Basic Income: The Free Money Experiments | Moving Upstream
Vložit
- čas přidán 19. 11. 2017
- Mark Zuckerberg, Elon Musk, Richard Branson and other tech titans are promoting the idea of universal basic income, as a way to help citizens weather job disruptions caused by emerging technologies. Canada is giving it a try, with a pilot program that gives participants up to $17,000 annually for three years - no strings attached. WSJ’s Jason Bellini checks in on this free money experiment. Image: Ryno Eksteen and Adele Morgan
Watch more episodes at wsj.com/upstream
Don’t miss a WSJ video, subscribe here: bit.ly/14Q81Xy
More from the Wall Street Journal:
Visit WSJ.com: www.wsj.com
Visit the WSJ Video Center: wsj.com/video
On Facebook: / videos
On Twitter: / wsj
On Snapchat: on.wsj.com/2ratjSM
Little does this guy know journalism is one of the jobs expected to be gone by 2030.
Uh oh!
source? lol
@@7PropagandaPanda7 how about Andrew Yang.....he's only a presidential candidate. With your sassy bs fuc outta here.
Little do you know that Andrew Yang has specifically stated that he wants to aid local journalists to give more nuance to lobby-supported News Corporations.
7PropagandaPanda7 you could google it I’m sure. I was even surprised at the number of automatable jobs this is all I could find so far I’ve seen an article on it can’t find it. www.google.com/amp/s/www.cnbc.com/amp/2019/01/25/these-workers-face-the-highest-risk-of-losing-their-jobs-to-automation.html
“More puppets! I don’t work well with people” 😂😂😂😂
I need to know if he got them puppets!
I identify with him 100%. People suck.
seems like a stable levelheaded person
This is proof that the program will and has failed
I invite him to join us in the real world
It's not free money, everyday citizens contribute to the economy and they're getting it back like they should.
Why can't they just keep it in the first place?
@@thebrand14ify I think what he means is that like citizens buy new phones, which increases a corporation's profit, which is good for the economy. And after all of that, the corporation should hand that money back to citizens. TOTALLY MAKE SENSE!
@@thebrand14ify Some people don't have it in the first place, but this will help them to be in a place to contribute rather than being on the streets which helps no-one. The money goes right back into the economy, only people will have something to eat and the ability to pay for a roof over their head. Any luxuries will have to be gotten by finding a job, but a full belly and a warm bed will help them to get that job. It's a meagre amount in the grand scheme of things, but one that could do so much good.
@@louisphilippe1100 WHAT IS THE CORPORATION GOING TO USE TO PAY THE EMPLOYEE WHO WORK TO MAKE THAT PHONE AND GIVE THEM BENEFITS.. THE CORP PAY THE STOCK HOLDER THE PROFIT BECAUSE STOCK HOLDER INVESTED THEIR MONEY IN THE CORP. YOU BUY THE PHONE BECAUSE YOU WANT TO BECAUSE YOU NEED IT. SO YOU WORK TO MAKE MONEY. YANG VAT WILL MAKE THAT PHONE COST MORE. MONEY THAT YOU WILL HAVE TO PAY FOR.
I don't think it's a good idea to simplify an idea that needs an actually good explanation into whatever you wrote there.
Wow I'm not sure the interviewer could appear more condescending if he tried.
Sounds like he's doing bad impression of Christopher Walken. Very bad. Did I mention it was bad?
haha.. WSJ lookin' bad with this guy.. just canceled my subscription.
I could be more condescending.
It's humanly impossible.
Is it worth sacrificing the benefit this could have on all of the honest, struggling families out there to avoid the risk of the few who would exploit it? I'm thinking no.
Of course not. Yang 2020!
I'd rather people watch Netflix all day than starve.
This
Lol what's wrong with Netflix
Netflix is lit if you know how to find the good shows and movies
Would you also pay for it with your own money?
If the answer is yes, you can already do that, nothing is stopping you from donating to food programs.
If the answer is no... well...
Or let me guess you have no income because you are still in school right?
Transition from a work based economy to a robot economy will not be easy. Who decides who will work and who will not? How do you continue to reward work and effort and discipline in the future when people see their neighbours "lazing around", "having a better time" etc. In the past the absence of work was seen as a luxury, now it is a burden imposed on some people not lucky enough to have a job. The big question for the future will be who works and who doesn't. Do you share out all the hours and duties available in a society? Do you change the motivation for working from survival (food, shelter, healthcare ) to other more lofty goals? Would it be possible to reserve luxuries such as holidays, fashions, etc for workers and only give credit to non-workers for essentials such as food? This is the case in the US with food stamps. While the end goal might be reached where everyone who wants a job gets a job and those who don't wnat a job get the essentials for life, I guess the transition will be long and stormy as with all human things.
Watching Netflix without eating will make you starve.
Why do people like the host believe that people are inherently lazy?? Most if not all people would probably hate to just sit around and do nothing all day for years. I feel horrible if I go one weekend not doing anything, let alone months. Most if not all people WANT to work, we as humans like to feel useful and we like to have goals. To think that people will just sit around and do nothing indefinitely if they could is so unrealistic.
I have a guaranteed basic income known as a widow's benefit. I have been laid up for a year with health issues. I have been forced to do internet surfing and reading. Done all my books sometimes twice or more; my subscriptions, etc. It hurts to sit for very long so can't feel comfortable except in bed or draping in a chair. I have had a very active life until now. Not fun and wouldn't be this way if I could avoid it. During my younger years, laying around just wasn't in my nature unless it was to think. As for the reporter, it's tough being young because you haven't got a clue about life. Not a put down. Just is the way being a human being is.
Look it's not that people wont do anything for years, it's that they won't do anything productive for years. Sure, right now it feels awful if you do nothing all week and then go to work having "wasted" your free time, but in basic income you dont have to go back to work at all. If work was voluntary, can you really say everyone will still work? Take weight loss for example, it requires voluntary work to balance calories vs exercise. How many people choose to take on that work?
Not to mention this is based on automated businesses paying heavy taxes to fees their own customers, not only would this system fail to give people more than minimum opportunities but it'd keep them in the welfare cliff.
It actually doesn't matter whether people are lazy or not.
The cost of living would just follow an upward trend to match the rising cost of doing business incurred by the very producers who subsidize your life (because their profit gets funneled to you, and they want it back). So if $17,000 were the UBI figure, then $17,000 would be the new zero after producers correct for the UBI tax. Imagine grocery stores increasing prices to offset UBI, then car companies, gas stations, etc.
This isn't rocket science.
@Jeremy Jackson regardless is its stuff they dont need, if they are spending it, they are spur the local economy which is another reason why UBI is being proposed. The majority of wealth is going to the few and far between who dont spend it on you or me or at the local stores and thus put those out of business.
