Money can’t buy happiness but it sure can try. And I feel if you give everyone free money. Then prices will increase ever so lightly to the point the free money just make things worse.
@@wuldntuliktonoptb6861yea cause no one with money had to struggle first. No one is saying their are not a few lucky ones out there but that's a very small minority of people. Even bezos was working out of his garage at first same with plenty of other ultra wealthy people. The top % of earners are not them you only need to make $150k single a year to be a top earner
Sounds like the common answer is: the working class needs to feel like they’re going somewhere. No one wants to work just to pay bills. You give the average working person an extra $500-$1000 a month and people immediately feel better. So many people worry that if the working class gets paid more, they’ll be less motivated to work. No. They’ll feel less poor, something no one wants to feel
Hard agree. Some folks are like "they'll just play games!" but game addiction isn't caused by games being addictive, but by a person's reality being unplayably broken. Same with Skinner box experiments and drug addiction.
Yep. People will always have a need to do something with our lives and free time because that's what it means to be human. Nobody can just sit around permanently, if they're able at all they'll want to do something. I know when I don't have a job even if all my bills are paid I can only enjoy slacking off for a short time. Doing valuable, worthwhile work will always have a place in humanity
Anecdote for yall: The stimulus checks during the pandemic made it possible to leave my abusive partner. I was working and going to college full time and wasn't able to be financially independent- and that $1200 saved my life.
I’m glad you got out. I fled an abusive marriage (physically, psychologically.. all of it) in 2021. I was homeless, completely cut off from checking and savings accounts. I’m 6ft tall and dropped to 127 lbs from food scarcity for a while. Still the best decision I could’ve made. Anyone reading this in that situation: get out no matter what they threaten you with and don’t look back. Call a DV organization for some help navigating it.
@@mrnelsonius5631I hope your situation has improved. That's quite the experience, but I'm sure it also made you more compassionate and thoughtful about others' struggles. I wish there was more help, more social integration.
Honestly what would help poor people more than money given to you for free would be to just quit screwing poor people over. You are literally punished for being poor now and it just drives you more and more into the hole. I personally have experienced a lot of this. Late on a bill? Oh thats an additional $100 service fee for us to turn your power back on. Recently I wasn’t even technically late on my car insurance payment, they tried to auto charge my card and that card didn’t have enough so they tacked on a $400 returned item fee! So my insurance bill was $800 and I could no longer pay it because I wasn’t expecting to have to pay double for my insurance. You overdraft your account? Because you know…. Your poor? Ya lets tack on a $35 fee per charge to make sure their next paycheck just goes to fees. Every time you dont have enough money they screw you by making it even more money and it just compounds and keeps you from digging out. Before we talk about UBI i would rather address these issues because these issues are what really hurts people and keeps them down
If all the jobs are going to go to automation, what does it matter if people don't want to work? There wouldn't be any work for them to do anyway. By the way, considering that nearly HALF of this country lives paycheck to paycheck, I think "the only benefit comes at the bottom" is major reason to implement this. Only someone doing really well for themselves would think otherwise.
They don't even have to be doing really well for themselves. They could see themselves as "comfortably middle class" with a Puritan work ethic and think that poor people are poor because they don't work enough or worse, that they're lazy.
If UBI gets passed in the US, there needs to be some kind of “fuckery tax” where if prices go up the businesses raising those prices get taxed 110% so they actively lose money by jacking up prices
Most prices are based on consumer price tolerance, which does not actually change much when people have more money. A boring black coffee is only worth a couple dollars in most people's minds. Even if you are rich, you likely would not buy a $4.50 drip black coffee. The rich might spring for an $8+ coffee with artisan roasting, some nut milk, in an eco cup, with sprinkles served to them is a restaurant with marble counter tops. But they would not pay that for a plain black drip coffee at some diner because it is mentally not worth that much even if you have the spare cash. Only scarcity (or perceived scarcity) raises consumer price tolerance significantly. Housing prices are not high right now because people have more money, it is from market scarcity and all the news about prices being high. Food prices are not going up because people have more money, it is because the food industry oligopolies used the Pandemic as a way to scare the people (and the media) into accepting some scarcity pricing. Citizens having more disposable money does not raise prices, it just raises the volume of items purchased. Which at best only raises prices a tiny percentage.
@@5353JumperI disagree. You don't seem to have considered things like monopolies or collusion. People don't want to pay $4.50 for a cup of coffee... But when a cup of water costs $5, a cup of milk costs $10, etc, then they will be forced to buy the coffee. Ok, coffee isn't a necessity, but people do have to buy necessities. If they don't have other options, they will end up paying more.
@andrewhopkins3397 a monopoly/oligopoly market uses scarcity to leverage prices higher. So it all still fits. If a cup of water is $5 then someone has taken over the water market and is restricting supply. In a market with lots of sources of water, then just plain water will never be $5 a cup because consumer proce tolerance will just go elsewhere to get it. If you want to sell your water for $5 then you need to put it in a fancy bottle, claim it is from some particularly good glacier in France and otherwise make it seem exclusive. Or be the only water sold at a concert, rave or monster truck event.
I would say the goal is order. People with financial stability don't feel desperate, so they aren't likely to commit crime for survival, feeling more secure and like your society isn't dog eat dog but actually cares about it's citizens enough to see to their basic needs does increase happiness. A happier populace creates a more stable, secure, and ordered society.
But if that's the goal, why should it be a "universal"? Then it should only go to poor people and not everyone. And then we get to a point where most socialist countries already are, like most countries in Europe that gives basic welfare money to such people.
@@dtestabecause most people are poor 😂 either we don't make enough money or we work two/three jobs so that we don't die. The 13% number only shows one side of the situation.
@@jimbelt7208 rich is relative but for someone making $2000 a month doubling their income it's the difference between having a family, getting a better less abusive job, starting their own business or going back to school.
@@jimbelt7208 Well, certainly not, but if the bills are paid and food's on the table, and that isn't likely to change, it can do wonders for a person's mental state. I'd argue $1000 is too little for that metric, but it'd be a start, and it'd be a hell of a lot better than nothing. Perfect is the enemy of good after all.
Im surprised Andrei didnt touch on the Alaska oil dividend. Alaska has been giving residents an annual payout for decades as a share of oil sales. It's not a set amount, but from what I can gather a typical family could get between $5k- $10k a year. It is meant to compensate all residents for the natural resources being used since, as he mentioned early in the video, if we keep consuming all natural resources there won't be anything left for future generations. Its not about bailing anyone out if poverty, its extra money that improves their quality of life without destroying the economy.
Wrong its bot about natural resources compensation you are pulling that out of your rear end. Its to incentivize people to remain in Alaska. Its a hard place to live
@@yshouldifoogle6724 I was simplifying since the details are not super relevant, but there's always some a-hole who thinks he's smarter than everyone else. The Alaskan Permanent Fund is an amendment to the Alaskan constitution (amendment text below). At least twenty-five per cent of all mineral lease rentals, royalties, royalty sale proceeds, federal mineral revenue sharing payments and bonuses received by the State shall be placed in a permanent fund, the principal of which shall be used only for those income-producing investments specifically designated by law as eligible for permanent fund investments. All income from the permanent fund shall be deposited in the general fund unless otherwise provided by law. [Amended 1976] They then decided to pay out a portion of the fund to all citizens- no strings attached. It can be considered an incentive the same way some states have lower tax rates for big corporations, but the point is that it's designed to benefit the people by giving them a share in the sales of their natural resources.
We are all working to build the automated future the billionaires will own. It isn't just the engineers, programmers, and data science folks. The person making a breakfast sandwich a programmer buys on their way to work is contributing too. If everyone could just magically start subsistence farming their automated future would never happen. Even if it was just everyone except the tech folks. They need gas to drive, clothes and food, etc. Society is an integrated whole. We're all building it and we should all benefit from it.
@@happysquirtle466 the point is, there are way too many kinds of taxes on everything and the government continually misuses and abuses it for things that DON’T help people. Why would anyone in their right mind want to continue to pay all that or possibly MORE (every time democrats want to raise them), when the system is clearly broken?
100% agree. If you're going to give 1k a month why not just reduce the tax brackets so the money you make is more rewarded rather than 1/5th being taken for SS, Medicare, Income Tax.
When people can't afford the basics and can't get enough pay to survive, health goes down, and crime goes up. We can either pay to end poverty or pay the much larger cost of poverty driven problems.
Yepp. Landlords are the most toxic people on the planet. You should tax the hell out of anyone who owns more than one house, and prevent them outright from owning a third or fourh. See how prices will start going down after that.
All Economic Theories are nothing more then explaining, and even enshrining, Greed.... What you put forth is one of the problems we will face during any economical growth, regardless of source. Want to know another? Too little money is in the system, leading to it's own Greedy Thought. To go back to the landlord as an explanation: Let us say, in this hypothetical, that the economy loses half of the income within it. As a landlord you could lower prices and hope your poorer tenants don't string you along on rent OR You can keep price where it is, knowing when the room is filled the individual is 'moneyed' and can pay rent We also know this as 'fishing for whales.' Added: The really twisted part is, when I thought on it some more, is this phenomenon is already happening in the Housing Community. Rents are going up even though Wages have not, and we find large 'Real Estate' agents are behind it all. The people running said agencies are doing the above Greedy Thought pattern I tried to describe, they are 'fishing for whales.' To the point they locked out 'smaller schools' entirely, having made it impossible for most people to afford the entrance fee. If Money in Pocket was the deciding economical factor we wouldn't have this real world example to point to.
The benefit I’ve seen in my research on UBI is that it combats the expensiveness of being poor. Instead of buying 15 dollar shoes that wear out in a year, folks are able to buy 100 dollar shoes that last 10 years. That saves 50 dollars (not accounting for inflation)
@@S1k18not all markets need to exist. If the cheap shoe market dries up shouldn't those manufacturers shift to making quality shoes? Producers should be agile and react to market demands. Those that can't react probably deserve to go out of business
@ChristineCircelli-go2yw I disagree. If I start a bakery and charge $500 for a loaf of bread and refuse to adjust my pricing then I absolutely deserve to fail. A business must adjust to market demands, they don't have an inherent right to exist if they aren't meeting anyone's needs.
Since when are they just giving away mansions? Or is this just a ill thought out way of saying "we need to limit the size of houses that can be built"?
@@metalwolf112002 Your whole comment is ill thought out. Nobody is talking about giving away anything. Just building AFFORDABLE houses that normal people can buy and live in and still have money to feed an cloth themselves, instead of building more McMansions that only the well-to-do can afford.
@@GUNNER67akaKelt The whole point is they dont simply throw darts on a board and go "we'll put a mansion here... we'll put a duplex here, and then we'll dump the refrigerator boxes in this alley right here." If orders come in to build affordable houses, they'll build them. until then, if Oprah decides she wants another vacation home, who are you to tell her "No! You have enough! We are going to tell you what you are allowed and not allowed to spend your money on"?
Got a friendly comment, no drama at all intended, how to solve laziness and how to solve people that prefer to go and steal and kidnap, etc instead of paint houses, cook, clean, work, etc? How they did that in Scandinavia?
@@john7360 It means they were able to get some degree or certificate or otherwise acquire skills that allowed them to attain a more respectable career or higher position or to move to another field that they enjoy more.
