Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Robotics

Bay Area Group Pushes $1,000 Universal Basic Income For Everyone (eastbaytimes.com) 352

Posted by EditorDavid from the trials-with-teens dept.
"Gisele Huff is convinced universal basic income is finally having its moment," reports the Bay Area newsgroup, describing the 84-year-old president of a nonprofit promoting universal basic incomes to honor their recently-deceased son, a Tesla software engineer: While Huff's organization is only a few years old, it has already made its mark in the Bay Area. Santa Clara County's Board of Supervisors is considering a pilot program that would provide youth exiting foster care with a basic $1,000 monthly income. If approved later this year, the program would likely be the first of its kind in the nation...

Q: Different people have different ideas about what exactly UBI should look like. What's yours?

A: It would be $1,000 a month and it runs like social security. It's an automatic system. All you need is a bank account. So UBI is a direct payment to your bank account on a monthly basis. It has no requirements. When you're 18 it starts and it goes on until you die.

Q: And everyone would get the same amount? Including the wealthiest households?

A: Yes. For the people who are wealthy, it will disappear because $1,000 doesn't mean anything. But it will mean the world for the people who are so marginalized now, like foster kids or abused women who can't leave a situation because they don't have a dime to their name. It is a huge incentive for people to move on, to do things, take risks that they would not do before.

Q: Some critics of UBI say that it could incentivize people not to work, because no matter what they do they will get a monthly paycheck. What is your response?

A: If you have a job, you're not going to stop working for $1,000 a month. What you're going to do is you're going to tell your boss: "No, I'm not doing this because it's not acceptable and I have $1,000 dollars that I can use for the next two months until I find a better job." So if you want that job done as a boss, you're going to have to improve the conditions or the pay...."

Q: And your son was concerned about those same issues? How did he come to his perspective on UBI?

A: Gerald was the software engineer for the Model 3 Tesla. So he has been a techie all of his life and what really spurred him on to look into this in a deeper way was his fear of technological unemployment. The robots are coming. And the potential of that technology is what Gerald was aware of — it's immense.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Bay Area Group Pushes $1,000 Universal Basic Income For Everyone More

Bay Area Group Pushes $1,000 Universal Basic Income For Everyone

Comments Filter:

  • Local vs. global (Score:5, Insightful)

    by istartedi ( 132515 ) on Sunday March 29, 2020 @12:43PM (#59885234) Journal

    I see 3 levels here. The first, pilot programs which we've already had. They're not that interesting because they don't address the scale problem.

    The 2nd level is everybody in the country getting it as proposed. The most obvious push-back is that it would be hyperinflationary--a unilateral trashing of the nation's currency that ultimately does more harm than good.

    The 3rd level is *global*, via international agreement among nations comprising the bulk of the global economy. This is less often discussed because it addresses the monetary issue by "putting us all in the same boat", so instead of competitive devaluation and/or one nation going hyper, you have global devaluation.

    With Japan, the EU, and the USA all hovering around ZIRP (Zero Interest Rate Policy) we're already in a mutual pact of sorts that devalues currency, and it hasn't ignited inflation in the G7. The question is, how far can you push that?

    • The second is only a problem if we print new money to cover this program. Most people don't realize that we already spend so much on existing programs that a $6,000 yearly universal income is already possible for all citizens. We're already spending a lot of money only it isn't universal and it's mainly tied up in a lot of red tape and bureaucracy.

    • Re: (Score:3)

      by lgw ( 121541 )

      It's important to distinguish between inflation due to a hot economy and inflation due to trashing the currency. The former is a good problem to have, the latter is disastrous. When the economy "wants" to grow, but is constrained by monetary supply/flow, loose monetary policy ("printing" money) will allow that growth, and on the flipside, tight monetary policy can prevent bubbles.* However, you can't push on a rope. Loose monetary policy during a recession or stagnant economy has never worked in stimula

  • All of these schemes benefit adults and inherently deprioritize children. We've already fallen under holding steady at 2.1, and this would drop it even further.

    • Re:Long term horrible for demographics (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Pikoro ( 844299 ) <init.init@sh> on Sunday March 29, 2020 @01:12PM (#59885344) Homepage Journal

      Ideally, it would follow something like the following model:

      Each tax paying adult gets $1200/mo (or do it as a minimum wage equivalent) and is removed from social service programs that they are currently enrolled in.

