Covid Killed Universal Basic Income. Long Live Guaranteed Income (technologyreview.com) 360
Universal basic income has become a favored cause for many high-profile Silicon Valley entrepreneurs as a solution to the job losses and social conflict that would be wrought by automation and artificial intelligence -- the very technologies their own companies create. But the conversation has changed. Its center of gravity has shifted away from "universal basic income" aimed at counterbalancing the automation of work and toward "guaranteed income" aimed at addressing economic and racial injustices. Where things stand now: As it turned out, what made the difference wasn't more research but a global pandemic. In the face of the recession caused by the pandemic, relief packages were suddenly seen as necessary to jump-start the American economy. The success of the $1,400 stimulus checks make it more likely now than ever before that that guaranteed income could soon become a permanent fixture of federal policy.
No, will dry up now (Score:5, Interesting)
Pandemic at least within USA will be petering out, barring mutant that vaccines don't handle. The stimulus checks will dry up too. No such "guaranteed income", you'll have to get a job. As for "racial injustice" I'm all for two things that will help immensely with that, but they'll have to get a job too. Government paying for education and health like smarter countries do is an investment, and we have massive source of money to pay for it. Large corporations under the protection and favoritism of the U.S. government (our corporate fascist system) make transaction in wall street, and tiny tax on that can fund it all. Make that tax slightly less tiny and we wouldn't even need to pay income tax, we're talking trillions of dollars flying through there. These U.S. companies can't relocate elsewhere if we forbid them from doing business with the USA as consequence of doing that.
It's in the bag, let's get on this
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Have you ever taken a look at the VA and thought, "Man, I wish I got what they have". No?
Then why do you want to inflict that system on the rest of the country?
Re:No, will dry up now (Score:5, Insightful)
Have you ever looked at the healthcare in the 21 countries (we've been sliding down, could be 22 or more now) that have better healthcare than USA and said "man, I wish I got what they have?"
You should. We're doing the stupid thing, a feedback loop of higher insurance, higher drug cost, higher treatment cost.
VA not done the way the smart countries are doing it.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Have you ever looked at the healthcare in the 21 countries ...
Those countries built their public healthcare systems from scratch in the aftermath of WW2.
America has a medical-industrial-insurance complex that controls 18% of the economy and is the most powerful special interest group that has ever existed in the entire history of the world.
To believe we can just put the government in charge and magically get the same outcome as other countries is absurd.
Re:No, will dry up now (Score:5, Insightful)
Why not? We have the advantage of looking at how all those systems evolved and can evaluate the advantages/disadvantages of each one now. Whether we want to go with a multi-payer system like Germany, a full government owned system like the NHS or all the variations of all the other countries. Even just the public option for Medicare would be a big improvement.
And that 18% is the reason we should do it, most of those countries spend 11% or less of their GDP on healthcare and get similar outcomes, some better, some worse but the US is far from the top of the heap in that department even with all the money we spend.
Re:No, will dry up now (Score:5, Insightful)
To believe we can just put the government in charge and magically get the same outcome as other countries is absurd.
There's nothing magical about it. You vote in politicians who A) want to get it done, B) put experts in the right places instead of the corrupt revolving door, C) aren't afraid to pay up front on "their" budget. Unfortunately, half the US (by voting power) is made up of cultists who want to go back to a caste system instead of a real democracy that works for its people.
Re: (Score:3)
For a starts it could be done at the State level, with the feds using money to enforce minimum standards, it is how it works in Canada where we actually have 14 healthcare systems, 10 Provinces, 3 Territories that are treated much the same as a Province, and the feds taking care of veterans, their employees, natives and a few other groups such as Federal prisoners.
The other thing is once implemented, the voters get very attached to it. Even the most right wing governments here don't dare to suggest dismantl
Re: No, will dry up now (Score:2, Interesting)
Better health care by what measure? The US is the only country in the world that offers every treatment for every disease that they have a name for. Other countries, including all of those higher in the list, literally send their sickest patients here. We don't send our patients anywhere else.
The only reason US patients ever go abroad is if they need black market treatment (i.e. buying solid organ transplants) or if they simply want to lower their costs (and nearly always at the expense of quality).
Name any
Re: No, will dry up now (Score:5, Insightful)
Name any medical specialty that exists, and you'll find that the top medical facility in the world for it is somewhere in the US.
I'll bite. "Preventative care".
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I'm almost with you. Let's first make HSA contributions automatic, like we do now with SS. Then, instead of individual accounts, we pay them in to a single large pool. This way, we can leverage our collective power to negotiate prices for routine care, creating real competition between providers and improving quality and lowering costs for everyone.
Re: (Score:3)
That's still a lot of overhead and a lot of complexity.
Instead of us all paying individual HSA contributions into the pool, why not just fund it with taxes? That way companies wouldn't have to keep track of it, and we wouldn't need a whole additional government agency to keep track of it. Just roll it into the FICA line item on payroll.
While I'm not a die-hard smaller government person, I'm all for minimizing it where it's not necessary.
