Have we discussed Yang's UBI?

We already have UBI for minors and seniors and it's more than halved the poverty rate for both groups.

But if it's targeted towards two groups, is it really universal basic income? :dunno:

That isn't UBI by definition. "UBI for [specific group]" is a contradiction in terms.

This paper is somewhat old (2004) but I believe the issues it raises are still relevant.
http://www.fullemployment.net/publications/wp/2004/04-05.pdf

However, new, more profound problems arise if we introduce a BI into a ‘functional finance’ paradigm (Wray, 1988). We argue that the BI approach locks the economy in to an inflationary bias which when combined with the current ‘independent’ central banks would prevent it from achieving sufficient growth to offer real employment options to the workers. Following the logic of the previous section, it is clear that to avoid ‘locking the economy into persistent unemployment, the introduction of the BI should be in the form of a net government stimulus (that is, deficit-financed). However, the two approaches to income insecurity depart at this point in because a JG maintains price stability (anchors the value of the currency) whereas the BI approach is inflationary. In this setting, a deficit ‘financed’ BI constitutes an indiscriminate Keynesian expansion and as it lacks any inbuilt price stabilisation mechanisms, inflationary pressures would result. This follows directly from our analysis in the previous section on the financial options facing government.
 
You're right, it's not universal. But as a demonstration, those programs along with welfare and disability add a lot of weight (imo) to the practicality of UBI. We almost have it now, it's just means tested. Like, for instance, I'm on disability and it's set a floor for how poor I can be. I work what I can, i don't have a glamorous life, but it's at least dignified.
Means testing or otherwise qualifying benefits is pretty awful. I was denied healthcare in my twenties because I didn't have any kids. I was denied food stamps for having money in savings, then when my wife got a slightly better job, we continued being denied even as her job wasn't enough to pay our bills while I was in college and we sank deep into credit card debt. Even now, dealing with unemployment is a constant chore with really stupid penalties and hoops to jump through. I turned down a job I couldn't afford to take due to the low pay and high cost of living in that area and got no unemployment money for that week because I turned down work. I'm still eligible for benefits, just not for that week. It's frustratingly stupid. I get that it's meant to keep people from abusing the system by continually turning down jobs but there has to be better ways to handle this than not paying people benefits they've paid into, especially if the unemployment office finds you were justified in turning down the job like I was. And I'm one of the favored ones - the unemployment system here treats you differently depending on what line of work you are in. For example, I am required to look for work and certify that I did apply for jobs, but I don't have to deal with the hassle of listing every application I submitted on paper unemployment forms (I still have to do this if I file online because of the way they configured the system but that's not due to a statutory obligation). I'm also 'allowed' to turn down jobs for some reasons, whereas a worker in the food industry basically would lose benefits if they did the same. Even then, the benefit I receive is not enough to live off of even in the short term unless you have substantial savings or a second wage earner.

I'm ok with UBI replacing benefits if the UBI benefit is bigger than the other benefits (like unemployment). But I think we would need universal healthcare for it to work as well as controls on things like instant rent-raises and such that would happen if everyone suddenly got an extra grand a month.
 
I'm amenable to several options. I like that UBI decouples work from worth, which I think a lot of people are still hung up on - including a lot of job guarantee fans -, but it needs to be more than $1000 a month. I'm also sympathetic to other ways to do this and the fact that a UBI would require a lot of structural changes alongside it. However, it is really weird to me how a few years ago every leftist I follow on twitter from economist to wonk to socialist to anarchist to anime dweeb was pro UBI and is now anti-UBI, when the literature on the subject has probably gone more the opposite way.

My biggest bugaboo is the inflation argument, which again, I did not see anywhere for years, and now see literally everywhere as if it's now been proven. Matt Breunig made fun of the inflation argument a ton back in the day on his economics blog or whatever. There's been real world examples and studies in places like Kuwait and Mexico where there was little to no inflationary effect.

Mostly for me it's just a way of establishing the idea of a universal acceptance of people existing economically and healthily with no strings attached, which I dig.
 
My biggest bugaboo is the inflation argument, which again, I did not see anywhere for years, and now see literally everywhere as if it's now been proven. Matt Breunig made fun of the inflation argument a ton back in the day on his economics blog or whatever. There's been real world examples and studies in places like Kuwait and Mexico where there was little to no inflationary effect.

The paper I linked to on the inflationary effect is from 2004, so I think it's likely you didn't see it for years because you weren't looking in the right places.
 
The paper I linked to on the inflationary effect is from 2004, so I think it's likely you didn't see it for years because you weren't looking in the right places.

I meant more casually, sorry. More that, in leftist forums/debates/subreddits/whatever, people were pretty adamant inflation wouldn't happen, and now any time it gets brought up in the same space, the inflationary argument is the norm. I'm more curious than anything what caused such a gigantic shift. Like half my twitter feed was pro UBI from 2016-2018 or so and then just instantly turned.
 
I meant more casually, sorry. More that, in leftist forums/debates/subreddits/whatever, people were pretty adamant inflation wouldn't happen, and now any time it gets brought up in the same space, the inflationary argument is the norm. I'm more curious than anything what caused such a gigantic shift. Like half my twitter feed was pro UBI from 2016-2018 or so and then just instantly turned.

Well, I hope it reflects a wider understanding and acceptance of post-Keynesian (MMT) macro framework as opposed to neoclassical macro.

Most of what I've read in support of UBI in the past couple of years doesn't even address the issue of inflation.