The thing is, I already compete with SSI, food stamps, tax loopholes, disability insurance, and bunch of other programs.....this would potentially level the playing field, and not discriminate. Inflation is a guarantee in a fiat model. I just want a level playing field where discrimination by law is neutral
The tax money would go from those kinds of programs to everyone regardless if they need it or not. Meaning people that need it won't likely have it as much. But such programs need to be ladders up and not just hand outs. That is why they keep failing.
You only touched on the most important piece of data we got from the study. People prioritized their income and went to the doctors and dentists more. Instead of giving free money, give the essentials to improve the population. Healthcare, education, food. I would say housing but our own government is screwing up that with self imposed scarcity by making it so hard and expensive to get permits. Straight cash doesn't mean it will go where it needs to go. But universal healthcare, a food stamp system that applies to everyone off $400 in food a month, and free college for everyone would change the world. Give a druggy $100 without limitations and it will be gone in an hour. Give a wealthy person $100 and he will invest it. Give everyone $100 in groceries and no one goes hungry for a while. Health insurance is the only reason many seniors are still working at Walmart. They own their own homes, many with pensions, but they have to work for health insurance making them slaves well into their golden years.
This is the comment I was going to post if someone else haddn't. Just plainly giving people enough money to meet the poverty line isnt enough unless you add the line "this is a basic income, it will not go away if you make certain amount." I have known a few people who would turn down extra work because if they accepted it, their paycheck would be too high and they would get money withheld or something like that. I would be all for something like "everyone gets a government HSA account" or "everyone gets a credit towards their mortgage or rent." What we need to do is figure out how to prevent "I dont work because if I did, i would earn less than I do to do nothing"
UBI will work if the right regulations are in place. You'd have to to regulate prices and threshold people at 100K or less. Also, i know people hate to hear this for some reason, but people have to be capped at 250 Million a year. Rest goes back into the economy. If we want a Utopia? This is what has to be done. It wont be easy, but the truth is the truth.
This would be only possible if cost of manufacturing was constant, but it depends on so many factors that its near impossible to do so. And price regulation through history never ended well.
I disagree with this. How people make money is the important part, not how much. If someone does something like make the next Harry Potter, that goes viral, they deserve all the money they get from that. But if they use psychological tricks and skinner boxes and charge insane prices far beyond the worth of something, then that’s bad even if they are making half as much as the next Harry Potter.
In the 1950s the top tax bracket was 90%! The complete highway system was built, and the GI Bill made housing and education affordable for all veterans including my family, and in the 60s the US sent man to the moon. Hummm.
I don't know why you think that other than humans have a basic impulse that we call, "The grass is always greener." That is exactly what is happening. Things have never been as cheap for so many as the situation we now have. This is spreading, not getting worse. The only thing we have to do to make a "utopia," or as close as we will ever get, is just keep doing what we are right now.
That would be about 8.2 Quadrillion dollars. I believe that is more money than exists in the world. 😳That person probably ate the crayons in math class.
That could be part of it, but I find it far more likely that happiness trailed off because prices start skyrocketing due to inflation. I think this should be considered when comparing the US one to the others.
@@martinbowyer7906 the issue is CPI has gone up regardless of income levels. An interesting fact is inflation was negative in the final year of the last minimum wage hike phase in. But the happiness level dropping in EVERY instance correlates with the loss of the money in anticipation.
Companies and institutions will then just raise the cost of their products and services accordingly and the (tax payer) money will effectively just get funneled to them. Look at the eye watering cost of higher education and all the "grants" and "aids" that the government provides only to fill the pockets of these institutions.
@@davidioanhedges This exactly. With unlimited energy, and nearly unlimited resources to build from that is why money became useless to the Federation.
@@talisredstar1543 Not to be a super nerd here, but they eliminated money before inventing the technologies that allow for unlimited energy and resources. So they became moneyless before becoming a post-scarcity society. We already live in a society with enough abundance to take care of the needs of every individual the world over, but we have a distribution problem that keeps some extremely poor and others extremely wealthy.
The problem with all of the test programs mentioned, is that they weren't UNIVERSAL. They were giving money to only small numbers of people. When the money isn't given to everyone, businesses can't raise their prices to take advantage of the newfound wealth every single customer now has. Raising prices, would drive away poorer customers who aren't getting the UBI checks, and only serve to hurt the bottom line of any business raising prices. On the other hand, when everyone suddenly has $1000 extra dollars a month, businesses can absolutely take advantage of the situation, because every single person who walks in has more money. UBI would have a hard time working properly in a country where prices are set in a free market, because that free market will always set the price at what the customer can bear. In order for UBI to be truly successful, some level of government regulation to set prices would need to take place... and that would be a bigger hurdle than actually finding a way to fund UBI in the first place.
In a "free market" prices are ultimately determined by competition, not the buyer's wallet. For the "take advantage" theory to hold up in a free market, it must invoke 'time' in relation to price increases, while simultaneously ignoring (freezing) 'time' as it applies to new competitors entering the market. This conflicting recognition of time is illogical and does not hold up (except in comic book movies). Alternatively, the "take advantage" theory could function, in time, IF it is true that suppliers can increase price unilaterally without markets responding. While this is logical and functions both in theory and in reality... such an occurrence is inherently *not* a free market.
@@BrAndroidB Prices are determined by the intersection of supply and demand, so it is a "both" thing. But you're mostly correct... The extra income isn't completely wiped out by increasing prices, assuming the markets are somewhat approximating a theoretical free market. Increased taxes are needed to offset the inflationary pressure though. Federal spending needs to approximately equal economic growth plus taxes plus inflation in the long term.
Corporations also have to be regulated. Price controls can be set. And they should be. There is no reason for supporting a system that automatically ensures that a certain percentage of the population starves or lives in poverty.
@@matthewrohr8964 Yes, price controls can be set. But should they? What happens when the government puts an "artificial" price cap on goods? In the US, probably the best example was with gas prices in the 1970's. It very quickly led to gas shortages and people competing to get gas before others before there wasn't any gas left. In the (former) USSR, just go look at what grocery stores looked like in the 1980's and before. Price controls result in fewer goods being produced or the excess going onto the black market for significantly higher prices.
If you look into the amount spent on social welfare programs and the amount wasted in just administrating them (which is quite high, due to them no being universal), that alone would take away a decent portion of the cost. The remaining amount could be funded buy a 10% VAT on goods.
The purpose of a UBI being Universal is not because it would make a significant impact on people who already have enough money. The purpose is to make it much more difficult for a future government administration to repeal or cut it. Medicare and Social Security have been around for almost a century now. These programs are universal no matter how much money you have you are guaranteed them. The promise of even if you one day lose all your money, you will still have these programs to fall back on is the whole point of these programs. For a UBI all you really need to do is expand Social Security to anyone 18 and older then remove caps on the taxable income towards it. You might need to increase some of the percentages in the higher income brackets and have large corporations pay more into it. The rich people getting those checks will also be paying more than those checks back into the program with their taxes. Another fault you focused on was other countries having health benefits but ours did not. This might have something to do with every other developed nation having healthcare provided to all their citizens. Even $1000/mo isn’t gonna be enough to convince people to pay for regular doctors visits.
What a wonderful, thoughtful episode, and I agree with your summary at the end completely. Basic needs should be met for everyone in this world. No one should be suffering for the basics: food, shelter, etc. Then they can focus on other goals without the stress, such as working a career or a hobby to increase their income from the basic levels, spending time with family, feeling happier because they aren’t struggling so much. I wish this for all people in the world. 🙏💕
In Spain exist the Vital Salary Income which is 1000€ monthly if you are poor. One million people are getting it. Results are: That people refuses to work because is not much difference in €€€. That people have plenty of time to do ilegal stuff. People with other problems like Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis are not getting any help. Taxpayers, small businesses and freelancers are very angry because high taxes. This VSI is marketed like one party success, so its buying one million voters or more that is expanding with more people every month.
@@k2peek I don't know. There is still people defending UBI and want to do it in the near future at big scale. In six years we will see some big change.
A big concern with UBI is that the market will adjust with higher costs to better take advantage of people’s increased ability to spend on non-elastic, basic life requirements. Yang’s proposed $1000/month didn’t give the impression that it increased with inflation either. Maybe some sort of % cost of living bonus would work to address that, allowing for some modularity between COL? I also like the idea of increases in cash availability through the US Mint be pushed through UBI rather than banks, so that people get the benefit of cash influx outpacing inflation rather than banks
i think the distrusted in the government is crazy in the US, look to Europe the have more social programs and the trust is much higher, not good but much better
CBDC's are coming, Thailand rolled out their 'Wallet' last week, scan you eyes, here's some free digital cash that can only be spent in certain stores within a defined location, oh and it's illegal to be critical of it Freedom seeking people are going to need a way out of dystopian CBDC's Bitcoin Cash: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System BCH is the better Bitcoin
It's frustrating when you put in more labor and work in comparison to others around you all the while they get to experience a better quality of life than you.
@@angloblaxon 80% of them fail within the first year :/ I think if you do you've got to start small and ensure you get a return and grow it like making a campfire.
Learn how to use your extra experience as leverage... you have to make yourself so valuable that they will pay you more if you leave or you can get a promotion
You might be working hard at the wrong thing. And it’s not really how hard you work but work you work at and how replaceable you are. Even if you’re the hardest working best whatever if someone can replace you and get a percentage of what you do you’ll never make that much.
This can't just be free money printed by the govt. This should be based on the value driven by automation and collected through taxes or just automation building stuff? So before that we must see automation at scales where we should ensure that we have free food, free housing for everyone.
Someone talked about this. They said if a company has AI doing a certain percent of work the company will be taxed more and a portion of those taxes would fuels UBI
@@EmeraldGamingNewz yeah, it's scary to think in the long run of it's impact though. Let's say if at some point even the govt functions would be carried out by AI and automation and at that point it would be hard to tell who is controlling what.
Thanks for the video.... Most if not all of those studies focused on giving only a small portion of the population money. I believe that if everyone got $1000 a month, every month, forever than the prices of everything would eventually rise. Inflation would just level prices out to make the poor, poor again..... and there would be no way to turn it back. Thoughts? What I think would be better is that instead of money give people basic needs like food, shelter, healthcare and clothes, etc. like you said at the end.... so they don't have to worry about living expenses just optional expenses.
If everything was free we would see more waste. Cheap food has resulted in a third of food production being wasted much of it left on the farms to rot. If everything is taxed, and everyone over eighteen received a monthly income then we would see much less waste.
there are various types of UBI that have been suggested in the past, and the all reloved around a new tax and savings from other programs (social programs).
We could streamline the system by replacing all welfare programs and taxation with borrowing and a value-added tax. If we do it this way we can simulate inflation to combat the inevitable deflation that automation will cause. With general and superintelligence expected within this decade, rising GDP would allow more borrowing using the debt-based fiat currency system.
Local economics for things such as rent (previously mentioned) would fluctuate to compensate. Example: US Military provides money to soldiers and sailors depending on marital status and rank. Back 30 years ago it was only for married and single parents. When it was changed and single military personnel started to rent apartments the rent changed. Apartment complex management would ask for a copy of the soldiers/sailors earnings statement so they could price the rent according to their allowance. UBI would help those on the lower end, but only if this (rent adjustments just because you received UBI) doesn't happen.
When we were in the military and on base housing was not available, every time there was a cola increase rent would increase by that amount, and since our taxes also went up we actually lost money.
The qualifier "as long as they show a willingness to work". Given that literally, it is nothing more than guaranteed money for work, which is maybe a better idea. But that is nothing like the UBI as defined today.
