In that, I am not talking about market equilibrium, but a race to the bottom.
The biggest assumption needed to get to equilibrium is that everyone and everything stops and does nothing, and nothing at all changes until this one supply/demand curve finds its optimal point.
As things are always changing, there is no equilibrium to be had, or if there is, it’s different from the equilibrium point a year ago, a month ago, yesterday, or even an hour ago.
What does Keynes have to say about this?
As someone looking for a job, I can attest to this, along with several members of the tech Meetup I am involved with. I don’t know what it is, but it seems like companies just string the process along forever and then just stop calling you.
No one said that the equilibrium point isn’t constantly changing.
Taking out the cherry-picked 0.2% of people working two FULL TIME jobs, the multiple job rate is actually roughly 5%. Please try to be correct.
I’m not sure how you get that, because those to be on UBI were selected. I didn’t see that new people were given UBI. The aim was to get them back to work. And it didn’t work.
I’m not sure the point of UBI is to get people back to work. I think it’s to keep them from being homeless if they are out of work. It’s also to relieve the stress of being out of work, which indirectly may make it easier to look for a job.
Selected random-ish-ly, because the program was not an effort to get people back to work but a study to determine what effect UBI would have on the employment rate of the sample. Turns out that it had no effect at all: the per-person rate was the same as the average. That does not sound like a failure, in that the participants were not less inclined on average to seek employment than anyone else.
Right.
Quartz, I don’t think you understood the article you linked. Rates of finding jobs for people on UBI were the same as people not on UBI (i.e., employment rates were the same for equivalent groups of people on UBI and not on UBI), which means people don’t stop looking for jobs and just sit around if they go on UBI.
I’d figure that UBI recipients would kind of fall into a handful of categories (there’s some overlap between categories):
[ul]
[li]Low income recipients who choose not to work, as the UBI is close enough, and their jobs suck.[/li][li]Recipients of any income who use the UBI as supplemental income. In other words it’s basically free money on top of the job they already have.[/li][li]Recipients of any income who use the UBI as a sort of enabling mechanism to help them find jobs they want, rather than jobs they need. The idea here is that if you need $50k to live the lifestyle you want, UBI might mean that you could get a job that you loved for $35k and still live that lifestyle due to UBI making up that difference.[/li][li]Recipients for who it doesn’t really make much difference- the difference between the amount they’re taxed and the amount they give back is similar to what they paid in taxes before UBI.[/li][li]Recipients for who it’s a net loss- the difference between taxation and UBI refund is still more than they were previously paying in taxes.[/li][/ul]
I’d imagine the first group is fairly small, mostly because just about any effort throws you into the second group- even with minimum wage or part time jobs, you’d still be considerably better off than solely subsisting on the UBI.
The enabling mechanism is probably the largest one- I imagine that it’s really the bigger “follow your own star” sort of thing rather than the idea that we’d get a bunch of arts and culture giants out of it. By taking some significant chunk out of what people would need to make in order to live the lifestyles they need to live, that frees them up to choose jobs/careers that they might not consider due to lower pay. For example, I bet if new teachers made 53k at a minimum with UBI, a lot more people would seriously consider teaching as a career relative to now, where the average new teacher salary is $38k. Or some people might scale down to part time to better care for children, etc…
The biggest question marks for me are how large the UBI would be, and what the tax structure and who/how that’s going to impact people.
I’d agree that those are some of the categories that people would fall into.
But, I would add a few more.
People taking care of family, whether they are taking care of elderly relatives, their own children, the children of others, or adults with disabilities.
People who want to travel for a bit.
People who want to learn a subject or subjects.
People who want to write a book, a poem, a sonnet, a song, a play, or a movie.
People who just want a bit of time off before they go back to work.
I’d add one more category: people who would like a job, but who really don’t have much or anything to offer on the labor market today, and who therefore can’t get a job even in a tight market. A lot of these folks have physical and/or mental impediments that aren’t quite “disabling” but sure aren’t what employers are looking for, e.g., or who don’t have the social skills or the mental acuity to keep a job.
I don’t know… I still think most people would fall into the second or third category. I don’t know many people who would give up their lifestyle to become an artist and live on the dole at $15k a year (or whatever). But I know plenty who might downgrade to a job that pays say… 20k less in order to get less work hours, closer to home, etc… for any number of reasons- more time with kids, ability to spend extra time on avocations, whatever.
