Universal basic income study shows that it is a flop

a reply to: asabuvsobelow

Same problems over here asabuvsobelow.

I wish i had better answers.

And the law of the Jungle is indeed the law of life, but humans make rules and call it the law of the land.

Without such anarchy prevails and survival of the fittest tends to be the colour of the day.

We need to strive towards a modicum of equality for everyone, even if people are not equal.

Or at least that is my take on the matter.

Also, there are 8 billion people on Earth or thereabouts just now.

In the future if half of those, to two-thirds become unemployed, they are going to require money and entertainment, or else they will simply take it from those that do still have it.

a reply to: berbofthegreen

The primary failure of UBI programs is not that they fail to incentivize its recipients to seek a better station in life (through work, education, or personal development),

It's that it fails to provide the necessary financial "know-how which would enable its recipients to use their funds more "wisely".


Money is a "tool", and like any other tool, if you have not learned, or been instructed on the proper use of said tool, you will most likely fail to that tool properly.


Morality judgments aside ("They didn't work for it, like I had to, they don't deserve it!"), the only real difference, that matters, between UBI and either Social Security or a pension is that those receiving the latter have had the "advantage" of a lifetime learning how to efficiently manage their income. Hopefully.

a reply to: Mantiss2021

give a man a fish, feed him for a day, teach a man to fish, feed him for life.
that's the difference between democratic UBI and republican "give a man a hand up" attitude. Free stuff doens't work, and it never does.

a reply to: network dude

What conservatives want: Land of the Free

What liberals want: Land of the Free Stuff

a reply to: andy06shake

Money is just a tool to get people to do stuff with the surplus of resources that we have accumulated.
In sure in the future we will find new ways to shuffle around the government issued IOUs to get people to become productive somehow.

originally posted by: network dude
a reply to: Mantiss2021

give a man a fish, feed him for a day, teach a man to fish, feed him for life.
that's the difference between democratic UBI and republican "give a man a hand up" attitude. Free stuff doens't work, and it never does.

100% true. I remember some of the illegal immigrants (or most of them) complained when they were given free lodging at nice hotels in big cities, they demanded even more luxurious accommodations and 5 star service, and money, etc.

These people are criminals and felons and can't be taught even the most simple of decent behaviors, exactly like their counterparts in official positions who invited them here, whom should all be deported along with those who invited them here.

a reply to: andy06shake

Gotta be honest with you... I like the being stagnant and then dying part (we all die). Too much technology these days and we've advanced it so fast that we can't keep up with it. We're left with glitches and errors all day long instead of moving slowly forward.

Simple on why not, as then the price of everything would go way way up due to the demand and money that has no collateral. Then, we would be right back where we started just with more money to be at "poverty level" just to be able to purchase things would still be too expensive for them.

a reply to: Halfswede

a reply to: strongfp

Yes, money is essentially a tool.

It serves as a medium of exchange, enabling us to trade goods and services without the need for barter.

Without money though, in one form or another, it would be kind of hard to get anything done.

Due to the limitations of the barter system.

a reply to: LSU2018

Good luck slowing the pace LSU2018.

I dont think we get to set that any longer and it only seems to increase as technology progresses.

www.weforum.org...

this is the end result of that direction.

a reply to: andy06shake

Barter as an economy has never existed.

If money disappeared tomorrow groups of people would set some sort of moral standard and impose it on those who don't align with it and enslave each other.

Ironic as it sounds, money has freed us from slave societies.

a reply to: strongfp

Actually, barter economies have existed throughout history and still exist in some forms today.

Early societies such as the Mesopotamians and Egyptians used barter as a primary means of exchange.

And during the colonial period in America, bartering was common due to the lack of a standardised currency with settlers trading goods like tobacco, fish, or textiles for tools or other necessities.

And in this day of age we have the likes of online barter platforms and apps like Bunz or Swap.com where users can trade items and services directly.

But they have their limitation hence the reason for money.

a reply to: andy06shake

Barter and the land of barter is a grand myth conjured up by moral philosophers like Adam Smith trying to spin a narrative about the benevolent Europeans bringing civilization to the Americas.

Ancient Egypt had a complex economy based on wheat production, and corvee systems. No one had to barter.
Same in Mesopotamia, an agricultural based economy, but instead of grain being the king of currency animals were used.

Barter suggests that no medium of exchange is used. Which is a false claim, there's always a catch, a further deeper debt to be paid because no two items are of equal value. This is why even when money isn't present in a lot of transactions there's always some form of keeping track, or furthering the transaction down the line in the form of interest, think of tally sticks.

originally posted by: putnam6

originally posted by: berbofthegreen
I always felt that I Robot was a great novel that explored the problems that technology can and probably will cause in the areas of human employment.

The point of all that text was to say that in a nutshell, when people are given money, they do not use it wisely and it does not help them make better decisions.

One point Ive ever seen about UBI that semi-makes sense is it takes those who do not want to have jobs out of the workplace. Leaving those that do want to work in a better workplace environment.

