Politics Stockton’s Basic-Income Experiment Pays Off

Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Register Log in
Socialism! Socialism! Socialism! Socialism! Socialism! Socialism! Socialism! Socialism! Socialism! Socialism! Socialism! Socialism!

barfo
 
barfo said:
Socialism! Socialism! Socialism! Socialism! Socialism! Socialism! Socialism! Socialism! Socialism! Socialism! Socialism! Socialism!

barfo
Click to expand...
yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes yes.
 
Shocking! Giving people extra money makes them more comfortable and happier! :Sly:
 
EL PRESIDENTE said:
Shocking! Giving people extra money makes them more comfortable and happier! :NOTMARIS:
Click to expand...

I guess pulling oneself up by one's bootstraps isn't the best route to happiness after all. If only someone had thought of this sooner!

barfo
 
Question. The article said that the city took donated funds. So this wasnt taxpayer money? Where dod the money come from? I could only skim At work.
 
barfo said:
I guess pulling oneself up by one's bootstraps isn't the best route to happiness after all. If only someone had thought of this sooner!

barfo
Click to expand...

If people cut off their daily $5 Starbucks, they would be infinitely happy!
 
EL PRESIDENTE said:
This was all privately funded, limited in scope (125 participants) and had an expiration date. Just like the real world!
Click to expand...

I mean, that's not a particularly compelling point. The things you brought up is why this was an experiment and not public policy. And the experiment wasn't about the politics of such a move, but rather what actually happens for the people who receive the money. The money wasn't so exorbitant that it unsustainably gave the participants a life of luxury--but even the fairly modest amount took a little pressure off and led to a lot of positive changes, one being higher employment rate among the participants than the control group. Theoretically, that's supposed to be what conservatives want.

The politics of the question are now: do these types of benefits justify spending tax dollars on providing UBI to people, potentially many more people?

So yes, you correctly identified the secret that was hidden in the title of the post!
 
Minstrel said:
The politics of the question are now: do these types of benefits justify spending tax dollars on providing UBI to people, potentially many more people?
Click to expand...

Many more?

Universal means all. So you have to find the point of economic feasibility first, then find a way to fund it.

Trying this out on a population of 125 means fuck all. Especially when the population was preselected (random participants in poor areas).
 
They also knew they were being tracked, which may have altered their spending habits and decision making.
 
EL PRESIDENTE said:
Many more?

Universal means all. So you have to find the point of economic feasibility first, then find a way to fund it.

Trying this out on a population of 125 means fuck all. Especially when the population was preselected (random participants in poor areas).
Click to expand...

Id like to add that i think that when people know its a one time payment and not residual,
I think the thought is to pay debts down or purchase items of need.

if these same people knew they would be getting this money on a consistent basis, their behaviors and spending would change.
For example. If i were to win the lottery and get 50k one lump sum, im gonna keep working, invest the money, etc.

But if i knew i was getting 50k a year for life, im quitting my job.
I think most would do the right thing with a one time stimulus check. I think most will get lazy or not be economically productive with a residual income gifted to them.
And then there is the issue of, where is the money going to come from if this was a universal program for all.
 
Orion Bailey said:
Id like to add that i think that when people know its a one time payment and not residual,
I think the thought is to pay debts down or purchase items of need.

if these same people knew they would be getting this money on a consistent basis, their behaviors and spending would change.
For example. If i were to win the lottery and get 50k one lump sum, im gonna keep working, invest the money, etc.

But if i knew i was getting 50k a year for life, im quitting my job.
I think most would do the right thing with a one time stimulus check. I think most will get lazy or not be economically productive with a residual income gifted to them.
And then there is the issue of, where is the money going to come from if this was a universal program for all.
Click to expand...
There is no data to support this opinion though.

When have you ever said, "you know what, I don't think I need that much money" and gave it back to your boss?

No matter how much money people have they always want more. They always want a bigger TV, newer phone, nicer car, better vacation, etc.

If they aren't receiving enough money to do all of that they will be working. If they are receiving enough money to prevent them from being destitute they'll be even more likely to take risks and more likely to find a place in life that makes them happier, healthier, more productive, and hence more of a credit to society.
 
