UBI: Should We Get Free Money From The Government?

When the robots come to take our jobs, will Universal Basic Income become necessary?
TEACHERS: Get your students in the discussion on KQED Learn, a safe place for middle and high school students to investigate controversial topics and share their voices. learn.kqed.org...
ABOVE THE NOISE is a show that cuts through the hype and investigates the research behind controversial and trending topics in the news. Hosted by Myles Bess.
NEW VIDEOS EVERY OTHER WEDNESDAY
SUBSCRIBE by clicking the RED BUTTON above.
Follow us on Instagram @kqedabovethenoise
Check out Two Cents, a new channel about money from PBS Digital Studios: / twocentspbs
* How much money would the universal basic income give you?
It depends. In the U.S., most experts think that $1,000 a month would be the ideal target amount. It’s just enough (maybe) to prevent total financial devastation, but not enough that it would dissuade people from keeping their job or looking for a job if they don’t have one.
* Who would get the universal basic income?
A true universal basic income would be universal, meaning everyone would get it. Even the wealthy like Bill Gates, although he would owe WAY more in taxes than than he’d get from the government.
* What are the main arguments FOR a universal basic income?
Some liberals think that a universal basic income is an effective method to fight financial inequality, which is big and growing. The wealthiest 1% own half of all the world’s wealth, and by 2030, it’s estimated to increase to two-thirds! Some conservatives think a universal basic income could shrink current welfare programs, and would put more choice in the hands of the individual.
* What are the main arguments AGAINST a universal basic income?
Some conservatives think that giving everyone a universal basic income would be so massively expensive that it would be totally impractical to implement, and would almost certainly require people to pay more in taxes. Liberals worry that in order to afford the universal basic income, government welfare programs like food stamps and housing assistance would need to be significantly cut or eliminated.
SOURCES:
Stanford scholar explores pros, cons of ‘basic income’
news.stanford....
THE PARADOX OF UNIVERSAL BASIC INCOME
www.wired.com/...
Richest 1% on target to own two-thirds of all wealth by 2030
www.theguardia...
What does the federal government spend your tax dollars on?
www.pewresearch...
Stockton Preparing Rollout Of Universal Basic Income Plan
sacramento.cbs...
Finland to end basic income trial after two years
www.theguardia...
This Kenyan village is a laboratory for the biggest basic income experiment ever
www.vox.com/po...
FOR EDUCATORS
KQED Learn learn.kqed.org
KQED Teach teach.kqed.org
KQED Education ww2.kqed.org/e...
/ kqededucation
/ kqededspace
/ kqededucation
About KQED
KQED, an NPR and PBS affiliate in San Francisco, CA, serves Northern California and beyond with a public-supported alternative to commercial TV, Radio, and web media. Funding for Above the Noise is provided in part by the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, Silver Giving Foundation, Stuart Foundation, and William and Flora Hewlett Foundation.

[@AboveTheNoise]

Free money is great, right? But what if it means raising taxes and cutting social welfare programs? Check out this video all about the universal basic income and let us know what you think in the comments!

[@winterszhuzhupets2]

People are really lazy if you give them free money they will not work at all

[@cryptojonny6837]

@@winterszhuzhupets2 People are lazy even at work so regardless you can't stop someone from being lazy.

[@Holobrine]

You can’t talk about the cost of UBI without talking about automation. If corporations get more work done with less human labor expenses, we need to tax them more so we all can enjoy the economic benefits.

[@ItsGroundhogDay]

There's a reason why corporations are looking to automate more. The fight for $15.

[@SaltVinegar2010]

@@ItsGroundhogDay Corporations will always automate anyway. Even if the minimum wage was $1, it would still be cheaper in the long run to automate. Stop blaming precarious workers for automation.

[@Zorriet]

@@SaltVinegar2010 Actually that is not true. Robots aren't that cheap. Companies which pay slave wages are less likely to automate.

[@Youbeentagged]

Why do you think you have the right to the corporation's money? Are you an investor?

[@MrDANGitall]

@@SaltVinegar2010 ---> There is a finite time-period whereupon the investment into robots is paid off and profit begins; but human expenditures, as employees, are never-ending. We need to tax corporations to pay for UBI, on a case-by-case basis, since their automation caused human joblessness, AND (BTW), how can unemployed people BUY what the robots produced??

[@oafkad]

They already do this for people with insane amounts of wealth. Seems only fair to do it for people it would have an actual meaningful impact towards. It's also pretty solid for the economy too. More money not spent simply staying out of debt is money working. Lots of money in the world, not a whole lot of it is actually moving around. That's super bad for capitalism.

[@ginnyjollykidd]

The way they present it here would not help. Basically what they propose is spitting in people's eyes.

[@oafkad]

@@ginnyjollykidd I haven't investigated the issue but I'm pretty sure we can develop a method of delivering the money that won't require spitting. Don't hold me to that though.

