Germany Begins Universal Basic Income Trial With People Getting $1,400 a Month For 3 Years (businessinsider.com) 380
Starting this week, 120 Germans will receive a form of universal basic income every month for three years. Business Insider reports: Germany is about to become the latest country to trial a universal basic income, starting a three-year study of how it affects the economy and recipients' well-being. As part of the study, 120 people will receive 1,200 euros, or about $1,430, each month for three years -- an amount just above Germany's poverty line -- and researchers will compare their experiences with another group of 1,380 people who will not receive the payments.
The study, conducted by the German Institute for Economic Research, has been funded by 140,000 private donations. All participants will be asked to complete questionnaires about their lives, work, and emotional state to see whether a basic income has had a significant impact. A pro-basic-income lobbying group called Mein Grundeinkommen is funding the experiment. The group has used donations from its supporters to fund monthly 1,000-euro payments for 668 people since 2014.
The study, conducted by the German Institute for Economic Research, has been funded by 140,000 private donations. All participants will be asked to complete questionnaires about their lives, work, and emotional state to see whether a basic income has had a significant impact. A pro-basic-income lobbying group called Mein Grundeinkommen is funding the experiment. The group has used donations from its supporters to fund monthly 1,000-euro payments for 668 people since 2014.
Experimental setup (Score:4, Insightful)
I would think that the only way to get honest results is to pick people randomly from the general population, give them money without announcing the experiment, and track them via nonvoluntary methods, ie no surveys just observation. Any publicly announced experiment with a voluntary setup would get tainted by the Hawthorne Effect [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe this is how the Truman Show started.
Re:Experimental setup (Score:5, Funny)
We need to counter the placebo effect, so we should make some of the people think they're getting money, but at the end of the three years send them the credit card bill.
effect on the economy? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
I question the information they will gain by tracking 1,380 people that get no benefit for three years.
Re: (Score:3)
They aren't measuring the effect on the economy, they are measuring the effect on people.
It's a well designed study that focuses on specific things, not a massive economic experiment that will produce largely useless results due to the pandemic and ever changing economic landscape.
6 months tops (Score:2)
That's cool (Score:5, Interesting)
So what are they hoping to learn from this? One of the ideas behind UBI is that when people aren't burdened by the heavy weight of work, they are more willing to go out and improve themselves. That is, it's hard to take welding classes if you are already working 8 hours and then need to cook, and btw your car broke down, etc, etc. So if people have that burden lifted, will they improve themselves? Knowing the answer to that will help design the details of future UBI programs, so these kinds of studies are important.
What can't they learn from this? There are a lot of things they can't learn, but someone who only gets UBI for 3 years is in a different situation than someone who is guaranteed it for the rest of their lives. If you know that your income will run out in 3 years, you have a motivation to prepare for that time.
Re: (Score:2)
What can't they learn from this? There are a lot of things they can't learn, but someone who only gets UBI for 3 years is in a different situation than someone who is guaranteed it for the rest of their lives. If you know that your income will run out in 3 years, you have a motivation to prepare for that time.
Even 10 years would give much better data than three. 10 years is long enough that you can plan to get a degree then get a job after the degree -- or decide to sit on the couch for five years and then get a degree just in time to get a job before the UBI ends. 20 or more years would probably be roughly equivalent to an entire working life in terms of how people would respond for the first half, even three quarters. To find out how people would behave differently with respect to, say, retirement planning, yo
Re: (Score:2)
Or, you know - even being able to live without turning to crime....
When various reports are saying that 30% of Americans won't be able to feed themselves in a months time, what do you think happens to those people?
The reality is, we're going to find out what happens when a government turns its back on the people during a crisis like this - and I'm not sure it'll be all roses...
I am sure the study is missing politics (Score:2)
By this I mean the study probably won't shed any light on the effect of UBI on voting habits. Intuitively, UBI is a drug and the politician that promises more will have an advantage at election time. Or rather, the financially responsible politician will be at a disadvantage if they ever say the government can't afford XX amount so we have to decrease the payments.
Nothing good can ever come from a free lunch.
I would be more interested in what the subjects in the study group would do if after a year or two
Re:I am sure the study is missing politics (Score:5, Insightful)
By this I mean the study probably won't shed any light on the effect of UBI on voting habits. Intuitively, UBI is a drug and the politician that promises more will have an advantage at election time. Or rather, the financially responsible politician will be at a disadvantage if they ever say the government can't afford XX amount so we have to decrease the payments.