It would also let us get rid of a lot of laws related to the health ins
Re: No, will dry up now (Score:5, Informative)
lol. Never heard of medical tourism? many americans come to europe to be treated FAR cheaper for same quality of treatment
Re: No, will dry up now (Score:5, Informative)
You do have some xredit there, but two things you're scrubbing under the table.
First, the sickest patients die in the US still sick if they're not wealthy.
Second, the late Sultan Qaboos of Oman, from all places, went to Germany for his colon cancer treatment, not US. So there are countries other than USA that sick people go to, and that can also heal essentially everything there is a name for about as well as the USA. Germany has a well-functioning public healthcare.
So "not having public healthcare" does not necessarily equal "having the best healthcare".
Re: No, will dry up now (Score:5, Insightful)
Better health care by what measure?
That's the right question to ask, because in conversations like these—including this one—people talk past each other rather than realizing they're talking about two different metrics.
Metric 1: Which country has the best treatments possible.
Metric 2: Which country has the best outcomes for its people.
You're talking about Metric 1, and it's a good metric to consider. The US is indeed at the forefront of a lot of medical care, so you're quite right to suggest that other countries send their patients here. It's not uncommon to hear that a head of state or foreign celebrity sought medical care for a serious condition in the US rather than their home country. The fact that it's heads of states and celebrities, however, highlights the problem in relying exclusively on Metric 1: it speaks to what's possible, rather than what's accessible. Just because a treatment exists in the US does not mean that everyone in the US who needs it can get it.
And that's where Metric 2 comes in, which is likely what the GP is talking about. Metric 2 is the metric that all of us Joe Schmoes should care about, because it speaks to the actual results that any given person can most reasonably expect. Unless you have liquid assets that afford you access to the sort of care measured by Metric 1—which most of us here do not—Metric 2 is what you'd receive as a typical person living in the country. And by Metric 2, the US is very good, but it's still nowhere close to being the best in the world, nor has it been for quite some time. As the GP said, we've been sliding down the list for quite some time, which would suggest that high quality care is reaching the masses elsewhere at a faster rate than it is in the US.
Separately, there are a number of legal, ethical, non-controversial treatments (i.e. not organ theft or stem cells) that are readily available elsewhere that for one reason or another have yet to receive FDA approval. Every year or two I hear another story about a US patient being told by one of their doctors to check out a clinic—almost always in southeast Asia—where they can get the treatment they need.
Re: No, will dry up now (Score:3)
Actually if you're really poor, there's Medicaid. It's not the greatest in the sense that your choice of providers is generally more limited than that of private insurance, but if the treatment you need is FDA approved, then you can get it completely free of charge, guaranteed. If you're not exactly poor but also not exactly middle income, then you're in a tough spot.
IMO a good way to fix this is to raise the income limit of Medicaid to 600% of the FPL.
Re: (Score:3)
If you're not exactly poor but also not exactly middle income, then you're in a tough spot.
This. I've been fortunate to have decent health care coverage. My "child" (26, employed) is not so lucky. She had a 15$/hour (ish) job with "insurance". Come to find out that this insurance didn't cover anything related to a hospital stay/ER visit, and whatever she made at her job put her over the limit to qualify for any assisted medical insurance. She's now $40,000 in the hole because of a kidney stone. I'd call that an understatement of "a tough spot".
Re:No, will dry up now (Score:5, Insightful)
Nonsense, the system that is buckling under its own weight is the one we currently have. Part of great healthcare deals with diet and exercise, even to making students in school exercise and eat properly. Plenty of countries do this. Guess what, you'd have doctor telling you to quit being such a lazy ass and quit stuffing your face with crap, and they'd have the test results to prove it to you. For you students You'd be weighed in school and made to exercise This works, it works elsewhere.
Re: (Score:3)
As the movie quote goes...
"I do not think that means what you think it means..."
Re:No, will dry up now (Score:4, Informative)
You're hilarious, that linked article destroys your argument (even using healthcare example)
From your link:
By and large, it is for Congress to determine what constitutes the âoegeneral welfare.â The Court accords great deference to Congressâ(TM)s decision that a spending program advances the general welfareand has even questioned whether the restriction is judicially enforceable
Re: (Score:3)
We have plenty of other countries to use as model, they've been doing it for decades. The system that doesn't work is the one we have.
Re:No, will dry up now (Score:5, Informative)
Have you ever driven on the interstate highway system? Do you know anyone on Medicare? Maybe talked to an air traffic controller?
Re:No, will dry up now (Score:5, Informative)
Also Social Security has been the greatest anti-poverty program in American history
https://www.cbpp.org/research/social-security/social-security-lifts-more-americans-above-poverty-than-any-other-program [cbpp.org]
Re:No, will dry up now (Score:5, Informative)
Please spend some time in a country with minimal to non-existent government. A failed state would be perfect. How about Yemen, Somalia or South Sudan? Then check out the other side of the spectrum. Visit one of the most liberal countries in the world. Any of the Scandinavian countries will do.
You will find vibrant cultures and happy people in both countries. People make do. But it will be painfully obvious that minimal government means unbelievable hardship for anyone who isn't wealthy. Minimal government also causes a cut-throat mentality to become dominant.
I like my freedoms, but living in a country where desperate people aren't in the majority is well worth trading away some of those freedoms.