[@ItsGroundhogDay]

They already give half the population free money.

[@KicksPregnantWomen]

Very few people have insane amount of wealth

[@Ace-uc5cj]

It’s basically socialism

[@Pottery4Life]

12K would pay half my family's annual medical insurance premiums. I'm in!!

[@raidanbolt4844]

I've enjoyed this type of info sharing, looking at both sides. Something schools used to teach.

[@philibertlehardi8054]

I think the US should focus on universal healthcare instead of UBI because paying to get a medical treatment is just not human

[@philibertlehardi8054]

Yajna Do you know France ? It’s a wonderful socialist paradize where we have universal healthcare and still we are the sixth greatest economic power of the planet

[@ItsGroundhogDay]

We already have government run healthcare. It's called the VA. Its track record is not encouraging.

[@Flannel535]

@Yajna It works in throughout rest of the world idiot troll.

[@Flannel535]

@@ItsGroundhogDay It should be streamlined to run better for those who use it. Do you know what the VA and Medicare run better than? The private "health" insurance scam. Medicare for All is the only way to go.

[@ItsGroundhogDay]

​@@Flannel535 Yes, let's do UBI and Medicare for all. And college for all. And puppies for all. It'll only cost us $8 trillion a year. Chump change. "The rich" can pay for it.

[@SupLuiKir]

UBI doesn't have to start at the full $1000/mo to start seeing the benefits, and these benefits will naturally lead into being able to increase the UBi amount further later. I think a mix of cutting programs and raising taxes can get it started or speed up the process, but once it starts, it will get there regardless. Even though the immense amount of bureaucracy entangled in the welfare system is one of the major reasons to adopt UBI, we should wait to cut welfare for last, only when cutting all welfare will bring the UBI budget up to the target amount. It would be kinda bad if current welfare recipients only got $200/mo because we cut welfare first.

[@helpme5785]

UBI only decreases employment in like teens and stuff, and can make people more productive because they aren't trying to survive, they're working because they want to. It gives people more options

[@beninwarrior4579]

Evidence? That sounds preety dumb.

[@beninwarrior4579]

Moat people are lazy.

[@helpme5785]

@@beninwarrior4579 and where's your evidence for that? Here's an example: if you don't have to rely on a boss for a wage you need to survive you have more ability to bargain over things like raises, hours, etc. It gives employees more leverage and makes the relationship less unbalanced. It also makes it easier for, say, single mothers to take care of their family too because they have more money to spend inherently. It also means that they wouldn't have to choose between survival and their family. It can do nothing but help lessen income inequality. And if it makes people lazy: so what? What's the problem with people being able to lead comfortable and happy lives? If they have the time and energy to pursue their interests and passions, that could lead to unknowable amounts of progress and growth. The more you lessen someone's stress, especially related to income, the better they perform. It is worth it to help people.

[@markmurex6559]

Taxing larger businesses would only make them relocate to another country, so it's not as great as it looks on paper.

[@xxxjake703xxx]

America is the best consumer market in the world. I don't think companies are going anywhere.

[@DevByKonner]

If I knew everyone was getting an extra 1000 dollars a month, what's to stop me from raising prices on rent a few hundred because I know they can afford it? Same goes for food prices etc. A federal government run Ubi is a terrible idea. IF you privatize it and make it a supplementary income it has potential.

[@danklord6929]

there is still competition? people can decide to live somewhere else thats lower. this is why free market is a blessing.

[@Iamwolf134]

By that token, why not have a ubi voucher that you can take with you?

[@remusredbone1214]

The Gov’t doesn’t have any money to give to anyone until they take money from someone else. There is no such thing as free money. It would be more accurate to call it “someone else’s money”.

[@benji_bugatti8731]

What he didn't mention is that 70% of economists are against raising minimum wage.

[@coopsnz1]

Business will pay higher taxes to fund ubi = prices will skyrocket = ubi handout will buy less

[@FlyingArtz.]

Its not free money!!!!!!!!! We ARE PAYING TAXES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[@jjc5475]

4:48 meanwhile i'm living on government spending and are forced to buy insurance. does it work? yes. does it make me want to stop working? hella no.

[@LandyYecla]

It's a great idea, way better than traditional welfare which punishes people for earning and saving.

[@HardKore5250]

Better start now before it is too late prepare early

[@MinhNguyen-wz2wn]

Andrew Yang for president of the United State 2020!!!

[@VeryProPlayerYesSir1122]

nope

[@azertyQ]

Don't Alaskans already get some sort of dispensation from the state already?

[@AboveTheNoise]

They do! It's called the Alaska Permanent Fund, and in 2017 every Alaskan got $1,100 for the year.

[@j.franklin21]

To me, it is essentially, "We'll give you money, so you can give it back to us with interest!"

[@sunnyside6372]

the big problem with this tho is the fact that many people would not work because they don't need to with or without automation this would make the economy go way down

[@crocshock911]

We should have a trial run like Finland!

