Study Reveals the Terrible Consequences of Universal Basic Income

Check out our previous videos! ⬇️
🔴Why Are Japanese Companies Dead?
• Why Are Japanese Compa...
🔴Why Are Muslim Countries Poorer?
• Why Are Muslim Countri...
🔴Why Are Big Companies Fleeing China?
• Why Are Big Companies ...
✉️ Business Enquiries → [e-mail]

[@rratschable]

This argument completely ignores the reason why UBI is trending: AI and robotics. When robots make all the goods and no one has a job, presumably we still need someone who can afford to buy those goods (and the top 1% don't buy that much). Also, you ignore pensions and Social Security which are already everywhere.

[@ExcessumGaming]

The whole point of UBI is to balance the AI and robotics taking over most jobs. This is mostly talking about something else

[@xandercruz900]

"This argument completely ignores the reason why UBI is trending: AI and robotics" So? Both are nothing but perennial pop culture fluff. My dad thought robots would take over his job at GM in the 80s. Countless people have said the same about computers. There is NOTHING out there that remotely points to AI or "robots" doing anything remotely akin to taking most jobs. The darn things cant even vacuum floors properly.

[@MFShro0m]

Yeah this video felt like a thinly veiled attempt to dissuade people from supporting UBI by presenting a very biased and intentionally limited ‘summary’ of the data and argument. I’m losing faith in this channel ngl

[@maximemeis2867]

@@MFShro0m lol rather, the channel demonstrated with solid data and studies that when implemented UBI does not deliver on its promises but since it is not in line with what you support you ll just call them biased.

[@SASMADBRUV7]

​@@MFShro0m and what evidence do you have

[@sshender3773]

You neglected to mention that Finland is possibly the most non-representative country out there, being a wealthy, ethnically and culturally homogeneous and very high trust society with a very high level of fiscal maturity and responsibility where hard work is held in high regard while ostentatious displays of wealth are frowned upon. This is diametrically opposed to the vast majority of the world which is poor, low in trust (both societal and institutional), stratified with a high Gini coefficient and with different cultural norms and attitudes to work. To my mind, this is a bad idea in the best of countries but downright suicidal in the less well off ones.

[@hasancelikbilek7233]

Finland is not ethnically homogenous.

[@sshender3773]

@@hasancelikbilek7233 There's always one, isn't there, that just has to chime in with their "take" on the matter. Let me guess, you're upset that I lumped the Swedes and the Sami in together with the Finns? If you fail to see how that's a red herring, then I'm afraid there's nothing I can say that will help you.

[@d3bz875]

exactly my thoughts when I watched this

[@ArawnOfAnnwn]

@@hasancelikbilek7233 It's a damn sight more homogeneous than most other nations. Sure Japan or Iceland can give it a run for its money in that regard, but they're hardly typical either. Most nations are FAR more diverse than Finland. Not to mention all the other factors he mentioned.

[@boyblue3270]

Yeah diversity is bad.....im just really hoping climate change erradicated life on earth so the universe can start over and try not to do racism....again. i think racism is a species great filter. If they cant all share a whole planet then they are doomed. I fully agree with that sort of idea. We just cant seem to get over how dofferent we look....sad. but humans am i right ?

[@Otto-cz6by]

Milton Friedman proposed the negative income tax as an alternative to the current welfare state. He proposed it as a transitioning plan, before doing away with all forms of welfare.

[@oyeyipo]

really. where did he say this?

[@Naturenerd1000]

Alaska has Universal Basic Income with Oil Money.

[@CultureCrossed64]

About that.... Alaska may not have much oil left. Production has been dropping for years. Hope they invested well

[@tsuchan]

Good luck surfing in Malibu for $1000/ month.

[@samthesuspect]

the person saved and went on a vacation, out the country in Malibu. So the money invested in this person didn't even end up getting spend the nation that gave the person the money (Spanish).

[@fastneuro9829]

You can went to cheaper country. In Georgia average salary is 400$ per month. So, you can easily live there more than comfortably and do nothing

[@blakebeesley8953]

This video does not address the underlying reason why people like Sam and Elon are considering this approach. How does global society plan to deal with mass layoffs due to increased capabilities of AI and robotics? Yes we are not there at the moment, and yes there will be new jobs created, though as time progresses the functionality and capacity for AI and humanoids to supplement then replace workers is an obvious trend. Societies take time to adapt, and often governments are slow to act. Technology will not wait for lawmakers, and we need to be proactive, not reactive, in brainstorming and studying different approaches. No one wins if people are no longer competitive in the labor market.

[@exfinen_2919]

it's to reduce wage. If the state support their worker then that business can reduce operation cost. ie: if everyone get 1k UBI, then business can cut 1k off the wages for newly employed.

[@aruak321]

@@exfinen_2919 no blakebeesley8953 is correct. In a more advanced AI + robotics society a large number of jobs will become redundant. You only need so many people running the machines, and with advanced enough AI you may not need many at all.

[@AniMageNeBy]

I largely agree. I think the vid is right in all its conclusions, but what choice do we have, long term? One can disagree what time it will take; 20 y, 50 y, a 100 y, but sooner or later AI and robots will be able to do everything a human can, but better and cheaper. Society will have to deal with this somehow, and an UBI seems like one of the few options we have.

[@hououinkyouma1458]

actually what the governments need to do is provide more easy access to education and less red tape.

[@homieinthesky8919]

The capacity of AI to take jobs makes no sense. They have 0 world models and cant retain information long term and in context. AI today is litterally (seriously) just 1950s-1980s technology. All u have seen with ai is faster processors and more data. Thats it.

[@stunimbus1543]

UBI would mean I could retire early.

