Opinion of UBI?

[Peanut]

What do you think of UBI (Universal Basic Income?) Is it recommendable or even feasible in an economy like the US? What would happen should States begin to implement it? How viable is it for other countries? Does it have more downsides or upsides?

[Starry Eyed Jagaloon]

Not yet necessary. May have some merit someday, but it isn't currently applicable. There may be some merit for replacing some social services with unconditional cash transfers for poor people today, however.

[Lourdes]

I'm for it.

The point of UBI is that it can only work after the government has also centralized control over sectors like education and healthcare to the point where they are both free and provided by the state as a right to all.

If you don't do this, you're basically just subsidizing the private healthcare and higher education industries.

This is the problem with healthcare in the US. The country pays way too much to offer the minimum coverage it currently does. Why is that? Because it allows private corporations to basically maximize what they can charge as much as possible and it's essentially subsidized by the government in the form of social welfare programs such as Medicaid. The government has to take over and nationalize these industries and reduce privatization (and in some sectors completely eliminate it) because only the government can run an industry with the goal of public good, not to make a profit.

Many of these contradictions will appear until we recognize that the centralized power of state is a solution.

[PSOL]

A pathetic excuse to not provide more funding and support for our education system. If I understand correctly it is best applicators if there is a persistent trend of unemployment due to unavailable jobs by automation or by workers being low skilled. Both would be fixed by expanding the markets for domestic and foreign consumption, along with serious care applied to education.

[raymundoflx]

Won't stimulate the economy, will harm it instead

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

I think it would work pretty well, especially if it's used to replace more inefficient welfare programs like price controls and fuel subsidies that distort the market (as well as the bureaucratic solutions that dominate in countries like India). It cannot be implemented as a complete substitute for traditional government action to reduce inefficiency, otherwise you'd just create a further hierarchy between people who depend on the UBI plus a few scraps from odd jobs and salarymen.

[Tintrlvr]

I think it's a good idea at a basic level. As far as it is intended to pay an actual livable wage, it doesn't quite work under current conditions (but technology may change that in the next few decades). Nonetheless, consolidating many anti-poverty programs into a single guaranteed payment of, say, $10,000 a year in income per person would I think be a significant step forward that would allow the elimination of (at least in the US) a lot of complications in the tax system and various welfare and food-stamp programs that have much higher overhead costs and also much more burdensome compliance requirements for recipients and is overall a win-win (more benefits for the poor at lower cost). It's not a poverty panacea, though.

[Sirius_]

The most basic form of it, such as the Yang proposal, is absurd. The government should not be giving out a monthly check to the majority of Americans which don't need it, at the expense of cutting welfare for those who do need it in order to afford the 3 trillion per year (which will only increase) expense. And 10,000-12,000 a year alone won't cover it for the unemployed. A system by which a certain livable wage is guaranteed, with compensation checks to those who don't meet it could have merit, but I'd prefer we bring up minimum wages to a livable standard first, and maintaining current welfare services for the unemployed. Overall, not a huge fan.

[John Dule]

UBI leads to inflation even if more money isn't printed.

Once producers realize that consumers have extra money in their pockets, they'll raise prices on goods accordingly (especially rent). The "freedom dividend" will end up cycling right back into the hands of the wealthy because they're the ones who control the pricing, and Yang's proposal doesn't account for price controls.

I'm against it.

[TheElectoralBoobyPrize]

Only if it's done the way Charles Murray proposes it.

[Xeuma]

It's unnecessary on the same logic that free trade is good for everybody. Even if machines have an absolute advantage in procuring all goods, humans will still have a comparative advantage in some.

[courts]

i don't really think it's workable here

[GoTfan]

I think it's probably the wrong way to go about reforming things. The idea of paying someone a  monthly check for not doing anything just doesn't sit right with me.

[Blue3]

It will become necessary, unless you're a genocidal maniac who'd rather take the Thanos approach when automation really gets going.

