Squeegee Beckenheim
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2010
- Messages
- 32,124
I've only skimmed the first page so far, but I want to get my thoughts down before going too far on.
I'm for UBI. I think it's a when, rather than an if, because more and more jobs are being automated and more and more jobs are going to be automated, not to mention things like the loss of the high street as people move shopping online and, indeed, as office work moves into the home, sparked by covid. A majority of those jobs will not be able to be replaced by things like retraining as a coder. So the question really is how much human suffering will the government of the day allow before introducing it?
It's definitely an idea that's picked up over the last several years, and I'm heartened that a country so close to home is trialling it.
As to the question for how it's going to be paid for, there are a few facets to that. The first is that it'll be paid for by taxes, just like benefits currently are. The people on higher incomes will be paying back more in taxes than the £100 a week they get, or whatever the amount will end up being. And I've seen reports that a UBI scheme will actually cost less than the current benefits system because it will eliminate so much red tape and sundry other admin. So much of the expenditure on benefits goes into assessing whether people deserve them - whether that be processing applications, or reviewing what the unemployed are required to do in order to ensure that they're keeping up with their commitments. UBI will make the test for whether someone is entitled or not simply be whether or not they're a citizen. Or perhaps even just whether or not they're a resident.
Over all it should boost the economy. It's a very basic tenet of economics that giving money to the poor stimulates the economy. If you give money to the poor, it gets spent on food and the like - in other words, it goes straight back into the economy.
WRT the question of jobs that people don't want to do, there are again a few facets. The first is that it can mean that the more unpleasant jobs
become higher-paid. Fewer people will want to be cleaners, if they don't need to in order to survive. So cleaning jobs will need to be more attractive, which means they will have to pay more. And people will be able to afford to pay more, because they will have more disposable income.
The second is that it could help boost immigration again (and, despite what the right-wing would like you to believe, immigration is good for the economy). One thing that has been illustrated on multiple fronts over the last year or two is that if you kick immigrants out then natives don't take up the jobs that the immigrants were doing. Immigrants often go to a country specifically to do the jobs that natives don't want to do. So there need not be a labour shortage, if thought is applied.
Thirdly, the lack of need for people to justify receiving money can help end other kinds of exploitation. As the UK benefits system currently stands if you've been claiming benefits for a certain amount of time you can be forced to do "work experience". For example, no matter what your qualifications and experience are, you can be made to go stack shelves at a supermarket. This is instead of looking for work. This is also unpaid work, you only get your benefits, which don't add up to minimum wage. There is always the promise that there may be a paid job at the end of the experience (which usually lasts several months, or maybe even a year), but in practice in the vast majority of cases there is no job because it's more economically efficient for the supermarket to get another labourer for free (maybe even subsidised, it's been a while since I last researched this and I can't remember off the top of my head whether the supermarkets, etc, get a kick-back for using unemployed labour) from the government.
So not only does that exploit the worker, who has to work a full-time job for less than minimum wage or lose the social safety net, but it also takes a job off the market, making it harder for everybody to find work. UBI would kill this practice dead.
And one thing that I don't see very often in this particular part of the argument, is the fact that most people want to work. Even if they have enough money to live - even if they win the lottery - most people still want a regular 9 to 5. They may not want **** jobs but, as above, there should be pressure to make bad jobs better, whether that be through making the pay more appealing, or through changing toxic working environments.
I think it would be a massive shock to the system, and there would definitely be a period of adjustment. But I think that the positives would definitely outweigh any of the negatives by a considerable margin.
I'm for UBI. I think it's a when, rather than an if, because more and more jobs are being automated and more and more jobs are going to be automated, not to mention things like the loss of the high street as people move shopping online and, indeed, as office work moves into the home, sparked by covid. A majority of those jobs will not be able to be replaced by things like retraining as a coder. So the question really is how much human suffering will the government of the day allow before introducing it?
It's definitely an idea that's picked up over the last several years, and I'm heartened that a country so close to home is trialling it.
As to the question for how it's going to be paid for, there are a few facets to that. The first is that it'll be paid for by taxes, just like benefits currently are. The people on higher incomes will be paying back more in taxes than the £100 a week they get, or whatever the amount will end up being. And I've seen reports that a UBI scheme will actually cost less than the current benefits system because it will eliminate so much red tape and sundry other admin. So much of the expenditure on benefits goes into assessing whether people deserve them - whether that be processing applications, or reviewing what the unemployed are required to do in order to ensure that they're keeping up with their commitments. UBI will make the test for whether someone is entitled or not simply be whether or not they're a citizen. Or perhaps even just whether or not they're a resident.
Over all it should boost the economy. It's a very basic tenet of economics that giving money to the poor stimulates the economy. If you give money to the poor, it gets spent on food and the like - in other words, it goes straight back into the economy.
WRT the question of jobs that people don't want to do, there are again a few facets. The first is that it can mean that the more unpleasant jobs
become higher-paid. Fewer people will want to be cleaners, if they don't need to in order to survive. So cleaning jobs will need to be more attractive, which means they will have to pay more. And people will be able to afford to pay more, because they will have more disposable income.
The second is that it could help boost immigration again (and, despite what the right-wing would like you to believe, immigration is good for the economy). One thing that has been illustrated on multiple fronts over the last year or two is that if you kick immigrants out then natives don't take up the jobs that the immigrants were doing. Immigrants often go to a country specifically to do the jobs that natives don't want to do. So there need not be a labour shortage, if thought is applied.
Thirdly, the lack of need for people to justify receiving money can help end other kinds of exploitation. As the UK benefits system currently stands if you've been claiming benefits for a certain amount of time you can be forced to do "work experience". For example, no matter what your qualifications and experience are, you can be made to go stack shelves at a supermarket. This is instead of looking for work. This is also unpaid work, you only get your benefits, which don't add up to minimum wage. There is always the promise that there may be a paid job at the end of the experience (which usually lasts several months, or maybe even a year), but in practice in the vast majority of cases there is no job because it's more economically efficient for the supermarket to get another labourer for free (maybe even subsidised, it's been a while since I last researched this and I can't remember off the top of my head whether the supermarkets, etc, get a kick-back for using unemployed labour) from the government.
So not only does that exploit the worker, who has to work a full-time job for less than minimum wage or lose the social safety net, but it also takes a job off the market, making it harder for everybody to find work. UBI would kill this practice dead.
And one thing that I don't see very often in this particular part of the argument, is the fact that most people want to work. Even if they have enough money to live - even if they win the lottery - most people still want a regular 9 to 5. They may not want **** jobs but, as above, there should be pressure to make bad jobs better, whether that be through making the pay more appealing, or through changing toxic working environments.
I think it would be a massive shock to the system, and there would definitely be a period of adjustment. But I think that the positives would definitely outweigh any of the negatives by a considerable margin.
Are you kidding?