[@xandercruz900]

Translation: Someone else will totally pay so I can sit around at home, right?

[@beewee4987]

@@xandercruz900 Yes. Sounds great.

[@hououinkyouma1458]

Its gonna cause inflation to grow up..lol Look at what happened during covid

[@Nebula01010]

​@@xandercruz900 Super wealthy. Business. Why do we need jobs that don't bring much? Why do we need overproduction? Not enough pollution?

[@Nebula01010]

Why are there jobs with bad working conditions

[@JonathanWrightZA]

UBI's role needs to be properly contextualised: you can't give out UBI and still provide government services. The recipient becomes responsible for managing that basic amount of money, and they bare the negative consequences. All of them. No subsequent bailouts or assistance. Make responsibility consequential again. If it is suggested that such recipients are beyond redemption, they can still be given vouchers only redeemable in specific sectors.

[@Castiel667]

Negative income tax is designed to replace existing welfare programs, which work like poverty traps. Instead Negative income tax reduces your financial benefits as your income grows, so that you are always better off if you work. And you’d certainly not be able to live lavishly on it.

[@dylreesYT]

Universal Credit in the UK functions like that.

[@l.f.p.8305]

The question is not if universal basic income has good or bad consequences - the question is how to make it work. Here in Denmark we have a de-facto basic income. But it is implemented in such a way that it looks as if we haven't. The system must be developed so as to achieve more of the benefits while avoiding the negative consequences.

[@SamBroadway]

I'm on social security and $1,000 a month is more than I receive on social security.... Where can I volunteer for one of these experiments, so I can almost afford my bills

[@DavidLockett-x4b]

Make KZbin videos. The stupidest ones get the most views, which says a lot about people.

[@AniMageNeBy]

My friend, nomatter how much you earn, you will never be able to afford your bills if you don't reduce your expenses to a level you can afford.

[@ricklewis4442]

One of the best "experiments" is retired veterans. There are a pile of 38 year old veterans getting a full military retirement and full medical benefits. Are these retired veterans more or less economically productive than people who aren't retired veterans?

[@amymegginson-uz7jj]

I think people on social security for ANY reason, and make under 60k or whatever it actually takes to supply food and shelter, should be awarded something more liveable. $1200 a month is ridiculous

[@Ausplainer]

Also: the increased taxes needed to fund UBI would discourage people from working more. Why should i work harder and invest in children when others are getting high and gaming all day? The tax base would shrink to the point they'd need to print money. Let's not consider the influx of immigration you'd have.

[@exfinen_2919]

those UBI accelerate self-destruct on (some) people, it's not that they are in bliss by gaming all day. It's more money for someone to make more mistakes.

[@keirenle]

Once AI is taken away most of the jobs then UBI would not just a frivolous concept but an inevitable reality

[@xandercruz900]

AI isnt magic, dude.

[@FischerNilsA]

@@xandercruz900 But it indiputably already makes millions of workers unneeded, and that trend will speed up. Once all industrial needs can be delivered by 5-10% of the population, high-skilled jobs mostly - what does the rest 90% do? Lay down and starve? We need societal sollutions to the fact that wealth generation is increasingly centralized and masses of humans will not be needed in primary industry anymore.

[@DavidLockett-x4b]

@@xandercruz900 It only looks like magic.

[@DavidLockett-x4b]

@@FischerNilsA They can become artist, including piss artists, politicians, philosophers, sales people, and other forms of low life.

[@goodtipa]

I think negative tax to fill the net income to minimum of $1000 would sound saner than UBI. The country should not waste this budget on people who already getting good salaries. $1000 is not enough to live nice, it's barely enough to live. Most people will want to live better and this minimum income will give them guarantee that they will not starve while studying or searching for better work. However, this negative tax should also be accompanied by minimum salary rate, so that it won't be abused by employers that will try to convince juniors that it's OK to work for free, just for experience.

[@andrewschmitz9756]

If you give people money for doing nothing, they will do nothing. You get what you pay for.

[@CMVBrielman]

Negative income tax is *not* the same as UBI.

[@davidanalyst671]

yeah, hes doing milton friedman dirty here. Just like everyone else on the planet who works in media. Too bad nobody has a functioning brain. And Milton Friedman was hardly libertarian. Mises was libertarian. Friedman was chicago school, more like a reagan republican branch of economics. The "we might as well keep social security around because we are stuck with it" branch of economics.

[@Danilio.]

Could you elaborate?

[@CMVBrielman]

@@Danilio. I’d refer you to a brief video on here by Not an Economist, which gives a very succinct explanation of an NIT and even explicitly contrasts it to a UBI. The even briefer version is that an NIT only gives out money below a certain income, while a UBI gives out money to everyone.

[@ArawnOfAnnwn]

@@CMVBrielman Which also means that a NIT would have more bureaucracy to take care of eligibility and targeting. The reason UBI is universal is to save on all the implementation costs, not cos it wants to give millionaires more

[@CMVBrielman]

@@ArawnOfAnnwn So you say there is another difference between the two. Which is my point.

[@nydydn]

People who say giving money to poor people who abuse drugs is wasted because they'll use it on drugs have a problem with logic. These poor people who abuse drugs, abuse it exactly because their life is shit because they don't have money. Give them money->their life isn't shit->they don't need to escape reality through abusing drugs. Abusing drugs is basically the same as fast-forwarding through boring shit parts of a movie. Except that the movie is your life. The only difference in this analogy is that the movie might get better, but if you just fast-forward through life, you'll have to keep doing it because nothing will change, until the end of it. This is also proven by the "war on drugs" results. Completely forbidding drugs is unlikely to be effective in a country that is not a strict dictatorship, so basically nothing changes. If anything, it makes things worse because someone with a shit life due to being poor, will now have a shit life due to being poor, but also with a criminal record. But say somehow the state manages to really be effective in forbidding drugs. Now poor people are still poor people. Their lives will still be shit, but now their only way out will be to skip straight to the end, and this theoretical country, would have to install nets around factories named Foxconn.

