At its core, UBI is about ensuring that everyone has the financial resources to meet their basic needs.
Not “at its core”. That is what UBI is.
For businesses, UBI provides a stable customer base...
A customer base for buying basic necessities, but not for anything above that, like a shiny new games console. And a customer base for basic necessities already exists. Broadly speaking (a glance at Wikipedia), in the developed world it falls about 10 to 20% short of being the entire population, and there are typically government programs of some sort to assist most of the rest.
...and a workforce
How does UBI provide a workforce? UBI pays people whether they work or not. That’s what the U means. One of the motivations for UBI is a predicted lack of any useful employment for large numbers of people in the near future.
By investing in UBI, businesses can
How does a business “invest in UBI”? UBI is paid by the government out of taxes.
The beauty of UBI lies in its potential to align individual aspirations with collective progress. By ensuring that basic needs are met, we free people to contribute their skills and energy to areas where they’re most needed
People will already pay people to do the work that they need done. Is it envisaged that under UBI, people will joyfully “contribute their skills and energy” without pay, at whatever work someone has judged to be “needed”? I don’t know, but the more I look at this passage the more the apparent meaning drains out of it. There is nothing here but hurrah words. There is nothing in the whole essay.
Yes, I used ChatGPT to polish the English, it did a great job 👍 while I am of course myself responsible for every point in this post.
To your comments:
This post points out that it’s better for the business to actively co-shape UBI instead of passively rejecting it. For humanitarian reasons, it’s good to ensure the existential minimum for everyone, even those too old or too sick to learn or work. If this minimum is already covered by other governmental programs or philanthropic organizations, there’s no need to include it in UBI. If business co-shape UBI, they can ask it to be conditioned on completing training programs, like the certificates offered by Microsoft. It’s an illusion that the market can automatically solve the problem. The market mechanisms only says that in an economic downturn, staff should be laid off. When the economy recovers, they can be re-hired. But the market mechanism doesn’t take care to maintain a disciplined reserve workforce in the meantime. When business starts to re-hire, they may find it difficult to find qualified staff, because part of the workforce drifted off in the meantime, some got mental problems, or alcohol/drug problems, some were radicalized, beside the agony suffered by the laid-off staff and destabilization faced by the society, it also becomes more expensive for the business to find qualified staff when they need them. Of course you can say that it’s the government’s job to take care for the unemployed, but of course government has to raise taxes for its social programs. If business actively co-shapes, it can make such programs more effective and efficient, have the reserve workforce trained in the way they can better find a job or start self-employment/start-up that can better meet the needs of the economy, and that at a lower cost.
If business co-shape UBI, they can ask it to be conditioned on completing training programs
I don’t think you (or the chatbot that helped you with that reply) understand what “UBI” means. UBI is the proposal that everyone is given a fixed basic income, funded from taxes, unconditional upon anything. No means tests, no requirement to do anything to qualify, nothing. Everyone gets it, no matter what their circumstances. It might coexist with other welfare schemes, but those are not part of UBI.
It doesn’t make sense to argue about definitions. If you define UBI so, then so does UBI mean for you. I’m actively pushing for a redefinition of UBI, or reshaping the policy as I said, because I thinks it’s the right thing to do.
Did I reply in so perfect English that it sounded like corrected by ChatGPT? Cheer to my English, which has improved so much! 🥂
This is not about what UBI “means to me”, but about what the basic idea is that everyone but you calls “UBI”. The basic idea is to sweep away all of the various special-case means-tested benefits that require armies of staff to implement, and replace them by a single one that is paid to everyone. Are you alive? Are you a citizen? Then you get the UBI. That’s it. That is the fundamental idea.
You can advocate for different welfare systems involving means tests and training vouchers and food stamps and businesses lobbying for this and that, but you don’t get to call that a “redefinition” of UBI, any more than you can redefine “blue” to mean the colour of bananas or “France” to mean Australia.
I don’t deny that many, maybe the majority, view UBI as unconditional. But to say ALL define UBI this way is a really strong statement, do you have any proof?
Here an example I found on Britannica:
Uganda’s UBI trial, the Youth Opportunities Program, enabled participants to invest in skills training as well as tools and materials, resulting in an increase of business assets by 57%, work hours by 17%, and earnings by 38%.
Christopher Blattman et al., “Generating Skilled Self-Employment in Developing Countries: Experimental Evidence from Uganda,” ssrn.com, Nov. 14, 2013
The article you link begins by bluntly saying, “Universal basic income (UBI) is an unconditional cash payment given at regular intervals by the government to all residents, regardless of their earnings or employment status.” Yes! That is what UBI is! It continues, “UBI remains largely theoretical and, thus, does not have much of a history.” Yes! That is also true!
Various partial versions have been tried to a limited extent. But the Blattman et al paper the article cites does not claim to have anything to do with UBI. Neither “UBI” nor “universal” occur anywhere in that paper, and the welfare scheme it studies is nothing like UBI. The reference is irrelevant to the encyclopedia article, which has no business calling it “Uganda’s UBI trial”.
Have Encyclopedia Britannica sunk so low as to use chatbots to write for them? Eheu!
If definition was so important to me, I could argue with you what unconditional really means and if the unsupervised Uganda program falls under the definition of UBI even when it’s only granted to applicants with a valid proposal. But I give up, you win. And I don’t have to defend Britannica, because it’s so well established.
