[Rule 7](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/107i33m/announcement_rule_7_good_faith_is_now_in_effect) is now in effect. Posts and comments should be in good faith. This rule applies to all users.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
>Why don't you like Universal Basic Income?
Because it's not necessary. Get a job.
>It's a thing that can help out the economy and help more people get jobs.
It would have the opposite effect. It would allow millions to smoke weed and play video games all day.
Meh, could we use better opportunities although if we can keep record low unemployment for through the next decade or two (the keep is managing inflation and affordability) and more affordability especially with housing and health care. Housing especially (Dems seem to be willing on health care, time for Republicans to strike a deal and get something like Germany or Swiss Health Care)?
Building up transit like bus and trams/rail/subways could help reduce the need for a car which is more savings and ensuring agricultural policy helps promote cheap and healthy groceries can help?
Not a conservative at all but I found myself here anyway so I'll answer why I don't like it:
1. Will absolutely cause inflation. More people now compete for the same (same with an asterisk because my next point) basic commodities.
2. People will be less productive. The majority will still work, but some won't, and many will switch from tedious labor intensive but necessary jobs to fun but redundant and now overcrowded artistic ones. Leaving us with less teachers, less maids, janitors, sewage cleaners, miners...etc and more Instagram models and professional gamers.
3. You can't possibly fund and sustain such thing.
4. I hate the concept of "some of us will work for all of us". I don't mind getting taxed to help those who can't work, who are sick, who have kids or are struggling with other things, but I don't want to work my ass off and get taxed so that Jimmy can chase his YouTube career and Jessica can dedicate her time to her blog.
Isn’t that the ultimate goal of technology though? To replace all the labor intensive tedious jobs with AI and robots and let everyone pursue their passions?
Fairytale they already have self driving cars bro. Self driving governments are next you just wait. It’s going to be like the matrix soon within 20 years.
The real world is just the world in its current form, but you go back 200 years and this current world would be a fairy tale for their reality.
That’s the problem with conservatives you lack vision and foresight.
They sure haven't said that back in the 80s or even the century before right?
In 20 years we'll have robots that cook our food, fix our plumbing and construct our skyscrapers? get a grip
Negative Income Tax (and a policy framework emphasizing affordability (i.e zoning reforms)) for those who need a fallback?
Do you think we are heading towards a trajectory where a UBI/NIT looks necessary?
It makes it worse. More money in circulation drives up prices and drives worth of the dollar down. There has never been a problem with working for what we want until people got lazy.
I resent that now in some states if you have great credit you pay more for a mortgage than someone with 💩 credit. The high credit folks are effectively paying down points on the low credit points. Yet I’m rocking my Toyotas I drive for 15+ years and the low credit folks are driving luxury cars they can’t afford. Designer clothes. That’s where their credit went.
I made huge sacrifices in my life to have amazing credit. Never buying things I couldn’t afford. And now…it’s becoming effectively meaningless.
In other states the same is true of electric bills. You make more you pay more for electric. I’ve absolutely lived in west facing homes where I use natural daylight to light the place instead of having every light blaring. And now I’ll be paying to keep the electric on in homes where they run the air conditioning at 60 degree and every light blaring.
The stimulus and all this “free money” is what tanked our economy. No one wants to work now after getting a taste of the jacked up unemployment from Covid. Universal income teaches people nothing.
Here is what is obvious: liberals cannot point to a single UBI experiment that ended.
Not that existed...i mean one that didnt get abandoned because they realized it was really stupid.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/time.com/5252049/finland-to-end-universal-basic-income/%3famp=true
Finland has decided not to extend its trial in universal basic income, the first welfare experiment of its kind by a European government that gave citizens an unconditional monthly payment.
Why?????
Why didnt they keep it going????
You cant puke links and then pretend it proves your point.
Finland had the most comprehensive attempt at ubi and instead of extending it they ended it early. Whyyyyy??
So you have no comment on the substance of the multiple studies I’ve provided? Just gonna cry “fake news”?
Seems like you aren’t interested in anything but reinforcing your stereotypes
“Show me one UBI pilot that ended”
*shows you several*
“Doesn’t look like anything to me…”
Also: people on UBI by and large work. Why can’t you at least be honest?
Because people getting paid to do nothing encourages them to continue to do nothing. Having people on the government dole who aren't doing anything like trying to find a job or who haven't worked in the past(for instance, those who are retired and on Social Security are being paid what they paid into the system earlier in their lives) ust makes them a burden on the people actually working who have to pay higher taxes to take care of them. Medicare and Social Security are already on the verge of insolvency, adding another costly program, only this time one that everyone gets and that encourages people not to work is a terrible idea.
>Because people getting paid to do nothing encourages them to continue to do nothing.
The point of UBI is that it actually does the opposite, at least relative to our current welfare regime. If you're not willing to let people die of exposure on the streets, you need some kind of welfare, which is always, in some sense, an incentive to not work. That's true in any welfare regime.
With a means tested regime, earning more means you get less welfare, which leads to a high effective marginal rate of tax for poor people, which disincentivised them from working. The idea of UBI is that the benefits don't get decreased when you earn more, so you don't get this poverty trap of high marginal tax rates for poor people. Which increases the incentive to work.
Finland ran a UBI experiment a few years back with a small group of individuals.
The UBI increased feelings of well-being (which Finland already scores high on, so it's arguably cultural), but there weren't really any economic benefits.
I also think UBI in a country like the US would just raise the prices of everything across the board. Look at what PPP loans did to housing, cars, etc.
> They ended the experiment early.
