Opinion Is Universal Basic Income the way forward?

Being at the complete mercy of an already terrible government seems like a great idea. Like a lamb to the slaughter.

Lol at "at the complete mercy"

You do know they'd just be cutting you a check, right? Not getting rid of jobs altogether or rationing your food or electricity.

If you so choose to quit your job and try to live off, say, $12k a year, then that's your choice.
 
I'm not arguing with that. I'm saying that I don't care because I'm focusing on employment numbers. To simplify, if we go from 100 jobs to 97 jobs, it doesn't matter that overall productivity goes up if you're concerned about people finding work. Productivity is up but there are 3 fewer jobs, so 3 fewer people working, so 3 more people in need of the social safety net.

Yay productivity. Now, let's deal with the 3 new unemployed people.

If overall productivity growth is low, we're not seeing an increase in unemployed people due to rising productivity. So it's not "yay productivity (though it is generally a good thing)," it's "productivity growth at a level that is noticeably affecting unemployment isn't happening." The whole discussion about the impact of technology of job demand centers around the belief that productivity will suddenly and sharply reverse course (or more likely, around people not being aware that productivity growth has always caused job displacement and that that effect is shrinking).

Sure...your point? I don't recall disagreeing with that. But he stated "...That increased use of robots in the workplace also lowered wages by roughly 0.4 percent during the same time period..." That's directed towards the overall economic impact of the addition of robots.

Longer quote:

"This means each additional robot added in manufacturing replaced about 3.3 workers nationally, on average.

That increased use of robots in the workplace also lowered wages by roughly 0.4 percent during the same time period."

Looks to me like that's referring to manufacturing. The longer piece also notes that the *slowdown* of productivity growth has caused a drop in labor demand.

Yes to the first sentence because that's what's happening already. We both know that labor force participation rate has been declining, regardless of the rosy numbers about employment rates. Especially in men.

We do know that male prime-age LFP has been declining since at least the late '40s. We don't know that that's caused by increasing productivity. It's likely that automation has contributed to it, but there's a lot more going on here, and I don't think that anyone has a good answer. Note that about half of prime-age men not in the labor force are disabled. We've also seen rising incarceration rates during the period. It's a very small part of it, but an increase in house husbands is another factor. Globalization is often blamed here, and while I think that's overblown (just as the technological explanation is), it could be a factor. Another factor is a shift in the composition (that is, we're looking at 25-54-year-olds, but over the period, the distribution within that range has shifted, which could also be a factor in the disability rates). Another one is that we haven't done a great job of recovering fully from recession to recession. Anyway, there's not a lot of room in the numbers for a big effect, as you have a lot of factors that plausibly make a difference and a total effect that isn't that big.
 
I wouldn't quit working. But I would definitely quit working a mentally stressful professional job 40-60 hours a week for $80K or so. I would just go do something easy like flip burgers for 15-20 hours a week, and make $40K or so.

$40,000/52 Weeks
770 Per week/20 hours
$38 dollars an hour.

You think burger flippers make $38 an hour?
 
Of course they don't

Thats the math from your post, unless you factor the UBI into your 40K number. At $1000 UBI a month the math from your post still has a burger flipper making over 25 an hour
 
The money will come from taxes, from people who actually work and produce, you're taking that money and giving it away. Downside more taxes will be needed, the cost to oversee such system will also be costly and you are empowering more governments.
Well I don't think people we mind a slight increase in taxes if they have more cash in their pockets. But with that being said, we can have UBI without raising taxes on the middle class. We can raise taxes on the rich, and cut military spending. We can also legalize and tax marijuana federally and use the revenue generated from that to pay for UBI. Those are just a few of the ways we can pay for UBI without raising taxes on the working class.
I don't think a big government is necessarily a bad thing if the government is using it's power help the working class.
 
Thats the math from your post, unless you factor the UBI into your 40K number. At $1000 UBI a month the math from your post still has a burger flipper making over 25 an hour
Politicians in America are calling for a $2000 UBI.
 
