Stockton trial project with guaranteed Basic Income

[panamaican]

I'm very interested to see how this goes, but I think there is a very serious problem that will taint the experiment, all the other welfare in California. Hopefully it helps the people intended, but I don't think we'll prove this is a better model than the welfare model with this, and it may make things worse. One big thing that gives me trepidation on all welfare is giving people something for nothing on an ongoing basis and with no real accountability. I really believe that people do better when they have to earn things.

Sure but the problem is that the opportunity to earn things isn't always readily available. I know that statement will touch off a plethora of comments from others about how easy it is or that X person did it so everyone else can do it. Before they type that, I respectfully disagree.

In areas with low job opportunity, it doesn't matter that someone went to school and worked hard because there are no hires in their community. As they noted in the article, Silicon valley creates tremendous wealth but Stockton is too far away to benefit from it. We see something similar in Detroit, as the auto industry reduced its labor needs, the employment rate in the city declined. Not because people didn't want to earn incomes but because the hiring companies no longer needed them in numbers similar to the past.

A unsympathetic example is the fall out in the legal industry in 2007-2009. People worked hard, studied hard and went to law school. Then the financial crisis hit and the legal industry dramatically shrink it's workforce. No one amount of wanting to earn things was going to change that the economy had shifted for people in that industry. Nor will it change for those graduates even as the legal market slowly returns. There are always new people reaching hiring age and those left behind will remain left behind as the economy moves on without them.

We have to realize that plenty of industries are facing similar circumstances. In many ways, our sense of economic opportunity still seems tied to a world where physical labor was king and thus there was always space for a fit individual willing to put in the sweat. Our economy no longer operates on that model. It has become extremely dependent on a smaller and smaller subset of people with more and more specialized skills.

That was long winded - so while people certainly do better when they have to earn things, they do much worse when the opportunity to earn things doesn't exist in quantity to match.

The labor force participation rate is down, it's especially down for men, it's super especially down for men who don't have college degrees. Not because they don't want to earn things but because the modern economy isn't giving them as many chances to do so.

 

[xcvbn]

Probably going to be pointless. Previous studies already showed that people behave differently when they know that the program is temporary. To get good data, the recipients will have to believe that this is for life.

Still, overall interested in outcome.

Would those studies nullify adult welfare studies involving food stamps and cash aid considering the 48 month limit?

 

[panamaican]

Would those studies nullify adult welfare studies involving food stamps and cash aid considering the 48 month limit?

Not in the slightest. Welfare isn't intended to be a permanent thing, it's meant to be a bridge to something else so the temporary status is intentional because the goal is to drive short term behavioral change. You want to know what people do when they know it's not permanent.

UBI's are meant to be permanent things but when the subjects know that the test is temporary, they engage in planning that mirrors the short term window of the test, not the long term planning that the UBI hopes to address. You want to know what people do when they believe they can permanently rely on it.

When you know that food stamps only last 1 more year, you want people trying to find an alternative before the year is up. Short term planning. But if you want people to feel safe enrolling in college or starting a new business without missing the mortgage, you don't want them saying "I won't make long term investments into my future because this money won't be there when I eventually need it down the road."

If college is 4 years but the UBI is only 3 then they won't make the investment because they can't afford College Year #4 without the UBI. Or if the UBI test is only 18 months, they won't start the new business because if it fails they won't have the UBI to fall back on.

 

[HockeyBjj]

I'd be really pissed if I lived in that community and wasn't selected to get $500 a month

 

[JudoThrowFiasco]

Nike is excited for the increase in Jordan purchases.

 

[luckyshot]

It's interesting but dystopian.
It's also paradoxical, we need migrants to fulfill the jobs we won't do but we also need basic income because there will be no more jobs.
I believe that if real AI ever happens we will all die anyway.

It’s not a paradox really. We are in a weird place where there are jobs to be done, but they aren’t valuable enough to pay people enough to support the prices that would result from paying people enough to do them.

For example, there are avocados to be picked, and people like avacadoes, but people would just stop eating avacadoes before they would pay whatever price it would take to pay people a living wage to pick them.

 

[HIMBOB]

Don't understand the point.

Ubi should replace welfare and be considered as part of your tax free income for workers.

Still its only 18 million and could provide future guidance.
Wow my maths is off badly

 

[AviatorShades]

Poetic justice that a "Labor shortage, global economy! Remain competitive or die! Step aside you cavemen! Growth growth growth, you don't want $7,000 produce do you?" town like Stockton has too many unskilled humans and is paying them just to stay indoors 5 yrs later

 

[ocfightfan]

Sure but the problem is that the opportunity to
earn things isn't always readily available. I know that statement will touch off a plethora of comments from others about how easy it is or that X person did it so everyone else can do it. Before they type that, I respectfully disagree.

In areas with low job opportunity, it doesn't matter that someone went to school and worked hard because there are no hires in their community. As they noted in the article, Silicon valley creates tremendous wealth but Stockton is too far away to benefit from it. We see something similar in Detroit, as the auto industry reduced its labor needs, the employment rate in the city declined. Not because people didn't want to earn incomes but because the hiring companies no longer needed them in numbers similar to the past.

I understand that, which is why people move to locations with better opportunities. I'm not saying it's easy, but sometimes you do what you have to do.

A unsympathetic example is the fall out in the legal industry in 2007-2009. People worked hard, studied hard and went to law school. Then the financial crisis hit and the legal industry dramatically shrink it's workforce. No one amount of wanting to earn things was going to change that the economy had shifted for people in that industry. Nor will it change for those graduates even as the legal market slowly returns. There are always new people reaching hiring age and those left behind will remain left behind as the economy moves on without them.