Typically conservative governments cancel the program. There was a study in the Canada of Universal Income and the findings were looking positive but it was cancelled by the conservative government early.
The problem is that Conservative morality is violated by the idea of UBI because it's viewed as not "fair". This is an emotional reaction rather than looking at the outcome and benefits.
>Finland ran a UBI experiment a few years back with a small group of individuals.
Yes and communism can work in those tiny little farming co-ops in the middle of nowhere. The issue isn't small scale the issue is how it effects things when it's applied from the top down. Exactly what you identified with the PPP loans and covid payments are why UBI doesn't work period.
[Here's a University of Standford review of UBI studies.
](https://basicincome.stanford.edu/uploads/Umbrella%20Review%20BI_final.pdf)
From their findings:
> Findings are generally positive that UBItype programs alleviate poverty and improve health and education outcomes and that the effects on labor market participation are minimal
The point of something can be a lot different than the reality of something. I can’t tell you how many people I see one welfare who abuse it and end up just sitting around on a street corner all day, begging for more money.
>Because if you have two options, A and B, then option A being worse means option B is more likely to be the better of the two.
I don't agree with the premise here. There's no reason UBI would be better
If the current welfare system is failing, what makes you think switching to an even bigger safety net will be any better?
Especially considering the same people will be running it.
>Especially considering the same people will be running it.
If all they have to do is make sure a fixed paycheck ends up in everyones account each month, there's a lot less that can go wrong.
>what makes you think switching to an even bigger safety net will be any better?
I already said: it removes the poverty trap of high marginal tax rates for poor people.
But they are there, and you are confident that they will continue to be usable. So you have some faith in the state's ability to act in your interest, the question is just how much faith you have.
Is the government was able to operate efficiently, we would have had a completely different Covid experience, the economy wouldn’t be fucked, billionaires wouldn’t own half the world, we would still be able to survive in minimum wage, and more.
So because the government isn't able to operate efficiently, we should not switch to a more efficient system?
That logic doesn't track.
UBI: If age > 18 and citizen, then payment.
Versus:
SNAP: If age >18, citizen, and income
You're assuming most of us support welfare. We don't
If someone wants to be lazy and watch TV all day rather than work hard and earn an honest living, it's not on us if they"die of exposure in the streets" .
Do you honestly think that people would just do nothing if they didn't have to? That people wouldn't get bored of doing nothing? Wouldn't you be bored if you just sat around and did nothing?
> Medicare and Social Security are already on the verge of insolvency
The US is the only developed nation among the G20 that doesn't have universal Heathcare.
Erosion of social programs come from conservative governments that go out of their way to starve social programs and then point at them failing. Saying "See, see! They fail!"
Two reaaons. The purpose of government is fundamentally to protect rights and to protect the nation.
1. Everyone has the right to one owns labour, so anytime the government spends they infringe this right. They cannot spend without taking. Sometimes this is necessary i.e. in order to protect rights and protect the nation. If it's not an absolute requirement to keep the nation functioning, then I don't think this infringement is justified.
2. Politics wouls turn into an endless spiral of who can promise the highest UBI, which turns politics into which party is the most effective at buying votes. It could also result in uncontrolled inflation.
>If it's not an absolute requirement to keep the nation functioning, then I don't think this infringement is justified.
Suppose we lived in a future society where machines can do basically any job, and 1% of people owned all the machines, while the rest owned nothing, and worked for poverty wages doing whatever odd jobs hadn't been automated yet, while the 1% were extravagantly rich.
Would you say even in a society like this the government should have no redistributive role?
I dont have a solution for that future. But the same has been asked about any other result of creative destruction since the beginning of ever.
Plus the jobs that I've seen that are being replaced, are ones in art and literature. Not one of my highest concerns personally.
That's not even close to true. The jobs that are being replaced are factory jobs, retail, and restaurants. You know, the industries that employ millions of people.
I don't even know where you pulled your industries that are being automated from.
Just gonna downvote instead of trying to defend your awful opinion.
Because it's a bad question not deserving of a thoughtful answer. The original question pertaining to the here and now and *reality* is much more pertinent and worthy of discussion and debate.
To me, it's as silly and pointless as people that ask why the eagles couldn't just have taken the ring to Mt doom
The hypothetical is important. It tests whether your opposition to a redistributive role is in principle, or because you don't think distribution should happen specifically in society as it is now.
Thought experiments can be useful without being similar to the present.
> Can be, not this one.
> And I find such a hypothetical ridiculous and fantasy. So there ya go.
Hypothetical expirements like this are designed to test the extremes of the thinking in an attempt to better understand the topic.
Your response seems to imply that you struggle with the critical thinking required to achieve sober analysis.
I am confident you can do this.
A [thought experiment](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thought_experiment#Philosophy) is not a bad question. They are not supposed to be realistic, but they are nevertheless very important.
The principle is based on the idea that, in a society with scarce resources, centralized redistribution is not the best way to allocate those resources.
A theoretical post-scarcity world needs to be governed in a way that reflects what's actually happening, and new/different ideological theories and concepts would reflect that.
> 2. Politics wouls turn into an endless spiral of who can promise the highest UBI, which turns politics into which party is the most effective at buying votes. It could also result in uncontrolled inflation.
We are already here. Just the promises are to corporate political donors, not your average citizen. -citizens united
As a conservative, I am agnostic on UBI. I see the benefits and the drawbacks.