Nothing good can ever come from a free lunch.
I would be more interested in what the subjects in the study group would do if after a year or two of free money they were suddenly cut off.
Except it's not a "free lunch"
Look at the wealth distribution .. the top 1% control over half the worlds wealth.
https://www.cnbc.com/2017/11/1... [cnbc.com].
Let that burn in , do some critical thinking before you start flipping your fucking fingers. "We" as in most of the worlds population are ALREADY funding this, except it isn't going to feed hungry people , it's going to the bank accounts of 1% of the fucking population.
They didn't get there because they worked hard , or because they are smart, or any other fucking fantasy you want to imagine. They were sinply born into the right body at the right time.
Now understand this - YOU will never be one of the 1% no matter what you do , EVER. So stop bucking for them and wake the fuck up.
Re: (Score:2)
Now understand this - YOU will never be one of the 1% no matter what you do
If you're a programmer in a big city with a decent salary, chances are you're already in the world top 1%. Literally one out of every hundred people you see is in the top 1%, and many more if you live in a developed country like the US.
So stop acting as though you weren't privileged.
Re:I am sure the study is missing politics (Score:4, Informative)
Now understand this - YOU will never be one of the 1% no matter what you do
If you're a programmer in a big city with a decent salary, chances are you're already in the world top 1%. Literally one out of every hundred people you see is in the top 1%, and many more if you live in a developed country like the US.
So stop acting as though you weren't privileged.
Except for the fact that you are wrong. Not every 100 people are created equal in terms of the worlds top 1%. If you make 1 or 2 or 3 hundred thousand dollars a year you are not in the worlds top 1%. if you make $400,000 a year you are NOT in the worlds top 1%. Read.
Re:I am sure the study is missing politics (Score:5, Informative)
A net worth of just under $900K puts you in the top 1% of wealth in the world. That covers about 6% of Americans. To be in the top 10%, you need about $94K in net worth. That's about 50% of American households. If you have a net worth of $4,300 or more, you're in the top half of the world, or >80% of Americans.
Re: (Score:2)
A net worth of just under $900K puts you in the top 1% of wealth in the world. That covers about 6% of Americans. To be in the top 10%, you need about $94K in net worth. That's about 50% of American households. If you have a net worth of $4,300 or more, you're in the top half of the world, or >80% of Americans.
What value does humanity hold?
Re: (Score:2)
If you make 1 or 2 or 3 hundred thousand dollars a year you are not in the worlds top 1%. if you make $400,000 a year you are NOT in the worlds top 1%.
Like, I can't tell if you're lying, or you actually believe that and you're just wrong.
Either way stop talking and start reading.
Re: (Score:2)
If you make 1 or 2 or 3 hundred thousand dollars a year you are not in the worlds top 1%. if you make $400,000 a year you are NOT in the worlds top 1%.
Like, I can't tell if you're lying, or you actually believe that and you're just wrong.
Either way stop talking and start reading.
https://www.investopedia.com/a... [investopedia.com].
read
Re: (Score:3)
The income required to be in the top 1% varies greatly based on what country you live in.
They're lying with statistics. You were tricked because you didn't turn your brain on.
Re: (Score:2)
"So stop acting as though you weren't privileged."
I should add that i am fully (mostly?) aware of how privileged I am. I will not pretend that by some miraculous feat ( or a whole bunch of hard work and ingenuity) i have climbed my way to near the top half of billions of people. Yeah I consider myself smart and hard working , so do many others
It has already been tested, multiple times. (Score:2)
The results have not been thrilling. Not total chaos either, but a massive rollout would bring in inflationary effects that are almost entirely absent from these small scale tests. As far as I know, the two primary knocks against the idea are inflation and encouraging laizness.
Welfare is a close proxy for a lot of how UBI is likely to play out. So, interpret that as you will.
no valid test (Score:2)
people fear trying a REAL test.
It's NOT universal so you can't realistically know how it would work unless you stick them all on an island for 3 years.
It's LIMITED TIME for only 3 years which might be ok for some people but most Germans can plan ahead beyond 3 years. They will not act normally when they know it's just a 3 year experiment.
Finally, they know it's a study and they are lab rats.
