this post was submitted on 21 Apr 2024
825 points (99.3% liked)

politics

19145 readers
2221 users here now

Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!

Rules:

  1. Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.

Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.

Example:

  1. Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
  2. Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
  3. No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
  4. Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
  5. No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning

We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.

All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.

That's all the rules!

Civic Links

Register To Vote

Citizenship Resource Center

Congressional Awards Program

Federal Government Agencies

Library of Congress Legislative Resources

The White House

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Partnered Communities:

News

World News

Business News

Political Discussion

Ask Politics

Military News

Global Politics

Moderate Politics

Progressive Politics

UK Politics

Canadian Politics

Australian Politics

New Zealand Politics

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 
  • A Seattle basic income pilot gave low-income residents $500 a month, nearly doubling employment rates.
  • Some participants reported getting new housing, while others saw their employment incomes rise.
  • Basic income pilots nationwide have seen noteworthy success, despite conservative opposition.
top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] ShittyBeatlesFCPres@lemmy.world 180 points 7 months ago (2 children)

The 10,000th study to show the same result. Probably need to do a hundred thousand more.

[–] Diplomjodler3@lemmy.world 51 points 7 months ago

bUt jUsT giViNg pEopLe mOnEy WiLL mAkE ThEm LazY!!!

[–] KillingAndKindess@lemmy.blahaj.zone 39 points 7 months ago (3 children)

It would be good to know how this works on a larger scale. Like, everyone in a city or county having UBI and watching to see what society and the local economy as a whole does in response.

[–] Gradually_Adjusting@lemmy.world 69 points 7 months ago (1 children)

It would be wise to test it everywhere. Just on a trial basis...Indefinitely.

[–] KillingAndKindess@lemmy.blahaj.zone 8 points 7 months ago (4 children)

Sure. Until landlords realize they can raise their rent without losing tenants. Or insurance companies. Or grocery distributors. I doubt this works without other laws and policies needing to go into effect beforehand.

[–] Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world 26 points 7 months ago

That's why UBI needs to be combined with common sense price ceilings. When you do that, it WILL work as intended.

I doubt this works without other laws and policies needing to go into effect beforehand

Or just simultaneously. Here's a snazzy name I had an LLM come up with for the bill name:

FAIR-CARE: Fair Allocation of Income Resources - Common-sense Affordable Regulation for Everyone

[–] Maggoty@lemmy.world 10 points 7 months ago

Sounds like we need to break some monopolies.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Rakonat@lemmy.world 14 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Look at the stimulus checks and how they measurable gains up and down the economy and living conditions.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Maggoty@lemmy.world 6 points 7 months ago

Check out Kenya, they have the largest and longest running experiment.

[–] tearsintherain@leminal.space 92 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

Basic income pilots nationwide have seen noteworthy success, despite conservative opposition.

I've learned that conservatives especially, certainly not exclusively, prefer if it people constantly had to worry about their livelihoods. Thus ensuring a steady supply of cheap labor to be exploited.

And the side benefit for those who sell God as a dog-eat-dog free market Capitalist is more people going to their houses of worship where they get reminded to endure because the afterlife will be great. Total win-win for money and the moneyed class who all the while eat really well.

It's amazing how they've convinced people to vote conservative, to vote against themselves.

[–] MossyFeathers@pawb.social 67 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (4 children)

Yeah, I'm not surprised. I'm currently not working (living with parents), and personally, if I had a guaranteed $500 a month in my bank account I'd be much more willing to go out and get a job, regardless of how good or bad it is.

That $500 a month is a form of financial security; so I know that even if I get fired, I'll still have something to fall back on. It would ease the anxiety of having to deal with shitty managers, being potentially overworked, underpaid, etc, because it'd mean that if one job sucks, I can go find a different one without worrying that the rug was being completely pulled out from under my feet.

It also means that, if I am getting underpaid, I still potentially have some spending money that'll allow me some luxuries despite the low wage/salary being given to me by company I'm working for. That increases my flexibility for bullshit and allows me to be more tolerant of shitty managers.

