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

[BJXDS]

Look at the stories of people getting a Pell grant and going on to have a career that would otherwise have been out of reach if you just want to bat anecdotes back and forth. The notion that the poor are poor because they lack morals is...questionable. Lack work ethic? Again, questionable. Education, I'm with you on that one...but education requires resources to obtain without that dreaded 'socialism.' I don't think anyone would argue education among citizens is increased by publicly funded schools.

That said, I don't think UBI proponents are claiming it's a panacea or that it's a quick fix. SSI didn't completely eliminate poverty among the elderly, but it certainly reduced it. The goal isn't to ensure equal outcomes, there are always going to be people who will squander whatever resources they have regardless of income level, but to ensure a reasonable chance at economic mobility and a floor of income so that you have the opportunity to recover from poor choices or bad luck.

I donÂ’t totally disagree with you, however will UBI will be distubuted to everyone including convicted felons? If so, I think it safe to assume they have questionable morals and work ethics. The point is UBI is a form of wealth redistribution. There is nothing in this life that is free so where is the money coming from and where is it going? It is coming from those that have and going to those that donÂ’t.

[Sensei]

No, the $500 is not defined by the poverty rate. It would approach 50% of the current poverty rate, but not quite. It is, as best I can tell, a fairly arbitrary number based on available funds and the desired sample size. There is no methodology provided as to how they came by the number.



Then go back and reread it. I didn't tell you how I feel, I gave you facts, which you are free to research yourself and verify or simply take me at my word. It's not a "feel".

As far as alternatives, there's a few ways economists measure it (and, btw, are pretty universal in their agreement the census poverty rate is garbage). Rather then reinvent the wheel, read:

A broad overview of an alternative:

https://www.brookings.edu/opinions/h...asure-poverty/

and for a discussion of alternatives and the various pros and cons of the more common measurements:

http://freakonomics.com/2011/09/14/w...r-consumption/

Or if you want to go way down the rabbit hole, you can start looking at "multi-dimensional" measurements, which include things like infant mortality rates (an indication of poor nutrition and lack of access to health care)

Very broadly speaking, various income counting methods are the easiest to measure but the least reliable. Consumption is harder to measure, but more reliable and allows for regional differences (how much is spent on housing in NYC vs tiny town USA, which isn't counted in income-only methods). Multi-dimensional is, in theory, the most accurate but also the hardest to measure and the most open to interpretation (what's included, and how is it weighted? Is renter vs home owners weighted higher or lower than access to health care?)

As to which is "best" or which we should use to evaluate this experiment...I don't know and I doubt you or I are going to have the raw data and apply the methodology ourselves. We'll have to see what methodology the people running the experiment choose, and evaluate it from there.

Nobody said that $500/month as a sole source of income was sufficient to bring someone above the poverty line; the argument has been that proponents of the $500/month UBI are touting it as a means to improve the poverty in Stockton. It’s an idea so good it had to be tried in places like Finland...and Keyna. It didn’t work in Finland due to a combination of poor design and political turmoil - go figure.

Again, I’m perfectly fine using whichever measure you choose. However, most of those measures are not going show that the “real poverty” rate in America has markedly improved over the past fifty years and $22 Trillon invested. Take for example this passage from the Brookings Institute article that you cited:

In New York, where the official U.S. poverty measure finds 18% of the city is poor, the new measure (largely because of housing costs) finds 23%. But the picture will be more accurate. New York found rates differed little for children but were much higher for the elderly because of out-of-pocket medical expenditures.

I dare say that the phenomenon of higher than reported poverty will be repeated in other major metropolitan centers where housing costs are high. It goes to the heart of my argument - despite increasing attempts at income redistribution by the State, wealth disparities have increased and poverty rates (however you choose to measure them) have, at best, remained relatively flat. Yes, the standard of living for Americans has risen across the board thanks largely to technology, but the number of people considered poor or disadvantaged is not improving in America. This is in keeping with various other indicators of societal wellbeing (literacy, private health insurance rates, personal debt, birth rate, average life span, etc.) that are not looking up for us right now despite record numbers of people receiving transfer payments - for whatever reason. Hence my skepticism that yet another form of transfer payment is going to reverse that trend...or make Stockton a desirable place to live.

[BehindBlueI's]

Nobody said that $500/month as a sole source of income was sufficient to bring someone above the poverty line; the argument has been that proponents of the $500/month UBI are touting it as a means to improve the poverty in Stockton.

Then, frankly, I've no idea what you're talking about.

I assumed that the $500/month in Stockton was based on the poverty rate

The poverty line is also what is used by the UBI proponents in their determination of what defines a “basic” income in terms of a dollar amount.

So, first it was to show that $22 trillion in spending hadn't affected poverty. Then it was what Stockton was based on. Now it's...what? Irrelevant. Right. It's about poverty, not Poverty Rate.

However, most of those measures are not going show that the “real poverty” rate in America has markedly improved over the past fifty years and $22 Trillon invested.

Prove that. Show me what the methodologies do show. (Hint: Read the second link I posted, which contains charts such as this...)

[JohnO]

Perhaps one needs to reflect upon the history of giving handouts and what that has done to society.

Some folks will argue that many have been helped. I believe in many cases those who used it as a hand up would have found a way. More often we created and will continue to create a dependent class. What ever you subsidize you get more of.

