11–20 of 427 posts
At what point does the government controlling your income start to impede personal freedom? Wouldn't any politician campaigning to increase the basic income be almost automatically elected?
I thought basic income was about a time where AI would take most of the jobs, and everything would be far cheaper thanks to automation. I cannot understand how it'll help you not work in the current world.
Because working part-time might not be an option for many, even if they are ready to forgo the money. We also have not built that automated world yet, so although $1000/m certainly helps, it is still not enough to pay for a comfortable life in the US.
Maybe someone more informed on the subject can enlighten me.
> 1,000 will receive $1,000 per month for up to 5 years What does this mean? Is it going to be 5 years or not? Will different participants get it for a different amount of time? Will they know when it is going to stop?
"We propose two treatment arms, one of which will receive the basic income payments for 3 years while the other receives a 5-year guarantee."[0]
[0] - https://static1.squarespace.com/static/599c23b2e6f2e1aeb8d35...
Curious as to how the control group monthly amount ($50) was decided upon. Was it basically an incentive for those selected to participate?
At what point does the government controlling your income start to impede personal freedom? Wouldn't any politician campaigning to increase the basic income be almost automatically elected?
Economists largely consider payments like this to be the best way to enact policies. It gives people more options instead of trying to control through legal pressures.
That's not true at all, and in fact, the last time a large number of economists were surveyed about a proposal, the response was overwhelmingly in opposition: http://www.igmchicago.org/surveys/universal-basic-income
Many economists would agree that, ceteris paribus, cash is "better" than an equivalent amount of earmarked money in most situations, because cash is more flexible. But that's a very narrow statement that isn't applicable here, because it's assuming that the set of people receiving the money would be the exact same (it's not, by the definition of "universal"), and it's also assuming that there are no other external consequences to the proposal (another topic which is, at best, debatable). So even that point of agreement among economists isn't relevant to this proposal.
I wonder how long it will be until USA is ready for that stuff.
Also, will be interesting to see the difference in results from this study to ones done in countries where healthcare is free or subsidised.
> We tentatively plan to randomly select 3,000 individuals across two US states to participate in the study: 1,000 will receive $1,000 per month for up to 5 years, and 2,000 will receive $50 per month and serve as a control group for comparison. So obvious question on many minds, " Where do I sign up for the free money? " Also, will it be randomly selected or will the selection criteria factor in cost of living, curr…
Are the results of this feasibility study publicly available?
At what point does the government controlling your income start to impede personal freedom? Wouldn't any politician campaigning to increase the basic income be almost automatically elected?
The intent of basic income I have read about is to increase the personal freedom and provide a flexible safety net for the poorest individuals. And for personal freedom I'm guessing you can take or leave the basic income -- but none will because it's money right?
And about your second thought, you could use evidence for politicians elected based on their promises to raise or lower taxes -- which is essentially an income increase or reduction (for various income subsets of the population).