[@briananderson1201]

Universal Basic Income *could* work, if it were combined with two other things: a consumption tax to replace the income tax, and an elimination of most forms of welfare. UBI + VAT can effectively eliminate the VAT on the first few thousand dollars of income per month. The welfare state bureaucracy could be enormously simplified and most people would be incentivized to behave better if they knew there was no additional funding for bad decisions (e.g. having a child without a partner). It could even make it possible to impose financial penalties on those with no assets and no job if they cause damage to others.

[@samuelcarnall309]

Soooo what *should* have been studied was worker productivity with a UBI. They work fewer hours, sure, and made less money, but if they remained as productive or more productive, that would show that the actual economic benefits in terms of output weren't affected.

[@samthesuspect]

the idea that fewer hours OFTEN turns into equal amounts of work being accomplished is a false narrative. It can be true for people truly being overworked (looking at you east Asia), but for Western nations that is seldomly the case. Just look at China with 996, 9am-9pm, 6 days a week compared to the US 40 hours a week.

[@thisin.]

@@samthesuspect factory workers need to work long hours, not people with real jobs

[@FischerNilsA]

@@thisin. Factory work isnt "a real job"? 😕😲

[@LinusONeill]

@@samthesuspect looking at you USA tbh xD

[@AniMageNeBy]

🤔 Unless you have little to do at your work, this seems a strange contention. Or maybe the reverse; that people are working in a sweatshop for 12 hours are too exhausted to work properly anymore? You postulate that, say, in a normal (for the West) work-environment of 40h a week, 8h a day, with a full workload, people will not be able to do more work, then in a 20h a week, 4h-a-day system? Well, who's doing half of the same work, then? How would they achieve MORE work in half the time, unless you presume they were already slacking off for half a workday? Makes no sense. The illogic of this reasoning can be readily seen if you apply it consistently to its logical conclusion. Because then one could argue people working for one minute a week could produce more work than someone working 40 hours a week. Surely you can see how absurd this is, right? Your premise seems to be that workers today aren't doing much during their day. I would like to point out that most do, and already are pretty busy. Cutting down time will only make it unsustainable, since you just can't magically produce more if you're already close to your maximum. Also, if you cut your hours in half, obviously your income will be halved as well, since most people are paid per hour or month.

[@SpudUna]

I should imagine there would be a lot of students not caring if they get any qualifications because they will get paid for nothing when they leave education. So pretty soon the country would be awash with thicko’s

[@ClayShentrup]

lack of bureaucracy is only one of the benefits of UBI. arguably the much bigger one is that it doesn't have dead weight loss relative to in kind benefits.

[@realdreamerschangetheworld7470]

Wow, the comments have been really respectful, nice

[@SingularityZ3ro1]

The right to “free” public Health Care is relative. We pay for it, a lot. Especially Self-employed are getting charged an exorbitant amount, and also have it taken away, if they can’t pay for it. Still a far better, and more decent system than in the US where you are F. if you are somehow not eligible, and pay 100x fantasy prices for every treatment that can easily bankrupt normal people, but still more the “ok” version among the terrible ones.

[@jason4275]

$1,000 is laughably, is not even enough to cover rent in most states

[@AniMageNeBy]

Even 8000 dollars is laughable; it wouldn't even pay the rent of my mansion in California!

[@sammarchant2703]

AI should very soon cause administrative costs of nearly everything in life to absolutely plummet, removing the best argument for UBI. I am excited for all the cost saving measures that can be taken with AI.

[@aruak321]

Cost savings including your job possibly...

[@sammarchant2703]

@@aruak321 true, for me it kind of changes my philosophy of government, though. I have always been more on the small government, low taxes, side of things to maximize productivity and efficiency in the economy. If AI makes us so efficient and so productive though that it takes away many jobs I think it makes a lot of sense to have a high tax economy, where the government doesn’t give handouts per se, but we have a lot more government jobs taking care of things that are difficult to monetize in the free market. I would want shorter work weeks so we can have more people working shorter hours instead of less people working longer hours. Want more government jobs where we focus on beautifying the cities, the areas around us picking up trash, building more beautiful, looking buildings, stuff like that. If AI is as great as we think it is, we can really use it to make the world around us more enjoyable. I think it’s really important for everyone to have a job. For everyone to have something to get up for and work towards and feel like they’re contributing. So I don’t like the idea of just a handout for everyone, I would love the idea of finding different ways to help people be productive, even if they’re not things that we’ve typically thought of in the past as necessary or the best use of time and resources. In the sense that when people are depressed, it actually helps them feel a lot better to clean their room, the government can at least give people the opportunity to in a sense “clean our room”.

[@aruak321]

@@sammarchant2703 Yeah it's hard to say where it will lead us since we don't know what we don't know. Just like pre-industrial revolution the workers (mostly farmers and craftsmen) had no idea what the industrial revolution would bring. The big fear (and many in the AI space believe this too) is that AI will be as if not more disruptive to society than the industrial revolution was. And unlike then, where new jobs were created in previously unimagined industries, this time there won't be space for people since you can have an AI (or robotics) pretty much take over and do better any job a human could do. So something has to be done or society may well break down. I guess we'll see what happens 🤷‍♂

[@joshuagenes]

$1000 a month is a relatively small amount. I think the problem comes in when you get to trust fund kid levels.