Re:No, will dry up now (Score:4, Informative)
Well luckily #1 and #2 are related since part of the infrastructure plan you apparently "don't like" is expanded care for the elderly at home since we are going to be having more and more of them with the boomer generation ageing out. Not exactly healthcare but that will ease a ton of burden off the healthcare system.
And yeah, Medicare could and should be better. Luckily Bernie Sanders has been pushing for those things for a long time now, especially the vision and dental which is a dumb policy (and yet every insurer does that. I have always had separate plans for vision/dental/medical, its quite dumb)
https://www.cnbc.com/2021/03/26/bernie-sanders-aims-to-lower-medicare-eligibility-age-in-recovery-bill.html [cnbc.com]
Adding "everyone" onto it is Single Payer, which has its pros and cons, detractors and fans all the same but that's not the public option which is just putting Medicare on the marketplace as an option against private insurers, with the goal of Medicare being something of a safety valve of competition on costs. Implementation is of course the complicated end but it would do a lot to help I feel.
Also the "majority" of the budget is a bit of a canard since Medicare and SS are funded via their own taxes, although some funds do have to get borrowed for Medicare since it goes overbudget I believe, a consequence of the general high costs of our system. That said SS is not funds collected form income or general taxes, it is intended to be a self sustaining system, the young pay now to cover the old today and so it goes on. Issues with SS being underfunded are simply a math problem, move the numbers of what you collect until it makes sense, no need to adjust the general funds.
We spend 18% GDP on healthcare for worse outcomes in many cases compared to countries that pay 10% or less. I don't know how we afford not to do it, medical costs are killing us and there is no market solution to keep prices down. Supply demand curve on medical issues goes out the window, it is a market failure. Every other country has figured this out and moved to socialized systems for a reason. Healthcare is extremely inelastic.
Re:No, will dry up now (Score:4, Informative)
I suppose we are a definitional argument. It has repercussions on a low of lives and towns. You know I would agree with you if I had any faith at all that if Biden put a $400B package for long term elder care on the Senate floor any Republicans would vote for it but I feel that ship has long sailed.
Why though? why can every other developed nation do it but not the US? I am sure you can rattle off a bunch of reasons pertaining to the US political system but in that case shouldn't we fix those problems? And what alternative system do you propose? Has a market based healthcare system really worked anywhere outside the US (and it clearly doesn't). Is there an example of a nation that just took the regulatory rails off their health system and had better outcomes for the majority of people? Because we have about 30+ examples of systems that already work better than ours in many ways and they all have some facets in common.
Where are you getting that number? Here is what I had found:
— $115 billion to modernize the bridges, highways and roads that are in the worst shape. The White House outline estimated 20,000 miles (32,187 kilometers) of roadways would be repaired, while economically significant bridges and 10,000 smaller bridges would get fixed.
— $85 billion for public transit, doubling the federal government’s commitment in an effort to shorten the repair backlog and expand service.
— $80 billion to modernize Amtrak’s heavily trafficked Northeast Corridor line, address its repair backlog and improve freight rail.
— $174 billion to build 500,000 electric vehicle charging stations, electrify 20% of school buses and electrify the federal fleet, including U.S. Postal Service vehicles.
— $25 billion to upgrade air travel and airports and $17 billion for waterways and coastal ports.
— $50 billion to improve infrastructure resilience in the aftermath of natural disasters.
— $111 billion to replace lead water pipes and upgrade sewer systems.
— $100 billion to build high-speed broadband that provides 100% coverage for the country.
— $100 billion to upgrade the resilience of the power grid and move to clean electricity, among other power projects.
— $213 billion to produce, preserve and retrofit more than 2 million affordable houses and buildings.
— $100 billion to upgrade and build new schools.
— $18 billion to modernize Veterans Affairs hospitals and clinics, and $10 billion for federal buildings.
— $180 billion invested in research and development projects.
— $300 billion for manufacturing, including funds for the computer chip sector, improved access to capital and investment in clean energy through federal procurement.
That's not everything but those all sound like infrastructure to me and way more than $600m
Re:No, will dry up now (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, I DO support the very small percentage of the Biden bill that is actually directed at what everyone to date has classically understood to be actual infrastructure.
Oh, you're one of those.
It's funny, for this single statement, I was able to predict, with 100% accuracy, the rest of your comment. That's what happens when you start off with a vacuous talking point and not real thoughts.
I will separately comment on this though:
If the Dems actually put real infrastructure stuff in a stand alone bill, it should fly through smoothly
McConnell has said that his only goal is to obstruct the Biden administration and has declared that no matter what is contained in any bill going forward, that not a single republican in the senate will vote for it.
Re:No, will dry up now (Score:5, Informative)
VA approval ratings from veterans routinely ranges from 70-90%
https://www.military.com/daily-news/2020/06/09/trust-va-now-all-time-high-va-says.html [military.com]
https://www.va.gov/opa/pressrel/pressrelease.cfm?id=5328 [va.gov]
https://vfworg-cdn.azureedge.net/-/media/VFWSite/Files/Advocacy/VFW-Our-Care-2019.pdf [azureedge.net] (PDF Warning)
Anecdotal but I have a few relatives who utilize it and have nothing but good things to say.
