Senate Universal basic income

ah ok so this will be like the dumber parts of Bernie's agenda; the real and frankly awful consequences of the polices won't be discussed because people are busy touching their private parts in warmglow joy at just the ideas, man.

 

Links are posted in this very thread that answer these last two posts. Now maybe I'd be happy to engage but quite frankly the way you speak to people disgusts me especially since the info has already been provided.

 

No, VLM, you posted an unrelated piece from the Huffington Post from a self-confessed advocate:

"Scott SantensWriter and basic income advocate"

He is no economist and it shows. Money behaves in ways which we can observe and record. One of the things money does is sniff out things which lower its inherent value. This is why we can observe and to an extent manage inflationary pressure.

If everyone receives a flat amount from the government, the value of that money is $0. Why?

Because the poor who need it get the same as the middle class and rich who don't. So whilst in practical terms it looks like a way to alleviate poverty it doesn't because you've effectively raised $0 to $X across the board. If that increases the spending income of people - because frankly it will at the middle class level - then I can afford as a supplier to put my prices up. And I will.

This is called inflation. And we know from history that any point at which an economy is growing and wages are growing as is per capita GDP the correction for the upper edge of growth inflation in excess of the usual indices (i.e. CPI).

People can make qualitative arguments about how amazing life would be but I think it's not just stupid but irresponsible to refuse to contemplate the negative consequences of such a frivolous plan. Economics isn't just something people like you don't understand, VLM. It's a soft science with observable laws. And quite frankly killing someone with kindness is still killing them - so giving an unconditional basic income (the correct term FWIW) and letting it create inflationary pressure that maintains the wealth gap is indefensible. Quite frankly you, ShaneP, and other advocates should be ashamed for failing to consider the problems it causes.

 

Right, so you ignored everything else. Well done. Like usual. You're not fooling anyone.

 

Most people's jobs are, fundamentally, unnecessary. I mean, how much time do people really spend on worthwhile, productive stuff at work? Apart from general mooching around and posting on message boards, how much time is spent doing things just because those things have always been done? Or because some half wit manager who sits in rooms talking all day asked for them to be done without having any actual, solid reason why? How much of what you, personally, do at work is genuinely of benefit?

How much time is wasted by inefficient systems? I don't see Amazon having huge call centres with thousands of customer service staff. They have good systems in place, customers generally don't have much in the way of cause for complaint.

How many managers are paid to attend meetings that achieve nothing? How many of those managers don't even really understand what their team do? Who was it who talked about people checking the work of people making tools to check people's work? This is definitely true of my line of work. Managers just add a layer of confusion and create extra, unnecessary work. Things would run far more smoothly if they simply stayed at home and played solitaire.

How many people's jobs could be easily automated? I'm raising a hand here... I've already automated much of my role. Given a decent investment of time and a small investment of money I could automate close to 90% of the rest. The other 10% is just not useful and the world would be no worse off if it simply wasn't done.

We're all very busy doing busywork, most of which is not really needed.

Does that mean we can all lead lives of mostly leisure on an unconditional income? Theoretically, yeah, kinda. In reality? No, of course not. We're nowhere near grown-up enough.

 

VLM you have posted HuffPo advocacy pieces none of which address inflation. Your primary source has been some impoverished scribe who self-describes as an advocate, so why you think this is

a) Objective,
b) Robust
c) Cognisant of economic risks when he's not an economist

Is beyond me.

This is all Numpty McIdontactuallyadvalueplspaymeguys says:

"Another criticism is that a basic income would be inflationary. But it would be a substitute for more expensive policies. The criticism also neglects the elasticity of supply. Thus, it generated a sharp rise in food production, resulting in better nutrition and productivity and in lower unit prices."

It would be like asking your average oak tree its view on what monetary policies levers the fed could better lean on to manage boom-bust cycles and keep inflation steady at a rate consistent with the rest of the world.

Here: http://www.investopedia.com/university/inflation/inflation1.asp

"The value of a dollar does not stay constant when there is inflation. The value of a dollar is observed in terms of purchasing power, which is the real, tangible goods that money can buy. When inflation goes up, there is a decline in the purchasing power of money. For example, if the inflation rate is 2% annually, then theoretically a $1 pack of gum will cost $1.02 in a year. After inflation, your dollar can't buy the same goods it could beforehand.
Causes of Inflation
Demand-Pull Inflation - This theory can be summarized as "too much money chasing too few goods". In other words, if demand is growing faster than supply, prices will increase. This usually occurs in growing economies.

