New UBI experiment in the U.S.

N&P: Discuss governments, nations, politics and recent related news here.

Moderators: Alyrium Denryle, SCRawl, Thanas, Edi, K. A. Pital

Post Reply
User avatar
Ace Pace
Hardware Lover
Posts: 8242
Joined: 2002-07-07 03:04am
Location: Wasting time instead of money
Contact:

New UBI experiment in the U.S.

Post by Ace Pace » 2018-05-05 02:13pm

Quoting from the Economist
Of that 1,000, roughly half will be randomly selected to receive an unconditional $333 a month, while the others will form a control group that will receive $20. The money, which is completely unconditional, will be loaded onto a pre-paid debit card every month for 40 months, on the date of the child’s birthday. The hypothesis is that this steady stream of payments will make a positive difference in the cognitive and emotional development of the children whose mothers receive it.

The first data gathered will be baseline interviews with the mothers just after recruitment. This will reveal the various backgrounds from which the mothers come (all will have incomes below the poverty line, roughly $23,000 for a family of three). The researchers will conduct phone interviews with all 1,000 mothers around their child’s first birthday, then visit them in their homes when their children turn two. When they turn three, they will be invited with their mothers to a research lab in their city, where their child’s cognitive skills will be tested and the electrical activity of their brains studied.


The interviews will also measure mothers’ stress, mental health and employment patterns. They will ask how the amount of time mothers spend with their child is changing, and gather data on the quality and cost of child care and other child-related expenses. The researchers will also have a record of transactions made with the debit card. The unconditional nature of the cash transfer is inviolable: even if mothers choose not to take part in the follow-up studies, for which they are paid extra, they will still get the income for 40 months. The 1,000 mothers, minus potential dropouts, will provide enough statistical power to detect effects equivalent to two months’ worth of development in early childhood, says Greg Duncan, an economist on the team from the University of California, Irvine.

A real-world experiment of this magnitude comes with challenges. It has been six years in the making, and the team has spent years raising some $15m for it. About $5.8m will be given away over the next four years, to which must be added the cost of recruiting and monitoring 1,000 people over that time. The researchers worked to get new legislation passed in two states in which the experiment will be carried out, in order to make sure that those taking part remain eligible for public benefits while they receive the extra income. The entire experiment has been assessed by the Institutional Review Board (IRB) at Columbia University’s Teachers’ College, with separate IRB boards at all nine hospitals either verifying those terms, or drawing up their own, before the experiment starts. Ethical approval has been particularly complex, since mothers will be both research subjects and medical patients recovering from childbirth when they sign up.
tl;dr New mothers will be given cash transfers for three years. 500 low-income new mothers will get $333 a month with no strings; a control group of 500 gets $20/month.
Brotherhood of the Bear | HAB | Mess | SDnet archivist |

User avatar
The Romulan Republic
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 15397
Joined: 2008-10-15 01:37am

Re: New UBI experiment in the U.S.

Post by The Romulan Republic » 2018-05-05 02:27pm

While I am unsure how successfully giving money to a small group representing a particular demographic will test the effectiveness of universal basic income, I'm shocked but pleased to see that this is something that is being tested in the United States. I'm frankly amazed at the speed on which this issue seems to be gaining ground. There have been attempts at tests programs before in Europe and Canada, but even a month ago, I would have said that this wasn't even on the radar in American politics, or likely to be in the immediate future. John Oliver recently mentioned it on his show, and it was honestly the first time that I could recall a notable celebrity or public figure in the US even raising it as a topic for discussion. If you'd asked me last month, I probably would have guessed something like five or ten years before I heard about a US test program being run, even at the local level.

I'm probably getting my hopes up too high, too fast. But maybe, for a change, we can collectively pull our heads out of our asses and start acting to address a major problem (increasing numbers of people unable to support themselves due to automation) before it becomes an existential threat.

The goal now, in my opinion, should be to get as much public and media attention as possible focused on this, so that it becomes a topic that at least has to be discussed in the 2020 elections.
"Well, Grant, we've had the devil's own day, haven't we?"

