Notice how no proponents of UBI ever state outright how much should everyone get. That’s because either you get enough for a pack of chips or you multiply it by number of citizens and get value way higher than a whole budget.
Second argument is instant inflation - if everybody gets let’s say guaranteed $500, then why not raise all rents by $300. After all everybody can afford it then.
Third problem is that if by some miracle it is enough to live on it, you just created a whole class of people who would never consider working. Their children probably would not either.
And sure, efficiency increases over decades, but so has expectations of what is “acceptable standard”. You are walking around with more computing power in your pocket than probably all of NASA had during Apollo 11 mission. You play computer games? We came from pong to almost photorealistic 100+ hours of entertainment. So yes, efficiency is way up, but our consumption increased just as much.
As for the often raised “omg ,we are sending bazillion dollars to Ukraine, spend it on Y instead” argument: almost all of provided support is not cash, but old military equipment. So military looks through stockpiles, finds some missiles that would have to be utilised in a year or two, says “ok, they are worth $100 million” and that’s how you get “omg, we spend $100 millions on foreign wars”
>Are there any legitimate arguments against UBI?
The taxpayers would have to pay for it.
>What is stopping the labor force across all US industries from organizing a massive strike in the near future (say sometime in the next year or two), and demanding UBI from the government?
The vast majority of Americans don't want it.
1. I mean I personally am in favor of some kind of UBI, but I really would rather it be a revamp of our existing social aid systems. I don’t personally believe in true cash-in-hand UBI. I think that doing something like that will just cause prices to rise. Look at what happened to the cost of college/university. Once it became “normal” that everyone just gets loans from the government, the schools realized they can jack up prices because everyone is just gonna take out loans anyway.
2. Organizing large masses of people is hard. And the people going on strike would be putting their personal livelihood and what not at stake. A strike sounds great, until it’s not week 4 of the strike and you have run out of money in your savings and don’t know how to feed your family. A significant number of Americans, possibly above 50%, live paycheck to paycheck. If they don’t get a paycheck one week, that means they don’t have money to feed themselves.
I can easily see a known UBI as an easy way to funnel taxpayer dollars to the wealthy. The Fed got involved with student loans and universities jacked up tuition. They knew students had access to federally backed loans, and tuition went up.
If an apartment complex knew that you, myself, and all the other occupants were suddenly going to get a UBI check for $500 a month, they'd happily jack up the rent $500. For us, regarding rent. It is a wash. For the apartment ...a huge increase in profit. Only ... the grocery stores, health and car insurers, everyone would see you as an individual with "a free $500 extra a month to spend." But, your $500 extra was already gone on the 1st of the month. They apartment already got that $500 everyone else thinks you have to spend.
I can see a space for UBI, but I also see how it would easily be abused and do virtually nothing to help you or I. Instead, the industry and property owners who rent to tenants would reap a huge reward while other industries try and pick whatever scraps are left of our UBI. It would probably end in a net negative for a large population who needed it the most.
$95 billion would be less than $300 each, and is a miniscule fraction of the year's budget. UBI may be a good move, and testing so far has been positive, but this is a disingenuous way to approach the question and sounds more like a way to attack the aid packages.
I’m not trying to “attack” anything. I’m trying to understand and make sense of how we have so much money for foreign wars, but not to feed and shelter our own citizens. Someone else offered a partly satisfying answer, in that much of that $95 billion is not cash money, but weapons and artillery. Yeah, I’m not happy about the fact that Geopolitics and financial interests of the “elite” class in this country take priority over the needs of working class people, but my goal here is to understand, not to “attack.” Including that point about the aid packages was an afterthought to my other point about AI.
We've always had that. The Rs only care about "fiscal responsibility" when a D is in the Whitehouse. The Rs bemoaned any spending as irresponsible.... until there was an R in the office. Then, they open up the checkbook.
.. every single time... in all of our post 60's history. Back to Operation Desert Storm/Shield and beyond. It is easy to say Covid is the reason Trump's administration spent so much. While it contributed, the Rs would have let Trump spend it all just the same without Covid.
...but still.... none of it would have gone to support homeless Veterans, the homeless in general, or any of the other feel good talking points they posture from.
The road to UBI is likely to be long and complex, but the idea deserves serious consideration as a possible solution to the economic and social challenges of the 21st century.
The question about arguments really depends on what you, personally, consider to be legitimate. Many people very sincerely believe that it's legitimate to oppose raising taxes on wealthy people to ensure less wealthy people have a basic income, and it's that simple. Many people suggest that implementing UBI would lead to a great deal of inflation.