It is definitely ChatGPT. There are a lot of things in the essay that make no sense the moment you stop and think about what is actually being said. For example:
Not “at its core”. That is what UBI is.
A customer base for buying basic necessities, but not for anything above that, like a shiny new games console. And a customer base for basic necessities already exists. Broadly speaking (a glance at Wikipedia), in the developed world it falls about 10 to 20% short of being the entire population, and there are typically government programs of some sort to assist most of the rest.
How does UBI provide a workforce? UBI pays people whether they work or not. That’s what the U means. One of the motivations for UBI is a predicted lack of any useful employment for large numbers of people in the near future.
How does a business “invest in UBI”? UBI is paid by the government out of taxes.
People will already pay people to do the work that they need done. Is it envisaged that under UBI, people will joyfully “contribute their skills and energy” without pay, at whatever work someone has judged to be “needed”? I don’t know, but the more I look at this passage the more the apparent meaning drains out of it. There is nothing here but hurrah words. There is nothing in the whole essay.
Yes, I used ChatGPT to polish the English, it did a great job 👍 while I am of course myself responsible for every point in this post.
To your comments:
This post points out that it’s better for the business to actively co-shape UBI instead of passively rejecting it. For humanitarian reasons, it’s good to ensure the existential minimum for everyone, even those too old or too sick to learn or work. If this minimum is already covered by other governmental programs or philanthropic organizations, there’s no need to include it in UBI. If business co-shape UBI, they can ask it to be conditioned on completing training programs, like the certificates offered by Microsoft. It’s an illusion that the market can automatically solve the problem. The market mechanisms only says that in an economic downturn, staff should be laid off. When the economy recovers, they can be re-hired. But the market mechanism doesn’t take care to maintain a disciplined reserve workforce in the meantime. When business starts to re-hire, they may find it difficult to find qualified staff, because part of the workforce drifted off in the meantime, some got mental problems, or alcohol/drug problems, some were radicalized, beside the agony suffered by the laid-off staff and destabilization faced by the society, it also becomes more expensive for the business to find qualified staff when they need them. Of course you can say that it’s the government’s job to take care for the unemployed, but of course government has to raise taxes for its social programs. If business actively co-shapes, it can make such programs more effective and efficient, have the reserve workforce trained in the way they can better find a job or start self-employment/start-up that can better meet the needs of the economy, and that at a lower cost.
I don’t think you (or the chatbot that helped you with that reply) understand what “UBI” means. UBI is the proposal that everyone is given a fixed basic income, funded from taxes, unconditional upon anything. No means tests, no requirement to do anything to qualify, nothing. Everyone gets it, no matter what their circumstances. It might coexist with other welfare schemes, but those are not part of UBI.
It doesn’t make sense to argue about definitions. If you define UBI so, then so does UBI mean for you. I’m actively pushing for a redefinition of UBI, or reshaping the policy as I said, because I thinks it’s the right thing to do.
Did I reply in so perfect English that it sounded like corrected by ChatGPT? Cheer to my English, which has improved so much! 🥂
This is not about what UBI “means to me”, but about what the basic idea is that everyone but you calls “UBI”. The basic idea is to sweep away all of the various special-case means-tested benefits that require armies of staff to implement, and replace them by a single one that is paid to everyone. Are you alive? Are you a citizen? Then you get the UBI. That’s it. That is the fundamental idea.
You can advocate for different welfare systems involving means tests and training vouchers and food stamps and businesses lobbying for this and that, but you don’t get to call that a “redefinition” of UBI, any more than you can redefine “blue” to mean the colour of bananas or “France” to mean Australia.
I don’t deny that many, maybe the majority, view UBI as unconditional. But to say ALL define UBI this way is a really strong statement, do you have any proof?
Here an example I found on Britannica:
Uganda’s UBI trial, the Youth Opportunities Program, enabled participants to invest in skills training as well as tools and materials, resulting in an increase of business assets by 57%, work hours by 17%, and earnings by 38%.
Christopher Blattman et al., “Generating Skilled Self-Employment in Developing Countries: Experimental Evidence from Uganda,” ssrn.com, Nov. 14, 2013
Link: https://www.britannica.com/procon/universal-basic-income-UBI-debate
The article you link begins by bluntly saying, “Universal basic income (UBI) is an unconditional cash payment given at regular intervals by the government to all residents, regardless of their earnings or employment status.” Yes! That is what UBI is! It continues, “UBI remains largely theoretical and, thus, does not have much of a history.” Yes! That is also true!
Various partial versions have been tried to a limited extent. But the Blattman et al paper the article cites does not claim to have anything to do with UBI. Neither “UBI” nor “universal” occur anywhere in that paper, and the welfare scheme it studies is nothing like UBI. The reference is irrelevant to the encyclopedia article, which has no business calling it “Uganda’s UBI trial”.
Have Encyclopedia Britannica sunk so low as to use chatbots to write for them? Eheu!
If definition was so important to me, I could argue with you what unconditional really means and if the unsupervised Uganda program falls under the definition of UBI even when it’s only granted to applicants with a valid proposal. But I give up, you win. And I don’t have to defend Britannica, because it’s so well established.