Should America implement UBI (Universal Basic Income)?

[Makeushiver]

I'm not sure if that's the answer but there are issues that need to be addressed. The disparity of wealth- not just income but assets as well- is way out of line & if it gets much worse I think the country will do something drastic. It's insane that for the past 25 years money has flowed to people who produce nothing, using whatever means available Wall St. believes it can get away with. Meanwhile the Americans who have produced things- rust belt workers who have lost jobs because they can get poorer countries to make more things cheaply. Gov't pays $850 for a toilet seat from military contractors, Small farmers, the people Thomas Jefferson had imagined the majority of Americans would allow for prosperity are put out of business by huge agricultural firms.
The US needs the type of social net that the Socialist Democratic governments used in Scandinavia and Northern Europe. Insurance companies are leeches on health care and every citizen should have access to single payer Universal health care. The NRA should be exposed for what it is, a front that allows manufacturers of automatic weapons to prosper at the expense of mass killings. We need fewer politicians and more states (wo) men. Military service- or at least some form of service should be compulsory for everyone. In times of peace they can rebuild the infrastructure of this country and it shouldn't be something that people can buy their way out of. We are busy hating "foreigners" yet Europeans destroyed many cultures cruelly when this country was founded. Somehow, the hate needs to be transformed into some sort of positive energy. We want to cut food stamps because they are an "entitlement". Fox news screams about any money spent as welfare yet our laws are designed to allow much more expensive entitlements to the wealthy and to corporations. Free enterprise is a myth-I'd be happy to give specific examples but this is already too long. In 1975- which is around the time that most economists agree the middle class was the best off in US history- wages have remained stagnant or fallen yet the wealth of the.01% of the country has skyrocketed. The ratio of the highest paid people. in companies was 16-1 in 1975, Japan at that time had a ration of 9-1. In 2020 the ratio in US was 985-1 for all companies. Take out small business and it's closer to 2500-1. That's salary, if you include stock options and bonuses it's double that. For a 40 hour week at $15 an hour you are weekly salary is $600, the C-Suite staff-CEO, CFO, COO etc. would be making $250,000
in the same time period. The US was founded on the principle of meritocracy-the best trained, smartest ( or, depending on the position; most experienced, hardest working etc.) should be paid a premium because they are more productive but in reality the US has been a plutocracy, premiums are paid for the already wealthy. Apologies for length and amount of opinions. All numbers and factual statements are not made up they are on easily accessible web sites

[Cryostatic]

Universal Basic Income has it's merits, but I don't see a way to implement it here in America. Our money is fucked, for starters. The USD has a "value" that only really applies to trade goods, but is worth vastly different amounts across geographical areas.

For example, in San Francisco CA, the average rent for a one room apartment is $3500 a month. There's a nearly $16 minimum wage. Rent in Lafayette LA, is around $1300 for a 3 bedroom house and the minimum wage is $7.25. Two people can be working the same job in two different places and have widely varying levels of income and expenditure.

A Playstation 5, if you can find one, costs $500 either place, but in one of these places, the value of that $500 is a lot higher. But we don't consider that when valuing currency, as we value it on a national level.

So Universal Basic income would, by the nature of the valuation of our currency, either grossly underpay or grossly overpay wide swaths of people.

Sure, you could adjust it for cost-of-living differences, which could be based on indexed data, but then you're faced with the fact that people aren't living to subsist. We buy things. We do things to entertain ourselves. We like to travel. And our money still has a set value for trade goods, and a set value internationally, and when you're traveling or buying goods, people in Lafayette and people in San Francisco are still having to come up with the same amount of money to go to Disney with.

So while UBI can and does work in some places, they're places where the currency isn't so fucking stupid.

[supercutebutt]

Something will need to be done. A large % of people (usually Trumptards) can't be trusted, have no skills, or they are battling mental illness. Thus they can't hold a job. They are so bored and poor that they get desperate and cause insurrections or they stand around with their guns, trying to terrorize us. I think if we just pay them to stay inside the house they will. They can watch pillow commercials while they wave their MAGA flags on the couch. And every year, we can send a lady over to the house with a present on their birthday to make them feel wanted.

Happy Birthday, Trumptard!

[Anonymous]

Some of the brilliant top minds like Elon Musk and Bill Gates, say, YES.

And most of the top minds on GAG, say, No.

I'm going to have to go with the brilliant people on GAG.

