Europeans considering universal basic income and job guarantees

[lpetrich]

The pandemic is encouraging tests of universal basic income and job guarantees - CNN

Christine Jardine, a Scottish politician who represents Edinburgh in the UK parliament, was not a fan of universal basic income before the pandemic hit.

"It was regarded in some quarters as a kind of socialist idea," said Jardine, a member of the centrist Liberal Democrats party.
But not long after the government shut schools, shops, restaurants and pubs in March with little warning, she started to reconsider her position.

"Covid-19 has been [a] game changer," Jardine said. "It has meant that we've seen the suggestion of a universal basic income in a completely different light." In her view, the idea — sending cash regularly to all residents, no strings attached — now looks more "pragmatic" than outlandish.

She isn't the only one to change her mind. As the economic crisis sparked by the coronavirus drags on, support in Europe is growing for progressive policies once seen as pipe dreams of the political left.

In Germany, millions of people applied to join a study of universal basic income that will provide participants with €1,200 ($1,423) a month, while in the United Kingdom, more than 100 lawmakers — including Jardine — are pushing the government to start similar trials.

Austria, meanwhile, has launched a first-of-its-kind pilot program that will guarantee paying jobs to residents struggling with sustained unemployment in Marienthal, a long-suffering former industrial town about 40 miles southwest of Vienna.

The article then went into a lot of detail about these experiments and about UBI proposals.

 

[Swammerdami]

"Conservative" political values in Post-Rational America have been hijacked

I will explain why such a program as OP describes could not be enacted in U.S.A. I fear that my remarks are off-topic for this thread and ask the Administrative Staff to move my post to a more appropriate thread.

On The.Other.Board, a "conservative" explained that the Right understand the Left but not vice versa, and indeed are morally superior to the Left: While Leftists acknowledge just 4 or 5 moral principles, the Right acknowledges those and three more including Respect for Authority and Loyalty to One's Group.

Group loyalty is widely accepted. Most (D) legislators value Americans over foreigners, and we all value family over strangers. We value humans over other mammals; where do you draw the line? In this way, for a white-skinned fellow to value fellow whiteys over other races is the obvious extrapolation. So far ... whatever. We'll need no cites that well-wishing for and loyalty to one's group (perhaps accompanied by a complementary hatred against one's rivals) has played a big role in politics for thousands of years.

But consider the Medicaid Expansion, part of the Affordable Care Act. This would have made it easy for poor Southern states to provide free or heavily subsidized health insurance to people who would otherwise remain or become uninsured. Many whiteys would benefit as well as many of the whitey's white friends, white neighbors and white family. It would be FREE, in the sense that most of the funding would be transferred from rich states like California or New York, or be from taxes that would otherwise be, in effect, rebated to participating states. Yet whiteys did not agree to Medicaid Expansion!

The reason? Very simple. The 'Group Loyalty Moral Value' translated not into well-wishing for one's race, but to hatred and desire to subjugate another race. (In many states, a very large portion of poor people are black.) Whites, or rather their elected legislators, found it better to bring suffering on their group, than to relieve the suffering of both white- and black-skinned people. Many of these right-wing voters might have demoted their hate-filled bigotries to approve of free health insurance, but of course were lied to by the cynical politicians and talk-show hosts on their hate-driven team.

TL;DR Summary: "Conservative" political values in Post-Rational America have been hijacked.

 

[Jarhyn]

We have always known that the right has in general deleterious false "values". This is, in my estimation, a cutting critique of values ethics insofar as values ethics doesn't actually make an argument over the rightness of the values themselves, merely proclaiming their values to be good without suitable justification. I always ask what justification people can provide for their values and I always get "because feels".

The fact is, it's just an inability to discern that "moral feelings", aka "values" do not create ethical rules. Thank fuck that while wrong, values at least get us most of the way there...

At any rate, I'm glad this virus has pushed change towards a social paradigm

 

[Wiploc]

On The.Other.Board, a "conservative" explained that the Right understand the Left but not vice versa, and indeed are morally superior to the Left: While Leftists acknowledge just 4 or 5 moral principles, the Right acknowledges those and three more including Respect for Authority and Loyalty to One's Group.

I love that! Moralities should have many core values, and the one with the most core values is best!

