Universal Basic Income

[BananaStand]

I'm not sure how any of what you said after that was relevant. UBI should help, imo, in 2 major ways:

- Cutting down on bureaucracy. Running a system that interviews, monitors, processes, makes decisions etc for millions of people takes an obscene amount of work. If everyone just got a fixed sum every month, none of that would be needed.

I don't see any logical premise for this argument. How is creating a whole new entitlement program going to cut down on bureaucracy??

You can't give everyone the same fixed amount. Seniors, disabled people, unemployed people, people with children, all have different needs. They all have a different definition of what is "basic necessities". So now you need the government to interview, monitor, process, make decisions, etc for millions of people.

Sure, MAYBE, there would be some efficiency gains if this was all administrated by a single government agency. But you're also talking about adding hundreds of millions of people to the roster of benefit recipients.

- Incentivizing labor. Not familiar with the details of your system, but here up north a lot of people are much happier just collecting unemployment benefits, since if you can only get a shitty job, you won't be making much more than from the benefits, without working. Doing even part-time work will cut heavily into your received benefits, making finding a minimum wage job pointless. With a fixed income that's unaffected by your income and that covers some basic necessities but no luxuries, every bit of extra work would be extra in your pocket, as it should be.

But there's only a jillion other ways to incentivize labor. Also, it's hard not to point out the circular pitfall of your suggestion. Over time, markets will adjust prices for the effect of UBI. That means that "covering basic necessities" gets more expensive. Which means UBI needs to be increased. Which prompts the market to adjust prices. Which prompts UBI to be increased.....etc.

Furthermore, unemployed people here have to prove that they are looking for work. You can't get your check until you give the unemployment office a detailed account of your job-search efforts. They will check too. If you turn down a reasonable job offer, you can't get unemployment benefits.

Further-Furthermore, I'm not sure why that's even relevant as unemployment is not a government entitlement program. It's an insurance program paid for by employers via a pricing system where employers with the highest turnover pay the highest insurance rates.

[spoonitnow]

Furthermore, unemployed people here have to prove that they are looking for work. You can't get your check until you give the unemployment office a detailed account of your job-search efforts. They will check too. If you turn down a reasonable job offer, you can't get unemployment benefits.

For our foreign friends: I just want to point out that this is only for unemployment benefits, which is an insurance, not welfare. It's not true for welfare in many (most?) parts of the country.

Moreover, unemployment benefits stop after a set period of time (six months last I checked), and you have to have been employed previously for a minimum length of time to qualify. On top of that, it does not cover your full salary in virtually any cases.

[BananaStand]

I just want to point out that this is only for unemployment. It's not true for welfare in many (most?) parts of the country.

Agreed. I think it's important to pretty much throw unemployment out of this argument as it's a contained insurance system paid for by employers, not individuals.

[forkitnow]

Agreed. I think it's important to pretty much throw unemployment out of this argument as it's a contained insurance system paid for by employers, not individuals.

Employment is a coercive trap the oppressed cannot consent to.

[OngBonga]

Employment is a coercive trap the oppressed cannot consent to.

I don't care if I'm being trolled.

This is untrue. I used to think along these lines, for a very long time in fact, to the point I actually proved it wrong. I opted out of employment. I made the decision to not be "oppressed" by the system.

Then one day, fairly recently, I decided that I was unhappy where I lived, that I would be happier if I lived elsewhere, and that the only way that was gonna happen is if I got myself a job. So I did, and now I'm in the countryside, much happier than I was.

So the question begs... when was I oppressed? Then? Or now? Before, I was totally reliant on the government (or, more accurately, the taxpayer). Now I'm reliant on myself.

[spoonitnow]

I don't care if I'm being trolled.

This is untrue. I used to think along these lines, for a very long time in fact, to the point I actually proved it wrong. I opted out of employment. I made the decision to not be "oppressed" by the system.

Then one day, fairly recently, I decided that I was unhappy where I lived, that I would be happier if I lived elsewhere, and that the only way that was gonna happen is if I got myself a job. So I did, and now I'm in the countryside, much happier than I was.