[@nietur]

Without UBI, we would need unemployment benefits. But unemployment benefits compete with employment. The argument against UBI that is "People wouldn't work", true or not, suggests we should extort people to work with their basic needs not being met. And the same people who use this argument think people pursue higher salaries above basic needs. So wouldn't people still want to increase their disposable incomes / quality of life if their basic needs are met, therefore work?

[@xandercruz900]

Wha?

[@AniMageNeBy]

Not sure about your argument. It seems to pivot around the idea that being paid for work is the unnatural thing here, being "extortion". Well, I doubt the veracity of that premise. If a lion hunts a zebra for its food - aka; having to put effort in it to be able to feed itself - is that 'extortion'? If a bird makes a nest to have a home, is that extortion? Extortion by whom; nature? If you deem that extortion, then life itself is extortion, my friend. So you're reversing reality here. No-one is extorting anyone: if you don't want to work, you don't. But the idea that others HAVE to pay you while you produce no counter-service would the actual extortion here. The normal situation is that you have to do something to gain something. No living creature on Earth has even its basic needs met without doing anything, and yet you see that as extortion. I think its a very peculiar mindset to see the basic tenets of life itself being regarded as extortion

[@titanispi1998]

Well someone better think of something because jobs are on the line between humanoids, traditional robots, programs and AI. There is a Japanese parts supplier building a robot only factory right now. The current economic model is ending its days. If smart-bots replace even 30% of jobs who will have anything to purchase stuff with? What good will going to college be? Why bother to provide a basic education at all if people wont need it for work - sorry teachers. Most health insurance is through work in the US, so kiss that goodbye. Considering the pay rate of the government and what hospitals want, you will see many medical facilities close up. Cars? People are being priced out of cars unless they are made in China which are currently massively subsidized by the government through company funding and suppressed wages. That cant be maintained as China is going bankrupt as companies relocate to spread / decrease risk. The whole global economic system is being disrupted.

[@xandercruz900]

"Well someone better think of something because jobs are on the line between humanoids, traditional robots, programs and AI...." Arent going to amount to anything like many of you think. You see a derivative AI illustration and watch robots do parlor tricks on TikTok videos, and think that crap is remotely ready for anything beyond that.

[@DavidLockett-x4b]

I am a pensioner and can't wait to get a robot gardener, maintenance guy, home help etc.

[@cherubin7th]

UBI is only proposed to have a place for all the plebs after AI took all jobs. We would have the owners, who own capital and AI, and the ex-workers who own nothing. So the ex-workers get put into a pot with VR and UBI and drugs, so they don't protest. It is basically a graveyard for the workers, so the owners have a free and happy life.

[@amct518]

Countries with a strong welfare system, (the UK) basically already have a UBI. Add that to the untaxed first part of your income and we have almost a UBI. It is a fine balancing act to keep people from starving to death and incentivising them to go to work. Not easy!

[@qurgen]

The UK has a stong welfare system? Are you comparing it to the US?

[@ClayShentrup]

if people reduce their working hours that is totally fine and not a problem in any way whatsoever. you can use the Ubi to buy milk or bread and you can also use it to buy handyman labor and you can also use it to buy your own labor. That's called free time or not working. same thing.

[@usausa-t7h]

If you want to see if UBI still motivates people to work, you can refer to the case in Nauru, a country in the Central Pacific. In the past, the government offered a kind of UBI already thanks to the abundant natural resource. Then people worked hard? No, people didn't work hard and they couldn't develop other industry. In 1990s, they ran out of the natural resources and the economy collapsed.

[@michael1190]

The results of UBI are pretty simple to understand. More money in the economy chasing a dwindling amount of goods and services. We've seen this 4 years ago. The reason the tech bros are advocating for it is because they believe that their robots can increase productivity. I'm all for UBI if you can maintain or increase the productivity of side of the equation.

[@agritech802]

We have a group of people in our country getting the universal income, they're called the long term unemployed 😁

[@navajyotichetia8968]

3:01 a personal living presence as an address is the fix- their geo cordinates in satellite would be their temporary address while their living prescence is their address equivalent

[@Kevin-vc3jf]

if implemented universal basic income becomes a permanent band aid solution. And its costs will just increase over time as more beneficiaries are being included in the system putting more burden to the taxpayers.

[@walterjurewicz1567]

Only people that are currently working at least 20 or more hours a week the elderly and people with disabilities should receive the UBI. People that are chronically unemployed or lazy would be incentivized not to work.

[@IBeforeAExceptAfterK]

Do you understand what the word "universal" means?

[@snackplissken8192]

Give a man a fish, and he will be fed for a day, teach a man to fish, and he will be fed for a lifetime. Give everybody a daily voucher for free fish, and you will just have more people demanding fewer fish. The problem is the breakdown of family structures and a lack of financial literacy. While the government could conceivable fix the latter by changing the priorities of the educational system, the former is generally harmed by the structure of government redistribution programs. People generally learn financial literacy from intact families who model the virtues of delayed gratification, without that reinforcement, it takes a lot more motivation to learn. The very motivation that well-meaning government programs tend to strip people of, particularly when benefits cut off the moment a recipient tries to take the first step to improve their lot, like getting an entry level job.

[@DavidLockett-x4b]

Poverty is what creates family structures, decadence destroys families.

[@Magicus1]

It wasn’t mentioned but some people would likely invest that money & create a larger divide between haves and have nots. Plus, you’d also see companies and people suddenly raising prices on everything because they know everyone has extra money.

[@DavidLockett-x4b]

The divide has never been larger, and Elon Musk is responsible for most of it.

[@chinesesparrows]

Supply and demand. With more money chasing similar goods prices just go up. Also it's a massive cost to the fund which has to get that money somehow which is likely more taxes or printing more money which has the same effect as raising prices.

