5 ms·

Why limit the experiment to unemployed people? It would be interesting to see what people already earning a living do when receiving this no-strings-attached in

• aswanson 10y ago
  Econ 101 predicts....inflation.
  • flukus 10y ago
    Most people working full time would have their taxes adjusted so it made little difference.
• grecy 10y ago
  Australia has some of the most liberal welfare payments in the world - anyone that isn't earning much (or doesn't have a job, or has never had one) can get around $250 per week. Forever. Very few strings attached. More money if you have kids, etc. It's known there are tens of thousands (hundreds? millions?) of people who just don't want to work and sit around on it for their entire lives. A few friends did it for a decade after highschool, just surfed all day every day. Despite all the naysayers and doomsayers about this kind of thing, Australia's economy and workforce is perfectly healthy, and has been this way for decades....
  • davidlumley 10y ago
    > anyone that isn't earning much (or doesn't have a job, or has never had one) can get around $250 per week. Forever. Very few strings attached. Sorry but that's just flat out incorrect. The maximum payment possible is $528 a fortnight through Newstart (not available to everyone, and only available for 6 months). See https://www.humanservices.gov.au/customer/services/centrelink/newstart-allowance https://www.humanservices.gov.au/customer/services/centrelin... for more information. $528 a fortnight equates to $13,728 annually (so you're going to get less than this, because you can only get it for 6 months) in a nation where the _median_ income is over $80,000 AUD. What little you get is going to be spent on rent, food, and going to and from interviews (which are a requirement of you getting NewStart). > It's known there are tens of thousands (hundreds? millions?) of people who just don't want to work and sit around on it for their entire lives. Dole bludgers are _few_ and far between. What you're seeing is people doing nothing because they literally cannot afford to do anything, even if they're getting the maximum payment (and it's likely they're not). Welfare in Australia could be a lot better, and I'd be interested to find out how a UBI could affect the process as Centrelink (the welfare department) is incredibly inefficient.
    • grecy 10y ago
      > Sorry but that's just flat out incorrect Have you been on the dole? I was on it between jobs, and my brother was just on it for a year while he rode a bike around Tasmania, then volunteered at the circus in Perth. It's very do-able. Obviously you're not owning an iPhone and driving a new Commodore, but if you're willing to have a few roommates and eat 2 minute noodles from time to time, it's an easy life.
      • davidlumley 10y ago
        No. I looked into it at one stage between jobs but didn't qualify for it because I had savings. I've had numerous friends who have been on and off various forms over the past 10 years though. I'm not implying it's not do-able, but it's definitely not the same as having a job that pays even 30k AUD a year. How comfortable you're going to be also depends on where you live naturally, as renting a room in Brisbane is about ~$120 a week minimum. Melbourne is more expensive and Sydney same again.
  • nickfromseattle 10y ago
    Australia has an extremely high cost of living, $1,000/month doesn't seem high enough to cover the cost of rent, food and a cell phone, let alone enjoy a surfers lifestyle.
    • asdfaoeu 10y ago
      I assume by surfers lifestyle he doesn't mean a beachfront property in Manly.
    • tomjakubowski 10y ago
      Is the cost of living still that high outside of urban areas? And remember: there are 4 weeks and some change in the average month, so more like $1083/mo. Not that that's much more :)
    • giancarlostoro 10y ago
      I imagine some people could have roommates with either real jobs, or the same source of income, would help reduce costs. Others could live with their families and save their money for when they need it most. But I guess if you're by yourself that would kind of not be enough, but if you can still get that welfare check plus a part time job, it may just be enough.
    • grecy 10y ago
      > doesn't seem high enough to cover the cost Evidence proves otherwise. I know people who are doing it right now. Nobody needs a cell phone when they're just surfing every day anyway....
  • inopinatus 10y ago
    That is an exceptionally positive review of Australia's economic position. By contrast can I point out that Australia has a high basic cost of living, colossal levels of private debt, an epidemic of obesity, an ongoing productivity crisis that was only temporarily masked by a resources boom, and a demographic inversion just around the corner that is likely to a) overwhelm the healthcare system and b) elect ever more conservative governments that will stifle immigration at exactly the time it is most needed.
    • tomlock 10y ago
      I'm not sure there are many nations in a better position. Could you provide some examples of countries that are?
    • confounded 10y ago
      They also have the highest median individual wealth in the world.
    • fratlas 10y ago
      Could you elaborate on the 'demographic inversion' that's incoming?