[@jish55]

It's a concept that's been championed by Thomas Paine, MLK, and multiple others over the years, and now we're reaching a point where society is implementing more automation. We as a species have the right to a roof over our heads, enough food to never go hungry, clean water, and the internet (because in this day and age, the internet is a literal necessity). So those alone should be paid for. Add in that with a UBI, we'll start to see a massive rise in people who create, teachers, more people willing to take care of the elderly, people who would go out of their way to help others. It'll allow people the means to have more freedom to travel and experience other cultures, to feel more secure and actually want to get married and have children.

[@nitishcarlin1926]

It's funny we live in an imperfect society.

[@BlessingsfromBridget]

You say that government assistance for the poor already exists. However, the freedom of what to do with that money is only available to people with children under 18 and the disabled. For everyone else, there is no freedom on what to do with that money. The only help that exists is in the form of help with food, rent, electricity, phone, and healthcare. And those programs don’t even cover all expenses. You still have to pay 30-40% of your income in rent. You still have to pay some (although reduced amount) for electricity. Food stamps don’t cover the cost of all food you need. And if you need money for transportation, a tooth brush, toilet paper, clothes, etc. - there is no government support for any of that.

[@matthewstanger1423]

I think it's a good start we can do better. I would love it to be about 2500 a mount for everyone free Healthcare and free homes for every one. No strings attached!!!

[@HardKore5250]

Vote Andrew Yang 2020!

[@mikhailhunter5277]

Everyone talks about "financial equality" but what about output equality? No one talks about the person that invested the first 30 years of their life to make millions, and invested millions of dollars in their businesses.

[@undergroundnet3907]

An universal basic income would be do-able as a safety net for people to not fall into the poverty trap, which means you can also work but the UBI would serve as a safety net to protect you against poverty. No one can sit on their asses and do nothing

[@SuperPf4]

Yes comrade, UBI for all the people!

[@matthewstanger1423]

I would stay baked all-day and party all night.

[@__-cx6lg]

I don't have any strong foundational arguments for or against UBI, as opposed to other forms of welfare. To me, the question is just whether UBI is more effective than the more complicated systems we have now. What I'm saying is, it's a very interesting idea, but I'm reserving judgement until we get way more data.

[@Darasilverdragon]

Liberal here I'd be 100% down for UBC if there was somehow a good sustainable way of *generating* all that money for everyone, if getting a job was still highly incentivized (say for example, if traditional non-essential 'comforts' like access to cable/satellite TV required an employee ID number to sign up for), and if a cheap low quality single-payer healthcare system was also set in place below the standard privatized insurance network as a replacement for medicaid and the ACA. After all, getting $1000 a month doesn't pull you out of abject poverty at all if your cheapest possible health insurance plan costs $950 a month due to severe preexisting conditions you need medication for - it may just make the problem worse.

[@timothygarycarolus1018]

I don't mind UBI, the method of execution intrigues me. I'm taking a liking to the idea of the Negative Income Tax

[@MicahErfan]

Ubi with a flat tax of 20% is in effect the same as a NIT with a .2 phase out rate and flat tax on all income above 60k of 20%. There is no reason to support NIT now indays when we know for a fact that means testing and small tax bases cause extra administratively inefficiencies.

[@MicahErfan]

administrative*

[@amandatucker1712]

I'd say it would be cool if there was a way to make basic needs in life free that way we can spend our money on wants and fun things that way maybe we can not be in debt as a country. I don't know if that would be realistic though, but it would be cool if we could have basic needs for free, such as food, shelter, health care, transportation, water, power, trash, ect. I think that if making basic needs free that would also bennifit everybody because if you can't work then you would be okay because you would have basic needs.

[@GameTesterBootCamp]

Wouldn't UBI cost considerably less we could do away with (some) Welfare and Unemployment? Let's not just count the money that is paid out through those programs, but also the cost of running them. With all the buildings, staff, equipment, licensing, ETC... I don't know exact numbers, but I imagine it would take a sizable chunk out of UBI's cost.

[@ilovebats10]

Hmm for some reason I thought I remembered hearing about a study done providing UBI to some smallish town in Canada. Ill have to go look into that.

[@connecticutaggie]

It seems every time I rely/depend more on the government my life gets worse not better. 1) The government has always seems better about lining their pockets than mine. Can you think of any government body that is more efficient than the equivalent private body (USPS vs UPS, VA vs private hospitals, ...). Speaker of the House gets $220K/year for working 133days/year plus they get a pension for life that can be up to 80% of their salary! What a deal - paid for by us!!! 3) Any rules they set would NOT be universal. I would be skewed in some way to the leadership's political benefit/agenda. This would then be skewed again to favor the new leadership. It is the way of politics. The only way a UBI could solve anything is if you can depend/rely on it.

[@snowpuppies1]

Mark Hancock, if we can ever get a convention of states going, I think they need to pass a law that Congress cannot pass a law that it is exempt from.