I can tell you for sure that I am lazy. I meet my work deadlines and I try to finish them early, but I have a school quiz this afternoon and after skimming one chapter, I am back at CZcams. I started painting Mom's house almost a year ago and still have not finished. My car is up on blocks in the garage, waiting for me to finish. I have endless projects waiting for me, but here I am on CZcams. Not Netflix, though, I cannot afford that!
Andrew Yang 2020
Yes!!!
Andrew Yang wants a national social credit score for each individual. Not too far from what China does.
G D Wrong. You are purposefully being ignorant and trying to push people away. Maybe if you took a moment to read his policies, you wouldn’t be so uninformed.
@@AliBooondok I'm sure it doesn't sound as bad as China. You have to move in baby steps to stay below the radar. Your trustworthiness of government is frightening.
@@gfdthree1 yep
It seems that the host doesn’t understand that it’s an experiment. The randomized trials are good because that means it’s generalizable to the population as a whole. If they made a work requirement, and the working people were successful but when applied to the whole population those that didn’t work failed; then they made a policy based on false information. If it fails then it fails and won’t be made policy because the evidence isn’t there that it will assist people. He seems to be campaigning against something that may just end up proving his point.
It’s not even costing them that much money so the program is probably worth it in the long run just to get the data.
he's indoctrinated with the mentality that capitalism is the only way and people will just laze around if you give them money.
@@HamguyBacon Capitalism is trade by choice. So yes, that is far more preferable than trade by force.
He is not campaigning against it, he is practicing good journalism. This video paints basic income in an incredible favorable light considering that everyone interviewed was for the idea. The host is simply asking contrary questions to get answers from the interviewees. This is a good way to understand the deeper reasoning of the projects and start a conversation. He doesn't put forth an opinion, he just asks questions that any rational person should ask, and the interviewees are free to respond.
Socialism has been tried over and over. This is not an experiment. The outcome is predictable because this has been done before. Families barely making their expenses will be taxed to make lazy, unproductive people, richer. Venezuela tried the universal income strategy and now they starve. Socialism kills opportunity, confiscates property and takes freedom.
@Jonathan Rolfsen the majority of legal votes were for Trump.
The video was great, but the interviewer seemed massively biased tru the whole thing unfortunatly.
Yeah he was extremely judgmental
I didn't like his attitude. He could challenge the people he is interviewing without making that dumb face and talking about Netflix.
Yeah, he failed as a journalist. He should maybe consider a job he is more suited for like a puppet since he clearly has someone pulling his strings to skew the attitude of this piece.
Are we surprised? It’s the Wall Street Journal.
How do you have bias to a theory's unknown effects? What are you a practicing master engineer of economic systems?
Andrew Yang is running for President of United States, you all should vote for him.... this is one of his main policies...
Darren Pang where is this money coming from? Are we going to tax everyone an extra 50%? All that for an extra 1k a month?
There are better ways to deal with income inequality, without turning the U.S.A. into a communist nation. We start by abolishing the federal reserve. You people are stupid if you trust Mark Zuck. He wants you to be dependent on government cheese, do you think there is a reason for that ????
Jmoney No a VAT (Value Added Tax) will be added and it's a better and more effective way of getting tax revenue from companies in small quantities. Europe tried wealth taxes and it didn't work and so they implemented a VAT and it's successful.
Bill Gates, Elon Musk, Mark Zuckerberg, Mark Cuban, they are all visionary people, listen to them explaining what the future will be and why we need basic income
Andrew Yang 2020
They're the same human gods who have sucked up all of our resources making UBI absolutely necessary! Andrew Yang 2020!
the movers of our generations vs that dude that represented Mitt Romney in his horrible presidential campaign.. hmmmm.
How about kicking robos out of the economy...... provide people with work not free money
@@vishalgiraddi5357 How about people being provided with access to the Earth's natural resources and not be required to rent one's body to the rich just for basis sustenance?
@@shaaronie yes, America needs to tame it's corporations,
Insted of "providing people with earth's natural resources", focussing on state owned enterprises, more regulations on private enterprises would be better
At the same time we need to ensure we don't overstep and introduce excessive regulations
Does this host not recognize this is a UBI EXPERIMENT? The whole point is to learn how people would use a UBI, so they want to make it randomized with minimal requirements, and they want people to have the freedom to use the money how they see fit so they can track outcomes. Some people "slacking" is an almost certainty, but if the cost of those "slackers" is cheaper than paying for the bureaucracy required to prevent "slacking," UBI will have been worth it.
But clearly this host knows how it's going to turn out, which is why he is considered an expert in government assistant programs #SaidNoOne
I agree completely
I'm not entirely certain that the host actually thinks this way. Consider that he is asking the question that a lot of people want to know about this, to the people who have the potential actual data to answer it, rather than guess. Look at any article or video on the subject and the comments are full of people making the assertion that it can't work, people will be lazy, etc. This is a real fear that people have, whether founded or not.
What he failed to get into this video (though it is a series so perhaps the point will be made) is that people already game the system.
As for me, UBI is a genuinely interesting idea, and the potential upsides have already been shown to be possible in various ways (consider inexpensive micro loans in developing countries). The potential downside is something that already exists in the current system, so it's worth finding out if that will get worse, or the upsides make it better.
He is an ignorant idiot. He doesn't understand the statistics that show how people preffer to work instead of doing absolutly nothing the entire day. Maybe he would do nothing with that money because he had a privileged life and he is not used to struggle, but people suffering do the opposite, they work according to the numbers. So lets see how this EXPERIMENT does.
Clearly someone slacking is much worse than homelessness or poverty.
"I would rather 99 people suffer than 1 person be able to slack." - some people.
Misinformation campaign in full swing.
This guys interview skills are too distracting to enjoy this video. He obviously doesn’t understand The basics of this experiment.
I think part of it was voicing the main talking points of each side of politics with regards to UBI. Most right wing inidviduals I talk to and even many left wing call UBI a handout and that if everyone got it then no one would work and watch Netflix all day. Well, he voices that talking point to figure out people's response.
He kind seemed impartial to the couple's problems, though.
@@floormatt3Only stupid people or children would believe that. A thousand dollars isn' better then two and also all the small businesses made from this would boost productivity. You people need think better.
Clearly! But to be fair i dont follow the "Logic" of giving a painter who makes $200 a YEAR an income because they "Work". Or $17,000 to a guy because he wants to make puppets and not get a job with a better wage.
Dustin Draper man, you guys are all right, this guy interviewing is terrible.
Jason Bellini isn't a very good journalist in this video. Just comes off really ignorant and worse, arrogant in this story process. I hope he develops.
you're right
Larry Wong that’s because the idea is idiotic and he can barely hold himself from yelling BS!!
Alexey Vedernikov 400 study articles on basic income. There are still 70 more experiments you can look up.
Believe me man, I had no idea of these either. Basic income is that best stimulus for the people backed by data.
