Forum menu
Is that a joke? Have you had a look around you lately? Homelessness, food and fuel poverty, millions on anti-depressants, increasing inequality and division within society, and just general unhappiness and misery.
It would help if you actually read my post.
I'm all for helping the vulnerable.
But doesnt it make sense to target that help towards the people who need it?
That bottom 20% of society that is in poverty.
Instead of Universally giving everyone £20 a week
We could give that bottom 20% £100 a week
You wouldn't be "giving" high earners anything... the tax rates would ensure that the real benefit is felt by those who are currently worse off, without them having to jump through hoops for help.
My Mum used to work in the benefits system. She came from a poor family so having a secure job like that was a big deal. She had to leave because she couldn't handle seeing people who knew how to work the system getting everything they needed while people who didn't know or didn't want to 'game' the system weren't able to get what they needed.
The problem with only helping those who need it is you have to identify who needs it. It is impossible to make a fair system. There will always be those who need help but can't get it and those who don't need as much help getting more than they need.
On the other hand, UBI will make a far more flexible workforce which is something the world needs.
Take the current HGV driver shortage. I'm sure there are plenty who are miserable in their current jobs but they need the income to pay the mortgage. They can't change because it's a major commitment to change careers and there's no guarantee they'll like once they are doing it. Not to mention the fact it's unclear how long before driverless lorries become common. Could be 5 years, could be never.
UBI fulfills the needs of the left to ensure that no one is left behind while it fulfills the needs of the right to have a true capitalist system where businesses only survive if they can bridge the gap between what the customer is willing to pay with what people demand to do the job.
We already have a sort of UBI, with benefits & even minimum wage, it's just pitifully small, 40% of people on UC are in work.
Brexit worker shortages might help with a short term wage boost, but it's the failure and collapse of the union system that has led to such poor salaries & conditions
We could give that bottom 20% £100 a week
Because there are huge benefits beyond simply supporting those at the bottom. If we're going to live in a world with increasing automation, and more temporary and transitory work, then we need to give everyone the freedom to live independent from the need to work. Otherwise we'll end up with an even more stratified and polarised society of the employed, and permanently unemployed.
so forced to work in order to recieve money by which to cover your basic living needs?
Well, you could always have refused to work and then got banged up for parasitism, and then your basic living needs got covered without the inconvenience of handling money!
First thing I would do if they brought in UBI is dig out my backpack and tent and walk to Rome for a coffee.
First thing I would do if they brought in UBI is dig out my backpack and tent and walk to Rome for a coffee.
Leaving the country without booked accomodation or a ticket home are we sir?
Looks like I'll take the packraft to avoid those pesky border guards!
The real question is how much would they have to pay you to do your current job if you were already getting UBI.
I would expect the salary for my job to just be reduced by UBI or possibly a bit less. I'd still be doing it, UBI is just a safety net, not a high standard of living. Plus, I actually really enjoy my job!
Or 18k n bugger off abroad somewhere cheap?
to get your state pension you need to show your fave regularly. i’m guessing that this would be the same
I dont think the state pension would exist with UBI.
to get your state pension you need to show your fave regularly. i’m guessing that this would be the same
Nope, you can claim it and live abroad - 100,000s do every year. Depending on the country you live in you may or may not get the yearly increases - a bit of a random mess. Most of the EU gets the annual uplifts.
https://www.gov.uk/state-pension-if-you-retire-abroad
I dont think the state pension would exist with UBI.
All depends what the level of UBI is to the current pension rate, you normally expect to retire on less than you earned, but as no one has defined the UBI level it's all guesswork.
Maybe UBI could be set in line with the basic state pension? Not enough to really live off but maybe meets the needs and intentions of comments above?
For a lot of middle earners putting that level of UBi into a pension scheme would solve a few longer term issues
For a lot of middle earners putting that level of UBi into a pension scheme would solve a few longer term issues
I would expect UBI to be fiscally neutral for middle and higher income earners ie tax rates go up to pay for it. You can't just give, say, £15k a year to everyone without upping taxes to pay for it (otherwise inflation would just rise to compensate).
You mean something like Universal Credit?
We already have that
Universal credit has a load of strings attached. Not least the fact that you have to have been fired rather than voluntarily leave a job (assuming it's the same as unemployment benefit used to be). This is a big thing.
It's also a pittance and really difficult to negotiate, and the government is trying to make you feel like scum all the time. UBI wouldn't have any of this baggage cos it'd be universal.
They can’t change because it’s a major commitment to change careers
Oh, another plus for UBI - you'd be able to re-train, or study, and not worry about money.
I’m in the minority of the population that does this. Where all the people on part time jobs or unemployed
A lot of unemployed are single parents, and they don't work because they don't have anyone to look after their kids. Same reason they can't volunteer. Other long-term unemployed are basically unemployable, not necessarily through their own fault, and consequently wouldn't be suitable for volunteering either.
I'm not saying everyone will take the piss but enough to render it unworkable
When I was involved on the AtC squadron at least 3 members of the staff where single parents.
Current benefits systems broken that I have no disagreements on.
My sisters a single parent and works. Granted shes not full time due to the complete shit show that's UC.
