In trials, it has consistently boosted productivity. More people need it in order to be productive than the amount that choose to be less productive once they won't die from not being productive.

Also in trials, it has not costed more than current social programs in those areas. Clearing redundancies and red tape accounted for enough cost cuts to make UBI overall cost a similar amount or less than what all the various programs with all their various overhead costed all added together.

I want UBI so all the lazy motherfuckers who don't want to work get out of the fucking way. Sit at home in front of your TVs cramming doritos down your gullet all day for all I care, just as long as you aren't half passing whatever job you're doing and creating problems for me.

Studies in motivational theory have been around for years which generally agree that at a very basic level people need security first, not necessarily to motivate but to be in a position to be motivated. Repeatedly pay has been proven to be a poor motivator over time. By removing the basic insecurity that people face, you give them a chance to focus on actual motivating factors like job satisfaction, self-worth and realisation.

The sad thing about UBI in places like the US is they further systematic change needs to happen prior to UBI being implemented.

If you have UBI added on to our current capitalist hellscape (since UBI rates will be publicly known) landlords and corporations will just hike prices to make life cost just as much as UBI—therefore forcing people to work for any scrap above that. So essentially UBI will be fed back into corporations/the elite, who will also continue to make profit on the labor the lower class does to afford anything above basic necessities.

UBI on it's own is not a problem for me. Where I take issue is when politicians say "we'll give you cash instead of these social safety net programs". I think you have to have a mix of UBI and social safety net programs. It's all about raising the floor of the lowest living conditions we'll allow and right now, in America at least, we have too many rich people and too many poor people. A UBI of $1000/month doesn't help a person stuck in an ICU for months at a time and will just discharge to a SNF/LTAC facility.

I've always wanted UBI to be a thing but after a discussion with my brother I'm second guessing it. His argument is that corporations will just increase their prices and not much would change.

He suggested that instead, we use the money that we would use for UBI to guarantee that EVERYONE'S basic needs are met. Housing, food, healthcare, etc..

I know it's easier said than done but I'm just worried that billionaires will fuck up UBI like they fuck up everything else.

All you people thinking prices will just go up have already been poisoned by billionaire propaganda.

It's not

• Nobby Nomoney £0 > £10k a year

• Sammy Scrapesby £20k > £30k a year

• Maddie Medianearner £38k > £48k a year

• Billy Billionaire £1m > £1.01m a year

The median earners will have tax adjusted so they earn about the same. The lower earners will get more. The high earners will get less. You'll have pretty much the same amount of money sloshing around the system, it'll just be in the hands of the people who need it.

• Nobby Nomoney £0 > £10k a year

• Sammy Scrapesby £20k > £27k a year

• Maddie Medianearner £38k > £38k a year

• Billy Billionaire £1m > £700k a year

Guess which of those doesn't want this to happen.

If they need a purpose, they'll find it much easier when they don't have to worry about basic fuckin' survival.

Yeah, it is contradictory.

I'm gonna spin an anecdote here.

My main job for the first twenty years of my adult life was as a nurse's assistant.

It wore out my body early, and I've been disabled because of that almost as long .

I got paid shit for doing it. Many of my coworkers were shit because of the bad pay, but it was the still the best job they could get, so the job tended to be split unevenly between people that were willing to bust their ass taking care of other people, and a minority that shouldn't have been allowed anywhere near a patient for one reason or another.

UBI? I would have still shown up. I would have done the job with joy in my heart. I wood have been happier because I would have been able to take breaks between patient deaths to grieve. I would have been able to leave shitty businesses sooner and fight to have them changed when they made choices against patient interests instead of being a disposable helper monkey that nobody would listen to.

It's true that I would not have put up with bullshit idiots in administration. I would not have worn myself into a nub just to barely make enough to survive and then still need side jobs.

With UBI I could have done more, better, and not have had to destroy myself in the process. It would have been a reason to work that job. It would have meant the freedom to do the job better because I wouldn't have been forced to work to survive when I was blatantly and obviously unable to give my best.

And, even if UBI was the only money I got, I would have at least done the job part time because it was my purpose in life. I made helping people my purpose, no matter what it cost me. Why the fuck wouldn't I have done the same when I didn't have to eat shit to do it?

Ignoring their ideas entirely, it's incredibly simple. There are two options.

1. No ubi. Eventually AI automates all jobs, the 1% becomes virtually omnipotent, and everyone else dies.

2. Ubi. Some of the profits earned by companies are funneled into the ubi system. As such, everyone has income. The economy booms, everyone thrives, and we reach post scarcity.

I think what they're trying to say is nobody will want to work shit jobs for next to no pay.

I don't see how that's a bad thing except for employers. If the job is worth doing, the money should be worth it too. People shouldn't be forced to do shitty/dangerous jobs just to survive.

My issue with it is that you haven’t run trials with people min-maxing how to squeeze people for their UBI checks. As a start, just raising rent until it eats all the UBI

There's no contradiction when you consider most people consider most other people to be childish idiots who can't be trusted to decide what's best for themselves and to pursue their own self-actualization (unlike "me" of course).

UBI is not a matter of "if", it's of "when".

With automation and the fuckin AI, companies can do more and more with less and less people.

The concept of unemployement will be alien as well.

I dislike UBI but not because I'm not for a basic income, I just think Means Testing would be better. I've said this before but now after being the runner-up in my state for debating on this topic I feel more confident talking about it. Ultimately there are many ways of implementing fiscal redistribution but means testing is substantially cheaper than a full UBI (especially in countries with higher populations, e.g. US), while also providing social utility and enabling recipients of the basic income to have more resources. Not only is MT better from this standpoint but a UBI can also worsen inflation by increasing the dollar's velocity (1 dollar changes hands more). I won't deny that most people could use money, especially right now, but a UBI is not the best approach in my mind because of these reasons. Of course I am still in highschool, am not an economics expert, and MT was the plan that we ran in tournament so I'm a bit biased.

ETA: This is all keeping in mind the current political and economic climate of the United States, where realistically neither of these plans will pass but I believe MT has more merit to being passed compared to UBI. If you'd like any sources on what I've said I'd be happy to share!