A universal basic income - The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com - Debate Anything The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com
frame

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

The Best Online Debate Website | DebateIsland.com. The only online debate website with Casual, Persuade Me, Formalish, and Formal Online Debate formats. We’re the leading online debate website. Debate popular topics, debate news, or debate anything! Debate online for free! DebateIsland is utilizing Artifical Intelligence to transform online debating.


The best online Debate website - DebateIsland.com! The only Online Debate Website with Casual, Persuade Me, Formalish, and Formal Online Debate formats. We’re the Leading Online Debate website. Debate popular topics, Debate news, or Debate anything! Debate online for free!

A universal basic income
in Politics

I think a Universal Basic Income(UBI), would be ideal for a number of reasons:
1) It would make the welfare system more efficient if we replaced the current one with UBI. Think about it, a UBI is given to every citizen 18 or older, no questions asked. That means there's much less need for government bureaucrats to determine if someone qualifies for welfare since basically everyone would, or just all citizens would depending on if one wants citizenship to be a condition to receive.
2) It's not as expensive as people first think, given my points in number 1, that means we aren't paying for the salaries of those aforementioned bureaucrats, as many of those jobs would no longer exist. Plus, much of the money currently being spent on current welfare systems could easily be transferred to help pay for a UBI. That said, I'd also want to decrease spending in other areas too, of course, to make up any other potential difference that would add to the deficit.
3) I don't think it discourages people from working as people first think. The current welfare system discourages people more from working. Ever heard of the welfare cliff? Well, if not, there are a few of them. If someone is earning above X dollars per year, they will no longer qualify for certain welfare programs, so in many ways, they're better off by making sure their income is like $100 less than that amount since they get more income overall by doing that. So, the solution is to work less or not at all in order to keep qualifying. In a UBI, everyone gets it no matter what, so people no longer have this incentive, and there's no welfare cliff. Plus, a UBI would cover merely the cost of living. I don't think people want to merely live in today's society. It doesn't make sense to argue that people would suddenly stop going after their aspirations and just live off of UBI, going through the motions of life while not accomplishing any purpose they feel they need. I'm pretty positive most people have a career they want to be in and want to work. At the very least, they have goals which require working, i.e accumulation of material wealth, in some cases helping others may require official work, as in the case of nurses and such, etc. 

Now, I'm leaving it at this for now, but I'll likely provide more arguments later with sources and such. 
Plaffelvohfenqwerrty
  1. Live Poll

    Do you think a Universal basic income would be beneficial to implement?

    8 votes
    1. Yes
      37.50%
    2. No
      62.50%
"Nobody realizes that some people expend tremendous energy merely to be normal."
-Albert Camus, Notebook IV



Debra AI Prediction

Predicted To Win
Predicted 2nd Place
11%
Margin

Details +



Arguments

  • Plaffelvohfen
  • MayCaesarMayCaesar 1872 Pts
    edited August 6
    The idea that money can just be taken from some people by force and given to others for no reason, other than that they are alive, is so morally corrupt, that I do not know where to even start criticising it. Robin Hood stole from the thieving governmental officials and gave back to the hard-working poor; but stealing from those who have earned their money fair and square and giving to others who have not is essentially the "anti-Robin Hood" philosophy.

    Aside from the moral considerations, UBI would lead to incredible price inflation, would dis-incentivize those who only need the bare minimum to feel good from ever working, would ruin the worker-employer relationship, would make education less affordable and less needed than ever before, and overall would propel the market participants  to forego the official channels and switch to unregulatable private currencies and black markets.
    In short, it would obliterate the market.

    UBI is one of those ideas that try to solve a problem that does not exist, and in the process create that very problem. It is about as bad a policy as it can get.
    If you really want to give more money to the poor, while not ruining the economy, then look into Milton Friedman's negative income tax idea. It is not great either, but if we abolish the entire welfare state and replace it with that, then that would be an improvement and would incidentally accomplish your goal.
    PlaffelvohfenCYDdhartaGeoLibCogScientist
  • @MayCaesar

    Sorry MayC, but there's an unfounded slippery slope fallacy in there... UBI doesn't imply a single method of implementation, it's not "taking someone money by force" as you mention, that's a scarecrow tactic born of ideology not facts... There is a UBI program in Alaska since 1982, nothing you mentioned ever happened (granted it's not enough to actually live off of it, it must be around $2,000/yr per person atm, so about 8K for a family of 4)...

