What would you do if Universal Basic Income passed? (salary, health care, Ohio)

[detshen]

Why do people who do not understand the concept insist on posting a bunch of partisan nonsense about liberals? Basic income would replace all welfare programs, vast amounts of tax money would be saved by getting rid of the administrative costs of welfare benefit processing. Many on forms of welfare who weren't already working (most are working) would try to find at least part time jobs because they wouldn't lose the supplement the way many do with welfare. Every adult would get the same amount regardless of income/wealth, so resentment would decrease. The money would not be enough to live on comfortably for the vast majority of people. If automation were to increase to the point where large numbers of worker's could not find work that paid enough money for survival, it would keep people from revolting.

Most people would continue to work because most are not satisfied with just basic survival. People aren't going to be quitting their jobs in droves, people work because they enjoy having nice things and most enjoy being productive and a place to go in the morning. The idea that someone would lose all aspirations and be content to watch TV all day because of a little extra money is nonsense. Many would start new businesses or pursue education towards a dream career. Even the minimum wage employees would likely still look for at least part time work so they could afford nicer homes, cars, etc. People seem to assume everyone but themselves are lazy.

I wouldn't change anything because I'm already self employed in a career I love. The money would just go into my investment accounts or be used to help offset living costs because my husband would probably end up wanting to start a business. One thing I might do is open up some time in my workweek to provide my services at reduced or no fee for those who still can't afford it.

[phantompilot]

Originally Posted by Mircea

UBI is touted as a replacement for welfare benefits, and it is universal.

$1,000 would not replace welfare benefits. A retiree getting $1,500/month in Social Security benefits is not going to forfeit that for $1,000, and your typical welfare household gets over $2,000/month in welfare benefits, which they aren't going to give up to get less.

It would cost $3.1 TRILLION annually on top of what you're already paying, and there's no possible way you could afford that, because there's no tax scheme that would ever generate that much money.



That would result in incredibly stupid people flooding into those areas thinking they'll get more money and exacerbate the problems that already exist in those cities.



Automation will not replace jobs in the next 10-20 years.
The rate at which automation replaces jobs will be so slow and take place over such a long time, more than one generation and almost two generations, that its effects will be barely imperceptible.

Over that time, the population will adjust to such changes, like the reduction in two wager-earner households and adjust their Standard of Living accordingly.

It isn't necessarily automation that is going to replace jobs, but AI. Automation largely affects manual labor. Its the AI that is going to seriously impact the ability of a much larger swath of the average white-collar worker. All these people that were formerly employable, unlike the core contingent of chronic welfare recipients, will now also not have a viable means of support.

UBI in that context becomes more a structural solution to a structural problem - the "creative destruction" of technology will make a few big players incredibly rich (Even more so than currently), and that revenue stream will have to be tapped in order to compensate for the massive effects on a large part of the population. Probably via some kind of windfall tax or quasi-nationalization of that handful of companies, would be my guess. Depends how socialist the USA has become by that time, right?

[detshen]

Originally Posted by J_Quayle_Higgins_III

I heard a conservative analysis that made the case that getting rid of the current welfare system and providing a UBI might save the government money because of the waste involved in government.

I might be ok with it if we could shut down all of the government agencies involved in the current welfare distribution

I've never heard of a UBI plan that didn't involve ending all current welfare programs. The money would go to everyone, there would not be means testing.

[detshen]

Originally Posted by phantompilot

It isn't necessarily automation that is going to replace jobs, but AI. Automation largely affects manual labor. Its the AI that is going to seriously impact the ability of a much larger swath of the average white-collar worker. All these people that were formerly employable, unlike the core contingent of chronic welfare recipients, will now also not have a viable means of support.

UBI in that context becomes more a structural solution to a structural problem - the "creative destruction" of technology will make a few big players incredibly rich (Even more so than currently), and that revenue stream will have to be tapped in order to compensate for the massive effects on a large part of the population. Probably via some kind of windfall tax or quasi-nationalization of that handful of companies, would be my guess. Depends how socialist the USA has become by that time, right?

