What do you think of universal baseline income?

Basically people get paid a stipend per month supposedly to raise them out of poverty. They are experimenting with it in Stockton, CA at this time. 500$ per month to select families.

It's been done elsewhere, but I dont know what the data or results show. I suppose it's like welfare plus. Interesting, but is it tenable and does it work?

Socialist pipe dream that fails humanity on the ground floor.

Mediocrity only benefits the mediocre not the people who have the abilities and strength to become better.

It's one of several ideas gaining ground due to perpetually growing income/wealth inequality and the unknown spectre of how ai will impact the future job market.

It may or may not be the best way to handle related issues, but enacting political policy is rarely about the enacting best policy.

Yeah, Milton Friedman was a total socialist.

What does that have to do with this? Republicans were the ones who ended slavery.

Who initially came with the idea does not matter, what matters is the message and giving everyone a "stipend" or a sum of cash no matter what is socialism at it´s worst.

And all economist are pretty much socialists despite what they want, they have that same arrogance and elitism and no touch with the actual real world.

He's a renowned (and conservative) economist that largely supported a negative income tax. Calling all those that support universal basic income, welfare programs, or a negative income 'socialist' is incredibly dense. There are plenty of people on both sides that see it as an inevitability given future automation or a more efficient method of delivering welfare, minus the bureaucracy. But then again I shouldn't have expected anything different considering the bolded.

All economist are socialists, pack up your stuff and go home folks!

And again I do not care. Also, let´s stay on topic,

Income inequality is not a bad thing, it´s complete and utter BS to not demand people work for their way in life.

@Jacanuk: The idea was championed as a conservative alternative to traditional welfare because it simplifies and reduces the government's role (small government) while eliminating the negative incentives of means tested programs (since everyone gets it regardless of work status or income level) and helping reduce what thinking/honest conservative economists agreed were true issues (poverty, inhibited mobility, misallocation of resources).

You've done nothing more than create a strawman. Proponents of a negative income tax aren't trying to completely wipe out income inequality, merely dampen it. Nor are they championing it as a way to let people just slack off. If you've actually done any reading you'd see that their arguments are related to future economic makeups and overall cost to benefit ratio i.e. the two things I listed in my previous post which you naturally skipped over.

However, I already know the answer is that you haven't done any research on it. You've just dismissed everything as socialist including the entire academic field of economics.

OK, and the idea does not get any more valid. I am surprised that some conservatives would come up with this idea, but it´s not the first time someone is a hidden socialist in conservative clothes.

It originates back from a day in which conservatives acknowledge problems and honestly tried to identify policy solutions to those problems through thought and study. Some may have disliked the ideas they concocted due to their ideological predispositions (or findings in subsequent years), but it's hard to argue that most of them weren't intellectually engaged.

Compare that tradition to their contemporary brethren like Art Laffer and Stephen Moore, and... man, it's just so depressing.

As for supporting it, I've honestly not read up on recent literature to see how it stacks up to our current welfare system. I'm sure that some sort of universal income would dampen incentive to work, however a cash influx of guaranteed income could potentially overcome these drawbacks. A part of me would like to say yes since I hate having a million different programs, following a million different rules, and adding additional costs so that we can merely enforce our 'ethics' and 'morals' on people.

Giving people a basic bedrock to live on, whether it's basic income, food stamps, subsidized housing, does not imply a policy is inherently socialist. Economics is about generating wealth and resources. Economists, even conservative ones, know that astronomical income inequality stagnates economic growth and diminishes the buying power of economies. The answer is trying to find out how to reduce this inequality to a level that is beneficial and provides the maximum possible outcome.

Don't get me started on Stephen Moore. That hack just lies through his teeth.

Ok, and I will read up on the background but it´s still on the merits, not a valid idea. And to be fair not even the biggest socialist heavens in Europe, beside Finland have debated the idea. The Government should never act as a mommy and enable people in the idea that they don´t have to work and that we all should be closer to each other income wise.

It´s almost like the stupidity with participation trophies they give kids because "they can´t handle the idea of winning or losing" Kids and society needs to face reality and face the fact that there is no participation trophy in life, you either win or you lose, but with hard work and determination you can win more than you lose.

But I would love to see their cost-benefit analysis and also how they will prevent it from being a massive burden compared to the already massive burden welfare is.

No plans to expand Finland basic income trial

The Finnish government has decided not to expand a limited trial in paying people a basic income, which has drawn much international interest.

Currently 2,000 unemployed Finns are receiving a flat monthly payment of €560 (£490; $685) as basic income.

"The eagerness of the government is evaporating. They rejected extra funding [for it]," said Olli Kangas, one of the experiment's designers.

Some see basic income as a way to get unemployed people into temporary jobs.

The argument is that, if paid universally, basic income would provide a guaranteed safety net. That would help to address insecurities associated with the "gig" economy, where workers do not have staff contracts.

Supporters say basic income would boost mobility in the labour market as people would still have an income between jobs.

Finland's two-year pilot scheme started in January 2017, making it the first European country to test an unconditional basic income. The 2,000 participants - all unemployed - were chosen randomly.

But it will not be extended after this year, as the government is now examining other schemes for reforming the Finnish social security system.

"I'm a little disappointed that the government decided not to expand it," said Prof Kangas, a researcher at the Social Insurance Institution (Kela), a Finnish government agency.

Speaking to the BBC from Turku, he said the government had turned down Kela's request for €40-70m extra to fund basic income for a group of employed Finns, instead of limiting the experiment to 2,000 unemployed people.

In a statement later, Kela stressed that the pilot would run its full course to the end of this year. "There are currently no plans to continue or expand the experiment after 2018," it said.

The pilot's full results will not be released until late 2019, once its impact on participants has been assessed.

Another Kela researcher, Miska Simanainen, said "reforming the social security system is on the political agenda, but the politicians are also discussing many other models of social security, rather than just basic income".

When Finland launched the experiment its unemployment rate was 9.2% - higher than among its Nordic neighbours.

That, and the complexity of the Finnish social benefits system, fuelled the calls for ambitious social security reforms, including the basic income pilot.

OECD finds drawbacks

In February this year the influential OECD think tank said a universal credit system, like that being introduced in the UK, would work better than a basic income in Finland. Universal credit replaces several benefit payments with a single monthly sum.

The study by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development said income tax would have to increase by nearly 30% to fund a basic income. It also argued that basic income would increase income inequality and raise Finland's poverty rate from 11.4% to 14.1%.

In contrast, the OECD said, universal credit would cut the poverty rate to 9.7%, as well as reduce complexity in the benefits system.

Another reform option being considered by Finnish politicians is a negative income tax, Prof Kangas said.

Under that scheme, people whose income fell below a certain threshold would be exempt from income tax and would actually receive payments from the tax office.

The challenge is to find a cost-effective system that incentivises people to work, but that does not add to income inequality, Tuulia Hakola-Uusitalo of the Finnish Finance Ministry told the BBC.

What do others say about basic income?

Some powerful billionaire entrepreneurs are keen on the idea of universal basic income, recognising that job insecurity is inescapable in an age of increasing automation.

Among them are Tesla and Space X CEO Elon Musk, Facebook's Mark Zuckerberg and Virgin Group boss Richard Branson.

US venture capitalist Sam Altman, who runs start-up funder Y Combinator, is organising a basic income experiment.

Y Combinator will select 3,000 individuals in two US states and randomly assign 1,000 of them to receive $1,000 per month for three to five years. Their use of the unconditional payments will be closely monitored, and their spending compared with those who do not get the basic income.

In 2016, Swiss voters overwhelmingly rejected a proposal to introduce a guaranteed basic income for all.

Supporters of the proposal had suggested a monthly income of 2,500 Swiss francs (£1,834; $2,558) for adults and also 625 Swiss francs for each child.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-43866700

Lets see how the pilot program goes and take it from there.