@@randuthayne Except lower than current minimum wage. 12000/2080 equals about $5.76 an hour. The first number being 12 months of $1000 a month and 2080 is the number of hours worked over a year at 40 hours a week. (Yeah, that includes PTO for those fortunate enough to get that). Lowest minimum wage is still $7.75 ... although a lot of those jobs don't get 40 hours a week.
@@randuthayneStop trying to attach work you sound like Rockefeller people are waking up to what happened to the country in the 1920s and how the government let evil greedy men take over everything
To comment on Andrei's last ideas: He mentioned that happiness depends on the correlation between reality and expectations. He suggested that people who already have all the money they need should shift their expectations from material wealth to something else in order to keep experiencing happiness. I agree that many people are raised with the habit of seeking happiness by meeting expectations, but that’s just one pattern we’ve trained ourselves to follow. Happiness is, in fact, just an emotion. And any emotion is a choice. Feeling an emotion is as much an action as moving your body. Anyone can choose to feel happy, just like they can choose to raise their hand at any moment. In Buddhism, monks train themselves to feel certain emotions regardless of external conditions. So, for people who are wondering where we, as a society, will find happiness in a world of full automation and abundance, I believe it’s important to realize that happiness from meeting expectations is just a habit, not a rule of life. P.S. To answer your question, Andrei: Yes, I do believe that every person on Earth should have access to Universal Basic Income (UBI) to cover basic needs like food, water, shelter, and healthcare. If we don’t provide this, it’s as if society is telling people, "We don’t want you here, and if you want to survive, you have to figure it out on your own." If that’s the case, then governments should take responsibility for controlling population growth. If we can’t afford to support more people, why allow them to be born, especially in a fully automated world? As automation makes more goods and services free (since the cost of production will drop to zero, including the cost of maintaining automated systems, cause its also automated, and even electricity), the only question left is: How fast can we produce these free goods, and will it be enough to meet the consumption needs of the entire population each year?
@asadsabir7718 I imagine people will not tolerate "freeloaders". What may happen instead is "service for benefits" or extra benefits for actual producers.
I know you didn't ask for my opinion, but I'm going to give it anyway. While I must admit I really like your well researched videos and find them genuinely entertaining. Can we just agree that the Thumbnails with the market dropping in red and fire are little much in 2024. That's literally how I scan videos not to watch about finance. But hey... if that's what people are clicking on... I guess I can't fault you for that.
overall this is just another example of the rule of diminishing returns. for those already well off, the money isnt going to do much for them at all but for those who dont have any to begin with, it's a significant life changing amount
@@ryancoffee2500 The comment says GO UP, not that it would be $500-1000 a month. Also, there are more countries than wherever you are, where rent is lower than $1000-500 a month. I pay $1850 for a 1 bedroom basement apartment with spiders in Toronto, Ontario 😅
Not if Biden/Harris were able to pass the national cap on yearly rent increases. We have rent control in some parts of the Bay Area, and it's a godsend.
It would be like the end of a monopoly game when the person who won wants you to keep playing so they give you money…. Not that fulfilling for anyone else, but the person that won the game
I am in Canada and am disabled. I qualify for disability (1300 monthly) but the poverty line is 2100. UBI would mean I could reskill my training (20 ys in IT) so I could put those skills to work. It would mean I could afford an apt that is accessible (elevator at minimum so I don't have to try stairs). It would mean I could afford to eat a bit healthier (fresh vegetables) to help my diabetes and IBS. It would mean my roommate could afford meds (we found a CBD that calms down her mind so she can sleep). Many if our purchases would stay local (food from farmers market when we have extra $), stimulating the local economy. Bringing us TO the poverty level would be life-changing! 🎉
@@GhostSal The problem is, funding those half (or more) of society would come at the cost of the other half that is successful causing them to drop closer and closer to starving and becoming homeless
If you receive $1000 per month, your taxes would go up by more than that because the government has to administrate the transfer and that takes labor and time.
Hey, and don't forget prices go up because employers have to pay more for labor. They are not competing with the government for that labor. Sure, everybody gets a 1000 dollars more, but do they actually have more spending power? No, they don't. I'm happy to see people like you and that I'm not the only one that has common sense. As slick as this video is, I get the feeling it was paid for by big money, probably that openAI guy that gets mentioned.
This will ONLY work IF it’s not funded by new/freshly printed dollars. If we take the same supply we have now and redistribute it, we may be onto something-but if we fund it by printing dollars everything else will just increase in price to respond to that. Awesome video 👍🏻
@@boybleu1023 nah not exactly socialism but maybe a blend between the two. Like a hybrid. We give people the absolute bare minimum to live WITHOUT printing more dollars to do that and then still have a capitalistic system on top of that. So it takes away their survival instincts but then allows for the growth/competition through capitalism. Thoughts?
It's almost like when you're deficient in vitamins and minerals, when you don't have enough, supplementing it will help a lot and make a big difference. However, when you're already sufficient, it doesn't have much of an effect. Money can solve some problems but not all of them, like bad health choices, addictions, etc. I more or less just want more free time to spend on my hobbies if I could maintain my current standard of living.
"I more or less just want more free time to spend on my hobbies if I could maintain my current standard of living." Well, that's all UBI stands against for. Someone will need to work harder to provide goods and services who those receiving them. And guess what? Your money will have less purchasing power, so you'll have to spend more time working just to keep your current "standard of living" (which won't even be the same since you need to work more)...
As a lot have pointed out (justly or simply angrily, they're both right, sadly), just tossing money into the system is a short term solution to long term problems. I agree completely with your ideas about appropriate taxation (especially concerning the wealthy and corporations), and I think you really nailed it at the end when you talked about more effective ways to utilize that expanded revenue. Programs that emphasize affordability of necessities like food and housing; universal healthcare; raising minimum wages, etc. The end result of helping those in need could be better achieved without the unintended consequences of things like giving excess to those to whom it would make no difference, or worse, simply amplifying inflation wholesale.
If you print the money, then Inflation. If you use taxes collected, then the money supply does not go up, but the velocity of money will, so still inflation, just not as much. Stimulus checks were printed money
Only if we put checks and balances in place to stop monopolies of all kinds and landlords from price gouging. And the free marketers would never be on board with that. They have created this disgusting mess and won't admit to their guilt. To the fact that trickle- down/free-market Capitalism is utterly harmful to society as a whole... and always has been.
The most effective UBI concept I know of is giving everyone $1000 per month but when working or earning money, the more you earn the higher the tax is to compensate for the UBI payment. So if you need the money you get it, if you earn money the advantage reduces as you earn more. The best part of this is when a person loses their income they still get the UBI without having to apply for it. It is also cheaper to run, and removes a lot of administrative costs from the Govt. The UBI is doable in a way that does not affect inflation when done properly. changes need to happen but it is doable and the people who are in hard times can survive with dignity and people who do free labor (eg stay at home parents) get paid as well.
@@danielcox7857 No. The UBI is given to everyone and has no conditions attached to the money. The welfare system is only given after application and has a host of conditions attached and is removed when work is found (or when the expected conditions are met like finding a job, study etc) The UBI supports those who need it immediately, without condition, and is money for people who do free labor like child rearing. It also allows people to leave a bad job, or to start a small business, study longer or more study because less income earning is required and so on. You can call it a form of welfare, but it is not like the current set up.
@@danielcox7857 no welfare has to be applied for and can be taken away. Welfare spends lots of money to NOT give aide similar to how insurance actually (doesn't) work. The point of UBI is it has no red tape to get it is truly guaranteed. Welfare pays for red tape to not help the people who need it so why not spend some of that money to help people instead.
@@bradlyhaskell9821 oh do you mean like free money? That would be really cool. Where does free money come from? I want some now. Why not just get rid of all welfare systems and then see what happens. I think that would be a better first step instead of taxing ourselves more and more. We basically put in roughly about 20% of our money directly into taxes and then the government spends probably 30% or more? A whole country was started because of a 2% tax on tae.
Well, UBI is like a reduction in income tax (returning tax money back), but if you set it at $1000, then you could also remove social programs that target unemployment as well (so overall, if you added a consumtion tax to pay the gap, your net tax (tax less the UBI) would be less for 90% of the people than what it is now.
How would we pay for road systems, fire departments, etc? Privatize?? 😅 Because THAT works!😂😅 Privatization always creates more problems than it solves...in almost EVERY area.
If you lose your job 1000$ a month isn't going to cut it. UBI only works if the payouts are enough and it should start with up to a 20k initial payout so people could put a deposit on a house/apt and/or buy a car and/or pay off any debt, and/or invest in a business. Then with 3-5k per month you could not only pay rent/bills but save some money, or take a vacation and live a little. With free education and a 2 year mandatory education required over a 10 year period would help our country in the long run while the UBI payouts would be giving our current economy a boost it has never seen. The reason you won't see this in any UBI posts is because most of the programs are to keep us as slaves dependent on the 1000$ a month that is "just enough to survive". We won't have any means of income and they say "oh we can help you with 1000$...." which is BS and we need to understand it and say something now before it's set in place and we end up losing again.
Biden's idea for nationwide rent control sounds excellent. Would also be great if all housing-related tax breaks applied only to one house per family; let the house flippers and investors pay their full tax debt on those extra properties.
@@creaturelost4354 Dude, if we didn't have rent control in Oakland, I'd have been forced out of here long ago (and a couple shady landlords def tried until the local judges shot them down). Some of these investors don't know the meaning of "enough money." Seriously, they thought a little old retired lady was ripping them off.
Universal Basic Income is wonderful idea but we also have to regulate corporate price gouging and rental rates. Giving people $1000 might just be a reason for your landlord to raise your rent or for food prices to go up.
I have seen more harm done to people from the lack of money for the basics than anything else. It leaves people in a mindset of despair that just escalates damage to health, mental health, family dynamics, etc.
No the world would start falling apart working is to ingrained into our society if people stop society will collapse also if your not in a country that can support themselves your screwed cause who's going to transport anything when you are getting free money so no it wouldn't be a better place unless you think starving millions a better place
17:40 agree. Take care of peoples needs (food, shelter, toiletries, essentials) so any work they choose to pursue will provide them with disposable income to enrich their lives.
The problem with these studies is that it measures the effects on individuals in a small group and not on the economy as a whole. But good news! We did this in 2020! Now for the bad news…
We may not need a UBI for all citizens, but no one deserves to live in poverty or homelessness. It's been said that you can judge a society by how well it treats its most vulnerable. So far, most countries don't pass this test. There needs to be a minimum income level that all citizens can rely on. It won't make them rich, but it will give them a solid foundation to improve their lives and move into productive and rewarding careers.
@Soljarag5 yes lmao, what do you think they're making figure 01 and 02 for, it's literally on their website they plan to eliminate these kind of dangerous and boring jobs
@@chukazzz659universal is when it's fully active. Universal will also be given to the global population. There's no reason for corporations to go along with it.
Well, inflation will get really bad, and that's the biggest negative side affect, if its going to be paid through printing money (things got so bad). If its paid through taxes, it might negatively affect the business environment (i.e. brain drain from less investment).
so whats the probelm with inflation, the UBI would surely be inflation adjusted on a yearly/monthly basis? it could inflate the national debat away and als be an onavoidable tax for the rich, no offshore tax havens can safe you from the inflation tax lol
@@hansnotig6250 Inflation is bad for anyone who doesn't own hard assets. So at first, only low income earners would need UBI but as inflation worsens, anyone not receiving UBI would start quickly falling towards that "low income earner" level until pretty much everyone needs UBI. National debt would just get rapidly worse as we couldn't feasibly tax people enough to pay off the current debt and the rapidly accumulating UBI debt. The rich only have so much money to tax. Even many of them can't out earn a money printer stuck in overdrive
@hansnotig6250 the problem will be no company or business will want to be here since they will get taxed more so we wouldn't have anywhere to spend all that ubi you get effectively making it worthless
@@memerthedealer lol not when it's a OECD mimimum tax like the upcoming minimum corparate tax... where should the companies go, to china or india lol, good luck to them than
Fednow will regulate spending if you look at the USA whitehouse 2021 whitepaper. UBI can be given over that median and you'll be limited to the government's basics.
