About 5% of workers have multiple jobs. Why is that a problem?
And based on the experience of those native American tribes, it’s hard to call it anything but a dismal failure.
How is Social Security retirement not a form of UBI? You get it just by getting old and having worked or by being married to a worker at some point (with minimum time limits.) SSI covers the impoverished that never worked or married or otherwise is covered by social security payments. Except for SSI there is no means testing and your payments are based on your former standard of living (you make more, you pay in more, you get back more.) I’m speaking here in a general sense, not everyone is the same. Once you get above a certain age, wages are no longer held against you either.
The theory is, beneficiaries of social security are the deserving poor. They earned it or had something happen to them that means they can’t earn it.
The reason people under the SS retirement age don’t get help is the theory is, if they are able bodied (not completely disabled), they can get work. This has not actually been true during major recessions and depressions, during many times in U.S. history able bodied, competent workers were not finding work.
Nevertheless, during good times, everyone who is able bodied can usually eventually find a job of some sort. Well, except for the other bug we have in our system - if you’ve been unemployed a while, or you’ve run completely out of money and can’t afford a home or ability to take a shower or wear clean clothes, it becomes nearly impossible to get a job. (one of the reasons for long term homeless)
Similarly, in today’s world, if you are an unskilled or semi-skilled laborer, you’re basically dogmeat and are next to worthless as far as employers are concerned. Yet just a few months of training in a trade skill would skyrocket your value to employers…but trade schools require tuition and time and if you’re poor and homeless you have neither.
The USA is now wealthy enough that we could afford this. The mean income (including all the top earners who are millionaires and billionaires) is 48k a year. So the 12k a year 1000 a month would cost is clearly there in the present economic system, in a sort of Communist wealth spreading scheme. (on paper UBI could be as high as 2-3k a month but obviously this wouldn’t work because all the money would be spread evenly and no one would have an incentive to work at all)
But the theory is that everyone needs to do their part, and if we have people loafing when they are abled bodied, then the goods and services they are consuming got produced by other people who are not loafing. And thus they are “stealing” for the community and we can’t have that.
This has only been sorta true for about a century.
And with extreme automation, something we don’t have but theorize is possible, all goods and services, save just a few things, would be produced by automated machines. So someone “loafing” on UBI is really just costing some time from a set of robots somewhere for most goods and services they consume. In turn, they are “stealing” from the IP owners and landowners of the land where the solar/wind energy was gathered to power the robotics/industrial equipment, and who own the IP*. (which, like all IP, can be copied endlessly without depriving the original)
*long term, you as a human are not consuming anything but energy. Every material you use gets thrown away and is still somewhere on earth and could in principle be recycled back into a good that someone else uses.
I think you need to focus on the “just getting by” part and not the percentage of people working multiple jobs.
Poverty is largely a function of not working (either enough or at all) and having too large a household. Only 2.7% of the workforce is working full time and living in poverty. This proposed policy is focused on neither poverty in general nor the working poor. That doesn’t make it a bad policy. But focusing on the working poor, and even mentioning the small subset that is (working poor) AND (multiple jobholders) falls squarely in “stop helping” territory.
Very few people, if any, need to live in Manhattan. NYC is expensive largely because the demand to live there exceeds the space available. The proposed policy is not going to fix this, and adding a local CoL adjustment isn’t either.
If we were going to have some sort of basic income, I’d keep it flat and allow people to make market-based decisions on where to use it.
This discussion starting here was copied from The Andrew Yang thread in elections since it’s more about UBI.
Yes, considering that Iowa is a more conservative state even with regards to Democrats, it’s difficult to make an apples to apples comparison.
Krystal Ball gave a little more explanation for why she noted that it was insane how much Yang had moved the needle on UBI. She noted [youtube timestamped] that before he started talking about UBI, it wasn’t even being polled. That matches my experience of trying to find polls before 2018 on UBI. By 2018, the polls I’ve listed are already showing some gains Yang has made in publicizing his view.
