The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 TeasersAudacious Epigone Blog
Fairness While We Still Can
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information



=>

Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeThanksLOLTroll
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

COTW from nebulafox:

These kinds of arguments that revolve around basic questions of fairness and square treatment-the gut understanding that people who work hard, who work honestly should not find it increasingly impossible to create and maintain family units on at least a basic level-are what resonate in the American psychological DNA, not talking about the abstract rights of man or the moral noblesse oblige to the downtrodden. It’s no accident that our elites want to change this so they can get a more neo-feudal friendly order.

How could the coronavirus be leveraged to this end, that of allowing those who want to work hard and to work honestly to support a family with dignity?

The Fed and Treasury have pledged as much monetary and fiscal stimulus as it takes to get through this crisis–a crisis that is going to be with us in one form or another for years. The conventional wisdom is that the dollar is unbreakable.

Assuming that to be true–I’m highly skeptical but almost no one agrees with me–there’s a bargain business interests, populists, and not especially ideological liberals might go for: A UBI for all American citizens in return for scrapping federal minimum wage laws, concurrent with a push for states to do the same. This would blowup the incentive for immigrant labor in the US. Make America the best place in the world for workers to work and companies to produce in.

 
• Category: Culture/Society, Economics, Ideology • Tags: COTW 
Hide 72 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to Ignore...to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. Life is not fair. The System is rigged.

    UBI is a social welfare program for everyone.

    Socialism. By hook or by crook, you will.

    These libertarians are fantasists.

    Gold won’t save you, or Bitcoin either.

    The funny money gets printed as debt.

    • Replies: @another anon
    LOL.

    Socialism is not about "handouts".
    Socialism is about universal right to work, and universal duty to work.

    https://pics.me.me/socialism-is-bad-ecause-it-ewards-lazy-entitled-people-socialism-44202132.png
    , @RadicalCenter
    The government need not own anything other than natural resources to pay for a UBI without borrowing, taxing the genera public, or inflating.

    Place our God-given natural resources under public ownership and pay the proceeds equally to every non-incarcerated US Citizen as a monthly universal basic income.

    (We might lower or eliminate the UBI for people who have been convicted of felonies, or at least violent felonies.)
  2. In a high trust, homogenous society, this course of action would be workable. In our current society, they’d take your UBI for minimum wage law deal, and then reinstate minimum wage.

  3. Virtually all urban white net taxpayers would much rather pay reparations to everyone else than UBI to the hicks they left on the farm or low-end suburbs. The future is going to be driven by anti-badwhite hatred now that their votes are meaningless. Upscale whites will feel a cog-dissonant combination of hatred for badwhites and all-consuming fear about being cast out into their ranks. They will say and vote for absolutely anything that puts them in the goodwhite camp, and it will continue until the point the US is South Africa and beyond.

    The most important thing the right rump in the US can do at this point is psychologically counsel themselves into accepting that they’ve been checkmated on a vast historical scale so we can form some kind of orderly retreat instead of letting more morons willingly present themselves as witches to the witchburners or think that there is any dignity in collaboration with the empire.

    • Agree: Daniel H
    • Replies: @Daniel H
    Goodwhites must suffer. That's all there is to it. When they suffer they will have no choice but to make cause with the rest of us.
  4. A UBI for all American citizens in return for scrapping federal minimum wage laws, concurrent with a push for states to do the same. This would blowup the incentive for immigrant labor in the US.

    I assume you mean because US jobs wouldn’t pay more then foreign jobs (as they do now). The problem is this implies the natural US price of labor is not only far below the minimum wage, but even below the foreign price of labor. Which is doubtful as in most places, even the lowest skill positions are generally paying $11-12/hour.

    We might think UBI could lower the cost of labor because companies can pay less. That would work if the main floor on the price of labor were literal starvation. But in developed countires, the floor (besides min. wage) is more likely to be some combo of welfare and the marginal utility of not needing to work. So UBI would if anything make the supply of labor more scare as a job becomes even less necessary, driving the natural price up.

    • Agree: Craig Nelsen
    • Replies: @iffen
    more likely to be some combo of welfare and the marginal utility of not needing to work.

    The UBI needs to replace the entire welfare system. It needs to be a restricted UBI whereby premiums for healthcare, disability insurance, including long term care, and retirement income are deducted. Those unwilling to work would have to exist at near starvation levels and depend upon private charity.
    , @Audacious Epigone
    If that's the case, then the UBI we are likely getting in one way or another is going to really make labor scarce.

    Re: American competitiveness, yes, the idea is to combine America's high labor productivity with low labor costs for employers.

  5. @Melon Blobby
    Virtually all urban white net taxpayers would much rather pay reparations to everyone else than UBI to the hicks they left on the farm or low-end suburbs. The future is going to be driven by anti-badwhite hatred now that their votes are meaningless. Upscale whites will feel a cog-dissonant combination of hatred for badwhites and all-consuming fear about being cast out into their ranks. They will say and vote for absolutely anything that puts them in the goodwhite camp, and it will continue until the point the US is South Africa and beyond.

    The most important thing the right rump in the US can do at this point is psychologically counsel themselves into accepting that they've been checkmated on a vast historical scale so we can form some kind of orderly retreat instead of letting more morons willingly present themselves as witches to the witchburners or think that there is any dignity in collaboration with the empire.

    Goodwhites must suffer. That’s all there is to it. When they suffer they will have no choice but to make cause with the rest of us.

    • Replies: @Craig Nelsen

    Goodwhites must suffer. That’s all there is to it. When they suffer they will have no choice but to make cause with the rest of us.
     
    Goodwhites already did suffer, and in the most brutal and blatantly betrayed way: the Bolshevik Red Terror of 1917 - 1924. In the case, Goodwhites sided with Nonwhites against monarchist Badwhites, who were dubbed "enemies of the people". Once they were liquidated, the bourgeoisie became the enemies of the people Badwhites. Once they were liquidated, the "Intelligents" became the enemies of the people Badwhites. And once they were liquidated, viola, no more Goodwhites.

    For some reason, these lessons from history are completely unknown to whites of any persuasion.
  6. anon[223] • Disclaimer says:

    Make America the best place in the world for workers to work and companies to produce in.

    That’s what America was. Our leaders deliberately destroyed it. Wall Street destroyed it out of greed. Progressives destroyed it from for counter-culture hatred of normalcy. Black leaders destroyed it for revenge against whitey and to grab a free piece of the pie. Jewish leaders destroyed it in the service of Israel.
    We aren’t getting that America back as long as these are our leaders.

    • Agree: Mr. Rational
  7. With a UBI who would work the mimimum wage jobs? Could robots/automation do it all right now? I don’t think we are quite there yet.

    • Replies: @Mr. Rational
    I think you miss the point.  People would work the minwage jobs to get income over and above the UBI.  If the wages cost less than the productivity of Flippy, the fast-food operators would hire people instead of buying robots (and the robots would be taxed on their production, bet on it).
    , @Audacious Epigone
    A $1000 monthly UBI equates to about $6/hour for a standard 40 hour workweek. A job earning $6 an hour then brings a low-skilled worker's effective wage up to $12/hour. That's a wage currently falling under even federal minimum wage--and so is a job that probably doesn't currently even exist, or if it does, is being done off the books.
  8. Buck says:

    UBI just won’t work in an affluent, diverse democratic society with universal suffrage. People will always vote to raise the definition of “basic” and with it the corresponding “income”.

    Already we are seeing calls for “free” college because education is a “basic” human right. So is food, housing, transportation, healthcare, cell phones, internet service, heat, air conditioning and so on.

    UBI would just be different factions of the populace carving up what’s left of our body politic resulting in feudalism. It really is the road to serfdom.

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    Murray's idea to convert various welfare programs into a streamlined UBI. It's selling point over the current welfare state is that it is fairer, less restrictive, and doesn't create the same degree of distortions to productivity that the current hodgepodge does.
  9. This is a brilliant idea

    • Thanks: Audacious Epigone
  10. @Elmer's Washable School Glue

    A UBI for all American citizens in return for scrapping federal minimum wage laws, concurrent with a push for states to do the same. This would blowup the incentive for immigrant labor in the US.
     
    I assume you mean because US jobs wouldn't pay more then foreign jobs (as they do now). The problem is this implies the natural US price of labor is not only far below the minimum wage, but even below the foreign price of labor. Which is doubtful as in most places, even the lowest skill positions are generally paying $11-12/hour.

    We might think UBI could lower the cost of labor because companies can pay less. That would work if the main floor on the price of labor were literal starvation. But in developed countires, the floor (besides min. wage) is more likely to be some combo of welfare and the marginal utility of not needing to work. So UBI would if anything make the supply of labor more scare as a job becomes even less necessary, driving the natural price up.

    more likely to be some combo of welfare and the marginal utility of not needing to work.

    The UBI needs to replace the entire welfare system. It needs to be a restricted UBI whereby premiums for healthcare, disability insurance, including long term care, and retirement income are deducted. Those unwilling to work would have to exist at near starvation levels and depend upon private charity.

    • Replies: @Mr. Rational
    You're right on the moral level, but politics would dictate otherwise.

    Dammit.
    , @dfordoom

    The UBI needs to replace the entire welfare system. It needs to be a restricted UBI whereby premiums for healthcare, disability insurance, including long term care, and retirement income are deducted. Those unwilling to work would have to exist at near starvation levels and depend upon private charity.
     
    It sounds like you see UBI as a punitive measure. I can't see that being politically feasible.

    Put it this way. A UBI that makes the lives of people at the bottom of the heap even more miserable seems to me to be a recipe for political defeat. A great way for Trump to lose all those Rust Belt states in November, and for the GOP to suffer disastrous House and Senate defeats. The Democrats would presumably counter such a proposal with a much more generous UBI, and win landslide victories.

