Ten oz

All people legally eligible to work in the U.S. with caps on high income might be something I can get behind. There would need to be safety policies in place to protect against predator lending. However I still wonder if raising the minimum wage, providing free high education (college or trade school), and maintaining ongoing infrastructure projects as federal jobs programs (rather than our military) wouldn't be more effective? Also money is relative. Its buying power easily manipulated and interest rates can be adjusted to slow or increase it flow. Money placed into individual saving accounts by the govt in peoples names they can draw from (Al Gore's locked box proposal) may have a stimulus effect as that money would increase the on hand money in accounts for banks where as an increase in monthly income via wage increase or BUI may slow growth over all as interest rates would be raised to combat inflation. I honestly do not know and would need to see it all projected out. I definitely wouldn't want Soc Sec gutted to make way for BUI. Nor would I what BUI to be considered a replacement to govt tuition assistance program or Healthcare. Soc Sec is an earned program we know works when money isn't being shaved from it and tuition and healthcare costs can far exceed that which BUI would provide.

Yes, which is why I have asked about implementation. Specifically who would receive it and how it would be paid for. For example if it was done ACA style where states could opt out or al la carte various taxes and fees I think it goes without saying some states, specifically in the South, would aggressively write in local policies to disenfranchise groups of people. Really? I addressed this in the Automation taking jobs threads.

Yup

I have also repeatedly mentioned the criminal justice system and its impact of an individuals ability to qualify for quality levels of employment. I am referencing ALL the various ways people are disenfranchised. My point about DACA was just one example. I used it because they are easily identifiable group we are all familiar with. My point is not exclusive to immigrants. There is true income inequality in the U.S. in my opinion and I am concerned something like BUI would make it worse. Sure second generation immigrants do better but relative to what? Hispanic and Black people have been in the U.S. since its founding yet still earn significantly less money and have significantly less median net worth. This is why I have asked for specifics regarding who would receive BUI. With Soc Sec people receive what they have earned via contribution. So denying people Soc Sec is debated much. One only gets what they put in. With BUI that wouldn't be the case. Would we be giving it to felons, people on probation, registered sex offenders, naturalized citizens, green card holders, people with one of the hundred types of visas, people who are in collections, people who owe the IRS, people who have outstanding local fines and penalties, and etc, etc? Because if the answer is no to any combination of those groups we are talking about tens of millions of people.

We wouldn't have to end immigration we would have to have pathways to citizenship. You are correct about immigrants being willing to take lower paying jobs. However their kids don't necessarily want to do the same. That is part of what the DACA fight is about. Many children of immigrants are in college now hoping for equal opportunities. Without citizenship they wont get those opportunitiea and will be forced into low income jobs. We aren't merely talking about immigrants either. Millions of citizens are forced down the ladder as well from court convictions. Living in an over policied community is a huge burden. I see it as worsening the situation. We struggle to deal with things like DACA now and giving children of immigrants raise here citizenship wouldn't come with an income. Providing the bulk of people a basic income while freezing tens of millions out would leave those tens of millions at an even greater deficit. Even if cases where all things were equal in terms of hours worked, type of work, and salary the folks not receiving BUI would be poorer. At least today an immigrant working at a McDonald's atleast has the same relative income to their peers at McDonald's within their communities. That wouldn't be true with BUI. Additionally no one has really outlined how it would be paid for exactly.

Right, the same left who currently controls zero branches of govt and minority of state legislators or governorships. I don't see how we can pursue this discussion while completely ignoring all the steps which would be required to make it a reality.

If BUI were to be pursued I think we all know it would be exclusively from the left. One needs to only look at the unnecessary amount of damage friendly fire between Sanders and Clinton did in 2016 for an example of the importance of maintaining clear policy focus. Not just that but fixing Soc Sec, the ACA, and so on is more obtainable, inmy opinion, that creating a system from scratch.

Yes, increases mobility and flexibility for some while further repressing the same for others. My 2 main concerns regarding BUI are that immigrants and minorities will be forced into low paying poor work environment labor markets careating a defacto caste system akin to what we see in the wealthy mid east OPEC countries and BUI pulls energy away from fixing the safety nets we have like Social Security and the ACA. It would provide them that opportunity until cost of living increased to a level that eased the benefit. You live in Austin so I won't waste your time with any links but the cost of living has been rising in Austin over the last several years.

This is already possible and happening.

Accusing me of a diversion and insisting I have said work=meaning doesn't make a case for BUI. You appear to be focusing your posts on me rather than the topic. No amount of proving anything about me is an effective agrument for BUI. I have posted what my concerns are regarding BUI including the data which influences my opinions. What else can I do? You have not provided any data. Just philosophical positions. To ever have a chance to become a reality BUI will need to specifics which can be implimented as policy.

It would be much easier for you to qoute which statement I made that implies work = meaning? I have already outline why I am opposed in several posts.

I absolutely do not think this. Please qoute which post I made that implies work=meaning. Seems to me like you are just projecting common arguments on to me which I have not made. Does it, where is the exception?