You should read his book on the topic.
basicincome.org/research/
@@AlexeyVedernikov Except that only willfully ignorant complete idiots think that UBI idea is ’idiotic’.
The interviewer needs to be replaced by a robot because baby he is giving me straight AT-TI-TUDE!!!!!! 🙄
Vashti Perry loool
It's interesting, if people get a UBI they're looked down upon by some in society for not working. If they work 40 hrs a week but can't escape poverty, they're looked down upon by society.
Here's the thing, you can't escape the fact that some will become complacent, but most will not because the UBI is help but doesn't provide enough to get whatever they want in life. Therefore, they use the UBI to help getting what they want easier. This is effectively what rich children have and look what it's done for them. They are much more successful on average than those who have no assistance
Of course, if we were to implement a truly UNIVERSAL basic income then there would be no stigma associated with receiving it because even the top 1% would get it.
GoErikTheRed and that really is the goal I think. Welfare systems that stop providing at a certain income don't work. My mom works in administration in her company, she's the boss. She had a girl working for her on welfare who refused a promotion multiple times because she wouldn't be able to get her welfare check anymore
I'm going to be gardening & woodworking even if I got free money. Some people find passion in their work, but most people would rather sit around doing nothing.
Darin Gainey I feel like with all the extra free time on your hands, you would find some way to contribute to society. Also studies have shown that this isn't true
Psychology also tells us that people are happier working and tend to seek work - although what 'work' means differs among people. For some people making CZcams videos is their preferred line of work - I'm sure many economic conservatives would scoff at the idea of recording yourself play video games as a form of work via entertaining others, but many people have shown it is viable if poorly paying. If people refuse to work if they don't have to, that would imply that everyone who is wealthy enough to retire for life do so immediately when they are able - but this isn't the case. The vast majority of human beings are psychologically driven to solve problems.
This idea that UBI's would drive people to do nothing is bogus.
Those guys saying you should work in exchange for basic income are missing the point. There may not BE jobs for humans in the future, which is one of the reasons we're entertaining the idea in the first place. I think basic income is a great idea. Would rather have the people around me lazing around in comfort than being stressed, homeless and potentially resorting to crime.
@mark yeah okay grandpa, facebook is that way
It's true that people are lazy, but automation would get implemented even if we had a 100% dedicated workforce, it's non-sense not to automatize what can be automatized.
There’s always going to be work. Even working 3 hours a week is showing you are willing to contribute to society. Although that’s totally abusable and not easy to enforce - if I sell a painting, that’s work. Lol. Basic universal income for all is a good ideal though.
@mark you don't even use critical thinking do you? No? It shows... Here... Let me walk it through for you:
You think people are being replaced because they're getting too lazy. So let's use that as an assumption and see what happens.
If people are too lazy, what happens in the real world? They get fired. They get fired, and someone else gets hired in their place. So the threat of being fired from your job will likely keep people from being lazy, or at the least, meet the minimum standards set by the employer. There's so many people looking for a job out there that people are easily replaceable, so there's a natural competition to be motivated to not get fired (AKA work harder).
So if being lazy is not the reason why automation is becoming a thing, what else could it be? Well... maybe the machines does a better job than the most hard working, most efficient humans? A single machine can do the job of 1000 hard working humans. So it doesn't matter if someone is lazy or not, they WILL get replaced once a machine is built capable of that job.
So these are all just words... so let's get some visual demonstration:
In this video, this machine is modifiable and modular to do almost any hardware manufacturing: czcams.com/video/PtgmY5sFtDs/video.html
See how fast it produces things? Find me ONE human in this world that can produce at this speed. On top of that, this is just CURRENT day technology! With artificial intelligence and smarter and smarter computers, these tasks can become more and more complicated. Here are a list of jobs that can (and probably will) be replaced by machines in the future:
Gaming dealers (think Vegas delaers)
Accountants
Broadcast Technicians
Construction workers
Office assistants
Atmospheric and space scientists
Dental Hygienists
Security guard
Bus, taxi, semi truck drivers
Waiter/waitresses
Boring and drilling machine operators
Cargo and freight agents
Correctional officers and jailers
Social science research assistance
Locksmiths
Restaurant cooks
Oil, gas, and mining operators
Private detectives
Recreational vehicle service technicians
Highway maintenance workers
Certain types of electricians
Flight attendants
The list literally goes on almost forever! Type a job in here (even complicated jobs) and you'll be surprised who gets replaced, or click on the "random generator" to see a bunch of random jobs you wouldn't even think about: willrobotstakemyjob.com/
That's actually not true. From an economic standpoint firms will only automate if it reduces average total cost of production, hence increasing profits, and that isn't always the case surprisingly.
She reminds me of my mom. I wish I could give her a hug.
Just saying Andrew Yang
Hey I don't live in the USA, does Andrew Yang support universal basic income?
@@200Carl YES :) His platform centers around UBI.
Universal for the people he likes, Universal obligation for the people he doesn't like!
@@billboyd2009 And the people that Yang "doesn't like" are the many companies who not only hoard wealth thru taxes evasions & lay off people to boost their CEOs' salaries, but also preach on the old beliefs in the "trickle-down economy" to fool us AND the government into thinking that this is ok, so.... yeah. I think it's pretty understandable for the average working-class, tax-paying American to NOT like these companies, not just Yang. :)
I hope it's obvious to everyone how this piece was being framed.
A great example of why legacy media is failing.
it is the wall street journal, after all - thanks for the good point made
Yea he had a certain... Judgmental tone. The negativity was subtle but there. I don't know if legacy media is failing but I do know this video was a little bias. Then again, what isn't?
Misinformation begins years before the issue ever hits the ballot.
A genuine scientific study hopefully wouldn't be biased towards any one conclusion. Unfortunately, something like this needs some pretty massive funding, and whoever funds it is probably going to be expecting a certain answer ahead of time.
And it really bothers me, because this issue deserves a fair look. It's not some distant philosophical notion, these are people's lives being deeply affected. A potential root change to societal structure. But no, instead it's all point and laugh. "More puppets". Of course.
Framed? What you mean? I saw a comment say how he was being negative idk if that's what you mean but you have to challenge something like this because people will cheat and it ain't that easy to just give everyone money.
Zuckerburg may have said ‘cushion’ but he said to enable people to develop more ideas, not just to sit on a cushion!.
Thank you Andrew Yang! He is not LEFT or RIGHT he is FORWARD!!! We love Andrew Yang on the Politricks Podcast!!!
Straight into the pool of lava
I disagree with the meaning of work bit... People working in Retail, Fast Food, Trucking, etc. have no meaning in life... It's just a paycheck to support their family. These people would use their free time to do something they like. Maybe start a local bakery, produce art/music/theater, participate more in church or local community events, start a tech company, carpentry business, etc... This will become the new economic engine that will take us to the next century. As opposed to the current system which is basically based on Wall Street gambling with everyone's money. We need to pump money back to MAIN ST not WALL ST!!!!!
mrbam88 these people are in bad situations because they have a history or making the wrong decisions- getting pregnant before they are able to support another life, not continuing school by choice, not making smart choices with what money they do have, partners who don’t help them get ahead in life, mental instability that leads to bad decisions. Getting free money will not change bad decisions for the majority of them. A small percent will actually do something to better themselves with the money.
