Forum menu
UBI only works if it's an absolute base minimum for survival. But it's livable, and you get it automatically. So you can walk out of a shit job and survive. Ormyoucan cut hours to be with your family more, and survive.
Obviously you can't just pay people good money not to work at all, that would be an altogether more difficult goal!
IT, cafes, and most definitely theatres are junk jobs. If taken back to basics none are crucial to society as covid demonstrated.
are you serious? IT is an unnecessary job? that the pandemic proved this? how do you think people worked from home?
how do you think JIT supply chains work?
how does tesco online enable people to buy food without exposing themselves to a risk of infection.
you must be a troll
unulales
Joined August 30, 2021
Welcome back. 🙄
Just like climate activists who aren’t childless hair-shirted hermits living in a shack. Or socialists who go to a fancy beach wedding. 🙄
Any plans for this year? 🤣
Any plans for this year?
Lake District this weekend in a fancy hotel. Missing the family holiday home in Marbella to be honest. I could do with some sun 😀.
UBI would fix much and break very little.
Ironically, it looks like capitalism has (inadvertently) delivered what it always promised, but never actually materialised to anyone but those at the top…
Irony would suggest a naive belief that it was not a very well controlled and orchestrated buy in and support of a system that delivers exactly that, I'd call it inevitability.
If you get a living wage for doing nothing, it is going to take quite an offer to get you out to work for someone else.
Far from so. firstly UBI will not be at the level of a nurses wage. that would be absurdly high.
What it would do however is simply benefits and taxation systems immensely and with the correct taper provide a bigger incentive to work as marginal tax rates are reduced. At the moment the highest marginal tax rate is paid by those earning minimum wage and getting top up benefits - its a huge disincentive to work if you one get to keep 20p in the pound when you are on the edge of poverty
UBI only works if it’s an absolute base minimum for survival.
That would be key, and pitching it to cover regional variations in living costs would be key.
I think UBI "could" be an interesting solution to the whole benefits/subsidies/ tax mess that I've worked in for 18 years. It just worries me that no country has managed to bring in a working model yet to prove it works.
The supporters of the govt seem to use magic money tree as some kind of insult , yet the policy they call quantative easing , is know as printing money , a much more simply understood , if flawed , method of attempting to control economics .
That QE has been going on for years , it was said to be a temporary measure , is not referrred to by any of these drum rollers of the free market .
The QE has just propped up existing banks/ corporations , A UBI would be the most efficient way to kickstart any economy , all that primer would be spent in the system , not hoarded on balance sheets .
The real problem for the tories and their ilk is the ideology , they hate the idea of collectivisation , goes against the individualistic theories that underpin capitalistic endeavour .
The danger of UBI though , is like tax credit , it could be used to subsidise poor jobs/ exploitative employers , and again vastly subsidise the already stinking rich .
Without strong trade union representation, to ensure terms and conditions aren’t undermined , it could become another good idea , railroaded by the state .
In global terms , though , it’s navel gazing .
Depends which ‘key workers’ you mean. A lot of nurses and carers etc do it despite crap wages, because they want to make a difference and help people.
UBI is based on this well meaning but naive thinking. However nurses and carers want what's best for them and their families just like everyone else though.
Its unrealistic to think if they had an opportunity to earn a wage that allowed them to spend more time with their families, drive a fancier car, and afford a fortnight on Crete each year that they would still choose a low paid job with unsociable hours just because they are doing a job that makes a difference.
With so many jobs now being identified as key worker roles, they could argue to themselves stacking shelves in ASDA is making a difference.
UBI works on assumption that people would find a job they enjoy doing, and that gives them motivation to do it.
Some will enjoy being Consultant neuro surgeons .. some will enjoy cleaning sewers.
UBI only works if it’s an absolute base minimum for survival.
Nonsense - thats the old " starve them to work " ethos. It works best when it set at a level that allows a basic decent standard of living and has a relatively slow taper.
Nonsense – thats the old ” starve them to work ” ethos. It works best when it set at a level that allows a basic decent standard of living and has a relatively slow taper.
Agreed.
I think the biggest benefit of UBI is that it will allow people to work when they are actually capable of working.
By that, I mean that I frequently find myself not in any kind of mental state to work. I still come to the office and I still 'technically' do my job but I'm fairly miserable to be around and tend to bring those around me down. It would absolutely be best if I was not in the office for certain periods.
At other times I am bursting with enthusiasm (not very often these days, to be fair), coming up with and implementing new ideas to improve efficiency for everyone, and just generally being awesome.