---

Edited to add: The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics And Religion is highly recommended. It's a great read, full of epiphanies.

Presumably the author's (Jonathan Haidt's) moral foundation theory is what was referenced in the post on The.Other.Board.

Liberals tend to judge something's morality by whether it does harm. We also care about fairness and loyalty.

When conservatives make moral judgements, they tend to weight these about equally: Harm, fairness, loyalty, authority, and sanctity.

We all care, to some extent, about all five of these moral bases, but conservatives care about authority and sanctity much more than liberals do.

Haidt would agree that conservatives understand liberals better than liberals understand conservatives (because conservatives share our concerns about harm, fairness, and loyalty, whereas we are often baffled by their claims that it's immoral to disobey some self-styled "authority," or that deviant sex (when you don't do it the way your legislators want you to assume they do it) is bad because unsanctioned).

"I have just as much authority as the Pope. I just don't have as many people who believe it." -- George Carlin

But the notion that more moral foundations is better? That's just laughable.

chart copied from Divided We Fall.

 

[SimpleDon]

The pandemic is encouraging tests of universal basic income and job guarantees - CNN

Christine Jardine, a Scottish politician who represents Edinburgh in the UK parliament, was not a fan of universal basic income before the pandemic hit.

"It was regarded in some quarters as a kind of socialist idea," said Jardine, a member of the centrist Liberal Democrats party.
But not long after the government shut schools, shops, restaurants and pubs in March with little warning, she started to reconsider her position.

"Covid-19 has been [a] game changer," Jardine said. "It has meant that we've seen the suggestion of a universal basic income in a completely different light." In her view, the idea — sending cash regularly to all residents, no strings attached — now looks more "pragmatic" than outlandish.

She isn't the only one to change her mind. As the economic crisis sparked by the coronavirus drags on, support in Europe is growing for progressive policies once seen as pipe dreams of the political left.

In Germany, millions of people applied to join a study of universal basic income that will provide participants with €1,200 ($1,423) a month, while in the United Kingdom, more than 100 lawmakers — including Jardine — are pushing the government to start similar trials.

Austria, meanwhile, has launched a first-of-its-kind pilot program that will guarantee paying jobs to residents struggling with sustained unemployment in Marienthal, a long-suffering former industrial town about 40 miles southwest of Vienna.

The article then went into a lot of detail about these experiments and about UBI proposals.

I am becoming less hostile to a UBI than I was. What is important is that we do something to reduce the income inequality that the pandemic has made much worse. The way that conservatives ramped up the income inequality was by frog boiling, businesses slowly were able to claim all of the profits from improvements in the workers' productivity and the innovations devised by the workers. The workers' negotiating strength was slowly eroded out from under them by conservatives' hostility to unions and the minimum wage, and by automation and the threat of moving their jobs offshore.

To reverse these would require a frog boil in the other direction, much too slowly to meet the need and the expectations to raise workers' wages.

We also have to face the fact that has become painfully obvious in the last four years, that conservatives are incapable of competently running the government and will believe the lies and conspiracy theories repeated in the conservative media to oppose any such program as the UBI or the JG that their puppet masters brand as "socialism," as they have done for what originally was their program, the ACA, ObamaCare.

A UBI is the ACA of correcting the income inequality. The job guarantee is a much better approach, just as Medicare for All is the better solution for the problems with health care. But if the oligarchy has to choose between the UBI and the JG they will choose the UBI. What they want to do is to preserve the huge increase in profits that they have earned by suppressing wages. What they want to avoid at all costs is having to pay higher wages. The UBI will do this by subsidizing their low wages with tax dollars or if they are really lucky they can get the government to pay for it without a tax the same way that they bullied the Republicans into paying for their tax cuts, increased defense spending, the wars started by intentional mistakes, homeland security, and the Medicare drug benefit, by deficit spending, i.e. running the printing presses printing money.

The JG would force businesses to pay more than the JG pays and to provide the same benefits provided by the JG, child care, maternity leaves, health care insurance, etc. Rather than having to pass an increase in the minimum wage by passing contentious legislation, the same thing can be accomplished by raising the JG wage.

So while I am becoming less hostile to the UBI, I still have a long way to go.

