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
EnricoPallazzo 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

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.

It's a combination of both. If I'm not mistaken the average is about 16% (170 BRL), most poor income of families in Brazil have 4 people

But I made I mistake, when the benefinit started the limit person per family was 3, the calculus was different, it was 24% of minimum wage (by the time) + only 7% per person who were either child, teenager, pregnant or nursing mother. Hence the limit you could get was 95 BRL, roughly 45% of the minimum wage instead of 80% I thought 

However the accumulated inflation for the last 18 years is 294%, hence the threshold of Bolsa Familia should be 375 BRL (around 38% of minimum wage)

And you are totally right, even 375 BRL for a 5 people family would be already far bellow anything necessary to make a living, 70% of beficiary families have at least one person with a regular paid job 



Around the Network
IcaroRibeiro said:
EnricoPallazzo said:

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.

It's a combination of both. If I'm not mistaken the average is about 16% (170 BRL), most poor income of families in Brazil have 4 people

But I made I mistake, when the benefinit started the limit person per family was 3, the calculus was different, it was 24% of minimum wage (by the time) + only 7% per person who were either child, teenager, pregnant or nursing mother. Hence the limit you could get was 95 BRL, roughly 45% of the minimum wage instead of 80% I thought 

However the accumulated inflation for the last 18 years is 294%, hence the threshold of Bolsa Familia should be 375 BRL (around 38% of minimum wage)

And you are totally right, even 375 BRL for a 5 people family would be already far bellow anything necessary to make a living, 70% of beficiary families have at least one person with a regular paid job 

Yes but this is the point, Bolsa Familia should be just some help for really poor families to at least have some food, or help with the main expenses. As you correctly pointed out most families receiving the benefit already have people in the workforce or already receive some kind of benefit. If you were to give people a wage to give them some decent living then the cost per family would be 5x-10x more the current amount which is something the government has no money from. It would have to cut from other places or print/borrow the money. What Brazil needs is a constant period of economic growth with high employment so people actually don't have to depend on government benefits. Easier said than done though...



EnricoPallazzo said:

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.

> It doesnt matter if the truth is right in front of them, they will find a way to dismiss it.

Pretty much everyone works this way. It's not a left/right thing. If you show someone's beliefs to be false, they are more likely to believe those false beliefs than if you had said nothing.  

Right wingers are also the flat earthers of economics, the only difference is they believe in different things than the ones on the left.

>actually common sense do apply for economics

Actually no because there's no such thing as common sense. We don't have common sense, we have intuition. We develop intuition through experiences. And that intuition has a bias towards the things we've experienced, and is often wrong about the things we haven't experienced. Everyone has a different intuition, as everyone has had different experiences.



the-pi-guy said:
EnricoPallazzo said:

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.

> It doesnt matter if the truth is right in front of them, they will find a way to dismiss it.

Pretty much everyone works this way. It's not a left/right thing. If you show someone's beliefs to be false, they are more likely to believe those false beliefs than if you had said nothing.  

Right wingers are also the flat earthers of economics, the only difference is they believe in different things than the ones on the left.

>actually common sense do apply for economics

Actually no because there's no such thing as common sense. We don't have common sense, we have intuition. We develop intuition through experiences. And that intuition has a bias towards the things we've experienced, and is often wrong about the things we haven't experienced. Everyone has a different intuition, as everyone has had different experiences.

Simple things like "do not spend more than your income", "if you go in debt make sure your debt is low and can be repaid", "if you go in debt make sure most of it is related to capital investments that can generate income in the future", "do not create more than required monetary inflation as it tax the poor and creates inequality" should be common sense for everyone. 

Just because some nuts think the earth is flat does not mean they should be taken serious or their "common sense view" of the shape of the universe should be taken into account. It is simply wrong. Yet a lot of people still defends it. 



EnricoPallazzo said:

 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.

I would argue that this is an inaccurate interpretation of left wing economics. 

Generally, left wing economics advocates for the redistribution of wealth, not the printing of additional money. The goal is generally to encourage the flow of money from the rich to the poor, either through direct intervention such as taxation funding welfare, or indirectly by supporting the rights of workers.



Around the Network
sundin13 said:

EnricoPallazzo said:

 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.

I would argue that this is an inaccurate interpretation of left wing economics. 

Generally, left wing economics advocates for the redistribution of wealth, not the printing of additional money. The goal is generally to encourage the flow of money from the rich to the poor, either through direct intervention such as taxation funding welfare, or indirectly by supporting the rights of workers.

This I agree with you, it should advocate for the redistribution of wealth, but what happens the vast majority of occasions is that left wing people/parties only advocate for increase in government spending which usually comes from debt or money printing. You basically condemn a whole generation to pay the debt over money you borrow/print today in the hopes that this money will bring social justice or increase economic growth and employment.

Funny thing is, nothing creates more inequality than governments doing it. Just compare a curve of inequality with the curve of money supply. It's not rocket science. All this money created along with negative interest rates ends up in the hands of big institutions and rich people, which then inflates heavily assets across the markets. Then young people can't buy houses anymore, assets are so inflated that it creates bubbles in the stock market with companies being valuated by unreal multipliers.

There is a saying that goes like: the right (from economics point of view) is the best to make the cake grow, but don't know how (or want to) to distribute the cake. The left is the best to distribute the cake, but don't know how to make it grow.

I wish the left could be less delusional and more focused on how to distribute the wealth but in a responsible way. Although to be honest the world has gone 100% crazy and even the right became huge irresponsible spenders.



EnricoPallazzo said:
sundin13 said:

I would argue that this is an inaccurate interpretation of left wing economics. 

Generally, left wing economics advocates for the redistribution of wealth, not the printing of additional money. The goal is generally to encourage the flow of money from the rich to the poor, either through direct intervention such as taxation funding welfare, or indirectly by supporting the rights of workers.

This I agree with you, it should advocate for the redistribution of wealth, but what happens the vast majority of occasions is that left wing people/parties only advocate for increase in government spending which usually comes from debt or money printing. You basically condemn a whole generation to pay the debt over money you borrow/print today in the hopes that this money will bring social justice or increase economic growth and employment.

Funny thing is, nothing creates more inequality than governments doing it. Just compare a curve of inequality with the curve of money supply. It's not rocket science. All this money created along with negative interest rates ends up in the hands of big institutions and rich people, which then inflates heavily assets across the markets. Then young people can't buy houses anymore, assets are so inflated that it creates bubbles in the stock market with companies being valuated by unreal multipliers.

There is a saying that goes like: the right (from economics point of view) is the best to make the cake grow, but don't know how (or want to) to distribute the cake. The left is the best to distribute the cake, but don't know how to make it grow.

I wish the left could be less delusional and more focused on how to distribute the wealth but in a responsible way. Although to be honest the world has gone 100% crazy and even the right became huge irresponsible spenders.

In the United States at least, both parties tend to emphasize spending on the things they value over cutting the spending of things they don't. This isn't a uniquely leftist phenomenon, this is a political phenomenon. It is easier to spend than it is to cut.

That said, there are a lot of arguments right now about whether the debt level currently sustained by the US is a bad thing. It simply hasn't had the negative consequences that traditional wisdom believed it would, so at this time, it seems, especially with how low interest rates are, that spending doesn't really have a strong drawback. 

I also don't really agree with the idea that government spending necessarily increases wealth inequality. It obviously should depend on how this money is spent.