[@saz9102]

Thank you interesting topic..👍

[@AboveTheNoise]

Thanks for watching!

[@odizzido]

I think we should try this out and see how it goes. Until we have some data it's all just speculation.

[@johanne7]

We should pass this now, periodt!

[@N9mber]

johanne7 even if you don't know the economic outcome?

[@johanne7]

@@N9mber yo tbh I just wanted to use 'periodt' in a sentence lol

[@PunkHerr]

Why universal? I think universal is a little bit more expensive, as it could be. Negative income tax sounds more fair and is also a good way to motivate for work. You can also cut of stupid tax systems and these tax rule leeches.

[@andrewgeorge2666]

hey, could you do a video on tariffs? Wouldn't they help the economy by making it cheaper for companies to manufacture things in the US instead of other countries? If they did, wouldn't that make it easier to have a higher minimum wage, let in more immigrants and get more people jobs?

[@AboveTheNoise]

Great story idea! We'll consider it for sure...

[@NotHPotter]

That's not how tariffs work. Things are manufactured overseas because it is less expensive to do so; tariffs artificially inflate that price until it is relatively more cost-effective to do it domestically, but that doesn't actually lower the cost of business in country. The increase either eats into the profits of the company to slow growth, or are passed along to consumers in higher prices. They might result in a small increase in amount of work for a small group, but generally at a larger societal cost.

[@derekkent]

A tariff is a tax. When somebody in the US imports an item with a tariff, the person (or more likely company) in the US pays the tax. That makes the item more expensive to buy in the US. If the manufacturer in the US then wants to export a product made from that item, their item will also have to cost more, making it less competitive.

[@Iamwolf134]

@@derekkent One of the things Trump managed to get right with tariffs, is that he issued tax cuts for every American before issuing the tariffs.

[@icelly3380]

I have question about this, wouldn't cause inflations since your just giving out free money that will possibly never get seen back.

[@stevelucky7579]

This sounds like bread and circuses. “Give them bread and circuses and they will never revolt.”- Decimus Junius Juvenalis As long as the people are well fed and have a place to live and are entertained they have no desire to try for more (as we have seen with Rome).

[@ginnyjollykidd]

Liberal low - income person, here. I'm about that income level right now. Besides the Social Security ($12,000/ year), I receive, were it not for Medicare and the HUD-approved Section 8 Homeowners program (which works like Section 8 but for homeowning rather than renting), I would not make it on my income for even shelter, since I have to pay 30% of my income to having a home. Nowhere I know would rent a place for a low as $300.00 per month. Out of my Social security income, I pay $120.00 a month for Medicare B. I pay an extra $57.00 per month for Medicare D and an extra add - on for comprehensive dental and visual insurance because of older - age illnesses like eroded gums and gum disease (requiring a $3,000.00 gum graft). I still have to pay 20% copay on most all my medical bills, and being old makes them crop up quickly, even with Medicare. I need to apply for bill reduction by applying for financial aid at my hospital. Right now, I'm at the edge of my income covering my household expenses and my and my cats food (her litter, her vet, etc.) . I get very little extra. Senior age (and I'm only 54) starts manifesting as $400.00+ bifocal glasses. It manifests as cancer (for which I have taken chemo and radiation; each treatment cost thousands of dollars for each infusion or radiation session). It manifests as orthopedic problems. And this is normal wear and tear, or complications to other things, not necessarily bone loss, though that happens, too, and that is affected by hormones that naturally stop. You take medicines to regulate your heart, your fluids, your blood pressure, any mental disorder that has happened through the years (One in four are affected), glaucoma, cateracts, deafness, vertigo, imbalance, and many other things. Seniors cost more as we get older. UBI doesn't cut it for anyone. Not what's proposed. There are things that come up that you cannot even escape the cost of treating or living through, like bedbugs (which have cost many 5 star hotels exorbitant amounts to fix). You can get them ANYWHERE! The government doesn't pay for this, and for a single family dwelling, this can be tens of thousands of dollars. And education has become so prohibitive that giving one a UBI essentially thumbs the government's nose at its people: yeah, education or food or medicine or a home. That's your choice. This is a toss - off argument that doesn't address any one of the major things we deal with. Just remember that you will get old, too, if you are lucky.

[@xxxjake703xxx]

The price of $3.8 trillion is misleading because it includes people on social security as well as babies and children. Realistically it would be around $1.8 trillion and most of that money will be going back into the economy anyways, thus increasing the GDP as well as the federal income.

[@Herr_Vorragender]

Raising taxes is not necessary. When you get $100, you don't simply keep the 100. Everything you buy, is taxed. Hell, even food. The industry gets the rest. The industry distributes the money on workers, maintenance etc. The industry does hoard a certain amount of money though. And THIS is the real problem. The accumulation of money by the industry. That's where the country looses the money they have handed out to their citizens. WIthout a redistribution of the cooperations hoarded money, a UBI can't work. But on the other hand, if you redistribute the cooperations money, you won't need a UBI anymore. Btw. handing out a UBI to Bill Gates isn't even a drop of water in the ocean. There are so little wealthy people, that handing them the equal amount of UBI simply doesn't matter.