    A UBI that makes the lives of people at the bottom of the heap significantly better seems to me to be a recipe for political victory.

    But maybe I've misunderstood you?
    , @Elmer's Washable School Glue
    I don't disagree with you in principle but this still wouldn't lower the cost of labor.

    Let me clarify how this works: you have a normal demand curve (with employers as the "buyers") that determines the natural price of labor. Then on top of that you have certain price floors (including min. wage, starvation, and welfare.) If the natural price is above this floor, the real wage will be as well. The floor only matters if the natural price of labor is below the floor.

    What I'm saying is that in the vast majority of areas, the natural price of labor is higher than minimum wage. Therefore, removing one or more additional price floors, be it from minimum wage or the bare cost of survival, will not lower actual wages.
  11. A UBI for all American citizens in return for scrapping federal minimum wage laws, concurrent with a push for states to do the same. This would blowup the incentive for immigrant labor in the US.

    I don’t see how this would work the way you envisage it to. As I see it, American citizens would stop working and leave all the jobs for immigrants, who would then flood America to work for peanuts.

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    Employers would have to pay non-citizens $20/hour for the non-citizen to enjoy the same standard of living of a citizen employed for $10/hour. The citizen is in the bird's seat, able to take, say, $15/hour. He works for less than the immigrant but he makes more than the immigrant does. Good for the citizen, good for the employer, potentially bad for the dollar, but the dollar is invincible!
    , @dfordoom


    A UBI for all American citizens in return for scrapping federal minimum wage laws, concurrent with a push for states to do the same. This would blowup the incentive for immigrant labor in the US.
     
    I don’t see how this would work the way you envisage it to. As I see it, American citizens would stop working and leave all the jobs for immigrants, who would then flood America to work for peanuts.
     
    Probably. All the schemes that are being floated at the moment to make the future absolutely awesome and wonderful are heavily based on wishful thinking and on a determination not to think about the law of unintended consequences. There's a touch of utopianism to them. And they're all rather autistic - people are focusing very narrowly on the possible benefits and ignoring the equally possible downsides. A UBI has the potential to be incredibly beneficial but it has the potential to be a disaster as well. I like the idea of a UBI but it would be a gamble.

    I'm just a natural sceptic and scepticism is deeply unfashionable these days. This is the Age of the True Believers.
  12. @Jay Fink
    With a UBI who would work the mimimum wage jobs? Could robots/automation do it all right now? I don't think we are quite there yet.

    I think you miss the point.  People would work the minwage jobs to get income over and above the UBI.  If the wages cost less than the productivity of Flippy, the fast-food operators would hire people instead of buying robots (and the robots would be taxed on their production, bet on it).

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    The idea would be to flip who benefits from subsidized labor, from non-citizens to citizens. The labor would still be subsidized, so this couldn't be sold as any kind of spur to innovation. The status quo isn't either, of course.
  13. @iffen
    more likely to be some combo of welfare and the marginal utility of not needing to work.

    The UBI needs to replace the entire welfare system. It needs to be a restricted UBI whereby premiums for healthcare, disability insurance, including long term care, and retirement income are deducted. Those unwilling to work would have to exist at near starvation levels and depend upon private charity.

    You’re right on the moral level, but politics would dictate otherwise.

    Dammit.

    • Replies: @dfordoom

    You’re right on the moral level, but politics would dictate otherwise.
     
    It's not always a good idea to try to graft moralising concepts onto political schemes.
  14. @Dr. Doom
    Life is not fair. The System is rigged.

    UBI is a social welfare program for everyone.

    Socialism. By hook or by crook, you will.

    These libertarians are fantasists.

    Gold won't save you, or Bitcoin either.

    The funny money gets printed as debt.

    LOL.

    Socialism is not about “handouts”.
    Socialism is about universal right to work, and universal duty to work.

    • Replies: @nebulafox
    For real, though, actual historical Communists tended to have social views that would make Pat Buchanan blush, atheism aside. In the case of the USSR, there was a brief period of Leninist experimentation, then Stalin either brought much needed sanity back to society or poisoned the Bolshevik project with reactionary notions on family structure, depending on your POV.

    I think you can guess which one was the POV of average Soviet citizens.

    , @Truth
    Capitalism (the way we know it) is bad because it rewards lazy, entitled people,and has since 12/23/1913. These people print your money, charge interest off it (As well as writing the tax code), and never have to operate a shovel, or carry a trowel. They print not only your money, but the money in all but 4 (latest I have seen ) countries, and those just, coincidentally, happen to be the ones with whom, we are currently threatening war.
  15. @iffen
    more likely to be some combo of welfare and the marginal utility of not needing to work.

    The UBI needs to replace the entire welfare system. It needs to be a restricted UBI whereby premiums for healthcare, disability insurance, including long term care, and retirement income are deducted. Those unwilling to work would have to exist at near starvation levels and depend upon private charity.

    The UBI needs to replace the entire welfare system. It needs to be a restricted UBI whereby premiums for healthcare, disability insurance, including long term care, and retirement income are deducted. Those unwilling to work would have to exist at near starvation levels and depend upon private charity.

    It sounds like you see UBI as a punitive measure. I can’t see that being politically feasible.

    Put it this way. A UBI that makes the lives of people at the bottom of the heap even more miserable seems to me to be a recipe for political defeat. A great way for Trump to lose all those Rust Belt states in November, and for the GOP to suffer disastrous House and Senate defeats. The Democrats would presumably counter such a proposal with a much more generous UBI, and win landslide victories.

    A UBI that makes the lives of people at the bottom of the heap significantly better seems to me to be a recipe for political victory.

    But maybe I’ve misunderstood you?

    • Replies: @iffen
    It sounds like you see UBI as a punitive measure.

    It sounds like you think that having to work is a punitive measure.

    According to Vladimir Lenin, "He who does not work shall not eat" is a necessary principle under socialism ...
  16. @iffen
    more likely to be some combo of welfare and the marginal utility of not needing to work.

    The UBI needs to replace the entire welfare system. It needs to be a restricted UBI whereby premiums for healthcare, disability insurance, including long term care, and retirement income are deducted. Those unwilling to work would have to exist at near starvation levels and depend upon private charity.

    I don’t disagree with you in principle but this still wouldn’t lower the cost of labor.

    Let me clarify how this works: you have a normal demand curve (with employers as the “buyers”) that determines the natural price of labor. Then on top of that you have certain price floors (including min. wage, starvation, and welfare.) If the natural price is above this floor, the real wage will be as well. The floor only matters if the natural price of labor is below the floor.

    What I’m saying is that in the vast majority of areas, the natural price of labor is higher than minimum wage. Therefore, removing one or more additional price floors, be it from minimum wage or the bare cost of survival, will not lower actual wages.

    • Replies: @iffen
    I don’t disagree with you in principle but this still wouldn’t lower the cost of labor.

    I am not trying to lower the cost of labor. I'm interested in raising the cost of labor. I want a UBI that is the welfare delivery system that is fair and efficient. One that incentivizes work instead of incentivizing not working and going on welfare. A UBI along with a reasonable minimum wage with selective tariffs would restore the possibility of achieving the American Dream for working people.
    , @Audacious Epigone
    The minimum wage is kind of like the federal funds rate. Few pay/lend at these stated rates, but these rates calibrate all kinds of other rates throughout the labor/lending markets.
  17. The UGI is a trap by the Zionists. Just like baiting a hog trap with corn this is the Elites method for squelching all opposition. They want total surveillance and control. China is the model.

    • Replies: @Daniel H
    I would rather that Chicoms govern. America than any collection of Dem/Repub rabble.
  18. The UGI is Just a Zionist trap. Like baiting a hog trap with grain the Elites will use this to silence their opponents. The same criminals that are using the fake virus will use this to achieve total control as the cattle are driven into Agenda 2030-21. Like the social credit score in China this will be used to determine if you are a good goyim. If not your money will be cut.

  19. AE, are you assuming UBI would allow businesses to pay less for labor? I don’t think that would be its effect.

    UBI would decrease the supply of cheap labor (less people willing to do it since they wouldnt have to to survive). Therefore increasing the cost, of labor, ie, wages go up.

    Wages going up acts like a magnet for immigrants of course.

    Not to mention driving a general inflation as business has to pass on the higher cost of labor, with marginal businesses wiped out.

    Reality check: our economic wealth is nothing more or less the sum total of our productive activity. Full employment maximizes our collective wealth. Paying people NOT to work would be institutionalizing unemployment, thereby lowering our collective wealth.

    UBI is confusing money with wealth. The inflation it would cause would defeat its own purpose. You can’t print wealth. Printing money to chase wealth is just a formula for hyperinflation.

    The correct solution is to create a federal job guarantee with the goal of full employment. Money created by funding productive jobs is not inflationary, and everyone doing productive jobs would maximize our collective wealth.

    • Replies: @mark tapley
    The solution is to get the gov off our backs and out of our pockets. Government creates nothing. Just a racket for the politically connected like Kushner's deal for the taxpayers to pay for transporting the supplies for the Fake Corona virus supplies at tax payers expense. Kushner and the Shiksta Princess with the criminals at the CDC who hold 50 vaccine related patents are now in cahoots with the vaccine makers to make billions more on this total fraud. All brought to you by the same wonderful Gov. people that brought you the other big wealth transfers of 911, the 08-09 bailout and now the biggest con job so far - the Covid 19 fraud. Yea I think we should get the Zionists to help some more. The only thing their effective at is working for Israel and cheating everyone else.
    , @Audacious Epigone
    AE, are you assuming UBI would allow businesses to pay less for labor? I don’t think that would be its effect.

    It would allow them to pay US citizens less than they do now, but it would not allow them to pay non-citizens any less. The reason--one of the predominant reasons, anyway--many businesses prefer immigrant labor is because it is cheaper. Currently, businesses are perversely able to get subsidized immigrant labor but not subsidized citizen labor. This would invert that.

