UBI or not UBI?

[MorkandMindy]

Universal Basic Income is a transfer of money saved by automation to everyone.

Unlike the CARIES Act, the HEROES Act, and the Build Back Better Bill, it will not be funded by creating money/expanding the money supply/inflation,

but by a transfer of money to rebalance the economy to compensate for the effects of automation.

It will be somewhat deflationary which will help compensate for the actions of past decades

.

 

[MorkandMindy]

The effect of automation at present is to replace workers with machines so that money which was paid to workers now goes to people and companies supplying automation with the money saved kept by the company owners.

Automation is visible in the 'jobless recoveries' we have had in recent years. Although the national economy grows, the income growth accrues to the higher income staff and company owners while many other workers lose their incomes completely when their jobs are automated and usually end up in lower paid jobs.

The ideal correction would be to pay only those who have lost jobs as a result of automation, exactly the amount of income they lost, but there are a lot of technical and other problems with this 'ideal' plan.

 

[MorkandMindy]

The plan backed by Andrew Yang is to transfer a portion of the money saved by automation to a UBI (universal basic income) fund,

from which it is distributed to everyone living in the country, initially at a rate of 1,000 dollars per person over 18, and a lower amount for those under 18.

 

[MorkandMindy]

Source and Destination
The name Universal Basic Income relates to the delivery end of the money transfer. An alternative name 'Automation Dividend' names the same transfer but from the source end of the money transfer.


UBI vs the current guaranteed minimum income type welfare plans

I think UBI is a far more workable plan than the alternative which is being applied in a patchwork fashion at present through a multitude of complex welfare allowances directed at supplying a guaranteed minimum income.

As well as being complex and missing many of the people who most need it, a guaranteed minimum income is usually by nature highly invasive - they need to ensure you have too little money in your bank account to ever buy a house and thereby save on rent and eliminate your precarious housing situation, will reduce your income by any money you earn, may knock off the money your aunt gave you.

People complain the UBI wastes money by giving it to people who don't need it, but 18(?) billionaires got stimulus checks. Means testing adds bureaucracy and frequently doesn't work as well as expected

.

 

[Nithavela]

Sounds good, but how about just having people work as hard as before and killing those who are no longer needed?

 

[MorkandMindy]

Sounds good, but how about just having people work as hard as before and killing those who are no longer needed?

That is a pretty good plan, but I think there could be some drawbacks:

1. The nature of work keeps changing so those mentally unable to succeed at present-day work might be exactly the people who succeed in the future.

2. Killing everyone with for example a below-average income is a kind of moving target as in any sizeable distribution there will always be some below-average performers.

3. Automation is progressing. At present only 40% of the population in the employable age range is needed. In ten years it might be 30%, so the culling will go on for a very long time.

 

[Nithavela]

That is a pretty good plan, but I think there could be some drawbacks:

1. The nature of work keeps changing so those mentally unable to succeed at present-day work might be exactly the people who succeed in the future.

2. Killing everyone with for example a below-average income is a kind of moving target as in any sizeable distribution there will always be some below-average performers.

3. Automation is progressing. At present only 40% of the population in the employable age range is needed. In ten years it might be 30%, so the culling will go on for a very long time.

Well, the obvious goal would be to have machines being able to service themselves, making humans themselves superfluous.

 

[Hans Blaster]

That is a pretty good plan, but I think there could be some drawbacks:

1. The nature of work keeps changing so those mentally unable to succeed at present-day work might be exactly the people who succeed in the future.

2. Killing everyone with for example a below-average income is a kind of moving target as in any sizeable distribution there will always be some below-average performers.

3. Automation is progressing. At present only 40% of the population in the employable age range is needed. In ten years it might be 30%, so the culling will go on for a very long time.

This UBI/Yang plan you promote is far more blood thirsty than I had realized.

 

[bèlla]

I would never support this. Able bodied people should earn their keep. No respectable person wants the government to be their pimp.

 

[FireDragon76]

I would never support this. Able bodied people should earn their keep. No respectable person wants the government to be their pimp.

There aren't enough high paying jobs to go around, unfortunately.

 

[MorkandMindy]

This UBI/Yang plan you promote is far more blood-thirsty than I had realized.

The US economy is designed for profit and not for people.

 

[bèlla]

There aren't enough high paying jobs to go around, unfortunately.

High paying jobs must warrant the salary. I’m house hunting as we speak in Provence. I’ll pay what I need.

No upstart will get my coin. Do you understand?

 

[Gregory Thompson]

Universal Basic Income would be the equivalent of letting poor people glean food from your fields in the old testament days.

But it's not something a free market economy would be able to handle.

 

[MorkandMindy]

Well, the obvious goal would be to have machines being able to service themselves, making humans themselves superfluous.

We are progressing to where there will be just one robot, and it will do everything.

 

[Sabertooth]

GMI is less expensive to a society than UBI.

 

[zippy2006]

Universal Basic Income is a transfer of money saved by automation to everyone.

No, Universal Basic Income is a model wherein the government pays a fixed income to everyone in society. Automation is just one justification among many for a UBI.

 

[Vylo]

I agree with Yang on UBI, but not on it not replacing current welfare programs. If we merged all our welfare into UBI, it would reduce a huge amount of government waste. We could provide more aid at less cost, in a more automatic function. We just probably need it adjusted at least by state for COL differences. Considering how well some programs like SNAP already perform, this could really help us grow the economy.

 

[MorkandMindy]

The immense complexity of the welfare programs is not there to please welfare recipients but to please the enormous number of administrators in the welfare programs.

It is essential to reassure them that even though they will do nothing useful, their jobs will still be there.

Otherwise, a couple of million people will vote against Andrew Yang, which is enough to tip the election.

 

[Hans Blaster]

The immense complexity of the welfare programs is not there to please welfare recipients but to please the enormous number of administrators in the welfare programs.

It is essential to reassure them that even though they will do nothing useful, their jobs will still be there.

Otherwise, a couple of million people will vote against Andrew Yang, which is enough to tip the election.

Are you sure?

See I thought the complexities of various "welfare programs" was to satisfy the politicians that created them (and the various groups that back and fund those politicians).

For example, one of the proposed elements of the BBB bill had simple payments for people below an income threshold. (I think it was the expanded child tax credit.) But, Sen. Manchin wanted to add work requirements, etc., to the program. (Of course that whole bill is stalled by him, and the expanded CTC from the relief bills has expired.)

 

[MorkandMindy]

Are you sure? ...

You are right that there are other reasons.

Keeping politicians' reputations and directing money to the companies which fund the lobbyists are two more good reasons.

Another reason is to keep the official unemployment figures as low as possible. Dump two million unnecessary administrators out of their jobs, and the unemployment rate will jump one whole percent.