"Yes. Lick 'em tomorrow though."

-Generals William T. Sherman and Ulysses S Grant, the Battle of Shiloh.


"You need to believe in things that aren't true. How else can they become?"-Terry Pratchett's DEATH.


I am a dual citizen of the United States and Canada.


Fuck Civility.

User avatar
Ace Pace
Hardware Lover
Posts: 8242
Joined: 2002-07-07 03:04am
Location: Wasting time instead of money
Contact:

Re: New UBI experiment in the U.S.

Post by Ace Pace » 2018-05-05 03:35pm

I think you're way overreacting. If you'd read the article or kept track, you'd know Y-Combinator (a large VC) is going to do a large trial in Oakland in the coming year, giving random citizens a large sum of money every month.

Meanwhile -
While I am unsure how successfully giving money to a small group representing a particular demographic will test the effectiveness of universal basic income,
You start by giving money to people who you think you know how will spend the money and keep track. Doing sociological experiments is very hard and adding even more variables will just make the results worthless at this stage.
Brotherhood of the Bear | HAB | Mess | SDnet archivist |

User avatar
The Romulan Republic
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 15397
Joined: 2008-10-15 01:37am

Re: New UBI experiment in the U.S.

Post by The Romulan Republic » 2018-05-05 03:43pm

Ace Pace wrote:
2018-05-05 03:35pm
I think you're way overreacting.
Possibly. I'm just happy that this subject is receiving any attention at all, because until now, to my knowledge, it really hasn't, in the US.
If you'd read the article or kept track, you'd know Y-Combinator (a large VC) is going to do a large trial in Oakland in the coming year, giving random citizens a large sum of money every month.
Good for them. But I was referring to the bit about the test program giving cash specifically to single mothers. Sorry if that wasn't clear.
Meanwhile -
While I am unsure how successfully giving money to a small group representing a particular demographic will test the effectiveness of universal basic income,
You start by giving money to people who you think you know how will spend the money and keep track. Doing sociological experiments is very hard and adding even more variables will just make the results worthless at this stage.
Fair enough, I suppose.
"Well, Grant, we've had the devil's own day, haven't we?"

"Yes. Lick 'em tomorrow though."

-Generals William T. Sherman and Ulysses S Grant, the Battle of Shiloh.


"You need to believe in things that aren't true. How else can they become?"-Terry Pratchett's DEATH.


I am a dual citizen of the United States and Canada.


Fuck Civility.

User avatar
Broomstick
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 25806
Joined: 2004-01-02 07:04pm
Location: Industrial armpit of the US Midwest
Contact:

Re: New UBI experiment in the U.S.

Post by Broomstick » 2018-05-05 11:42pm

When genuine social change comes it can happen surprisingly swiftly.
A life is like a garden. Perfect moments can be had, but not preserved, except in memory. Leonard Nimoy.

Now I did a job. I got nothing but trouble since I did it, not to mention more than a few unkind words as regard to my character so let me make this abundantly clear. I do the job. And then I get paid.- Malcolm Reynolds, Captain of Serenity, which sums up my feelings regarding the lawsuit discussed here.

If a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich. - John F. Kennedy

Sam Vimes Theory of Economic Injustice

User avatar
Kingmaker
Jedi Knight
Posts: 534
Joined: 2009-12-10 03:35am

Re: New UBI experiment in the U.S.

Post by Kingmaker » 2018-05-06 01:13am

every month for [i[40 months[/i]
This is going to be a major problem for any UBI experiment unless you can find someone to credibly commit to paying the subjects for the rest of their lives (or you can credibly lie to them, if you don't care about ethics). How people act given a temporary income boost versus how they act given a life-long/very long-term guarantee are quite different.

Also, this isn't a UBI experiment at all; it's a study of the impact of financial transfers on early childhood development for kids from low-income families.
In the event that the content of the above post is factually or logically flawed, I was Trolling All Along.

