Universal Basic Income (A Break From the Primaries)

[DetroitSocialist83]

What do DUers think about the proposal of a guaranteed basic income? It is being experimented with in Europe, Canada, Africa, and India. Notable economists support it. Could this be a way to simplify the state, and also provide income as automation begins to take over more of the economy? I could also see this as a way to empower traditionally oppressed people. What say you?

http://us11.campaign-archive2.com/?u=6122e62da2e8b09f297411ccf&id=f35428a463

[Recursion]

1. The only option, given the robot future

We need to get over the idea that work is necessary for most people.

[Warren Stupidity]

3. Yup. People don't quite understand how rapidly we are

approaching a post work system.

[Albertoo]

4. I doubt that

Be it only because needs are limitless. Work freed by robots will be redirected to other pursuits.
Example: physical medicine expanded greatly over the past two centuries, but psychological healing is still very limited while a large fraction of the population 10? 20%? experiences depression in their lifetimes. Ditto for counseling at different ages (youth, divorces, ageing,..)

Even if it has limitations (hoarding, speculation), Say's Law still holds some truth.

[Warren Stupidity]

9. Er, I suppose it might be possible that millions of

automated manufacturing and service jobs could be replaced by psychotherapists, it just seems unlikely.

[Sherman A1]

2. I believe that this needs to be studied

and given serious thought. I am not entirely sure how it plays out, but it is a concept that needs investigation.

[Meldread]

5. I support UBI 100%.

People, especially in the United States, need to really get over the idea that an individuals value is somehow magically tied to how hard and how much they work. There is no serious research that says that people work less under a UBI system, but what it does do is empower workers--especially workers doing shitty jobs--to be able to walk away if necessary. The fundamental fact is that if someone controls your paycheck, and that is the only means of supporting yourself and your family, then you are effectively a surf. You don't have the power or ability to bargain with them for fair wages for your labor or anything else. Your strength and value waxes and wanes with the fluctuations of the labor market. UBI gives workers the ability to walk away if necessary.

Additionally, UBI does not punish those who need assistance FOR going to work. The current system punishes people who want to work, but working more and earning more could jeopardize their current benefits--putting them in a worse position.

If people believe that all individuals are entitled to a basic standard of living, the UBI is the inevitable solution to that problem. As others have mentioned as we move more and more toward a post-work future, with increasing efficiency from technology, this becomes the only real result that does not cause an absolute collapse in the global and national economy.

[metalbot]

31. How would you determine UBI?

Flat rate for every American? Adjusted for location? Do kids get UBI? What about teenagers? If so, at what age do parents stop receiving their kids' UBI? What social services would be turned off as a result of UBI?

It's easy to get behind the concept of "let's give everyone enough money to live on", but the devil is ultimately in the details.

Also:

"People, especially in the United States, need to really get over the idea that an individuals value is somehow magically tied to how hard and how much they work. There is no serious research that says that people work less under a UBI system..."

...seems to be contradictory. You're on the one hand arguing "value should not be tied to how much we work", which seems to imply that "working less would be ok", and then argue that UBI will not result in people working less (which I thought was actually the whole point!).

[Meldread]

32. You are right, the devil is in the details. Here is where I shake out.

I'll try and address both of your points.

First, the details. UBI would be offered to everyone eighteen years or older, as well as those individuals declared independent at a younger age. UBI would not be offered to children or for additional children, as having children is a choice that the government should not be in the business of promoting or discouraging. This is the reason we also advocate for choice and easy access to contraception so individuals and families can make those decisions for themselves.

There would be no means testing for UBI. It would be offered to everyone. This would be done because we know that when a social service like this is offered as welfare, those who don't receive it fight against it. Contrast it with how social security works, and the huge popular support it receives.

Benefits would be based upon a national living standard, and then adjusted slightly (only upward) based on location. There may be some additional rules applied to additional increased payments based on location--for example, giving proof that you've lived there for a certain amount of time. I am slightly concerned here about distorting housing markets, so this would be something better worked out in careful detail.

