Discussion on the idea of Universal Basic Income

So Alexandre and I are discussing the idea of universal basic income and some of my ideas were sort of blown open. Guy Standing is one of the individuals essential to the topic of universal basic income. This is one of his talks

https://iai.tv/articles/the-universal-basic-income-for-the-sceptics-auid-1076

I'd like to have a discussion about this, and universal basic income in general

I have a hard time with universal anything.

It’s hard to give every one equally - they are people.

I know I buy in bulk. The only way some days we get things is to manage a bit better next month. That’s just me personally.

I know people doing things that are NOT in the “normal” box.

More than one family is being supported by one person. Many in fact. I know countless people NOT on lists. Do we loose those in the process?

I’m a Vet in America with the Vet healthcare we have here - if you are not active and aware and up to date with your own stuff - NOW - with Vets - you will be left to forge for yourself. No one can do things for you and here lately - no one does.

Don’t get me wrong there ARE ways and programs and such but they take navigation and patience most don’t have - I’ve had MP s - military police escort me out of a ER because I wasn’t being seen and was demanding to be seen after 10 hours.
There’s always some way -things -that can get “kerbobbled” often at any any part of the “pipe.”

Doesn’t make the pipe wrong or the people or process wrong it just makes it more difficult to maneuver.

Management

No use in doing all these great things if ya got jerks at the helm.
Good management benefits all- bad management is wasaaay to tolerated for me in my own world, I can’t imagine on a universal level where ya can’t use the words - can I talk to some one who better at managing than you.


It reminds me of the story of Joseph in the Abrahamic faith -

* he could count add write and think with moral and accuracy as well as accountability. He was blessed for not every step of the way.

There are very few Joseph’s in the world who have a true count or even a good managing experience and their own set of morals.

Not blaming anyone for anything but most time what I find is, managing ISNT the managers job.

So how will that works when - if - poor management happens there. It happens all over. Check and balances are ok I guess but wouldn’t it be nice if we just learned to manage better - from those who - manage better ?


* this is my own 2 cents and my own opinions.
What’s yours?

@Carlos
Boy I hear ya and that was one of my main concerns with UBI. Some things you can’t legislate enough to accomodate irreducible rascality or what you are calling “jerks at the helm” . This will take more than throwing money at people. Consider right now the 1200 stipend for each American Citizen. What about those who are not citizens but provide for our farming to be done?
What about the big businesses taking advantage of small business loans in America? What about people trying to “come up” during a pandemic. This is fundamentally about a lack of “community” mindset and a privileging of “individualistic” mindset

And you bring up another point about programs already in place in America. A lot of bureaucracy happens in those programs. So much so that it takes three years for an individual with an obvious and debilitating disability to receive SSI. But the reason it is taking long is the amount of fraud that is rampant in the program. I know of several stories where individuals continued to receive the check of a deceased individual and were only found out through audit. But we are talking about several million people and how can an overworked/underpaid staff manage that?

So its so much about mindset. What do we think about work even? Work gives you purpose is what grad school taught me to tell my clients. Work assists in recovery. These are true. But the notion that you must “pull yourself up by your boot straps” is a good way to stratify society according to privilege. So I don’t know Carlos, there are a lot of unknowns

A lot of know unknowns.
Seems the key to most programs is how to explain them.
Sad really


I’ve been on my own path on work for a few years getting ready for the non work day of retirement.

People need activity. I know I do. Purpose can be given or chosen by us often. My wife will go nuts if she doesn’t have something active to do.

Each society - each group - each can benefit from good managing. Period.

I’m under the light of there will be no way to keep track of 7.5 billion people. Aid was sent to so many places these past years - recently - we are finding out some people hid the resources to prove personal lights. Not good, but they are out there.

I’ve never shook the hand of a “not well off “ politician. Even tribe leaders. They are all just a bit ... more than their people. Game of Thrones is great to watch but not to take as any guidance - if anything that’s a how you don’t do it ... type of lesson.