I mean, maybe the oil in the ground will replenish, trees will regrow, water will rain down again, but how long does this take? Surely longer than what we use on a daily basis to support current human life, right? So sure its not "non-renewable" but using renewables at an unsustainable rate is the same as depleting the supply Mining bitcoin uses a renewable, energy, to mine something finite. Mining brings what remains of the supply into existence
The UBI models I saw would provide enough to meet poverty line and then scale down as income went up. After a certain threshold, no UBI. It would encourage people to work, get better work, etc, while providing a safety net. It would cost significantly less than the amount calculated in this video. Numbers for demonstration, assuming 15k is poverty line: No income = 15k per year in UBI - Total = 15K 10k income = 15k per yer in UBI - Total = 25k 15k income = 10k per year in UBI - Total = 25k so on.
Well right now the people with more money than you have control over you. So either way it's not you. At least this plan is trying to give something to the little guy.
You can’t solve all of a society’s problems with just a UBI. You need a UBI, universal healthcare, competent public transit, AND the alternating workweek. It's not a matter of “pick one,” all four are necessary to build a strong foundation. Even if you're not interested in all of these yourself, how they affect the people you care about still impacts your life. No one chose to be born, we shouldn't have to struggle to survive!
Should also mention why the study in the US was vastly different is because our economic system is so crap and we don't have universal Healthcare that the fundamental problems still exist.
Scott Santens has an article on his site, about the right way to calculate the cost of a UBI.. Not by multiplying $1000 x the population.. Because that doesn't factor in savings on replacing existing welfare, and more importantly, it doesn't factor in the cost of the existing poverty, that a UBI policy would greatly reduce. He calculates the actual cost to be more around $900 billion.
@@nancymcmonarch I don't blame you for thinking this way. I thought the same because I'm looking at money through a current-day application. But in order for ubi to really circulate in a economic system, it's people have to not hoard the cash. In fact, I could see, long after you and I are gone, the govt forbidding it "don't be selfish, don't save it for yourself".
Well with rent in Canada is often over $1500 a month and over $2000 in certain cities, $1000 would help people with jobs, but not quite enough for ones unemployed.
I'm definitely for UBI and yeah, automation is a huge issue in the future. The issue, as others have pointed out, isn't about happiness but about relieving some of the burden and setting up a system so that we can deal with more uncertain times. I mean, if we had UBI, recessions would not be as big of a deal. Layoffs wouldn't be as scary. Sudden emergency wouldn't be as detrimental. I think in order to deal with the overhead, we don't limit who would receive it. That takes people to verify income and lots of paperwork. If you just did everyone regardless of their income, then the administration wouldn't need to be big. I also think everyone, including children should receive it but maybe for children, it goes into a trust that they then can pull it out when they hit 18 giving them a huge boost for college, a house, a business, or whatever. And should the worst happen, the money that has built up gets transferred to the parents. For how to pay for it, I don't know. There's a lot we could cut out. A lot of welfare programs wouldn't be needed as that would take its place. Or maybe you keep them as an added boost for those in poverty. But yeah, cutting tax loopholes. I mean, someone shouldn't get a tax write off for buying a yacht.
And this would be different from now how? Anyone with an employer is controlled to a certain extent. How to dress, when to show up, what to do and how to do it (unless you're really lucky and when new things have to be done they let you figure it out), and don't post anything on social media they can get annoyed about. Of course, the self employed who are making it, could always turn it down or stuff it in a trust fund for some other purpose.
People at the bottom were able to buy more food for themselves, catch up on rent and bills, fix their car, and get the medical care they've been putting off. That is absolutely huge. I don't need UBI, but I know so many people that do. Rather than make a bunch of programs that have all these hoops and rules and regulations, just give these people some extra cash so they can prioritize what they need. Be it food rent medical. Just have some faith in peoples ability to take care of themselves and give them the finances to do so
One important factor that I didnt hear in your video was how UBI is amazing for worker rights and healthy working environments. With UBI workers cant be treatened/scared into uncomfortable/unhealthy work as the worker can always quit and live (not just survive) until they find a new job :)
If you give it to everyone, it will devalue with inflation as you're expanding the money supply without adding value. Alternatively, if you just give it to those who need it the most, then by definition it's not universal. The end.
Money can't buy happiness, but it can pay off despair.
Idk I'd be happy with $250k
@MarcusMaddox91 Idk about happy but I'd be way less stressed with 2.5k to catch up my rent and turn my gas back on 😏
I like your line
I bet it would keep a lot of people off the street and out of jail, which would be cheaper and better.
Money can’t buy happiness but it sure can try. And I feel if you give everyone free money. Then prices will increase ever so lightly to the point the free money just make things worse.
Money doesn't solve all problems but it does solve a lot of them
It buys solutions to the problems
It’s real easy for people who are so rich they don’t even know what it’s like to struggle always say money doesn’t solve all problems.
It doesn't. If you are irresponsible and lack discipline money won't change that
@@wuldntuliktonoptb6861yea cause no one with money had to struggle first. No one is saying their are not a few lucky ones out there but that's a very small minority of people. Even bezos was working out of his garage at first same with plenty of other ultra wealthy people. The top % of earners are not them you only need to make $150k single a year to be a top earner
@@kckillakrack9714 if your car breaks down that's a problem that money can solve
If you get cancer then that's a problem money cannot solve
Sounds like the common answer is: the working class needs to feel like they’re going somewhere. No one wants to work just to pay bills. You give the average working person an extra $500-$1000 a month and people immediately feel better. So many people worry that if the working class gets paid more, they’ll be less motivated to work. No. They’ll feel less poor, something no one wants to feel
Hard agree. Some folks are like "they'll just play games!" but game addiction isn't caused by games being addictive, but by a person's reality being unplayably broken. Same with Skinner box experiments and drug addiction.
Safety in numbers, and that includes the numbers in my bank account ... the more the merrier.
Yep. People will always have a need to do something with our lives and free time because that's what it means to be human. Nobody can just sit around permanently, if they're able at all they'll want to do something. I know when I don't have a job even if all my bills are paid I can only enjoy slacking off for a short time. Doing valuable, worthwhile work will always have a place in humanity
Billionaires have way more money than they could realistically spend, yet they still work. These people’s own arguments are disproved by themselves.
Progress and growth is a sign of life. Look at a flower. The moment it stops growing it starts dyingI
Anecdote for yall: The stimulus checks during the pandemic made it possible to leave my abusive partner. I was working and going to college full time and wasn't able to be financially independent- and that $1200 saved my life.
amazing, so glad for you. i hope you are doing much better.
I’m glad you got out. I fled an abusive marriage (physically, psychologically.. all of it) in 2021. I was homeless, completely cut off from checking and savings accounts. I’m 6ft tall and dropped to 127 lbs from food scarcity for a while. Still the best decision I could’ve made. Anyone reading this in that situation: get out no matter what they threaten you with and don’t look back. Call a DV organization for some help navigating it.
@@mrnelsonius5631I hope your situation has improved. That's quite the experience, but I'm sure it also made you more compassionate and thoughtful about others' struggles. I wish there was more help, more social integration.
I felt like they were a UBI test run.
Good for you!!!
Worries caused by lack of money just drives people deeper into problems. It's a vicious cycles.
Honestly what would help poor people more than money given to you for free would be to just quit screwing poor people over. You are literally punished for being poor now and it just drives you more and more into the hole. I personally have experienced a lot of this. Late on a bill? Oh thats an additional $100 service fee for us to turn your power back on. Recently I wasn’t even technically late on my car insurance payment, they tried to auto charge my card and that card didn’t have enough so they tacked on a $400 returned item fee! So my insurance bill was $800 and I could no longer pay it because I wasn’t expecting to have to pay double for my insurance. You overdraft your account? Because you know…. Your poor? Ya lets tack on a $35 fee per charge to make sure their next paycheck just goes to fees. Every time you dont have enough money they screw you by making it even more money and it just compounds and keeps you from digging out.
Before we talk about UBI i would rather address these issues because these issues are what really hurts people and keeps them down
If all the jobs are going to go to automation, what does it matter if people don't want to work? There wouldn't be any work for them to do anyway.
By the way, considering that nearly HALF of this country lives paycheck to paycheck, I think "the only benefit comes at the bottom" is major reason to implement this. Only someone doing really well for themselves would think otherwise.
Exactly my thoughts, saying the only benefit is seen at the bottom it's like, well of course that's the whole point.
They don't even have to be doing really well for themselves. They could see themselves as "comfortably middle class" with a Puritan work ethic and think that poor people are poor because they don't work enough or worse, that they're lazy.
@@IndomitableAde a lot of simpletons like that out there
If UBI gets passed in the US, there needs to be some kind of “fuckery tax” where if prices go up the businesses raising those prices get taxed 110% so they actively lose money by jacking up prices
Most prices are based on consumer price tolerance, which does not actually change much when people have more money.
A boring black coffee is only worth a couple dollars in most people's minds. Even if you are rich, you likely would not buy a $4.50 drip black coffee.
The rich might spring for an $8+ coffee with artisan roasting, some nut milk, in an eco cup, with sprinkles served to them is a restaurant with marble counter tops. But they would not pay that for a plain black drip coffee at some diner because it is mentally not worth that much even if you have the spare cash.
Only scarcity (or perceived scarcity) raises consumer price tolerance significantly.
Housing prices are not high right now because people have more money, it is from market scarcity and all the news about prices being high.
Food prices are not going up because people have more money, it is because the food industry oligopolies used the Pandemic as a way to scare the people (and the media) into accepting some scarcity pricing.
Citizens having more disposable money does not raise prices, it just raises the volume of items purchased. Which at best only raises prices a tiny percentage.
The only way I could
@@5353Jumper
@@5353JumperI disagree. You don't seem to have considered things like monopolies or collusion. People don't want to pay $4.50 for a cup of coffee... But when a cup of water costs $5, a cup of milk costs $10, etc, then they will be forced to buy the coffee. Ok, coffee isn't a necessity, but people do have to buy necessities. If they don't have other options, they will end up paying more.
@andrewhopkins3397 a monopoly/oligopoly market uses scarcity to leverage prices higher. So it all still fits. If a cup of water is $5 then someone has taken over the water market and is restricting supply.
In a market with lots of sources of water, then just plain water will never be $5 a cup because consumer proce tolerance will just go elsewhere to get it.
If you want to sell your water for $5 then you need to put it in a fancy bottle, claim it is from some particularly good glacier in France and otherwise make it seem exclusive. Or be the only water sold at a concert, rave or monster truck event.
The goal of UBI is not happiness. It's simply not freezing or starving to death.
I would say the goal is order. People with financial stability don't feel desperate, so they aren't likely to commit crime for survival, feeling more secure and like your society isn't dog eat dog but actually cares about it's citizens enough to see to their basic needs does increase happiness. A happier populace creates a more stable, secure, and ordered society.