The only real way is to just jump into it and have the whole nation permanently do it. If it turns out a massive failu
Re: (Score:2)
Rather than benefits, study how to pay for it (Score:5, Interesting)
How is it that everyone out there seems to be focusing on studying the benefits of UBI, rather than how to pay for it? Are there people out there claiming UBI will harm the people receiving it? The real problems are:
* at what level the UBI should be provided (the definition of "poor" is constantly evolving)
* how to pay for it
I think we can stipulate that UBI will benefit the recipients and society, so how about focusing on the hard problem of how to sustainably pay for it?
Re: (Score:2)
We? But you do have a point about how to pay being the big problem?
Re: (Score:3)
how to sustainably pay for it?
If you do the math (involving a recurrence relation) you will find that though taxes, every penny of welfare returns to the government after enough time. If I recall, about 99.95% returns to the government after the money changes hands 100 or so times (assuming USA-NV level taxes). The real issue is: How do we convince plumbers and burger flippers to go to work when they are paid for existing?
Re:Rather than benefits, study how to pay for it (Score:5, Interesting)
Unlike most welfare programs, they can make more money if they still go to work. Most people want more money. Most people will still go to work.
Some people may go to school, or stay home to raise the kids. I'm fine with that, it's still good for society and worth paying for.
The kind of person who is able to work, but instead chooses to live on only 12 grand a year is probably a drain on society no mater what. I'd bet we're all better off paying 'em to stay home. Hospitalization and incarceration cost a whole lot more.
Re: (Score:3)
Another alternative is that instead of chasing a higher paying job/career they don't really like/enjoy doing (but they do because of the pay rate involved) then they can take a lower paying job that pays more in satisfaction, etc.
Re: (Score:2)
The real issue is: How do we convince plumbers and burger flippers to go to work when they are paid for existing?
The primary answer to this question is: By not paying them very much just for existing. Any job income directly increases net income, so even a small amount of effort improves one's lifestyle.
There are some people are willing to accept bare subsistence (well, they'll complain about it), and UBI may remove their incentive to work entirely. It's questionable how much those people really contribute to the economy anyway, however.
Re: (Score:2)
How is it that everyone out there seems to be focusing on studying the benefits of UBI, rather than how to pay for it? Are there people out there claiming UBI will harm the people receiving it?
Take 30% of the income from everyone, divide the total equally among the citizens. Based on the GDP, that will give everyone ~$20k USD in the US, although richer people will pay more into it.
How to do UBI test (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Playing Pretend (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Do you have a link to a study that suggests this outcome?
Here's a link to the largest study I could find so far. It looks to suggest no change in employment. IE: People who receive basic income are about as likely to work as people in the control group.
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2020/may/07/finnish-basic-income-pilot-improved-wellbeing-study-finds-coronavirus
Re: (Score:2)
bogus study, paid about half UBI level, so proves nothing
Re: (Score:2)
True, 1/2 poverty level and only 2K people is far from proof. I only said the Finland study suggested a negligible impact on employment.
No study I know of has proven UBI will or will not work. That's why it needs more study. One giant study would be prohibitively expensive, so we'll get a few smaller ones and draw our conclusions from that.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm just curious why you look down on plumbers? Average around here is $60K which is way more than burger flipping, and those that run business with assistants make six figures. My plumber friend makes more than I do, $200K.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah, it's sort of pissing me off when he puts skilled craftsmen like plumbers in the realm of burger flipping. Maybe it's because I come from a blue-collar background. I'll be charitable and just put it to ignorance.
My parents owned a light construction/manufacturing business. And as a very small business, my dad did a lot of grunt work himself. He was digging in a ditch with some of his workers, and he saw some young guys in business suits walking by who apparently had a rather snooty attitude, while
Re: (Score:2)
Somehow I don't see UBI causing a pediatrician shortage, but maybe that is just me.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I'm not sure why people always act as if paying for a UBI would require some kind of advanced physics math or fairy dust to work out. You simply implement a progressive income tax, on all income regardless of source. The base line for the tax is whatever the annual UBI is. The tax then scales up as income increases. At some point you end up paying just as much back in taxes as you get from the UBI. At income levels above that you pay in more than you get back as UBI. UBI would in theory be replacing most ot
120 people??? (Score:2)
What is the hypothesis? (Score:2)
I wish them good luck. We really need to run some experiments to see UBI in actual life.
That being said, the article was light on details. They want to see whether there would be an impact on their "life", "work", or "emotional state". However their main method seems to be "questionnaires" but that might be less than ideal.