The fact that you have to roll the dice and hope the company you're going to work for won't have shitty managers, low wages, overwork, etc is a real disincentive when you have family you can live with. That $500 a month makes the dice roll more tolerable.

My biggest concern is that if Universal Basic Income becomes, well, universal, then the cost of everything will likely spike in proportion to whatever UBI is. It's greedy, but logical that if all your tenants are getting $500 a month from the government, then that means you can raise their rent. Companies would also look at it and one department would say, "we can lower wages because of UBI" while another department says, "we can raise prices because people have more money via UBI". As such, the government would need to implement protections against such actions.

How do you do that though?

Do you peg the cost of rent to a formula based on land value, income, etc?

Do you peg the price of a product to the product's cost + X%?

Do you try and mandate wages based on performance, seniority, and job type?

At what point do you look at the tangle of laws and formulas and say, "this is insane; maybe instead of giving cash, we should give housing, food, water, electricity and other modern necessities."

Ultimately, I'm not sure any of the protections required for UBI to be successfull will be implemented. I'm not against the idea of UBI, but I don't trust the government (well, the US government anyway) to have the foresight to successfully pull it off.

Edit: At the end of the day, I don't want to live with my parents. I don't want to be unemployed, I don't want to feel like a drain on society, and I don't want to feel like I have nothing to offer to the world. I like to believe everyone has the potential to change the world for the better, either in a small way, or a big way. Right now I feel like I'm not doing anything, and I don't like it. However, I've had some very bad experiences with """unskilled""" jobs and the industry I've spent time training for (video games) is a fucking mess and is getting worse.

[–] Garbanzo@lemmy.world 42 points 7 months ago (3 children)

You deal with the inflation issue with strict antitrust enforcement. Actual competition in the market should keep prices under control but we've let a handful of companies corner the market on way too many things and well, just look around.

If capitalism must persist, then this is the most reasonable suggestion. And it will persist so long as everyone is distracted or run down enough to lack the hope for change.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Maggoty@lemmy.world 13 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Well you can identify shortages in required goods like food, housing, and internet; and have the government enter the market with a basic level of service "at cost". Put an anchor right in that market.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Gradually_Adjusting@lemmy.world 7 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

I think ultimately UBI would have to be one of many aspects of moving towards post-scarcity. We will also need to be incrementally introducing free basic needs, free education, internet access, public transit, etc alongside it, while also passing rent control laws and, if antitrust laws aren't up to the task, perhaps seizing oversized corps, and turning them into employee owned, maybe balkanized versions of themselves wherever that makes sense from an antitrust perspective.

You don't get radical changes without radical solutions. None of this will happen without a fight of course.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Maggoty@lemmy.world 65 points 7 months ago (8 children)

Brace for all of the explanations why we can't just do this...

[–] A_Random_Idiot@lemmy.world 39 points 7 months ago (2 children)

because money for poor people is a waste, when we could funnel it all to the handful of giga-billionaires who need to add all money in circulation to their draconic horde, obviously.

[–] Hasherm0n@lemmy.world 24 points 7 months ago

The first trillionaire ain't gonna make themself.

[–] AngryCommieKender@lemmy.world 16 points 7 months ago (4 children)

Even dragons don't hoard that much. 500,000 oz of gold is only around 1.04-1.1 billion dollars, and only the richest of ancient red wyrms roll that high. Most of those 10,000 year old dragons have less, cause that figure is rolling perfectly on the treasure table

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] Knock_Knock_Lemmy_In@lemmy.world 12 points 7 months ago (12 children)

Why just for low income people?

load more comments (12 replies)
load more comments (6 replies)
[–] jjjalljs@ttrpg.network 46 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Basic income pilots nationwide have seen noteworthy success, despite conservative opposition.

Well, conservatives have bad ideas on just about everything so that's not surprising. If all the conservatives just went away we could have a much nicer world like overnight.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Fedizen@lemmy.world 45 points 7 months ago

Look we designed the entire system so that peoples lives could rapidly spiral out of control if they lost their job and this undermines so much of the hard work of billions in corporate lobbying.

