Interesting article regarding Unversal Basic Income

[fishonjazz]

I know a lot of people will hate the thought of this but i found it interesting and also thought it was interesting that many other countries are thinking about doing it as well.

The U.S. is not alone in considering a universal basic income. Finland, the Netherlands, Switzerland, the United Kingdom, Canada and Holland are all in some stage of discussions, according to The Economic Security Project.

Already, Alaska has a version of a universal basic income. All state residents receive yearly cash dividends of $2,072 from state oil revenues, the group says.


https://finance.yahoo.com/news/facebook-co-founders-10-million-213753710.html

 

[Siro]

I've been bitching about the eventual need for guaranteed basic income for a long time now.

Continue with the current policies that encourage growth and concentrates wealth at the top, like globalization and automation. Heavily tax the top. Cut everyone a check that covers basic living expenses. Say $1500-$2000 a month to every adult American.

Like I've been saying, this idea is not popular, but you will hear A LOT more about it in the next decade. Technology has historically created more opportunities than it eliminated. This won't be the case this time. As lower-skilled positions continue to disappear, we'll eventually have unfixable high unemployment in the US, and we'll be forced to think about such redistribution efforts.

 

[Saint Cy of JFC]

I've been bitching about the eventual need for guaranteed basic income for a long time now.

Continue with the current policies that encourage growth and concentrates wealth at the top, like globalization and automation. Heavily tax the top. Cut everyone a check that covers basic living expenses. Say $1500-$2000 a month to every adult American.

Like I've been saying, this idea is not popular, but you will hear A LOT more about it in the next decade. Technology has historically created more opportunities than it eliminated. This won't be the case this time. As lower-skilled positions continue to disappear, we'll eventually have unfixable high unemployment in the US, and we'll be forced to think about such redistribution efforts.

Future Republican platform is going to be deporting robots.

Sent from my A0001 using JazzFanz mobile app

 

[The Midnight]

I dunno, I fear it'll encourage people to just stay at home rather than go out and be more productive.



I need to see more studies on it.

 

[Siro]

I dunno, I fear it'll encourage people to just stay at home rather than go out and be more productive.



I need to see more studies on it.

This is the most common complaint, but I don't buy it. People do need to feel useful. That often comes from meaningful employment, where you feel like your skills are valued and desired. But it can also come from other sources, like picking a good hobby, or raising your kids.

But for the people who will lose their jobs, I don't think it'll be an issue. I don't see why anyone would rather spend their whole day cleaning toilets, or nodding off while driving a truck for 14 straight hours.

The people who are working meaningless jobs simply to survive would be better off. With their basic expenses covered, they can use any additional money for better things, like private school for the kids, or saving up for a bigger house.

Keep in mind that the alternative is massive unemployment, or a protectionist outlook that hurts everyone.

I've read a lot on the upcoming intelligence revolution, and I don't see a better alternative. People aren't thinking about it now, because computer intelligence is still limited. But they'll think about it a lot more over the next decade or two.

 

[Boris]

I've been bitching about the eventual need for guaranteed basic income for a long time now.

Continue with the current policies that encourage growth and concentrates wealth at the top, like globalization and automation. Heavily tax the top. Cut everyone a check that covers basic living expenses. Say $1500-$2000 a month to every adult American.

Like I've been saying, this idea is not popular, but you will hear A LOT more about it in the next decade. Technology has historically created more opportunities than it eliminated. This won't be the case this time. As lower-skilled positions continue to disappear, we'll eventually have unfixable high unemployment in the US, and we'll be forced to think about such redistribution efforts.

Oh you liberals an your anxiety.
Give bums a two grand stipend an they will spend it all on booze drugs an cigarettes. You ain't changing nothin only compounding the problems.

 

[fishonjazz]

I dunno, I fear it'll encourage people to just stay at home rather than go out and be more productive.



I need to see more studies on it.

This is the most common complaint, but I don't buy it. People do need to feel useful. That often comes from meaningful employment, where you feel like your skills are valued and desired. But it can also come from other sources, like picking a good hobby, or raising your kids.

But for the people who will lose their jobs, I don't think it'll be an issue. I don't see why anyone would rather spend their whole day cleaning toilets, or nodding off while driving a truck for 14 straight hours.

The people who are working meaningless jobs simply to survive would be better off. With their basic expenses covered, they can use any additional money for better things, like private school for the kids, or saving up for a bigger house.

Keep in mind that the alternative is massive unemployment, or a protectionist outlook that hurts everyone.

I've read a lot on the upcoming intelligence revolution, and I don't see a better alternative. People aren't thinking about it now, because computer intelligence is still limited. But they'll think about it a lot more over the next decade or two.

Oh you liberals an your anxiety.
Give bums a two grand stipend an they will spend it all on booze drugs an cigarettes. You ain't changing nothin only compounding the problems.

Here is an article addressing this concern. https://finance.yahoo.com/news/give...d-it-on-alcohol-and-cigarettes-135858208.html

Basically says that when you give a chunk of money to a poor person that most of the time it goes to a needed expense (food, clothing, shelter, debt, health care, etc). They dont have the luxury of being wasteful with the money. On the other hand if you give a large chunk of money to a rich person who doesn't really need it, it would make more sense that they would spend it on a luxury (wasteful) item.

