Universal Income - Freedom Dividends

[marko]

I wonder how many parents, if they had the means, would provide a UBI for their adult children? .

They're called trust fund kids. Half of my high school mates were in that category. Sort of the same thing as a UBI; just pays a lot more.

Some went on to useful lives. Didn't end well for many of them; half were already dead before 40 from any number of over-indulgences.

 

[flintnational]

They're called trust fund kids. Half of my high school mates were in that category. Sort of the same thing as a UBI; just pays a lot more.

Some went on to useful lives. Didn't end well for many of them; half were already dead before 40 from any number of over-indulgences.

I suspect guaranteed cash would ruin the lives of a lot of 18 yo. Most of us instinctively know this. Yet here we are debating a national program that would do exactly that.

 

[samclem]

I suspect guaranteed cash would ruin the lives of a lot of 18 yo. Most of us instinctively know this. Yet here we are debating a national program that would do exactly that.

I think the impact would begin before age 18. Every teenager would know their parents are receiving $1000 per month on their behalf. "Mom, where's my money?" And, to a moody, impetuous 16 year old, a $1000/month payday will seem to be a darn good reason to take the legal steps needed to be declared an emancipated minor. With helpful free legal services available, no sweat. UBI would not be the first government program that had a strong "impact" on family structures/relationships.


The harsh reality of needing to get a job to support yourself is perhaps the most important remaining rite of passage in becoming an adult. We have done much to delay this in recent decades, but to eliminate it entirely would be a big step farther down the road.

 

[dd564]

A fair number of questionable conclusions being drawn and I'm to out-numbered on this forum to argue all of them, (and I hardly feel this passionate about it to continue arguing each one of these conclusions that are being made, so I'm going to abstain from that).

Also, several conclusions are being made on an incorrect assumption of how it would work. For every person arguing their point against it with the correct understanding of how it would work, there is at least one or two who mildly misunderstanding it and drawing further conclusions.

On a forum such as this, it's simply too hard to align everyone to the same discussion points to be effective.

So with that said, I will say that UBI as I would support it would not be eligible to anyone under 18. (Don't need people having babies to receive an extra $1,000. This would also take away the issue of 16 year olds who are asking their parents for their $1,000 or trying to separate themselves to gain it).

 

[marko]

Also, several conclusions are being made on an incorrect assumption of how it would work. For every person arguing their point against it with the correct understanding of how it would work, there is at least one or two who mildly misunderstanding it and drawing further conclusions.

On a forum such as this, it's simply too hard to align everyone to the same discussion points to be effective.

Welcome to this forum!
Check out "When to take SS" or "Should I pay off my mortgage?"! among others if you want to see incorrect assumptions, poor understanding of how things work and discussion points going in more directions than you can imagine.

Having said that, you have opened with a provocative and lively discussion. Kudos.

 

[Independent]

So with that said, I will say that UBI as I would support it would not be eligible to anyone under 18. (Don't need people having babies to receive an extra $1,000. This would also take away the issue of 16 year olds who are asking their parents for their $1,000 or trying to separate themselves to gain it).

One of the design issues of a UBI is benefits for children.

You would support a UBI that pays $1,000/month to a single adult, and $1,000/month to a single parent with two kids. Other people would only support a UBI if the three person family had a bigger benefit than the single person.

If I pick a number that that I'd consider "enough" to buy the necessities for a child, that number would probably look like a profit opportunity to a 17 year old, who is a potential mother, who has never bought the necessities.

 

[kite_rider]

The harsh reality of needing to get a job to support yourself is perhaps the most important remaining rite of passage in becoming an adult. We have done much to delay this in recent decades, but to eliminate it entirely would be a big step farther down the road.

I couldn't agree more with this part of the statement; but strongly disagree that a $1,000 per month payment will motivate society to shift to a life of excess and debauchery. If a person tries to live this way off $1,000 per month, they've got bigger issues than UBI.

Sadly, people who purse a life of addiction do not do so because of savvy financial planning.

The other theme that seems to come up on this thread seems to imply that this idea is communist or socialist or some other "ist" and therefore bad. But many of these same people will scream bloody murder if anyone threatens *their* Social Security or Medicare.. I find that ironic..

 

[karen1972]

Its an interesting experiment if nothing else and one that certainly would need a universal health care component in order to be feasible. I'd like to see a true experiment done, starting with some token number (maybe $1K/pp/yr, starting at $12k I think skews everything) and slowly increasing it as you decrease govt programs to see if you could find an equilibrium. At some point things like even minimum wage could change.

