Universal basic income doesn’t work

[applecorped]

https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...rty-inequality

A study published this week sheds doubt on ambitious claims made for universal basic income (UBI), the scheme that would give everyone regular, unconditional cash payments that are enough to live on.

It could find no evidence to suggest that such a scheme could be sustained for all individuals in any country in the short, medium or longer term – or that this approach could achieve lasting improvements in wellbeing or equality. "

[The Great Zaganza]

That's actually not what the article or even study says.

It just highlights the fact that up to this day, there is no UBI trial has existed long enough, had sufficient amounts of participants or actually paid out an above-poverty amount that would allow to draw clear conclusions.
In other words, no UBI scheme tested so far would work - in the opinion of the authors.

[carlitos]

Originally Posted by applecorped

https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...rty-inequality

A study published this week sheds doubt on ambitious claims made for universal basic income (UBI), the scheme that would give everyone regular, unconditional cash payments that are enough to live on.

It could find no evidence to suggest that such a scheme could be sustained for all individuals in any country in the short, medium or longer term – or that this approach could achieve lasting improvements in wellbeing or equality. "

Please learn to use the quote function. The above two sentences are copied with the sentence in between excised and no indication here. If these aren't your words, they should be in a quote box. If you remove a sentence, you should note it with ellipses.

[mgidm86]

Isn't there some rule about addressing the topic and not the poster? Funny how that gets ignored sometimes.

I will provide you all with the second on-topic reply in this thread. Now then:

Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza

That's actually not what the article or even study says.

It just highlights the fact that up to this day, there is no UBI trial has existed long enough, had sufficient amounts of participants or actually paid out an above-poverty amount that would allow to draw clear conclusions.
In other words, no UBI scheme tested so far would work - in the opinion of the authors.

Bigfoot's existence has not been disproved yet either.

Quote:

The cost of a sufficient UBI scheme would be extremely high according to the International Labour Office, which estimates average costs equivalent to 20-30% of GDP in most countries. Costs can be reduced – and have been in most trials – by paying smaller amounts to fewer individuals. But there is no evidence to suggest that a partial or conditional UBI scheme could do anything to mitigate, let alone reverse, current trends towards worsening poverty, inequality and labour insecurity. Costs may be offset by raising taxes or shifting expenditure from other kinds of public expenditure, but either way there are huge and risky trade-offs.

...

The report concludes that the money needed to pay for an adequate UBI scheme “would be better spent on reforming social protection systems, and building more and better-quality public services”. Redistributing the personal tax allowance and developing the idea of universal basic services (UBS) could offer a more promising alternative. This calls for more and better quality public services that are free to those who need them, regardless of ability to pay. Healthcare and education are obvious examples, and it is argued that a similar approach should be applied to areas such as transport, housing, social care and information – everyday essentials that should be available to all. Collective provision offers more cost-effective, socially just, redistributive and sustainable ways of meeting people’s needs than leaving individuals to buy what they can afford in the marketplace.

I'm pretty much living hand to mouth right now and do not want free government cash, nor do I want them handing it out as a BUI to anyone else. Cash? Hellll no.

Adults can be spoiled same as children. I think it's largely these spoiled children of "helicopter participation trophy" parents who are embracing socialist ideas like this. And you damn well better take care of the borders if you want to pay people not to work! We'll have a billion people living here in no time.

I was raised to not be a burden on society. Funny how things have changed.

[Vixen]

Originally Posted by applecorped

https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...rty-inequality

A study published this week sheds doubt on ambitious claims made for universal basic income (UBI), the scheme that would give everyone regular, unconditional cash payments that are enough to live on.

It could find no evidence to suggest that such a scheme could be sustained for all individuals in any country in the short, medium or longer term – or that this approach could achieve lasting improvements in wellbeing or equality. "

It seemed to work in somewhere like a region in Pakistan (iirc, from a tv documentary a couple of years ago). People were each given their own debit card with regular sums added to it. It appeared to work wonders for self-esteem, independence and morale.