 

[rousseau]

I think where UBI goes wrong is that it's marketed as 'free money for everyone'. We don't really need free money for everyone we need a welfare system and safety net that's effective. Tying ourselves to the concept of 'basic income' just obscures this goal. Maybe the solution does have elements of a basic income, but what's more important is intrinsic effectiveness.

 

[Worldtraveller]

I think where UBI goes wrong is that it's marketed as 'free money for everyone'. We don't really need free money for everyone we need a welfare system and safety net that's effective. Tying ourselves to the concept of 'basic income' just obscures this goal. Maybe the solution does have elements of a basic income, but what's more important is intrinsic effectiveness.

The problem here though, is that means testing makes it cost more to implement than literally just giving everyone UBI. It also opens the system to abuse by horrible people (see the modern GOP) in attempts to punish people just for using the system. Honestly, it's simpler and easier to just give Jeff Bezos the extra $30k/year or whatever than try to implement a system that excludes people above a certain income.

 

[ZiprHead]

I think where UBI goes wrong is that it's marketed as 'free money for everyone'. We don't really need free money for everyone we need a welfare system and safety net that's effective. Tying ourselves to the concept of 'basic income' just obscures this goal. Maybe the solution does have elements of a basic income, but what's more important is intrinsic effectiveness.

The problem here though, is that means testing makes it cost more to implement than literally just giving everyone UBI. It also opens the system to abuse by horrible people (see the modern GOP) in attempts to punish people just for using the system. Honestly, it's simpler and easier to just give Jeff Bezos the extra $30k/year or whatever than try to implement a system that excludes people above a certain income.

And then take that money back when wealthy people file their taxes. Then it won't be free money for everyone.

 

[Worldtraveller]

I think where UBI goes wrong is that it's marketed as 'free money for everyone'. We don't really need free money for everyone we need a welfare system and safety net that's effective. Tying ourselves to the concept of 'basic income' just obscures this goal. Maybe the solution does have elements of a basic income, but what's more important is intrinsic effectiveness.

The problem here though, is that means testing makes it cost more to implement than literally just giving everyone UBI. It also opens the system to abuse by horrible people (see the modern GOP) in attempts to punish people just for using the system. Honestly, it's simpler and easier to just give Jeff Bezos the extra $30k/year or whatever than try to implement a system that excludes people above a certain income.

And then take that money back when wealthy people file their taxes. Then it won't be free money for everyone.

Pretty much yeah. It's puts the onus where it belongs though, without creating an entire other government department that the wealthy can exploit.

 

[rousseau]

I think where UBI goes wrong is that it's marketed as 'free money for everyone'. We don't really need free money for everyone we need a welfare system and safety net that's effective. Tying ourselves to the concept of 'basic income' just obscures this goal. Maybe the solution does have elements of a basic income, but what's more important is intrinsic effectiveness.

The problem here though, is that means testing makes it cost more to implement than literally just giving everyone UBI. It also opens the system to abuse by horrible people (see the modern GOP) in attempts to punish people just for using the system. Honestly, it's simpler and easier to just give Jeff Bezos the extra $30k/year or whatever than try to implement a system that excludes people above a certain income.

There is literally no one more ignorant than me on implementing such a system, but wouldn't a catch all 30k/year system need just as rigorous of testing as any other system?

 

[Jarhyn]

I think where UBI goes wrong is that it's marketed as 'free money for everyone'. We don't really need free money for everyone we need a welfare system and safety net that's effective. Tying ourselves to the concept of 'basic income' just obscures this goal. Maybe the solution does have elements of a basic income, but what's more important is intrinsic effectiveness.

The problem here though, is that means testing makes it cost more to implement than literally just giving everyone UBI. It also opens the system to abuse by horrible people (see the modern GOP) in attempts to punish people just for using the system. Honestly, it's simpler and easier to just give Jeff Bezos the extra $30k/year or whatever than try to implement a system that excludes people above a certain income.

There is literally no one more ignorant than me on implementing such a system, but wouldn't a catch all 30k/year system need just as rigorous of testing as any other system?

No. Because they have lists of "everyone" or at least lists of who files taxes, so jogging the list once on SSN, and cutting 300m checks is, well, the work of for(ssn in taxpayer_list){print_check(get_person_name(ssn));}

The noxious costs are in the filtration activity. No filtration = no cost.

