CDZ Stockton CA Experiments With Something That They Call a UBI

[JimBowie1958]

A Universal Basic Income has three characteristics from everything I have read:

1) It is not needs based. It is truly universal and EVERYBODY gets it. It is not welfare.

2) It is for times of great economic travail where it is very difficult bordering on impossible to find a job.

3) It replaces all forms of welfare.

This is not done in this CA experiment paying $500 a month to some poor people in that it is needs based, no one can live on $500 and it does not make them ineligible for other welfare programs.

Thus it is not a UBI at all, but by name only.

Stockton rolls out universal income experiment.

 

[Tehon]

A Universal Basic Income has three characteristics from everything I have read:

1) It is not needs based. It is truly universal and EVERYBODY gets it. It is not welfare.

2) It is for times of great economic travail where it is very difficult bordering on impossible to find a job.

3) It replaces all forms of welfare.

This is not done in this CA experiment paying $500 a month to some poor people in that it is needs based, no one can live on $500 and it does not make them ineligible for other welfare programs.

Thus it is not a UBI at all, but by name only.

Stockton rolls out universal income experiment.

It doesn't replace welfare. It is welfare.

 

[Tehon]

A Universal Basic Income has three characteristics from everything I have read:

1) It is not needs based. It is truly universal and EVERYBODY gets it. It is not welfare.

2) It is for times of great economic travail where it is very difficult bordering on impossible to find a job.

3) It replaces all forms of welfare.

This is not done in this CA experiment paying $500 a month to some poor people in that it is needs based, no one can live on $500 and it does not make them ineligible for other welfare programs.

Thus it is not a UBI at all, but by name only.

Stockton rolls out universal income experiment.

It doesn't replace welfare. It is welfare.

If it ever got implemented on a larger scale it would be needs based. The whole idea is that when no one has employment UBI will allow people to live on a basic income. Everyone will have a need. Except of course those people who control the means of production, the people you will be begging from.

 

[JoeB131]

I don't know if UBI is the answer, but here's the problem.

It used to be that most of the population was engaged in agriculture. Then agriculture got automated, and hte labor force shifted to manufacturing. Now manufacturing is largely automated as well, and where it isn't, people really don't want those jobs unless they are making high end items like cars. So the labor force shifted to service, but now that is becoming automated as well.

Which does create a problem of how do you keep millions of people gainfully employed in order to create the demand for goods and services?

And no, it's not a rhetorical question, I really don't have an answer.

 

[Tehon]

I don't know if UBI is the answer, but here's the problem.

It used to be that most of the population was engaged in agriculture. Then agriculture got automated, and hte labor force shifted to manufacturing. Now manufacturing is largely automated as well, and where it isn't, people really don't want those jobs unless they are making high end items like cars. So the labor force shifted to service, but now that is becoming automated as well.

Which does create a problem of how do you keep millions of people gainfully employed in order to create the demand for goods and services?

And no, it's not a rhetorical question, I really don't have an answer.

This problem has long been understood and a solution already conceived.
You can begin to catch up here.
Marxists Internet Archive

 

[Toronado3800]

Is this pretty much what Alaska does? Or do they call it profit sharing up there?

 

[JoeB131]

I don't know if UBI is the answer, but here's the problem.

It used to be that most of the population was engaged in agriculture. Then agriculture got automated, and hte labor force shifted to manufacturing. Now manufacturing is largely automated as well, and where it isn't, people really don't want those jobs unless they are making high end items like cars. So the labor force shifted to service, but now that is becoming automated as well.

Which does create a problem of how do you keep millions of people gainfully employed in order to create the demand for goods and services?

And no, it's not a rhetorical question, I really don't have an answer.

This problem has long been understood and a solution already conceived.
You can begin to catch up here.
Marxists Internet Archive

Um, no, I think the failures of Marxism are apparent.

 

[usmbguest5318]

I don't know if UBI is the answer, but here's the problem.

It used to be that most of the population was engaged in agriculture. Then agriculture got automated, and hte labor force shifted to manufacturing. Now manufacturing is largely automated as well, and where it isn't, people really don't want those jobs unless they are making high end items like cars. So the labor force shifted to service, but now that is becoming automated as well.

Which does create a problem of how do you keep millions of people gainfully employed in order to create the demand for goods and services?

And no, it's not a rhetorical question, I really don't have an answer.

a problem of how do you keep millions of people gainfully employed

In the circles in which I chat, the problem isn't at all how to keep millions of people employed. It's what do we do with all these people for who, as a result of automation's inexorable advancement, there really is no need. The problem is the population size, not what to do with the population. And make no mistake, everyone who's figured out that there are too many people know perfectly well what courses of action need to be undertake, but nobody is going to openly propose them.

 

[JoeB131]

In the circles in which I chat, the problem isn't at all how to keep millions of people employed. It's what do we do with all these people for who, as a result of automation's inexorable advancement, there really is no need. The problem is the population size, not what to do with the population. And make no mistake, everyone who's figured out that there are too many people know perfectly well what courses of action need to be undertake, but nobody is going to openly propose them.

The overall population is levelling off and has been for some time.

No, the real problem here is gainful employment, and that shouldn't be determined by people looking to make the fastest buck.

That said, I disagree with the welfare state in that it has turned the safety net into a hammock. What we probably need are work programs for those who can't hack the insanity of the corporate world.

 

[usmbguest5318]

it has turned the safety net into a hammock.

LOL I like that phrasing. I don't know that I agree or disagree, but the phrasing's funny all the same.

 

[usmbguest5318]

In the circles in which I chat, the problem isn't at all how to keep millions of people employed. It's what do we do with all these people for who, as a result of automation's inexorable advancement, there really is no need. The problem is the population size, not what to do with the population. And make no mistake, everyone who's figured out that there are too many people know perfectly well what courses of action need to be undertake, but nobody is going to openly propose them.

The overall population is levelling off and has been for some time.

No, the real problem here is gainful employment, and that shouldn't be determined by people looking to make the fastest buck.

That said, I disagree with the welfare state in that it has turned the safety net into a hammock. What we probably need are work programs for those who can't hack the insanity of the corporate world.

What we probably need are work programs for those who can't hack the insanity of the corporate world.

I think emigration is more what we need to give those folks. The world that's coming isn't one that fair measures of tolerance for and ability to thrive in corporate work environments are essential. Going forward, even small businesses will operate using the same quantitative analysis methods used in huge multinational corporations. Many already do, the only real difference being that some small business owners/managers haven't reached the point where they're "asking" their business management systems the right questions; however, given time, that will change.

 

[Circe]

Of course this scheme is welfare. Duh.

And it cannot work in any sense if people continue to overreproduce and crowd up the Earth more and more and more. It might work to give surplus people welfare to keep them out of the way (in scifi novels where "basic" is common, they just drink beer and watch TV all day --- the income given to them is sufficient for that) but it can't work if the population endlessly grows, obviously.

Every problem we have, nearly, is about too many people. The solution is obvious, but people keep dancing around that. Population needs to be restricted, like China did.

 

[Circe]

You know, if we had 1/8 the population ---- easily achieved by restricting each woman to one child for three (3) generations, do the math --- most of the supposed issues we have about energy, food, water, disease, illegal migration, even a lot of war issues would magically disappear. And it would sure be a more beautiful planet.