1) Nobody wants to pay for it
2) It therefore can't be tested (since it won't be paid for)
3) Everyone knows UBI can't work
81–90 of 337 posts
1) Nobody wants to pay for it
2) It therefore can't be tested (since it won't be paid for)
3) Everyone knows UBI can't work
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> All the arguments about disincentivising work are, IMO just convenient filler Not sure, I've read articles online about companies in the US struggling to hire because people are being paid more by the government. The counter to this is that companies should pay more. Undoubtedly some could afford to do this, but others... the mom & pop outfits... may not be able to.
if a company is unable to pay people a wage with which they are able to live comfortably the company should not exist
Earlier quoted context omitted.
UBI isn't unemployment. You could collect UBI and still work.
You could but no one would because they make more money not working. It equates to basically paying the company to work.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I have significant sympathy for that base’s point of view. It’s one thing to say that we must provide a social safety net for the most vulnerable, whether temporarily or permanently so. It’s quite another to say “work should be optional and the basics of life should be provided for all [via the work of others]”. I think you’ll find a few people who object to my 2nd paragraph, but extending the argument to the 3rd is…
What do we do when automation reaches most jobs? Create artificial jobs to keep people busy? Now that I think about it, that seems to be what we have been doing for some 30-40 years now. By artificial jobs, I mean jobs that if they disappeared, life would go on pretty much the same. This was in fact quite visible during all the lock-downs. Many many people no longer worked and all the essential and many non-essential…
If it comes to pass at some future time that machines can do all the work and everyone can live a Garden of Eden existence, goods and services will be so cheap due to their natural abundance, that UBI might be feasible but food and essentials might be almost not worth the trouble of metering.
We’re really, really far from that being a reality or concern, IMO.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's the point of the comment. The UK pays the price of UBI without getting the benefits of UBI.
Well, no. Only a small minority of people are on Universal Credit. I don’t get how this follows, at all.
In practice the UK already pays the price for a universal basic income. Most poor people get some sort of tax credit and/or housing benefit. What we don't do is allow people to use it to rise out of poverty. A disabled lady thought saving some of her disability was the responsible thing to do, despite further impoverishing herself, once she built up some savings she was prosecuted for fraudently claiming benefits whi…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Can you provide some numbers about people taking benefits instead of working? I'm sure there are a small number, but unemployment in the US is currently within a normal range, so I don't see the impact you claim being possible.
I replied with numbers to a different comment but to summarize a person making $30,000 per year was making the equivalent of $49,000 per year instead during the extra $600 per week. Now it is $300 per week only and someone making $30,000 is now still making about $33,000 per year, again without actually having to work or even look. If they do come back they refuse to work more than about 15 hours per week so they can…
https://philip.greenspun.com/blog/2016/11/30/long-term-effects-of-short-term-free-cash-guaranteed-minimum-income-experiments/Interesting how political parties are for or against this pilot project before the results are known. What happened to gathering evidence first and then making up one's mind? There have been other projects in Canada, Finland,Kenya and the Netherlands, all with “positive” results. It is useful to ask what you are trying to achieve with an UBI? * lift people out of poverty? * save money on other social schemes, like pe…
Part of the reason for this lack of interest in the actual outcome is that state benefits are one of the main battlegrounds in the UK's culture war. A lot of the Tories' base comes from the ideological position that poorer people don't deserve to receive aid at the expense (via taxes) of richer people. Whether or not UBI achieves any of its stated aims is totally irrelevant once you see things that way. All the argum…
After interviewing several people, I reached the conclusion most people don't think at all about the issue and have therefore incredibly inconsistent philosophical positions on issues.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In the US, it’s not UBI; it’s unemployment which you lose if you work. If UBI isn’t lost via work (other than via taxes, of course), the same issue does not arise at nearly the same magnitude.
It's a binary choice right now. You either work or you get the enhanced unemployment benefits. With the extra $300 / week benefit, in my state (Ohio), the total benefit works out to a little under $20 / hour. Note that this is a sliding scale and earning that much would require you have at least that high of a wage previously. What you end up seeing is a lot of margin in terms of how much someone is willing to give u…