 

[rousseau]

There is literally no one more ignorant than me on implementing such a system, but wouldn't a catch all 30k/year system need just as rigorous of testing as any other system?

No. Because they have lists of "everyone" or at least lists of who files taxes, so jogging the list once on SSN, and cutting 300m checks is, well, the work of for(ssn in taxpayer_list){print_check(get_person_name(ssn));}

The noxious costs are in the filtration activity. No filtration = no cost.

More along the lines of what I was getting at was social impacts. Changing any community from state [A] - we need a job, to state we don't necessarily need a job has many potential unforeseen impacts - sustainability being a major one that comes to mind. I suspect it's not as easy as writing a blank check.

Sure you can radically change your welfare system, but without a certain measure of precision the change could have extreme, unintended impacts. The logic of most people, as per usual, is short-termism (free-money, yay!) - but such a program needs to be sustainable across time as well. And if there is anything history has taught us, it's that we're collectively terrible at executing programs with any precision.

Don't get me wrong - I'm all for more robust welfare, I just don't have faith in people to actually do it properly. Basic Income just seems like a meme that's caught on and gives those in power a bit of an out from thinking more deeply about the problem. It's a start, but in itself it might not be a great idea.

 

[ZiprHead]

There is literally no one more ignorant than me on implementing such a system, but wouldn't a catch all 30k/year system need just as rigorous of testing as any other system?

No. Because they have lists of "everyone" or at least lists of who files taxes, so jogging the list once on SSN, and cutting 300m checks is, well, the work of for(ssn in taxpayer_list){print_check(get_person_name(ssn));}

The noxious costs are in the filtration activity. No filtration = no cost.

More along the lines of what I was getting at was social impacts. Changing any community from state [A] - we need a job, to state we don't necessarily need a job has many potential unforeseen impacts - sustainability being a major one that comes to mind. I suspect it's not as easy as writing a blank check.

Sure you can radically change your welfare system, but without a certain measure of precision the change could have extreme, unintended impacts. The logic of most people, as per usual, is short-termism (free-money, yay!) - but such a program needs to be sustainable across time as well. And if there is anything history has taught us, it's that we're collectively terrible at executing programs with any precision.

Don't get me wrong - I'm all for more robust welfare, I just don't have faith in people to actually do it properly. Basic Income just seems like a meme that's caught on and gives those in power a bit of an out from thinking more deeply about the problem. It's a start, but in itself it might not be a great idea.

It would definitely put pressure on employers to increase wages, especially at the low end of the market. It would also increase demand just about all across the board. It would cause a temporary bout of inflation until equilibrium is re-established. Can anyone else think of effects?

 

[rousseau]

More along the lines of what I was getting at was social impacts. Changing any community from state [A] - we need a job, to state we don't necessarily need a job has many potential unforeseen impacts - sustainability being a major one that comes to mind. I suspect it's not as easy as writing a blank check.

Sure you can radically change your welfare system, but without a certain measure of precision the change could have extreme, unintended impacts. The logic of most people, as per usual, is short-termism (free-money, yay!) - but such a program needs to be sustainable across time as well. And if there is anything history has taught us, it's that we're collectively terrible at executing programs with any precision.

Don't get me wrong - I'm all for more robust welfare, I just don't have faith in people to actually do it properly. Basic Income just seems like a meme that's caught on and gives those in power a bit of an out from thinking more deeply about the problem. It's a start, but in itself it might not be a great idea.

It would definitely put pressure on employers to increase wages, especially at the low end of the market. It would also increase demand just about all across the board. It would cause a temporary bout of inflation until equilibrium is re-established. Can anyone else think of effects?

It might in some cases, but you have to remember the U.S. is a collection of different economies and contexts - a one-size-fits-all approach doesn't necessarily work everywhere. In some places it might be a boon, in other places you might drag the economy down further. That's why the problem needs a lot of attention and nuance.

 

[ZiprHead]

More along the lines of what I was getting at was social impacts. Changing any community from state [A] - we need a job, to state we don't necessarily need a job has many potential unforeseen impacts - sustainability being a major one that comes to mind. I suspect it's not as easy as writing a blank check.