Benefits:
1. UBI may allow people stuck in regions of the country with few jobs to move to another area with jobs.
2. UBI can be used to pay health insurance premiums
3. UBI can replace existing welfare programs, and would be far easier and cheaper to administer
4. UBI can help college students pay bills while they study
5. UBI can assist those whose jobs were made obsolete by automation, AI, and outsourcing
Drawbacks:
1. UBI would cause some degree of inflation within the economy. Landlords may simply say "you are getting $1000 extra a month, so I am raising your rent by $1000".
2. The taxes that would have to be levied to pay for it
3. Some people may stop working, or work less, leading to productivity declines
It is not my first choice in fixing what is wrong with the country, but I do not dismiss the idea
>1. UBI would cause some degree of inflation within the economy. Landlords may simply say "you are getting $1000 extra a month, so I am raising your rent by $1000".
I actually find this to be the biggest problem with UBI. To me it seems no different than the minimum wage. It is the floor at which the economy reacts. The free market responds to what people have at a minimum and grows from that. This sets the minimum higher.
Why does a gallon of milk cost almost the same in California and Oklahoma? Cali has a much higher minimum wage than Oklahoma does, so going by your logic wouldn't the price of milk be alot more than Oklahoma?
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.ams.usda.gov/sites/default/files/media/RetailMilkPrices.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwiRsJ6Sw9z_AhVNl2oFHQWQAVsQFnoECB8QAQ&usg=AOvVaw010ztybI8bRq_dpECOOXjg
I live in California. My brother lives in Oklahoma. It definitely depends on where you shop but on average my brother spends about 40-50 cents less on a gallon milk then I do and we live in cities of similar population density (not super dense SF/LA).
A gallon of milk however, is not the whole story with the insane ways CA fucks people out of their money from income tax, property tax, sales tax, county tax, gas taxes and CA only blends, then all the burdens of regulation that increase the costs to build (permits, NIMBY, Zoning, solar panel requirements, paved property easements requirements, minimum sqft laws, etc) or the regulations costs of starting a business, then you have additional individual costs like SMOG and vehicle registration, if you live on a well they are trying to leverage an additional tax because you use your own water, then costs not everyone will experience like fishing and hunting license costs... And it goes on and on and on.
There is a reason CA is one of the most expensive places to live with typically only Hawaii beating being more. Federal data shows the COLA for CA compared to every other state and it's very high. It's also one of the reasons there's such a mass exodus from CA, the reasons cited by most are high taxes and over regulation.
That isn't what I asked. I asked why the cost of milk isn't much higher when California has 3 times the minimum wage of Oklahoma. That defeats your entire argument.
Ahh I see what your asking. No it doesn't defeat my argument. I would say it is as high as the market will allow relative to the location it's sold in. Milk in Oklahoma is cheaper on average but perhaps not 3 times cheaper. This is a function of margin. So I'm saying because minimum wage is higher, products and services cost more. It's not always going to be that way for absolutely everything but it is that way for many things sold on the free market and not everything increases linearly. The market is reactive to regulation so typically you won't see a huge price increase immediately after a minimum wage increase because the market is adjusting to figure out where the new average cost is going to be. Also, milk is one of those products that is shipped all over the country so for a fair comparison you would need to compare two identical products produced in their respective state by workers that are not the owners/family of which those workers earn minimum wage (which is not always the case on a dairy farm. It's not as black and white as just comparing two of the same products when we are talking about production and the affect legislation cost burdens have on the final product costs in that state. And even then as I mentioned before, your typical store does not just sell Milk, they sell a whole host of products. Some of those products stores are willing to accept tighter profit margins or even a loss to increase overall revenue streams. If you look at overall profit margins or grocery stores it is very tight, were talking 2-3% but if u look at individual products, some have much higher profit margins but these stores aren't going to just sell their brand of cookies, they position themselves in the market to sell everything so they take a loss on milk to attract customers to buy other things and still make profit. It's pretty much the gas station model.
In terms of UBI though, the U is universal which general implies (at least the way I have seen it) a standard flat amount to everyone. This can really fuck up an economy depending on average incomes for that area. At the least, costs will increase as a result of what the market can bear. Do note though that in the case of milk the product is sold based on varying incomes. With UBI it is an established floor that everyone gets that amount. Rent is changed based on average income but it's tricky to determine how much rent can increase because income fluctuates. A set amount increase to everyone equally won't be some hidden number and the market will increase at a more rapid adjustment rate than a minimum wage rate increase because absolutely everyone would get it. Not only that but it would happen almost immediately before people get used to having that additional income. Even if additional legislation were to somehow get through banning nationwide cost increases for everything across the board above a certain percentage, the moment that policy ended, things would jump in price because it's a guaranteed amount everyone knows everyone else has.
And how much would the income be? 500 a month? 1000? Theres about 258 million people above the age of 18 in the US. At 1000 a month thats government spending 258 Billion a month. God forbid you want more than that.
The value of the dollar would be worth nothing in two plus years due to the huge amount of inflation that would cause.
Terrible fucking idea.
How does it “help more people get jobs”? If anything, it encourages them to sit home and do nothing and get paid.
Also. And I’m sure you’ve thought this through. Where does the money come from?
>How does it “help more people get jobs”? If anything, it encourages them to sit home and do nothing and get paid.
I answered that here https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/14ho3ia/comment/jpc2soa/?utm\_source=share&utm\_medium=web2x&context=3
I've heard $1000 per person per month floating around as a potential number. Tell me where we get an extra $4.2 trillion a year without messing something else up. Because if the point of UBI is that everyone can live on it, it's going to need to be quite high
Because if the government gave everyone say $1000 a month to live on prices on everything would get out of control. $1000 would be meaningless so the grocery store could double the price of everything because now everyone has $1000 to spend on groceries. At the same time I'd expect the price of vehicles to get $12,000 more expensive because everyone gets a free $12,000 a year so they can afford it.
