Let's debate "UBI"

[Kathryn]

That's how all jobs work; usually at least one of the parents work, and everybody else doesn't have to. Rarely is there a case where every member of a family has a job.

Most non military families with two parents have at least two incomes. I'm not talking about kids. I am talking about spouses.

 

[Kathryn]

Unless I missed it, has any one mentioned where this money would come from?

"In 2020, the U.S. Census Bureau counted 331.4 million people living in the United States; more than three-quarters (77.9%) or 258.3 million were adults, 18 years or older."

So lets say the UBI is for people 18 years and older and is $1200 per month.

258.3 million x $1200 =$309,960,000,000 per month.

Over $3 billion per month($3.7 trillion per year). Where does this money come from?

We write another check.

 

[Kfox]

The same way you get people to pick tomatoes today. UBI would be a citizen right. The tomato picking would be done, as it is now, by immigrants who don't have a US passport (yet).

What about the jobs that are difficult that are not done by immigrants? Or some of the many starter jobs currently done by US citizens?

A modest lifestyle without fear or the need to take a job you don't like. In the US that would be between $20,000 and $30,000 pa (+ free healthcare). With that, you can either have a used car or live in a city where you'd have to use public transportation. You can afford either to eat out once a month or buy a crate of beer.
Basically, it is just above living on social security - but without the fear that that may be cut or the hoops you have to jump through to get it.
UBI would replace most kinds of transfer money while cutting down on administration. It would be a right, so no need to control for eligibility other than proof of citizenship.

Thanks for the numbers. I don't know of any places where you can actually live in $20-$30K per year, but there might be some places down south where this is possible, however if they have a family; consider that impossible. How about if we only give the money to those who need it? Why everybody?

 

[Heyo]

What about the jobs that are difficult that are not done by immigrants? Or some of the many starter jobs currently done by US citizens?

I guess those will be the ones that require employers to think about how the jobs can become more attractive. Salary is an incentive, but not the only one. Sometimes treating people with dignity can go a long way.
E.g. the bricklayer working in the hot sun you mentioned. Think about ways they don't have to work under those conditions. Provide shade, frequent rests with enough water, or let them work in the mornings and evenings. Iow, value your workers.

Thanks for the numbers. I don't know of any places where you can actually live in $20-$30K per year, but there might be some places down south where this is possible, however if they have a family; consider that impossible.

The poverty threshold in the US is far below $20.000 and there are a lot of people living in poverty. (Poverty in the United States: 2022) The first category in the first table going over $20,000 is for a family of three - and they would receive $60,000 in UBI (lower number).

How about if we only give the money to those who need it? Why everybody?

Because it is universal. It reduces administration since no-one has to test whether someone is needy. It reduces stress, because people don't have to constantly prove that they are still needy. It doesn't disincentivize people from working because they don't have to fear they are losing their benefits.

 

[Kfox]

Comfortably? That is not the case.

Your view of it seems to be a bit different from the other guy I was debating.

Keeping capitalism. UBI is nowadays often purported to be a necessity in the (near) future to keep capitalism going due to automation.

I remember years ago, it was predicted everyone in the future will have a lot of free time on their hands due to machines doing many of the jobs we do today. But that never happened, we are as busy as ever because we always find other things to do. I think this will always be the case

 

[Kfox]

We write another check.

If writing checks is the answer to all of our money problems, why does the Government even tax us? All they gotta do is write more checks!

 

[Eddi]

I think there should be a minimum standard of living so I think I approve of the idea

 

[McBell]

How long after passing a "UBI" do y'all figure it will take before the government starts regulating prices?

 

[Koldo]

Your view of it seems to be a bit different from the other guy I was debating.

I remember years ago, it was predicted everyone in the future will have a lot of free time on their hands due to machines doing many of the jobs we do today. But that never happened, we are as busy as ever because we always find other things to do. I think this will always be the case

Perhaps I would have said the same if not for the recent AI developments.

 

[Kfox]

I guess those will be the ones that require employers to think about how the jobs can become more attractive. Salary is an incentive, but not the only one.

