News
Welcome to the News community!
Rules:
1. Be civil
Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.
Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.
3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.
Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.
4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.
Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.
5. Only recent news is allowed.
Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.
6. All posts must be news articles.
No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.
7. No duplicate posts.
If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.
8. Misinformation is prohibited.
Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.
9. No link shorteners.
The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.
10. Don't copy entire article in your post body
For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.
view the rest of the comments
All these UBI experiments ever seem to demonstrate is the "BI" part.
But the part that needs to be demonstrated, IMHO, is the "U".
Well we can't do that until we do that. And shitting on the experiments means we'll never do the Universal part.
This isn't really true.
We generally don't experiment with economic policy because it's not practical.
The main impediment to UBI is not supporting data, but political will. Voters are so used to punishing poor people that UBI just doesn't resonate with the voting public. Of course that will change with the continuing encroachment of automation.
Additionally UBI is not all or nothing. You could increase it over time. If 20% of average salary is the objective, then start with 1% this year and increase it by 1% each year for the next 19 years. It will take 20 years to dismantle the other welfare systems anyway.
You know that's a good point. It takes a few years to get a UBI up to full throughput anyways. I think part of the problem with that approach is it will be more expensive to start, at least on paper. And God forbid we spend money on anything other than the military. But it's certainly true, we don't need to switch it like a light switch by any means.
It's not the critics of the experiments that are the problem.
The "experiments" are just watering down the idea of UBI into "just rename existing benefits programs".
You'd need to restructure an entire country's tax systems to really do a proper experiment. No country could just afford to give everyone free money. You'd have to structure it so the average person pays back exactly what extra they got, and build affordable housing for the people that actually choose to live on just UBI.
Nobody is choosing to live on just the UBI though. Study after study shows that people do more economic activity with a proper UBI, not less.
And yes, we are at the precipice where we either make the jump or not.
We can't meaningfully advocate or plan for its implementation unless we have some idea how it would work. And that it can work.
The sorts of experiments in the OP get us no closer to that. They prove nothing that wasn't already pretty uncontroversial and obvious, and offer no insights about how these programs might be implemented universally.
Pointing this out does not hold back UBI. Ignoring it, however, does.
We know it can work. We know how it will work. The math works, the psychology works, there's nothing else left to do but do it. This is just the latest in a long line of studies on this going back decades. Doubting it at this point is just putting your head in the ground.
This is the part where the citations you link are extremely important.
You could, just read the thread. You don't need to keep responding to each level.
And the math is either generally available as a thought exercise or specific to the model being discussed. There's not really an in between.
How will it work, then?
Everyone gets x amount. As you go up in tax brackets y amount is subtracted at tax time until you get high enough that the entirety of x is reclaimed. For this there are several programs we can completely shut down and the same funding would provide anywhere from 500-1500 dollars a month. (Depending on whose math you believe).
everything you’re saying here and in the replies makes perfect sense and is very clear. unfortunately, it looks like you’re arguing with someone who isn’t willing to listen to reason
To be honest, that's the point. They might not listen to reason but it's pretty obvious to any one else stopping by.
That sounds like means-tested welfare programs, which we already have. UBI by definition is unconditional.
In other words, you're talking about "BI" but I'm asking about "U".
There is no means testing. The IRS has all the information it needs already. Getting rid of the means testing is where the bulk of the available money comes from.
And as far as the Universal part goes, we can't do that until we actually do it. Asking to test that is a bad faith argument used by the GOP because it's literally impossible to do without actually implementing the program.
This is literally means testing
We did actually do it though, COVID payments. Remember how corporations immediately went on a money grab and inflation immediately kicked in and now we have permanently higher prices? The fed stated 1/3 of the inflation was directly from the universal stimulus money. Printing money for everyone has good and bad factors.
I think people would treat a recurring payment they can depend on every week/month differently than a one-time thing that only happened in the middle of a pandemic.
The Fed lied. Also, those one time payments were largely created money, not circulated money. Which is just asking for inflation. Finally, corporations got far more than people did and decided to ruin away with the gains anyways. The lesson there isn't UBI bad, it's that trusting corporations to do the right thing is bad and having strict regulatory enforcement is good.
You're describing a means tested welfare program.
"Means testing" is to check the recipients income (their "means") against a schedule of benefits. Higher income=lower benefit. This is how most existing and historic welfare systems have operated. In what sense is your suggestion an improvement?
I am no Republican. The comparison is downright insulting.
Means testing is far more than that. It's entire divisions of agencies and reams of paper checking to make sure you qualify as poor enough.
The IRS referencing your tax return is not means testing in any way, shape, or form like it's happening right now. The money simply goes out to everyone and taxes are adjusted. There's no forms, no sworn statements, no civil servant trying to figure out if your second car counts or not. That is all skipped.
I still don't see how literally looking at how much money you earned to determine your UBI benefit isn't means testing, but it's not really central to my point. Yes, the IRS could plausibly do this, but where is the money actually coming from?
These experiments are always small groups within a much larger economic system and the money comes from that larger system. It seems obvious to me that the recipients in such an experiment will thrive more. And even if it wasn't, there have been a number of these experiments around the world and they all proved people thrived more already anyway.