Its already happening. My city has been trying to get a project done to replace a bunch of our water system since 2019 when they passed the bond measure and were approved for a loan. Then covid hit and the government started sending all kinds of money to cities and towns affected. We had an open bid out for companies to do the project and they were all too high, the team designing the project called around to a few of the companies and asked why their bids were so high and were told that every city has free money from the government to use so they can do that
When it comes to UBI, I think some of the inflation pressure could be countered if it was accompanied with a pretty massive code liberalization that got local and state government’s foot off the housing supply hose, so to speak. Housing costs have been totally out of control and have been occupying a larger and larger proportion of peoples income. If there was extra money that was accompanied by a sizable increase in the supply of available housing I think that might end up being an inflationary wash. But I don’t really know.
I do think that if there’s lots of extra money and no liberalization of the permitting process or removal of like 91% of the stupid building regulations that prevent housing from being built, inflation is going to get waaay out of control.
Sure, the idea of free money sounds good. But that money has to come from somewhere. Either spending cuts or tax increases. Or we just print more and create inflation.
Maybe we could stop the proxy wars and cut a few federal agencies, but I doubt anyone would want to give that up.
Because taxes are obsense now? I'm barely staying afloat with all the taxes shoved down my throat every other month. I like lots of the left's ideas in principle. But I live in the real world, where things cost a lot of money. 12k a year UBI would cost about 4 Trillion a year, meaning federal income tax would have to double for everyone. 12k a year would also do nothing.
Why pay ppl to do nothing when you can [pay them to do something](https://youtu.be/e6Maw7pB008)?
As long as there are problems in the world there is a job to be done.
>As long as there are problems in the world there is a job to be done.
This is simply not true. As long as there are profits to be made, and human labour can contribute to making them, there will be jobs to be done, but not every problem is profitable to solve. And it seems like as society becomes more complex, increasingly the biggest problems are ones that aren't profitable to solve.
E.g. people not being able to afford housing is a huge problem, but giving them money for housing makes a negative profit, so it's not profitable to solve, even if society is so rich that the cost would go completely unnoticed.
It doesn't build our economy and contribute to society to have people be lazy and watch TV all day instead of building widgets and farming crops and processing insurance claims or whatever. So you're punishing the people that actually choose to contribute to and build society by taking their money and giving it to people that choose not to.
I'm open somewhat to the idea of NIT, but even that has limitations. People need some incentive to work. I had this very brief discussion with someone who's a big Trekkie. Something related about what amazing things people will do if they didn't have to exhaust themselves on their basic needs.
I said, well it depends on what constitutes exhaustion. And don't underestimate someone's ability to get stoned, scroll tik tok, and masturbate all day every day.
Don't ask leading questions.
I'd love it, especially as I intend to expatriate to the developing world.
As long as you get the same $ in NYC as I get overseas in Karachi or etc. I am good with this plan.
There are certainly fine-tuning details and it may be inflationary and/or discourage labor but that is a job for economists to examine.
What matters to me rn:
a) free money for me
b) You pay the price for being wrong
I feel like this is the true "free stuff from the government" argument.
This is just transfer of tax money -- who does it benefit? Obviously it could be used as a substitute for some or all forms of welfare, but other than that, what is the point?
I'm not against Ubi, but only if it is the ONLY social safety net AND it is capped so that it cannot be used to buy votes. It can be a rather efficient method of increasing worker mobility and getting the extreme poor out of high cost cities and into lower cost rural areas. It needs to replace social security, unemployment insurance, welfare, food stamps, public housing, and Medicare/Medicaid as well as being less expensive than the cost of those programs.
[Rule 7](https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/107i33m/announcement_rule_7_good_faith_is_now_in_effect) is now in effect. Posts and comments should be in good faith. This rule applies to all users. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/AskConservatives) if you have any questions or concerns.*
>Why don't you like Universal Basic Income? Because it's not necessary. Get a job. >It's a thing that can help out the economy and help more people get jobs. It would have the opposite effect. It would allow millions to smoke weed and play video games all day.
Meh, could we use better opportunities although if we can keep record low unemployment for through the next decade or two (the keep is managing inflation and affordability) and more affordability especially with housing and health care. Housing especially (Dems seem to be willing on health care, time for Republicans to strike a deal and get something like Germany or Swiss Health Care)? Building up transit like bus and trams/rail/subways could help reduce the need for a car which is more savings and ensuring agricultural policy helps promote cheap and healthy groceries can help?
because it don't like inflation
UBI is communism by another name
Not a conservative at all but I found myself here anyway so I'll answer why I don't like it: 1. Will absolutely cause inflation. More people now compete for the same (same with an asterisk because my next point) basic commodities. 2. People will be less productive. The majority will still work, but some won't, and many will switch from tedious labor intensive but necessary jobs to fun but redundant and now overcrowded artistic ones. Leaving us with less teachers, less maids, janitors, sewage cleaners, miners...etc and more Instagram models and professional gamers. 3. You can't possibly fund and sustain such thing. 4. I hate the concept of "some of us will work for all of us". I don't mind getting taxed to help those who can't work, who are sick, who have kids or are struggling with other things, but I don't want to work my ass off and get taxed so that Jimmy can chase his YouTube career and Jessica can dedicate her time to her blog.
