Universal basic income trial in the US

The #1 community for Gun Owners in Indiana

Member Benefits:

  • Fewer Ads!
  • Discuss all aspects of firearm ownership
  • Discuss anti-gun legislation
  • Buy, sell, and trade in the classified section
  • Chat with Local gun shops, ranges, trainers & other businesses
  • Discover free outdoor shooting areas
  • View up to date on firearm-related events
  • Share photos & video with other members
  • ...and so much more!
  • Leadeye

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    4   0   0
    Jan 19, 2009
    36,696
    113
    .
    I don't see where they would count spending an additional $1K on guns and ammo, which is what I'll do with it.;)
     

    Dr.Midnight

    Master
    Rating - 100%
    13   0   0
    Jul 24, 2011
    4,414
    113
    Monroe County
    Finland just killed their trial of it, I did not see posted results though.

    https://basicincome.ycr.org/our-plan/

    this group will provide $1000/mo to people in two states and track their behavior. It will be interesting to see what happens.
    XFINZtY.gif
     

    eldirector

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    10   0   0
    Apr 29, 2009
    14,677
    113
    Brownsburg, IN
    Who is funding this?
    From their FAQ:
    https://basicincome.ycr.org/faqs/
    Who is funding the study?

    The study will be funded by Y Combinator Research and donors, including traditional research donors and philanthropists concerned about poverty, inequality, or the future of work. We are still fundraising and will not begin the study until we have secured funding for the entire project.
     

    BehindBlueI's

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    29   0   0
    Oct 3, 2012
    25,890
    113
    There's a $500/mo one for a similar experiment in Stockton, CA.

    I think it's not a terrible idea *if* it replaces the current patchwork of social programs and eliminates the bureaucracy. No more food stamps, housing subsidies, unemployment, disability, tuition grants, etc. A UBI, or a negative tax, potentially addresses a few things.

    One, it eliminates a lot of the overhead costs. There's no eligibility requirements, no filing, etc. The money actually goes to the program, not administering the program.

    Two, it reduces government influence. There's no social experimentation, you don't get more or less based on if you are married or not, if you're working or not, etc.

    Three, you have no incentive to not work. If you're currently on disability and find a part time job you could do for a few months, you can't really take it because you'll risk your disability and a part time job isn't worth it. (An example is my father, who's an amputee with severe arthritis, plus a heart condition and who's trade is construction. It's tough to find construction work when you're missing a leg, many of your fingers don't move when you open your hand, etc. However he got an offer to occasionally calculate bids. He can't take it to supplement his income because it would risk his disability.) Additionally, since all other social programs are shut down, the only way to get more money is to work. Except the hard core homeless, few people are going to be satisfied with $6k-$12k a year as their sole income.

    Four, there is no incentive for fraud. There's no reason to fake a disability, as you get no additional money for it. There's no reason to hide assets, etc.

    Of course, there's also potential pitfalls. Wages could go down even further (as companies basically use the UBI as a subsidy to lower their payroll). Who knows what inflation would look like. While many proposals are budget neutral, most rely on rolling in SSI. Do you let current retirees stay on SSI and phase it out? What about medicare? No cash payment is going to give people a realistic chance to pay for healthcare when they are elderly and retired, as retiree healthcare tends to be non-existent or a joke in the post-pension era.

    I agree with Elon Musk, though, eventually we're going to have to do something like a UBI. Maybe not in my lifetime, but as automation gets better and the traditional job market disappears we're going to have to change the way people support themselves. The Information Revolution has not created jobs to replace the lost ones like the Industrial Revolution did. The major job sectors we have today are the same we've had for centuries. Agriculture, transportation, manufacturing, and retail. You grow things, build things, haul things, or sell things. The Green revolution (the first one, modern farming, not some ecological recycling program) created jobs in all sectors. The Industrial Revolution killed a lot of agriculture jobs, but moved them to manufacturing and greatly expanded that segment of the job market. Automation risks *all* of the sectors and creates no significant new ones.
     