I know automation was considered a driving factor but there are certainly other options such as moving to 32 hr work weeks as "full time" so you would need more employees to maintain same productivity and everyone would end up with more free time. I'd see more job sharing as the norm but youd' have to "untie" the must work 40 to get benefits...ie where universal health care, etc comes into play.

 

[MichaelB]

A fair number of questionable conclusions being drawn and I'm to out-numbered on this forum to argue all of them, (and I hardly feel this passionate about it to continue arguing each one of these conclusions that are being made, so I'm going to abstain from that).
./..
So with that said, I will say that UBI as I would support it would not be eligible to anyone under 18. (Don't need people having babies to receive an extra $1,000. This would also take away the issue of 16 year olds who are asking their parents for their $1,000 or trying to separate themselves to gain it).

Don’t give up, you’ve done well so far.

Ensuring a minimum standard of living is an admirable objective. I’d rather pursue policies that enable people to participate in and contribute to economic activity. If there is an excess of low income jobs, UBI might be a way to t mporarily summplement incomes. The critical weakness I see is it doesn’t lead to any change in the economy that would create more or better jobs. It perpetuates the lack of economic opportunity.

 

[GrayHare]

I would expect UBI to increase prices of low cost items purchased by people who rely on UBI, in much the same way tuition rose when students gained access to more loans. Dollar stores would become 2-Dollar stores, etc.

 

[flintnational]

I tend to be an optimist about the future. So far, technologies benefits to society have far outweighed its costs. I suspect that will continue. Maybe AI will replace most jobs. Okay, that might also mean we have an abundances of goods and services that cost close to zero. Then UBI and other programs are really irrelevant. IOW, you might own a 3D printer that supplies all of your human wants and needs. Who cares whether I have UBI in this world.

I would prefer that we see how the future develops before we make broad changes to society that may or may not address a problem that may or may not arise.

 

[Sojourner]

The critical weakness I see is it doesn’t lead to any change in the economy that would create more or better jobs. It perpetuates the lack of economic opportunity.

This objection to UBI seems to ignore the fact that AI-driven automation will, over the next several decades, displace hundreds of millions of blue collar jobs and a substantial percentage of white collar jobs. It won't only be jobs like truck drivers, fast food workers, and retail sales clerks that are completely eliminated. Also gone will be radiologists, many (if not most) types of surgeons, call center workers, accountants, paralegals, cashiers, insurance claims processors... and the list goes on and on. Point being, the "automation economy" that we're approaching pretty rapidly simply won't have enough jobs to provide anywhere near full employment for people, because virtually every job requiring a human mind will be filled by the top 1% (or 5%, or 10%?) of the smartest, wisest, most highly educated members of the population. Every single job requiring simple skills that are fairly repetitive in nature will be fully automated, as will many jobs that require certain higher levels of skills, training, and expertise (e.g., radiology and surgery, as previously mentioned).

So, given all that, how do the 90% (or 95%, or 99%) of the population who are likely to be unemployed—or at the very least, underemployed—pay for basic living expenses, when they lack any identifiable skills that would make them valuable enough to warrant a salary versus AI-driven automation systems that don't need health care, make far fewer mistakes, and work 24 hours a day without ever calling in sick or taking vacations?

 

[Independent]

I would expect UBI to increase prices of low cost items purchased by people who rely on UBI, in much the same way tuition rose when students gained access to more loans. Dollar stores would become 2-Dollar stores, etc.

I think that effect would depend on the good. Suppose low income people get more money and want to replace some of the beans in their diets with chicken. It seems that the infrastructure for putting chicken in grocery stores would ramp up to meet the demand within a couple years. Not a lot of long term price impact.

OTOH, it they decide to spend more on rent, the housing stock doesn't respond as quickly. Prices are more likely to go up there.

Also, there should be a reverse effect at the upper end. Presumably the additional taxes to fund the UBI would be more than the UBI benefit for some higher income people. They would have less disposable income. That should impact the demand and possibly prices for goods that higher income people buy.

 

[samclem]

This objection to UBI seems to ignore the fact that AI-driven automation will, over the next several decades, displace hundreds of millions of blue collar jobs and a substantial percentage of white collar jobs. . . .
So, given all that, how do the 90% (or 95%, or 99%) of the population who are likely to be unemployed—or at the very least, underemployed—pay for basic living expenses, when they lack any identifiable skills that would make them valuable enough to warrant a salary versus AI-driven automation systems that don't need health care, make far fewer mistakes, and work 24 hours a day without ever calling in sick or taking vacations?

