Slashdot Mirror
Another Universal Basic Income Experiment is Underway, This Time in Canada (technologyreview.com)
Lindsay, a compact rectangle amid the lakes northeast of Toronto, is at the heart of one of the world's biggest tests of a guaranteed basic income. Technology Review: In a three-year pilot funded by the provincial government, about 4,000 people in Ontario are getting monthly stipends to boost them to at least 75 percent of the poverty line. That translates to a minimum annual income of $17,000 in Canadian dollars (about $13,000 US) for single people, $24,000 for married couples. Lindsay has about half the people in the pilot -- some 10 percent of the town's population. The report outlines that the Canadian province's vision for a basic income -- and the underlying experiment -- differs from that of the one we have seen in Silicon Valley. The report continues: The Canadians are testing it as an efficient antipoverty mechanism, a way to give a relatively small segment of the population more flexibility to find work and to strengthen other strands of the safety net. That's not what Silicon Valley seems to imagine, which is a universal basic income that placates broad swaths of the population.
The most obvious problem with that idea? Math. Many economists concluded long ago that it would be too expensive, especially when compared with the cost of programs to create new jobs and train people for them. That's why the idea didn't take off after tests in the 1960s and '70s. It's largely why Finland recently abandoned a basic-income plan after a small test.
The most obvious problem with that idea? Math. Many economists concluded long ago that it would be too expensive, especially when compared with the cost of programs to create new jobs and train people for them. That's why the idea didn't take off after tests in the 1960s and '70s. It's largely why Finland recently abandoned a basic-income plan after a small test.
The smarter way would be to pay students or people in vocational training programs a stipend for a maximum of a certain number of years. Encourage self-improvement without the situation becoming permanent.
The difference is that right now there are jobs available. I thought UBI was to support the population when no jobs were available because they were lost to automation.
I am very small, utmostly microscopic.
It's largely why Finland recently abandoned a basic-income plan after a small test.
But it didn't. The experiment is proceeding according to plan and will continue until the end of 2018.
Contrary to reports, the basic income experiment will continue
The problem with this approach is it removes incentives to work. What if you are currently unemployed or underemployed? If this basic income pushes you up by $17,000, then it removes the incentive to find a better job until you find one that makes well in excess of $17,000. If the stipend is removed once you make about a certain amount, you're creating a disincentive to make that amount.
Giving everyone a smaller basic income (regardless of their current income) avoids that trap: You are still incented to work since you'd get the basic income plus whatever job income.
This seems doomed to failure. But since it is a limited, small experiment, it's still worthwhile to gather the data and try and measure the cost tradeoffs (such as, "At what income would a person need to work until the incentive to stay on the basic income goes away?" Hopefully this would provide real data.
when you can do nothing and get free money
big capital already has that.
Yes, I'm left. You have a problem with that?
Universal income is still hides the problems with taxation. When is somewhere going to pilot the fair tax?
The problem with homeless shelters is that once a homeless has shelter he's not homeless anymore and stops being eligible to homeless shelters. Which then of course means he's homeless again and is now eligible to homeless shelters, which in turn...
It's a non-stop carousel that does nothing for the homeless and only provides work for the bureaucrats.
#DeleteFacebook
...was it Finland that did this experiment first?
But it's a modern PR thing, oh-we-are-so-progressive, we're going to try this, we're ahead of the heard. I've seen so many countries try this by now (and later ditching it, when it wasn't making the news anymore) that I don't quite believe in the sincerity behind the project.
I'm all for Universal Basic Income, because I personally believe that no one should starve to death, and everyone should have a basic platform where they could work themselves up from rock-bottom to a worthy place in society. And of their own choice, not what WE think is a worthy place. We're all different - there's a place for us all.
But these half assed experiments aren't impressive, just depressive. And they always make the news, as if they where amazing, innovative, new and fantastic.
There's nothing fantastic, new or amazing by it. There's only "PR - LOOK how innovative we are, we're giving it a go".
