[smalltalks]

Technically speaking , many European countries already have "Basic Income". ( France , Sweden , Norway...)

They are reserved for individuals "Not Active" though ( Unemployed and not looking for a Job ) over a certain age.

Those "BI" massively lower poverty , which usually massively reduce crime-rate , drugs related usage etc...

With 700€/Month you aren't gonna far anyway, you have enaugh for food and rent , and that's it...

For America it's different, America cannot technically afford "BI" because the entirety of the US economy has been built on having 20% of the population living under the poverty line in order for good & services to be cheap and consumed in mass.

Having "UBI" in US would create a skyrocket inflation because worker who are paid 10$/Hour would drop their work and stay at home and do something that is more profitable for them.

Hence , the American culture revolve almost entirely around production of good and services for happiness.

In France few workers drop off the "Industrial" economy , they buy a Farm and live of "BI" and their own agriculture and go back to the city to buy commodities ( Gas , Cosmetic etc... ), it's common in Italy and Spain as well IIRC.

[BosunoB]

>Having "UBI" in US would create a skyrocket inflation because worker who are paid 10$/Hour would drop their work and stay at home and do something that is more profitable for them.

Unless you have some hard data, your argument doesn't seem very convincing. The numbers could easily work out in any way, and it would probably depend on the actual amount of UBI you use, because the effect on the workforce and the spending power of consumers would be important for determining the amount of inflation. Studies are useful in situations like this.

Also, I mean, this subtly doubles as an argument against a minimum wage increase. In the same sense that a UBI might slightly decrease the workforce and lead to higher wages for those remaining (and inflation), a minimum wage increase would also. Do you have a proposed tool to increase the wages of an immiserated 20% of the population that doesn't also have the potential to cause inflation?

[ueueshitashita]

> Unless you have some hard data, your argument doesn't seem very convincing.

Seeing as plenty of people are earning more with the federal unemployment compensation than they would if they were working full time, I'm not sure what exactly is "unconvincing" about it.

[jedberg]

People keep forgetting that a UBI won't cover immigrants. Immigrants would end up doing all the jobs that citizens don't want to do.

That's the biggest problem with UBI. It creates a default class system.

[burrows]

If only one country provides UBI to immigrants, that country will see a rise in immigration. At what point do taxes raised from the new residents exceed the money paid out?

Or maybe you're talking about UBI to immigrants, but not actually allowing any immigration.

[mydongle]

I don't know what immigrants mean here. Like migrant workers or illegal immigrants?

Otherwise, we are a country full of immigrants who have become citizens or legal residents and would benefit from UBI.

[jedberg]

Immigrants means anyone in the US that isn’t a citizen.

Legal residents would not get UBI until they become citizens.

[mydongle]

Why wouldn't we allow legal residents to receive it?

[jedberg]

Politics mainly. It's already hard to convince people to give up part of their wealth for their fellow citizens. Good luck convincing them to give it up for non-citizens.

Also, logistics. If immigrants can get the UBI, then people would flood in from all over the world just to get UBI. You'd either have a ton of expense, or you'd have to make legal immigration nearly impossible.

[wlesieutre]

It would certainly be challenging to be a non-citizen resident if you have to pay the same taxes as everyone else, but are cut out of such a major benefit.

Basically a gigantic extra tax for not having citizenship.

[matthewbauer]

Without the right to vote, I think it would be hard to get much political will for it. Even if we started out giving it to noncitizens, it would be the first thing cut in budget cuts.

[anonAndOn]

Doesn't that happen in the US already? Farm work, hotel cleaning, groundskeeping... all heavily reliant upon immigrant labor.

[jedberg]

Yes. Which is why the UBI wouldn't make nearly as much difference as people think. Nearly all the "work people don't want to do" is already done by immigrants who won't qualify for UBI (but would still be paying the VAT taxes that fund it).

That's basically how the math works out. Immigrants fund a lot of the UBI by paying into it but not benefiting from it. We would need a lot of protections for non-citizen workers to protect them from being exploited.

To be clear, I'm a big fan of UBI and think it's a great idea, I just worry about the unintended consequences.

[wesammikhail]

> Technically speaking , many European countries already have "Basic Income". ( France , Sweden , Norway...)

No they have social safety nets not UBI. You are equating two ENTIRELY different concepts.

[tomcooks]

> Technically speaking , many European countries already have "Basic Income". ( France , Sweden , Norway...)

Are you talking about welfare? Because that's far from universal. I might have misunderstood you so if you can clarify.

> it's common in Italy and Spain as well IIRC.

Have you got any sources on these claims about France, Italy and Spain? Never heard of this.

[Melting_Harps]

> Have you got any sources on these claims about France, Italy and Spain? Never heard of this.

I'm one, I worked on the first Permaculture farm in Italy, (Modena) and it was nearly entirely funded by some incredibly underfunded Ag subsidies, and the elderly Mother's pension/retirement fund. It's labour pool was mainly made up of volunteers and apprentices like myself besides the 50 year old son who came back from Germany after a messy divorce.

When I arrived the eldest son (and to much lesser extent the youngest of his children, an 11 year old boy) had to do what was done by both parents and his siblings now entirely by himself. So Sales figures were less than optimal, even if the produce was amazing he'd be way too exhausted to do all of the farming duties throughout the day, so trying to get more exposure by going to more Farmer's Markets was out of the question.

