Universal Basic Income - Joe Biden's Take (1 Viewer)

[NCCommish]

One of the arguments, which I don't agree with, against the BIG is fear that it will only be a first step, that people won't stop voting themselves an ever-increasing share of the pie. Similar arguments have been leveled at the Fair Tax, with opponents saying that politicians would never refrain from imposing other taxes in addition to it. I think the benefits of both systems are well worth the ensuing risks but I understand, kinda, why some don't.

Well when we throw in job losses to automation the BIG with have to get bigger. There simply isn't going to be work to do in the traditional sense for tens of millions of people. We built our middle class on work people with a high school diploma could do. That will never be the case again. Soon almost all skilled and semiskilled positions will be automated. Low to no skill are the canaries in the coal mine. And by soon I mean historically so in the next 2-3 decades if not faster.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

Another thing about being universal is removing stigma and class from the equation. As mentioned 12000 a year means a lot more to someone making 30 k or less, which is 50% of American workers, than it does to someone making 1 million. But everyone gets it there is no stigma of "you're on the dole". Further it's efficient because it just goes to everyone so no tracking, no means testing, no enforcement actions needed. And as mentioned with none of those things there is also no disincentive to work because you will still get it. This would ideally replace most if not all welfare programs that give people checks after they jump through hoop after hoop. Might have to go more than 12k to get rid of all. Personally I would say 18k and then pretty much wipeout most tax deductions once you get over 250k in income. Phasing them out progressively to that point. Oh and the BIG should be federally tax free at a minimum. 

If you make the BIG large enough you can flatten the tax code and eliminate much of class warfare.   While the FairTax don't call it one, the pretax in their proposals to make the FairTax progressive is just a tiny BIG.   

 

[NCCommish]

If you make the BIG large enough you can flatten the tax code and eliminate much of class warfare.   While the FairTax don't call it one, the pretax in their proposals to make the FairTax progressive is just a tiny BIG.   

To make a Flat tax approach fair that would have to be a pretty big BIG I would think. And yeah the pretax payments are a form of BIG really.

 

[NCCommish]

There's a Tedx talk on Universal Income on YouTube that got posted recently might be worth a look. Sorry on my phone and I suck at doing links with it.

 

[adonis]

There's a Tedx talk on Universal Income on YouTube that got posted recently might be worth a look. Sorry on my phone and I suck at doing links with it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aIL_Y9g7Tg0  - this one?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A2aBKnr3Ep4 - or this?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ydKcaIE6O1k - that might be good.

 

[Sand]

What do you guys think about the "dignity of work" thing? 

Much, much bigger than many think.  We have huge inner city problems (where lack of jobs is rife).   If we want to avoid that type of behavior exploding all over we'd better be very careful about removing incentives to work.  People may not "want" to work, but the vast majority of people need to work.

And, frankly, Joe doesn't mention the reason that UBI (a social safety net replacement) isn't palatable or viable:  we don't trust those currently in the social safety net to spend their assistance wisely, so we parse those monies up into help for food, help for shelter, help for their kids, etc.  If we implemented the UBI and got rid of these segregated assistance programs we'd see a huge problem of people not wisely spending those benefits and a cry for yet more social assistance to take care of those for whom "UBI isn't enough".

 

[roadkill1292]

Much, much bigger than many think.  We have huge inner city problems (where lack of jobs is rife).   If we want to avoid that type of behavior exploding all over we'd better be very careful about removing incentives to work.  People may not "want" to work, but the vast majority of people need to work.

And, frankly, Joe doesn't mention the reason that UBI (a social safety net replacement) isn't palatable or viable:  we don't trust those currently in the social safety net to spend their assistance wisely, so we parse those monies up into help for food, help for shelter, help for their kids, etc.  If we implemented the UBI and got rid of these segregated assistance programs we'd see a huge problem of people not wisely spending those benefits and a cry for yet more social assistance to take of those for whom "UBI isn't enough".

