The biggest danger with UBI I think isn't the idea itself: it's the fact that it can be leaned upon as a excuse to shut down other areas of public investment, and perhaps act as a spur to unnecessary privatization as well. While I do think any UBI should be leveraged to cut down on other social security initiatives, any such trade-off would need to be carefully calculated and weighed against specific circumstances. The worry is that UBI will be used as an excuse for what would amount to a public firesale. That would be awful. — StreetlightX

A purely economic analysis of the idea is that UBI is a more efficient means of tackling poverty and social transfer schemes. Keep in mind that many people choose to stay on benefits because they'd lose them if they got a job as it currently stands in the US.

Thanks for that. A rational and cool-headed neo-classical economist comes to the win. I especially like his implicit argument that there's a cutoff point where you can make 30k a year and still enjoy the benefits of UBI and stick with that or pursue a degree or higher wage job, which would then enable you to go beyond 30k a year and remove the dependency trap many conservatives argue over. And, yes, some cutoff would be necessary to even consider the economic ramifications of implementing UBI.

It would make work optional and render self-reliance moot.

That all depends on how much we're giving away for basic needs. As per the OP, and I do agree with the quoted sentiment to some degree, the intent is only to provide for basic needs, not any more than that.

That seems to get confused a lot or even distorting the definition of a monthly allotted amount to cover these basic needs.

Anyway, if anyone cares to express their thoughts about the benefits, not necessarily economic, then please let me know.

I can start:

Egalitarian: UBI is inherently egalitarian. Each person receives the same amount regardless of how much they make.

Crime reduction: Although this is not studied in any manner, I would think that with the basic necessities in life taken care of, crime would seem like a less likely alternative to provide for those necessities in life.

Drugs: While some may spend their basic income on drugs, it would enable them to seek out more rewarding occupations in life.

Poverty: Well, again I don't have evidence to support the correlation between UBI and poverty rates, it would seem that in the long run, as mentioned, people would seek out ways to enrichen their lives through education or employment.

Heath: Having enough to provide for your needs, you now have time to take care of yourself and mental health would be promoted by reducing anxiety and apathy among the disenfranchised.

...

The principle of money being taken from those who have worked for it and given to those who haven't? Sometimes people care more about the means than the end. — Michael

I fail to see this as some plausible argument that conservatives are dogmatic ideologues. After all proposals for UBI has been made by conservatives in the US for some time now. Nixon, Friedman, etc.

I believe the issue is the principle of money being taken from those who have worked for it and given to those who haven't. — Michael

Yes; but, if you could present to a conservative-minded economist the notion that net benefits of UBI would drastically (in my opinion) outweigh the negatives, then what's the issue then?

Yeah, that's a book on my to-read list in regards to this topic.

What are your thoughts about UBI in general though?

Why are conservatives so opposed to it despite the economic argument that could be made in its favor?

Food stamps already have a long litany of opinions on what should not be allowed, the destination of such a conversation. — AngleWyrm

If your arguing over moral hazard, then sure. Some people might decide to spend their basic income on rather stupid things, like drugs, gambling, or risky investments. However, I don't think this would be the majority of cases, and money can be tracked. So, given the minuscule amount being offered to people in general, then I don't think it's an issue worth talking about with great relevance.

Post your budget pie, if you wish to discuss how 'you' spend money. — AngleWyrm

Well, I am on SSI. $500 of my $635 goes to rent, and since I live with my family which helps with food costs, I get to keep the remainder for grooming, health needs, and transportation costs.

That's pretty much what the money was intended to be used for and that's how it is spent by me.

Ok back to trying to sleep for me. Night.

I get around.

Then through the nettle to the stars it is.

Because we can accept it from the Providence of authority of Marcus Aurelius.

Turn away and never look back at the briars.

We're in the Twilight Zone.

Your cucumber must be bitter.

Here is the quote.

Is your cucumber bitter? Throw it away. Are there briars in your path? Turn aside. That is enough. Do not go on and say, "Why were things of this sort ever brought into this world?" neither intolerable nor everlasting - if thou bearest in mind that it has its limits, and if thou addest nothing to it in imagination. Pain is either an evil to the body (then let the body say what it thinks of it!)-or to the soul. But it is in the power of the soul to maintain its own serenity and tranquility. . . .

It was salty, that is all.

Is your cucumber bitter? Then throw it away.

Said Marcus Aurelius.

I ate a pickle.

Just to get acquainted with the topic if some are interested:

http://www.bostonfairhousing.org/timeline/1934-1968-FHA-Redlining.html

https://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/10/19/498536077/interactive-redlining-map-zooms-in-on-americas-history-of-discrimination

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/24/upshot/how-redlinings-racist-effects-lasted-for-decades.html?_r=0

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2015/05/racism_in_real_estate_landlords_redlining_housing_values_and_discrimination.html

https://www.americanbar.org/publications/human_rights_magazine_home/human_rights_vol36_2009/fall2009/residential_segregation_after_the_fair_housing_act.html

Rule one states that "Rules cannot be imposed on other rules previously made from henceforth." Already, this is problematic, because of course the rules will need to interact with one another. — Noble Dust

If the rules obey each other, then they are interacting.

The Dems have already shown a willingness to give the country over to a second-rate crook who happened to make it to the big times, simply because they didn't have a candidate politicaly sexy enough. — Akanthinos

Yeah, that's the Fox News cool aid there, along with some (actually considerable) Russian meddling.

* relatively to Obama. — Akanthinos

What do you mean by that?

Hah, don't count on low voter turnout next election. Something the Democrats have always struggled with. Working class Americans aren't all armchair "economic" fascists educated by Fox News.

White veterans also were eligible for college loans or grants. Blacks (and Mexicans, Aboriginals, and Asians) were systematically excluded. — Bitter Crank

Could you post evidence in support of this? I can't find any information online on it.

Rule one.

Rules cannot be imposed on other rules previously made from henceforth.

The FBI works in mysterious ways.

Maybe, but not in a democracy, common...

Hah! Let's see what Mueller has to say about that.

I typically hold politicians to a higher standard than the masses.

My take:

Aging populations living longer, rising costs of living, lack of education among the poor, having more children to support relative to the mean (also starting at an earlier age), poor ability to save or an inability in some cases due to again lack of education and a rather dismal minimum wage, growing inequality (confounding factor), inability to invest due to no savings, higher unemployment rates among the poor, and so on...

Also, an analysis of change in the population pyramid relative to GDP over time in the US would be pertinent to the discussion. Not sure if anyone is up for a 3-D analysis of that sort, neither can I find anything on the web in regards to such an analysis.

Thanks for that. Now I better understand the rising poverty rates of our millennial generation relative to well-off whites who benefitted from said distorted policies.

So, we practice affirmative action, and decisions shouldn't be driven by emotional reasoning. What's the point?

Yeah show me some evidence of this hypocrisy your talking about.

Haha, but if authoritarians think it's true then so it must be.

Ive been following the comments most Republicans are making on CNN news feeds and elsewhere and they do not seem to have a problem with the comment. In fact they endorse it.

Two wrongs don't make a right.

That's true, but my views on this matter aren't untrue. — Thorongil

What are your views, then?

I didn't wish to imply it. — Thorongil

The truth isn't always convenient to ones views.

I didn't say that. — Thorongil

It was implied.

Is it becoming of a president to say such a thing? Certainly not. But it's not surprising coming from Trump, so there's no reason to be shocked. — Thorongil

So Trump isn't qualified for the position, what else is new?

Rule for Hanover. Wash Fred and get him a nice trim.