[p0lka]

Originally Posted by applecorped

https://www.theguardian.com/commenti...rty-inequality

A study published this week sheds doubt on ambitious claims made for universal basic income (UBI), the scheme that would give everyone regular, unconditional cash payments that are enough to live on.

Research conducted for Public Services International, a global trade union federation, reviewed for the first time 16 practical projects that have tested different ways of distributing regular cash payments to individuals across a range of poor, middle-income and rich countries, as well as copious literature on the topic.

Originally Posted by applecorped

It could find no evidence to suggest that such a scheme could be sustained for all individuals in any country in the short, medium or longer term – or that this approach could achieve lasting improvements in wellbeing or equality. "

ftfy.

[arthwollipot]

Originally Posted by mgidm86

Isn't there some rule about addressing the topic and not the poster? Funny how that gets ignored sometimes.

If you think a rule has been broken, it is your responsibility to report the post.

[arthwollipot]

Here's another pertinent quote from the article:

Quote:

From Kenya and southern India to Alaska and Finland, cash payment schemes have been claimed to show that UBI “works”. In fact, what’s been tested in practice is almost infinitely varied, with cash paid at different levels and intervals, usually well below the poverty line and mainly to individuals selected because they are severely disadvantaged, with funds provided by charities, corporations and development agencies more often than by governments.

Experiments in India and Kenya have been funded, respectively, by Unicef and Give Directly, a US charity supported by Google. They give money to people on very low incomes in selected villages for fixed periods of time. Giving small amounts of cash to people who have next to nothing is bound to make a difference – and indeed, these schemes have helped to improve recipients’ health and livelihoods. But nothing is revealed about their longer-term viability, or how they could be scaled up to serve whole populations. And there is a democratic deficit: people who get their basic income from charities or aid agencies have no control over how payments are made, to whom, at what level or over what period of time.

They weren't testing UBI. They were testing something that isn't UBI.

[Sideroxylon]

Yes, let’s perpetuate the memes that keep the one percent in their place, maintain our middling privileged existences and poor minorities down. Unbridled capitalism FTW!

[applecorped]

Okay

[carlitos]

Originally Posted by mgidm86

Isn't there some rule about addressing the topic and not the poster? Funny how that gets ignored sometimes.


I will provide you all with the second on-topic reply in this thread. Now then:







Bigfoot's existence has not been disproved yet either.

That’s pretty funny. Thanks.

[Puppycow]

Originally Posted by mgidm86

Bigfoot's existence has not been disproved yet either.

It has to my satisfaction. Just because there's still flat-earthers or young-earth creationists or people who think a rocket cannot propel in space doesn't mean that rational people can't think that these are proven facts long past any reasonable debate.

Quote:

I'm pretty much living hand to mouth right now and do not want free government cash, nor do I want them handing it out as a BUI to anyone else. Cash? Hellll no.

Adults can be spoiled same as children. I think it's largely these spoiled children of "helicopter participation trophy" parents who are embracing socialist ideas like this. And you damn well better take care of the borders if you want to pay people not to work! We'll have a billion people living here in no time.

I was raised to not be a burden on society. Funny how things have changed.

I agree with you there, and I guess I basically agree with the overall conclusion of the report (even though it comes from a source whose motives in this regard can be questioned). Still, UBI has never been tried. (None of the programs mentioned in the study were "universal" save perhaps the Alaska one, but that one is just a small annual "dividend" far below the poverty line.

I think UBI is an idea whose time has not come yet, but perhaps may come in the future. Too soon to say. Maybe science and technology will someday reach a point where effectively we can have a functioning society where nobody has to do any real work, or at most, only a small number of people are required to do the work for which a human being is needed. Then, UBI would probably make sense as a policy. That may be a pipe dream from watching too much Star Trek and other science fiction. The future is hard to predict.