So the question begs... when was I oppressed? Then? Or now? Before, I was totally reliant on the government (or, more accurately, the taxpayer). Now I'm reliant on myself.

I don't feel like logging into that account to continue the conversation because the novelty has worn off for me now that there are copycats, but the left's line of thought on something like, "Employment is a coercive trap the oppressed cannot consent to," is that consent has to be given freely with the threat of negative "violent" consequences hanging over someone's head when they make a decision. The decision put to people they qualify as the oppressed is that they can either get a job and be miserable or not get a job and die/at least be significantly worse off (the "violent" consequence). Their idea is that the consequences of the latter decision makes the whole situation coercion, which I obviously don't agree with, but that's their logic.

What you just posted here in response is exactly the truth. However, I want to point out a couple of things.

These people would call you a bootlicker and worse for the opinions that you've given here. A big part of that is that they believe you cannot make a decision to no longer be oppressed. This is the rejection of personal responsibility we've talked about in various forms. If you want to use the Christian mythology examples, it's the way of Cain refusing to take responsibility for the lackluster nature of his sacrifice and lashing out at God (ie: the "oppressor") by striking down Abel.

This is also tied into why they jump to making themselves a victim in everything they do because that is the currency they use to figure out who is the most oppressed since being oppressed is their only virtue in their value system. The more oppressed you are, the bigger the victim you are and the better you are as a person, etc.

[CoccoBill]

I don't see any logical premise for this argument. How is creating a whole new entitlement program going to cut down on bureaucracy??

It wouldn't be a whole new program in addition to the old ones, it would replace most if not all current ones. Which one takes more effort, processing the filings of millions of people, constantly adjusting brackets, monitoring people for abuse of the system, probably a whole bunch of other activities I can't right now think of, or, setting up an automated recurring payment? I would assume were talking about a difference of thousands of man-years of labor, with all the facilities, systems and overhead running the system of thousands of people entails.

You can't give everyone the same fixed amount. Seniors, disabled people, unemployed people, people with children, all have different needs. They all have a different definition of what is "basic necessities". So now you need the government to interview, monitor, process, make decisions, etc for millions of people.

Nope, the point is exactly that everyone gets the same amount. I suggest you read up on UBI. I'm sure there can/could be some exceptions, for example some criteria to receive higher payments, but that would defeat a lot of the purpose.

Sure, MAYBE, there would be some efficiency gains if this was all administrated by a single government agency. But you're also talking about adding hundreds of millions of people to the roster of benefit recipients.

Again, a recurring payment to all live citizens doesn't sound too complicated compared to any current form of social benefits.

But there's only a jillion other ways to incentivize labor. Also, it's hard not to point out the circular pitfall of your suggestion. Over time, markets will adjust prices for the effect of UBI. That means that "covering basic necessities" gets more expensive. Which means UBI needs to be increased. Which prompts the market to adjust prices. Which prompts UBI to be increased.....etc.

The question was how would UBI improve on status quo. What you describe is very much a part of status quo, not some new drawback of UBI.

Furthermore, unemployed people here have to prove that they are looking for work. You can't get your check until you give the unemployment office a detailed account of your job-search efforts. They will check too. If you turn down a reasonable job offer, you can't get unemployment benefits.

Further-Furthermore, I'm not sure why that's even relevant as unemployment is not a government entitlement program. It's an insurance program paid for by employers via a pricing system where employers with the highest turnover pay the highest insurance rates.

They have to prove they're looking for work here too. Sit down for a moment and think how much work is wasted generated nationwide to handle the data and make decisions based on it.

Unemployment benefits are government mandated and operated here, but the point is to also get rid of welfare, student benefits (yeah we have those too, as in government benefits for students) etc. A set amount is deducted from your salary for unemployment insurance and the government pools the money and pays out the benefits to those who get unemployed. You can have private unemployment insurance on top of that, and most people do.

[BananaStand]

It wouldn't be a whole new program in addition to the old ones, it would replace most if not all current ones.

Fantasy.

Which one takes more effort, processing the filings of millions of people, constantly adjusting brackets, monitoring people for abuse of the system, probably a whole bunch of other activities I can't right now think of, or, setting up an automated recurring payment? I would assume were talking about a difference of thousands of man-years of labor, with all the facilities, systems and overhead running the system of thousands of people entails.

