Universal Basic Income to be tried in Stockton Ca

[bobhikes]

This city will give poorest $500 a month, no strings attached

An interesting concept to follow. I can't find the specifics but they are saying a few hundred so I am assuming the people with no car, no home. I believe it should be both beneficial for the people and the city.

What are your thoughts or experiences as it has been tried other times to various success.

 

[Srivijaya]

This city will give poorest $500 a month, no strings attached

An interesting concept to follow. I can't find the specifics but they are saying a few hundred so I am assuming the people with no car, no home. I believe it should be both beneficial for the people and the city.

What are your thoughts or experiences as it has been tried other times to various success.

One attempt at a post-capitalist solution but it may kick off some rather unusual consequences, which may lead to unexpected things. I can't help thinking that it's only half a solution. There has to be a more useful and fulfilling way than this.

 

[Jumi]

We have this same experiment going on, but the basic income was given to random people. There are some interesting successful stories about it. Too bad it's probably not going to continue since the opposite system will be in place soon, you'll be punished if you don't get a job, work for free or do some random programs every few months learning to make CVs...

 

[Revoltingest]

One attempt at a post-capitalist solution but it may kick off some rather unusual consequences, which may lead to unexpected things. I can't help thinking that it's only half a solution. There has to be a more useful and fulfilling way than this.

"Post capitalist"?
Quite a few fire breathing capitalists have been proposing this for decades.
It would be an interesting experiment.

 

[Srivijaya]

"Post capitalist"?
Quite a few fire breathing capitalists have been proposing this for decades.
It would be an interesting experiment.

I think it's being trialed in parts of Finland which have a complete lack of jobs. I don't know how successful it's been, though I guess for anyone struggling on low/no income it will be a blessing. Some solution needs to be found for the millions who are losing out to globalization, automation, A.I. etc. It's a simple truth that if people aren't able to earn anything, then they'll have no cash to purchase new products manufactured in hi-tech (virtually) human-free factories or foreign sweat shops. It's kind of obvious that this isn't going to be a sustainable economic model.

I was discussing this with a friend who is against charity shops for the same reason. He's the sort of bloke I would consider to be in favour of them but he explained that they get retail premises for next to nothing, workers they don't pay, no business rates and get their stock for free (much of it now donated from big business, so it's new stuff). They sell this at a nominal price and are slowly having a negative impact on regular businesses around them. One near me looks like a mega-store with some fine items for sale. It's not a tiny hut with a few old books. Just one unforeseen circumstance from a good idea.

Then if people on zero income/aid are set to work in regular businesses they immediately undercut wages, which drives incomes down even more. Seems like we need some first class minds to work on an economic solution to this problem. Protectionism is one theoretical solution but it has its serious problems too.

I'm not an economist but there seems to be a deficit of serious political debate around this topic.

 

[Revoltingest]

I think it's being trialed in parts of Finland which have a complete lack of jobs. I don't know how successful it's been, though I guess for anyone struggling on low/no income it will be a blessing. Some solution needs to be found for the millions who are losing out to globalization, automation, A.I. etc. It's a simple truth that if people aren't able to earn anything, then they'll have no cash to purchase new products manufactured in hi-tech (virtually) human-free factories or foreign sweat shops. It's kind of obvious that this isn't going to be a sustainable economic model.

I was discussing this with a friend who is against charity shops for the same reason. He's the sort of bloke I would consider to be in favour of them but he explained that they get retail premises for next to nothing, workers they don't pay, no business rates and get their stock for free (much of it now donated from big business, so it's new stuff). They sell this at a nominal price and are slowly having a negative impact on regular businesses around them. One near me looks like a mega-store with some fine items for sale. It's not a tiny hut with a few old books. Just one unforeseen circumstance from a good idea.

Then if people on zero income/aid are set to work in regular businesses they immediately undercut wages, which drives incomes down even more. Seems like we need some first class minds to work on an economic solution to this problem. Protectionism is one theoretical solution but it has its serious problems too.

I'm not an economist but there seems to be a deficit of serious political debate around this topic.

The advantage I see to a guaranteed income is that a recipient doesn't lose the benefit by working,
so the incentive to earn is preserved. This differs from the current approach to providing benefits.
A couple gals (single mothers) I know discovered that they'd make more by quitting their jobs to get
more benefits. (One worked for a tenant of mine. The other worked for me, although it was no
longer a problem by then cuz I paid her pretty well.)

 

[Srivijaya]

Sounds like a good argument for it.

 

[Akivah]

This city will give poorest $500 a month, no strings attached

An interesting concept to follow. I can't find the specifics but they are saying a few hundred so I am assuming the people with no car, no home. I believe it should be both beneficial for the people and the city.

What are your thoughts or experiences as it has been tried other times to various success.

My first thought is that due to supply & demand, their monthly housing rents will increase. That is, as the landlords experience increased demand (due to more people being able to afford), they will start increasing the rents.

