The entire world needs that change! And it is virtually possible for a long time. But it wont happen unless the majority of people pressure for it to come about.
i think it needs more than pressure from people i think it needs a moderate amount of action something to show the masses this system would work maybe building a small city that has a completely self sustaining economy (vertical farms 3D printed houses and generally all needs met within a small area and just giving them resources freely to residents) really the biggest thing holding us back on these issues is inaction we have the technology to solve alot of problems but we do not use it. we have the manpower because of unemployment to fuel these en-devours which would ultimately lead to universal basic income.
If there's a ubi, why work? What's the insensitive? Who's gonna pay for it? It'll be hard since we can't even find the money to have the system now when the government steals 45% of indicators money.
One argument that wasn´t mentioned is that employees can choose to leave dysfunctional companies, instead of trudging on; my point being that it is good for both the society and actually also for the companies. With basic income you would e.g. be less bothered by unscrupulous telemarketers. And it would also be possible to reduce employment security, which would benefit flexibility in the workplace.
The end of call centres would be a godsent. They truly are pits of utter filth which serve no good in the world. No-one wants to work in them and no-one likes hearing from them. A person is never truly free unless they have the ability to say "no" to any situation without fear of consequence. The ability to say "no" to these types of stress-inducing sweat pit jobs would make them crumble and they would be replaced with actual productive activity.
In Scotland with its population of just six million, a UBI would do wonders. Everyone would have enough to get something to eat and pay for a roof over their head, and furthermore it would be their responsibility to do so. That kind of trust builds confidence, rather than some jobsworth micro-managing what someone should deserve and not deserve. It would inject freedom of time into communities. People could actually use their time to help locally by volunteering, all while never having to worry about going homeless themselves. It would encourage entrepreneurship and small business, plus any money given in a UBI would be going straight back into the economy and not hoarded offshore. A Basic income would be the next truly great step towards a genuinely civilised society. The first was the NHS over seventy years ago, so it's high time for another. "Money for nothing" implies that a human life is worthless on its own. We need to value the person and not just their labour.
Once I started looking into robotic systems, AI, exponential growth and UBI universal basic income (freedom dividend) - it's amazing how many TED Talks there are and how many great minds have researched this and put their information out for everyone to see, hear and read. I now support Andrew Yang for president because he is the candidate that has a vision of what will happen and what is happening with these issues. He is forward-thinking on how to grow with the future and not being overcome by it.
Q. With UBI, how do we justify payments for rent or mortgage to existing property owners since UBI will likely inhibit accumulation of wealth sufficient to become new property owners?
It would not stop the accumulation of wealth at all, quite the opposite. It will enable us all to be more mobile and free to spend and do as we please. If someone wants to rent or buy, great, but you're still going to be looking at the price and looking for value for money.
@@aidanhagley8805 Never going to happen. There is no such thing as "free money" it will have consequences - the most obvious being rampant inflation and a collapse of the economy and standard of living.
I like the principle of having UBI personally (not concerning anyone else) but I would only feel comfortable if I worked the same as I do now (which is full-time) and still receive this money on top of the money I earn. That would reward me for my hard work and provide me with more money to use as I wished. I wouldn't feel bad about taking that payment because I would know I work hard enough to say that I deserve it. But I wouldn't ever take that payment if I could work and chose not to. Many people choose not to work or make decisions that preclude them from getting an occupation based on their life choices and their circumstances they have created. The purpose of life has often been to provide for yourself and for those around you who are dependent upon you (such as your children, should you have any). Many people don't want to work, and I don't want anyone to benefit from getting money for nothing because they can't be bothered to go out and work. For those who can't work due to a severe physical or mental illness - that's different. But there are different levels of severity and personally, I think this would be abused by people who "have bills to pay, but don't want to work hard enough to pay them because they know they can get them paid without having to". Some people have very little conscience. Some people have no shame. I've heard so many people say that "people have it so good on benefits, why would you want to work when you can get the money for nothing?" That's not the way society should be. It shouldn't be being abused, but it is. Such a shame for those of us who have had such a great work ethic (regardless of the job) people give us a bad name.