"Essentially, all models are wrong, but some are useful." - George Box

User avatar
Highlord Laan
Jedi Master
Posts: 1188
Joined: 2009-11-08 02:36pm
Location: Christo-fundie Theofascist Dominion of Nebraskistan

Re: New UBI experiment in the U.S.

Post by Highlord Laan » 2018-05-06 11:53am

Broomstick wrote:
2018-05-05 11:42pm
When genuine social change comes it can happen surprisingly swiftly.
Boomer: BUT COMMIEUNISM

Social change on this kind of scale won't be allowed to happen.
Never underestimate the ingenuity and cruelty of the Irish.

bilateralrope
Sith Marauder
Posts: 3833
Joined: 2005-06-25 06:50pm
Location: New Zealand

Re: New UBI experiment in the U.S.

Post by bilateralrope » 2018-05-07 03:31am

Highlord Laan wrote:
2018-05-06 11:53am
Social change on this kind of scale won't be allowed to happen.
Oh, I expect some resistance from the rich and powerful for a while. Long enough to cause plenty of unnecessary suffering. Until they decide that it's in their best interest to support UBI. So many of the rich and powerful got into their positions because of consumerism. Which means they require consumers to maintain their position. UBI preserves the existence of consumers, making it the option of least change once automation starts leaving people permanently unemployed.

How do you think the NRA will react if given the choice between these possibilities:
- People left permanently unemployed start getting violent. US government tries to restrict guns to lessen the violence
- People left permanently unemployed are given a program similar to food stamps. One where the government decides what they are allowed to buy through the program. Guns are unlikely to be on the list.
- UBI, where people can spend their money however they choose to do so.
I'd expect that the NRA chooses UBI, because the other options restrict gun ownership. The trick is convincing them that the predictions are something they need to think about.

Or look at all the internet based companies that rely on ad revenue. Ads that only exist because there are consumers to advertise to.

User avatar
The Romulan Republic
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 15397
Joined: 2008-10-15 01:37am

Re: New UBI experiment in the U.S.

Post by The Romulan Republic » 2018-05-07 02:23pm

bilateralrope wrote:
2018-05-07 03:31am
Highlord Laan wrote:
2018-05-06 11:53am
Social change on this kind of scale won't be allowed to happen.
Oh, I expect some resistance from the rich and powerful for a while. Long enough to cause plenty of unnecessary suffering. Until they decide that it's in their best interest to support UBI. So many of the rich and powerful got into their positions because of consumerism. Which means they require consumers to maintain their position. UBI preserves the existence of consumers, making it the option of least change once automation starts leaving people permanently unemployed.

How do you think the NRA will react if given the choice between these possibilities:
- People left permanently unemployed start getting violent. US government tries to restrict guns to lessen the violence
- People left permanently unemployed are given a program similar to food stamps. One where the government decides what they are allowed to buy through the program. Guns are unlikely to be on the list.
- UBI, where people can spend their money however they choose to do so.
I'd expect that the NRA chooses UBI, because the other options restrict gun ownership. The trick is convincing them that the predictions are something they need to think about.

Or look at all the internet based companies that rely on ad revenue. Ads that only exist because there are consumers to advertise to.
Or, being the NRA, they come up with an even stupider and more morally bankrupt option: keep people poor, try to direct the resulting violence against minorities, then when the government tries to crack down on it, try to incite militia uprisings.

That said, UBI is one of the few large-scale economic policies which has a chance at some real bipartisan support, since you can sell it to the Left as strengthening the social safety net, and you can sell it to the Right as streamlining government spending (since it would render much of the patch work of existing programs redundant if done properly), and as giving people choice in how to spend the money they recieve*. I have a relation who's a Right-winger, repeats a lot of Trump propaganda, even has some friends who are basically neo-Nazis- and one of the few political issues we agree on is supporting UBI.

*Granted, there's also the Right-wing crowd who wants to restrict what kinds of food poor people can spend their food stamps on, to keep them from using it to buy "luxuries". You know, the kind who think that being poor is a sin, not a misfortune, and basically want to punish poor people for being poor.
"Well, Grant, we've had the devil's own day, haven't we?"