My second thought is that a fixed guaranteed amount of cash will be subject to other inflationary pressures.

A third thought is that monthly rental coverage might be a better way to go. Then no matter how high the rent goes, the city would cover the charge. And these people would have their money, by what they are not paying for the rent.

A fourth thought is that government giveaways usually don't bring people out of poverty. They tend to just foster dependence on the state.

 

[Revoltingest]

My first thought is that due to supply & demand, their monthly housing rents will increase. That is, as the landlords experience increased demand (due to more people being able to afford), they will start increasing the rents.

In a free market, that's a possible short term response.
As rents increase, the incentive to build more housing
also increases competition, keeping prices down.
I've seen this happen first hand over the years.

My second thought is that a fixed guaranteed amount of cash will be subject to other inflationary pressures.

A third thought is that monthly rental coverage might be a better way to go. Then no matter how high the rent goes, the city would cover the charge. And these people would have their money, by what they are not paying for the rent.

A fourth thought is that government giveaways usually don't bring people out of poverty. They tend to just foster dependence on the state.

A guaranteed income would need adjustment for inflation.

 

[bobhikes]

My first thought is that due to supply & demand, their monthly housing rents will increase. That is, as the landlords experience increased demand (due to more people being able to afford), they will start increasing the rents.

My second thought is that a fixed guaranteed amount of cash will be subject to other inflationary pressures.

A third thought is that monthly rental coverage might be a better way to go. Then no matter how high the rent goes, the city would cover the charge. And these people would have their money, by what they are not paying for the rent.

A fourth thought is that government giveaways usually don't bring people out of poverty. They tend to just foster dependence on the state.

I'm not sure what the qualifications are for this but I was thinking its was people in shelters, I expect most of the money to be spent on food and clothing, and I don't believe it to be pulling them out of poverty but allowing them not to starve or freeze to death. They still need to work if they want to succeed but if they spend the money locally some local jobs should open up.

 

[suncowiam]

My philosophy has always been to teach a man to fish as opposed to giving him the fish.

I believe our goals are the same in that we want the man to have a better life. I believe that by teaching the man skills to be more independent is more beneficial to the man and to society.

So I would spend that $500 towards education or other infrastructural costs to help them with the exception that we monitor their progress and change accordingly.

 

[YmirGF]

My philosophy has always been to teach a man to fish as opposed to giving him the fish.

I believe our goals are the same in that we want the man to have a better life. I believing that by teaching the man skills to be more independent is more beneficial to the man and to society.

So I would spend that $500 towards education or other infrastructural costs to help them with the focus that we monitor their progress and change accordingly.

How dare you bring reason and wisdom into this discussion. Have you no shame?

In regards to the OP this is easily one of the stupidest ideas that is currently trending, aside from gender fluidity, that is.

 

[suncowiam]

How dare you bring reason and wisdom into this discussion. Have you no shame?

In regards to the OP this is easily one of the stupidest ideas that is currently trending, aside from gender fluidity, that is.

Yes yes... I'm a rational liberal.

 

[bobhikes]

My philosophy has always been to teach a man to fish as opposed to giving him the fish.

I believe our goals are the same in that we want the man to have a better life. I believing that by teaching the man skills to be more independent is more beneficial to the man and to society.

So I would spend that $500 towards education or other infrastructural costs to help them with the focus that we monitor their progress and change accordingly.

The problem seems to be more and more companies are seeking automation over human. At a minimum 1 machine replaces 3 humans and you only need 1 human for every 5 machines and depending on the industry the break down is far worse.

 

[YmirGF]

The problem seems to be more and more companies are seeking automation over human. At a minimum 1 machine replaces 3 humans and you only need 1 human for every 5 machines and depending on the industry the break down is far worse.

Then you tax those companies accordingly. Easy fix solution to that puppy.

 

[Revoltingest]

Then you tax those companies accordingly. Easy fix solution to that puppy.

Shhhhhhh!
SF is already thinking of imposing a robot tax.
Of course, this will work out well because no company
would ever move to someplace without a robot tax.

 

[Twilight Hue]

This city will give poorest $500 a month, no strings attached

An interesting concept to follow. I can't find the specifics but they are saying a few hundred so I am assuming the people with no car, no home. I believe it should be both beneficial for the people and the city.

What are your thoughts or experiences as it has been tried other times to various success.

I suppose welfare will get retracted or adjusted to pay for this.

 

[sun rise]

As noted, this experiment is going on in multiple places and I support it.

 

[bobhikes]

Then you tax those companies accordingly. Easy fix solution to that puppy.

But to what effect, are you using the Tax to make the machines more expensive or using the tax to support those out of work. To be honest supporting those out of work would be cheaper than a tax that makes the machines more expensive than humans.

 

[Yerda]

In regards to the OP this is easily one of the stupidest ideas that is currently trending, aside from gender fluidity, that is.

Could you explain why you think so?

It's hard to find serious criticism of UBI.