Universal income

[Mike]

.

This idea has me hooked. There is more than enough evidence that this is worth solid, controlled examination. I would love to see the results of this in controlled experiments around the world. The initial hints from Canada's MINCOME experiment are tantalizing: higher school graduation rates; better health with less hospitalization; less mental health issues; minimal reduction in work hours/productivity; less teen pregnancy; less crime. You simply give people money and the end result may well be a happier, healthier, better-educated, more productive society. This is a political non-starter in the U.S., for sure, but with more study and more solid evidence, maybe it becomes reality in places like Canada and parts of Europe over the next 20 years. Maybe we can discount with antiquated ideas of "fairness" and realize that if we spend money at the root of the problem, we save money in treating all the consequences down the line.

Maybe.

[Stan]

There would likely be less bureaucratic overhead that the current myriad of programs that all have rules and oversight.

[Kyle]

[Tahlvin]

My initial reaction: nice idea, but where do you draw the line to keep it from stifling innovation and creativity? What's the incentive for the next Bill Gates, Jeff Bezos, Elon Musk, Steve Jobs, Mark Zuckerberg, etc., to develop a new product/service, if a large part of the gain goes towards funding universal income for others? There has to be a balance that rewards those who do work hard, who do come up with new products/services/scientific breakthroughs, while still being able to fund adequate basic income for others. And while it would be interesting to see how it would work on the scale of someplace like Switzerland, it would be challenging to try to get it to work on the scale of a nation the size of the US. But something like this is an intriguing way to address jobs lost through globalization without resorting to the authoritarianism of a Trump.

[Mike]

[Pdyx]

Robert Anton Wilson took this idea a step further and had a suggested model where if you can eliminate jobs, you get more money. That is, if you can automate some process and eliminate worker bees, you'll get a raise in your annual income I'll try to find some article or something to better reflect the concept.

[Pdyx]

Mired in some of the 70s conceptual framework he was working in, but here is something from Robert Anton Wilson on the subject:

https://www.whywork.org/rethinking/whyw ... ilson.html

[Eliahad]

Mike, how do you jive this with capitalism? Won't prices just skyrocket to balance out the increase in wealth? Just trying to see other sides, not be cynical.

Tallman, the current expectation of creative is to create first, and then eventually you might get funded. The people you listed are as Mike said, well off and with a safety net that could help them get past the bumps in the creative process. People will create without promise of financial reward. I know this from personal experience.

[Tahlvin]

[Tahlvin]

[Tahlvin]

BTW, thanks for posting this Mike. I saw a link a couple weeks ago to a similar article, don't remember if it was on FiveThirtyEight or WIRED or where, but it's been rattling around in my brain and I had been thinking about posting something on the boards about it.

[Kyle]

I've been thinking lately about how capitalism is an outmoded economic model. Something has happened over the past forty years where we all assume that capitalism and the free market is the pinnacle of an efficient, properly working economy. It's similar to how we've all assumed over the past forty years that democracy is the ultimate form of governance. I'm not convinced of either, but I'm especially not convinced about capitalism especially when, considering the Buckminster Fuller quote, there's no reason that we have to make everyone "earn their keep." Especially with the rise of computers and their role in our economy, we gain and lose billions of dollars in our economy in several milliseconds because computer programs decided that should happen. Capitalism, especially the American form of capitalism, has lost touch with humanity and its needs.

To Eli's point, while there may be some inflation, just because we redistribute government funds to have a universal wage doesn't necessarily mean inflation-- unless, of course, the government is just printing that money to provide it, which probably won't happen.

I think another way to look at the universal wage is to look at it as a subsistence level wage. This was originally the point of the minimum wage, but for political reasons, the minimum wage has historically failed at providing a subsistence level wage. A living/universal wage would serve many of the same needs that gave rise to the minimum wage, but failed to occur.

[Mike]

Personally, I don't care how it jibes with capitalism if it works and actually produces positive results. The concern about inflation is the same concern brought up every time we discuss increasing the minimum wage. It is difficult to produce controlled studies of the effects of minimum wage at various levels, but the majority of evidence that IS available indicates that a bump in the minimum wage, even a sizable bump, does not seem to have any significant correlation to inflation. There's no reason to think the same wouldn't be true of a universal wage. Not without further study, at least.

As far as I'm concerned, payment of a universal wage is no more socialist (or "anti-capitalist") than our current system. What with minimum wage, Earned Income Tax Credits, Medicaid, Food Stamps, TANF, etc, etc, etc. We're already committed as a nation (on paper at least) to the idea that no one should have to live in poverty and no one should be without healthcare. A universal wage is simply a more direct way of approaching it. And that's what makes it distasteful to so many. Right now, we grudgingly give people money, but only if they can prove to us that they're working for it. We'll give them money for food, but only if we get to dictate what foods you deserve to get if we give you our money. We'll give you cash, but only if you can prove you're not going to go blow it all on booze and meth. Universal wage says, "How about we just give them the damn money and cut out all this administrative hoopla?"