"Yes. Lick 'em tomorrow though."

-Generals William T. Sherman and Ulysses S Grant, the Battle of Shiloh.


"You need to believe in things that aren't true. How else can they become?"-Terry Pratchett's DEATH.


I am a dual citizen of the United States and Canada.


Fuck Civility.

User avatar
U.P. Cinnabar
Sith Devotee
Posts: 3291
Joined: 2016-02-05 08:11pm
Location: Aboard the RCS Princess Cecile

Re: New UBI experiment in the U.S.

Post by U.P. Cinnabar » 2018-05-07 02:33pm

The Romulan Republic wrote:Granted, there's also the Right-wing crowd who wants to restrict what kinds of food poor people can spend their food stamps on, to keep them from using it to buy "luxuries". You know, the kind who think that being poor is a sin, not a misfortune, and basically want to punish poor people for being poor.
The one percent would also likely feel threatened by a majority who isn't too exhausted by struggling to stay broke to focus their energies on fighting the real enemy.

And, UBI has the potential to do precisely that.
"Beware the Beast, Man, for he is the Devil's pawn. Alone amongst God's primates, he kills for sport, for lust, for greed. Yea, he will murder his brother to possess his brother's land. Let him not breed in great numbers, for he will make a desert of his home and yours. Shun him, drive him back into his jungle lair, for he is the harbinger of Death.."
—29th Scroll, 6th Verse of Ape Law
"Indelible in the hippocampus is the laughter. The uproarious laughter between the two, and their having fun at my expense.”
---Doctor Christine Blasey-Ford

Simon_Jester
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 30106
Joined: 2009-05-23 07:29pm

Re: New UBI experiment in the U.S.

Post by Simon_Jester » 2018-05-07 02:44pm

U.P. Cinnabar wrote:
2018-05-07 02:33pm
The Romulan Republic wrote:Granted, there's also the Right-wing crowd who wants to restrict what kinds of food poor people can spend their food stamps on, to keep them from using it to buy "luxuries". You know, the kind who think that being poor is a sin, not a misfortune, and basically want to punish poor people for being poor.
The one percent would also likely feel threatened by a majority who isn't too exhausted by struggling to stay broke to focus their energies on fighting the real enemy.

And, UBI has the potential to do precisely that.
A nontrivial share of 1% voters actually favor a guaranteed minimum income. See, the thing is that the elite in a modern capitalist society knows how to survive in a society where the general populace isn't broke. They're willing to beggar the majority to slightly increase their own wealth, but they don't view it as essential that this be done. There is no guarantee, and no reason to expect, for the rich to be torn apart by the Wrath of the Proles. We know this because it was the 20th century experience: we transitioned out of the Gilded Age into an era with a wide middle class, and there was no massive revolutionary overthrow of the state!

While not everyone with power and wealth is capable of thinking in terms of enlightened self-interest, enough are that you can't view "the 1%" as a monobloc on this issue.
Highlord Laan wrote:
2018-05-06 11:53am
Broomstick wrote:
2018-05-05 11:42pm
When genuine social change comes it can happen surprisingly swiftly.
Boomer: BUT COMMIEUNISM

Social change on this kind of scale won't be allowed to happen.
Don't be too sure. The Roman Empire was pretty up-front about enacting mass welfare for the city of Rome, and rich old assholes in ancient Rome were not, on the whole, kinder people than rich old assholes today.
The Romulan Republic wrote:
2018-05-07 02:23pm
Or, being the NRA, they come up with an even stupider and more morally bankrupt option: keep people poor, try to direct the resulting violence against minorities, then when the government tries to crack down on it, try to incite militia uprisings.