Sure you can radically change your welfare system, but without a certain measure of precision the change could have extreme, unintended impacts. The logic of most people, as per usual, is short-termism (free-money, yay!) - but such a program needs to be sustainable across time as well. And if there is anything history has taught us, it's that we're collectively terrible at executing programs with any precision.

Don't get me wrong - I'm all for more robust welfare, I just don't have faith in people to actually do it properly. Basic Income just seems like a meme that's caught on and gives those in power a bit of an out from thinking more deeply about the problem. It's a start, but in itself it might not be a great idea.

It would definitely put pressure on employers to increase wages, especially at the low end of the market. It would also increase demand just about all across the board. It would cause a temporary bout of inflation until equilibrium is re-established. Can anyone else think of effects?

It might in some cases, but you have to remember the U.S. is a collection of different economies and contexts - a one-size-fits-all approach doesn't necessarily work everywhere. In some places it might be a boon, in other places you might drag the economy down further. That's why the problem needs a lot of attention and nuance.

Yes, I could see already marginal employers could have to close up shop. But frankly, a company that depends on poverty wages to exist doesn't really deserve to exist in the first place.

 

[spikepipsqueak]

Done correctly, a UBI frees people up to do what needs doing, and gives the nation access to the good judgement and decision making skills of everybody, not just those who want power enough to formally go into politics.

A company that depends on poverty wages to exist but which achieves an end that employees can be passionate about, but like to continue eating and having shelter, will never have to worry again.

A company that achieves nothing of use except shift symbols around will need to pay better than the odds and attract those who are prepared to willingly give their time in order to accumulate cash for some goal.

People will be able to study to the level of their interest, and need, without having to exhaust themselves at low paying jobs and then studying inefficiently all the rest of the hours. A chance for most people to reach their potential. Which can only be good for the mental and physical health of all.

Artists can choose to rely solely on the UBI without fearing literally starving in a garret, and will be judged on merit rather than whether they know someone with access to gov't grants.

As a planet we already produce enough to feed, house and clothe everybody. Market forces currently act as a hindrance to any sort of fair distribution of that bounty. The advantage of automation haven't meant that we all "work" less and pursue other interests at leisure, it has meant that it is easier for some to "farm" the efforts of others.

People have always shown willing to do what needs to be done, and done so without the incentive of starvation. Starvation as an incentive often ensures that the wrong things get done and just promotes wastage and profiteering when adverse circumstances arise.

A whole century of innovation and exploration was fostered by a leisured upper middle class who didn't have to worry about where their next meal was coming from. (I'd like to apologise to the inhabitants of the developing nations for that, BTW)

All the evidence suggests that people who no longer have major financial stress rise up from the couch and achieve stuff. It's the hopelessness and frustration that feeds the drug culture and the crime.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I think where UBI goes wrong is that it's marketed as 'free money for everyone'. We don't really need free money for everyone we need a welfare system and safety net that's effective. Tying ourselves to the concept of 'basic income' just obscures this goal. Maybe the solution does have elements of a basic income, but what's more important is intrinsic effectiveness.

Yup. Basic income has a big downside--it's very hard to undo. That's what I would like to see a guaranteed job approach rather than a basic income approach.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

I think where UBI goes wrong is that it's marketed as 'free money for everyone'. We don't really need free money for everyone we need a welfare system and safety net that's effective. Tying ourselves to the concept of 'basic income' just obscures this goal. Maybe the solution does have elements of a basic income, but what's more important is intrinsic effectiveness.

The problem here though, is that means testing makes it cost more to implement than literally just giving everyone UBI. It also opens the system to abuse by horrible people (see the modern GOP) in attempts to punish people just for using the system. Honestly, it's simpler and easier to just give Jeff Bezos the extra $30k/year or whatever than try to implement a system that excludes people above a certain income.

There is literally no one more ignorant than me on implementing such a system, but wouldn't a catch all 30k/year system need just as rigorous of testing as any other system?

No, because there would be no means testing. Citizen, you get the money.

 

[barbos]

I think where UBI goes wrong is that it's marketed as 'free money for everyone'. We don't really need free money for everyone we need a welfare system and safety net that's effective. Tying ourselves to the concept of 'basic income' just obscures this goal. Maybe the solution does have elements of a basic income, but what's more important is intrinsic effectiveness.