Re:No, will dry up now (Score:4, Informative)
That is "single provider."
Every proposal I've heard is for something more like Medicare, which is "single payer" (but not "single provider").
Re: (Score:2)
"These U.S. companies can't relocate elsewhere if we forbid them from doing business with the USA as consequence of doing that."
Seriously? They go out of business, 'cuz you're forcing that, and a bunch of Chinese, Indian, Russian, and European companies pop up to take their place. Wanna tax what they send us? Welcome to Trump tariffs, and having to admit The Donald was right about something.
You want to really stimulate the economy, and do this social justice thing? Totally eliminate absolutely all Fe
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
These U.S. companies can't relocate elsewhere if we forbid them from doing business with the USA as consequence of doing that.
If you believe we can get to a point where the government is forbidding US companies from doing business in the US, it's also not such a stretch to believe they'd move, and cater to the already much larger, emerging markets in China and India which have almost 3 billion people combined.
No, disregard that! (Score:3)
Sure, this worked when we tried it once, but if we keep trying trickle-down economics for a few more decades it will surely start working soon!
Re:No, disregard that! (Score:4, Informative)
I guess you missed this morning's employment numbers report: Expected a million new jobs. Actually had 266,000. Unemployment went up. Inflation is now a real risk. It shockingly turns out that when you pay people -- quite a lot -- to not work, lots of people don't work.
That's not what a successful trial of UBI would look like. It's not sustainable at all.
Re:No, disregard that! (Score:4, Interesting)
Are these bad things if the people not working are OK with it and couldn't find work otherwise? The magic line is even pleased with the situation! Isn't that the be-all end-all of economic metrics?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:No, disregard that! (Score:5, Insightful)
It's not that we pay people quite a lot to not work. It is only $300/wk + regular unemployment.
Instead, the problem is that we pay a large percentage of people quite little to actually work.
It turns out that many of those who were called job creators were actually poverty exploiters.
Re: (Score:3)
"Only" $300 per week is $7.50/hr more than regular unemployment, assuming a 40-hour week. That's quite a nice bump.
It turns out that many of those who complain about "poverty exploiters" are as bad at math as economics.
Re:No, disregard that! (Score:4, Insightful)
If that is "quite a nice bump" to anyone, they were being exploited. Full stop.
If you think that's a nice bump, then there's a good chance that you're being exploited as well.
One complaint I often hear from people about raising the minimum wage is "why should someone making minimum wage make almost as much as I do? I worked hard to get where I am now!" See, they thought that they were successful. the $15/hour minimum wage debate just highlights that fact that they've been grossly underpaid for a very long time. It makes them feel foolish.
Re:No, disregard that! (Score:5, Insightful)
Turns out people that find out what it's like to get enough money to live without stress don't like the idea of working a shit job or four at basement wages.
Maybe fucking pay people for their work and they'll come back to work. Certainly the tactic of giving tax breaks to billionaires so they can buy back their own stocks hasn't worked either. If a government is going to give money away to a class of people, at least let it be the ones that have a hard time making rent or buying food, not the ones that want to be able to write off their yachts.
Re:No, disregard that! (Score:5, Insightful)
Hummm, I think you're missing something. Something big. Like, I don't know, maybe us being in a pandemic?
You can't take 1 month of people not yet willing to go back to work during a pandemic and use that to extrapolate anything about UBI. Doing so is both really, really stupid, and pretty dishonest.
Re: (Score:2)
I guess you missed this morning's employment numbers report: Expected a million new jobs. Actually had 266,000. Unemployment went up. Inflation is now a real risk. It shockingly turns out that when you pay people -- quite a lot -- to not work, lots of people don't work.
That's not what a successful trial of UBI would look like. It's not sustainable at all.
You're at the tail end of a pandemic combined with a massive shift towards remote working and online retail.
It's not what an unsuccessful trial of UBI would look like either, it's just a really bizarre time for the economy.
Re: (Score:3)
Also, thanks to Trump and the republicans, we're at a very divisive time in the country politically, in particular relating to mask wearing and pandemic rule changes. The people who aren't going back to work are in the service industry, and would need to navigate those waters.
It's a shit job with low pay in the best of times. During a pandemic when you know you're going to have to deal with assholes who want to make it more likely everyone gets COVID, I can't imagine many are keen to go back.
Sure it is (Score:3)
To put things in perspective right now being on unemployment pays around $13.50/hr. And don't forget working isn't free. Travel and childcare aren't cheap.
Tl;Dr businesses aren't paying sustainable wages. Eventually people making that little have thier lives fall apart. A car breaks down or a kid gets sick or s
Re: (Score:2)
You nailed it. This is the opposite of trickle-down economics. And given the results of trickle-down economics, we can hope the results of this are opposite that too.
UBS > UBI (Score:5, Interesting)
This would've been a great time to try Universal Basic Services, maybe giving everyone free utilities (including telecoms) would've been a good start. A UBS can't advertise a price floor like a UBI can and doesn't require the traversal of unexplored economic territory.