No you're not. 4K is a drop in the ocean, in fact - it's a drop in a freaking POND somewhere. If you want to see the real ramification of it all, if you want to see the actual effect, it got to be introduced as a WHOLE for everyone. People aren't automatically going to ditch their job, no one wants to live on existence minimum. but it will give oddball individuals a chance to grow into their position in life. It will give people who lost their jobs to automation - a chance to re-educate themselves, it will give people time to reflect, and not just shrivel up and die on some street corner somewhere.
What this world is coming to - is for you and me to decide.
Yep, this. Theoretically UBI only works well if:
1. EVERYBODY gets it
2. There is no minimum wage
The idea is, if you are a restaurant, for example, you'd be more inclined to hire people for $3/hour just to keep the place clean. That's not much, but you could make a few thousand extra a year working a few hours a day over your UBI, even in addition to another higher paying part-time job, it would be worth it to someone.
Not much. Your basic exemption is almost $12k. You might owe some CPP.
Just BI, not UBI. Can't call something universal if it's not.
means things are pretty different today then they were in the 60s. And we've got a massive, massive push for automation coming. Basic income doesn't make sense when you need everybody working. Those days are coming to and end. We can't all be Doctors and engineers. A lot of us just aren't smart enough. And we can't retrain everybody. Not everybody can learn a complex new job. Most can't past the age of 30.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
It doesn't remove the incentive to work nearly as much as contingent unemployment benefits, which any competent neoliberal economist is quick to point out.
The minimum wage is also problematic, for the the incentive purist.
Or, for that matter, a food bank.
If you eliminate contingent unemployment benefits, minimum wage, and food banks the most likely outcome is that UBI improves the incentive to work.
And another thing: it would discourage abusive labour practices, where people making low wages are treated like the desperate dirt they truly are (how motivating is that in the long run?)
What you would get instead, is a viable market in piece-work paying hardly anything (it's pure marginal income) where the people taking this work aren't treated like scum, because they really can decide to not turn up again the next day (and maybe learn a new skill instead, in their divey but peaceful UBI hovel).
Once these people gain a habit and reputation for being good workers a $2/hour (on top of their UBI), many will probably elect to progress up the ladder to $3/hour. And so on.
Back to the reality of human psychology (which doesn't truck much in incentive porn), people tend to lift themselves up by slow, habituated, sustained increments. Cattle prods, electric fences, and gang planks don't tend to lead to a long term, productive work force. (It's been tried, and still exists in North Korea, surely the world capital of The Economic Productivity Index.)
At the end of the day, having a ravenous lion six inches behind your desk who gains an inch every time you cease to type fast enough merely serves to wear out your adrenal system, which isn't intended to function from a state of desperation 24/7.
"But derf derf the incentive!" will never rest, who's job is apparently never done, for the wages received must be fine, fine, fine.
What all the plans unfortunately have alike is that they aren't payed by big money, the big players who are the receivers on the global market, who are making more and more with less and less people due to automation. They are payed for by the main tax payers, the middle class. The big players won't give it up. With those premises UBC is doomed to fail. It needs a more fundamental change.
It's largely why Finland recently abandoned a basic-income plan after a small test.
The above is incorrect and they didn't: http://www.wired.co.uk/article...
It's all in how you define "comfortably."
I was mostly-unemployed for a while, and spent some savings of about $10K for a year. I had a cheap rental house, no outstanding debt, and just enough income to cover groceries and expenses. I, too, was comfortable at the time.
Granted, I didn't take a vacation, or travel overseas, or and fortunately had no major medical expenses. I didn't eat fancy dinners, and I kept leftovers. I learned to be quite happy with a meal of ramen and sausage, and my old Nokia phone did its job as much as it was needed. To borrow a phrase from another engineer, I lived "simply".
Now, I'm not suggesting the lifestyle works for everyone. I have a family to support now, and they want to see the world and have clothes without patches. I enjoy steak a lot more than my arteries would prefer. My house is now a nice little two-story as the end of a private road. I've started looking at some major medical bills. A $10K income won't come close to being "comfortable" for me today.