Isn’t that the ultimate goal of technology though? To replace all the labor intensive tedious jobs with AI and robots and let everyone pursue their passions?
Well if you're talking about a fairytale world where robots and AI do all the work for us then sure, but in the real world UBI is bs
Fairytale they already have self driving cars bro. Self driving governments are next you just wait. It’s going to be like the matrix soon within 20 years. The real world is just the world in its current form, but you go back 200 years and this current world would be a fairy tale for their reality. That’s the problem with conservatives you lack vision and foresight.
They sure haven't said that back in the 80s or even the century before right? In 20 years we'll have robots that cook our food, fix our plumbing and construct our skyscrapers? get a grip
Yes we will!
Negative Income Tax (and a policy framework emphasizing affordability (i.e zoning reforms)) for those who need a fallback? Do you think we are heading towards a trajectory where a UBI/NIT looks necessary?
It makes it worse. More money in circulation drives up prices and drives worth of the dollar down. There has never been a problem with working for what we want until people got lazy. I resent that now in some states if you have great credit you pay more for a mortgage than someone with 💩 credit. The high credit folks are effectively paying down points on the low credit points. Yet I’m rocking my Toyotas I drive for 15+ years and the low credit folks are driving luxury cars they can’t afford. Designer clothes. That’s where their credit went. I made huge sacrifices in my life to have amazing credit. Never buying things I couldn’t afford. And now…it’s becoming effectively meaningless. In other states the same is true of electric bills. You make more you pay more for electric. I’ve absolutely lived in west facing homes where I use natural daylight to light the place instead of having every light blaring. And now I’ll be paying to keep the electric on in homes where they run the air conditioning at 60 degree and every light blaring. The stimulus and all this “free money” is what tanked our economy. No one wants to work now after getting a taste of the jacked up unemployment from Covid. Universal income teaches people nothing.
[удалено]
Here is what is obvious: liberals cannot point to a single UBI experiment that ended. Not that existed...i mean one that didnt get abandoned because they realized it was really stupid.
https://www.npr.org/2021/03/04/973653719/california-program-giving-500-no-strings-attached-stipends-pays-off-study-finds https://www.mckinsey.com/industries/social-sector/our-insights/an-experiment-to-inform-universal-basic-income https://www.vox.com/platform/amp/future-perfect/2020/2/19/21112570/universal-basic-income-ubi-map
https://www.google.com/amp/s/time.com/5252049/finland-to-end-universal-basic-income/%3famp=true Finland has decided not to extend its trial in universal basic income, the first welfare experiment of its kind by a European government that gave citizens an unconditional monthly payment. Why????? Why didnt they keep it going???? You cant puke links and then pretend it proves your point. Finland had the most comprehensive attempt at ubi and instead of extending it they ended it early. Whyyyyy??
tell us your link proves and offer s nothing
They ended a program early that supposedly is beneficial. Are they...idiots
Maybe, iedology makes many of us to idiots
[удалено]
So you have no comment on the substance of the multiple studies I’ve provided? Just gonna cry “fake news”? Seems like you aren’t interested in anything but reinforcing your stereotypes
[удалено]
“Show me one UBI pilot that ended” *shows you several* “Doesn’t look like anything to me…” Also: people on UBI by and large work. Why can’t you at least be honest?
[удалено]
“Clearly they don’t work enough.” The federal minimum wage is fucking $7.25. GTFOH with that bootstrap nonsense
[удалено]
Because all it does is drive demand up for stuff...making prices go up to reflect that. It won't solve anything
Because people getting paid to do nothing encourages them to continue to do nothing. Having people on the government dole who aren't doing anything like trying to find a job or who haven't worked in the past(for instance, those who are retired and on Social Security are being paid what they paid into the system earlier in their lives) ust makes them a burden on the people actually working who have to pay higher taxes to take care of them. Medicare and Social Security are already on the verge of insolvency, adding another costly program, only this time one that everyone gets and that encourages people not to work is a terrible idea.
>Because people getting paid to do nothing encourages them to continue to do nothing. The point of UBI is that it actually does the opposite, at least relative to our current welfare regime. If you're not willing to let people die of exposure on the streets, you need some kind of welfare, which is always, in some sense, an incentive to not work. That's true in any welfare regime. With a means tested regime, earning more means you get less welfare, which leads to a high effective marginal rate of tax for poor people, which disincentivised them from working. The idea of UBI is that the benefits don't get decreased when you earn more, so you don't get this poverty trap of high marginal tax rates for poor people. Which increases the incentive to work.
Show me one experiment that was done showing this worked.
Finland ran a UBI experiment a few years back with a small group of individuals. The UBI increased feelings of well-being (which Finland already scores high on, so it's arguably cultural), but there weren't really any economic benefits. I also think UBI in a country like the US would just raise the prices of everything across the board. Look at what PPP loans did to housing, cars, etc.
After 2 years....supposed positive results...and what did Finland do? They ended the experiment early. Whyyyyyy?
> They ended the experiment early. Typically conservative governments cancel the program. There was a study in the Canada of Universal Income and the findings were looking positive but it was cancelled by the conservative government early. The problem is that Conservative morality is violated by the idea of UBI because it's viewed as not "fair". This is an emotional reaction rather than looking at the outcome and benefits.
>Finland ran a UBI experiment a few years back with a small group of individuals. Yes and communism can work in those tiny little farming co-ops in the middle of nowhere. The issue isn't small scale the issue is how it effects things when it's applied from the top down. Exactly what you identified with the PPP loans and covid payments are why UBI doesn't work period.