This is just Carlos now : if we could conquer greed - if we could just get over that little green £@$¥ else could feed our neighbors and our family and friends. We could help without ... reciprocation.

But some ones gotta get paid for it.

Communities willing will find ways - those that don’t -well - won’t or will have a hard time.

It’s possible - hasn’t happened yet but possible.
I know countless of people who are independently free right now - not money but as far as set up and way. They make their own everything and figure out their own needs. There are countless of groups spread across America and the world.

I know people who have their old on site with nurses checking on their meds n such daily without - help or assistance but food ok fashion - son being son and daughter being daughter.

My own life I’ve benefited from realizing what I think I need - I can do.

Having to rely on others tends to hold me a bit too long and at their mercy not my watch or idea. It’s till I begin that things often get done.

I’m not saying set up real separated communities - maybe - what I’m saying is - my -by marriage granddaddy - got tired of getting burned by realitors so he went and got his credentials and now - dosnt have to pay for much, but that’s what he does. He HONED it to him. His team. We can do this for almost anything we choose.

Buying for one more made my grocery list actually a bit cheaper in terms of price. It did take a bit more planning.

More people more people problems

Really, the only thing that needs legislated is the act that grants UBI.

There is no need to debate as to whether or not there would be some people who would not do anything ; there are enough studies (Guy Standing, Dan Pink et al.) that show that 'enough' people are active, and even more performant, when they do not have the Damoclès of how to get the bills paid hanging over their heads.

There are also a lot of people who are in the wrong sort of work and are unfulfilled socio-professionally. These days, in our accidented socio-economic landscape, one can't really just quit one's job in hopes of finding another before there's nothing left to eat... The UBI would allow for that margin where people could actually explore jobs they may enjoy doing without having to worry about keeping the kids fed.

As I see it, even if 9/10 people did "do nothing", the 10th one would still be productive - within or without of a professional framework. That would surely be an improvement, not only for the person but also in society as a whole. When talking about several hundreds of thousands of people, then 1/10 is still an ample rise in productivity.

Australia has free healthcare (except dental, for some reason), subsidised housing, and guaranteed income, as well as generous programs for education, mental health, legal services, and other stuff.

There's plenty who will always say the system is broken or it's not enough - they're probably people who have never worked inside a system and don't see how good it actually is (to a point)

I've used many of our "free" systems - and they work, (to a point, but hey,that's what you get with big systems trying to help everyone a little bit in every area..)

So, there's that...the good...

The bad? - there are still thousands (which in larger population nations would mean millions) that are deadshits, career system abusers, and (the worst bit I suppose) creating dynasties and generations of system abusers.

Of course, it's the 20-50 yo relatively mentally and physically sound ones that draw the ire - we mostly manage genuine empathy for the ill, infirm and elderly - since that's who the system was designed to support.


The ugly?

Between income tax, goods and services tax, fuel, alcohol and tobacco excises, import duties on certain classes of goods, and that's not even starting on state or council rates, levies and stamp duties - I hand over approximately 60% of my "income" to keep the nation afloat.

Take out another 30% of my income for my own housing and whatnot...

I'm not struggling by any means, but I'm sure as shit not driving a rolls....

and that's with our welfare only paying for people in a certain bracket of either medically determined work capacity, income test, and assets test.

If we were to bump that up to everyone (and as per the latest parliamentary debates following CV-19 aid packages - does everyone include foreign students or various classes of visas?) - I'm not sure the money exists.....

So away from the ethics or whether there would be "slackers" - How the heck does a nation fund such a thing? Wars? Crippling short term trade deals that leave the next generation destitute? falsely inflated housing markets?

Can UBI work with capitalism, or does it require that the State own all major life support systems and infrastructure?

So the end results and methodology of a UBI are two different areas in my opinion. The former: that people should be able to afford to be "healthy and functional" is totally achievable and relatively uncontroversial. The idea that this must be achieved by essentially guaranteeing cash to non-dependents seems myopic. If we break down overall health, there's really only a handful of topics I can see as totally guaranteeable by really any external force: food, water, shelter, safety, education.

