This doesn't work if you tie it to employment. The entire idea of UBI is that it's universal. Everyone gets it regardless of income or employment status. The truck drivers and manufacturing employees that are losing their jobs (through technology and offshoring) aren't easily going to find a different career. Retraining is a nice idea but there aren't enough coding jobs to be filled. These workers aren't all cut out to transition to a service sector either. We have a permanently unemployed sector and it's growing.
It’s an interesting idea. Glad to read/see more about it (thanks, @Nolen). The checks sent to most adult Americans early in the pandemic and, most importantly for this discussion, the $600 a week the “Cares Act” provided had a very positive impact on a national economy suddenly upended by COVID-19 and the need to shut things down. I wrote a couple of paragraphs about the impact of ending that help, help Americans desperately need, but deleted them since this would quickly devolve into a partisan back and forth that would derail the discussion. I think we got a glimpse of the impact on the economy a guaranteed income providing the means of having a reasonable quality of life had on those ordinarily struggling to make ends meet. Money poured into the American economy and savings rose, both positives in my opinion. That was the effect on a large number of Americans making minimum wage or wages higher than that, but not significantly higher. Of course, working and middle class families and individuals suddenly without an income were helped as well. I thought that how it affected low income workers was fascinating. That’s what I recall reading, at any rate. It was an interesting phenomenon, if short lived.
Well said. We need domestic examples, albeit small sample, in order to seriously talk about this. I've said and still say Yang needs to run for something decidedly smaller than the presidency and actually implement his ideas on a smaller scale. Talk has died down since he stepped down as a candidate... but running for mayor of NYC would be shrewd. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/04/29/nyregion/andrew-yang-mayor-nyc.html
...yes... ...I agree that Andrew Yang should seriously consider getting into actually governing someplace. ...the actual business of governing is much harder than going on and on about how it should or shouldn't be done. We've already got that market cornered by a lot of republican governors and senators already, anyway. As long as Mr. Yang's relocating to Georgia to help with the senate races there... ...maybe he should knock around a few ideas with Stacey Abrams on how to get more people behind his endeavor. Most people don't need a leader as much as they need something to follow....
Alaska is a domestic example that's been running for nearly 40 years. It's not on the same monetary level that Yang or others are proposing but it's a US system that's worked. Several cities are running test cases throughout the country including Atlanta, LA, Oakland, and more. Finland, Germany, Spain, Iran, even Kenya have or are trying it out. What type of data are you looking for?
Powell said in article today that the economy, as we knew it, is over. Disruptions due to pandemic has permanently changed many aspects in the workplace. Imo, one more reason (a big one at that) for the need for some type of UBI. https://amp-cnn-com.cdn.ampproject....economy/economy-after-covid-powell/index.html
This thread is too vague imo, as I am not sure of what problem people are trying to solve with UBI. Without the proper context of the problem, one cannot weigh the merit or demerit of the solution.
It's not a specific problem here, necessarily, it's that UBI can be used as a wide ranging problem solver. I say that, and I get that it's tying into your point. Part of this thread, and the discussion I want to have on UBI is, what kinds of problems can we fix with it? To be honest, supplementing incomes can help fix issues such as (in my opinion): -huge hikes in minimum wage, and that affecting the economy -reducing welfare -incentivising people to get back into the workforce (some reasons to advocate against this though) -helping with illegal immigration -helping people pay for rising costs in childcare and/or healthcare in the interim while we look for long term solutions. -potentially charging social media platforms and other media companies for data mining and then redistributing a portion of those profits back to the populous as a means to keep these corporations in check. Many others. I'm not a huge government regulation person, but I think UBI makes a lot of sense. The purpose of this thread is to hopefully discuss something that, while controversial, is a lot more lighthearted and less anfer-inducing than most modern day politics. I just wanted to see where it goes. I also realize that this board is a very left leaning board, and because of that, it may seem like the idea is more supported here than it is as a whole around the country. Many right wingers will scream communism and not entertain the idea. And while I haven't answered your post, I think I've reasoned that your final statement isn't necessarily always a truth.
I think you have the process backwards - you dont create a solution, and then start looking for a problem it would solve. Instead, you should (at the least) identify a (primary) problem and then investigate if UBI is a goodway to solve it. What you have listed above are not problems in of themselves, but are solutions and/or consequences of solutions. Replacing them with UBI is not necessarily solving the problem(s) those solutions were meant to address. More so, said problem(s) are yet to be stated I still stand by my earlier statement that without a proper context of the problem, you cant measure how applicable UBI is as a possible solution.
I get what you're saying, and I can respectfully disagree. The things I pointed out are most definitely problems. And they're problems that UBI can help address. Granted, they are wide ranging problems, and potentially problems deemed unimportant but they are there. The ultimate problem that UBI solves is almost an existential problem. And that is, as the country becomes economically weaker, and quality of life in our country weakens due to excessive free enterprise (as has happened to ever republic of democracy throughout history), how do we address it?