[–] antidote101@lemmy.world 26 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (3 children)

The right only pretend to care about economics, whilst refusing to listen to its actual statements and outcomes. This is why Modern Monetary Theory is generally ignored.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] just_another_person@lemmy.world 25 points 7 months ago (1 children)

Terrible article, but I'd like to see a paper or summary of the results. In my area, homeless folks just want a safe place to clean up to get jobs, and it's not available.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Viking_Hippie@lemmy.world 23 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

Don't you just love how a post-scarcety society is held up as the ultimate unreachable utopia but when it gets down to it, the vast majority of scarcity is either completely artificial or exacerbated to maximize profits? Profits that in turn only mean that much due to artificial scarcity.

Robber baron capitalism truly is as stupid as it's cruel.

[–] 3volver@lemmy.world 23 points 7 months ago

The psychology of being supported by the society you work for is completely missed as a reason for why this is the case. It's this simple, people are more willing to work in a society they feel like cares for them. Why the fuck should I work if I feel like a higher quality of life is being arbitrarily gatekept by the previous generation? Fuck Republicans, they want to sell America to Putin. Being an American should be valuable.

[–] jj4211@lemmy.world 15 points 7 months ago

UBI doesn't lend itself to "pilot" programs:

A Seattle-area guaranteed basic income pilot gave low-income residents $500 a month

102 participants

Employment in the group nearly doubled

So in a city with over 75,000 unemployed people, you saw at most 51 people get new jobs (didn't see how many were unemployed) and not a lot of data about a control group and how they randomly fared over the same interval. Also, to the extent the 102 participants enjoyed advantaged situation, did that come at the opportunity cost for some others outside the group?

To really try UBI, you need it pervasive and long term, like the Alaska Permanent Fund Dividend, but that's a relatively low amount.

[–] cmdr_nova@lemmy.world 12 points 7 months ago (2 children)

I mean, this is probably because having extra money to take care of yourself makes it easier to have the confidence to find work. But 500 a month is like giving someone a dollar in 2024 and saying "pay your rent, bills, utilities, also buy food, and gas for your car, and also pay your car insurance" and thinking you did something

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Ultragigagigantic@lemmy.world 11 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago) (7 children)

UBI saves capitalism from itself. Do we really want to save this shit system that empowers the worst of us?

Do you honestly believe capitalists will allow a liveable UBI to remain untouched? Look at the minimum wage if you'd like to see the future of UBI. $7.25 an hour fucking shameful.

[–] Daxtron2@startrek.website 40 points 7 months ago (2 children)

You're right we should do nothing instead and let people continue to starve.

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] Kedly@lemm.ee 29 points 7 months ago (4 children)

Bud, extreme change causes extreme strife. Having a system that allows us to transition from an old system that worked, to a new system that works better is the preffered method if you dont want to cause massive amounts of damage to peoples lives. The fact that UBI allows us to change towards a better way of functioning WITHOUT completely breaking the old system is a SELLING point. First we get people away from having to work merely to live, and THEN we can take further steps towards whichever utopic ideal we believe in

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] damnedfurry@lemmy.world 9 points 7 months ago (4 children)

This program isn't UBI, and should not be compared to it, or used to argue for/against UBI. Universal Basic Income goes to everyone, not just certain people. That's what makes it UBI, and not a welfare program, which is what this is.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] theparadox@lemmy.world 6 points 7 months ago

While I agree with your sentiment, I do feel like it is a step in the right direction and will help a great many people in poverty.

Going straight from one economic system to another is likely to be an extremely violent process. I'm hoping that this would act as a stepping stone towards socialism rather than a life preserver for capitalism.

[–] barsoap@lemm.ee 6 points 7 months ago

Do we really want to save this shit system that empowers the worst of us?

Do you want the masses to have the material means to do anything other than bow to systemic pressure?

load more comments (2 replies)
[–] PiratePanPan@lemmy.dbzer0.com 10 points 7 months ago

UBI is the future ⛷️

load more comments
view more: next ›