One of the arguments, which I don't agree with, against the BIG is fear that it will only be a first step, that people won't stop voting themselves an ever-increasing share of the pie. Similar arguments have been leveled at the Fair Tax, with opponents saying that politicians would never refrain from imposing other taxes in addition to it. I think the benefits of both systems are well worth the ensuing risks but I understand, kinda, why some don't.

Slippery slopin' away.

 

[Joe Bryant]

Slippery slopin' away.

I know everyone always like to jump to slippery slope. But is it an unfair question to ask?

I'm clearly a noob on this and didn't know it was an "either or" type thing. 

But if we give a single mom with kids a basic income and cut other social safety net programs, when she does something unwise with her money and is starving, do we turn our back on her and say she should have spent her money more wisely? I don't think that's an unfair question to ask. 

 

[rockaction]

I know everyone always like to jump to slippery slope. But is it an unfair question to ask?

I'm clearly a noob on this and didn't know it was an "either or" type thing. 

But if we give a single mom with kids a basic income and cut other social safety net programs, when she does something unwise with her money and is starving, do we turn our back on her and say she should have spent her money more wisely? I don't think that's an unfair question to ask. 

It's not. It's the first question to ask. The whole welfare state is predicated on the notion that we owe the indigent a duty to care and protect for them. It comes from a very religious or moral impulse and isn't going away if she or he blows her money and needs more. 

 

[Sand]

But if we give a single mom with kids a basic income and cut other social safety net programs, when she does something unwise with her money and is starving, do we turn our back on her and say she should have spent her money more wisely? I don't think that's an unfair question to ask. 

We are a compassionate people, particularly when it comes to our children.  How do we refuse this help because the parent was a lout?

This is an uncomfortable truth, but, despite Roadkill's description, there is a reason why we parse benefits right now to those who need them.

 

[rockaction]

We are a compassionate people, particularly when it comes to our children.  How do we refuse this help because the parent was a lout?

This is an uncomfortable truth, but, despite Roadkill's description, there is a reason why we parse benefits right now to those who need them.

As for the italicized, it's the first reason why we do so.  

 

[roadkill1292]

I know everyone always like to jump to slippery slope. But is it an unfair question to ask?

I'm clearly a noob on this and didn't know it was an "either or" type thing. 

But if we give a single mom with kids a basic income and cut other social safety net programs, when she does something unwise with her money and is starving, do we turn our back on her and say she should have spent her money more wisely? I don't think that's an unfair question to ask. 

Exceptions occurring don't negate the greater good of the program. We can't guarantee perfection in any system but we've tied ourselves into knots trying to prevent a few people from gaming the system.  And Sand's need to "parse benefits to those who need them" has proven to be an inefficient method of helping the most needy, see some of the good arguments about that in the other thread.

Maybe the "slippery slope" terminology was a sloppy one for me to use; progressives, friendliest to change by nature, tend to see it as a knee jerk reaction that prevents us from ever enacting positive change. Reality says otherwise to a certain extent, because I sometimes see us sliding down the slope even when we're not consciously changing anything (sort of an inverse slippery slope there -- staying the same in the face of changing circumstances puts you on an unintended slope). 

And that's why we're looking at BIGs these days, because the nature of employment is changing around us. 

 

[Joe Bryant]

Maybe the "slippery slope" terminology was a sloppy one for me to use; progressives, friendliest to change by nature, tend to see it as a knee jerk reaction that prevents us from ever enacting positive change.




1

Thanks. I'd agree there. It's not a good response in my opinion as what one side dismisses as "slippery slope" the other side is genuinely asking how we'll handle. And when the "slippery slope" side is flip or dismissive, it looks like they haven't thought it through.

Yes, one can become paralyzed by analyzing every remote and unlikely scenario. The flip side to that is asking serious "what if" type scenario questions is a vital part of any plan. It's a balance. 

 

[Gawain]

I know everyone always like to jump to slippery slope. But is it an unfair question to ask?

I'm clearly a noob on this and didn't know it was an "either or" type thing. 

