Zuckerberg Pushes "Universal Basic Income"

[KD5NRH]

I still think that it's abusable if the .gov is subsidizing it in any way.  And if you're using it to argue that somebody on the UBI isn't starving, well, why not just increase the UBI a bit?

Because handing them enough food to live on absolutely eliminates any possible validity that some might give to claims that people can't afford to eat on the UBI.  The rare few that actually can't eat a HDR would still be handled as special cases, but the "food stamps ain't enough to pay for my diabetic-friendly gluten free nut free kosher vegan taco fixins" BS could be headed off pretty easily.

[MechAg94]

Not at all; the kids get their own 8 ration packs a week.

Which would also provide far more incentive to the states' various agencies to act swiftly and mercilessly on "parents" whose kids aren't getting fed properly.

What country do you live in?   

[Firethorn]

Firethorn,
First off, you are making a case for a very different system than what is being suggested by Zuckerberg and others.

Well, I did start off by saying that libertarians can support a UBI, though our justifications are rather different.  Given that to my knowledge Zuckerburg hasn't expressed any details or plan, can you really say it would be that different of a system?

Secondly, I doubt you will find many advocates here for the existing and manifold welfare systems, and you make some entirely valid criticisms of them.

My general point is that the politicians, and by extension the electorate that picks them, have decided welfare systems are necessary.  As such, I seek an optimal state for them.  Discussing whether to have them at all is a different, though related, topic.

I happen to believe that a well setup welfare system solves more negatives than it creates.  Prison shouldn't be more luxurious than not being a criminal, and there is a floor on how badly we can treat them.

As for 'better' means testing, well, that's a great goal, but better in what way?  More granular, cheaper, harsher, nicer, what?  I prefer 'As automatic as possible', folding it into the tax code seems the easiest way to reduce duplication of effort.

Smoother transitions would indeed help, but we're still dealing with dozens of different welfare programs.

As for riots, I think White meant it more in the 'don't make them so desperate to become violent' sense rather than rewarding violence aka North Korea extorting more food.

Y'all are putting a lot of effort into solutions that shouldn't need to be solved.

Not that much effort.  This is relaxing for me.  Anyways, there's lots of problems that shouldn't need solving that need such none the less.

 But if you really want to give money away apart from charity, find a way to do it below the federal level.  Below the state level would be even  better.  The more local the money is collected and spent, the more likely it will be used efficiently.  As long as the money is coming from some far away big govt and taxpayers somewhere else, there will be little incentive to use the money wisely.

If you think federal level spending is wasteful, you should see local.

Part of the reason I'd like to see it be federal is to encourage people to move if necessary to save expenses.  Save the expensive areas for those with the income to live there.

Because handing them enough food to live on absolutely eliminates any possible validity that some might give to claims that people can't afford to eat on the UBI.  The rare few that actually can't eat a HDR would still be handled as special cases, but the "food stamps ain't enough to pay for my diabetic-friendly gluten free nut free kosher vegan taco fixins" BS could be headed off pretty easily.

Heh, reminds me of the time I was in a debate about a UBI and I had a guy insisting it should be variable to include his 'need' for an expensive private religious school for his kids.  He didn't like my answer of 'get a job, convince the religious organization that insists it's necessary to pay for it, or ask for donations'

[MechAg94]

If you think federal level spending is wasteful, you should see local.

I disagree.  Local govts don't get to print money the same way the Feds do.  Even at the state level, the wasted spending and debt is a fraction of regular federal waste.  

If the voters in your area decide to spend millions on some welfare scheme, I at least don't have to pay for it.  You and your fellow voters just might pay more attention if you know your local taxes are going to double instead of knowing that people in the other 49 states will help cover it. 

[MechAg94]

IMO, with the current status of federal politics in the US, this is a nice thought exercise, but not something that would be intelligently written or implemented. 

[makattak]

https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-03-28/how-utah-keeps-the-american-dream-alive

A different approach to combating poverty.

[Ben]

https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-03-28/how-utah-keeps-the-american-dream-alive

A different approach to combating poverty.

Very interesting article. Especially the near equal success rate to Denmark without the tax dollars.

[MillCreek]

^^^ Plus one.  It seems that a key factor to their success is the Church.

[White Horseradish]

No offense meant, but I think that's naive.  The bureaucrats will find a way to justify their continued existence.  What's that old saying?  "The bureaucracy is expanding to meet the needs of the expanding bureaucracy."

