Universal basic income is not a solution to our social and economic problems

just4fun

Argument Topic: I disagree

Sure, Universal basic income may not solve ALL of everyone's problems, however, it will certainly help almost everyone. But first we must clarify a very important factor. How much would this income be, and when would it be given? Every week, every month, or every year? Most of American's problems have to do with money without a doubt. Low to middle class families are left worrying if they'll be able to survive another month, if they can pay rent, how much will groceries and gas cost, will they be able to pay for their children's education, and will they be able to pay off medical bills if an emergency occurs? These problems all have to do with money, and, according to Ella Ceron in a March 22, 2022 article "Nearly 52 million U.S. workers — or 32% of the country's workforce — earn less than $15 an hour, according to a report published Tuesday by Oxfam America.". This, on top of soaring inflation and increasing economic insecurity, means that a universal basic income system is more essential than ever. This would also benefit the economy, since more people will have more money to spend, resulting in further revenue for businesses. As such, I truly don't know why anyone would oppose such a beneficial system, but I would be more than happy to see viewpoints from the other perspective.

Nomenclature

@just4fun

It will definitely help, but what is also desperately needed is affordable housing. 

just4fun

@Nomenclature I agree with you on that, and that may be a topic for another time, but universal basic income will certainly be a step in the right direction.

just_sayin

Argument Topic: Why UBI has failed

@just4fun
First, UBI sounds like a great idea in principle and was pushed by my favorite economist, Libertarian Milton Friedman forty-fifty years ago.  You can find lots or proponents that will tell you that their program was a success and helped raise incomes slightly or lowered unemployment slightly, but what they won't tell you, is that none of the 38 plus pilot UBI programs  (so far) ended with the implementation of basic income as a policy, by keeping the pilot going or rolling it out to wider populations.  In almost all cases, they claimed their programs were successful as they shut them down.  

Why did they stop a good thing?  This should be the first question people ask.  it's not one you would want asked if you were just interested in pushing an agenda, but if you are serious about knowing if a method will actually work and be sustainable, you would think you would want to know why none of the programs started so far have become permanent.  

The first reason is the cost.  States and cities simply can't afford them.  The benefits are so small in comparison to the effect of the tax increases needed.  As the ECPI Centre reported

Evidence on employment outcomes is weak or not statistically significant in most cases. Except for certain sub-groups in specific contexts.

These targeted programs at the city and state level will tell you that they can't sustain them, and that's why we need a national program.  But, if it can't work at the city and state level, why should we think it could work at the national level and be sustainable?  There is no evidence of this.

Secondly, most were poorly crafted with very small sample sizes, targeting very specific subsets - such as low income mothers, 18-20 years olds, or the incarcerated.  As a result.  The sample sizes were small and the measurable results were not well defined.  

MayCaesar

just4fun said:

This would also benefit the economy, since more people will have more money to spend, resulting in further revenue for businesses.

This is a common economical fallacy: the view that the value of currency is somehow fundamentally fixed and that redistributing it preserves it. This is false, both theoretically and empirically. To see why that is, consider an extreme example of the government printing enough money to hand over $1,000,000,000 a day to every member of the society - and doing it. Would this mean that "more people have more money to spend"? Yes, in a sense. Yet the value of that money not only does not remain the same, but plunges dramatically as the uncontrollable inflation destroys the currency outright and people resort to using alternative quasi-currencies instead.

The value of currency is a function of the state of the market, not a determinant of it. If the market does well and the governmental policies are not completely insane, then the currency is valuable; otherwise it is not. It is impossible to improve the economy by printing pieces of paper and handing them around, and anyone who thinks otherwise, well... does not really think. All the strongest currencies nowadays - USD, EUR, JPN and GBP - are strong, both domestically and internationally, not because the respective governments are handing colored pieces of paper around like hot pies, but because the respective economies are strong and reliable enough that investors choose them over all the available alternatives.

As for the UBI itself, the idea of handing money over to people in exchange for simply existing leads exactly to the outcome touched upon above: currency becomes detached from actual economical output and plunges in value. I keep my savings in dollars because the dollars are tied to quantifiable measures of economical performance, such as stock values. If dollars instead become pieces of paper the government issues so the people could satisfy their consumption preferences with them, then I will sell all the dollars I have and buy Yens or Pounds instead - and everyone who knows anything about economics will do the same. You will have the population of people receiving, say, $2,000 a month simply for existing, then going to a grocery store and enjoying $10 individual toilet paper rolls. The ultimate outcome of such policies, if practiced consistently, is the Zimbabwean scenario, where the government is forced to outright abolish the domestic currency and tie the economy to one of the stable foreign currencies, losing control over the economy almost completely - which in itself is not a bad thing at all, but, in the context of everything else happening, is equivalent to an economical suicide.

