4 ms·

This is fantastic, finally we'll get some real-world results so we can see the consequences (good and bad) of UBI at a very large scale and we can put an end to

• rstupek 7y ago
  The idea that any government program ever get's rolled back contradicts the reality though. I'm not aware of many, if any, program which ever gets cancelled by the government. Most "cuts" to a program involve cutting the rate of growth of the program
  • jazzyjackson 7y ago
    Alcohol Prohibition is, of course, a pretty dramatic example. It's basically what constitutional amendments are for, changing our mind after realizing the consequences of law.
• psadri 7y ago
  The current situation is not normal. People are forced into unemployment to control the outbreak. I completely agree that governments need to step in and provide support during this artificially induced economic coma. But I’m not sure any observations would apply to UBI in a normal mode of economy.
  • grecy 7y ago
    If they make the UBI permanent, then in 5 or 10 years (assuming the world is put back together by then) we'll have excellent observations of how it functions in "normal" mode.
    • mytailorisrich 7y ago
      It won't be permanent, if it is ever implemented at all, because it is unaffordable.
• Ididntdothis 7y ago
  The feedback loops for UBI will be much longer though. I bet you can tell only after a few generations if it was a success. I also don’t think it sustainable long term unless we change the economic system. After a few years or decades politicians who promise to cut benefits to the people who are doing nothing will be very popular. Let’s start with something simpler like universal health care or affordable education or affordable housing. If you can’t pull that off forget about UBI.
  • deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
• jimmaswell 7y ago
  I'm still not convinced 90% of jobs won't go unfilled while everyone sits around and watches Netflix all day. I guess we'll see.
  • glouwbug 7y ago
    🧐 More opportunity for the rest of us!
  • fzingle 7y ago
    This kind of concern crops up in UBI discussions all the time, but I think it gets things backwards. Instead of asking if some significant number of jobs will go unfilled because people are paid a poverty line level of income by the government, we should be asking: "Why aren't we paying people who work 40hrs/wk a living wage?" The decision not to work and live off of UBI is only attractive to people who are currently working many hours and earning about the same as what UBI is offering -- and that should give us pause.
    • notahacker 7y ago
      > The decision not to work and live off of UBI is only attractive to people who are currently working many hours and earning about the same as what UBI is offering The evidence of people usually choosing to retire upon reaching the age they are able to receive much smaller stipends than their current earnings suggests otherwise. Many people value their free time highly, and a poverty wage to a single parent living in rented accommodation can be quite comfortable when doubled and applied to a homeowning couple with savings for rainy days.
      • fzingle 7y ago
        Sure you can find an edge case in my general statement. > The evidence of people usually choosing to retire The key word in that is "choosing". A huge number of people even in G7 countries comprise the working poor. They cannot, and likely will never be able to "choose" to retire. They work 40hrs/wk, often with two incomes and have no savings. While we can debate the life choices of some of these people, it remains that working 40hrs/wk should not lead to an outcome where you can only just scrape by.