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
DirtyP2002 on 23 June 2021

Main reason why this is BS:

The study used a sample seize of 125 people. I agree that this might help them, but you can't scale this to every freaking American. If everyone gets $500 every month, $500 will not make a single difference. That is how inflation works.

Capitalism means everyone can get rich, but not all.



Imagine not having GamePass on your console...

Around the Network
EnricoPallazzo on 23 June 2021
DirtyP2002 said:

Main reason why this is BS:

The study used a sample seize of 125 people. I agree that this might help them, but you can't scale this to every freaking American. If everyone gets $500 every month, $500 will not make a single difference. That is how inflation works.

Capitalism means everyone can get rich, but not all.

Leftists are the flat earthers of economics



Agente42 on 23 June 2021
EnricoPallazzo said:
DirtyP2002 said:

Main reason why this is BS:

The study used a sample seize of 125 people. I agree that this might help them, but you can't scale this to every freaking American. If everyone gets $500 every month, $500 will not make a single difference. That is how inflation works.

Capitalism means everyone can get rich, but not all.

Leftists are the flat earthers of economics

Disagree.

The new liberalism is the flat earth because is based on hocus pocus and not reality. The not regulated and pseudo-free market only helps the top 1% and when all this 1% make mistakes all society pays the bill. Privatize the profits and socialize the costs are the new liberalism way. 

Classical liberalism is another thing. Likewise the other economics trends. 



sundin13 on 23 June 2021
DirtyP2002 said:

Main reason why this is BS:

The study used a sample seize of 125 people. I agree that this might help them, but you can't scale this to every freaking American. If everyone gets $500 every month, $500 will not make a single difference. That is how inflation works.

Capitalism means everyone can get rich, but not all.

Is there a reason to assume that UBI with pay-fors through taxation would be significantly more inflationary than, say, increases in minimum wage (which have a fairly minor effect on inflation)?



Agente42 on 23 June 2021
sundin13 said:
DirtyP2002 said:

The main reason why this is BS:

The study used a sample size of 125 people. I agree that this might help them, but you can't scale this to every freaking American. If everyone gets $500 every month, $500 will not make a single difference. That is how inflation works.

Capitalism means everyone can get rich, but not all.

Is there a reason to assume that UBI with pay-for through taxation would be significantly more inflationary than, say, increases in the minimum wage (which have a fairly minor effect on inflation)?

good question: increase the minimum wage above inflation year on year, has a good effect on a low income in the long run. 



Around the Network
bowserthedog on 23 June 2021

If you replaced things like welfare with UBI you would see employment rise. People on welfare and disincentivized from working unless they can find a job that pays significantly more than welfare. But it generally doesn't work that way. With a ubi these individuals can get a part time job and keep all the money they make from it and eventually they may be asked to work additional hours etc.



https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC0JquK6FGR6O-0O-6L-VAuw

IcaroRibeiro on 23 June 2021

We have this on Brazil and it worked pretty well on early 2000, but 20 years of inflation made the benefit almost meaningless. When the program started the benefit was about 20% of the minimum wage per person in the family, with a limit of 5 people per family

Now it's only 4% of minimum wage, people are just starving again



Agente42 on 23 June 2021
IcaroRibeiro said:

We have this on Brazil and it worked pretty well on early 2000, but 20 years of inflation made the benefit almost meaningless. When the program started the benefit was about 20% of the minimum wage per person in the family, with a limit of 5 people per family

Now it's only 4% of minimum wage, people are just starving again

bolsa-familia? right? don't have correction by inflation? 



IcaroRibeiro on 23 June 2021
Agente42 said:
IcaroRibeiro said:

We have this on Brazil and it worked pretty well on early 2000, but 20 years of inflation made the benefit almost meaningless. When the program started the benefit was about 20% of the minimum wage per person in the family, with a limit of 5 people per family

Now it's only 4% of minimum wage, people are just starving again

bolsa-familia? right? don't have correction by inflation? 

Nope. The value is defined by government decree. On positive side, government wants to increase the current value by over 50% to correct the years of inflation although I'm skeptical because our current president is known for making sensational statements only for the sake of spiking controversy 



pitzy272 on 23 June 2021
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.

142.5mil employed by the US military…either you mistyped, or I’m missing something. That number approaches half the US population of 330mil people.