for those who need the money most. Another factor is the psychological impact of both systems.
To an economist, NIT seems just like a cheaper version of UBI. To a recipient, I think NIT has massive (unintentional) undertones that send a message along the lines of "you should be ashamed you are this poor". This is why many who are food insecure don't reach out for food stamps or food banks.
NIT is much harder to administer, thus is less efficient, even if the apparent out of pocket cost is lower. NIT is also not well suited to insuring stable income consistently, which is more...
A NIT is a better way to implement the same thing.
NIT is much harder to administer, thus is less efficient, even if the apparent out of pocket cost is lower. NIT is also not well suited to insuring stable income consistently, which is more important to people in poverty.
I think the biggest danger is short term before people psychologically acclimate to a UBI payment not being disposable income, but as being a source of cash for basic needs.
Why would this even matter? If they have enough income already that UBI will purely go to luxuries, then they'll eventually be paying back more than their UBI payment in taxes.
I think that UBI would cause depression and increase suicide among the society. I have never read anything on this topic... But UBI would make people content with what they have. (at the moment...
I think that UBI would cause depression and increase suicide among the society. I have never read anything on this topic... But UBI would make people content with what they have. (at the moment you have to show up to work to earn living, this gives purpose to many of us) what would happen when you don't have to work but at the same time you don't amount to much more. Mobile phones and drugs makes us content with just staying still and not doing much and UBI gives you the security to do that all day long.
I am talking from my personal experience. I had the fortunate opportunity to live 1 year without work or major obligations after 1 year I was in the biggest personal crisis ever. I was so used to wake up, chill with friends, smoke weed, chill with friends, go out, smoke more and then sleep. I did some personal projects in between but nothing major...
Now I have a job, find time for personal projects, better self control and I have a purpose..
Perhaps you should then, because in the US suicide is already the second leading cause of death among individuals between the ages of 10 and 34, and the fourth leading cause of death among...
I think that UBI would cause depression and increase suicide among the society. I have never read anything on this topic...
As for UBI, as a primer I would highly recommend watching Andrew Yang (US Democratic Presidential Candidate) on Joe Rogan's podcast: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cTsEzmFamZ8
TL;DW - Joblessness is inevitably coming for a huge portion of the Western world's population because of automation in nearly every unskilled labor field. UBI won't solve our problems but it will at least mitigate the negative societal effects and potentially help prevent people from losing their homes and living in abject poverty while they search for new jobs, and perhaps even retrain in new fields.
Counter-point: The only times I have ever thought about suicide since hitting adulthood was when I was at work. I love my life, except for the vast majority of my working hours that I only have to...
Counter-point: The only times I have ever thought about suicide since hitting adulthood was when I was at work. I love my life, except for the vast majority of my working hours that I only have to do because society dictates that myself and family should be homeless and starving if I don't.
Some people thrive on work and that's fine. Others would rather have more free time to raise their children, build a garden, walk around town, or any other numerous activities that aren't self destructive entertainment spirals.
UBI isn't going to provide high enough income that nobody would ever work again. For me personally, it would enable cutting my workweek by a third. And that would be the second happiest day of my life.
Basic income will probably work. There are fears about what negative outcomes it might have but it's important to remember there are drawbacks to maintaining the status quo as well: millions of people live in poverty or otherwise precarious situations and if we don't find a solution (where basic income is one possibility) then society suffers as a whole. Also, even though the conversation about UBI often focuses on poverty and automation, UBI has another couple of effects which I think are important as well. One is that it helps people who currently fall through the cracks of an incomplete and paternalistic welfare system that is often dependent on the arbitrary whims of caseworkers (e.g. a tragic Reddit thread full of anecdotes of people not taking their medication before applying for assistance so that they wouldn't appear "too healthy" to the person deciding their fate), and secondly a basic income would represent a necessary shift in power from bosses to workers by allowing people to leave exploitative jobs without fear of destitution.
To the worry that people will leave the work force en masse I'd ask, what are those people who will quit work doing now? Are we worried about doctors and engineers and middle class office workers quitting their jobs to sit around all day and live on an income that barely covers food and rent? Or are we more worried that the pool of cheap, underemployed, easily exploited labour will suddenly get a bit more expensive and a bit less willing to do or dirty work? And there's also the fact that some people probably should leave the work force: if more people were free to pursue unpaid labour like family child/elder care or volunteering in their communities then I think society would benefit.