[@mrlover4310]

I'm a normal person on minimum wage in the UK I think to make people happier I think what we need to do is work less hours and have more time to do what makes you happy if that's spending time with the family or doing something else. we don't need substitute from the government lower inflation which in return will be lower prices on food and goods housing cars fule people then will be much happier.

[@Ausplainer]

Less work hours would make having a family more viable for many and also lower childcare expense. This is a huge win as the current immigrants cant afford kids either and are just aging into welfare recipients

[@xandercruz900]

@@Ausplainer "This is a huge win as the current immigrants cant afford kids either " Yeah...........ok.

[@MVVelev]

It's very complicated. But the short version is: it could be the moment in which a part of the people should receive money not to work until we reach the point in which most of the people should receive money to work.

[@ClayShentrup]

you are just dead wrong that reduced work means reduced wealth. there is exactly the same wealth because the UBI recipients are just purchasing their own labor from themselves. that is, the enjoyment of their free time is itself a form of GDP. this is just an obvious mathematical fact.

[@skeletonkeysproductionskp]

Give larger amounts (£1,500/month) to just the Bottom 20% of the population, and force everyone to save 20% of their income to build long-term financial stability. Review every 2 years, and if anyone who can work chooses to scrounge, lock 'em up for 10 years' hard labour. (Tough Love; "Carrot & Stick")

[@stevenschwartz-vf2lg]

Homeless? Maybe. But in the major cities with severe drug problems, people aren’t going to rent apartments. They are going to buy drugs. When given a choice, drug addicts chose drugs over housing. So it would increase drug Israel and probably drug deaths.

[@CultureCrossed64]

Man, the spanish version of this channel was biased enough...☠️

[@ooo-vc4xl]

Wrong. UBI will be needed when AI takes most jobs. Also UBI will never be more than a basic payment, like the near unsurvivable unemployment benefit.

[@lugaritzbrown2250]

Well if UBI can't work....and by the way we need waaay more studies to prove this beyond a shadow of doubt and WAAY more contextualization for example were PSYCHOMETRIC factors considered in the studies???..conscientious people might act differently with UBI than say neurotic people...we could RESTRUCTURE it.

[@LocomotiveThought]

Everyone will be equally hungry.

[@BirdEgg123]

I don't agree that the last study was conclusive of anything. Like all studies, they have their strengths and weaknesses, in which different aspects are uncovered. If anything goes to show, this topic needs more research more than anything before we can get an accurate picture of how it affects the economy. How much of the time people spend on entertainment contribute to the economy, how much money is saved from cutting bureaucracy, are birth rates increased, are risks of social exclusion raised or lowered, and so on.

[@nietur]

Less work isn't a terrible consequence 😐

[@xandercruz900]

When you find that civilization isnt a naturally-maintaining thing, then you will think very differently.

[@thisin.]

@@xandercruz900 you think people work 40h weeks to "maintain" things? it's always the pursuit of more.

[@AniMageNeBy]

Less income from that lesser work is, though.

[@craigmak]

I would continue my life as normal & invest the UBI into the S&P500.

[@popsmrok]

The way UBI should work is to tie it to consumption via sales tax.

[@oyeyipo]

this does not even make any sense

[@popsmrok]

@@oyeyipoWhat part does not make sense, the idea of UBI or how to fund it?

[@Danilio.]

.

[@dylreesYT]

​@@popsmrokcan you explain why you believe this makes sense?

[@jamesbonander]

it might be a way for to support young families or pay for child care. my daughter showed me the bill for daycare for my 3 y/o grand daughter and I was shocked at the cost. it is not worth it to go back to work after having a baby.

[@CL-man]

Have you considered doing a study and a presentation on eliminating personal income tax and going back to just goods and services tax. Trump has mentioned that he will eliminate personal income tax. Consider the bureaucratic cost reduction in manpower, scaffolding and costs that presently will disappear. Remember in some countries, personal income tax came into being as a "temporary measure" after the first world war. That should be a serious socioeconomic dent and bring a new, creative and efficient business model.

[@DavidLockett-x4b]

Only idiots such as the rich should be required to pay tax.

[@chrissasin6676]

Where the money comes from??

[@josebracamontes2754]

Government printing it

[@Tiblanc]

UBI is highly dependent on how it's funded. If it's funded through taxes, then it will always fail. If it funded through capital gains, then it works because it automatically adjusts to the economy. It isn't any different than if everyone had 300K in savings and could extract 1K/month. People would work less with that extra passive revenue stream, which would increase wages and counterbalance it by making the 1000$/month have less purchasing power. It's when UBI guarantees the purchase of a fixed basket of goods that things get ugly, because inflation will spiral the country into debt as it tries to keep up its UBI.

[@exfinen_2919]

but market will reverse or halt that inflation. This' because everyone has 1k, hence business know the size of customer-base that has 1k and compete to make product at that cost range. Eventually it led to supply glut and/or at-scale/efficient manufacturing, then deflation will occur.

[@Tiblanc]

@exfinen_2919 No amount of competition will change the fact that if the money comes from debt, it wasn't accompanied with value creation. If we view UBI as a country's sole production, it would create a trade imbalance, which would devalue its currency unless it's counterbalanced by an equivalent export. It doesn't matter how efficient producers get. It still means someone else is paying for it.

[@nickhbt]

05:40 Oh no, by this analysis UBI will take the structure of work, [ where one employee (Stereotypically male), could support a family,] back to how it was in the 1950s! How terrible.

[@DavidLockett-x4b]

We will soon be back to the 1930's.

[@nickhbt]

@@DavidLockett-x4b or perhaps the 1830s before the classical liberal compromise that gave the world the welfare state. Which, of course, ( Like the abolition of slavery and child labor before it) was resisted with exactly the same arguments that are used against UBI.

