http://www.theguardian.com/politics...-everyone-100-a-week-whether-they-work-or-not We've talked about this before here and there, thought I'd start a thread.
passing in and out of employment in the so-called gig economy is now something everyone can afford sounds great. now instead of having people wait till the unemployment is out to make the hard decisions, now they never have to make them at all.
Research shows that isn't what generally happens, according to the article. Do you have any basic income experiments to share?
research has absolutely shown that the longer unemployment benefits are the longer on average people remain unemployed.
if this option was available I absolutely would have toured Europe after I graduated college instead of immediately start working. why the hell not?
The big theme that sits under Srnicek and Williams’s ideas is that of automation, and its effects on the place of work in our lives. A third of jobs in UK retail are forecast to go by 2025. This is the biggest thing. Jobs are going to be disappearing, and fast. One of the fathers that went to the Yorktown with us installs robots and trains the owners. he showed one robot and it looked like a basketball with fully articulated arms, and it was designed to basically do whatever you wanted it to do. One he recently installed was at some plant where it was replacing a person at the end of an assembly line that packed the goods into a box, something often hard for robots to do. And it cost $25,000, and was expected to operated 3-4 years. However, I would not be in favor of increasing the UBI with children. Not without more research. I would hate for parents to be come money factories, as they say. I wonder if this is from a "gonna milk it while I can" mentality. What if that benefit never ran out, but was just enough to live on, nothing else. No vacations. No movies. Nothing else, unless you skipped meals. Or, got a job. And the traditional idea of work is in serious jeopardy, if you ask me. Questions: How will this not cause inflation? Would it require price fixing? What about medical? Is Universal Coverage assumed in this?
I think it's more that it stops people from making the hard decisions like changing careers, taking a job that pays less, or moving. i'm sure there is also a percentage that prefers not to work too and just wait till the benefits run out, but I doubt that's majority.
as for the rest we've had a multi generational shift in the workforce where some sort of training is required for you to be successful and it's only going to get worse.
I guess i'm failing to see why this would be preferable? at least there is some stigma and process towards getting welfare that stops a lot of people from using it.
Because it would cute a lot of the waste and government bureaucratic bullshit. Milton Friedman was a huge supporter of it
Yep, if everyone gets it, there is no need for a fraud department (well, I guess still need a fraud department for people pretending to be 4 other people), worry if they got a job, worry if they were on drugs, worry if they were this, worry if they were that.
You could end SNAP, Medicare, Social security, and section 8 housing. Plus our government wouldn't have to treat others like children and it wouldn't be the incentive to keep marginal workers from taking low paying jobs and moving up with the fear of taking huge cuts to their benefits.
One of the points the article makes is that it would have to be for absolutely everyone, regardless of wealth (I agree with Norris that there would need to be some sort of control on children so as to not encourage human farming).