      Each child gets $500/mo to be put into a trust in the child's name, with an additional $500/mo in "cash" so the parents can support that child.

      When the child turns 18, they are handed the keys to their trust and they start out life with enough money to support them while they either look for a job, can get an apartment or a home, and/or pay for college.

      This won't put up anyone in any kind of luxury lifestyle, but would encourage people who want more, the opportunity to work to pay for the luxuries.

      I've known plenty of people who are in poverty, and almost universally, they want to get to of that state, but 90% of their time is working multiple jobs to just meet their current obligations, let alone extra to give them the freedom to seek further training so they can get a better job which pays more.

      Now certainly there are going to be people who will simply stop working, or will try to abuse the system, but we have that now, so I don't believe those numbers will increase. Even if 5% of people simply stop working, it props up the remaining 95% so they aren't starving to death and/or are homeless.

      I think that anyone who argues that because _someone might_ abuse the system, or that it isn't perfect, that it should't be implemented. If that were the case, nothing would ever get done about anything. Ever.

      • "gets $1200/mo (or do it as a minimum wage equivalent) and is removed from social service programs that they are currently enrolled in."

        And when they blow their 1200 on booze or bling, will you let them starve? You should, if you believe in UBI, but you won't. So we wind up with UBI on top of all the old social programs.

        Supporters of UBI have a very naive understanding of human nature.

  • plan to pilfer all the SS money?

    I can't see it in addition to SS money.......

  • Go ahead, give me money (Score:3, Insightful)

    by guruevi ( 827432 ) on Sunday March 29, 2020 @12:47PM (#59885254)

    Where is the money? I'm not seeing it in my account, oh, you're just promoting someone else should pay for your hyperinflation scheme.

    As they admit "it will disappear because $1,000 doesn't mean anything"

    If you have a job, you're not going to stop working for $1,000 a month - yes, yes you are, because you can still claim unemployment under your scheme. If you give people unemployment + $1000, that comes to an average of ~$36k/y net in the US. A ton of people aren't going to work for less than $36k (which are advertised wages of ~$55k/y in places like NY and CA).

    And in the end, if everyone has to hire everyone at $55k, your product costs will have to increase accordingly, the butcher, the baker, the candlestick maker, all doubling their prices. Which then indeed, $1000 doesn't mean anything.

    • Re:Go ahead, give me money (Score:4, Insightful)

      by alvinrod ( 889928 ) on Sunday March 29, 2020 @01:24PM (#59885394)
      Why would you continue to offer unemployment when UBI covers that? If someone wants to pay for their own unemployment insurance I suppose that they can go right ahead, but UBI is unemployment insurance. It's also food stamps when you need to eat or Medicaid when you need to go to the doctor. That's the nice thing about it because it's not tied to any one thing, but instead can be used how you need it. Maybe what you really need is to fix your car so you can actually drive to a job. Food stamps and Medicaid are of no use to you in that instance.

      The point of UBI isn't to just hand out money to people, it's to provide people with a guaranteed safety net that's flexible to their actual needs and doesn't need a massive bureaucracy to administer. There's probably the added benefit that with enough income to subsist on fewer people will be incentivized to turn to petty crime if they can't find a job.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by guruevi ( 827432 )

        That would be nice of course and in that sense, we already have UBI, just under the tag of Social Security and Unemployment and housing assistance and food stamps and Obamaphones and Obamacare. The question is why Obama never promoted UBI and nobody in the last 150 years of social safety netting has considered it.

        I'm sure you have never been on food stamps, but there is a reason they give people cheques which tell you what products you can actually buy because if they didn't, a ton of people would starve ev

        • Food stamps doesn't solve the problem either though even though people tend to think those controls will. Drug dealers still need to eat and need basic necessities as well. I'm pretty sure they'll accept $40 worth of groceries for a $20 fix when it comes down to it. You can't create some kind of system that's going to magically get people to do the right thing.

          I really can't speak to why Obama never considered it, but it's not something that hasn't been considered. Milton Friedman was proposing a negativ

    • If you have a job, you're not going to stop working for $1,000 a month

      I know plenty of people who would stop working for $1,000 a month (not living in the Bay Area or NY, of course).