The bolded is important to understand. I keep reading posters whining about how they will be paying massive taxes to support all the deadbeats. They assume they are immune but many could find themselves out of a career and having no choice but to take any job to survive.

[Three Wolves In Snow]

Originally Posted by Roboteer

Quit working, of course.

Why would I keep working if the majority of elected representatives has decided it's good for everybody else to pay me whether I work or not?

I'm happy to make hay while the sun shines. That is, keep collecting the free money until the American people decide that it was a quintessentially horrible decision, fire all the congressmen who voted for it, and elect new ones who immediately repeal it. Then I'll go back to work.

But I certainly could use the time off as long as it lasts. Who am I to argue with the majority?

This. I sure as heck am not going to work harder or the same to pay for someone else, so I'll work less until the idiots in this country who thought this was a great idea pull their heads out and realize how stupid it was and beg for it to be repealed. Then I'll go back to working the hours I did before.

[bawac34618]

UBI in this country will likely come as a result of increasing automation taking jobs that now require humans. There literally won't be enough jobs for the amount of people we have in this country and that's going to be a very real problem. Anything that can be done with automation will be. So, the country's only choices will be to either ban automation or institute a UBI. Neither is a good idea but I think a UBI would be more compatible with the constitution than banning automation. Plus if you ban automation, companies just offshore what they can.

A UBI would never happen in today's economy so stop worrying about it.

[Mircea]

Originally Posted by detshen

Why do people who do not understand the concept insist on posting a bunch of partisan nonsense about liberals? Basic income would replace all welfare programs, vast amounts of tax money would be saved by getting rid of the administrative costs of welfare benefit processing. Many on forms of welfare who weren't already working (most are working) would try to find at least part time jobs because they wouldn't lose the supplement the way many do with welfare. Every adult would get the same amount regardless of income/wealth, so resentment would decrease. The money would not be enough to live on comfortably for the vast majority of people.

So much wrong here.

Excluding the four programs specifically designated for the 567 federally-recognized aboriginal tribal groups, the US spends $1.6 TRILLION annually on the following 79 welfare programs taken from line-items in the federal budget exactly as they appear:


Healthcare:
Family Planning
Consolidated Health Centers
Transitional Cash and Medical Services for Refugees
State Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP)
Voluntary Medicare Prescription Drug Benefit—Low-Income Subsidy
Medicaid
Ryan White HIV/AIDS Program
Breast/Cervical Cancer Early Detection
Maternal and Child Health Block Grant

Income Redistribution Programs:
Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) (cash aid)
Supplemental Security Income
Additional Child Tax Credit
Earned Income Tax Credit (refundable component)

"Nutrition" Programs:
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP)
School Breakfast Program (free/reduced price components)
National School Lunch Program (free/reduced price components)
Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants and Children (WIC)
Child and Adult Care Food Program (lower income components)
Summer Food Service Program
Commodity Supplemental
Food Program Nutrition Assistance for Puerto Rico
The Emergency Food Assistance Program (TEFAP)
Nutrition Program for the Elderly

"Education" Programs:
Adult Basic Education Grants to States
Federal Supplemental Educational Opportunity Grant
Education for the Disadvantaged—Grants to Local Educational Agencies (Title I-A)
Title I Migrant Education Program
Higher Education—Institutional Aid and Developing Institutions
Federal Work-Study
Federal TRIO Programs
Federal Pell Grants
Education for Homeless Children and Youth
21st Century Community Learning Centers
Gaining Early Awareness and Readiness for Undergraduate Programs (GEAR-UP)
Reading First and Early Reading First
Rural Education Achievement Program
Mathematics and Science Partnerships
Child Care and Development Fund
Head Start HHS
Developmental Disabilities Support and Advocacy Grants
Improving Teacher Quality State Grants
Academic Competitiveness and Smart Grant Program

