UBI works. They experimented with it in Canada in the 70s, but didn't have the funds to analyze the data. Once they did (decades later) they found out that it worked.
More recently when they tried again, Canadian conservatives shut it down less than half way and simply declared (without evidence) that it does not work.
Conservatives are a bane on this planet.
Typical for the conservatives here
Every UBI study shows how successful the idea is, but it's ultimately a bad system, because all it will ever be is another form of Capitalism. What makes UBI successful is that people no longer have to struggle (as much) to pay rent and feed themselves while pursuing more worthy endeavors. If you read between the lines of every UBI success story, you find that money is just a middle man, an unnecessary toll booth between people and progress.
The real solution here is to guarantee a standard of living to people that includes housing, food, education and healthcare, without involving the exchange of money at all, because as long as these things are commodified, Capitalism will always find a way to provide as little of them as possible while charging as much as possible for them.
I think the arena that a healthy capitalism excels at, is the creation and distribution of luxuries. Capitalism should solely be used for that aspect in a economic system, but society must provide all necessities by default. This would allow us to benefit from the good parts of capitalism, while preventing it from metastasizing into a cancer.
"Healthy capitalism" is an oxymoron. It's like saying "healthy cancer." Capitalism has only existed for a few hundred years, like 2 or 3, but people have been making art and luxuries for tens of thousands of years.
Cancer is what happens when cells no longer have a mechanism to keep them from unchecked multiplication. We all need cells, but only in a effective quantity. The same applies to the assorted parts that make up capitalism.
I think that rejecting all of capitalism is a bad idea. Instead, the issues with capitalism and other systems should be identified, then have a designed arrangement to prevent those problems from developing.
I think the problem is that there are finite resources, so under any kind of UBI like system you still need a way to track and limit the number of resources one person can recieve to ensure everyone gets a fair share, the most convenient way is some kind of monthly allotment of tokens which are inevitably money.
I think the Universal Ranked Income concept that I outlined elsewhere in the thread would address this. I think most people would find generic goods to be very boring, thus they would be compelled to obtain money to buy something a bit more fancy. This would let us leverage the stuff capitalism is good at, namely the creation and distribution of products. So long as capitalism is never allowed to dictate a person's wellbeing, I think it can be used to optimize society's expenditure on resources.
And this is what a safe net (family, contacts, status, decent stable society, large amount of savings or inheritance…) do on all those that does not have to survive till the next month, once you give minimum grants of decent existence humans can explore beyond the basics of survivability…
And also prevents the exploitation by those who predates on people in desperate situation.
And we have enjough resources to have it also. All mega projects are done in the past.
The only reason the rich cunts try to tell us you 'can't just GIVE people free money' is because they want all the free money for themselves.
Very interesting. Some actual data to go with all the political bluster surrounding the idea of a Universal Basic Income.
There’s been data for years, maybe over a decade now. It’s just on the list of subjects the rich don’t want the poors talking about so they bury it.
There is a lot of data out there in the US, they're trying it in a lot of places.
I think one way to implement UBI, would be what I call a "Universal Ranked Income". Everyone gets universal benefits - shelter, utilities, food, transport, gasoline, healthcare, all of this for free. However, the items and services are very generic. This is where capitalism steps in: money is used for buying luxuries, such as a fast car, physical books, a nicer home, fancy takeout, and so forth. Capitalism is terrific for catering to an individual's tastes, but is horrible at ensuring wellbeing. Thus, the separation of necessity from luxury.
This permits people to strike or protest when they feel like it, since their survival isn't at stake. They also can wait for suitable job opportunities, which would do much to punish abusive corporations. The amount of income a person gets is based on their job rank, with students getting an amount based on their grades, while higher tier workers get fixed incomes each year, regardless of experience or location.
Absolute floors and ceilings on wealth and income can also be implemented. That would prevent the accumulation of too much wealth by individuals and corporations. Corporations won't be able to control the wages of their employees, which would also prevent inflation - people can't be paid too much or too little for working, so pricing of goods will have be done according to what income bracket a seller wants to reach.
I can see that a lot of thought went into this and while I agree with many points, I also have to point out that this much control over people's lives feels restrictive and authoritarian. Universal Basic Resources vs Universal Basic Income, I do lean towards UBR more, but not the rest of the government restriction. Housing, water, food, healthcare, and public transport are all we need to implement imo.
My suggestions, which I believe are much simpler, are co-op housing, potable tap water, ration cards, and free public transport at the level of the Netherlands. Healthcare, a lot of countries have sorted out so I don't think I'll comment much on - except to mention that I don't believe weight reduction surgery needs to be free.
What parts are authoritarian? Aside from caps on excessive wealth and limitations on leadership, I don't see much limiting an individual's autonomy. As it is, most people are coerced into bad working conditions in order to live, which is a quite a shackle on personal liberty.
Assigning ranks based of job role, setting hard limits to work hours, income based on academic performance, pre-set food, bike, car, even cutlery and bedding - all of these things seem to reduce individuality and personal autonomy. It's reminiscent of armies. I understand that there is a whole economy and this is only the starting point, but I would suggest a UBI on top of the UBR so the individual can choose how much to spend on bedding, what kind of cutlery they want, etc. I think it would be too wasteful, time-consuming, and impractical for a government to micromanage its citizens' lives to such extents.
