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
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? 



Around the Network
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 



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.



pitzy272 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.

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.

That puzzled my brain as well, however it comes straight from the horse's mouth
https://www.bls.gov/careeroutlook/2018/data-on-display/military-civilian-compare.htm

Of course the US military is not just active in the states, there are bases all over the world employing people and the US has many overseas territories as well.



SvennoJ said:
pitzy272 said:

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.

That puzzled my brain as well, however it comes straight from the horse's mouth
https://www.bls.gov/careeroutlook/2018/data-on-display/military-civilian-compare.htm

Of course the US military is not just active in the states, there are bases all over the world employing people and the US has many overseas territories as well.

This is a comparison of civilians (143m) and active military (1.3m). It does not state that 142m are employed by the military. You can tell that's what they mean because of this quote:

"In 2017, civilian workers outnumbered military personnel nearly 110 to 1."



...

Around the Network
Torillian said:
SvennoJ said:

That puzzled my brain as well, however it comes straight from the horse's mouth
https://www.bls.gov/careeroutlook/2018/data-on-display/military-civilian-compare.htm

Of course the US military is not just active in the states, there are bases all over the world employing people and the US has many overseas territories as well.

This is a comparison of civilians (143m) and active military (1.3m). It does not state that 142m are employed by the military. You can tell that's what they mean because of this quote:

"In 2017, civilian workers outnumbered military personnel nearly 110 to 1."

Ah, my bad, I read it wrong. That makes a lot more sense! So how many people do actually receive a pay check from the US military.



SvennoJ said:
Torillian said:

This is a comparison of civilians (143m) and active military (1.3m). It does not state that 142m are employed by the military. You can tell that's what they mean because of this quote:

"In 2017, civilian workers outnumbered military personnel nearly 110 to 1."

Ah, my bad, I read it wrong. That makes a lot more sense! So how many people do actually receive a pay check from the US military.

From what I can find there are 1.3m active duty military, 0.8m in reserve, and 0.7m civilians employed by the military. 

https://www.governing.com/archive/military-civilian-active-duty-employee-workforce-numbers-by-state.html

I had to do the math myself for civilians in excel real quick using the data by state but the article mentions the other two numbers. 



...

Makes sense.

You'll have an easier time finding a job (especially one you'll be happy with) if you're not worrying about surviving/paying your bills in the meantime.



the-pi-guy said:

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.

I have been working in Finance Planning and Accounting for around 20 years for big multinational companies, and I have an MBA in Finance and Controllership. I am also an avid reader of economics articles. So I can say I know a thing or two about it.

I stand by my statement, leftists, especially the far left ones, are the flat earthers of economics. It doesnt matter if the truth is right in front of them, they will find a way to dismiss it. Hell, left wing people in Latin America still believe that the freezing of prices by the government works. Left wing people from all over the world still think the government can just print money magically and give it to the people in the form of all benefits you can imagine and absolutely no consequence will come from that.

And when the consequence comes, instead of looking back and admitting the error, they will blame someone else or double down on the error.

I really, really wish we could see some country implement UBI for all it's citizens in the format the comments here are requesting, it would be really interesting to watch.

Oh and another thing, actually common sense do apply for economics. The same can be said about looking at history to understand what works and what do not.



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

I think it's more a case of the minimum wage increase above the inflation for several years in a row during Lula/Dilma governments. Also I believe the average amount being paid is much higher than only 4% of the minimum wage.

Also Bolsa Familia is not a true UBI program, there are several rules for people to make part of it and only 14 million families receive the amount. Even when it was created and was more relevant it was just a little bit of help for poor families to buy some food and make sure the kids could stay in school, as the amount was never enough pay for your rent for example. 

It is just a % of the minimum wage, and the minimum wage in Brazil itself is already a sad joke.