I keep thinking of all the ways this ($15K UBI) could be so beneficial. Think about a pregnant woman could afford to work fewer hours if she needed to and maybe even stay home longer after the baby is born, benefiting the whole family as she takes the time she needs for her body to recover and to get herself and baby in a good schedule. 6 weeks is not enough, even if you have a very healthy pregnancy and healthy baby and delivery. It would help promote breastfeeding, reduce postpartum complications and result in a healthier and happy baby and mom. The other parent would benefit as well, having less stress to be the sole provider. The baby’s UBI could offset the cost of good quality daycare when mom is ready to return to work.
Of course it would be beneficial.
At least until the money runs out. Then it's detrimental to everyone - including this mother and her newborn.
You are writing as though money in the economy (including the government) was the same as how you and I look at our bank accounts: a finite amount of dollars, hopefully replenished periodically by paychecks, be they SS payments, payment from our jobs, our pensions, our investments, whatever. But the US economy is much larger than that. And its income comes from...taxes. Which we all pay. Including all of the businesses frequented by all the people who have enough funds and the need and desire to utilize their products and services. While those who live under whatever the established threshhold would be might pay zero of their UBI dollars in INCOME taxes, directly, many/most of their purchases are taxed. And most of those UBI dollars would be spent, putting money into the hands of merchants and service providers, who would employ workers directly or indirectly through their suppliers, and so on. In other words, the power of the UBI dollars (or any dollars) is multiplied as the dollars change hands. And of course, as businesses increase their earnings, and as their workers increase their earnings, so do the taxes paid increase.
Why do you think that workers earnings will increase, when one of the benefits you mention is that people will work fewer hours? The pool of taxable income will decrease, but this is supposed to somehow generate more tax-based revenue?
Look, I don't know how else to say this. Year 1 is great. Chance are that years 2 through 5 are also pretty good. It's years 6 and beyond that are a problem.
It's not the immediate impact of the early UBI stages - it's the long term impact on a dynamic system that is the risk, and that's where things start to break down.
1. I don't think that I DID say that people would work fewer hours. I have talked about a lot of low wage workers having to work multiple jobs, none with benefits, to attempt to make ends meet, and the personal and societal costs to both, but I don't recall (and don't have time to search my posts to verify) saying that people would work less hours--just that it would be possible for people to stop juggling 3+ jobs.
I've talked about how UBI could actually fuel the economy but you just claim that after year 2 or 5 or whatever, it would 'all fall apart' but you haven't shown or even described that. You just think it would be a drain on the economy rather than a stimulus. Look, for people at my current household income and above, UBI could and SHOULD be taxed at 100% or close to it. Sure, hubby and I would love an extra $30K/year--who would not except for multimillionaires and billionaires? But we don't need it to live our nice middle class lives. So, yes, Bill Gates and I should both get that $15K UBI--and have to pay 100% tax on every last cent of it. Even though Bill Gates has earned in the time it has taken me to type out this sentence I'm currently typing more than I have earned my entire life.
Re: shorter working hours since you brought it up:
The idea of a 32 hr work week is being kicked around already. In some careers, it's more the norm. Example: some nurses at some hospitals work 3 x 12 hr shifts/week and get paid for 40 hrs. Amazon also does that for some workers. I spent years working 10 hrs shifts, that sometimes turned into 11-12 and occasionally more, but I only got paid for hours I actually worked on the clock. The concern is that it would reduce productivity. I think that has been demonstrated to not be the case. If productivity is not reduced, why should wages be reduced?
This is not even taking into consideration jobs being taken over by machines and by AI.
It's also not even considering the very, very considerable drain on the economy poverty is already causing. NOT because we are subsidizing those who cannot or do not provide adequately for themselves--we don't do that very well as it is. If we did, we would not be having this discussion.
Being poor is exceptionally stressful and it's also pretty darn expensive. Stress causes all sorts of mental health and physical health issues, which are costly to address. They are also costly to leave unaddressed, particularly when a lot of those who live in poverty are also raising children, so the effects of that stress, which quite often include reliance on various substances in order to cope, exacerbation of mental health issues, increased obesity, diabetes, and all the accompanying physical ailments and disabilities.