Also, just as a note, this article is a few years old. The experiment in Ontario began but was cancelled by the subsequent conservative government of Doug Ford, and I believe the Finland trial ended early (or was simply not extended?) as well. On a positive note though there's the interesting case of Andrew Yang: a long shot Democratic presidential candidate with UBI as a cornerstone of his campaign who is starting to get more notice after qualifying for the first round of debates. However well he does my hope is that he can push the discussion about his "freedom dividend" into the mainstream just like Bernie Sanders did for "medicare for all".
There's zero evidence to support this position, and we've got plenty of basic income studies to look at. The best you could do is say that UBI may play out differently in a more developed context such as a first world economy. More than that isn't born out by the data.
Basic market forces will tell you that the landlord who doesn't raise his rates will rent all of his properties in short order as people move to him from his competitors. Prices are only going to go up when properties are more scarce and therefore more valuable, just like always, and UBI has jack shit to do with it.
What UBI does for markets is provide a floor. This is the bottom. People living on the bottom are basically getting 'unemployment' level wages for free. That means instead of taking shit jobs from shit companies that pay barely anything above that level, they can walk off those exploitative jobs without worry. This puts Amazon and Walmart out of workers overnight. Power goes to the workforce, not the employers. Those who treat their employees well will be fine. Those who don't, will either rectify that problem or go under and get bought up by the winners who do.
People don't buy new cars with UBI. They buy diapers, dinner, pay rent, and that's about it. That's the point. This gives them all the time in the world to start their own projects and make them profitable, or to find a job, or retrain themselves. This money that's being taxed out of the economy is going right back in at the bottom almost immediately. Trickle-up, not trickle-down. Frankly, all that matters is that the water is flowing, the more the better, the faster the better. Gas for the market's engine.
i don't know where you live, but even a generous $1,000/mo ($12,000/yr) isn't enough to cover even the cost of rent anywhere in my town (to say nothing of food, gas, miscellaneous expenses, any repairs that might need to be done...), and we're pretty far from being a booming metropolis, so unless you're saving money (which most people do not--and in the case of people who do, usually totals less than $400) this is wrong for the majority of people. most workers are going to be just as locked in to shitty, exploitative jobs in the sense you describe them with or without UBI, some of the will just be taking home a little bit more money than they might ordinarily because some of their costs will be effectively subsidized.
also, what you're describing is basically welfare as it already exists. don't think i need to really explain to you that it doesn't miraculously empower people to do what you describe, or that UBI isn't going to make that happen either on its own. let's not act like this suddenly creates upward mobility for people, because while it helps, most people aren't going to go anywhere socially just because the government gives them $12,000/yr with no strings attached.
oh and, in yang's case specifically, part of how he makes UBI universal is by basically abolishing what remains of our current welfare state, so...
it won't. amazon and walmart do just fine employing workers in countries where income inequality is less of an issue, and they'll do fine when we pass measures that seek to lessen income inequality like UBI. almost without exception, people will go where jobs exist regardless of how exploitative or non-exploitative the job is
being able to move from job to job doesn't really empower workers in any way that they aren't already technically empowered.
yes, which is why UBI is good. that said...
this does not follow from the above point. UBI does not and will not give most people the ability to do this, because most if not all of the money they gain under UBI will either already be going to their expenses, or will be eaten up by people trying to be opportunistic with things like price rises. the only people this really applies to are people who will either already be making a significant surplus, or people who will be pushed to that point. it's actually likely that many people would see improvements in their livelihoods, but not necessarily material gains from policies like the one yang wants. they'll help people, absolutely--but they're not about to give most people power or empower them to do whatever the fuck they want, and treating them like they will is counterproductive and setting people up for massive amounts of disappointment.
Being able to move from job to job is pretty special though? It gives you enough security to begin the moving process rather than be perfectly lined up.
Backtrack to the federal government shutdown -- federal employees were already living check to check -- A UBI would clearly solve such an issue and relieve that. On your point about how it wouldn't lead to mobility, I think that's rather disproven? 12k in a year is enough to jumpstart a business and become a small business owner in plenty of cases. It's enough to finance repairs. It's enough to cover the bare minimum of surivivability most people need.
Those are costs that suddenly are covered that would come out of a paycheck that could otherwise be used for advancement -- inherently, a cost subsidization still frees up $1k to be used for something, and that's worthwhile.