I disagree; I think that is the only one.

Sometimes treating people with dignity can go a long way.

Don't assume because a job is difficult, people are being disrespected, and much of the disrespect in the work place comes from co-workers rather than the boss.

E.g. the bricklayer working in the hot sun you mentioned. Think about ways they don't have to work under those conditions. Provide shade,

You can't have shade everywhere on a construction site

Because it is universal.

Why does it need to be universal?

It reduces administration since no-one has to test whether someone is needy.

So you spend an extra $2 trillion in order to cut administration costs? Bad idea IMO

It reduces stress, because people don't have to constantly prove that they are still needy. It doesn't disincentivize people from working because they don't have to fear they are losing their benefits.

I think you've got that backwards, an incentive to work is the fear they might lose their free money.

 

[Heyo]

Why does it need to be universal?

Because it's in the name, Universal Basic Income. If it weren't, we wouldn't be debating UBI.
The idea is that, in a rich, modern country, basic income should be a right, not a privilege. Means testing shouldn't be necessary.

So you spend an extra $2 trillion in order to cut administration costs? Bad idea IMO

You aren't really "spending" that money. For most people it just cancels with part of their taxes.

I think you've got that backwards, an incentive to work is the fear they might lose their free money.

I don't know exactly how it is in the US, but I've heard stories that for some people, working makes them worse off. And it is certainly true here.

And in the not so far future, we will not have enough jobs for everyone. AI and robotics will produce cheaper alternatives of almost everything. We will need something like UBI. The transition into a post scarcity economy will be easier when we have UBI before the lay-offs begin.

 

[idea]

You still think that you need to control people's behaviour. You don't. If someone likes to smoke or drink, let them. Others may want to eat out, go to the cinema or the opera. Their choice.

Natural law, survival requires work. The luxuries of life do not exist except through work. Without incentives to create, no luxuries.

 

[Heyo]

Natural law, survival requires work. The luxuries of life do not exist except through work. Without incentives to create, no luxuries.

Survival shouldn't require work in a modern, rich society. Luxuries, on the other hand, yes, it's OK to work for those. UBI shouldn't provide for luxuries, it's a basic income. And since most people like some luxuries, they'll have to work for those.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

UBI - "Universal Basic Income"

It goes by other names, like Guaranteed Income or Unconditional Income.

What is it?

What's it for?

What does it do?

Why have it?

Why not have it?

Has it been tried before?

Is there a right way and wrong way to implement it?

Are there religious reasons for or against it?

Can it help or destroy the economy?

Does it get rid of the incentive to work?

Is it socialism?

Does it contradict a free market?

Will it reduce crime?

Answer whichever questions you want & pose your own questions, as well.

I'm pressed for time, so I can't provide my own thoughts on the topic right now; I'll do that later (but you might be able to find some of my thoughts on it by scouring my other posts on other threads).

I am not an economist. Not even close. But I would like to relay a conversation. I have a good friend who is a certified Genius. Everytime you run a search online, you are using software that he patented. He's testified before congress. He's so smart that he makes me feel like a moron. LOL I would like to share a conversation he had with me.

It was his opinion that very shortly, robotics and AI were going to replace so many more jobs than those new ones they would create, the the US would be looking at something like a 30% unemployment rate. That cannot be allowed. You simply can't have that much of the public starving to death.

The solution, he said, was UBI. For it to work, American values have to change. We can no longer afford to have the view that someone who doesn't work is scum. We have to see that lives have worth and dignity for other reasons. UBI the way he explained it is as follows: Everyone automatically gets enough to pay for basic housing, food, and clothing. Those lucky enough to work, would be able to add to that. Taxes would be enormously high. But that is the only ethical way to deal with the impending collapse of the job market.

If you want me to defend that, I can't. I'll leave the discussion to more qualified people.

 

[Kfox]

Because it's in the name, Universal Basic Income. If it weren't, we wouldn't be debating UBI.

