Universal Basic Income

There would be a bit of inflation (at least initially) but all the studies I've seen suggest it would be similar to that which occurs when minimum wages rise in that it would not be enough to counteract the effect of the payment.

The trick with these things is finding the level that balances providing enough to produce the desirable economic outcomes without going overboard. Once a level is established I imagine the best approach would be to peg it to CPI.

Over time a UBI could increase the supply side of the economy as well. Social Mobility seems to be highest in countries where there is an effective blend of capitalism that rewards risk taking, and social support that lessens the potential devastation of something not working out as hoped:

https://www.visualcapitalist.com/ranked-the-social-mobility-of-82-countries/

In regards to any kind of means testing, introducing it would negate many of the efficiency benefits of a UBI. Rather than any kind of means testing, I would reduce the tax free threshold (not sure what this is called in the US, but in Aus the first 18k of annual income has no income tax applied)

Modern economics in a nutshell!

In Modern Monetary Theory government stimulus can effectively "unlock" potential in the economy where there is an unutilised capacity for supply. Increasing the demand causes an increase in supply to meet it, which makes income for people who create more demand and so on.

The trick isn't that coming out of "nowhere", it's ensuring that you are stimulating that unutilised capacity of the economy and not just inflating the existing systems.

If I’m the one in business and I’m supplying the goods/services, why would I absorb that cost?

Ultimately, I'll be for anything that reduces income inequality and lifts up the people who most need to be lifted up, so if it can be demonstrated that UBI is the best way to do that, I'll support it. But I have two main reservations.

One, I haven't seen evidence that, if implemented on a systemwide level, it would not be inflationary. None of the experiments I've heard of have been on a systemwide level. The closest thing is probably Alaska's Permanent Dividend, but despite its geographic isolation, Alaska is still part of the same economic system as the rest of the U.S. And pricing isn't just determined by supply and demand; it's also determined by sellers' perceptions of what the market will bear.

Two, I'm not convinced that paying everyone is an efficient use of money. I'm doing fine, so why should we, as a society, waste money by giving me an extra $1,000 a month? Why not target the help to the people who need it more? I understand that sometimes the mechanisms involved in means-testing can cost more than the money saved (which is why, for instance, drug testing welfare recipients is such a wasteful scam). But it seems like the tax system gives us a built-in way to do means-testing, and indeed, that's what happened with the CARES Act stimulus. Why not handle it that way?

Then welcome to capitalism.

This kind of hits on my main objection to a Universal Basic Income. Its advocates like to call it that, but almost none of them actually mean the "universal" part. What they really want is a means-tested supplemental income payment, so that everyone in a given population starts at the same income level, regardless of individual circumstances.

Say the "poverty level" is defined as a single adult making $20000/year (number pulled entirely out of my ass). The "UBI" would guarantee that no-one would be under that line. However, if you happened to be employed at some job that paid very well - let's say you're making $150000/year - then you wouldn't be getting a UBI payment at all. At some point on the income scale the UBI payment would no longer apply to you because you were a person with sufficient means. Most of the plans I've heard described work along these lines. So they're not "universal" at all, they're just a sort of minimum wage.

And yes, a UBI is inflationary. More money floating around the economy causes inflation.

It's only more money floating around the economy if you assume trickle down economics is a load of shit.

No, trickle down assumes that dumping money at the high end works down through the economy, when in fact giving extra money to people who already have a lot generally means it gets put into savings or investments, not "spent." Dumping money in at the low end, where it actually gets spent on stuff, is inflationary. One of the reasons why you always hear stuff like "the Fed is controlling the money supply to prevent inflation."

Is the risk of inflation outweighed by the benefits to society and the individual recipients?

I guess the question at hand is, does the inflation undo the benefits to society and the individual recipients.

Or is the real issue finding an excuse to deny benefits to poor people who obviously deserve to be punished since the poor are obviously of inferior character.

Yes. That's got to be it. No chance at all that we arm-chair warriors on an obscure internet message board could possibly have any valid questions about the greater macro-economics ramifications of suddenly giving everyone in the country a big paycheck every month. Definitely we all just hate poor people.

Yep. Poor people are poor because they are lazy fucks who don’t apply themselves. That’s what you wanted to hear, right?

That was a real question. Is the hypothetical risk great enough to deny real, measurable benefits to poor people and society as a whole?

Yeah, this. If the inflation rate is relatively reasonable, like 2% or so, then no biggee. If it's up around 15% or more, then we have problems.

Is the risk of inflation high enough to justify not trying it?

That's what we're asking.

This seems unnecessarily cruel. Homeless people have it hard enough, why burden them with that much Monopoly money?

No, what I'm saying is if the UBI is the driving cause for the inflation. If it's minor, then no harm no foul. If it's high inflation, then UBI is not a good idea.

Who decides?

Sounds like we're saying the same thing.

The invisible hand.

Does it touch you at night?

Results from Stockton.

While I'm glad this test pilot seemed to have worked, there is no UBI high enough for me to consider moving to California's Florida known as Stockton.

Stockton, a suburban city between the liberal Bay Area and Silicon Valley



lolwut

One of the few cases where a language that pluralizes its adjectives or articles would come in handy. Should be parsed as "between (the liberal Bay Area and Silicon Valley) and (the more conservative, rural counties to the east)."

That said, it's not really true either. It's very much in a rural county.