Stockton Gets Ready to Experiment With Universal Basic Income

[rangerrebew]

Stockton Gets Ready to Experiment With Universal Basic Income
 
By Sam Harnett   
January 22, 2018
 

Wage stagnation. Rising housing prices. Loss of middle-class jobs. The looming threat of automation. These are some of the problems facing Stockton and its residents, but the city’s mayor, Michael Tubbs, says his city is far from unique.

“I think Stockton is absolutely ground zero for a lot of the issues we are facing as a nation,” Tubbs said.

https://ww2.kqed.org/news/2018/01/22/stockton-gets-ready-to-experiment-with-universal-basic-income/

[ABX]

Universal basic welfare.

It is insane that even some Conservatives and Libertarians (so-called) are arguing the merits of this.

[Restored]

Give people free money just so they can complain that it isn't enough money.

[dfwgator]

What could possibly go wrong?

[roamer_1]

Build a man a fire and he's warm for an hour.
Set a man on fire and he's warm for the rest of his life.

[WingNot]

Give a man a fish, he eats for a day.  Give a man a universal welfare income check, free cell phone, food stamps, section 8 housing, a six-pack of beer,  and he'll vote democrat the rest of his life.

[Frank Cannon]

Mayor Tubbs is on top of things. This program won't send Stockton into bankruptcy.......again.

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

Universal basic welfare.

It is insane that even some Conservatives and Libertarians (so-called) are arguing the merits of this.

Milton Friedman argued for it, I think. To replace all of the existing programs with just a UBI.

The problem is that it won't replace anything, they will argue for these programs on top of UBI.

[driftdiver]

Where do these people think the money will come from?

[roamer_1]

Milton Friedman argued for it, I think. To replace all of the existing programs with just a UBI.

The problem is that it won't replace anything, they will argue for these programs on top of UBI.

No, the problem is socialism. Doesn't matter how, it NEVER works. No matter what, it can't be easier on the bottom rung of the ladder than one rung up. It will drastically stifle initiative. And wait till you get the bill. That comes out of the successful, tightening them up so they will not be able to hire, thus dropping the job market.

And furthermore, the 'free' money will become neutral in the local economy - Similar to how the cost of living compensated for women entering the workforce.

This is disastrous and idiotic.

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

No, the problem is socialism. Doesn't matter how, it NEVER works. No matter what, it can't be easier on the bottom rung of the ladder than one rung up. It will drastically stifle initiative. And wait till you get the bill. That comes out of the successful, tightening them up so they will not be able to hire, thus dropping the job market.

And furthermore, the 'free' money will become neutral in the local economy - Similar to how the cost of living compensated for women entering the workforce.

This is disastrous and idiotic.

I don't disagree, but I also don't think that completely getting rid of welfare, socialism etc. is realistic in the current political environment.

[ABX]

Milton Friedman argued for it, I think. To replace all of the existing programs with just a UBI.

The problem is that it won't replace anything, they will argue for these programs on top of UBI.

Not exactly. Friedman wrote a position paper arguing the economics of it but, if you dig into the meat of it (versus just how blogs spin it), he really did call out the flaws in the overall idea.

What's very interesting, is this is the result the 'new Communists' in the early to mid-20th century were pushing for ('real Communism' for those who always argue it never has been tried).
A universal basic income was the foundation and the start of what they thought would eliminate classes.  People often talk about the Cloward/Piven strategy but they don't really read up on what their end means was. The strategy was to over-burden the system, their solution was basically Communism under the guise of a Universal Basic Income.

Some Conservatives who are falling into the trap of arguing for it (which is where the 'half' knowledge of Friedman's paper on it lays) is that they think it will eliminate all social welfare programs- missing that it actually creates one universal welfare program that all people are a member of and universally dependent on the government to provide.

And we get to the crux of Friedman's paper and why overall, with all the 'merit' arguments he presented, the basic flaw is that it attacks the very nature of what currency is.  No longer is it a representation of the value of work, but instead, currency becomes an entitlement in of itself, for the sake of existence.

[roamer_1]

I don't disagree, but I also don't think that completely getting rid of welfare, socialism etc. is realistic in the current political environment.

I will draw a distinction in that. Welfare is not socialism. Pure capitalism as now defined has always been a myth. A prosperous nation is charitable to those who can't do.

It is Christian duty to take care of the poor, the widowed, orphaned, and infirm - And at some level, western capitalism has always done so.

The problem now is the definition of 'can't'.

[Weird Tolkienish Figure]

Not exactly. Friedman wrote a position paper arguing the economics of it but, if you dig into the meat of it (versus just how blogs spin it), he really did call out the flaws in the overall idea.

What's very interesting, is this is the result the 'new Communists' in the early to mid-20th century were pushing for ('real Communism' for those who always argue it never has been tried).
A universal basic income was the foundation and the start of what they thought would eliminate classes.  People often talk about the Cloward/Piven strategy but they don't really read up on what their end means was. The strategy was to over-burden the system, their solution was basically Communism under the guise of a Universal Basic Income.

Some Conservatives who are falling into the trap of arguing for it (which is where the 'half' knowledge of Friedman's paper on it lays) is that they think it will eliminate all social welfare programs- missing that it actually creates one universal welfare program that all people are a member of and universally dependent on the government to provide.

