Universal Income.

Elaedith said:
Universal basic income: Plans drawn up for £1,600 a month trial in England

I'm surprised at the amount being proposed here, as it's more than some people in work earn. I'm not sure how much useful data would come from it. Personally I think it would be more informative to trial with a more realistic amount, longer duration and larger sample.
Click to expand...

If it were significantly less, it wouldn't be UBI. It's right in the name, Universal Basic Income. If the money isn't enough to totally cover basic expenses, it's not UBI. The whole point of such things is that it's enough money for people to survive on without relying on more traditional forms of welfare.
 
Elaedith said:
Universal basic income: Plans drawn up for £1,600 a month trial in England



I'm surprised at the amount being proposed here, as it's more than some people in work earn. I'm not sure how much useful data would come from it. Personally I think it would be more informative to trial with a more realistic amount, longer duration and larger sample.
Click to expand...
Universal income isn't meant to be the same as the income or the reason for the social "safety net" provided by many countries. It's also not meant to leave people poor. And you've missed a fundamental point of universal income I. E. It's universal, someone in a job would get their wage plus the universal income.
 
Darat said:
Universal income isn't meant to be the same as the income or the reason for the social "safety net" provided by many countries. It's also not meant to leave people poor. And you've missed a fundamental point of universal income I. E. It's universal, someone in a job would get their wage plus the universal income.
Click to expand...

So it leaves those who don't want to, or can't, work able to live comfortably without a job and the basic payment can be taken back from those who have significantly higher pay by increasing their taxes?
 
A test of 30 people seems way too insignificant to draw any conclusions from and a bit more of a marketing/political stunt than a serious test to try out UBI viability.
 
Lplus said:
So it leaves those who don't want to, or can't, work able to live comfortably without a job and the basic payment can be taken back from those who have significantly higher pay by increasing their taxes?
Click to expand...

Universal Income - if you've not come across the concept before the Wiki page is a good starting point: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unive...me (UBI) is,independently of any other income.

Or you could read this thread from the start as that sort of question has been asked a few times and various answers have been given.
 
Darat said:
Universal Income - if you've not come across the concept before the Wiki page is a good starting point: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unive...me (UBI) is,independently of any other income.

Or you could read this thread from the start as that sort of question has been asked a few times and various answers have been given.
Click to expand...

Read it - and I stand by my post as to the way it's proponents would like it to work. I'll perhaps concede that my "comfortable" is not quite the same as your "not poor" but that's about it.

As to those who want to work and would be able to find a more rewarding activity, I agree they would and they might, but you note I didn't mention them.
 
Lplus said:
So it leaves those who don't want to, or can't, work able to live comfortably without a job and the basic payment can be taken back from those who have significantly higher pay by increasing their taxes?
Click to expand...
There are many ways of paying for a UBI - increasing the tax on the rich is among them. It also eliminates the need for unemployment welfare and the administration thereof. You could also cut spending in other areas. A lot of critics hyperfocus on the tax thing, though because "taxes bad!"
 
arthwollipot said:
There are many ways of paying for a UBI - increasing the tax on the rich is among them. It also eliminates the need for unemployment welfare and the administration thereof. You could also cut spending in other areas. A lot of critics hyperfocus on the tax thing, though because "taxes bad!"
Click to expand...

Taxes bad when you gotta pay them. If you get stuff for free, maybe not so bad.
 
There's absolutely no excuse for an affluent society, that can afford it, to not have UBI.

I think --- hope --- that future generations will look back with horror to our age, to that barbaric time when people had to work simply in order to stay alive in dignity --- as opposed to actualizing themselves.

Yeah, I know. That's a rosy picture of the future. Hence "hope".

-----

...Random train-of-thought: One can, at any rate, make sure of this in one's personal life. Make sure one's own children are assured of a comfortable income, even if they never work. Nothing opulent, but enough for a simple life of dignity. So that they work, if they do, for something ...more, than merely eating and living in dignity.