Plus, I actually really enjoy my job!
You obviously aren't on the crews that clear fatbergs out of sewers then
My sisters a single parent and works.
Of course it's possible to be a single parent who works. But you need certain things to happen like for example enough pay to afford childcare or someone nearby to do it for free e.g. a grandparent. Otherwise who watches the kids? Does your employer let you leave at 3 to get them from school then continue working from home? Can you get into the wraparound care at school? Etc.
Don't assume that just because some people can do something then everyone can. This is the Tory fallacy.
Nope, you can claim it and live abroad – 100,000s do every year. Depending on the country you live in you may or may not get the yearly increases – a bit of a random mess. Most of the EU gets the annual uplifts.
this is not the experience i of my uncle, but i’ll make sure that he’s familiar with that info. thanks for sharing.
he’s dirt poor and the state pension is his only income, so it’s quite fitting that he should be given the squeeze ahead of better off retirees living in Marbella
UBI might seem like the way to go but it doesn't solve the problems inherent in the capitalist system.
It won't improve the quality of jobs, healthcare, boost productivity, control inflation etc.
Crucially it's likely to devalue currency as there is no productive capacity matched to that government spend. Effectively creating inflationary issues. (You can't just have government money flood the market indefinitely with no productive capacity to soak it up.)
A job guarantee seeks to resolve these macro economic issues, provide high quality employmemt paid for by the Government and directed towards the potential infrastructure needs of society.
The issue that the UK has is a glut of poor quality low paid work that doesn't further the needs of a modern society, improve green credentials or infrastructure expansion.
A job guarantee works in tandem with the private sector offering a floor for wage levels. It's not there to replace the private sector. It's there fill the jobs the private sector generally can't deliver. (See covid for many examples)
UBI doesn't offer a solution to these problems. It's a one sided, doomed to failure neoliberal prop dressed up a social benefit.
You mean something like Universal Credit?
Nothing like Universal credit for 3 big reasons
1. UC is £900 a month for 2 people (which includes the max rent amount in that £900)
2. You are forced to look for work and prove it every single week
3 What ever you earn up to around £14K just gets take off the UC payment as a ratio until you get nothing at all.
Like I said, it's just one of the few ideas that has supporters and opponents on both the left and right.
Opponents on the right call it a socialist trap. Opponents on the left call it a capitalist trap.
I am interested in this job guarantee though. If there is nothing productive to actually do what happens? Are they going to have quarries where people carry rocks from one end to the other and then carry them back the next day so they are doing 'work'?
Or do you have to move to the other end of the country to pick berries?
What happens if you refuse to do your guaranteed work?
So to conclude. There is absolutely nothing wrong with labour shortages for the typical working person.
It provides opportunities, wage increases, and potential to increase the UKs poor production.
Win-win
Well said Aditya Chakrabortty.
"The result, according to Mark Gregory, who retired this summer as chief economist at EY UK and saw these processes unfold over decades, is that the UK stands out for “low wages, low value-added, low prices”. We have the cheapest food in western Europe; we also have food producers so throttled by the big supermarkets that, as Tim Lang points out in his latest book, Feeding Britain, four out of 10 farmers face going under without EU subsidy."
There is absolutely nothing wrong with labour shortages for the typical working person.
Surely it has to lead to contraction of the economy though if it carries on for much longer?
I am interested in this job guarantee though. If there is nothing productive to actually do what happens? Are they going to have quarries where people carry rocks from one end to the other and then carry them back the next day so they are doing ‘work’?
Well firstly we don't operate full employment currently. That's the target; that and inflationary pressure.
Currently there's a huge amount of slack in the economy. Massive shortage of houses, infrastructure creaking at the seams etc, green potential etc.
*If* there was nothing productive to do (a moving target - people always need healthcare, roads always need repairing etc) then there is a transition of Labour to the private sector. This pool shrinks and enlarges depending on the demands of the state.
It's an automatic stabiliser. The Government is the employer of last resort for what the private sector doesn't deliver.
Something some of you seem to be missing with UBI is that you need to have a serious change to taxation as well - rates need to be higher but starting about UBI levels
Its a simple mechanism for ensuring everyone has enough money for a decent standard of living - poorer folk put a bigger % of their income back into the local economy and the second point is that it need not increase government debt at all and increases economic activity
Surely it has to lead to contraction of the economy though if it carries on for much longer?
I think the bit that they're missing is the effect on the macro-economy.
So yes.
Something some of you seem to be missing with UBI is that you need to have a serious change to taxation as well – rates need to be higher but starting about UBI levels
Its a simple mechanism for ensuring everyone has enough money for a decent standard of living – poorer folk put a bigger % of their income back into the local economy and the second point is that it need not increase government debt at all and increases economic activity
Government debt is not a restriction on government spending.
Government debt is an optional sale of bonds after the public spending (bonds match the Government deficit). Bonds are a safe place for the private sector to keep money. This is just a swap of assets for the treasury. Q/E proves this.
Government debt is nothing more than a record of all money spent into the economy.
The BoE owns 35-40% of the UKs government 'debt'. The government owns the BoE.