It is quite miraculous that in the 21st century some people still think that printing and redistributing colored pieces of paper, accompanied by weird laws enforced by goons with badges and guns, is the way to economical prosperity. Not the ideas, the research, the production - but a bureaucrat walking around and throwing pieces of colored paper on the ground. Does not sound like the way to building colonies on Mars to me. Could be an interesting economical idea for circa 3,000 BC, but today people should know better.

MichaelElpers

@Lidia

If UBI worked than people would implement privately outside of government.  There is nothing stopping that those who believe this from starting a small community or commune implementing this.

The issue is this requires others money and attracts laziness.  UBI requires government to take people's and forced work.

just4fun

@just_sayin
I agree with you on most of this, and I appreciate your strong evidence, but UBI on it's own won't solve most socioeconomic problems. A UBI combined with affordable housing, nationalization of healthcare, scholarship programs, social programs for substance abuse, and a livable wage ($15 or higher) are all essential in creating a state where all can live comfortably with fewer worries.Now, as you mentioned, cost would be major factor to consider when talking about a UBI system, which is true for most social programs.
 
However, you should research what the US spends most of it's budget on. We spend over $800 billion on our military, more than the next 10 countries combined, on insignificant, controversial or non-existent threats, such as the 2003 invasion of Iraq. For another extreme example, look at the 20 year long war in Afghanistan and global war on terror, which cost over $8 trillion according to Brown University. That money could've been used to benefit citizens instead of a wasteful war to expand American interests.

 In order for UBI and other programs to exist, we would need to redistribute our spending.

just_sayin

Argument Topic: Socialism won't solve the problems - it makes them worse

@just4fun said 

A UBI combined with affordable housing, nationalization of healthcare, scholarship programs, social programs for substance abuse, and a livable wage ($15 or higher) are all essential in creating a state where all can live comfortably with fewer worries.

So much is wrong with this statement (too much for a single post).  First, government has greatly contributed to unaffordable housing.  The reason housing is twice that of other states, in California, can be traced back in part to government policies - and that's the opinion of the liberal SF Chronicle - Democratic policies have made California poorer

Democrat policies worsened the housing nightmare in California.  The building regulations for a home in California are twice as many as those in other states.  Strict rules in SF have made it impossible to build in most areas, even though the area is 95% uninhabited.  Further restrictions on the type of homes and the height of buildings has made SF unaffordable for the working poor.  Blacks have fled the city in record numbers as housing costs have grown - see Blacks Hit by Housing Costs Leave San Francisco Behind  Repeat this crisis in city after city across the state and you see the problem.

California needs 3.5 million more homes today.  The problem won't go away and a lot of it has to do with Democratic Party politicians.  Think we just need to rent then?  Not in California baby.  The policies are onerous and rent control has ensured that fewer apartments will be available, compounding the issue.  Why would an owner provide rental property, when you can avoid the hassle and just convert to more expensive housing.  Sure, Democratic politicians policies will mean it will cost more and take much more time to develop, but when the government is against cheap housing options, what are you gonna do? 

MayCaesar

just4fun said:

@just_sayin
A UBI combined with affordable housing, nationalization of healthcare, scholarship programs, social programs for substance abuse, and a livable wage ($15 or higher) are all essential in creating a state where all can live comfortably with fewer worries.

You make the assumption that this is a goal of the system. Yet this goal is fundamentally incompatible with the ideal of freedom. Whenever you care about the abstract well-being of "all", you stop caring about the well-being of the individual - yet individuals are the ones having brains and feelings, not groups.

I do not want to live comfortably and have few worries; screw that lifestyle. I want to live an exciting life, on the edge, challenging myself every single day, expanding my comfort zone, taking risks and getting experiences that few other people ever get. Why don't you, comfort and stability lovers, come together, build a few private cities and exercise your ideals there? You can even hold a door open for everyone else who wants to join your utopia. Just leave us, free people, alone, please, for we want nothing to do with you. We do not have anything against you, as long as you do not interfere in our lives.

just4fun

 @MayCaesar
I seriously don't even get what you're saying. I'm not talking about a perfect utopia, but when people with kids are being over taxed and paid $7/hour, while worrying about skyrocketing inflation, increasing food insecurity, nearly unaffordable housing, and thousands of dollars of medical insurance a year, one really needs critical help from the government, after all, by the people, for the people. I could go on listing examples of things a low to mid income family (majority of the US population) has to worry about. Social programs aren't violating your obscure definition of freedom. If you call having cheap or free healthcare and a paid scholarship tyranny, i recommend you learn about politics first.

just4fun

@just_sayin
Thank you for showing me this, as I must confess I hadn't researched much into California's politician involvement in the high prices. But I would like to know if you had nationwide examples, as opposed to just the infamously expensive California due to failed policies?

