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
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'm not sure I see your logic. Giving people more resources increases their ability to be productive. People generally use money to pay their bills/debts, and then extra money to improve themselves and expand their employment opportunities. Many Western countries have programs today that incentivize people remaining unemployed, UBI can't possibly have worse effects than that since it actually removes that incentive to remain unemployed.

Another use for the extra money can also be used to expand the capitalist class by expanding investment resources for the higher wage working class. For the lower wage working class, it gives them leverage to negotiate higher wages with corporate positions while not requiring a minimum/living wage as a small business employee - they can instead be paid in RSAs and/or RSUs. It'll give small businesses and independent entrepreneurs a fighting chance against the mega-corporatization of the economy.



I describe myself as a little dose of toxic masculinity.

Around the Network

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...

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



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. 



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)?



Around the Network
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. 



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.



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



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.

The problem is there is this assumption that a large enough number of people are happy with some bare minimum.  As if putting food on someone's table is enough to get them to not want to work anymore. Who even wants a nice car, if you are given a free sandwich? As if just existing is enough for a large number of people.

In a cynical way, it's a debate of whether people are lazier or greedier. I argue people would still go to work so they can buy nice things. We see all over the world that having a security net doesn't lead to lazy people, it leads people to continue working to buy more things, or it gives them an opportunity to get the job they actually want.

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.

Really feels like there is this unwritten assumption that money tends to disappear. When you're looking at a single entity, that makes a lot of sense. Money seems to come in at a set amount and goes out at a set amount. But that's not really how it works on a larger scale.

For example, if you gave everyone $1,000, that wouldn't cost the government $1,000 per person, it'd be less than that. The government would get some amount of that back through sales taxes, and other taxes.

This is why giving to the poor has a bigger benefit to the economy. You give $100 to a little boy, he buys a bike, the store that sold the bike makes $30. The store gives $10 to the employee who sold the bike as a generous bonus. That $100 investment benefitted 3 people beyond the $100 value.

The boy got a $100 bike. The store owner got a $20 profit after giving their employee a bonus, the employee got a bonus, the government got $5 back already.

It's easy and feels like common sense to say that the government can't afford that much money, but on the large scale the dynamics and the numbers themselves change.  

Do they change enough to make it plausible? Who knows.

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.

It's a small pilot study. 

You don't need to do a study with hundreds of millions of people to determine behavior. You only need a few hundred, the most important part is how you select those few hundred people. You have to select those people randomly, you can't choose from a particular age group or region or family or anything else that can have a factor in changing the results.

With an understanding of basic statistics and probability, you can show that with a randomly selected sample, you can get high quality results with relatively small samples sizes.

EnricoPallazzo said:

Leftists are the flat earthers of economics

What are your economics credentials?

Usually what I hear is "it's common sense" or something along those lines. The issue is there's no such thing as common sense. The reason why there are often studies into things that seem obvious, is because the universe and people often don't work the way we think they do.

Conservatives have been arguing if we lower taxes, the rich will have more money, and they'll have more money to spend on wages. Yet routinely we are seeing the opposite trend, rich people are spending less on wages relative to inflation despite making more money. 

It seems to me that no one really understands economics, and everyone is just giving it their best guess. Economics is a "dirty" social science and not a proper natural science.

Last edited by the-pi-guy - on 23 June 2021

1. People would still work they may just be choosier on what jobs they are willing to do. This may have a positive impact on wages rising if companies have to pay more to convince people to do a job they would normally do to simply survive.

2. If the program is paid through taxes the impact on overall inflation should be relatively small. However, housing costs would likely rise due to our current problem with supply and demand. If people can all of a sudden guarantee roughly $500 more in rent, landlords will charge it. There is not enough supply to keep prices down through competition. Without rent control, I fear that most of the benefits gained would be lost from this single increase.



 

My Real Redneck friends