[BehindBlueI's]

Eventually my attention span crashed so I probably missed a point or two in the thread. But, my wife and I have lived below our means throughout our lengthy marriage, and as teachers we certainly were not high wage earners. As a result of a frugal life style we saved enough money to supplement a meager retirement income. Hence we are not broke but would be had we not made a great effort to save for the future. I drive a 17 year old truck and wear cheap clothes. I bristle at the idea of subsidizing others, some of whom will remain impoverished despite government handouts.

@willie

I'm going to make the assumption you were a public school teacher. A quick look at Texas teacher salaries said you'd be subsidizing nobody, you would be a net gainer of somewhere between $3-$6k under most any UBI (depending on which UBI and what your salary actually was, I'm assuming $40-$50k in today's money)

That said, how is public education funded? By all of us subsidizing it, if we have children or not. We all know some of those students aren't going to accumulate the skills the schools try to impart. Some are immoral, lazy, and lack worth ethic. Do you "bristle" at subsidizing public education?

[NH Shooter]

Do you "bristle" at subsidizing public education?

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.

[JAD]

I personally don’t think it’s a poor comparison at all. I’m indifferent to whether a public schoolteacher gets paid for doing his job or sits at home and eats bon bons on the couch; it doesn’t affect my kid positively and it probably is a net negative for him.

[Sensei]

Then, frankly, I've no idea what you're talking about.





So, first it was to show that $22 trillion in spending hadn't affected poverty. Then it was what Stockton was based on. Now it's...what? Irrelevant. Right. It's about poverty, not Poverty Rate.



Prove that. Show me what the methodologies do show. (Hint: Read the second link I posted, which contains charts such as this...)

I suppose that the problem that I’m having with Sullivan’s work on purely consumption-based poverty measures is that it increasingly exaggerates the impact of one parameter - healthcare consumption, particularly by the elderly. Keep in mind that we spend half healthcare dollars in the last 5 years of life, so this particular demographic has a disproportionate impact on consumption based poverty across all generations. This will be the case as long as we continue to consume the majority of our healthcare in our twighlight and have a aging population. So yes, consumption based estimates of poverty will show a downward trend over the past 50 years. But, keep in mind that Sullivan’s data is kept afloat largely by Medicare spending that cannot be sustained into the distant future.

However, using the NAS recommendations for measuring poverty instead of the Official CB’s, the Center for American Progress (left leaning) states that that poverty thresholds and rates would be higher which agrees with my earlier statement:

https://www.americanprogress.org/iss...verty-measure/

Still, several things seem clear, both from experimental work done by the Census Bureau and Bureau of Labor Statistics, and from the experience of New York City, which has recently implemented a local poverty measure based on the NAS recommendations:
Poverty thresholds would be higher than under the current measure. For example, in 2007, the official poverty threshold for a two-parent, two-child family was $21,027. For that year, according to the Census Bureau, an NAS-style threshold would have been in the range of $23,465 to $27,744, depending on how home mortgage principal and medical costs were treated. In New York City, the threshold for a family of four calculated under an NAS approach was $26,138 in 2006, as compared with the official threshold of $20,444.

Poverty rates would be higher. In 2007 the official rate was 12.5 percent, but the census experimental work suggested that the poverty rate would have been in the range of 15.1 to 16 percent under the approaches most similar to the NAS recommendations. Under New York City’s calculations, the poverty rate for the city would have been 23 percent in 2006 under an NAS approach, versus 18 percent under the official measure.

Elderly poverty would go up. How much it would go up would particularly depend on how households without mortgage costs were treated, but it seems clear that elderly poverty would rise, both because thresholds were increased and because medical expenses were given consideration.

[mtnbkr]

After all, collecting transfer payment while owning a car, TV, or cell phone seems...well, a little wrong.

I'm going to pick at nits here, but I disagree. Depending on where you live, all three may be nearly required in order to, well, live. As a nation, we do not have a good public transportation infrastructure, especially outside of major metro areas (think rural South for example). As a result, a car is a necessity for many. TV, like it or not, is a major method of sharing news and information with the populace. One needs a TV or the Internet in order to remain informed and aware. I know there are rugged individualists reading this who will say they don't even own a TV, but they obviously have a connection to the world via the Internet, so it's not really a counterpoint. Finally, a phone of some sort is necessary. These days, you can have a cell phone about as cheap as a landline. There is a societal expectation that you'll have a cellphone (and be reachable 24x7) as well as a smartphone with data plan. It might seem like a luxury to those of us who didn't grow up with them, but many things are significantly more difficult without them these days.

We want these people to get jobs and be productive, but I would be challenged to do so without a car, phone, and tools such as email. That's the world in which we live. I would not expect someone who is struggling to get to that productive stage to be any more successful without those same tools.

Now, if you're talking about high-end versions of the tools you mentioned, then I agree. A person struggling to get by doesn't need an expensive car, TV, or Phone, but they do need solid working examples of each.

Chris

[BehindBlueI's]

I suppose that the problem that I’m having with Sullivan’s work on purely consumption-based poverty measures is that it increasingly exaggerates the impact of one parameter - healthcare consumption, particularly by the elderly.

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?

So yes, consumption based estimates of poverty will show a downward trend over the past 50 years. But, keep in mind that Sullivan’s data is kept afloat largely by Medicare spending that cannot be sustained into the distant future.

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...

However, using the NAS recommendations for measuring poverty instead of the Official CB’s, the Center for American Progress (left leaning) states that that poverty thresholds and rates would be higher which agrees with my earlier statement:

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:

Cutler and Katz (1991) note that the fraction of
individuals with income below the poverty line is much larger than the fraction with
consumption below the poverty line. Slesnick (1993) also emphasizes that poverty rates based
on total expenditures are much lower than those based on income.

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.