[@nickhbt]

@@DavidLockett-x4b Yes, lines of unemployed people desperate for work, but excluded by the 'logic' of economics. Or worse still back to the 1830s before the introduction of the welfare state, which, like the abolition of slavery, and child labor before it, was resisted by just the same 'gut feeling' logic that now oposes UBI.

[@BBBrasil]

I expect a boom on inflation at the very beginning. People will burn easy money and prices will go up because of high demand.

[@DTCWee-iq2bn]

Yes. See: 2020 - 2022 Stimmy Cheques.

[@luxraider5384]

yes, it won't change a thing, if everyone gets 1000 dollars, everything will cost more and adapt to the added purchase power.

[@FischerNilsA]

@@DTCWee-iq2bn Not responsible for global inflation. No big-name economist agrees with that right-wing media talking point.

[@ArawnOfAnnwn]

@@luxraider5384 In the long run people make less. It's only more money if you change nothing about your life. So the end result is prices go down to accommodate LESS purchasing power, not more. But there's more quality of life in exchange.

[@ArawnOfAnnwn]

@@luxraider5384 In the long run people make less. It's only more money if you change nothing about your life.

[@freedompodcast4518]

That will be a absolutely horrible idea because inflation is a thing. Do I need to explain why?

[@omerkaya8243]

Some advocates of this idea are top university graduates with PhDs with 20-30 years of experience. Do you have a degree in Economics?

[@freedompodcast4518]

@@omerkaya8243 More money in the economy equals more inflation equals more money you have to spend on a freddo chocolate bar. British people will get fat joke.

[@omerkaya8243]

@@freedompodcast4518 Sorry my bad you are definitely smarter than average Economy PhDs with 20-30 years

[@exfinen_2919]

if freddo chocolate bar inflate in price it means this product is important and more of it will be made. Basically, money is a direct-democracy, and giving everyone money allow them to vote on the market on what resource is important to society. Inflation is a signal, for demand & scarcity of specific resource/product.

[@ohenrico17acr92]

Anyone else shocked, no. I thought so.

[@dariusbruchental3404]

Terrible the ammount of control the goverment would exert on its populus, this whole concept should be absolutely indefinatibly scrapped. In religious terms this would be called blasphemy.

[@blitzaxis]

Wouldnt happen ever. Waste of time.

[@GarryNestler]

I can live off of $1100 a month but $1,000 could work. QUIT MIXING UBI WITH NEGATIVE INCOME TAX. Negative income tax and ubi is DIFFERENT. Your tarnishing the name of the Negative income tax (certain conservatives are the ones that hate UBI).

[@ClayShentrup]

I hope this is a clickbait title because UBI is radically superior to in-kind benefits and means testing. and if you think it's bad for people to spend some of the money buying back their time, then you've significantly decreased your economic credibility.

[@brunolima7402]

Rich people take.

[@xandercruz900]

And the "poor people" take is the reason why a lot of them are poor.

[@Gobio2]

Public aid for those in real need is OK, but giving free money just for being alive is immoral.

[@nowie4007]

Would replacing people eventually with robots for all jobs any more moral than that?? , a lot of people would eventually become discarded as trash by major corporations for their greedy masters

[@krishnendunayek2060]

Promote😂 Laxmir Bhand in America & Europe. 😅.

[@faitero]

If I gets free money I invest this money. But 1000€ are very small amount. You need extra income anyway to survive

[@DavidLockett-x4b]

Steve Jobs created Apple Computers starting out with less that $1000, what is your excuse?

[@ZoranMarkovic-vy9tz]

There is no money for UBI.

[@randallrobertson7190]

You want less of something tax it. You want more of something subsidize it. That is all. Thank you for attending my TED talk.

[@Ott4vi4nu5]

true and funny 👍

[@radzid]

Test the UBI in the Balkans 🤣

[@grumpydinosaur2347]

Does US case includes working hours and social benefits before and after payment? If you work 200h per month its only normal that some 10% of working hours would drop. US is very bad example for this. Look at lower 30% income bracket who works, theyre basicly slaves. You need to compare that with normal country and for longtime citizens, Germany, Spain, Italy, Australia. Country who has humane working conditions for lower class

[@grumpydinosaur2347]

There was many other "interesting opinions", starting with "limited space in Sanfrancisco" or forgiving medical bills of thousands of dollars or crime rates (there is good atudies who show thay crime rates depends from income inequality within city/region/country as other factors) This is first visualpolitik video in my memory who looks lazy or some kind of capitalist propoganda

[@GreenSamurai2]

Thanks for this vid. I have a new example of pure pseudo science pretending to be fact. Trying to debunk it is like debunking a gish gallop. It's easier to point out what is correct.

[@manmaninc7673]

What you need to make this work is a credit system and a maximum limit of the amount of money you get. Like the story of the rich master and three servants in the bible. If you are given 1000 you need to double it to get another 1000 dollars, rinse and repeat, using big data and digital currencies its possible.

[@pantsgaming759]

Anyone with the most basic math skills can easily work out that UBI is so unbelievably expensive its never going to happen. The fact so called "educated" people mention it worries my about who is actually running everything. let me work out it for Australia: 27million x $600 a week = 16,200,000,000 x 52 = $842,400,000,000 per year how we paying for that? Australia's total budget is $734 billion, UBI will double the entire budge can we please stop listening to these UBI morons.