EL PRESIDENTE said:
Many more?

Universal means all.
Click to expand...

Universal means all. That doesn't mean we'll go straight to UBI. That's extremely unlikely from a political perspective. Much more likely is that this will be scaled up over time, starting with the people who need it most. It being universal should be the end goal. Just as with health care--there was never a chance we'd go from no government-funded health care straight to universal health care. The hope is to keep adding coverage over time with an end goal of universal coverage.

Trying this out on a population of 125 means fuck all.
Click to expand...

It means fuck all about how feasible it is to fund. That, as I said, is not what was being tested. What was being tested is how well it works to change people's lives. You can't build consensus around a program without being able to show evidence that it actually does something more than (as conservatives would say) give poorer people an extra $500 for alcohol and cigarettes. That's not what happened.
 
Phatguysrule said:
There is no data to support this opinion though.

When have you ever said, "you know what, I don't think I need that much money" and gave it back to your boss?

No matter how much money people have they always want more. They always want a bigger TV, newer phone, nicer car, better vacation, etc.

If they aren't receiving enough money to do all of that they will be working. If they are receiving enough money to prevent them from being destitute they'll be even more likely to take risks and more likely to find a place in life that makes them happier, healthier, more productive, and hence more of a credit to society.
Click to expand...

Having worked in a field that put me in 3-8 customers homes a day for over ten years all throughout the nw, i dont find this accurate. I cant tell you how many times was in a persons’ home who just got a nice tv with thier government check, but did nothing and lived like slobs.
Yes ive been in many nice homes with people who respect thier own property and work hard, etc. but it was not a rare occasion to run into slobs who got things for free. Its was on the reg.
 
Orion Bailey said:
Having worked in a field that put me in 3-8 customers homes a day for over ten years all throughout the nw, i dont find this accurate. I cant tell you how many times was in a persons’ home who just got a nice tv with thier government check, but did nothing and lived like slobs.
Yes ive been in many nice homes with people who respect thier own property and work hard, etc. but it was not a rare occasion to run into slobs who got things for free. Its was on the reg.
Click to expand...

upload_2021-3-6_12-54-31.jpeg
 
Phatguysrule said:
No matter how much money people have they always want more. They always want a bigger TV, newer phone, nicer car, better vacation, etc.
Click to expand...

[This is off-topic in that I'm commenting on the rich rather than the poor/middle class]: It is possible to have more money than you can spend. Unfortunately, the people who tend to find themselves in that situation are people who keep acquiring more money anyway because that's their 'thing', but it is entirely possible to say 'fuck it, I've got more than enough now, I'm getting off the greedwagon'.

barfo
 
Orion Bailey said:
Id like to add that i think that when people know its a one time payment and not residual,
I think the thought is to pay debts down or purchase items of need.

if these same people knew they would be getting this money on a consistent basis, their behaviors and spending would change.
For example. If i were to win the lottery and get 50k one lump sum, im gonna keep working, invest the money, etc.

But if i knew i was getting 50k a year for life, im quitting my job.
I think most would do the right thing with a one time stimulus check. I think most will get lazy or not be economically productive with a residual income gifted to them.
And then there is the issue of, where is the money going to come from if this was a universal program for all.
Click to expand...
You can live on $50K/yr.? I can't live on $100K/yr.
 
barfo said:
[This is off-topic in that I'm commenting on the rich rather than the poor/middle class]: It is possible to have more money than you can spend. Unfortunately, the people who tend to find themselves in that situation are people who keep acquiring more money anyway because that's their 'thing', but it is entirely possible to say 'fuck it, I've got more than enough now, I'm getting off the greedwagon'.

barfo
Click to expand...
I can't imagine the upper limit to I have enough money now.
 
Orion Bailey said:
Having worked in a field that put me in 3-8 customers homes a day for over ten years all throughout the nw, i dont find this accurate. I cant tell you how many times was in a persons’ home who just got a nice tv with thier government check, but did nothing and lived like slobs.
Yes ive been in many nice homes with people who respect thier own property and work hard, etc. but it was not a rare occasion to run into slobs who got things for free. Its was on the reg.
Click to expand...
What kind of job puts you in the homes of slobs? Did you work as a welfare case worker?
 
