It's time for Federal Guaranteed Employment

kind of a shame that they didn't give the idea enough time to see what the long term effects would be.  They're ending it because people are resentful of giving a stipend to anyone who's not working.  From the NYT article:

But the Finnish government’s decision to halt the experiment at the end of 2018 highlights a challenge to basic income’s very conception. Many people in Finland — and in other lands — chafe at the idea of handing out cash without requiring that people work.

that said, it's the reason it will not be implement in any significant way in the U.S., at least not in our lifetimes.  A lot of Americans think unemployment benefits are a terrible thing, even though all of us pay unemployment insurance premiums when we're working specifically to get us through times when we might be jobless.

While I agree that the only thing holding America back from a UBI system is the American people, it's worth noting that in Finland they only gave UBI to 2000 people, and as the end of the article says:

This may be the main reason that basic income has lost momentum in Finland: It is effectively redundant.

Health care is furnished by the state. University education is free. Jobless people draw generous unemployment benefits and have access to some of the most effective training programs on earth.

“In a sense,” said Mr. Hiilamo, the social policy professor, “Finland already has basic income.”

@RealityForAll, those are not bad ideas for taxes. In fact, they're pretty innovative. But they have nothing to do with whether the government should provide UBI.

shoshannah said:
You know all the beautiful old post offices? They were built by the WPA.

 And I did not bring it up

During the Depression, my future father in law who was from Kearny was sent to Montana with the CCC. They downed trees, built roads etc.  After a few years he came home 10 lbs heavier and a few hundred dollars deposited in his account.

We need a UBI. It can be funded by getting rid of all other social programs except Medicare. The money we'd save in administrative and personnel costs by getting rid of SNAP, unemployment insurance, WIC, and everything else would be huge. I believe there have been economic analyses. Just keep it simple. There should be only two social programs: UBI and Medicare for all. We already have the infrastructure for UBI via the social security system. So it would kind of be like social security for all.

shoshannah said:
We need a UBI. It can be funded by getting rid of all other social programs except Medicare. The money we'd save in administrative and personnel costs by getting rid of SNAP, unemployment insurance, WIC, and everything else would be huge. I believe there have been economic analyses. Just keep it simple. There should be only two social programs: UBI and Medicare for all. We already have the infrastructure for UBI via the social security system. So it would kind of be like social security for all.

 This is exactly what I would like to see happen, too.

It would also eliminate fraud. Every living U.S. citizen gets the exact same amount. When you're born, your ss number initiates your info into the system. When you die, your death certificate is filed into the system. Done. It's kind of like my kids' allowance. You get X amount (and I pay for your health care). Do with it as you wish. Don't ask me for more.

Tom_Reingold said:
@RealityForAll, those are not bad ideas for taxes. In fact, they're pretty innovative. But they have nothing to do with whether the government should provide UBI.

 Without a source to pay the UBI (AKA negative income tax), UBI will never happen (hence, the discussion of new taxes).

the GOP didn't look for a source of funding to offset all their tax cuts.  It's not as though Congress has never passed legislation without funding.  Or started a war without funding it.  If UBI is a non-starter it's for other reasons.

RealityForAll said:

Tom_Reingold said:
@RealityForAll, those are not bad ideas for taxes. In fact, they're pretty innovative. But they have nothing to do with whether the government should provide UBI.

 Without a source to pay the UBI (AKA negative income tax), UBI will never happen (hence, the discussion of new taxes).

 The source is the elimination of all benefits (SNAP, WIC, unemployment insurance, Medicaid, SSI, and everything else except for Medicare for all) and the enormous cost of running them. 

ridski said:

shoshannah said:
We need a UBI. It can be funded by getting rid of all other social programs except Medicare. The money we'd save in administrative and personnel costs by getting rid of SNAP, unemployment insurance, WIC, and everything else would be huge. I believe there have been economic analyses. Just keep it simple. There should be only two social programs: UBI and Medicare for all. We already have the infrastructure for UBI via the social security system. So it would kind of be like social security for all.