Obviously, this whole idea strongly appeals to me. I like the simplicity. I like cutting out all the bullshit. And I like that preliminary evidence seems to indicate very positive possible results. But it's still unproven. All of the above simply points to the idea that it is worth committing to long-term, controlled studies of the idea to see if it actually works. Sadly, a long-term study means 10-20 years, and no nation can go that long without a new administration that would kill the whole study on general principle (and because they see it as throwing away money for something that is obviously [in their opinion] a waste of time).

[Ronster]

I tried to report this thread as TREASON, but that was not an option

[Phoebe]

What problem is this trying to solve? I have difficulty putting my finger on that, and any time I do pick out specific problems this plan is supposed to solve, it seems that some other solution would be more just and effective.

Suppose the problem is "we have a difficult, expensive tangle of public support options", and the universal income solution is to replace all of this with a less-patronizing, cheaper, simpler, and even more generous option. Okay. How does that improve things for specific populations we have decided that it's a good idea to let the government help support? For instance, will the seriously disabled receive better support and care if they are able to receive a lump sum income - which I assume will be coupled with a loss of government support in other areas they presently now have covered? Will the elderly receive this income instead of social security and medicare/medicaid and any prescription drug benefits? Will we stop subsidizing things like home purchases via tax breaks and instead turn that savings into support for this plan? Given that 47% of the people who receive SNAP benefits are children, are we sure that giving their parents this income - since I assume kids won't be eligible by themselves, except maybe those 16 and over? - is going to make up for taking away the food safety net?

Or maybe the problem has more to do with employment: some people are unemployed or underemployed, and others are trapped in jobs they hate, which creates other problems like need for child care and elder care, traffic and transportation, etc. (The latter is a huge deal, actually - money, environmental problems, urban sprawl and gridlock, public safety, and one of the major factors that influences choices about whether two parents work or one stays home has to do with commute times.) OK, so universal income is supposed to solve this. How? Most people will continue to work because they want more than the basic income, and they'll still be doing jobs they hate, or else they weren't the people this solution was aimed at anyway. People who were unable to work will still be unable to work, so no change for them.

So who exactly is helped? Those workers who hate their jobs and will stop, freeing more unpleasant jobs for the under and unemployed who want more income? I would guess that many low-income women in two-parent families will leave the workforce, since they're not making a lot more than what this would allow them to earn without the need to leave the home. That's one kind of solution but it has social consequences. And now, instead of one group of people working to support another group of people who don't or cannot work, you have an even smaller group of people working to support a larger number of people who choose not to work. So here's the thing: if this is the problem you're trying to solve, why wouldn't it always be better to offer people that low-level wage in exchange for some contribution to the public good? It's not like our society has everything it needs, since our version of capitalism does a poor job of providing certain kinds of service, and public-benefit government services (like having really nice national parks, say, or maintaining government properties, or providing social services of various kinds) are expensive. Why not build, in essence, a public works program out of it? A big United-Way type volunteer effort. Even the least capable worker can do something, at some time of day, and truly free assistance will be open only to those who are incapable of working. Want your basic income? Okay, you have to help elderly people care for their lawns and walk their dogs and get their meals-on-wheels. You have to do maintenance jobs in the parks that right now we cannot afford to pay for.

If the problem is that workers are shat on and overworked, this does very little to solve it. My choice is basic minimal income, or continuing the struggle being exploited and working harder in order to make my cushy income? Okay, I choose the latter and rightly resent the people who now get to avoid work and get paid. At-will employment and the crushing of once-powerful unions are hurting American workers a lot more than the inability to get paid a basic wage, and this won't solve that. It will just make it even more okay for employers to screw the people who want to work more for more money.

If we're only trying a universal income because it's one simple way to achieve a smorgasbord of several positive effects, then OK, if it worked that would be great, except that I have doubts it would actually achieve those positive effects long-term. Or more to the point, at least as well as spending the same resources on other solutions would.

[Kyle]

Poverty?

[Stan]

[Phoebe]

[Phoebe]

Ron says: I love it. Ramp up a progressive tax, cut every adult a check every year regardless of income, and stop administering unemployment, disability, or welfare assistance.

Phoebe thinks in the Dreamland where you ramp up this big progressive tax to pay for it, you can do other, better things.

[Tahlvin]

And that's one of the stumbling blocks I think you run into trying to do this in the US. If the approach is to take the money being spent on welfare programs right now to fund this sort of program, then you're going to have some people (mostly rich people) who are going to get money under this program that got nothing before, while others who are getting money from those programs today end up getting less than they are getting today from the existing programs. I don't think that would fly politically. There would have to be a lot of work put in to ensure current recipients of those programs don't end up in a worse position than they are currently in at the expense of paying out to people who don't need the help. And to do it without adding all of the red tape that makes the program inefficient or corrupt.

And that all comes back to: long-term studies are needed of the effects.