51–60 of 669 posts
https://www.who.int/tools/elena/review-summaries/cash-transf...
https://epar.evans.uw.edu/blog/long-term-impacts-cash-transf....
$1000 is not enough to quit their jobs or get a nice apartment. They could move slightly closer to work if they have to commute. It's not enough for a real tuition or to support them to study instead of work. I don't think we've ever had a universal basic income test. We have always missed the universal and basic part. It's below basic and not at all universal. I suspect that you need to get international cooperation…
Imagine if we gave everyone $20/mo. No strings, tax free, not qualifed by income. That obviously isn't enough to live on, let alone buy food. But imagine the infrastructure that would be universally in place to allow us to scale it up as a society. We could find the balance. Maybe it's $1000, maybe it's $5000. Maybe another global pandemic happens and we need to dump an infusion into people's lives for a time. Just h…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
People have different definitions of UBI, but in my mind 'basic' doesn't translate to quitting your job and not working. People in a functioning society still have to work.
> People in a functioning society still have to work Why?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
People have different definitions of UBI, but in my mind 'basic' doesn't translate to quitting your job and not working. People in a functioning society still have to work.
I always interpreted the point of the programs as by taking immediate insecurity off the table, you are allowing people to make more long term decisions for their well being.
For instance, couples where both partners need a job in a fixed location have less mobility than couples where one or both can work remotely. Therefore, they are locked into their geographic markets, unable to explore better opportunities.
$1000 is not enough to quit their jobs or get a nice apartment. They could move slightly closer to work if they have to commute. It's not enough for a real tuition or to support them to study instead of work. I don't think we've ever had a universal basic income test. We have always missed the universal and basic part. It's below basic and not at all universal. I suspect that you need to get international cooperation…
Imagine if we gave everyone $20/mo. No strings, tax free, not qualifed by income. That obviously isn't enough to live on, let alone buy food. But imagine the infrastructure that would be universally in place to allow us to scale it up as a society. We could find the balance. Maybe it's $1000, maybe it's $5000. Maybe another global pandemic happens and we need to dump an infusion into people's lives for a time. Just h…
$1000 is not enough to quit their jobs or get a nice apartment. They could move slightly closer to work if they have to commute. It's not enough for a real tuition or to support them to study instead of work. I don't think we've ever had a universal basic income test. We have always missed the universal and basic part. It's below basic and not at all universal. I suspect that you need to get international cooperation…
People have different definitions of UBI, but in my mind 'basic' doesn't translate to quitting your job and not working. People in a functioning society still have to work.
In society A, machines and clean energy allow the population to work an average of 20 hours a week. Some, even many people choose not to work at all, but still get access to a basic apartment and have their basic food, social and education, etc, needs met.
In society B, machines and dirty energy allow a tiny segment of the population to live on super-yachts, replete with airstrips for their private jets. They hire people who hire people to convince the majority of the population they must work at least 40 hours a week (preferably 80).
Which society would you say is "functioning" better?
Why blame the unemployed for the functioning of a society, when record inequality and the policies that allow it are so much more responsible?
Look at this graph, and explain to me how unemployment is the problem here: https://cdn.statcdn.com/Infographic/images/normal/23410.jpeg
This is a pretty generous reading of the study. One result they are missing out is that the income actually reduced overall employment compared to the control group, and ended up decreasing household earnings: https://www.nber.org/papers/w32719 Even with a generous reading, it was an extremely expensive study. And similar proposals like the Negative Income Tax would cost far less money and have none of the presented…
Most people file taxes once a year, meaning they would get this payment once rather than monthly, which makes a huge difference if living on the poverty line. Similarly, many people making less than the minimum for filing [1] likely don't file their taxes. This was an issue with the child tax credit as well -- you want to get resources to the lowest-income households, but doing that with tax credits means you don't actually reach those households, meaning you still have to introduce new programs to reach those people [2]. There were proposals to make that tax credit into a monthly payment but IIRC they did not pass before the child tax credit was ended in 2022.
[1] https://www.irs.gov/newsroom/who-needs-to-file-a-tax-return [2] https://www.vox.com/22588701/child-tax-credit-accessibility-...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
People have different definitions of UBI, but in my mind 'basic' doesn't translate to quitting your job and not working. People in a functioning society still have to work.
> People in a functioning society still have to work Why?
