Universal Basic Income

It's going to be trialed.....

https://www.theguardian.com/society...1600-pounds-a-month-to-be-trialled-in-england

Good to see because it's gonna be needed when AI starts putting millions out of work.

 

UBI could be a vehicle for progressive change or it could be used as a tool by those in power to maintain and enhance societal inequalities. It all depends how UBI is set up and implemented. Its more complicated than one would think

 

It's an interesting idea.

I guess there's an argument that it would mean some people never bothered to take up employment (there's already plenty who do that on far less benefit money) but on the other hand it would enable individuals with disabled family members to be able to reduce their hours (or give up work) to provide adequate levels of care for their family without being destitute.

My employer is currently looking at the impact moving to a full time contract of 35 hours rather than 37.5 for the same money and/or working these hours over 4 rather than 5 days. Very interesting propositions.

 

Two things. Seems extremely unfair to just hand over £38k to 30 random people who are now suddenly much better off than their neighbours. And also I firmly believe that all it will achieve is to drive prices even higher

 

I can see both those arguments. First one though could be excused long term if society benefits as a whole I think. Second one, one would think so but it depends on a lot of factors and that may not necessarily happen. Not disagreeing with you but I genuinely think it's complex and needs trialling and modeling and ultimately if introduced done so by a government that is economically on the ball and has the best interests of society as a whole at heart.

 

They have similar in Iceland, think it's circa £25k a year minimum for anyone in employment.

Think it's a good idea, but apsolutely has to be coupled with free or affordable third level education, to give people the skills required to push for higher wage jobs and contribute more to the tax burden.

 

Guess who would implement it in your second scenario....

 

As the UBI equates to the same figure as the National Living Wage (not the same as the minimum wage) for working 40 hours per week there is a risk that many decide to leave work or not work at all. As we all are probably aware, there is a huge hole in the labour market in some sectors and this could well mean that these (such as the hospitality and caring sectors) would be hugely impacted.
A trial is certainly needed to understand both the pros and cons to this proposal.

 

I don't see a situation where people just jack everything in and go sit in Spoons. Furlough was a lesson for many just how boring life can be. People would probably have the flexibility to be more selective with their work, and employers would probably have to pay more or offer better benefits to attract people in to work. I also see a lot of it getting hoovered up by landlords and utility companies, as well as inflation in general.

Personally I reckon it should be approached from the perspective of universal basic housing, where the government underwrite a fixed amount or even all of people's housing costs combined with rent caps to stop landlords taking advantage and a massive increase in housebuilding. When people don't have to worry about keeping a roof over their heads you'd probably see the same benefits as ubi but without as much inflation or profiteering.

 

I agree. If UBI was given to everyone, I don't think many would quit work. They would enjoy the second additional income on top of the day job. Some will of course to have lazier days, do some charity work, help out ill friends/family, but I don't think it will be many.

 

30 is too small of a number to be a useful trial but it’s something that I think should happen. The vast majority of people would still work as it’d be too boring not to and you’d still feel poor compared to other people who got that and also worked. It would probably mean people work less though and would hopefully improve mental health greatly which is a real concern right now. In an ideal world it helps creative type people who have to give up on their dreams as they need money to survive, now they could pursue their acting/writing/painting/whatever and still eat.

 

I don't subscribe to this not working is boring malarkey. I worked every single day of every lock down, in a customer facing role with an increasingly obnoxious general public. It was one of the reasons I retired early soon after things returned to "normal".
Bored?
Don't know how I ever had time for work tbh, I'm that busy with "stuff".

 

I'll believe it when I see it. We were told in the 80s there wouldn't be enough wotk, we'd need to manage our leisure time, we'd be working a 3 day week etc. Turns out we 're working harder than ever, less breaks, lunch hours shortened etc etc.

 

Absolute nonsense. Aside from the disincentive to work it would involve (and we already suffer from low national productivity) the massive tax hike it would require to be applicable on a wide scale would ensure that any government introducing it would be swiftly drummed from office. Complex economic problems can not be solved by the fools' gold of simplistic solutions.

 

It's going to be needed. In a few years time there's going to be a massive shortage of jobs. A lot of stuff is being replaced by AI and machines. It's not a "this is going to happen soon" anymore, it's already happening and will only increase. What's your plan for when that happens? At that point the only people making money will be the owners of the companies so something will need to be done.

We need to move into a society where people don't have to work, but work is optional for people that want extra money for luxuries etc. Food and shelter and other necessities should be covered by UBI. Yes, taxes will be higher, obviously, but most people will end up with more money, other than the very highest earners.

 

The way forward is to devise a means by which the benefits of increased automation are shared more equitably between the entrepreneurs and those they employ. That is a complex problem, and not one likely to be resolved via UBI, attractive though it may sound.

 

"shared more equitably between the entrepreneurs and those they employ" - The issue is that they won't employ anybody. I guess they can split it between themselves and their family that they employ to save on tax, that'll help I'm sure.

 

We need to develop a strategy for what we're going to do when there's more people than jobs. It will happen, it's just a question of when. UBI may be the answer but we're not going to learn owt from trialling it in this way, as UBI would cause a massive fundamental readjustment of the economy. Trialling it in an economy that hasn't accounted for UBI across the board is completely useless.

 

Wouldn't really work as a socio-economic model though, would it? The masses would not allow themselves and their families to starve while the entrepreneurs enjoyed their riches. So a solution would have to be found. But I did say it's a complex economic problem.

 

For me, a better model would be to provide a persons’ basic needs free of charge.
Housing, utilities, food etc and then let them earn additional money by working. The average rate per hour would come down significantly though.