DescentBB

It will be interesting to see how this experiment is viewed by leftists- and how its inevitable failure will be explained away.

STOCKTON (CBS/AP) — Stockton plans to give several dozen families $500 a month for a year as part of a program to study the economic and social impacts of giving people a basic income.

The so-called “SEED” project will give a small group of low-income residents a modest, no-strings-attached monthly income. Funded by a million-dollar private grant from a tech group called the Economic Security Project — co-led by Facebook co-founder Chris Hughes — SEED creates a real-world research model of what’s known as universal basic income.

The yearlong program will track what residents do with the money and how having a universal basic income affects their self-esteem and identity.

Stockton mayor Michael Tubbs is coordinating the effort in his city of 300,000 people where 1 in 4 residents lives below the poverty line.

“They were looking for a city to pilot what would a ‘basic income’ look like? And what could that do for people’s lives,” the mayor said.

Why will this fail? Human nature.

http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2018/0 ... xperiment/

The problem with this experiment as with all of the others like it is...

A small sampling cannot foresee how things will turnout when the entire system has to change.

$500/mo won't even pay the rent in most places. It could easily keep a homeless person fed, but it wouldn't get them off the streets.

Spidey wrote: ↑Sun Feb 04, 2018 5:23 pmA small sampling cannot foresee how things will turnout when the entire system has to change.

Not true at all. You can use the data to make predictions, then test those predictions is different experiments, and so on until you have a good model to develop policy from. lern2science.

I’m not saying you can’t glean information from the study, but it’s a little like studying how a wound heals while the rest of the body is still healthy.

You're assuming the rest of the body is healthy.

Spidey wrote: ↑Mon Feb 05, 2018 3:03 pmI’m not saying you can’t glean information from the study, but it’s a little like studying how a wound heals while the rest of the body is still healthy.

But this is exactly how medicine works. By studying wounds we are now able to do amazing things like cure diseases, set broken bones, remove tumors, and hosts of other medical miracles. I am confused as to how you don't see the obvious benefit of these types of experiments. The people in basic-income studies are chosen specifically because the data generated is high value. Sure, it's possible UBI might not viable, but we can't know until we test it. You might be right that it won't work, but you actually don't know why, and anything you claim has as much weight as a horoscope.

The problem is…all of the data is directed at straw men, as I tried to explain in another thread.

It doesn’t matter if people become lazy by getting free money, or want to remain at work, because the real problem is how to create a workless economy that actually functions, at the same time not enabling the worst case scenario by placing a mincome and allowing companies to keep customers without actually having to have workers, and avoiding the complete collapse of currency.

My argument is and has been all along, that the mincome will enable the worst to happen, contravening the natural checks and balances that exist in the economy. And all of the studies are aimed at straw men…and not the real issues.

In other words…the real issues are still being avoided.

I think you are conflating mincome with a workless economy. Mincome is a social program that will exist within an economy. It's effects are calculable, thus the need for these experimental programs. It's not known what the effects are. A workless economy will include mincome, but that's a different problem with different solutions. We've barely even started research in this area, so I don't understand why the poo-pooing. You're clearly a pessimist married to an ideology. Loosen up and don't be so negative and closed minded.

the coming Revolution in production is going to require a massive plurality of our society embracing completely new ideological paradigms. I, for one, am not real hopeful we won't step in some serious ★■◆● before that day arrives. Trump is foot-plant #1, and it could get worse.......

Well maybe so vision, but all of the talk I have been hearing about Mincom is in relation to the new automation revolution.

We already have huge amounts of data concerning giving people a minimum income within the welfare system.

I really doubt we need another study to determine “what would a ‘basic income’ look like? And what could that do for people’s lives,”

Spidey wrote: ↑Tue Feb 06, 2018 4:02 pmWe already have huge amounts of data concerning giving people a minimum income within the welfare system.

That data is not really applicable because it's not a controlled pool. Mincome studies need a representative sample population that accounts for specific variables. Also, welfare is not the same as mincome. Here is an example of why: Assuming that a fair percentage of welfare recipients come from resource poor communities with few opportunities all we can really know is poverty begets poverty. It doesn't tell us what happens when Margaret or Harry, who come from enriched communities, lose their job making $60k annually to automation 15 years before retirement, and how a mincome program effects the economy on that scale.

I think it's too easy to say "people are lazy so it will never work." People aren't lazy. Most people work too hard for too little.

Now, I definitely have some friends who would waste their lives away, but a large majority wouldn't because they have dreams and ambition, even in the face of the soul-crushing work we all have to do in place of our dreams.

Welfare is meant to be temporary, for financial hardship emergencies. Minicome, or whatever you wish to label it, would be an ongoing, forever, base income. Whole different setup and psychology, I would surmise.