Lanny said:
You can live on $50K/yr.? I can't live on $100K/yr.
Click to expand...

If i had all my own time, hell yeah. That would be 100k between the wife and I. Id be recording bands all day for additional income.
Our vehicles are paid off and all we have is one mortgage payment and utilities.
 
Last edited:
ABM said:
This is a decent article defining UBI, etc.:

https://www.thebalance.com/universal-basic-income-4160668
Click to expand...
Key Takeaways
  • A universal basic income provides everyone with a minimum living wage, whether they are employed or otherwise.
  • It was proposed to address job losses stemming from technological innovation.
  • Many countries, states, and cities are experimenting with pilot program


IMO: I don't support UBI no matter if I had a tech job or not wish to have one again. If you have to perform public service like cleaning a park, street or collecting municipal waste, then I see it's relevance. I grew up with the creed that you have to earn your keep. This is disguised liberal welfare for lazy jackasses who like to get over the system.. Do foreigners receive this too?. If they do, then this country is 100% completely fucked.
 
Minstrel said:
Universal means all. That doesn't mean we'll go straight to UBI. That's extremely unlikely from a political perspective. Much more likely is that this will be scaled up over time, starting with the people who need it most. It being universal should be the end goal. Just as with health care--there was never a chance we'd go from no government-funded health care straight to universal health care. The hope is to keep adding coverage over time with an end goal of universal coverage.



It means fuck all about how feasible it is to fund. That, as I said, is not what was being tested. What was being tested is how well it works to change people's lives. You can't build consensus around a program without being able to show evidence that it actually does something more than (as conservatives would say) give poorer people an extra $500 for alcohol and cigarettes. That's not what happened.
Click to expand...

it really does mean fuckall.
to say what people would do with a residual income is the same they would do with a one time payment, is the issue i see.

just because people took a small one time payment and put it towards thier needs vs wants, doesn't mean their actions would be the same if they new that money was coming i steadily and permanently.
This sample screams inaccurate predictions to me based on a foundational flaw of what did happen vs what is proposed to happen regarding how money is dispersed, how much and how often.
Lets put it a other way.

if i knew i had $20k to spend on a car one time, im buying the most cost effective, efficient vehicle i can.
If i know i have $20k to spend a month for the rest of my life, on a vehicle, im buying gas guzzlers, not taking care of them, running them into the ground,etc.

I believe when people know they can replace something for free, they care for that product less. They waste more. Etc.


so yeah, my opinion is this study means fuck all in all aspects.
 
Orion Bailey said:
If i had all my own time, hell yeah. Thad would be 100k between the wife and I. Id be recording bands all day for additional income.
Our vehicles are paid off and all we have is one mortgage payment and utilities.
Click to expand...
Oh, I thought you meant a combined income of $50K.
 
Orion Bailey said:
Comcast installer.
And i can say straight up. Kelso/longview has some of the worst slobs in the nw.
Click to expand...
One of my best friends did all his professional work there as an electrical engineer and head of all the line crews.
He had special permission to enter the red zone and used it to fish and hunt. He now does his hunting with a bow and arrow.
He use to go fishing seven days a week with five of those days being after work. So he's working his way up this river, comes to private property and asks for permission to fish on the property. He was turned down in a blunt and rude way. So, one day this guy comes into his office seeking a permit to run power across the river to his work shed. My buddy says "I'll get right on that." the request remained on the bottom of Dave's in basket for years. Moral, be polite to everyone because you never know.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

SlyPokerDog
The Internet is a surveillance state
Replies
5
Views
517
GoldStandard
G
SlyPokerDog
Politics The Golden Age of Rich People Not Paying Their Taxes
Replies
5
Views
395
Lanny
Lanny
SlyPokerDog
OT New meth and Portland
Replies
11
Views
2K
Natebishop3
Natebishop3
maxiep
The Trouble With Big Government
Replies
4
Views
621
MARIS61
MARIS61
SlyPokerDog
OT Some Kind of Heaven
Replies
9
Views
590
Lanny
Lanny

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)
Back
Top