But right now and for the immediate foreseeable future, I think that probably "the money could be better spent in other ways" as the authors suggest. Universal health care, for example. Repairing public infrastructure. Modernizing our energy infrastructure. Those things first.

[McHrozni]

Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza

That's actually not what the article or even study says.

It just highlights the fact that up to this day, there is no UBI trial has existed long enough, had sufficient amounts of participants or actually paid out an above-poverty amount that would allow to draw clear conclusions.

This is exactly what it says. As in it's in the article, the summary he presents is literarily in the second paragraph of the article.

There's also this:

The cost of a sufficient UBI scheme would be extremely high according to the International Labour Office, which estimates average costs equivalent to 20-30% of GDP in most countries.

To put it in perspective, that's eight to ten times the US military spending relative to GDP or between one and one and a half US federal budgets, again relative to GDP. If no trial has existed for long enough that's because no country has the money to even attempt one.

McHrozni

[arthwollipot]

I notice that the article has hundreds of comments, most of which appear to me to be saying that what the article says isn't what was concluded by the study, because the study wasn't examining UBI at all. The article is wrong. Which is pretty disappointing since The Guardian is usually pretty good at fact-checking.

[The Great Zaganza]

Originally Posted by McHrozni

This is exactly what it says. As in it's in the article, the summary he presents is literarily in the second paragraph of the article.

There's also this:

The cost of a sufficient UBI scheme would be extremely high according to the International Labour Office, which estimates average costs equivalent to 20-30% of GDP in most countries.

To put it in perspective, that's eight to ten times the US military spending relative to GDP or between one and one and a half US federal budgets, again relative to GDP. If no trial has existed for long enough that's because no country has the money to even attempt one.

McHrozni

...but that is based on their assessment in the absence of an actual UBI scheme that, in their opinion, deserves the name.

But there are many different versions of UBI, and what they think it ought to be isn't necessarily what makes most sense.
Also, putting a cost on UBI without calculating what it would save is not very fair.

[wareyin]

Originally Posted by theprestige

As a conservative on this board, I often find myself in an awkward "with friends like these..." situation.

I'll be excited about the arrival of a new conservative voice, and then... Well.

I'm curious, is there some conservative version of this forum out there? Or is it that conservative internet users mostly seem to be similar to those we get here? I know that my in personal experiences with conservatives, whether on here, social media, or in meat-space, there is a definite archetype. It sort of becomes a chicken or egg question, does a conservative viewpoint tend to create that persona, or does having a persona such as we are discussing incline one to hold conservative values?

[McHrozni]

Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza

...but that is based on their assessment in the absence of an actual UBI scheme that, in their opinion, deserves the name.

But there are many different versions of UBI, and what they think it ought to be isn't necessarily what makes most sense.

You're free to post your definition that wouldn't be quite as extravagant.

Quote:

Also, putting a cost on UBI without calculating what it would save is not very fair.

Well, what would it save?

Here's a US budget. The entire pie is 21% of the US GDP. The numbers ebb and flow a bit, but since the total cost of an UBI are 1-1.5 times the size of the whole thing those fluctuations don't matter.

https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/Rv..._Z_hAlEMc-s1yA

It would save what, all of social security and a few of the reminders I guess. Let's round it to a nice 30% of the budget saved, this is probably well over the top, but you'll soon see this doesn't matter all that much.

The cost thus dropped from 1-1.5 times the size of the whole budget to 0.7-1.2 times the US federal budget after you include the savings. On the whole you still need to collect enough revenue to pay another federal budget after savings, give or take.

Economy is boosted, but so is inflation, so the net result there is temporary. You can't count on the economy boost to pay for the whole thing, not by a long shot.

Their statement on affordability holds true, I'm afraid. UBI is either too small to live on or unaffordable for any country. You could have one with free food and housing I guess, that might work.

McHrozni

[TragicMonkey]

Bigfoots get UBI, you know. All cryptids are socialists, it's why they hide: so nobody else crashes their party to get benefits.

[The Great Zaganza]

Personally, I'm not fully on board with an UBI.