    HoughMade

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 0%
    0   0   0
    Oct 24, 2012
    35,615
    149
    Valparaiso
    So....if we're setting a guaranteed minimum income, why so cheap? $6,000/yr, $12,000/yr? They supposedly care about the poor but won't pay them even what minimum wage would pay? I thought that minimum wage ($14,500 @ 2,000 hrs/yr) was non-livable, cruel and greedy.
     

    actaeon277

    Grandmaster
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    4   0   0
    Nov 20, 2011
    92,864
    113
    Merrillville
    Well, I don't know about the future, hard to predict that. But right now https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/mar...bless-people/ar-AAwi7xx?li=BBnbfcN&srcref=rss


    They've been predicting universal joblessness since the beginning of the industrial age.
    Look at the origin of the word sabotage. Dutch workers through their "sabots" (wooden shoes) into the machinery to fight automation.
    Yet so far, it makes a worker more productive, and workers go on to other jobs or fields.

    A hundred years in the future, who know?

    But right now, I don't think so.
    I think the "dole" (people being paid even if they don't work) will complain they "don't have a living wage".
    So the dole gets raised.
    Some people decide, why work, so they go on the dole.
    You have to tax the working more, to pay for the raise of the dole and the numbers of the dole.
    So more people decide, why work, so they go on the dole.
    Once again, the dole complains they can't live on the wage..

    on and on.
     

    indiucky

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    12   0   0
    There's a $500/mo one for a similar experiment in Stockton, CA.

    I think it's not a terrible idea *if* it replaces the current patchwork of social programs and eliminates the bureaucracy. No more food stamps, housing subsidies, unemployment, disability, tuition grants, etc. A UBI, or a negative tax, potentially addresses a few things.

    One, it eliminates a lot of the overhead costs. There's no eligibility requirements, no filing, etc. The money actually goes to the program, not administering the program.

    Two, it reduces government influence. There's no social experimentation, you don't get more or less based on if you are married or not, if you're working or not, etc.

    Three, you have no incentive to not work. If you're currently on disability and find a part time job you could do for a few months, you can't really take it because you'll risk your disability and a part time job isn't worth it. (An example is my father, who's an amputee with severe arthritis, plus a heart condition and who's trade is construction. It's tough to find construction work when you're missing a leg, many of your fingers don't move when you open your hand, etc. However he got an offer to occasionally calculate bids. He can't take it to supplement his income because it would risk his disability.) Additionally, since all other social programs are shut down, the only way to get more money is to work. Except the hard core homeless, few people are going to be satisfied with $6k-$12k a year as their sole income.

    Four, there is no incentive for fraud. There's no reason to fake a disability, as you get no additional money for it. There's no reason to hide assets, etc.

    Of course, there's also potential pitfalls. Wages could go down even further (as companies basically use the UBI as a subsidy to lower their payroll). Who knows what inflation would look like. While many proposals are budget neutral, most rely on rolling in SSI. Do you let current retirees stay on SSI and phase it out? What about medicare? No cash payment is going to give people a realistic chance to pay for healthcare when they are elderly and retired, as retiree healthcare tends to be non-existent or a joke in the post-pension era.

    I agree with Elon Musk, though, eventually we're going to have to do something like a UBI. Maybe not in my lifetime, but as automation gets better and the traditional job market disappears we're going to have to change the way people support themselves. The Information Revolution has not created jobs to replace the lost ones like the Industrial Revolution did. The major job sectors we have today are the same we've had for centuries. Agriculture, transportation, manufacturing, and retail. You grow things, build things, haul things, or sell things. The Green revolution (the first one, modern farming, not some ecological recycling program) created jobs in all sectors. The Industrial Revolution killed a lot of agriculture jobs, but moved them to manufacturing and greatly expanded that segment of the job market. Automation risks *all* of the sectors and creates no significant new ones.

    Dagnabbit.....I came in here to say how stupid that is and the milk shake sucking, copy paper stealing, chicken wing drumstick grabbing, ruger revolver loving, Elvis dressing squirrel done went and changed my mind.....

    This is hard....I think you...Might....Be....Right....

    This sucks...
     

    BehindBlueI's

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    29   0   0
    Oct 3, 2012
    25,890
    113
    So....if we're setting a guaranteed minimum income, why so cheap? $6,000/yr, $12,000/yr? They supposedly care about the poor but won't pay them even what minimum wage would pay? I thought that minimum wage ($14,500 @ 2,000 hrs/yr) was non-livable, cruel and greedy.