UBI would negate the need for social security (it would essentially replace it and be much more money) as well as SNAP benefits. There may be some other minor programs that would be redundant with UBI, but we would still need to move toward a Single Payer or Universal Healthcare System. In the meantime, until we get there, Medicare, Medicaid, the ACA, and other such programs would remain in place.

I believe this answered all of your questions from the first point.

Now, to your second point regarding work. My position here is simple: I don't want individuals to be obligated to work, especially in horrible low paying jobs. I want work to be a choice, and I want workers to be empowered to bargain with their employers. If someone decides to drop out of the labor market and spend their days surfing on the beach, then that is their choice--a choice I would support. This also is beneficial to those who are interested in entering into the labor market, as it makes labor more scarce, and puts them in a stronger bargaining position. One of the big fears of UBI is that EVERYONE will drop out of the workforce, or at least large numbers of people will. This hasn't been proven to be the case in areas where it has been tried. Although there were some labor force losses, the bulk of them were people who dropped out to go back to school to obtain a higher education. Very few people actually chose to drop out of the labor force entirely. The other thing of note was that there was also a reasonable number of people who decided to work fewer hours and spend more time with their families.

My point was really two-fold: it didn't lead to the worst fears people always predict with UBI, and even in the few marginal cases where it did--it actually benefits those in the labor market, as it makes their labor more valuable. We want work to be a choice, and we want those who choose to work to be able to bargain fairly for their labor.

[metalbot]

34. Thanks

I really appreciate your taking the time to put together a thoughtful well reasoned response. I like the fact that it's adult driven, and not connected with children, because many proposals I've read would effectively provide incentive for horribly poor people to have children, and continue to do so late in life.

[Meldread]

36. Yeah, it's a really bad idea to do that.

Obviously, we want a UBI that would allow someone to support a family, as most people WILL have children. However, that would only be one factor out of many that would be part of a national living standard calculation. Most people will have one or two kids as they do now. How we come up with the calculation for UBI will be somewhat complicated, but the core goal would be to create a standard that ensures that everyone can live above the poverty line.

Our goal should not be to support someone like the Octo-Mom or the Dugger family. If they want to have a million kids, that's their business, but it's not our job to support them. As you point out, it would also be a horrific incentive for people to have lots of kids to get more money from the system. That's why we support a woman's right to choose to have an abortion, easy (even free!) access to all forms of contraceptive methods (for both men and women), and a healthy and robust sexual education as well as lessons on family planning--before children begin to have sex and pop out kids. In a free society people should be able to make choices for themselves, but with those choices come responsibilities. If for some reason certain individuals begin to have so many children they cannot sufficiently care for them, then that is a matter for Child Protective Services.

[hamsterjill]

35. Very well reasoned response.

One more question, since you've peeked my curiosity. How will this be paid for?

Will those workers who decide to work still pay taxes? I assume the UBI amount (alone) would not be taxed?

I'm listening... but I'm not sure I want to work to have more, and then pay taxes for someone to lie on the beach. So convince me.

[HughBeaumont]

6. In "Fuck You, Pay Me" America?

Noooooooooooooooot happening.

Oh, don't get me wrong . . . . it NEEDS to happen. Within the next 20-30 years, the labor surplus is going to skyrocket. American corporations are never, ever, ever, EVER going to bite bitter pills and go co-op (i.e. make everyone a stake/shareholder with an equal voice) like they should have done 15 years ago. Greed in America is unparalleled and incurable. They'll automate/offshore/inshore as much as they can, because the power brokers need and will get their "nut" no matter if millions starve and die.

Problem is, without the tax revenue labor brings to the table, how would Universal Basic Income get funded? The wealthy would never pay for it. Swaths of "Fuck You, Pay Me" Americans would rather die than see anyone that doesn't look like them "BE LAZY ON MY HARD WERK", let alone millions of people who DO look like them not being able to work due to more people than jobs. You think the MIC is giving up THEIR "nut" to help people?

America doesn't help people. Beware anyone saying "We want to give them a hand-up, not a hand out" or "we're about equal opportunity, not guaranteed outcome". That's just code for "Fuck You, Pay Me".