Cost-Push Inflation - When companies' costs go up, they need to increase prices to maintain their profit margins. Increased costs can include things such as wages, taxes, or increased costs of imports. "
There's a reason why I earn more than an unskilled labourer, VLM. My work has much wider implications and much wider dollar value impact. I could, say, labour on a building site for a week but could a labourer do my job for a week. That is why we earn different salaries. And in doing so we create a finite supply of disposable income. If that is added to by, say, anywhere from US$1000 a week (mooted US model) upwards the reality is that it will almost certainly be used to consume over servicing debt or paying medical bills etc. The entire field of behavioural economics arose in response to assumptions made about rational spending, i.e. the not-real entity of "homo economicus". Rationally the best use for a UDI is to replace extant welfare mechanisms. Practically it is more likely to be used on consumer goods - you yourself cited paying off a car, for example.

So you have a constant rate of supply of goods and an injection which inflates the supply of capital. That means that what you could sell for $1000 earlier you could sell for $1200 now because what was previously required to earn $1000 is less. In really simple terms. So you see an increase in costs at all levels, and you still see a gap for rich and poor, and you still see the poor disenfranchised. You just tempt people with the promise of money in pocket which they very rarely if ever use for its intended purpose. Again, you're talking about how you could spend the money better, not that it is designed as a catchall payment to cover any state-provided services.

Don't confuse your lack of experience in economics and your reliance on advocates - honestly, it's like going to Drudge report for news - with anything other than what it is. A bad idea that convinces itself it does good.

 

Ignoring the inflation argument for a moment (which is a huge concern) I still would like to hear some thoughts or arguments for what happens when someone spends all of their alotted "income" in an irresponsible manner. If I choose not to work and was given $1000/month, as someone else supposed, and the first day of that month I spent all $1000 on bricks (random example) and then had no money left for food or housing, then what? Do I just starve? Am I homeless? Are you (other tax paying citizens) expected to take care of me, even after I frivolously spent the money? If so, why do I deserve more? Is that not fair to those who spent the money wisely (who also choose not to work)? Where does that "extra" money come from? Are we not right back to the same system we started with?

 

You could do whatever you want. The homeless, I would assume would need a bank account, would get money as well. They could stay homeless, eat, do drugs though that's illegal here in the States so perhaps the law would crack down. The thing is it's not income replacement. It is a means of stopping poverty while supplementing income. I suppose it's not impossible for people to get together and get into a big house and with enough people make enough to pay bills and have spending money and not work. But UBI would not exist in a vacuum. Most people would still have to work as they would not be able to support themselves off the amounts discussed. Welfare programs, more taxes on the rich, less of your taxed dollars going to corporate tax breaks, the variety of ways to hand that money out is solid. I already said all of this. Oh well.

Another basic article.

 

With all due respect that article didnt really address my questions in the slightest. I can recognize the potential benefits of streamlining "welfare" systems, but I'm talking about the people. It's not a question of "stigma" or "empowerment" but one of standards. If someone spends all of their "basic income" in an irresponsible manner and is still hungry, homeless, sick, begging for money, then what? Are they not still living a life of "poverty"? Is the state still obligated to take care of them? Does the state just let them rot? Is that inhumane, and are private citizens supposed to just deal with it and/or take care of them? Are they just no longer society's problem?

I'm not claiming to have any answers myself, just trying to spur some more thoughtful discussion. Copy/paste articles that say "trust me it will work, stop being a naysayer you crazy naysayer" don't really seem to help.

If the intention of a UBI is to allow people to meet minimum standards of living, and the individual chooses not to live to the standards, what happens?

 

Yes so basically, StrikerKOJ, there's no answer to that.

What people who get enthusiastic about the prospect of free and unearned income (BECAUSE I COULD GET A BIGGER TV YEWWWW) forget is that the intention of such a payment is to collate all possible rebates and similar government payments - welfare, etc - and wrap it up in this. So instead of having, say, socialised medicine you have VLM Bucks™ to pay for any treatment.