And Yang's specifically doesn't seem to have the UBI killing the welfare state: given an either/or proposition, it's a far better world than say Friedman's UBI, which would be funded off the corpse of other programs.
Also, Amazon and Walmart still have to employ people in the US to run stores & deliver, at which point there is more negotiating power in strikes, etc. Because of the fact one can now internalize the costs of the missed paycheck from a strike.
As for inflation - I'll respond to that on your other comment.
I live in a major metropolitan area and my rent is under a thousand a month. What about living with roommates? Spouses? I'm married and I could pay my half of the bills with $1k a month. Now, my clothes would rot off my back within a year, but that's a separate problem.
I think the fundamental mistake you're making is believing that housing costs are driven up primarily by speculation instead of supply shortages.
i find the idea of having to live with other people just to cover housing costs pretty fucking ridiculous, honestly (and it also materially limits how well you're going to be able to live since presumably you're not about to rent out a god damn mansion), so i consider that inelegant and also something that optimally wouldn't happen ever.
incidentally, though, you've just made me realize something: where are all of these people who are empowered by UBI to leave... say... their shitty renting situations going to go, housing wise, seeing as in a lot of markets there's already a shortage of housing without UBI even being a factor because rich people can buy up all the housing? are they just fucked and going to be forced to stay in their inoptimal renting situation?
It's how most human beings, in most places, in most times have lived. The alternative is demanding trillions of labor hours of construction and huge amounts of resource usage to not only ensure that there is enough single person housing for potentially everyone, but that that housing is also in the right place.
It depends on the market. Exclusionary zoning and rent control kill a lot of construction possibilities. The problem is really supply side. Some countries have tried government construction of high density housing, with varying degrees of success.
I want to point out that living on UBI is not supposed to be pretty. It is supposed to mean that you can survive. It means splitting a small apartment. It means lots of rice and beans. It probably means no cars and thriftshop clothes.
But its always there. You have the knowledge that you can fall back and survive if need be. It means you can attempt to make art or start a business. It means you can quit a bad/unsafe job even without a new one lined up.
For housing - a market is going to appear for UBI housing if/when there a whole bunch of people with a reliable monthly income. I imagine someone will take a hotel or dorm room and turn it into cheap housing that provides, say, 3 cafeteria meals per day and a room for $800-1000 a month.
so... literally the same as it already is? then what's the point of UBI? if it doesn't change anything for most people, why would we bother to make it policy? the entire reason people push for UBI is to make people's situation better, not so they can just implement a shitty, gimmicky version of the welfare state that already exists.
i don't know what it is with y'all and thinking that 12,000 dollars a year is enough to quit your job or start a business, but it has like, no basis in reality. at all. literally just ask a person who's on welfare. it's not that different from how UBI would work--and it does not empower you to do that at all. nor will UBI.
that doesn't really solve the problem though...? and also if it's 800 to 1,000 a month, that means the overwhelming majority of the income you get under UBI is going straight into rent, which makes it completely pointless and means it straight up cannot make people's situation better--which is kinda the point of UBI.
I don't think we agree on the point of UBI. In my mind, at least - it is not going to magically solve income inequality or raise people out of poverty. It is raising "rock bottom" to something that isn't as bad as is was - while reducing overhead and increasing options by making it universal.
Part of the problem with regular welfare is that at a certain point, you lose it if you raise your income. Why should someone look for a job or better job if they lose their benefits? There is currently incentive to NOT move upward. UBI removes that incentive, as you will always get the income. So you can actually consider a better job.
I'll also disagree that it is a "shitty, gimmicky" version of our current welfare. It reduces a lot overhead by not needing to do means testing or investigating people who might try to abuse it.
12,000/year IS enough to quit your job and not starve over the next few months as you look for a new one. 12,000/year IS enough to survive while you spend your time on other endeavors. It isn't supposed to be the seed money for your business. Its so that you don't max your credit cards paying the bills while your business is still getting off the ground. Its so that you don't need to take "extra" student loans to eat while getting a degree - but it isn't going to pay for your degree.
I'll note that it ISN'T supposed to be "everyone quits their job and does nothing". Its supposed to be that NOT having a job isn't as scary as it is right now. People will still want a job. But they can perhaps be a bit more selective on the job they take. Maybe they make do with 20 hours/week instead of 40.
