It was live at the moment of posting.
People seem to have this concept wrong. UBI is everyone getting a universal amount of money no matter what. If they get a job or start a business they get that income on top of their UBI. It’s supposed to encourage more entrepreneurialism since the risk of failure is not starvation. You can always rely on your UBI to survive.
Someone like Jeff Bezos would get their UBI on top of Amazon’s earnings. In the future it will be a necessity because the economy will be ran by machines and technology. Machines will create all the income of a society so the vast majority of humans will not have a job due to robots being simply better at everything than humans as well as cheaper.
That was an absolutely horrible article written by someone so incredibly biased they can’t even attempt to hide it. Their arguments were laughably juvenile and one sided. Their examples were so terrible that it was barely readable.
It’s pretty clear that they have very little knowledge of economics or human behavior. It read like some random person who hates socialist ideas was ranting.
He thinks that machines which have comparable intelligence to humans is comparable to the industrial revolution. Absolutely stupid. Self driving vehicles will wipe out 1/3 of all jobs alone. Good luck re-training and employing that large of a population. That’s only one sector being disrupted by AI.
Most people are not happy with $1,000/mo and would rather achieve something and earn more. If that garbage were true then no one would pursue higher education or work more than needed to earn $1,000/mo. Just absolutely absurd and terrible ideas presented in the article.
He states that giving loans to the poor collapsed an economy in China. What a ridiculously stupid narrative. Smelly, reeking, article by a small minded individual.
Please! Now tell me where Sammeroff is wrong. His book and debate are in this thread. What economist do you follow? Let me guess, Krugman, Reich?
Every election will be $x is not enough of a UBI, we must increase it to $2x.
I’m referring to Peter St. Onge’s article. Poorly presented arguments, obtusely basic ideas and examples. Extremely biased statements, scenarios and conclusions. That particular article reads like a random “normal” wrote it. Not someone well versed in writing nor economics.
I’m not saying that I’m a huge proponent of UBI in today’s world but it will be a necessity at some point. Mainly due to AI’s and machine learning surpassing anything that human workers can achieve.
Right now it would be massively costly. Although you can’t judge any system by looking at the least productive members of society which this guy did. The individuals who choose to sit at home will do so in almost any system. Starving them only forces those least productive members to be just productive enough to survive.
Also, time spent sleeping is not free time that could go towards a start up as this guy suggests. A large portion of ones time not spent working is not free time. It’s spent doing essential errands necessary to live in our society like driving, grocery shopping, cooking, eating, child rearing, relationship maintenance etc… So much in that article was completely and utterly absurd.
I am quite sure Peter has written more on economics than you have. The 80 hours is time awake. If he was not counting sleep, it would be closer to 130 hours. You can pull up a calculator and try it.
Since when does quantity have anything to do with quality? It doesn’t really matter how many horrible articles he’s written if they’re all horrible.
That’s not an argument for him. The BBC article was much more convincing and used some actually presentable data.
You have no rebuttal to his points. The one you had, was just piss poor math by you.
Quit trying to be a troll and say something of value…
Yes, please. Can you try to say something of value?
I said a lot. You just offer 1 line zingers attempting to get a rise.
Your points are opinions, not rebuttals. During the 99 weeks unemployment, I had more than a handful of friends just collecting. All struggled to find work when their 99 weeks were up. Some still rely on family to live.
I myself have personal experience starting a business while holding down a 40 hour per week job. Even at a young age in my 20’s when one has a lot of energy and ambition that 8 hour work day plus commuting depleted a lot of my physical and mental energy. I had no choice but to slowly grow my business with a job because if I quit the risk was huge. Be unable to pay rent, car payment, food etc…
Fortunately I was laid off after a year and I was able to collect the safety net of unemployment. With that net in place as well as time freed up I was able to grow my business more in 1 month than I had the previous year. Without that safety net I would have been forced to seek employment immediately, unable to pay my basic bills.
Within 2 months I was making much more than my job provided and it became clear that searching for a job would be a pointless endeavor. Again, the safety net is what made that a possibility. The risk of quitting my job was far too great and growing the business was incredibly difficult when absent during normal working hours.
Creating and growing a business during abnormal hours is far harder than growing a business between 8am - 6pm. Practically every job will require you to sacrifice those desirable hours, forcing you to focus on your business at inefficient times when everyone else is eating dinner or enjoying their weekend.