It's nonsense in terms of an actual debt when you are the currency issuer.
UBI does NOT increase government spending either - infact it saves a huge amount in administration of benefits and taxes, increases economic activity thus increases tax take on indirect taxes
Just think - the entire dept of work and pensions is no longer needed etc etxc
think of it as positive and negative income tax if you prefer? Earn below a certain amount your money is topped up with tax credits, earn above that amount you get taxed
there is literally no downside to it and many huge benefits
i think some folk here just do not understand the concept
*If* there was nothing productive to do (a moving target – people always need healthcare, roads always need repairing etc) then there is a transition of Labour to the private sector. This pool shrinks and enlarges depending on the demands of the state.
Employment is a major factor when it comes for the need for healthcare. People are too busy working and raising families to look after themselves properly.
Much of the infrastructure is needed because of employment. Most jobs are concentrated in large population centres that people have to move or commute to.
It seems that full employment is just a way of maintaining the current status quo of poor health, both mental and physical, and continuing with our headlong rush to destroy the planet.
i think some folk here just do not understand the concept
I think there is definitely a cult of work and it is not associated with the Left or Right. There seems to be a belief that people 'must' work regardless of whether that work is productive or beneficial.
They also seem to believe that only paid work counts as work.
I think it's very important to understand we are in a transitory phase currently. So what happens in the short/medium term is unlikely to be the long-term economic outlook.
There may be a Labour shortage but eventually there will be lack of demand too. I've no idea where this will all end up. House prices are likely to be the big tipping point. One way or another.
Pretty much anything can happen. But it's not likely to be positive for the most I reckon.
It seems that full employment is just a way of maintaining the current status quo of poor health, both mental and physical, and continuing with our headlong rush to destroy the planet
Most modern economies don't operate full employment and yet deliver the results you cite.
Of course full employment requires a decent progressive government to decide what is important.
It ain't share-holder value or asset boom that's for sure.
The point is to redirect labour to the needs of the country which could improve the lives of many.
They also seem to believe that only paid work counts as work
You have currency issuing government that extracts tax as a means of giving the currency value.
The Government is the employer of last resort for what the private sector doesn’t deliver.
But hang on, what the private sector does or doesn't deliver is a political choice - you may choose to have state or private utilities, for example. If it's a political choice then surely it's a first resort, not last, in certain industries?
But hang on, what the private sector does or doesn’t deliver is a political choice – you may choose to have state or private utilities, for example. If it’s a political choice then surely it’s a first resort, not last, in certain industries?
I'm not completely sure what you mean.
The private sector is not owned by the state so is 'free' to determine its own markets.
Do you mean if a Government decides what to nationalise?
But hang on, what the private sector does or doesn’t deliver is a political choice – you may choose to have state or private utilities, for example
Thinking about this again. Yes.
But I'm not talking about moving to socialism here. We are talking about a system that works within a mixed economy under our current monetary rules.
You have currency issuing government that extracts tax as a means of giving the currency value.
And yet much of the actual work that goes on in society, ie people using their time to benefit society, goes unpaid and is not recognised.
We are nowhere near full employment - multiple millions of people who are workless but do not appear on the unemployment stats.
JG faq. Way better than I can present it. Context is not UK.
https://pavlina-tcherneva.net/job-guarantee-faq/
I'm saying government is either first or last choice depending on your political stance. But that's a bit of a tangent probably 🙂
It seems that full employment is just a way of maintaining the current status quo of poor health, both mental and physical, and continuing with our headlong rush to destroy the planet.
Yes - not so long ago people thought that with increased automation freeing up huge numbers of workers we'd all be working much less. But instead, we just found other things to work on that weren't being automated. Question is, why?
I think probably because housing became more expensive - I think that the almost completely free housing market is a massive problem for society. Why do we make one of the most essential things for life so vulnerable to exploitation? In much of the country both parents are forced to work just so that they can afford a place to live, and any spare money gets given to someone else to raise their young family on their behalf. It's insane. And most of that money ends up in the hands of people who own land, property, or building businesses. The more houses cost, the more people work, and the more they work the more houses cost. The elasticity of accommodation costs soaks up most of our earning power, I think.
It looks like the objectives are the same as UBI. However, it does nothing to get rid of the 'work or starve' economic model which leads to poor health and environmental disaster.
Not only that, it looks like an absolute nightmare to administer. I can't even imagine the levels of bureaucracy that would go into finding projects for every unemployed person in every region of the country.
The only reason I can see for supporting JG over UBI is if you are committed to the cult of work.
They even say in the link you posted that people will still want jobs. What we need is a shift away from the attitude that work is something where you sign a contract, turn up for 8 hours 5 days per week, and are given money for doing so.
We need to embrace the idea that work is something that benefits society without offsetting that benefit by also damaging society.
I think probably because housing became more expensive – I think that the almost completely free housing market is a massive problem for society.
I think the problem with housing is caused by the work or starve economic model. It forces young people to move into more and more concentrated areas of the countries in order to find work.
When everyone is trying to live in the same place it's going to drive up prices.
Yet another problem UBI could solve. If UBI were introduced tomorrow I'd be straight off to the country. Someone else can have my house in the city.