That said, UBI is one of the few large-scale economic policies which has a chance at some real bipartisan support, since you can sell it to the Left as strengthening the social safety net, and you can sell it to the Right as streamlining government spending (since it would render much of the patch work of existing programs redundant if done properly), and as giving people choice in how to spend the money they recieve*. I have a relation who's a Right-winger, repeats a lot of Trump propaganda, even has some friends who are basically neo-Nazis- and one of the few political issues we agree on is supporting UBI.
Also, a nontrivial number of right-wing voters are poor, and they can't possibly be unaware of the fact that a UBI check would be directly benefiting and going to them personally. They can rationalize that all the 'welfare money' they never see is in fact somehow going to [insert racial slur here] people, but "just cut everybody a goddamn check" is clearly and unambiguously going to put money in their pocket. It's simple.
*Granted, there's also the Right-wing crowd who wants to restrict what kinds of food poor people can spend their food stamps on, to keep them from using it to buy "luxuries". You know, the kind who think that being poor is a sin, not a misfortune, and basically want to punish poor people for being poor.
Personally, my preferred counterpoint to this is that in our society, it's hard to differentiate between people who are poor because they're bad people and people who are poor because they're unlucky. In a society where everyone receives a certain amount of charity freely, it will become immediately obvious who is poor because they are stupid and sinful, versus who is poor because of bad luck or the abuses of other people.
This space dedicated to Vasily Arkhipov

User avatar
Elheru Aran
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 12412
Joined: 2004-03-04 01:15am
Location: Georgia

Re: New UBI experiment in the U.S.

Post by Elheru Aran » 2018-05-07 04:23pm

Simon_Jester wrote:
2018-05-07 02:44pm
Don't be too sure. The Roman Empire was pretty up-front about enacting mass welfare for the city of Rome, and rich old assholes in ancient Rome were not, on the whole, kinder people than rich old assholes today.
Minor nitpick, if I may.

'Bread and circuses' was a thing, but it was limited to Roman citizens; slaves, free non-citizens and foreigners need not apply. (AFAIK, I'm sure Thanas will probably be around to correct me on a point or two)

This thus limited the benefits to being a privilege rather than a right.

Also, as far as I know, this only applied within the City of Rome, which suggests that it was less altruistic and more simply a means of buying the populus off from thoughts and inclinations towards violent revolt. Perhaps this would still apply in the modern context, granted, and the Romans were simply more honest about its purpose.

Rome's class structure was also more highly stratified and regimented than the US has ever been, and I don't know how much that influenced the dole in terms of the upper classes seeing it as a civic duty to provide for the poor, or whatever. It was important enough that they basically deified it, so...

(anyway, digression over. Edited for quotes)
It's a strange world. Let's keep it that way.

User avatar
The Romulan Republic
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 15397
Joined: 2008-10-15 01:37am

Re: New UBI experiment in the U.S.

Post by The Romulan Republic » 2018-05-07 04:33pm

Elheru Aran wrote:
2018-05-07 04:23pm
Also, as far as I know, this only applied within the City of Rome, which suggests that it was less altruistic and more simply a means of buying the populus off from thoughts and inclinations towards violent revolt. Perhaps this would still apply in the modern context, granted, and the Romans were simply more honest about its purpose.
Just going to comment on this:

There are at least half a dozen good reasons for Basic Income, but "Masses of hungry/homeless people tend to lead to violent extremist uprisings" is definitely high on the list. Basic Income should be viewed simultaneously as a social safety net expenditure, an investment in supporting small businesses/self-employment, and a crime prevention/national security expenditure.
"Well, Grant, we've had the devil's own day, haven't we?"

"Yes. Lick 'em tomorrow though."

-Generals William T. Sherman and Ulysses S Grant, the Battle of Shiloh.


"You need to believe in things that aren't true. How else can they become?"-Terry Pratchett's DEATH.


I am a dual citizen of the United States and Canada.


Fuck Civility.

User avatar
Elheru Aran
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 12412
Joined: 2004-03-04 01:15am
Location: Georgia

Re: New UBI experiment in the U.S.