    Re: inflation, as you know that is a concern of mine, but everyone who is anyone says the real crisis we're facing is a deflationary one. I don't buy that, but if it's what we have to work with, it's what I'll work with!
  20. UBI along with minimum wage. I can tell you’re a shill because you stuck the minimum wage thing in there. There is no reason to abolish the minimum wage. There is every reason to increase it. Along with giving people UBI. And confiscating the billionaires ill-gotten gains. By hook or by crook.

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    It's an attempt at compromise. Economic configurations are about trade offs. This trade off works by benefiting citizens and American businesses at the expense of non-citizens.
  21. @Jedi Night
    AE, are you assuming UBI would allow businesses to pay less for labor? I don't think that would be its effect.

    UBI would decrease the supply of cheap labor (less people willing to do it since they wouldnt have to to survive). Therefore increasing the cost, of labor, ie, wages go up.

    Wages going up acts like a magnet for immigrants of course.

    Not to mention driving a general inflation as business has to pass on the higher cost of labor, with marginal businesses wiped out.

    Reality check: our economic wealth is nothing more or less the sum total of our productive activity. Full employment maximizes our collective wealth. Paying people NOT to work would be institutionalizing unemployment, thereby lowering our collective wealth.

    UBI is confusing money with wealth. The inflation it would cause would defeat its own purpose. You can't print wealth. Printing money to chase wealth is just a formula for hyperinflation.

    The correct solution is to create a federal job guarantee with the goal of full employment. Money created by funding productive jobs is not inflationary, and everyone doing productive jobs would maximize our collective wealth.

    The solution is to get the gov off our backs and out of our pockets. Government creates nothing. Just a racket for the politically connected like Kushner’s deal for the taxpayers to pay for transporting the supplies for the Fake Corona virus supplies at tax payers expense. Kushner and the Shiksta Princess with the criminals at the CDC who hold 50 vaccine related patents are now in cahoots with the vaccine makers to make billions more on this total fraud. All brought to you by the same wonderful Gov. people that brought you the other big wealth transfers of 911, the 08-09 bailout and now the biggest con job so far – the Covid 19 fraud. Yea I think we should get the Zionists to help some more. The only thing their effective at is working for Israel and cheating everyone else.

  22. @dfordoom

    The UBI needs to replace the entire welfare system. It needs to be a restricted UBI whereby premiums for healthcare, disability insurance, including long term care, and retirement income are deducted. Those unwilling to work would have to exist at near starvation levels and depend upon private charity.
     
    It sounds like you see UBI as a punitive measure. I can't see that being politically feasible.

    Put it this way. A UBI that makes the lives of people at the bottom of the heap even more miserable seems to me to be a recipe for political defeat. A great way for Trump to lose all those Rust Belt states in November, and for the GOP to suffer disastrous House and Senate defeats. The Democrats would presumably counter such a proposal with a much more generous UBI, and win landslide victories.

    A UBI that makes the lives of people at the bottom of the heap significantly better seems to me to be a recipe for political victory.

    But maybe I've misunderstood you?

    It sounds like you see UBI as a punitive measure.

    It sounds like you think that having to work is a punitive measure.

    According to Vladimir Lenin, “He who does not work shall not eat” is a necessary principle under socialism …

    • Replies: @Masonic Mindset
    Lenin?

    That was Paul that said that not
    Lenin.

    If Lenin did steal Paul’s writings at least quote the man that was the originator.

    I’ve never posted on any site but I had to respond to that nonsense.

  23. iffen says:
    @Elmer's Washable School Glue
    I don't disagree with you in principle but this still wouldn't lower the cost of labor.

    Let me clarify how this works: you have a normal demand curve (with employers as the "buyers") that determines the natural price of labor. Then on top of that you have certain price floors (including min. wage, starvation, and welfare.) If the natural price is above this floor, the real wage will be as well. The floor only matters if the natural price of labor is below the floor.

    What I'm saying is that in the vast majority of areas, the natural price of labor is higher than minimum wage. Therefore, removing one or more additional price floors, be it from minimum wage or the bare cost of survival, will not lower actual wages.

    I don’t disagree with you in principle but this still wouldn’t lower the cost of labor.

    I am not trying to lower the cost of labor. I’m interested in raising the cost of labor. I want a UBI that is the welfare delivery system that is fair and efficient. One that incentivizes work instead of incentivizing not working and going on welfare. A UBI along with a reasonable minimum wage with selective tariffs would restore the possibility of achieving the American Dream for working people.

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    With UBI, all of the earnings from any work are 100% marginally beneficial. A big problem with the current welfare system is that low-end marginal earnings are not only nowhere close to 100% marginally beneficial, they're sometimes even negative. In the case of the current coronavirus unemployment benefit, that's especially obvious--at lost income plus $600 a week, people who return to work literally lose money by working. UBI is the only form of welfare that is able to entirely eliminate this problem, I think.
  24. @Elmer's Washable School Glue

    A UBI for all American citizens in return for scrapping federal minimum wage laws, concurrent with a push for states to do the same. This would blowup the incentive for immigrant labor in the US.
     
    I assume you mean because US jobs wouldn't pay more then foreign jobs (as they do now). The problem is this implies the natural US price of labor is not only far below the minimum wage, but even below the foreign price of labor. Which is doubtful as in most places, even the lowest skill positions are generally paying $11-12/hour.

    We might think UBI could lower the cost of labor because companies can pay less. That would work if the main floor on the price of labor were literal starvation. But in developed countires, the floor (besides min. wage) is more likely to be some combo of welfare and the marginal utility of not needing to work. So UBI would if anything make the supply of labor more scare as a job becomes even less necessary, driving the natural price up.

    If that’s the case, then the UBI we are likely getting in one way or another is going to really make labor scarce.

    Re: American competitiveness, yes, the idea is to combine America’s high labor productivity with low labor costs for employers.

    • Replies: @dfordoom

    If that’s the case, then the UBI we are likely getting in one way or another is going to really make labor scarce.
     
    Which will mean an enormous push for massively increased immigration.

    That darned law of unintended consequences again.
  25. @iffen
    It sounds like you see UBI as a punitive measure.

    It sounds like you think that having to work is a punitive measure.

    According to Vladimir Lenin, "He who does not work shall not eat" is a necessary principle under socialism ...

    Lenin?

    That was Paul that said that not
    Lenin.

    If Lenin did steal Paul’s writings at least quote the man that was the originator.

    I’ve never posted on any site but I had to respond to that nonsense.

    • Replies: @iffen
    Imagine
  26. @Jay Fink
    With a UBI who would work the mimimum wage jobs? Could robots/automation do it all right now? I don't think we are quite there yet.

    A $1000 monthly UBI equates to about $6/hour for a standard 40 hour workweek. A job earning $6 an hour then brings a low-skilled worker’s effective wage up to $12/hour. That’s a wage currently falling under even federal minimum wage–and so is a job that probably doesn’t currently even exist, or if it does, is being done off the books.

  27. @Buck
    UBI just won't work in an affluent, diverse democratic society with universal suffrage. People will always vote to raise the definition of "basic" and with it the corresponding "income".

    Already we are seeing calls for "free" college because education is a "basic" human right. So is food, housing, transportation, healthcare, cell phones, internet service, heat, air conditioning and so on.

    UBI would just be different factions of the populace carving up what's left of our body politic resulting in feudalism. It really is the road to serfdom.

    Murray’s idea to convert various welfare programs into a streamlined UBI. It’s selling point over the current welfare state is that it is fairer, less restrictive, and doesn’t create the same degree of distortions to productivity that the current hodgepodge does.

  28. @Brás Cubas

    A UBI for all American citizens in return for scrapping federal minimum wage laws, concurrent with a push for states to do the same. This would blowup the incentive for immigrant labor in the US.
     
    I don't see how this would work the way you envisage it to. As I see it, American citizens would stop working and leave all the jobs for immigrants, who would then flood America to work for peanuts.

    Employers would have to pay non-citizens $20/hour for the non-citizen to enjoy the same standard of living of a citizen employed for $10/hour. The citizen is in the bird’s seat, able to take, say, $15/hour. He works for less than the immigrant but he makes more than the immigrant does. Good for the citizen, good for the employer, potentially bad for the dollar, but the dollar is invincible!

    • Agree: Daniel H
  29. @Mr. Rational
    I think you miss the point.  People would work the minwage jobs to get income over and above the UBI.  If the wages cost less than the productivity of Flippy, the fast-food operators would hire people instead of buying robots (and the robots would be taxed on their production, bet on it).

    The idea would be to flip who benefits from subsidized labor, from non-citizens to citizens. The labor would still be subsidized, so this couldn’t be sold as any kind of spur to innovation. The status quo isn’t either, of course.

  30. @Elmer's Washable School Glue
    I don't disagree with you in principle but this still wouldn't lower the cost of labor.

    Let me clarify how this works: you have a normal demand curve (with employers as the "buyers") that determines the natural price of labor. Then on top of that you have certain price floors (including min. wage, starvation, and welfare.) If the natural price is above this floor, the real wage will be as well. The floor only matters if the natural price of labor is below the floor.

    What I'm saying is that in the vast majority of areas, the natural price of labor is higher than minimum wage. Therefore, removing one or more additional price floors, be it from minimum wage or the bare cost of survival, will not lower actual wages.

    The minimum wage is kind of like the federal funds rate. Few pay/lend at these stated rates, but these rates calibrate all kinds of other rates throughout the labor/lending markets.

    • Agree: iffen
  31. @Jedi Night
    AE, are you assuming UBI would allow businesses to pay less for labor? I don't think that would be its effect.

    UBI would decrease the supply of cheap labor (less people willing to do it since they wouldnt have to to survive). Therefore increasing the cost, of labor, ie, wages go up.