I am reminded of stories from the German Re-unification: as a "welcome gift", everyone in East Germany got a 100 Marks (something like $100 I think), and most people spend it instantly.
There are people who won't be able to make do even with $400 million - Trump comes to mind. Others need less than $1,000 to get their stuff done.

So a UBI will never replace food kitchens or shelters if the goal is to care for the most vulnerable.

[ahhell]

Originally Posted by arthwollipot

Here's another pertinent quote from the article:



They weren't testing UBI. They were testing something that isn't UBI.

It also seems to say that when something kind of like UBI is tested it seems to work or at least have positive results.

My summary:
"There have been a variety of programs where in cash is distributed to poor people instead of services, many versions have positive results but since nobody has actually tried UBI it won't work"?

I'm ambivalent about UBI but the linked article nor evidence supports the claim in the OP.

[applecorped]

Lol

[theprestige]

The story so far:

Giving people money to buy the services they need doesn't seem to work.

However, some of us are still confident that if we *also* give money to people who don't need it that will totally work.

[TragicMonkey]

How about just give them the services they need instead of giving them money they may or may not need or may or may not use properly?

[theprestige]

Originally Posted by TragicMonkey

How about just give them the services they need instead of giving them money they may or may not need or may or may not use properly?

That's my preferred policy, actually! But it doesn't have the cachet of a blanket wealth-redistribution program like UBI.

[ahhell]

Originally Posted by TragicMonkey

How about just give them the services they need instead of giving them money they may or may not need or may or may not use properly?

I'd bet they know what services they need better than I do. I'm no so arrogant as to think I know what is best for someone I've never met.

The other most often rationale for UBI over paternalism is that it has the potential to be much more efficient. You don't have to spend resources on the bureacracy to manage providing services directly or determine who is in need of what. They figure that out for themselves.

[arthwollipot]

Originally Posted by theprestige

That's my preferred policy, actually! But it doesn't have the cachet of a blanket wealth-redistribution program like UBI.

Oh no! "Wealth redistribution"!.

I'm going to say it. Wealth should be redistributed. Take some of the wealth away from the obsanely rich and give it to some poor people so they don't starve.

[TragicMonkey]

Originally Posted by ahhell

I'd bet they know what services they need better than I do. I'm no so arrogant as to think I know what is best for someone I've never met.

Really? I am. I'm arrogant enough to assign the same needs to every human being: food, shelter, air, water, clothing, medicine top the list.

[Babbylonian]

Originally Posted by TragicMonkey

Really? I am. I'm arrogant enough to assign the same needs to every human being: food, shelter, air, water, clothing, medicine top the list.

Reminds me of the people who say they won't give money to homeless people because they won't spend it right.



"Really? Then how about we provide them shelter and food?"
"We can't afford it! Now, if you'll excuse me, the valet is here with my Porsche."

[TragicMonkey]

Originally Posted by Babbylonian

Reminds me of the people who say they won't give money to homeless people because they won't spend it right.



"Really? Then how about we provide them shelter and food?"
"We can't afford it! Now, if you'll excuse me, the valet is here with my Porsche."

Yeah, that's so me, and exactly what I was saying.

[Babbylonian]

Originally Posted by TragicMonkey

Yeah, that's so me, and exactly what I was saying.

Not really. I don't even know why I quoted you before just saying whatever nonsense popped into my head. Still, your kindness is, as always, an inspiration...for someone else, probably.

[Babbylonian]

At the end of the day, though, it's really tiresome to hear people talk about how we can't afford to make life at least a little less painful to those at the bottom of the income scale...especially in the US where we have more food than we know what to do with and lots of space for people to live. The free market truly doesn't give a **** about any of us, so it obviously isn't the solution.

[TragicMonkey]

Originally Posted by Babbylonian

At the end of the day, though, it's really tiresome to hear people talk about how we can't afford to make life at least a little less painful to those at the bottom of the income scale...especially in the US where we have more food than we know what to do with and lots of space for people to live. The free market truly doesn't give a **** about any of us, so it obviously isn't the solution.