Post by Elheru Aran » 2018-05-07 04:48pm

The Romulan Republic wrote:
2018-05-07 04:33pm
Elheru Aran wrote:
2018-05-07 04:23pm
Also, as far as I know, this only applied within the City of Rome, which suggests that it was less altruistic and more simply a means of buying the populus off from thoughts and inclinations towards violent revolt. Perhaps this would still apply in the modern context, granted, and the Romans were simply more honest about its purpose.
Just going to comment on this:

There are at least half a dozen good reasons for Basic Income, but "Masses of hungry/homeless people tend to lead to violent extremist uprisings" is definitely high on the list. Basic Income should be viewed simultaneously as a social safety net expenditure, an investment in supporting small businesses/self-employment, and a crime prevention/national security expenditure.
Yeah, I'm not saying that's NOT a good reason, I guess in a way it reinforces Simon's point. I suppose I was just trying to clarify the nature of the Roman dole, but on the whole it wasn't a particularly necessary post. Hindsight and all that.
It's a strange world. Let's keep it that way.

User avatar
The Romulan Republic
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 15397
Joined: 2008-10-15 01:37am

Re: New UBI experiment in the U.S.

Post by The Romulan Republic » 2018-05-07 05:06pm

Not criticizing your post, just noting that yes, that absolutely is a reason that's still applicable in the present day.
"Well, Grant, we've had the devil's own day, haven't we?"

"Yes. Lick 'em tomorrow though."

-Generals William T. Sherman and Ulysses S Grant, the Battle of Shiloh.


"You need to believe in things that aren't true. How else can they become?"-Terry Pratchett's DEATH.


I am a dual citizen of the United States and Canada.


Fuck Civility.

Simon_Jester
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 30106
Joined: 2009-05-23 07:29pm

Re: New UBI experiment in the U.S.

Post by Simon_Jester » 2018-05-07 07:00pm

Elheru Aran wrote:
2018-05-07 04:23pm
Simon_Jester wrote:
2018-05-07 02:44pm
Don't be too sure. The Roman Empire was pretty up-front about enacting mass welfare for the city of Rome, and rich old assholes in ancient Rome were not, on the whole, kinder people than rich old assholes today.
Minor nitpick, if I may.

'Bread and circuses' was a thing, but it was limited to Roman citizens; slaves, free non-citizens and foreigners need not apply. (AFAIK, I'm sure Thanas will probably be around to correct me on a point or two)

This thus limited the benefits to being a privilege rather than a right.

Also, as far as I know, this only applied within the City of Rome, which suggests that it was less altruistic and more simply a means of buying the populus off from thoughts and inclinations towards violent revolt. Perhaps this would still apply in the modern context, granted, and the Romans were simply more honest about its purpose.

Rome's class structure was also more highly stratified and regimented than the US has ever been, and I don't know how much that influenced the dole in terms of the upper classes seeing it as a civic duty to provide for the poor, or whatever. It was important enough that they basically deified it, so...

(anyway, digression over. Edited for quotes)
The thing is, even with everything you just said, that's kind of my point. You don't need extreme generosity or benevolence on the part of the upper class for the upper class in question to be willing to dole out resources to keep the lower classes from getting desperate enough to overthrow the upper. Now, the question is, what share of their wealth are they willing to write off for that end? And the answer is, it's going to vary.
This space dedicated to Vasily Arkhipov

User avatar
K. A. Pital
Glamorous Commie
Posts: 20250
Joined: 2003-02-26 11:39am
Location: Elysium

Re: New UBI experiment in the U.S.

Post by K. A. Pital » 2018-05-13 01:07pm

The Romulan Republic wrote:
2018-05-07 04:33pm
Elheru Aran wrote:
2018-05-07 04:23pm
Also, as far as I know, this only applied within the City of Rome, which suggests that it was less altruistic and more simply a means of buying the populus off from thoughts and inclinations towards violent revolt. Perhaps this would still apply in the modern context, granted, and the Romans were simply more honest about its purpose.
Just going to comment on this:

There are at least half a dozen good reasons for Basic Income, but "Masses of hungry/homeless people tend to lead to violent extremist uprisings" is definitely high on the list. Basic Income should be viewed simultaneously as a social safety net expenditure, an investment in supporting small businesses/self-employment, and a crime prevention/national security expenditure.
The issue is, are we talking about liberation of mankind from need or about creating a bait to lure unwitting slaves into supporting their "good masters"?

