Dude, they did it for an entire town in Manitoba for four years in the 1970s
The experiment did not apply to everybody in the village, but to a small subset of people.
none of the horrors some people seem to love to predict with respect to UBI ever materialized
The experiment did show a reduction in the number of hours worked in the house, as expected.
The experiment wasn’t in any way self-sufficient. The funds came from the wider province, and thus the cascade of “fewer people working leading to a loss of tax revenue, making it harder to continue funding the UBI” couldn’t have materialized.
This isn’t idle speculation: this loss of revenue is the reason why the age at which people are eligible to receive a public pension has been increasing in developed countries.
Lastly, the experiment didn’t attempt to measure inflation in the prices of goods and services provided in the village, so we can’t tell whether it materialized or not.
How big and long-lasting would a pilot program have to be to convince you that yes, this does work?
I don’t know. The specific concerns about the ramifications of a UBI and hasn’t been addressed properly by any UBI advocates. I would like future pilot projects to be designed specifically to address them.
Tax revenue isn’t the only measure of success. If people take UBI, then stay home to raise their kids or support a sick relative, that work has a value to society that isn’t accounted for – savings in spending on old age homes for parents of people on UBI were likely missed or under-represented. Someone who stays home, but volunteers instead provides a service to society at large whose benefit is difficult to quantify when the impact may not be strictly monetary, or whose monetary impact may be delayed for several years.
The other side is that UBI means workers aren’t exploited by making housing contingent on working… Employers will likely need to pay more and offer better benefits (that affect life/work balance) in order to find staff… Another intangible/incalculable improvement for society that doesn’t show up in a small-scale study.
I think the school of economics you’re following here is wrong in what it values, but I don’t have the energy to try to refute this on a point-for-point basis.
Okay, I’ll put it in simpler terms: when governments implement unsustainable policies, it is the working class that ultimately pays the price. Just look at history.
And when governments ignore the economic needs of everyone except the rich for too long, the result tends to be violence. The US is perilously close to that now, and we’re not doing much better. D’you really want a revolution, with all the blood-in-the-streets nastiness that entails? We need to change the game somehow, and UBI is one way of doing it. Not the only way, granted, but the political will doesn’t seem to be there for any of the others either.
And when governments ignore the economic needs of everyone except the rich for too long, the result tends to be violence
Only at extremes far beyond of what we are seeing today. Other places in the world have substantially larger Gini coefficients and that hasn’t translated into violence.
The US is perilously close to that now, and we’re not doing much better
What basis do you have to assert that?
D’you really want a revolution, with all the blood-in-the-streets nastiness that entails?
A false dichotomy.
We need to change the game somehow, and UBI is one way of doing it. Not the only way, granted, but the political will doesn’t seem to be there for any of the others either
You are assuming that a UBI would be beneficial to the working class. I have presented multiple reasons why that is questionable, and you haven’t addressed any one of them.
That’s because your individual points all derive from focusing on the wrong things.
What people want is prosperity—the sense of flourishing and being successful at life. Unfortunately, that’s very difficult to measure, because definitions of “success” are idiosyncratic and widely variable. So we measure money as a proxy for prosperity. The problem is, it’s a very bad proxy, one that can actually pull in the opposite direction of the thing it’s supposed to be a proxy for. Which is what appears to be happening here.
You’re trying to look at this from the point of view of macroeconomics, which is the study of large-scale money flows. Money flows. Except that programs like UBI are not designed to optimise money flows, they’re an attempt to improve median prosperity, even if that results in poorer mean financial outcomes.
I admit my previous post was a bit on the hyperbolic side, but you’re treating this as though the situation were a case study in an economics class. Which it isn’t.
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: !canada@lemmy.ca
The experiment did not apply to everybody in the village, but to a small subset of people.
The experiment did show a reduction in the number of hours worked in the house, as expected.
The experiment wasn’t in any way self-sufficient. The funds came from the wider province, and thus the cascade of “fewer people working leading to a loss of tax revenue, making it harder to continue funding the UBI” couldn’t have materialized.
This isn’t idle speculation: this loss of revenue is the reason why the age at which people are eligible to receive a public pension has been increasing in developed countries.
Lastly, the experiment didn’t attempt to measure inflation in the prices of goods and services provided in the village, so we can’t tell whether it materialized or not.
I don’t know. The specific concerns about the ramifications of a UBI and hasn’t been addressed properly by any UBI advocates. I would like future pilot projects to be designed specifically to address them.
Tax revenue isn’t the only measure of success. If people take UBI, then stay home to raise their kids or support a sick relative, that work has a value to society that isn’t accounted for – savings in spending on old age homes for parents of people on UBI were likely missed or under-represented. Someone who stays home, but volunteers instead provides a service to society at large whose benefit is difficult to quantify when the impact may not be strictly monetary, or whose monetary impact may be delayed for several years.
The other side is that UBI means workers aren’t exploited by making housing contingent on working… Employers will likely need to pay more and offer better benefits (that affect life/work balance) in order to find staff… Another intangible/incalculable improvement for society that doesn’t show up in a small-scale study.
I think the school of economics you’re following here is wrong in what it values, but I don’t have the energy to try to refute this on a point-for-point basis.
Profit margins are more important than humans.
- frost biker
You’re wasting your time at this point, he’s got a ‘temporarily embarrassed millionaire’ attitude without a shred of empathy.
Okay, I’ll put it in simpler terms: when governments implement unsustainable policies, it is the working class that ultimately pays the price. Just look at history.
And when governments ignore the economic needs of everyone except the rich for too long, the result tends to be violence. The US is perilously close to that now, and we’re not doing much better. D’you really want a revolution, with all the blood-in-the-streets nastiness that entails? We need to change the game somehow, and UBI is one way of doing it. Not the only way, granted, but the political will doesn’t seem to be there for any of the others either.
Only at extremes far beyond of what we are seeing today. Other places in the world have substantially larger Gini coefficients and that hasn’t translated into violence.
What basis do you have to assert that?
A false dichotomy.
You are assuming that a UBI would be beneficial to the working class. I have presented multiple reasons why that is questionable, and you haven’t addressed any one of them.
That’s because your individual points all derive from focusing on the wrong things.
What people want is prosperity—the sense of flourishing and being successful at life. Unfortunately, that’s very difficult to measure, because definitions of “success” are idiosyncratic and widely variable. So we measure money as a proxy for prosperity. The problem is, it’s a very bad proxy, one that can actually pull in the opposite direction of the thing it’s supposed to be a proxy for. Which is what appears to be happening here.
You’re trying to look at this from the point of view of macroeconomics, which is the study of large-scale money flows. Money flows. Except that programs like UBI are not designed to optimise money flows, they’re an attempt to improve median prosperity, even if that results in poorer mean financial outcomes.
I admit my previous post was a bit on the hyperbolic side, but you’re treating this as though the situation were a case study in an economics class. Which it isn’t.