21–30 of 348 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
As a general supporter of UBI, I'm not sure there is any way to actually test UBI without just implementing it at full scale. The U is an important part of it and like you said the expectation of permanence is crucial to seeing a change in long term planning and behaviors.
Test it in production.
These studies don't really prove anything. Common arguments in favor of these studies - "They prove people don't quit work on UBI!" - No, they prove that people who are in a program that is very clearly temporary will not end their careers for a short pilot program. This means nothing. "They prove people won't spend it on drugs, booze, and lotto tickets!" - No. If you make $1k from a job and $1k from a pilot program…
This is one of the best summaries of UBI that I have seen. UBI proponents are advised to read this carefully.
That doesn’t mean it’s not worth it.
These studies don't really prove anything. Common arguments in favor of these studies - "They prove people don't quit work on UBI!" - No, they prove that people who are in a program that is very clearly temporary will not end their careers for a short pilot program. This means nothing. "They prove people won't spend it on drugs, booze, and lotto tickets!" - No. If you make $1k from a job and $1k from a pilot program…
> where is the proof that it won't hurt long term productivity, By that measure couldn’t we say the Capitalism pilot program has failed? Sure productivity is ever increasing and business productivity per employee is at historic highs...but all that productivity has only resulted in a larger wealth gap with all the benefits going to the investor class and net negative to workers whose real wages have been stagnant for…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Test it in production.
... which is a terrible idea
Based on how most jobs will get automated some form of an UBI will be required sooner or later. Now the only question is: how to you phase in UBI while still rewarding extra productive people to keep creating/innovating? Some will say "those people will innovate out of love". This is not always the case, many people are good at what they do and create many awesome things but given the chance they would rather do some…
Look into the luddites.
Based on how most jobs will get automated some form of an UBI will be required sooner or later. Now the only question is: how to you phase in UBI while still rewarding extra productive people to keep creating/innovating? Some will say "those people will innovate out of love". This is not always the case, many people are good at what they do and create many awesome things but given the chance they would rather do some…
I think there's also a bunch of programs financing unemployed people so they can go back to school and pick up a more current job once their unemployment benefits end.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revenu_de_solidarit%C3%A9_acti...
These studies don't really prove anything. Common arguments in favor of these studies - "They prove people don't quit work on UBI!" - No, they prove that people who are in a program that is very clearly temporary will not end their careers for a short pilot program. This means nothing. "They prove people won't spend it on drugs, booze, and lotto tickets!" - No. If you make $1k from a job and $1k from a pilot program…
> where is the proof that it won't hurt long term productivity, By that measure couldn’t we say the Capitalism pilot program has failed? Sure productivity is ever increasing and business productivity per employee is at historic highs...but all that productivity has only resulted in a larger wealth gap with all the benefits going to the investor class and net negative to workers whose real wages have been stagnant for…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They also only give the money to a small number of people Not to mention that the real question is whether UBI makes sense economically, not whether people like money, which is almost indisputable
The thing about government programs that hand out cash is that the money will be circulated back into the local economy most of the time, which is a net benefit (I think it would be a net positive if the money was required to be spent locally if the beneficiary makes above a certain income). It's not like it's getting thrown down a black hole. Even if a person is making great money, that additional money is more like…
If I was working full-time and could live comfortably off that plus extra UBI, I think the majority of people would spend it on more luxurious goods (phones, laptops, drugs, etc.) which are mostly ran by/on outside/blackmarket economies...
We're not sure of the magic number/ratio between "person will use UBI for basic, locally-sourced needs" vs. "person will use UBI for 'wants', sourced elsewhere" and I think there's so many factors that it will be hard (almost impossible) to come up with a palpable answer.
Based on how most jobs will get automated some form of an UBI will be required sooner or later. Now the only question is: how to you phase in UBI while still rewarding extra productive people to keep creating/innovating? Some will say "those people will innovate out of love". This is not always the case, many people are good at what they do and create many awesome things but given the chance they would rather do some…
> Based on how most jobs will get automated some form of an UBI will be required sooner or later.
> Now the only question is: ...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
As a general supporter of UBI, I'm not sure there is any way to actually test UBI without just implementing it at full scale. The U is an important part of it and like you said the expectation of permanence is crucial to seeing a change in long term planning and behaviors.
I imagine a permanent study with a few hundred people is still a lot easier to implement than permanent UBI for everyone.