[OlderAndWiser]

No, but I won't explain because I don't want to get into another of those threads that never ends.

[abc3643]

The jury is out on this one with me, but I am suspecting yes, this is a good idea. It will help the economy considerably because any cash that is widely distributed in an economy helps prevent the economy from entering recession or depression - especially when there is a shock like right now with COVID-19.

[Apple1996]

Nah definitely not. If this was a option everyone would stop working so many hours and just rely on the government to pay for their house. If you want a good house you gotta work for it. Maybe lower the cost of houses/rent would be a good equivalent for something like this though. It is majorly overpriced depending on where you live. I'm low key being a hypocrite for saying all this since my husband is military and we do get housing allowance. That is one of the benefits of his job so he is technically working hard for it.

[oddwaffle]

It's not a bad idea it just going to cost a lot of money and will probably squeeze a lot of small businesses into collapse and force a change to the whole wage system.

Long answer is that you will get a bit of people quitting their jobs to stay at home. Especially women. This force small businesses to raise wages to keep their employees. It will also raise prices so businesses can cope with the wage raises.

In the long run, businesses will rely on more machines and low wage service jobs will perish. It will accelerate the self-service kiosk in the supermarket and tellers or clerks or simple cashier into machines.

You will get a lot more people not able to find jobs and unless the government is prepared to retrain these people into a productive population the situation will get worse and worse.

[genericname85]

no. because it does not get much closer to communism than that. if everyone gets 15$ an hour, all that accomplishes is that 15$ is basically shift the value of the dollar towards such low values, that 15 bucks an hour is bsacially as good as earning no money by todays standards.

financially speaking, value is defined over scarcity, not over ubiquitousness. it's a function of supply and demand. and if you alter one variable, the other automatically adjusts to create equilibrium. meaning if you rise the amount of money everyone has, the value of goods will rise untill that rise in money that the people got basically vanishes into nothing.

[Anonymous]

Not everyone can manage their money well. That is a huge part of why some are rich and others are poor. That is not the only reason, but a significant one. Giving people more money is not the answer and will inevitably ruin more lives. My brother is mentally disabled. If you gave him a $1000 he'd end up dead or in jail. There are those less fortunate than him that do not have money managers. Even with the money managers he's found a way to rack up thousands in debt. Those without money managers would inevitably die or get arrested. He's nearly done both with a money manager. Money isn't the problem, broken people are. We need to help broken people, giving them more money doesn't make them less broken. Research to help them may solve some more problems, but that isn't the only cause. More money sounds good, but it doesn't actually do good for everyone.

[Hogwheels]

I would say no, only because I don't trust the government. Large governments are inefficient and always have corruption in them, however I liked Andrew Yang. I think he was intelligent and trustworthy and his plan would work on paper. But it takes more than just Yang to impliment that plan.

[Anonymous]

I mean would you want to pay astronomically higher taxes? I sure don't. If you want an income work for it. If you don't want to work for it suffer the consequences.

[Avicenna]

Well, it would not actually be affordable ($4 trillion or so annually if children get it as well), but the idea is a good one in principle. If it could be limited to who gets it in order to be affordable, it might be a different matter.

[Miristheiss]

Think about it... millions of illegals are on their way here now from the south.
Dems throw open the welcome matt.
No more sovereignty.
The government has to take away our money we workwd 40-50-60 hours a week to make... just to hand it to them some existing.
You are psycho if you support that.

[iFarted]

No, I don't want to pay taxes for it to go to lazy people and people who leech off the system. We have unemployment for those who lost their jobs.
I can think of various ways to make an okay income right now so I don't see why others can't...

[MisterWednesday]

Yes and no. Should they give us a $2000 stimulus a few times? Yes. Should they get us dependent on their system? No. Otherwise they will use it all against us and say get your vaccine every year or no more UBI.

[Bat-Perv]

Yes but what's the point in raising wages 50% if prices go up 50%.

[NorthwestRider]

Not sure why conservatives are so against it, it might remove food stamps and/or people living on unemployment checks. Plus Alaska, a so-called red state already has a form of UBI

[Anonymous]

Some of the countries on that map surprised me. It might work in Finland and Canada where there is a small population, but I feel it wouldn't work in the US. One, because or population is too large, and two, because our culture wouldn't allow it. We don't have the same kind of work ethic that Finlanders do, so all this would be doing is encouraging laziness. And I know damn well, Americans wouldn't use that money for what they're supposed to.