In regard to your first paragraph - that's exactly how it works. You may still continue to work full time for the same pay and your UBI would be on top of that to use as you wish. As to your last paragraph, the right to not work should not be seen as a negative. "Work" being the current definition of labour for money that is. If a person chose not to work a job, but to volunteer, to care in the community, then that should be their right. Similarly, if a person chose to use their UBI to be a full time musician or artist then that should be their right too. All those pursuits are far more important and productive than some sterile office job, and don't forget - even if a person does absolutely nothing at all (which is highly unlikely) they will STILL be contributing by spending the UBI money and injecting it back into the economy instead of being spent by governments on frivolous schemes or hoarded in offshore accounts. The minute you attach conditions to a basic income you are being divisive and are limiting potential, as well as creating stigma.
@@Syklonus And where does all this UBI money come from? The SNP "magic money tree" or are they just going to demand more from Westminster & the UK taxpayer? The is no such thing as a free lunch, some one has to pay for it. Either through rising taxes on those who still actually work (in the private sector - if there is one), or the country going massively into the red with borrowings - leading to rampant inflation.
Has anyone did the math on this or just followed the idea? Where is all this money going to come from? I watched a couple of videos with the basic math done. And here in the US, the population over 18 x 1000 a months is more than what the government takes in. So where is this money going to come from? Raising taxes? Which means products, services, rent and others will rise. But hours and salaries will be cut so businesses can make their profits. This idea will hurt the lower class people more than help. This will turn a lot of countries into poverty.
And guess what, the SNP don't give a cr@p about Scots dying on the streets of Glasgow - so long as the FM can burnish her woke credentials by finding homes for "New Scots". What I'd like to see is the economics of the Universal Basic Income idea. Scotland has a diminishing tax base and I'd like to know how that would pay for allowing people not to work (and I mean people working in non-governmental roles). What we need is to recalibrate our society to make sure people can find fulfilling, well-paid jobs as that is the best way to improve people's self-worth. Cash for nothing does not do that.
i am trying to understand universal basic income and universal basic services - written at 12:33 PM Pacific Daylight Savings Time on Tuesday, 25 June 2019
It's easy - a UBI recognises your worth as a person, a human being, and not just as a source of labour. It's your right as a citizen to a small share of the country's wealth in order to always give you a basic standard of living - that standard being that you will always have enough to buy something to eat and afford a roof over your head. It does not afford you enough to buy cars, phones, holidays etc. Those are luxuries that require additional labour based income on top of your UBI to acquire. It replaces the fear of starvation as the main motivator for work and affords you the small piece of security so that you can follow and build on your your passion without risk of losing your home. You may try to start a business and it may fail, but you will always have that small amount of UBI money coming in so that you will never ever be on the street.
@@Syklonus Two requirements: (1) a strong economy with people willing to be taxed more to pay for the supposed "right" of people who don't want to work, and (2) complete control over immigration with absolutely no UBI going to non-citizens. Neither is likely to happen.
What incentive will people who work actual jobs (not running their mouths for a living) such as miners, loggers, cooks, waiters, truck drivers, house painters, plumbers, home builders, etc. have to work if you pay them not to work? Everyone will be off painting bad watercolors while your electrical grid and water works fall apart! Also, let's say you hand out say $30,000 or $40,000 a year to every person in the USA, you don't think that will cause massive inflation? A giant pool of newly printed money floating around will have no bearing on prices? Businesses won't simply raise their prices to meet this new money supply because...reasons? Also, this sounds a lot like, "To each according to need, from each according to ability." Hmm, where have I heard that before?
Everyone would get it. It's part of the "Universal" bit of Universal Basic Income. You could be a millionaire and still get it, so there is no stigma or class divide.
Okay so who would foot the bill as something like 12k a year per person x how many million people are taking In truth your actual tax revenue as the Uk would only cover a quarter (that is if incentives stay the same) of the cost from taxes. I m not being heartless as we all have to agree that we must produce value to someone that they would exchange our (skill+knowhow)×capital use × time =monetary worker value. Thats not even taking into account supply and demand.
