Stockton’s Basic-Income Experiment Pays Off

cerebus

Honorary Master
Joined
Nov 5, 2007
Messages
43,129
I don't necessarily disagree with what you wrote there, just that I am slightly skeptical of the claims that goes with UBI, I would support a pilot test in a few more places world wide and see what it does on a practical level. My skeptical meter goes up high when there is growing widespread support for a given issue, or when there is an oversimplification of complex phenomena.

Agreed :)
 

Rkootknir

Expert Member
Joined
Dec 8, 2005
Messages
1,132
A UBI might not address all the root causes of poverty and it shouldn’t be expected to. It does alleviate the effects of poverty though and by doing that it would automatically help with a host of other societal problems that come from poverty - like malnutrition, drug abuse, depression, etc.

Imagine if you were poor and you had some goals like studying, small business entrepreneurship, networking, or so on. Being poor makes it impossible to ever do those things, but then the government tells you that what you *really* need are food stamps because you can’t be trusted and the reason you can’t be trusted is because you’re poor. It’s a catch-22 that a lot of people get stuck in.
There's not enough money in the world to satisfy everybody though. World GDP is around USD85 trillion (USD 8.5x10^13). There are around 7.9 billion (7.9x10^9) humans on earth.

Let's say we can distribute the entire value of the world's production in a year equally between all humans. That means, at currently levels of productivity, that we can give every human on earth, children & adults, around USD11 000 per year or around USD920 per month (around R14k p.m.)

For a very large portion of humanity that would sound like a pretty good deal. However, most people active on this forum probably earn substantially more than R14k p.m. In the example there's also no money left over investment in e.g. infrastructure - everything is going towards individual human beings in the form of an UBI.

Worldwide productivity would have to be increased massively before a truly UBI becomes feasible and leads to the middle class having the same or similar amount of spending power after the introduction of an UBI.
 

cerebus

Honorary Master
Joined
Nov 5, 2007
Messages
43,129
There's not enough money in the world to satisfy everybody though. World GDP is around USD85 trillion (USD 8.5x10^13). There are around 7.9 billion (7.9x10^9) humans on earth.

Let's say we can distribute the entire value of the world's production in a year equally between all humans. That means, at currently levels of productivity, that we can give every human on earth, children & adults, around USD11 000 per year or around USD920 per month (around R14k p.m.)

For a very large portion of humanity that would sound like a pretty good deal. However, most people active on this forum probably earn substantially more than R14k p.m. In the example there's also no money left over investment in e.g. infrastructure - everything is going towards individual human beings in the form of an UBI.

Worldwide productivity would have to be increased massively before a truly UBI becomes feasible and leads to the middle class having the same or similar amount of spending power after the introduction of an UBI.

I mean, who said anything about a global UBI in the first place? Honestly I have serious doubts about the feasibility of a basic long-term UBI in any country just based on the cost. In theory it would solve so many problems, but the costs are astronomical when you weigh it up. You'd need to replace a host of other government programs, and perhaps UBI would be more efficient than them but still..
 

OrbitalDawn

Ulysses Everett McGill
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
45,540
Still not seeing how you give something to someone for free and then watch them waste it, then placate those who paid for it sa if i'm paying for some guy's stuff, i want to see value for it, ie, that he is actually uplifted out of poverty and not p!ssing it away on drugs / alcohol / cigarettes.

you have to make it palatable for both sides and ensure it's spent properly.
They didn't waste it. Did you not read the quoted text or the article at all?

Read the findings:

Consistently, the largest spending category each month was food, followed by sales/merchandise, which were likely also food purchases at wholesale clubs and larger stores like Walmart and Target. Other leading categories each month were utilities and auto care or transportation. Less than 1% of tracked purchases were for tobacco and alcohol.

i.e. they used the money for essentials, to help stabilise their lives, pay off debt, get better work, etc.

 

OrbitalDawn

Ulysses Everett McGill
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
45,540
I'm not arguing that. UBI is laughable communism.
Work, get paid. Whatever the amount. It shouldn't be the burden of the tax payer to run a country.
Are you going to make a better attempt at explaining this nonsensical assertion? DreamKing tried, but well, it was laughable.
 