    There are plenty of example around the world, I would go the Norwegian way where the state invest in the stock market via a sovereign wealth fund (fueled by tax obviously) and return dividends to citizens, it works quite well, as of May 2018 it was worth 195k per citizen... 

    There are numerous ways to setup a UBI program and they are not all equally efficient, but there are good ones out there... 
    CYDdhartaGeoLibCogScientistqwerrty
    " Adversus absurdum, contumaciter ac ridens! "
  • edited August 7
    MayCaesar said:
    The idea that money can just be taken from some people by force and given to others for no reason, other than that they are alive, is so morally corrupt, that I do not know where to even start criticising it.
    Well, I give you that I've not stated a reason for it. Here's one, let's see if you disagree or agree with it.

    As far as I'm aware, Thomas Paine was the first to make this argument I'm about to present, in his work Agrarian Justice. To summarize the work, he argues it is Justice for people to receive a yearly amount of money due to that land is a zero sums game. Meaning, simply due to that you were born in a time, which makes up a tiny percentage of human history, where humans decided to have landed property as a concept, and not only a concept but a right, you can be disadvantaged far more in life than a hunter-gatherer would have. I don't know if you realize this, but the land is kind of a necessity for people to at least merely exist on in order to just live and survive. The more that is taken up, the less opportunity there are future generations and people unfortunate to be born into a family owning no land, have at merely living. People die today merely because they don't have access to life-giving resources they otherwise would have for 99% of human history where people didn't just decide "This land is mine, and I'll kill anyone who tries to acquire life-saving resources on it". At any rate, the Lockean Proviso even offers a condition where land ought not to be considered private property. When there's not enough to go around, then it can't be anymore. Given people are dying of poverty, I argue there isn't enough. You can argue "how is that the case, there are billions of acres of land on earth!". Follow the spirit, not the word of the proviso. First, we should scratch off at least half of those acres due to that they are not habitable for humans unless one has the technology. I consider it unreasonable to require that someone has an air conditioner or a heater in order to have their right to life. Why should that be required of people to merely live? It shouldn't be, and on that grounds, we can dismiss half of the land on the earth as being applicable here. Next, people need to have access to that land. Given in my area, for over 100 miles in any direction, all the land is already taken up, I don't think there's plenty to go around. Sure, in some areas there might be plenty of lands, but most people don't have access to those areas easily, either because they're national parks, the person simply doesn't have the means to travel there without having some huge burden on them, possibly even death, etc.

    So, where I'm leading with all this, is that yes, it is moral to tax people who are taking up land, particularly for no good reason like many banks do just for pure land speculation. Land is a necessity for humans to live. We have a right to life. Therefore, we have a right to the value of land as a species. The UBI can thus be tied directly to the value of land that we are entitled to through the right to life. Now, does this sound like any willy-nilly reason anymore?

    Aside from the moral considerations, UBI would lead to incredible price inflation, would dis-incentivize those who only need the bare minimum to feel good from ever working, would ruin the worker-employer relationship, would make education less affordable and less needed than ever before, and overall would propel the market participants  to forego the official channels and switch to unregulatable private currencies and black markets.
    In short, it would obliterate the market.

    Why? You say it would lead to all this, and yes, @Plaffelvohfen ; is correct here that this is merely a slippery slope fallacy. While slippery slope can sometimes be a valid argument, it isn't if you're not providing any evidence. Which you've not done here. Slippery slope, in order to be a legitimate argument, requires a very high standard of proof. It requires proving causation in a scientific way between each step starting from butteryfly cause/effect A to slippery slope Z. You've not provided any such evidence of causation, nor even the interrim causes B, C, D etc for any of these things you're claiming it would lead to.

    Also, to be clear, here is an article about how one proves causation in a scientific way. Unless you do it in this manner here as stipulated in requirements 1-8 about halfway through that article, or show us a study which has done in that manner for every single step of your slippery slope argument, your claim here will continue to be a slippery slope fallacy.

    As for your claim it would dis-incentivize, while I don't need to do anything more other than point out that this is still the slippery slope fallacy, I've already provided logic above in my post that indicates the opposite. With current welfare systems, there are welfare cliffs. If we replaced current welfare systems with UBI, those would no longer exist. Do you find anything wrong with my line of reasoning here, or are you just going to continually and blindly state an opposing statement with no explanation? Please read my third point in my OP, since it seems like you didn't.