[Rangers]

Absolutely not, that's more socialism nonsense that will destroy the economy in no time, as we've seen everywhere socialism has been implemented. Our national debt is getting worse and worse, the last thing we need is for it to double because of some lazy people who feel entitled to money without contributing to society.

[888theGreat]

Socialism plain and simple so no. The healthcare system is a mess now because they used socialism. I could afford health insurance until Obama destroyed it. Socialism only leads to the control of people and eliminates free will and choices. US will be like Venezuela soon.

[OddBeMe]

Simple Keynesian economics. The more money given to the poor, they more they spend. The more demand goes up. The more jobs created to meet the demand. The poor have jobs. Wow.

[Shah11]

I thought America is the super power
And here people are dieng for minimum wage lol

[Snakeyes7]

Its literally inflation if you give it to everyone. The money they receive will be useless because now the prices will be accommodated to the fact that everyone has the money already.

[crmoore]

I'm no economist but from a layman's perspective, it seems like a potentially decent fix for the growing robotics/AI problem our workforce is, or will be, facing.

[masonderek6994]

Ubi isn't something America can afford. We're a capitalist nation and a ubi would ruin that. Ubi is a socialist concept in order to further control its citizens. Ubi would ruin most industries in America because most would quit their jobs in order to just stay home and get paid. Ubi already exists as SSI in the states.

[msc545]

No, because it will make the great fear of conservatives real: "Somewhere there is somebody getting something they absolutely need but have not earned".

[Shamalien]

People who advocate for such policies are either corrupt with ulterior motives (like further centralization of govt power and more dependant citizens) or just thinking with their emotions instead of doing the math

[Drunkfrank]

Yes and the research shows plainly how it could work and how it could be implemented. People worried about others not working aren't thinking straight, no one is saying make UBI something you can easily live off of.

[QuietRunner]

UBI should not be implemented until the Taxes are fixed.

The only thing that should be passed that ultimately changes fiscal government policies is the Automated Payment Transaction Tax.

[007kingifrit]

it won't work, it would just cause prices to inflate the same $ as what you give out. effectively being a zero dollar handout

worse still i think you underestimate the value of work. people can't be happy without work

[Dargil]

Who pays for this, The Rich? There aren't enough of them.
$1000 a month would be a disincentive for many to ever work.

[Anonymous]

No, because there's a difference between money and value. You can only giver people money, you can't just give them more value.

[Anonymous]

2030 -2035 ish that'sss when we should do it. By that time a lot of stuff will be outsourced or automated so yeah

[disgustingweebtrash]

No. If people can live off the state why would they bother looking for work?

[SenseiSeptred]

I think that they should implement it because if we are going to be the land of promise, we also need to support our citizens enough to be able to help other people make our country a better country, and not have it be taxed.

[michael1469]

As long as peeps work 2000hrs a year... either via govt works or a private sector job.

[Anonymous]

UBI will be unsustainable long-term and it would lead to economic failure.

[Jersey2]

No, it stupid and won’t work. Some politicians say it to get elected and some people believe it because they want to be lazy. It’s a fools dream that is used to manipulate stupid people.

[Wewladdy]

Fuck no. Lazy people deserve to suffer. I work and I work hard, for my self and those I choose to share with. No one else.

[Anonymous]

Yes. People wrongfully think this is about helping out lazy people. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Automation and artificial intelligence is replacing humans. Combine that with the fact that Democrats want to open the borders up to anyone who wants to come in illegally, and Americans are screwed. Some of the brightest minds on the planet, say that we need a UBI, and some of the dumbest minds say we don't.

[KrakenAttackin]

The UBI is a prime recipe for having even more people sit on their asses collecting check while the rest of us work our asses off.

[MountAverage]

It's insane we don't already have that. Fucking backwards country.

[joeldalton]

It’s a dumb, unsustainable idea. And inflation will suck up whatever money people get.

[KatherineJ]

One question; Who is going to pay for it?

[Meatunnel69]

I would lower my lifestyle to get this free ride

[darkcloud1945]

Hope you enjoy you $16 Wendy

[Browneye57]

No. If you want an income get a fucking job.

[jahaims]

With enough automation yes. Currently no

[DWornock]

Who is going to pay for it?

[DavidFox]

Nope