Ultimately, it's a question of what you want from life. If you are comfortable and happy with what you have, why should anyone else expect you to have more?
You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
And when you read the referenced article, it turns out that this isn't a trial of UBI at all. It is basically just a boost to the benefits system to see if it can save money in other areas: reducing crime, improving public health and streamlining social payments.
politicians are like babies' nappies: they should both be changed regularly and for the same reasons
Pre-emptive strike: Math is still math, UBI still doesn't scale up, UBI fanbois need to keep it in their pants, calm down, and resign themselves to working until they drop dead, no free ride for you or anyone else, not until you invent 24th Century Starfleet-style matter replicators and plentiful free power to run them provided by ubiquitos antimatter reactors. </subject>
right now I have to live where the wages are high enough to afford a car, food and my child's tuition. It also means I pay $1300/mo for a crappy 3 bedroom apartment I share with my brother (Need the 3rd room in case the kid has to come back). I haven't bought a house because I can't afford one.
Give me basic income and I can move somewhere else where housing is cheaper because the wages pay less. Even if I don't other people can and will and that will lower housing prices. It also would mean I could take risks with employment (especially if we had single payer healthcare in America). That would also drive up wages and standards of living. What it would _not_ do is help mega corps bottom line. It would utterly decimate the political power of the 1%. They could no longer threaten the working class with death by starvation or lack of medical care to elicit obedience and fear.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
The point of UBI is not to increase GDP, it's to allocate the GDP to where it's most useful. This may result in an increase in the GDP, but the goal is a reduction in poverty, and the costs associated with poverty. Furthermore, it reduces the overhead relative to welfare systems.
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
The issues I see:
1. Everyone can be trained for any job.
Eh, no. Not everybody is trainable to be a brain surgeon.
2. There are plenty of jobs available for anyone's skill set and talents.
Agreed.
3. Sometimes, one's talents and abilities just aren't marketable and one is stuck in the hopeful masses trying to get a job at Walmart or an Amazon warehouse.
Nothing wrong with a Walmart or Amazon warehouse job. Good choice if one is looking to further their education for something better in the long term.
The biggest fallacy that I see is that there are plenty of jobs for everyone. Even now with this great low-unemployment is employers complaining how they can't get "qualified" people.
What does that mean?
Not sure how you reconcile this point with point #2. It is true that good tech jobs are having trouble finding "qualified people" Most every job posted has the list of basic requirements for the job. If the job requirement states "Security + required" it's kind of a no brainier. Some people just don't get that they need more than an ethnic studies degree to be employable.
Lack of training? Lack of education? Lack of experience? Using it as an excuse to age/race/gender discriminate?
When I was a youngster, many companies had training programs.
Most tech companies do have training programs. That doesn't mean that companies don't want a set amount of training before you show up for your first day of work though. Just because you have a college degree doesn't mean you are done with your training. Tech companies especially, do expect you to stay current with technology, as such many offer training in various forms.
Finally, we are a merit based society. If you don' want to do what it takes to meet the job requirements, that has nothing to do with your age/race/gender. It is not a companies responsibility to fix systemic issues in society (unless that is their actual stated goal.) Hope you enjoy your job at Walmart... they do at least offer a path to promotion.
Some days I get the sinking feeling Orwell was an optimist.
With legal marijuana, now is the time to get into the fast food industry!
I feel that these studies don't do it for long enough with a big enough population to really see what happens to the market. Everyone knows it'll be a temporary boon, and it isn't enough of the population to really put the pressure on. There is a difference of someone saying "Hey, i'll only have this for a few years while the study goes on, so I should focus on using that money to improve myself while I have it for when I don't" and someone saying "I get this for the rest of my life? For reals? Ok! I can quit my minimum wage job and play XBox for a few months and then look at my options!" And what happens when the general populace all say at once: "I could try to get a better house now that I have this extra money!"
I just don't think the studies are very realistic on what people are going to do long term, and what the marketplace changes will look like when pressure for those that desire to upgrade start doing so.
Sounds plausible, but do you have a source? Or the name of the person?