    Plaffelvohfenqwerrty
    "Nobody realizes that some people expend tremendous energy merely to be normal."
    -Albert Camus, Notebook IV
  • edited August 7
    Now, I suppose someone might argue with me that many people don't see a purpose in life. I don't think this is the case. Even among teenageers who are just trying to figure out who themselves are, 87% of American teens from a Gallup poll claimed they did have purpose.  Keep in mind, those are teenagers.  Now, they list various purposes they view for thier lives. I would argue given today's economy, nearly all of those purposes need more than merely the value of what the cost of living is(which is what usually a UBI would be proposed to cover). The top one was "Make a difference/help people". You can't do that by simply having enough to survive on your own. You need more than just survival, so they have a motivator to go do extra since their purpose is to help people. The next one is "be a good christian", again, I don't think I need to explain that simply living the motions of survival will not fulfill that goal. "Be a good person" is next, same thing. The next one is specifically "Good job/career/etc" so a good chunk of them directly want a job as their purpose. That is not to say no one else wants to work, as I've already been pointing out, these purposes, for the most part, will require work, even though that's not the over all purpose, it is perhaps the most efficient or only way to achieve those other purposes they're listing.

    I don't think it is logical at all to claim that people who feel they have a purpose in life, will merely want to just survive. So if you're going to argue people are just going to sit on their butts and do nothing if given a UBI, you're going to need to convince us that with, you know, some logic and evidence?
    Plaffelvohfenqwerrty
    "Nobody realizes that some people expend tremendous energy merely to be normal."
    -Albert Camus, Notebook IV
  • DeeDee 703 Pts
    @MayCaesar

    You say ......The idea that money can just be taken from some people by force and given to others for no reason


    My reply .....Who is taking your money by “force”?  Is every policy you disagree with taking your money by force?

    You say.......other than that they are alive, 

    My reply .....They have some nerve living and striving for an acceptable standard of living 

    You say .......is so morally corrupt, that I do not know where to even start criticizing it.

    My reply ......So anyone suggesting this is immoral and corrupt in your opinion?

    You say ......UBI is one of those ideas that try to solve a problem that does not exist

    My reply ......Yet here we are talking about the problem that doesn’t exist 

    You say .......Yet in the process create that very problem. It is about as bad a policy as it can get.

    My reply .....How does it create the problem?


  • WinstonCWinstonC 114 Pts
    @GeoLibCogScientist ; My issues with UBI:

    1 - The cost. To pay $15k per year to 300 million people (minimum wage for 40 hr/wk) would cost $4.5 Trillion per year. The federal budget for 2015 was $3.8 Trillion. This would mean needing to more than double the federal budget. Implicitly this means that we would be valuing UBI as worth more than every other government service combined (because we would be spending more money on it annually).

    2 - The effect on people's motivation to work. The vast majority of people work jobs they hate to provide services that benefit us all. I don't expect these people to continue working if they don't need to. I would imagine everyone would cut back their hours based on the proportion of their wage that is covered by UBI. Moreover, the high taxes required for UBI would reduce incentive to work even further.

    3 - Epigenetics. People's genes adapt to their environment during the course of their life. Over several generations, we would expect to see subsets of humans adapted solely for a life of leisure; with no ability to be of use to anybody and unable to even support themselves.
  • WinstonC said:
    @GeoLibCogScientist ; My issues with UBI:

    1 - The cost. To pay $15k per year to 300 million people (minimum wage for 40 hr/wk) would cost $4.5 Trillion per year. The federal budget for 2015 was $3.8 Trillion. This would mean needing to more than double the federal budget. Implicitly this means that we would be valuing UBI as worth more than every other government service combined (because we would be spending more money on it annually).

    Well, first, it wouldn't be 300 million people. The US population that are legal adults is ~260 million today, reducing the cost of 15k per person to ~3.9 trillion. Secondly, As I pointed elsewhere if we did it to replace current welfare systems, it doesn't increase the deficit as much as you think. If we were to have the UBI replace all mandatory spending, then it only increases it by 1.4 trillion, given mandatory spending was 2.5 trillion in 2018.  I would argue, if we did give such a living UBI to people, there's not a need for any of those mandatory spending programs given they're all basically some type of welfare. So, we'd transfer what we currently spend on mandatory spending to UBI, as UBI would then be the only program under mandatory spending.