But if we give a single mom with kids a basic income and cut other social safety net programs, when she does something unwise with her money and is starving, do we turn our back on her and say she should have spent her money more wisely? I don't think that's an unfair question to ask. 

I'd anticipate any BIG is paid out twice a month, if not more frequently.
The same issues exist with our current system. If a single mom spends her EBT on filet mignon for days 1-3, no one is there to give her more for days 4-30.
The social service programs that would be cut don't prevent the issue that you see with the BIG.
The programs that pay directly to a service provider (Section 8 and the like) are generally programs people point to as untenable currently.

 

[Joe Bryant]

I'd anticipate any BIG is paid out twice a month, if not more frequently.
The same issues exist with our current system. If a single mom spends her EBT on filet mignon for days 1-3, no one is there to give her more for days 4-30.
The social service programs that would be cut don't prevent the issue that you see with the BIG.
The programs that pay directly to a service provider (Section 8 and the like) are generally programs people point to as untenable currently.




 

Thanks. As you know now, there are lots of restrictions on what can be bought with EBT https://www.fns.usda.gov/snap/eligible-food-items   Would you be ok with removing all those restrictions? It changes to "If a single mom spends her EBT on filet mignon lottery tickets (and I understand why) for days 1-3, no one is there to give her more for days 4-30."  

 

[adonis]

I think we're downplaying the risks of the current system and playing up the risks of the new system.

 

[roadkill1292]

Thanks. I'd agree there. It's not a good response in my opinion as what one side dismisses as "slippery slope" the other side is genuinely asking how we'll handle. And when the "slippery slope" side is flip or dismissive, it looks like they haven't thought it through.

Yes, one can become paralyzed by analyzing every remote and unlikely scenario. The flip side to that is asking serious "what if" type scenario questions is a vital part of any plan. It's a balance. 

As Gawain pointed out in the next post, exceptions happen now in any aid program. Some people will naturally need more help than others (the handicapped, for instance). I think we have historically worried too much about the few cheaters/problem recipients and let that concern get in the way of systems which will have much wider benefits for the nation as a whole. Sure, it's a matter of degree.

What's different this time, maybe, is that we see an employment problem coming at us that we'll need to address with tactics we've never had to use before. Automation may force a decision on us, like it or not. Our current systems are not designed to handle a jobless society.

 

[Joe Bryant]

What's different this time, maybe, is that we see an employment problem coming at us that we'll need to address with tactics we've never had to use before. Automation may force a decision on us, like it or not. Our current systems are not designed to handle a jobless society.




 

I agree here for sure.

 

[Sand]

What's different this time, maybe, is that we see an employment problem coming at us that we'll need to address with tactics we've never had to use before. Automation may force a decision on us, like it or not. Our current systems are not designed to handle a jobless society.

Soylent Green?

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

is is an uncomfortable truth, but, despite Roadkill's description, there is a reason why we parse benefits right now to those who need them.

• It is so the government pick winners and losers handing out corporate welfare.  
  
• We trust government to know what an individual and their family needs much more than that individual.  
  
• People just can't be trusted to make rational decisions.  
  
• And if someone does dare make rational choices lets be certain it is with perverse incentives in place to make rational choices that should be frowned upon - such as not earning that dollar that makes many more dollars in benefits go away.  
  

Seems to me that the above are the opposite of just about every core conservative value.  At least they used to be.

 

[KarmaPolice]

Not sure where else to put it, but I have listened to a couple podcasts with Andrew Yang who is running as a Dem on a platform of UBI.  Smartly using a R tactic and renaming it and calling it the Freedom Dividend.  I didn't see a thread for just him, so didn't know if that was warranted, but I have just heard of him in the last 2-3 months via these podcasts. 

I am going to read through this thread, as I am sure a lot of the stuff he talked about is addressed in here too, but it was basically that we are already seeing a loss of jobs due to automation, and it's just going to get worse - mostly retail, food service, trucking, but he also brought up medicine/radiology going that route and others.   