[@Duraputer]

I'm a moderate liberal, but I think it's a bad idea. People get money when they do something to deserve it.

[@mattmilhoan]

3:41 - “A universal basic income would make government smaller-“... what?

[@rbonestroo3464]

Why don't you just stop taking taxes out of our checks. That would help

[@kevinalmiron8693]

I agree with basic universal income but not for everyone I would say 25k or less why the richest people should get money

[@DevByKonner]

If you did that it wouldn't be universal😂😂

[@Youbeentagged]

Well, Alaska has a successful UBI scheme, it is tied to oil extraction.

[@evilotto9200]

Feels like UBI tackles a problem, but from the wrong direction. Universal Basic Expenditures would seem a more appropriate starting point. Fixed rate basic housing, food, healthcare, educationohcrapI'maSocialist!NOO!!!!

[@RIPBlueInk]

We already have a basic income in the UK. Anyone without work gets their rent paid and enough extra money for food, alcohol and drugs with an extra allowance per child they can pump out. It's not very well implemented but most of the problems seem to involve child benefits where they get larger entitlements and better housing if they are able to maintain a large number of children under the same roof. Until recently if you'd been moved into a 6 bedroom house but then all the kids moved out you'd be able to continue to live in the massive 6 bed property alone with no loss... AND be able to sub let the rooms with no penalty.

[@sinachiniforoosh]

" Anyone without work" yep, that's not basic income. basic income is universal, and everyone gets it, regardless of employment status.

[@WA_S_S_AW]

If you want to use free money to boost the GDP, it’s based on consumer spending, this is an ideal way. Government reaps way more in benefits than what it costs them with UBI.

[@ncabcabin]

Horrible idea. It will kill off the middle class.

[@JoshuaHillerup]

One advantage not mentioned is how politically durable it would be. Cutting basic income is very directly removing money that everyone gets, and increasing it is very directly adding money that everyone gets. That would have way more popular support than welfare programs.

[@jesseestrada8914]

My opinion is that without more evidence and without more concrete proposals it is just impossible to evaluate its merits.

[@AboveTheNoise]

What sort of evidence would you like to see?

[@zhubajie6940]

UBI would be the best system to get rid of the overhead cost of the enforcing minimum wage, housing, and food programs and unemployment payments. It would get rid of the complexity of income credits and means testing for all these programs. It could not substitute for UHC (Universal Health Care). That would have to be a separate program getting rid of overhead cost by a single payment system instead of the army of people it takes to address the myriad of insurance plans on what they do and don't cover and how much.

[@MrSam1er]

Yeah sure, but as showed here, the money needed is 5 times more (aproximatively), so where do you find it ?

[@youtubesucks1499]

Who is going to work if we are all on welfare?

[@ankra12]

Nothing is free. This will be based on people paying taxes. Its like universal healtcare.

[@mihirsrivastava8543]

Instead of UBI, maybe it should be UBE. Finding employment opportunities. Because as with every revolution the jobs domain shifts and make new jobs. Hence humans will still have some new jobs just in other areas.

[@wowman542]

I feel like we're putting too much faith into ubi like it's the silver bullet to the world's problems. Would UBI help with paying the bills and decreasing the amount of stress many families and people have? Yes but we shouldn't minimize the needs of the people who could benefit the most from UBI. For example, public libraries offer an unprecedented amount of resources to communities from internet access to job training and just basic access to wider culture through movies, books and games. In my opinion, giving $1,000 to people who need it is a good thing so long as it isn't used to justify cutting other necessary services like food stamps but also public institutions that serve communities. To me, UBI is just a small necessary step that can backfire but has more positive potential than negative.

[@goddessoflove4ever]

What does libraries have to do with UBI?

[@ginnyjollykidd]

@@goddessoflove4ever Your money, my money, and everybody's contributions build and maintain libraries, including the Library of Congress.

[@grateful.]

Tax robot 100 percent Let's say the robot makes 15 a hr no overtime. 15 per hour times how many people it replaced. So if it replaced 2 people that's 30 dollars a hour. The money the robot makes will go to the govt. Imagine companies paying a self check out machine 15 dollars and it only does one thing lol

[@StudioUAC]

short answer: YEEEEEEEEEEEEESSSSSSSSSSS!!!!!!!!!