It would have been interesting to see the internal polling for UBI that Hillary probably did when she was considering putting the UBI platform in her campaign. She was going to call it Alaska for America. Ultimately, she decided against it because she was running after Obama and didn’t want to make it seem like he should have done it. Also, she was trying to get the taxes from fossil fuels which would go against the climate change message. Her other messaging though would have been very similar to Yang’s messaging on the Alaska UBI and the carbon tax and financial transaction tax. She says she couldn’t really find a way to get the messaging to integrate into the rest of the platform of the campaign.
Hillary Clinton on UBI [youtube]
In another video, she wonders what would have happened if she tried it. I too wonder since she had the name recognition that Yang doesn’t have. But I think Yang’s messaging is better because of the timing and because it integrates better into his platform.
Obama has also been speaking about UBI, and I also wonder how he could have changed the discussion about it if he had talked about it more while he was President.
Obama on AI and UBI [youtube]
This clip is almost identical to Yang’s platform.
Honestly my comment was less about UBI than whether or not Yang has succeeded in what I believe were his major goals he had in running: getting UBI to be a major part of the debate; ideally getting another candidate with a better chance of winning to take it up; and moving the public opinion needle on it.
As to your response: Iowa is a conservative state but Iowa Democratic caucus participants are more liberal than the average rest of the country’s Democrats. Point though holds that these are Granny Smiths to Honey Crisps.
The polling is the data we have though and if it shows anything at all (fair enough to question if it shows anything at all), it shows decreased support for UBI among Democrats since Yang joined the game promoting it. The idea has been fairly roundly rejected or ignored by other candidates and most of the public. He wanted it to be the Big Idea of the cycle. It isn’t.
FWIW I listened to the 2018 Obama clip and didn’t exactly hear Yang’s platform there. I heard a comment about how work is more than income, that it is dignity, and that there may need to be some fundamental re-imaginings in the future, with UBI as part of a list of stated possible things that might need to be considered in that future.
Yang was not really any significant part of the public discussion on UBI before mid to late 2019 btw. The recent years interest, including even the $12K and AI parts, more comes from Andy Stern’s 2016 book “Raising the Floor”.
Cite?
That seems ludicrous on its face, unless she wasn’t planning on any new proposals during her presidency. It also doesn’t align with her actual reasons for ditching it that are given in your links.
Seconded. Heffalump and Roo’s cite (Vox) actually quotes Hillary Clinton’s memoir What Happened as saying the numbers didn’t work out:
“We would call it ‘Alaska for America.’ Unfortunately, we couldn’t make the numbers work. To provide a meaningful dividend each year to every citizen, you’d have to raise enormous sums of money, and that would either mean a lot of new taxes or cannibalizing other important programs. We decided it was exciting but not realistic, and left it on the shelf. That was the responsible decision.” ~ Hillary Clinton
~Max
I guess the GD question is:
“UBI in the U.S.A.'s near future: Possible? Good idea?”
I agree with Hillary: it’s a good idea in general but it won’t, and shouldn’t, happen anytime soon. It would be a huge expensive program and inevitably fraught with big biases and unfairnesses.
Instead, we should take smaller steps toward the same goal: Make tax codes more progressive; Fund childcare, soup kitchens, colleges; Remove the stupid reverse-incentive “cliffs” (or whatever they’re called) from means-tested programs. And most importantly, provide government-funded healthcare for all Americans.
I don’t think UBI (dividends that everyone, rich or poor, receives) is a good idea generally speaking; I’d rather have a minimum guaranteed level of income. Tax the wealthy, tax the middle class less, and have income benefits for those who are poorest.
Septimus #32 - Amen!
That’s a regressive tax. So disappointing.
Apart from the obvious problems of UBI, what happens when someone takes their $1k/month and drinks it, shoots it or gambles it away at the casino and they still have a need for social welfare programs? Are they just out of luck? Do we let them die in the streets?