Having a roof over your head and food in your belly regardless of your situation IS the point of UBI in my mind. It increases what you can do with your time - so that you aren't spending every waking hour working so that you don't wonder where your next meal will come from. What people do with their time is up to them. They could spend it working on themselves with exercise or going to the library or teaching themselves a skill. They could also spend it on doing not much of anything. Thats not really my business and its not really something you can enforce.
then yeah, we don't. i support things that will materially improve people's situation--because otherwise, there's like no point in implementing something like UBI. if it does nothing for the overwhelming majority of people when the whole point is that it's supposed to economically better people, then you might as well just stick with the current welfare system and improving its deficiencies.
there is. welfare is dogshit, and speaking as someone who is on welfare: nobody living on welfare wants to be on welfare literally because of what you describe. if we could move up the social ladder, we fucking would do so--but most people don't get opportunities to do that, and most people are not going to be in a position where UBI would change that under something like yang's proposal. a very slim window will be bumped into the next social class, but most people will stay where they are and see pretty much no change to how they currently live unless they're on the very extreme end of poverty.
why in the name of god would anybody care about the overhead costs of our welfare system when there are things which take up infinitely more money to be used pointlessly? legitimately, this is like caring about how much we allocate to arts in the budget because it takes too much away from the military or whatever.
uh, no it's... really not. as i've stated a few times in this thread, 12k a year is literally the amount you pay in rent and nothing else in a lot of places. my family, which lives on like, 23k a year, pays probably about that amount yearly to live in our current apartment, actually. even for an individual, going cold turkey and living on that for even a single month would be basically impossible in most cities without something like food rationing.
then it's probably useless for that purpose. 12k is probably not going to cover the costs that make starting most businesses unprofitable endeavors for their first few years. it buys them more time, maybe, but that doesn't really help very much.
my dude, i go to a pretty average college and i do it in-state and i don't live on campus because i can commute, and 12k a year still would not cover all of my tuition and textbooks this year (or next year), meaning i'd have to take out a loan or get scholarships to make up the difference. and my school is pretty fucking cheap relative to a lot of other schools. most people are still going to be taking out fairly significant student loans, so this also doesn't really make a difference other than they'll maybe be slightly more manageable for some people? but seeing as college tuition really never goes down, this will only probably be true for a few years before being rendered pretty useless.
that's a fantasy, and moreover the people who would be in a position to do that if it wasn't are going to all be middle class or better, predominantly white, and already in a position of privilege. nobody who goes from, say, 20k a year to 32k a year is really going to be able to do any of what you suggested--actually, what might happen is they'll get to take on the burden of all the work since the people who have better class status can afford to just fuck off and lower class people can't.
unfortunately, it doesn't really do that any more than welfare currently does--and basically all the people who would get increased time to do shit? middle class, almost certainly white. the idea that people will suddenly have the ability to do things they can't right now is a perspective that pretty much ignores the reality of any poor person--particularly minority poor people, but also the white and rural poor. those people see the biggest gains on paper from UBI--after all, jumping from say 20k to 32k is no small jump in income--but the climb for people in those income brackets to reach a status of decent living is far steeper than the climb for someone at even 32k, who gets raised to an income that's just below where median income used to be with 12,000 supplemental dollars a year. and the reality is, while that income helps people that far down in the social order, it's not about to suddenly liberate them from their reality. they'll live a bit better, sure, but they're not going to have their material status changed--and if they're not, what's the point, of implementing UBI really? otherwise, the people who benefit the most from it are people who basically don't need the benefits at all.
You're making a pretty good case for universal education and universal health care to go along with basic income and complete the social support package.
well yes, that's like, my whole point. UBI unto itself isn't going to solve a lot of these problems, which is the gigantic failing point a lot of people seem to be missing in this thread. presenting UBI as the silver bullet is stupid, because you really can't make UBI work just by passing some bill that establishes UBI and being done with--UBI after all isn't about to fix your healthcare costs or education costs or whatever else. it has to go with other shit, or else you basically just paint over the actual problems.
Maybe the pitch is wrong. Instead of calling it UBI in the USA, perhaps it makes more sense to pitch it as universal unemployment coverage, or perhaps as universal social security. We already have social systems intended to do this for some segments of the population part of the time depending on age, disability, circumstance, state programs, and other factors. We're talking less about something truly new to America than we are about updating, formalizing, and regularizing existing social support systems into a better framework. Our welfare systems here are a gigantic mess and more than a few of them have exploitative elements. How much of that can we fix, and how much administrative overhead can we lose moving over to a more modern welfare system? Quite a lot, I'd wager.