    Wages going up acts like a magnet for immigrants of course.

    Not to mention driving a general inflation as business has to pass on the higher cost of labor, with marginal businesses wiped out.

    Reality check: our economic wealth is nothing more or less the sum total of our productive activity. Full employment maximizes our collective wealth. Paying people NOT to work would be institutionalizing unemployment, thereby lowering our collective wealth.

    UBI is confusing money with wealth. The inflation it would cause would defeat its own purpose. You can't print wealth. Printing money to chase wealth is just a formula for hyperinflation.

    The correct solution is to create a federal job guarantee with the goal of full employment. Money created by funding productive jobs is not inflationary, and everyone doing productive jobs would maximize our collective wealth.

    AE, are you assuming UBI would allow businesses to pay less for labor? I don’t think that would be its effect.

    It would allow them to pay US citizens less than they do now, but it would not allow them to pay non-citizens any less. The reason–one of the predominant reasons, anyway–many businesses prefer immigrant labor is because it is cheaper. Currently, businesses are perversely able to get subsidized immigrant labor but not subsidized citizen labor. This would invert that.

    Re: inflation, as you know that is a concern of mine, but everyone who is anyone says the real crisis we’re facing is a deflationary one. I don’t buy that, but if it’s what we have to work with, it’s what I’ll work with!

  32. @obwandiyag
    UBI along with minimum wage. I can tell you're a shill because you stuck the minimum wage thing in there. There is no reason to abolish the minimum wage. There is every reason to increase it. Along with giving people UBI. And confiscating the billionaires ill-gotten gains. By hook or by crook.

    It’s an attempt at compromise. Economic configurations are about trade offs. This trade off works by benefiting citizens and American businesses at the expense of non-citizens.

    • Replies: @obwandiyag
    Interesting. I admit. Couldn't we use confiscating all billionaire wealth as a bargaining chip, though?
  33. @iffen
    I don’t disagree with you in principle but this still wouldn’t lower the cost of labor.

    I am not trying to lower the cost of labor. I'm interested in raising the cost of labor. I want a UBI that is the welfare delivery system that is fair and efficient. One that incentivizes work instead of incentivizing not working and going on welfare. A UBI along with a reasonable minimum wage with selective tariffs would restore the possibility of achieving the American Dream for working people.

    With UBI, all of the earnings from any work are 100% marginally beneficial. A big problem with the current welfare system is that low-end marginal earnings are not only nowhere close to 100% marginally beneficial, they’re sometimes even negative. In the case of the current coronavirus unemployment benefit, that’s especially obvious–at lost income plus $600 a week, people who return to work literally lose money by working. UBI is the only form of welfare that is able to entirely eliminate this problem, I think.

    • Agree: iffen
  34. @mark tapley
    The UGI is a trap by the Zionists. Just like baiting a hog trap with corn this is the Elites method for squelching all opposition. They want total surveillance and control. China is the model.

    I would rather that Chicoms govern. America than any collection of Dem/Repub rabble.

  35. The problem is, with their basic needs met, large numbers of people would simply choose to “loaf”.

    Right now, the system is set up that the only way you could opt out of the Rat Race is by suffering extreme poverty – basically homelessness. There is no middle ground.

    And I think this set up is deliberate – what rich and successful people absolutely cannot stand is poor and unsuccessful people who are somehow happier than them. It subverts all their notions of a just world.

    And its not just rich people – a lot of people will think its unfair that some people can be content and happy with little while they work hard for more and are unhappy. Notice they too would get the UBI, and so would be richer as well – but the motive is that others should be unhappy.

    I see this a lot on Unz – but it is the old New Testament story of the workers in the field who got paid the same.

    A lot of people will oppose UBI for psychological, “spiritual” reasons – they don’t want to see people happy, it isn’t fair.

    So cultural norms in America would have to change in dramatic ways – I think that will happen, but at the moment there are too many grim “life isn’t supposed to be fun” types in America.

    • Thanks: Audacious Epigone
    • Replies: @iffen
    Happiness is highly over-rated. You need to stop chasing ephemeral pleasure and try and accomplish some useful and enduring material goals. :)
  36. A lot of low income workers still qualify for various welfare benefits, even when working. I have a coworker who worked in fast food management. He said getting a job in that isn’t as difficult as you might think. A lot of the workers in fast food restaurants don’t want to become a manager because at the higher wage they would lose various welfare benefits. They look at the extra work and extra hours they would take on after getting promoted, look at the increased pay, subtract out all the lost welfare benefits and decide it isn’t worth it.

    You could roll up all the various welfare benefits people receive now into a UBI and give them a UBI instead. Why I think universal basic income is a bad idea is not the basic part but the universal part. The UBI is going to have to be paid for with higher taxes on the middle class on up. Giving upper income people a government benefit when they are also the ones paying the taxes to provide themselves the benefit seems kind of wasteful. It’s having the government take your money and then hand it back to you. You might as well just keep it to begin with.

    An argument is made that universal benefit government programs make these programs politically more palatable for upper income people since they will get the benefit too. That argument is made for Social Security. I don’t think rich people are fooled by this. They know there are a lot more poor people than rich people and they are going to end up worse off after any type of universal benefit program gets passed.

    • Agree: iffen
    • Replies: @dfordoom

    Why I think universal basic income is a bad idea is not the basic part but the universal part.
     
    The advantage of the universal part is that if you just give it to everyone automatically, no questions asked, it should be incredibly simple and cheap to administer. If it replaces welfare then it should allow virtually all welfare bureaucracies to be dismantled. If you succumb to the temptation to make it complicated by having it only be payable to some then you end up with just another complex welfare program that will need an army of bureaucrats to administer it.

    I'm not saying a UBI is a good or a bad idea, but if you're going to do it then keep it really really simple.
    , @Audacious Epigone
    The universal benefits are the untouchable ones, though. If UBI happens, it'll be with us until the country collapses.
  37. @Audacious Epigone
    It's an attempt at compromise. Economic configurations are about trade offs. This trade off works by benefiting citizens and American businesses at the expense of non-citizens.

    Interesting. I admit. Couldn’t we use confiscating all billionaire wealth as a bargaining chip, though?

    • Replies: @iffen
    Couldn’t we use confiscating all billionaire wealth as a bargaining chip, though?

    Please, we are discussing a serious policy change that will likely be enacted into law within a couple of months, not some fantasy.
  38. @Brás Cubas

    A UBI for all American citizens in return for scrapping federal minimum wage laws, concurrent with a push for states to do the same. This would blowup the incentive for immigrant labor in the US.
     
    I don't see how this would work the way you envisage it to. As I see it, American citizens would stop working and leave all the jobs for immigrants, who would then flood America to work for peanuts.

    A UBI for all American citizens in return for scrapping federal minimum wage laws, concurrent with a push for states to do the same. This would blowup the incentive for immigrant labor in the US.

    I don’t see how this would work the way you envisage it to. As I see it, American citizens would stop working and leave all the jobs for immigrants, who would then flood America to work for peanuts.

    Probably. All the schemes that are being floated at the moment to make the future absolutely awesome and wonderful are heavily based on wishful thinking and on a determination not to think about the law of unintended consequences. There’s a touch of utopianism to them. And they’re all rather autistic – people are focusing very narrowly on the possible benefits and ignoring the equally possible downsides. A UBI has the potential to be incredibly beneficial but it has the potential to be a disaster as well. I like the idea of a UBI but it would be a gamble.

    I’m just a natural sceptic and scepticism is deeply unfashionable these days. This is the Age of the True Believers.

    • Replies: @RadicalCenter
    Very well said. I favor a UBI, but the kind of Congress likely to enact a UBI would also refuse the measures needed to make it affordable. By “affordable” I mean sustainable long-term without a great increase in taxation of the general public, an increase in government borrowing, or an increase in printing money out of thin air.

    Here are some ways to fund the UBI without major structural change to our system of property ownership, and to induce people to support the measures needed.

    1. Only US Citizens should be eligible for a UBI (providing another reason to make it harder to become a citizen if not born here to parents who are both legally here). J

    But the leftier elements of our Congress would insist that legal permanent residents get the UBI, even illegal aliens. Witness the traitorous spectacle at the democrat presidential debates, where Mister UBI himself, Andrew Yang, joined every other fool on stage in agreeing that illegal aliens should get medical care at taxpayer expense.

    2. people serving prison time should not receive the UBI while they’re in prison.

    We should withhold the UBI of incarcerated people. This partial reimburses the taxpayers for the cost of incarceration. A similar argument could be made to withhold at least part of the UBI for people who finish their prison term and and are on probation (called “supervised release” in the federal system). After all, it costs taxpayers a fair amount to fund the probation office.

    3. Arguably, the UBI should be reduced permanently, or for a period of years, for people convicted of violent or heinous felonies, or who keep committing felonies. Post-incarceration/post-supervision reduction of the UBI could be a required standard term of the criminal sentence.

    4. Pay the UBI only to people who filed a federal income tax return for the last three consecutive years, whether or not they paid federal taxes. We shouldn’t subsidize people who won’t even get their lives together, cooperate, and obey the law to this extent.

    (Many people are too mentally ill and/or drug-addled to do this, homeless or otherwise. Institutionalize those who need it, provide mandatory drug rehab and testing to those who need that, provide housing and hygiene to those who need it — whoever remains who is not institutionalized or incarcerated from the homeless and nonfunctional populations, help them obtain birth certificates, obtain social security cards, then prepare and file simple informational Fed tax returns for free. After we verify that they are US Citizens and are able to manage their own affairs without harassing others or destroying the public square as they do now, they will be eligible for the UBI.)