The "control" group will be biased. They know the other group is receiving compensation for those surveys (a big one at that), and if they really include people from all economic groups,
oh goody (Score:2)
yet another UBI "trial" that has none of the things that people argue would make UBI helpful
it's good to know that the United States isn't the only country keeping poor people down with obvious propaganda
Interesting Knee-Jerk Reactions (Score:3)
I am always amazed at how many comments appear each time a story like this is posted anywhere which are made by seemingly rational people who then argue about running any of these economic experiments before they can get started. What ever happened to the scientific method? These commenters want to argue AGAINST experiments because of what they believe. Supply-side economics is not the most efficient way to deliver prosperity to an economy, but it is a very efficient way to deliver winners and losers. The whole point of supply side economics is to create losers.
Rather than arguing about a small, three-year experiment which has yet to get off the ground, we can all observe the massive experiment that happened three years ago. In the U.S.A., a massive $1T+ tax cut and corporate giveaway was passed. The tax cuts did not raise income levels. The benefits did not "trickle down." Companies did not invest in their workers or increase R&D. That money all went to the companies' owners. There were even layoffs at some companies whose CEOs had campaigned for the cuts. Does anyone talk about the failure of the tax cuts? No!
The endless scandals at the White House, the sheer incompetence and lying, have sucked up all of the oxygen and prevented a real discussion about supply-side economics. With every new outrage, rational, detached debate becomes more unlikely. An argument can be made that Trump's outrageous behavior is a feature of his presidency and not just a failure of the man. Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain . . .
We are now to the point that the opposition to wanting to help elevate poor people and protect people when they are down through no fault of their own is a faith in and of itself.
Rubes (Score:3)
This it not an UBI Trial (Score:3)
This is not an UBI trial. UBI will trigger enormous behavioral changes, but only if one can trust it to last and to be reliable for the foreseeable future. Otherwise, it's just a simple alternative for social benefits that has nothing to do with UBI and everybody will nicely stay put in their low-value low-paying but relatively secure job and contribute the absolute minimum to the economy because any extra value will never reach them. Just like it is now.
Such trust can only arise if UBI were introduced slowly.
Note that I have great confidence that Universal Basic Income can be a huge success, not only for human wellbeing but especially for the economy. However, it will only work with sound financing in the style of a VASTLY expanded Alaska Permanent Fund or Government Pension Fund of Norway. I also believe it to be inevitable; it's either some kind of UBI or something alike a feudal system will take over. We can already slowly see that approaching now with the ever increasing income disparity. There's not much time left.
I hope they don't half-ass it yet again. (Score:3)
I've seen too many such experiments "fail" because of the study designers failing to get key details right, looking more like deliberate denigration than anything else.
(Hint: Adding libertarian ideas is a recipe for disaster. Unless your target society is one of simulated ideal lizards. ;)
The experiment is already out there (Score:3)
This isn't a trial of UBI for many reasons already cited. But the main problem is it's unnecessary. There are people who effectively already have a UBI - people with trust funds or lotteries that gave the winners annuities. Just track those people down and interview them.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Use the same questionnaire as the basic income recipients. Learn the same sorts of things.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
You can't do that because the benefits of a society with UBI wouldn't be experienced by the people paying the taxes in the same way as the people receiving it directly benefit. That's taxation. Tax people higher for better a better fire department, but what are you going to do, burn down their houses so they can experience the benefits of a service they hope they never have to use? Tax them for improved parks, but expect them to be able to report a mathematically quantifiable improvement in their existence?
Re: (Score:2)
You can't do that because the benefits of a society with UBI wouldn't be experienced by the people paying the taxes in the same way as the people receiving it directly benefit.
that is EXACTLY why you can and should do it. The reality of a UBI is it will help some more than others and will in fact hurt some. If you are only modelling the positives then the study is pointless. This could be relatively easily achieved with a fairly isolated town or community where you implement a local sales tax or increase the marginal tax rate for those above $50k by 5 or 10% with the money then used to fund the program.
Re:Well shall I start it off? (Score:4, Insightful)
Who says it can't scale? With robotics and automation, it can scale. Just assign each person the income generated by a robot. I mean, let someone get the salary of a robot bottling coca cola bottles. If people don't work, so what? Do we even have any proof of the BS that having factory job somehow assembling widgets makes you a better human instead of become a drug addict or thief? Why don't we look into why people become drug addicts? My guess is most people on UBI will pursue hobbies and sports. Why are we afraid of idle people.