@@KaygeedageeYou're missing the point. Letting people struggle in society hurts all of us. We want these people ( who make bad decisions) to not hurt the overall economy. We need everyday people to spend money! It's the fuel to a healthy economy. Otherwise, we are no different than a 3rd world country. It's about increasing overall economic growth for Main Street. Obviously, the big cities will be fine, but what about rural America? Let's not focus on identity politics! It's just a tool to divide us. Let focus on helping everyone. It like in sports, you have to get everyone on the team involved to win! You got to have a strong bench to win a championship! You shouldn't only care about the superstars...
Interview in a nutshell
Host: BUT AREN'T YOU WORRIED THEY'LL WATCH NETFLIX?
Protected Method Would be great for Netflix's pocketbook then... they should be lobbying for this ^_^
I would play video games
@@Sky.Lukewalker Trust me it gets boring. You only have to look at people that are on disability and see what they do with their time. Eventually you can watch pretty much everything you want to on Netflix within a short period of time. For video games it takes a little longer to get bored of them, but this also happens. I'm not saying some people won't play video games all the time. The idea that most people will play video games daily for 3 plus years is false. This is coming from someone who has spent probably 10k hours playing video games, but admittedly I've always wanted to quit. I'm not saying some people won't play video games all the time, but it just isn't as interesting as real life, and most people get bored of it.
He could have at least asked: are you worried that drug addicts will overdose? If you aren't screening, then you won't know if someone has a habit. And money in that case would cause more harm than good.
Alice Ying Shan exactly why a rich man would lobby for it....... cough cough mark zuckerberg
The point of ubi is to have a base income for all people. It's not enough to live a nice life but it is enough to cover food and rent. So if you blow it all on dumb things then that's your problem but if you use it to support yourself through school or periods of unemployment then that reduces the stress and anxiety that people deal with at that time..... assuming it has not effect on inflation.
If everyone is on UBI, who pays for everyone's UBI?
@@louisphilippe1100 value added tax on tech companies. Check out Andrew Yang.
@@DebraJohnson it's pretty much a consumer tax on big tech companies like Amazon transactions, facebook Ads, robot/self driving car miles, google search, gps, youtube ads, so much more with innovative technology. Everything we use is technology and will continue to grow and advance in the next decade.
Thank you WSJ for this short video.
I have been on a "basic income" since 2008. In the beginning (in 1996) it was named "Guaranteed Basic Income", it was a governmental program, and it was written into law. The government meanwhile changed its name, and now there is no "guaranteed" word in it and the law is a bit different. IMO it only creates jobs for social workers.
Once I was unemployed after college, and started to go to a bank's library that was a public place, it was the library of the bank's administration and they all the exclusive banking publications. I went there for 10 years. I lived with my parents, they were sick, but they could support me, we had our house, and they did not need much care, and sometimes even helped. I read banking law among other things, and learned "everything" about money, so to speak.
It all this horrific experience, I had to rethink my life, and I decided to keep several ideas in my mind.
1. From banking law I learned: "All individuals, companies, and corporations must have their expenses domiciled".
2. From sociology I learned: "All human beings need four things: (1) earn a living, (2) social recognition, (3) love, and (4) leisure".
3. From contracts law: "Capacity: (1) material conditions, (2) know-how, (3) will, (4) really doing it - absence of impediment such as in "force majeure"".
I strongly recommend the WSJ, to listen to this man, because having unemployed, I really understand what he means, and he really covers all the angles:
czcams.com/video/ei_e7xR_fM0/video.html
Only to give you an idea, I have learned computer science, and three programming languages, Mark Elliot Zuckerberg, was not even born when I went to college, I never had even a job, it happens, and people need something "guaranteed", like when we have parents, which not all but most of us do.
teach every one about how to handle money in school and you solve your problem.
Also getting people to have money to learn for themselves how to manage money will support mandated High School Financial Literacy classes (ala Andrew Yang)
The problem currently is not the management of money, it’s the lack of money to manage.
@@Daniel-lm6yf yes. We need both: education and actual cash to practic3
unless the problem wasn't mean to be solved but instead perpetuated?
UBI is the ultimate tool for money management.
MORE PUPPETS!
LOLed :D
For the love of god YES!
Yeah i thought that was abit stupid but when no one works anymore people will focus on their hobbys they will focus on achieving their dreams insted of working a job they don't like just to survive while someone gets even richer from your slavery. It will be pure freedom and as technology gets better living costs will go down eventually money won't have value. People will be rewarded in ways for contributing something to society
Yaayyyy MORE PUPPETS
I hate puppets
stupid typical media... he probably said somethings that were brilliant... and it was all cut out to make him look stupid.
as of this posting there is a major topic on this on reddit shower thoughts
More puppets
I want to work with him!
I don't work well with others
I think we are all in agreement that we need more puppets. Especially from creepy gingers.
more puppets equals more profit right?
Vali Lazarescu 😂 isn't that what everybody really needs? More puppets! Haha
Don't these experiments not represent actual UBI since they are so small scale and are subsidized by surrounding areas without UBI?
Yes
I work for a company that make automated parts and software, and we are very busy working 7 day a week to keep up with sale. The more we shipped out our products the more peoples getting lay-off. Soon even our job will be automated too.
With a UBI you can replace all existing welfare programs and because it's way more efficient to give one lump sum payment, instead of sifting through bureaucratic inefficiency, you can provide an all encompassing social welfare program that will consequently drive up productivity and safe tax payers millions of dollars.
Champraves311 The left will not let governmet gove up on other entitlements
Champraves311 more spending
A negative income tax, as Friedman put forward, is much better than UBI. Both are better than current day welfare, which discourages work and promotes breaking up families.
Think of the millions of jobs that would be lost that serve that bureaucratic nightmare if it was gone.
Champraves311 i dont think ubi will work but a basic living package will work better. You get a tiny home enough food to eat and water to drink. Thats it no money can go into your hands but you can live a full life but it would be without entertainment. The way to ger entertained would be to work
Basic income aka free money derives from the Idea that people are inherently motivated and that (a lack of) money only holds them back. I think there is some truth to that idea.
I'm not a true socialist in classic political terms but I have reached the point to where I'm basically convinced that money does not truly propel society but really mostly divides people. Therefor I think UBI is nothing but an intermediate step to another much greater idea and that is that when we become a highly advanced technical society we can simply rid ourselves of the concept of money and probably even possession. I think we have no choice as human beings when we want to save our planet and our species in the process.
