7 ms·

You're right about medical, but the whole point of UBI is to provide a floor upon which anyone can live without the expensive bureaucracy of qualifying them. It

You're right about medical, but the whole point of UBI is to provide a floor upon which anyone can live without the expensive bureaucracy of qualifying them. It's supposed to replace the welfare state with something more efficient. That's not a regression, with UBI you don't need foodstamps or any other kind of assistance (not counting healthcare which is a separate thing).

frgtpsswrdlame 9y ago
No, that's the point of UBI in your mind. This is actually what I think is harmful about our current obsession with UBI, all the politicians are slowly coming around to it and when they do that you know some people are about to get screwed. UBI isn't here to reduce welfare spending or to reduce welfare spending on the poor. Inequality has a direct effect on social mobility. Thus programs which exacerbate inequality are antithetical to the idea of a meritocracy. We need more, direct redistribution to the poor to fix America's problems with social mobility. Abolishing the minimum wage because of UBI? Come on.
- gnaritas 9y ago
  That's the point of UBI in most people's minds, it's a better way to redistribute wealth and once in place should be the only way needed. Of what purpose is a food stamp program when we can simply make sure the UBI is enough to live on? UBI is about dealing with a world where we don't don't have enough jobs for everyone, that already covers the poor. Want more redistribution, raise the UBI. It's one program that can replace the entire welfare state. UBI would be a better and more efficient use of the existing welfare money as well as new funds so it can be given to everyone. It makes no sense to have UBI and a welfare state at the same time. And yes, you don't need a minimum wage when you have UBI, UBI is a minimum wage.
  - blackoil 9y ago
    Minimum wages will have to stay, particularly if job market is heavily skewed towards employer, to stop competition driving it to bottom.
    - uoaei 9y ago
      How is the job market going to be skewed towards the employer? That statement needs some clarification. The way it seems to me, it would make sense that actually jobs would shift away from menial tasks (which will be replaced by automation eventually anyway) in favor of things that people actually consider a valuable use of time. You can't get people to do jobs they don't want to do if they don't have to do them. At least, not at a scale that leads to the situation you seem to be implying. If you had $2000 in your pocket every month why would you waste your time on a job that pays $9/hr? Maybe you'll find some people who take 5- or 10-hr/wk contracts so they have a little extra beer money, but it definitely would eliminate the need to submit yourself to the job market woes that currently plague the poor. People value their time with a money analogue, since this is a moneyed system we're living in, so you won't find many who will choose to earn less than what they can see themselves paying on a daily basis.
    - gnaritas 9y ago
      That makes no logical sense. UBI is a minimum wage, there's no need for another.
  - thanksgiving 9y ago
    I think what we are afraid of is a token "UBI" of say $5k a year or less which is nice if you need a small spending boost but it is not enough for food and rent. Oh and rent! The rent is too damn high. We need to build more, property prices be damned! Yes, ugly houses are OK. No, I don't care if the "eye sore" is damaging your view. Your pleasant view is not as important as shelter for me.
    - gnaritas 9y ago
      UBI that isn't enough to live on isn't UBI; the point of UBI is to remove the "need" to work at all by providing a minimum level of income that's enough to survive on.
  - dragonwriter 9y ago
    > Of what purpose is a food stamp program when we can simply make sure the UBI is enough to live on? Many what might be called “moderate UBI proponents” have argued that certain use-specific universal or means-tested programs will still be needed because of social costs of failure of individuals to allocate funds properly to certain needs. Different sets have been suggested, but usually one or more of healthcare, food, and housing support programs (in roughly declining order of frequency with which I've seen them suggested) are proposed.
    - gnaritas 9y ago
      They're wrong, those problem can be solved simply by paying out the UBI more often in smaller amounts like a paycheck. Means testing leads to expensive bureaucracies and wasted money. UBI is meant to end that, not supplement it.
      - dragonwriter 9y ago
        Whether they are right or wrong about the need, the fact is that there is a sizable contingent of UBI supporters that do believe certain other programs are necessary. It is not at all the case that UBI is promoted universally, or even overwhelmingly, as a complete replacement for the welfare state, or even a complete replacement for simply the means-tested compobebts of the welfare state.
        gnaritas 9y ago
        Of course, because UBI itself isn't an accepted concept yet; once it becomes one, the natural result of rolling it out will be the elimination of all other welfare programs in favor of the UBI. It's a better abstraction, and good abstractions displace bad ones eventually.
- dragonwriter 9y ago
  > Abolishing the minimum wage because of UBI? I would prefer a gradual phase in of UBI with a reduction of minimum hourly wage (after it is increased to $15/hr and indexed to inflation) by 1/2000 the annual value of UBI. This presumes you keep EITC, if EITC is eliminated, it's a little more complicated.
- touristtam 9y ago
  Honestly, UBI isn't going to fix anything if the mentality are still in the frame of mind that making money is an end to itself. Until, the american society learns that adolatring money is completely wrong, there isn't any hope for any of this to succeed.
mcappleton 9y ago
My newborn son has $250,000 in debt thanks to the welfare state. Borrowing from him to give to someone else is criminal. How can you talk about expanding the welfare state when we can't even pay for the one we have?