    Let’s oversimplify and put this in current partisan terms. A Republican Congress might impose these restrictions on a UBI, but would not pass a UBI in the first place. A Democrat Congress might enact a UBI, but wouldn’t have the balls, decency, loyalty to citizens, loyalty to working and taxpaying people, and simple mathematical sense to impose these eligibility restrictions.

    ** How, then, to get a suitably restricted UBI enacted under something like current conditions? Bribe the American people to consent to the elimination of their favored federal government programs.

    Assume there are 240 million US Citizens age 21 and over who are not incarcerated. Tell them: here is a bill to cut $360 billion from annual military spending and $360 billion from annual nonmilitary spending over the next three years. When the cuts take effect, you get your share as cash. On my very rough math, that would be $3,000 per year for each eligible American. Just a small start, to be sure.

    Citizens need to get the message: cuts to other federal spending mean cash in your pocket.

    Somehow I think that “conservative” fans of absurd military spending and adventurism wouldn’t protest big military cuts so much when the cuts mean cash in their family’s bank account.

    Conversely, other than the households of fed welfare-state employees themselves, most “progressives” or “liberals” won’t protest big domestic spending cuts if those cuts mean cash in their pockets.

    Obviously three grand a year won’t cut it. So how do we cobble together the rest of the money needed for a UBI much bigger than discussed so far? New Fed excise tax on marijuana products. New Fed excise tax on remittances of cash to foreign recipients. These would raise good revenue but would not be paid by the substantial majority of US Citizens. Another $100 billion each per year, easily, rising to a LOT more in the case of the pot tax as it is legalized almost everywhere nationally in the next decade.

    Tax the Hell of the plutocratic elite, as well. Between offsetting spending cuts, stiff taxes on the ultra-high “earnes”, and new excise taxes on pot and Foreign remittances, we are on the way to a meaningful UBI with no additional general taxes, borrowing, or inflationary printing off “money.”

    Of course, placing our God-given natural resources under

    , @Audacious Epigone
    As things stand now, native labor is uncertain and immigrant labor relatively assured because immigrant labor can always undercut native labor. If native labor has, across the board, some head start amounting to something close to the current minimum wage--that'd take ~$1200 a month--it would be immigrant labor that would instead be subject to undercutting by native labor at any given time. I think natives should enjoy home field advantage.
  39. @Mr. Rational
    You're right on the moral level, but politics would dictate otherwise.

    Dammit.

    You’re right on the moral level, but politics would dictate otherwise.

    It’s not always a good idea to try to graft moralising concepts onto political schemes.

  40. @Audacious Epigone
    If that's the case, then the UBI we are likely getting in one way or another is going to really make labor scarce.

    Re: American competitiveness, yes, the idea is to combine America's high labor productivity with low labor costs for employers.

    If that’s the case, then the UBI we are likely getting in one way or another is going to really make labor scarce.

    Which will mean an enormous push for massively increased immigration.

    That darned law of unintended consequences again.

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    Exactly. There is no way to fix this situation without massive pain, pain that is untenable in a democracy. The welfare spigots are going to be turned on to the max, indefinitely. Better that the benefits go to American citizens than to people who got here last week in an attempt to get a piece of the action.
  41. @Mark G.
    A lot of low income workers still qualify for various welfare benefits, even when working. I have a coworker who worked in fast food management. He said getting a job in that isn't as difficult as you might think. A lot of the workers in fast food restaurants don't want to become a manager because at the higher wage they would lose various welfare benefits. They look at the extra work and extra hours they would take on after getting promoted, look at the increased pay, subtract out all the lost welfare benefits and decide it isn't worth it.

    You could roll up all the various welfare benefits people receive now into a UBI and give them a UBI instead. Why I think universal basic income is a bad idea is not the basic part but the universal part. The UBI is going to have to be paid for with higher taxes on the middle class on up. Giving upper income people a government benefit when they are also the ones paying the taxes to provide themselves the benefit seems kind of wasteful. It's having the government take your money and then hand it back to you. You might as well just keep it to begin with.

    An argument is made that universal benefit government programs make these programs politically more palatable for upper income people since they will get the benefit too. That argument is made for Social Security. I don't think rich people are fooled by this. They know there are a lot more poor people than rich people and they are going to end up worse off after any type of universal benefit program gets passed.

    Why I think universal basic income is a bad idea is not the basic part but the universal part.

    The advantage of the universal part is that if you just give it to everyone automatically, no questions asked, it should be incredibly simple and cheap to administer. If it replaces welfare then it should allow virtually all welfare bureaucracies to be dismantled. If you succumb to the temptation to make it complicated by having it only be payable to some then you end up with just another complex welfare program that will need an army of bureaucrats to administer it.

    I’m not saying a UBI is a good or a bad idea, but if you’re going to do it then keep it really really simple.

    • Replies: @RadicalCenter
    Yep. Verify only that the person is:

    — a US Citizen
    — of the requisite age (I’d say 21, but Congress will say 18)
    — who is not incarcerated

    Provide a birth certificate and a Passport or federal ID to any US Citizen who doesn’t have them. If they cannot pay the Fees up front, deduct the cost from their first UBI payment. (We cannot trust State driver licenses or State IDs as proof of eligibility, as California and other dumbass States issue those to ilegal aliens.)

    One note about using the UBI as a replacement for the existing federal welfare bureaucracy. The UBI should replace a host of federal programs and offices, but not Social Security.

    We should expect non-elderly people to work, usually full-time, to supplement the UBI (at whatever jobs have not been eliminated by automation and AI, that is). If they don’t want to, too bad for them, subsist on the UBI, which typically will not be a great Life, materially. But we shouldn’t expect the elderly to work full-time to supplement their Social Security benefits.

    In short, UBI for the non-elderly — UBI plus Social Security for the elderly.

    To pay for it, at least these five measures, from the largest revenue sources to the smallest:
    — big military / Empire spending cuts
    — big domestic spending cuts
    — much stiffer taxes on ultra-High “earners”, E.g. household income over $5,000,000 per year (amply indexed for inflation)
    — a new fed excise tax on marijuana products
    — a new fed excise tax on cash remittances to foreign countries

    Something Like this will be far preferable to yet more borrowing or yet more hypothecation of “dollars” out of thin air.

    Caveat: if most US Citizens don’t pay the taxes that fund the UBI, they will have a natural incentive to always demand a higher UBI without regard to its affordability. In this regard, some tax that’s paid by everyone and is very hard to avoid could be superior. That could be Andrew Yang’s VAT proposal, or a national sales tax. The VAT or sales tax could exempt essentals such as groceries, prescription Meds and Medical devices, and clothing.

    , @Audacious Epigone
    Indeed, the simplicity is a feature, not a bug. Social security is wildly popular because virtually all retirees are eligible.
  42. UBI is a foolish non-solution to an as-yet undefined problem. In addition, it will just end up undermining itself. An automatic baseline to everyone’s purchasing power will automatically create the inflation to negate it.

    • Replies: @Mr. Rational

    An automatic baseline to everyone’s purchasing power will automatically create the inflation to negate it.
     
    Anything that devalues "remittances" and encourages aliens to go home is a good thing.
  43. @another anon
    LOL.

    Socialism is not about "handouts".
    Socialism is about universal right to work, and universal duty to work.

    https://pics.me.me/socialism-is-bad-ecause-it-ewards-lazy-entitled-people-socialism-44202132.png

    For real, though, actual historical Communists tended to have social views that would make Pat Buchanan blush, atheism aside. In the case of the USSR, there was a brief period of Leninist experimentation, then Stalin either brought much needed sanity back to society or poisoned the Bolshevik project with reactionary notions on family structure, depending on your POV.

    I think you can guess which one was the POV of average Soviet citizens.

  44. @obwandiyag
    Interesting. I admit. Couldn't we use confiscating all billionaire wealth as a bargaining chip, though?

    Couldn’t we use confiscating all billionaire wealth as a bargaining chip, though?

    Please, we are discussing a serious policy change that will likely be enacted into law within a couple of months, not some fantasy.

    • Replies: @RadicalCenter
    If tens of millions of people become hungry and terrified of dying, which will happen very soon without a fuller return to our economic life, then confiscation of billionaire wealth would not be a fantasy.

    Unfortunately, neither would the greatly increased confiscation of OUR wealth.

    I wonder which would happen first under our current billionaire and billionaire-controlled rulers. Hmmm......
    , @Audacious Epigone
    Indeed, some version of this is going to come. We currently have it through the end of July in the form of unemployment. Things are not going to be anything close to back to normal by then and it's an election year. After people have become accustomed to these benefits for ten months or more, how politically feasible will it be to remove them? Not very.
  45. @Masonic Mindset
    Lenin?

    That was Paul that said that not
    Lenin.

    If Lenin did steal Paul’s writings at least quote the man that was the originator.

    I’ve never posted on any site but I had to respond to that nonsense.

    Imagine

    • Replies: @Mark G.

    Imagine
     
    That was written by Lennon, not Lenin.
  46. @AaronB
    The problem is, with their basic needs met, large numbers of people would simply choose to "loaf".

    Right now, the system is set up that the only way you could opt out of the Rat Race is by suffering extreme poverty - basically homelessness. There is no middle ground.

    And I think this set up is deliberate - what rich and successful people absolutely cannot stand is poor and unsuccessful people who are somehow happier than them. It subverts all their notions of a just world.

    And its not just rich people - a lot of people will think its unfair that some people can be content and happy with little while they work hard for more and are unhappy. Notice they too would get the UBI, and so would be richer as well - but the motive is that others should be unhappy.

    I see this a lot on Unz - but it is the old New Testament story of the workers in the field who got paid the same.

    A lot of people will oppose UBI for psychological, "spiritual" reasons - they don't want to see people happy, it isn't fair.

    So cultural norms in America would have to change in dramatic ways - I think that will happen, but at the moment there are too many grim "life isn't supposed to be fun" types in America.