Re:UBS UBI (Score:2)
"This would've been a great time to try Universal Basic Services"
*THIS*.
"A UBS can't advertise a price floor like a UBI can and doesn't require the traversal of unexplored economic territory."
It's basically what most of first world already has, understands and knows how to manage, only a bit wider. We already have UBS for military, police, government, healthcare and education. Just make it also cover at least food and shelter and you are done.
Then why "many high-profile Silicon Valley entrepreneurs" (bull
Re:UBS UBI (Score:4, Interesting)
No, UBS has the same issue as food stamps. If your problem isn't food, food stamps don't help you. If your problem isn't utilities, UBS won't help you.
Four people all getting UBI can team up to rent an apartment, buy food, pay utilities, and have a modest life. Four people all getting UBS can't do that.
People have basic needs beyond food and utilities. Giving them an income floor lets them direct the money where it needs to go. If it's utilities it can go there, but if it's child care it can go there instead.
Re:UBS UBI (Score:2)
Every person with a computer would mine bitcoin and the world's energy usage and global warming problem would increase exponentially overnight.
I'd say UBI in this case is the better choice
Re: (Score:2)
Or better yet, UBS plus ban the trading of cryptocurrencies like it's 2009.
No. (Score:2)
Relief packages are just a thing that happens. They come and go and most western societies have done it at some point or another long before America discovered the idea. Congratulations on talking about it, but it's changed nothing.
As for discussions on racial inequality, yep that was COVID-19, absolutely nothing to do with the USA reaching a tipping point of taxpayer funded execution of black people for violating traffic laws, no sirreee. It was COVID that made people realise racism exists!
Weird new thought on profit from UBI (Score:3)
What if we approach it from a probabilistic perspective? Simple example to start with: A lottery ticket. The trick is that the total paid out in winnings is always less than the total paid for tickets, so the players are sure to lose (but the losers don't get mentioned in the news).
So what if UBI keeps a person out of prison? Just for grins, start with a sample of 1,000 freshly unemployed people who are watching their children suffer. How many of them are liable to become desperate enough to commit crimes if they aren't given some form of economic help? That could be in the form of a UBI. Then you have to figure out how much it costs to put them in prison plus the costs of caring for the kids.
Not as weird as "Couch potatoes of the world, Unite! You have nothing to lose but your free time." http://eco-epistemology.blogsp... [blogspot.com] The focus of that old joke is just keeping people involved in the economy even if they don't have any essential work to do. (However I've mutated that idea into a three-part tax system...)
Re: (Score:2)
Oh no! I hope that comment doesn't actually wind up in the FP slot. Talk about weirding out the discussion...
Re: (Score:2)
While I'm actually relieved my new thought didn't wind up in the FP slot, the actual "winner" managed to be worse. Apparently the editors are experimenting with the FP for some reason...
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
How many of them are liable to become desperate enough to commit crimes if they aren't given some form of economic help?
There is no data to suggest this is true. Most crimes are committed by serial criminals, who tend to be childless young males. Gangbangers are not doing to feed their starving children.
What's really the difference? (Score:2)
I mean, isn't the UBI just the same thing as a "guaranteed income", really? Sounds like clever re-branding of an idea they couldn't get much traction selling under the first name?
I *just* had a long, drawn-out argument with an old friend of mine on social media about this stuff last night. Clearly, America is full of a whole LOT of people who just can't or won't accept the reality of basic economics that giving *everyone* (or at least the vast majority) of people a certain amount of money they didn't have
Re: (Score:2)
"I mean, isn't the UBI just the same thing as a "guaranteed income", really?"
No, it isn't. UBI means everybody gets a paycheck no matter what. "Guaranteed income" means that your income will be completed up to a minimum if you don't manage to get it by other means. Pesky details due.
"But as soon as it becomes the "standard" that everyone starts off with X amount of monthly income, even for doing absolutely nothing? Prices will go up to reflect that fact."
Of course yes. And, if not, it's the onus on the
Re:What's really the difference? (Score:4, Insightful)
Clearly, America is full of a whole LOT of people who just can't or won't accept the reality of basic economics that giving *everyone* (or at least the vast majority) of people a certain amount of money they didn't have to earn first just creates that amount of inflation in the long-haul.
Because this isn't basic economics. It's way, way more complicated than that.
You're ignoring huge economic impacts from UBI, which is why you're stuck on inflation. You're ignoring the very very significant impact of poverty on communities. And you're ignoring every detail of UBI that anyone has ever proposed, and making up your own strawman of "everyone starts with X more money", which is untrue in any UBI scheme that's been proposed.
When you ignore all the details, yeah, it doesn't seem to make any sense. Instead of arguing with people on the internet about things you're ignorant of, please put in the time to learn about them. It will do everyone some good, yourself included.
Not going to be popular here.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: Not going to be popular here.... (Score:4)
Re: (Score:2)
"When you give money to the upper class or financially stable people, that money leaves circulation (welcome to inflation)."
Are you kidding right? Please, think twice about what you just said.
