Senate Universal basic income

The point isn't to offer people enough to survive so they can withdraw from the workforce, VLM.

The point is to provide a subsidy to income - which I hope is means tested - that covers essential cost-of-living expenses. Primarily, that which an economist would define as a need over a want.

Now, to "so what if they do?"

If the safety net is replaced by UBI - which is broadly the intent - people who are vulnerable and reliant upon UBI have no viable way of accessing essential services like health care because they've not rationally treated the funds. Homo Economicus is not a real creature. So, the most vulnerable not only remain vulnerable but arguably worse off than before because they're in trouble and free-falling due to the absence of a viable safety net.

 

Right. Hence the tests to see what happens. You are talking past me and making dumb statements about me wanting a free lunch.

 

But many people are "dumb enough" to go without insurance. They go without it now, many are young people because they don't think they need it. All a UBI would is flood the market with excess dollars, exacerbating inflationary pressures as Ender points out, and encourage people to buy "stuff" like they just got a tax rebate. That's what they do with their tax rebates now. They spend it on "stuff".

As long as you can't peg it to something like health or essentials like food and shelter(housing payment), it will just be throwing money away and will not improve basic living conditions.

Having social insurance programs directed at health, housing, and basic poverty assistance is likely to be more effective.

The reason for Ender Sai persistence to means test it is also looming larger now too considering a UBI would replace social insurance. Yet, that apparently wouldn't be enough. Also giving it to everybody would flood the market with way too much money, creating potential for inflation. You're basically flooding society with money not tied to productivity.

 

Excess dollars? It's not excess dollars, it's dollars that already exist. Instead of your money coming out of your check directly to a corporation it is in your hands and you spend it or pay a bill which goes to corporations anyway. This way you get something out of it.

The only hard part about this is people choosing to work if they can pool together as I mentioned, but inflation is not one of those fears. I am not sure what would happen in Detroit. It's neighborhoods are a blight. Hand them an extra grand a month and I have no idea what they'll do with it. At no point did I even try to claim UBI = some utopia.

 

It's not about testing, though. Because you're literally trying to do a sample-based audit of economic behaviour where the sample size is literally useless at 100, 1000,10,000 or 100,000 people because the sample cannot account for all the possible scenarios.

The concept is itself problematic, VLM.

 

No, they don't already exist in the economy. It is a DIRECT PAYMENT FROM THE U.S. TREASURY. It is, by definition, supplemental income. Work has nothing to do with it. Everybody gets it.

 

And where does it come from? Right now as a test it may be to see what people do, but putting actual UBI in place for the population will not just be printing money and handing it out.

 

You already said people who were out of work would get it. Poor folks would get it. Working people would get it. Rich people would get it. It's UNIVERSAL.

 

Yeah that part is correct, Shane - what VLM is saying. The intent is basically to restructure the way in which social spending is treated by the government. Tax revenues include amounts put aside for UBI, with savings coming from not having to pump as much into services.

The inflationary risk, though, comes from giving people cash with no discretion on its spending, because it's putting money in pockets not related to labour output. It devalues the value of money.

 

Oh so they offset the UBI with automatic reductions in social services? Yeah, I still see no way to hold dollars not pegged to productivity away from inflation especially if everybody is receiving it.

 

Right. All the pieces are there, they have to be put together. It may be that you are simply taxed less and the rich taxed more. It may be that everyone pays their taxes as usual but from that you get your check as do the rich folks but their corporate tax breaks go bye bye. So for now they hand out money for the tests but even those are within a budget.

 

Are you following the UBI in Finland? I heard about it but haven't followed it.

 

Not closely, only what will pop up in my various feeds. Last I checked the Finland test starts next year.

 

Ah I see. Yeah I heard about it but I didn't know the implementation timetable. I will pay more attention next year.

 

Given their record in areas such as education, I wouldn't be surprised if Finland finds a way to make this work that cannot be transferred anywhere else.

 

Yeah I will be interested to see if any of these issues pop up that we were discussing and how it is actually designed.

 

So far so good.

Dude pictured looks like SNL Mango.

There was already an experiment going on I did not know about:

A number of basic income recipients have echoed that sentiment of reclaiming a sense of freedom. Frans Kerver, a freelance copywriter living in the Netherlands, got his basic income for two years between July of 2014 and 2016. The additional $1,100 let him shave several hours from his weekly workload and, in turn, spend more time with his family, he told Business Insider in March of 2016.

 

http://www.forbes.com/sites/frances...income-but-its-still-worthwhile/#3d3345c79266

 

A 5 years UBI experiment in the U.S.

“Of course, no single study can answer all questions about basic income, and every program has an array of positive and negative effects,” Rhodes writes. “Nonetheless, we view this experiment as a strong foundation for a broad research agenda on basic income.”

 

This is going to be interesting to watch. I just listened to Planet Money's latest podcast about basic income, #796. I talked mostly about Finland. I don't think it was actually NPR Planet Money reporters though, because it wasn't near in depth enough.

Either way, there was a comment made about how UBI wouldn't work in America simply because the people wouldn't accept it. I have to agree with that. Even if it is proven work well, America isn't ready. Just the idea of "free money" will send marches to Washington.

 

Well yes we know your nation produces excessive quantities of stupidity.

The main reason it won't work though is it's not the answer we're looking for; will leave the poor worse off, and isn't really pushed by economists of note.

 

Fair enough. I don't think it is a good idea, but I am willing to wait and see the results from the Finland experiment. Could be surprising.

 

Speaking of which...One year on

 

I'd rather see government work programs with a guaranteed paycheck.