And we get to the crux of Friedman's paper and why overall, with all the 'merit' arguments he presented, the basic flaw is that it attacks the very nature of what currency is.  No longer is it a representation of the value of work, but instead, currency becomes an entitlement in of itself, for the sake of existence.

Thank you for this. The idea is highly flawed no doubt but as I said to @roamer_1 I don't think completely gutting all welfare is realistic in this political climate.

And UBI's drawbacks may not outweigh it's good points in that case.

[Bigun]

I will draw a distinction in that. Welfare is not socialism. Pure capitalism as now defined has always been a myth. A prosperous nation is charitable to those who can't do.

It is Christian duty to take care of the poor, the widowed, orphaned, and infirm - And at some level, western capitalism has always done so.

The problem now is the definition of 'can't'.

I am unable to find a single instance of Jesus ever telling anyone to give your money to Caesar so he can take care of the poor.  But I can find many in which he directed individuals to take care of those in their midst. 

Leave the stinking government out of it!

[ABX]

I am unable to find a single instance of Jesus ever telling anyone to give your money to Caesar so he can take care of the poor.  But I can find many in which he directed individuals to take care of those in their midst. 

Leave the stinking government out of it!

 

[roamer_1]

I am unable to find a single instance of Jesus ever telling anyone to give your money to Caesar so he can take care of the poor.  But I can find many in which he directed individuals to take care of those in their midst. 

Leave the stinking government out of it!

@Bigun
Oh I agree entirely.

I am not lauding the government. And I am lauding charity.
If you read what I wrote carefully, it was: "And at some level, western capitalism has always done so"

That was always mostly church, individual, and corporate charity - But there has always been a government net at the bottom, meager as it was.

[Bigun]

@Bigun
Oh I agree entirely.

I am not lauding the government. And I am lauding charity.
If you read what I wrote carefully, it was: "And at some level, western capitalism has always done so"

That was always mostly church, individual, and corporate charity - But there has always been a government net at the bottom, meager as it was.

If we were going to scream about a seperation of Church and state we should have been doing it when the government was taking over the traditional roles of the Church.

[roamer_1]

If we were going to scream about a seperation of Church and state we should have been doing it when the government was taking overvthe traditional roles of the Church.

@Bigun
Believe me, I did.

But State and county circuit dentists and doctors, hospitals, sanitariums, orphanages, homes for wayward boys and girls and etc. have a long history here. Right alongside of church charities. Military health care and widows pensions, all that stuff has been part of governance for a very long time.
.
And I would submit that wasn't a bad thing at the levels in which it existed.  It was a pittance in taxes, because it only had to pick up that which slipped through the private charity. Now it's better than half of all taxes at all levels.  And it no longer only serves those who can't do and have no other means.

My aunt, born in the 40's, was born blind and diabetic. My mother's side of the family were dirt poor share croppers. While the family and the church took care of her daily needs all of her life, her medical, to include four amputations and the recovery therefrom, prosthetics, and etc. was handled by the county and state from day one. Long before the government levered the churches out of the charity business.

[Fishrrman]

Interesting comments in this thread.

Fearless prediction:
They're going to have to build walls around the place. If Stockton actually implements this, it's population will explode within months. Because all youz gotz to do is go there to get your basic income!

[goatprairie]

Interesting comments in this thread.

Fearless prediction:
They're going to have to build walls around the place. If Stockton actually implements this, it's population will explode within months. Because all youz gotz to do is go there to get your basic income!

There will be a twofold effect: like you said, lazy types will flock there, and many working stiffs will leave. Why work hard when your money is taken  from you and given to spongers?

[To-Whose-Benefit?]

There will be a twofold effect: like you said, lazy types will flock there, and many working stiffs will leave. Why work hard when your money is taken  from you and given to spongers?

I could send them this link to this free book, but somehow I doubt they're even bright enough to read it much less understand it.

http://www.conflicts.rem33.com/images/books/THE%20BLACK%20BOOK%20OF%20COMMUNISM.pdf

[goatprairie]

I could send them this link to this free book, but somehow I doubt they're even bright enough to read it much less understand it.

http://www.conflicts.rem33.com/images/books/THE%20BLACK%20BOOK%20OF%20COMMUNISM.pdf

It's like the dopes in SF who when confronted with a growing homeless population decided to build shelters for them  Guess what?..... a lot more homeless flocked to SF. Build  it, and they will come.  But not the people you want more of.

[thackney]

I will draw a distinction in that. Welfare is not socialism. Pure capitalism as now defined has always been a myth. A prosperous nation is charitable to those who can't do.

It is Christian duty to take care of the poor, the widowed, orphaned, and infirm - And at some level, western capitalism has always done so.

The problem now is the definition of 'can't'.

Yes, each of us should do that.  However, our elected officials should not take money from others against their will to do it for them.  The role of government should not be charity.  It should be to get out of the way for private charity to take care of the needy.

[Bigun]

Yes, each of us should do that.  However, our elected officials should not take money from others against their will to do it for them.  The role of government should not be charity.  It should be to get out of the way for private charity to take care of the needy.

B I N G O ! ! !