    The other 1.4 trillion, I'd argue can be made up for through the economic benefits to the economy of putting more cash in the hands of people, plus a land value tax to offset anything else remaining after the economy is boosted from a UBI. Why would it boost it, you ask? Well, as I've pointed out already, there would be no more welfare cliffs. These incentivize people on welfare to not work or work less because if they increased their income from work, they would no longer qualify for welfare, which in effect, would actually reduce their overall income. If welfare was no questions asked like UBI is, this incentive is gone. So, more people would rejoin the labor force, increasing GDP per capita, and boosting the economy. And of course, people argue "UBI would disincentivize people from working". I don't think it would to the same level the current welfare system does. And as I've also pointed out earlier, most people have some sort of purpose in life they believe they have. Most of those purposes require them to earn more than simply "enough to survive", which is what a UBI would be. Whether you consider your purpose in life to help others, to acquire wealth, to become someone noteworthy, to simply find value in life, nearly any such purpose/goal you can think of requires work. If you go to my previous comments, I point out how even teens, who are usually more undecided about this than adults, have a purpose in their lives.

    2 - The effect on people's motivation to work. The vast majority of people work jobs they hate to provide services that benefit us all. I don't expect these people to continue working if they don't need to. I would imagine everyone would cut back their hours based on the proportion of their wage that is covered by UBI. Moreover, the high taxes required for UBI would reduce incentive to work even further.
    Oh, I ended up addressing this already while addressing your other point lol. My second paragraph above addresses this. To add, "need to" is relative. Sure, people won't need to work to survive, but they will need to work to accomplish their life's purpose in nearly all cases. Though, you did bring up one point I haven't addressed which is your point about high taxes.

    I would say it depends on the tax. While this debate isn't specifically arguing for this type of taxation, I'm personally in favor of a land-value tax to fund UBI should an additional tax be necessary to cover any potential increases to the deficit(not entirely sure it actually would be given I've not specifically done the math and research into the specific numbers of things I brought up previously, like how much the boost to the economy would increase tax revenue). But, first, many people don't even own land, like those who rent in an apartment. They wouldn't be paying anything extra in taxes. Second, with a land value tax, it disincentivizes banks to speculate with the land, so unlike other taxes, it would actually decrease the price of the thing it taxes. If they have to pay a hefty land value tax every month, they will want to sell the land sooner than the point at which the land would have raised in price with their speculation. Additionally, it makes them want to sell it quickly so they don't have to pay the tax more than once, twice, etc for each month that passes. They'll want to sell it in the first month of them owning it if the LVT is high enough. In order for them to sell it so quickly, they have to get people interested in it. To do that, one must sell cheap. So, in general, it brings down the prices of land. Land value is economically connected to the resources on such land. This means it would also reduce the price of raw materials. That would lead to a reduction in the price of all products, given the raw materials producers would buy would be cheaper. A decline in the price of products is all but completely confirmed in economics to increase the demand for those products, as more people could afford them, particularly the case if people have an extra X amount of dollars each month lol. So, demand for the products increases, and thus demand jobs that produce those products increase. The supply of job-seekers would rise to possibly accommodate that given the welfare cliff no longer exists and more people would want to work or work longer.

    If you feel this doesn't sufficiently address the issue, let me know. I feel I've addressed it though. While what I've argued also sounds like a butterfly effect or slippery slope, I'm pretty certain the things I've stated are well-established theories in economics and have sufficient evidence between each cause and effect I listed to support this "slippery slope"(though it's one that leads to good things). Should you challenge this, I can offer sources on each principle here(i.e price of a product being reduced leads to more demand for that product, and all other steps I've stated here).  But yes, this could be a slippery slope fallacy(different from the argument, the slippery slope can be legit if sufficient evidence exists between each step, as I explained above too), but I want to say it's common knowledge for some of the principles I stated here. If anyone rejects that, that's fine, and I'll offer sources should someone reject it?