Im in on trying UBI. I just dont see why we are talking about 1,000 or 2,000 a month. Start with 500 a month. Thats an extra pay check for a lot of people but is nowhere near enough for anyone to live on. $500 a month is the type of thing that lets people get out of debt, take a nice vacation or take up an extra hobby.

UBI doesnt have to replace work. Tt can used to create a low level of improvement in the lives of people who live in a rich enough country that there is no reason any of us should be constantly scraping if we work 30-40 hours a week.
 
Why did someone on Sherdog ban OverCoronavirus Pressure?

He wrote many awesome messages over the years.
 
UBI is just undeserved welfare for the masses.
Who is going to work when they have a check every month for nothing?

Some investments feel like you're getting money for doing nothing. That doesn't stop me from working and making more money. Not sure if you're serious .
 
A universal basic income is a government guarantee that each citizen receives a minimum income. It is also called a citizen’s income, guaranteed minimum income, or basic income.

The intention behind the payment is to provide enough to cover the basic cost of living and provide financial security. The concept has regained popularity as a way to offset job losses caused by technology.
https://www.thebalance.com/universal-basic-income-4160668

I see an ideological conflict in this debate, and members on both sides have a point. It's worth discussing the pros and cons of UBI.

Pros:
  • Universal Basic Income (UBI) reduces poverty and income inequality, and improves health.
  • UBI leads to positive job growth and lower school dropout rates.
  • UBI guarantees income for non-working parents and caregivers, thus empowering important unpaid roles, especially for women.
Cons:
  • Universal Basic Income (UBI) takes money from the poor and gives it to everyone, increasing poverty and depriving the poor of needed targeted support.
  • UBI removes the incentive to work, adversely affecting the economy and leading to a labor and skills shortage.
  • UBI is too expensive.
https://www.procon.org/headline.php?headlineID=005363

UBI does not create jobs nor does it steal wealth from the poor. Overall it has a progressive impact but will disincentivize growth.

Also productivity is something we need more of to increase per capita wealth not less so I don’t buy this tech argument.

That being said a market dividend for every citizen in a market economy is a great idea. It solves for the natural inequality caused by markets and if structured correctly, can be funded by government investments in the market.

I support the concept on balance.
 
Well, it can't reduce poverty and increase poverty simultaneously. I would think that the "takes money from the poor" part is referring to paying taxes which poverty stricken individuals would not be paying. If you are in poverty, tax hikes to pay for UBI would likely not affect you at all.

But I am not for UBI because it is too broad of a brush. Many people do not need a check from the government and they are not in need of any form of assistance. Passing out billions of dollars to people who do not need it does not seem like a reasonable way to spend tax money to me.

Then you have people who are making a decent salary, 6-figures or so, but are living in a more expensive area as a result. For example, if you have a family and you work in NYC, you are likely living in North Jersey and paying quite a bit for your house and property tax. Some of those people would be seeing tax hikes, even though they are far from living a life of luxury. I don't want to see normal people, working hard to be middle class, see any tax hikes at all. Making $120,000 a year in some rural area of Kansas is not the same as making that same figure in NYC, and that never seems to be part of the consideration.

I think as usual, you give well thought out answers. But consider this.

Government prints money or taxes via progressive taxes and invests in the market, it then pays everybody a UBI based on dividends from the market. Everyone gets it which increases popularly and sustainability from a political perspective.

It’s funded by progressive taxes and will have a percentage bigger impact on the poor so it’s progressive over all. Why does it matter if everyone gets it?
 
If overall productivity growth is low, we're not seeing an increase in unemployed people due to rising productivity. So it's not "yay productivity (though it is generally a good thing)," it's "productivity growth at a level that is noticeably affecting unemployment isn't happening." The whole discussion about the impact of technology of job demand centers around the belief that productivity will suddenly and sharply reverse course (or more likely, around people not being aware that productivity growth has always caused job displacement and that that effect is shrinking).