    Happiness is highly over-rated. You need to stop chasing ephemeral pleasure and try and accomplish some useful and enduring material goals. 🙂

    • Replies: @dfordoom

    Happiness is highly over-rated. You need to stop chasing ephemeral pleasure
     
    Happiness is one of those words that means whatever you want it to mean. Some people think happiness means short-term pleasure, some people think it means long-term contentment and a sense of a life well lived. Some people think it just means more consumer goods. For some people it's spiritual enlightenment. For some people happiness is the joy they derive from helping others. For some people happiness it is the joy they derive from making others suffer. For some it's the exquisite pleasure of self-righteousness. Like freedom it has no objective meaning.
  47. @Monotonous Languor
    UBI is a foolish non-solution to an as-yet undefined problem. In addition, it will just end up undermining itself. An automatic baseline to everyone's purchasing power will automatically create the inflation to negate it.

    An automatic baseline to everyone’s purchasing power will automatically create the inflation to negate it.

    Anything that devalues “remittances” and encourages aliens to go home is a good thing.

    • Replies: @RadicalCenter
    Good point, but we don’t need to create more inflation and hurt ourselves to get noncitizens to go home.

    Simply levy a hefty federal excise tax on remittances of cash to recipients in foreign countries, rising to say, 25%.

    That will defeat a big part of the purpose for many legal and especially illegal aliens being here. As a bonus, we collect tax revenue from the monies still remitted and hopefully deter the remittance of other monies. These are dollars that would have been spent in the foreign countries. Instead, the dollars will now be spent here in the USA.
  48. @Dr. Doom
    Life is not fair. The System is rigged.

    UBI is a social welfare program for everyone.

    Socialism. By hook or by crook, you will.

    These libertarians are fantasists.

    Gold won't save you, or Bitcoin either.

    The funny money gets printed as debt.

    The government need not own anything other than natural resources to pay for a UBI without borrowing, taxing the genera public, or inflating.

    Place our God-given natural resources under public ownership and pay the proceeds equally to every non-incarcerated US Citizen as a monthly universal basic income.

    (We might lower or eliminate the UBI for people who have been convicted of felonies, or at least violent felonies.)

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    The Alaskan approach writ large.
  49. @Mr. Rational

    An automatic baseline to everyone’s purchasing power will automatically create the inflation to negate it.
     
    Anything that devalues "remittances" and encourages aliens to go home is a good thing.

    Good point, but we don’t need to create more inflation and hurt ourselves to get noncitizens to go home.

    Simply levy a hefty federal excise tax on remittances of cash to recipients in foreign countries, rising to say, 25%.

    That will defeat a big part of the purpose for many legal and especially illegal aliens being here. As a bonus, we collect tax revenue from the monies still remitted and hopefully deter the remittance of other monies. These are dollars that would have been spent in the foreign countries. Instead, the dollars will now be spent here in the USA.

  50. @iffen
    Couldn’t we use confiscating all billionaire wealth as a bargaining chip, though?

    Please, we are discussing a serious policy change that will likely be enacted into law within a couple of months, not some fantasy.

    If tens of millions of people become hungry and terrified of dying, which will happen very soon without a fuller return to our economic life, then confiscation of billionaire wealth would not be a fantasy.

    Unfortunately, neither would the greatly increased confiscation of OUR wealth.

    I wonder which would happen first under our current billionaire and billionaire-controlled rulers. Hmmm……

  51. @iffen
    Imagine

    Imagine

    That was written by Lennon, not Lenin.

  52. @dfordoom


    A UBI for all American citizens in return for scrapping federal minimum wage laws, concurrent with a push for states to do the same. This would blowup the incentive for immigrant labor in the US.
     
    I don’t see how this would work the way you envisage it to. As I see it, American citizens would stop working and leave all the jobs for immigrants, who would then flood America to work for peanuts.
     
    Probably. All the schemes that are being floated at the moment to make the future absolutely awesome and wonderful are heavily based on wishful thinking and on a determination not to think about the law of unintended consequences. There's a touch of utopianism to them. And they're all rather autistic - people are focusing very narrowly on the possible benefits and ignoring the equally possible downsides. A UBI has the potential to be incredibly beneficial but it has the potential to be a disaster as well. I like the idea of a UBI but it would be a gamble.

    I'm just a natural sceptic and scepticism is deeply unfashionable these days. This is the Age of the True Believers.

    Very well said. I favor a UBI, but the kind of Congress likely to enact a UBI would also refuse the measures needed to make it affordable. By “affordable” I mean sustainable long-term without a great increase in taxation of the general public, an increase in government borrowing, or an increase in printing money out of thin air.

    Here are some ways to fund the UBI without major structural change to our system of property ownership, and to induce people to support the measures needed.

    1. Only US Citizens should be eligible for a UBI (providing another reason to make it harder to become a citizen if not born here to parents who are both legally here). J

    But the leftier elements of our Congress would insist that legal permanent residents get the UBI, even illegal aliens. Witness the traitorous spectacle at the democrat presidential debates, where Mister UBI himself, Andrew Yang, joined every other fool on stage in agreeing that illegal aliens should get medical care at taxpayer expense.

    2. people serving prison time should not receive the UBI while they’re in prison.

    We should withhold the UBI of incarcerated people. This partial reimburses the taxpayers for the cost of incarceration. A similar argument could be made to withhold at least part of the UBI for people who finish their prison term and and are on probation (called “supervised release” in the federal system). After all, it costs taxpayers a fair amount to fund the probation office.

    3. Arguably, the UBI should be reduced permanently, or for a period of years, for people convicted of violent or heinous felonies, or who keep committing felonies. Post-incarceration/post-supervision reduction of the UBI could be a required standard term of the criminal sentence.

    4. Pay the UBI only to people who filed a federal income tax return for the last three consecutive years, whether or not they paid federal taxes. We shouldn’t subsidize people who won’t even get their lives together, cooperate, and obey the law to this extent.

    (Many people are too mentally ill and/or drug-addled to do this, homeless or otherwise. Institutionalize those who need it, provide mandatory drug rehab and testing to those who need that, provide housing and hygiene to those who need it — whoever remains who is not institutionalized or incarcerated from the homeless and nonfunctional populations, help them obtain birth certificates, obtain social security cards, then prepare and file simple informational Fed tax returns for free. After we verify that they are US Citizens and are able to manage their own affairs without harassing others or destroying the public square as they do now, they will be eligible for the UBI.)

    Let’s oversimplify and put this in current partisan terms. A Republican Congress might impose these restrictions on a UBI, but would not pass a UBI in the first place. A Democrat Congress might enact a UBI, but wouldn’t have the balls, decency, loyalty to citizens, loyalty to working and taxpaying people, and simple mathematical sense to impose these eligibility restrictions.

    ** How, then, to get a suitably restricted UBI enacted under something like current conditions? Bribe the American people to consent to the elimination of their favored federal government programs.

    Assume there are 240 million US Citizens age 21 and over who are not incarcerated. Tell them: here is a bill to cut $360 billion from annual military spending and $360 billion from annual nonmilitary spending over the next three years. When the cuts take effect, you get your share as cash. On my very rough math, that would be $3,000 per year for each eligible American. Just a small start, to be sure.

    Citizens need to get the message: cuts to other federal spending mean cash in your pocket.

    Somehow I think that “conservative” fans of absurd military spending and adventurism wouldn’t protest big military cuts so much when the cuts mean cash in their family’s bank account.

    Conversely, other than the households of fed welfare-state employees themselves, most “progressives” or “liberals” won’t protest big domestic spending cuts if those cuts mean cash in their pockets.

    Obviously three grand a year won’t cut it. So how do we cobble together the rest of the money needed for a UBI much bigger than discussed so far? New Fed excise tax on marijuana products. New Fed excise tax on remittances of cash to foreign recipients. These would raise good revenue but would not be paid by the substantial majority of US Citizens. Another $100 billion each per year, easily, rising to a LOT more in the case of the pot tax as it is legalized almost everywhere nationally in the next decade.

    Tax the Hell of the plutocratic elite, as well. Between offsetting spending cuts, stiff taxes on the ultra-high “earnes”, and new excise taxes on pot and Foreign remittances, we are on the way to a meaningful UBI with no additional general taxes, borrowing, or inflationary printing off “money.”

    Of course, placing our God-given natural resources under

  53. @dfordoom

    Why I think universal basic income is a bad idea is not the basic part but the universal part.
     
    The advantage of the universal part is that if you just give it to everyone automatically, no questions asked, it should be incredibly simple and cheap to administer. If it replaces welfare then it should allow virtually all welfare bureaucracies to be dismantled. If you succumb to the temptation to make it complicated by having it only be payable to some then you end up with just another complex welfare program that will need an army of bureaucrats to administer it.

    I'm not saying a UBI is a good or a bad idea, but if you're going to do it then keep it really really simple.

    Yep. Verify only that the person is:

    — a US Citizen
    — of the requisite age (I’d say 21, but Congress will say 18)
    — who is not incarcerated

    Provide a birth certificate and a Passport or federal ID to any US Citizen who doesn’t have them. If they cannot pay the Fees up front, deduct the cost from their first UBI payment. (We cannot trust State driver licenses or State IDs as proof of eligibility, as California and other dumbass States issue those to ilegal aliens.)

    One note about using the UBI as a replacement for the existing federal welfare bureaucracy. The UBI should replace a host of federal programs and offices, but not Social Security.

    We should expect non-elderly people to work, usually full-time, to supplement the UBI (at whatever jobs have not been eliminated by automation and AI, that is). If they don’t want to, too bad for them, subsist on the UBI, which typically will not be a great Life, materially. But we shouldn’t expect the elderly to work full-time to supplement their Social Security benefits.

    In short, UBI for the non-elderly — UBI plus Social Security for the elderly.