Labour was the really needed part of the equation, once we got the Team organized and with solid schedules we were able to expand to 3-5 farmer's market a week as opposed to the single Saturday morning one that had been done for the past few years. The costs of transport and fees for the stands were higher but that was overcome with a larger volume of deliverable goods, as less was perished by sitting in the non-electric storage area after weekly harvest and we started to re-supply some local restaurants with our excess along the way to the farmers markets, too.

After I left we had turned sales around to a 10-year high, reached back when most of the family (2 parents and 5 late teen/early 20s children and a grandparent) could work with only just 3 extra men and myself in the fields in the morning and then going to farmer markets in the afternoons.

Suffice it to say, I met hundreds of people operating with some variation of that model at what I can best describe as an 'underground Farmer's Market,' where it felt more like a carnival than a typical one it was entirely 'Industry only,' some local chefs from the surrounding area arrived, too. Someone with a stand near us said they saw Massimo Bottura at one I didn't attend as I had to help in the fields that day.

In short, its a thing. WWOOF [1], the network I used for my apprenticeship, has most of the farms listed operating like that for decades now. I met lots of volunteers and apprentices in France, Italy, and Spain and much of Europe as far as parts of sub-Sahara Africa.

With that said, I think the majority of Farm labour should become automated and instead of making more Farm laborers alone, its best to offer people with limited opportunities in the City other opportunities to own farms with low cost barriers to the these tools. Land, especially between 'LA and Mississippi' is severely under utilized. On a road trip to Kansas City we could go 100 miles across Kansas before we saw anything remotely looking like it was inhabited by Humans.

1: https://wwoof.net/

[pharke]

>In France few workers drop off the "Industrial" economy , they buy a Farm and live of "BI" and their own agriculture and go back to the city to buy commodities ( Gas , Cosmetic etc... ), it's common in Italy and Spain as well IIRC.

Maybe this would actually be a better implementation. Rather than pouring resources into deciding who qualifies for BI you could just establish "havens" for people who cannot or will not work within the current system. The only qualification then is to move to that haven after which you will be provided with a place to live, an optional job, food, clothing, etc. but limited to only what's necessary. Essentially establishing small scale communes within the larger body of a capitalist nation. It could provide an escape for people who don't want to partake in the rat race and just want to exist quietly and pursue their own interests while living spartan lifestyles. You could even go the other way and provide other special zones for unfettered capitalism with 0 taxes and no publicly funded institutions. As long as people can choose where they want to live and can leave when it no longer suits them I don't see why this couldn't work to some degree.

[aiyodev]

Studies suggest the opposite. UBI does not cause inflation.

[burrows]

> With 700€/Month you aren't gonna far anyway, you have enaugh for food and rent , and that's it...

Contingent benefits disincentivize people from participating in the economy. People paid to do nothing... do nothing.

> For America it's different, America cannot technically afford "BI" because the entirety of the US economy has been built on having 20% of the population living under the poverty line in order for good & services to be cheap and consumed in mass.

Under any economic regime there will be a poorest 20% at any given time.

> Having "UBI" in US would create a skyrocket inflation because worker who are paid 10$/Hour would drop their work and stay at home and do something that is more profitable for them.

It causes inflation because more cash is chasing the same number of goods.

> Hence , the American culture revolve almost entirely around production of good and services for happiness.

Propaganda.

[asien]

> Propaganda.

Nope it’s not.

In order for welfare to be « legalized » , and for taxpayer to accept that their money will go to «Non-Active» individuals it’s necessary to have a cultural fit between the two.

You cant tax like Norway or France ( 40% overall ) if people believe that you should work to earn a living, it’s not right to do so. American would never accept such sky high taxe rate if it cause against their believes and thus their culture.

US rely on entrepreneurship which create wealth which enable people to buy goods/services.

This is 100% cultural not propaganda.

[joppy]

A very high progressive tax is compatible with the belief that people should work to earn a living. If I have a lot of money, I can invest it and for almost no work grow my wealth or get another income stream. How is that fair? And why does this observation often get left behind?

[par1970]

> If I have a lot of money, I can invest it and for almost no work grow my wealth or get another income stream. How is that fair?

One doesn’t just “have” a lot of money. People work hard for their money. A high wage is a signal saying, “We (society) value what you do and wish more people would do it.”

If you think profitable investing is easy then you don’t invest. Ask yourself, if profitable investing is easy, then why do wealthy people pay venture capitalists to choose their investments?

[missedthecue]

How is that unfair?

[williamdclt]

> Contingent benefits disincentivize people from participating in the economy. People paid to do nothing... do nothing.

That's, at best, highly debatable. I would like data showing that (or the opposite)

> Under any economic regime there will be a poorest 20% at any given time.

That's not what "20% of the population living under the poverty line" means. It means that 20% of people don't earn enough to live decently, which is highly dependent on the economic regime

[burrows]

Who decides what it means to "live decently"? Maybe I believe that I can't live decently without a yacht and manservant.

[somewhereoutth]

A lot of the UBI in Europe is benefits in kind. Healthcare is the obvious one, but also police forces with a higher degree of professionalism, better access to (and treatment by) the justice system, clean water, higher food standards, it goes on. Right now we are benefiting from a coherent and effective response to Covid-19. All these things can be found in the US - if you can afford to pay.

[jacobr1]

Or live in the right area. The US does have a lot of high quality government services ... unevenly distributed.