Question: the Federal Reserve just minted a bazillion of trillions of dollars and then they put them in their deepest coffin, out of circulation. Disregarding the raw material used to mint them (these are magic dollars that don't cost neither ink nor paper) how much will inflation increase due to the existence of thi
Political gimmicks (Score:3)
Except you can't create fake wealth (Score:2)
It has to come from somewhere, it will come from taxpayers eventually or it will come from reducing everyone's economic output by MMT. Another thing: because of the 1400$ checks and unemployment, it has incentivized people not to get jobs (I would not either). Restaurants and many other industries cannot hire people and have many jobs open that are not being filled.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
You're a moron.
A one time 1400$ payment doesn't pay next months rent.
Nothing about these payments make people think they don't have to work.
Get your head out of your ass and have some empathy, or is that too much for you to handle?
What a load of shit (Score:5, Interesting)
I've never heard the phrase "guaranteed income" before now. That it's being uttered in the same sentence that includes "addressing racial injustice" tells me exactly what kind of idiot charlatans are peddling the idea and how much it's worth. Apparently no one who reads
favored by high-profile Silicon Valley entrepreneu (Score:2, Insightful)
"Universal basic income has become a favored cause for many high-profile Silicon Valley entrepreneurs"
That should be enough of a hint to understand it's not in your benefit.
Re: (Score:2)
That should be enough of a hint to understand it's not in your benefit.
In defense of Silicon Valley entrepreneurs, they might just be genuinely looking for "easy" solutions rather than being evil. Everyone seems to look for an easy solution, which unfortunately doesn't exist for the problem of this scale.
The success of the $1,400 stimulus checks
That is a great illustration. The success of $1,400 stimulus checks compared to what? Compared to doing nothing? Of course it was going to be popular. Anything is better than doing nothing, but that's not a good objective measure of "success".
Re: (Score:2)
It's in everyone's benefit. A stronger middle class makes more people that buy the services and goods of entrepreneurs.
Don't get me wrong, a lot of these dipshits are trying to reinvent things that already exist—vending machines, buses, tenement housing—but put a modern spin on it, and a strong welfare state is only the latest thing in line. But at least it would make a benefit in the lives of a lot of working class people.
Re: (Score:2)
"It's in everyone's benefit. A stronger middle class makes more people that buy the services and goods of entrepreneurs."
Yes. But that doesn't beat being filthy reach in a society of serfs.
Completely disconnected from implementation. (Score:3)
The world had a Black Swan Event that disrupted the entire economy. Millions of people in the US found not just their employer, but every related industry to their skills rendered obsolete for a whole year and likely millions of jobs are gone permanently. The response was the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 which while it received 99% support by Democrats had 0% support by Republicans in Washington while funding 1 to 2 months of UBI.
That's not a success, that's a crisis happening and just barely squeaking by on a half measured solution.
Re: (Score:3)
I actually agree our response was suboptimal, there were ways every stage could have been handled much better and reduced the long term suffering. I'm annoyed that we have strategic stockpiles of resources like Helium, yet don't have a national stockpile of masks even 18 years after Anthrax attacks on the nation proved bioweapons are actual threats. If 1% of the money that goes to the security theater we have went to that, we'd be in a better place by the end of March of 2020 and within a few months most of
Does it have to be money? (Score:2)
A lot of people are poor primarily because they cannot into managing their money, so providing the basics would help protect them from themselves.
Just call it a "Tax Credit" (Score:5, Insightful)
It's just a Tax Credit. That's all. Call it a Tax Credit and Conservatives will get on board.
It's time for many to grow up (Score:3, Funny)
Stop being a bum
Go get a job, it's time to move out of your parents house now, the free ride is over. Yes growing up is scary, it's very scary and you will fail, you will fail several times spectacularly, but each failure will harden you, give you thicker skin, and give you the skills so if that problem comes around again you'll laugh at how simple it is to overcome now with the skills that you've acquired. Soon you can finally say you can survive on this planet without depending on noone and it will finally be the truth. Your peers will respect you and your word will actually mean something. You'll finally feel the euphoria of being self sufficient regardless when times are hard or not.
So do the world a favor now, and grow the hell up.
You mean unemployment insurance? (Score:3)
Economic injustice? (Score:3)
Comment removed (Score:3)
We have guaranteed income (Score:3)
If I go, get a job at an agreed upon wage, I will (at least to a reasonable level of certainty and legal assurance) get paid. Guaranteed.
Oh wait, no, you want free money without working.
That's something different.
Uh (Score:3)
and toward "guaranteed income" aimed at addressing economic and racial injustices.
If it's "guaranteed", then what would it have to do with race?
Unless it's only "guaranteed" for favored races? Because that's so "anti" racist?
Terrible idea (Score:3)
If I understand it correctly, UBI means "give everyone $x/month" regardless of anything, guaranteed income means "if you make less than $x/month, we give you the difference".
First, while UBI is often criticized because it makes people unwilling to work, at least it creates no incentive not to work. I mean, working is not free: you may need to commute, eat out, hire a babysitter, etc... It is only worth working if it pays more than it costs you. But if work makes you get less "guaranteed income", then you will get in a ridiculous situation where you can't afford to work.
It also nullifies one big advantage of UBI. Because it is universal, it lowers administrative costs. Because it is for everyone, there is no need for people to figure out who has the right to it. Also, less fraud and therefore less need to combat it: what is the point of cheating if you get the same thing no matter what.