Your ad here. Ask me how!
This experiment gives $17000/year to the poors. Without that experiment, they were receiving less than that in social care. So of course they are going to do better with more money. But that shouldn't be the point of the experiment. The experiment should be about comparing how to give $X to the poor in the most efficient way. Is it more efficient to give them a sum with no strings attached? Or to put conditions such as "you loose that money if you earn more than $Y".
Sadly, this experiment isn't going to teach us anything. We already know the conclusion: poor people do more when they are not longer that poor.
lower full time start at 32 hours a week + have OT hit X2+ levels.
It is called "welfare". And I mean actual, unlimited welfare for people who are needy, not the postponed death sentence like in the U.S..
some minimum wage rules are need or you can show at job just to be in the hole day 1 for uniforms / tools / etc.
Tax 1% of business profits, and 1% of household income, and distribute that pile of money evenly amongst all legal residents. It's simple and changes with inflation.
Another Universal Basic Income Experiment is Underway ... the world's biggest tests of a guaranteed basic income... [Area of test] has about half the people in the pilot -- some 10 percent of the town's population.
The Canadians are testing it as an efficient antipoverty mechanism, a way to give a relatively small segment of the population more flexibility to find work and to strengthen other strands of the safety net.
There's nothing univesal about this.
Welfare. The word for this is welfare. Unless everyone gets it, it's not universal. It is income. And I would say that 75% of poverty is pretty basic. So it's good on those fronts, but it's not universal. It is welfare.
Also, it's a shitty experiment unless the populace WITHIN the area ALSO gets to PAY FOR IT. There's two sides of UBI. Where the money goes and where the money comes from. How much does it help the people it's going to? and how much does it royally piss off the people it's coming from? As long as every experiment is a grant or funded from the national coffers which EVERYONE pays into to redistribute money to a FEW select people, it's bogus. I'd even say that dealing with the obvious issue of the high income earners moving across town to avoid the soul-crushing taxes is an important aspect of any UBI test. If they're wealthy enough, moving somewhere without UBI is a viable option, and FUCKS OVER the area. You can't just ignore this sort of impact.
And any suggestion along the lines of "Well we won't allow them to move away" or "It will work as long as UBI is everywhere" sounds an awfully lot like the tactics of soviet communism.
Recently I've found different solutions with similar goals to be more promising and less problematic, such as universal basic services and/or a citizens' dividend.
Problems with UBI:
https://www.nakedcapitalism.co...
http://neweconomics.org/2018/0...
Some better solutions:
https://www.independent.co.uk/...
https://www.huffingtonpost.com...
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
Einstein, whom you're trying to quote, was simply wrong. The reality is that in an analog universe it works to do the same thing over and over because there is a cumulative effect.
Oddly enough Einstein was against quantum mechanics...
All of this is true, plus the fact that Ontario has three major left wing parties, and one major right wing party. Guess who won several ridings strictly due to vote splitting? It was exactly the same thing that happened in Alberta, only in reverse.
Personally, I have no idea why anybody who considers themselves even slightly 'conservative' would ever vote for a guy who's major platform promises included outright price fixing and other anti-free-market stuff.
Vintage computer games and RPG books available. Email me if you're interested.
If I wanted to support a stranger financially, I'd do it. And, maybe, I already do.
By spending my taxes on such support, the government forces me — at the point of a weapon implicitly behind every tax-collection — to support more people, than I would support on my own volition.
That's government overreach — a manifestation of tyranny — and should be denounced as such. Like "meatless meatballs", "compulsory charity" is a self-contradictory term.
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
separate entity from the Liberal Party of Canada (federal)
had nothing to do with Justin Trudeau
Keep telling yourself that. Don't stop, whatever you do.
Maw! Fire up the karma burner!
to allocate the GDP to where it's most useful. This may result in an increase in the GDP, but the goal is a reduction in poverty,
You mean scientific advancement. That's what would be most useful. Because without that, it appears that global warming is going to doom us all, this rock will die, and life as we know it will cease. You know, to some extent. As a reminder, we ARE in the middle of a mass extinction event. Wheeee, fun times. But an existential threat to the species and biosphere seems a little more important, to some people, than making sure the fringes of society are taken care of. On the flip side, scientific advancement also opens new doors like garage-made bioweapons and grey-goo scenarios. So that's a bit of a double-edged sword.
