5 ms·

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

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.

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.