Johnatan56

Honorary Master
Joined
Aug 23, 2013
Messages
28,544
The control group at 125 is too small, also need to know the background of these people/why they're earning so low.
If it's normal people on hard times, UBI is great, if it's someone who is there due to alcoholism etc. then it's probably going to be a waste as you're just enabling it.
 

|tera|

Master of Messengers
Joined
Mar 31, 2006
Messages
25,084
Are you going to make a better attempt at explaining this nonsensical assertion? DreamKing tried, but well, it was laughable.
The problem with many here seems to be that you require justification of another perception to validate it. Which is BS.
UBI can't run indefinitely. It will do more harm than good as it continues.
You can only sustain so many people for a fixed amount of time. Money availability is not infinite, unless you vote anc.
 

OrbitalDawn

Ulysses Everett McGill
Joined
Aug 26, 2011
Messages
45,540
The problem with many here seems to be that you require justification of another perception to validate it. Which is BS.
UBI can't run indefinitely. It will do more harm than good as it continues.
You can only sustain so many people for a fixed amount of time. Money availability is not infinite, unless you vote anc.
So... not going to make an attempt to explain why anyone should take this seriously --> "UBI is laughable communism"?
 

Gozado

Well-Known Member
Joined
Jan 13, 2019
Messages
478
UBI can work only if the money comes from somewhere, and that'd be tax, to start with. There'd have to be some other kind of savings, though, to make it feasible.

The economists in favour of UBI envision that some, or even most, people will, once they have the breathing space of a regular, secure income, will fix their own finances, will start their own small businesses, some people to send their children to school, some people to improve the quality of their shelter and food, and that an array of these things will lead, indirectly, to improved health. Healthier and happier people are more able to contribute to the betterment of their environments, in their own homes and relationships, and in the area in which they live. If you're drop dead exhausted you walk on by that litter, if you're fed and fit you might bend down to pick it up and throw it away, and also go by to bring an old person some food, and so on. Similarly, people who can afford a toothbrush are more likely to keep their teeth healthy.

People who feel better and live in a better way are likely to consume fewer resources such as social workers (saving), medical services (saving), they'll be less likely to cause destruction of property (saving) and less likely to do anything which ought to involve a flashing light and a siren (saving). The articles I've read about UBI count on these concentric circles of societal cost reduction.

Add to that the entire machinery of all the offices that process applications for the existing, other kinds of grants and benefits, for assessment, for reporting and controlling: the economists in favour of UBI see that such offices could be eliminated altogether (saving). As such assessment processes are highly stressful for the subjects, departing from that kind of system would bring about a further postive effect on health.

In other words, they say, the UBI would not need to be funded directly 1:1 by a special tax, but the tax spending (on all of the above, other services) would be less, so some of that money could be redirected to the UBI.
 

quovadis

Executive Member
Joined
Sep 10, 2004
Messages
5,511
I mean, who said anything about a global UBI in the first place? Honestly I have serious doubts about the feasibility of a basic long-term UBI in any country just based on the cost. In theory it would solve so many problems, but the costs are astronomical when you weigh it up. You'd need to replace a host of other government programs, and perhaps UBI would be more efficient than them but still..
Very similar to my thoughts. For ZA it would make sense to introduce a UBI if it were to replace every and all other grants and the amount paid to be based on age with those of working age receiving less than those of retirement age and those who are working receive it as a tax credit. The savings in administration alone would be substantial. What the amounts would be would obviously have to be determined...
 

rietrot

Honorary Master
Joined
Aug 26, 2016
Messages
24,147

The "mice utopia" study is a great example of how things go wrong when you give people everything they need and take their purpose away.

Sure some people will find freedom if you cover their basic needs, but these people would never be at risk in the first place.

The social decay is already evident in large cities especially those with large amounts of welfare.

People simply lose there reason to live and just sit at home and eat or form gangs and kill each other.
 

Cius

Executive Member
Joined
Jan 20, 2009
Messages
6,614
Tell me more about this
Australia

You can read articles about how in out of the way places that do not have proper public transport the local homeless guy will ride around in a private taxi that is hugely expensive on the governments dime and other such stuff. Main ones tend to be having kids (our problem too) and caring for people so lots of dysfunctional families and missing fathers so that a welfare check can be more easily obtained. Creates broken homes and broken people.

America:

A lot more misconceptions about the America's but there is a lot of support especially for food and housing. So what they do earn is spent a lot on booze. The legal framework has to change there to allow private businesses to operate more easily.

Thing is there are also those who will use the extra stability to make something of themselves, like this:

Issue is how do you choose who to give to and how do you predict it will help them or will it just kill any remaining ambition they had?

I could argue both sides fairly well but on balance think free money should be short term and have hard evidence of how it is being used and that the person is using the time to get back on their feet. Have heard of so many people in England who ride that system like a roller coaster though. Work for a year or so to qualify again for the doll, and then take a paid holiday for as long as they can on the doll. They live in council housing etc so they can literally use their welfare to travel on the cheap around Europe and the UK.

