Universal basic income had a rough 2018

TalkRadio1

Loves Spam
Joined
Jun 9, 2018
Posts
933
The idea is that all citizens receive a set amount of money from the government to cover food, housing, and clothing, without regard to income or employment status. This minimum stipend can be supplemented with wages from work. Advocates say it will help fight poverty by giving people the flexibility to find work and strengthen their safety net, or that it offers a way to support people who might be negatively affected by automation.

Getting people on board with basic income requires data, which is what numerous tests have been trying to obtain. But this year, a number of experiments were cut short, delayed, or ended after a short time. That also means the possible data supply got cut off.

As you might imagine, giving away free money is expensive. Private tests must rely on generous donors and often struggle to raise the cash they need.

https://www.technologyreview.com/s/612640/universal-basic-income-had-a-rough-2018/
 
It seems inevitable something alike will be necessary as the world transition from workforce economy to talent economy. Most will end up doing something productive anyway, but the exchange rates can get so arbitrary and confusing to become meaningless. Also, that's probably best (if not the only) way to prevent slavery.

The trouble is, in my opinion it can not be tested properly in any limited sample, unfortunately. Likewise, there no way to achieve smooth gradual adoption, for universal guaranteed income to work as intended the whole world should switch at once or close to that, or else early adopters will face potentially unbearable pressure. But that obviously can not be done even just because pure technicalities, not to mention the uncertainty of the viability of the concept, and perceived irreversible nature of such decision: people go mad when you try to explicitly take from them anything that had been granted.

So yeah, it's one of those ideas that seems genius on paper but are probably unusable in their pure form.

But this is just me rambling.
 
It seems inevitable something alike will be necessary as the world transition from workforce economy to talent economy.

Talent economy! LOL

No....there will always be shit to pick up and things to service.

Those that do will always have more than those that don't....tough break for those that don't.

And no political nor economic system will ever change that.
 
If they start a universal income, basically flooding the money supply, inflation goes up and the money has less value. Then we are back to square one.
 
If they start a universal income, basically flooding the money supply, inflation goes up and the money has less value. Then we are back to square one.

And the poor are just as poor as they ever were....just a whole lot more of them now.

But, no matter how many times it's failed, no matter how many millions are starved to death.....idiots are drawn to the idea like flies to shit.
 
And the poor are just as poor as they ever were....just a whole lot more of them now.

But, no matter how many times it's failed, no matter how many millions are starved to death.....idiots are drawn to the idea like flies to shit.

There are way to many people that have no understanding of simple supply and demand, Eco 101.
 
There are way to many people that have no understanding of simple supply and demand, Eco 101.

Well, the idea behind the universal income isn't to make everyone rich -- what of course would fail.

It is that when you already have significant proportion of population on various forms of conditional welfare it becomes increasingly expensive to manage and control it. At that point it may not be at all that much more expensive to grant a minimum to everyone, abolish all the conditional programs, and cut down administrative expenses because instead of the mess you have one stupidly easy system. No food stamps, no unemployment support, no special allowances, no minimum wage, possibly no pension scheme either. It actually replace equity with equality.

And at least in theory, stimulates economic activity, not because everyone have money to spare (they don't) but because you can get workers for 1$ a week if they find your work more fun than smoking weed.

Does it work, nobody knows. The only way to find out is to try it, but that's insane, because most likely it doesn't. But it is interesting topic to discuss.
 
Last edited:
Well, the idea behind the universal income isn't to make everyone rich -- what of course would fail.

If it's just to provide a basic living standard it will also fail.

You could raise the minimum wage to 100/hr!!!! In 2 years they will be just as poor as they were on 7/hr.

Might as well just build government housing blocks.

Does it work, nobody knows. The only way to find out is to try it, but that's insane, because most likely it doesn't. But it is interesting topic to discuss.

Yea we do.

It's just another wealth redistribution experiment.

Just like any other wealth redistribution scheme it can work to some extent.....but it will run into the same problem as all the others.

1) Devalues the currency.

2) It's ripe for abuse....and it will be abused because humans are greedy self interested fucks.

3) because of 1 and 2 it will eventually run out of other peoples money to spend.


Some fresh new labels and a modern application have not changed the fundamental limitations of a capitalism fueled welfare state. You can only chew the hand that feeds to a certain extent before returns diminish and things start going south.
 
Last edited:
Well, the idea behind the universal income isn't to make everyone rich -- what of course would fail.

It is that when you already have significant proportion of population on various forms of conditional welfare it becomes increasingly expensive to manage and control it. At that point it may not be at all that much more expensive to grant a minimum to everyone, abolish all the conditional programs, and cut down administrative expenses because instead of the mess you have one stupidly easy system. No food stamps, no unemployment support, no special allowances, no minimum wage, possibly no pension scheme either. It actually replace equity with equality.

And at least in theory, stimulates economic activity, not because everyone have money to spare (they don't) but because you can get workers for 1$ a week if they find your work more fun than smoking weed.

Does it work, nobody knows. The only way to find out is to try it, but that's insane, because most likely it doesn't. But it is interesting topic to discuss.

I just did the math on this, and here if you took the total welfare spend and divide it by the total working age + retired age population, you get a reasonable weekly amount - it's about $90 shy of what an actual adult gets as an unemployment benefit (although that's just the basic benefit, without additional support for children, accommodation, etc). So it's not enough to live on, but that's JUST if you use existent welfare expenditure.
 
*chuckle*


It will work and we can afford it, but it will require additional outlays which should not be part of the calculation, those are just additional benefits that people are going to need because who can live on what we can afford to "give" them?
 
Just here to point out that nothing in the MIT Technology Review article undermines universal basic income altogether. Technology Review generally puts out well written and well informed articles, and their author was lamenting the fact of shutting down pilot program cuts short the real world data collected with such programs.

So, STFU, miles.

Keep believing comrade!!!

Your beloved welfare uberstate will happen....only collapse can stop it now. :D
 
Back
Top