That's if you do it via administrative means and if you do it gradually.

If you simply do away with all the programs they used to administer in the same move as instituting UBI, they aren't going to get the chance.

I've got a great business model for dealing with rioters. Use a *expletive deleted*ing water cannon on them. Industrial quantities of tear gas, and arsonists and looters can be dosed with lead.
Enough of that and you'll see a hell of a lot less of riots.

However much moral satisfaction you get out of that, it's an expensive way to do it. Collateral damage, and all that. Just keeping around the suppressive apparatus you need for that sort of thing isn't cheap. There is also the matter of it being used against you at some point, when the people in charge of government aren't who you like.

[Scout26]

It seems to me that Firethorn's proposal is to give people enough money so that they are "comfortable" in poverty, if they choose.   My point has, and always, been that I want to make people UNcomfortable so that they go and seek employment to get our of poverty.   A diet consisting of Beans, Rice, and Gruel sounds like just the right thing to get people to say "Fark this.  I want better." and motivated them to get off their asses and go earn a living.

And there's no way the Fed .gov can do that effectively.  (State, unlikely as well; local .gov, perhaps; Charities, most likely.)

And now I'm off to read the Utah story.

[KD5NRH]

Just keeping around the suppressive apparatus you need for that sort of thing isn't cheap.

Every fire department has the equipment needed.  Those with good brush trucks even have the off-road fast-attack version.

It seems to me that Firethorn's proposal is to give people enough money so that they are "comfortable" in poverty, if they choose.   My point has, and always, been that I want to make people UNcomfortable so that they go and seek employment to get our of poverty.   A diet consisting of Beans, Rice, and Gruel sounds like just the right thing to get people to say "Fark this.  I want better." and motivated them to get off their asses and go earn a living.

At $500-600/mo, even if basic food rations are provided, they're hardly going to be playing XBox on a big screen, unless they're living 10-12 per bedroom to pool enough money for that.
Figure even on a bunkhouse model, I don't see a month of lodging and utilities getting much under $200.  So assuming they go with the cheapest possible room and board, (eating the rations) they're still living in essentially a barracks where they don't get to choose their roommates just to have $300 left over.  If they save up a few months they can buy a crappy car that will eat at least another $100/mo in gas, registration, insurance, etc.  Now they're down to $200.  Cheap cell phone plan, now $150 left.  So, after the basics of getting by and trying to find a job are taken care of, they have $5/day of play money.  Ooops; forgot a lot of poor people smoke, so after the cheapest pack of cigs available, they may have $3 a day.  One malt liquor and that's gone, and they still haven't had a clothing budget.  (Though in fairness, that's probably the easiest charity to get; somebody's always giving away clothes.)  If they're not motivated to work at that point, nothing short of a cattle prod is going to do it.

[White Horseradish]

My point has, and always, been that I want to make people UNcomfortable so that they go and seek employment to get our of poverty.   A diet consisting of Beans, Rice, and Gruel sounds like just the right thing to get people to say "Fark this.  I want better." and motivated them to get off their asses and go earn a living.

Thing is if you make them too uncomfortable, they will seek your head on a platter instead of employment.

Also, there is the whole thing of running out of crap jobs and acquisition of skill being out of financial reach.

I think that as soon as fast food people get their $15, we are going to start seeing fully automated McDonalds and Burger King running with maybe one employee to keep the ingredient hoppers full. All those people will have to go somewhere.

Back when we switched from cars to horses, an unemployed buggy whip maker could go get an assembly line job at Ford. You didn't need a great deal of skill that you couldn't be taught on the job relatively quickly.  Now, if you want to work at a factory, you need to know a bit more than how to insert two bolts and tighten them until the wrench clicks. So, without some form of education, you are getting people who aren't useful at anything other than those crap jobs that are disappearing. Education involves money. Either we have to lend money to the unemployed with no idea if they will pay it back, or we have to think of something else.

Every fire department has the equipment needed.  Those with good brush trucks even have the off-road fast-attack version.

I'm not talking hoses. I'm talking people.
Also, lead was involved.

[Scout26]

https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-03-28/how-utah-keeps-the-american-dream-alive

A different approach to combating poverty.

So destroying marriage and religious and social cohesion makes it harder to climb out of poverty ??  Who knew ?!?!?!

[MechAg94]

Every fire department has the equipment needed.  Those with good brush trucks even have the off-road fast-attack version.

