The question appears to be asking how to spend other people's money. Food stamps already have a long litany of opinions on what should not be allowed, the destination of such a conversation.

Post your budget pie, if you wish to discuss how 'you' spend money.

Food stamps already have a long litany of opinions on what should not be allowed, the destination of such a conversation. — AngleWyrm

If your arguing over moral hazard, then sure. Some people might decide to spend their basic income on rather stupid things, like drugs, gambling, or risky investments. However, I don't think this would be the majority of cases, and money can be tracked. So, given the minuscule amount being offered to people in general, then I don't think it's an issue worth talking about with great relevance.

Post your budget pie, if you wish to discuss how 'you' spend money. — AngleWyrm

Well, I am on SSI. $500 of my $635 goes to rent, and since I live with my family which helps with food costs, I get to keep the remainder for grooming, health needs, and transportation costs.

That's pretty much what the money was intended to be used for and that's how it is spent by me.

One of the best cases for UI I know is in Rutger Bergman's Utopia for Realists, where he looks not only at the theoretical benefits but delves into the actual case studies of where UBI has been tried and tested, with almost universally positive results. The idea is precisely that people generally tend to use it for necessities: rent, utilities, and food; And that once they stop struggling to meet the bare minimum for survival, they trend is towards far more economic productivity, all across the board: people actually have the time to pursue entrepreneurial goals, or else invest time into study and upskilling, and so on. I'm still not 100% sold on the idea, personally - UBI would need to be one mechanism implemented in line with others in a wide-ranging social policy, but I can definitely see its positives. In any case, I'd really suggest reading the Bergman book.

Yeah, that's a book on my to-read list in regards to this topic.

What are your thoughts about UBI in general though?

Why are conservatives so opposed to it despite the economic argument that could be made in its favor?

Why are conservatives so opposed to it despite the economic argument that could be made in its favor? — Posty McPostface

I believe the issue is with money being taken from those who have worked for it and given to those who haven't.

I believe the issue is the principle of money being taken from those who have worked for it and given to those who haven't. — Michael

Yes; but, if you could present to a conservative-minded economist the notion that net benefits of UBI would drastically (in my opinion) outweigh the negatives, then what's the issue then?

The principle of money being taken from those who have worked for it and given to those who haven't? Sometimes people care more about the means than the end.

The principle of money being taken from those who have worked for it and given to those who haven't? Sometimes people care more about the means than the end. — Michael

I fail to see this as some plausible argument that conservatives are dogmatic ideologues. After all proposals for UBI has been made by conservatives in the US for some time now. Nixon, Friedman, etc.

Why are conservatives so opposed to it despite the economic argument that could be made in its favor? — Posty McPostface

I believe Charles Murray is strongly in favor of it, and to my understanding he's pretty conservative on economic matters. There's an interesting conversation between Murray and Bill Kristol (I think) on the topic where he discusses his pragmatic reasons for supporting the idea and also some specific ways it could be implemented. I'll try to track it down...

Anyway, if anyone cares to express their thoughts about the benefits, not necessarily economic, then please let me know.

I can start:

Egalitarian: UBI is inherently egalitarian. Each person receives the same amount regardless of how much they make.

Crime reduction: Although this is not studied in any manner, I would think that with the basic necessities in life taken care of, crime would seem like a less likely alternative to provide for those necessities in life.

Drugs: While some may spend their basic income on drugs, it would enable them to seek out more rewarding occupations in life.

Poverty: Well, again I don't have evidence to support the correlation between UBI and poverty rates, it would seem that in the long run, as mentioned, people would seek out ways to enrichen their lives through education or employment.

Heath: Having enough to provide for your needs, you now have time to take care of yourself and mental health would be promoted by reducing anxiety and apathy among the disenfranchised.

...

Maybe not exactly as I've worded it (although I'm sure some would reject it just on that principle), but people certainly do reject it on some ideological ground. See here, for example:

But even if [UBI] could work, it should be rejected on principle. A UBI would redefine the relationship between individuals, families, communities, and the state by giving government the role of provider. It would make work optional and render self-reliance moot. An underclass dependent on government handouts would no longer be one of society’s greatest challenges but instead would be recast as one of its proudest achievements.

It would make work optional and render self-reliance moot.

That all depends on how much we're giving away for basic needs. As per the OP, and I do agree with the quoted sentiment to some degree, the intent is only to provide for basic needs, not any more than that.

That seems to get confused a lot or even distorting the definition of a monthly allotted amount to cover these basic needs.

We hear a lot of this kind of nonsense from conservatives. If someone were to invent a completely useless gadget, whose properties were such that it caused harm both socially and environmentally, but due to an excellent marketing campaign it became very popular and made the inventor rich, Conservative thinking would have us believe he had justifiably 'earned' his money. Likewise someone born into wealth, invests money in the arms trade and earns a fortune.

The conclusion is that the means by which they earn their money does not have any bearing on whether their wealth is truly 'theirs' in a justified way.

So, following this logic, if a group of people get together and, by campaigning and voting in a democracy, obtain themselves a government who is willing to tax the wealthy to provide them with a UBI, how had their chosen means of earning money suddenly become unjustified?