[@MultiSoccerMan]

Why did you use $600/week? Most of the studies use $1000 a month = $250/week, no? UBI should overlap with social security that people already receive. People who receive $500/m pension could have their pension waved & they just receive $1000/m instead rather than it being additive ($1500). People receiving $1300/m from government would continue to get that amount rather than $1000 more ($2300). Prisoners in jail could be made to pay for themselves. Schools could be privatized & everyone pays for their own childrens school. So... UBI fund could cover a large portion of: social assistance, welfare, education, prison costs, pension, etc... & reduce the size/cost of government beauracracy. The way you are looking at it is a little shortsighted & it seems an overestimate.

[@pantsgaming759]

@@MultiSoccerMan how can anyone live on 250 aud a week? cant even get a room in a shared house for that.

[@thisin.]

calculate in the positive impact on birthrates, and reduced administrative inefficiencies from existing welfare and the spending on mental health.

[@LinusONeill]

tax the rich?

[@pantsgaming759]

@@thisin. yeah and its still no where near enough. its double that of the entire budget for everything.

[@nietur]

There's this study going around on tiktok saying 30% of current production would be enough to give everyone on the planet a good living standard. Would love a video on that. It seemed to check out. People working less on UBI wouldn't be an issue that way either.

[@samthesuspect]

So that might be accurate, BUT I have found 95% of random videos on tik'tok trying to inform you, is either lying or wrong. Quick 30 second videos is not the ideal way of getting news.

[@chinesesparrows]

Do you seriously have no better sources than tiktok lol. The place where many anti-something views have millions of views except criticism of China? Their algorithm is cooked

[@Ausplainer]

Do the maths and work out why UBI is ridiculous. We have a population crisis and now youre empowering people to get high and game all day to die as virgins.

[@AlessandroRodriguez]

I think you would not like that, main because is US consumption, depending of the source is "if all the world consume to American levels we will need 3 to 6 earth's to sustain it" that sound terrible, until you consider many tech gigantic are American, you don need another 20 apples, Google or Amazon's. Also it depends of the cost of living Flipping burgers in Scat Francisco for 15 USD an hour would be a slave wage to you, but the same money put you into 1% to 10% top earners in many countries

[@maximemeis2867]

@@nietur even if it were true it would be irrelevant. You are not entitled to the wealth others produced. That s it. End of the story.

[@stuart6478]

almost like... astrology exists

[@the11382]

This is not a good sign for the future of automation. 3 scenarios: A. Unemployable get subsidized living. B. Destabilization of society, mass unrest. C. Unemployable get unalived. I'm not sure how we can get out of the conundrum. Part of the population will be unemployable, because automation made their jobs nonexistent. No one wants B and C, so what is the alternative?

[@nietur]

UBI is still the answer.

[@winterrye3022]

Pay for it by taxing the robots?

[@PrOxJiGGLEz]

I believe that subsidising those earning below a threshold will only become a problem for organisations. It only serves as a means for people to not pursue higher positions. Why become a manager when you can earn the same money through subsidising? Why take on extra responsibility and stress? Management positions for teams will not get filled unless there is enough incentive, leading to higher positions needing more incentive, costs for companies will increase, and when costs go up, prices of products will follow, then making the original subsidies pointless. Then the subsidies will also need increasing. Once UBS is in place, people won't not to see it go and will end up demanding more, which means more cost on the tax payers and companies, which will lead to more inflation. my argument is those on top won't want to see others have a 'free ride' (only 2 mins in the video if it comes up)

[@Ausplainer]

UBI would result in collapsed productivity, reduced cultural respect for hard work, less desire to work and be taxed most of your wage to cover the dead weight and inflation would simply take hold. Net result is worse productivity and little else.

[@thebeatnumber]

I don’t get it. How could you talk about Elon Musk pushing for UBI and not even discuss his reasons for doing so, which he has explained several times. Musk envisages a time when AI will be able to do many of the semi skilled jobs that minimum wage workers do now (bus drivers, truck drivers, uber drivers, waiters etc). Most other libertarians share Elon's views.

[@DavidLockett-x4b]

Yes, but Elon Must is just some crazy guy with too much ambition, and with too much money for his own good.

[@Casper-we3dq]

If it sounds too good to be true it often is.

[@BBBrasil]

This video is wrong. UBI is not just about giving free money to people, it needs context. Where will the government get his money if not thru taxes from working people? AI and bots don't get salaries neither expend money on Coca-Cola. It is the end of Coca-Cola, the bottle makers, the entire supply chain, the entire economy if you get my drift. Only the few that still work can buy anything. The rest cannot compete with the coming automation, and the economy cannot support a million Shaq, a million Taylor Swift, a million neurosurgeons, jobs that so far AI and bots cannot do. Billions of people will be jobless thru no fault of their own. Jobless people cannot sustain any economy. Suppose I am rich and I make computers, or Coca-Cola, diapers or bottled water. Who will buy them? I will fast become unemployed too, a bot will make bottled water cheaper and faster than my employees can. For those that still can buy, I mean. Edit: remember the horses? There were millions, where are they now? They just died out because there were no more use for them, they surely weren't lazy, they just couldn't compete with automobiles. There are just a few thousand of them now. What will happen with drivers, sales people, mid management, everything will be gone when automation takes over with auto-pilot, automated quiosques, office AI.

[@jpablo700]

We'll just make Russia and China pay for it 😆

[@omerkaya8243]

Imagine only thing keep you going to your job is motivation to stay alive and people think its a good thing. How is this not slavery?

[@Nyet-Zdyes]

Answer - Perception. The lion on the savanna in Africa... and every other animal in existence... has to work to live. Just *breathing* costs calories (food, money)... and maintaining your body temp costs even more, in most places.

[@xandercruz900]

Like what did people do before work? Oh yeah, people have ALWAYS WORKED! Sorry, but there is nothing to make it so you can be lazy and get stuff for free.

