Temporary Universal Basic Income?

[gimmethesimplelife]

An idea whose time has come or not? Rob

[frugal-one]

not

Actually, I change my post. I missed the word temporary. In this environment it is hard not to have help.

[ApatheticNoMore]

yes (the increased unemployment benefits if they are continued are in many ways the same thing though and somewhat more targeted with all the upside and downside that come with being so). Or a moratorium on bills is also the same thing. I mean there are ways to slice it, it's too late for furloughs and payments through people's work like other countries have done, might have been best, but I suspect too many have already lost jobs, but yea multiple ways to skin a cat or whatever (apologies to cats), but people need help.

[Yppej]

I really liked Andrew Yang when I heard him in Plaistow, NH and I did some reading afterwards on UBI. Pilot programs are promising, but there are a few concerns I have.

If you keep the current US healthcare system one serious illness or accident could bankrupt a person. Could the UBI be garnished for medical bills? If so it would remove help from people who need it most. To me starting reforms with national health care first made more sense.

What safeguards are there that extra cash will not feed addictions and lead to more overdose deaths?

If everyone has more money what is to prevent providers of goods and services from raising their prices? Could this fuel inflation, particularly in areas with tight housing markets?

[iris lilies]

Sure, why ever not. Everyone is getting at least one gubmnt check, might as well continue with them.

I mean, why not? Frugal-one, why not?

checks for everyone!

01540AEC-C1F7-4F32-8213-CAFDEA01FAC0.jpeg

https://imgflip.com/i/3x3lek

[ApatheticNoMore]

Well the why is because we have no other means right now to get those who can't work at home and aren't essential back to work right now (why - we don't have testing, we don't' have contract tracing, we don't have enforceable quarantine for those known to be infected,and we don't necessarily have adequate medical equipment either). Anyway noone is going to go to a restaurant or a gym or to buy random stuff they don't need right now even if they were open, except maybe those with suicide ideation. So they can fantasize about a miraculous recovery all they want, but without treatment or a vaccine or the epidemic under control it's not happening.

But yea many other things accomplish basically the same thing: the expanded unemployment for everyone who had an on the books job before (those who are able to work from home with companies able to continue to pay them are no problem for anyone to solve, they are just lucky), things like moratorium on rents and so on accomplish basically the same thing. It's too late for many for furloughs and money paid to workers via government THROUGH their employment with a job to go back to, might be best for restarting the economy DOH, but the chance was blown, the government needed to act weeks ago before many were just straight out laid off (or I think many were straight off laid off anyway - I don't actually have numbers of lay offs versus furloughs)

[Rogar]

When I watch the news with cars lined up for hours and miles to get food from a food bank, I tend to think we are in need of some sorts of "food in every pot" programs. If the economy ever does make a full come back from Covid, it is not going to be soon. No matter how many Boeing employees go back to work when work restrictions are relaxed, it's not going to send the same pre-pandemic people back to the airports.

I think part of Yang's reasoning was that AI efficiencies would gradually replace portions of the work force and maximum employment would never be able to use the available work force. In an odd sort of way that is happening. There are a lot of real world transactions that have quickly been replaced with a more virtual world of business.

A question could be who will pay for the programs. Printing new money seems more popular than taxation these days.

[Teacher Terry]

I don’t see it happening. I don’t see how we can afford it either unless we want to pay 50% in taxes which no one wants to do. What a waste to give money to people that don’t need it like the stimulus did. Of course when you read about all the people with lots of money taking the business stimulus money when they don’t need it. It should have been for businesses that needed it.

[iris lilies]

I don’t see it happening. I don’t see how we can afford it either unless we want to pay 50% in taxes which no one wants to do. What a waste to give money to people that don’t need it like the stimulus did. Of course when you read about all the people with lots of money taking the business stimulus money when they don’t need it. It should have been for businesses that needed it.

what you mean, “afford it?”

Free money from the gubmnt, isnt that always a good thing? Especially sweet are the checks that essentially pay people not to work. They make more unemployed thsn they do working. We need more of that.

[LDAHL]

Sounds so simple, doesn’t it? Just give it to “those who need it”. But how would you make that work in practical terms? By employee count? Those in trouble but not already doomed? Distributed by region or your identity groups of choice? A two trillion dollar handout in a short period isn’t the easiest task.