    3 - Epigenetics. People's genes adapt to their environment during the course of their life. Over several generations, we would expect to see subsets of humans adapted solely for a life of leisure; with no ability to be of use to anybody and unable to even support themselves.
    Why would that be the case? A UBI is not enough for leisurely activities. It's literally meant to only cover one's cost of living(which, I would say it would be best to have UBI tied to the location one resides, so the city, or maybe county, in order to have a more local cost of living it's based on). If someone spends their UBI on leisurely things, they would be digging into their standard of living in some way. So they would be living in a less-than-adequate shelter, having not enough food, water, or something else. Which would incentivize them to work at that point. Granted, since it would make it too complicated to cater to every individual's cost of living, there could be some who have a lower cost of living than anticipated by tying it to a city's average or a county's average. That's a valid point that I'm not sure how to address. Either way, I don't think this would happen for all people. Being it's an average, probably half the people will fall under the category where they receive more than their personal cost of living, and the other half would receive less. But, I'm really not sure there is a perfect welfare system. UBI isn't perfect, but I consider it an improvement to the current ones. The current ones have this same problem I'm desribing anyways, and not only that, but a welfare cliff. So, given no welfare cliff exists with UBI, I would say this point is not as valid given this fact alone reduces the amount of people able to get away without working. It doesn't address all reasons why people don't work with welfare, but it addresses one of them, so that naturally would decrease the amount of people currently choosing not to work. So, while you're critique is valid for arguing why no welfare system, including UBI, should exist, UBI is still an improvement from the current welfare system. Can you agree with that at least?
    PlaffelvohfenCYDdhartaqwerrty
    "Nobody realizes that some people expend tremendous energy merely to be normal."
    -Albert Camus, Notebook IV
  • WinstonCWinstonC 114 Pts
    @GeoLibCogScientist "If we were to have the UBI replace all mandatory spending, then it only increases it by 1.4 trillion, given mandatory spending was 2.5 trillion in 2018."

    Discretionary spending includes things like the military and education budget. In my view these are essential. Further, mandatory spending covers more than just social security, which was merely $895Bn in 2015.

    "I would argue, if we did give such a living UBI to people, there's not a need for any of those mandatory spending programs given they're all basically some type of welfare."

    The largest part of the mandatory spending portion of the budget is spent on medicare and health.

    "So, we'd transfer what we currently spend on mandatory spending to UBI, as UBI would then be the only program under mandatory spending."

    Social security and food assistance combined comes to under $1.1 trillion. Subtracting this still means an increase in spending of $2.8 trillion, almost doubling the total federal budget. Once again, this places a monetary value on UBI greater than all other government services combined. I do not believe this to be an appropriate valuation of the worth of UBI. To put it into perspective, the increase in welfare cost would be 40 times the total education budget. Can we really think of no better use for such an immense sum of money?

    "The other 1.4 trillion, I'd argue can be made up for through the economic benefits to the economy of putting more cash in the hands of people, plus a land value tax to offset anything else remaining after the economy is boosted from a UBI."

    I don't see why the economy would be boosted, in my estimation less people would be working and those that are working would work less.

    "Why would it boost it, you ask? Well, as I've pointed out already, there would be no more welfare cliffs. These incentivize people on welfare to not work or work less because if they increased their income from work, they would no longer qualify for welfare, which in effect, would actually reduce their overall income."

    Do you think that people working terrible jobs will still go work for the same number of hours when they have no financial need to? You're talking about the very lowest end of society when you speak of welfare cliffs. Further, I'm sure that current welfare pays out less than a full time minimum wage. If it pays more then that is a major problem with the current welfare system and it should be reduced.

    "And as I've also pointed out earlier, most people have some sort of purpose in life they believe they have. Most of those purposes require them to earn more than simply "enough to survive", which is what a UBI would be. Whether you consider your purpose in life to help others, to acquire wealth, to become someone noteworthy, to simply find value in life, nearly any such purpose/goal you can think of requires work."

    You're assuming that people are more like yourself than they are. The majority of people are not putting any substantive effort to become someone noteworthy.

    "To add, "need to" is relative. Sure, people won't need to work to survive, but they will need to work to accomplish their life's purpose in nearly all cases."

    If they are working to achieve something valuable to people, then they should be able to monetise it somehow. The advent of crowd funding makes this even easier; if people see the value in what you are doing they will donate.

    "So, in general, it brings down the prices of land. Land value is economically connected to the resources on such land. This means it would also reduce the price of raw materials."

    The land value tax would become part of the cost of extracting the land's resources which would pass onto the consumer.

    "...if people have an extra X amount of dollars each month lol."

    This would be inflationary, because the supply of money in the consumer market increased.

    "The supply of job-seekers would rise to possibly accommodate that given the welfare cliff no longer exists and more people would want to work or work longer."

    If the person can't get full-time minimum wage work I'm not really sure how much use adding their labour to the market will be. Look, if there was UBI even I would scale back my hours a bit. If I earned minimum wage, however, I would work far less than full time because working 20 hours and earning $22.5k is far preferable to working 40 hours and earning $30k.

    "If someone spends their UBI on leisurely things, they would be digging into their standard of living in some way. So they would be living in a less-than-adequate shelter, having not enough food, water, or something else."