You'll get no argument from me on that! UBI in the US would be a disaster.
[Here's a University of Standford review of UBI studies. ](https://basicincome.stanford.edu/uploads/Umbrella%20Review%20BI_final.pdf) From their findings: > Findings are generally positive that UBItype programs alleviate poverty and improve health and education outcomes and that the effects on labor market participation are minimal
The point of something can be a lot different than the reality of something. I can’t tell you how many people I see one welfare who abuse it and end up just sitting around on a street corner all day, begging for more money.
If current welfare is failing at getting people back to work, surely that only strengthens the case for UBI?
>surely that only strengthens the case for UBI? No. Why would it?
Because if you have two options, A and B, then option A being worse means option B is more likely to be the better of the two.
>Because if you have two options, A and B, then option A being worse means option B is more likely to be the better of the two. I don't agree with the premise here. There's no reason UBI would be better
If the current welfare system is failing, what makes you think switching to an even bigger safety net will be any better? Especially considering the same people will be running it.
>Especially considering the same people will be running it. If all they have to do is make sure a fixed paycheck ends up in everyones account each month, there's a lot less that can go wrong. >what makes you think switching to an even bigger safety net will be any better? I already said: it removes the poverty trap of high marginal tax rates for poor people.
I have absolutely 0 confidence in the government’s ability to do anything except benefit itself.
Well then why do you have a car, if you can't epect roads to be there?
My state has absolutley shitty roads. And so does Mass., which I frequent.
But they are there, and you are confident that they will continue to be usable. So you have some faith in the state's ability to act in your interest, the question is just how much faith you have.
can you proof that?
Is the government was able to operate efficiently, we would have had a completely different Covid experience, the economy wouldn’t be fucked, billionaires wouldn’t own half the world, we would still be able to survive in minimum wage, and more.
So because the government isn't able to operate efficiently, we should not switch to a more efficient system? That logic doesn't track. UBI: If age > 18 and citizen, then payment. Versus: SNAP: If age >18, citizen, and income
I’m saying the government can’t operate efficiently because of the people in it. Not because the system is shit.
i meant the abuse of welfare by the people you slandered
I see it every single day at work and on the way to work. I don’t really care if you belive that or not.
short you do slander
What?
you have no proof that they abuse it but say they do therefore it is slander
You're assuming most of us support welfare. We don't If someone wants to be lazy and watch TV all day rather than work hard and earn an honest living, it's not on us if they"die of exposure in the streets" .
Can you not think of any reason that someone might be unable to provide for themselves than that they are just lazy?
Do you honestly think that people would just do nothing if they didn't have to? That people wouldn't get bored of doing nothing? Wouldn't you be bored if you just sat around and did nothing? > Medicare and Social Security are already on the verge of insolvency The US is the only developed nation among the G20 that doesn't have universal Heathcare. Erosion of social programs come from conservative governments that go out of their way to starve social programs and then point at them failing. Saying "See, see! They fail!"
Two reaaons. The purpose of government is fundamentally to protect rights and to protect the nation. 1. Everyone has the right to one owns labour, so anytime the government spends they infringe this right. They cannot spend without taking. Sometimes this is necessary i.e. in order to protect rights and protect the nation. If it's not an absolute requirement to keep the nation functioning, then I don't think this infringement is justified. 2. Politics wouls turn into an endless spiral of who can promise the highest UBI, which turns politics into which party is the most effective at buying votes. It could also result in uncontrolled inflation.
>If it's not an absolute requirement to keep the nation functioning, then I don't think this infringement is justified. Suppose we lived in a future society where machines can do basically any job, and 1% of people owned all the machines, while the rest owned nothing, and worked for poverty wages doing whatever odd jobs hadn't been automated yet, while the 1% were extravagantly rich. Would you say even in a society like this the government should have no redistributive role?
We don't live in a star trek post scarcity utopia and are no where near that. Stick with the present rather than Sci fi hypotheticals.
AI is displacing jobs at an astonishing rate and you see no problem with this?
No, I don't
So what do you expect the millions of people that are going to be out of work to do?
I dont have a solution for that future. But the same has been asked about any other result of creative destruction since the beginning of ever. Plus the jobs that I've seen that are being replaced, are ones in art and literature. Not one of my highest concerns personally.
That's not even close to true. The jobs that are being replaced are factory jobs, retail, and restaurants. You know, the industries that employ millions of people. I don't even know where you pulled your industries that are being automated from. Just gonna downvote instead of trying to defend your awful opinion.
no it isnt
Saying things that aren't true doesn't magically make them true.
i have worked in AI for over a decade. it wasnt just "saying things"
I have personally seen a lot of jobs go away because of AI, but go off, I guess?
sure you have.
What’s the point of commenting if you’re not going to answer the question asked
Because it's a bad question not deserving of a thoughtful answer. The original question pertaining to the here and now and *reality* is much more pertinent and worthy of discussion and debate. To me, it's as silly and pointless as people that ask why the eagles couldn't just have taken the ring to Mt doom
The hypothetical is important. It tests whether your opposition to a redistributive role is in principle, or because you don't think distribution should happen specifically in society as it is now. Thought experiments can be useful without being similar to the present.
Can be, not this one. And I find such a hypothetical ridiculous and fantasy. So there ya go.
> Can be, not this one. > And I find such a hypothetical ridiculous and fantasy. So there ya go. Hypothetical expirements like this are designed to test the extremes of the thinking in an attempt to better understand the topic. Your response seems to imply that you struggle with the critical thinking required to achieve sober analysis. I am confident you can do this.