And finally, if you remove the cludges, it is functionally equivalent to UBI+tax where past a certain revenue, you will pay more taxes than you get UBI, effectively canceling it.
UBI, more than just being "free money" is also a simplification by substituting itself to most welfare programs. It also means that for some people, and not only the rich, they will get less money under a UBI system than under a more traditional welfare system, there is no way around that, otherwise, you are just creating inflation.
Re: The title could also be... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:The title could also be... (Score:5, Insightful)
..."You gotta be fucking kidding me".
I'm getting so tired of this shit....gimme this, I deserve this....I'm a victim.
Things are tough all over.
Things are tougher on some people than others...that's been a fact since man has existed.
The world doesn't owe you anything.
The government cannot fix any of this.
Quit whining and get out there and make your own path through life, which involves a bit of WORK.
Life is kind of like a game of poker. When people lose they think it's all luck, and when they win they think it's pure skill. I don't think it's healthy for either group to make policy recommendations based on their weird perspective.
I like a UBI because life isn't fair, so anything that can make it a bit more fair is good.
I don't like a UBI because people need a bit of adversity to thrive, and I worry that a guaranteed income will remove the motivation that many people need to lead fulfilling lives.
I think we need more experimental data to understand how it works in practice.
Re: (Score:3)
"I don't like a UBI because people need a bit of adversity to thrive, and I worry that a guaranteed income will remove the motivation that many people need to lead fulfilling lives."
The "B" in UBI means "Basic", as in "not in excess, just barebones".
Think about you: did you suffer famine, or at least had big troubles to make ends meet (I mean *really*, not "I'd want to buy a newer TV set but, alas, not enough credit on my card")? If not, you already benefited from UBI, only most possibly, it was just your
Re:The title could also be... (Score:5, Insightful)
1) Because welfare and other social services have a well known fiscal cliff, where if you make too much money you lose a huge percent if not all of the benefit.
2) It often takes months to get a benefit, and if you lose it it might take months to get it back.
3) The combination of 1&2 traps people and tends to force them to be dependent on the government all of the time, and discourages them from looking for work.
4) UBI plans generally have a gentle reduction in benefits as income goes up, and it's designed to peter out into the middle class, rather than solely support the destitute. Poor people can ride it into the middle class.
5) UBI is always there, so if some month you don't have as much income you're not left filling out paperwork trying to get money to pay the bills.
6) The combination of 4&5 allows people to work their way out of poverty, and gives them an instant safety net if they suddenly lose some income.
7) Our social systems now tend to be very specific. Food support. Utility support. But people are unable to work for all sorts of reasons, ranging from car trouble, lack of child care, no dentures, suspended license due to unpaid parking tickets, etc. UBI gives the poor the ability to put the money where it's needed. And in study after study, that's exactly what we see people just handed money doing.
Re:The title could also be... (Score:4, Informative)
That need to investigate is why we've see so many small UBI experiments.
The good news is that , so far, it doesn't look like a UBI discourages people from working. Some people change jobs looking for more interesting or fulfilling work. Most people report being happier.
Re: (Score:3)
Improved education and social services can probably reduce drug addiction, gambling, and poor financial decision making,
Great. I'm glad we agree.
but they can't eliminate it.
Who cares? Just because we can't turn everyone into productive members of society doesn't mean that we should do nothing.
It's as short-sighted as refusing to change a flat tire because you're also out of gas. Sure, you won't go full speed, but it'll be a helluva lot easier to move.
Re:The title could also be... (Score:5, Interesting)
You'd cut off your own foot if it meant someone you hate would get a blister, wouldn't you?
The problem isn't that poor people are unmotivated! They're generally the hardest-working people in our economy.
While it's true our current system makes it difficult for people to get out of poverty, it's precisely thinking like yours that prevents the system from improving in the first place!
The biggest problem is that personal savings affect eligibility, making it impossible for people, for example, in section 8 housing to save to buy a home or move.
This bizarre need you have to punish people for being poor ultimately costs you, and the rest of us, a lot of money every year.
Basically - enough to keep you alive and healthy, but no excess for luxuries. If you want anything remotely nice, you've got to earn extra to pay for it.
Do you know why people in section 8 housing spend money on luxury goods? Because we force them to. Because we don't let them save, as explained earlier, any windfall money they get needs to be spent inside a month or it'll just get spent on their increased rent over the next couple months until it's all gone and they're back where they started.
That's why they have huge TVs, video games, and the latest iPhones. It's the only way that they can meaningfully save money! Those assets are easy to liquidate when unexpected expenses arise. They know that they'll take a huge loss on them, but the alternative is to have nothing and save nothing. What would you do?
If we weren't so hell-bent on punishing them and just let them save, they'd be able to get out of poverty and out of the system in just a few years.
Re: (Score:3)
That's a myth, as evidenced by our continued social mobility decline.
It's the lie we tell poor people so that they vote against their own best interests. (They're not poor, you see, just temporarily embarrassed millionaires.) This compounds the problem.