 

[Siro]

Here is an article addressing this concern. https://finance.yahoo.com/news/give...d-it-on-alcohol-and-cigarettes-135858208.html

Basically says that when you give a chunk of money to a poor person that most of the time it goes to a needed expense (food, clothing, shelter, debt, health care, etc). They dont have the luxury of being wasteful with the money. On the other hand if you give a large chunk of money to a rich person who doesn't really need it, it would make more sense that they would spend it on a luxury (wasteful) item.

I wouldn't say a luxury item is wasteful. When you buy a luxury watch, everyone who's involved in the creation and selling of said watch gets paid. It is a form of income redistribution.

But you're right. Concern over homeless people wasting the money is nonsensical. First, like you said, almost everyone will use the money toward living expenses. I am sure there will be some abuse, which will dominate the headlines. But it does not matter to the bigger picture. A million people being wasteful with the money does not cancel out the 100 million who won't be.

 

[Saint Cy of JFC]

I wouldn't say a luxury item is wasteful. When you buy a luxury watch, everyone who's involved in the creation and selling of said watch gets paid. It is a form of income redistribution.

But you're right. Concern over homeless people wasting the money is nonsensical. First, like you said, almost everyone will use the money toward living expenses. I am sure there will be some abuse, which will dominate the headlines. But it does not matter to the bigger picture. A million people being wasteful with the money does not cancel out the 100 million who won't be.

With that logic no purchase is ever wasteful, right?

Sent from my A0001 using JazzFanz mobile app

 

[Siro]

With that logic no purchase is ever wasteful, right?

Sent from my A0001 using JazzFanz mobile app

In a way. I can see how a homeless person spending a basic income check on alcohol is wasteful. They wasted other people's money by not using it to improve their life (the opposite, in fact). A rich person spending their own money on a luxury item helps all around.

 

[The Midnight]

Here is an article addressing this concern. https://finance.yahoo.com/news/give...d-it-on-alcohol-and-cigarettes-135858208.html

Basically says that when you give a chunk of money to a poor person that most of the time it goes to a needed expense (food, clothing, shelter, debt, health care, etc). They dont have the luxury of being wasteful with the money. On the other hand if you give a large chunk of money to a rich person who doesn't really need it, it would make more sense that they would spend it on a luxury (wasteful) item.

That wasn't my point.


My point was if you give me free money today (and I can live off of it), there isn't as much incentive for me to go out and find a job. Why don't I just stay home all day and watch TV and surf the net? That's just 1 person I know, but what I'm saying is we don't know how many people would do that. What if a 100,000 people decides to quit their jobs and stay at home and surf the net & watch tv rather than go out and do something more productive?


What if 1,000,000 people decides to do that? What would happen to the economy?

 

[Siro]

That wasn't my point.


My point was if you give me free money today (and I can live off of it), there isn't as much incentive for me to go out and find a job. Why don't I just stay home all day and watch TV and surf the net? That's just 1 person I know, but what I'm saying is we don't know how many people would do that. What if a 100,000 people decides to quit their jobs and stay at home and surf the net & watch tv rather than go out and do something more productive?


What if 1,000,000 people decides to do that? What would happen to the economy?

The money would cover your basic expenses. Is that enough for you? For most people, the answer is no. People aren't happy making enough just to pay for rent, utility bills, and food.

However, for those who CAN'T find a job, or those stuck in ****ty jobs, a basic income check would be good. They can look for temporary gigs for extra money. They can try and start a small business. They can go back to school and retrain in something they've always wanted to do. The options would be endless, as opposed to nearly none, when you're totally broke or enslaved to your wage.

 

[fishonjazz]

That wasn't my point.


My point was if you give me free money today (and I can live off of it), there isn't as much incentive for me to go out and find a job. Why don't I just stay home all day and watch TV and surf the net? That's just 1 person I know, but what I'm saying is we don't know how many people would do that. What if a 100,000 people decides to quit their jobs and stay at home and surf the net & watch tv rather than go out and do something more productive?


What if 1,000,000 people decides to do that? What would happen to the economy?

I can only speak for what would happen if you gave me 2,000 bucks a month.

What I would do is continue working and have nicer things, more money for retirement, and go on more vacations. (Probably get season tickets to the jazz )

What I would worry more about is if everyone got that money then I would worry that prices for everything would just increase to the point where I would be right back to where I am now (living paycheck to paycheck pretty much)

 

[Siro]

I can only speak for what would happen if you gave me 2,000 bucks a month.

What I would do is continue working and have nicer things, more money for retirement, and go on more vacations. (Probably get season tickets to the jazz )

What I would worry more about is if everyone got that money then I would worry that prices for everything would just increase to the point where I would be right back to where I am now (living paycheck to paycheck pretty much)

1. That's what most people would do. Try to live better. Like Gameface proclaimed once, everyone basically wants the same things.