The longer I stay in a job the more time I spend in the first state and the less time I spend in the second state.
I think if I was able to pick and choose when I worked it would be better for everyone and I don't think I'm alone.
If your local supermarket contains a large proportion of “junk food” then their extensive market research has indicated that this is what the customers of that particular store wish to buy.
Nothing to do with influencing the purchases to the most profitable lines then? Once something has been destocked you can't buy it so the change is irreversible. Poor communities have poor mobility so can't shop as easily at the next supermarket
I think ubi is a great idea.
I just dont think us as a nation could handle it. It would be extremely exploited. How would you police it for say people doing cash jobs etc so theres reduced tax revenue.
I also think a large portion of people would just leave their work.
How would you police it for say people doing cash jobs etc so theres reduced tax revenue.
How is that different to now?
I also think a large portion of people would just leave their work.
A large portion? It's a popular belief, and very Daily Mail. But the same problem (real or otherwise) (small or large) applies to any support people receive, such as our current benefit system.
Some will enjoy being Consultant neuro surgeons .. some will enjoy cleaning sewers.
Oh, you're still here are you "chosen one"? Not opened another new account yet?
The incentives to do work will still be there, and money is one of them. I know people who work in that half of the water industry (you'll be unsurprised to hear there isn't much in the way of manual cleaning going on) and just like everyone else they earn to improve the lives of them and their families. That incentive would still be there with UBI, but the fear of penury would not.
Nonsense – thats the old ” starve them to work ” ethos. It works best when it set at a level that allows a basic decent standard of living and has a relatively slow taper.
A very valid criticism. My concern is that having seen the mess that Labour made of some of their well meaning benefit reforms that were about "empowering" people to make right the choices for the right reasons, a big chunk of the population don't have the right mindset to hold up their end of the bargain.
UBI only works if it’s an absolute base minimum for survival.
Nonsense – thats the old ” starve them to work ” ethos. It works best when it set at a level that allows a basic decent standard of living and has a relatively slow taper.
You make the same point. When I say 'base minimum' I mean a workable minimum which is what you mean by 'basic decent'.
a big chunk of the population don’t have the right mindset to hold up their end of the bargain.
A challenge that needs working on. The system needs to be created, kept and fine-tuned over many years. It'd take generations to change.
a big chunk of the population don’t have the right mindset to hold up their end of the bargain.
Perhaps, but for how many generations have workers been getting screwed over by employers and the governments acting in the interests of those employers. That kind of generational memory is going to take some time to shake off.
Some might take the piss (although you would have to define what taking the piss actually is), maybe even most would take the piss.
Believe it or not, I actually have faith in capitalism. Or rather, I have faith in capitalism where there is a level playing field. I believe the jobs that need to be done will be done even if everyone ends up having to pay more for certain things.
I think UBI is the key to making capitalism work. At the moment it is a very one sided system.
When I say ‘base minimum’ I mean a workable minimum which is what you mean by ‘basic decent’.
Ah - I thought you meant benefits levels
I think if I was able to pick and choose when I worked it would be better for everyone and I don’t think I’m alone
Hmm, not if too many people took up that option!
If UBI came in I would never work another day in my life
I also think a large portion of people would just leave their work.
Good! Whilst the main benefit of UBI is providing everyone with a basic liveable income and massively reducing bureaucracy, the other major side benefit is that it will free people from the shackles of jobs they hate, providing an enormous improvement in mental health problems across the country. It would also improve productivity as what's the point forcing people to do jobs they despise which results in them doing the bare minimum to avoid getting fired?
If we're going to solve problems like climate change and over-consumption then we need to abandon the religious myths we have built around the concept of work. My bet is that once we stop seeing work as something we must do and instead make it something we want to do, then the improvement in wellbeing and mental health would reduce the need to compensate by consuming stuff we don't need.
Ah – I thought you meant benefits levels
There has to be an incentive to work though otherwise half the country wouldn't do it and the economy would collapse leaving no money to pay for everyone's UBI. And people would resent paying for others' leisure even more than they do now.
It's not just a case of handing out the money, it needs to be very carefully planned and thought out. My big concern is that they'll try it badly, it'll be a disaster and it'll bury the idea forever and we'll be back to square 1 with the Tories having even more ammo in the fight to exploit everyone.
once we stop seeing work as something we must do and instead make it something we want to do
Unfortunately there are lots of jobs that need doing that not enough people actually want to do.
Unfortunately there are lots of jobs that need doing that not enough people actually want to do.
