Universal basic income trial in the US

[BehindBlueI's]

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.

Go take a look at the employment stats, add up the jobs in the following categories, and see what you get:

Mining
Construction
Manufacturing
Wholesale Trade
Retail Trade
Transportation/Warehousing
Financial Activities
Education
Health care
Government
Agriculture

Most of that is recognizable for someone from the Bronze Age. All of it from Ancient China or Egypt. And that's conservative on the low side. It doesn't include self-employed, professional/business services, or leisure and hospitality many of which would likely fit in with the above categories as well.

Of course you aren't stuck as a steel worker, but the barriers only get higher as time goes on. The available jobs require more, and longer, specialized training as low and semi-skilled jobs are the easiest to pluck off for automation.

 

[BugI02]

Who is funding this?

It looks like it might be FaceTube money, but it's not actually clear in a quick and dirty I just did. I'm quoting this article for other reasons (pithy quotes embedded that align with my own opinions of UBI)

https://nextcity.org/daily/entry/universal-basic-income-is-getting-a-trial-in-silicon-valley
Universal Basic Income Is Getting a Trial in Silicon Valley

As Mark Zuckerberg writes long Facebook posts extolling the virtues of UBI and Uber execs pursue it as the answer to a system of contract-only workers and automation (that they themselves helped create), some have questioned whether UBI is simply a trendy new way for corporate heads to keep up their tax-evading, workforce-shrinking ways — without too much guilt.

But as Douglas Rushkoff wrote in an LA Times op-ed last year, the tech world’s support of UBI (and the support of Facebook, in particular) looks dubious when placed next to its actual corporate practices.

“I’d have an easier time accepting Zuckerberg’s proposal [as he calls on Harvard’s graduating class to explore UBI strategies] at face value if his company weren’t trying so hard to avoid paying taxes on its massive profits,” he wrote. “Where is UBI supposed to come from, after all, if not the profits that Silicon Valley companies have made by cutting out human labor in the first place?”

Lolz. The people pushing the idea won't be paying for it (or anything else), they want government to do that

 

[actaeon277]

Go take a look at the employment stats, add up the jobs in the following categories, and see what you get:

Mining
Construction
Manufacturing
Wholesale Trade
Retail Trade
Transportation/Warehousing
Financial Activities
Education
Health care
Government
Agriculture

Most of that is recognizable for someone from the Bronze Age. All of it from Ancient China or Egypt. And that's conservative on the low side. It doesn't include self-employed, professional/business services, or leisure and hospitality many of which would likely fit in with the above categories as well.

Of course you aren't stuck as a steel worker, but the barriers only get higher as time goes on. The available jobs require more, and longer, specialized training as low and semi-skilled jobs are the easiest to pluck off for automation.

I'm not "totally" disagreeing with you.
But, many of those jobs listed above actually make up MANY different jobs. And many of them jobs involve things different from Ancient China.
Mining is more done by a guy punching an industrial panel making a machine move.
He operates complex machinery to dig, and protect himself.
Paperwork people deal with "paperwork" and complex databases, spreadsheets, etc.


Yes, over time, automation will eventually threaten more and more jobs.
Eventually.
RIGHT NOW and for the short future, I think UBI is a DANGEROUS idea that can snowball.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

I'm not "totally" disagreeing with you.
But, many of those jobs listed above actually make up MANY different jobs. And many of them jobs involve things different from Ancient China.
Mining is more done by a guy punching an industrial panel making a machine move.
He operates complex machinery to dig, and protect himself.

You're actually not disagreeing with me at all, as far as I can tell:

Not the tools or methods, but the sector.

The overall point is that the sectors that have employed the vast majority of human labor *still* employ the vast majority of human labor. Not what tools are methods are used to do it. Mining is still mining. We're way better at it, and there's more active mines now because of it. Obviously *way* more manufacturing jobs because we have so many more things to manufacture. But still the same sector, and all of those sectors are vulnerable to a greater or less degree in ways they never were before.

 

[GodFearinGunTotin]

Bernie sees your UBI and raises you a job, training, a salary, and all the healthcare the taxpayer can afford...

https://www.theblaze.com/news/2018/...tm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=glennbeck

 

[mmpsteve]

A free market, unencumbered by government regulation, could create all the jobs necessary to sustain our population - now and into the future. Right now, the government makes it very hard for startups and people to actually make things and employ people. That can be changed, and will have to be changed, if things are to improve. When personal computers and the internet and email first started gaining popularity, and it became obvious that they were the future, my Dad thought my print company was doomed to extinction. Why would people pay me, he said, when they could print it themselves? Instead, it has brought tremendous opportunities to me, and efficiencies in production that benefit both myself and my clients, with lowered costs and increased profits. If you added all print jobs with the vast array of internet jobs, I'd bet it's a net total gain. The free market can and will continue to fuel these market revolutions, and create jobs, given the opportunity.

 

[Twangbanger]

...

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...Additionally, since all other social programs are shut down, the only way to get more money is to work...few people are going to be satisfied with $6k-$12k a year as their sole income​

...