Currently (in the US) those are not all guaranteed for citizens. If they were, what would people need? In my opinion, the government should be a potential (but not exclusive) provider of baseline services in a marketplace, such that all people can choose said options at no cost to themselves. This is akin to the current medicaid paradigm where people with limited income are eligible for the equivalent of a baseline health insurance plan.
In order to be eligible for these benefits though, one must in my opinion be willing to contribute in what ways they can. In my opinion, this best could be done through a draft-style employment pool for a sort of WPA-esque department, where individual public works projects would draw on those collecting benefits. The point of these projects isn't necessarily to try and prevent laziness, but rather to give people a sense of self-ownership in the results.

I'm throwing a ton out there and not elaborating on the millions of underlying assumptions, but I'm curious what others opinions are.

If the financial base needs are met, more people would be able to focus on the things that are commonly viewed as enriching society like the arts and philosophy. I've lived on both sides of the coin and I find like more fulfilling when I am able to do things I find rewarding even if they don't pay. Success to me isn't defined by how much money I have or how many things I own, but instead on the difference I can make in other people's lives. Before I left TOTJO and my apprenticeship and had my account closed; my Master would always point out that community building was the most impactful thing that people can do. Unfortunately I didn't take that to heart at the time. But my point is, without having to worry about paying for food and rent, we can focus more on what brings us together.

Might as well throw my thoughts in. My issue with "free" anything is the fact that there will always be abusers. Giving an actual example, I'm a tutor at my university. My boss was telling me of her friend who PURPOSEFULLY, only doings caps for emphasis, has kids that are TIMED so she can keep living off of welfare. That RIGHT there is the problem. People who abuse the system with no regard. That's not even accounting for the people who DO misuse the funds, even if it is a minority. Hell, I remember when people were supposedly crying out saying drug testing for welfare was unconstitutional. Unless I missed something, how?

Then you also have the fact of there is always going to be at least one person who wants more. Just watch Dr. Phil taking on teenagers. One girl, IN HIGH SCHOOL, said she needs 2k A MONTH from her mother! I'm sorry, but that type of mentality would be detrimental if we adopted UBI. IMO, this country is just too big for it to work effectively. To quote one of my IRL friends, socialist ideas can work, but only on a small scale. We both use the example of the household. The parents do the work, and redistribute their money in the form of food. It works. But what happens when someone starts getting greedy? Therein lies the problem: it only works if EVERYONE is on board. This is, coincidentally, why I also say we need modernation to please the left and right. I don't want to get too political, but I think most would agree this is a politically based topic, so why not.

I've heard people say what we DON'T need is moderation, as in far side whether it be far left or far right. But I say that's why we need moderation to please both sides, as I will bet money that there will be people on the both sides who oppose anything their "enemies" think of based on their sides alone. I, somewhat sadly, am friends with such a person. For context I am a centrist so I lean both depending on the issue.

Sorry for the essay...

I'm too busy to watch vids but have the flexibility to read and type... and think a bit enough to confuse myself, so any words are appreciated.

My first thought is; doesn't it just drive inflation in those areas of basic need expenditure... making it harder for folk with actual dependencies to stay afloat?

Thats what we and friend always consider, but people just seem to either ignore it, by saying it won't happen, or they blow it off as right wing ideas/not their problem in a sense. Or at least thats how I viewed it so I may be wrong.

JamesSand

Can UBI work with capitalism, or does it require that the State own all major life support systems and infrastructure?

Not capitalism as it is currently practiced. Capitalism allows for a price to be set at what the market will bear (ie what people are willing to pay for goods) (Sandel, Justice, What’s the Right Thing to Do) and in those stores that are less expensive allows for exploitation (prison labor and labor outsourcing)

UBI might go a good way towards redistributing the wealth, but in general people need to be taught basic principles of money management over consumption, which doesn’t do well for capitalism which thrives on consumption. Think for example on the idea of planned obsolescence.

Someone(s) will get rich off of UBI if we allow capitalism as it is currently practiced to be the law of the land.