How come you don't capitalize anything?
...of all the points you can take from my argument that setting up UBI as this godsend to workers which will suddenly empower them out of shitty situations and give them time to do whatever is setting people up for massive disappointment because many people in america aren't in a position where even 1,000/mo with no strings attached would do much more than allow them to worry less about bills (i.e. improve their lives where they are now and make them less worrisome, but most likely not improve their material situation any in the long term), you're going to raise one that has like, no bearing on anything even topical to this thread?
I think you're jumping to conclusions that it was intended as a way to discredit your argument. People ask off-topic questions all the time. That's why we have the "Offtopic" label. Be charitable and assume other people are behaving in good faith, I'm sure you'd prefer that they do the same to you.
It was probably just an honest, albeit offtopic, question and IMO there is nothing inherently wrong with offtopic questions. And I have honestly wondered that about your comments myself too, TBH, since the lack of capitalization seems so incongruous with the effort you generally seem to put in to them.
Maybe I should have sent a PM. I've seen you comment several times now and you don't case things, so I'm just curious why.
Not scientific and totally just a correlation, but rents in student areas of Wellington (perhaps elsewhere in NZ, I can't quite remember the reporting) went up by about $50/week shortlist after the student allowance also went up by $50/week.
The landlord who will raise rents by $1000 will have to hope their tenant has not shopped at the baker who is charging $1000 for a loaf of bread or that they have not already paid off their $1000 phone bill. Realistically, prices will behave the same way they always have: businesses will charge whatever they think will yield the most profit, tempered by demand and competition and regulation. There are different proposals for UBI but most of them are redistributive—the net effect would be to take money from wealthier individuals and corporations and give it to poorer people as part of a no-strings-attached form of welfare with the purpose of ensuring every member of society is able to meet their basic needs for food, shelter, etc. Rising prices would not swallow up these redistributions to leave people as poor as they were for the same reason that does not happen with increased wages achieved by unions or minimum wage laws.
Yeah right, all landlords are evil people trying to rip every penny out of you. While i think that some are, some arent and maybe some rents will go up but not all of them.
This argument is always there something like this is proposed but it was never true.
For example Germany just recently implemented a minimum wage, it started at 8,5€/hour. The most brought up argument against was that all companies will just raise their prices accordingly and you would be left with the same, none *of that happened
See, that's a much more true form of the argument you made above. It's absolutely not as simple as that dollar to dollar gain, too many variables, too many layers. That's also why it won't simply drive up the rent. I think it far more likely that a UBI will drive down debt. It'd be nice to get some proper first world empirical studies and see what actually happens, rather than relying on guesswork.
Automation is complicating the minimum wage issue. Minimum wage is now a big red flag saying 'automate me immediately' to any company. I look at that as a good thing.
you're correct, they're not. but the commodification of housing that creates them and creates a power dynamic where they can extort you of any additional money you would gain through something like UBI with essentially no obligation to do anything to improve your living conditions absolutely is, and if we lived in a just world there would probably not be any landlords because of that. unfortunately, if most landlords could get away with it (and if the law did not compel them to at least provide the necessities of living for people), they would probably do literally nothing for you, because you have zero leverage over them unless there's so much available housing on the market to go around that you can actively shop around to your heart's desire--and that is almost never a situation that develops in the modern world.
for example: i live in an apartment, and we only live in the one we do because that's the only one that was available to us when we had to sell our old home--my family in this case has really no ability to leverage the landlords here if they decide to tell us to fuck off or don't fix something that's broken. there are no better options because there is nowhere near enough housing in this city that is currently vacant and available to the market to go around. if the landlords in this city want to raise your rent and you want to move out because of that? you'd better have something lined up already, or you're going to have to just eat that raise, because there are no other options.
So the landlords raise rent: let's say you pay $2500/mth for the apartment, and the landlord (conservatively) wants then an extra $750 because they know you have a UBI. Ignoring the bizarre logic of the landlord considering tenants would still have other money and they could raise their prices more - hell, they would, considering the monopoly you're describing - there's no reason why a UBI would change the calculus to raise rent.
