4 ms·

Partisan pieces like this are incredibly lame. He doesn't even address the issue properly. $10k is not a living wage in the US and I doubt it is on in Canada. M

by joesmo 11y ago

Partisan pieces like this are incredibly lame. He doesn't even address the issue properly. $10k is not a living wage in the US and I doubt it is on in Canada. Make it $30k and let's see if job wages get depressed (they won't). The funny part is that there is unfortunately a very good argument against UBI, the only good argument against UBI IMO, and that is that most countries cannot afford it. Let's take the US: $30 000 * 230 000 000 adults = $6 900 000 000 000 a year Now obviously, 100% of the adult workforce will not be on UBI, but even with 10% of adults on UBI, you're still looking at close to $700 billion a year. Even currently, I'd bet that way more than 10% of people would quit their bullshit jobs if they could get UBI (also causing a shortage of employees in certain industries and wages to go up) and that percentage will rise much higher in the future. I'm no economy expert, but somehow, I just don't think we're there yet with the numbers, though I think we possibly will get there at some point. Or maybe it's just wishful thinking because I'd like this to work, even in theory only. Maybe someone has better math than mine ... :)

lazyjones 11y ago
> Now obviously, 100% of the adult workforce will not be on UBI, but even with 10% of adults on UBI, you're still looking at close to $700 billion a year Isn't the whole point of "Universal" Basic Income that everyone gets it without exception? A system for the poorest 10% is just another pricey welfare system similar to those in many countries.
- joesmo 11y ago
  Yeah, you're absolutely right. In which case, the numbers simply do not work out. Makes the article's argument seem even less thought out as the author didn't even do some basic calculations. But this slightly different system I'm describing isn't the same as what we currently have. What I'm thinking is UBI (or whatever it might be called in this system) vs. wages. Pick one. This would automatically make the minimum wage > $30k, probably at least around $40-50k and wouldn't require paying every adult in the US, including ones who already have jobs. The key difference is that people would have a choice of going to this new Semi-UBI system anytime they wanted, no questions asked, with guaranteed income. I think that's one differentiator. Another differentiator would be removing the countless barriers that exist in today's systems. The many idiotic rules around welfare and Medicaid for example are so complicated and require so much time and paperwork, it's ridiculous. It would keep the state from trying to force people to look for jobs they don't want and waste time doing it. It would allow people to go to school full time while still receiving aid (not possible in many cases today). It'd be a real, living wage, albeit low, that could remove the stress and uncertainty of today's welfare systems. And finally, it would hopefully not carry the stigma it has today as artists and thinkers and all types of people might choose not to work at all, rather than have this be only a program for the poor. So yeah, it's not really UBI, but it could still be a lot better than current systems.
  - lazyjones 11y ago
    > What I'm thinking is UBI (or whatever it might be called in this system) vs. wages. Pick one. This would automatically make the minimum wage > $30k The problems with such a system would be: * even higher threshold for actually seeking a job because you lose BI (yes, the other side of higher minimum wages) * either the BI is sufficient for a decent life or it isn't: if it is, it's probably too expensive because a large part of the population will receive it. If it isn't, it will be a program for the poor/disabled only and enough people will be seeking jobs to drive the effective minimum wages down to the current level.

by joesmo 11y ago

lazyjones 11y ago

> Now obviously, 100% of the adult workforce will not be on UBI, but even with 10% of adults on UBI, you're still looking at close to $700 billion a year Isn't the whole point of "Universal" Basic Income that everyone gets it without exception? A system for the poorest 10% is just another pricey welfare system similar to those in many countries.

joesmo 11y ago
Yeah, you're absolutely right. In which case, the numbers simply do not work out. Makes the article's argument seem even less thought out as the author didn't even do some basic calculations. But this slightly different system I'm describing isn't the same as what we currently have. What I'm thinking is UBI (or whatever it might be called in this system) vs. wages. Pick one. This would automatically make the minimum wage > $30k, probably at least around $40-50k and wouldn't require paying every adult in the US, including ones who already have jobs. The key difference is that people would have a choice of going to this new Semi-UBI system anytime they wanted, no questions asked, with guaranteed income. I think that's one differentiator. Another differentiator would be removing the countless barriers that exist in today's systems. The many idiotic rules around welfare and Medicaid for example are so complicated and require so much time and paperwork, it's ridiculous. It would keep the state from trying to force people to look for jobs they don't want and waste time doing it. It would allow people to go to school full time while still receiving aid (not possible in many cases today). It'd be a real, living wage, albeit low, that could remove the stress and uncertainty of today's welfare systems. And finally, it would hopefully not carry the stigma it has today as artists and thinkers and all types of people might choose not to work at all, rather than have this be only a program for the poor. So yeah, it's not really UBI, but it could still be a lot better than current systems.
- lazyjones 11y ago
  > What I'm thinking is UBI (or whatever it might be called in this system) vs. wages. Pick one. This would automatically make the minimum wage > $30k The problems with such a system would be: * even higher threshold for actually seeking a job because you lose BI (yes, the other side of higher minimum wages) * either the BI is sufficient for a decent life or it isn't: if it is, it's probably too expensive because a large part of the population will receive it. If it isn't, it will be a program for the poor/disabled only and enough people will be seeking jobs to drive the effective minimum wages down to the current level.