 This is exactly what I would like to see happen, too.

 I can't tell if you guys are joking or not, because on the face of it this seems like a terrible idea.

drummerboy said:

ridski said:

shoshannah said:
We need a UBI. It can be funded by getting rid of all other social programs except Medicare. The money we'd save in administrative and personnel costs by getting rid of SNAP, unemployment insurance, WIC, and everything else would be huge. I believe there have been economic analyses. Just keep it simple. There should be only two social programs: UBI and Medicare for all. We already have the infrastructure for UBI via the social security system. So it would kind of be like social security for all.

 This is exactly what I would like to see happen, too.

 I can't tell if you guys are joking or not, because on the face of it this seems like a terrible idea.

 I'm not joking.  Why do you think it is a bad idea?

ml1 said:
the GOP didn't look for a source of funding to offset all their tax cuts.  

 Presumably we would like to do a better job.

Why would I be joking? The UBI is in place of, not in addition to, current benefits. The idea is to simplify and to make it universal. The UBI would amount to a greater dollar value than, say, food stamps and unemployment combined. Cradle to grave. Thing is, when you have a job, you'd bank the UBI (hopefully). Or maybe it would go in an account, like a social security account, and you apply to get access to it when you need to withdraw funds (but it should not be difficult to do).

Klinker said:

ml1 said:
the GOP didn't look for a source of funding to offset all their tax cuts.  

 Presumably we would like to do a better job.

 sure.  I'm just pointing out that the notion that UBI isn't happening because we don't have a dedicated means of paying for it is way off base.  It's not happening because the vast majority of voters wouldn't support the idea of other people getting "free stuff."

ml1 said:

Klinker said:

ml1 said:
the GOP didn't look for a source of funding to offset all their tax cuts.  

 Presumably we would like to do a better job.

 sure.  I'm just pointing out that the notion that UBI isn't happening because we don't have a dedicated means of paying for it is way off base.  It's not happening because the vast majority of voters wouldn't support the idea of other people getting "free stuff."

 Thing is, that's what so appealing about it. It's not "other people." Every U.S. citizen living in the U.S. would get free stuff cradle to grave.

I don't think anyone's joking about the UBI. I'm talking about this part:

It can be funded by getting rid of all other social programs except Medicare. The money we'd save in administrative and personnel costs by getting rid of SNAP, unemployment insurance, WIC, and everything else would be huge. I believe there have been economic analyses. Just keep it simple. There should be only two social programs: UBI and Medicare for all. We already have the infrastructure for UBI via the social security system. So it would kind of be like social security for all.

Not sure how anyone thinks anything can be accomplished by destroying the safety net. At best, if you did that and had a UBI, you'd maintain the status quo. At worst, you'd just be screwing over the poor.

Anyway, as ml1 has said, funding is not really the issue.

drummerboy said:
I don't think anyone's joking about the UBI. I'm talking about this part:



It can be funded by getting rid of all other social programs except Medicare. The money we'd save in administrative and personnel costs by getting rid of SNAP, unemployment insurance, WIC, and everything else would be huge. I believe there have been economic analyses. Just keep it simple. There should be only two social programs: UBI and Medicare for all. We already have the infrastructure for UBI via the social security system. So it would kind of be like social security for all.


Not sure how anyone thinks anything can be accomplished by destroying the safety net. At best, if you did that and had a UBI, you'd maintain the status quo. At worst, you'd just be screwing over the poor.
Anyway, as ml1 has said, funding is not really the issue.

 Instead of all these piecemeal benefit programs, you have one program: the UBI. If a poor person has no job but gets food stamps and Medicaid, how is that any better than getting a UBI and Medicare for all?  There'd be no need for a separate unemployment insurance program because ... UBI is already in place. No need for SSI because ... already getting the UBI. No need for a separate WIC program (does that still exist?) because EACH person, including the baby, gets a UBI. Bottom line is that the UBI should be set at an amount that does not put people in a worse position.

shoshannah said:

ml1 said:

Klinker said:

ml1 said:
the GOP didn't look for a source of funding to offset all their tax cuts.  