Edit: Forgot to mention but this system would also create a lot of waste. For example, what am I supposed to do with the cutlery I was given as a starter once I want to buy my own? Same with bedding, bike, and I think worst offender being the kei car. Not only would granting everyone a kei car increase car centrism and traffic density, it would be very wasteful because of how many resources go into making a car.
Thing is, you can democratize even the free stuff. For example, in order to sell luxury models of dishwasher on the market, a company has to offer a basic free model. People from there can select one of the free models on offer from however many companies, or opt to spend money to get something with more features.
In any case, an individual has to SPEND money to get education in a purely capitalist system. I think that getting money for luxuries from having good grades is much less authoritarian. A student can remain a student as long as they wish, in whatever field they are specializing in. Whereas, in our current capitalism, the vast majority of students are obligated to get a job, even while studying, otherwise they won't get to eat.
Hard limits on work hours are principally a limit on workplace abuse. In Japan, you have to work overtime for free, else you are fired. While there are undoubtedly workaholics that an hour restriction would displease, I think most people would like to have free time to be human, not cogs. Also, workhour limitations means an employer has to hire a larger amount of workers, spreading out workloads more evenly. This actually improves productivity and resilience. For example, pregnancy leave won't harm the workplace as much, since there are extra people to pick up the slack.
Yeah I'll agree with the other commenters, you came up with some good and very detailed ideas, but they'll need some honing and fine-tuning to the reality on the ground. Maybe think about joining a political party? At the local level, you can get quickly connected with the right kind of people you can bounce your ideas off of.
That is difficult for me. I am autistic, and more importantly, I was raised in a rural area without people. I am not exactly sure how socialization works, and certainly can't afford "third place" activities. Still, I might be able to manage it in a couple years. If America enters a civil war, I may be able to find a steady job and like-minded people to discuss this stuff with.
In any case, you are very much correct that the concepts will need refinement and trial. I think if people were to experiment with economic models, a good place might be an EVE Online style MMO - several shards, each running on a different economic structure. After a year, those shards can be linked together into a single server, then we watch which economic faction has the most population the year after. That could be a relatively safe way to observe economics.
So.. Umm, where is the actual research paper? I could not find any links to an actual study anywhere on the project site?
There are two kinds of peer reviewed research I like. 1. The amazing wild nobody ever expected it sort of results that upset multiple fields of research. And 2. The gradual, incremental improvements of what we already thought, but now with even better data. The former is uncommon and exciting; the latter merely extends the sphere of knowledge in expected ways. This clearly falls into category #2, so Yay!
I understand how this works in small groups, the price of bread isn't going to go up if only a few people are richer.
I do wonder how this works for everyone.
I'm all for a more equal society, but I'm just not sure about UBI having the desired effect
If you want to switch a whole nation to UBI you'd probably want some market rules extra as well, to smooth over the transition period.
Why don't we have fixed prices for absolute essentials right now? There no unmanageable reason any farmer should earn any less over it, and we don't really want unchecked capitalism governing our prices of bread/milk/eggs/whatever your essentials are.
The big thing about ubi is it does not require the bureaucracy around applying for it and further its there when you need it right away. Lose a job, reitire, become disabled ; you still have income coming in. You working a good job and you will be paying as much or more in taxes than its making you. One thing I encounter is folks who think this will be extra money for everyone but it really only become significant the less well you are doing. So if its iffy that your job can meet rent the ubi saves your bacon, you lookin to buy a vacation place and its not really doing much for you. In some ways it would be like social security for all.
I buy a loaf of bread every week, you buy a loaf of bread every week. We get ubi. Do we buy 2 loaves of bread every week with the extra income? I hear this every once in a while and don't understand what makes the price go up.
For housing I can see it, because so many are going without right now or renting and demand will climb with extra buying power. In my eyes that just means we need more built, and a higher price with proportionally less impact might encourage that building
As income inequality keeps climbing, the current system does much worse, with most of the buying power incentivising production of what only the wealthy can afford. Taking some of their buying power and giving purchasing agency to those who don't have it would incentivise production of things they would want instead. Vote with your wallet but the vote is more fair
Well the baker, knowing that everyone has twice as much money, puts his prices up because he knows the market can bear it. That's the way I reason it. Same with the landlord.
The only way I see that not happening is if the gov't literally fixes the prices of certain goods, which is already half way to a planned economy.
Or the government itself enters the food/housing market and competes against private firms with cheaper alternatives, forcing the firms to reduce their prices.
I wish we could have a society where rising prices just because you can was frowned upon by everyone
One thing I often see skipped on in research like this is how the people that can't manage their money are dealt with. Imagine i get UBI so i should be able to pay for groceries and rent, but I'm also an addict and spent all my money on drugs. This will still lead me to homelessness and starvation. I'm not saying this is a valid reason to not implement a UBI, I would even say it's not a relevant argument for or against UBi. But groups like these will still exist and will still need help. Again, i feel like research like this only looks at the impact on stable people with a healthy mind. Will people still be willing to help out strangers if they expect the government pays for their rent and food? Or will the gap between the 'smart people' with normal lives and the 'stupid people' with broken lives only get bigger?
Everyone gets a chance. Just because not everyone uses it correctly doesn't validate the current standard of no one getting a chance.
"Well, we could build a bridge but someone might walk across it to commit crime." Is not a valid reason to cancel the bridge, it's an aimless aside with no bearing on the conversation about how the bridge will help most people.