Those VLM Bucks™ are intended to exist as a replacement to, and expansion of, extant welfare mechanisms and not stimulus spending.

Now, in economics - especially behavioural economics - there's a notion that there is a rational economic being who only takes rational, economically correct decisions. Behavioural economics critiques this; but it's important because the VLM Buck™ plan relies on Homo Econonomicus being real.

If people are getting US$1,000 a month as supplemental welfare income there is in fact no discretion exercised on behalf of the giver (the State) to the recipient. So if a working class family spend their money on iPads or big screen TVs and not on cost of living expenses there's no mechanism to prevent this. Whereas you would get enforced discretion with tax rebates, medicare etc you don't here.

Now this is a basic given to anyone with a shred of common sense and a base understanding of macroeconomics; hence why the above post remains deaf and blind to the concerns.

And we're frankly not even sure he believes inflation exists much less that the VLM Bucks™ programme could put upwards pressure on inflation.

 

New Zealand UBI

And once again previous info has been ignored. But don't worry I'm sure people think it's funny.

 

The Swiss: **** off, UBI.

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-swiss-are-about-to-vote-no-on-basic-income/

 

Well it's going to happen eventually. Not because anyone wants it or is ideologically for it, but because that's what'll happen when there are significantly more people than jobs due to automation and robots.

 

Testing UBI in California

Specifically Oakland. Between 1 and 2 k a month for 5 years.

 

Right now there are roughly 97 million Americans not in the workforce. Many of these are long-term unemployed. To Lord Vivec point, what are the people part of a permanent unemployed class due to robotics and automation going to do in a economy based on income? You are going to subsidize them.

It's coming.

 

The pro and con of UBI is basically the same thing: it's not means-tested.

So you need everyone to get the same money, so that you gain support... but then you have people wondering why the Federal government is spending money and increasing taxes to spend money on people who clearly don't need it. Feedback loop.

 

or you could just, like, calibrate the payout and the associated tax regime. but whatever

 

Then it's not universal. /shrug

Also, the problem with means-testing is -- this isn't supposed to be a theoretical "livable amount of income," it's supposed to be supplemental was my understanding. So you could pay for, conceptually, rent and healthcare... and that's it?

 

Well let's say for example that I start getting the figure most thrown about, $1,000 per month. I will go ahead and tell you that I currently net $2,000 per month. So this means if I kept my current full time job I'd hit $3,000 a month. If I tried not to work I simply could not afford it, falling short $500 a month.

But i'd have options. I could just stay full time and enjoy the extra cash. I could save a couple of years and get that sailboat...

Or, I could find a part time job, not work as hard(and make no mistake, there are days where my job is dreadful) and make the same money. This I think would be an option most would take. Same money, less work. And if the economy still requires full time jobs they may be forced to simply hire more people to cover those hours. The unemployment rate would plummet under that scenario.

The interesting thing is that it puts power in the hands of the employed. They can just go elsewhere and not starve and still pay the bills. If a single full time employee is what the employer needs instead of two part timers then they will have to offer a higher wage.

I don't understand the higher amount in the article I posted. At $2,000 a month you would not have to work. This then supports the argument detractors have. The world is not ready for masses of peopel who decide they don't have to work.

 

Milton Freidman's original 70s proposal was means tested. It was to cover essentials and then be phased out at higher income levels. His idea inspired what eventually became the EITC.

anakinfansince1983, in northern Utah, Salt Lake City has a program where they provide homeless people with those type of homes. They look like little mobile homes or cottages. Very small but a roof, plumbing, and basics.

Here's a report from NPR this last December how SLC reduced chronic homelessness by about 91 percent. This was through combination of state and local action and non-profits through their Housing First initiative.

http://www.npr.org/2015/12/10/459100751/utah-reduced-chronic-homelessness-by-91-percent-heres-how

In honor of Ghost, here is a graphic:

 

BBC News reports that poll projections say this has been defeated heavily by Swiss voters.

 

Yup. Headlines all week long said it didn't look good.

 

Humans continue to not do what's best for them.

 

They should all go out and something something bootstraps etc...