But if that's the goal, why should it be a "universal"? Then it should only go to poor people and not everyone. And then we get to a point where most socialist countries already are, like most countries in Europe that gives basic welfare money to such people.
@dtesta it's universal because automation and AI are going to take almost all of our jobs ... not just the jobs of the poor.
On the other hand, I think removing the stress of freezing to death this winter might have an effect on one's happiness.
@@dtestabecause most people are poor 😂 either we don't make enough money or we work two/three jobs so that we don't die. The 13% number only shows one side of the situation.
Money won't make you happy
But I would rather be rich and unhappy,
Than poor and unhappy
A thousand dollars a month wont make anyone rich.
@@jimbelt7208
Mate, it's a metaphor, not to be taken literally..........
Duh lol. Like duh. Obviously it wouldn't@@jimbelt7208
@@jimbelt7208 rich is relative but for someone making $2000 a month doubling their income it's the difference between having a family, getting a better less abusive job, starting their own business or going back to school.
@@jimbelt7208 Well, certainly not, but if the bills are paid and food's on the table, and that isn't likely to change, it can do wonders for a person's mental state. I'd argue $1000 is too little for that metric, but it'd be a start, and it'd be a hell of a lot better than nothing. Perfect is the enemy of good after all.
Im surprised Andrei didnt touch on the Alaska oil dividend. Alaska has been giving residents an annual payout for decades as a share of oil sales. It's not a set amount, but from what I can gather a typical family could get between $5k- $10k a year. It is meant to compensate all residents for the natural resources being used since, as he mentioned early in the video, if we keep consuming all natural resources there won't be anything left for future generations. Its not about bailing anyone out if poverty, its extra money that improves their quality of life without destroying the economy.
Wrong its bot about natural resources compensation you are pulling that out of your rear end. Its to incentivize people to remain in Alaska. Its a hard place to live
It seems very bias in here
@@yshouldifoogle6724 I was simplifying since the details are not super relevant, but there's always some a-hole who thinks he's smarter than everyone else.
The Alaskan Permanent Fund is an amendment to the Alaskan constitution (amendment text below).
At least twenty-five per cent of all mineral lease rentals, royalties, royalty sale proceeds, federal mineral revenue sharing payments and bonuses received by the State shall be placed in a permanent fund, the principal of which shall be used only for those income-producing investments specifically designated by law as eligible for permanent fund investments. All income from the permanent fund shall be deposited in the general fund unless otherwise provided by law. [Amended 1976]
They then decided to pay out a portion of the fund to all citizens- no strings attached. It can be considered an incentive the same way some states have lower tax rates for big corporations, but the point is that it's designed to benefit the people by giving them a share in the sales of their natural resources.
The difference here is the funding of the Alaska dividend.
We are all working to build the automated future the billionaires will own. It isn't just the engineers, programmers, and data science folks. The person making a breakfast sandwich a programmer buys on their way to work is contributing too. If everyone could just magically start subsistence farming their automated future would never happen. Even if it was just everyone except the tech folks. They need gas to drive, clothes and food, etc. Society is an integrated whole. We're all building it and we should all benefit from it.
Maybe don't tax the crap out of the working class so they don't have to work all the time.
So politicians can sit on arsses and sail on yachts.
taxes are necessary for all kinds of things that you take for granted in your everyday life, so no
@@happysquirtle466 the point is, there are way too many kinds of taxes on everything and the government continually misuses and abuses it for things that DON’T help people. Why would anyone in their right mind want to continue to pay all that or possibly MORE (every time democrats want to raise them), when the system is clearly broken?
100% agree. If you're going to give 1k a month why not just reduce the tax brackets so the money you make is more rewarded rather than 1/5th being taken for SS, Medicare, Income Tax.
If taxes make you made wait till you learn about wage theft
The problem is corporate greed if we do get that UBI, they will think its theirs to take from us
Though it’s a good way to get corporates on board with the idea of UBI, if more people go below the poverty line, they will buy a lot less.
This is where taxes come in.
@@anthraxfan93businesses will pass the increased tax burden through to their customers via higher prices.
Or everyone is getting $1000 extra dollars that means I can lower wages.
@adamtruncale7545 nope, along w higher taxes and increased min wage every year. About time we made America great again!
The circumstance of healthcare, housing, and food insecurity is the biggest problem.
Yes
What do they have in common? Government spending...
they do not. it's lobbying against consumer protections and deregulation.
You say tax the rich even more... as if they are already paying a lot of taxes?!
When people can't afford the basics and can't get enough pay to survive, health goes down, and crime goes up. We can either pay to end poverty or pay the much larger cost of poverty driven problems.
My prediction: Rents would suddenly and conveniently jump up an additional $1000 a month.
Landlord logic: "They got it. I want it."
They can make legislation against that
@@Name..........they CAN….. but greed talks….
Yepp. Landlords are the most toxic people on the planet. You should tax the hell out of anyone who owns more than one house, and prevent them outright from owning a third or fourh. See how prices will start going down after that.
It wouldn't be just the rent... It would be everything going up in price. We are seeing the results on COVID stimulus checks right now...
All Economic Theories are nothing more then explaining, and even enshrining, Greed....
What you put forth is one of the problems we will face during any economical growth, regardless of source.
Want to know another?
Too little money is in the system, leading to it's own Greedy Thought.
To go back to the landlord as an explanation:
Let us say, in this hypothetical, that the economy loses half of the income within it.
As a landlord you could lower prices and hope your poorer tenants don't string you along on rent
OR
You can keep price where it is, knowing when the room is filled the individual is 'moneyed' and can pay rent
We also know this as 'fishing for whales.'
Added:
The really twisted part is, when I thought on it some more, is this phenomenon is already happening in the Housing Community. Rents are going up even though Wages have not, and we find large 'Real Estate' agents are behind it all. The people running said agencies are doing the above Greedy Thought pattern I tried to describe, they are 'fishing for whales.' To the point they locked out 'smaller schools' entirely, having made it impossible for most people to afford the entrance fee.
If Money in Pocket was the deciding economical factor we wouldn't have this real world example to point to.
The benefit I’ve seen in my research on UBI is that it combats the expensiveness of being poor. Instead of buying 15 dollar shoes that wear out in a year, folks are able to buy 100 dollar shoes that last 10 years. That saves 50 dollars (not accounting for inflation)
Then no one is buying cheap shoes... the cheap shoe market goes bust.. its gonna be another crash somewhere..
And if people decide to buy $100 shoes a year? The analogy is flawed
@@S1k18not all markets need to exist. If the cheap shoe market dries up shouldn't those manufacturers shift to making quality shoes? Producers should be agile and react to market demands. Those that can't react probably deserve to go out of business
@ChristineCircelli-go2yw I disagree. If I start a bakery and charge $500 for a loaf of bread and refuse to adjust my pricing then I absolutely deserve to fail.
A business must adjust to market demands, they don't have an inherent right to exist if they aren't meeting anyone's needs.
Where are these 10 year lasting shoes???
For one, we need more affordable homes (not mansions).
Well UBI certainly will make them cheaper! hahahahaha
Since when are they just giving away mansions? Or is this just a ill thought out way of saying "we need to limit the size of houses that can be built"?
@@metalwolf112002 Your whole comment is ill thought out. Nobody is talking about giving away anything. Just building AFFORDABLE houses that normal people can buy and live in and still have money to feed an cloth themselves, instead of building more McMansions that only the well-to-do can afford.
@@GUNNER67akaKelt The whole point is they dont simply throw darts on a board and go "we'll put a mansion here... we'll put a duplex here, and then we'll dump the refrigerator boxes in this alley right here."
If orders come in to build affordable houses, they'll build them. until then, if Oprah decides she wants another vacation home, who are you to tell her "No! You have enough! We are going to tell you what you are allowed and not allowed to spend your money on"?
@@phoenixcustomrifles1430 Didn't say anything about tiny homes, just normal, not-fancy homes.
Solve poverty with money.
Solve homelessness with housing.
Solve sickness with healthcare.
This is obvious and it works well in Scandinavia.
Got a friendly comment, no drama at all intended, how to solve laziness and how to solve people that prefer to go and steal and kidnap, etc instead of paint houses, cook, clean, work, etc? How they did that in Scandinavia?
When this was tested. People climbed out of poverty. Got better jobs. Made more money.
'Better jobs'? What does that mean?
@@john7360 It means they were able to get some degree or certificate or otherwise acquire skills that allowed them to attain a more respectable career or higher position or to move to another field that they enjoy more.
Can you site the specific study? Where? When?
@@andrewberg5266 Yes I can. Do your own research. Do not trust people on the internet to inform you.
@@john7360 What job is better, extended car warranty salesman or Registered Nurse?
The thing is, I already compete with SSI, food stamps, tax loopholes, disability insurance, and bunch of other programs.....this would potentially level the playing field, and not discriminate. Inflation is a guarantee in a fiat model. I just want a level playing field where discrimination by law is neutral
The tax money would go from those kinds of programs to everyone regardless if they need it or not. Meaning people that need it won't likely have it as much. But such programs need to be ladders up and not just hand outs. That is why they keep failing.
You only touched on the most important piece of data we got from the study.
People prioritized their income and went to the doctors and dentists more.
Instead of giving free money, give the essentials to improve the population.
Healthcare, education, food.
I would say housing but our own government is screwing up that with self imposed scarcity by making it so hard and expensive to get permits.
Straight cash doesn't mean it will go where it needs to go. But universal healthcare, a food stamp system that applies to everyone off $400 in food a month, and free college for everyone would change the world.
Give a druggy $100 without limitations and it will be gone in an hour. Give a wealthy person $100 and he will invest it. Give everyone $100 in groceries and no one goes hungry for a while.
Health insurance is the only reason many seniors are still working at Walmart. They own their own homes, many with pensions, but they have to work for health insurance making them slaves well into their golden years.
This is the comment I was going to post if someone else haddn't. Just plainly giving people enough money to meet the poverty line isnt enough unless you add the line "this is a basic income, it will not go away if you make certain amount." I have known a few people who would turn down extra work because if they accepted it, their paycheck would be too high and they would get money withheld or something like that.
I would be all for something like "everyone gets a government HSA account" or "everyone gets a credit towards their mortgage or rent." What we need to do is figure out how to prevent "I dont work because if I did, i would earn less than I do to do nothing"
@@metalwolf112002 that is how the negative income tax was supposed to work
You are the problem
UBI will work if the right regulations are in place. You'd have to to regulate prices and threshold people at 100K or less. Also, i know people hate to hear this for some reason, but people have to be capped at 250 Million a year. Rest goes back into the economy. If we want a Utopia? This is what has to be done. It wont be easy, but the truth is the truth.
This would be only possible if cost of manufacturing was constant, but it depends on so many factors that its near impossible to do so. And price regulation through history never ended well.
I disagree with this. How people make money is the important part, not how much. If someone does something like make the next Harry Potter, that goes viral, they deserve all the money they get from that. But if they use psychological tricks and skinner boxes and charge insane prices far beyond the worth of something, then that’s bad even if they are making half as much as the next Harry Potter.
In the 1950s the top tax bracket was 90%! The complete highway system was built, and the GI Bill made housing and education affordable for all veterans including my family, and in the 60s the US sent man to the moon. Hummm.
😎👍💯
Maybe work on making the basics of life super cheap. But this is the opposite of what’s going on now.
I don't know why you think that other than humans have a basic impulse that we call, "The grass is always greener." That is exactly what is happening. Things have never been as cheap for so many as the situation we now have. This is spreading, not getting worse. The only thing we have to do to make a "utopia," or as close as we will ever get, is just keep doing what we are right now.
@gapete361 not true. What we do now can never succeed in that goal.
The person who said Jeff Bezos could pay everyone on earth 1M dollars wasn’t the brightest crayon in the box
*I concur… Over-View your notifications!!*
We won’t know til he try tho 😂 😂🤣 jk
That would be about 8.2 Quadrillion dollars. I believe that is more money than exists in the world. 😳That person probably ate the crayons in math class.
I used to see the same posts about Musk, lol.
Who said that 😂
The reason people became unhappy the 2nd yr in the U.S is because they knew it was going to be taken away. 😢
😅 Probably true!!
That could be part of it, but I find it far more likely that happiness trailed off because prices start skyrocketing due to inflation.
I think this should be considered when comparing the US one to the others.
Yes, the stress was reintroduced with the reintroduction of the stressor.... Ground breaking stuff
@@martinbowyer7906 the issue is CPI has gone up regardless of income levels. An interesting fact is inflation was negative in the final year of the last minimum wage hike phase in. But the happiness level dropping in EVERY instance correlates with the loss of the money in anticipation.
Somehow I don't think they'd keep it "universal." If they start having income limits it's just yet another to bludgeon the middle class.
There will be no "middle" class. That's the point.
'You will own nothing and be happy"
Do you understand that a ubi is a minimum allowance and not an income limit?
Companies and institutions will then just raise the cost of their products and services accordingly and the (tax payer) money will effectively just get funneled to them. Look at the eye watering cost of higher education and all the "grants" and "aids" that the government provides only to fill the pockets of these institutions.
Exactly
Agreed!
@@matthewruhland8443 *I concur… Over-View your notifications!*
If we have half (or more) of society permanently out of work, we can’t simply let them all starve and be homeless.
@@GhostSal The solution to that is "educate and adapt". Or we'd be still riding horses and camels on roads today.
All the way of Star Trek. Eliminate money. Just get rid of money.
Star Trek has essentially unlimited energy, and essentially cost free manufacturing (replicators) - so is a post scarcity society
@@davidioanhedges This exactly. With unlimited energy, and nearly unlimited resources to build from that is why money became useless to the Federation.
@@talisredstar1543 Not to be a super nerd here, but they eliminated money before inventing the technologies that allow for unlimited energy and resources. So they became moneyless before becoming a post-scarcity society. We already live in a society with enough abundance to take care of the needs of every individual the world over, but we have a distribution problem that keeps some extremely poor and others extremely wealthy.
@@UtopiaOnFirethe distribution problem is called capitalist hoarding all the money.
@thomaslarsen5743 by "distribution problem" you mean greed?
The problem with all of the test programs mentioned, is that they weren't UNIVERSAL. They were giving money to only small numbers of people. When the money isn't given to everyone, businesses can't raise their prices to take advantage of the newfound wealth every single customer now has. Raising prices, would drive away poorer customers who aren't getting the UBI checks, and only serve to hurt the bottom line of any business raising prices. On the other hand, when everyone suddenly has $1000 extra dollars a month, businesses can absolutely take advantage of the situation, because every single person who walks in has more money. UBI would have a hard time working properly in a country where prices are set in a free market, because that free market will always set the price at what the customer can bear. In order for UBI to be truly successful, some level of government regulation to set prices would need to take place... and that would be a bigger hurdle than actually finding a way to fund UBI in the first place.
I am so glad that others see that.
In a "free market" prices are ultimately determined by competition, not the buyer's wallet.
For the "take advantage" theory to hold up in a free market, it must invoke 'time' in relation to price increases, while simultaneously ignoring (freezing) 'time' as it applies to new competitors entering the market. This conflicting recognition of time is illogical and does not hold up (except in comic book movies).
Alternatively, the "take advantage" theory could function, in time, IF it is true that suppliers can increase price unilaterally without markets responding. While this is logical and functions both in theory and in reality... such an occurrence is inherently *not* a free market.
@@BrAndroidB Prices are determined by the intersection of supply and demand, so it is a "both" thing.
But you're mostly correct... The extra income isn't completely wiped out by increasing prices, assuming the markets are somewhat approximating a theoretical free market.
Increased taxes are needed to offset the inflationary pressure though. Federal spending needs to approximately equal economic growth plus taxes plus inflation in the long term.
Corporations also have to be regulated. Price controls can be set. And they should be. There is no reason for supporting a system that automatically ensures that a certain percentage of the population starves or lives in poverty.
@@matthewrohr8964 Yes, price controls can be set. But should they? What happens when the government puts an "artificial" price cap on goods? In the US, probably the best example was with gas prices in the 1970's. It very quickly led to gas shortages and people competing to get gas before others before there wasn't any gas left. In the (former) USSR, just go look at what grocery stores looked like in the 1980's and before. Price controls result in fewer goods being produced or the excess going onto the black market for significantly higher prices.
We don't have enough money to fund our current obligations.
The money is spent on war, just redirect the money to feeding the poor. Problem solved.
Visa is fine with this. You'll know what to invest in.
Because not everyone pays taxes. And because they waste so much and steal the rest.
Healthcare stole a lot possibly trillions upcoding and lying
If you look into the amount spent on social welfare programs and the amount wasted in just administrating them (which is quite high, due to them no being universal), that alone would take away a decent portion of the cost. The remaining amount could be funded buy a 10% VAT on goods.
The purpose of a UBI being Universal is not because it would make a significant impact on people who already have enough money. The purpose is to make it much more difficult for a future government administration to repeal or cut it. Medicare and Social Security have been around for almost a century now. These programs are universal no matter how much money you have you are guaranteed them. The promise of even if you one day lose all your money, you will still have these programs to fall back on is the whole point of these programs. For a UBI all you really need to do is expand Social Security to anyone 18 and older then remove caps on the taxable income towards it. You might need to increase some of the percentages in the higher income brackets and have large corporations pay more into it. The rich people getting those checks will also be paying more than those checks back into the program with their taxes. Another fault you focused on was other countries having health benefits but ours did not. This might have something to do with every other developed nation having healthcare provided to all their citizens. Even $1000/mo isn’t gonna be enough to convince people to pay for regular doctors visits.
What a wonderful, thoughtful episode, and I agree with your summary at the end completely. Basic needs should be met for everyone in this world. No one should be suffering for the basics: food, shelter, etc. Then they can focus on other goals without the stress, such as working a career or a hobby to increase their income from the basic levels, spending time with family, feeling happier because they aren’t struggling so much. I wish this for all people in the world. 🙏💕
*I concur… Over-View your notifications!!*
UBI is universal.... If it has income limits it's not freaking universal....
Right, then it becomes welfare. Which we already have. And it works just fine if done properly.
Means testing is just a way to turn people against each other and ultimately ruining the program.
In Spain exist the Vital Salary Income which is 1000€ monthly if you are poor. One million people are getting it.
Results are:
That people refuses to work because is not much difference in €€€.
That people have plenty of time to do ilegal stuff.
People with other problems like Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis are not getting any help.
Taxpayers, small businesses and freelancers are very angry because high taxes.
This VSI is marketed like one party success, so its buying one million voters or more that is expanding with more people every month.
@@the_walking_man1234 Why isn't this sort of dark side mentioned in the video?
@@k2peek I don't know. There is still people defending UBI and want to do it in the near future at big scale. In six years we will see some big change.
A big concern with UBI is that the market will adjust with higher costs to better take advantage of people’s increased ability to spend on non-elastic, basic life requirements. Yang’s proposed $1000/month didn’t give the impression that it increased with inflation either. Maybe some sort of % cost of living bonus would work to address that, allowing for some modularity between COL?
I also like the idea of increases in cash availability through the US Mint be pushed through UBI rather than banks, so that people get the benefit of cash influx outpacing inflation rather than banks
A Government big enough to give you everything you want, is a government big enough to take away everything that have.
Thomas Jefferson
There are not benevolent altruistic corporations on the other side. I choose what we can in fact control better by voting.
@@leojboby *I concur… Over-View your notifications!!*
i think the distrusted in the government is crazy in the US, look to Europe the have more social programs and the trust is much higher, not good but much better
@@leojboby Karl Marx would be proud
CBDC's are coming, Thailand rolled out their 'Wallet' last week, scan you eyes, here's some free digital cash that can only be spent in certain stores within a defined location, oh and it's illegal to be critical of it
Freedom seeking people are going to need a way out of dystopian CBDC's
Bitcoin Cash: A Peer-to-Peer Electronic Cash System
BCH is the better Bitcoin
It's frustrating when you put in more labor and work in comparison to others around you all the while they get to experience a better quality of life than you.
*I concur… Over-View your notifications!!*
Start a business
@@angloblaxon 80% of them fail within the first year :/
I think if you do you've got to start small and ensure you get a return and grow it like making a campfire.
Learn how to use your extra experience as leverage... you have to make yourself so valuable that they will pay you more if you leave or you can get a promotion
You might be working hard at the wrong thing. And it’s not really how hard you work but work you work at and how replaceable you are. Even if you’re the hardest working best whatever if someone can replace you and get a percentage of what you do you’ll never make that much.
Instead of UBI how about NIT
NIT= No Income Tax
No income tax for the low, and lower middle class
This can't just be free money printed by the govt. This should be based on the value driven by automation and collected through taxes or just automation building stuff? So before that we must see automation at scales where we should ensure that we have free food, free housing for everyone.
Someone talked about this. They said if a company has AI doing a certain percent of work the company will be taxed more and a portion of those taxes would fuels UBI
Noooo
@@EmeraldGamingNewz yeah, it's scary to think in the long run of it's impact though. Let's say if at some point even the govt functions would be carried out by AI and automation and at that point it would be hard to tell who is controlling what.
This is literally socialism but Americans have been so propagandized that they can’t say the word out loud
@@boybleu1023 yep central banks amid part of communism
Thanks for the video.... Most if not all of those studies focused on giving only a small portion of the population money. I believe that if everyone got $1000 a month, every month, forever than the prices of everything would eventually rise. Inflation would just level prices out to make the poor, poor again..... and there would be no way to turn it back. Thoughts? What I think would be better is that instead of money give people basic needs like food, shelter, healthcare and clothes, etc. like you said at the end.... so they don't have to worry about living expenses just optional expenses.
If everything was free we would see more waste. Cheap food has resulted in a third of food production being wasted much of it left on the farms to rot. If everything is taxed, and everyone over eighteen received a monthly income then we would see much less waste.
No because there is not more money in circulation. If it is funded through taxes and not money printing it should not cause inflation
there are various types of UBI that have been suggested in the past, and the all reloved around a new tax and savings from other programs (social programs).
We could streamline the system by replacing all welfare programs and taxation with borrowing and a value-added tax. If we do it this way we can simulate inflation to combat the inevitable deflation that automation will cause. With general and superintelligence expected within this decade, rising GDP would allow more borrowing using the debt-based fiat currency system.
@@higreentjgreat, now write your representative that.
Local economics for things such as rent (previously mentioned) would fluctuate to compensate.
Example: US Military provides money to soldiers and sailors depending on marital status and rank. Back 30 years ago it was only for married and single parents. When it was changed and single military personnel started to rent apartments the rent changed. Apartment complex management would ask for a copy of the soldiers/sailors earnings statement so they could price the rent according to their allowance.
UBI would help those on the lower end, but only if this (rent adjustments just because you received UBI) doesn't happen.
When we were in the military and on base housing was not available, every time there was a cola increase rent would increase by that amount, and since our taxes also went up we actually lost money.
Money won’t solve all of your problems but it does solve the ones needed to keep you alive and functioning normally in society.
The qualifier "as long as they show a willingness to work". Given that literally, it is nothing more than guaranteed money for work, which is maybe a better idea. But that is nothing like the UBI as defined today.
A.k.a. minimum wage
@@randuthayne Except lower than current minimum wage. 12000/2080 equals about $5.76 an hour. The first number being 12 months of $1000 a month and 2080 is the number of hours worked over a year at 40 hours a week. (Yeah, that includes PTO for those fortunate enough to get that). Lowest minimum wage is still $7.75 ... although a lot of those jobs don't get 40 hours a week.
@@randuthayneStop trying to attach work you sound like Rockefeller people are waking up to what happened to the country in the 1920s and how the government let evil greedy men take over everything
To comment on Andrei's last ideas:
He mentioned that happiness depends on the correlation between reality and expectations. He suggested that people who already have all the money they need should shift their expectations from material wealth to something else in order to keep experiencing happiness. I agree that many people are raised with the habit of seeking happiness by meeting expectations, but that’s just one pattern we’ve trained ourselves to follow.
Happiness is, in fact, just an emotion. And any emotion is a choice. Feeling an emotion is as much an action as moving your body. Anyone can choose to feel happy, just like they can choose to raise their hand at any moment. In Buddhism, monks train themselves to feel certain emotions regardless of external conditions.
So, for people who are wondering where we, as a society, will find happiness in a world of full automation and abundance, I believe it’s important to realize that happiness from meeting expectations is just a habit, not a rule of life.
P.S. To answer your question, Andrei:
Yes, I do believe that every person on Earth should have access to Universal Basic Income (UBI) to cover basic needs like food, water, shelter, and healthcare. If we don’t provide this, it’s as if society is telling people, "We don’t want you here, and if you want to survive, you have to figure it out on your own." If that’s the case, then governments should take responsibility for controlling population growth. If we can’t afford to support more people, why allow them to be born, especially in a fully automated world?
As automation makes more goods and services free (since the cost of production will drop to zero, including the cost of maintaining automated systems, cause its also automated, and even electricity), the only question left is: How fast can we produce these free goods, and will it be enough to meet the consumption needs of the entire population each year?
No such thing as “free”. Money would be totally worthless.
If it isn’t worth my labor, then it has no value whatsoever.
In a world where robots and computers are doing most of the work, there may be such a thing as "free"
@@asadsabir7718 Humans unable to control their own destiny will not be free.
@asadsabir7718 I imagine people will not tolerate "freeloaders". What may happen instead is "service for benefits" or extra benefits for actual producers.
@@kumbawolfyou mean if everyone is a free loader, then crime will be something everyone ends up doing?
I know you didn't ask for my opinion, but I'm going to give it anyway. While I must admit I really like your well researched videos and find them genuinely entertaining. Can we just agree that the Thumbnails with the market dropping in red and fire are little much in 2024. That's literally how I scan videos not to watch about finance. But hey... if that's what people are clicking on... I guess I can't fault you for that.
Use dearrow to get rid of clickbait thumbnails and titles.
And yet u clicked
overall this is just another example of the rule of diminishing returns. for those already well off, the money isnt going to do much for them at all but for those who dont have any to begin with, it's a significant life changing amount
Rent would go up $500 to $1000
Where the hell you live at with $500 rent??
@@ryancoffee2500 he lives in 1987
@@ryancoffee2500 The comment says GO UP, not that it would be $500-1000 a month. Also, there are more countries than wherever you are, where rent is lower than $1000-500 a month.
I pay $1850 for a 1 bedroom basement apartment with spiders in Toronto, Ontario 😅
@@markoDhex atleast you got free pets :)
Not if Biden/Harris were able to pass the national cap on yearly rent increases. We have rent control in some parts of the Bay Area, and it's a godsend.
It would be like the end of a monopoly game when the person who won wants you to keep playing so they give you money…. Not that fulfilling for anyone else, but the person that won the game
At least the game can keep going
@@jonah11111 BUT! Life is not a game for the people...
That is so deep and profound..
The game monopoly was designed to show how capitalism always creates one winner at the expense of the majority of people
@@boybleu1023 or how Communism ends in authoritarian control
I am in Canada and am disabled. I qualify for disability (1300 monthly) but the poverty line is 2100. UBI would mean I could reskill my training (20 ys in IT) so I could put those skills to work. It would mean I could afford an apt that is accessible (elevator at minimum so I don't have to try stairs). It would mean I could afford to eat a bit healthier (fresh vegetables) to help my diabetes and IBS.
It would mean my roommate could afford meds (we found a CBD that calms down her mind so she can sleep).
Many if our purchases would stay local (food from farmers market when we have extra $), stimulating the local economy.
Bringing us TO the poverty level would be life-changing! 🎉
The landlords would just raise the price of rent $1000 higher. When minimum wage rises, rent rises with the same proportion.
If we have half (or more) of society permanently out of work, we can’t simply let them all starve and be homeless.
...and those with lots of kids get rewarded that many x. The opposite of what the world needs now.
@@cjackfly No, large families tends to be a cultural phenomenon and not simply a financial one (as well as educationally influenced).
Exactly
@@GhostSal The problem is, funding those half (or more) of society would come at the cost of the other half that is successful causing them to drop closer and closer to starving and becoming homeless
If you receive $1000 per month, your taxes would go up by more than that because the government has to administrate the transfer and that takes labor and time.
Hey, and don't forget prices go up because employers have to pay more for labor. They are not competing with the government for that labor. Sure, everybody gets a 1000 dollars more, but do they actually have more spending power? No, they don't. I'm happy to see people like you and that I'm not the only one that has common sense. As slick as this video is, I get the feeling it was paid for by big money, probably that openAI guy that gets mentioned.
And they have to raise the prices because the employers are being taxed more because they are paying for the "free" money.
Wait, did you just said UBI worked everywhere around the world where it was tested, but not in US?
This will ONLY work IF it’s not funded by new/freshly printed dollars. If we take the same supply we have now and redistribute it, we may be onto something-but if we fund it by printing dollars everything else will just increase in price to respond to that. Awesome video 👍🏻
So socialism. You’re describing socialism. And I mean that in a good way.
@@boybleu1023 nah not exactly socialism but maybe a blend between the two. Like a hybrid. We give people the absolute bare minimum to live WITHOUT printing more dollars to do that and then still have a capitalistic system on top of that. So it takes away their survival instincts but then allows for the growth/competition through capitalism. Thoughts?
@@brandontobias1138 so basically china’s system, which is a form of socialism. no need to be gun shy about saying the word, you’re a socialist
@@boybleu1023 I would describe it more like the European system, as they have higher taxes but look after there people more.
Best model i have seem was back in the 2020 primaries for the dem nominee.
It's almost like when you're deficient in vitamins and minerals, when you don't have enough, supplementing it will help a lot and make a big difference. However, when you're already sufficient, it doesn't have much of an effect. Money can solve some problems but not all of them, like bad health choices, addictions, etc. I more or less just want more free time to spend on my hobbies if I could maintain my current standard of living.
"I more or less just want more free time to spend on my hobbies if I could maintain my current standard of living."
Well, that's all UBI stands against for. Someone will need to work harder to provide goods and services who those receiving them. And guess what? Your money will have less purchasing power, so you'll have to spend more time working just to keep your current "standard of living" (which won't even be the same since you need to work more)...
As a lot have pointed out (justly or simply angrily, they're both right, sadly), just tossing money into the system is a short term solution to long term problems. I agree completely with your ideas about appropriate taxation (especially concerning the wealthy and corporations), and I think you really nailed it at the end when you talked about more effective ways to utilize that expanded revenue. Programs that emphasize affordability of necessities like food and housing; universal healthcare; raising minimum wages, etc. The end result of helping those in need could be better achieved without the unintended consequences of things like giving excess to those to whom it would make no difference, or worse, simply amplifying inflation wholesale.
Ummmmmm we caught a glimpse of this in 2020 with the stimulus check like you said, but what about inflation?
*I concur… Over-View your notifications!!!*
If you print the money, then Inflation.
If you use taxes collected, then the money supply does not go up, but the velocity of money will, so still inflation, just not as much.
Stimulus checks were printed money
perpectual UBI would be funded by savings from other programs and taxes)
The problem is that we have ubi in the form of food stamps. You wouldn't believe the stories I've heard about them and none of them are good.
Andrei, great research, amazing storytelling. 👌👏
Universal basic income is not just a good idea, it is the only thing that could save us all from poverty.
Only if we put checks and balances in place to stop monopolies of all kinds and landlords from price gouging. And the free marketers would never be on board with that. They have created this disgusting mess and won't admit to their guilt. To the fact that trickle- down/free-market Capitalism is utterly harmful to society as a whole... and always has been.
The most effective UBI concept I know of is giving everyone $1000 per month but when working or earning money, the more you earn the higher the tax is to compensate for the UBI payment. So if you need the money you get it, if you earn money the advantage reduces as you earn more. The best part of this is when a person loses their income they still get the UBI without having to apply for it. It is also cheaper to run, and removes a lot of administrative costs from the Govt.
The UBI is doable in a way that does not affect inflation when done properly. changes need to happen but it is doable and the people who are in hard times can survive with dignity and people who do free labor (eg stay at home parents) get paid as well.
If that's how it would work then this wouldn't be considered UBI It would be considered welfare which we already have in America. Is this not correct?
@@danielcox7857 No. The UBI is given to everyone and has no conditions attached to the money.
The welfare system is only given after application and has a host of conditions attached and is removed when work is found (or when the expected conditions are met like finding a job, study etc)
The UBI supports those who need it immediately, without condition, and is money for people who do free labor like child rearing.
It also allows people to leave a bad job, or to start a small business, study longer or more study because less income earning is required and so on.
You can call it a form of welfare, but it is not like the current set up.
@@danielcox7857 no welfare has to be applied for and can be taken away. Welfare spends lots of money to NOT give aide similar to how insurance actually (doesn't) work. The point of UBI is it has no red tape to get it is truly guaranteed. Welfare pays for red tape to not help the people who need it so why not spend some of that money to help people instead.
@@bradlyhaskell9821 oh do you mean like free money? That would be really cool. Where does free money come from? I want some now. Why not just get rid of all welfare systems and then see what happens. I think that would be a better first step instead of taxing ourselves more and more. We basically put in roughly about 20% of our money directly into taxes and then the government spends probably 30% or more? A whole country was started because of a 2% tax on tae.
Your talking about welfare
How about eliminating income tax and big corporate monopolies..
*I concur… Over-View your notifications!*
The United States already eliminates big corporate monopolies whenever they get a chance
Well, UBI is like a reduction in income tax (returning tax money back), but if you set it at $1000, then you could also remove social programs that target unemployment as well (so overall, if you added a consumtion tax to pay the gap, your net tax (tax less the UBI) would be less for 90% of the people than what it is now.
How would we pay for road systems, fire departments, etc? Privatize?? 😅 Because THAT works!😂😅 Privatization always creates more problems than it solves...in almost EVERY area.