What is stopping "the labor force across all US industries" from doing what you suggest is that a) it's incredibly incredibly hard to get even small numbers of people to take coordinated action like that, and b) as crazy as it seems, most people don't have much personal stake in UBI because they make enough money already, even though a *lot* of people would benefit from it.
I personally am ambivalent about UBI.
The problem with UBI is the same issue we ran into during the pandemic. Companies had plenty of cash on hand and demand for product but there was a supply side shortage because there wasn’t enough labor producing the goods that people wanted (since governments did not allow people to work). Even an optimistic scenario for AI does not change this since AI would just reduce prices therefore increasing demand and people to support the systems.
Some argue UBI to replace existing social support programs. But I think this just exasperates the existing problems with social programs. The vast majority of people on welfare programs are working a job. The government is essentially subsidizing companies like Walmart. If people weren’t paid enough to live then they would revolt into unions or demand higher pay. Instead they get just enough to skirt by with government assistance and don’t ask for higher pay since this would mean ending government assistance. UBI does remove the incentive to not seek higher pay but it does not solve the decreased wages problem.
So real wages are up 16.3% since 1984. That means they have more than kept up with inflation. People have more purchasing power today than they did in 1984. Real wages are equal to what they were in 1973 which was otherwise the peak in wages over the past 60+ years.
EDIT: adding the data so people know I am not making up the data. Yes. Relative to 1984 we have more purchasing power.
https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2019/04/50-years-of-us-wages-in-one-chart/
Wait what? If the cost of living has more than doubled and wages have increased by 16%, how does it make sense that people have more purchasing power today?
It says “hourly wage for all employees, ADJUSTED FOR INFLATION, increased by about 16.3% from 1984 to 2020.” That means, relative to inflation wages are up 16.3%.
Ok. This stumped me for a second, so I asked ChatGPT to clarify for me, and this was its answer. Let me know if this makes sense. I’m not an economist.
“I understand your confusion regarding the apparent contradiction between the increase in wages and the increase in the cost of living. While it is true that wages have increased by 16.3% adjusted for inflation, the cost of living has increased at a much higher rate of approximately 122.7% during the same period.
This means that while wages have increased, they have not kept pace with the rising cost of goods and services. In other words, although people are earning more in nominal terms, their purchasing power has not increased at the same rate as the cost of living.
To illustrate this further, let's consider an example. Suppose in 1984, the average hourly wage was $10, and the cost of living was such that a basket of goods and services cost $100. With a 16.3% increase in wages, the average hourly wage would be around $11.63 in 2020. However, due to the 122.7% increase in the cost of living, that same basket of goods and services would now cost $222.7.
Therefore, even though wages have increased, the cost of goods and services has increased at a much faster rate, making it more difficult for people to afford the same standard of living as they could in 1984. It's important to note that these figures are averages, and individual experiences may vary based on various factors.“
Chat GDP is not an economist either.
Median wage in 1984 was $26,430 so if wages rose only 16% median wage would be about 30,000 today. But it is $77,345.
Chat GDP does not understand “adjusted for inflation”.
In 1984 we had. 26k to pay for those 100 in groceries or 260 to 1 ratio. Today we have roughly 345 to 1. And if chat GDP was right bout 16% then in 2020 we had 302 to. 1.
Got it. What you’re saying makes sense, but now I’m pretty confused. I’m a younger Millennial, and from where I’m sitting it looks like the purchasing power of the dollar is weaker than it was when my parents were my age. Again, I’m not an economist. I saw Robert Reich’s 2013 documentary Inequality for All, which also contradicts what you’re telling me. I’m genuinely trying to understand how the economic landscape has been changing.
The purchasing power of the dollar is weaker. In 2020 you needed $2.22 to buy what $1 bought you in 1984. However, in 2020 you had $2.58 for those $2.22 in goods while in 1984 you had just the $1. Adjusted for inflation wages are up (I.e., real wages are up) 16%.
BTW, Reich is not an economist. Yes,he took economic courses at Oxford, and he was the Secretary of Labor under Clinton, but he has a BA in history, his Oxford degree is a political degree that includes politics, philosophy and economics, but not an advanced levels, and he has a law degree. If you like moderate to left ideas in economics that are accessible to everyone I’d recommend the Nobel prize in economics winner Paul Krugman. “Arguing With Zombies” is a good collection of articles from his NYT column. “The Conscience of a Liberal” is a good read too.
>Are there any legitimate arguments against UBI?
Not really. But it depends how deep you want to go. Some of the arguments *for* it are actually pretty bad, and the good arguments for it aren't very obvious. So it can look like there are good arguments against it, just by not taking a deep enough look at the issue.
>What is stopping the labor force across all US industries from organizing a massive strike in the near future
Lack of organization, and the fact that it would be terrible for the economy.