My inner Daenerys is weeping.
Lì ci sono chiese, macerie, moschee e questure, lì frontiere, prezzi inaccessibile e freddure
Lì paludi, minacce, cecchini coi fucili, documenti, file notturne e clandestini
Qui incontri, lotte, passi sincronizzati, colori, capannelli non autorizzati,
Uccelli migratori, reti, informazioni, piazze di Tutti i like pazze di passioni...

...La tranquillità è importante ma la libertà è tutto!
Assalti Frontali

User avatar
U.P. Cinnabar
Sith Devotee
Posts: 3291
Joined: 2016-02-05 08:11pm
Location: Aboard the RCS Princess Cecile

Re: New UBI experiment in the U.S.

Post by U.P. Cinnabar » 2018-05-13 01:13pm

K.A. Pital wrote:The issue is, are we talking about liberation of mankind from need or about creating a bait to lure unwitting slaves into supporting their "good masters"?
Yes.

Because it can lead to the former.

But it wiil inevitably will be the later, because Marx himself said the proletariat cannot use the machinery of the bourgeoisie to free themselves.
"Beware the Beast, Man, for he is the Devil's pawn. Alone amongst God's primates, he kills for sport, for lust, for greed. Yea, he will murder his brother to possess his brother's land. Let him not breed in great numbers, for he will make a desert of his home and yours. Shun him, drive him back into his jungle lair, for he is the harbinger of Death.."
—29th Scroll, 6th Verse of Ape Law
"Indelible in the hippocampus is the laughter. The uproarious laughter between the two, and their having fun at my expense.”
---Doctor Christine Blasey-Ford

bilateralrope
Sith Marauder
Posts: 3833
Joined: 2005-06-25 06:50pm
Location: New Zealand

Re: New UBI experiment in the U.S.

Post by bilateralrope » 2018-05-14 01:39am

K. A. Pital wrote:
2018-05-13 01:07pm
The Romulan Republic wrote:
2018-05-07 04:33pm
Elheru Aran wrote:
2018-05-07 04:23pm
Also, as far as I know, this only applied within the City of Rome, which suggests that it was less altruistic and more simply a means of buying the populus off from thoughts and inclinations towards violent revolt. Perhaps this would still apply in the modern context, granted, and the Romans were simply more honest about its purpose.
Just going to comment on this:

There are at least half a dozen good reasons for Basic Income, but "Masses of hungry/homeless people tend to lead to violent extremist uprisings" is definitely high on the list. Basic Income should be viewed simultaneously as a social safety net expenditure, an investment in supporting small businesses/self-employment, and a crime prevention/national security expenditure.
The issue is, are we talking about liberation of mankind from need or about creating a bait to lure unwitting slaves into supporting their "good masters"?

My inner Daenerys is weeping.
When I look at UBI, I see it as the path of least change once we hit the automation crisis. The path that keeps the current elites in power. With the added worry of losing the "education will get you a job" incentive to encourage the population to get an education.

User avatar
The Romulan Republic
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 15397
Joined: 2008-10-15 01:37am

Re: New UBI experiment in the U.S.

Post by The Romulan Republic » 2018-05-14 12:25pm

K. A. Pital wrote:
2018-05-13 01:07pm
The Romulan Republic wrote:
2018-05-07 04:33pm
Elheru Aran wrote:
2018-05-07 04:23pm
Also, as far as I know, this only applied within the City of Rome, which suggests that it was less altruistic and more simply a means of buying the populus off from thoughts and inclinations towards violent revolt. Perhaps this would still apply in the modern context, granted, and the Romans were simply more honest about its purpose.
Just going to comment on this:

There are at least half a dozen good reasons for Basic Income, but "Masses of hungry/homeless people tend to lead to violent extremist uprisings" is definitely high on the list. Basic Income should be viewed simultaneously as a social safety net expenditure, an investment in supporting small businesses/self-employment, and a crime prevention/national security expenditure.
The issue is, are we talking about liberation of mankind from need or about creating a bait to lure unwitting slaves into supporting their "good masters"?