Oh my, have you even done any research at all? A UBI has been costed time and time again under multiple plans, but maybe if you read a book on the subject instead of just rage commenting you'd see that. I recommend any of Professor Guy Standing's books. And yes, you are being heartless, and no we do NOT all have to agree. "Money for labour" and "fear of starvation as motivation" should be replaced with "innovation by inspiration". Food and shelter should NOT be considered luxuries in a "civilised" 21st century society. If you think that they are, then that says more about you as a person than anything else.
Why should there be an incentive to reduce family size? Aren't we always being told that mass immigration to "the West" is necessary because our populations are falling?
the UBI is a useless idea...instead it must be made financially worthwhile for people to share the jobs/work we actually need/want people to do and so everyone can enjoy working LESS...there is no such thing as a shortage of jobs ....just a shortage of people sharing the work.
It didn't fail, becasue it didn't meet the criteria for a UBI trial. It wasn't unconditional as people who were getting it were watched to see if they found work, and it wasn't universal becasue only the unemployed were receiving it.
This sounds disastrous. I know how I would have used that money during young adulthood and it certainly wouldn't have been for anything productive. This would work well in struggling third world countries but in the developed world it would be a nightmare.
You're mistaken, your money would have been used productively. Maybe not in a way productive for YOU back then, but you'd have given it to someone ELSE after all, and maybe THEY would put it to good use. Money you spend doesn't vanish, it circulates.
Sascha Rambeaud spot on!, also, mindsets like this does not represent everyone, not to mention the increased public education and social contribution that people will do with their increased free time.
Well the trials in advanced countries like Canada, Finland have overall not shown negative social consequence re increased tobacco, drugs, alcohol, marijuana consumption etc. What they did show was uptick in work, health, increased time in education, better education achievement, more entrepreneurship. Coupled to universal health & education system it works just great from evidence seen so far.
I guarantee you won't be saying that when your job is automated. Think you're safe? Don't kid yourself. We have ten yeas (MAX) before the s*** hits the fan, and Basic income is no longer a nice idea, but an unmitigated necessity.
We have, without basic income, just slugs at work. So it would not make much of a difference in this regard. But to be serious, according to the science tests, no, it wouldn't. It would be the other way around, we would've more entrepreneurs.
a lot of people are pushing for a UBI, just trying to figure out how you can pull that off. large groups of people would simply walk away from the jobs that they hate and then how are you going to pay your people on UBI? also if I work full time do you think I would get UBI? The bottom line is this: sounds noble but how are you going to make it sustainable? very high taxes? large tariffs on imported goods? Lots of holes in the plan.
Hope we can agree that the finance of a country is totally different than that of a company or a person. To answer your questions: "large groups of people would simply walk away from the jobs that they hate" Is that a bad thing? "if I work full time do you think I would get UBI?" Yes! That is the 'universal' part of it. How do we pay for it? According to many economist it is possible. The money people receive they will use in the real economy, so it will circulate! When you start calculating you also have to include the 'profits'. Looking at experiments mental problems went down, school results went up etc You should see it as an investment in the future. I do agree we need more experiments, but until now all the results are positive.
Of course you would get the UBI even if you work full time, that's why it's called UBI. And do you really think companies would not find anyone for their work that needs doing? You really think noone would want some additional money on TOP of their UBI? Of course if the job is terrible, they would have to offer MORE money, but that's basically how the market SHOULD have worked all the time already, but never did because it was always biased against working people.
The Dauphin UBI experiment showed that hardly anyone stopped working. New mothers took longer to get back to work and young people stayed in school longer. People always want more than just the basics. Would you stop working?
![รวมมิตร ภาพนี้ก็ฮาเหมือนกันนะเนี้ย #4 SS2 [ พากย์นรก MEME.EXE ] | easy boy](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/kl86m9gnLt8/mqdefault.jpg)
The entire world needs that change! And it is virtually possible for a long time. But it wont happen unless the majority of people pressure for it to come about.
i think it needs more than pressure from people i think it needs a moderate amount of action something to show the masses this system would work maybe building a small city that has a completely self sustaining economy (vertical farms 3D printed houses and generally all needs met within a small area and just giving them resources freely to residents) really the biggest thing holding us back on these issues is inaction we have the technology to solve alot of problems but we do not use it. we have the manpower because of unemployment to fuel these en-devours which would ultimately lead to universal basic income.
