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
SvennoJ said:
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.

It's not that simple. Most countries have just an amount that is a small help, which is not enough to pay for your mortgage, groceries, medical bills, utilities and gasoline. It is just a very small amount to maybe help you not to starve. Also usually it is paid only for unemployed people, people that can't work etc. Because if those countries wanted to pay a bigger amount, maybe let's say 1000-1500 dollars to everyone that can't work the burden would be absurd in the public budget, even for a country like US. Unless you just print money like crazy to support it which would bring other problems to the economy.

Small programs can definitely happen and work well, like it exists in Brazil and help poor people a lot, although is a very small amount only for people not to starve. Bigger programs with larger monthly payments is most likely doomed to not work and destroy a country's economy unless you have some very specific exceptions like Norway where they sovereign oil fund can probably support the population for centuries.

But if US wants to try it, go for it, it's always good to have someone serving as an example.

Also remember that one of the reasons US is so rich is because of it's power which is also supported by that absurd military spend. Of course it can be lower than that but rest assured US would be a totally different country without this spending. 



Around the Network
EnricoPallazzo said:
SvennoJ said:

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.

It's not that simple. Most countries have just an amount that is a small help, which is not enough to pay for your mortgage, groceries, medical bills, utilities and gasoline. It is just a very small amount to maybe help you not to starve. Also usually it is paid only for unemployed people, people that can't work etc. Because if those countries wanted to pay a bigger amount, maybe let's say 1000-1500 dollars to everyone that can't work the burden would be absurd in the public budget, even for a country like US. Unless you just print money like crazy to support it which would bring other problems to the economy.

Small programs can definitely happen and work well, like it exists in Brazil and help poor people a lot, although is a very small amount only for people not to starve. Bigger programs with larger monthly payments is most likely doomed to not work and destroy a country's economy unless you have some very specific exceptions like Norway where they sovereign oil fund can probably support the population for centuries.

But if US wants to try it, go for it, it's always good to have someone serving as an example.

Also remember that one of the reasons US is so rich is because of it's power which is also supported by that absurd military spend. Of course it can be lower than that but rest assured US would be a totally different country without this spending. 

I was born and grew up in the Netherlands. They still seem to be doing pretty well despite high minimum wage, unemployment benefits and social assistance. Some things have changed though. When I went to university it was still fully paid for by the government, just a small sum to sign up and buy your own books, yet you also got paid to go to school. I wasn't living in luxury, but had no trouble staying debt free. Much nicer to start life without a huge debt to pay off.

I only know of two people from my life in the Netherlands that said screw it, I'm just going to live off welfare. One a single mother, another an alcoholic with bigger problems. People rather work and get ahead once the requirements to stay alive have been full filled.

Of course everyone that works pays for social assistance for those that don't. That's how a welfare state works. And that point is what rubs most people the wrong way. Why should I pay for those that don't work. Well if you enjoy your work you wouldn't have such a big problem with that. And if you don't enjoy your work, you can quit it to find something you do enjoy without running into problems. Not being dependent on your shitty job is a huge advantage of a working social welfare system. Work places now have to provide better working conditions or people don't want to work for them. And happier workers are much more productive than those that simply go through the motions for the next pay cheque. Everybody wins.



Do you know how useless a study with 125 people is? Might as well flip a coin when comparing it to a country of hundreds of millions.



360 Tag - narfwack

 

narfwack said:

Do you know how useless a study with 125 people is? Might as well flip a coin when comparing it to a country of hundreds of millions.

I imagine the analysis of the researchers found the differences between the experimental and control groups to be meaningful. How many people do you think the experiment would have to be done with the apply to 100s of millions?



...

I'm lucky enough to be in a situation where I have a lot of help from my parents. I'm fairly certain that if I just stopped working (or stopped pursuing work since I'm a student now) they wouldn't let me starve to death or die on the streets. The support hasn't stopped me from wanting to work, but instead of working at a retail job (no disrespect to those who do but it wasn't for me) I was able to try and find a job that will better suit me and will likely produce more taxes that will be paid into the system.

I don't know if it would work on a large scale, but in theory, I definitely couldn't begrudge others having the same kind of safety net I lucked into.

narfwack said:

Do you know how useless a study with 125 people is? Might as well flip a coin when comparing it to a country of hundreds of millions.

In terms of psychological studies, that's a fairly robust sample. It couldn't account for the logistics, but assuming the study was done correctly, there's no reason to expect the sample group would be vastly different than another group in America in terms of the psychological effects. Of course, I'm imagining that like most studies, they'll end by stating more research is necessary. Nobody should be convinced solely based on this in UBI, but it's a relevant data point. 

Last edited by JWeinCom - on 23 April 2021

Around the Network

The latest covid relief bill contained $1400 stimulus checks, that alone costed $422 billion. Just by doing simple math a $500 monthly check would be $1.8 trillion per year. Now how much money does the federal government in US collect every year? Just $3.4 trillion if we look at the year 2019, before the 2020 recession.

GL paying for UBI :)



6x master league achiever in starcraft2

Beaten Sigrun on God of war mode

Beaten DOOM ultra-nightmare with NO endless ammo-rune, 2x super shotgun and no decoys on ps4 pro.