It's not a question of effort. It's a question of resources. An able-bodied educated presentable 25 year old has far different "basic necessities" than a disabled 65 year old. Just the healthcare costs alone create an astronomical difference between the two. If you're telling me everyone gets the same fixed amount, then clearly you have to err on the high side to make sure the 65 year old is covered.

That means the 25 year old is getting alot of free money he doesn't really need. That's money that could be used to fund the administration of a more sensible, need-based welfare system. I'm not a fan of funding government bureaucracy. But in this case, you've given me the choice of giving free money to someone who doesn't need it, or creating a job. No contest.

Nope, the point is exactly that everyone gets the same amount. I suggest you read up on UBI. I'm sure there can/could be some exceptions, for example some criteria to receive higher payments, but that would defeat a lot of the purpose.

Pretty much my whole point. You seem to be over-estimating how long it will take for this process to be perverted. You say it "can/could" happen. I say it's certain. And it would likely happen virtually overnight.

Again, a recurring payment to all live citizens doesn't sound too complicated compared to any current form of social benefits.

It also sounds unnecessary and economically counter productive.

The question was how would UBI improve on status quo. What you describe is very much a part of status quo, not some new drawback of UBI.

No, the question is would UBI improve the status quo better than some other measure? Curtailing fraud waste and abuse within the current system seems like a far better option. Welfare should work. It's complicated now because it's been expanded for political purposes. I fail to see how UBI would not be similarly exploited. Exploitation is the problem, not a lack of UBI. Giving the exploiters something else to exploit won't make anything better.

They have to prove they're looking for work here too. Sit down for a moment and think how much work is wasted generated nationwide to handle the data and make decisions based on it.

I'm still not on board with including unemployment insurance as part of this discussion. But, I would say that the "work" you're referring to exists in the form of wage-paying, tax-paying jobs performed by people. The money is still going into the economy. It's just that people are working for it, rather than being handed it. What advantage is UBI providing?

With UBI, you'd just be disbursing the same money among more people, so everyone has a little less and they are dependent on the government for it. Why is that good???

Unemployment benefits are government mandated and operated here,

Here too.

but the point is to also get rid of welfare,

Why? What's wrong with welfare if it's used as a safety net for people who are underprivileged or experiencing hardship? What "problem" does this create that needs to be solved with UBI?

[wufwugy]

Why? What's wrong with welfare if it's used as a safety net for people who are underprivileged or experiencing hardship? What "problem" does this create that needs to be solved with UBI?

Who decides who is underprivileged or experiencing hardship? Who decides how to measure those?

These questions are essentially what has taken a welfare system that was intended to work exactly the way you describe it should work to its rent-seeking, production-stripping, poverty-inducing system it is now.

Also, if we're examining incentives, we want to ask why would we want a government provided "safety net" in the first place. A "safety net" brings with it its own set of problems, like disincentivizing financial responsibility and saving/investment, incentivizing short-term pleasure driven consumerism, disincentivizing strong family/community relationships, incentivizing increased undue risk-taking, and many others.

I don't want the government to provide a "safety net" because I believe it makes people worse off.

[forkitnow]

I don't want the government to provide a "safety net" because I believe it makes people worse off.

Of course you don't. Then people might actually be able to rise out of the slave class that your people put them into, and you're afraid of what will happen to your heterosexual cisgender white male privilege.

[CoccoBill]

Fantasy.

Perhaps, but that's the concept of UBI and that's what we're talking about here.

It's not a question of effort. It's a question of resources. An able-bodied educated presentable 25 year old has far different "basic necessities" than a disabled 65 year old. Just the healthcare costs alone create an astronomical difference between the two. If you're telling me everyone gets the same fixed amount, then clearly you have to err on the high side to make sure the 65 year old is covered.

That means the 25 year old is getting alot of free money he doesn't really need. That's money that could be used to fund the administration of a more sensible, need-based welfare system. I'm not a fan of funding government bureaucracy. But in this case, you've given me the choice of giving free money to someone who doesn't need it, or creating a job. No contest.