    The goal isn't to replace work with a UBI, at least as long as work remains a viable option. (see: argument above, available jobs eventually falls below available population, sort of a reverse Malthusian trap)
     

    Kirk Freeman

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    8   0   0
    Mar 9, 2008
    47,969
    113
    Lafayette, Indiana
    There's a $500/mo one for a similar experiment in Stockton, CA.

    I think it's not a terrible idea *if* it replaces the current patchwork of social programs and eliminates the bureaucracy. No more food stamps, housing subsidies, unemployment, disability, tuition grants, etc. A UBI, or a negative tax, potentially addresses a few things.

    One, it eliminates a lot of the overhead costs. There's no eligibility requirements, no filing, etc. The money actually goes to the program, not administering the program.

    Two, it reduces government influence. There's no social experimentation, you don't get more or less based on if you are married or not, if you're working or not, etc.

    Three, you have no incentive to not work. If you're currently on disability and find a part time job you could do for a few months, you can't really take it because you'll risk your disability and a part time job isn't worth it. (An example is my father, who's an amputee with severe arthritis, plus a heart condition and who's trade is construction. It's tough to find construction work when you're missing a leg, many of your fingers don't move when you open your hand, etc. However he got an offer to occasionally calculate bids. He can't take it to supplement his income because it would risk his disability.) Additionally, since all other social programs are shut down, the only way to get more money is to work. Except the hard core homeless, few people are going to be satisfied with $6k-$12k a year as their sole income.

    Four, there is no incentive for fraud. There's no reason to fake a disability, as you get no additional money for it. There's no reason to hide assets, etc.

    Of course, there's also potential pitfalls. Wages could go down even further (as companies basically use the UBI as a subsidy to lower their payroll). Who knows what inflation would look like. While many proposals are budget neutral, most rely on rolling in SSI. Do you let current retirees stay on SSI and phase it out? What about medicare? No cash payment is going to give people a realistic chance to pay for healthcare when they are elderly and retired, as retiree healthcare tends to be non-existent or a joke in the post-pension era.

    I agree with Elon Musk, though, eventually we're going to have to do something like a UBI. Maybe not in my lifetime, but as automation gets better and the traditional job market disappears we're going to have to change the way people support themselves. The Information Revolution has not created jobs to replace the lost ones like the Industrial Revolution did. The major job sectors we have today are the same we've had for centuries. Agriculture, transportation, manufacturing, and retail. You grow things, build things, haul things, or sell things. The Green revolution (the first one, modern farming, not some ecological recycling program) created jobs in all sectors. The Industrial Revolution killed a lot of agriculture jobs, but moved them to manufacturing and greatly expanded that segment of the job market. Automation risks *all* of the sectors and creates no significant new ones.


    He's right you know.

    Everyone does know that the Libertarians were all hot to trot for a Universal Basic Income for exactly the reasons BBI outlined, right?
     

    BehindBlueI's

    Grandmaster
    Rating - 100%
    29   0   0
    Oct 3, 2012
    25,890
    113
    They've been predicting universal joblessness since the beginning of the industrial age.

    Sure. But it's not the same. The Industrial Revolution created a *ton* of jobs. The guy who was displaced from his harvesting job or weaving by hand could transition quickly and easily into a "blue collar" job created by the IR. Look at how many jobs the invention of the automobile created. Not just in the factory, but in the mining and oil industries, in infrastructure development, etc. Way more jobs than it eliminated. The teamster just put down the reigns and started turning a steering wheel. Not much in the way of training or difference in skill required.

    But you automate a forklift, it's not as seamless to transition into being a forklift programmer...nor does it create more jobs than it eliminated...nor does it filter down to other industries.

    That's the difference. No new "thing" is going to reverse that. No matter what "thing" you invent, machines are going to build it, deliver it, and even sell it. You need an entire new category of employment, and that's extremely rare in the history of mankind. Roughly 79.5% (using 2016 BLS figures) of jobs today are jobs a person in Ancient Egypt would recognize. Not the tools or methods, but the sector. Transportation and warehousing, wholesale and retail merchants, manufacturing, agriculture, etc. Some are more resistant to automation that others (healthcare vs manufacturing, say) but do you really think technology won't fill that gap eventually?
     