I am fairly new to this idea (at least digging into it more), so I am still processing it and trying to remember what was being discussed.  I know he said something about a certain tax (and had a specific term) for the companies using the automation to help fund it, and the costs being offset by other means like increased economy in regions, etc..   

Just found him and his ideas interesting enough to explore more, did a search and found this thread.

 

[lod001]

Oh it's coming but may not happen until a massive recession caused by AI. It's the only scenario I can see as far as causing a recession.

 

[jonessed]

What do you guys think about the "dignity of work" thing? That people who are able are better off working for money than to receive money without working for it? 

I'm not surprised at Biden's take on it. It's how he grew up. It's how I grew up. I firmly believe in it. But I also think people like Biden and myself are in the minority there. 

What do you guys think?

I don’t believe you are in the minority at all.

I believe the key difference between the parties is how the population is distributed across the spectrum of unwilling and unable to work.

 

[jonessed]

Oh it's coming but may not happen until a massive recession caused by AI. It's the only scenario I can see as far as causing a recession.

Recessions will come and go regardless of AI.  

Large societal/economic change has always been accompanied with fears of mass unemployment.  Yet, here we are. Just because we can’t see how the economy will adjust to a change that has yet to manifest itself, doesn’t mean it can’t.  History has proven that it almost assuredly can.

 

[KarmaPolice]

Recessions will come and go regardless of AI.  

Large societal/economic change has always been accompanied with fears of mass unemployment.  Yet, here we are. Just because we can’t see how the economy will adjust to a change that has yet to manifest itself, doesn’t mean it can’t.  History has proven that it almost assuredly can.

Is there a difference in this case?  Before since we didn't have the technology it was just that employment had to shift between sectors, but it was still humans we needed to do the work for the most part.  If we are making it so that some entire sectors (a lot effecting jobs people can get with just a HS degree or less) are going the route of non-humans, what do we do to adjust?

One of his points was that people seem to say "well, let's educate them or shift them to a different sector", but statistically we seem to suck at that too.  So how do we get better at that or what types of jobs do people see opening up for these types of employees?

 

[jonessed]

Is there a difference in this case?  Before since we didn't have the technology it was just that employment had to shift between sectors, but it was still humans we needed to do the work for the most part.  If we are making it so that some entire sectors (a lot effecting jobs people can get with just a HS degree or less) are going the route of non-humans, what do we do to adjust?

One of his points was that people seem to say "well, let's educate them or shift them to a different sector", but statistically we seem to suck at that too.  So how do we get better at that or what types of jobs do people see opening up for these types of employees?

The humans find different work?  I guess I really don’t see how this is so different than the industrial revolution or globalization.

Access to education is going to be a big part of any transformation.  Some of that is already being solved with tools that allow free access to high quality lectures.

 

[E Street Brat]

What do you guys think about the "dignity of work" thing? That people who are able are better off working for money than to receive money without working for it? 

I'm not surprised at Biden's take on it. It's how he grew up. It's how I grew up. I firmly believe in it. But I also think people like Biden and myself are in the minority there. 

What do you guys think?

“I am for doing good to the poor, but...I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. I observed...that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer.”

― Benjamin Franklin

 

[roadkill1292]

I'm all for the dignity of work, just not that we have to work to feed ourselves in a time of not needing to work to feed ourselves.

 

[the moops]

Some of that is already being solved with tools that allow free access to high quality lectures.

Not sure "I listened to hundreds of hours of high quality lectures" is a true resume booster

 

[KarmaPolice]

Not sure "I listened to hundreds of hours of high quality lectures" is a true resume booster

Agree.  And we cant pretend that everyone is built for higher education.  I am sure the lending companies would love that route though.  

 

[jonessed]

Not sure "I listened to hundreds of hours of high quality lectures" is a true resume booster

It’s a great way to learn and stay on top of changes.

 

[KarmaPolice]

It’s a great way to learn and stay on top of changes.

Sure, but how is it going to help land a job? 