[@EspHack]

4:25 thats only if their would-be jobs were more than boondoggles, as it stands today I would say its more like the opposite, there's an ever increasing proportion of worthless jobs that are actually counterproductive

[@goodmiller4786]

I don't get food stamps buy own food so can People buget your money people 😱🗣️👩😵🤯😡🤬😩

[@kashtadavis3289]

Although great in aim, the idea as mentioned in the video would quickly and more than likely become a way for politicians to pay people (or in essence bribe voters) for their political loyalty. If by chance you were burdened financially you would happily and almost exclusively vote for the candidate that would give you more money regardless of their other potentially controversial political stances. This would inevitably propel our country into socialism, which while good in theory has yet to work in on a substantial level in practice. Rather that throwing money at those less economically fortunate (and even those like Bill Gates who don't need it by a long shot) the government should allocate that money into fundamental subsistent services like education, healthcare, basic transportation, housing and food services for all. In essence the deployment of these would indirectly take care poverty, mis-allocation of wealth, crime and act as a precursor to financial freedom for all, which... ideally would push the masses towards more creative endeavors which then should provide people with the time and financial freedom to find meaning and pursue their purpose.

[@HardKore5250]

It’s actually 1000 dollars a year

[@jona2726]

Talk about the VAT tax proposal by Andrew Yang. Covers all the cost vs. tax issues!

[@goddessoflove4ever]

I don't know what goes into this channel's videos but this one in particularly wasn't structured the most or talked about both sides of the argument very well. Like it compared modern automation to the beginning of the industrial age (?) when a comparison to customer service taking over the economy. Or when automation took over before and the jobs "lost" in factories the first time around. This was a bit of a mess.

[@Latone0505]

There isn't a LOT of data - but there is data. You didn't mention the Mincombe experiment (www.marketplace.org/2016/12/20/world/dauphin) back in the 1970's - this isn't a NEW idea, but it's recirculating again.

[@AboveTheNoise]

Indeed! Some people also point to the Alaska Permanent Fund as a quasi-UBI that has been around for decades. And yes. UBI is not a new idea. It's just getting fresh attention.

[@artuselias]

It's the same with the digital revolution as it has been with other technologies: If the current workload is reduced due to technological advancement and prices for products fall, workers (consumers, respectively) have to choose if they would like to spend more on other products, maybe of some kind we currently cannot even imagine, or work less. Either way the number of required higher-skilled workers increases at the same rate lower-skilled jobs are killed off. So currently there is absolutely no need for a basic income. People will just work less and less until maybe, one day, you could earn your life-time income in a few years.

[@jabel6434]

Just a pretty face emitting primitive arguments. Should spend time getting to grips with over 30 years of debate and pilot project. The data is there. And another thing. UBI is the individual share of the growing productivity due to mechanisation/automation/computerisation/digitisation.

[@EuropeanQoheleth]

There's only so much that can be fit into a 10 minute video.

[@HardKore5250]

Freedom Dividend Act

[@voluntarism335]

bad idea, funded by theft

[@medokn99]

cool

[@Submanca]

UBI is an interesting concept. It would have to replace welfare totally. It would probably have to be with Universal Health Care as well. If it were put into the tax system to allow for it taxes for the rich and corporations would have to go way up, taxing robots, and loop holes would have to be closed. I would guess it would be like a rebate on your taxes.

[@voluntarism335]

taxation is theft

[@Submanca]

@@voluntarism335 Interesting statement, just curious how do you think the government should support it's self?

[@voluntarism335]

@@Submanca i don't want a fucking government, the private sector can do everything

[@Submanca]

@@voluntarism335 So you really think things would be better if there was no government and corporations controlled everything. I have heard of people like you but never thought they really existed outside of corporate big wigs.

[@voluntarism335]

@@Submanca companies can do everything

[@LeeA431]

You can’t talk about the cost of UBI without talking about the dysfunctional nature of austerity politics and why we need deficit spending to make up for the growing gap between banking based money creation and the government based money stock (= deficit). Unless you want some lost decades like what japan has been going through: privatedebtproject.org/view-articles.php?Are-We-Facing-a-Global-Lost-Decade-14 Our western economies increasingly stuck between balance sheet constrains and boom periods, if we don't address that problem then no government can remain serviceable to its people. On the bright side, there are solutions like a periodic QE for the people. Then, funding a UBI via taxes becomes easy. Especially if we take the monopolists/monopsonists (market winners; slate.com/business/2018/01/after-all-the-talk-about-a-u-s-skills-shortage-the-real-problem-may-be-an-employer-shortage.html ), landlords and modern highwaymen into the duty.

[@N9mber]

For people thinking UBI is a good idea, what do you think will happen with immigration?

[@Tanath]

Immigration is good for the economy. www.worldfinance.com/infrastructure-investment/government-policy/heres-what-open-borders-could-do-for-the-global-economy

[@dailyvariation6869]

Your videos are very high quality in comparission to your sub count! Even though you're not covering all the perspectives, problems, factors etc with UBI, I still love your channel!Keep up the good work. feel free to hit me up on instagram @fact.insane

[@AboveTheNoise]

Wow, thanks for the kind words! Means a lot to us. We are trying to figure out ways to get our channel more subs -- please spread the word!