For me to support UBI requires a lot more optimism than I currently have. I actually think inflation can be a political tool to undermine capitalism if it's used right, as high inflation can be an excuse to implement price controls which then pretty much obviates the need for private control of the economy. But going down such a path would be a tremendous gamble at best.
 
IIRC Randall Wray argued for a job guarantee for those who can work and a basic income for those who can't or won't (he specifically highlighted elderly, disabled, and students, although frustratingly "stay at home parent" is always forgotten in these things) and that seems like a thing that's fine.
 
Well, no, but it's the MMT position that a UBI is bad, so his argument is just for a BI. That + a job guarantee seems fine.

Edit: "Is bad" is too strong, more like "worse than JG"

Edit 2: As for MMT and leftists in communities, I don't think it's really been the source of the change too much. Other than AOC bringing more interest to it, it's still mostly just been a surface level thing. I don't think too many DSA/green party/whatever people could say what it is. One weird source I've seen more MMT stuff pop up is in libertarian circles, and there was an article earlier this year about some circles of right wing politics embracing MMT strictly as a way to cut taxes, which is super cool.
 
Edit 2: As for MMT and leftists in communities, I don't think it's really been the source of the change too much.

Maybe not directly, but can you think of other plausible sources for the UBI inflationary meme?

Well, no, but it's the MMT position that a UBI is bad, so his argument is just for a BI. That + a job guarantee seems fine.

Yeah, but I mean, we already have that, it's called social security and it works okay, though I do think benefits should be increased and the tax-offset model changed from payroll to an income tax on high incomes.

I've also been a proponent of the "why not both" school of thought when it comes to JG and UBI.
 
They are.

A job guarantee can also address this question by widening the scope of what is considered useful work. The dominant neoclassical paradigm not-coincidentally tends to dismiss care and other "feminine" things as worthless and not worth remuneration. A JG could be a powerful tool to combat that.
 
Yeah, most JG's I've seen incorporate charity work, community work, an expansion fo the term "work" in a very helpful way, but I'd like some sort of way to make sure parents who stay home, family members who stay at home to caregive, whatever, are included in anything, which seems like a silly nitpick but like, barely any plan or policy ever gives that sector the light of day.
 
Yeah, most JG's I've seen incorporate charity work, community work, an expansion fo the term "work" in a very helpful way, but I'd like some sort of way to make sure parents who stay home, family members who stay at home to caregive, whatever, are included in anything, which seems like a silly nitpick but like, barely any plan or policy ever gives that sector the light of day.

Nah, I don't think it's a silly nitpick. But I do think a lot of MMT economists have thought of this and would agree with what you're saying here.
 
A job guarantee can also address this question by widening the scope of what is considered useful work. The dominant neoclassical paradigm not-coincidentally tends to dismiss care and other "feminine" things as worthless and not worth remuneration. A JG could be a powerful tool to combat that.

I really dislike getting involved in economics but I hope you recognize you're just acting like the usual anti-welfare people here, except like, the diet version. Your ideal scenario still imposes the fetishization of labour and rules a lot of people out of contention of qualifying for a basic standard of living. Even if you expand what "useful work" entails, there'll still be people who a) can't meet that standard; or b) can't meet that standard reliably; or c) despises the work you're telling them they have to do in order to not die. You're still mandating the circus act for people to survive, instead just changing what the act is.

A job guarantee is useless to disabled people (and to a large extent, normal able-bodied people) unless you're going to guarantee the work they find fulfilling. How are you going to do that?
 
I really dislike getting involved in economics but I hope you recognize you're just acting like the usual anti-welfare people here, except like, the diet version.

Yeah, so, you really want to stick with the idea that "the usual anti-welfare people[...]diet version" is to say social security benefits for people who can't work should be increased?
 
I too like to delete the majority of someone's post so I can be dismissive
 
I too like to delete the majority of someone's post so I can be dismissive

I too like to pretend someone has only made one post in a thread so I can be dismissive. I ignored the rest of your post because it was based on a blatantly false premise.
 
I mean, I think there's something to be said that expanding the definition of job to a point just sort of eventually makes it into a psuedo-UBI in a way. If being at home is work, if doing charity work that used to be unpaid is work, all these things that are unpaid now are paid, you get to a point where the definitions become muddy. I also have a discomfort with the idea of commodifying everything under the sun as work that deserves to be paid for. There's already an increasing trend to treat emotional labor as a job or work that deserves to be recognized and part of a transaction (instead of, you know, friendship or family just means being there for each other), because apparently everything is just being subsumed by capitalism, which making everything into "work" sort of feels like to me. And certainly a JG will have jobs people don't like doing, because most people don't like jobs, although some of that too is a result of poor pay/benefits/whatever which can be easily remedied.

Obviously things like social security, health care, education being covered and a robust enough social safety net also becomes a sort of basic income in a way if couple with a JG and everything. I guess the criticism then is that it's still a sort of bifurcated system in which some can and some can't.
 
A job guarantee is useless to disabled people (and to a large extent, normal able-bodied people) unless you're going to guarantee the work they find fulfilling. How are you going to do that?

Work they find fulfilling is a good to have after a bad not to have. If we're talking about basic rights and being treated decently by society, first, which I think we are - if somebody is not doing something that society has decided to find value in, remuneration poor or excellent, they will suffer from the cruelties of status at a minimum, and far more likely will actively be stripped of rights and happiness. I mean, nobody says we should kill people with Downs, but how could we judge somebody for not wanting to bear the burdens that come from bringing such a person to term? Real conversation from here with decent people. The principle is not isolated nor is it ever particularly kind.
 
Top Bottom