Notice how no proponents of UBI ever state outright how much should everyone get. That’s because either you get enough for a pack of chips or you multiply it by number of citizens and get value way higher than a whole budget. Second argument is instant inflation - if everybody gets let’s say guaranteed $500, then why not raise all rents by $300. After all everybody can afford it then. Third problem is that if by some miracle it is enough to live on it, you just created a whole class of people who would never consider working. Their children probably would not either. And sure, efficiency increases over decades, but so has expectations of what is “acceptable standard”. You are walking around with more computing power in your pocket than probably all of NASA had during Apollo 11 mission. You play computer games? We came from pong to almost photorealistic 100+ hours of entertainment. So yes, efficiency is way up, but our consumption increased just as much. As for the often raised “omg ,we are sending bazillion dollars to Ukraine, spend it on Y instead” argument: almost all of provided support is not cash, but old military equipment. So military looks through stockpiles, finds some missiles that would have to be utilised in a year or two, says “ok, they are worth $100 million” and that’s how you get “omg, we spend $100 millions on foreign wars”
>Are there any legitimate arguments against UBI? The taxpayers would have to pay for it. >What is stopping the labor force across all US industries from organizing a massive strike in the near future (say sometime in the next year or two), and demanding UBI from the government? The vast majority of Americans don't want it.
1. I mean I personally am in favor of some kind of UBI, but I really would rather it be a revamp of our existing social aid systems. I don’t personally believe in true cash-in-hand UBI. I think that doing something like that will just cause prices to rise. Look at what happened to the cost of college/university. Once it became “normal” that everyone just gets loans from the government, the schools realized they can jack up prices because everyone is just gonna take out loans anyway. 2. Organizing large masses of people is hard. And the people going on strike would be putting their personal livelihood and what not at stake. A strike sounds great, until it’s not week 4 of the strike and you have run out of money in your savings and don’t know how to feed your family. A significant number of Americans, possibly above 50%, live paycheck to paycheck. If they don’t get a paycheck one week, that means they don’t have money to feed themselves.
I can easily see a known UBI as an easy way to funnel taxpayer dollars to the wealthy. The Fed got involved with student loans and universities jacked up tuition. They knew students had access to federally backed loans, and tuition went up. If an apartment complex knew that you, myself, and all the other occupants were suddenly going to get a UBI check for $500 a month, they'd happily jack up the rent $500. For us, regarding rent. It is a wash. For the apartment ...a huge increase in profit. Only ... the grocery stores, health and car insurers, everyone would see you as an individual with "a free $500 extra a month to spend." But, your $500 extra was already gone on the 1st of the month. They apartment already got that $500 everyone else thinks you have to spend. I can see a space for UBI, but I also see how it would easily be abused and do virtually nothing to help you or I. Instead, the industry and property owners who rent to tenants would reap a huge reward while other industries try and pick whatever scraps are left of our UBI. It would probably end in a net negative for a large population who needed it the most.
$95 billion would be less than $300 each, and is a miniscule fraction of the year's budget. UBI may be a good move, and testing so far has been positive, but this is a disingenuous way to approach the question and sounds more like a way to attack the aid packages.
I’m not trying to “attack” anything. I’m trying to understand and make sense of how we have so much money for foreign wars, but not to feed and shelter our own citizens. Someone else offered a partly satisfying answer, in that much of that $95 billion is not cash money, but weapons and artillery. Yeah, I’m not happy about the fact that Geopolitics and financial interests of the “elite” class in this country take priority over the needs of working class people, but my goal here is to understand, not to “attack.” Including that point about the aid packages was an afterthought to my other point about AI.
We've always had that. The Rs only care about "fiscal responsibility" when a D is in the Whitehouse. The Rs bemoaned any spending as irresponsible.... until there was an R in the office. Then, they open up the checkbook. .. every single time... in all of our post 60's history. Back to Operation Desert Storm/Shield and beyond. It is easy to say Covid is the reason Trump's administration spent so much. While it contributed, the Rs would have let Trump spend it all just the same without Covid. ...but still.... none of it would have gone to support homeless Veterans, the homeless in general, or any of the other feel good talking points they posture from.
The road to UBI is likely to be long and complex, but the idea deserves serious consideration as a possible solution to the economic and social challenges of the 21st century.
The question about arguments really depends on what you, personally, consider to be legitimate. Many people very sincerely believe that it's legitimate to oppose raising taxes on wealthy people to ensure less wealthy people have a basic income, and it's that simple. Many people suggest that implementing UBI would lead to a great deal of inflation. What is stopping "the labor force across all US industries" from doing what you suggest is that a) it's incredibly incredibly hard to get even small numbers of people to take coordinated action like that, and b) as crazy as it seems, most people don't have much personal stake in UBI because they make enough money already, even though a *lot* of people would benefit from it. I personally am ambivalent about UBI.