Thanks for that. A rational and cool-headed neo-classical economist comes to the win. I especially like his implicit argument that there's a cutoff point where you can make 30k a year and still enjoy the benefits of UBI and stick with that or pursue a degree or higher wage job, which would then enable you to go beyond 30k a year and remove the dependency trap many conservatives argue over. And, yes, some cutoff would be necessary to even consider the economic ramifications of implementing UBI.

Why are conservatives so opposed to it despite the economic argument that could be made in its favor? — Posty McPostface

Yeah, as Michael's quote captures, it's this idea of 'self-reliance' that is seen undermined by initiatives like UBI; the question of 'dependency' and the apparent correlative danger to 'freedom' is also one of the big motivators against it. I'd say that such arguments trade on incredibly thin and entirely unrealistic conceptions of freedom and individuality, but that's the general tenor of the argument against it, I think. Hannah Arendt once argued that freedom began where the concern with the necessities of life ended - a UBI would be a nice step on the way to securing something like an Arendtian freedom, which I find incredibly attractive.

The biggest danger with UBI I think isn't the idea itself: it's the fact that it can be leaned upon as a excuse to shut down other areas of public investment, and perhaps act as a spur to unnecessary privatization as well. While I do think any UBI should be leveraged to cut down on other social security initiatives, any such trade-off would need to be carefully calculated and weighed against specific circumstances. The worry is that UBI will be used as an excuse for what would amount to a public firesale. That would be awful.

The biggest danger with UBI I think isn't the idea itself: it's the fact that it can be leaned upon as a excuse to shut down other areas of public investment, and perhaps act as a spur to unnecessary privatization as well. While I do think any UBI should be leveraged to cut down on other social security initiatives, any such trade-off would need to be carefully calculated and weighed against specific circumstances. The worry is that UBI will be used as an excuse for what would amount to a public firesale. That would be awful. — StreetlightX

A purely economic analysis of the idea is that UBI is a more efficient means of tackling poverty and social transfer schemes. Keep in mind that many people choose to stay on benefits because they'd lose them if they got a job as it currently stands in the US.

Have you seen the Kurzgesagt primer on it? (I love this channel). It mentions that aspect of it as well:



There's also Nick Srnicek and Alex Williams' argument for it in their Inventing the Future, and you can check out their talk here:

Thanks for that. — Posty McPostface

(Y)

Who's the guy in your profile picture?

Your profile picture is a screenshot of an image in your browser? That is hilarious.

Trying to see what the other tabs are. Best I can make out is "Spaghetti sauce" and "Human institute"?

Lol now you get some random handsome guy for a minute as damage control. I should have cropped the Melville pic or something but didn't pay much attention haha. Hope I didn't have any porn or other incriminating stuff open.

You can just right click on the image, save to desktop, and then upload as a profile pic. No need for cropping and screenshots.

Looking good Erik. You look like an engineer or teacher/educator by the looks of it.

Thanks, Michael. It's a slightly more complex process on the chromebook I'm using. That or I'm just an idiot...

I think I finally figured it out.

Thank you! I tried my hand at teaching but couldn't hang and eventually settled on the restaurant management biz.

I am in favor of the UBI because it would achieve what I consider important humanitarian goals:

1. It would enable workers to take more risks in seeking better employment. As it is now, unemployment is limited and short term, and applies only if one is fired. You can't use UI if you voluntarily quit, and the benefit is short.

2. It would enable workers to acquire enhanced skills and life experiences.

3. It would reduce the fragility of workers economic lives.

4. It would be cheaper to administer than existing welfare benefits because it would be an entitlement rather than welfare programs which require more oversight of recipients.

5. It would enhance workers' quality of life.

The cost of distributing $7500 per year to 150 million adults -- $1,125,000,000,000 -- is a large figure, of course, but it wouldn't be on top of existing welfare programs, t would replace those programs. All welfare-type programs which do not include Social Security and Medicare amount something like... $250 billion; the estimates will vary, depending on what is or is not included. Medicaid is not included, for instance.

What would happen to this annual trillion-dollar-plus distribution?

Much of it would be spent on necessities: food, clothing, shelter, transportation, etc. Some of it would be spent on education, travel, and amusements. Some of it would be saved. Some of it would be spent on drugs, alcohol, gambling, and the like. Some of it would be given to other people. Most of it will be spent, though, and that will have a generally beneficial effect on the economy.

The cost of distributing $7500 per year to 150 million adults -- $1,125,000,000,000 — Bitter Crank

That's how much will be distributed. The cost of distributing it will add to the full amount.

it will add a small percentage. The Social Security system, for instance, has a very low overhead cost. It's low because the function of sending out checks is not expensive.

Well, I am on SSI. $500 of my $635 goes to rent, and since I live with my family which helps with food costs, I get to keep the remainder for grooming, health needs, and transportation costs. That's pretty much what the money was intended to be used for and that's how it is spent by me. — Posty McPostface

Since you were bold enough to post a budget pie, I feel obliged to do the same. I'm on a program called ABD which is the step before SSI, granting $198/month in cash and $196/month in food stamps.



The approximation contains two categories that don't appear in most pie charts:
1). Addictions: Expenses that I haven't got control of; coffee, cigarettes, etc where the need decides for me rather than the other way around.
2). Entertainment: I believe this to be a basic need, seen even in animal behavior, that often fails to be represented.