I may forget I had this brilliant thought, I may change my mind, my gf may disagree with this line of thinking. But at this time I'm thinking, speaking for myself, I won't have kids unless I can be sure of providing at least that much for them. I've no right to --- speaking for myself, and myself alone.


Yeah, UBI. Bring it on. It's uncivilized not to.
 
Just for data gathering purposes, I suggest a slightly bigger test case for UBI, both in duration and number of participants.

100 years and all inhabitants of earth should me enough.
Everyone with assets in excess of $5 million will be the Control Group.
 
One issue that has been brought up is that when nobody has to work to stay alive, who's going to do all the ****** jobs that no-one wants to do?

My answer for that is that these are the jobs that will require the most adjustment in salary. You should be paid very well indeed for mucking out the sewers. Today, the ****** jobs tend to be among the lowest paid. That would have to reverse in order to provide an incentive.
 
David Graeber has collected a lot of evidence that most jobs don't really serve any purpose - we would do well to figure out what kind of work actually needs doing.

We can make do without most of Middle Management.
 
arthwollipot said:
One issue that has been brought up is that when nobody has to work to stay alive, who's going to do all the ****** jobs that no-one wants to do?

My answer for that is that these are the jobs that will require the most adjustment in salary. You should be paid very well indeed for mucking out the sewers. Today, the ****** jobs tend to be among the lowest paid. That would have to reverse in order to provide an incentive.
Click to expand...

No, it will be the migrants that you attract who will do those jobs, and of course because they require the least training they will be paid less.
 
Brainster said:
No, it will be the migrants that you attract who will do those jobs, and of course because they require the least training they will be paid less.
Click to expand...
Why should they need to do any job at all? You need to attract people to the ****** jobs because otherwise nobody will want to do them.
 
arthwollipot said:
There are many ways of paying for a UBI - increasing the tax on the rich is among them. It also eliminates the need for unemployment welfare and the administration thereof. You could also cut spending in other areas. A lot of critics hyperfocus on the tax thing, though because "taxes bad!"
Click to expand...
Very true, but put your hand on your heart and tell me that taxing the higher paid isn't the way the proponents of the idea would like it to work.
arthwollipot said:
One issue that has been brought up is that when nobody has to work to stay alive, who's going to do all the ****** jobs that no-one wants to do?

My answer for that is that these are the jobs that will require the most adjustment in salary. You should be paid very well indeed for mucking out the sewers. Today, the ****** jobs tend to be among the lowest paid. That would have to reverse in order to provide an incentive.
Click to expand...

arthwollipot said:
Why should they need to do any job at all? You need to attract people to the ****** jobs because otherwise nobody will want to do them.
Click to expand...

Perhaps, but I think you overestimate the number of really unpleasant jobs around. Most of the low paid jobs are simply boring, unfulfilling, menial, etc. Sure many jobs would simply disappear if they required a much higher wage, particularly in the entertainment and fast food industries and the need for much higher wages in the in the likes of agriculture and manufacture would be a perfect driver for further automation or offshoring. So yep, there would a be a load of people with nothing to do but follow their dreams - if they have them. Of course it may well be that those dreams could lead to fame and fortune, but I bet the vast majority would be nothing more than extended hobbies which generate little or no additional income. And then there's the majority who have no dreams and are now bored? Would they work for even less than they were paid before at their old ****** jobs, secure in the knowlege that the basics would be paid for? I wonder if the whole "much higher wages for every remaining job" is simply a dream of the proponents of the idea.
 
arthwollipot said:
Yeah, all of those telephone sanitisers, hairdressers, and tired TV producers can go!
Click to expand...

IIRC one of the chapters in Graeber’s book is literally titled “why hairdressers are not bull **** jobs”.

For Graeber a bull **** job is known by the person with the job to be bull **** and therefore demeaning.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom