Skip Navigation

User banner
Posts
3
Comments
1,272
Joined
2 yr. ago

  • It's not "BI" that needs to be demonstrated. It's "U".

    Plus, these experiments do in fact ask questions about recipients' income. Just like regular welfare programs.

  • Let me know if you find any of those academic papers.

  • this clearly demonstrates that replacing existing welfare with straight up cash, and changing how that cash scales down as people approach a “normal minimum” income, is vastly superior to our current system

    These experiments aren't even trying to demonstrate that. And they don't.

  • So it's paid for by the savings from not having all that inefficient wasteful overhead of the modern welfare state. That's the grand plan?

    OK, where can I find this math you speak of?

  • I still don't see how literally looking at how much money you earned to determine your UBI benefit isn't means testing, but it's not really central to my point. Yes, the IRS could plausibly do this, but where is the money actually coming from?

    These experiments are always small groups within a much larger economic system and the money comes from that larger system. It seems obvious to me that the recipients in such an experiment will thrive more. And even if it wasn't, there have been a number of these experiments around the world and they all proved people thrived more already anyway.

    What's not obvious to me is what replaces the larger system if UBI becomes the system. Can UBI be a self-sustained system?

  • "Everyone"?

  • As you go up in tax brackets y amount is subtracted at tax time until you get high enough that the entirety of x is reclaimed

    You're describing a means tested welfare program.

    "Means testing" is to check the recipients income (their "means") against a schedule of benefits. Higher income=lower benefit. This is how most existing and historic welfare systems have operated. In what sense is your suggestion an improvement?

    Asking to test that is a bad faith argument used by the GOP because it’s literally impossible to do without actually implementing the program.

    I am no Republican. The comparison is downright insulting.

  • That sounds like means-tested welfare programs, which we already have. UBI by definition is unconditional.

    In other words, you're talking about "BI" but I'm asking about "U".

  • We can't meaningfully advocate or plan for its implementation unless we have some idea how it would work. And that it can work.

    The sorts of experiments in the OP get us no closer to that. They prove nothing that wasn't already pretty uncontroversial and obvious, and offer no insights about how these programs might be implemented universally.

    Pointing this out does not hold back UBI. Ignoring it, however, does.

  • Yes. But not the "main" jaw muscle that gives up/down biting force. It's the ones that let you move your jaw side-to-side and forward/back. Especially the forward/back ones.

  • Perhaps that section is exactly centered between two different sources of vibration, so the vibrations meet and amplify at that point?

  • Jaw muscles. They extend up past the ear and over the head.

  • All these UBI experiments ever seem to demonstrate is the "BI" part.

    But the part that needs to be demonstrated, IMHO, is the "U".

  • I sincerely hope that the FBI is taking a very, very, very close look at this traitor's effort to render aid and comfort to America's enemies.

  • Training in a job related field is actually related to job performance.

    But it's not really about the bonus. It's about the boundaries. I see no problem with setting hard boundaries between personal life and work life.

  • Other figures on the monument include a Black woman depicted as a “Mammy,” carrying an infant of a White officer, and a Black man following his owner to war, according to the cemetery.

    What the actual fuck.