In America they protested for $15 wages and businesses responded by raising the price of goods so that there was virtually no difference. Basic goods can still not be afforded.

What is probably going to happen with UBI is that its going to put money in people’s pockets for a bit and then take it out in the form of a higher price for goods. As JamesSand alluded to it will either be in the form of higher taxes or a higher price for goods in general.

However, if we turn essential services over to the state there is no drive (for lack of a better word) to improve services. Consider public schools and the disarray they are in in the US despite them being state owned. What actually happened in the US is that schools are funded by taxes of the neighborhood. At least that was my understanding in Undergrad, someone correct me if I am wrong. Depending on the type of job you get your salary/wage is taxed at a certain rate meaning that if you have assets that are highly taxed you pay a higher portion to schools. Most people stick with their kind. Rich people in this neighborhood and middle class here and poor here. The result is some schools are able to provide excellent education on tax dollars and some are not. This has been the system for some time now. And there have been no changes. Now why that is is a rant all its own, but not for this thread.

Rex

In order to be eligible for these benefits though, one must in my opinion be willing to contribute in what ways they can. In my opinion, this best could be done through a draft-style employment pool for a sort of WPA-esque department, where individual public works projects would draw on those collecting benefits.

I like this idea. As it is currently, there is a severe disconnect between willing workers (who happen to be disabled) and employers willing to hire them and case managers and families willing to let them explore. In fact, just as an anecdote, I used to be on benefits. I have a case manager right now saying I should only be working part time and I should be trying to get back on because my body won’t last etc. What I am getting at is stigma, which is again related to mindset.. If you ever read anything about Individualized Placement and Support (IPS) concerning employment, a whoping 70% of individuals with severe mental illness want to work, but it is extraordinarily difficult to find work despite all the programs out there, so if we are going to have something like a WPA program, we need to cater to all strata and all abilities.

Although, if I give you UBI on the condition that you work in a WPA program is that getting paid for work? Hmm. Its a bit like the welfare to work program. Idk how effective that is. I’ll have to look up the numbers.

I’m going off memory and passion entirely, so I don’t have sources, but if they are needed I can spend some time digging around

I think the idea that one must be wholly laissez-faire or in favor of unconditional cash handouts is a false dichotomy. Adam smith (the father of capitalist economics) complained about division of labor and the commodification of housing.

The idea that Chai brought up that "if only people made more money, we'd all be better off" ignores the entire historical gloss. Until maybe 300 years ago, the vast majority of people were subsistence farmers. What the average first world citizen has achieved would exceed their wildest expectations, and yet we're not immeasurably happier. If all production was automated, and humans didn't need to work, I would wager many of us would still want to.

Giving people cash relies on the same fundamental misunderstanding that underpins laissez-faire fans: that people always act in rational self interest. The fact that there's a homeless man along the freeway by my house with a sign that reads "need $ for weed and stuff" seems like a representative anecdote.

My idea of a "willing to work" schema hinges on the willingness itself. It's not a job in that you don't get fired for trying but failing to meet performance standards like every job I've had. Rather it's a way of being able to artificially create demand for labor without causing inflation in any given sector. Also, the draft picks young and fit men first, and no one complains that handicapped people are unpatriotic.

What are the essentials? Soylent Green, a clean feed to the Matrix, a copy of the book of laws... a compass? To what extent can nationalised industry not hamstring a State in a globalised world?

UBI would do a lot to stimulate economies.

But therein resides the misunderstanding. The UBI is conditionless, that is to say that there is hardly any way to abuse it. One may either choose to live tranquilly and pay their bills and feed themselves whilst watching Netflix and eating Doritos (in which case they probably won't live that long anyway), or as Chai was saying, people would pursue more rewarding - individually and culturally - activities.

So far, in areas where the tests have been conducted, people as a whole turn out more productive when they are not stressed out by having to meet basic vital needs.