If there's a ubi, why work? What's the insensitive? Who's gonna pay for it? It'll be hard since we can't even find the money to have the system now when the government steals 45% of indicators money.
One argument that wasn´t mentioned is that employees can choose to leave dysfunctional companies,
instead of trudging on; my point being that it is good for both the society and actually also for the companies.
With basic income you would e.g. be less bothered by unscrupulous telemarketers. And it would also be
possible to reduce employment security, which would benefit flexibility in the workplace.
The end of call centres would be a godsent. They truly are pits of utter filth which serve no good in the world. No-one wants to work in them and no-one likes hearing from them.
A person is never truly free unless they have the ability to say "no" to any situation without fear of consequence. The ability to say "no" to these types of stress-inducing sweat pit jobs would make them crumble and they would be replaced with actual productive activity.
Brilliant, love the idea, we need drastic change, lets do it!
In Scotland with its population of just six million, a UBI would do wonders. Everyone would have enough to get something to eat and pay for a roof over their head, and furthermore it would be their responsibility to do so. That kind of trust builds confidence, rather than some jobsworth micro-managing what someone should deserve and not deserve.
It would inject freedom of time into communities. People could actually use their time to help locally by volunteering, all while never having to worry about going homeless themselves. It would encourage entrepreneurship and small business, plus any money given in a UBI would be going straight back into the economy and not hoarded offshore.
A Basic income would be the next truly great step towards a genuinely civilised society. The first was the NHS over seventy years ago, so it's high time for another. "Money for nothing" implies that a human life is worthless on its own. We need to value the person and not just their labour.
And who's going to pay for this?
Once I started looking into robotic systems, AI, exponential growth and UBI universal basic income (freedom dividend) - it's amazing how many TED Talks there are and how many great minds have researched this and put their information out for everyone to see, hear and read. I now support Andrew Yang for president because he is the candidate that has a vision of what will happen and what is happening with these issues. He is forward-thinking on how to grow with the future and not being overcome by it.
Q. With UBI, how do we justify payments for rent or mortgage to existing property owners since UBI will likely inhibit accumulation of wealth sufficient to become new property owners?
It would not stop the accumulation of wealth at all, quite the opposite. It will enable us all to be more mobile and free to spend and do as we please. If someone wants to rent or buy, great, but you're still going to be looking at the price and looking for value for money.
@@aidanhagley8805 Never going to happen. There is no such thing as "free money" it will have consequences - the most obvious being rampant inflation and a collapse of the economy and standard of living.
I like the principle of having UBI personally (not concerning anyone else) but I would only feel comfortable if I worked the same as I do now (which is full-time) and still receive this money on top of the money I earn. That would reward me for my hard work and provide me with more money to use as I wished. I wouldn't feel bad about taking that payment because I would know I work hard enough to say that I deserve it. But I wouldn't ever take that payment if I could work and chose not to. Many people choose not to work or make decisions that preclude them from getting an occupation based on their life choices and their circumstances they have created.
The purpose of life has often been to provide for yourself and for those around you who are dependent upon you (such as your children, should you have any). Many people don't want to work, and I don't want anyone to benefit from getting money for nothing because they can't be bothered to go out and work.
For those who can't work due to a severe physical or mental illness - that's different. But there are different levels of severity and personally, I think this would be abused by people who "have bills to pay, but don't want to work hard enough to pay them because they know they can get them paid without having to". Some people have very little conscience. Some people have no shame. I've heard so many people say that "people have it so good on benefits, why would you want to work when you can get the money for nothing?" That's not the way society should be. It shouldn't be being abused, but it is. Such a shame for those of us who have had such a great work ethic (regardless of the job) people give us a bad name.
In regard to your first paragraph - that's exactly how it works. You may still continue to work full time for the same pay and your UBI would be on top of that to use as you wish.
As to your last paragraph, the right to not work should not be seen as a negative. "Work" being the current definition of labour for money that is. If a person chose not to work a job, but to volunteer, to care in the community, then that should be their right. Similarly, if a person chose to use their UBI to be a full time musician or artist then that should be their right too. All those pursuits are far more important and productive than some sterile office job, and don't forget - even if a person does absolutely nothing at all (which is highly unlikely) they will STILL be contributing by spending the UBI money and injecting it back into the economy instead of being spent by governments on frivolous schemes or hoarded in offshore accounts.