My inner Daenerys is weeping.
Okay, you are going to need to explain how Basic Income would reduce people to slavery- unless your position is simply that you want to see a violent revolution by the masses on principle, in which case, I've argued the issue of political violence often enough on this forum that you ought to already know everything I would have to say in reply.
"Well, Grant, we've had the devil's own day, haven't we?"

"Yes. Lick 'em tomorrow though."

-Generals William T. Sherman and Ulysses S Grant, the Battle of Shiloh.


"You need to believe in things that aren't true. How else can they become?"-Terry Pratchett's DEATH.


I am a dual citizen of the United States and Canada.


Fuck Civility.

User avatar
K. A. Pital
Glamorous Commie
Posts: 20250
Joined: 2003-02-26 11:39am
Location: Elysium

Re: New UBI experiment in the U.S.

Post by K. A. Pital » 2018-05-14 02:54pm

Okay, you are going to need to explain how Basic Income would reduce people to slavery- unless your position is simply that you want to see a violent revolution by the masses on principle, in which case, I've argued the issue of political violence often enough on this forum that you ought to already know everything I would have to say in reply.
It is not so much about violence anyway; it is about the fact that placating people is not the same as liberating them. If the income is too low, then it would not make a difference as you would need to work to avoid malnourishment. Then, it is just a tick box for the elites to say they have a new, better welfare form (at the same time cutting down unemployment benefits and other elements of pre-existing social support networks, which are under assault and have been dismantled over the last 30 years).

Just some critical thinking.
Lì ci sono chiese, macerie, moschee e questure, lì frontiere, prezzi inaccessibile e freddure
Lì paludi, minacce, cecchini coi fucili, documenti, file notturne e clandestini
Qui incontri, lotte, passi sincronizzati, colori, capannelli non autorizzati,
Uccelli migratori, reti, informazioni, piazze di Tutti i like pazze di passioni...

...La tranquillità è importante ma la libertà è tutto!
Assalti Frontali

User avatar
The Romulan Republic
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 15397
Joined: 2008-10-15 01:37am

Re: New UBI experiment in the U.S.

Post by The Romulan Republic » 2018-05-14 03:01pm

K. A. Pital wrote:
2018-05-14 02:54pm
Okay, you are going to need to explain how Basic Income would reduce people to slavery- unless your position is simply that you want to see a violent revolution by the masses on principle, in which case, I've argued the issue of political violence often enough on this forum that you ought to already know everything I would have to say in reply.
It is not so much about violence anyway; it is about the fact that placating people is not the same as liberating them. If the income is too low, then it would not make a difference as you would need to work to avoid malnourishment. Then, it is just a tick box for the elites to say they have a new, better welfare form (at the same time cutting down unemployment benefits and other elements of pre-existing social support networks, which are under assault and have been dismantled over the last 30 years).

Just some critical thinking.
Of course Basic Income will not solve everything. But by making it less necessary for people to work to support themselves, it will reduce dependence on those corporate masters (albeit possibly by increasing dependency on the government), and give people more of a safety net if they want to take chances to follow the career or goal they choose, rather than taking the ten-hour work day in fast food so their kids can eat and have a roof over their head (to take an extreme example).

Substituting Basic Income for existing programs would be fine, if Basic Income were sufficient to cover the things those programs currently provide, in which case it would be simplifying the current patchwork of programs, not cutting the support people actually receive. I am of the view that Basic Income needs to be done in conjunction with affordable housing and Single Payer healthcare to be fully effective.
"Well, Grant, we've had the devil's own day, haven't we?"

"Yes. Lick 'em tomorrow though."

-Generals William T. Sherman and Ulysses S Grant, the Battle of Shiloh.


"You need to believe in things that aren't true. How else can they become?"-Terry Pratchett's DEATH.


I am a dual citizen of the United States and Canada.


Fuck Civility.

Post Reply