Lots of these jobs can be automated, the remaining ones that can't will have to pay people more to do them. The way we currently compensate people for the jobs they do is upside down. Why do sewage workers and refuse collectors get paid less than others who have nice easy office jobs?
Why do sewage workers and refuse collectors get paid less than others who have nice easy office jobs?
Workers are already paid according to how difficult it is to get people to do them. This is why UBI could well be eaten up by inflation because you'd need to pay more to get workers to the unpleasant jobs and then their costs would increase etc.
I'm going to make an assumption that collecting bins doesn't require a specialist skill, just hard work of course. A quick google suggests that a typical refuse collector salary is on a par with other office based jobs that don't require specialist skill. On the other hand, there are people who don't mind collecting bins and people who bitterly hate their office jobs. So who deserves more there? Who decides who gets more?
I don't support exploiting non-specialist/non professional etc workers, not at all, but this whole 'pay binmen more cos they work hard and it's unpleasant' thing is a much more difficult problem than it appears.
Why do sewage workers and refuse collectors get paid less than others who have nice easy office jobs?
I think you'll find the actual earnings for people in nice easy call centre office jobs don't compare well to what refuse collectors etc can earn. In some cases, not all, obviously.
There has to be an incentive to work though otherwise half the country wouldn’t do it and the economy would collapse leaving no money to pay for everyone’s UBI. And people would resent paying for others’ leisure even more than they do now.
That's the bit of the circle I struggle to square when trying to get my head around how it might actually work in the real world, and I don't have an answer.
Workers are already paid according to how difficult it is to get people to do them.
Not really. Barriers to entry play a huge role in the salary, whether that is requiring a university education when the job doesn't really require it or just having the right network of acquaintances.
And being a bin man involves working with heavy dangerous machinery. You need more 'skills' to do that job than to work in an office.
This is why UBI could well be eaten up by inflation because you’d need to pay more to get workers to the unpleasant jobs and then their costs would increase etc.
Which is why you'd have to combine UBI with a restructuring of the tax and monetary system using MMT to control inflation using fiscal policy and other economic tools. I'm not saying UBI doesn't create problems, of course it does, but the big question is whether the problems created by UBI or greater or less than the existing problems we have now created by our work-or-starve system which results in mass poverty, division and hopelessness and a few billionaires owning >50% of the wealth. It seems pretty clear to me what the bigger problem is.
On the other hand, there are people who don’t mind collecting bins and people who bitterly hate their office jobs.
This needs repeating. People need to remember that for everyone there are jobs they would hate to do (including very often the one they currently do), but which jobs those are varies from person to person. The security of UBI would lead to people moving about in the work force far more than they currently do... at first a nightmare for employers... while people take more chances, try new things, and can look to retrain or go back into education.
at first a nightmare for employers…
I don't see that being the case.
Or actually, 10 or 15 years ago that wouldn't be case. If it had been implemented at the same time as zero hours contracts became a thing it would have led to a flexible but financially secure workforce.
Now that employers have got zero hours contracts and employees don't have the financial security, implementing UBI will create a nightmare for employers because now the employees will be able to turn around and say no.
It's a nightmare I think they should have to deal with.
There has to be an incentive to work though otherwise half the country wouldn’t do it and the economy would collapse leaving no money to pay for everyone’s UBI.
Would it though? I see it as more of a balanced capitalism where workers and employers have equal power. If society decides that it's only willing to pay so much for a product or service and that product or service can't be provided because they would have to pay employees too much to provide it at that price then the product disappears.
Essential services and products are by definition essential and so they will be provided and people will just have to pay whatever price.
The other question you have to ask is if people aren't working are they just smoking weed and masturbating?
I think the answer is no. There are many ways to contribute to society that doesn't require a contract and money to change hands.
They have tried experiments with UBI (IIRC in parts of Canada/Switzerland) and it wasnt a great success.
3 Questions:
What monthly £ amount would you set UBI income at?
Who receives it?
How do you distribute it?
Depends on how you setup UBI. If you set it up in the extreme case of at medium income and heavy tax anyone who earn more than that then yes Accountant to bin man is possible. (also which medium income? for entire population, for age, if they have dependants etc.)
If not you would still need to have jobs paying different amounts to make the hassle of many jobs worth while (after tax and benefits) though and the part of you're income would now just be taken up by a more tax as it would be required to pay for the UBI so it wouldn't allow most people to changes to a different job. E.g. he Accountant to bin man.
You can easily end up in a situation where more of the population end up deeper into "the machine" and a elites just change with a narrower scope or maybe just a different scope of entry.
It may however make retaining slightly easier.