    Leisurely activities don't all cost money, and moreover many of the ones that do don't cost much. Perhaps the person plays an MMORPG all day, or drinks alcohol in excess. Perhaps they laze about on the beach, or enjoy casual sex etc.

    "Either way, I don't think this would happen for all people. Being it's an average, probably half the people will fall under the category where they receive more than their personal cost of living, and the other half would receive less."

    If it's not covering the person's basic living expenses then I don't really consider it UBI. In any case, I don't think that radically increasing the number of people on welfare and the amount they get paid is a good idea.

    "The current ones have this same problem I'm desribing anyways, and not only that, but a welfare cliff."

    While I can accept that welfare systems do disincentivize part time minimum wage work, I don't believe UBI to be the solution. I could certainly be on board with paying some welfare to low-earners in order to get rid of a welfare cliff. I would note, though, that full time minimum wage work is relatively easy to find.

    "So, given no welfare cliff exists with UBI, I would say this point is not as valid given this fact alone reduces the amount of people able to get away without working."

    If they can get away with not working under the current benefits system then they certainly can get away with not working if you pay them an even larger sum.

    "It doesn't address all reasons why people don't work with welfare, but it addresses one of them, so that naturally would decrease the amount of people currently choosing not to work."

    You're only looking at one factor in why people would choose not to work. As I said before, even I would decrease my hours worked per week and I earn more than minimum wage. Those closer to minimum wage would certainly decrease their hours worked. Quality of life when working 20 hours per week earning $22.5k/Yr is far better than working 40 hours per week and earning 30k/Yr.

    "So, while you're critique is valid for arguing why no welfare system, including UBI, should exist"

    I'm not arguing against a welfare system, I'm arguing against radically expanding it.

    "UBI is still an improvement from the current welfare system. Can you agree with that at least?"

    No, it costs far too much, has the consequence of removing some of the financial incentive to work and is bad for the people who become addicted to the free money. I would far rather invest the vast amount of  money required in education, research, policing, the environment etc.
  • edited August 7
    There is a reason I'm including all of the mandatory spending overall. Bringing up that some is spent on health care and such is irrelevant to me since the UBI should be enough for someone to afford health care given it is a cost of living, in my opinion. Of course, we need other measures to decrease the cost of health care, though, otherwise, we're probably looking at way more than 15k a year per person.

    My over all point is, we can find ways to afford it, and that's the reason I'm pointing certain ideas out. While you may find issues with the specific ideas I've presented on how to afford it, there are countless possibilities to make it affordable, so I don't consider this a legitimate concern. Just continue to think about what would be an acceptable way to afford it.  There is nothing inherently wrong with continuing to find ways to afford it, and if someone thinks there isn't a way, then they likely haven't considered all the literally dozens of ways to do that. So, I don't buy the argument that it "costs too much". To me, it more is a facade that one just doesn't think we can afford it and they really just have other objections. If you thought UBI was a good idea, you would be actively looking for ways that make sense to make it affordable, not immediately saying "we can't afford it". So, this point I really don't consider legit. Let's focus on your other issues with it, since if those are fixed, then you would likely join me in specifically finding ways to make it affordable.

    Do you think that people working terrible jobs will still go work for the same number of hours when they have no financial need to?
    Not at all. Your framing of it is backwards though. We should not have people working terrible jobs when such jobs can be automated, and given we have basic self-learning AI through inventions and ideas like Generative Adversarial Networks(GANs), and AI that can replace doctors even already. Let's do this. Let's automate those jobs no one wants so they can try for the jobs they do want(not saying no one wants to be a doctor though lol, this was just an example to show you how far we've automated even higher-level thinking jobs like that of doctors). So, why wouldn't someone seek after the job they do want if all the terrible jobs are automated, and they no longer have to worry about their living expenses? I would argue many people "settle for less" because they are concerned for living expenses. They won't have to with a UBI, they can go do their dream job. Remember: think outside the box. These issues have solutions to them. If you're worried those terrible jobs won't' get done, we have AI and automation for that. It's not a real concern whatsoever given this obvious answer.