[raccoon]

7. In the US it will be a hard and bitter fight. nt

[HughBeaumont]

13. HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA.

It's like you trolls don't even TRY anymore.

[Francis Booth]

15. WTF are you smoking?

[HughBeaumont]

16. "Nicki Minaj tickets"??? "Glow in the Dark Nikes"???

STOP PLAYING DUMB WITH THE CODE WORDS.

I bet you think welfare is "cradle to grave" also.

[MillennialDem]

8. It's an excellent idea. It won't be all unicorns and rainbows (people on UBI will not be living

as well as those who are on UBI and also working) but it solves so many problems...

[Dustlawyer]

10. It would be nice if it happens and a lot of kinks worked out, but it would be a long bitter fight

if it could become reality.

The other headwind to take into account is the fact that our world has limited resources which are dwindling every day as our population continues to grow and our environment gets worse and worse. The countries of the earth must work much better together to address these problems and fight the greed our current systems are based on. I really don't see it happening.

[mcar]

11. It's an interesting idea that needs to be discussed

[FLPanhandle]

14. I have some family members who would quit instantly if this was enacted.

I'm sure there are many thousands of others who would quit working too.

It seems like one of those nice ideas in theory, but will fail when implemented.

[radical noodle]

17. I guess if they can life comfortably on UBI

then that would be their choice. It would open jobs for others. Might be especially good for older or ill workers too.

[HughBeaumont]

19. The reasoning behind UBI would be to remedy a labor surplus in the multiple millions.

IOW, a dangerously low supply of jobs vs. people who need them.

This would beg the question of how such a measure would get funded if there were absolutely no prospects of earning a paycheck or starting a business (DUE to people having no prospects of earning a paycheck).

[radical noodle]

22. That's a valid concern

I still think it would be worth considering the cost effectiveness of it. We fund lots of things now... if they were gone and UBI was in place of them, which would be more costly?

A little like we think the death penalty is cheaper because we don't have to care for the prisoner all those years, but in reality the death penalty is more expensive... we might be surprised how this would come out.

Personally I'd rather see plenty of jobs for all, but there will always be those who can't do them for some reason like mental or physical disability and it's so difficult to get those people help with the system we currently have.

[treestar]

21. Not really a problem

It wouldn't be high and if they were satisfied with it, their lifestyle would be limited to that income.

Open up more job openings for people who wanted more than the UBI.

And a lot of those people wouldn't watch TV all day - they might use it to be able to do other things that don't pay - art, music, etc. Working with prisoners, kids who need help with tutoring, etc.

We have this mental thing in this country about working for money.

[TexasBushwhacker]

28. It would make sense for those making close to minimum

wage to quit. And when they do, the Walmarts of the world would have to pay more to keep their workers. Employers would have to pay better and treat their employees better to keep them working. UBI, in effect, becomes a competing employer. Couple UBI with universal healthcare and people could work as much or as little as they want. As it is, we have people in their 50s and 60s who are working full time jobs as much for health insurance as for income. As automation takes over, there will be fewer jobs. That is a fact.

[haele]

30. Well, look at it this way. If they would quit instantly, the job would be better without them.

And open to someone who wanted that job and will do it well without the fear of falling into an abyss of homelessness, poor health, and poor nutrition.

Either a UBI or "Make Work" where someone is just riding a desk, a driver's seat or a shovel for 30 - 40 hours a week to keep a roof over their heads and food in the pantry.

Most people are average, with average skills skewed to a hunter-gatherer mindset. They just want to be happy with themselves, their families and friends, and live somewhat comfortably with hobbies they are skilled at to occupy themselves - and that's the level of "success" that they're going to work. THAT'S NOT FAILURE TO SIMPLY WANT TO BE HAPPY WITH ONE'S SELF. Constantly competing to a point that is almost above and beyond someone's capabilities pursuing money, power, or fame is not the norm.
The average person is not going to be able to successfully compete in a "gig economy" - they can barely compete in today's job markets as it is.
The days of a good factory or retail job that can supply a living wage for a relatively happy lifetime with little competition are gone. What do you do with an over-abundance of somewhat skilled people who just want to be happy, not change the world or the reality around them?