Yet, we need to consider that this is not only an economics question, there are many dimensions. We may need to revise what we think of as "productive." We also need to stop praying so desperately at the alter of "economic growth" (cf. Serge Latouche, Pierre Rabbi et al.) There needs to be a cultural revolution (hopefully a bloodshed-less one) where we uphold and support the humanities as a baseline requirement for healthy, efficient democracy more than the rickety GDP guidelines we've stubbornly clung to for decades (cf. Martha Nussbaum, particularly "Not for Profit : Why Democracy Needs the Humanities" and "Political Emotions")

We might find that given the opportunity - and yes, I said "given" - people may discover in themselves the best avenues for their motivation. It is not surprising that we see people lacking in "motivation" when we are only looking for motivation in avenues where we value it. Motivation may operate vigorously in other avenues, but we don't recognise it as such because we don't view it as "productive."

One of the hardest things to break for me was that made up sinister eyes looking at me that everything is backed by some evil intent. I watched moral groups less spiritual create the same lifestyle as the more religious less moral did the same.
It’s hard for me to think such ideas on a global scale can’t be abused.

I was told “There’s a sucker born every minute”

In places where the bare Necessities are provided or in some cases created together given and taught , lodging and food - changes your time and your day to day.
Dynamic wise.

Maybe we needed a dynamic change in the world... hu?

A "soft option" for this that might be more achievable and have many of the proposed benefits is

4 Day working week, this is a simple cultural and small structural change - any job now has two workers doing 4 days a week (whether you're a retail clerk, engineer or farmer, the load can be shared), and instead of "national" weekends, there is just continuous rolling time off (3 days) per your own life arrangements.

The 5th day (or 5th, 6th and 7th days, if you want to get away from the concept of "weekends") is paid for by the "UBI" - I'm going to make a number up and say "$200 a day" - but I guess the real number would be a calculated cost of living /365*3 in whatever the currency of the state is.

You now have more free time for all your personal growth in whatever way pleases you most, but still an expectation and "normalcy" to the concept on not necessarily fulfilling work in return for monetary value.

The next piece also eases the burden on living - both financial, and in time management and general administrative waste (depending on how your country is run, this may or may not be more or less of a burden for you) - Anything that is just a consequence of living in a civilised modern world is managed by the state and paid for (through whatever tax system you like best) - Things like insurance, water usage, power usage, vehicle registration, council rates, telecommunications - all that guff that has pushed onto the end user and has generated angst and basically created a full time job as your own personal assistant making sure you are complying with and maintaining tens of separate contracts and payments plans - bugger that off, give everyone across the board 50% tax on income, and then create jobs in the government managing that on everyone's behalf - you now have hours more per week to relax and come up with spiritually rewarding activities instead of wondering which days rent is due and which days the phone bill is due -

Technology was supposed to create that second world - those super computers in your pockets were supposed to make day to day living smoother and easier to organise - they really have not.

Also noting that if the state owns and manages all the essential services - your cost of living is now less, the UBI allowance can go down again - and you're free to spend all the money you earn in your 4 days work (or more days, if you feel so inclined) can be spent on all the luxury items you please.


The biggest issue in all of this I see is real estate...Capitalism allows me to do a bunch of cool things if I own assets, in particular housing assets - and there's no real incentive for me to be any nicer than I have to be to be competitive in the market. Is the state going to buy up all the privately own land to control rent? Will privately owning a nice piece of land to give to my dependents be an option? if not, who decides who gets the nicer pieces of land?

Perhaps you can privately own land, but you can't make an income from it?

A lot of the focus seems to be on abuse rather than necessity. It's kind of funny to me but seems true nonetheless. We don't worry so much about the abuse that happens every single day when it comes to rich people exploiting their financial status and power. Whether it's tax shelters where they aren't paying their fair share or flat out scams and pyramid schemes, rich people get away with a hell of a lot more than we know about. And they have lawyers on standby to help them circumnavigate the law and bend and break it and get them out of trouble if need be. And often they have more money than they could need or want and then the desire for gain can mutate over time into greed and the hording of wealth so that the rest of us are fighting and arguing over the scraps from their table. Because they also own the table, the chairs, etc.