Re: (Score:3)
Do you know what a generic "robot" costs? Do you know what they require in terms of maintenance costs? Average lifespan before replacement?
If we're talking about an actual assembly line robot like we've seen in automotive plants, I'd wager using an actual person at minimum wage would be quite a bit cheaper. The robots make up for that in efficiency and accuracy, but they're not free.
Re: Well shall I start it off? (Score:4, Interesting)
We aren't afraid, but our masters are. And they have convinced many people to be afraid too.
The communist claimed that 'work made humanity evolve from apes'.
The religious say 'idle hands do the devils work'
The nazis say 'work shall set you free'
See how that works, robot?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wik... [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
About this time next year (Score:5, Insightful)
We're far from robots doing all the work, for al the "robots terk our jerbs" panic on Slashdot. It will be decades before that's practical. And people aren't going to make the substantial capital outlay to move to robots at that sale without some reasonable expectation of return.
Tesla is on the brink of achieving full self driving(*).
The Tesla semi is scheduled to start production in 2021.
Trucking fleet owners will convert to Tesla FSD semis as fast as Tesla can make them: cheaper fuel, safer than human drivers, and can run 24/7 unlike human drivers who need sleep and downtime.
Estimates vary, but by my calculations FSD would put about 25 million people out of work (drivers and support personnel such as interstate roadside diners). It's the single largest job category in the country.
Five years from now much of the workforce will be massively underemployed due to this event alone.
(*) Tesla is just now converting their recognition systems from 2-d to 3-d, which requires a complete rewrite of the system from the ground up. They expect to be done sometime this month, and expect the results will be a 5x increase in recognition accuracy. They have about a billion miles of training data to throw at it, and it's well known in AI circles that the accuracy of algorithm they're using scales with the amount of data.
TL;DR Tesla expects to have FSD before the end of this year.
Re:About this time next year (Score:4, Insightful)
As it's been for the last five years, and for the foreseeable future.
It's also well known in AI circles that it does not scale linearly, and that at some point feeding 10 times the data barely makes a dent in the model's accuracy.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Automation makes things cheaper. Thats what will happen as things automate, and there are new and creative things that people will engage in. People said the same thing when the steam engine engaged in agrarian activities. 9 in 10 people were employed on farms. Now that number is 1 in 100
Re: (Score:2)
Semi trucks in particular won't be replaced any time soon. Even if Tesla dies eventually get something self-driving, and we know it won't be fully self driving for years, trucks are damned expensive. The semi you've paid for is cheaper than the new self-driving semi you haven't. It'll be a 10-20 year placement cycle.
Re: (Score:2)
Odd, this was not the post I was replying too. Sorry about that,
Re: (Score:3)
Automation makes things cheaper. Thats what will happen as things automate, and there are new and creative things that people will engage in. People said the same thing when the steam engine engaged in agrarian activities. 9 in 10 people were employed on farms. Now that number is 1 in 100 employed in food processing.
And what happened to those 9 in 10 people when automation arrived? Try reading some Dickens.
Re: (Score:3)
Dickens gave a very specific view of Victorian England - it's good literature but it's not realistic.
The average person in Victorian England saw massive improvements in relative income over the century, with particularly large improvements at the end of the century as automation drove the cost of mass produced goods down massively. The average person saw a rise of 10x relative income over the century which was completely unheard of in any prior century.
Re: (Score:2)
Rolls Royce isn't known for their top quality. People that can afford to heat their homes by burning pallets of cash are the only people dumb enough to buy a RR.
No worries, most people who own RR have lots of other cars to drive while it's in the shop.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Over 50% of people were once employed in agriculture in the U.S. Was the "single largest job category in he country" as you put it. Now it's less than 2%. So 48% of the population were "put out of work" as a result, right? Yet somehow, pre-COVID we were at 50-year record low unemployment rates. Weird, eh?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: About this time next year (Score:2)
Posted anonymously so that if youâ(TM)re wrong you canâ(TM)t be made fun of.
Re: (Score:2)
I love the irony of shits like you who bash Apple for using a decades-old standard.
Re:Well shall I start it off? (Score:5, Insightful)
It will be decades before the robots take all our jobs.