Supply and demand. It's a cold hard reality, and people need to adapt. It sounds ice cold, but I'm not sure that simply paying people to exist and sit on their asses is the best solution. And really, do we need more lawyers or even paralegals? Those well educated folks should go do something productive.

We have to realize that plenty of industries are facing similar circumstances. In many ways, our sense of economic opportunity still seems tied to a world where physical labor was king and thus there was always space for a fit individual willing to put in the sweat. Our economy no longer operates on that model. It has become extremely dependent on a smaller and smaller subset of people with more and more specialized skills.

I'm certainly open to the idea that technology may eliminate so many jobs that there is not enough that requires human labor for everyone to have a decent job or any job at all. I'm conditionally open to a guaranteed basic income because of that. I've heard it argued from a libertarian perspective and it was compelling in the sense of being less problematic than the current welfare system. Far less overhead and fewer bad incentives.

Having said that, I'm not sure we are there yet, and I'm still concerned about problems that may be created by people sitting on their asses. Even if a UBI is the only choice or the best choice we still have to think about the opportunities people have to channel those idle hands. How will all that energy be channeled in a non-destructive way?

That was long winded - so while people certainly do better when they have to earn things, they do much worse when the opportunity to earn things doesn't exist in quantity to match.

The labor force participation rate is down, it's especially down for men, it's super especially down for men who don't have college degrees. Not because they don't want to earn things but because the modern economy isn't giving them as many chances to do so.

I think that reducing immigration and increasing skill training, for both blue collar and high tech will help with that. I'm not for Bernies absurd free college plan, but I keep hearing about the skills gap in America for both blue collar and high tech. College isn't for everyone, and it's turned into a highly questionable investment for many. I would be open to funding training programs that focus on fundamental skills and job specific or technical skills. We don't need more women's studies majors in the work force.

And now I'll be cheeky and super regressive by suggesting that women should stay home with the kids. A return to the 1950s family idea is in order. Clear the way ladies.

 

[RockstarChris]

Stockton in 2018.

 

[AviatorShades]

It’s not a paradox really. We are in a weird place where there are jobs to be done, but they aren’t valuable enough to pay people enough to support the prices that would result from paying people enough to do them.

For example, there are avocados to be picked, and people like avacadoes, but people would just stop eating avacadoes before they would pay whatever price it would take to pay people a living wage to pick them.

What proof is there for this? Can you realistically apply it to your own life? Produce prices already vary seasonally as the source countries change and span a wide variety of labor/economic/migration scenarios. Do these cents-per-pound fluctuations actually govern your diet? In a country where the main concern is that food is too cheap and nobody can control their caloric intake?

We just live in a system totally controlled by quarter-to-quarter economic myopia where anyone who thinks 6+ months into the future is dismissed as some esoteric Ray Kurzweil type. The migrant economy Steinbeck wrote about hasn't evolved at all and even though it would be pretty easy to force that evolution, it's one of those "untouchable" issues the left (to justify systematic globalization) and neocons (farm industry pinches a few pennies then lets the govt deal with the human aftermath) align on.

 

[Oeshon]

you cant live off 500 a month so what is the point?

UBI is the dumbest idea ive ever seen. just wait for a few million more refugees to come over and start churning out 10 babies each. See how well the system works.

 

[My Spot]

$500 in CA? lol
People will just blow it on stupid shit anyhow.

 

[FrankensteinMMA]

 

[PrinceOfPain]

Or people working full time jobs. Like the majority who are already on some
Government assistance. Like wal mart workers. Full 40+ hour work week already in the bag.

But In your mind they're losers.

They work 40+ hours a week and still don't make enough money to support themselves?
That kinda sounds like losing to me.

 

[KONG-D'SNT-TAP]

They work 40+ hours a week and still don't make enough money to support themselves?
That kinda sounds like losing to me.

Have you ever read anything in your entire life?

It's called the working poor. The country is filled with these people from all political affiliations

 

[PrinceOfPain]

Have you ever read anything in your entire life?

It's called the working poor. The country is filled with these people from all political affiliations

That's nice.
Still sounds like losing.

Would you define it as winning?
Sad life.

 

[EL GOAT]

you cant live off 500 a month so what is the point?

UBI is the dumbest idea ive ever seen. just wait for a few million more refugees to come over and start churning out 10 babies each. See how well the system works.

The point isn't to live off it..It's to experiment and improve people's lives.



Even for the people saying "They will spend it on hookers/booze", that could very well be true, but all the money they get in their job, will go to other things that will improve their live.


If somebody doesn't have a job...This money will help them keep their Brain sane.....Having no job and no money can't lead people to do very dangerous and stupid things.



I don't see how more money will be a negative for anybody....It will help the local economy, help people out with future endeavors, or just help people have fun.


This is a great idea.

 

[Rockapotomuss]

This doesn’t work. When you give people money they work less shitty jobs, which means there is less to buy, which means value of money goes down, which means inflation goes up, which means people need more money to buy the same things, so those who got the handout are right back where they started and those who didn’t get it are disadvantaged. The proportion of this effect is equal to the size of the handouts.

 

[KONG-D'SNT-TAP]

That's nice.
Still sounds like losing.

Would you define it as winning?
Sad life.

I don't consider them losers but clearly they aren't winning.

They also are hard working people who work more than 40 hours a week and need some type of government assistance. Like wal Mart workers.