A lot of aspects of current society simply make no sense. Having to work for money simply to survive might one day be considered as a cruel form of slavery in a time where 1% owned the planet and the rest were up for scraps.
md you might be more a socialist than you think.
You will grow up and realize the World is more complex than childish communist ideas.
Honestly this is one of the smartest CZcams comments I’ve ever seen. I was very surprised to agree with that last paragraph.
Yang2020
“You and Zuckerburg should give checks to 1 million people”
“That’s not fair, the government should do it”
I've been living so frugal that would be like the lotto for me. Being broke really sucks
@ what a coincidence that's exactly what I just ate
What's wrong with having a cushion and helping your people and communities thrive.. Lord forbid.
Its way more efficent than give to charity because charity is basically the middle man that keeps a good part.
"I'm not looking for a handout, I'm looking for a hand up"
Then use your hands working more jobs.
It is a hand up, it's meager amount of money but it's enough you won't have to worry about surviving. Simple, now please be quiet about it
This is why we need to listen to Andrew Yang
Finland did the same UBI experiment too, worked well, the only difference is- it stops after two years which was not preferable, but helps a lot for participants who really needs money to survive.
So many people will waste that on drugs.
So it's 2019 now, does anyone know the results of that experiments?
The issue is, we as a species are in a transition period. We are still caught in the old capitalist way but we are coming into the automation era. And this era is something we haven't seen, we won't be training up our cab drivers to engineers because AGI will be doing the engineering. As more jobs fall to automation, this will be more and more of a problem.
People have been saying that sort of thing since the Industrial Revolution... There will be different opportunities that arise. There always are. It's why it's called "Creative destruction".
Here: czcams.com/video/WSKi8HfcxEk/video.html
This is the first time that jobs that are going away are not being replaced by a growing number of new jobs. So your rebuttal is false I'm afraid. People were saying it when new jobs were outpacing the destruction of old jobs, this is not the same as those times.
markj6700 This is bigger. Potential beginning of a reshift of the very structure of society. A shift from a capitalist society to a hybrid combo of capitalism and socialist as we become very good a production. That or government heavily regulates automation to keep things similar in the free market
Automation has been a part of our lives since the day the wheel was invented. Jobs have been shifting and new ones created for centuries, nothing has changed.
zdrux I hate to use the cliché, but this paradigm shift, the likes humanity has never encountered before.
This is nothing like the industrial revolution. We are not just replacing physical labour with machines anymore. We will be replacing thinking "labour" with machines.
Who is the Asian man standing next to Joe Biden?
It could be a bad idea. Imagine if the government gave you an extra $700 a month. All the landlord has to do is just raise the rent+$700
I would raise rent but not that full amt lol
Lol he would jist leave house and buy his own on loan based on his basic income😋
@@anandsuralkar2947 Tf, that literally makes 0 sense. Have you ever bough a house????
alvisc2002 Regardless of the idea, landlords are raising rents anyways.
The solution is more puppets
Universal Basic Income have been tested in many parts of the world. Contrary to what many here says, it has consistently increased innovation, entrepreneurship, local economies, quality of life, and brought people out of poverty where it was used.
Then you should have linked the evidence.
Till the currency ran out Socialism is great until you run out of other peoples money.
Barskor1
The point was that it helped improved people's lives and got them self-sufficient. Not necessary become reliant and lazy as was assumed.
Got proof?
+Valentin Li Short term extra money means you don't get lazy on it Life Time money lets you get lazy and none of these UBI studies were permanent or lasted more than ten years.
#YANGGANG
That dude was all about giving “workers” money until he was told to fund it😂
Yeah Love That One Fo Sho !
Because it's a societal problem to be solved in the population. The money comes from the spending of all Citizens. What your spending level is is up to you. But the capitalism is already is full swing.
@@JohnnyCatFitz Your lack or abundance of money is not the business of the population. What you are referring to is called communism/socialism, which has always ended in starvation and mass genocides.
@@louisphilippe1100 You can call anything any dirty name you want to, if it serves the whole it serves. But peaceful radical change may be in the interests before it becomes drastic. Nobody caring is a symptom of the problem. I doubt you'll be forced to take money or quit your job or anything at all, is that communist or socialist, fine, it's also democracy. It's also what people that are on the other side of poverty say is necessary, don't believe them?
As a Muslim i see this 'basic income' to re-distribution wealth is kinda late. 1400 years.
We been thought about sharing basic income since in childhood. We call it infaq & zakat.
Infaq basically you give your some of your money in your own will to help others.
Zakat means you have to give some of your wealth to the government.when it meet a certain term & condition. Government will re-distribut your wealth to everyone who deserves it. There are 8 type of people as i remember.
Sorry for bad English and please correct me if im wrong.
You can search by yourself for better understanding.
Dimas Ramatika ❤️ 100% true.
Get rid of this host
he's really awful
Yep, I also felt like he is constantly pissed off by the idea itself, and it shows
Idk, I think an effective way to get the most out of an interview is to set it up in a way such that the interviewee is required to counter an argument. I feel like he did an excellent job though I feel like the questions could have been edited out.
No he is playing devil's advocate. This an experiment not a communist revolution. It is logic to be secptical of such a radical plan, relative to conventional advice. Also if the show persented it's self in favour of the plan the show would be biased and alienating to people who don't already agree with universal living wage. Additionally if the program fails, assuming positive bias, the show would also fail.
his face - i feel like i'm on LSD when i watch him talk
that old couple was too good maintaining a smile in the most difficult time of their life
Harshit Singla because FAKE
Here is my story on this. We have a son with a BS ME (State University) working in automation. He decided at age 35 that he hated his job. Two failed marriages may have something to do with that. He decided to become a writer and live on some island in SC.
He could not make a living and pressured us to finance him. We refused. He ran out of money. He returned to work in automation and married again. He is now gainfully employed making over $100 k /year and said he is happy. I think a BMI would have derailed my son and he would pursue his Hobby as a writer of who knows what.
@@MichaelMusson-en7be You may be amazed. There is this famous poet/singer Leonard Cohen. Like my son he did not want to do his fathers business but become a poet. His father put him on a small annuity on which he lived on some Greek island. No electricity or utility. His poetry did not pay the bills nor did the annuity. But he did it until his 40's. Next he became a song writer and singer. He became famous but his girl friend/financial adviser cleaned him out. He died a few years ago supposely poor.
"I just don't work well with other people." The puppet dude is my spirit animal!
Terrible interviewer. I’m not even for basic income as I think there are better ways to spend the money, but good lord that was biased. The interviewer came off as disingenuous and seemed to have a lack of basic understanding on the subject. The questions were awful.
Since ancient days government employees, ministers, and everyone part of the government are the beneficiaries of UBI. Oh yeah they are doin some work(?) for the people.
