Universal Basic Income (California...of course...)

[BehindBlueI's]

IMO, a poor comparison. As a former school teacher and trades instructor, providing the skills and knowledge for people to succeed and contribute to society is obviously a good investment. It also instills pride, dignity and a feeling of self-worth that government subsistence programs often robs people of. UBI strikes me as yet another progressive agenda that will only lead to greater dependence and serve to cultivate the poisonous "society owes me" mindset afflicting certain segments of our population.

I'm no social justice warrior but do appreciate this thought-provoking conversation.

It is a good investment, but it's also "socialism" and "wealth redistribution" as being used in this thread. Everyone pays for the education of those children, regardless of if they use the schools or not. UBI and public education are pretty similar, provide a floor for everyone regardless of ability to afford it on their own, with the hope that they take that opportunity and do better in society than they otherwise would.

So, having enough money for food, clothes, and housing lacks the potential to instill pride, dignity, and the feeling of self-worth that public education gives? As a former school teacher, did you see any difference in outcome among students who lacked those basic resources vs those who had access to them? Did the hungry kids get that same pride, dignity, self-worth and accumulate the same skills and knowledge? If so, why do we have a school lunch program for poor students?

[fixer]

When you resort to expanding to the point of absurdity, you're arguing against something nobody is proposing and ignoring what's actually being proposed. The slippery slope argument can make literally anything absurd.



I've no idea what you're trying to say. I was showing Sensei why that graph is useless to show social programs haven't affected the standard of living, as it doesn't track what he thought it tracks.

The point for both of my comments was to show that the same outcome of poverty line definition can be expected from determining a ubi. There is no sense in trying to decipher the logic of how such things are currently defined and calculated. That we give the state this power at all is what I find fallacious. Once that power is given to the state it is out of your hands. I mean really who gets to determine such things? Once they get to determine such things as poverty and basic income then those things are automatically subject to the whims of politics.

[NH Shooter]

So, having enough money for food, clothes, and housing lacks the potential to instill pride, dignity, and the feeling of self-worth that public education gives?

With education students still have to work to succeed. Those who did the best appear to have a sense of pride about their achievements.

As a former school teacher, did you see any difference in outcome among students who lacked those basic resources vs those who had access to them?

I could never see any firm connection between economic status and academic achievement. In fact the highest achievers seemed to come from families with the most modest incomes. The Valedictorian in my high school class of 1800 students (1972) was certainly one of them.

Did the hungry kids get that same pride, dignity, self-worth and accumulate the same skills and knowledge?

See my response above. Some were on welfare, but none in my experience were starving.

Based on my limited teaching exposure geographically (Long Island, NY), I can honestly state I saw no correlation between economic status and academic achievement. Those who did well academically appeared to me to be motivated to do so. When recognition was given for their achievement, their economic status made no difference in the very obvious look of pride and accomplishment on their faces. It was instilling this sense of pride and confidence in their abilities to succeed that was the best gift that I as a teacher could give to my students.

[BehindBlueI's]

With education students still have to work to succeed. Those who did the best appear to have a sense of pride about their achievements.



I could never see any firm connection between economic status and academic achievement. In fact the highest achievers seemed to come from families with the most modest incomes. The Valedictorian in my high school class of 1800 students (1972) was certainly one of them.



See my response above. Some were on welfare, but none in my experience were starving.

Based on my limited teaching exposure geographically (Long Island, NY), I can honestly state I saw no correlation between economic status and academic achievement. Those who did well academically appeared to me to be motivated to do so. When recognition was given for their achievement, their economic status made no difference in the very obvious look of pride and accomplishment on their faces. It was instilling this sense of pride and confidence in their abilities to succeed that was the best gift that I as a teacher could give to my students.

Of course they still have to work to succeed. That's not my question, though. If you're hungry, do you learn as well? Simple question. The fact some of them were on welfare, if they weren't, what would have been their situation? If you observed zero correlation between family income and outcomes, I guess my next question would be what grades you taught. There's pretty strong correlations on graduation rates, GPAs, etc. Of course there are exceptions. I'm one, my ex-wife was one, but exceptions don't negate trends.

UBI also requires you to work to succeed, even the most generous of proposals seems to be around $13k a year, with most being $6-$10k a year, for the very bottom wage earners. Like I said early on, not many other than the cup shaking urban outdoorsman are going to be satisfied with just that and not work or try to improve themselves. It's a base and an opportunity, just like public schools.

The point for both of my comments was to show that the same outcome of poverty line definition can be expected from determining a ubi. There is no sense in trying to decipher the logic of how such things are currently defined and calculated. That we give the state this power at all is what I find fallacious. Once that power is given to the state it is out of your hands. I mean really who gets to determine such things? Once they get to determine such things as poverty and basic income then those things are automatically subject to the whims of politics.

