dice wrote:there's actually no evidence whatsoever that any significant number would be content to not work on a permanent basis. and if the UBI was linked to GDP, any significant amount of people not working would cause a contraction in the economy, thus reducing the amount of the UBI until people returned to working. market equilibrium. and if it didn't cause an economic contraction, then who the hell cares if some bums want to waste away their lives in their crappy little apartments
There's never been a protracted study, so we don't know.
The limited information we have suggests labor force participation would be affected.
As for tying to GDP, there's been a debate about that. I think if you're going to do it at all, it would have to be tied to a percentage of GDP, but unless there's overwhelming bipartisan support to get a Constitutional amendment, some opportunistic politician will always run on trying to increase it.
I think the slippery slope argument is valid.
any inflation would be the result of increase in consumer spending, which is good for the economy. has any economist ever argued that increased consumer spending is anything other than a great thing? i don't think there's an inflation corollary to that argument
The inflation would be a result of massively increasing the money supply.
Cost of living would not stay static.
they'd push for maintaining it, for sure. but they'd cave if necessary. and if that was the sticking point, they'd deserve to lose the UBI. of course, this would all depend on the size of the UBI
I have a hard time buying they would cave, but perhaps they would.
i don't know what the expected outcome was, so i couldn't comment on that
The intent was to solve the problem of people losing welfare benefits by becoming employed.
Studies showed that in some cases it made more sense for people to live off the government dole.
They tried to solve the problem by not "punishing" people with reduced assistance by finding gainful employment.
1) i didn't say that $1000 was going to repair anything. i said it would lead to improvements in both the short and long-term
2) nobody celebrates out-of-wedlock births
3) the illegitimacy rate has increased as the overall birthrate has declined. why? because less people are getting married, particularly in the black community. linking illegitimate births to welfare rather than the vastly different societal view on marriage now vs the '60s is quite a stretch. correlation does not imply causation. that said, taking marriage out of the equation, it stands to reason that the government providing some support surely has an impact on the decision of a poor woman to have a child. eliminating welfare would further reduce the birthrate but obviously increase the problems of children born into poverty
1) I'll address this point later.
2) You'd be surprised. I've anecdotal evidence to the contrary. The broader point is that there is FAR less social stigmatization on the issue (for better or worse), and that isn't debatable.
3) I should've been more clear. My intent wasn't to suggest causation (although economists and social scientists have made a compelling case).
I was just pointing out that an increase in welfare benefits didn't significantly reduce poverty or heal the dilemma of broken families.
As I argued in previous posts, I think the problem is largely cultural.
none of this is relevant to what i said. and the program is nowhere near insolvent. currently projections call for a benefits decrease in 2034 if no adjustment to the funding is made. the reason for the budgetary issues is reagan raiding the fund and no subsequent administration rectifying it. not because of some fundamental flaw of the program
There is a fundamental flaw in the program when the number of people drawing from the fund will be larger than the people paying into it.
And any suggested cuts to social security is the third rail of politics. Something will have to be done.
that would surely be the objective, assuming that the UBI amount was sufficient. the equivalent of "social security for all"
Referring back to point (1) earlier, UBI proponents are split on folding all entitlements into that one program.
It's not unusual for someone to draw more than $1,000 in combined means-tested programs.
So presumably, for the $1,000 to make an impact, the current programs would have to be kept in place, or UBI would have to be much bigger than the proposed $1,000/month.
Either way, $12,000 is not a salve for the larger cultural issues.