    To pay for it, at least these five measures, from the largest revenue sources to the smallest:
    — big military / Empire spending cuts
    — big domestic spending cuts
    — much stiffer taxes on ultra-High “earners”, E.g. household income over $5,000,000 per year (amply indexed for inflation)
    — a new fed excise tax on marijuana products
    — a new fed excise tax on cash remittances to foreign countries

    Something Like this will be far preferable to yet more borrowing or yet more hypothecation of “dollars” out of thin air.

    Caveat: if most US Citizens don’t pay the taxes that fund the UBI, they will have a natural incentive to always demand a higher UBI without regard to its affordability. In this regard, some tax that’s paid by everyone and is very hard to avoid could be superior. That could be Andrew Yang’s VAT proposal, or a national sales tax. The VAT or sales tax could exempt essentals such as groceries, prescription Meds and Medical devices, and clothing.

  54. @another anon
    LOL.

    Socialism is not about "handouts".
    Socialism is about universal right to work, and universal duty to work.

    https://pics.me.me/socialism-is-bad-ecause-it-ewards-lazy-entitled-people-socialism-44202132.png

    Capitalism (the way we know it) is bad because it rewards lazy, entitled people,and has since 12/23/1913. These people print your money, charge interest off it (As well as writing the tax code), and never have to operate a shovel, or carry a trowel. They print not only your money, but the money in all but 4 (latest I have seen ) countries, and those just, coincidentally, happen to be the ones with whom, we are currently threatening war.

  55. @Mark G.
    A lot of low income workers still qualify for various welfare benefits, even when working. I have a coworker who worked in fast food management. He said getting a job in that isn't as difficult as you might think. A lot of the workers in fast food restaurants don't want to become a manager because at the higher wage they would lose various welfare benefits. They look at the extra work and extra hours they would take on after getting promoted, look at the increased pay, subtract out all the lost welfare benefits and decide it isn't worth it.

    You could roll up all the various welfare benefits people receive now into a UBI and give them a UBI instead. Why I think universal basic income is a bad idea is not the basic part but the universal part. The UBI is going to have to be paid for with higher taxes on the middle class on up. Giving upper income people a government benefit when they are also the ones paying the taxes to provide themselves the benefit seems kind of wasteful. It's having the government take your money and then hand it back to you. You might as well just keep it to begin with.

    An argument is made that universal benefit government programs make these programs politically more palatable for upper income people since they will get the benefit too. That argument is made for Social Security. I don't think rich people are fooled by this. They know there are a lot more poor people than rich people and they are going to end up worse off after any type of universal benefit program gets passed.

    The universal benefits are the untouchable ones, though. If UBI happens, it’ll be with us until the country collapses.

  56. @dfordoom


    A UBI for all American citizens in return for scrapping federal minimum wage laws, concurrent with a push for states to do the same. This would blowup the incentive for immigrant labor in the US.
     
    I don’t see how this would work the way you envisage it to. As I see it, American citizens would stop working and leave all the jobs for immigrants, who would then flood America to work for peanuts.
     
    Probably. All the schemes that are being floated at the moment to make the future absolutely awesome and wonderful are heavily based on wishful thinking and on a determination not to think about the law of unintended consequences. There's a touch of utopianism to them. And they're all rather autistic - people are focusing very narrowly on the possible benefits and ignoring the equally possible downsides. A UBI has the potential to be incredibly beneficial but it has the potential to be a disaster as well. I like the idea of a UBI but it would be a gamble.

    I'm just a natural sceptic and scepticism is deeply unfashionable these days. This is the Age of the True Believers.

    As things stand now, native labor is uncertain and immigrant labor relatively assured because immigrant labor can always undercut native labor. If native labor has, across the board, some head start amounting to something close to the current minimum wage–that’d take ~$1200 a month–it would be immigrant labor that would instead be subject to undercutting by native labor at any given time. I think natives should enjoy home field advantage.

    • Replies: @dfordoom

    As things stand now, native labor is uncertain and immigrant labor relatively assured because immigrant labor can always undercut native labor. If native labor has, across the board, some head start amounting to something close to the current minimum wage–that’d take ~$1200 a month–it would be immigrant labor that would instead be subject to undercutting by native labor at any given time. I think natives should enjoy home field advantage.
     
    Agreed, but there are some potential dangers. Maybe if Trump promised a UBI you could trust him to restrict it to citizens (maybe). Would you trust the GOP to support that? From the point of view of the corporate donor class the awesome thing about a UBI is that it would make immigrant labour even cheaper. And obviously if a UBI is brought in by the Democrats it will be paid to illegal immigrants.

    And even if you get a citizens-only UBI, as soon as the Democrats regain the White House it wil be extended to illegal immigrants.

    People here are talking about the kind of UBI they'd like to see (which does sound very attractive). But in practice what will a UBI look like once the Supreme Court, corrupt congressmen and the corporate donor class have altered it to their liking?
  57. @dfordoom

    If that’s the case, then the UBI we are likely getting in one way or another is going to really make labor scarce.
     
    Which will mean an enormous push for massively increased immigration.

    That darned law of unintended consequences again.

    Exactly. There is no way to fix this situation without massive pain, pain that is untenable in a democracy. The welfare spigots are going to be turned on to the max, indefinitely. Better that the benefits go to American citizens than to people who got here last week in an attempt to get a piece of the action.

  58. @dfordoom

    Why I think universal basic income is a bad idea is not the basic part but the universal part.
     
    The advantage of the universal part is that if you just give it to everyone automatically, no questions asked, it should be incredibly simple and cheap to administer. If it replaces welfare then it should allow virtually all welfare bureaucracies to be dismantled. If you succumb to the temptation to make it complicated by having it only be payable to some then you end up with just another complex welfare program that will need an army of bureaucrats to administer it.

    I'm not saying a UBI is a good or a bad idea, but if you're going to do it then keep it really really simple.

    Indeed, the simplicity is a feature, not a bug. Social security is wildly popular because virtually all retirees are eligible.

    • Replies: @dfordoom

    Indeed, the simplicity is a feature, not a bug. Social security is wildly popular because virtually all retirees are eligible.
     
    Yep.

    Also, any system can be abused but in general the more complicated the system the easier it is to abuse. People cheat on their taxes because tax laws are so incredibly complicated.
  59. @iffen
    Couldn’t we use confiscating all billionaire wealth as a bargaining chip, though?

    Please, we are discussing a serious policy change that will likely be enacted into law within a couple of months, not some fantasy.

    Indeed, some version of this is going to come. We currently have it through the end of July in the form of unemployment. Things are not going to be anything close to back to normal by then and it’s an election year. After people have become accustomed to these benefits for ten months or more, how politically feasible will it be to remove them? Not very.

  60. @RadicalCenter
    The government need not own anything other than natural resources to pay for a UBI without borrowing, taxing the genera public, or inflating.

    Place our God-given natural resources under public ownership and pay the proceeds equally to every non-incarcerated US Citizen as a monthly universal basic income.

    (We might lower or eliminate the UBI for people who have been convicted of felonies, or at least violent felonies.)

    The Alaskan approach writ large.

    • Replies: @Mr. Rational
    The problem with the Alaskan approach is that your resources won't last forever; the oil coming out of Prudhoe Bay is barely enough to keep the pipeline from freezing into one massive Lipstick, and there's talk of converting gas from a nearby field to methanol to dilute it and keep it flowing.
  61. @Audacious Epigone
    The Alaskan approach writ large.

    The problem with the Alaskan approach is that your resources won’t last forever; the oil coming out of Prudhoe Bay is barely enough to keep the pipeline from freezing into one massive Lipstick, and there’s talk of converting gas from a nearby field to methanol to dilute it and keep it flowing.

  62. @iffen
    Happiness is highly over-rated. You need to stop chasing ephemeral pleasure and try and accomplish some useful and enduring material goals. :)

    Happiness is highly over-rated. You need to stop chasing ephemeral pleasure

    Happiness is one of those words that means whatever you want it to mean. Some people think happiness means short-term pleasure, some people think it means long-term contentment and a sense of a life well lived. Some people think it just means more consumer goods. For some people it’s spiritual enlightenment. For some people happiness is the joy they derive from helping others. For some people happiness it is the joy they derive from making others suffer. For some it’s the exquisite pleasure of self-righteousness. Like freedom it has no objective meaning.

  63. @Audacious Epigone
    As things stand now, native labor is uncertain and immigrant labor relatively assured because immigrant labor can always undercut native labor. If native labor has, across the board, some head start amounting to something close to the current minimum wage--that'd take ~$1200 a month--it would be immigrant labor that would instead be subject to undercutting by native labor at any given time. I think natives should enjoy home field advantage.

    As things stand now, native labor is uncertain and immigrant labor relatively assured because immigrant labor can always undercut native labor. If native labor has, across the board, some head start amounting to something close to the current minimum wage–that’d take ~$1200 a month–it would be immigrant labor that would instead be subject to undercutting by native labor at any given time. I think natives should enjoy home field advantage.

    Agreed, but there are some potential dangers. Maybe if Trump promised a UBI you could trust him to restrict it to citizens (maybe). Would you trust the GOP to support that? From the point of view of the corporate donor class the awesome thing about a UBI is that it would make immigrant labour even cheaper. And obviously if a UBI is brought in by the Democrats it will be paid to illegal immigrants.

    And even if you get a citizens-only UBI, as soon as the Democrats regain the White House it wil be extended to illegal immigrants.

    People here are talking about the kind of UBI they’d like to see (which does sound very attractive). But in practice what will a UBI look like once the Supreme Court, corrupt congressmen and the corporate donor class have altered it to their liking?

