Universal Income.

I think Lion King's argument is that if the UBI is enough to live on with any degree of comfort, some people may be just fine living on that alone. Kind of the mythical welfare mother thing.

But there may be some truth to that.

Some people working two part time fast food jobs (or some other job that everyone hates) may decide they would rather not do that and only work one. And the person who is working just one of those jobs for a little extra family income may decide they no longer need to do that and stay home instead.

I don't think either of those cases are necessarily bad things, but they would effectively shrink the available workforce and thus reduce demand for those jobs. Which means the wages for those jobs would need to go up to make them more attractive. Consequently the price of those products/services would go up.

Bot another thing could happen:

Those low level fast food and retail jobs could go back to being filled by high school kids for the evening shifts. So you add teenagers back into the workforce because they are no longer competing with adults for crappy jobs.

Of course, this is all speculation.
 
TomB said:
I think Lion King's argument is that if the UBI is enough to live on with any degree of comfort, some people may be just fine living on that alone. Kind of the mythical welfare mother thing.

But there may be some truth to that.

Some people working two part time fast food jobs (or some other job that everyone hates) may decide they would rather not do that and only work one. And the person who is working just one of those jobs for a little extra family income may decide they no longer need to do that and stay home instead.

I don't think either of those cases are necessarily bad things, but they would effectively shrink the available workforce and thus reduce demand for those jobs. Which means the wages for those jobs would need to go up to make them more attractive. Consequently the price of those products/services would go up.
Bot another thing could happen:

Those low level fast food and retail jobs could go back to being filled by high school kids for the evening shifts. So you add teenagers back into the workforce because they are no longer competing with adults for crappy jobs.

Of course, this is all speculation.
Click to expand...

But we see that doesn’t always happen in the real world. In the UK we have a problem with attracting care workers, yet the wages for those jobs hasn’t gone up, they are still very bad paying jobs.
 
TomB said:
I don't think either of those cases are necessarily bad things, but they would effectively shrink the available workforce and thus reduce demand for those jobs. Which means the wages for those jobs would need to go up to make them more attractive. Consequently the price of those products/services would go up.
Click to expand...
Couldn't it also mean, instead, that profit/CEO etc incomes go down?
 
TomB said:
I think Lion King's argument is that if the UBI is enough to live on with any degree of comfort, some people may be just fine living on that alone. Kind of the mythical welfare mother thing.

But there may be some truth to that.

Some people working two part time fast food jobs (or some other job that everyone hates) may decide they would rather not do that and only work one. And the person who is working just one of those jobs for a little extra family income may decide they no longer need to do that and stay home instead.

I don't think either of those cases are necessarily bad things, but they would effectively shrink the available workforce and thus reduce demand for those jobs. Which means the wages for those jobs would need to go up to make them more attractive. Consequently the price of those products/services would go up.

Bot another thing could happen:

Those low level fast food and retail jobs could go back to being filled by high school kids for the evening shifts. So you add teenagers back into the workforce because they are no longer competing with adults for crappy jobs.

Of course, this is all speculation.
Click to expand...

I think this scenario has played out in real time with the economic stimulus and expanded unemployment. Many of those workers did not want to return to their jobs and wages were increased to make them more attractive. Many companies also began to increase wages at higher level positions to make them more attractive unemployment began to drop.

I don’t think UBI can ever be at a level that you can live off of it alone for an extended period of time. But as an economic boost, like as spare money to keep the economy moving, I think it could be very beneficial. Lots of people spending money regularly creates a lot of opportunity.
 
Belz... said:
Once again your "fix" doesn't really fix or explain anything. I don't know why you're so stuck with using them.

But even with your fix, if we're talking about the same thing then you were in error when you said we weren't.
Click to expand...
Why are you being so intransigent?

The choices are either include UBI as taxable income and have lower tax scales or exclude UBI from your taxable income and have higher tax scales.

Is this concept really so way over your head difficult for you?
 
psionl0 said:
Why are you being so intransigent?
Click to expand...

I got to give it to you, you have some balls. You came in after my question was answered to my satisfaction, then started a quibble about a pointless distinction, and when I tell you that we're both talking about the same thing anyway, you flippantly use one of your patented and useless "ftfy" responses. And when called on it, suddenly you act as if I'm the one being unreasonable!

That takes nerves.
 
Belz... said:
I got to give it to you, you have some balls. You came in after my question was answered to my satisfaction, then started a quibble about a pointless distinction, and when I tell you that we're both talking about the same thing anyway, you flippantly use one of your patented and useless "ftfy" responses. And when called on it, suddenly you act as if I'm the one being unreasonable!

That takes nerves.
Click to expand...
I take this as a yes, the concept is too difficult for you.
 
Darat said:
But we see that doesn’t always happen in the real world. In the UK we have a problem with attracting care workers, yet the wages for those jobs hasn’t gone up, they are still very bad paying jobs.
Click to expand...

That's going to depend on the other side of the equation. Who pays for caregiver service and how much are they willing and able to pay?

If I'm a contractor, I can't pay my employees wages higher than what my clients are willing to pay for the work.
 
Elaedith said:
An experiment to inform universal basic income.

'In Finland’s two-year study, a treatment group of 2,000 randomly picked, initially unemployed people received a guaranteed, unconditional,3 and automatic cash payment of a modest €560 per month instead of a basic unemployment allowance in similar amounts'

'Interestingly, the final results of Finland’s program, released this spring, found that a basic income actually had a positive impact on employment. People on the basic income were more likely to be employed than those in the control group, and the differences were statistically significant, albeit small'

'People receiving the basic income reported better health and lower levels of stress, depression, sadness, and loneliness—all major determinants of happiness—than people in the control group. Recipients of the basic income also demonstrated more confidence in their cognitive skills, assessing their ability to remember, learn, and concentrate at higher levels than the control group did. And the basic income enabled people to perceive their financial situation as more secure and manageable, even though their incomes were no higher than those of people in the control group. Finally, basic-income recipients expressed higher levels of trust in their own future, their fellow citizens, and public institutions'
Click to expand...

Thank you. This is evidence that replacing unemployment benefit with a guaranteed payment of the same amount while allowing people to work has positive outcomes. The problem is that the amount paid is not, in my view, sufficient to be called a UBI.

In Australia it would have to be about $A2000 per month, or over 1200 euro, to approximate the single age pension. Without this the “U” becomes redundant, and even at that rate, the “B” is very basic indeed.

Taxes will need to rise sharply, and as I have said repeatedly, governments are not prepared to increase taxes.
 
Last edited:
lionking said:
Thank you. This is evidence that replacing unemployment benefit with a guaranteed payment of the same amount while allowing people to work has positive outcomes. The problem is that the amount paid is not, in my view, sufficient to be called a UBI.
Click to expand...

You are correct, and congratulations for the small concession.

Now, how about we look at what would be necessary to reach UBI levels here.
 
The Age pension costs about $70b a year and unemployment benefit is $10b. To replace that and give every adult Australian $2000 a month would be a net cost of over $300b ($400b minus $80b) per year. This is about a quarter of Australia’s GDP.

In other words, a utopian dream.
 
lionking said:
The Age pension costs about $70b a year and unemployment benefit is $10b. To replace that and give every adult Australian $2000 a month would be a net cost of over $300b ($400b minus $80b) per year. This is about a quarter of Australia’s GDP.

In other words, a utopian dream.
Click to expand...

Ouch.
 
lionking said:
The Age pension costs about $70b a year and unemployment benefit is $10b. To replace that and give every adult Australian $2000 a month would be a net cost of over $300b ($400b minus $80b) per year. This is about a quarter of Australia’s GDP.

In other words, a utopian dream.
Click to expand...
Where are you getting your numbers from. Who is getting the extra $300B?
 
psionl0 said:
Have you subtracted the number in full time employment (who would pay for their UBI with extra taxes)?
Click to expand...

Why? Employment levels may increase (or may not) by only a small amount. Are you arguing for higher rates of income tax to pay for the UBI?
 
lionking said:
The Age pension costs about $70b a year and unemployment benefit is $10b. To replace that and give every adult Australian $2000 a month would be a net cost of over $300b ($400b minus $80b) per year. This is about a quarter of Australia’s GDP.

In other words, a utopian dream.
Click to expand...

You haven't added up all the Centrelink payments, just age pension and unemployment.

https://www.servicesaustralia.gov.au/individuals/services/centrelink


"Social security and welfare represents 35 per cent of the Australian Government’s expenses."

https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parlia...tary_Library/pubs/BriefingBook45p/WelfareCost

So a UBI could be cheaper. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom