A good article on the results of an experiment a city ran with universal basic income. Well worth reading if you have any interest in UBI, either as a skeptic or an enthusiast. https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/03/stocktons-basic-income-experiment-pays-off/618174/
Socialism! Socialism! Socialism! Socialism! Socialism! Socialism! Socialism! Socialism! Socialism! Socialism! Socialism! Socialism! barfo
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.
This is a decent article defining UBI, etc.: https://www.thebalance.com/universal-basic-income-4160668
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.
This was all privately funded, limited in scope (125 participants) and had an expiration date. Just like the real world!
You could do this for every American and it would cost less per year than quantitative easing. Except then real people would be getting the benefits of the money rather than just corporations.. .
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!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
[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