 Presumably we would like to do a better job.

 sure.  I'm just pointing out that the notion that UBI isn't happening because we don't have a dedicated means of paying for it is way off base.  It's not happening because the vast majority of voters wouldn't support the idea of other people getting "free stuff."

 Thing is, that's what so appealing about it. It's not "other people." Every U.S. citizen living in the U.S. would get free stuff cradle to grave.

but the opposition is going to focus on "other people" who will refuse to work because they're getting "free stuff."  I think all of what you're taking about would be great ideas.  I'm just trying to be realistic about how this will be opposed.  The GOP will undoubtedly fight it tooth and nail because their biggest benefactors would never want to pay any taxes to support it.  And their messaging will be aimed at the same aggrieved middle aged white people who support Donald Trump.  Sadly, those are the folks who would likely benefit quite a bit from such a plan.  But they're going to be made to believe that it will be free money going to "lazy" non-white people.

Shoshana, 

This idea certainly has merit and warrants study, however if the baby gets a UBI right away, this will incentivize the poor to have more children, which is not really a good thing, IMO. 

Unless you are suggesting that the money be put in a trust or something?

jimmurphy said:
Shoshana, 


This idea certainly has merit and warrants study, however if the baby gets a UBI right away, this will incentivize the poor to have more children, which is not really a good thing, IMO. 


Unless you are suggesting that the money be put in a trust or something?

 Yeah, I was kind of wondering about that too. You don't want to trigger run away population growth when we should probably be heading in the other direction.

I bet some clever person has come up with a work around for this but I don't know what it is.

ml1 said:

shoshannah said:

ml1 said:

Klinker said:

ml1 said:
the GOP didn't look for a source of funding to offset all their tax cuts.  

 Presumably we would like to do a better job.

 sure.  I'm just pointing out that the notion that UBI isn't happening because we don't have a dedicated means of paying for it is way off base.  It's not happening because the vast majority of voters wouldn't support the idea of other people getting "free stuff."

 Thing is, that's what so appealing about it. It's not "other people." Every U.S. citizen living in the U.S. would get free stuff cradle to grave.

but the opposition is going to focus on "other people" who will refuse to work because they're getting "free stuff."  I think all of what you're taking about would be great ideas.  I'm just trying to be realistic about how this will be opposed.  The GOP will undoubtedly fight it tooth and nail because their biggest benefactors would never want to pay any taxes to support it.  And their messaging will be aimed at the same aggrieved middle aged white people who support Donald Trump.  Sadly, those are the folks who would likely benefit quite a bit from such a plan.  But they're going to be made to believe that it will be free money going to "lazy" non-white people.

 UBI has support from both liberal and conservative think tanks. See my previous thread on this.

https://maplewood.worldwebs.co...

It's threads like this that always make me think of this rant.  

jimmurphy said:
Shoshana, 


This idea certainly has merit and warrants study, however if the baby gets a UBI right away, this will incentivize the poor to have more children, which is not really a good thing, IMO. 


Unless you are suggesting that the money be put in a trust or something?

 The evidence does not support the contention that people have more children to get benefits.

https://fair.org/extra/five-me...

I'm thinking that everyone's UBI should be deposited in some sort of account, and that individuals have to proactively do some administrative task to make a withdrawal. No reason should be necessary for the withdrawal, but perhaps this would encourage more savings.

It is an essential American myth that anyone who works hard and is honest and morally upright will prosper financially. Therefore if one is poor it is a result of his laziness or immorality. 

Therefore, giving any sort of government benefit to the poor rewards and encourages laziness and  immorality. 

These beliefs are convenient for the rich in that it justifies their desire to not pay taxes and it further justifies or rationalizes greed or even criminality of a portion of the rich.