    You're talking about the very lowest end of society when you speak of welfare cliffs. Further, I'm sure that current welfare pays out less than a full time minimum wage. If it pays more then that is a major problem with the current welfare system and it should be reduced.
    I think you do underestimate it, or perhaps you're not counting things that aren't directly giving money to the person. The government-subsidized housing options per person can easily exceed a minimum wage, a full-time job, by itself, that's before including EBT, Parental leave, daycare, disability, or other things the person may be on. So, yes, while they aren't receiving an "income" exceeding a full-time minimum wage job oftentimes, the value of things they are given can exceed that. It certainly doesn't for everyone using the social safety nets, but for some people, it can. It depends though. From what I understand, the housing department of the local area often will only require low-income families to contribute to 10% of their monthly income to a normal market rent rate. The state covers the rest. Depending on what the person's income is, and given often the state pays above the market rate in order to incentivize landlords to do section 8 housing and such, that can easily be well over $1000 a month given how high rent is. Depending on the area, too, it could be much more or less.

    And I don't think it's necessarily the "lowest end of society". Take a look at table A-1 here under "Income and earnings". According to it, in 2017, 10.7% of households in America make less than $15,000 a year. This isn't per individual, this is the entire household, meaning multiple individuals live off of that income in many cases. I suspect that's a higher percentage than you may have expected. If you combine the percentages of those groups under 50k a year, that's 48.8% of American households. I know I was surprised to learn this, but maybe you're not as surprised.

    Also, side note: I'm ignoring some of your points since you decided to respond sentence-by-sentence even though those concerns you brought up would be literally addressed in the next sentence I said, for example when you said:

    I don't see why the economy would be boosted, in my estimation less people would be working and those that are working would work less.
    My very next sentence answers that... Also, automation. We don't need people to work. Let the machines do it.  But yeah, if I leave something unaddressed from here, it's because I answered it later and you answered it before reading everything I had already said.

    If they can get away with not working under the current benefits system then they certainly can get away with not working if you pay them an even larger sum.
    That doesn't make any sense given what I've argued. I've argued we would be getting rid of the incentive for people to not work because of fear that their welfare benefits would be cut off. A UBI would mean that won't ever be cut off. So, no more fear for that.

    You're only looking at one factor in why people would choose not to work. As I said before, even I would decrease my hours worked per week and I earn more than minimum wage. Those closer to minimum wage would certainly decrease their hours worked. Quality of life when working 20 hours per week earning $22.5k/Yr is far better than working 40 hours per week and earning 30k/Yr.
    You seem to be making my arguments for me. "quality of life.. is far better" when people make more per hour. Do you realize that means their mental health, their health over all goes up? Do you know what else goes up with that? Productivity per hour. So thanks. 

    To provide some scientific evidence on the matter, this meta-analysis of 500 studies on this topic, found that...

    The relationships [between mental health and job satisfaction] are particularly impressive for aspects of mental health, specifically burnout, lowered self-esteem, anxiety, and depression, where it can now be confirmed that dissatisfaction at work can be hazardous to an employee’s mental health and wellbeing. Importantly, the relationships found were much greater than with any other work characteristic evaluated. This has important health implications for the design and delivery of employee health intervention programmes. The results of this study allow us to conclude that risk assessments of stress in the workplace should attempt to pinpoint those aspects of work that are causing most dissatisfaction among employees (for example, hours of work, organisational management style, workload, work control/autonomy, etc) as these are likely to be also the factors causing raised levels of stress. After meaningful consultation with employees, work practices should be changed appropriately—and the impact of these measured both in terms of their effect on stress levels and on job satisfaction. If the causal relationship hypothesised holds, changes which have the greatest impact on job satisfaction can be expected to produce the greatest benefits to employee mental health (in particular, to reduce levels of burnout/emotional exhaustion)
    So, seems there's clear indication mental health is associated with job satisfaction, and burnout from more hours than one can handle, is an issue. You deciding to work less likely will mean you will improve your mental health. And as this study finds, better mental health is associated with increase in productivity.



    Plaffelvohfenqwerrty
    "Nobody realizes that some people expend tremendous energy merely to be normal."
    -Albert Camus, Notebook IV


  • I'm not exactly sure why one would associate more hours with being a good thing per se and thus the inverse that less hours would be a bad thing for the economy. It's total output that matters. If the same amount of output can be given by someone who's more mentally healthy and working only 20 hours a week as someone who's mentally unhealthy working 40 hours, then isn't this a good thing?
    Plaffelvohfen
    "Nobody realizes that some people expend tremendous energy merely to be normal."
    -Albert Camus, Notebook IV
  • Of a totally different topic that's sorta relevant to my point about how far advanced in AI we are, I think Debra AI on this website may even utilize GAN. Not sure, but they claim here debra AI uses "machine learning and natural language processing", with my knowledge on the topic, it would make sense that they would be using the most up-to-date machine learning: GAN. And based on it seems like Debra is getting better at analyzing my arguments, it seems like it is learning, and I don't think anyone is specifically programming it, as it is essentially programming itself if it is utilizing an adversarial network.
    "Nobody realizes that some people expend tremendous energy merely to be normal."
    -Albert Camus, Notebook IV
  • WinstonCWinstonC 114 Pts
    @GeoLibCogScientist "My over all point is, we can find ways to afford it"

    Perhaps, yet even if we can double the tax income there are better ways to spend the money. Moreover, as aforementioned, if you want to spend more money on UBI than every other government service combined then that implicitly means that you value UBI more than every other government service combined. I do not share this valuation of UBI.