It’s a nightmare I think they should have to deal with.
I agree. And I said "at first"... there would be transitional problems, no point denying that even if you see it as the right path for us to go down.
3 Questions:
What monthly £ amount would you set UBI income at?
Who receives it?
How do you distribute it?
It's the same problems as taxation:
What rates should be set?
Who pays it?
How do you collect it?
They have tried experiments with UBI (IIRC in parts of Canada/Switzerland) and it wasnt a great success.
What are you basing that on? Everything I've read said it was either very successful or had no adverse effects.
I agree. And I said “at first”… there would be transitional problems, no point denying that even if you see it as the right path for us to go down.
Zero hour contracts haven't even been common for a generation. I remember being on one in 2005 and trying to explain to someone at the bank the concept of having a contract but only being contracted to work 0 hours. She couldn't get her head round it and eventually just said, 'Look, I don't understand what you're talking about so no, you can't have a loan.'
Transitioning from having zero hour contracts where the employer holds all the power to one where employee and employer share the power more equally may be less of a shock to the system than going from everyone being on full or part time contracts without UBI to more 0 hour contracts with UBI.
But yes, for employers losing the power they hold over employees it will be a nightmare. It'll be a dream for people on 0 hour contracts though.
The UBI is a good idea in principle IMO. It just needs to be set at the right rate to cover the basics. People can always earn more to pay for booze, buy a nice bike etc, etc. I don't believe for a second that hordes of people would just leave their job in order to stagnate on a sustenance UBI. And a lot of people just like working. I know a few retired people who still work. They don't do it for the money. The real benefits thieves are the landlords. UBI kind of already exists in the form of Housing Benefits. How are all these low paid workers paying their ££££ rent? They're not. Housing benefit is. A lot of people are trapped on benefits because if they took on work they'd be liable for the disgusting rental charges. The housing market is ****ed. More social housing needs to be built.
3 Questions:
What monthly £ amount would you set UBI income at?
Who receives it?
How do you distribute it?
1) The Living Wage
2) Everyone (hence Universal)
3) Weekly BACS transfer
nice easy call centre office jobs
As call centres are the modern "Dark Satanic Mills" (with similar employment practices) they could in no way be referred to as easy.
EDIT
a big chunk of the population don’t have the right mindset to hold up their end of the bargain.
Some of this cohort shouldn't be in the workplace at all as they are either unfit physically or would be detrimental to the team. We can afford to carry some people to improve the situation for the rest.
And a lot of people just like working.
Actually, I think everyone likes working.
Of course, if you define work as something you are contracted to do in order to get money then most people don't like it.
If you define it as using your time to contribute to society when you are under no obligation to do so then I think everyone likes it.
Some of this cohort shouldn’t be in the workplace at all as they are either unfit physically or would be detrimental to the team. We can afford to carry some people to improve the situation for the rest.
Definitely this. Some people have caused me to do so much extra work it would be better if they weren't there.
Sometimes I have been that person.
I don't need carried all the time but if I only worked when I was in the right mental state to make a positive contribution it would be better for everyone.
1) The Living Wage
So ~£1,500 per month?
£18k per year
£8.4bn a year
How does the treasury raise that additional amount?
What % of the population feels like £18k a year is plenty to live off, decides to leave the labour market and increases the issues caused by the OPs question?
2) Everyone (hence Universal)
3) Weekly BACS transfer
The issues with points 2&3 are the most vulnerable people in society are those who are outside of the system.
The Homeless guy or the Afghan refugee
Both of these groups wont have a NI number/bank account/passport, and so you end up excluding people we should be helping the most
How does the treasury raise that additional amount?
Taxation on businesses would be increased (and their wage bills would decrease).
The incentive to cut costs by reducing staffing would be reduced as a bonus.
you end up excluding people we should be helping the most
Is that a new problem that UBI would introduce?
The issues with points 2&3 are the most vulnerable people in society are those who are outside of the system.
The Homeless guy or the Afghan refugee
Both of these groups wont have a NI number/bank account/passport, and so you end up excluding people we should be helping the most
Are you really telling me you can't think of any potential solution to this problem?
I would imagine if UBI was on offer it wouldn't matter how you chose to register people most people would jump through the hoops whether they were Afghan refugees, homeless, or whatever.
The only people you might have trouble giving UBI to were the people who were actively trying to avoid it. So maybe the answer should be 'Everyone except people who actively refuse to accept it.'
It sounds like you are just grasping for reasons, tbh.
Did you have any luck finding anything to back up your claim that UBI experiments haven't been a success?