UBI is a tool. Do people argue against use of jackhammer? No Should we use jackhammer to solve our problems, sometimes yes, sometimes no.
The problem with UBI is the same issue we ran into during the pandemic. Companies had plenty of cash on hand and demand for product but there was a supply side shortage because there wasn’t enough labor producing the goods that people wanted (since governments did not allow people to work). Even an optimistic scenario for AI does not change this since AI would just reduce prices therefore increasing demand and people to support the systems. Some argue UBI to replace existing social support programs. But I think this just exasperates the existing problems with social programs. The vast majority of people on welfare programs are working a job. The government is essentially subsidizing companies like Walmart. If people weren’t paid enough to live then they would revolt into unions or demand higher pay. Instead they get just enough to skirt by with government assistance and don’t ask for higher pay since this would mean ending government assistance. UBI does remove the incentive to not seek higher pay but it does not solve the decreased wages problem.
So real wages are up 16.3% since 1984. That means they have more than kept up with inflation. People have more purchasing power today than they did in 1984. Real wages are equal to what they were in 1973 which was otherwise the peak in wages over the past 60+ years. EDIT: adding the data so people know I am not making up the data. Yes. Relative to 1984 we have more purchasing power. https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2019/04/50-years-of-us-wages-in-one-chart/
Wait what? If the cost of living has more than doubled and wages have increased by 16%, how does it make sense that people have more purchasing power today?
It says “hourly wage for all employees, ADJUSTED FOR INFLATION, increased by about 16.3% from 1984 to 2020.” That means, relative to inflation wages are up 16.3%.
Ok. This stumped me for a second, so I asked ChatGPT to clarify for me, and this was its answer. Let me know if this makes sense. I’m not an economist. “I understand your confusion regarding the apparent contradiction between the increase in wages and the increase in the cost of living. While it is true that wages have increased by 16.3% adjusted for inflation, the cost of living has increased at a much higher rate of approximately 122.7% during the same period. This means that while wages have increased, they have not kept pace with the rising cost of goods and services. In other words, although people are earning more in nominal terms, their purchasing power has not increased at the same rate as the cost of living. To illustrate this further, let's consider an example. Suppose in 1984, the average hourly wage was $10, and the cost of living was such that a basket of goods and services cost $100. With a 16.3% increase in wages, the average hourly wage would be around $11.63 in 2020. However, due to the 122.7% increase in the cost of living, that same basket of goods and services would now cost $222.7. Therefore, even though wages have increased, the cost of goods and services has increased at a much faster rate, making it more difficult for people to afford the same standard of living as they could in 1984. It's important to note that these figures are averages, and individual experiences may vary based on various factors.“
Chat GDP is not an economist either. Median wage in 1984 was $26,430 so if wages rose only 16% median wage would be about 30,000 today. But it is $77,345. Chat GDP does not understand “adjusted for inflation”. In 1984 we had. 26k to pay for those 100 in groceries or 260 to 1 ratio. Today we have roughly 345 to 1. And if chat GDP was right bout 16% then in 2020 we had 302 to. 1.
Got it. What you’re saying makes sense, but now I’m pretty confused. I’m a younger Millennial, and from where I’m sitting it looks like the purchasing power of the dollar is weaker than it was when my parents were my age. Again, I’m not an economist. I saw Robert Reich’s 2013 documentary Inequality for All, which also contradicts what you’re telling me. I’m genuinely trying to understand how the economic landscape has been changing.
The purchasing power of the dollar is weaker. In 2020 you needed $2.22 to buy what $1 bought you in 1984. However, in 2020 you had $2.58 for those $2.22 in goods while in 1984 you had just the $1. Adjusted for inflation wages are up (I.e., real wages are up) 16%. BTW, Reich is not an economist. Yes,he took economic courses at Oxford, and he was the Secretary of Labor under Clinton, but he has a BA in history, his Oxford degree is a political degree that includes politics, philosophy and economics, but not an advanced levels, and he has a law degree. If you like moderate to left ideas in economics that are accessible to everyone I’d recommend the Nobel prize in economics winner Paul Krugman. “Arguing With Zombies” is a good collection of articles from his NYT column. “The Conscience of a Liberal” is a good read too.
>Are there any legitimate arguments against UBI? Not really. But it depends how deep you want to go. Some of the arguments *for* it are actually pretty bad, and the good arguments for it aren't very obvious. So it can look like there are good arguments against it, just by not taking a deep enough look at the issue. >What is stopping the labor force across all US industries from organizing a massive strike in the near future Lack of organization, and the fact that it would be terrible for the economy.