Yea but I thought they left out spaces, between words.

What if a Strong Basic Income is indexed to price rises, just like the Trump tariffs? So the more companies raise prices, like countries raising their tariffs, the more basic income you get, like Trump increasing US tariffs in response?

Do Social Security checks create inflation?

Not necessarily. As stated in the summary, people on UBI were more willing to change jobs, or continue further education.

While this might lead to higher education prices, but not necessarily additional inflation overall. I expect those who changed jobs, may had chosen careers that may pay less where they have a more fulfilling career without the worry about meeting basic needs. Other options would they may have chosen higher risk and possibly higher reword type of work as well.

Speaking from my own person

> inflation caused by all of the UBI checks.

They won't cause any inflation. The idea of UBI is to redistribute wealth more equitably, not create it out of nothing. It may change how money is spent, but not how much.

There wouldn't be any inflation, if the UBI isn't fed by money printing.

Both economies are dealing with cost disease -- an economic phenomenon where discretionary purchases like enormous TVs and phones become cheap but non-discretionary purchases like housing, food, health care and education become expensive. This is particularly in the US, which is why Americans have more stuff than ever before, yet feel economically less secure than at any time since the Great Depression.

UBI would definitely make that iPhone 16 Pro Max more expensive, because demand for high end flagship phon

There's no "universal" definition for UBI though. It was a study, it provides some information. You don't like it. That's what we learned.

But I guess what you're saying is that if only it was UBI then unemployment would be encouraged? Is that your definition of UBI?

I'm gonna guess there's only one reason you had in mind, because everyone who criticizes studies like these only ever HAVE one reason: "It's not really UNIVERSAL basic income because it didn't include wealthier people."

Well the thing is, nobody really gives a shit what people with a lot of money will do with some extra pocket change. There is zero point in wasting limited funds for a study of how extra money will change people's behaviors/lives, if the people in question already have enough money to do basi

Why don't you try a crack at Fermat's supposedly elegant proof then. I'm sure there's room for that...

Well no, it wasn't universal. What it did was suggest that the unsupported claims about human psychology that people who received a basic income would work less were not true. In fact, the group of people who received the checks continued to work just as much as the group of people who didn't.

It also calls into question some basic assumptions about human beings that underlay the "science" of most economics.

It wasn't UBI from an economic point of view, but it absolutely fitted UBI perfectly from an end user point of view, which is all that was needed for determining people behaviour.

It was Universal: Given without means testing or conditions.

It was Basic: Covering essential needs.

It was Income.

Now if you want to study the viability of UBI as an economic platform for a government the definition changes, it wasn't Universal since it didn't apply to everyone and thus couldn't take the place of many government ser

Am I the only one to remember how pot leagalization arguments were met with this response too, "it might work in the Netherlands but not in Washington state", and how that argument has been dismissed by trying it anyway?

No conversation couldn't be made better with some bigotry, amirite? Maybe if Germany had blacks, huh?

Most people don't want to live a basic life on the minimum needed to survive. When they give up it's usually because they see that the system is rigged against them, or they feel that there are no opportunities.

It's particularly bad in the US.

I never quite got this and where is the evidence of this lack of work ethic outside of personal anecdote, where is the data? UE is very low so American's are working. We don't have a very strong welfare system and much of it is tied to work so unless a person has money to live already or is disabled or old they have to work in the US.

Is this monthly EITC thing quantifiable in any data? We should have a data point of quits or firings during tax refund time I would imagine if this is true.

So when they could afford to take a vacation, they took vacations. How is this an argument against a UBI?

If you legalized drugs would addicts even need state support? Did your morals cause a huge risk premium that meant you couldn't support your habit with miminum wage?

> Removing life penalties for people that make bad decisions is bad for society as a whole.

> people who get where they are through bad life choices should be forced to be on the straight and narrow before they get one iota of support. i.e. drug use or anything like that that is still going on should make anyone ineligible for any type of support at all. And there are other things people that people did in their past that limit their upward mobility such drug or criminal records (past). Those things hurt your money making potential as well but those people should not get assistance either because of bad life choices.

This is how you create a permanent criminal underclass.

No social support because you are/were a criminal/druggie.

-have to commit crimes to survive / take drugs as an escape.

--repeat.

"I have no problem helping those people. But people who get where they are through bad life choices should be forced to be on the straight and narrow before they get one iota of support."

In other words, your "charity" entitles you to pick winners and losers. Empathy is conditional, cruelty is justifiable.

"...i.e. drug use or anything like that that is still going on should make anyone ineligible for any type of support at all."