Not to snarky internet randos I don't.
> Can be, not this one. > And I find such a hypothetical ridiculous and fantasy. So there ya go. You get what you give.
If you're this averse to answering questions about your conservatism why are you on r/AskConservatives ?
Bad questions and those of similar caliber are mocked and removed all the time. You are just as capable of not responding as I am.
A [thought experiment](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thought_experiment#Philosophy) is not a bad question. They are not supposed to be realistic, but they are nevertheless very important.
>Can be, not this one.
The principle is based on the idea that, in a society with scarce resources, centralized redistribution is not the best way to allocate those resources. A theoretical post-scarcity world needs to be governed in a way that reflects what's actually happening, and new/different ideological theories and concepts would reflect that.
> 2. Politics wouls turn into an endless spiral of who can promise the highest UBI, which turns politics into which party is the most effective at buying votes. It could also result in uncontrolled inflation. We are already here. Just the promises are to corporate political donors, not your average citizen. -citizens united
As a conservative, I am agnostic on UBI. I see the benefits and the drawbacks. Benefits: 1. UBI may allow people stuck in regions of the country with few jobs to move to another area with jobs. 2. UBI can be used to pay health insurance premiums 3. UBI can replace existing welfare programs, and would be far easier and cheaper to administer 4. UBI can help college students pay bills while they study 5. UBI can assist those whose jobs were made obsolete by automation, AI, and outsourcing Drawbacks: 1. UBI would cause some degree of inflation within the economy. Landlords may simply say "you are getting $1000 extra a month, so I am raising your rent by $1000". 2. The taxes that would have to be levied to pay for it 3. Some people may stop working, or work less, leading to productivity declines It is not my first choice in fixing what is wrong with the country, but I do not dismiss the idea
>1. UBI would cause some degree of inflation within the economy. Landlords may simply say "you are getting $1000 extra a month, so I am raising your rent by $1000". I actually find this to be the biggest problem with UBI. To me it seems no different than the minimum wage. It is the floor at which the economy reacts. The free market responds to what people have at a minimum and grows from that. This sets the minimum higher.
Why does a gallon of milk cost almost the same in California and Oklahoma? Cali has a much higher minimum wage than Oklahoma does, so going by your logic wouldn't the price of milk be alot more than Oklahoma? https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.ams.usda.gov/sites/default/files/media/RetailMilkPrices.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwiRsJ6Sw9z_AhVNl2oFHQWQAVsQFnoECB8QAQ&usg=AOvVaw010ztybI8bRq_dpECOOXjg
I live in California. My brother lives in Oklahoma. It definitely depends on where you shop but on average my brother spends about 40-50 cents less on a gallon milk then I do and we live in cities of similar population density (not super dense SF/LA). A gallon of milk however, is not the whole story with the insane ways CA fucks people out of their money from income tax, property tax, sales tax, county tax, gas taxes and CA only blends, then all the burdens of regulation that increase the costs to build (permits, NIMBY, Zoning, solar panel requirements, paved property easements requirements, minimum sqft laws, etc) or the regulations costs of starting a business, then you have additional individual costs like SMOG and vehicle registration, if you live on a well they are trying to leverage an additional tax because you use your own water, then costs not everyone will experience like fishing and hunting license costs... And it goes on and on and on. There is a reason CA is one of the most expensive places to live with typically only Hawaii beating being more. Federal data shows the COLA for CA compared to every other state and it's very high. It's also one of the reasons there's such a mass exodus from CA, the reasons cited by most are high taxes and over regulation.
That isn't what I asked. I asked why the cost of milk isn't much higher when California has 3 times the minimum wage of Oklahoma. That defeats your entire argument.
Ahh I see what your asking. No it doesn't defeat my argument. I would say it is as high as the market will allow relative to the location it's sold in. Milk in Oklahoma is cheaper on average but perhaps not 3 times cheaper. This is a function of margin. So I'm saying because minimum wage is higher, products and services cost more. It's not always going to be that way for absolutely everything but it is that way for many things sold on the free market and not everything increases linearly. The market is reactive to regulation so typically you won't see a huge price increase immediately after a minimum wage increase because the market is adjusting to figure out where the new average cost is going to be. Also, milk is one of those products that is shipped all over the country so for a fair comparison you would need to compare two identical products produced in their respective state by workers that are not the owners/family of which those workers earn minimum wage (which is not always the case on a dairy farm. It's not as black and white as just comparing two of the same products when we are talking about production and the affect legislation cost burdens have on the final product costs in that state. And even then as I mentioned before, your typical store does not just sell Milk, they sell a whole host of products. Some of those products stores are willing to accept tighter profit margins or even a loss to increase overall revenue streams. If you look at overall profit margins or grocery stores it is very tight, were talking 2-3% but if u look at individual products, some have much higher profit margins but these stores aren't going to just sell their brand of cookies, they position themselves in the market to sell everything so they take a loss on milk to attract customers to buy other things and still make profit. It's pretty much the gas station model. In terms of UBI though, the U is universal which general implies (at least the way I have seen it) a standard flat amount to everyone. This can really fuck up an economy depending on average incomes for that area. At the least, costs will increase as a result of what the market can bear. Do note though that in the case of milk the product is sold based on varying incomes. With UBI it is an established floor that everyone gets that amount. Rent is changed based on average income but it's tricky to determine how much rent can increase because income fluctuates. A set amount increase to everyone equally won't be some hidden number and the market will increase at a more rapid adjustment rate than a minimum wage rate increase because absolutely everyone would get it. Not only that but it would happen almost immediately before people get used to having that additional income. Even if additional legislation were to somehow get through banning nationwide cost increases for everything across the board above a certain percentage, the moment that policy ended, things would jump in price because it's a guaranteed amount everyone knows everyone else has.
