Dear mhaze,

Thanks for the response.

Firstly why fracking? Qatar receives roughly 30 billion PA on its gas export royalties while we get about 1 for about the same volume of gas. Adequately collect royalties and stop multinational tax avoidance and we would get there in a canter.

The driver to the economy of a UBI needs to be taken into account as well. Tax receipts will obviously rise with the increase in consumerism and assist in mitigating the cost.

One of the attractive features of a UBI for me is that is allows for better more humane changes in the workforce. Whether it be coal miners or production line workers in car factories as Yang says, retraining especially high school educated middle aged men into coders is a fantasy. A UBI offers a decent bedrock for workers transitioning to different sectors.

Any government has a duty of care to its citizens, especially if they have been the subject of depreciations due to government policy or even the world economy. While jingoistic I do like Yang's framing of this as a freedom dividend. The point he makes in response to questions about a general reticence in the US to accept money for nothing is to equate it as receiving a dividend on shares. You may not have work in the business but still the cheque arrives.

SteeleRedux

No I'm not a favourite of it. I agree with Aiden here 100%. Giving money away for jam is bad policy.
What is a much more fruitful policy, is for Governments to ramp-up construction of social housing urgently.
It can, by entering the housing market this way, manipulate the market by adding to supply and setting rents which will then be reflected in the private market.

Very quickly, with this policy, there will be a much less need for wads of cash supplied through whatever system of welfare, and down comes the actual need for it.

So win win here. Less welfare payments and more skin in the game by holding asset value in social housing, for Government .

Social housing can then be sold off to selected tenants, adding to the returns on the investment for Government as well, capitalising on capital gains in the manipulated market.

There is an urgent need to bring down the overpriced property market values, and this will work quickly.

The building and kindred industries will be stimulated, adding to the need for apprentices, beniffiting education and unemployment.

The short and the sweet of it is, it is a positive to invest rather than Father Christmas wads of money to the majority of the country who have no need for it.

Dan

To SR

My Issue with UBI is the basic issue of where is the money coming from to fund a UBI. If it's coming from income taxes, then that does more harm then good. It means the same amount of money given to people's leg is taken out from them through their income, plus a little more for those that have no income. An extra $1000+ taken out in taxes means there's not much left for those in a regular middle class job. Getting by with increased costs is hard enough without adding a massive tax removing more income to pay for it.

On the other hand if the money comes from sales from another industry, like say housing (which already is taxed quite a bit for other programs), that only makes that industry's market that much more unaffordable. No industry is going to make enough to support a universal monthly income of $1000 for each individual in the US. There's just no way to support it. Even if it's taxed out of oil and gas industries having them support the population will bleed them dry. No business industry can survive that kind burden to be taxed for it.

The link you provided I've still got to finish watching, but as of now those are the big issues that I can see.

Dear Diver Dan,

You get little argument from me regarding social housing.

However one of the attractions of UBI is that is kind of captures many other forms of assistance without the stigma of having to go cap in hand. It is assumed it would therefore reduce overall costs in administration. I think that is a fair call but would need real world testing to be sure.

Dear NNS,

You also need to take into account revenue from the stimulation of the economy that will result from UBI as well as the reduction in costs associated with the provision of a myriad of welfare schemes.

But thanks for being prepared to watch the video. There may or may not be some here who are commenting without clicking that link at all.

Dear mhaze,

I will add that the impact of automation is certainly biting into our workforce underemployment rates.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-05-02/unemployment-vs-underemployment-1/11064638

And our workforce entrants are the most heavily impacted.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-05-01/underemployment-by-age-1/11063678

These are ticking time bombs and people like Andrew Yang see UBI as a way of managing this transition and to date I'm struggling to find a reason not to agree.

Hey SteeleRedux,

I haven't yet watched the linked video, but I do plan to.

I tend to see flaws in ideas, and I think the idea of a UBI is inherently flawed for reasons I'll go into when I can find more time to firstly watch your video.
Maybe the information contained in your video will give me some food for thought, but I don't think it will change my mind based on the flaws I already see.

Whilst admittedly I'm being a little slack in not having yet watched your video, which is quite long;
I think you could also benefit from watching this shorter video which shows what happens within a mouse society, when they are given EVERYTHING they need to survive in luxury and have happy lives...

It's almost intriguing to see how their society breaks down, and the implications it has on us human society.

- This is a MUST SEE for everyone -

The Utopian Mouse Experiment.
http://youtu.be/5m7X-1V9nOs

The only thing that is inevitable about the future is that whatever we think the future will be like will be inevitably wrong.

It may be that we'll have more jobs than we can shake a stick or unemployment line at. After all every other employment disruptor from the early mills, to tractors, to word processors, to punch card computers, to the internet, all ended up creating as many or more jobs than they destroyed, despite predictions.Maybe the AI revolution will do likewise.

Equally, it remains possible that the AI revolution is being over-hyped. The driverless car certainly has been. Maybe the driverless truck as well. After all, the AI still struggles to distinguish real people from decals of people on the back of a bus. It wouldn't be the first time people devoted to a new idea have underestimated the problems and over-estimated problem-solving ability,

The upshot is we just don't know. We should have learned by now that getting ahead of a perceived problem can be costly and self-defeating if we misread said problem. eg NBN.

That's why I favour a negative tax system. It builds in a high degree of flexibility irrespective of the outcome. Less jobs? Well a negative tax system will provide sustenance/jobs to those who are left behind. More or equal numbers of jobs? Well the new jobs will be filled and the people won't qualify for the negative tax supplement. It also takes government picking of winners out of the equation and that's ALWAYS a good thing.

The ultimate aim of a western society is not to just create a system where more 'stuff' is available, but instead to create a system where all get to participate in and enjoy the benefits of the society. Just saying we'll leave people behind or throw scraps at them while the rest enjoy the new 'AI' driven society is both wrong and counter-productive. As SR's video explained, people NEED to feel part of a society and need to feel they are contributing. Paying people to sit at home and play video-games or whatever won't work.