      I have to say that I myself would probably not be working if I got $1,000 a month for free. Getting over the "unemployed" hump to figuring out how to find a job is just too daunting.

    • it's too bad you can't be upvoted above 5.

  • I'm right leaning and can get on board with this (Score:3, Insightful)

    by i'm probably drunk ( 6159770 ) on Sunday March 29, 2020 @12:49PM (#59885256)

    If and only if all other forms of welfare are eliminated.
    The simplicity of administrating this should provide substantial cost savings.

  • Take your pick (Score:3, Insightful)

    by alvinrod ( 889928 ) on Sunday March 29, 2020 @12:51PM (#59885260)
    If we're going to have a universal basic income than we can't have illegal immigration. Giving non-citizens the $1,000 per month incentivizes the wrong behavior (there's also issues concerning birth citizenship) and giving every person $12,000 is going to affect prices and make anyone not receiving it relatively worse off. I also think there's a strong need to set aside any income a child would receive so that it only becomes available to them when they reach adulthood. Otherwise there's a risk of a sort of awful people trying to just have a lot of kids to cash in on them.
  • Some politicians are using this crisis to push thru their bad agendas. UBI is no different. Was a bad idea. It's still a bad idea. The current gifts will all be paid back by your taxes. UBI also has to be paid back so it's a stupid wash and doesn't really help anyone in the long run. Robbing from the rich will just cause the rich to leave which means you'll be worse off. Didn't France run off a bunch of rich which caused the goobers to have to ignorantly raise taxes on the poor and middle class which
  • Only people bellow certain tresshold should get it. There is a huge pool of people without skills beyond dishwasher or basic labor. Some struggle to follow basic instructions. The /. crowd seem not to have meet them. But believe me, it exists, and it's huge. That's the problem with a high minimum wage. So many people have skills that are already way under par of $12 hour. They cannot bring value for what they are paid.

  • I'd be okay with this, but I do think there should be an income cap above which you don't earn it, including the Basic Monthly Income (BMI).

    Let's say you set it at $70,000 for total income, which means that to qualify, your usual income plus the Basic Monthly can't exceed $70K.

    You make $65K yearly, fine you could get $5K in BMI. Goody for you.
    You make $50K yearly, you'd qualify for the $1K per month. Yes, you'd only end up with $62K but that's better than a poke in the eye with a sharp stick.
    Make $70K, you

    • I'd be okay with this, but I do think there should be an income cap above which you don't earn it, including the Basic Monthly Income (BMI).

      Let's say you set it at $70,000 for total income, which means that to qualify, your usual income plus the Basic Monthly can't exceed $70K.

      An easier way of doing that is to adjust tax rates up a bit so that for someone earning $70,000 they do not see any more; but for the guy earning $10,000 it more than doubles their income meaning that they can afford all sorts of basic necessities.

    • Re:Well...yesy and no (Score:4, Informative)

      by phantomfive ( 622387 ) on Sunday March 29, 2020 @01:40PM (#59885474) Journal
      One approach that would work fiscally is to raise the tax on everyone by 10%, then divide the total equally back to everyone. Then everyone gets the same amount, but anyone over the median income had to put more into the pot than they are getting back.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Kjella ( 173770 )

      Why create two complex systems? Raise the tax on rich people by an additional $12k to zero out the balance instead. UBI should be this simple:

      for each_month:
      for legal_resident in US:
      if (adult) pay(UBI);
      if (child):
      child_UBI = factor*UBI

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Dunbal ( 464142 ) *
      Which part of "universal" don't you get?

    • You are describing the Earned Income Tax Credit.

      The United States federal earned income tax credit or earned income credit (EITC or EIC) is a refundable tax credit for low- to moderate-income working individuals and couples, particularly those with children. The amount of EITC benefit depends on a recipient's income and number of children...

      For tax year 2019, the maximum EITC benefit for a single person or couple filing without qualifying children is $529. The maximum EITC with one qualifying child is $3,526; with two children, it is $5,828; and with three or more qualifying children, it is $6,557.[3][4] These amounts are indexed annually for inflation.

      Source: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wik... [wikipedia.org]

    • This is just a negative income tax [mit.edu] and not a UBI.