I think we’d see that second category a lot among graduating students- UBI would be a good buffer between having to get a job to live and having the time to get a job they’re satisfied with.
A bit of follow up thinking…
I suppose category 1 is really more “People who choose not to work for whatever reason, not necessarily low income”) That way, we cover the people who choose not to work because of family caregiver committments, stay-at-home moms, lazy stoners, etc… without getting into a category for each specific situation.
My intuition tells me that the final category would be the biggest surprise for people- I’m not seeing how we’d pay for a UBI for every person without having to tax the bejeezus out of everyone with a well paying job. I mean, at a UBI of 15k, a family of four would receive 60k in UBI. That’s right at the median household income. So right there, you’d have to come up with more cash to pay that UBI than half of all families MAKE, much less pay out in taxes. Even assuming that median income 4 person family pays roughly 25% of their income in taxes that they would essentially receive back, it would still mean that the government would have to produce 45k for that family. For a family making 100k, who let’s say pays 35% in taxes, we’re still looking at having to cough up 25k for that family in UBI. I don’t know where that break-even is, but it seems to be very high.
The other thing I haven’t figured out yet is what it would mean in terms of the remaining social safety net. Proponents often claim that it would take the place of a lot of things, but we’d still need all the stuff we currently have and then some- a low 15k UBI wouldn’t obviate the need for health insurance or universal health care. We’d still need a lot of social service type stuff for flat out dumb people who spend their UBI unwisely, or get into a lot of debt, or whatever. I can completely see situations where people basically sign their UBI payments over to monthly payments and are still stuck without enough cash to feed their kids, etc… and would need public assistance. Assuming that we don’t suddenly take a callous tack and throw them to the wolves, because, hey UBI!, then we’d still need programs to help the unfortunate and the stupid.
It sounds great in theory, but it also sounds like something we can’t pay for. I’d be more in favor of a negative income tax scheme whereby people get boosted to the poverty line (or whatever arbitrary threshold), but where say… a family of four making that median 61k doesn’t get any assistance, nor would the family making 100k.
CNN has a concise overview of the Green New Deal: Green New Deal: Here's what the climate change proposal actually says | CNN Politics
For SEO: Greennewdeal
He probably read it in the summary FAQ:
Or here:
These are AOC released documents, though they have been pulled. But it’s not a total ass-pull by Sam Stone.
The Green New Deal tries to address this:
Many people either work long hours on one low wage job, or work multiple low wage jobs that add up to long hours. Others work only one low wage job for limited hours and struggle even worse to get by, requiring government subsidies even though they work.
The experiment was to see what would happen. True, they did not have higher employment rates than the control group, but they did not have lower employment rates, which is what many conservatives claim would happen.
I still think that she’d have got a lot more traction had she limited the scope to strictly environmental remedies. Throwing all that social justice stuff in there probably managed to alienate a lot of people who might have been on board for climate change/environmental reasons, but who weren’t ready to commit to UBI and all the other stuff.
Maybe split it off and give the environmental stuff one name, and the social justice/economic stuff something to do with the New Deal.
Parts of this are what we already have in Scandinavia, but dialed up to 11. Everyone has a right to education and the necessities of life -food, healthcare, a place to live. If they are unable to provide it for themselves.
This just sounds like it would like to take that further. I am doubtful about that. We do the things we do for good economic reasons. Maybe there is another island of stability beyond us again but we haven’t seen the outlines of it yet.
I’m hoping that some genius out there is perfecting AI such that it can replace a manager. It too is a skill that can be replaced.
As I understand it, UBI is intended primarily for ADULT citizens, people who would theoretically be in the labor force, rather than all family members. A four-person family wouldn’t get $60K unless all four are over 18 (or 16 or 21 or whatever age is set). For example, the Ontario pilot scheme used 18-64 as the age range; the Finnish study used 25 to 58. That would change your calculations significantly.
Apart from that, there is nothing that says that UBI would be uniform per capita. Your check would have to be anchored to your residence: if there are multiple accounts based at one residence, there would probably be a reduction in each, since it is well-established that sharing accommodations will be a little or a lot less expensive than one-person-one-dwelling. But the check would almost certainly not be halved, because it would be idiotic in terms of a green new deal to discourage people from sharing digs.
Question: where in her resolution does it say that it’s going to cast a social safety net for those who are unwilling to work?