If not (and I’m not saying that we should) won’t people get the idea that this is just free money, piss it away, and then still rely on the present welfare programs? What would UBI accomplish other than enriching local drug dealers?
Don’t get me wrong. I’m sure that there are many people who would use the money responsibly, but I know from my own experience that a large majority of people using these programs are not simply responsible people who have fallen on hard times. There is an unfortunate underclass in this country who have never been taught the value of hard work, money management, planning for the future, etc.
What happens to them under UBI?
That’s my understanding of Yang’s platform. Yang talks about the importance and value of work here in this Ben Shapiro interview [timestamped]. Yang is pro-work. He sees the value in work. He feels that the freedom dividend would give more people the ability to choose their work without worrying about starving. He believes that giving people more money would create more work in local communities and provide more opportunities for people. Some of the fundamental re-imagining about the future of work is with the definition of work. Instead of defining work as whatever increases GDP, it could also be about whatever adds to the increased functioning of society. For instance, increasing life expectancy or nurturing and caring for other people which are sometimes not valued in GDP at the moment could not be considered work when people are given at least some money for doing it.
This was the book that was the impetus for Yang to decide to run for President. He went to Andy Stern and asked if anyone was running on this platform. Stern said there wasn’t. The night that Yang met with Stern was the night Yang’s campaign started.
In October 2019, at the UBI march that started as a NYC event and turned into a worldwide event, Andy Stern tweeted this about Andrew Yang:
I’m pleasantly surprised to see that someone is clicking the links. The part of my post you quoted came from the same interview, but the longer version of it here. The UBI part starts at the beginning. The pertinent part starts around minute 4. I linked the shorter version, thinking that people were more likely to listen to a shorter version.
Ezra asked Hillary whether she had regrets after seeing Bernie’s and Trump’s platforms that were successful with some big galvanizing issues that she didn’t regret doing the same.
Some pertinent parts:
Could you explain a bit more about what biases and unfairnesses you see? One of the features of UBI is that it’s universal. Everyone gets it, so there are no hoops to jump through or favorites who get it.
I’m guessing when you say to make the tax codes more progressive, you mean to increase the marginal tax rate at the top? That hasn’t generated a lot more tax revenue in the past. Rich people don’t have salaries to tax.
What if you don’t have a child, don’t live near a soup kitchen or are not going to college? The beauty of the freedom dividend is that you can benefit no matter what your circumstance is.
How would you take away the reverse-incentive from means tested programs? You could taper them, but there would still be some point at which, if you make too much money, you’ll lose money. At that point, it’s a disincentive to do more unless you can make a lot of money that would more than compensate for the loss. If that happens, you’ll probably lose the whole benefit, and for a while, you’ll be working more and staying in the same financial place as each dollar you make loses you a dollar in benefits. With the freedom dividend, you keep it all regardless of how much you make or don’t.
Most of the democratic candidates have a policy for government funded healthcare, so that’s not an issue.
No need to be disappointed. In the words of Greg Mankiw, Harvard economics professor, so what? A progressive tax with a means tested program can have the same economic effect as a VAT with UBI, so it doesn’t really matter that the VAT portion is regressive. The UBI portion makes the whole thing progressive. To separate the tax portion from the transfer portion is, in his words, misleading to the point of deceptive.
Greg Mankiw on Yang’s UBI at The Peterson Institute for International Economics
Greg Mankiw on Yang’s UBI in interview with Bill Kristol
A blog post by William G. Gale [The Arjay and Frances Fearing Miller Chair in Federal Economic Policy
Senior Fellow - Economic Studies
Director - Retirement Security Project
Co-Director - Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center] at the Brookings Institute website says much the same. A VAT coupled with a UBI can be progressive.
How a VAT could tax the rich and pay for universal basic income
bold added
Yang’s VAT would exempt basic staples and increase for luxury goods, making his VAT less regressive than a flat tax. As noted in the post, Yang’s UBI would be larger than in this plan.