However, they did. Now you're paying $3250/mth. Maybe even $3500. Choosing to up and leave, while expensive, is now far more manageable than it would be before - you would have extra income you wouldn't have otherwise to go to another city. To actually make ends meet, etc., which you wouldn't have had otherwise. The actual ability for movement has net increased.
Also what? Renters have plenty of leverage -- cities have created rent control for a reason, there are limits in plenty of states for how much a landlord can raise rents in a given year, etc.
And if anything that makes Yang's other policies make more sense - he wants to force a whole bunch of homebuilding and redevelopment in low-density zones.
Tone the hostility down. You can have a conversation without things like "if you actually think about this for literally two seconds" (and worse, in your other comment). You're turning reasonable discussions into antagonistic arguments.
This is too simplistic of an analysis. Some number of people are $1,000 a month or less away from buying their own property instead of renting. So the landlord can't raise rent by $1,000 because they will just skew the calculation on whether it's worth it to rent vs. own in favor of ownership, taking people out of the rental market for good.
Moreover, it's not like landlords are the only ones competing for your dollar. People also need food, clothes, school supplies, tuition fees, medical bills, person affects, etc. The landlord doesn't have space to squeeze every dollar out, people don't spend that way.
There's no reason you can't do that AND provide a UBI.
FWIW, the big theoretical detriment of a UBI is that it increases demand while lowering supply. So you'll see inflation, but it's more likely to be in the realm of consumer products than on rent. Most orthodox economists would prefer a job guarantee, which is a like a UBI but requires you to show up to work and produce something in exchange (whether whatever you would produce under a jobs guarantee would actually be value-adding is anyone's guess though). I think concerns about deflation are overblown though, largely because most Americans are drowning in student, housing, and medical debt anyway. So it's not like their money is going to finance demand for consumption anyway. But that still is a give-away to their creditors, which is unfortunate. But if we fund the UBI by expropriating their gains then problem solved I guess. It can be a backdoor redistribution scheme.
Somehow I don't see UBI being a solution. I see it more like a bandage that might be needed to win some extra time. It is something different than what we have now and it might one day lead us to a "permanent" solution.
because it explicitly isn't. it works as a stopgap, but anybody expecting it to lift people into being business owners or out of crushing poverty is greatly overstating its impact for the overwhelming majority of people, because it addresses none of the underlying issues that make things the way they are. the reality is that there is no UBI plan that will ever solve the problems UBI tries to solve that doesn't also include radical restructuring of how we currently do things.
This is a pretty bold statement, AFAIK there is not much in terms of evidence for it being true. Most pilot studies have been rather inconclusive and/or ended early, as you wrote. Maybe it is true, but it's too early to say.
As @Yugioh_Mishima wrote, the fundamental economic issue with just giving everyone money is inflation. Landlords won't necessarily all increase their rental prices by the amount of the monthly payment, but the general effect would be in that direction.
"There is no free lunch" is a common axiom which seems to apply here I think, as it will be difficult to increase the real wealth of society simply by printing more tokens.
A NIT is a better way to implement the same thing. That being said my objections to an UBI are purely pragmatic, in principle I think it's great. I think the biggest danger is short term before people psychologically acclimate to a UBI payment not being disposable income, but as being a source of cash for basic needs.
Tbh thiss is probably the most valid complaint against a UBI. That being said, I think other welfare programs generate the same issue a bit so the net effect is still probably beneficial? While an NIT might be better I think a UBI would do a fine enough job aligning incentives to continue work.
One aspect where a NIT is vastly inferior to UBI, is that UBI requires virtually 0 administrative overhead, and is easier to distribute monthly or weekly. UBI is simple: Provide address and SSN, get check. Maybe throw in direct deposit as an option.
NIT on the other hand, has all those factors, plus means testing. Once means testing is in place, it's easier to make subtle changes that slowly reduce it's effectiveness. Over time, other tests like "well we should make recipients pass drug tests too" get implemented, and we're back to having a shitty welfare system. Maybe even worse, as other systems will probably have been cut by that point.
Isn't the administration of a NIT handled by the existing tax return process?
What I mean is: you file your tax return normally, and if the lowest bracket(s) are changed to have a negative rate, you obtain a larger tax refund via the IRS's current refund infrastructure.