Of course, a way more immediate existential threat would be full scale thermonuclear war. To that extent, keeping world peace among the (sizable) nuclear powers takes priority. Times are good compared to the height of the cold war, but it looks like Putin is putting the band back together and we (USA) are currently in a pissing contest with China over some cash. Officially it's a matter of national security though. You can take that as you will. A big military (in the hands of a democracy) has traditionally been the way to keep work peace. Keeping it a democracy has been a bit of a trick. And ironically, nuclear weapons have gone a long way towards keeping the prats from going at it again.
And if a nation doesn't keep making money and keep the economy going, they'll probably fall apart like the USSR.
And it's important to point out that your stated goal it's just a reduction in poverty. Not an elimination of poverty, which is likely impossible. And if you look at practically any metric of quality of life, times are hella good. So your goal is more accurately be a FURTHER reduction in poverty.
Anyway, I started this out trying to say that various people have various goals in mind when running the country.
This is a far better solution than limiting what can/can't be automated. Though I would say to do it as follows:
1. European/Australian style mandatory minimum vacation times, and requiring people to take them. This results in requiring staffing a minimum of 3 people capable to handle every task (can be accomplished via overlapping duties), since at any given moment 1 may be on vacation, and 1 may need to call in sick, quit, etc.
2. Reduce workweek to 32 (or 30) hours. Definition of "part time" reduced to people working under 24 (or 22.5) hours.
3. Remove non-managerial overtime exemptions. Yes this would mean skilled professional workers such as doctors earning OT. I don't see anything wrong with that.
4. Increase OT earnings only if OT is systemically abused.
Since the government here would sooner annex Mexico than implement UBI, it is worth looking in to alternatives that would actually work here. One that they really need to look at is single-payer healthcare. Yes, I know it is grouped into the category of "evil *isms" in this country, but it could make a huge - and hugely positive - economic impact if it were actually implemented.
Take a moment to think about why so many people on the job market are waiting for FT work and why so many PT jobs go unfilled. The driving force behind that decision is health insurance. We tell people they need it, though in many cases PT jobs still are not required to offer it (or at least they are not required to offer it at a price that the employee could actually afford).
If we made even a base plan available to every man, woman, and child, then suddenly the workers who are turning down PT jobs in spite of interest in them (in particular this is a lot of parents of younger children, as well as retirees with poor benefits). could take those jobs. This opens up more FT jobs for people who can't get by on PT work alone.
And yes, single-payer from the government would cost money. It would be a tax, just like income tax. And a large number of people would find that tax would end up being less than what they pay to their insurance through their employer once everything is accounted for, it would just be handled differently.
Damn_registrars has no butt-hole. Damn_registrars has no use for a butt-hole.
Any time you have to rely on the government you are beholden to them. Do something they don't like, and they'll take away your stipend. Another problem (which pointed out in the summary) is what happens when the obligation exceeds what the government can provide (they run out of money)? Now you've got a whole society of people who are screwed and have forgotten how to do for themselves. A much better way to go is to train people to be self reliant, but that requires willingness on the part of the individual and altruism on the part of the government. I'd be all for getting rid of all social support from the government. It's just not a skill set that they excel in. Then make a law that the CEO cannot make more than 3 times what the lowest paid employee makes. No CEO provides more than 3 times the benefit to an organization than a janitor. Think about it. That's a fairly thankless job, and think about the morale and what the place would look like if the janitor went away. Stack that up against the CEO who's "good ideas" are what make the company profitable. The reality is few of the CEOs have their own ideas. They're taking credit for many other people's ideas, and they minimize the ideas that don't pan out. Their actual value is not that great. In fact, this largely applies to the whole echelon of executives. They don't really do the actual work. Often times they don't even know what the actual work requires. They just know how to over embellish while articulating their worth.