[@omerkaya8243]

Ok, hear me out!! What if we worked to get a good life like people did in 1960-1990? Remember those times when one salary was enough to sustain a family? It's not like we are less productive; contrary, we are more productive than we ever have been since the existence of humanity. If elites and top 10% cant effort to pay people more than survival money I would rather use $1,000 to survive than make my rich boss richer by going to work to survive. How does that sound? And if my boss wants to find people to work for him all he needs to do is to pay a decent salary. Does that sound better? When you are negotiating a salary employer should not have upper hand by saying either do what I say or starve. Starvation should be no where near in negotiation table other wise you are just a slave because that is what slaves use to get; work for food and survival.

[@omerkaya8243]

@@xandercruz900 your answer

[@omerkaya8243]

@@Nyet-Zdyes your answer

[@tannermurphree8247]

Ubi for homeless means the dope dealer is getting a subsidy from the feds

[@oldmare444]

This channel cherry picked the stidies. There are more studies showing UBI is a success. One in Canada and California are examples.

[@leoborros]

Parasite detected

[@jackcullen69]

Eh, like Communism or Socialism, it has never been done right so it’s never wrong. Right?

[@DavidLockett-x4b]

The Chinese are doing pretty well at the moment, but will it last?

[@alexeygrinin3075]

Thanks!

[@andreasjensen8451]

The reason Billionaires advocate for this is simple. They know most people will use most of it to just consume more, benefitting the rich. Some will go ahead and invest the money which still benefit the rich. Keeping it in the bank? Well that helps the bankers make more money. It's just more ✨ capitalism ✨ Not to mention that business would adjust prices of everything, knowing everyone gets cash

[@luxraider5384]

investing money doesn't always benefit the rich, unless when you invest in a rich person stock. As an example if your business is building houses, and you sell to normal people, there is no rich person involved in the trade. Also there isn't 1 type of rich. There is millionnaire, billionaire, multi billionnaire, hundreds of billions. Furthermore the UBI would be a good way to create a temporary worker shortage and outsource everything to cheaper countries.

[@kamoboko86]

Sounds like a world of people spending $1,000 per month on pot beer and tattoos ... Because people on the lowest bracket of society don't care.

[@xandercruz900]

Yup. One only needs to look at those "stimi checks" and see that people acting like UBI is going to be used for "necessities" are full of it.

[@DavidLockett-x4b]

Ban pot, beer, and tattoos, problem solved.

[@kamoboko86]

@DavidLockett-x4b haha I guess that would do it. 😆 We all know how effective the war on drugs was.

[@DanielGallant1]

The problem is those studies don't (generally) take AI and robotics into account. So, to pull a few numbers out of thin air: If a business can spend $50,000 for a robot warehouse worker plus $10,000 per year in maintenance versus around $40,000 every year, I can guarantee they will get robots. Tech support? Same deal. High-end workers/managers might keep their jobs. Maybe. With all the low-level and mid-level jobs eliminated, who will be left to buy stuff?

[@rockstar450]

UBI would result in such high tax you'd stop people wanting to work and ruin productivity. People would spend it on overseas purchases (not helping the economy).

[@sootuckchoong7077]

At this time of economic meltdown, living a frugal lifestyle is the best war to overcome financial disaster. More work, more savings, less spending on unnecessarily purchases.

[@DavidLockett-x4b]

Yipee, we are all going to get robots to do all of the work. AI's can even think for us. What about all of the dangerously bored pensioners leaving dumb comments on KZbin videos.

[@avrorenan]

But how does this policy affect Europe's steadily declining birth rates? at the current bith rate europeans will go extint and maybe this can make people more interested in keeping keeping their societies alive for a change.

[@ecoandrei328]

Are there still people that think that VisualEconomik is on the left-wing ? Honest question, how did you pass school?

[@winterrye3022]

I'm lefty but I started watching VisualPolitik because they leaned right and wanted to hear other points of view. At some point during the pandemic they stopped leaning right and just fell right over.

[@DriftRacing77]

We shouldn't care that much of the consequences of implementing the UBI, since it will benefit all of us! Then we should try to find ways to cope with it, since it will be standard, and not try to cancel it or get less than $1000 or involve the bureaucracy and thus not benefit the most people that need UBI.

[@Nyet-Zdyes]

We absolutely need to care about the consequences. First off, who is going to pay for the UBI? Someone will have to... and they probably won't like it.

[@xandercruz900]

"We shouldn't care that much of the consequences of implementing the UBI, since it will benefit all of us!" Reason why the voting age needs to go up to 28....

[@ohenrico17acr92]

Buying more stocks

[@Ynhockey]

Both proponents and opponents always miss the largest (albeit unintentional) UBI experiment by far. That is the Gaza Strip. Many may not know, but about 1/3 of Gaza Strip residents were receiving direct aid from the UN, amounting to about $400 per month per family. That's not amazing even by Gazan standards, given the large families, but it was enough to get by. Indirectly, and together with other foreign aid, most Gazans were living on some kind of aid program. The result? 70% youth unemployment, radicalism, general hopelessness, and slow societal collapse. Granted, if UBI is implemented universally, someone would have to actually produce stuff and it might work a bit better, but I believe that the general societal decline is inevitable. The Gaza experiment (sample size 750,000+ just for the UNRWA aid) strengthens UBI opponents' arguments significantly.

[@exfinen_2919]

I don't see the negatives, because politically I favour Gazan hence this UBI is a success, unless if you argued it hurt Gazan.

[@Ynhockey]

@@exfinen_2919 It destroyed their society long before the current war, so yes.

[@exfinen_2919]

​@@Ynhockey it is secular in Israel that engage in war while Orthodox Jews who get UBI do not, hence UBI is a success there.