[John Dule]

It will become necessary, unless you're a genocidal maniac who'd rather take the Thanos approach when automation really gets going.

Thanos adheres to Malthusian ethics, as do people on the left like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez.

[Gustaf]

UBI leads to inflation even if more money isn't printed.

Once producers realize that consumers have extra money in their pockets, they'll raise prices on goods accordingly (especially rent). The "freedom dividend" will end up cycling right back into the hands of the wealthy because they're the ones who control the pricing, and Yang's proposal doesn't account for price controls.

I'm against it.

lol

UBI is a bad idea but this isn't the reason.

UBI faces an inherent trade-off problem. Either the amount of money paid out is enough to sustain those who truly need government assistance, in which case it becomes prohibitively expensive. Or the amount isn't enough to sustan those who truly need government assistance, in which case it gets pretty dystopian.

[S019]

Bad idea,


We cannot be giving handouts of free money to people who sit on their couch, and do nothing

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

UBI leads to inflation even if more money isn't printed.

Once producers realize that consumers have extra money in their pockets, they'll raise prices on goods accordingly (especially rent). The "freedom dividend" will end up cycling right back into the hands of the wealthy because they're the ones who control the pricing, and Yang's proposal doesn't account for price controls.

I'm against it.

lol

UBI is a bad idea but this isn't the reason.

UBI faces an inherent trade-off problem. Either the amount of money paid out is enough to sustain those who truly need government assistance, in which case it becomes prohibitively expensive. Or the amount isn't enough to sustan those who truly need government assistance, in which case it gets pretty dystopian.

That's only if UBI is the only form of welfare.

Yang's proposal of $1000/month isn't by itself enough to live on, but throw in food stamps and housing benefits and it's far more livable for people in poverty than now.

[Karpatsky]

UBI leads to inflation even if more money isn't printed.

Once producers realize that consumers have extra money in their pockets, they'll raise prices on goods accordingly (especially rent). The "freedom dividend" will end up cycling right back into the hands of the wealthy because they're the ones who control the pricing, and Yang's proposal doesn't account for price controls.

I'm against it.

lol

UBI is a bad idea but this isn't the reason.

UBI faces an inherent trade-off problem. Either the amount of money paid out is enough to sustain those who truly need government assistance, in which case it becomes prohibitively expensive. Or the amount isn't enough to sustan those who truly need government assistance, in which case it gets pretty dystopian.

That's only if UBI is the only form of welfare.

Yang's proposal of $1000/month isn't by itself enough to live on, but throw in food stamps and housing benefits and it's far more livable for people in poverty than now.

I thought one of the principles behind UBI was that it would replace all other social spending?

[Ban my account ffs!]

UBI leads to inflation even if more money isn't printed.

Once producers realize that consumers have extra money in their pockets, they'll raise prices on goods accordingly (especially rent). The "freedom dividend" will end up cycling right back into the hands of the wealthy because they're the ones who control the pricing, and Yang's proposal doesn't account for price controls.

I'm against it.

To borrow a phrase from our Jewish brethren:  Oy Vey!

That is so not how pricing works, Schatz.  With the poor getting poorer and the rich getting richer you already see what happens.  Retailers like Macy’s and Sears die.  People trade Target for Wal-Mart and Wal-Mart for Dollar Tree.  On the other side they trade Macy’s for smaller boutiques and Williams-Sonoma.  Price variability and product quality variability increase.

When you institute a UBI, people will trade 30% water infused beef flavored mechanically separated pink slime for regular ground up scraps and chuck.  Cattle ranchers will breed more cows (we can respond pretty quickly to meat demand changes) and you’ll see the gross cow bits in pet food instead for dowggy and kitteh.

Price/quality variety will shrink though mid-range product choice will increase.

If producers simply raise prices, competitors will swoop in..and higher taxes on profits will fold that price increase into government projects.  If you institute this suddenly, there will be shocks...but careful implementation, say starting with the poorest and working up over 4-5 years would ease that.