​

What if the nature of your disability is such that you really are disabled in the true sense, and can't work? Does $6~$12k make up for what that person is losing? Remember, in your cherry-picked simulation of utopia, "all other social programs are shut down." Would you like to modify that assumption? Yes, the number of people affected may be small, but these are the kinds of little details which will overthrow your assumptions in the court of public opinion during actual implementation.

And anyway, if your core belief is that most disability recipients could and should be working in some manner, then the above is really more of an argument for taking a more limited approach and doing away with the income-test for disability recipients, than it is a case for "boiling the ocean" by wall-papering every single working-age person in society with mailbox checks.

But here's the real problem:

...you have no incentive to not work...few people are going to be satisfied with $6k-$12k a year as their sole income...

You conveniently set the income level low, in the $6~12k range, for the purpose of explaining away the potential "moral hazard" of encouraging people not to work. But, please: you're positing this system as a fix for a "post-employment world" full of robots taking peoples' jobs. Six to twelve K's isn't consistent with that. If the dollar amount is low enough to eliminate moral hazard - then it won't pay people enough to compensate for the loss of a remunerative career. And, if it's set high enough to support people after the loss of their primary career, then it most certainly could encourage people not to work. You cannot have it both ways. (Keeping in mind, "Universal" and "Basic" means it's a standard dollar amount that _everyone_ will get...not just the ones who are displaced).
​

And for the record, even though you stated your opening caveat clearly enough, I don't buy the idea that the government abolishes all other forms of income support to make way for this. That's like the Libertarians saying the Flat Tax is great - "We just have to abolish the Income Tax." Well...Poof! Make it so. In a serious conversation, if a proposal is based on a preposterous and world-altering assumption which flies in the face of everything we know about how the government works, it needs to be pointed out.​

 

[BehindBlueI's]

​

What if the nature of your disability is such that you really are disabled in the true sense, and can't work? Does $6~$12k make up for what that person is losing? Remember, in your cherry-picked simulation of utopia, "all other social programs are shut down." Would you like to modify that assumption? Yes, the number of people affected may be small, but these are the kinds of little details which will overthrow your assumptions in the court of public opinion during actual implementation.

And anyway, if your core belief is that most disability recipients could and should be working in some manner, then the above is really more of an argument for taking a more limited approach and doing away with the income-test for disability recipients, than it is a case for "boiling the ocean" by wall-papering every single working-age person in society with mailbox checks.

But here's the real problem:

You conveniently set the income level low, in the $6~12k range, for the purpose of explaining away the potential "moral hazard" of encouraging people not to work. But, please: you're positing this system as a fix for a "post-employment world" full of robots taking peoples' jobs. Six to twelve K's isn't consistent with that. If the dollar amount is low enough to eliminate moral hazard - then it won't pay people enough to compensate for the loss of a remunerative career. And, if it's set high enough to support people after the loss of their primary career, then it most certainly could encourage people not to work. You cannot have it both ways. (Keeping in mind, "Universal" and "Basic" means it's a standard dollar amount that _everyone_ will get...not just the ones who are displaced).
​

And for the record, even though you stated your opening caveat clearly enough, I don't buy the idea that the government abolishes all other forms of income support to make way for this. That's like the Libertarians saying the Flat Tax is great - "We just have to abolish the Income Tax." Well...Poof! Make it so. In a serious conversation, if a proposal is based on a preposterous and world-altering assumption which flies in the face of everything we know about how the government works, it needs to be pointed out.​

Well, one it's not my "cherry picked version of Utopia". Read any of the major UBI proposals. Medicare is usually the only thing that survives. Second, yes, if you're completely disabled you will likely lose income. You may not be able to live independently. You may not have the life you wanted. UBI isn't about providing everything for everyone, it's providing a *starting point* and it's up to you if you make if from there or not. Not everyone will. It's incredibly similar to public education. For the most part, people use it as a base. They use it to get jobs and improve their skills, go to college then work, etc. But some fail out and never really recover.

As for your second part, UBI may expand as jobs diminish, but we aren't to that point in society or technology yet. Arguing about what the needs of UBI will be in 100 or 300 years is pointless to what the needs are today, just like arguing someone in the 1880s shouldn't learn to tend horses because cars are coming one day. UBI today is more about helping people transition, as the jobs that disappear (or see wages shrink) are low to semi-skilled positions and new low or semi-skilled positions aren't being made to replace them like they were in the Green Revolution or Industrial Revolution. Transitions take longer. So, the hypothetical steel worker who loses his job can probably become a nurse (a job resistant to automation), but nurse training is longer and more involved than just going to another foundry/factory entry level position.

 

[hoosierdoc]

BBI the problem with UBI replacing all social safety nets is the irresponsible will continue to be irresponsible and will still not provide for themselves. Our government will not allow them to fail and will simply continue providing the service AND the money.

the sales tax Fairtax started every month with a prebate equal to poverty level taxes spent on necessities. Sort of the same principle. Everyone gets it, no matter your income.

 

[jbombelli]

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?

I wasn't. I believe in "live and let live, live and let die."

 

[Expat]

So we will take money away from actual crippled people in order to give it to others that simply don't want to work?