Secondly and I believe this as well, whatever you give to people as UBI will be spent and most should go back into the local economy.

Lastly it may end some petty thefts here and there, and the privilege could possibly be taken away as another form of deterrent for some crimes.

At least thats one theory I've seen bandied about, it's not necessarily about encouraging the slackers to work, it's about creating a better more efficient workforce by removing the 10-15% bottom-tier

Those few positives don't outshine the negatives or the price tag

Here are some problems that I see with your points. (Not picking on you)

1. Less and less people want to work. Which is why I believe so many 'newcomers' have been let in across our borders, hoping they will fill the jobs and pick up the slack that citizens won't.

2. Maybe they should donate money to the local workers who actually work within the local economies and bypass the people who don't want to work.

3. I've known a lot of people, friends and family and their friends and family, on welfare. Full blown welfare for many, many years. The amount of thieves among them is horrendous. My own family members have stolen from me, and I didn't even have much, in fact much less than many of them. They thieve when ever they can from whomever, with no care. I have distanced myself as much as possible. It had gotten so bad, I wouldn't go anywhere with them and finally quit associating with them. I now live in another state quite far from the state I grew up in and where they all remain. And for the record, petty thievery is sill stealing. It's a crime. Being poor doesn't justify it. I also believe rarely are the thieves stealing rice and beans or a few apples and a loaf of bread in which case, I would have some sympathy.

There are no positives to UBI as a 'normal' way of life for the general population. A sense of contributing to a successful working society is important for mental health. People need to be needed. I don't know of any society ever in history that was successful with literally no one working to help put food on their table. So in a UBI world, who works and who doesn't, how long or how hard, menial or skilled, at what rate and benefit and what's the the motivation and who decides if no one wants to work? Because as I noted earlier in this post, less and less people want gainful employment.

a reply to: LSU2018

It's bad. The school where I work has about 46 people which includes full and part time staff consisting of bus drivers, educators, office personnel, administrators, custodial and kitchen staff. I'd say about 20 of the staff are over 50, 10 of us are over 60. We all work our butts off and quite frankly, it's what we know, we have done it all our lives.

Many of the new younger hires that we're able to attract are lazy, looking for ways to NOT work and still get a paycheck. They don't get terminated though, it's too difficult to find living bodies to fill the positions. Not that we have a lot of turn over because we don't, but a few every other year or so. The administrators don't know what to do. Many of them are older and see the writing on the wall. We have a new younger superintendent whose whole attitude is 'don't worry, be happy' or 'it will all work out' without any action. In the next 3 years, the school will lose about 8 key older employees. I wonder how happy the school will be then. I know of several schools and other businesses in similar predicaments. I don't know how a business today that faces such issues can possibly stay in business, which is a likely one of the reasons so many are closing at such a rapid rate.

Many businesses today have or are facing this situation, regardless if they are in the public or private sector, especially because of or since Covid19 shutdowns. That was a pivotal point which drastically changed the face of 'business as usual'. And it's not over yet.

a reply to: strongfp

Adam Smith would have a hard time conjuring ancient Mesopotamia, Egypt, Greece, China, Medieval Europe, Vikings, Sub-Saharan Africa, and Polynesian Culture.

Where the medium of exchange used in the ancient past was goods and services, if money was not available or even a thing.

Again barter economies have existed throughout history and still exist in some forms today.

That's just a fact strongfp no matter which way you care to complicate it.

a reply to: andy06shake

I don't want to drift the thread too much... but I'll leave you with the rabbit hole to go down:

No ethnographic studies have shown that any present or past society has used barter without any other medium of exchange or measurement, and anthropologists have found no evidence that money emerged from barter. Nevertheless, economists since the times of Adam Smith (1723–1790) often imagined pre-modern societies as examples to use the inefficiency of barter to explain the emergence of money, of "the" economy, and hence of the discipline of economics itself

en.wikipedia.org...

There's a good book called "Debt: The First 5,000 Years", by David Greaber, it's a fascinating book that goes deeper into the subject.

a reply to: strongfp

I do like rabbit holes mate.

But money originated from the inefficiencies and limitations of the barter system.

Because the direct exchange of goods required a "double coincidence of wants."

It came about so as to simplify trade.

And societies have used commodities like grains, shells, metals, and even salt as a form of money long before the likes of the paper/coin sorts ever came about.

a reply to: andy06shake

Can you provide one solid example of this barter system ever implemented as an economic model in human history?

The evidence I've seen say its never happened.
The argument isn't that barter doesn't exist, it's that the overly exaggerated rousseauian stages of development assumes "before money" we must have done some simple primitive process like bartering. Which isn't true at all.

a reply to: strongfp

The barter system implemented as an economic model in ancient Mesopotamia springs to mind.

Particularly the Sumerian civilisation around 3000 BCE.

Where the direct exchange of goods and services without a standardised currency was common practice.

The Sumerians eventually developed forms of proto-money, aka barley and silver.

But the early system was predominantly barter-based, particularly within the temple economy.

And the existence of barter systems in ancient temples, is well-documented by historians and archaeologists.