5 ms·

Exactly, and no mention if this would affect welfare and other social programs. So if someone still gets all the aid they do today and $1K per month, then there

Exactly, and no mention if this would affect welfare and other social programs. So if someone still gets all the aid they do today and $1K per month, then there is more money to spend but are there more people who want to work where that money is spent? I think it likely that this would cause low end job wages to rise, not necessarily increase employment.

lawless123 9y ago
Certainly any job that only offers "do this and we give you enough money to barely live" will have to pay more.
- rbanffy 9y ago
  Or no, since the person will already be receiving enough to live.
  - jerkstate 9y ago
    Well, the price of goods and services will go up because everybody suddenly has more money and the owners of the businesses that sell those goods and services have just had their taxes doubled, so we're back to square one anyways.
    - snarf21 9y ago
      I worry about this too. Who cares if you have more money if it has less buying power per dollar? This is also why I worry about drastically higher minimum wage. Poor people have more money but all the places they spend it have higher costs that lead to higher prices. Rich people don't spend the majority of their money at Wal-Mart so it affects them less. EITC and other tax reductions on the poor seems more effective and doesn't reduce buying power.
      - jpindar 9y ago
        >Who cares if you have more money if it has less buying power per dollar? People who are broke care. Some money is always better than no money.
    - mmcconnell1618 9y ago
      Increased demand for some goods will create competition and prices will stay the same or fall. Commodity goods providers don't have pricing power so they can't raise prices without losing sales to competitors. There is also the "menu cost" which is the resistance of businesses to react in real time to economic events. A restaurant won't reprint menus everyday and the $1.99 cleaner won't change prices very often. In addition. The total money supply isn't growing, it is being redistributed to people more likely to consume. The velocity of money will increase but the total amount won't. This will keep prices relatively stable.
    - Vaskivo 9y ago
      But the wages they pay to workers have gone down.
rbanffy 9y ago
Most proposals do away with welfare programs, reducing enforcement costs with it. No need to ensure a person is unemployed and looking for a job or unable to work due to a medical condition.
- notahacker 9y ago
  Sure, but the cost of enforcing who receives benefits is orders of magnitude less than the cost of paying $12k net of income taxes to the large number of working age people who for whatever reason (usually existing wealth or partner/parent income) aren't currently interested in working. This isn't just common sense; the data on working age economically inactive people, working age economically inactive people receiving benefits and admin costs is free and open for most countries.
  - rbanffy 9y ago
    There is good indication this reduces income disparity, create more opportunities for entrepreneurship (you can quit your job or go part-time while you do your thing) and, in general, more people consume more. The incentive to work more is there: with a sensible basic income you and your family won't starve and you won't need to work yourself to death, but you may want to have a nice vacation from time to time. With better economic security your freedom to move to better paying markets is increased. The only reason not to back an idea like this is how much the top earners will be able to evade paying their part, overburdening those who can't dodge taxes as efficiently.
xienze 9y ago
> and no mention if this would affect welfare and other social programs. Which is quite surprising because every, and I mean every, UBI proposal talks up how much money we'd _save_ because welfare would be eliminated. I just don't see how that's possible, because inevitably there are going to be a lot of people with real or self-imposed crises crying about how they don't have enough money to pay rent or buy food, and what is the government going to do, tell them "tough shit, you should've managed your UBI better"? Uh, I doubt it. We'll end up stuck with welfare programs as a UBI safety net and then people will inevitably game the system by crying broke every single month. This whole thing is such a ridiculous leftist fantasy, the biggest giveaway is that it completely ignores basic human behavior.
- appearsonline 9y ago
  One wonders which humans you surround yourself with to consider that "basic human behavior".
  - xienze 9y ago
    Trying to maximize earnings is basic human behavior, sorry to break it to you. Welfare scams occur regularly, and that's before UBI. And you're dodging the bigger question: I'm on UBI and my money runs out, can't afford to feed the kids. Multiply that by at least several thousand people every month. Now what?
    - MarchHare 9y ago
      Food banks exist already, why would UBI change that.
    - jpindar 9y ago
      Same as now. You don't get more food stamps just because you ran out.
      - xienze 9y ago
        The difference is it's earmarked money today. There's no potential to spend your food money on a phone and then claim you can't buy food at the end of the month.