At $500-600/mo, even if basic food rations are provided, they're hardly going to be playing XBox on a big screen, unless they're living 10-12 per bedroom to pool enough money for that.
Figure even on a bunkhouse model, I don't see a month of lodging and utilities getting much under $200.  So assuming they go with the cheapest possible room and board, (eating the rations) they're still living in essentially a barracks where they don't get to choose their roommates just to have $300 left over.  If they save up a few months they can buy a crappy car that will eat at least another $100/mo in gas, registration, insurance, etc.  Now they're down to $200.  Cheap cell phone plan, now $150 left.  So, after the basics of getting by and trying to find a job are taken care of, they have $5/day of play money.  Ooops; forgot a lot of poor people smoke, so after the cheapest pack of cigs available, they may have $3 a day.  One malt liquor and that's gone, and they still haven't had a clothing budget.  (Though in fairness, that's probably the easiest charity to get; somebody's always giving away clothes.)  If they're not motivated to work at that point, nothing short of a cattle prod is going to do it.

More than likely they are doing all sorts of things for cash and then collecting your free money as well. 

[MechAg94]

Thing is if you make them too uncomfortable, they will seek your head on a platter instead of employment.

Wasn't there an old quote about paying tribute to Danes?  

I think those that would be willing to do that are likely already doing it. 

[Scout26]

My mother tells stories of Great Depression, where hobos would "dismount" from the trains that behind their farm and come up to the house looking for work.   My grandfather would always find something for them to do (as there was no shortage of work available).  He would then pay them for their day's labors and the hobos would join the family for their meals.  Some would spend several days there until the work (for the time being) ran out.  Others were only there for a day, working all day, eating a meal or two, before either leaving that evening on the next passing train, or spending the night and departing either before or after breakfast.  There was always enough to give the some food "for the road".

Now I'm not advocating the we go back to roving groups of unemployed (which we pretty much have now with the chronic homeless), but if we eliminate minimum wage, then I predict there will be a plethora of entry level jobs available to start climbing the economic ladder.

In fact, I would bet that what the Food Pantries in Utah expect would be work that would be considered less than minimum wage jobs.

[Firethorn]

It seems to me that Firethorn's proposal is to give people enough money so that they are "comfortable" in poverty, if they choose.

As KD5NRH mentioned, $500-600/month isn't "comfortable" for any but the most ascetic people.  And those types tend to not be lazy for their own reasons.

It's more to provide enough goods to avoid other costs.  Consider your link-dump of a state cutting people off of food stamps.  Food stamps for a single person maxes out at under $200/month.  In the affected counties, they managed to trim ~3% of their total rolls with their push - and of some of the cheaper people, at that.  It wasn't 62% of those on food stamps, it was 62% of the single people.  So, maximum benefit of less than $2400/year.  So a maximum of about $17M saved a year for kicking 7k people off the program.  I still have question of how many were added during that time, how many they could have expected to leave the program anyways over that time, etc...  But consider, they only removed benefits from those without dependents.

Seems an ideal time to have an anchor baby to me.  Welfare security for 18-20 years right there.  How much does a kid cost the system per year?  A lot more than $2.4k.  How about a hospital visit due to malnutrition?  One of those avoided is probably worth a dozen people.  What it somebody becomes homeless as a result?  Every homeless person costs ~$40k/year.  What if somebody switches to stealing and ends up in prison?  That's expensive as well.

My point has, and always, been that I want to make people UNcomfortable so that they go and seek employment to get our of poverty.   A diet consisting of Beans, Rice, and Gruel sounds like just the right thing to get people to say "Fark this.  I want better." and motivated them to get off their asses and go earn a living.

And you don't think $500/month, for 'everything', isn't going to make the beans look like a luxury?

If they're not motivated to work at that point, nothing short of a cattle prod is going to do it.

Pretty much.  The only ones who'd have a relatively luxurious life on $500/month would be the NEATs living in their parent's basements.  And they'll be NEATs $500 or not. 

Thing is if you make them too uncomfortable, they will seek your head on a platter instead of employment.

As I've mentioned before, the French revolution is probably a better model to look at than Vikings.  The Vikings were an external force which could go elsewhere.  We can't displace a significant number of our poor overseas, after all.

My mother tells stories of Great Depression, where hobos would "dismount" from the trains that behind their farm and come up to the house looking for work.