I don't have a problem with the garbage man or any other person making a livable income. What bugs me is something I'm going through right now: I can either make less than $22,000/year and get awesome Medicaid insurance, or make a little more and have to pay insurance premiums and co-pays plus meet a deductible, which there's no way in my health I could afford.(Got a blood cancer plus multiple other problems). I could probably get disability but I'm too embarrassed because I can work, it's just difficult and requires a certain job. Back on topic, I think people should all be able to afford a reasonable living without having to rely on multiple government programs. Each state would have to figure out what that income would be, but once it's set, everyone working 30+ hours a week would make "X" amount of money, which one could reasonably pay for their needs. Healthcare should be covered completely as a pool. I'd much rather be healthy and pay for insurance I don't use than be terminal with little or no insurance.

I'm not a big fan of my taxes paying people to not try harder at life and accomplish something for themselves. I work really hard and sacrifice a great deal to make my living, and don't like the idea of people doing nothing and reaping the rewards from my hard work.

Interestingly, one of the primary conservative arguments in favor of the system is that it keeps work incentives in place relative to means tested systems.

Which may be fine in theory, but i think it also shows how far economists are from the real world.

Also it´s interesting to read this "The study by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development said income tax would have to increase by nearly 30% to fund a basic income. It also argued that basic income would increase income inequality and raise Finland's poverty rate from 11.4% to 14.1%."

@Jacanuk: link is busted, but would be happy to read it should you provide it.

@sonicare: Eventually it will be required once the age of robotics gets in full swing in 50-100 years. Completely unnecessary now.

Doesn’t matter either way since we can’t even have single payer healthcare. I imagine by the time robotics and deep learning algorithms really start to take over, we will look something like the movie Elysium with rio-style slums, no safety nets, and feudalistic levels of wealth disparity.

Luckily I’ll probably be dead by then.

@mattbbpl: Ahh,

Think this one works http://www.oecd.org/eco/surveys/economic-survey-finland.htm

Also, there is a link to the post about the income trial

https://oecdecoscope.wordpress.com/2018/02/28/why-would-a-universal-credit-be-better-than-a-basic-income-for-finland/

So in the very near future when nearly all current jobs are being done by robots and AI, what is your genius idea to prevent mass unemployment?

We are quickly moving towards a future where there will be no need for most people to work.

Who is going to fix&Service the robots?

Also, the future where all work is done by robots in the future where Elon Musk is president and ally to the AI overlords.

But there will always bee need for people, AI is nowhere near "smart" enough to substitute humans in any but the most menial jobs,

Who will fix the robots? Other robots.

AI will reach a point where it can do anything a human can do, but better, faster, and more consistently. We will reach a point where even highly skilled fields like engineering and medicine will be done almost entirely by AI.

So what then? Capitalism in its present form is not going to survive the age of robotics and AI.

lol you almost sound like Elon Musk.

Again this is science-fiction not reality and even if you were born today, you would not live when this becomes a "reality"

We are only a few decades away from this being reality. And it may not even be that far off. It is incredibly naive and short sighted to think that you are in some career that is irreplaceable by robots and AI. Very soon robots and AI will be able to do anything humans can do, but better.

@Jacanuk: Ah, that guy is arguing for a substitute system he calls a universal credit, which if I'm understanding it right works similarly to a negative income tax. These are competing proposals to accomplish similar goals. The primary reason to choose one over the other is how you view the incentive impact. If you want to argue in favor of the universal credit/negative income tax, I won't stop you.

They have said that about robots the last 20-30 years.

If you actually take a look at the progression in tech the last 20 years, we are nowhere near a development that would make it possible to have such advanced computers in our lifetime.

Ya, I notice that and I am also not for "universal credit" it´s pretty much the same ballgame again. I am for an idea where we give people with work an extra tax credit so they can increase their paycheck a bit, but that is as far as I can go.

My ideal future would be a total abolishment of welfare unless you are proven to be suffering from an actual illness that prevents you from gaining employment. If you can work you should work and the government should instead of welfare give companies tax credits for hiring these people.

But it´s good to see that Finland's system failed and also Switzerland voting against the same.

Some Utopian hogwash that will inevitably turn a city into a shithole. How I know this? The human psyche.