But it WILL happen. None of this "but we'll invent new jobs" horseshit, because any new jobs after robotics will be very high-skill. Not things you can staff with THE ENTIRE FUCKING LABOR FORCE. In the very near future, 85% of human beings will be COMPLETELY USELESS. We can either secure the right to a livelihood for ourselves, or allow the billionaires to exterminate us.
Re:Well shall I start it off? (Score:4, Interesting)
oh and uh
"UBI can in now way replace that"
is the biggest pile of bullshit I've ever seen
I am disabled. I LIVE OFF OF those benefits already. Do you know what they pay? The answer is: "not the rent." The only reason I'm not homeless is because I live with my mother. She's also disabled. The only reason SHE'S not homeless is that she hooked a loaded boyfriend.
We need UBI, or we're all going to be totally fucked soon. We printed so much money for the stimulus, and gave almost all of it to huge banks that will do nothing with it but buy all the businesses that are going to fail. Small businesses will not exist within five years.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
That's not how JobKeeper works.
JobKeeper is paid to actual employees with jobs. That's why it's "JobKeeper".
Also, just because a neoliberal lobbyist says something is happening, doesn't mean it actually is. It just means they imagined it in their head and then spouted it on Sky News.
Why would we bother? (Score:2)
[...] yet nobody talks about implementing Chinese style one-child policies, population momentum, or immigration for that matter.
What you reward, you get more of.
Why bother talking about any of that?
UN projections [pewresearch.org] show world population will top out at around 10 billion (-ish, depending on future actions) and start to decline around 2090. We seem to be beating those UN projections by a wide margin, and current trends show the world population peaking around 2050 and then declining.
All industrialized countries have negative population growth. The US has negative growth, but also allows 1.2 million immigrants in each year so our own population is actually growing, but
Re: (Score:2)
So I have to ask about your "one child" policy: exactly what problem are you trying to solve?
Some people have never been able to let go of the "we'll be doomed by overpopulation" scare of the 60's and 70's, current projections be damned. Either that, or they just have a fetish for totalitarian regimes that can impose their will over the most fundamental of human rights. Maybe a little of both.
Re:Well shall I start it off? (Score:5, Interesting)
1. It is a test. This is to figure out if you are correct.
2. "Encourage people not to work" is a stand counter-belief with no evidence.
3. Especially because people already get paid not to work in most of Europe. Germany in particular has great healthcare (including payments for those unable to work), great unemployment benefits, great pensions starting at age 63, (even after the 2010 reductions).
4. The test is not 'will this destroy Germany' (one of Europes BEST economies - even including West Germany) but instead will this be a more efficient way of delivery Germany's great social payments.
That fact that you think Germany is not already socialist is simply proof that you have no idea what you are talking about. They already get paid not to work - this is about consistent delivery with less paperwork, not more cash.
Re: Well shall I start it off? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I will give you this money forever vs I will give you this money 3 years and after that you have to fend for yourselves.
Do economists really think that humans don't modify their behaviour based on planning for the future?
Maybe just the economists that support UBI.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
On top of that, there's a known end date, which means these people's behaviour will be different.
On top of that "top of that", who really thinks that UBI will replace the current welfare payouts?
Cripple folk who can't work get the same as able-bodied people? Won't fly.
Single black mothers get the same as white frat boys? Also won't fly.
Intersectional politics demands some people get more because "they are starting from behind" and other people get less because "they started life on easy mode". Those politics are incompatible with UBI.
Additionally, every single time I talk to a UBI proponent I ask
Re: (Score:3)
So 120 Germans will collect "just above" poverty-level wages for three years, and 1,380 Germans will get nothing - I wonder which group will fare better? Will it be the 120 people that have "almost" enough money to live or the people that get nothing and have to earn every euro they get?
The more interesting experiment will be to see what happens in the fourth year, when the GOv't teat is ripped away from the 120 Germans.
BTW, what is this a test of? Want to make it real, why not tax the 1,380 Germans that ar
Re: (Score:2)
It may scale, but if we're making the obligatory statements then the most obligatory is that this is not a universal basic income trial, because not everyone is getting it. It's just a basic income trial, for 120 people.
We know what happens when we give people money — they spend it. We don't know what happens when we give everyone money, except that they will spend it. And this won't tell us.
How do you know it won't increase tax revenue? (Score:5, Insightful)
Another broken system before it's even started. This will never scale, and encourage people to not work.