"Housing" programs:
Single-Family Rural Housing Loans
Rural Rental Assistance Program
Supportive Housing for the Elderly
Supportive Housing for Persons with Disabilities
Section 8 Project-Based Rental Assistance
Community Development Block Grants
Homeless Assistance Grants
Home Investment Partnerships Program (HOME)
Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS (HOPWA)
Public Housing
Section 8 Housing Choice Vouchers
Neighborhood Stabilization Program-1
Grants to States for Low-Income Housing in Lieu of Low-Income Housing Credit Allocations
Tax Credit Assistance Program
Emergency Food and Shelter Program

Housing Related Programs:
Water and Waste Disposal for Rural Communities
Public Works and Economic Development
Weatherization Assistance Program
Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP)

Social Welfare Programs:
Older Americans Act Grants for Supportive Services and SeniorCenters
Older Americans Act Family Caregiver Program
Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) (social services)
Child Support Enforcement
Community Services Block Grant
Foster Care
Adoption Assistance
Social Services Block Grant
Chafee Foster Care Independence Program
Legal Services Corporation
Community Service Employment for Older Americans
Social Services and Targeted Assistance for Refugees
Foster Grandparents

"Job Training" Programs:
Job Corps
Workforce Investment Act (WIA) Adult Activities
Workforce Investment Act (WIA) Youth Activities
Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) (employment and training)
Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) (employment and training component)


So, exactly which of those 79 items are to be replaced?

If you notice, many of those programs are targeted for groups, rather than specific individuals.

Before we start, we should probably address the moral and ethical components of UBI.

SNAP benefits are a cash-equivalent benefit distributed on EBT cards, yet we have these two programs:

School Breakfast Program (free/reduced price components)
National School Lunch Program (free/reduced price components)

We have those programs, because many parents are bad parents, and many other parents, while not "bad parents" per se, are egotistical self-centered maniacs hell-bent on satisfying every infantile urge.

Those parents will spend $800 on butt-ugly tattoos, instead of properly feeding their children, and buying clothing and shoes for their children.

And then you have parents who get up in the morning, it's time to blow a bowl and get high. Oh, the children didn't get breakfast.

Sorry about that.

So, in spite of EBT cards for food, you still have children going to school without breakfast, and without lunch or without money to buy lunch.

Without fail, every time I walk up to Kroger's to shop, I'm accosted by someone with an EBT card who wants to buy my groceries using their EBT card and I give them cash, because they want to buy beer, or tobacco or drugs or lotto tickets.

And you want to give cold hard cash to those people?

The suffering of children will increase dramatically.

And, if you eliminated these programs...

School Breakfast Program (free/reduced price components)
National School Lunch Program (free/reduced price components)

...Millions of children will be underfed, and they will go to school with no breakfast and no lunch.

And, what about CHIPs and Medicaid?

You're going to give irresponsible people cash and hope they buy healthcare coverage for their children?

Right.

Why do you want children to suffer so?

I teach guitar to a disabled veteran I met through the Guitars-for-Vets program at the VA hospital (where I'm an instructor). He gives me $5 and after paying bus-fare, it nets me $2.75, but it's good fun. He lives in a 162-unit HUD subsidized apartment building for the disabled and elderly. Rent for an apartment in a 2-family or 3-family house, or apartment building in the neighborhood ranges from $400/month to $450/month, but because of HUD regulations, the building owners charge $756/month.

Not $755/month or $760/month, but $756 because that's what HUD's formula for number of rooms and total square footage says it can be.

He pays $261/month, and you pay the other $495, but his income is a little higher than others in the building, and some people only pay $83/month (you pay the other $673).

In spite of tax-payers subsidizing their housing, a lot of tenants, especially single males, and in particular single Black males, get evicted, because they fritter away all of their money on alcohol, drugs, tobacco, lotto and chasing women.

HUD requires a tenant receive 30-days advance notice of the intent to evict, and most bug out, because if you actually get evicted through court action from a HUD property, you're barred from HUD benefits for 7 years. I showed him how to search the county civil court records to see who's being evicted (it makes for good gossip apparently).

If you eliminated HUD, how are these people who are so irresponsible with their money going to pay their rent?

Granted, eliminating HUD would most likely force the landlord to reduce the rent from $756/month to something in line with Free Market rates, probably $450-$500/month, but those at risk will continue to be at risk, and even more people will be at risk for eviction with Universal Basic Income.