The minute you attach conditions to a basic income you are being divisive and are limiting potential, as well as creating stigma.
@@Syklonus And where does all this UBI money come from? The SNP "magic money tree" or are they just going to demand more from Westminster & the UK taxpayer?
The is no such thing as a free lunch, some one has to pay for it. Either through rising taxes on those who still actually work (in the private sector - if there is one), or the country going massively into the red with borrowings - leading to rampant inflation.
Has anyone did the math on this or just followed the idea? Where is all this money going to come from?
I watched a couple of videos with the basic math done. And here in the US, the population over 18 x 1000 a months is more than what the government takes in.
So where is this money going to come from? Raising taxes? Which means products, services, rent and others will rise. But hours and salaries will be cut so businesses can make their profits.
This idea will hurt the lower class people more than help. This will turn a lot of countries into poverty.
Exactly.
And guess what, the SNP don't give a cr@p about Scots dying on the streets of Glasgow - so long as the FM can burnish her woke credentials by finding homes for "New Scots".
What I'd like to see is the economics of the Universal Basic Income idea. Scotland has a diminishing tax base and I'd like to know how that would pay for allowing people not to work (and I mean people working in non-governmental roles).
What we need is to recalibrate our society to make sure people can find fulfilling, well-paid jobs as that is the best way to improve people's self-worth. Cash for nothing does not do that.
dat would b great!
UBI is bait, if you don't know what bait is ask your dad.
🤞 hope for the future
i am trying to understand universal basic income and universal basic services - written at 12:33 PM Pacific Daylight Savings Time on Tuesday, 25 June 2019
It's easy - a UBI recognises your worth as a person, a human being, and not just as a source of labour. It's your right as a citizen to a small share of the country's wealth in order to always give you a basic standard of living - that standard being that you will always have enough to buy something to eat and afford a roof over your head.
It does not afford you enough to buy cars, phones, holidays etc. Those are luxuries that require additional labour based income on top of your UBI to acquire.
It replaces the fear of starvation as the main motivator for work and affords you the small piece of security so that you can follow and build on your your passion without risk of losing your home. You may try to start a business and it may fail, but you will always have that small amount of UBI money coming in so that you will never ever be on the street.
@@Syklonus Two requirements: (1) a strong economy with people willing to be taxed more to pay for the supposed "right" of people who don't want to work, and (2) complete control over immigration with absolutely no UBI going to non-citizens.
Neither is likely to happen.
What incentive will people who work actual jobs (not running their mouths for a living) such as miners, loggers, cooks, waiters, truck drivers, house painters, plumbers, home builders, etc. have to work if you pay them not to work? Everyone will be off painting bad watercolors while your electrical grid and water works fall apart!
Also, let's say you hand out say $30,000 or $40,000 a year to every person in the USA, you don't think that will cause massive inflation? A giant pool of newly printed money floating around will have no bearing on prices? Businesses won't simply raise their prices to meet this new money supply because...reasons? Also, this sounds a lot like, "To each according to need, from each according to ability." Hmm, where have I heard that before?
Alaska. Denmark. Switzerland. Germany. Canada.
Who would qualify for this?
Also wouldn't weekly be easier for most people?
Thanks
Everyone would get it. It's part of the "Universal" bit of Universal Basic Income. You could be a millionaire and still get it, so there is no stigma or class divide.
@@Syklonus And I repeat: where would this UBI come from?
Okay so who would foot the bill as something like 12k a year per person x how many million people are taking In truth your actual tax revenue as the Uk would only cover a quarter (that is if incentives stay the same) of the cost from taxes.
I m not being heartless as we all have to agree that we must produce value to someone that they would exchange our (skill+knowhow)×capital use × time =monetary worker value. Thats not even taking into account supply and demand.
Oh my, have you even done any research at all? A UBI has been costed time and time again under multiple plans, but maybe if you read a book on the subject instead of just rage commenting you'd see that. I recommend any of Professor Guy Standing's books.