I'm sure the study will find the people were happy to have free money.
Free money doesn't encourage people not to work. Did you stop working harder once you earned enough to pay your bills? Did you never seek a promotion or look for a better job once you earned just enough to pay your bills? The design of UBI is not to make life luxurious but to make it kind of suck if you stop working. I don't know how the math works out and no one does. However, I suspect it would boost the economy. It's just a stimulus...trickle up.
I would LOVE UBI and I make good money. I am sure it won't directly add much money, if any, to my bottom line directly, but boy will it make my life better...my company's stock will shoot up because the formerly broke can now buy things from our customers....my investments will all go up because they will become more profitable....wages will likely halt. I imagine minimum wage will stagnate. Crime will go down...no sense in risking your life selling drugs if you can pay your bills with UBI + a minimum wage job.
So yeah, my prediction...modest tax increase, HUGE boost to my employer and the stock market...and smaller gov, ironically.
Capitalism is the least worst option, but it has failed us. Let's be real. Every life has negative value until you find a skill the economy deems useful...and the elite of society...the world's best businessmen and engineers do all they can to pay you as little as humanly possible...meaning the number of jobs just keeps going down and down, being reduced by a triple threat of political threats...unaffordable tax cuts to the wealthy, for example, automation directly killing your job, and technological advances meaning that even if your job cannot be automated, one person can do the work of 2, so there are less jobs and they're more competitive each year.
Existing is a burden in capitalism. If you're disabled or mentally unwell, you're a burden on the state and your family. With UBI, all life has actual value. You can more easily afford rehab if you're addicted or special care if you're disabled....increasing the number of people employed in that business. Everyone can eat healthy food, meaning a boost to farmers. We're already subsidizing our failures now. You pay more at the store to cover theft and people unable to pay their bills. You pay more to cover collection costs. You pay more in police.
There will no doubt be winners and losers...people in the debt collection and foreclosure industry will suffer...maybe even major banks if people can pay their credit card balance off each month....but most of us will win. If you do anything useful in the economy, you will win from greater business. You will be able to travel freely in more neighborhoods without the fear of becoming a crime victim. You won't have to deal with many homeless people. You'll feel good knowing people are generally taken care of and even if the worst happens to you...you get ill and no longer can provide value to the economy, your life won't be ruined...you won't be homeless....far less comfortable than before, but there will be a REAL safety net.
Our system is broken now...people get all sorts of taxpayer money in the form of tax cuts and subsidies..as if it's noble to give welfare to a company with a multimillionaire CEO and board of directors...stop giving them handouts and give it to their customers....pump some real money into the economy...much better stimulus...much better result for society. They'll get more sales and there will be a lot less poverty. I'd rather see the shitty neighborhoods around me cleaned up than add another 10% to Jeff Bezos' profits each year.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Free money doesn't encourage people not to work. Did you stop working harder once you earned enough to pay your bills?
Uh, the moment someone will pay me enough to live on without working, I'm going to stop working.
This isn't some fantastical Star Trek future where we're all going to work anyway because we like to. This is reality where I hate working and will gladly be happily poor instead of wasting my life away making someone else rich.
Re:How do you know it won't increase tax revenue? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
UBL wouldn't be mega-lottery money and never could be.
It is pay the rent on my 1 room apartment and buy a ham sandwich every day money.
Want to live in a nicer place. you might need more than UBL.
Want to regularly chase women, you might need more than UBL money to pay for your dates.
Has nothing to do with altruism. It has to do with quality of life.
UBL would keep you out of poverty. It wouldn't make you rich.
Re: (Score:3)
Free money doesn't encourage people not to work. Did you stop working harder once you earned enough to pay your bills?
Uh, the moment someone will pay me enough to live on without working, I'm going to stop working. This isn't some fantastical Star Trek future where we're all going to work anyway because we like to. This is reality where I hate working and will gladly be happily poor instead of wasting my life away making someone else rich.
General, most of the UBI proposals aren't "and they lived happily ever after" payments, but "live just above the poverty line" payments. It might pay for your housing or food, but if you want a flat screen TV, play station, or take a vacation trip you'll still need to work.