[@marius165]

PLEASE DO YOUR HOMEWORK instead of talking nonsense. It is for the future: just what do you think will happen when we have an advanced AI and everyone owns a humanoid robot worker, not to mention all the factories in the world. Robots will mine minerals, they will refine them, they will do all the work in the factories and bring a ready product to your house. We will need very little of human workers and have everything we need for free practically. Therefore we need to limit the amount of goods anyone receives to make sure it is all distributed evenly, and that's where we come with an idea of general basic income. We could implement it while we are not there yet, but on the way, as the amount of jobs start to decrease, for the simple reason that we don't need people to do it anymore. NOT THE OTHER WAY AROUND. I am leaving this channel.

[@AboveTheNoise]

Marius we are sorry to see you leave the channel! You might find that if you stick around you will enjoy other episodes coming up. But if not, thanks for watching and expressing your opinion!

[@colint7743]

Free money or How much is human life worth ?

[@morphles]

Can someone explain how would you avoid price rise of basics (basic food, like bread, fuel, cell/communication service, and some other nearly mandatory things)? If money supply increases spending increases, if I have bread shop and do not rise prices to account for that I'm an idiot, as my competitor will do that and will likely drive me out of business. Now granted this does not need to happen fast, but it is almost certain that prices of basics would creep up in 3-5 years, enough that your basic income would no longer be able to provide the basics. So unless you want to go full totalitarian on price regulation for large sectors of economy I really do not see how that can ever work even tiny bit sustainably.

[@Tanath]

medium.com/basic-income/wouldnt-unconditional-basic-income-just-cause-massive-inflation-fe71d69f15e7 If your competitor raises their prices more would switch to you, potentially driving *them* out of business.

[@goddessoflove4ever]

It's a great idea. Duh

[@Ceelvain]

The first and most basic UBI should be a kind of "general welfare". Replacing all the welfare already in place, only simplifying the system and getting rid of the problem of people not applying for some form of welfare. To make it fair for everyone, salaries should decrease by the same amount. This is crucial to ensure people with non-full-time jobs would benefit from both a UBI and from their job. And people with a full-time job would just not see any difference. In the end, that's not a lot of money to find since, basically, it's only people below the poverty threshold (welfare included) that would need some new funding. Once this is in place, not only we have basically eliminated poverty and misery at a very low cost. But we also have a solid framework able to handle a society that "runs by itself" thanks to automation.

[@johncrocker8927]

Social security was started because some didn't save enough to properly provide for retirement. I feel our judgement as a species hasn't really improved.

[@bobroth1951]

That would encourage you to be a bum. I don't need any more encouragement, I am a bum now.

[@andrewgeorge2666]

I'm curious, I thought that the government was there to stop corruption, keep people from committing crimes and protect our country with the military. Is it really supposed to do more? I never thought it was the government's job to fix our problems. Do y'all think it is? Isn't the US supposed to be controlled by the people? If so, how can the government do all this stuff?

[@AboveTheNoise]

Thanks for this question -- it's a big one. We're also curious to hear what folks have to say.

[@johnmacdonald1094]

........form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence(sic), promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity,..........

[@andrewgeorge2666]

@@johnmacdonald1094 makes sense, thanks

[@NotHPotter]

Assuming the government is accountable to the people (speaking here specifically of the US), then its purpose is whatever the people decide it to be. The march of human progress is one towards the cooperation of larger and larger groups of individuals, as more people working together allows for greater specialization and more efficient economies of scale. It was a lesson well learned during WWII that the government can provide services beyond the bare minimum, and that doing so allows for greater achievement and wealth for the populace at large. While that does necessarily mean that individuals must contribute some amount of their individual labor to the common good, when allocated effectively the returns are greater than the sum of the parts. Is it really worth less overall happiness and productivity just so one has the shortsighted benefit of lower taxes? Are we not capable of the societal maturity to recognize that what's good for others will, perhaps indirectly, benefit ourselves in the long run? Hasn't the last 50 years of progress done enough to show that growth needn't be a zero sum game, and that America was built on the crazy idea that things can be done better than they were in the past? It was once a uniquely America courage to be willing to try the impossible and prove it could be done. To submit to doubt and fear is to admit that the American dream is only that, and that all this has been for nothing. I refuse to accept that.

[@wowman542]

I think something worth keeping in mind is that the things you listed above (protecting the country, preventing corruption, etc) aren't enough to help people live healthy, happy lives. If a man becomes homeless through bankruptcy and develops a drug addiction in a state where he can't get treatment or transport to another state, it doesn't matter how well protected the country is if he still ends up dead because he couldn't find a job or any way to stabilize his life and to me that is the biggest benefit to UBI, giving families and people who need it the stability they need to explore opportunities to better their situation.

[@kapitanmudo7260]

Enabling bad behaviour? I don't give an F..