lawless123 9y ago

Certainly any job that only offers "do this and we give you enough money to barely live" will have to pay more.

rbanffy 9y ago
Or no, since the person will already be receiving enough to live.
- jerkstate 9y ago
  Well, the price of goods and services will go up because everybody suddenly has more money and the owners of the businesses that sell those goods and services have just had their taxes doubled, so we're back to square one anyways.
  - snarf21 9y ago
    I worry about this too. Who cares if you have more money if it has less buying power per dollar? This is also why I worry about drastically higher minimum wage. Poor people have more money but all the places they spend it have higher costs that lead to higher prices. Rich people don't spend the majority of their money at Wal-Mart so it affects them less. EITC and other tax reductions on the poor seems more effective and doesn't reduce buying power.
    - jpindar 9y ago
      >Who cares if you have more money if it has less buying power per dollar? People who are broke care. Some money is always better than no money.
  - mmcconnell1618 9y ago
    Increased demand for some goods will create competition and prices will stay the same or fall. Commodity goods providers don't have pricing power so they can't raise prices without losing sales to competitors. There is also the "menu cost" which is the resistance of businesses to react in real time to economic events. A restaurant won't reprint menus everyday and the $1.99 cleaner won't change prices very often. In addition. The total money supply isn't growing, it is being redistributed to people more likely to consume. The velocity of money will increase but the total amount won't. This will keep prices relatively stable.
  - Vaskivo 9y ago
    But the wages they pay to workers have gone down.

rbanffy 9y ago

Most proposals do away with welfare programs, reducing enforcement costs with it. No need to ensure a person is unemployed and looking for a job or unable to work due to a medical condition.

notahacker 9y ago
Sure, but the cost of enforcing who receives benefits is orders of magnitude less than the cost of paying $12k net of income taxes to the large number of working age people who for whatever reason (usually existing wealth or partner/parent income) aren't currently interested in working. This isn't just common sense; the data on working age economically inactive people, working age economically inactive people receiving benefits and admin costs is free and open for most countries.
- rbanffy 9y ago
  There is good indication this reduces income disparity, create more opportunities for entrepreneurship (you can quit your job or go part-time while you do your thing) and, in general, more people consume more. The incentive to work more is there: with a sensible basic income you and your family won't starve and you won't need to work yourself to death, but you may want to have a nice vacation from time to time. With better economic security your freedom to move to better paying markets is increased. The only reason not to back an idea like this is how much the top earners will be able to evade paying their part, overburdening those who can't dodge taxes as efficiently.

xienze 9y ago

> and no mention if this would affect welfare and other social programs. Which is quite surprising because every, and I mean every, UBI proposal talks up how much money we'd _save_ because welfare would be eliminated. I just don't see how that's possible, because inevitably there are going to be a lot of people with real or self-imposed crises crying about how they don't have enough money to pay rent or buy food, and what is the government going to do, tell them "tough shit, you should've managed your UBI better"? Uh, I doubt it. We'll end up stuck with welfare programs as a UBI safety net and then people will inevitably game the system by crying broke every single month. This whole thing is such a ridiculous leftist fantasy, the biggest giveaway is that it completely ignores basic human behavior.

appearsonline 9y ago
One wonders which humans you surround yourself with to consider that "basic human behavior".
- xienze 9y ago
  Trying to maximize earnings is basic human behavior, sorry to break it to you. Welfare scams occur regularly, and that's before UBI. And you're dodging the bigger question: I'm on UBI and my money runs out, can't afford to feed the kids. Multiply that by at least several thousand people every month. Now what?
  - MarchHare 9y ago
    Food banks exist already, why would UBI change that.
  - jpindar 9y ago
    Same as now. You don't get more food stamps just because you ran out.
    - xienze 9y ago
      The difference is it's earmarked money today. There's no potential to spend your food money on a phone and then claim you can't buy food at the end of the month.