So, how could anyone in good conscience support a system that increases suffering?

I would never support UBI, unless everyone currently receiving welfare benefits -- excluding Social Security and Medicare -- was forced to have an authorized payee manage their money.

And new entrants would be have to pass a financial literacy test with a score of 80% to avoid having to use an authorized payee, and any overt action, meaning any arrest for a drug or alcohol related offense, an eviction, or a complaint by a teacher, counselor, school administrator or social worker that children were not fed or not properly clothed would automatically result in being assigned an authorized payee to manage their money.

That is the only possible way to ensure that suffering does not increase beyond what exists now.

And what about Social Security?

$2,788 is the maximum monthly benefit, and $1,413 is the average monthly benefit. Some receiving $1,413/month qualify for $520/month in SNAP benefits, while some do not, and some qualify for HUD Section 8, while many do not, because they earn too much money.

Yes, as I pointed out, the elimination of HUD will result in rent reductions, but only in some places in the US. In other places in the US, the HUD rate is the Free Market rate, and the elimination of HUD will not result in reduced rent.

Why would someone receiving $1,413/month in Social Security, plus $520/month in SNAP benefits, and a $500/month rent subsidy accept anything less than $2,500/month in UBI?

They wouldn't. They would be diametrically opposed to it, unless they could somehow profit off of it.

You're idea of giving everyone a flat amount is based on your misguided belief that the US is like Iceland, with a population of 379,000 people, one economy, one labor market and one uniform Cost-of-Living.

You couldn't be more wrong.

The US has 320 Million people, of which 258 Million are 16 years or older, 1,538 separately functioning economies, 5,000+ labor markets and 3,007 differing Costs-of-Living.

While the Department of Agriculture refuses to recognize that, HUD at least makes an attempt to do so.

Your Cost-of-Living varies so greatly across the US that a single retiree receiving $1,201/month in Social Security benefits earns too much money to qualify for HUD Section 8 housing in many areas of the US.

Meanwhile, another single retiree receiving the maximum Social Security benefit of $2,788/month, plus a pension of $1,878/month, for a total of $4,666/month qualifies for HUD Section 8 housing in some areas of the US.

We can use the actual data:

$56,000 - $14,400 = $41,600

or express it as an hourly wage rate:

$26.92/hour - $6.92/hour = $20/hour


What are you going to do, split the difference?

Congratulations, you have just unjustly enriched Millions of Americans, while leaving Millions more utterly hopelessly screwed.

The only way to distribute UBI fairly would be to issue a 3,007 different amounts.

But, because people are so damn stupid they don't understand that there are people earning $44,000 a year who make $4,000 more than someone earning $100,000 a year, they will flock to those areas of the US where the UBI payments are the highest.

What will that do?

It will cause massive Demand-pull Inflation. The price of housing, food, clothing and everything else will skyrocket, while the excess labor drives down wages.

That's not a very smart thing to do.


The cost to administer those programs is paltry relative to the amount spent, so your claim of "vast savings" will never materialize.


Worse than that, any cost-savings would be off-set or even negated due to increased cost of government intervention with police, emergency services, hospitals, courts, the education system and State and county social workers.


Giving stupid people money doesn't make them smarter any more than giving irresponsible people money makes them responsible.

Originally Posted by detshen

If automation were to increase to the point where large numbers of worker's could not find work that paid enough money for survival, it would keep people from revolting

The rate of implementation of automation will be so slow as to be imperceptible, and the only thing that would happen is your Employment-to-Population ratio would drop 5 to 8 points to previous levels ranging from 52% to 55% percent of the population.

In other words, the number of households with two wager-earners will decrease to 1950s levels.

That's all.

There will be no revolt.

The loss of a wage-earner in a two wage-earner household will simply result in people making adjustments to their Standard of Living and Life-Style.

Originally Posted by detshen

The idea that someone would lose all aspirations and be content to watch TV all day because of a little extra money is nonsense.

No, it isn't.