Now the great trick the rich have pulled off is convincing  a large portion the so-called "middle-class" that they have not achieved prosperity on account of the laziness of the poor.

LOST said:
It is an essential American myth that anyone who works hard and is honest and morally upright will prosper financially. Therefore if one is poor it is a result of his laziness or immorality. 
Therefore, giving any sort of government benefit to the poor rewards and encourages laziness and  immorality. 
These beliefs are convenient for the rich in that it justifies their desire to not pay taxes and it further justifies or rationalizes greed or even criminality of a portion of the rich.
Now the great trick the rich have pulled off is convincing  a large portion the so-called "middle-class" that they have not achieved prosperity on account of the laziness of the poor.

Do you think that our efforts to help the poor have increased or decreased social mobility in this country?  Do you really think there is some kind of conspiracy against the poor?  

In a functioning system, people who are willing to work hard, and delay gratification will get ahead.  That is still possible today, but it is tougher than it used to be, and still getting tougher. 

terp said:

LOST said:
It is an essential American myth that anyone who works hard and is honest and morally upright will prosper financially. Therefore if one is poor it is a result of his laziness or immorality. 
Therefore, giving any sort of government benefit to the poor rewards and encourages laziness and  immorality. 
These beliefs are convenient for the rich in that it justifies their desire to not pay taxes and it further justifies or rationalizes greed or even criminality of a portion of the rich.
Now the great trick the rich have pulled off is convincing  a large portion the so-called "middle-class" that they have not achieved prosperity on account of the laziness of the poor.

Do you think that our efforts to help the poor have increased or decreased social mobility in this country?  Do you really think there is some kind of conspiracy against the poor?  
In a functioning system, people who are willing to work hard, and delay gratification will get ahead.  That is still possible today, but it is tougher than it used to be, and still getting tougher. 

 I am no expert and have not studied this in depth but believe that many efforts to help the poor have increased social mobility. This is probably most true with efforts aimed at children such as early learning programs and nutrition programs.

Some people who work hard and delay gratification get ahead. Some do not. Some who don't work or delay gratification but were born into wealth get ahead. 

I am now going to look for the famous saying about fate. This predates Capitalism, Socialism, even Feudalism and Mercantilism:

http://biblehub.com/ecclesiastes/9-11.htm

New International Version I have seen something else under the sun: The race is not to the swift or the battle to the strong, nor does food come to the wise or wealth to the brilliant or favor to the learned; but time and chance happen to them all. 

  New Living Translation I have observed something else under the sun. The fastest runner doesn't always win the race, and the strongest warrior doesn't always win the battle. The wise sometimes go hungry, and the skillful are not necessarily wealthy. And those who are educated don't always lead successful lives. It is all decided by chance, by being in the right place at the right time.

  English Standard Version Again I saw that under the sun the race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, nor bread to the wise, nor riches to the intelligent, nor favor to those with knowledge, but time and chance happen to them all. 

  New American Standard Bible  I again saw under the sun that the race is not to the swift and the battle is not to the warriors, and neither is bread to the wise nor wealth to the discerning nor favor to men of ability; for time and chance overtake them all. 

  King James Bible I returned, and saw under the sun, that the race is not to the swift, nor the battle to the strong, neither yet bread to the wise, nor yet riches to men of understanding, nor yet favour to men of skill; but time and chance happeneth to them all. 

  Christian Standard Bible Again I saw under the sun that the race is not to the swift, or the battle to the strong, or bread to the wise, or riches to the discerning, or favor to the skillful; rather, time and chance happen to all of them.

I won't posit universal rules.  There are all kinds of factors that bear on a person's life. But among my acquaintances/friends from youth through higher education, almost all of whom are from the lower middle class to "middle" middle class, those who worked hard got ahead.  

There are no guarantees in life and everything isn't always totally fair. However, if you work hard, conduct yourself well, you will move forward.  

I would agree that education is an issue.  However, AFAICT the more the government gets involved and the further that government is from the community, the more of a mess they seem to make.