I don't believe in karma, I just call it like I see it.
High unemployment that is. Particularly in the Maritime provinces (far east coast of Canada) where most people work in the fishing industry. in the winter, everything is frozen and there is basically no tourism. So most of them go on unemployment benefits - year after year after year. Work 6 months, 6 months on the dole.
When I lived in Ontario I knew this guy that cut grass on golf courses in the summer and collected UI all winter. Lived in his parents basement. Sold a little dope on the side to supplement his "income". In fact, I knew lots of people like that. It was almost as if you were considered a sucker if you worked all year.
This, from what I observed, was the problem with having lots and lots of social programs. Some people need it, some are just lazy. How do you determine who should get it and who should not?
Having a UBI seems like a logical concept. The problem is how do you decide who gets it? How much should it be? Once you're on it how long do you stay on it? Forever? Will people on UBI be allowed to work part time or will that be de-incentivised like it is for current unemployment and welfare programs?
Without some sort of exit strategy this will end up becoming another perpetual "poverty alleviation" program paved with good intentions but littered with poor results.
Here's a good rundown. The person that convinced Nixon was Martin Anderson, and he cited a falsified report on Speenhamland, which ran a similar kind of experiment.
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
what if Peter's never worked a day in his life because his Dad left him a Trust Fund? And what if there's no useful work for Paul to do? No ditches to dig because we don't have people dig ditches any more than we pay them to add up numbers by hand anymore?
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Thanks!
Your ad here. Ask me how!
Your post goes off the rails a bit, because I was talking specifically about the goals of UBI, not the meaning of life. Not that I don't agree that those other things aren't concerns, just that UBI exists to solve a specific one. My main critique was the ridiculous mindset of GDP growth over everything else, as opposed to the improvements in efficiency and well-being of not having people starving in the streets.
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
Sort of like BitCoin...?
Those talking about Amazon and Walmart would be Americans, I would expect. I am not under the impression that Canada has a significant presence from those companies in particular. Though, given that Canada would have their own equivalents, and even perhaps a minor presence of either company, the point would be valid.
What confuses me though is the later comment "we are a merit based society". Which I can fully assure that the U.S.A. is not a merit based society. The USA is a capitalist society, not a meritocracy. I've also never heard Canada being referred to as a meritocracy, or otherwise a merit based society.
Which also lends itself to the question of how to measure merit. I thoroughly disagree that capitalism, or profit, is a good discerner of merit.
I also agree with you on point #1, not everybody is trainable for every job. Furthermore, not everybody that is trainable, is trainable to a level of efficiency and mental clarity that is profitable. In this same vein, not everybody is capable of managing a budget to such a fine and visionary degree that they will set themselves up to be billionaires in the future. The blame levied at the poor is likely a symptom of the Dunning-Kruger effect, of overestimating the abilities of the poor, and underestimating the advanced level of their own capabilities.
Meanwhile, America is experimenting with Universal Basic Debt (UBD).
I wish I could upvote this, it makes a tremendous amount of sense.
There are likely to be short-term single generation signs of failure with a UBI. With concerns about how it might affect trade in the global economy, and or the impact on the global economy itself.
Then you also have immigration reform to consider. Once a nation has a powerful economic model, such as a functional UBI model with a fair standard of living, it is quite likely that it will draw immigrants from other nations which will serve to dilute that standard of living.
Sustaining an economy at a certain UBI will require investments in infrastructure. A populace can do so, but that populace will need raw materials, which will have to be acquired from the global economy, which will mean the ability to sustain a populace will be based on exports and/or trade from the nation itself.
So after that third generation, what will the global economic fallout be, and what can be done to transition into the UBI?
otherwise sooner or later a strongman is going to come along, organize them and give them guns. You, being one of the educated members of the merchant class will be the first person they're fury is turned on. This pattern has repeated itself for thousands of years of recorded history. You'd think we'd bloody damn well have figured it out by now. You don't fight tyranny with more tyranny. You fight it with civilization. Foreign aid pays for itself with fewer wars. It's cheaper to drop food than bombs.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
The test is still running as planned and will end after two years - as planned.