Now what happens when we have approximately 3 times as many people, and an order of magnitude less farmers with work to be done?  When the trains move faster and stop less, so there's no free rides?  When the government insists on all sorts of labor rules?  The modern incarnation is the day laborer in front of Home Depot and such, but that's technically illegal.

Now I'm not advocating the we go back to roving groups of unemployed (which we pretty much have now with the chronic homeless), but if we eliminate minimum wage, then I predict there will be a plethora of entry level jobs available to start climbing the economic ladder.

Yeah, but they need to be able to survive long enough to climb.  Thus the idea with the UBI.  With the UBI in place, we could get rid of minimum wage.  Still, we have to be careful about causing a downward spiral in wages.

For Utah - consider this bit: "But Housing First runs into fierce emotional resistance in many quarters, because it smacks too much of rewarding people for self-destructive behaviors. "

Housing first has been a resounding success for Utah.  I see a lot of opposition to the UBI idea for the same reasons Housing First does.  But here's the idea:  By implementing programs that work at reducing the scope of the problem, you free up resources to address even more.  I'm currently going through some professional training at work - going over "The Goal" and such.  I'm seeing how government can do some of the same things as the manufacturers do in the book to improve profitability.  Government tends to work better when it's not run on an idealistic model, but on one that identifies the goals of government and realistically pushes to achieve them.  Lower crime is better than prison, for example.  Schools don't have to be expensive to be good, etc...

I disagree.  Local govts don't get to print money the same way the Feds do.  Even at the state level, the wasted spending and debt is a fraction of regular federal waste.

That's only if you look at "the fed" vs "a state", while ignoring the waste in the subdivisions of the state, or that there's 49 other states.

If the voters in your area decide to spend millions on some welfare scheme, I at least don't have to pay for it.  You and your fellow voters just might pay more attention if you know your local taxes are going to double instead of knowing that people in the other 49 states will help cover it. 

Odds are, your area is already spending millions on various welfare schemes.  You're already paying for it, congratulations. Also, as I pointed out before, your taxes wouldn't double.

[White Horseradish]

Now what happens when we have approximately 3 times as many people, and an order of magnitude less farmers with work to be done?  When the trains move faster and stop less, so there's no free rides?  When the government insists on all sorts of labor rules?  The modern incarnation is the day laborer in front of Home Depot and such, but that's technically illegal.

What farm these days would  take a guy off the street? It's not digging holes with a shovel, it's operating expensive equipment. There is some unskilled work, but there is not a whole hell of a lot of it, and usually it's very seasonal.

Like I said. We are running out of crap jobs.

[MechAg94]

I don't think we are running out.  That work is still there.  And who says all the jobs will be farming?  Those were just examples.  On the farming, why do they have all those machines?  It is because the cost of labor justified the machines.  Regardless, didn't we note not long ago how much was being paid for temporary farm help in some areas?  Even if you don't want to work as a janitor or grape picker, there are other ways.  A guy came through my neighborhood a couple years ago with some paint and stencils offers to paint my house address number on the curb by the driveway.  Did it in a nice Texas Flag colors.  He did a dozen or more houses just near me at $20 each that day.  Some people were calling friends and relatives and giving him addresses to go to next.  I have heard that one business owner in Houston got started in business pressure washing driveways.  He did prison time and couldn't find a job so he got a pressure washer and went around offering to clean driveways.  I forget what business he runs now, but I think it is well known locally.  A local radio guy once said you would be surprised how many small business owners are owned by ex-cons. 


In general, we have just gotten used to not hiring for the smaller jobs.  Between minimum wage and the general cost of hiring employees due to taxes and regulations and liability, companies keep staffing lean.  They contract minor work out or add it to the duties of someone they already have.  My company keeps staffing at the minimum needed to safely get the job done.  Our headcount is determined at a very very high level.  

The other part that has fallen out of favor is trainee or apprentice positions.  Headcounts are kept lean so there is not extra room for those jobs.  That isn't really a minimum wage issue, but an issue with the cost of running a business and hiring employees in this country. 

[MechAg94]

That's only if you look at "the fed" vs "a state", while ignoring the waste in the subdivisions of the state, or that there's 49 other states.

Odds are, your area is already spending millions on various welfare schemes.  You're already paying for it, congratulations. Also, as I pointed out before, your taxes wouldn't double.

