By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics Discussion - UBI experiment in California shows rising employment

 

Would UBI work on a nationwide scale?

Yes, it would work, econo... 14 60.87%
 
Inneffective: economy and... 3 13.04%
 
No, the economy would crash. 6 26.09%
 
Total:23

In the californian city of Stockton an experiment for universal basic income paid $500 to 125 people for two years. The results of the experiment are now reviewed:

https://apnews.com/article/stockton-health-coronavirus-pandemic-michael-tubbs-philanthropy-1227f2ab4a1bb7677a01b887ba91554f

One of the results is, that employment in the group did rise:

"When the program started in February 2019, 28% of the people slated to get the free money had full-time jobs. One year later, 40% of those people had full-time jobs. A control group of people who did not get the money saw a 5 percentage point increase in full-time employment over that same time period."

While the participants did know that the experiment was time-limited for two years, this doesn't support the often mentioned concern that an UBI would lead to lost emplyment.

Also, as a result the participants showed better mental health:

"Researchers found the people who got the money reported lower incidences of anxiety and depressive symptoms when compared to another group of people who did not get the money. "

What do you think about universal basic income (UBI)?



3DS-FC: 4511-1768-7903 (Mii-Name: Mnementh), Nintendo-Network-ID: Mnementh, Switch: SW-7706-3819-9381 (Mnementh)

my greatest games: 2017, 2018, 2019, 2020

10 years greatest game event!

bets: [peak year] [+], [1], [2], [3], [4]

Around the Network

eh, it's not a terrible idea. But it definitely shouldn't be "universal". Only have people below a certain financial threshold eligible for it. I specifcally say "financial threshold" rather than income so that those that have inherited vast fortunes don't get extra money that they don't need and it is solely for those that would actually benefit from it.

That said I think it would be much better to spend the money from this on different things instead. ie. free healthcare, sick pay, parental leave pay etc.



Ka-pi96 said:

eh, it's not a terrible idea. But it definitely shouldn't be "universal". Only have people below a certain financial threshold eligible for it. I specifcally say "financial threshold" rather than income so that those that have inherited vast fortunes don't get extra money that they don't need and it is solely for those that would actually benefit from it.

That said I think it would be much better to spend the money from this on different things instead. ie. free healthcare, sick pay, parental leave pay etc.

You mean something like a guaranteed minimum income? Something like that exists in most countries in Europe.

Here in Luxembourg, you also have to repay it once you get a stable income; the state does so by capping the amount of money on your account and everything that goes past that amount goes to the payment of your income you had when you had no work or unemployment benefits. This way, you can also ensure that people with big inheritances don't gain anything from it as what they would give them, they would immediately take back again. Also, you don't always have to pay everything back, if you're reaching retirement age you don't have to pay back anymore, and if you have a disability you never have to pay it back.

Also, while I was under our guaranteed minimum income scheme, I was freed from paying taxes (you actually don't have to pay taxes if you earn the minimum wage or below here, minimum income is 80% of minimum wage), but still fully covered for healthcare and had my normal 5 weeks of holiday leave and normal sick pay (which means up to 6 months per year here btw) and would have had parental leave if I had a child, too.



People feel more energized and motivated when they’re not stressed out of their minds? Who woulda thunk?



I think UBI would be a great way help socialize the economy without any massive revolutionary or union work. I’d do it differently. Instead of outright cash giveaways to all, I’d say tie a basic living expense fund into it but award most people an RSU in their company which the government purchases and awards to the employee at a discount value, and it vests in X time or from the time of redundancy.

With the right setup, this will encourage small business ventures and startup employment because basically new employees = free labour and finance at the expense of the government for new hiring in the short term. I also think it would encourage family businesses.

For unemployed people (parasites they were called in the 1980s), the standard income rates apply. And while it may sound like a bad thing to have these in working people funded to take part in the economy, we already do that for more than 50% of the population in one way or another in the form of dependencies, retirement funds, and insurance collection. It’s not a major expense, in other words. And will continue to shrink as a burden as industrial automation via mechanical and AI tasks advance.

I think this will revitalize society around the western world, give people purpose who didn’t even want purpose before.

Many people who work hard lack are miserable and under productive as a result; this is because they are dragged by a leash and aren’t actually self-disciplined - they don’t even know the skill. UBI, psychologically, will be a boon on the happiness of people and cut down substantially on depression because it will encourage productivity by self-discipline rather than dragging by leash. 

Last edited by Jumpin - on 06 March 2021

I describe myself as a little dose of toxic masculinity.

Around the Network

I'm against it because i believe it will make people even lazier and entitled and there really isn't enough money for it.On the other hand proponents argument that there will not be enough jobs in the future due to AI and automation are also true i think, so there needs to be a radical redesign of the way our society and economy works in the future.



One thing is running an experiment in a small place for a short time, with a small amount of money being given.
Try replicating that for a whole country using public money funded by taxes or money printing, for a long time. Then we will have the answer.



Nettles said:

I'm against it because i believe it will make people even lazier and entitled and there really isn't enough money for it.On the other hand proponents argument that there will not be enough jobs in the future due to AI and automation are also true i think, so there needs to be a radical redesign of the way our society and economy works in the future.

I mean the study albeit small, kind of goes against that.

Would it take a larger study to convince you otherwise?



PS4(PS5 Soon)and PC gaming

There's only 2 races: White and 'Political Agenda'
2 Genders: Male and 'Political Agenda'
2 Hairstyles for female characters: Long and 'Political Agenda'
2 Sexualities: Straight and 'Political Agenda'

EnricoPallazzo said:

One thing is running an experiment in a small place for a short time, with a small amount of money being given.
Try replicating that for a whole country using public money funded by taxes or money printing, for a long time. Then we will have the answer.

Plenty countries to look at who do very well with different kinds of social assistance and minimum income. Of course all those countries don't spend 15% of their budget (actually roughly half of discretionary spending) on 'defense'. Which really is a form of social assistance as well at this point in the USA. In 2017 142.5 million US citizens were employed by the US military (1.3 million active duty members). That's the biggest social employment scheme ever seen.



Nettles said:

I'm against it because i believe it will make people even lazier and entitled and there really isn't enough money for it.On the other hand proponents argument that there will not be enough jobs in the future due to AI and automation are also true i think, so there needs to be a radical redesign of the way our society and economy works in the future.

People get 'lazy' and depressed when lacking proper nutrition and are always in a state of stress, living day by day without any certainty in the future. There will always be some that will take the assistance and not do anything with their life. Yet why focus on them instead of on the ones that want to improve their lives but can't due to not having the funds to create a better future.

Besides that, all the money that's spend on assistance, flows back into the local economy. These aren't stimulus cheques that disappear into some offshore bank account or end up as dividend for share holders, or gets spend overseas etc. It's a indirect stimulant for local businesses.