Money for Nothing: the Universal Basic Income

[thoreau]

One difference between disability and GMI is that if you are on disability you are claiming that you can't work, so there is risk in working: if you are caught you could lose money. With GMI there is no financial penalty for working.

Sent from my XT1565 using Tapatalk

[Shem]

People have never had a universal program that pays for all necessities without any effort.

I guess it's a good thing nobody here is advocating for that, then.

[Shem]

Something near 20% of 25 year old males without a degree are not employed and not looking for work by their own account as of 2015.

Source?

[JasonL]

Necessities defined as sufficient material goods not to be in a definition of poverty in 2017 USofA. That's not what people are proposing?

[JasonL]

One difference between disability and GMI is that if you are on disability you are claiming that you can't work, so there is risk in working: if you are caught you could lose money. With GMI there is no financial penalty for working.

Sent from my XT1565 using Tapatalk

I get this. I just don't think that's the only incentive in play.

[Hugh Akston]

Necessities defined as sufficient material goods not to be in a definition of poverty in 2017 USofA. That's not what people are proposing?

What would those necessities be? How would that translate into a dollar figure since the UBI is a straight cash transfer?

[fyodor]

I got an idea.

Dole out Necessity Stamps!

*ducks*

[fyodor]

One difference between disability and GMI is that if you are on disability you are claiming that you can't work, so there is risk in working: if you are caught you could lose money. With GMI there is no financial penalty for working.

Sent from my XT1565 using Tapatalk

I get this. I just don't think that's the only incentive in play.

That must be fairly easily skirtable too, as I know at least one friend on SSDI who openly sells her bad art jewelry, never got any hush hush feeling about it at all. I say "at least" cause I can only specifically think of one friend like that, but I get the feeling there's others, too. (Remember my social milieu.)

[JasonL]

I'm confused. The desire is to set the level of benefit such that everyone can afford food clothing shelter plus such for their kids at a minimum right?

[thoreau]

What kind of food, clothing, shelter, and lifestyle for kids?

Quality of life is a thing.

[fyodor]

Team Jason. I would have thought "all necessities" would be a perfectly cromulent way to describe what UBI or BMI was supposed to cover.

Can you tell us where we err, Shem?

[Fin Fang Foom]

Guaranteed employment vs guaranteed income.

I just saw this, but "home health aide" is probably a job that Ameeicans just won't do, unless it becomes legal to abuse and murder seniors.

[nicole]

The Finns are getting less than $8,000/year.

[JasonL]

Okay, so maybe we need to call out what we think the benefit level would be. It was my understanding that the idea was to fund at a level that allowed people to have a place to live, stuff to eat, take care of kids, etc without working a single hour. My mental framework was people would basically look to port the SSDI benefit level over to a univeral program. That would be $1,100 per month or so.

[Hugh Akston]

It's worth bearing in mind that kids would receive the benefit as well, or their parents up to a certain age. So a childless household would receive less than an equivalent household with kids.

[fyodor]

The Finns are getting less than $8,000/year.

Yeah, that sounds like very little.

I guess the key thing is, does it not fund all their necessities? Are they homeless, malnourished? Do they have to supplement their UBI by going to the food bank?

I don't really know what I would need to do to get by on 8k a year, much less were I in Finland. Since we were comparing it to SSDI, I wonder how that figure compares?

[fyodor]

It's worth bearing in mind that kids would receive the benefit as well, or their parents up to a certain age. So a childless household would receive less than an equivalent household with kids.

Theoretically, a parent's UBI would increase only by the amount needed to feed and clothe and house the little ones and not create any incentive to procreate for profit.

Nice theory, huh?

I know liberals hate that kind of talk. Well, except for liberals I've known who've seen the phenomenon first hand.

[Hugh Akston]

The Finns are getting less than $8,000/year.

Yeah, that sounds like very little.

I guess the key thing is, does it not fund all their necessities? Are they homeless, malnourished? Do they have to supplement their UBI by going to the food bank?

I don't really know what I would need to do to get by on 8k a year, much less were I in Finland. Since we were comparing it to SSDI, I wonder how that figure compares?

$8k a year can cover the basics if you live in a cheap area, share rent and utilities with roommates, and eat and dress frugally. If you want more out of life than that, get a job.

[Shem]

I'm confused. The desire is to set the level of benefit such that everyone can afford food clothing shelter plus such for their kids at a minimum right?

A) not necessarily, especially in the immediate term. It's a personal long-term goal, but I think we'd see noticable benefit for very little comparative cost even with with a lower number.

B) "A world where a basic degree of support is universal" and "a world where day-to-day struggle is wholly eliminated" are not necessarily synonymous with each other. Arguing as if they are doesn't do much to further the conversation.

[fyodor]

I'm confused. The desire is to set the level of benefit such that everyone can afford food clothing shelter plus such for their kids at a minimum right?

A) not necessarily, especially in the immediate term. It's a personal long-term goal, but I think we'd see noticable benefit for very little comparative cost even with with a lower number.

So then this isn't meant to replace most/all current forms of assistance? Because I thought the whole idea of assistance in general was to enable those with no means to survive, i.e. provide food and shelter. If UBI won't cover that, then I would think it would have to be on top of what's there already. No?

B) "A world where a basic degree of support is universal" and "a world where day-to-day struggle is wholly eliminated" are not necessarily synonymous with each other. Arguing as if they are doesn't do much to further the conversation.

I think that's just silly. Looked at one way, day-to-day struggle isn't necessarily eliminated for anyone as we all have our struggles. Jason's point is that some people are going to be satisfied with whatever it is UBI is going to cover enough not to work when they otherwise would. You're just playing around with language to obscure that. We can debate how significant Jason's concern is (as we have), but there's nothing unfurthering in his expressing that concern.

[nicole]

I'm confused. The desire is to set the level of benefit such that everyone can afford food clothing shelter plus such for their kids at a minimum right?

A) not necessarily, especially in the immediate term. It's a personal long-term goal, but I think we'd see noticable benefit for very little comparative cost even with with a lower number.

So then this isn't meant to replace most/all current forms of assistance? Because I thought the whole idea of assistance in general was to enable those with no means to survive, i.e. provide food and shelter. If UBI won't cover that, then I would think it would have to be on top of what's there already. No?

The Finns are still getting some benefits -- public schools and universal health care, e.g. I would say $8k on top of that is more than enough to live on, as Hugh says, if you want to.

[fyodor]

I'm confused. The desire is to set the level of benefit such that everyone can afford food clothing shelter plus such for their kids at a minimum right?

A) not necessarily, especially in the immediate term. It's a personal long-term goal, but I think we'd see noticable benefit for very little comparative cost even with with a lower number.

So then this isn't meant to replace most/all current forms of assistance? Because I thought the whole idea of assistance in general was to enable those with no means to survive, i.e. provide food and shelter. If UBI won't cover that, then I would think it would have to be on top of what's there already. No?

The Finns are still getting some benefits -- public schools and universal health care, e.g. I would say $8k on top of that is more than enough to live on, as Hugh says, if you want to.

We probably shouldn't include benefits that are already available to all or else we might end up including mah roads.

I'm thinking of whether or not it replaces assistance tailored to people in dire need. SSDI, WIC, AFDC, that stuff.

The other issue is whether or not it's "enough to live on" as you put it. I'm thinking most of us here are assuming it is. Shem seems to have derailed the conversation by claiming that Jason is asserting this relieves people of day-to-day struggles. I move we move past that and agree that it covers all necessities, the basics, or enough to live on. I think they all mean the same thing.

[JasonL]

I'll be explicit in reaction to something like $8k. That's probably not high enough to trigger my most worrisome worries about tradeoffs. As I mentioned upthread, I fully support a version that provides a very uncomfortable life and no more. I worry a) evidence from SSDI is that people are already willing to take a deal that leaves them out of work forever in exchange for an average benefit of $1,200 per month so I suspect the incentives very suddenly flip for the unskilled if you raise the rate just a hair too high and b) once established it is irrevocable and it will just keep going up.

[lunchstealer]

I'm confused. The desire is to set the level of benefit such that everyone can afford food clothing shelter plus such for their kids at a minimum right?

A) not necessarily, especially in the immediate term. It's a personal long-term goal, but I think we'd see noticable benefit for very little comparative cost even with with a lower number.

So then this isn't meant to replace most/all current forms of assistance? Because I thought the whole idea of assistance in general was to enable those with no means to survive, i.e. provide food and shelter. If UBI won't cover that, then I would think it would have to be on top of what's there already. No?

The Finns are still getting some benefits -- public schools and universal health care, e.g. I would say $8k on top of that is more than enough to live on, as Hugh says, if you want to.

Is that $8k PPP or $8k exchange?

Either way, in most places you're going to be in the shittiest available apartment or single-wide and sharing a bedroom with at least one person. There are going to be some people who maybe accept that, but I suspect that it won't be many, and with fewer means-tested benefits, the disincentive to find a job becomes minimal.

The big exceptions are going to be perpetually single moms who go the multi-baby-daddy route and don't believe that delayed gratification will get them anything better, 20-40-somethings who just sponge off their parents, and drug addicts. The question is whether those ranks grow.

[lunchstealer]

I'll be explicit in reaction to something like $8k. That's probably not high enough to trigger my most worrisome worries about tradeoffs. As I mentioned upthread, I fully support a version that provides a very uncomfortable life and no more. I worry a) evidence from SSDI is that people are already willing to take a deal that leaves them out of work forever in exchange for an average benefit of $1,200 per month so I suspect the incentives very suddenly flip for the unskilled if you raise the rate just a hair too high and b) once established it is irrevocable and it will just keep going up.

My guess is that relatively few of those $1200/mo people are either truly forever jobless or without support of a worker spouse/bf/gf. I know three people on permanent disability right now, two of whom seem to be wholly legitimately disabled (one double amputee at the hip due to something like spina biffida, and the other severe psoriatic or possibly rheumatoid arthritis), and the third ... well, I'm not sure one way or the other. I suspect my former fencing coach mentioned in the Pony Obamacare thread is now on disability as well, at least short-term.