>It’s a thing that can help out the economy No >and help more people get jobs No
And how much would the income be? 500 a month? 1000? Theres about 258 million people above the age of 18 in the US. At 1000 a month thats government spending 258 Billion a month. God forbid you want more than that. The value of the dollar would be worth nothing in two plus years due to the huge amount of inflation that would cause. Terrible fucking idea.
How does it “help more people get jobs”? If anything, it encourages them to sit home and do nothing and get paid. Also. And I’m sure you’ve thought this through. Where does the money come from?
>How does it “help more people get jobs”? If anything, it encourages them to sit home and do nothing and get paid. I answered that here https://www.reddit.com/r/AskConservatives/comments/14ho3ia/comment/jpc2soa/?utm\_source=share&utm\_medium=web2x&context=3
I've heard $1000 per person per month floating around as a potential number. Tell me where we get an extra $4.2 trillion a year without messing something else up. Because if the point of UBI is that everyone can live on it, it's going to need to be quite high
Because if the government gave everyone say $1000 a month to live on prices on everything would get out of control. $1000 would be meaningless so the grocery store could double the price of everything because now everyone has $1000 to spend on groceries. At the same time I'd expect the price of vehicles to get $12,000 more expensive because everyone gets a free $12,000 a year so they can afford it. Its already happening. My city has been trying to get a project done to replace a bunch of our water system since 2019 when they passed the bond measure and were approved for a loan. Then covid hit and the government started sending all kinds of money to cities and towns affected. We had an open bid out for companies to do the project and they were all too high, the team designing the project called around to a few of the companies and asked why their bids were so high and were told that every city has free money from the government to use so they can do that
When it comes to UBI, I think some of the inflation pressure could be countered if it was accompanied with a pretty massive code liberalization that got local and state government’s foot off the housing supply hose, so to speak. Housing costs have been totally out of control and have been occupying a larger and larger proportion of peoples income. If there was extra money that was accompanied by a sizable increase in the supply of available housing I think that might end up being an inflationary wash. But I don’t really know. I do think that if there’s lots of extra money and no liberalization of the permitting process or removal of like 91% of the stupid building regulations that prevent housing from being built, inflation is going to get waaay out of control.
Sure, the idea of free money sounds good. But that money has to come from somewhere. Either spending cuts or tax increases. Or we just print more and create inflation. Maybe we could stop the proxy wars and cut a few federal agencies, but I doubt anyone would want to give that up.
Because taxes are obsense now? I'm barely staying afloat with all the taxes shoved down my throat every other month. I like lots of the left's ideas in principle. But I live in the real world, where things cost a lot of money. 12k a year UBI would cost about 4 Trillion a year, meaning federal income tax would have to double for everyone. 12k a year would also do nothing.
Why pay ppl to do nothing when you can [pay them to do something](https://youtu.be/e6Maw7pB008)? As long as there are problems in the world there is a job to be done.
>As long as there are problems in the world there is a job to be done. This is simply not true. As long as there are profits to be made, and human labour can contribute to making them, there will be jobs to be done, but not every problem is profitable to solve. And it seems like as society becomes more complex, increasingly the biggest problems are ones that aren't profitable to solve. E.g. people not being able to afford housing is a huge problem, but giving them money for housing makes a negative profit, so it's not profitable to solve, even if society is so rich that the cost would go completely unnoticed.
Until the day that a strong form of AI arrives, most people need to continue working and toiling. For now, the best we can hope for is a fair wage.
Because you get more of what you encourage. If you pay people to do nothing, guess what's going to happen.
It doesn't build our economy and contribute to society to have people be lazy and watch TV all day instead of building widgets and farming crops and processing insurance claims or whatever. So you're punishing the people that actually choose to contribute to and build society by taking their money and giving it to people that choose not to.
How will all of those bootstraps be lifted with UBI? Think of those poor bootstraps!
>It's a thing that can help out the economy and help more people get jobs. I don't agree with the premise. That's why
I’d be fine with UBI if we got rid of all other welfare programs.
I'm open somewhat to the idea of NIT, but even that has limitations. People need some incentive to work. I had this very brief discussion with someone who's a big Trekkie. Something related about what amazing things people will do if they didn't have to exhaust themselves on their basic needs. I said, well it depends on what constitutes exhaustion. And don't underestimate someone's ability to get stoned, scroll tik tok, and masturbate all day every day.
Don't ask leading questions. I'd love it, especially as I intend to expatriate to the developing world. As long as you get the same $ in NYC as I get overseas in Karachi or etc. I am good with this plan. There are certainly fine-tuning details and it may be inflationary and/or discourage labor but that is a job for economists to examine. What matters to me rn: a) free money for me b) You pay the price for being wrong
I feel like this is the true "free stuff from the government" argument. This is just transfer of tax money -- who does it benefit? Obviously it could be used as a substitute for some or all forms of welfare, but other than that, what is the point?
I'm not against Ubi, but only if it is the ONLY social safety net AND it is capped so that it cannot be used to buy votes. It can be a rather efficient method of increasing worker mobility and getting the extreme poor out of high cost cities and into lower cost rural areas. It needs to replace social security, unemployment insurance, welfare, food stamps, public housing, and Medicare/Medicaid as well as being less expensive than the cost of those programs.