[@expatiate1]

If the federal government did a basic Universal income the poor would still be poor. Because they would invest those funds in food or rent which is lost at the end of the month because they've consumed it because they don't have the skill set because our education sucks to teach them to take a portion of that funds put it into those things that are gone at the end of the month and invest the rest of the money into their future. Additionally it doesn't work Canada tried it and had to stop at 3 years ahead of schedule because they couldn't afford it. It is simply another way 2 spread the wealth of the majority of people to the rich 1%. Any taxation is theft and they have attorneys and others that can help them to avoid paying taxes that us poor working people cannot afford we will continue to become poorer and they will be continue to become richer.

[@welfareoffice]

Sway from MTV say the welfare office kicking ppl out of of NY/NJ

[@CosmicErrata]

As much as I like the idea, I can imagine people squandering UBI on gambling, cigarettes and drugs.

[@Tanath]

People turn to drugs to self-medicate for issues. They'll have fewer issues when their basic needs are met. See also www.ted.com/talks/rutger_bregman_poverty_isn_t_a_lack_of_character_it_s_a_lack_of_cash/transcript

[@CosmicErrata]

@@Tanath I suppose it can help to reduce the amount of people becoming addicts, but the existing addicts will still waste this UBI on their addiction.

[@Tanath]

@@CosmicErrata Some. Would still benefit the economy, and lift people out of poverty. That's a worthy tradeoff. www.weforum.org/agenda/2017/09/a-basic-income-could-boost-the-us-economy-by-2-5-trillion

[@littlebittygames2395]

The poor is not getting poorer actually the opposite and rye argument of 1 percent owning half of the world is mostly false and just think how much places like Google and Amazon own to give us jobs and services that either support or aid in some way everyone else

[@JeremyWS]

UBI sounds like a good idea, but I think the church could do a better job than the government. I want the church to handle this, not the government. If the church was handling it then the government wouldn't have to pay for it, because the church would be paying for it. The church helping people is what the church is suppose to be doing, it's what Jesus told us to do. The church is supposed to be helping people. We have church-ran charities like the Good Samaritans already doing things to help people, but we can always do more. We would get the money from donations from our congregations, like we do for all church-ran charities and other church-ran programs. This would be a good thing for the church to do. I like the idea of the church doing this. If you don't want people to become dependent on the government or the church or any entity then give them skills instead of handouts. By "skills," I mean the ability to support oneself without relying on the help from entities' handouts. I would prefer the church helping people, because that what we're supposed to be doing and we would do a better job than the government. That's what I want. How does that sound? I'll be praying. Great video, keep up the good work. God bless! Have a nice day/night.

[@derekkent]

The best estimate I can find online has the US Catholic Church receiving yearly revenue of around $170 billion. That of course isn't pure profit, as it goes toward operating costs for hospitals, schools, etc that generate that income. But even if we pretended for a moment that it was all profit, it would only be enough to pay for about 16 days of a national UBI. In reality, they likely couldn't afford to pay for even a single day. Also, how would the church distribute the money? Would only practicing Catholics receive it? Or if each religion and denomination distributed funds to their own supporters, what about people who have no connection to any organized religion? This is exactly the sort of thing we have government for.

[@JeremyWS]

A good church-ran charity doesn't care about whether or not your religious or if you have a connection to the church or not, and if you are poor and needy they will help you, period. So people that need help will get help, if things work the way I want them to work your connections to the church or religious beliefs or lack-thereof won't matter. An ideal church-ran system would help you if you need the help, period! As far as funding it goes, this is where donations come into play. A good church-ran system is gonna need donations from the wealthy members of the church to run the programs properly. If this is done right, we won't need the government to do anything, because the church will provide for the poor. The church would also provide health insurance (including dental and osteopathic) to the people who need it or can't afford it. I think the church can do a better job than the government. In this ideal system: it wouldn't be just one sect handling everything, it wouldn't be just a few sects handling everything, or even several sects banding to together and handling everything; it would the entirety of Christianity (every single sect, Protestants and Catholics and Orthodoxies alike, everyone) banding together and helping people, like Christians are supposed to do. Helping people is what Jesus told us Christian to do, so it is what we should be doing. The way the church would do it would be better than what the way government would do it. UBI does sound like a good idea, but I'm sure the government will find a way to screw it up. And if they can't find a way to screw it up, they'll invent a way to screw it up. The government always eventually screws up everything they try to do. I think the church will do a better job. I'll keep praying. Have a nice day/night.

[@Flannel535]

Tax churches, Wall Street transactions, Carbon and Automation and reduce "defense" spending and we will actually have harmonious society instead of a chaotic oligarchy.

[@thait2493]

Amen

[@andyroidify]

@@derekkent Which church?

[@timothybryant3600]

Sniff sniff smells like communism in here

[@AboveTheNoise]

Do you have a specific reason you think that? We aim to present both sides of controversial issues or policy debates and let our viewers decide what they think is the best way to go.