One of the main problems I see are RENTS seemingly every other product in the modern world has been improving in quality while simultaneously dropping in price (cars, shoes, communication, food), thus leading to a higher standard of living even amongst the "poorest" (i.e. even some cheap 20 dollar Walmart sneakers you buy today are better than what most people wore in the 80s). However, RENT and property taxes and housing prices in general seem to be what keep people in poverty, and they are a "product" that seems so arbitrarily priced -even with advances in building technology, building materials, etc used to make housing, which you would think would make it cheaper than ever to find housing, the arbitrarily determined "market price" of rent keeps the cost of living high.
You also have to teach people about money. Just giving them money won't fix a lack of knowledge.
Emma Renee you also have to fix the mentality that most poor people have. My parents have made terrible financial decisions throughout my life. Its knowledge and attitude, which can both be adjusted through guidance.
this isn't about lack of knowledge. what would knowledge do when you have no opportunities to earn money? I say do both, teach em about money and give em basic assistance. It's basic and serves like the company's infrastructure. Otherwise I can say send this dude out to an island and teach him how to build his own housing, water well, garden, etc. Of course that would work but as a society, I think we've evolved to the level where we can afford for our people to work off a better foundation.
If a solution doesn't come quick the homeless population will increase at a exponential rate due too the rapid increase of the cost of living and a stagnant rise of basic wages
I'm all for basic income.
"i dont work well with people" well, have you even tried?
It is a challenge to get educated and employed with no support.
Free money? While I have to work hard, very hard for mine? No.
Grant Hill what happens when robots replace you? Where will you work hard? Where will you get money from?
You would receive it as well. If you lost your job...
@@StephenJohnson Find another job.
Keep your job and stay ahead.
I have some interesting anecdotes I could share if I didn’t have to work.
Send me money!.
You would still have to work if you ever wanted more than basic housing and no starvation.
I would love to be taxed more for more Puppets. Who needs the free market when you can have free money!
The modern versions of UBI lose the vision behind Friedman's negative income tax. It's to replace all other forms of assistance because of how inefficient they are - it's purpose is not to supplement them.
Means-tested welfare is what Andrew Yang seeks to slowly siphon from, because it is an enormous, inefficient mechanism that most who need it can't use. Things like SS, SS disability, and unemployment/veterans benefits are okay though because they are contribution based - practically insurance.
I truly support the idea, can't wait for it to happen, I hope this will make the world better.
Host: "So you mean to tell me you think there's a down side to this?"
Interviewee: "Possibly, but many of the people we've experimented with have gone to school to learn skills"
Host: "So you think it'll fail?"
Interviewee: "That's not what I said. I'm saying that a number of countries have tried this and it shows promise."
Host: "I hear you, but what I think you're saying is that there's negative incentives here."
Interviewee: "Well it depends on the person. Again, we have to look at the data."
Host: "Hmmm... so basically it's not a good idea? Where's that puppet guy again?"
The host isn't a true journalist, he's a shill.
He didn’t say any of that, liar.
There is one flaw in UBI: if everyone had this newfound basic wealth, those in power would always find a way to get that money from the powerless. Be it raising prices on commodities or raising taxes that levels the UBI. We need to define very carefully what UBI is before we dive into it
My question is: Are these young brilliant minds, such as Hughes, Tesla and Zuckerberg providing the sample program within their companies to prove their points? Do they pay their employees a "across the board" wage? Are these leaders willing to live on $17,000 a year?
I think there's a misconception here, UBI doesn't level out wages like communism. On the low end, it leaves the 'losers' in a competitive capitalist society with enough money to survive and participate in the economy, while on the high end encouraging potential entrepreneurs and business owners (people have more buying power, entrepreneur has extra 1k to invest). Also, as Yang points out, it's more likely to work if everyone gets it to reduce the stigma attached to welfare.
Equality of outcome is the most ridiculous idea ever. Just look at literally all countries who tried implementing such ridiculous policies. Start with the USSR....
@@louisphilippe1100 It's more ridiculous that some people genuinely believe that “equality of outcome” in economic context is anything but propagandist demagogy, which had never even been tried in practice on a remotely significant scale. USSR like any socialist state adhered to its classic *socialist* motto. Do you have reasoning skills to realize the implications of “according to his contribution” part?
@@MistorDi sooo, where in the USSR did they have a UBI?
I know they had "ration cards" , just like the USA for the past 200 years
The notion that people on UBI will become complacent and not work is laughable. UBI is just enough to live on the edge of the poverty line, no one wants to live in a tiny apartment and not afford luxuries. The whole point is that it's a cushion, not a seat in of itself. It gives you leverage to pursue a better job , or a job period.
But why would you pursue a better job for small increase in overal wealth if goverment taxed you heavilly for your hard work So they can give your money to others?
@@azmomadius UBI will be funded from consumption side not the production side.
@@crazieeez thats ignoring basic economics. For the entire population below a certain wealth level to have this. You would have to tax either sales to the point where a gallon of milk it 10 a gallon. Or youd have to tax those above this line to the point where it would be better for them to work at poverty levels instead of middle class wages.
"no one wants to live in a tiny apartment and not afford luxuries"
That's not true. Not everyone have aspirations not even for luxuries, but for a materialized way of life. I know from myself.
Muhammad Ahmed nothing works in a vacuum. Your proposed sources of funding are not sustainable over the long term. You can’t jack up taxes and expect everything to hum along like nothing happened. The best thing you can do over the long term is pursue faster overall GDP growth which creates more surpluses to take care of those who can’t earn their own way.
Let's try it and see how it goes.
Sith anybody who allows this to happen deserves any negative consequences. It's worth the experiment, we should let them do this to themselves.
Let do what to themsleves?
did you watch the video they are trying it in a limited population first and the person in charge of it admits that there is a possibility that it can totally fail. And it is true it can fail but we'll never know unless we try it.
Sith'ari Azithoth says:
"Problem is that if it goes badly, there will be nothing you can do about it to go back..."
==
Do you know the history of minimum wages?
It's pretty hard even today when almost every country has some form of it to explain to the people.
Imagine how difficult was it to start.
Once one country tried it in late 1800s, it just kept spread to the rest of the world, at least in the developed countries.
It wouldn't have spread if the first try was a failure.
Somethings in economy you just have to try it.
Sith'ari Azithoth Hasn't stopped Republicans from implementing supply-side economics again and again even though it never works.
If she gets hungry enough, that dog could be in jeopardy
I love how people think you can ship people free money to people without any negative consequences.
People suffer due to lack of money. This is a reality.
If the insanely wealthy really believe that the poor have some profoundly profitable ideas, it would be in their best interest to pay for them directly.
@James Franko If the insanely wealthy really believe that the poor have some profoundly profitable ideas, it would be in their best interest to pay for them directly.
@James Franko The middle class is wealthy by almost all metrics.