Then change the name. The idea of giving rich people UBI when they don't need it sounds foolish IMO

The idea is that, in a rich, modern country, basic income should be a right, not a privilege. Means testing shouldn't be necessary.

In the USA we spend more money on interest of the debt than any other program except for the Military (and it's closing in on the military very fast) the idea of adding to the debt by implementing something like UBI rather than doing what you can to bring it down and using that extra money spent on debt for important stuff sounds foolish IMO

You aren't really "spending" that money. For most people it just cancels with part of their taxes.

the end result is the same

I don't know exactly how it is in the US, but I've heard stories that for some people, working makes them worse off. And it is certainly true here.

Not here in the USA.

And in the not so far future, we will not have enough jobs for everyone. AI and robotics will produce cheaper alternatives of almost everything. We will need something like UBI. The transition into a post scarcity economy will be easier when we have UBI before the lay-offs begin.

If things become different in the future, we can discuss it then. But today, this sounds like a bad idea.

 

[Kfox]

I am not an economist. Not even close. But I would like to relay a conversation. I have a good friend who is a certified Genius. Everytime you run a search online, you are using software that he patented. He's testified before congress. He's so smart that he makes me feel like a moron. LOL I would like to share a conversation he had with me.

It was his opinion that very shortly, robotics and AI were going to replace so many more jobs than those new ones they would create, the the US would be looking at something like a 30% unemployment rate. That cannot be allowed. You simply can't have that much of the public starving to death.

The solution, he said, was UBI. For it to work, American values have to change. We can no longer afford to have the view that someone who doesn't work is scum. We have to see that lives have worth and dignity for other reasons. UBI the way he explained it is as follows: Everyone automatically gets enough to pay for basic housing, food, and clothing. Those lucky enough to work, would be able to add to that. Taxes would be enormously high. But that is the only ethical way to deal with the impending collapse of the job market.

If you want me to defend that, I can't. I'll leave the discussion to more qualified people.

Just because a person is a genius does not mean all of his ideas are gonna be good.

 

[Heyo]

Then change the name. The idea of giving rich people UBI when they don't need it sounds foolish IMO

You don't like the theme of the thread? Make your own.

In the USA we spend more money on interest of the debt than any other program except for the Military (and it's closing in on the military very fast) the idea of adding to the debt by implementing something like UBI rather than doing what you can to bring it down and using that extra money spent on debt for important stuff sounds foolish IMO

Nobody said that UBI shouldn't have a solid financial background. It goes without saying that it would need the role back of tax cuts for the rich that have added to the deficit for the last 40 years. And talking 'bout the military, the US could cut down military spending to a tenth and still be the biggest spender on Earth.

If things become different in the future, we can discuss it then. But today, this sounds like a bad idea.

Some people like to think ahead and prepare.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Then change the name. The idea of giving rich people UBI when they don't need it sounds foolish IMO

It's really not different than giving Medicare to everyone over 65, including the wealthy. Warren Buffet has Medicare.

 

[amorphous_constellation]

It was his opinion that very shortly, robotics and AI were going to replace so many more jobs than those new ones they would create, the the US would be looking at something like a 30% unemployment rate. That cannot be allowed. You simply can't have that much of the public starving to death.

the thing is, I'm skeptical that it can do my job.. I don't think there is a robot that can build a house, or do trucking on icy roads, or drive a forklift without causing pallet racking to collapse. Maybe it can do like a lawyer's job... or an accountant's, or anything with information compiling.. but my job it cannot do, no way. Ask him about that

 

[IndigoChild5559]

the thing is, I'm skeptical that it can do my job.. I don't think there is a robot that can build a house, or do trucking on icy roads, or drive a forklift without causing pallet racking to collapse. Maybe it can do like a lawyer's job... or an accountant's, or anything with information compiling.. but my job it cannot do, no way. Ask him about that

the claim here is not that robotics and AI will replace all jobs. The claim was that the net loss of jobs would raise the unemployment rate to around 30%.

I could be misunderstanding you, but your post comes off as "I don't care if 30% of the public are starving because they have no income. As long as my job is unaffected, I'm fine with it."