      • chiaro 10y ago
        Baby boomers exiting the workforce, along with lower birth rates (and some increasing anti-immigrant sentiment that curtails the normal set of solutions) will lead to issues with healthcare affordability and end of life care. But these are issues that all Western countries are dealing with, and I have no reason to believe that Australia would be harder hit than many others due in part to the success of our mandatory saving schemes.
        • elyobo 10y ago
          The success of the mandatory saving schemes will probably work for a while, but the current property crisis in Australia is going to put an end to that eventually. Give it another 30 or 40 years once the non-boomers that have been unable to buy a place to live (and have therefore being paying rent their whole lives and will continue to do so in retirement) and there will be an even worse crisis.
  • ajdlinux 10y ago
    "Very few strings attached" Have you ever actually dealt with Centrelink?
    • grecy 10y ago
      Sure have. I was on the dole between jobs, and my brother was just on it for a year while he rode a bike around Tasmania, then volunteered the circus in Perth :)
      • ajdlinux 10y ago
        How many decades ago was that? Because I can guarantee you, as someone who spent 8 years on Centrelink payments (for study, not unemployment, which is even worse) that it is most definitely not no-strings-attached.
        • grecy 10y ago
          For my brother it was mid 2015 to mid 2016. I was also on center link payments for study.
  • sjwright 10y ago
    And I suspect that if people didn't lose the $250 per week if they get a job, more people would get jobs, even if it were just casual or occasional work... Losing the benefit when employed is a massive disincentive.
  • flukus 10y ago
    > Very few strings attached 20 Years ago maybe, now there are so many strings no one knows what to expect from centerlink. My mum has to get a doctors certificate every year to prove that my sister is still down syndrome. I doubt she's going to grow out of that extra chromosome.
  • apatters 10y ago
    Australia also has an entire continent's worth of natural resources and a population of 25M people. Of course when you can pull money out of the ground hand over fist you can afford to spread a little of it around in the form of generous welfare and social services. It is a classic resource economy, helicopters of money everywhere during the boom years, take on debt during the bust years, cycle repeats.
• ams6110 10y ago
  The people already earning a living are the ones paying for it. You'd be taking their own money from them only to give it back, less overhead.
  • AnthonyMouse 10y ago
    > The people already earning a living are the ones paying for it. You'd be taking their own money from them only to give it back, less overhead. The way means-tested welfare works is that there is e.g. a 20% tax and then people are given some benefits but the benefits are taken away very quickly, e.g. you lose 70 cents in benefits for every dollar of income. It means that low income people are effectively paying a 70% marginal tax rate while the rich pay 20%, which means there is a much lower incentive for the poor to make some more money. Especially when making more money can also cost more in expenses like transportation and child care, which can eat more than the part the government didn't take. The way a universal basic income works is that there is a somewhat higher nominal tax rate, e.g. 30%, but everyone gets the benefits unconditionally (and in cash, so less bureaucracy), so everyone has the same marginal tax rate. Which reduces the disincentive to work of means-tested welfare. You can still have any effective tax rate you like at a given income level, by choosing the amount of the basic income and the nominal tax rate.
• schemathings 10y ago
  I've wondered the same thing about WIC/Food stamps. What if everyone had a card for $x worth of food per month?
  • AtheistOfFail 10y ago
    Republicans would have a heart attack, a stroke and a brain aneurysm at the same time.
    • 3825 10y ago
      I for one would love this idea even if it means we can only give a fraction of what we give now. My rationale is that if everyone gets the same amount regardless of income or race or whatever then the phony dogwhistlers (which is all that Reagan ever was) would have less of a stranglehold on the people. I think it would bring people together and it would encourage compassion.
• fulafel 10y ago
  Since it's designed to study the disincentives to work, by the end of the study it's likely to include many employed people. But true, it would be a better experimental setup to include all kinds of initial circumstances in the study population.
  • dispose13432 10y ago
    >Since it's designed to study the disincentives to work, by the end of the study it's likely to include many employed people. On the other hand, people realize that UBI may go away any day. What will be when canceling UBI has as much chance as canceling Minimum wage?
    • sjwright 10y ago
      One would hope that the participants have been given a long term guarantee that this program will apply to them, perhaps 5 or 10 years. Without the guarantee, the results would be unreliable.
• headcanon 10y ago
  > Those chosen will receive 560 euros every month, with no reporting requirements on how they spend it. The amount will be deducted from any benefits they already receive. It looks like they're doing it in a way that doesn't cost anything - its just a reshuffling of the current benefits.