The US has already conducted 5 trials of basic income. Two of the trials lasted 10 years, so it's not like the US doesn't have any data on basic income or its effects. The US has plenty of data on all 5 trials.

Since none of the objectives were ever met, the US abandoned it in favor of the negative income tax, which you know as the Earned Income Tax Credit.

[Mircea]

Originally Posted by phantompilot

It isn't necessarily automation that is going to replace jobs, but AI.

AI is at least a century away.

Originally Posted by bawac34618

UBI in this country will likely come as a result of increasing automation taking jobs that now require humans. There literally won't be enough jobs for the amount of people we have in this country and that's going to be a very real problem.

Originally Posted by Chowhound

Yeah, I've been hearing this more and more. This wouldn't happen tomorrow, but they are predicting in the future there won't be enough jobs due to automation and other factors that we probably haven't thought of yet.

You're confused.


The mere existence of automation does not logically require that it be implement, and many foreign States will bar the implementation of automation, because it is not in their best interest to allow it.


The cost of implementing and maintaining automation globally is far greater than labor costs in many foreign States.


While it is true that the implementation of technology in the past resulted in structural unemployment leading to the recessions of 1925, 1928, 1930, 1935, 1937, 1946 and 1949, those circumstances were unique and do not exist now, nor will they exist.


Americans will not notice the incredibly slow implementation of automation, where today a single machine generally displaces only one worker instead of many workers unlike the past, and the only thing that will happen is there will be a decline in the number of two wage-earner households to levels like the 1950s.



With or without automation, you're going to have an incredibly difficult time competing with emerging- and developing-States through the end of this Century and into the next.


You're just going to have to accept certain realities and learn to live with them, because no amount of money can alter the inevitable end.

Originally Posted by Delahanty

Only in the fevered swamps of liberals' minds do tax cuts have to be "funded."

No doubt.

[Statz2k10]

Originally Posted by detshen

Why do people who do not understand the concept insist on posting a bunch of partisan nonsense about liberals? Basic income would replace all welfare programs, vast amounts of tax money would be saved by getting rid of the administrative costs of welfare benefit processing. Many on forms of welfare who weren't already working (most are working) would try to find at least part time jobs because they wouldn't lose the supplement the way many do with welfare. Every adult would get the same amount regardless of income/wealth, so resentment would decrease. The money would not be enough to live on comfortably for the vast majority of people. If automation were to increase to the point where large numbers of worker's could not find work that paid enough money for survival, it would keep people from revolting.

Most people would continue to work because most are not satisfied with just basic survival. People aren't going to be quitting their jobs in droves, people work because they enjoy having nice things and most enjoy being productive and a place to go in the morning. The idea that someone would lose all aspirations and be content to watch TV all day because of a little extra money is nonsense. Many would start new businesses or pursue education towards a dream career. Even the minimum wage employees would likely still look for at least part time work so they could afford nicer homes, cars, etc. People seem to assume everyone but themselves are lazy.

I wouldn't change anything because I'm already self employed in a career I love. The money would just go into my investment accounts or be used to help offset living costs because my husband would probably end up wanting to start a business. One thing I might do is open up some time in my workweek to provide my services at reduced or no fee for those who still can't afford it.

You make solid points but here is the kicker. While people would still work because they "like nicer things". How long before those on UBI complain, *****, cry, break the law, protest etc. because they want those nicer things too and it's not "fair" that hey don't have it?


It's a slippery slope that's why so many are against minimum wage increases because it's never going to make people truly happy. You raise it to $15 people will be wanting $20 5 years later.

[Statz2k10]

And I can see some wealthy people being okay with some type of UBI. It's the middle class that gets screwed. I heard something from a co worker years ago that made a lot of sense.


Wealthy people (truly wealthy) do not mind welfare at all. Why? Because it keeps people in line. If they are living in their section 8 houses and getting a check each month for whatever they won't fight back or cause problems. So it's easier to pay a small % of their tax dollars to afford that.


But what if you ended welfare all together? Then if you're rich you have to worry about this poor lower class revolting and making what happened in The Dark Knight Rises a reality.