Re: (Score:2)
"Things are tougher on some people than others...that's been a fact since man has existed."
So? Man was unable to flight, until it was.
"The world doesn't owe you anything."
Right.
"The government cannot fix any of this."
Wrong.
Re: (Score:3)
For a business to thrive it needs customers.
To be a customer you need money.
To make money you need to get a job.
To get a job you need to find a business that is thriving.
Hard work rarely equates to success. It is a factor that helps, but there are much more other ones out there. You have luck, Timing, Location, and having enough resources available for you to be able survive taking such a risk.
Even if you get a job, say at McDonald's, you can work really hard, and perhaps get a couple of promotions, but yo
Re:The title could also be... (Score:5, Insightful)
You're 100% correct, but UBI or guaranteed income goes further than this.
Most poor people are one moderate sized disaster away from homelessness. They have a 15 year old car, and they need it to get to work, and they live paycheck to paycheck. When that car breaks down they can't get to work, don't have money to fix it, and can't keep the lights on in the house.
What UBI or guaranteed income do is provide a buffer for that sort of emergency. Every time someone is able to get through something like that without their life falling apart, they get stronger. The economy is better, because they're still participating.
This is true even if they're wasting their UBI half the time! Yep, maybe they just go out to eat at McDonald's every night on their UBI. But their car breaks down and when the next UBI comes in, they use it to fix the car. Now they can still get to work, but can't go out to eat.
Where these are vastly superior to food stamps is that the money can be used for whatever the emergency is. If it food, buy food. If you broke your glasses and new ones, get new glasses. If it just keeps the apartment paid for but you still have to hustle for food and utilities, you still have a place to sleep at night.
And yep, all of that is economic activity that wouldn't happen if someone just had to move back in with their parents and sleep on the couch. Ultimately, if done well, UBI should move a lot of people out of poverty, because it will be a floor that they can build on. In particular it would do wonders at keeping small rural towns solvent. Most of them in the US are drying up because there's no money coming in. This would reverse that trend.
Re: (Score:3)
How does that one example disprove his statement? Not everyone, no matter how hard they work, can get to be CEO. There's just one CEO job, after all.
I know a few stories about someone starting at the bottom and working their way to the highest office. Those stories are interesting because they are so rare. The reality is that most people at the top didn't get there by starting at the bottom, but by starting very near the top. If you come from a wealthy, well-connected, family and have the right ivy le
Re: The title could also be... (Score:2)
The world does not owe anyone anything. But we are all stuck on this stupid planet together, it does not make sense to watch people suffer and have no opportunity to advance and contribute to civilization. We all benefited from sacrifices others have made for us, even if you do not acknowledge it. We should bear a small sacrifice too and embed that in our national social contract, to help others. I think it makes sense that there we have the goal of creating a minimal safety net for all humans. Note, I said
Re: (Score:2)
Because even they know that "free money"is not sustainable.
I'm not saying UBI or anything like it is. I'm still waiting to see someone actually go through the math. However until that day, this is kind of Schroedinger's budget: Until someone actually goes to the trouble and then publishes the work, UBI both is a naive pipe dream and humankind's salvation.
I think it might have been in the neighborhood of fifteen years ago that I have come across the idea first... and to this day I have yet to encounter someo
Re: (Score:2)
Because that's not what anyone is proposing? Because people smarter than you understand economic theory? Because people smarter than you understand the root cause of poverty and have an idea how to address it?
But mainly it's because for almost everyone there is going to be no free money. At best it will be a paycheck advance at the start of the month. Everyone middle class and up will get $1000 at the start of the month and then get dinged $500 on each of their two paychecks or something. That's not free mo
Re: (Score:2)
So if there are so many people that are smarter than I am for so long then why in heck can't they get this great idea to work...oh that's right, it's not a great idea. The country has more than enough safety nets in place for people so adding one more won't fix the systemic issues that plague the systems today. Giving people money with no strings attached and somehow believing that most people will not just settle and not work for more to better their condition just shows yours and others shear lack of unde
Re: (Score:3)
No studies even though it was tried in Finland and a city in CA (can't remember the city off the top of my head).
It was tried in neither of those places. In both places they gave money to poor people and saw what they did with it. They didn't implement UBI in the least. The media might have spun it like they did, but UBI is far, far more complicated than giving money to poor people.
would agree that poverty traps are very complex beasts, but you are just feeding the beast with these types of programs.
In what way is UBI a poverty trap?
Re:This is why you need to study Roman history. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
That is wrong. Simply wrong. UBI is just a forward on your tax return, that's all. We've had tax returns for decades now.
Re: (Score:2)
False, we don't have the tax revenue to give a UBI. Get a job. Make programs for others to get a job like funding education and health, that would have return on investment (more tax revenue). Get a job.
Re: (Score:3)
Uuum, money literally figuratively grows on money trees.
What do you think the US Mint does?
What do you think happens, when a bank is legally allowed to own only $8 million, but lend out $100 million, and yes that is actually legal and standard practice, and people can't pay back $100 million plus e.g. $8 million in interest? Where would the money come from if it wasn't literally printed on sheets made from trees and shrubs?
And yes, every time that happens, the total working power of the country stays the sa