frgtpsswrdlame 9y ago

No, that's the point of UBI in your mind. This is actually what I think is harmful about our current obsession with UBI, all the politicians are slowly coming around to it and when they do that you know some people are about to get screwed. UBI isn't here to reduce welfare spending or to reduce welfare spending on the poor. Inequality has a direct effect on social mobility. Thus programs which exacerbate inequality are antithetical to the idea of a meritocracy. We need more, direct redistribution to the poor to fix America's problems with social mobility. Abolishing the minimum wage because of UBI? Come on.

gnaritas 9y ago
That's the point of UBI in most people's minds, it's a better way to redistribute wealth and once in place should be the only way needed. Of what purpose is a food stamp program when we can simply make sure the UBI is enough to live on? UBI is about dealing with a world where we don't don't have enough jobs for everyone, that already covers the poor. Want more redistribution, raise the UBI. It's one program that can replace the entire welfare state. UBI would be a better and more efficient use of the existing welfare money as well as new funds so it can be given to everyone. It makes no sense to have UBI and a welfare state at the same time. And yes, you don't need a minimum wage when you have UBI, UBI is a minimum wage.
- blackoil 9y ago
  Minimum wages will have to stay, particularly if job market is heavily skewed towards employer, to stop competition driving it to bottom.
  - uoaei 9y ago
    How is the job market going to be skewed towards the employer? That statement needs some clarification. The way it seems to me, it would make sense that actually jobs would shift away from menial tasks (which will be replaced by automation eventually anyway) in favor of things that people actually consider a valuable use of time. You can't get people to do jobs they don't want to do if they don't have to do them. At least, not at a scale that leads to the situation you seem to be implying. If you had $2000 in your pocket every month why would you waste your time on a job that pays $9/hr? Maybe you'll find some people who take 5- or 10-hr/wk contracts so they have a little extra beer money, but it definitely would eliminate the need to submit yourself to the job market woes that currently plague the poor. People value their time with a money analogue, since this is a moneyed system we're living in, so you won't find many who will choose to earn less than what they can see themselves paying on a daily basis.
  - gnaritas 9y ago
    That makes no logical sense. UBI is a minimum wage, there's no need for another.
- thanksgiving 9y ago
  I think what we are afraid of is a token "UBI" of say $5k a year or less which is nice if you need a small spending boost but it is not enough for food and rent. Oh and rent! The rent is too damn high. We need to build more, property prices be damned! Yes, ugly houses are OK. No, I don't care if the "eye sore" is damaging your view. Your pleasant view is not as important as shelter for me.
  - gnaritas 9y ago
    UBI that isn't enough to live on isn't UBI; the point of UBI is to remove the "need" to work at all by providing a minimum level of income that's enough to survive on.
- dragonwriter 9y ago
  > Of what purpose is a food stamp program when we can simply make sure the UBI is enough to live on? Many what might be called “moderate UBI proponents” have argued that certain use-specific universal or means-tested programs will still be needed because of social costs of failure of individuals to allocate funds properly to certain needs. Different sets have been suggested, but usually one or more of healthcare, food, and housing support programs (in roughly declining order of frequency with which I've seen them suggested) are proposed.
  - gnaritas 9y ago
    They're wrong, those problem can be solved simply by paying out the UBI more often in smaller amounts like a paycheck. Means testing leads to expensive bureaucracies and wasted money. UBI is meant to end that, not supplement it.
    - dragonwriter 9y ago
      Whether they are right or wrong about the need, the fact is that there is a sizable contingent of UBI supporters that do believe certain other programs are necessary. It is not at all the case that UBI is promoted universally, or even overwhelmingly, as a complete replacement for the welfare state, or even a complete replacement for simply the means-tested compobebts of the welfare state.
      - gnaritas 9y ago
        Of course, because UBI itself isn't an accepted concept yet; once it becomes one, the natural result of rolling it out will be the elimination of all other welfare programs in favor of the UBI. It's a better abstraction, and good abstractions displace bad ones eventually.
dragonwriter 9y ago
> Abolishing the minimum wage because of UBI? I would prefer a gradual phase in of UBI with a reduction of minimum hourly wage (after it is increased to $15/hr and indexed to inflation) by 1/2000 the annual value of UBI. This presumes you keep EITC, if EITC is eliminated, it's a little more complicated.
touristtam 9y ago
Honestly, UBI isn't going to fix anything if the mentality are still in the frame of mind that making money is an end to itself. Until, the american society learns that adolatring money is completely wrong, there isn't any hope for any of this to succeed.

mcappleton 9y ago

My newborn son has $250,000 in debt thanks to the welfare state. Borrowing from him to give to someone else is criminal. How can you talk about expanding the welfare state when we can't even pay for the one we have?