 

[jamil]

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.

It just goes against human nature. I can't see this producing a better society.

 

[jamil]

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?

If only someone has studied inequality and possible solutions. If only.

It may just be that humans are unequal, and the inequality of human competence creates a spiral of both ends, one up, and one down. And there's nothing that can be done with it, other than a hard reset. UBI isn't a reset.

 

[rob63]

BBI the problem with UBI replacing all social safety nets is the irresponsible will continue to be irresponsible and will still not provide for themselves. Our government will not allow them to fail and will simply continue providing the service AND the money.

^^^^this...

I have no idea what to do about the possibility of us all becoming George Jetson, but there's no way a UBI would replace the government programs and people simply allowed to suffer the consequences of their poor choices. There will always be the innocent kids to consider.

p.s. If we do all become George Jetson, I want a better looking robot than Rosie!

 

[BehindBlueI's]

So we will take money away from actual crippled people in order to give it to others that simply don't want to work?

Average disability through .Gov is about $1100/mo, so for most it'll be a wash under the main proposals. Some call for Medicare gets rolled in, that's very bad for many disabled and seniors.

UBI is not means tested. You get it if you work or not.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

BBI the problem with UBI replacing all social safety nets is the irresponsible will continue to be irresponsible and will still not provide for themselves. Our government will not allow them to fail and will simply continue providing the service AND the money.

the sales tax Fairtax started every month with a prebate equal to poverty level taxes spent on necessities. Sort of the same principle. Everyone gets it, no matter your income.

Negative income taxes are a version of UBI.

Yes, if it simply becomes a supplement to other programs, it fails for sure.

The version that passed the House under Nixon kept only worker retraining and childcare, IIRC. On phone, going from memory. Never got out of committee with Senate.

 

[Route 45]

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.

[video=youtube;mKCVol2iWcc]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mKCVol2iWcc[/video]

It ain't gonna happen next year.
But it's gonna happen eventually.

 

[jamil]

Negative income taxes are a version of UBI.

Yes, if it simply becomes a supplement to other programs, it fails for sure.

The version that passed the House under Nixon kept only worker retraining and childcare, IIRC. On phone, going from memory. Never got out of committee with Senate.

Negative income tax is means tested. It's not a version of UBI. Not that negative income taxes are a good idea themselves.

I agree that the disparity between the hyper-competent and the hyper-incompetent is growing at a nonlinear rate. But it's not the case that the standard of living is decreasing overall for those at the bottom. It's that the bottom slope is much less steep than the top. The reason seems pretty obvious to me. The most competent people can make better use of technology as more competent people create ever more complicated technology.

So our means based system is stacked towards something proportional to intelligence. Before technology, physical means testing had a lot more input on the outcome than intellectual means. But as technology becomes a larger part of the economy, it doesn't matter how many bricks you can carry up a ladder. It doesn't matter as much if your hand-eye coordination suits you to assembling things quicker. As intellectual competence increases, it's becoming more and more the most important competency in a means-based system. The more society relies on technology, the less there is for people to do to earn a living. I get that.

So what's the solution? UBI? That means people just exist. I've been around people who just exist. People need more than that. A workable solution has to involve that. Also, a workable solution can't ignore human nature and the sense of fairness. Who pays for the UBI? How much is fair? Who gets to decide?

I just don't think UBI will work. It's a problem that needs solved. Agreed. But we're too new at having intellectual competence being the main means-factor in economies. We've socially evolved a system that human evolution hasn't caught up with. And I think we don't have a scalable answer.

 

[BugI02]

[video=youtube;mKCVol2iWcc]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mKCVol2iWcc[/video]

It ain't gonna happen next year.
But it's gonna happen eventually.

But will it be able to spit in your food if it doesn't like you?

 

[BugI02]

Negative income tax is means tested. It's not a version of UBI. Not that negative income taxes are a good idea themselves.

I agree that the disparity between the hyper-competent and the hyper-incompetent is growing at a nonlinear rate. But it's not the case that the standard of living is decreasing overall for those at the bottom. It's that the bottom slope is much less steep than the top. The reason seems pretty obvious to me. The most competent people can make better use of technology as more competent people create ever more complicated technology.

So our means based system is stacked towards something proportional to intelligence. Before technology, physical means testing had a lot more input on the outcome than intellectual means. But as technology becomes a larger part of the economy, it doesn't matter how many bricks you can carry up a ladder. It doesn't matter as much if your hand-eye coordination suits you to assembling things quicker. As intellectual competence increases, it's becoming more and more the most important competency in a means-based system. The more society relies on technology, the less there is for people to do to earn a living. I get that.

So what's the solution? UBI? That means people just exist. I've been around people who just exist. People need more than that. A workable solution has to involve that. Also, a workable solution can't ignore human nature and the sense of fairness. Who pays for the UBI? How much is fair? Who gets to decide?

I just don't think UBI will work. It's a problem that needs solved. Agreed. But we're too new at having intellectual competence being the main means-factor in economies. We've socially evolved a system that human evolution hasn't caught up with. And I think we don't have a scalable answer.

Butlerian Jihad

View attachment 66213