Sadly but truly, it'd be in their best interest to pull the ideas from them on the promise of money and then not actually follow thru on bringing the originator onboard.
I hate when the interviewer says 7:50 "why don't you tech billionaires directly pay people basic income checks?", as if this would be a sustainable practice. Chris Hughes is only worth $500 million... he could give 42,000 people $1000/month for 1 year, before his entire well dried up. solution isn't to make millionaires go broke, it's 1) get money out of politics, by outlawing PAC contributions, 2) eliminate tax haven loopholes that let companies avoid paying billions in taxes; 3) a value added tax on luxury goods, 4) redirect spending away from pointless military conflicts that benefit the rich.
"it will cost $50 million a year" BUT that money will go back into the economy, it's not wasted it will be used.
The same would happen if officials pocketed the money and spent it on whatever. Its not an argument.
Anyway helping poor people get on their feet is in no way bad. But this "experiment" will tell us nothing about what kind of effects UBI would have because:
1) the people in the test are not random
2) the experiment does not last their whole lives.
In short its not an experiment about the effects of UBI.
"Why aren't you screening for people that are more likely to take advantage of this opportunity to better themselves?"
What makes you think we (government) have the capability to even answer to that question? Or to put it another way, what makes you think we know how to screen for people who will take advantage of it?
A better answer is that it defeats the purpose of the pilot if they do that. If they screen for motivated people it doesn't represent the populace at large. They need to know what the populace at large do and how they react before they think about rolling it out.
@Jeremy Jackson where do you live, that literally never happens here in California. They may be unfriendly here but the system runs like clockwork.
What Is "better themselves"? Who decides what makes skills desirable?
The results are really exciting: the provincial government changed hands to, basically, Donald Trump of the North, and they cancelled this experiment on the first day of office.
Yea what a waste of time and resources now that it's been canceled to early
Really, that's a bummer. I really wanted to know how it would turn out. Got any links to the cancellation?
Christones Michel www.cbc.ca/news/canada/basic-income-pilot-project-ford-cancel-1.4771343
@@jbre7233 Thanks, brother. Much appreciated. Hopefully, another government takes initiative to complete this experiment
I think Zuckerberg should start his own experiment.
That's why I am an inventor of new automation technology now .
If I do it right, my ideas should automate the work while allowing the employee to be free to do other more creative and necessary work.
Imagine a piano player with only the black keys, but instead of keys he has two hammers to hit the strings.
Now I automate that with keys and add the white ones as well.
The pianist is now free to expand the music he can produce.
Now fully automate and replace the pianist.
People inherently don't like it.
It doesn't catch on more than a novelty.
Pianists are safe.
As well as anything else we value a human for that a machine is not.
Machines should assist us, not replace us.
But this won't always be the case.
Always consider wether what you do will remain valuable to other people and adapt to meet that demand ...in the meantime.
Good luck.
If I got paid to do nothing, I would stay at home and play video games.
People need to stop worrying about people being lazy and "stealing" $17,000 and start being concerned about the millionaires and billionaires who steal every year through tax loop holes.
Amazon anyone. Andrew Yang for 2020 I hope others in researching UBI listens to his Freedom dividen proposal before dismissing opportunity.
Zach N I’m very capable of doing my taxes and I’m not sure why your character attacks are relevant to the video or my comment. My comment is regarding the critique in the video about people getting $17,000 a year for not doin g “anything”. My point is there are larger losses of revenue from tax loopholes that rob the government of money. Your comment that I can take part in large corporate tax loop holes isn’t accurate But thanks for taking the time to share your thoughts.
Yeah, because starting a business and being successful should be punished right? I had a business in California and as soon as my business earned over 600k it was not worth it to get any bigger I actively too steps to prevent growth, finally I had to make a decision. I literally closed down and moved to Texas now I employ four times the people. Sorry California, there a reason why the jobs are leaving.
@@amelliamendel2227 hey that's really cool that your business is growing so well but I'm not sure what or if you were trying to make a point. If you would like to clarify, please do.
@@Evan-wv4hz my only point is that California is a horrible place to try to grow a business. The bureaucracy is out of control, taxes are beyond absurd, and the regulations are unbelievable. I don't see how a universal income could ever be sustainable. What you consider to be the rich are the people with the best mobility of anyone. I will eventually earn over 100k a year, not there yet, but if everything continues on track I will. Should I get punished for creating a product made in the USA and literally creating jobs out of nothing but my hard work? Should I pay a crazy tax that makes it again not worth it to operate where I am? If I have to leave Texas I will take my business and the jobs it creates out of the country completely. And how does that scale, an I evil if I make 100k and employ 23 people, what about a million and 250 jobs, at what point does a small business owner become large enough that they're hated and should pay 70% tax? What about a millionaire who provides 250k jobs with benefits? Just curious what you think. Apparently employing 566,000 people makes you a horrible person that should pay 90% tax, as at least one politician said about Jeff Bezos
Eventually governments will tax companies that use automation and provide basic income to most citizens which will give a lot of people the ability to create new inventions and opportunities to move humanity forward. Yes many people would be fine with just living on the basics but those people aren’t motivated already and cost more difficulties in the work place as they don’t really want to be there in the first place.
Bootstrapping with diminishing returns the customer will pay for the tax that then has to pay for all the bureaucracy that the former customer gets a small portion of back in UBI.
You bring to the table an idea that is very interesting: the cost of unmotivated workers and filler work. The current system says everybody should work, but that may exists a hidden cost due to people working on things that take value away from society. E.: unneeded bureaucracy, crime (which is a kind of work), political propaganda, etc.
Quick, someone bomb the Cayman Islands before they evade your clever tax plan.
Because companies like McDonald that would develop automated system to replace workers are given billions of dollars in tax cuts for having so many people employed. innovation is being held back by the government for the sack of keeping people working.
But what if gov never does that?
What's tragic about this is that the government in Ontario, Canada killed this experiment before the results could be measured. I am beyond angry that they were so ignorant. This research is critical to understanding how to make Universal Basic Income work.
You guys I think the interviewer’s face just looks like that...there’s no changing it lol
If my corporate overlord would pay me a fair wage, just $1-2 more from a little over $13 now and I'd say no thanks to the U.B.I.
I'm not greedy, I just wouldn't worry anymore, and might start a side business.
Andrew Yang is a proponent of this, so far looking like the best candidate for the 2020 race
Lol to bad he wont make it....
People don't just "sit on" the "cushion"! The money gets spent, in the community, benefiting local businesses. It pays for child care, dentist visits, groceries, clothing, entertainment, etc. etc. etc. It creates jobs because it stimulates small business which provides more than half the jobs in the U.S.
I wonder if Helena Jaczek is going to restrict people who are overweight from being able to order fatty foods at fast food places - that is, if she wants the government to "be responsible for" the people's health in Ontario. I'm always shocked with how many people who want the government to act as mommy and daddy. Grow up people.