What's not obvious to me is what replaces the larger system if UBI becomes the system. Can UBI be a self-sustained system?
Okay let's come at this from another angle.
If you apply for benefits you have to fill out the form attesting you need help. You need to talk to a civil servant to have that need verified. Then you need to fill out more forms declaring your assets. You will also need to do this semi regularly. And you will need to do this for each benefit program you apply for.
Now multiply that by about 30 million applications/check-ups a year, per program. That's where the money comes from. That entire apparatus is no longer needed and the annual funds from that will actually be enough to run a UBI program. Then on the taxes end you can recoup about a 1/4 of the money sent out so that can be reinvested into the program.
As I said earlier the math has been checked. It works. We wouldn't need to fund any extra money than we already do.
So it's paid for by the savings from not having all that inefficient wasteful overhead of the modern welfare state. That's the grand plan?
OK, where can I find this math you speak of?
You can do a rough summation of it yourself. We spend about 1.2 trillion dollars a year on various forms of welfare. There's about 260 million adults in the US. That comes out to somewhere around 400 dollars a month. Now the neat part starts.
Say we set a goal to recoup half of the total using higher taxes on higher income brackets. Nothing horrible, no more than the extra 500 they got and certainly didn't need. That means we got 600 billion back. If we continue the program we can do so with 1.8 trillion instead of 1.2 trillion. Because we still allocate the yearly 1.2 trillion dollars. So the benefit in year 2 is 600 dollars.
In this way we could easily expand the program up to about 750 dollars a month over 5 years. After that the annual half back begins to approach the annual funding amount. Which means the program stabilizes around 2.4 trillion in rotation. 1.2 from the government and 1.2 in taxing back the top half.
Incidentally this is also why it's not an inflationary measure in the traditional sense, it's not creating money. It's just moving it in a novel way.
Unfortunately, if you want something more substantial you're going to have to wade into academic papers.
Let me know if you find any of those academic papers.
I don't have access to them anymore beyond contacting individual researchers for a copy. And yeah, I've got better things to do with my life. If you're interested I would recommend finding article abstracts and then either searching the title to see if anyone has set it free or contacting the authors for a copy.
In unrelated news we need to take the academic publishing industry out at the knees.
You've already wasted more time making excuses for why you can't show me the data then it would have taken to actually show me to the data.
And if you think I'm out of line for asking, if you think my questions are too pointed, then you were never serious about achieving UBI in the first place.
I've taken the time to give you in depth breakdowns and instructions on finding even further in depth stuff. Not doing a research project for you isn't being unserious. The in depth math is particular to each proposal, which are generally behind academic paywalls.
Asking me to spend a month researching the latest stuff and spend hundreds of dollars is straight up bad faith. I'm not your professor, I'm not your friend.
If you haven't already done the research then what exactly are you basing your claims on?
And you're not an effective advocate for UBI.
Okay. Adding another one, I'm not going to spend years costing a UBI proposal for you. The theory is there. Like it or not but your demands are ridiculous.
Then what are you even doing in this thread?
I've made no demands, and you're entirely within your rights to refuse me. But that just leads back to the question: "what are you even doing in this thread?"
Clearly, you're not here to talk up UBI.
Lmao. Whatever dude. It's just been demand after demand from you. There's an entire thread of it.
You: UBI has been mathematically demonstrated to work!
Me: Can I see the math?
You: OMG HOW RUDE!
I literally showed you the basic math. And no I also told you how to find more in depth numbers. God forbid you actually look something up.
The problem is giving X amount per month to homeless people is not a representative study for something called "universal" basic income. It's just a basic income for homeless people.
One of the biggest theoretical problems with giving everyone X amount per month is that it will simply drive up inflation since there are now $X/mo/person more in circulation (meaning everything will simply go up in price to absorb all that extra money). An experiment like this, as beneficial as it may have been for the participants, unfortunately has no value in proving whether or not that IS actually what happens.
This was my initial reaction also, but taking a closer look the article doesn't say anything about UBI. This is not a UBI experiment.
A fair point. But it looks, swims, and quacks like a UBI experiment.
Not really, you can't criticise it for not being like UBI while saying it's similar to UBI even if it does not purport to be UBI.
Correct. It's basic income for homeless people.
We're honestly not at a point where UBI is sustainable. However, this clearly demonstrates that replacing existing welfare with straight up cash, and changing how that cash scales down as people approach a "normal minimum" income, is vastly superior to our current system
These experiments aren't even trying to demonstrate that. And they don't.
Except they do, because they show the value of fungible, no-questions-asked support
It's not "BI" that needs to be demonstrated. It's "U".
Plus, these experiments do in fact ask questions about recipients' income. Just like regular welfare programs.
I think you should reread this thread.
I think you're neither serious nor sincere about making UBI work.
Interesting take- Why?
Obviously because of your "reread the thread" comment.
That's not the response of someone who wants a meaningful discussion. That's the response of someone who wants to end the discussion.
It's the response of a person who thinks you're having a conversation with someone else that you think you're having with me, based on the not-quite-on-topic nature of your posting.
For instance, my first sentence in this entire comment section is