We’ll have Kia dealers saying “just 3 months of yang bucks can get you into a brand new car!” Instead of “sh**tty credit?  Broke af?  We’ll give you a questionable used car at a great low interest rate of 19.99%. Just send us some of your blood so our loan shark goons know where to find you “

[Sirius_]

UBI leads to inflation even if more money isn't printed.

Once producers realize that consumers have extra money in their pockets, they'll raise prices on goods accordingly (especially rent). The "freedom dividend" will end up cycling right back into the hands of the wealthy because they're the ones who control the pricing, and Yang's proposal doesn't account for price controls.

I'm against it.

lol

UBI is a bad idea but this isn't the reason.

UBI faces an inherent trade-off problem. Either the amount of money paid out is enough to sustain those who truly need government assistance, in which case it becomes prohibitively expensive. Or the amount isn't enough to sustan those who truly need government assistance, in which case it gets pretty dystopian.

That's only if UBI is the only form of welfare.

Yang's proposal of $1000/month isn't by itself enough to live on, but throw in food stamps and housing benefits and it's far more livable for people in poverty than now.

The yearly cost of $1000/month for every adult in the US would be $2.5 Trillion. If we completely abolished the military, that would still not even come close to paying for that. There is no way other social services would be maintained. And that still doesn't answer my other big question: Why should people who are currently living well without welfare get a government check?

[Ban my account ffs!]

Means testing opens up welfare programs to abuse by the people not eligible for it.  They resent those that receive its benefits and seek to undermine these programs as much as possible.

When everyone receives the same benefit, even if they pay in at different rates to cover the cost (in many cases, more than the benefit itself), they still see it as a more fair system.  Everybody gets it.  And you know, if, God forbid, your $60,000/year job dried up tomorrow... you could still count on $1000/month.

This would also encourage couples to stay together since doing so would double their UBI income whereas the system now is designed to encourage breakup, especially if the dad isn't finding work since welfare favors single mothers first and foremost.

You really just have to understand that the people proposing these policies have thought through these rather basic questions you're asking. 

[Gustaf]

UBI leads to inflation even if more money isn't printed.

Once producers realize that consumers have extra money in their pockets, they'll raise prices on goods accordingly (especially rent). The "freedom dividend" will end up cycling right back into the hands of the wealthy because they're the ones who control the pricing, and Yang's proposal doesn't account for price controls.

I'm against it.

lol

UBI is a bad idea but this isn't the reason.

UBI faces an inherent trade-off problem. Either the amount of money paid out is enough to sustain those who truly need government assistance, in which case it becomes prohibitively expensive. Or the amount isn't enough to sustan those who truly need government assistance, in which case it gets pretty dystopian.

That's only if UBI is the only form of welfare.

Yang's proposal of $1000/month isn't by itself enough to live on, but throw in food stamps and housing benefits and it's far more livable for people in poverty than now.

The idea of UBI is that it replaces current spending on welfare.

Anyway, the US has about 300 million people. 1000 dollars each is thus 300 billion. With 12 months in a year that is about 3 600 billion or 3.6 trillion dollars. The current entire federal budget is about 4 trillion. You're essentially doubling the entire budget. Like, good luck with that, I guess.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

I think the issue is Yang is a bit disingenuous. A viable UBI (i.e. one that wouldn't completely destroy the federal budget) would not really effect the pocket books of anybody who has an annual salary, so your normal worker will not get one thousand dollars, or even any substantial increase to their income. What it would help is seasonal and temporary workers, the unemployed, those in training and education, children (who are really the most common sense additions to a universal wage program) and seniors that don't have an effective pension.

[brucejoel99]

To provide a meaningful dividend each year to every citizen, you'd have to raise enormous sums of money, & that would either mean a lot of new taxes or cannibalizing other important programs. It's exciting but not realistic.