 

[jonessed]

Sure, but how is it going to help land a job? 

You can pretty much learn anything you would by gaining a bachelor degree.  It’s helped me shift my skill set to accommodate changes in the industry and become more marketable. I don’t see why it wouldn’t help others.

I believe you can actually pay to get officially certified after taking a series of university specific coursework.  I haven’t looked into that as much.

 

[Maurile Tremblay]

Andrew Yang

Here he is on Joe Rogan’s show: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=cTsEzmFamZ8

 

[Max Power]

Not sure where else to put it, but I have listened to a couple podcasts with Andrew Yang who is running as a Dem on a platform of UBI.  Smartly using a R tactic and renaming it and calling it the Freedom Dividend.  I didn't see a thread for just him, so didn't know if that was warranted, but I have just heard of him in the last 2-3 months via these podcasts. 

I am going to read through this thread, as I am sure a lot of the stuff he talked about is addressed in here too, but it was basically that we are already seeing a loss of jobs due to automation, and it's just going to get worse - mostly retail, food service, trucking, but he also brought up medicine/radiology going that route and others.   

I am fairly new to this idea (at least digging into it more), so I am still processing it and trying to remember what was being discussed.  I know he said something about a certain tax (and had a specific term) for the companies using the automation to help fund it, and the costs being offset by other means like increased economy in regions, etc..   

Just found him and his ideas interesting enough to explore more, did a search and found this thread.

https://www.inverse.com/article/53900-universal-basic-income-would-be-cheaper-than-expected-andrew-yang-declares

This was a good read.  I'm coming around on the idea. 

 

[Sand]

https://www.inverse.com/article/53900-universal-basic-income-would-be-cheaper-than-expected-andrew-yang-declares

This was a good read.  I'm coming around on the idea. 

And then you read real studies that conclude UBI largely doesn't work.  The article based on it makes the very good point that a sizeable UBI would crowd out other public spending to the detriment of all, among other points.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

And then you read real studies that conclude UBI largely doesn't work.  The article based on it makes the very good point that a sizeable UBI would crowd out other public spending to the detriment of all, among other points.

The Public Services International Report is an opinion piece that references studies.  Most of these studies  and  the Alaska fund supporters of UBI have long known and understood what they shown and what their limitations have been.  This piece arguing for growing the welfare state so that everyone has enough income to live on including universal health care.  As well as expanding the power of workers (i.e unions).  It suggests job guarantees and reducing the hours in a work week.   These all seem like ideas that you would reject.  

 

[Sand]

The Public Services International Report is an opinion piece that references studies.  Most of these studies  and  the Alaska fund supporters of UBI have long known and understood what they shown and what their limitations have been.  This piece arguing for growing the welfare state so that everyone has enough income to live on including universal health care.  As well as expanding the power of workers (i.e unions).  It suggests job guarantees and reducing the hours in a work week.   These all seem like ideas that you would reject.  

I rarely fully agree with an entire study - I thought it was noteworthy.  I do like their thought that favors services rather than income.  It's an extension of the welfare system we have now.  My biggest issue with the UBI is that, frankly, we don't trust those we dole out welfare to.  This is the right tack - make sure people use their given resources for what will keep them and their kids fed, a roof over their heads, etc.  I reject this idea of freeform income - we will never have a populace that will embrace the concept of individual responsibility if these same people squander a UBI.

 

[Henry Ford]

And then you read real studies that conclude UBI largely doesn't work.  The article based on it makes the very good point that a sizeable UBI would crowd out other public spending to the detriment of all, among other points.

Did you read the study or just the article?