If you were worth 10 billion dollars you wouldn't waste the time it would take for me to give you a thousand dollars because it is worth so little to you. If you had not a single penny to your name. The same thousand dollars would be a great change to your condition. You cold eat more, get new clothes and be able to go to a barber and look good enough to go to a job interview and have a decent chance. Every single penny of that thousand dollars will be spent in the local economy. Meanwhile the top 0.1% get tens of millions of dollars in tax cuts from donna tinyhands and they use that money to buy their own stocks or participate in mergers. Both of which are bad for the free market (something that too many people claim to love) and of course any money spent is most often going to other multinational aristocrats and if they're lucky, some tiny portion of it might eventually trickle onto a few not as wealthy people who can afford to put the money in a bank account where it likely won't see the sun again for years, slowing the economy even further. I can already sense you all angrily typing out your 3rd grade retorts seeing as the fact that I have a device with which to write this comment means that I am not giving every penny of my worth to pay for UBI so I am obviously a hypocrite. No amount of ad hominems however will change the basic fact of economics that building the economy from the ground up is the most effective and stable way. "But progressive taxation is just relying on the wealthy to ensure the economic growth and stability of the macroeconomy," I hear you typing. Weird, cause that's the description of the WSJ favorite trickle down economics: If rich people star rich the economy will do well. That sounds a lot like relying on the rich for economic stability. Also, I don't know about you, but I don't much care for the idea of being "trickled" on.
Sith'ari Azithoth Not sure if lied to by GOP whole life or part of 0.1% Middle class people will be paying more in taxes. Republican tax proposals have and continue to be money grab schemes to move wealth upwards at an even faster rate than it already is.
Sith'ari Azithoth also the Estate Tax only applies on holdings over 5.49 million dollars which only 2 out of every 1000 people leave. The estate tax has zero effect whatsoever on "mom and pop" businesses. Furthermore, you get taxed if you win the lottery. The abolition of the estate tax would mean that the 0.1% would be able to endlessly win the biological lottery because of the work (and a ton of luck) of a person who died generations ago.
Sith'ari Azithoth , you might want to read an economist's analysis of Trump's tax plan. "Taxpayers in the bottom 95 percent of the income distribution would see average after-tax incomes increase between 0.5 and 1.2 percent. Taxpayers in the top 1 percent (incomes above $730,000), would receive about 50 percent of the total tax benefit; their after-tax income would increase an average of 8.5 percent." "By 2027, taxes would rise for roughly one-quarter of taxpayers, including nearly 30 percent of those with incomes between about $50,000 and $150,000 and 60 percent of those making between about $150,000 and $300,000. The number of taxpayers with a tax increase rises over time."
www.taxpolicycenter.org/publications/preliminary-analysis-unified-framework
Over 50% of a poor person's income is taken by the costs of government charging them directly and through the charges to others who must get the currency by charging the poor.
Admiring the Jimmy Dore reference.
Woohoo, free Jordans and a Cadillac in every garage!
how much do you think they’re giving out
Media needs to stop telling ppl to just go to college or get a higher paying job. If it was that simple we wouldn’t have this issue.
The issue with this video is that it doesn’t take into account inflation. The most mainstream definitions of UBI, include cash going to EVERY citizen. This naturally increases the demand curve accordingly, while it’s unlikely that supply could just change for inelastic goods. Wish it addressed thisz
For $17,000 a year, who the hell really thinks you can just sit on your ass? People are going to work. Also its funny the interviewer even mentions a painter, because a painter and artists in general are the perfect example of the type of people that would be helped by a UBI. Artists go into debt paying off art school, and then end becoming servers the rest of their lives because art is not lucrative. Here, however, is an opportunity to be a full time artist and produce something with real value.
Champraves311 Not all artist wannabe people are a good artist. If they are a good artist, they are employed or already rich by now and dont need UBI.
And with $17000 a year, you can move to countries in South East Asia and still have a life like a king and still do no jackshit for life. $1400 a month in other country can feed family of 3, send your kid to college, living in a decent 15 years mortgage house, and a decent cars payment with scooter.
All in expense of taxpayers money in Canada.
Agreed. Art absolutely contributes to society. If basic workforce needs are satisfied by automation, why shouldn’t that puppeteer get to make more puppets? I think it’s foolish to dismiss an idea that could help people pursue their passions and live comfortably. We should keep an open mind and see how these experiments play out.
"Furthermore, if they moved to another country they would no longer be eligible for basic income in Canada..."
Said by whom? There is no law on UBI yet. Even if that's the case, it's easy to tackle it. Build a cheap hut in rural areas, or a cheap boat house in Canada. Make it as your official address. Still live in other country as "Tourist". Just have to return to Canada every 90 days for a day and then get back again. Airplane ticket is cheap.
"There are many talented artists that cannot make a living doing art."
That's because they don't have a marketable art skills. Fashion designer, Graphic designer and architect are artist too. They make money and can live with it. Why? People like their stuff because good artist makes meaningful art. That hits the society in their heart.
So you want to pay all people to be an artist so they can make more crappy meaningless "Art". Yeah, sure thing, you can do that, until the funds drain out.
Space Monkey You’re right, the laws of UBI aren’t established yet. But we shouldn’t jump to conclusions to that it would be THAT easy to abuse once they are. Even if they could, I think it would an inconsequential number of people that would choose to abandon their home country and live a life of fraud when they have a good opportunity to improve their circumstances with UBI. But it’s admittedly all speculation until we see how things play out.
I see your point that art skills ought to be marketable if we are to attribute value to them. But from my perspective, art benefits society in many ways we don’t recognize and/or pay for monetarily. That’s not to say that every self-made puppeteer is going to be a net win. But people tend to do their best work on what they’re passionate about, and giving them an opportunity to pursue that instead of labor that automation can handle has potential to create value for society.
Champraves311 If they do not sell enough, they are creating no value.
No one would watch Netflix all day or doing nothing at all becausr it would out to be very boring.
Me: hold my beer.
Exactly, people already do it.
$17k a year is grossly insufficient to raise a family on. Assuming you buy no clothes, don't travel anywhere, borrow everything possible (library books and movies, etc., no Netflix) and use only free public internet access, you'll still have health care costs, food, housing, etc. $17k PER PERSON would be more than workable, of course.
I'd take that bonus $17k x 3, invest it all in some diverse, healthy mutual funds, and just keep on doing my job.
I have a HUGE problem with this. Robots are not being made to replace workers in the U.S., they're being made because of the lack of qualified individuals. I have worked in manufacturing for over a decade, I see well over 100 people come and go every year. I see people every day struggle to read a ruler, and I've seen people pull out calculators to do basic math like 1000 divided by 500. These are jobs paying 15-30/hr with fully paid benefits that require grade school level skills. The last 5 companies I've worked for have struggled to find competent people to fill roles, and hence turned to automation and robotics.