MayCaesar

just4fun said:

 @MayCaesar
I seriously don't even get what you're saying. I'm not talking about a perfect utopia, but when people with kids are being over taxed and paid $7/hour, while worrying about skyrocketing inflation, increasing food insecurity, nearly unaffordable housing, and thousands of dollars of medical insurance a year, one really needs critical help from the government, after all, by the people, for the people. I could go on listing examples of things a low to mid income family (majority of the US population) has to worry about. Social programs aren't violating your obscure definition of freedom. If you call having cheap or free healthcare and a paid scholarship tyranny, i recommend you learn about politics first.

Perhaps it is a good idea to look into the sources of this overtaxation, inflation, food insecurity, housing prices and the blown up medical insurance market. Who taxes the people? The government. Who causes the inflation? The government with its printing press and regulations. Housing prices? The housing market in the US is one of the most regulated housing markets in the First World. And so on and so on. These are the results of that "critical help" from the government.

There is no such thing as "free healthcare", and one does not need to learn anything to understand that. Doctors do not even work in the Red Cross for free. Every work has to be paid somehow. You want to disentangle services from payers, which would have drastic consequences for the reasons I described - and they have in all the countries where it was done. The alleged affordable healthcare in countries like Germany or France does not prevent their citizens from flying to the US every time something serious happens and urgent help is needed, nor does it prevent them from dealing with insane costs of living all around.

Politics is not a legitimate field of study; it is a field of activism. Economics is, and politology is. And both of these are quite clear on the effects of the governmental intrusion into private lives of citizens.

Nomenclature

@MayCaesar

This is a common economical fallacy: the view that the value of currency is somehow fundamentally fixed and that redistributing it preserves it. This is false, both theoretically and empirically. To see why that is, consider an extreme example of the government printing enough money to hand over $1,000,000,000 a day to every member of the society - and doing it.

Maybe you should be putting this to the banks, which are now able to lend out the same reserve capital as many times as they like, to as many people as they like, charging interest on each separate loan. They lend money which doesn't even exist. Your pompous talk about "economical fallacies" is a bit misguided, given that you've gracefully sidestepped the biggest economic fallacy of all time: capitalism.

Nomenclature

@just_sayin

Why did they stop a good thing?  This should be the first question people ask.

Where capitalism is concerned, usually it is stopped because it's a good thing. One of the biggest fallacies of capitalism is that capital is the goal. It isn't. The goal is the wealth divide between you and everyone else. You can be the richest man in the kingdom with just a dollar provided everyone else has less than that. You'll find plenty of economists criticising the huge wealth divide which has opened up between the rich and poor, but precious few ever address the fact that this is integral to the system. Being rich is just as much about keeping everybody else poor as it is about acquiring wealth for yourself.

Dee

@just4fun

Welcome to the site.

Good post well said. You mentioned the idea of America in your view being a progressive society , the mark to me of a progressive society is one that is inclusive and sees the humanity and  value of it's citizens.

I've argued over the years on here regards social policies being a good thing in society which includes a livable minimum wage.

A minimun wage should cover the basic necessities of life as in accommodation , food , clothing , education and healthcare anything else is exploitation , most Americans on here unfortunately think this is an outrage and claim that an employer is entitled to whatever profits he deems fit for himself but his employees are not or should not be entitled to a basic standard of living , this to me is scandalous.

For having views like mine a sizable amount of Americans brand me a 'commie' who wants to ruin America, I call it being a decent human being who want to live in a progressive /inclusive society not a regressive and divisive one

John_C_87

The solutions to our solcial economic Income as described by others. 

1. A secure and fixed income. (a minimal livable low income.)
2. Healthcare.
3. Affordable homes.
4. A low cost on economic exchange.
5. A low restriction on economic exchange.

MichaelElpers

@just4fun

Maybe you can detail why these Ubi and affordable practices are never done privately?  There is nothing stopping people from starting this amongst a community.

The answer is because it doesn't work and you won't find people willing ro give up their money.  The only people that want to do this are those who think they are getting a net benefit.  So who would get the net benefit, well it those on the bottom half on the scale. Those on the top half then start to think why would I want to be a part of this?

These practices require a powerful force such as government so you can steal money from people to implement your solution.

Nomenclature

@MayCaesar

You make the assumption that this is a goal of the system. Yet this goal is fundamentally incompatible with the ideal of freedom. Whenever you care about the abstract well-being of "all", you stop caring about the well-being of the individual - yet individuals are the ones having brains and feelings, not groups.

Groups are comprised of individuals and hence should represent the combined interests of those individuals. Moreover, the bigger problem is your assumption that all individuals are afforded an equal level of freedom. Under capitalism, freedom exists predominantly as economic freedom. That is, a poor person who wants to perform a particular activity or visit a particular place, might well be restricted from doing so for financial reasons. It also means someone in a better economic position can, to a certain extent, use that position to create group conditions which are more favourable to them, regardless of the cost to the group. A good example of this can be found in fossil fuel companies, whose economic profits can be invested back into convincing others to continue using their products. While this provides short term gain to the individuals on the boards of these companies, it also creates a negative effect on the living conditions of the wider group, in the form of pollution and damage to the climate.