We must also consider the fact that taking a risk like starting a business is easier to stomach at a young age compared to an older age. Using figures for people in their 50’s and 60’s is absurd. If those people fail they will be destroyed in retirement. If a 20 year old fails they have plenty of time to recover. Older people may have the resources but not the opportunity of a good risk/reward ratio.
Practically every argument laid out in that article is fundamentally flawed and leaving out very important concepts of reality. I was able to succeed while young and single, imagine having a significant other or mouths to feed. Not a chance can you take any risks without a safety net in place.
It may not help currently unemployed people that much but what it will greatly help is people who wish to start a business but can’t stomach the incredible risks associated with doing so.
There’s also the fact that having a safety net in place can allow people to have more negotiating leverage when searching for a job. They can hold out for a better offer or even different career path. People in desperation have little leverage and must take the first decent offer they get or face the possibility of being unable to pay their bills. You can seek out your dream easier if destitution is not on the table.
Here’s an article that reveals and explains a lot about economic mobility in America today. It’s much less than it used to be and is largely dependent on a family with money. TLDR: It’s not just about the free money, a lot of it is about the safety net provided by having that family. This generation is getting money from its parents more than ever in American history. Economic and social mobility is at an all time low.
First some very serious questions:
What happens when the standard by which we now determine ‘who deserves’, changes from ranges of competency and effort, to ranges of depravity, claims of poor-dom, or demonstrations of need that are designed to show the world…I deserve…because I suffer more than X. What happens when the ‘needy’ develop special skills for it’s display? What precise proof does that standard require? Is it simply a pregnant woman on a street corner with a sign? Or…is it something much more grotesque?
Change the end game…and you’ll damn sure change the means by which we little bipeds get there.
I’m not sure I will ever be a fan of any form of collectivism. This includes UBI. The reasons are numerous;
There’s no accountability to be obtained upon those that manage the bureaucracy that collectives rely upon to function. Try to sue the federal government that manages the welfare system here in the states…it can’t be done, therefore no accountability. No…voting isn’t an effective mode of accountability when the tidal wave of those that receive the benefit is just as large or larger than those that oppose.
They are usually rooted in mystical justifications such as @Heyam 's reference to the ‘elimination of animal-like impulsiveness which causes problems’, or through false equation logic where a red herring is introduced as justification (see @Heyam 's reference to special relativity). Another one from @Heyam is his defining a good life as ‘the elimination of all basic problems’. Problems, basic or complex, are not static. They are chickens running around in the dark while you stand still with a bow and arrow and attempt your shot. @Heyam please notice I am not attacking you personally.
The category of ‘those that deserve’ must be pronounced and decided by a person or a group of persons (I referred to this in #1). I see UBI as a ‘reach-around’. An attempt to circumvent a particular problem inherent in any collective (the victim / champion narrative). The assumption is that by giving everyone the same thing, you eliminate this narrative / problem, BUT, what happens when another ‘champion’ comes along and professes a better ‘idea’ by claiming they will give more? This…this particular thing that is inseparable from human nature…is the monkey wrench that refuses to disappear from the collectivist toolbox.
They rely on assumptions regarding philosophical theories such as; the meaning of life, a good life, or the question; what is work? How many different ways are there to interpret the metaphysical world? The answer is…there are infinite ways to interpret the metaphysical world. This should mean to any person that is seriously thinking about this subject, that therefore, there are innumerable ways to interpret the concept of life, the concept of a good life, and to answer the question; what is work? These collective ideas attempt to simplify (overly) these infinite issues to a single or binary issue, and I understand why. One thing is incredibly easier to digest than a million things. But we are human, therefore, more than a million ‘things’. Humans on the large, are not high in trait agreeableness. In fact the opposite is true, we are much higher in dis-agreeableness.
There is a general effort when discussing things like UBI to speak of them in overly mystical or high flying oration. Dreams of utopia and unbounded hope, the elimination of despair, the burnt end of the stick made null. Always. And there are so few people that are able to formulate the hard literal and epistemological questions that ultimately destroy such a collectivist notion…and save humanity from itself.
The only argument I’ve seen here in this thread that could potentially have merit is the idea that as the human population grows, and technology grows to meet it and exceed it, that a large scale displacement of human capital could occur. For whomever started this idea forgive me for not crediting (might have been @CraigMak , but I can’t find it as I scroll back through…again).