Universal Income.

[Tippit]

You don't see any advantage because you don't recognize the objective of phasing out the bureaucratic and unfair welfare system.

Do you really believe the push for UBI is about phasing out the bureaucratic and unfair welfare system? When is the last time that a politician cared about reducing bureaucratic costs? It seems that a little skepticism is in order.

How much more likely is it that the push for UBI is about increasing overall welfare, and either paying for it with higher taxes, inflation, or perhaps as a justification for MMT?

 

[Tippit]

Not being funny but do you not understand taxes have to actually pay for it.

Money for a UBI does not appear out of thin air.

It will either be more tax on the middle or small business

You are aware that governments pay for a lot of things, including welfare payments like UBI, by creating money out of thin air (through a slightly convoluted process of issuing IOUs, which are then bought by central banks which create money out of thin air).

 

[psionl0]

Do you really believe the push for UBI is about phasing out the bureaucratic and unfair welfare system? When is the last time that a politician cared about reducing bureaucratic costs? It seems that a little skepticism is in order.

There is only one thing that politicians like more than micromanaging the population and that is votes.

If we wait for these vertical thinking corporate shills to do something then it will never happen. Only lobbying that is likely to have an effect at the polling booth can possibly make a difference.

How much more likely is it that the push for UBI is about increasing overall welfare, and either paying for it with higher taxes, inflation, or perhaps as a justification for MMT?

I'm pretty sure that the push for UBI isn't coming from congress or at least, not from anybody in congress who has the ability to make a difference.

 

[Orphia Nay]

My concern would be an income supplement for the employed would result in people working a standard 40 hour week instead of overtime that will cost a lot of employers productivity.

Employers, such as Henry Ford, have found that cutting hours increased productivity.

Employees were happier, more rested and therefore energetic, less disgruntled.

 

[Belz...]

Employers, such as Henry Ford, have found that cutting hours increased productivity.

Employees were happier, more rested and therefore energetic, less disgruntled.

In some cases, I suspect, less likely to leave or cause trouble, too.

 

[arthwollipot]

Employers, such as Henry Ford, have found that cutting hours increased productivity.

Employees were happier, more rested and therefore energetic, less disgruntled.

A lot of research is indicating that a four-day work week has positive effects on productivity, morale, and job satisfaction. For office workers, at least.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

That was EXACTLY the point. Any (temporary) additional cost due to UBI is minimal.

That wasn't the point though. The claim was that UBI would be funded by savings in welfare. Now you are saying that it will cost more to administer ON TOP of the actual paying the UBI! And you haven't shown it will be temporary yet

You don't see any advantage because you don't recognize the objective of phasing out the bureaucratic and unfair welfare system.

When I asked you how you were going to phase out the welfare system you said you wouldn't be phasing out the welfare system. I don't see the advantage because you can't articulate a consistent and coherent answer to the questions I have asked. Which makes me think you don't actually have answers.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

A lot of research is indicating that a four-day work week has positive effects on productivity, morale, and job satisfaction. For office workers, at least.

Harder to achieve in some areas though. A till operator has to cover the hours the shop is open regardless. Ditto a call centre operator, pharmacist, chemical process worker, etc etc.

Seems like a great way to create employment apartheid if not handled properly.

 

[psionl0]

The claim was that UBI would be funded by savings in welfare.

No, the claim was that "Replacing part of a pension with UBI is cost neutral.". Even if it is not 100% cost neutral, the difference is minimal compared with the cost of administering the welfare system.

Any suggestion that savings in welfare would pay for the entire UBI is a strawman of your creation.

Now you are saying that it will cost more to administer ON TOP of the actual paying the UBI!

Huh? Now I am double counting the cost of administering the UBI as well?

And you haven't shown it will be temporary yet.

Yes I have. The UBI is likely to be incremented in stages. Once it covers the amount that a particular welfare program pays, that welfare program gets redundant and can be discontinued.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

No, the claim was that "Replacing part of a pension with UBI is cost neutral.". Even if it is not 100% cost neutral, the difference is minimal compared with the cost of administering the welfare system.

Any suggestion that savings in welfare would pay for the entire UBI is a strawman of your creation.

The original claim was that UBI was cost neutral overall. Now it has morphed into replacing part of the pension with UBI is cost neutral but that's not true either because you would have additional admin costs of creating the new UBI system plus the existing admin costs of the pension system which isn't going away because you aren't replacing it.

You claimed others were bad at arithmetic but yours doesn't seem too hot either.

Huh? Now I am double counting the cost of administering the UBI as well?

Huh? No idea what you mean here. You are introducing a new system UBI which needs people and systems to administer. These aren't free.

Yes I have. The UBI is likely to be incremented in stages. Once it covers the amount that a particular welfare program pays, that welfare program gets redundant and can be discontinued.

Except it doesn't. Because when i pointed out why this didn't work you said you would just keep paying part of the existing pensions and other benefits.

And where does the money to keep incrementing the UBI from? Is it magically cost neutral again?

There's only so much money in the system. If you wanna give people more you have to take it from somewhere else. If you don't give people more then it doesn't matter whether you call it UBI, welfare, or magic fairy money payments they aren't any better off.

 

[psionl0]

The original claim was that UBI was cost neutral overall.

You will have to show me the post where I said that because I can't find it. The words I posted are exactly what I have said.

And where does the money to keep incrementing the UBI from?

Where does the money come from to increase pensions? Or are they frozen for ever more?

 

[arthwollipot]

Harder to achieve in some areas though. A till operator has to cover the hours the shop is open regardless. Ditto a call centre operator, pharmacist, chemical process worker, etc etc.

Seems like a great way to create employment apartheid if not handled properly.

Staggered hours. Not everybody works the same five hours. A side effect of this is that it reduces peak time congestion on the roads.

 

[Matthew Best]

The problem is that in an office you can get everyone to work four days instead of five and do the same amount of work, so all the workers get an extra day off and the boss still gets the same amount of work for the same amount of pay.

In a shop, if everyone is working 20% less, then the boss has to employ an extra 25% of employees, with a 25% increase in cost, for no benefit to him. People working behind a till can't increase their productivity to make up for their reduced hours, unless you are OK with shops being closed, which many people might find problematic. I suppose it's not impossible, but it's not the direction things have been going in for some time.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

The problem is that in an office you can get everyone to work four days instead of five and do the same amount of work, so all the workers get an extra day off and the boss still gets the same amount of work for the same amount of pay.

In a shop, if everyone is working 20% less, then the boss has to employ an extra 25% of employees, with a 25% increase in cost, for no benefit to him. People working behind a till can't increase their productivity to make up for their reduced hours, unless you are OK with shops being closed, which many people might find problematic. I suppose it's not impossible, but it's not the direction things have been going in for some time.

Shops are generally reducing staff by introducing automatic check-outs. I'm not sure it'll be all that long before some of the bigger shops go to all self-serve.

In my experience, even the smaller shops tend to have a couple of self-service checkouts, if they're part of a bigger chain (e.g. a corner shop operating under the Tesco brand).

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

You will have to show me the post where I said that because I can't find it. The words I posted are exactly what I have said.

Where does the money come from to increase pensions? Or are they frozen for ever more?

You claimed:

"The only tax rises would be to offset the UBI which would leave employees in the same position as before. The rest is just a straight swap between complex pensions/jobseeker allowances and UBI."

Parsing this you are claiming that no new money would be needed for UBI - ie. that it would be cost neutral overall.

Your second paragraph seems to also have an arithmetical issue as inflationary increments on UBI isn't going to get you caught up to pension payments that are or would be also being increased on the same basis. That doesn't get you incrementally closer to being able to scrap those pensions or welfare.

You know, it's perfectly OK to say you don't quite know how it would work it practice but it sounds like a good idea... but you seemed to be quite insistent that other people were being dumb about it and yet when prompted with a few basic practical questions you have no answers.

In the absence of better answers then it would appear that UBI is simply a new form of welfare that, as with all other forms of welfare, would have to be funded by taxing the better off to pay for it. There's nothing wrong with that. It's just not some panacea.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Staggered hours. Not everybody works the same five hours. A side effect of this is that it reduces peak time congestion on the roads.

I'm not sure staggered hours gets you anywhere unless the jobs are over-resourced at the moment.

For hourly paid staff you also have the issue of them getting either a 20% pay cut or a 25% increase in their hourly rate or some balance of the two.

 

[Archie Gemmill Goal]

Shops are generally reducing staff by introducing automatic check-outs. I'm not sure it'll be all that long before some of the bigger shops go to all self-serve.

In my experience, even the smaller shops tend to have a couple of self-service checkouts, if they're part of a bigger chain (e.g. a corner shop operating under the Tesco brand).

So the office staff get the same pay for 4 days instead of 5 and the floor staff get laid off? Is that progress?

 

[JoeMorgue]

Well no. Because none of this is addressing the fact that we simply just don't have enough jobs for everybody anymore and we can't shove that genie back in the bottle.

So everyone has a job... we're making work up. And "busy work" can't be done effectively or efficiently by definition, even if everyone really wants to do it.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

So the office staff get the same pay for 4 days instead of 5 and the floor staff get laid off? Is that progress?

It depends what you mean by "progress". It's the way that the world appears to be heading. That doesn't necessarily mean that it's better.

The evidence seems to show that a 4 day working week is better both for workers and businesses, at least in some industries. And a big part of the idea of UBI is to offset some of the damage caused by workers losing their jobs to automation. It's partly why it's a hot topic at the moment - because people can increasingly see the writing on the wall and are trying to get ahead of the problem before it becomes too big of a problem.

 

[psionl0]

You claimed:

"The only tax rises would be to offset the UBI which would leave employees in the same position as before. The rest is just a straight swap between complex pensions/jobseeker allowances and UBI."

Exactly. So workers don't get anything extra and pensioners don't get anything extra.

You would have to reread post $760 to see who does get anything extra (and that's the only thing that extra funds will be needed for). I doubt that you will do so. You prefer out of context grabs filled in with your own narrative because you can't deal with the real argument.