Is Universal Basic Income the answer?

[cow451]

You know what I mean. My wife was a stay at home mom. And I have had single moms in my family. A good mom works hard at home with the kids. My wife was a great mom and worked very hard to provide a good home for the kids and took great care of them.

I also have known single moms who didn't work at taking care of the kids. They were a mess, house was filthy, the kids were filthy and often neglected, ignored among other things. While mom sat on the couch all day and didn't lift a finger hardly. All the while collecting welfare checks. Some were addicted to cigarettes spending a lot of money on that. Or addicted to o drugs or did drugs like marijuana. I have known a LOT of single moms just like that.

I have known single moms who did take care of their kids and their home.

But working at home is not an excuse to live off of other people. Get a job, or go to school so you can support your family. Being home even if you are doing well taking care of your kids does not authorize you to live off of others.

I also have known married moms who didn't work at taking care of the kids. They were a mess, house was filthy, the kids were filthy and often neglected, ignored among other things. While mom sat on the couch all day and didn't lift a finger hardly.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

There have been centuries of accelerating automation that started slowly with the Printing press. People & jobs have continually adapted. Its premature to be talking about the need for UBI. Having a large number of able bodied, able minded, idle people is bad for society, so why encourage it?

I question the premise that a UBI encourages a large number of able bodied, able minded people to be idle. There is some indication that it encourages the opposite for people that would use the UBI to free themselves up to getting more appropriate training to be more active in the economy. That might involve either college or trade school or starting their own business. The argument that a UBI encourages laziness is based on the assumption that the UBI is enough to satisfy most people's needs and desires. But any practical UBI would never be that high. So that argument in my opinion has no solid basis.

 

[GreekOrthodox]

I question the premise that a UBI encourages a large number of able bodied, able minded people to be idle. There is some indication that it encourages the opposite for people that would use the UBI to free themselves up to getting more appropriate training to be more active in the economy. That might involve either college or trade school or starting their own business. The argument that a UBI encourages laziness is based on the assumption that the UBI is enough to satisfy most people's needs and desires. But any practical UBI would never be that high. So that argument in my opinion has no solid basis.

Agreed. I've been in IT since 2000. One of the greatest challenges is to keep up with new technologies as they come out. I've seen some systems come and go just within my career. For example, in the mid 1990s one of the best certifications to get was in Novell networking. Well by 2005, Novell was pretty much gone. I learned Fortran back in the 1980s. It still exists but as a very minor player in the programming languages. If you pick the wrong technology, you have to retrain. Having some back up income while retraining would be fantastic.

 

[John Mullally]

I question the premise that a UBI encourages a large number of able bodied, able minded people to be idle. There is some indication that it encourages the opposite for people that would use the UBI to free themselves up to getting more appropriate training to be more active in the economy. That might involve either college or trade school or starting their own business. The argument that a UBI encourages laziness is based on the assumption that the UBI is enough to satisfy most people's needs and desires. But any practical UBI would never be that high. So that argument in my opinion has no solid basis.

The US has long had the Earned Income Tax credit that puts money in the pockets of low wage earners. That should be sufficient. If someone wants to work train, they have the option to work at the same time.

 

[GreekOrthodox]

The US has long had the Earned Income Tax credit that puts money in the pockets of low wage earners. That should be sufficient. If someone wants to work train, they have the option to work at the same time.

Let's take a couple in their 30s with one child. They both work minimum wage and pull in roughly $30K. Their EIT comes out to $2800 or about $233 per month. Hardly enough for one of them to pay for school, even at a community college part-time or for some kind of vocational training.

 

[gaara4158]

There have been centuries of accelerating automation that started slowly with the Printing press. People & jobs have continually adapted. Its premature to be talking about the need for UBI. Having a large number of able bodied, able minded, idle people is bad for society, so why encourage it?

We never said they should be idle. They should be free.