You are missing my point.  I don't care what waste goes on in the other 49 states if I don't have to pay for it.  Same for other county govts outside my own.  I would only care about my local system that is run by someone local and overseen by local politicians.  The more local it is the more personal it becomes.

And I know we are spending millions on various forms of welfare (which includes a chunk of Social Security that isn't for retirees).  I don't like it.  Of all the people I have heard of or seen that were collecting welfare, far more were scamming the system in some way than people who actually needed help.  IMO, it is a waste that is not helping the people it was intended to help.  

[KD5NRH]

The other part that has fallen out of favor is trainee or apprentice positions.  Headcounts are kept lean so there is not extra room for those jobs.  That isn't really a minimum wage issue, but an issue with the cost of running a business and hiring employees in this country.

This is another problem I've seen quite a bit.  Some of our best people started out as unpaid interns or straight-commission sales reps who didn't technically get started selling for a few weeks, but the people who need that sort of thing most can't afford the gas, laundry, lunches etc. for 1-3 months before they either move on or impress the boss enough to get hired on to a regular spot or changed to base+commission.

[MechAg94]

I wasn't thinking of unpaid positions so much as lower paid.  Most of the contractors still use helpers which is the way most of the young guys learn their way around.  It can be tough work and a lot of people won't do it.

There was a young guy we had doing our janitorial work part time a while back (son of a coworker).  He said he was offered an electrician helper position for 3 months on a plant job.  He said he turned it down since he wouldn't be able to keep his "steady janitor job".  Nevermind that he would probably make more money in 3 months than he did all year as a janitor.  Nevermind that he sucked as a janitor and barely knew how to sweep the floor and we wanted to get rid of him.  Nevermind that his girlfriend with his kids was collecting welfare and wasn't working.  We figured he didn't want put the work in to keep the helper job and knew he wouldn't last the 3 months.  IMO, guys like him would happily live on your UBI income and do a few small jobs for spending money if that much.  And I think there are a lot more people like that than most are willing to imagine.  I think the only way to get through to them is to cut them off completely.

[MillCreek]

^^^Based on what I see in my medical/dental clinics, I think there is a fair number of people content to be on the dole and sit on their ass.

[KD5NRH]

IMO, guys like him would happily live on your UBI income and do a few small jobs for spending money if that much.  And I think there are a lot more people like that than most are willing to imagine.  I think the only way to get through to them is to cut them off completely.

Meh.  I'd be satisfied with seeing the people on welfare just not living as well as the ones working.  If they're happy in a bunkhouse with packed rations, fine.

[Firethorn]

Nevermind that he sucked as a janitor and barely knew how to sweep the floor and we wanted to get rid of him.  Nevermind that his girlfriend with his kids was collecting welfare and wasn't working.  We figured he didn't want put the work in to keep the helper job and knew he wouldn't last the 3 months.  IMO, guys like him would happily live on your UBI income and do a few small jobs for spending money if that much.  And I think there are a lot more people like that than most are willing to imagine.  I think the only way to get through to them is to cut them off completely.

I think that there are probably less than you think, but I did notice a few things about the story:
1.  Baby-momma is already on welfare, ergo we're already spending money on her.  Sounds somewhat similar to my brother*, there's a good chance the Janitor is living with them. Without the ring and a cooperative momma, they can get more government dole.
2.  You wanted to get rid of him.  With the UBI, his sucky ass isn't taking up time/slot at your work, it's back home.  He's at least out of the way, you know?
3.  Part of the idea of the UBI is to change incentives.  By not paying for kids(or at least reducing payments), we encourage fewer welfare anchor babies.  It's cheaper to take care of an adult than an adult and children.  By not giving a *expletive deleted*it about 'households', the fact that larger households are cheaper per person will encourage larger households, which are more efficient.  Eventually somebody will get a job...

*Apprentice electrician in Florida right at the time of the housing meltdown.  Lost his job later than most, couldn't find work elsewhere.

Meh.  I'd be satisfied with seeing the people on welfare just not living as well as the ones working.  If they're happy in a bunkhouse with packed rations, fine.

Pretty much.

Edit:
And as far as Utah and their anti-poverty efforts, I want to point out that the article mentions that they're investing significant resources into anti-poverty efforts, it's just that as much of the labor is donated, it looks cheaper if you look at it in a pure cash flow basis.  If you adjusted for the 'goods in kind' deals, it's probably as expensive as many of the higher spending states.  Still more effective though.