a) Who would pay for it? We just spent TRILLIONS of dollars propping up businesses during COVID. No one asked "who will pay for it". We have the money and should think of it as an investment. So who would pay for it? We all would. Why? Because it is worth it and it is compassionate and it will make this country (U.S.) a better, happier place.
b) Who will do the work? All the automation will do the work. They have kiosks up in McDonalds right now that mean they only need one person needs to be at a register. But as far as it disincentivizes work..nit has been show it does not, but still people cannot believe this.
"Overall, the programs analyzed suggest either no effect on labor market supply or a slight reduction in work and earnings. The evidence does not suggest an average worker will drop out of the labor force when provided with unconditional cash, even when the transfer is large."
>We just spent TRILLIONS of dollars propping up businesses during COVID. No one asked "who will pay for it". We have the money and should think of it as an investment.
We did that on a one-off basis responding to an unprecedented-within-generations public health emergency. No-one is seriously talking about that as investment; most every source that I have read suggests that the spending was poorly and indiscriminately targeted because it was done in such a headlong rush.
Nor do we "have the money". Deficit spending tripled from 2019 to 2020 and was only down from that level by 12% into 2021. This is the definition of "not having the money".
>The evidence does not suggest an average worker will drop out of the labor force when provided with unconditional cash, even when the transfer is large.
Even a "large" transfer in this s context is not nearly as much as UBI. The Alaska oil dividend was less than $1000 last year. The Gulf oil nations are the only ones that give enough free money for citizens to live off of, and in these countries are extremely dependent on cheap foreign labor.
> these countries are extremely dependent on cheap foreign labor
They are not "dependent" on cheap labor. They can afford to buy cheap labor with no sacrifice to their own people. This is a benefit of UBI in a world that does not have universal UBI.
They have slavery conditions worse than the American south, more similar to Guano mine slaves. They are entirely expendable, undocumented, locked into the worksites and subjugated by a state supported market. They are viewed as religious subhumans and treated as such, should they attempt anything by way of escape or complaining that can be cast into a religious based debtors prison for an indefinite amount of time with no trial.
Saudi Arabia literally butchered a major journalist. They have frequent public beatings and executions if actual citizens for minor infractions.
The modern Arab world's treatment of their imported SE Asian workforce is absolutely horrendous.
The official figure is that 6500 workers have died building the Qatar world cup stadiums. Applying a 10x multiple to that may still be low balling.
> The evidence does not suggest an average worker will drop out of the labor force when provided with unconditional cash
Ok, that's fair. So the average income earner won't stop working. But what about the bottom end of the spectrum i.e someone just above UBI but who has to get up early and travel two hours each way to get to work, or who is just working to put food on the table - with UBI they now have a great reason to stay home.
So... what happens if a good chunk of people earning just above UBI rates just stops working because it's just not worth the ROI. You've ended up creating a vacuum which has to be filled. And how do you fill it? Traditionally you either import cheap labor or raise pay to incentivise applicants. Congratulations, you've just started the inflation engine.
There's no such thing as "just above" with UBI; the whole point is that you get to keep a non-negligible fraction of whatever you earn, no matter what. It only makes it easier for folks to join and stay in the workforce, even if all they can get is a marginal job.
> the whole point is that you get to keep a non-negligible fraction of whatever you earn
Australia already has this - you can earn up to (somewhere around) $18k per year and you won't get taxed. This applies to everyone. Is this what you're talking about? Because as far as I can see, there are still people under the poverty line here.
But if you're not talking about that, and you're saying that ALL should get $18k (for example) no questions asked, when someone earned $19k before UBI, do they now do the same hours for $1k, or do they keep their whole $19k? If the former, why bother working, but if the latter, you've now just given them $36k not $18k.
Perhaps the person who has to travel 2 hours to get to work would be able to afford to earn lower wages at a closer job. And then perhaps someone that lives closer to the job site would take the other persons original job.
> The evidence does not suggest an average worker will drop out of the labor force
That's for the average worker. Show me what happens at the lower scale. Sorry, I'm not going to read a 25 page report right now, but as this does interest me, I am going to put this in my TOREAD list - genuinely, thanks for the link.
Edit: if you want evidence of disincentivising workers when there's no-questions-asked government handouts, look at food aid programs in Africa. There's no point to be a farmer when Free is your competition.
https://www.covidmoneytracker.org
b) Who will do the work? All the automation will do the work. They have kiosks up in McDonalds right now that mean they only need one person needs to be at a register. But as far as it disincentivizes work..nit has been show it does not, but still people cannot believe this.
https://rooseveltinstitute.org/publications/no-strings-attac...
"Overall, the programs analyzed suggest either no effect on labor market supply or a slight reduction in work and earnings. The evidence does not suggest an average worker will drop out of the labor force when provided with unconditional cash, even when the transfer is large."