2. I was having this conversation with a friend, and he brought up inflation. I don't know enough to answer that, and I would like to hear some input. My impulse is to say that inflation would not be a problem because the total amount of money in the economy is constant. You're taking the money from one place and putting it elsewhere. Additionally, basic living expenses is something everyone has to cover anyway. So I don't think rent/mortgage would go up because the number of payers would stay about the same as before basic income. But like I said, this is something that requires input by people with more economic knowledge.

 

[green]

Another important thing to remember is that the economy is at its best when poor people have money because they spend it.

Trickle down isn't what creates jobs. It's poor people that spend money that creates jobs. By cutting everyone a $2,000 check every month the economy would explode.

Consumption would fly through the roof and the middle class would come back overnight.

The top 1% would suffer a little, but honestly, who gives a ****. They'd still be the 1% and everyone else would live better.

 

[Eminence]

Pretty much agreeing with everything Siro has said in this thread.

Even has the appeal that it is more efficient than our current forms of wealth redistribution, doing it all in mostly one place.

 

[fishonjazz]

That wasn't my point.


My point was if you give me free money today (and I can live off of it), there isn't as much incentive for me to go out and find a job. Why don't I just stay home all day and watch TV and surf the net? That's just 1 person I know, but what I'm saying is we don't know how many people would do that. What if a 100,000 people decides to quit their jobs and stay at home and surf the net & watch tv rather than go out and do something more productive?


What if 1,000,000 people decides to do that? What would happen to the economy?

I thought about this concern of yours a bit more. I think there is a chance that you are right and people would be less productive and lazier. I also think there is a chance that it could make people more productive and be just what some people need to boost their morale/productivity. I guess there is no way to know for sure either way.
I do think that how people answer you question/concern would be very polarizing. Some people (probably many conservatives/republican types) would probably say that it would just make poor people lazier and make the country worse. Those people already often have a stigma about poor people mostly being lazy good for nothing, free loading, crime committing, substance abusing derelicts. So they will think the worst will happen.

Having grown up in one of the more poor areas around me (though admittedly nowhere near as bad as a poor area of LA, houston, NY, chicago etc) and still living in a more poor area and also considering myself to be somewhat poor (in a living mostly paycheck to paycheck type of situation) I think of poor people as simply people. Like anyone else. Some good, productive people and some bad, lazy people...... But mostly good hardworking blue collar people who bust their asses for a living.

So I guess it mostly comes down to perception. Are you glass half full and mostly see the good in people and think most people are good, hard working people who wouldn't abuse the system? Or are you a glass half empty type person who thinks most people are bad, lazy people who would abuse the system?

 

[Siro]

Another advantage of GBI is that economic growth would automatically translate to higher income for all. You would no longer have to worry about the people at the top getting most of the benefits of growth, because the more they make, the more you get back. This allows us to focus on GDP growth, which pushes technology forward and enhances our lives in many ways, without worrying about people losing their jobs or about things like wage stagnation and leisure time.

It really is a powerful idea.

 

[Siro]

Nixon was the first American president to propose a guaranteed basic income.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6vHYFzYvCak

Unfortunately it didn't happen because conservatives opposed it for the obvious reasons, and progressives didn't think it went far enough.

 

[The Midnight]

I thought about this concern of yours a bit more. I think there is a chance that you are right and people would be less productive and lazier. I also think there is a chance that it could make people more productive and be just what some people need to boost their morale/productivity. I guess there is no way to know for sure either way.
I do think that how people answer you question/concern would be very polarizing. Some people (probably many conservatives/republican types) would probably say that it would just make poor people lazier and make the country worse. Those people already often have a stigma about poor people mostly being lazy good for nothing, free loading, crime committing, substance abusing derelicts. So they will think the worst will happen.

Having grown up in one of the more poor areas around me (though admittedly nowhere near as bad as a poor area of LA, houston, NY, chicago etc) and still living in a more poor area and also considering myself to be somewhat poor (in a living mostly paycheck to paycheck type of situation) I think of poor people as simply people. Like anyone else. Some good, productive people and some bad, lazy people...... But mostly good hardworking blue collar people who bust their asses for a living.

So I guess it mostly comes down to perception. Are you glass half full and mostly see the good in people and think most people are good, hard working people who wouldn't abuse the system? Or are you a glass half empty type person who thinks most people are bad, lazy people who would abuse the system?

Really good post. I've always liked your balanced viewpoint.


I've got a personal story to share. When I was completing my Masters, on my way to Uni 1 day I was on this bus with 2-3 guys who were going from 1 welfare office to the next trying to get their unemployment benefit. They were complaining that they've been refused unemployment money because they've been unemployed for too long and were getting angry/agitated. They were shouting on the bus making a ruckus. These guys had no interest in getting a job or an education or bettering themselves. All they wanted was to get free cash from the state so they could hang around town and do nothing all day. They lose all respect for themselves and in turn we lose respect for them.


The NZ government has since re-vamped the unemployment system here and have tried harder to get people the skills they need to get jobs, rather than hand out free cash willy nilly. They've also refused giving out money to people who have tested positive for drugs.