For all we know, they could just be preparing for the mass shift of robotics to take over simple jobs, giving poor people chump change to live off by, as a result creating more poverty aka shitholes.

They tried it in Sweden and after a year they scrapped. Sweden could not afford to pay for it.

This wouldn't be paying them to not try harder, it would just be making the lives of some of the people who have it the hardest a bit easier. I work really hard and sacrifice a great deal to make my living, too, and I could really use an extra $500 a month. For me, that would mean not having to agonize over tuition payments and actually having a bit of money left over each month that I could actually put into savings or, god forbid, spend on myself. You may think that's trivial, but as it stands currently I can't buy a soft drink or go to a movie without worrying that it will throw my entire budget off. And yes, I would work less, but barely. Instead of trying to cram as much work into my summer and winter breaks while also taking summer classes I'd actually work a schedule that made summer school manageable, and keep the same schedule as I have now during the school year. That's maybe a five hour per week reduction in my working hours, and not so I can go off and sit on a beach but so that I can spend more time studying, is that so bad? If it helps working parents afford daycare, is that so bad? If it helps families who are struggling financially put food on the table or, again god forbid, have some money to actually afford something relaxing like a dinner at a nice restaurant, is that so bad? There are already plenty of people who are trying extremely hard, and paying a monthly sum isn't going to mean that all of the sudden they don't have to work. It just means that their lives get a small bit easier.

To me this question needs to be asked sooner rather than later.

'If robots can do most of the labor in this country, why do I need to invent an excuse to work'? what is the point of having robotics if we never sit back and say 'now is the time to not do much'

answers?

It took 7 posts to have this thread reduced to either: Income equality (no matter how extreme) is a good thing and you're full of BS if you're against it.

Absolutely nothing in between, am I right, guys?

well I like my response, and not just because it came from me but because I agree with myself.

robotics make the question of work a serious question

Socialism doesn't work.

As for the idea.

I am not against it. However I believe we are some 20-30 years away from it. When automation and AI or VI has come far longer than today, and a unemployment rate at 10-15%++ is normal, we really need to consider it.

Yep, you are almost correct.

But when even highly socialist countries go against this, it´s a good bet that while it´s a sweet and compassionate thought it´s just not viable nor should it be viable.

Humans should not be spoon fed by a mommy state.

the question (as I see it) is if a robot is more productive then either you or I and if we determine that a less productive person deserves to be discarded then does that mean humans are advocating self destruction and replacement by robots?

if so, what is the point of creating robots then.

'Productivity' is highly over rated, and idleness is highly under rated, in my opinion

I made more or less a similar post a little later in this thread. See #38.

Not today. However, even while my job atm can not be replaced by a robot today, it can in the future. It can be done without making any changes at all to the procedures that we follow. At that point, you won't have a car mechanic, because a robot can do the same job 24/7, minus breaks for maintenance and charging (if it is wireless). Maintenance done by other robots. At that point, is there really work for all of us?

Fixing the robots. I wish I was being sarcastic.

Idleness doesn't earn you money today.

Amen to that.

Way to miss the point.

Let me try it this way. Replace all minimum wage workers with robots doing the same work. Will the jobs created because those robots needs maintenance equal the number of jobs lost because of the robots?

and that is a problem for multiple reasons.

1. it brings into question why we should have any automation at all.

2. digging a useless hole just to dig a hole is not helpful.

3. countless times I have found NOT doing something was a better outcome for all parties involved then actually doing something. because we needed to take a seriously look at what was being suggested to do, turns out, it was not needed. that has happen often

No. I was never intending on that either. Servicing automation is going to be the future though. I was just pointing out that it is sad.

I want to paint a story for consideration.

I live in an RV trailer 24 foot long. I do not have cable internet access in my camp spot.

30 years ago, that life would mean, no landline, no cable TV, no internet and really no space because I would have to have space for my records movies and the like.

However, given that I have 4G service I have a lifetime supply of games, movies, and content and my disposal and it all takes up less space then a desk.

So things that havent work in the past, might work in the future, given a change in circumstances...such as....automation

thoughts?

Blasphemy. We all know nothing changes. :P