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    It would have to be strictly restricted to US citizens over the age of 17. It could probably withstand SCOTUS challenge in that case. But if open to all residents, it would be the ultimate international welfare magnet.
  64. @Audacious Epigone
    Indeed, the simplicity is a feature, not a bug. Social security is wildly popular because virtually all retirees are eligible.

    Indeed, the simplicity is a feature, not a bug. Social security is wildly popular because virtually all retirees are eligible.

    Yep.

    Also, any system can be abused but in general the more complicated the system the easier it is to abuse. People cheat on their taxes because tax laws are so incredibly complicated.

    • Agree: Audacious Epigone
  65. @dfordoom

    As things stand now, native labor is uncertain and immigrant labor relatively assured because immigrant labor can always undercut native labor. If native labor has, across the board, some head start amounting to something close to the current minimum wage–that’d take ~$1200 a month–it would be immigrant labor that would instead be subject to undercutting by native labor at any given time. I think natives should enjoy home field advantage.
     
    Agreed, but there are some potential dangers. Maybe if Trump promised a UBI you could trust him to restrict it to citizens (maybe). Would you trust the GOP to support that? From the point of view of the corporate donor class the awesome thing about a UBI is that it would make immigrant labour even cheaper. And obviously if a UBI is brought in by the Democrats it will be paid to illegal immigrants.

    And even if you get a citizens-only UBI, as soon as the Democrats regain the White House it wil be extended to illegal immigrants.

    People here are talking about the kind of UBI they'd like to see (which does sound very attractive). But in practice what will a UBI look like once the Supreme Court, corrupt congressmen and the corporate donor class have altered it to their liking?

    It would have to be strictly restricted to US citizens over the age of 17. It could probably withstand SCOTUS challenge in that case. But if open to all residents, it would be the ultimate international welfare magnet.

    • Replies: @dfordoom

    It would have to be strictly restricted to US citizens over the age of 17. It could probably withstand SCOTUS challenge in that case.
     
    But it would be pretty easy for a future Democrat president to extend it to non-citizens. And not just a future Democrat president - imagine a future Republican president in the Jeb Bush mould.

    And ultimately, if the political donor class wants it to be extended to all residents including illegal immigrants then that is what will happen.

    But if open to all residents, it would be the ultimate international welfare magnet.
     
    Definitely.

    Another point to consider. A UBI would be politically irreversible. Once you have a UBI no politician will risk getting rid of it. It would be political suicide. So if it turns out to be a catastrophe for the economy you're stuck with it.
  66. @Audacious Epigone
    It would have to be strictly restricted to US citizens over the age of 17. It could probably withstand SCOTUS challenge in that case. But if open to all residents, it would be the ultimate international welfare magnet.

    It would have to be strictly restricted to US citizens over the age of 17. It could probably withstand SCOTUS challenge in that case.

    But it would be pretty easy for a future Democrat president to extend it to non-citizens. And not just a future Democrat president – imagine a future Republican president in the Jeb Bush mould.

    And ultimately, if the political donor class wants it to be extended to all residents including illegal immigrants then that is what will happen.

    But if open to all residents, it would be the ultimate international welfare magnet.

    Definitely.

    Another point to consider. A UBI would be politically irreversible. Once you have a UBI no politician will risk getting rid of it. It would be political suicide. So if it turns out to be a catastrophe for the economy you’re stuck with it.

    • Replies: @iffen
    There will not be a UBI in the US. Most Republicans will be opposed because they are Republicans and all Democrats will be opposed because they want welfare spigotted through the bureaucracy which is a prime source of political support and opportunities for graft for them.
    , @Audacious Epigone
    We may be stuck with it now. Politically, it's going to be extremely difficult to let the CARES act unemployment benefits expire in three months. Three months after that, it'll be harder still. And before we know it, it effectively becomes permanent.

    It'd be better to at least have it crafted in a sensible way rather than one that rewards unemployment (as opposed to helping soften the blow for people who become unemployed or are unemployed for extended periods of time).

  67. @dfordoom

    It would have to be strictly restricted to US citizens over the age of 17. It could probably withstand SCOTUS challenge in that case.
     
    But it would be pretty easy for a future Democrat president to extend it to non-citizens. And not just a future Democrat president - imagine a future Republican president in the Jeb Bush mould.

    And ultimately, if the political donor class wants it to be extended to all residents including illegal immigrants then that is what will happen.

    But if open to all residents, it would be the ultimate international welfare magnet.
     
    Definitely.

    Another point to consider. A UBI would be politically irreversible. Once you have a UBI no politician will risk getting rid of it. It would be political suicide. So if it turns out to be a catastrophe for the economy you're stuck with it.

    There will not be a UBI in the US. Most Republicans will be opposed because they are Republicans and all Democrats will be opposed because they want welfare spigotted through the bureaucracy which is a prime source of political support and opportunities for graft for them.

    • Replies: @dfordoom

    There will not be a UBI in the US. Most Republicans will be opposed because they are Republicans and all Democrats will be opposed because they want welfare spigotted through the bureaucracy which is a prime source of political support and opportunities for graft for them.
     
    Probably. Although if a UBI starts to look like something that could swing the election result decisively the Democrats might be tempted.

    What you're most likely to get is something not actually called a UBI but that has all the disadvantages of a UBI without any of the advantages. Something incredibly cumbersome and expensive that will offer lots of opportunity for abuses. Because that's what democracy is all about.
  68. @dfordoom

    It would have to be strictly restricted to US citizens over the age of 17. It could probably withstand SCOTUS challenge in that case.
     
    But it would be pretty easy for a future Democrat president to extend it to non-citizens. And not just a future Democrat president - imagine a future Republican president in the Jeb Bush mould.

    And ultimately, if the political donor class wants it to be extended to all residents including illegal immigrants then that is what will happen.

    But if open to all residents, it would be the ultimate international welfare magnet.
     
    Definitely.

    Another point to consider. A UBI would be politically irreversible. Once you have a UBI no politician will risk getting rid of it. It would be political suicide. So if it turns out to be a catastrophe for the economy you're stuck with it.

    We may be stuck with it now. Politically, it’s going to be extremely difficult to let the CARES act unemployment benefits expire in three months. Three months after that, it’ll be harder still. And before we know it, it effectively becomes permanent.

    It’d be better to at least have it crafted in a sensible way rather than one that rewards unemployment (as opposed to helping soften the blow for people who become unemployed or are unemployed for extended periods of time).

    • Replies: @dfordoom

    We may be stuck with it now. Politically, it’s going to be extremely difficult to let the CARES act unemployment benefits expire in three months. Three months after that, it’ll be harder still.
     
    If it expires in three months Trump is highly likely to lose the election. Giving people free money and then taking it away just before an election is pretty much a guaranteed recipe for electoral defeat.

    It’d be better to at least have it crafted in a sensible way
     
    I'd say that the chances of that are somewhere between zero and nil. Has any governmental policy ever been crafted in a sensible way?
  69. @Audacious Epigone
    We may be stuck with it now. Politically, it's going to be extremely difficult to let the CARES act unemployment benefits expire in three months. Three months after that, it'll be harder still. And before we know it, it effectively becomes permanent.

    It'd be better to at least have it crafted in a sensible way rather than one that rewards unemployment (as opposed to helping soften the blow for people who become unemployed or are unemployed for extended periods of time).

    We may be stuck with it now. Politically, it’s going to be extremely difficult to let the CARES act unemployment benefits expire in three months. Three months after that, it’ll be harder still.

    If it expires in three months Trump is highly likely to lose the election. Giving people free money and then taking it away just before an election is pretty much a guaranteed recipe for electoral defeat.

    It’d be better to at least have it crafted in a sensible way

    I’d say that the chances of that are somewhere between zero and nil. Has any governmental policy ever been crafted in a sensible way?

    • Replies: @Audacious Epigone
    Hope springs eternal!
  70. @iffen
    There will not be a UBI in the US. Most Republicans will be opposed because they are Republicans and all Democrats will be opposed because they want welfare spigotted through the bureaucracy which is a prime source of political support and opportunities for graft for them.

    There will not be a UBI in the US. Most Republicans will be opposed because they are Republicans and all Democrats will be opposed because they want welfare spigotted through the bureaucracy which is a prime source of political support and opportunities for graft for them.

    Probably. Although if a UBI starts to look like something that could swing the election result decisively the Democrats might be tempted.

    What you’re most likely to get is something not actually called a UBI but that has all the disadvantages of a UBI without any of the advantages. Something incredibly cumbersome and expensive that will offer lots of opportunity for abuses. Because that’s what democracy is all about.

  71. @dfordoom

    We may be stuck with it now. Politically, it’s going to be extremely difficult to let the CARES act unemployment benefits expire in three months. Three months after that, it’ll be harder still.
     
    If it expires in three months Trump is highly likely to lose the election. Giving people free money and then taking it away just before an election is pretty much a guaranteed recipe for electoral defeat.

    It’d be better to at least have it crafted in a sensible way
     
    I'd say that the chances of that are somewhere between zero and nil. Has any governmental policy ever been crafted in a sensible way?

    Hope springs eternal!

  72. @Daniel H
    Goodwhites must suffer. That's all there is to it. When they suffer they will have no choice but to make cause with the rest of us.

    Goodwhites must suffer. That’s all there is to it. When they suffer they will have no choice but to make cause with the rest of us.

    Goodwhites already did suffer, and in the most brutal and blatantly betrayed way: the Bolshevik Red Terror of 1917 – 1924. In the case, Goodwhites sided with Nonwhites against monarchist Badwhites, who were dubbed “enemies of the people”. Once they were liquidated, the bourgeoisie became the enemies of the people Badwhites. Once they were liquidated, the “Intelligents” became the enemies of the people Badwhites. And once they were liquidated, viola, no more Goodwhites.

    For some reason, these lessons from history are completely unknown to whites of any persuasion.

Comments are closed.

Subscribe to All Audacious Epigone Comments via RSS