@@lisaahmari7199 our money is taxed multiple times over, and they're already printing money at a whim.. 😂
If you lose your job 1000$ a month isn't going to cut it. UBI only works if the payouts are enough and it should start with up to a 20k initial payout so people could put a deposit on a house/apt and/or buy a car and/or pay off any debt, and/or invest in a business. Then with 3-5k per month you could not only pay rent/bills but save some money, or take a vacation and live a little. With free education and a 2 year mandatory education required over a 10 year period would help our country in the long run while the UBI payouts would be giving our current economy a boost it has never seen.
The reason you won't see this in any UBI posts is because most of the programs are to keep us as slaves dependent on the 1000$ a month that is "just enough to survive". We won't have any means of income and they say "oh we can help you with 1000$...." which is BS and we need to understand it and say something now before it's set in place and we end up losing again.
Watching your videos from Slovenia!
*I concur… Over-View your notifications!*
How about the government just help with all these greedy corporations. Stop raising housing prices, inflation etc.
Biden's idea for nationwide rent control sounds excellent. Would also be great if all housing-related tax breaks applied only to one house per family; let the house flippers and investors pay their full tax debt on those extra properties.
Wouldn't work mate, wouldn't work
@@nancymcmonarch Great idea.
@@creaturelost4354 Dude, if we didn't have rent control in Oakland, I'd have been forced out of here long ago (and a couple shady landlords def tried until the local judges shot them down). Some of these investors don't know the meaning of "enough money." Seriously, they thought a little old retired lady was ripping them off.
The pandemic showed that the corporate greed would strip away any benefit. It would be better to provide housing and basic food staples
Universal Basic Income is wonderful idea but we also have to regulate corporate price gouging and rental rates. Giving people $1000 might just be a reason for your landlord to raise your rent or for food prices to go up.
Own nothing and like it?
I agree that is the mindset problem of the poor.
I have seen more harm done to people from the lack of money for the basics than anything else. It leaves people in a mindset of despair that just escalates damage to health, mental health, family dynamics, etc.
The real question is...
Will you receive UBI regardless of your annual income?
*I concur… Over-View your notifications!!!*
Why not? But if ure a millionaire, whats the point?
@madden12 sounds like it should be an opt-out, where they can forfeit their UBI or maybe donate it to charity.
@@madden12 net worth and income are totally different....
The world would become a better place if people had more time to focus on their well being and their own passions
No it wouldn't....people are lazy already.
No the world would start falling apart working is to ingrained into our society if people stop society will collapse also if your not in a country that can support themselves your screwed cause who's going to transport anything when you are getting free money so no it wouldn't be a better place unless you think starving millions a better place
17:40 agree. Take care of peoples needs (food, shelter, toiletries, essentials) so any work they choose to pursue will provide them with disposable income to enrich their lives.
The problem with these studies is that it measures the effects on individuals in a small group and not on the economy as a whole. But good news! We did this in 2020! Now for the bad news…
Ha!
@@James-qi6zi and the 2020 experiment had an income limit, so it wasn't true UBI
What happened in 2020 as a result from the few stimulus checks?
💯
That was printed not in circulation
Everybody could afford Popeyes for dinner!
Their chicken is sooo crispy! But I've never had Chik-a-fil, which is the best?
@@MissBlackFry
Sandwich is better at Popeyes, service and everything else is better at Chick
😂
OMG I'm literally eating Popeyes for my dinner right now!
@@ladasodaexplains3355me too!
We may not need a UBI for all citizens, but no one deserves to live in poverty or homelessness. It's been said that you can judge a society by how well it treats its most vulnerable. So far, most countries don't pass this test. There needs to be a minimum income level that all citizens can rely on. It won't make them rich, but it will give them a solid foundation to improve their lives and move into productive and rewarding careers.
like it or not automation and AI will force ubi no matter what you do, it's inevitable since it'll replace all the jobs
Cant replace plumbers, hairstylists, massage... and many others
@@madden12 all of these will EASILY be replaced
@@SMGA14 define easy... Are you saying a robot will come to my house and fix plumbing? 🤡
@Soljarag5 yes lmao, what do you think they're making figure 01 and 02 for, it's literally on their website they plan to eliminate these kind of dangerous and boring jobs
It's not ubi if it's targeted to the unemployed
*I concur… Over-View your notifications!!*
UBI by Definition goes to everybody. What are you talking about
@@mandypants226: the tests had income limits. So it's not really universal.
@@chukazzz659universal is when it's fully active. Universal will also be given to the global population. There's no reason for corporations to go along with it.
The unemployed will keep unemployed
There are basic economic mechanisms that guarantee UBI will always harm society.
Well, inflation will get really bad, and that's the biggest negative side affect, if its going to be paid through printing money (things got so bad). If its paid through taxes, it might negatively affect the business environment (i.e. brain drain from less investment).
*I concur… Over-View your notifications!!!*
so whats the probelm with inflation, the UBI would surely be inflation adjusted on a yearly/monthly basis? it could inflate the national debat away and als be an onavoidable tax for the rich, no offshore tax havens can safe you from the inflation tax lol
@@hansnotig6250 Inflation is bad for anyone who doesn't own hard assets. So at first, only low income earners would need UBI but as inflation worsens, anyone not receiving UBI would start quickly falling towards that "low income earner" level until pretty much everyone needs UBI. National debt would just get rapidly worse as we couldn't feasibly tax people enough to pay off the current debt and the rapidly accumulating UBI debt. The rich only have so much money to tax. Even many of them can't out earn a money printer stuck in overdrive
@hansnotig6250 the problem will be no company or business will want to be here since they will get taxed more so we wouldn't have anywhere to spend all that ubi you get effectively making it worthless
@@memerthedealer lol not when it's a OECD mimimum tax like the upcoming minimum corparate tax... where should the companies go, to china or india lol, good luck to them than
Fednow will regulate spending if you look at the USA whitehouse 2021 whitepaper. UBI can be given over that median and you'll be limited to the government's basics.
*I concur… Over-View your notifications!!*
Great video! Thanks!
Why is there the presumption that the Earth's resources are non-renewable?
Still cannot define what it is that Bitcoin mines ... 🤔
*I concur… Over-View your notifications!!*
I mean, maybe the oil in the ground will replenish, trees will regrow, water will rain down again, but how long does this take? Surely longer than what we use on a daily basis to support current human life, right? So sure its not "non-renewable" but using renewables at an unsustainable rate is the same as depleting the supply
Mining bitcoin uses a renewable, energy, to mine something finite. Mining brings what remains of the supply into existence
Every bit of automation that replaces a worker should pay taxes like the worker it replaced.
Machines don't get paid.
@@MrPAULONEAL You would estimate the taxes on what the worker it replaced was paying.
@@ehanni lol no
The UBI models I saw would provide enough to meet poverty line and then scale down as income went up. After a certain threshold, no UBI. It would encourage people to work, get better work, etc, while providing a safety net. It would cost significantly less than the amount calculated in this video.
Numbers for demonstration, assuming 15k is poverty line:
No income = 15k per year in UBI - Total = 15K
10k income = 15k per yer in UBI - Total = 25k
15k income = 10k per year in UBI - Total = 25k
so on.
imagine the control the government has on your life when you have to rely on them to that degree
Well right now the people with more money than you have control over you. So either way it's not you. At least this plan is trying to give something to the little guy.
Well, UBI at $1000 is a supplemental income, not a replacement of work income.
You can’t solve all of a society’s problems with just a UBI. You need a UBI, universal healthcare, competent public transit, AND the alternating workweek.
It's not a matter of “pick one,” all four are necessary to build a strong foundation.
Even if you're not interested in all of these yourself, how they affect the people you care about still impacts your life.
No one chose to be born, we shouldn't have to struggle to survive!
Valuable insights from a new channel. Nice.
Should also mention why the study in the US was vastly different is because our economic system is so crap and we don't have universal Healthcare that the fundamental problems still exist.
Yeah I was thinking that the Canadian study did not see much change in heath, because even the poor have healthcare and better diets than the US poor.
For each unit created the old units devalue. This isn’t rocket science. It doesn’t work
*I concur… Over-View your notifications!*
Scott Santens has an article on his site, about the right way to calculate the cost of a UBI.. Not by multiplying $1000 x the population.. Because that doesn't factor in savings on replacing existing welfare, and more importantly, it doesn't factor in the cost of the existing poverty, that a UBI policy would greatly reduce. He calculates the actual cost to be more around $900 billion.
Milton friedman negative income tax is better
In this idea the money would have to flow very often. The idea of saving would be obliterated. And then the idea of immigration lol
? If were getting an extra thousand dollars a month, I'd probably be able to save at least half of it.
@@nancymcmonarch I don't blame you for thinking this way. I thought the same because I'm looking at money through a current-day application.
But in order for ubi to really circulate in a economic system, it's people have to not hoard the cash. In fact, I could see, long after you and I are gone, the govt forbidding it "don't be selfish, don't save it for yourself".
Well with rent in Canada is often over $1500 a month and over $2000 in certain cities, $1000 would help people with jobs, but not quite enough for ones unemployed.
I think it's not enough for the amount of disruption that's coming
*I concur… Over-View your notifications!!*
UBI? Umm, it’s Black Monday, bro
*I concur… Over-View your notifications!!*
I'm definitely for UBI and yeah, automation is a huge issue in the future. The issue, as others have pointed out, isn't about happiness but about relieving some of the burden and setting up a system so that we can deal with more uncertain times. I mean, if we had UBI, recessions would not be as big of a deal. Layoffs wouldn't be as scary. Sudden emergency wouldn't be as detrimental. I think in order to deal with the overhead, we don't limit who would receive it. That takes people to verify income and lots of paperwork. If you just did everyone regardless of their income, then the administration wouldn't need to be big. I also think everyone, including children should receive it but maybe for children, it goes into a trust that they then can pull it out when they hit 18 giving them a huge boost for college, a house, a business, or whatever. And should the worst happen, the money that has built up gets transferred to the parents. For how to pay for it, I don't know. There's a lot we could cut out. A lot of welfare programs wouldn't be needed as that would take its place. Or maybe you keep them as an added boost for those in poverty. But yeah, cutting tax loopholes. I mean, someone shouldn't get a tax write off for buying a yacht.
well... where do you get the money from? eigther you giga inflate your money every month or you have to take away the money from rich people
*I concur… Over-View your notifications!!!*
diffrent taxes, like income, wealth, transaction, inheritance and AI tax... even inflation is a kind of tax... so what exactly is the problem?
if they pay you, they will control you.
And this would be different from now how? Anyone with an employer is controlled to a certain extent. How to dress, when to show up, what to do and how to do it (unless you're really lucky and when new things have to be done they let you figure it out), and don't post anything on social media they can get annoyed about. Of course, the self employed who are making it, could always turn it down or stuff it in a trust fund for some other purpose.
@@scloftin8861 well said. i agree.
They already do.
People at the bottom were able to buy more food for themselves, catch up on rent and bills, fix their car, and get the medical care they've been putting off. That is absolutely huge. I don't need UBI, but I know so many people that do. Rather than make a bunch of programs that have all these hoops and rules and regulations, just give these people some extra cash so they can prioritize what they need. Be it food rent medical. Just have some faith in peoples ability to take care of themselves and give them the finances to do so
Yang Gang rides again. 😂
Massive inflation
One important factor that I didnt hear in your video was how UBI is amazing for worker rights and healthy working environments.
With UBI workers cant be treatened/scared into uncomfortable/unhealthy work as the worker can always quit and live (not just survive) until they find a new job :)
If you give it to everyone, it will devalue with inflation as you're expanding the money supply without adding value.
Alternatively, if you just give it to those who need it the most, then by definition it's not universal.
The end.