After that they will evaluate the result.
It has specifically not been concluded yet if the test is going well or not,
The linked Slashdot article got it wrong.
When a dollar is put into circulation it takes X amount of time for that dollar to generate more taxes than the dollar bill itself. For example if the bill turns over five times in a day at 7% tax rates it will take slightly less than three days to generate another dollar. So suppose you print $10,000 and put in in the hands of a poor person. That $10,000 will soon more than double in value which can mean less taxes for the public to bear. Then we have the drug, alcohol and general crime issues as well as mental health issues that can be lessened when people are not under economic pressures. Keep in mind that economic stress is one great reason that humans become depressed and act out in sick ways such as shooting up a school or murdering family members. It is a classic accounting issue. One can easily measure the bad things that come from allowing a bar to open or exist. But we have no method capable of showing what real good comes from allowing bars. How many jobs are created when a couple of business people have a few drinks and reach an agreement to go forward with a new building complex? The effect is that a bar will almost always be considered a negative when in fact it just might be positive in its effects.
For those that might be unaware, the Ontario government is in the process of changing from the Liberal previous one to a new Conservative one. I am not sure what kind of fiscal guarantees are on this program, but I would expect it to be axed ASAP by the new incoming government if they are able to. So I'd be surprised if it lasts after a year and wouldn't be surprised if it was canned before it even really got started.
That said, while UBI might help, the problem isn't a simple one and that simple mechanism isn't going to solve it. If you look at the groups of people that this is going to impact, and how it because pretty obvious...
Broken into general groups (and I know that some folks may fall into several categories)::
1) People who want to work, but can't find work.
2) People who have work, but are underemployed.
3) People who want to work, but cannot due to disability.
4) People who don't want to work.
5) People with serious addiction issues.
6) People with serious mental health issues.
In fact you could probably group 1-4 all together in terms of 5 and 6, but for the purpose of UBI, we'll separate them out.
UBI might help the first two groups of people, but that is about it. As for 3 and 4, at best it might break even with the overhead for maintaining the other types of programs and services already offered. It isn't going to significantly help 5 or 6, and may actually have a net negative impact on 5 given they may just have more resources to spend on whatever addictions they are struggling with.
Both those last groups, which make up a fair portion of the impacted individuals really need real directed focused help, services and people, not just a check. Anyway one of the proponents of the UBI is that it might do away with all the rest of the government services making it more fiscally viable. However the truth is our current social services for those last two are already woefully insufficient, and I don't think it is reasonable to think that UBI, or simply a bit of money is going to solve all our poverty issues.
" Even now with this great low-unemployment is employers complaining how they can't get "qualified" people."
They suck at hiring...just about everyone does. ...and they can't get qualified people at the rate they have been told is acceptable or based on the market from whatever douchebag HR database or periodical they read.
Did I mention that people REALLY suck at hiring? In cases where I see companies that do not have problems finding qualified people, they have been retaining and promoting from within. If you churn through people because your culture sucks their will to live you will end up with a serious problem. A problem that always takes sociopaths by surprise when the "expendable" employees dry up.
I object to power without constructive purpose. --Spock
"Hope you enjoy your job at Walmart... they do at least offer a path to promotion."
Yay...get promoted...lose welfare...end up with less. Most people opt away from that shit.
I object to power without constructive purpose. --Spock
Shift to a gig economy and forget about classifying Part-time, full-time. ...and then forget about the other stuff you said too.
I object to power without constructive purpose. --Spock
when you can do nothing and get free money
big capital already has that.
Sure, if you consider lending capital to be "doing nothing."
Stop! Dremel time!
Self-actualization = UBI + Wealth Tax
Casteism
gig economy = hustle every day of your (short) working life. and for fuck's sake, have the decency to fuck off and die quickly when age begins shaving 5% or 10% off your hustle speed.
that's a true workers' paradise - according to libertarian useful idiots and other corporate mouthpieces.