And all the above I am man enough to say is probably somewhat wrong and missing out some hugely important facts and details. There are checks and balances, however I have spoken to people from both the USA and Aus who despite everything had personal connections into the reservations and said whatever the governments says this is how it ultimately works and the view above is reflective more of those conversations than the links I posted. The evils of the doll.
 

kolaval

Executive Member
Joined
May 13, 2011
Messages
5,965
I wonder how much the success of it depends on the culture and economic stability of the nation wanting to implement UBI?

I don't see it working here.
 

rietrot

Honorary Master
Joined
Aug 26, 2016
Messages
24,147
I wonder how much the success of it depends on the culture and economic stability of the nation wanting to implement UBI?

I don't see it working here.
Kind a chicken or egg question.

Most countries that we consider to have a strong work ethic today is because that was required for survival in the past.

If you take the incentives for that away the culture will change.

Or more specifically the people at the bottom end will be worse off as my post above about the mice utopia and the guy below me there have shown.
 

kolaval

Executive Member
Joined
May 13, 2011
Messages
5,965
It boils down to human nature again, doesn't it?

There will always be a ladder and the people on the bottom rung will suffer for it.
People will abuse UBI as much as people not on the bottom rung of the ladder, will abuse those at the bottom.
 

C4Cat

Honorary Master
Joined
Nov 9, 2015
Messages
11,241
Australia

You can read articles about how in out of the way places that do not have proper public transport the local homeless guy will ride around in a private taxi that is hugely expensive on the governments dime and other such stuff. Main ones tend to be having kids (our problem too) and caring for people so lots of dysfunctional families and missing fathers so that a welfare check can be more easily obtained. Creates broken homes and broken people.

America:

A lot more misconceptions about the America's but there is a lot of support especially for food and housing. So what they do earn is spent a lot on booze. The legal framework has to change there to allow private businesses to operate more easily.

Thing is there are also those who will use the extra stability to make something of themselves, like this:

Issue is how do you choose who to give to and how do you predict it will help them or will it just kill any remaining ambition they had?

I could argue both sides fairly well but on balance think free money should be short term and have hard evidence of how it is being used and that the person is using the time to get back on their feet. Have heard of so many people in England who ride that system like a roller coaster though. Work for a year or so to qualify again for the doll, and then take a paid holiday for as long as they can on the doll. They live in council housing etc so they can literally use their welfare to travel on the cheap around Europe and the UK.

And all the above I am man enough to say is probably somewhat wrong and missing out some hugely important facts and details. There are checks and balances, however I have spoken to people from both the USA and Aus who despite everything had personal connections into the reservations and said whatever the governments says this is how it ultimately works and the view above is reflective more of those conversations than the links I posted. The evils of the doll.
I'm just not sure if these are issues caused by welfare. For example, you say welfare creates broken homes and broken people, but taking away welfare isn't going to prevent broken homes and broken people, so the cause effect connection is not there. The problems indigenous communities face is not free money.

Also, UBI isn't a form of welfare as it's not aimed only at the poor and unemployed. It would also, mainly, assist people who are working but are struggling, people between jobs, people trying to improve their circumstances, people wanting to study, etc. Yes, there will be people who drink it away or try to abuse the system but those people would be doing that anyway, finding other ways to do so. The honest hard working majority would benefit.
 

rietrot

Honorary Master
Joined
Aug 26, 2016
Messages
24,147
I'm just not sure if these are issues caused by welfare. For example, you say welfare creates broken homes and broken people, but taking away welfare isn't going to prevent broken homes and broken people

All the evidence suggests that it does.
 

Zophos

Expert Member
Joined
Jun 3, 2017
Messages
1,603
I'm just not sure if these are issues caused by welfare. For example, you say welfare creates broken homes and broken people, but taking away welfare isn't going to prevent broken homes and broken people, so the cause effect connection is not there. The problems indigenous communities face is not free money.

Also, UBI isn't a form of welfare as it's not aimed only at the poor and unemployed. It would also, mainly, assist people who are working but are struggling, people between jobs, people trying to improve their circumstances, people wanting to study, etc. Yes, there will be people who drink it away or try to abuse the system but those people would be doing that anyway, finding other ways to do so. The honest hard working majority would benefit.
The last time I checked, the honest hard working is a minority in this country.

And that is exactly the issue. The funding, and not the concept of UBI.
 
Top