I'm not a small government fanboy but I still think creating useless government jobs just for the sake of creating jobs is inane. You're already "giving away free money", why not do it vastly more efficiently? Seriously dude, read up on UBI. I'll even provide a link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_income

I fail to see how UBI would not be similarly exploited. Exploitation is the problem, not a lack of UBI. Giving the exploiters something else to exploit won't make anything better.

Every living person in the country gets the same amount every month, be that $500 or $1000 or something else. Please give some examples of how you're going to exploit the system?

[BananaStand]

Perhaps, but that's the concept of UBI and that's what we're talking about here.

No, I mean, that if UBI were a reality, there's no plausible scenario that I see where it would be the only form of government entitlement. You seem to be ignoring the fact that Pandora's box is already open. People are getting free food, free healthcare, free housing, free phones, free internet service, disability benefits, and who knows what else.

UBI is either going to cover all of that, and extend that coverage to hundreds of millions of people who already pay their own way. Or existing benefits will be reduced (diluted), and then extended to hundreds of millions of people who already pay their own way. You either have to completely soak the rich to redistribute massive amounts of money. Or you have to shaft poor people.

Which catastrophe are you advocating for here?

I'm not a small government fanboy but I still think creating useless government jobs just for the sake of creating jobs is inane. You're already "giving away free money", why not do it vastly more efficiently?

It's not a useless government job if it's ensuring that taxpayer dollars are not spent fraudulently, abusively, or wastefully.

Also, you still need a backup plan. Sally gets her UBI check on the first of the month and then blows it on crack within 3 days. It's now the 4th of the month and Sally's two kids are hungry. Sally can't get a job because she's got two kids to take care of. Being addicted to crack doesn't help her chances either.

Where is Sally going to turn? You've already soaked the upper class and redistributed those taxes to ALL citizens regardless. Supposedly everyone's "basic needs" are already covered. Are there any charities still in business?? likely not. So how are Sally's kids going to eat??

The government is going to have to feed those kids somehow. And I don't see anyway it could do it without allocating funds to Sally's family beyond UBI.

Furthermore, I can't see how giving Sally a check next month makes any bit of sense.

So now we have this need for a bureaucracy of government oversight. Someone has to make sure that Sally buys milk and bread instead of crack. One way to do that is to issue the UBI in a form of exclusive currency that can only buy milk and bread, and can not buy crack. So now we have UBI, AND a food stamp program.

That's just one example of one potential complication. The administration of this UBI for a country of 350+ million people would be a fucking nightmare. You make it sound like one guy loads some checks into a dot matrix printer, pushes "print", and then suddenly everyone's got money in their mailbox.

It's not even close to that simple.

Seriously dude, read up on UBI. I'll even provide a link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_income

I've ready enough on UBI to know what a bad idea it is. When you find a source that can explain, with data, what happens when UBI is in effect across multiple generations, then you'll have my attention. All these "experiments" that you find so promising are rigged. The UBI receivers know it's an experiment. They know it's a test. They treat the money like a bonus, like pennies from heaven, and spend/invest it accordingly. I want to know what happens when people's perception of UBI changes from "bonus" to "entitlement". No link provided anywhere in this thread, or by any advocate of UBI that I've read, answers that question.

Once upon a time, if you wanted to retire, you had to save money. You needed to be able to support yourself if you wanted to stop working. Then one day, the USA invented "social security", which was basically a forced savings plan. They tax your paycheck a little bit every week, and when you're 65, you can cash it in and collect a payment every month.

Savings didn't fall off a cliff as soon as that was enacted. Yet here we are 4 generations later and 1/3 of American adults can't pull together $1,000 on a day's notice for an emergency expense. Tell me how UBI will be different???

Every living person in the country gets the same amount every month, be that $500 or $1000 or something else. Please give some examples of how you're going to exploit the system?

Well if we go back to my original comment, and the context in which I used "exploitation", then I fail to see how UBI would be less exploitable than any other government entitlement program. Political power will be amassed through the manipulation of benefits. It's just a shitload easier because now the benefits touch every citizen, not just those in need.