 

[Ponderous Curmudgeon]

Let's take a couple in their 30s with one child. They both work minimum wage and pull in roughly $30K. Their EIT comes out to $2800 or about $233 per month. Hardly enough for one of them to pay for school, even at a community college part-time or for some kind of vocational training.

Pay for school? $233 isn't even enough to make a dent in child care expenses.

 

[MorkandMindy]

No, it isn't because it's a disincentive to work. Why work if the government will provide all of one's essentials anyway?

That is a very good question, and it can not be answered by reason alone because it involves the overall result of behaviors of a large number of varied individuals.

... On average, the participants worked just six days more per year than the people in the control group without a basic income.
Universal basic income: An option for Europe? | DW | 28.11.2020

 

[MorkandMindy]

Maybe Maslow has an answer:

Why work if the government will provide all of one's essentials anyway?

If Maslow is correct then after the government has provided the lowest two levels, people will continue to work for the next levels.

 

[John Mullally]

If Maslow is correct then after the government has provided the lowest two levels, people will continue to work for the next levels.

I think that the lowest levels are best filled by family, then neighbors, local community, etc. There are some safety issues only Gov't can address.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

The US has long had the Earned Income Tax credit that puts money in the pockets of low wage earners. That should be sufficient. If someone wants to work train, they have the option to work at the same time.

The Earned Income Tax credit only works if someone is earning income. It is not a UBI, and there are people who are unable to do those things that would make them more economically active in the economy.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

I think that the lowest levels are best filled by family, then neighbors, local community, etc. There are some safety issues only Gov't can address.

One can wish it were so, but that does not make it so.

 

[cow451]

Pay for school? $233 isn't even enough to make a dent in child care expenses.

It’s enough to get a couple of days. What more to lazy single Mothers need?

 

[cow451]

Maybe Maslow has an answer:

View attachment 310140



If Maslow is correct then after the government has provided the lowest two levels, people will continue to work for the next levels.

Maslow is so …. 1970’s.

 

[MorkandMindy]

Maslow is so …. 1970’s.

Very true.
The sequence of items in the stack is questionable; nonetheless, I suspect most people would want to pick up more things in the stack, like a car that would pull the other sex...

 

[rjs330]

I also have known married moms who didn't work at taking care of the kids. They were a mess, house was filthy, the kids were filthy and often neglected, ignored among other things. While mom sat on the couch all day and didn't lift a finger hardly.

Right, me too, but they weren't living off someone else's money.

 

[rjs330]

I question the premise that a UBI encourages a large number of able bodied, able minded people to be idle. There is some indication that it encourages the opposite for people that would use the UBI to free themselves up to getting more appropriate training to be more active in the economy. That might involve either college or trade school or starting their own business. The argument that a UBI encourages laziness is based on the assumption that the UBI is enough to satisfy most people's needs and desires. But any practical UBI would never be that high. So that argument in my opinion has no solid basis.

I'd like to see the evidence of that. We already have evidence of the other.

 

[MorkandMindy]

...
UBI is a fool's gold errand. It's unaffordable and untenable. And it rewards the lazy. It's immoral because you are demanding other people give you their hard earned money so you can buy a jet ski. It's nothing more than covetousness.

I'm not sure the government is setting a good example. The military machine requested 715 Billion dollars for 2022 and the government allocated 768 Billion.

 

[LeafByNiggle]

I'd like to see the evidence of that. We already have evidence of the other.

We won't have direct evidence of either proposition until we try having a UBI.

 

[rjs330]

Let's take a couple in their 30s with one child. They both work minimum wage and pull in roughly $30K. Their EIT comes out to $2800 or about $233 per month. Hardly enough for one of them to pay for school, even at a community college part-time or for some kind of vocational training.

Pretty much no one in their 30s works for minimum wage. A serious strawman example. Only 1.9 percent of workers earn minimum wage. The majority of those are teens.

Only about 700,000 people earn minimum wage. Most are teens, part time or working in the food industry where they are paid tips on top of their salary. That's an awefully small number of people to base a need for UBI for everyone.