It will come down to a UBI, with universal health care, subsidized food, housing, and infrastructure. Or some sort of CCC-type make-work at a certain wage level, which basically does the same thing. If not this, then I fear for this country as the ability to be secure slips away from a majority of the population, and we end up with a plantation economy ruled by an iron- fisted rentier-based oligarchy that plays favorites so it can maintain an illusion of democratic.

On edit - a UBI will allow a lot of small businesses to develop, as people will be more likely jump at the ability to turn their hobbies and interests into a business to bring in a little more for the luxuries because they wouldn't be afraid of failing and being left with nothing.
If I knew I would always make enough to live and take care of my family, with a home and health care guaranteed me, I would quit the rat race and start my own business - or several businesses. Or go back to school and get a PhD is something totally frivolous, like medieval farming-based economies.

Haele

[Amimnoch]

18. K&R! It is a very real travesty that we don't.

With today's wonders of automation, mass production, and technology the whole mindset of everyone must work to live is fast growing, and imo already somewhat outdated.

Especially as the largest economy in the world, why is it so bad to ensure that EVERYONE has reasonable housing, reasonable utilities, food on the table, clean drinking water, access to or provided basic transportation???

Personally, I'm not really pro- or anti-capitalist, or pro/anti socialist. I think the BEST economy is a targeted one.. the one litmus test for all industries should be: "What benefits the majority of the citizens?"

To me, industries like banking, medicine, medical, Oil & gas.. socialize them fully.

Food services/production/distribution, auto manufacturing, Telecommunications/broadcast networks/ energy/power distribution, real estate/housing markets, water, waste management - a Hybrid of socialization (enough to ensure that all of these and other quality of life critical type products and services are absolutely available to EVERYONE.

Tech, manufacturing, luxury, entertainment, and other "optional" products/services - all out capitalism with just enough regulation to ensure fair competition.

[radical noodle]

20. If the case could be made

that it would eliminate all the other subsidies except social security retirement income. There are major difficulties with subsidy programs today. As an example, people with serious disabilities sometimes wait two years or more for help and by that time they're on the streets which happened to a friend of mine.

I think the devil is in the details, though. Will wealthy people receive this? If not, what are the guidelines for UBI? Things like that. Will a lot of people with government subsidies that would lose their jobs (welfare, disability income, etc)?

I think it's worth discussion, certainly.

[Codeine]

26. Everyone would have to get it

from the homeless dude on the corner to the Koch bothers.

[Octafish]

23. Better than the Warmongers and Banksters getting it.

People will use it to buy stuff, like food and shelter. Who knows? Maybe they can use some to take a vaca like the CEO class.

[mmonk]

24. Good idea but no chance it will pass in a system

beholden to Wall Street.

[Codeine]

25. It's inevitable, but expect a painful journey. nt

[Hoyt]

27. +1

[sofa king]

29. I think it would be great.

The number one thing that has held back my own endeavors has been working shitty no-benefit jobs, sometimes six at a time. The vast majority of my time went to enriching my employers, while my own work received exhausted attention for an hour or two a day.

I'm not sure it will ever be finished. But if I could work on it all the time and know that I wouldn't starve, I would bust my ass to do well enough that I didn't need a guaranteed income. That would surely be my first benchmark of success, as it would be for thousands of artists, writers, artisans, gardeners, and chinchilla breeders.

Sure, there will be plenty of people who sit around and smoke and read Facebook all day. Some of you are probably doing the work those no-loads are supposed to be doing at your job, right now. Think about how nice that would be for employers, too, to choose among the motivated and the interested, rather than those resentfully pushed by circumstance.

We already carry the indigent among us in the workplace, and they lower the quality of our lives. A guaranteed income would simply make our work lives easier by moving the chumps off to their own couches instead of gumming up the workplace. And then in our free time we could enjoy the fruits of those who yearn to create.

It would be the greatest thing that ever happened to the arts.

[pnwmom]

33. Great idea. Sen. George McGovern proposed it and lost by 49 states.

A lot of his young, idealistic supporters, including me, were very disappointed.