American Politics Discussion Thread

[Cyneheard]

They could probably cut foreign aid/military funding and easily afford UBI..

Can you produce the numbers for those two? And how much UBI would cost?

Because the feds spent $4.4T on everything and UBI at $2000 a month is almost that much.

[darrelljs]

$2000/month if we assume 150 million eligible (likely high) is $3.6 trillion annually. Military and foreign aid spending are a shade under a trillion.

Darrell

[superdeath]

well, giving tax breaks or money to the poorer people will cause that money to continue to move.. helping out the economy and being taxed along the way. The numbers probably dont work out at this point as pointed out, but anything is better than giving tax loopholes to billionaires/companies that really dont need it.

[Bobchillingworth]

One partial solution might be to grant every American who cares to sign up a UBI account, wherein money is deposited monthly. Funds from the account could be spent on goods and services using a debit card-like mechanism, but not transferred to another account, including money markets. The balance of the account is erased at the end of every calendar year, essentially compelling recipients to reinvest the money in the economy within a relatively brief timeframe by spending it all. A fair amount would still be spent buying products made overseas from foreign retailers, but much of it would at least theoretically support American jobs.



I am not an economist and may be talking out of my ass here, but my primary concern with UBI, aside from how the income level cutoff points Cyne mentioned would be implemented, is that it would lead to inflation, as companies increase prices on the grounds that the public can now afford to pay more. I think we'd all be better off if recipients purchased new goods / services, rather than paying more for what they already have.

[Cyneheard]

I am not an economist and may be talking out of my ass here, but my primary concern with UBI, aside from how the income level cutoff points Cyne mentioned would be implemented, is that it would lead to inflation, as companies increase prices on the grounds that the public can now afford to pay more.  I think we'd all be better off if recipients purchased new goods / services, rather than paying more for what they already have.

I think where the risk would be greatest is rent increases (minor note, rental contracts would be rewritten VERY quickly for the general due date to be just after the UBI checks come in). If you already own a house, congratulations, your mortgage can't go up, but you could see rents on low-end and mid-tier properties increase significantly - and quickly. Most leases are for a year or less, it wouldn't take long for landlords to swallow a significant portion of UBI.

General inflation's possible, but I think that's a little more complicated and could be muted.

These are the kinds of issues that you'd only really see if UBI was scaled - these test programs that have been tried have usually had a few hundred participants, maybe a few thousand, where you won't see the aftereffects. That's part of why UBI could be difficult to implement overnight - these problems might be manageable, but you want to take a moment to think it through.

[Mjmd]

Just going to chuck out some reality checks regardless of merit or arguments around various liberal agendas. Does anyone remember what happened last time Democrats passed a major bill? Republicans used it as ammo to take every branch of government and then gutted it as much as possible.

In general you are only really allowed to pass bills that are a half step ahead of where a large majority of Americans agree on. As soon as you even look like your taking a full step you're in trouble (I actually didn't think the Affordable Care Act was even a full step, but still Democrats got smacked down hard). I don't actually expect politicians to learn from history, but one would hope.

[Cyneheard]

Just going to chuck out some reality checks regardless of merit or arguments around various liberal agendas. Does anyone remember what happened last time Democrats passed a major bill? Republicans used it as ammo to take every branch of government and then gutted it as much as possible.

In general you are only really allowed to pass bills that are a half step ahead of where a large majority of Americans agree on. As soon as you even look like your taking a full step you're in trouble (I actually didn't think the Affordable Care Act was even a full step, but still Democrats got smacked down hard). I don't actually expect politicians to learn from history, but one would hope.

You’d have to sell the public on the proposal - but I think despite its size this one is an easier sell. For one thing, people would see the benefits right away (the ACA took forever to roll out - very little had changed by 2010 when the voters gave their first verdict). It’s much harder to say “this is a terrible idea” when you’re literally seeing the money go into your bank account. Direct benefits and indirect costs tend to sell politically. That doesn’t guarantee it’s a political winner, but that should keep it from being a political loser.

I do think UBI just isn’t happening for a lot of reasons. And some of that is enough politicians will be cautious about doing something of this scope.

[darrelljs]

I’m not even sure UBI is a good idea.  I’m not sure its a bad idea either, but the Finnish experiment with it was pretty mixed.  And this is in a country where having the state take care of you doesn’t come with a stigma attached (Jowy correct me if I’m wrong).

Again I loved Yang’s clarity on the problem, but his UBI solution felt off.  My vibe is the blue collar constituents it targeted want a good wage for a good day’s work so they can tailgate during football season, hunt during hunting season, and put their envelope in the donation basket at church on Sunday. Trump’s easy promise to bring back coal jobs et. al. is a dead end, but it works politically because it understands this.

Darrell

[SevenSpirits]

I’m not even sure UBI is a good idea.  I’m not sure its a bad idea either, but the Finnish experiment with it was pretty mixed.  And this is in a country where having the state take care of you doesn’t come with a stigma attached (Jowy correct me if I’m wrong).

Again I loved Yang’s clarity on the problem, but his UBI solution felt off.  My vibe is the blue collar constituents it targeted want a good wage for a good day’s work so they can tailgate during football season, hunt during hunting season, and put their envelope in the donation basket at church on Sunday.  Trump’s easy promise to bring back coal jobs et. al. is a dead end, but it works politically because it understands this.

Darrell

I am curious to hear your take on that Finnish experiment. I read the article you linked and I'm super confused how this was considered an in any way negative result for guaranteed income.

They tried, as an alternative to a complicated unemployment benefits system that tries to make sure money only goes to deserving people who try hard enough to work, just giving unemployed people unconditional money.

Their observed result was that the people in both groups behaved basically the same.

To me this is a decisive win for the system with less bureaucracy.

[Charriu]

I also remember that the cut the experiment short on time and money, which might have hurt the result