    GodFearinGunTotin

    Super Moderator
    Staff member
    Moderator
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    1   0   0
    Mar 22, 2011
    50,586
    113
    Mitchell
    Utopian pipe dreams.

    There will always be gaming of the system, whatever it is. Politicians need votes and one of the ways they get them is by creating victims and bad guys. There will always be conditions and means testing. There will always be layers of benefits depending on size of families, disabilities of those involved, etc. And the politicians will create levers they can pull to get votes. People will find ways of maximizing their take. Then they'll complain because there are those getting more or those that choose to earn what they get will have more than them.

    I'm convinced the old way of thinking: you don't work, you don't eat is the direction we need to go back to. If you can't work, that's what family is for, that's what churches are for, that's what charities are for. Only in the most dire circumstances should local governments be the last resort life line. Increasing the dependency on an indifferent, heartless, government rather than restoring the role of the previously mentioned is evil, IMHO.
     

    actaeon277

    Grandmaster
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    4   0   0
    Nov 20, 2011
    92,864
    113
    Merrillville
    Sure. But it's not the same. The Industrial Revolution created a *ton* of jobs. The guy who was displaced from his harvesting job or weaving by hand could transition quickly and easily into a "blue collar" job created by the IR. Look at how many jobs the invention of the automobile created. Not just in the factory, but in the mining and oil industries, in infrastructure development, etc. Way more jobs than it eliminated. The teamster just put down the reigns and started turning a steering wheel. Not much in the way of training or difference in skill required.

    But you automate a forklift, it's not as seamless to transition into being a forklift programmer...nor does it create more jobs than it eliminated...nor does it filter down to other industries.

    That's the difference. No new "thing" is going to reverse that. No matter what "thing" you invent, machines are going to build it, deliver it, and even sell it. You need an entire new category of employment, and that's extremely rare in the history of mankind. Roughly 79.5% (using 2016 BLS figures) of jobs today are jobs a person in Ancient Egypt would recognize. Not the tools or methods, but the sector. Transportation and warehousing, wholesale and retail merchants, manufacturing, agriculture, etc. Some are more resistant to automation that others (healthcare vs manufacturing, say) but do you really think technology won't fill that gap eventually?

    I agree, and I disagree

    I agree that some jobs can be recognized over time. I disagree that it's so many though.
    And, people are not stuck. It's not like I'm a steel worker, and the steel industry goes down the tube, and now I can't find a job because all I can do is be a steel worker.

    And, I agree in that over time, what I said might be wrong. The future is hard to predict.
    But for now, I think UBI is a bad idea and can only become a cancer.
     

    GodFearinGunTotin

    Super Moderator
    Staff member
    Moderator
    Site Supporter
    Rating - 100%
    1   0   0
    Mar 22, 2011
    50,586
    113
    Mitchell
    I agree, and I disagree

    I agree that some jobs can be recognized over time. I disagree that it's so many though.
    And, people are not stuck. It's not like I'm a steel worker, and the steel industry goes down the tube, and now I can't find a job because all I can do is be a steel worker.

    And, I agree in that over time, what I said might be wrong. The future is hard to predict.
    But for now, I think UBI is a bad idea and can only become a cancer.

    The older I get, I tend to become a believer of the train of thought that says each generation believes they are different and they are living in the worst time in history for x, y, or z. The people that were losing buggy whip jobs had no idea what kinds of opportunities would be opening up in the future. We can't either. I know enough about automation to know it will create jobs in some ratio to those that are lost. Robots are programmed by people. They work on equipment people built and installed by people. Stuff wears out and things happen...automation can only accommodate so much before everything crashes. McDonalds may someday have replaced all of their front counter staff with kiosks but somewhere in that store there'll be people working. Most of us cannot envision what the future will be like. I don't believe robots, AI, automation will have us all sitting around the house, with nothing to do, waiting on our UBI debit cards to reset.
     
    Top Bottom