It is because of these abuses that social programs like universal healthcare and UBI are becoming more and more necessary. There was a time when you could afford a doctor, when wives didn't have to work, when a blue collar job was enough to feed a decent sized family, when school didn't cost a half million dollars. And there was a time when everyone got bent out of shape about communism and weren't having the majority of products made in China and staffing call centers with people from India. I'm not against globalism either. I'm against IMBALANCE.

The scales have simply been tipped and tilted in favor of wealthy people who are allowed to bribe the government because they use their money to put the people they want in power. Laws are written in their favor, not ours. And so costs go up while wages stagnate. Part of that is because of the global marketplace and how cheap things are elsewhere. And now robots are a new domestic threat to the blue collar workforce. And who knows. Maybe at some point software can take the place of accountants. At some point we may even be 3D printing food.

In my humble opinion, UBI is not about everyone making the same amount of money. It's about everyone having a basic income that ensures their survival. Believe it or not there are a lot of crimes that take place simply because people are trying to survive. They're not getting rich. They're just getting enough to live and pay bills. And possibly even put money on the books for people in prison caught doing the same thing. Trying to survive. No one should ever be so deep into poverty that they might become a danger to society. And yes, many of those people in jail are already costing us UBI type of money because we're paying for their basic needs already; while keeping them from getting employment or forcing them to work for pennies on the dollar. We pay and private prisons make a profit.

Not only this, but the system breeds distrust and fear. A jogger was basically hunted down and shot to death because that jogger was suspected of being a robber. Maybe if the community wasn't on high alert because of criminal activity in the area, people... any American... would be FREE to jog, drive, barbecue, sell lemonade, go swimming, mow lawns, or play with toy guns at a park. UBI would help protect everyone by taking care of all the BASIC needs. Universal health care should be part of that. Basic needs.

If a person is happy only having their basic needs met (and the government would save money by buying basic services in bulk, and companies would save money by not needing to staff for collections) then good for them. That's not me. I gotta have my VR headset, PS4, Samsung S10, gaming laptop, etc. If someone else is happy with a basic apartment, cheap clothes, no restaurants, no movies, etc. then wow but that's not really much of a life. So I think the vast majority would use their UBI to be at least at basic survival level and then they only need to work to pay for the things they want on top of that. Maybe you don't want to live on government cheese (and what about the farmers who have gotten paid by the government for not being able to sell product?). Maybe you could work a few months at a time and take a break; knowing you had enough saved up to float comfortably to the next job. And while you're not working, someone else who was taking a break before, now has another job opening to choose from. And maybe with UBI you could afford to take more risks when it comes to starting your own business. And not only would you not have to pay for health insurance as a new business owner, but the people working for you don't need that job to survive so that might help improve working conditions as well as pay. Because everyone would be getting supplementary pay, like the concept of multiple income streams.

Maybe one person uses their UBI to float while sinking their paychecks into long or short term investments. As long as people are buying products and services there will be a demand and jobs. I would limit UBI, universal healthcare and universal education to American citizens as benefit for citizenship. I would also require employers to pay a higher minimum wage to non-citizens, visa recipients, as well as undocumented workers. However, I would take more money out of their wages to help support these universal programs. I would also require companies to pay into UBI for each robot owned, not as much as a real salary, but some; to help compensate the workforce being replaced.

I would also put priority on lower income workers, to get UBI first. And then, depending on how much is in the pot, then you start going up to the income ladder to more and more people. If there is enough for people making $70K to get it, then they get it. If not, then they don't.

Ants are highly organized colonies. They have jobs and they all work. Somehow they've figured out how to survive without some ants being poor and robbing other ants. Are we not smarter than ants? And yes, part of it is that ants don't care who "owns" the land their hill is on. As far as they're concerned it's still their territory because they live there. We don't need to abandon the concept of ownership but we do need to rethink what can be owned and what should be for public use. Maybe people on UBI earn credits for working in fields or operating farm robots. I don't know, but we're smart enough to figure it all out.