Yup. Basic income has a big downside--it's very hard to undo. That's what I would like to see a guaranteed job approach rather than a basic income approach.

Why would it be hard to undo?
And why would you want to undo something that works great?
But lets assume it does not work great and you decided to undo it. Great, just decrease amount slowly and people will start getting jobs.

Also, I would try to start it slow. Start with a small amount just for food and clothing. That would not cost much and will cover homeless instantly.

 

[Bomb#20]

On The.Other.Board, a "conservative" explained that the Right understand the Left but not vice versa,

Judging from the amount of gross misrepresentation of opponents that goes on, it's doubtful that either side understands the other.

and indeed are morally superior to the Left: While Leftists acknowledge just 4 or 5 moral principles, the Right acknowledges those and three more including Respect for Authority and Loyalty to One's Group.

Group loyalty is widely accepted. Most (D) legislators value Americans over foreigners, and we all value family over strangers.

What's accepted and what's acknowledged are two very different things. Haidt observed that leftists typically claim to only care about harm and fairness; but as you noted, the left is often just as much up to its ears in loyalty as the right. One thing that unites people on both sides is the primacy of the concern for self-image. Everybody wants to be the hero of his own narrative. Imagining they aren't as tribal as they are makes leftists feel superior, because they consider tribalism a negative trait, because they associate it with their enemy.

We'll need no cites that well-wishing for and loyalty to one's group (perhaps accompanied by a complementary hatred against one's rivals) has played a big role in politics for thousands of years.

But consider the Medicaid Expansion, part of the Affordable Care Act. This would have made it easy for poor Southern states to provide free or heavily subsidized health insurance to people who would otherwise remain or become uninsured. Many whiteys would benefit as well as many of the whitey's white friends, white neighbors and white family. It would be FREE, in the sense that most of the funding would be transferred from rich states like California or New York, or be from taxes that would otherwise be, in effect, rebated to participating states. Yet whiteys did not agree to Medicaid Expansion!

The reason? Very simple. The 'Group Loyalty Moral Value' translated not into well-wishing for one's race, but to hatred and desire to subjugate another race. (In many states, a very large portion of poor people are black.) Whites, or rather their elected legislators, found it better to bring suffering on their group, than to relieve the suffering of both white- and black-skinned people. Many of these right-wing voters might have demoted their hate-filled bigotries to approve of free health insurance, but of course were lied to by the cynical politicians and talk-show hosts on their hate-driven team.

Case in point. Your concern for self-image and loyalty to your group has led you to complementary hatred of the rival group. So you made up a narrative in which progressives are the heroes and conservatives, the rival group, have evil motives. Your explanation for conservatives' policy preferences has the virtue of appealing to the emotional high one gets from feeling oneself part of the noble tribe; the virtue of being supported by empirical evidence, not so much.

Suppose your theory were correct. In that case, that would imply that conservative middle-class whites who work for a living in poor southern red states would be all for free handouts to lower-class voluntarily unemployed lazy bums, and to workers who do such a poor job they can't keep one, and to people so unskilled they only make minimum wage -- all to be paid for by raising taxes on the income of industrious middle-class people who earned it -- if only those recipients were white. Oh, for the love of god! Have you even listened to conservatives? Do you think in the south the many whiteys who'd benefit from Medicaid are getting labeled "White Trash" because the white people who earn enough not to be eligible for Medicaid identify with them and well-wish all the fellow members of their race?

Here's a more realistic explanation of "Yet whiteys did not agree to Medicaid Expansion!": they're thinking "I have to pay for my health insurance, why shouldn't you pay for yours?". And they're thinking "'It would be FREE', my ass! There's no such thing as a FREE lunch. Somebody will pay for it, somebody who actually EARNED his pay, somebody who's probably ME." So opposition to Medicaid expansion can be adequately accounted for by a completely different moral value: fairness. Invoking loyalty and group hatred? Well, as Laplace put it, we "have no need for that hypothesis."

But hey, going with the simpler explanation means conservatives are implicitly accusing progressives of unfairly robbing Peter to pay Paul. And your own group being unfair robbers would not be as supportive of your group's self-congratulatory self-image as it would be for your rival group to just be a bunch of awful racists. So you should probably stick with your own theory -- if nothing else, that will help you prove your "Loyalty to One's Group".