Lets take a different approach: - hikes in minimum wage occurs as a solution to force employers to pay better wages and not get away with paying lower wages. This happens cos labor force supply is poorly matched to the demand and the cost of living is rising faster than wages. UBI will not fix that. You will likely end up having to hike UBI to keep pace with cost of living as well. -reducing welfare : people are on welfare cos they cannot fend for themselves and we rather they dont become a bigger problem. UBI is just another form of delivery and may be less effecxtive as those people now have the discretion to spend on what they wish e.g. they may decide to gamble instead of getting good housing or medical treatment -incentivising people to get back into the workforce (some reasons to advocate against this though): UBI does not require working. Once you require people work, employers will factor it into the compensation they pay and you will back chasing your tail. -helping with illegal immigration: People migrate cos standard of iving here is better. They do it illegally cos the legal means is more difficult for them. UBI will only make it more attractive (more money in circulation) and likely worsensthe immigration problem. Also the initial glut from illegals trying to legalize might overwhelm the system. -helping people pay for rising costs in childcare and/or healthcare in the interim while we look for long term solutions. Better to focus on the long term and not waste time and money on UBI as a short term fix -potentially charging social media platforms and other media companies for data mining and then redistributing a portion of those profits back to the populous as a means to keep these corporations in check. Not going to work - you cannot ask me to pay for what was given to me freely. Its unfortunate, but majority dont value their personal data highly enough.. Now these are what I see as the real problem: - skewed income and wealth distribution - population and purchasing power of the middle class - slower rising rate of wages vs cost of living - high overhead/fat in the system - improper distribution of expenses in the system I dont see UBI solving any of that in thelong term
https://time.com/23514/americas-most-miserable-city-emerges-from-bankruptcy/ https://www.sfchronicle.com/politic...nth-change-a-city-Stockton-tests-14943872.php Here’s what UBI solves: * Makes a bankrupt government look better instead of fixing its problems * Helps with buying a car that a person can’t afford 3 months from the UBI running out * Buys the kid a video game system The people you think UBI will help cannot be helped with UBI.
Yes, there would be a COLA each year similar to SS. The increased costs will be offset through increased tax revenue. Recipients would choose between the two but not receive both. If the current welfare is more then the individual would choose to stay on it rather than take the freedom dividend. The recipient is free to spend the money however they see fit. This is correct. The money coming in is a basic income not a "living wage." Most people would still need a part time job at the least. Perhaps if you live in the middle of nowhere with very low cost of living and expenses you wouldn't need to work. But it will also increase low wage worker's bargaining power with potential employers. If they're already receiving a small payment each month they won't be pinned to the lowest job they can get. The payment is to citizens only. Would it make America more attractive? Yes. Neither legal nor illegal immigrants would receive payment. As far as the immigration system, that's for a different discussion thread. UBI would become another staple program of the federal government as SS, Medicare, etc. are now. It is not a short term fix. In fact, the oncoming employment problem from automation is a very short and long term problem that this addresses. This is an erroneous take. Taxation on social media companies is possible. This isn't intended as a tool of controlling the companies only to help fund the populous. Companies pay a dividend to their share holders, this is a public dividend payed by companies to citizens. agree. agree. agree. agree. agree. The UBI isn't intended to solve any of those issues you listed above. This gets back to one of your previous posts. The payment is intended for citizens to benefit from technology. People would still work as it's a mean to cover basic living not retire on. Because it goes to everyone and doesn't have a limitation on what/where to spend it on there is little government overhead/bureaucracy. While I agree the government is bankrupt, this is designed as a cost neutral program. It won't fix other issues but it won't add to them either. The UBI would be an ongoing tax funded program. It's not in danger of running out. The money could be spent on anything the recipient wants. Does the government mandate spending now? Do you want the government stepping in and dictating what you can and can't spend your money on? The people the UBI is intended to help is every US citizen. Do you think the $1200 stimulus payment earlier this year was helpful? The economic data points to that.
There is no solution to the increasing number of jobs that will be permanently eliminated by automation an no new industry will be able to create new jobs . UBi is a trickle up economy model instead of the current one which we have proven does not work.
I disagree cos that claim has been made and debunked repeatedly since the beginning of the industrial age. New industries and/or occupations will be born, training time for needed skills will likely increase, people will live longer resulting in percentage of population in the labor force reducing etc. One of the core problems is that the US labor force isnot dynamic enough, lacking the needed composition, quantity and quality. Trickle economics, irrespective of direction, never work long term. They are no more successful than trying to catch rain water with a basket. Yes, the basket will get wet, but thats about it.
Really? So now I need have been there? You make my point for me, no honest debate, this topic was talked about over and over again and myself and others have gave examples of things I mentioned.
Things are going to get automated from truck drivers, retail workers, computer programmers all the way to corporate lawers. AI is now and it is here to stay. Which industry will provide new jobs for all these millions of americans? 1K a month for all adults will jump start the economy. There is a reason why the check from covid was called a STIMULUS check because this was designed to do exactly that.
and there are industries like healthcare that are facing severe shortage, with over 2m job shortage expected in the next decade. Even industries like freight truck and material movers are exected to have labor shortages in the coming years (see https://www.bls.gov/ooh/most-new-jobs.htm) So your forecasted doom and gloom is far from coming to pass.