How do we determine speed limits? That public education is for certain grades (ie, up to 12th grade but not college)? The age at which Medicare is available? How much mercury you can have in fish? How much we pay a soldier? If your argument is we can't determine such things or that any decision inevitably becomes an extreme, I'm not buying it.

But let's say I do. What's your alternative? Do you think private charity can fill the role, and won't be subject to the whims of popularity? Or we should simply not offer assistance to the poor, you got yourself in that mess, get yourself out?

[BehindBlueI's]

At this point, it seems we're going down a host of rabbit holes. I'd simply encourage everyone to research what a UBI is and isn't, and what our economy and standard of living would look like if current social programs were eliminated in favor of one. It's not a panacea, and there's both foreseeable and unforeseeable issues. However have an opinion based on the facts, not assumptions and demonization of the poor. You may find you still disagree with a UBI, and again, I'm ok with that if it's based on actual data. Having an opinion based on what you assume and what the media told you is just talking about shoulder thingies that go up.

With that, I'm bowing out. If you have specific questions you'd like me to address or would like some reading recommendations, feel free to PM me.

[Sensei]

I'm not sure how he exaggerates health care consumption. Can you elaborate on that, as I'm not sure what you mean? That because the elderly spend more on healthcare it will make it look like younger people are poor? That elderly poor don't count as poor? That out of pocket health care expenses won't contribute to poverty?



Ok, so are you now saying poverty *has* declined or are you still going with it's remained static? And, again, I'd like to know how Sullian's data is based so much on Medicare. If it is, it's a pretty solid indicator that the program has greatly reduced poverty...



It does not for two reasons. One, it gives specific subsets that would be higher. One of which is the elderly, who you above say taint the data to make it look more effective because of Medicare... Two, it's higher than the census poverty rate, not 1963 poverty rates, which I thought you now agree with based on your acknowledgement of a downward trend over the past 50 years but you don't agree with it?



Note all lines trend down, but some are lower than others based on the measurement. Again, I'm confused by your argument.

Let's stick with Sullivan, though. From his actual paper:



His paper also acknowledges there are better ways to actually measure poverty but they rely heavily on self-reporting, which is notoriously inaccurate. So, he's not pretending his equation is the end-all-be-all, but simply a better way and way that's viable based on data that can be reasonably assumed to be accurate.

All of which, to me, further argues for a UBI instead of the patchwork of current programs. It's difficult to track and verify who should be eligible. With a UBI there's no incentive to fake a disability, to lie about savings in the bank, to exaggerate your rent, to work under the table (for this purpose, lying for tax purposes would remain a motive), etc.

I’m not saying that the poverty rate has declined. I’m saying that Sullivan’s data, which relies only on consumption-based data, makes it appear that it has declined. That is because consumption based data are heavily influenced by factors such as healthcare spending that poorly represent the experience of the larger population. For example, Sullivan’s data continued to suggest improvements in poverty from 2009-2015. That should give you some pause; the fact that poverty rates appeared to improve during the worst recession since Carter is a red flag. In other words, I acknowledge the appearance of his graph and disagree with his premise.

The CB data or alternative measures using the NAS recommendations suggests to me that poverty in America is relatively flat (maybe a little increased depending on how it’s measured) across the US population with variations in either direction across certain demographics. This is in keeping with our dismal performance at improving the drivers of poverty such addiction, out of wedlock childbirth, access to mental healthcare, etc.

Got to go. Cheers.

[willie]

My salary was subsidized in the same way that any other "public servant's" salary was subsidized. I've never had to call for help from the police or fire department yet I happily continue to pay taxes to support these agencies. We have no children but do not object to paying school taxes. About money. When I began teaching in 1970, my salary was $5500 per year. When I retired in 2002, it was $42,000 per year. My retirement income is $27,000 per year. Texas teachers do not draw social security as a rule. I get a small amount from having worked second jobs. You write most perceptive ideas in your many posts, which I enjoy reading. However, in this one you and I are on a different wave length. We bristle at different issues.

[NH Shooter]

If you observed zero correlation between family income and outcomes, I guess my next question would be what grades you taught.

Middle school 8th grade science. While I don't know how any of my students ultimately fared in life, the Valedictorian of my class (mentioned in my previous post) received scholarships, graduated from MIT and had a career at Bell Labs. He now lives here in the northeast, retired and enjoying life playing the sax with a band at local venues.

At 64 years old, it's been my observation that short of mental defect determination to succeed pretty much trumps everything.

[Sensei]

Delete

[Drang]

Finland to end basic income trial after two years | World news | The Guardian
Notes: It's the Grauniad, and the "sample pool" was small enough not to qualify as UBI.