If this was directed at me I never said anything about not being able to afford etc. I merely question the means of redistribution to those in need, whether directly supplying money is preferable to instead supplying the goods and services that money should be buying. I don't object to a portion of taxes taken in money going towards a safety net, but I'm not sold on the notion that the form that safety net should take is a cash payment rather than food, clothing, shelter, etc.

[Babbylonian]

Originally Posted by TragicMonkey

If this was directed at me I never said anything about not being able to afford etc. I merely question the means of redistribution to those in need, whether directly supplying money is preferable to instead supplying the goods and services that money should be buying. I don't object to a portion of taxes taken in money going towards a safety net, but I'm not sold on the notion that the form that safety net should take is a cash payment rather than food, clothing, shelter, etc.

It wasn't really directed at you, and I agree with you. There should be safe access to the fundamentals for everyone. Providing cash payments, at the end of the day in the best case scenario, primarily benefits slumlandlords, grocery chains, and health insurance companies. They don't really need more help.

The day the people of the US finally learn that socialism isn't prohibited by the bible, nor synonymous with communism, we might be able to make some headway on this ****. As it is, we can't even bring ourselves to adopt systems that are proven to work, like single-payer health care. I imagine we could provide a lot of government cheese (wheels big enough to live in!) on the savings we'd realize by destroying the private health insurance industry once and for all.

[applecorped]

Even though it doesn't work it's still won't stop some people from trying it.

[psionl0]

Originally Posted by applecorped

Even though it doesn't work it's still won't stop some people from trying it.

Where is the proof that it doesn't work? Your "study" doesn't prove anything.

[GnaGnaMan]

Originally Posted by The Great Zaganza

I am reminded of stories from the German Re-unification: as a "welcome gift", everyone in East Germany got a 100 Marks (something like $100 I think), and most people spend it instantly.

Not quite.
The welcome money was originally for people who made it across the death strip with nothing but the clothes on their back.
That the border crossing might suddenly open was not foreseen by anyone. When that happened, any east german who visited the west received the money but not everyone in east germany.

Later, when the east german mark was replaced west german mark, easterners basically got some free money because they could exchange their marks at a special exchange rate (much better than the market rate).

[Belz...]

Originally Posted by mgidm86

I was raised to not be a burden on society. Funny how things have changed.

On the other hand, humans have been in communities since the very beginning, even while being hunter-gatherers. It's no surprise that we take care of each other now. What form that takes is the question.

[wareyin]

Originally Posted by theprestige

The story so far:

Giving people money to buy the services they need doesn't seem to work.

However, some of us are still confident that if we *also* give money to people who don't need it that will totally work.

Have you ever dealt with a small child who doesn't want to do something? Say, they don't want to learn to tie their own shoes. They will often just wiggle the laces at each other in an attempt that is transparently designed to fail, and then loudly exclaim "see, I can't do it!"

That's sort of how UBI seems to be treated. Here, look, I'll give far too little money in a haphazard way to some arbitrary group for not enough time to examine the process....wiggle wiggle flop...See, we can't do it!

I share this with you only because of your love of analogy.

[GnaGnaMan]

Originally Posted by mgidm86

I'm pretty much living hand to mouth right now and do not want free government cash, nor do I want them handing it out as a BUI to anyone else. Cash? Hellll no.

Adults can be spoiled same as children. I think it's largely these spoiled children of "helicopter participation trophy" parents who are embracing socialist ideas like this.

*sigh*
This is not a socialist idea at all. This idea goes against socialism. Traditional socialism is a worker's idealogy. It holds that all value is created by work and that everyone must work.

The most notable proponent of a UBI in recent US history was an advisor to Ronald Reagan: Milton Friedman.

[GnaGnaMan]

Originally Posted by theprestige

The story so far:

Giving people money to buy the services they need doesn't seem to work.

It doesn't?