Why? And what is "anything like that? Sounds more religious than anything.

"And there are other things people that people did in their past that limit their upward mobility such drug or criminal records (past)."

Because of biases like yours.

"There is a great life lesson that SO many people never learn."

It's not really a life lesson when it's permanent.

"There are bad decisions that you can make that take 20 seconds to make, that can (and should) affect you the entire rest of your life."

Sure, for others but not for you. Empathy is for help that you need, cruelty is for help others need.

"And once that decision is made, you pay for it your entire life in one way or another. You can still "make it" but it becomes vastly harder to make it."

Because the more guaranteed losers there are, the better the odds are you aren't one of them. You're just pulling up the ladders, you deserve all the flames you imagined you'd get.

That's just 100% false. When you have a safety net you can take risks. When you don't have one, you take the least risky path. When you see what happens to people who fail and it's bad, you won't take risks. If you see people bounce back or at least survive, then you will take risks. Why do you think the rich get richer? Reference: [1]https://fivethirtyeight.com/fe... [fivethirtyeight.com]

[1] https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/rich-kids-stay-rich-poor-kids-stay-poor/

> There are bad decisions that you can make that take 20 seconds to make, that can (and should) affect you the entire rest of your life.

Why? No seriously why? And when you formulate your answer have a think about what it does to someone to put them in that situation. Do you think a person that you have locked out of being a productive member of society is a benefit or a hinderance to your society?

Next time you're robbed at knife point by someone with a criminal record who can't get a job or survive in any way other than crime, I hope you take a moment for a bit of introspection. And then I hope you get injured. But to be clear, I hope you d

People always imagine they'd do things differently than they actually do them, and UBI is not a free ride. UBI should be considered a baseline guarantee and efficient safety net, not a way to solve personal motivation problems. Those are different things.

> There are many who want to make you food or sell you things, but simply can't make enough profit to pay their bills.

You can usually get better results by increasing the amount of money you can earn before you have to pay taxes. This encourages people to work and lets them earn more money when they work.

UBI devalues money so we end up at the same place. It's the choices we make and the laws we enact that create the situation. Printing more money does not fix the problem.

"Society as a whole is never made better."

False. Your problem is your definition of "better".

"Unlike free trade, in which both parties benefit from a transaction, ..."

False. Your problem is your definition of "benefit".

"...in UBI schemes, there are only hosts and parasites."

False, for obvious reasons.

"Instead of fostering a system in which everyone involved in trade can benefit, we have people today creating classes of haves and have-nots, where the haves and have-nots are decided not by merit or individu

A Jewish conspiracy if ever there was one...

That is not true. If people want to work, they will work on those underpaid jobs also, because there is nothing else available.

But if you think money will make them demand better pay, how about UBS then? Lets give people food, house, healthcare and minimum stuff needed for life. Everything we give should be really the minimum that can be provided with cheapest possible price.

If you want a better house, better food, clothes that don't make you look poor or if you want to buy a game console. You need to get a

> Once we agree that some companies have to let go of their underpaid slaves and pay people for these things, we can introduce UBI.

This is an incorrect conclusion.

> You will suddenly have to pay a lot more for the jobs that are unpopular. That's how it should be in capitalism, demand and supply

This is the correct conclusion. The fact that this is true doesn't mean UBI shouldn't not be implemented, it means that when it is implemented that companies will either adapt or they will be replaced by startups or companies that have adapted.

The fasted way to end a bad practice is cut off it's source of funding. Therefore, if you do not wish to have virtual slaves in a society then making the practice economically unsustainable is the solution.

No, the problem with UBI is that if it's truly universal, having tons of babies becomes a business model.

Birth control must be a condition of a UBI.

So now every religious person is going to have a shitfit ... you can't tell me not to have 4 wives and 40 children. No need for muslims to feel insult. It wasn't uncommon for Catholics to have 20 kids in the early to mid 20th century. Check with Monty Python if you don't believe me.

Let the downvoting begin.

No, you don't have to pay workers "what the work is worth". There is no absolute value on anyone's time other than that set by minimum wage laws. If you can figure out how to get people to pay more for the same work, you're free to try. Many of the highest wage earners with unique skill sets and/or some other form of leverage can negotiate fat paychecks despite sometimes not doing very much at all.

Some of the participants were only getting around $1200/month from their jobs. Unless you regard such a job (especially in a high cost-of-living country) to be a "career", you can easily see that your concern is non-existent for these people. They'd be just as likely to take a break from their low-end employment for three years as they would on a semi-permanent basis due to UBI.