1-0 against Grubby in Wc3 frozen throne ladder!!

It's an interesting study, and they seem to be popping up all over the country and in other countries. I'll be curious what the results are 3 years from now. I heard Spain was going to implement it last year, did that ever happen? I'd rather them work on universal health care before universal basic income. I don't see where we are going to have the necessary funds to one day tackle global warming, universal health care, universal basic income, and infrastructure. I'm not necessarily dead against it, but I don't see it as feasible at this time



Trumpstyle said:

The latest covid relief bill contained $1400 stimulus checks, that alone costed $422 billion. Just by doing simple math a $500 monthly check would be $1.8 trillion per year. Now how much money does the federal government in US collect every year? Just $3.4 trillion if we look at the year 2019, before the 2020 recession.

GL paying for UBI :)

There are 300 million unemployed people without means to support themselves in the states? Ouch!



SvennoJ said:
Trumpstyle said:

The latest covid relief bill contained $1400 stimulus checks, that alone costed $422 billion. Just by doing simple math a $500 monthly check would be $1.8 trillion per year. Now how much money does the federal government in US collect every year? Just $3.4 trillion if we look at the year 2019, before the 2020 recession.

GL paying for UBI :)

There are 300 million unemployed people without means to support themselves in the states? Ouch!

That's how UBI works, everyone get a check no matter what reason, even if you're working.

We not talking about unemployment benefits, it already exist in the US and your country (Canada).

Last edited by Trumpstyle - on 24 April 2021

6x master league achiever in starcraft2

Beaten Sigrun on God of war mode

Beaten DOOM ultra-nightmare with NO endless ammo-rune, 2x super shotgun and no decoys on ps4 pro.

1-0 against Grubby in Wc3 frozen throne ladder!!

SvennoJ said:
EnricoPallazzo said:

It's not that simple. Most countries have just an amount that is a small help, which is not enough to pay for your mortgage, groceries, medical bills, utilities and gasoline. It is just a very small amount to maybe help you not to starve. Also usually it is paid only for unemployed people, people that can't work etc. Because if those countries wanted to pay a bigger amount, maybe let's say 1000-1500 dollars to everyone that can't work the burden would be absurd in the public budget, even for a country like US. Unless you just print money like crazy to support it which would bring other problems to the economy.

Small programs can definitely happen and work well, like it exists in Brazil and help poor people a lot, although is a very small amount only for people not to starve. Bigger programs with larger monthly payments is most likely doomed to not work and destroy a country's economy unless you have some very specific exceptions like Norway where they sovereign oil fund can probably support the population for centuries.

But if US wants to try it, go for it, it's always good to have someone serving as an example.

Also remember that one of the reasons US is so rich is because of it's power which is also supported by that absurd military spend. Of course it can be lower than that but rest assured US would be a totally different country without this spending. 

I was born and grew up in the Netherlands. They still seem to be doing pretty well despite high minimum wage, unemployment benefits and social assistance. Some things have changed though. When I went to university it was still fully paid for by the government, just a small sum to sign up and buy your own books, yet you also got paid to go to school. I wasn't living in luxury, but had no trouble staying debt free. Much nicer to start life without a huge debt to pay off.

I only know of two people from my life in the Netherlands that said screw it, I'm just going to live off welfare. One a single mother, another an alcoholic with bigger problems. People rather work and get ahead once the requirements to stay alive have been full filled.

Of course everyone that works pays for social assistance for those that don't. That's how a welfare state works. And that point is what rubs most people the wrong way. Why should I pay for those that don't work. Well if you enjoy your work you wouldn't have such a big problem with that. And if you don't enjoy your work, you can quit it to find something you do enjoy without running into problems. Not being dependent on your shitty job is a huge advantage of a working social welfare system. Work places now have to provide better working conditions or people don't want to work for them. And happier workers are much more productive than those that simply go through the motions for the next pay cheque. Everybody wins.

Oh I am not against the welfare state at all, I have no interest in living in a country that doesnt have a safety net despite some of it's problems like poor medical support from the GP's and waiting times for exams (God I hate the NHS, why do british people worship it?). Also people forget that there is a theme that is prohibited to be discussed by society, especially the left. There are some people that are just helpless and won't be able to help the society at all. People with very low IQ, with serious mental disorders (which usually leads to drug addiction), people with serious illnesses etc. We can't just let these people rot in the street. In the past the family would take care of the person but today the burden is on the society. And it is better to have theses people with a roof under their heads and food in their belies than roaming in the street and causing other problems.

But universal basic income is different, at least what has been proposed. Provide a help for people that are unemployed or do not want to work with a few hundred bucks is one thing, providing $1500 or a full minimum wage for everybody is different and throws a big burden in society. Eventually it will (my opinion) serve as an incentive for people not to work, increase exponentially the government spending which will then have to be covered by huge amounts of debt of money printing or tax increases.

Unfortunately only a few societies can cope with that, mostly very rich societies like (a few) western european countries and north america

Also two things will never change:

1) If you let government create a tax, it will never go away and will only increase over time

2) If you let government create benefits, they will never go away and with time new benefits will be demanded, all the time.