Quote:
Originally Posted by Northman83
In a economy where machines and robots do most of the work... how are people going to make a living?
|
You're assuming something that may never happen.
You're also assuming other jobs will not be created.
The rate of implementation of automation or AI -- and those are two entirely different things -- will be so slow as to be imperceptible to people.
You'll never notice it, and what few jobs are lost will be replaced by other jobs.
And, even if that weren't true, two-income households were never the norm in US history.
From the 1600s up through the 1970s, 85% or more of households were one income.
So, the reality is, you can lose jobs.
You can lose 30 Million to 40 Million jobs or more and never miss a beat in your economy.
Well, let's see, if 65% of two income households cut back to 15%, then that's a loss of 50%, so you could actually lose about 60 Million to 70 Million jobs and be none-the-wiser.
But, in reality, you'll never come close to that. You might lose 3 Million to 6 Million jobs over the next 40 years, but that's only 3%-4% of your work-force.
Quote:
Originally Posted by hbdwihdh378y9
The point of "universal basic income" is to be fair to workers. Instead of limiting welfare to the unemployed, UBI gives working people just as much. It also means there is no penalty for an unemployed person taking a job.
Of course, someone has to pay for it, but the comments always completely misunderstand the concept -- just like Yahoo did in pretending that the Finland thing had anything to do with UBI.
|
You would be one of those who misunderstand the concept.
People get $3,000 to $7,000 per month (or more) in welfare benefits, excluding Social Security and Medicare benefits, depending on where they live in the US.
Someone getting $4,000/month in welfare benefits is not going to accept $2,000/month in UBI.
Even they're smart enough to know they'd be getting screwed.
How do you get people receiving $4,000/month to accept $2,000/month?
Because that's just not going to happen on this Earth. There's no way to sell it to them.
You also don't understand the function of government or bureaucracy.
Their function is to grow, expand, and gain more power and control.
Why would government and bureaucracy forfeit that much power, control and expansiveness?
Quote:
Originally Posted by michiganmoon
What I mean is this.
If Universal Basic Income is going to become a real and sustainable program - it will need to work fiscally nationwide. These experiments do not attempt prove that.
|
Yes, they do. It's called a statistical representative sample.
You only need 2,800 people for a good sample.
The city-wide experiments, like Gary, Indiana, had several thousand people, and the two others, Denver and Seattle (I believe it was) covered 180,000 to 220,000 people in a metropolitan statistical area.
What happened in Gary, Indiana and the other three cities is exactly what would happen in all 39,000-odd cities.
What happened in the Denver and Seattle MSA's is exactly what would happen in the other 181 MSAs.
There's no need to do all 39,217 cities in the US, because you did three cities, and there will be no significant statistical difference between any of those 39,217 cities.
There's no need to do all 183 Metropolitan Statistical Areas comprising all 3,007 counties in the US, because you did two MSA's and there will be no statistical difference in the results of the other 181 MSAs.
Whatever happened, happened, and that's always what will happen.
Those five experiments did not produce the desired results, so the government opted instead for an alternate form of UBI called the negative income tax, which you know as the Earned Income Tax Credit.
One thing government could do is expand the EITC. You could allow single people to take advantage of it, instead of limiting it to only those with dependents, or you could simple increase the qualifying income level to allow more people to take advantage of it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by michiganmoon
A test in Canada where Provincial taxes collected across the entire Province to fund UBI in one small single town is not to scale. You have thousands of towns paying the UBI of a single town.
|
So?
Who funds UBI is not relevant to whether or not it produces the desired results.
If Switzerland had funded it, the results would have been the same.
If the US, Britain and South Africa funded it, the results would have been the same.
If only people living in the town funded it, the results would have been the same.
People are what they are and do what they do, and no amount of money will ever change that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by michiganmoon
Is it not possible that a UBI system would be insolvent and unsustainable if the taxes in the town/country had to pay for the UBI in the same?
|
UBI is inherently unsustainable.
The average welfare benefit is $3,000 to $7,000 per month depending on exactly which city, county and State a person lives.
You're going to give every household in the US $7,000/month?
Really?
That would only cost $15.54 TRILLION per year.
Good luck finding the money for that.
Paying households $2,000/month would be cheaper, only $4.44 TRILLION per year.
But, why would people accept less money in benefits?
I'm not exactly seeing people rushing to their employers asking to be paid less, nor am I seeing people asking government to pay them less money.
But, UBI is not about households, it's about individuals.
If you gave everyone, and I'm talking about adults not minor children, $1,000 per month, that's still $3.2 TRILLION per year, and it's $2 TRILLION
more than you're currently spending on welfare benefits.
Then again, why would two adults in a household accept $2,000/month when they're already getting $3,000/month to $7,000/month?
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