Yet that isn't happening is it. No kid dreams of growing up to become a dishwasher and yet pay for dishwashers hasn't increased. Rather than paying more to make the job more attractive business finds people who due to their legal history or immigration status have no other option. Keeping a cheap source of labor to do unattractive jobs is one of the reasons criminal justice reform and immigration reform doesn't happen in my opinion. It would force companies to improve wages.

I disagree with this on a couple different fronts. For starters I do not like the idea of increasing sprawl. I think have people in the large cities is superior as it pools the tax revenue and resources which allows for mass public works like transportation, Academies, and etc. Dispersing people out isn't the answer. Better infrastructure and city planning in the answer. Secondly I do not believe people living in larger cities like NYC, Philly, San Fran, and etc are trapped. I think it is the people living in rural areas that are trapped. People living in rural areas are the ones unable to afford a move to larger areas and often lack the experience and education to compete if they did.

I believe it does hinder them. It deepens the cycle where citizens refuse to work in labor or sanitation and enact policies that force other populations of people into those fields.

$10,000 for adults and $5,000 for kids would be fantastic for people living in rural states with low costs of living. People living in larger metro would still struggle. 10k per for a married couple living in West Virginia where the average rent is $600 would be enough to stabilizes themselves and empower them to pursue education and what not. For the same couple in NYC where the average rent for a tiny one bedroom is $3,000 that 10k would not be enough. For the couple living in NYC better legislation regarding rent control and affordable housing would go further than 10k a year. Free access to the subway, parking, and troll roads, and etc might be more beneficial to people living in metro areas than 10k would be. Here in Washington DC I work with people who literally drive to train train stations( VA railway express, Amtrak, MARC), pay to park at the station, transfer to the Metro, then bus in from the metro everyday just to get to work. They spend a several hundred a month on that stuff. I don't see it as a one size fits all problem. Some areas people may need govt support in the form of food and temporary income. In other areas people need support in the form of better infrastructure and education. Of course. That said from where we currently sit, an environment where the controlling political party demagogues people from even receiving food stamps or free meals at public schools, I don't see how BUI could become a thing. If BUI were to become a thing I have little doubt many demands would be placed on it to disenfranchise large portions of the population. I rather see taxes increased to fix Social Security , fortify and improve the ACA, and so on. The system we have can work. It doesn't work because we allow politicians who openly campaign on sabotaging the system to hold office.

Every citizen without exception regardless of criminal history, financial background, number of people to a home, marital status, location, education, age, and etc. Every adult citizen gets the same flat income? Raising taxes to pay for BUI is one of the issues I have with BUI. If we were able to raise taxes the system we currently have would work significantly better and there wouldn't be a need to toss it out and start fresh with BUI. In the 80's Reagan went through 3 rounds of tax cuts. In the early 00's Bush went through 2 rounds of tax cuts. Now Trump has already cut taxes. Between those 6 cuts taxes have never been raise back to previous levels. During that same time numerous services have been cut. If we could raise taxes we'd be able to secure Social Security without constantly debating the age limit, expand Medicare , included education grants with unemployment benefits, expand food programs like SNAP, and etc. The problem is we can't get taxes raised and introducing BUI doesn't change that. Immigration reform and criminal justice reform too are things we desperately need and can't get done. BUI doesn't help either of those debates either.

Correct, it is already a reality. I rather see criminal justice reform a d immigration reform passed to scale it back than UBI pass to strengthen it.

I wasn't saying people in Qatar do not work. I was saying that they had no incentive to accept low income employment. The result is a migrant population doing all the undesirable work. I am not interested in seeing that replicated in the U.S. where migrants and minorities are froze out and force to serve in low pay/quality employment.

The situation is Qatar is well known.

@Bender who will receive UBI? Please don't just respond by saying everyone because that obviously isn't accurate less everyone one with a tourist, student, work and etc visas (millions of people) would be receiving it. How would it be paid for? You insist it handle large unemployment yet taxes on employment is where the govt gets the bulk of it's money. Less employment equals less federal tax revenue.

What is the data supporting the idea that automation is taking jobs at a rate faster than technology and the abundance created by automation can replace them?

Assuming everything you believe is true why waste your time debating it? You know what you need to do and the rest of us who done will get what we deserve. Seems nice and tighty to me.

The trajectory has been one of people being lifted out of poverty and not vice versa. Provide me some stats that show some combo of jobs, quality of life, and wealth diminishing over the last 50yrs. Automation have been replacing jobs for 200yrs and during that 200yrs global poverty has fallen and a staggering rate. You are arguing that there is some sort of upper limit which we are approaching but have no data to support that. Just videos of people pontificating about the future. Ultimately this whole line of debate is useless to the BUI as automation is here to stay with or without BUI. What does this have to do with BUI?

Humanity as a whole is having a great run. Less people are living in poverty, not more. Where is the evidence of a turning pointing where automation diminishes human opportunity?