Longer quote:

"This means each additional robot added in manufacturing replaced about 3.3 workers nationally, on average.

That increased use of robots in the workplace also lowered wages by roughly 0.4 percent during the same time period."

Looks to me like that's referring to manufacturing. The longer piece also notes that the *slowdown* of productivity growth has caused a drop in labor demand.



We do know that male prime-age LFP has been declining since at least the late '40s. We don't know that that's caused by increasing productivity. It's likely that automation has contributed to it, but there's a lot more going on here, and I don't think that anyone has a good answer. Note that about half of prime-age men not in the labor force are disabled. We've also seen rising incarceration rates during the period. It's a very small part of it, but an increase in house husbands is another factor. Globalization is often blamed here, and while I think that's overblown (just as the technological explanation is), it could be a factor. Another factor is a shift in the composition (that is, we're looking at 25-54-year-olds, but over the period, the distribution within that range has shifted, which could also be a factor in the disability rates). Another one is that we haven't done a great job of recovering fully from recession to recession. Anyway, there's not a lot of room in the numbers for a big effect, as you have a lot of factors that plausibly make a difference and a total effect that isn't that big.
Each robot added in manufacturing led to ~6 jobs lost but ~3 jobs were created elsewhere in the economy. That's where the net 3.3 loss comes from. It's not each robot led to 3.3 jobs lost in manufacturing.
https://economics.mit.edu/files/19696

This round robin can be simplified with a yes/no question:

Do you agree that there is a net 3.3 job loss per robot introduced?

It's a simple yes/no question, you can add whatever explanation you'd like afterwards (I will read it) but lead with a "Yes" or "No" so I can be clear on where you stand.
 
Each robot added in manufacturing led to ~6 jobs lost but ~3 jobs were created elsewhere in the economy. That's where the net 3.3 loss comes from. It's not each robot led to 3.3 jobs lost in manufacturing.
https://economics.mit.edu/files/19696

This round robin can be simplified with a yes/no question:

Do you agree that there is a net 3.3 job loss per robot introduced?

It's a simple yes/no question, you can add whatever explanation you'd like afterwards (I will read it) but lead with a "Yes" or "No" so I can be clear on where you stand.

No.

Both robots and total jobs have been increasing in the economy as a whole. Some sectors have seen positive robot growth and negative job growth, though.
 
It's a great way to kill the motivation to do better for a lot of people.
 
Well I don't think people we mind a slight increase in taxes if they have more cash in their pockets. But with that being said, we can have UBI without raising taxes on the middle class. We can raise taxes on the rich, and cut military spending. We can also legalize and tax marijuana federally and use the revenue generated from that to pay for UBI. Those are just a few of the ways we can pay for UBI without raising taxes on the working class.
I don't think a big government is necessarily a bad thing if the government is using it's power help the working class.
The entire military budget is $700 billion. There are 210 million Americans 18 or over. A $1000 a month UBI would cost $2.52 trillion per year. A $2000 a month UBI would cost $5 trillion per year. Add in some UBI funding for children and it would be a lot more.

How much of cutting the military and taxing cannabis would pay for that lol? It's almost like the people supporting UBI are high and just want hard working people to pay for their drugs.
 
Considering that we are massively in debt and are heading towards an Argentinian-style economic reckoning, no. A market dividend? Dividends are for companies that are making money, not ones that are going deeper in debt each year.

That being said, it’s something worth considering if we go to a zero based budgeting system. Start with debt repayment as your first line item and go from there.

What is more important to you?

UBI or FBI / NSA / CIA? I would choose UBI.
UBI or benefits for illegal immigrants? UBI again.
UBI or congressional pensions? Who wouldn’t pick UBI?
UBI or VA benefits and border security? Sorry UBI, not this time.

Clearly UBI has more merit than some government programs, but don’t even think about adding more isn’t we can’t afford without starting over on the budget.
 
Back
Top