 

[Henry Ford]

I rarely fully agree with an entire study - I thought it was noteworthy.  I do like their thought that favors services rather than income.  It's an extension of the welfare system we have now.  My biggest issue with the UBI is that, frankly, we don't trust those we dole out welfare to.  This is the right tack - make sure people use their given resources for what will keep them and their kids fed, a roof over their heads, etc.  I reject this idea of freeform income - we will never have a populace that will embrace the concept of individual responsibility if these same people squander a UBI.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

I rarely fully agree with an entire study - I thought it was noteworthy.  I do like their thought that favors services rather than income.  It's an extension of the welfare system we have now.  My biggest issue with the UBI is that, frankly, we don't trust those we dole out welfare to.  This is the right tack - make sure people use their given resources for what will keep them and their kids fed, a roof over their heads, etc.  I reject this idea of freeform income - we will never have a populace that will embrace the concept of individual responsibility if these same people squander a UBI.

This just seems like a contradiction to me.   How can we drive people to embrace "individual responsibility" if we deny them the opportunity to be responsible?  How can we be critical of those "takers" that are simply being responsible in keeping their incomes below thresholds in order to keep themselves and their kids fed, with a roof over their head?  

So to be clear you supported the union's report that concludes that if we can raise taxes on the wealthy to pay for a UBI we should instead use those increased revenues to grow the welfare state such that all of the resources are targeted.   That we shouldn't return any of the increase in taxes to the wealthy.

In a dreamworld this sounds good to me.  But other than using "bait and switch" tactics I don't see the sales pitch to raise taxes an extra trillion or two to give out more welfare very viable.  I agree that it is unlikely in a vacuum to happen for a UBI either, but the UBI allows for other systematic changes to happen concurrently such as tax reform (since much of the welfare programs exist as tax expenditures in the form of credits and deductions rather than actual spending).  

I'm also sure that an UBI would always be not generous enough for those like me and way too generous to those on your side of the aisle.  But that also seems like a feature.  Finding the right compromise seems like something voters with competing interest would do well - eventually.  So that contrary to the report it would be sustainable at appropriate level because we the people would figure out those levels.  And they could and would change as circumstances change  such as if a largely jobless automated future actually become reality.  

Sure there will be those that just aren't responsible.  But are they the exceptions or the rule?  If they are the rule then how does your economic belief system not fall apart?  If they are the exceptions then we shouldn't be designing policy around exceptions.  A UBI fits the economic models that assume people are largely rational actors in the market and they are punished when they are not.  And most learn from that punishment.   While we might need to spend more to address those exceptions that are never going to be responsible by likely managing their UBI for them, we need not send them more money (ether cash or benefits) nor do we need to treat everyone else to the same "nanny state"  mentality.  Unless of course the masses just aren't going to be responsible and we need the state to be in charge.

 

[Sand]

This just seems like a contradiction to me.   How can we drive people to embrace "individual responsibility" if we deny them the opportunity to be responsible?  How can we be critical of those "takers" that are simply being responsible in keeping their incomes below thresholds in order to keep themselves and their kids fed, with a roof over their head?  

If we had a ruling class that had the fortitude to turn their backs on folks who frittered away their UBI and were still homeless and hungry, then yes I think UBI would be something that may be viable.  As it stands there is zero chance that the above would ever be true, so, yes, I'd lean toward hand holding those that need these services to ensure that they actually obtain the basics of survival.  It's the practical reality.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

If we had a ruling class that had the fortitude to turn their backs on folks who frittered away their UBI and were still homeless and hungry, then yes I think UBI would be something that may be viable.  As it stands there is zero chance that the above would ever be true, so, yes, I'd lean toward hand holding those that need these services to ensure that they actually obtain the basics of survival.  It's the practical reality.

What happens today when the welfare check is frittered away in the first week of the month?  Or the "food stamps" run out the third week?  Do we just hand more to the poor via the government?   Do you believe that the "frittered away" class will become an electoral majority to change things?   As stated earlier as long as these people are the exception and not the rule then there are things that can be done to "hand hold" other than giving them more cash aid.  And if they are not the exceptions then ...

 

[Sand]

What happens today when the welfare check is frittered away in the first week of the month?  

Just as a note one of the nice things about the digital age is that this can be doled out to a card on a daily basis, so it would be impossible to fritter away the check in a day.  IMO, the government still has to control what can get spent on what, though.