    "If you thought UBI was a good idea, you would be actively looking for ways that make sense to make it affordable, not immediately saying "we can't afford it"."

    If we spent that much money on healthcare and education, for examples, we would have the best healthcare and education systems in the world.

    "We should not have people working terrible jobs when such jobs can be automated"

    You can make this argument once all the terrible jobs are automated but not before. The cost is currently prohibitive.

    "So, why wouldn't someone seek after the job they do want if all the terrible jobs are automated, and they no longer have to worry about their living expenses? I would argue many people "settle for less" because they are concerned for living expenses."

    Do you mean jobs making art and music etc.? It's easier than ever before to do such things.

    "The government-subsidized housing options per person can easily exceed a minimum wage, a full-time job, by itself, that's before including EBT, Parental leave, daycare, disability, or other things the person may be on."

    You can get lots of these benefits while working, particularly if only part time. If people are getting paid more than full time minimum wage in benefits then this is wrong and payments should be reduced.

    "From what I understand, the housing department of the local area often will only require low-income families to contribute to 10% of their monthly income to a normal market rent rate. The state covers the rest."

    Low-income doesn't mean no income.

    "And I don't think it's necessarily the "lowest end of society". Take a look at table A-1 here under "Income and earnings". According to it, in 2017, 10.7% of households in America make less than $15,000 a year."

    10% of people have an IQ of 83 or less (which sadly renders them practically useless) so I'm not surprised.

    "This isn't per individual, this is the entire household, meaning multiple individuals live off of that income in many cases."

    Factor in single parenthood rates.

    "If you combine the percentages of those groups under 50k a year, that's 48.8% of American households."

    50k isn't too bad an income.

    "My very next sentence answers that."

    I know, but I was giving an alternative argument to that before dealing with my refutation of your explanation in the next chunk.

    "Also, automation. We don't need people to work. Let the machines do it."

    If the price was economical they would already have done so.

    "That doesn't make any sense given what I've argued. I've argued we would be getting rid of the incentive for people to not work because of fear that their welfare benefits would be cut off. A UBI would mean that won't ever be cut off. So, no more fear for that."

    In the part I quoted you said specifically "this fact alone reduces the amount of people able to get away without working".

    "You seem to be making my arguments for me. "quality of life.. is far better" when people make more per hour."

    At the price of productivity.

    "Do you realize that means their mental health, their health over all goes up? Do you know what else goes up with that? Productivity per hour. So thanks... So, seems there's clear indication mental health is associated with job satisfaction, and burnout from more hours than one can handle, is an issue. You deciding to work less likely will mean you will improve your mental health. And as this study finds, better mental health is associated with increase in productivity."

    The part of the study you pasted had no mention of productivity. I'm sure it does increase productivity per hour, just not enough to counterbalance the massive loss of hours worked.

    "If the same amount of output can be given by someone who's more mentally healthy and working only 20 hours a week as someone who's mentally unhealthy working 40 hours, then isn't this a good thing?"

    Of course, but there's no evidence of work rate doubling. If it were that simple then employers would force people to work only 30 hours so that they get 1.5x the output of a 40 hour employee for 3/4 the price.
  • @GeoLibCogScientist ;
    In principle basic income is stating that citizen's of a nation has the right to tax their government without representation in then state that has been formed by a incentive as cost or assigned value assembly. The opening argument of debate does not include any link of legal precedent that defines any role of the people listing citizenship as a job by united state that is applied for then hired. There are several concerns in the state of this union.
Sign In or Register to comment.

Back To Top

DebateIsland.com

| The Best Online Debate Experience!
2019 DebateIsland.com, All rights reserved. DebateIsland.com | The Best Online Debate Experience! Debate topics you care about in a friendly and fun way. Come try us out now. We are totally free!

Contact us

customerservice@debateisland.com
Awesome Debates
BestDealWins.com
Terms of Service

Get In Touch