  • Still? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by kackle ( 910159 ) on Sunday March 29, 2020 @01:10PM (#59885320)
    This is such a bad idea, I can't believe it still makes the rounds here. Do you think a slum lord will raise his rents after UBI is implemented or lower them? Do think the people who have trouble managing money now will be better at it post-UBI or worse? Do you think there will be more babies made in our resource-limited society or less? Do you think anyone will waste all their money and still be starving, and will we then let them starve to teach them a lesson? Do you think a person with severe mental problems will spend the money wisely? Do you think this will raise taxes in the future or lower them? Do you think $1000 is "worth" the same everywhere in the country, or is it a great amount here and almost pointless over there? Do you think $1000 will be enough 10 years from now, or are the various politicos going to mess with this number again and again, forever? Does this make sense when "health care" hasn't been figured out yet? Will we let the undocumented immigrants have this money too (screw you, taxpayer) or not (screw you immigrant)? Will this cause more illegal immigration or less? Sigh.

    • Will this be more likely to cause a supermarket to open in a poor neighborhood, or a sneaker store, rim shop, and a liquor store?

      Sadly, I believe the latter will be the likely outcome.

  • 1) Unemployment care
    2) Healthcare
    3) Affordable housing

    Which essentially comes down to basic welfare. Implement this and 80% of her motivations will disappear. Other countries do and they don't have UBO.

    • We have unemployment, free health care, and unemployment assistance - along with food assistance, rent assistance, and need-based tuition assistance, not to mention free cellphones, under cost homes broadband plans, etc.

      Once you learn to navigate them system, the rewards are plentiful. As proposed, UBI eliminates NO existing assistance program, it is supplemental, not a substitute for anything currently offered.

  • it is just a government run pyramid scam. And is doomed to collapse.

    Just my 2 cents ;)

  • What? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by kenh ( 9056 ) on Sunday March 29, 2020 @01:45PM (#59885500) Homepage Journal

    How exactly did the death of a Tesla software engineer who advocated for UBI make this the time for UBI?

  • Comment removed based on user account deletion

    • Giving everyone free money is the exact same thing as printing money. When you print money in excess of GDP growth, the value of that money goes down.

      Inflation is the natural market response.

      Any truly universal income system's benefits will be wiped away by inflation. Look at Venezuela if you want to see what a devalued currency and rampant inflation does to an economy.

      Hell yeah. Everyone you currently have to give money to is going to want a little more from you, knowing that you've got it. It won't matter if you resist and try to pocket your free $1k, because every other dumbfuck around you is immediately going to going out and buy new shit that they couldn't afford before, but end up poorer in the long run. A very short long run.

  • Some critics of UBI say that it could incentivize people not to work, because no matter what they do they will get a monthly paycheck.

    Sure if you can live on $1,000/month, especially CA. Seriously, if someone can live and be happy on $12,000/year that's great, good for them, but most people, especially those with kiddies can't/won't. So, it's not an incentive to not work. What it does is offer some guaranteed income and minor stability and possible increased flexibility -- like universal healthcare may. Employers really don't like that; they like employees who have no/limited options. As the Answer correctly noted, employers will (may)

    • Some critics of UBI say that it could incentivize people not to work, because no matter what they do they will get a monthly paycheck.

      Sure if you can live on $1,000/month, especially CA. Seriously, if someone can live and be happy on $12,000/year that's great, good for them, but most people, especially those with kiddies can't/won't. So, it's not an incentive to not work. What it does is offer some guaranteed income and minor stability and possible increased flexibility -- like universal healthcare may. Employers really don't like that; they like employees who have no/limited options. As the Answer correctly noted, employers will (may) have to treat their employees better to keep them, if they actually care.

      Remember: That line, "Employees are our most valuable asset" is crap.

      I don't know about everyone, but if you guaranteed me $1000/mo for the rest of my life, I'd retire starting today.

  • Where does the money come from? (Score:3)

    by DotDotSlasher ( 675502 ) on Sunday March 29, 2020 @03:01PM (#59885756)
    First of all, this is not news that matters. Second -- why do these UBI articles all talk about how wonderful it would be to have free money (the easy part), and don't talk about where this magical free money would come from (the hard part)? This is little more than dreaming; like planning how you will spend a the money from winning the lottery, without understanding how to win the lottery.

Slashdot Top Deals

Some people manage by the book, even though they don't know who wrote the book or even what book.

Close