-One approach that has been proposed is the "negative income tax", an EITC-on-steroids that would supplement income for lower-income workers, but would still be based on what they earn. To pay for it, taxes on >somebody< would have to be quite high. But it has the advantage of incentivizing work, and retaining free-market approaches to labor/talent allocation. IMO, this is far better than a government make-work scheme or a UBI.

- If the future you are envisioning comes to pass, an obvious bit of advice to anyone is to do whatever you can to buy a piece of this coming means of producing wealth. Human labor will be worth less, capital will be worth relatively more ( Pinketty's treatise, but much moreso).

-- And maybe this leads us to what government could do instead of giving "money for nothing." No dough, but vouchers to be used for the purchase of special shares in companies. The recipient chooses the companies, the vouchers are funded by tax receipts. Distribute based on income, more vouchers to those who earn less, tapering off to zero. The special shares cannot be sold within 10 years (but they can be traded for other "special shares"). So, the vouchers can't be easily converted to groceries, chrome rims, etc. This gives even the lowest folks on the economic ladder a share in the growing prosperity brought by AI. What will they do all day? Manage their investments. It should work fine, most people apparently believe they are smarter than the market, this will put that characteristic to work. Give 'em an ownership stake in the future and something to keep 'em occupied. If the future is as amazing as the futurists predict, these folks will be rolling in cap appreciation or dividends in a decade. The special shares can only be converted to government securities that provide a lifetime income. Selling that cash stream is illegal.

 

[Bigdawg]

When I think of UBI I think about the added benifits military members receive when they add dependants(get married). I have read articles about the average age of marriage for males and females. Usually somewhere in the mid 20's leaning toward later 20's. Not in the military. Aprox 80% of military members are on their first enlistment or recently commissioned. That means that aprox 80% of enlisted are on average 18-22 years old. Officers are 21-25. Not as blatant on the officer side but on the enlsited side the vast majority of these first term members get married. Many times to a young partner. I saw far too many 18-19 year old males getting married to 17-18 year old young ladies with very little life skills. Mostly ended in divorce and child care payments. The military members jumped on the marriage bandwagon to get the extra $. My fairly squared away DS even talked to me about setting up an arranged marriage to a fellow service member. Now that he is 26 and heading to officer canidate school he laughs at himself when I bring it up. Any senior military member will tell you that the financial draw of the extra cash for these young members is not a good thing.

 

[samclem]

Any senior military member will tell you that the financial draw of the extra cash for these young members is not a good thing.

I did not supervise a lot of junior folks, but I am not aware of any case where someone got married for the extra dough. Not to say it never happens, but the additional BAS/housing was just too small to make it worth it. I have heard of folks getting married to escape the dorms, but that's a little different.


I do know that in many cases the steady pay and solid benefits a military member earned allowed them to get married and have kids when they otherwise would have waited. And, I >know< these same factors made them relatively attractive "spouses-to-be" to local non-military folks. Heck, it's probably the only reason I got any dates at all!

 

[MichaelB]

So, given all that, how do the 90% (or 95%, or 99%) of the population who are likely to be unemployed—or at the very least, underemployed—pay for basic living expenses, when they lack any identifiable skills that would make them valuable enough to warrant a salary versus AI-driven automation systems that don't need health care, make far fewer mistakes, and work 24 hours a day without ever calling in sick or taking vacations?

This is like the Great Depression of 1929. Our society is bankrupt and the economy has collapsed.

The economy as we know it cannot function if 75% of the work force is idle and only 25% produces everything in a highly automated system. As the workers leave the work force aggregate demand slows, then shrinks, and production falls. We would turn into a less developed economy and the standard of living would fall for everyone. There would not be enough total wealth generated to afford the UBI we are discussing.

This is similar to the difference between a less developed economy, such as Peru or Thailand, and an advanced economy, such as Germany or Canada. No amount of UBI will enable Thailand to increase its standard of living for everyone to the level of Switzerland. The only way to accomplish that is to get more people into the work force and make them more productive.

 

[Music Lover]

Hopefully my answer isn't too political.

If millions jobs will be lost to AI as everyone is claiming, then why not stop importing new people to the country in order to protect the remaining jobs for as long as possible. Then let some other countries be the UBI guinea pig and learn from their mistakes. Then, if UBI is required you know what works and what doesn't.