The amazing thing is, there are societies out there that do provide those benefits, and there is no doubt they are better off, or happier, and living longer, then we are. You don't have to play make believe to think that.

My cousin married a Norwegian girl and lives over there. They have a lot of services like you mentioned that we don't. They do come at a cost, for sure, but, the benefit to society as a whole is very real.

So 10% not native born vs. 3% undocumented in your example. And I seriously doubt UBI would be going to non-citizens.

What makes Norway's system work is that they plan long term and don't have a rabid fear of paying for services they want on a national level. They created a government pension from their oil wealth that has helped as well.

Of course they'll encounter fewer issues with their 5 million citizens - of which 4.5 million are native born and the majority of the remainder are also of Scandinavian descent - than we will with our 327 million citizens - and 11 million undocumented/illegal immigrants and our melting pot of races and religions and ethnicities and history of slavery. Just look at those numbers: we have twice as many people in the US who aren't citizens and are almost exclusively poor migrants from Mexico and other Hispanic countries, than Norway has people in their country.

Totally disingenuous argument, this Scandinavian comparison, I laugh every time someone brings it up as though it's at all analogous to the US.

"Think about it: you give every working-age person in the country $1,000, what happens to the cost of goods? They rise, dramatically. "

Maybe you already covered this (haven't read the whole thread), but what makes you think this?

I understand, for example, if you provide access to something like student loans, that drives up the demand for higher education, which drives up the prices. If all of the sudden everyone has access to an extra $50-$200K, that will affect the market.

The concept behind universal basic income isn't "extra" money, but replacement money. So today's low income person making $20K/year is tomorrow's out of work person making $20K/year. Lets say the math works a little differently and its $30K/year. Okay, and then over time the market adjusts such that they still have the same relative inflated income to today's $20K/year.

This would assume, of course, some sort of phasing in of the program.

Me to an employee (last year): "Why do you call off at least twice a week?"

Employee to me (said matter-of-factly): "Because I can't live on only two days of pay a week."

I'm 68 and I completely believe that in my lifetime most jobs will be done better by intelegent computers and robots than my men. Now it's fine for you to complain about how lazy the poor people will get when they now longer have their crappy job to go to but what about you. You will not be necessary! You will not have a job to go to! Same for your neighbors in you upper middle class neighborhood. Surgeons, judges, airline pilots, stock brokers; presto, chango, you are done. Can you write computer code? There will probably be a AI computer that can do it better! Maintain the network? Again; you lose!

So, now that you all are facing unemployment, how do you feel about a government mandated minimum yearly salary? And, how much do you want?

I disagree. If you look at college costs, I believe there is a direct correlation between access to federally available tuition assistance and rising costs of tuition

I disagree with almost all of this.

Everyone wants to think their job is safe. Pilots thought they were safe but now we have drones. Yes you say but they have to have a drone pilot in a room somewhere. Put a AI computer in that seat and it can fly 100 drones at once.

So what is your safe job? And how much do you want guaranteed by the government when it's gone?

There have been some threads on here over the past year about the growing impact of robots and AI on the workforce and how it could impact far more than the blue collar fields we all think about. That in mind, Sam Harris - who has one of my favorite podcasts, Waking Up - spoke with Andrew Yang, who's a former CEO and serial entrepreneur and a big-time proponent of a Universal Basic Income. He's also running for President in 2020 with the UBI as his main driver and what he wants to get into the political conversation. Here's the podcast for anyone interested:
https://samharris.org/...versal-basic-income/

Give it a listen, they tackle some of the major benefits and criticisms, the reason why something like this is important and a few other topics.

One thing they DIDN'T tackle, and one of my main criticisms now that I've really started to think about it, is that this would be a majorly regressive program and do tons of damage to low income folks. Think about it: you give every working-age person in the country $1,000, what happens to the cost of goods? They rise, dramatically. For rich people they wouldn't notice, for upper middle and even middle class they'd see it but they'd be able to supplement with the new $1,000 and still be left with 'extra'. For poor people, if we're saying they'd have a choice of their current welfare payout OR the UBI check, they'd be getting minimally more than they had been getting but goods will be far more expensive - i.e. they're fucked. Not to mention goods would be taxed with a VAT and while they'd exclude necessities, it would mean less ability to pay for non-essentials for poor people.

I don't know...I totally agree that we have to figure out a solution asap because 20 years down the road our economy and job market will be dramatically different than it is right now and it'll cause disruptions in a whole host of industries, putting millions and millions out of work, but I don't think the UBI is the way to go. I do think the job bank idea has some merit, need to research that more but it's an interest concept I hadn't heard of.

Anyway, what do people think?

Totally disingenuous argument, this Scandinavian comparison, I laugh every time someone brings it up as though it's at all analogous to the US.

I see those as more short term. And by short-term I mean 1-2 generations. The national unemployment rate is low. Many sectors are desperate for workers.

Anyone unable to find gainful employment right now just isn't trying very hard.

And though I play libral on this forum, I don't think that pouring free money on top of those areas with 50% unemployment is a great motivational strategy to get them to learn new, in-demand skills.

Again, it would depend on how you implement it. I didn't think you'd be adding $1.2T.