(What might happen, though, is that salaries for truly undesirable jobs will have to go up to entice people - a lot less people would be willing to work in a slaughterhouse or clean truckstop bathrooms all day if they no longer have
Re: (Score:2)
I've become more pro UBI the more I consider the issue, but I think you are *wildly* optimistic about the social and economic benefits it will bring. Redistribution doesn't create any wealth. It's just moving purchasing power from one set of hands to another. For every dollar that goes TO a poor family so they can purchase more stuff, this has come FROM a wealthier family that now has a dollar less. There is zero net gain to the economy. A net loss, in fact, for whatever overhead comes from administeri
Re: (Score:2)
You're assuming that the wealthy family will spend $1 less just because their net income is $1 less. However, the wealthy invest far more of their money, so the only way net purchasing remains the same is if that $1 reduction comes entirely out of their spending while their investments remain the same. Which is not at all realistic.
As for being economical to maintain - that's "just" a matter of raising taxes so that the average individual gets zero net benefit. Whether that means increased progressive in
Re: (Score:3)
As for the problem with the world being divided into "givers" and "takers", I agree. However, most of the "takers" are the ones at the top of the wealth heap - that's how they got there.
Did you happen to catch Gov. Andrew Cuomo of NY State begging the "wealthy New Yorkers" to return to New York State? He did so because without them the state will lose a significant portion of their tax base. The world (at least in NY State) is clearly broken into Givers and Takers - Gov. Cuomo was quoted in the NY Post [nypost.com] as saying:
the wealthiest 1 percent of the Empire State’s population picks up roughly 50 percent of the state’s tax
The top 1% pays HALF of the state taxes - they are clearly not the Takers.
Re:How do you know it won't increase tax revenue? (Score:4, Insightful)
Where did the top 1% *get* that money? That's why they're takers. Capitalism, by design, takes the wealth generated by laborers, and gives it to capitalists.
Re:Dear Komrade (Score:4, Insightful)
Of course it was - capitalism is a social technology, just like democracy, currency, language, etc. Basically anything wild animals don't do, is a technology developed by humans. And just because nobody intentionally set out to design a system to do something, doesn't mean it wasn't still designed to do it - just as a shark is designed to swim extremely efficiently, despite no designer ever intentionally making that a goal.
And of course planned markets work - just not nearly as efficiently as capitalist ones. Capitalism is not synonymous with market economies, in fact it's orthogonal to them. Capitalism, socdialism, communism, even traditional gift economies, etc,etc, etc are about how the wealth gained from an exchange is distributed, not about the exchange itself.
The labor of your hands is not actually capital, as it cannot be invested to acquire a percentage of the wealth created by other people's hands. For that, you need a system of private ownership of wealth, and a system by which that wealth can be leveraged to generate more wealth without any further application of labor on your part.
And there's nothing inherently wrong with capitalism, just as there's nothing inherently wrong with fire - they're both incredibly useful and have allowed civilization to reach new heights - but they both rage out of control when not managed carefully.
Unrestrained capitalism though rewards the investment of wealth as the greatest virtue - inherently making the rich richer, while the poor who have no wealth to invest have no hope of participating except as laborers and consumers generating wealth that's skimmed by investors.
Re: (Score:3)
Capitalism, does NOTHING by design
The basic premise of capitalism is that that those with capital are above and in control of laborers. The more money you have, the more important you are in capitalism.
Every man is owner of his hands and he can trade the work of said hands with whoever he wants.
Under the current system, that's not true. A person HAS to trade their work with someone if they want cool stuff like food, a place to live, and clothes. There's more flexibility in a capitalist system then say feudalism, but that doesn't mean there isn't room for more improvement. If you are living paycheck to paycheck, you are much less
Re: (Score:2)
>Another broken system before it's even started. This will never scale, and encourage people to not work.
Right. That's why nobody ever tries to climb the corporate ladder. Or go to University. Or any other activity that would increase their income above the poverty line. Once you're at the poverty line, more money is useless, so why would anyone try to do better for themselves? Or as put much more eloquently: https://youtu.be/1ZADrnNuiPk [youtu.be]
Now, if you were talking welfare, where earning more can actuall
Re: (Score:2)
so, where exactly is it that you live that $16,800/yr would allow you to live comfortably enough to not bother earning more
I would like to move there
Re: (Score:2)
Pointless stupidity. My only hope is they do this to show it does NO GOOD WHATSOEVER to shut the UBI idiots up for good.
That will never happen. Even if this study said it was a terrible idea that can't possibly work, they would call the study flawed. Something like, "Nobody has ever tried true UBI!"
Re: (Score:3)