And yes, you are being heartless, and no we do NOT all have to agree. "Money for labour" and "fear of starvation as motivation" should be replaced with "innovation by inspiration". Food and shelter should NOT be considered luxuries in a "civilised" 21st century society. If you think that they are, then that says more about you as a person than anything else.
@@Syklonus They had a UBI in the Soviet Union... It didn't work.
q. If the UBI is given for each child, what incentive is there to limit family size?
It is given to the individual, not the family, what they choose to do with the money is their choice alone
@@aidanhagley8805 So, for each child then... (unless you do not consider children to be individuals?)
Why should there be an incentive to reduce family size? Aren't we always being told that mass immigration to "the West" is necessary because our populations are falling?
the UBI is a useless idea...instead it must be made financially worthwhile for people to share the jobs/work we actually need/want people to do and so everyone can enjoy working LESS...there is no such thing as a shortage of jobs ....just a shortage of people sharing the work.
Lead or follow.. Finland just found that Basic Universal Income failed... So by all means follow in their failure.
It didn't fail, becasue it didn't meet the criteria for a UBI trial. It wasn't unconditional as people who were getting it were watched to see if they found work, and it wasn't universal becasue only the unemployed were receiving it.
Thieving from Peter to pay Paul ... Paul has a hopeless life.
This sounds disastrous. I know how I would have used that money during young adulthood and it certainly wouldn't have been for anything productive. This would work well in struggling third world countries but in the developed world it would be a nightmare.
You're mistaken, your money would have been used productively. Maybe not in a way productive for YOU back then, but you'd have given it to someone ELSE after all, and maybe THEY would put it to good use. Money you spend doesn't vanish, it circulates.
Sascha Rambeaud spot on!, also, mindsets like this does not represent everyone, not to mention the increased public education and social contribution that people will do with their increased free time.
Well the trials in advanced countries like Canada, Finland have overall not shown negative social consequence re increased tobacco, drugs, alcohol, marijuana consumption etc. What they did show was uptick in work, health, increased time in education, better education achievement, more entrepreneurship. Coupled to universal health & education system it works just great from evidence seen so far.
basic income will breed slugs
I guarantee you won't be saying that when your job is automated. Think you're safe? Don't kid yourself. We have ten yeas (MAX) before the s*** hits the fan, and Basic income is no longer a nice idea, but an unmitigated necessity.
We have, without basic income, just slugs at work. So it would not make much of a difference in this regard. But to be serious, according to the science tests, no, it wouldn't. It would be the other way around, we would've more entrepreneurs.
@@rigohook1160
neither
asic income = almost no work
@@duggydugg3937 , basic income = freedom to not work in a job i hate.
@@rigohook1160
that'll work for a while..
a lot of people are pushing for a UBI, just trying to figure out how you can pull that off. large groups of people would simply walk away from the jobs that they hate and then how are you going to pay your people on UBI? also if I work full time do you think I would get UBI? The bottom line is this: sounds noble but how are you going to make it sustainable? very high taxes? large tariffs on imported goods? Lots of holes in the plan.
Automation.
Automation cost money, doesn't generate money. if nobody puts money into a bank, you can't keep pulling money out of it.
Hope we can agree that the finance of a country is totally different than that of a company or a person. To answer your questions:
"large groups of people would simply walk away from the jobs that they hate"
Is that a bad thing?
"if I work full time do you think I would get UBI?"
Yes! That is the 'universal' part of it.
How do we pay for it?
According to many economist it is possible. The money people receive they will use in the real economy, so it will circulate! When you start calculating you also have to include the 'profits'. Looking at experiments mental problems went down, school results went up etc You should see it as an investment in the future.
I do agree we need more experiments, but until now all the results are positive.
Of course you would get the UBI even if you work full time, that's why it's called UBI. And do you really think companies would not find anyone for their work that needs doing? You really think noone would want some additional money on TOP of their UBI? Of course if the job is terrible, they would have to offer MORE money, but that's basically how the market SHOULD have worked all the time already, but never did because it was always biased against working people.
The Dauphin UBI experiment showed that hardly anyone stopped working. New mothers took longer to get back to work and young people stayed in school longer. People always want more than just the basics. Would you stop working?