Yes, but I would say the existing tax return process is one of the worst tax collection systems in any first world nation, and should probably be fixed first
The only refund structure in place for the IRS is lump-sum checks, which are terrible for a wide variety of reasons. UBI works because it's a fixed amount that you receive no matter what, every month (or possibly more frequently). The reason it can work at all is because one can be certain that they will always have a fixed minimum amount of income, no matter the circumstances.
Say for example someone works a job that gives them income just over the NIT threshold annually, but they still live mostly paycheck to paycheck (aka, a very large population of the USA). They are laid off in the middle of June. How would NIT accommodate for the fact that this person now have 0 projected income for the foreseeable future, but already has earned enough for the year that NIT would be substantially reduced? With UBI it is simple: Come July, they will have their UBI, just as they always have. With NIT, it could be horrendously complex to get a payment to them of a reasonable amount, in a time frame that will help them pay bills without resorting to shady middlemen like payday loan companies.
If a UBI is ever implemented in the USA, it'd likely take the place of social security someday and build on top of that system. Makes sense to hand it all over to the Social Security Administration and let them manage whatever administrative work comes with the program. Saddling the IRS with the workload doesn't really make sense, as the tax system isn't really intended to handle that sort of thing. If you're below the NIT threshold, the IRS would just pass you over to the SSA rather than trying to dispense UBI within a tax-refund framework, which isn't ideal for a system that would maintain weekly or monthly payments to millions of individuals.
Largely agree... UBI is most likely to take root in the USA by a large expansion of Social Security.
NIT means more beauracratic hoops for those who need the money most. Another factor is the psychological impact of both systems.
To an economist, NIT seems just like a cheaper version of UBI. To a recipient, I think NIT has massive (unintentional) undertones that send a message along the lines of "you should be ashamed you are this poor". This is why many who are food insecure don't reach out for food stamps or food banks.
NIT is much harder to administer, thus is less efficient, even if the apparent out of pocket cost is lower. NIT is also not well suited to insuring stable income consistently, which is more important to people in poverty.
Why would this even matter? If they have enough income already that UBI will purely go to luxuries, then they'll eventually be paying back more than their UBI payment in taxes.
I think that UBI would cause depression and increase suicide among the society. I have never read anything on this topic... But UBI would make people content with what they have. (at the moment you have to show up to work to earn living, this gives purpose to many of us) what would happen when you don't have to work but at the same time you don't amount to much more. Mobile phones and drugs makes us content with just staying still and not doing much and UBI gives you the security to do that all day long.
I am talking from my personal experience. I had the fortunate opportunity to live 1 year without work or major obligations after 1 year I was in the biggest personal crisis ever. I was so used to wake up, chill with friends, smoke weed, chill with friends, go out, smoke more and then sleep. I did some personal projects in between but nothing major...
Now I have a job, find time for personal projects, better self control and I have a purpose..
Perhaps you should then, because in the US suicide is already the second leading cause of death among individuals between the ages of 10 and 34, and the fourth leading cause of death among individuals between the ages of 35 and 54. And suicide rates are currently at the highest they have been in over 50 years.
As for UBI, as a primer I would highly recommend watching Andrew Yang (US Democratic Presidential Candidate) on Joe Rogan's podcast: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cTsEzmFamZ8
TL;DW - Joblessness is inevitably coming for a huge portion of the Western world's population because of automation in nearly every unskilled labor field. UBI won't solve our problems but it will at least mitigate the negative societal effects and potentially help prevent people from losing their homes and living in abject poverty while they search for new jobs, and perhaps even retrain in new fields.
p.s. Joblessness has been shown to result in over a two-fold increased risk of suicide (2.46 for women, 2.63 for men) compared to those gainfully employed. So you're not wrong about joblessness being a problem, but IMO you are wrong that UBI will cause more of it. Massive joblessness is coming our way, there is likely nothing we can do to stop it, and UBI may be our only chance to prevent catastrophe.
Counter-point: The only times I have ever thought about suicide since hitting adulthood was when I was at work. I love my life, except for the vast majority of my working hours that I only have to do because society dictates that myself and family should be homeless and starving if I don't.
Some people thrive on work and that's fine. Others would rather have more free time to raise their children, build a garden, walk around town, or any other numerous activities that aren't self destructive entertainment spirals.
UBI isn't going to provide high enough income that nobody would ever work again. For me personally, it would enable cutting my workweek by a third. And that would be the second happiest day of my life.
if UBI were to happen here, we would need to build a moat