Who's in debt to whom?

[Sir Og]

There will always be people who cannot contribute or who can but don't want to. The difference is that with UBI and the corresponding culture change they will be less likely to take up crime and similar anti social activities.

The only problem is that these people might reproduce faster under UBI. But worrying about that kind of thing is eugenics.

[rah]

Pocket change will not deter many from turning to crime who would be inclined to do so anyway.

[Jon Miller]

I don't think it is that at all.

People who are stuck and unemployed and don't see a way to improve their situation are going to turn to crime... whether they have pocket change or not.

JM

[rah]

How does UBI change that? I don't think it does. So whether you want to work or not UBI won't change anything. There will still be discontent. Now if we're talking about something more than the minimum then maybe, but currently even the minimum can't be afforded so it's silly to consider anything more.

[Proteus_MST]

Pocket change will not deter many from turning to crime who would be inclined to do so anyway.

Sure. As always in real life, it is just a question of probabilities.
The question is not, whether it will persuade every (potential) economic criminal from not becoming a criminal,
but rather, how large the percentage of reduction in criminality is, that can be reached by these measures.

If an UBI reduces the amount of poverty, I am sure that it also will reduce criminality to a certain amount (like pickpocketing or shoplifting)

[rah]

Again, I believe the amount will really determine that. I am not convinced that the a basic stipend that barely (if even) covers a roof and scraps is going to have much impact. If people are complaining about how much the latest tax bill is going to add to the deficit, that's just a drop in the bucket to what any real UBI would cost.

Now if we were talking giving enough to raise the entire population above the poverty line, then maybe, but that's just fantasy.

[Jon Miller]

I know it might not be popular to say it, but I think that digging/filling ditches would be better than UBI.

Or maybe care for elderly.

Basically, a job guarantee rather than UBI.

JM
(where the job was guaranteed to be enough to pay for room/board)

[Jon Miller]

Sort of like a minimum wage, but where the government paid the difference...

JM

[Proteus_MST]

I know it might not be popular to say it, but I think that digging/filling ditches would be better than UBI.

Or maybe care for elderly.

Basically, a job guarantee rather than UBI.

JM
(where the job was guaranteed to be enough to pay for room/board)

I disagree, if we call about being forced to accept any job (like jobs being totally substandard compared to he jobs the people learned for)
This can rather lead to a lot of frustrations.

We have this in germany with the Hartz IV program for people with long term joblessness.
People that are in these programs are forced to accept so called 1 € jobs or risk, that they lose their welfare.
They are caled this way, because they pay people 1-2.5 € per working hour (in addition to the welfare these people receive per month)

These jobs, for example, are harvesting helpers at a farm, or cleaning public parks and so on and AFAIK people are put into these jobs regardless of their former job experiences (i.e. someone who had an office job for all of his life, before becoming long term jobless and receiver of Hartz IV would be as "endanngered" of suddenly being forced into a job as farm hand, as someone who is used to manual labor).
These things hav rather been a source of frustration, than a source of pride for the recipients of these jobs (not to mention that forcing someone without experience in manual labor into a work that involves day long repetitious tasks under the free sky (like Asparagus harvest, which seems to be one of the 1€-jobs that have often been given out in the past) may endanger his health by a lot)

So, I guess, a "job guarantee" may backfire if is just is a guarantee for "any job" that doesn't necessarily take into account the skillset you have

[rah]

I like the concept of "make work" or even some useful work but yeah, connecting the dots if done wrong could cause more harm. But I think it would be worth it to try to at least match it up or give people a choice so minimize that frustration. And some of it is marketing. Picking up garbage along the highway vs beautifying America.

[Jon Miller]

I disagree, if we call about being forced to accept any job (like jobs being totally substandard compared to he jobs the people learned for)
This can rather lead to a lot of frustrations.

We have this in germany with the Hartz IV program for people with long term joblessness.
People that are in these programs are forced to accept so called 1 € jobs or risk, that they lose their welfare.
They are caled this way, because they pay people 1-2.5 € per working hour (in addition to the welfare these people receive per month)

These jobs, for example, are harvesting helpers at a farm, or cleaning public parks and so on and AFAIK people are put into these jobs regardless of their former job experiences (i.e. someone who had an office job for all of his life, before becoming long term jobless and receiver of Hartz IV would be as "endanngered" of suddenly being forced into a job as farm hand, as someone who is used to manual labor).
These things hav rather been a source of frustration, than a source of pride for the recipients of these jobs (not to mention that forcing someone without experience in manual labor into a work that involves day long repetitious tasks under the free sky (like Asparagus harvest, which seems to be one of the 1€-jobs that have often been given out in the past) may endanger his health by a lot)

So, I guess, a "job guarantee" may backfire if is just is a guarantee for "any job" that doesn't necessarily take into account the skillset you have

I remember a horror story (real or not, I don't know) about being forced into something akin to prostitution in the German program.

I am not talking about make work that takes all of someone's time... that would be a terrible waste.

But doing something like cleaning trash or other public goods... or even something that may be make work, for a some minimum hours per week... is a good idea. (talking to elderly, also a possible public good)

Like everyone is guaranteed up to 20 hours a week at 20 USD per hour (so that is 1700 per month). If their job pays 10 USD per hour, then the first 20 hours of work the government provides a benefit of 10 USD per hour. And so on.

If they have disability, then that is accounted for in what job they do.

In the US at least many jobs are available, but for low pay that is not livable.

JM

[pchang]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/germany/1482371/If-you-dont-take-a-job-as-a-prostitute-we-can-stop-your-benefits.html

No follow up, so not sure what really happened.

However, Hartz IV implies there were a I - III. What were those like?

[rah]

Gee maybe we can use the same tactic in the US. Please, I hope Trump doesn't read about this.

[Aeson]

Given Trumps use of prostitutes, every women’s restroom is a brothel!

[Proteus_MST]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...-benefits.html

No follow up, so not sure what really happened.

However, Hartz IV implies there were a I - III. What were those like?

It got it nickname not from having multiple stages that a recipient of welfare can/has to apply to, but rather because it was part of a 4 stage reform plan for the job market, introduced by a Peter Hartz:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hartz_concept

The stages I-III contained a restructuring with regards to taxes for minijobs (job with a low number of working hours per week), a rise in the number of jobcenters and grants for entrepreneurs.
And Stage IV was about restructurring of the existing system of unemplyoment benefits and welfare (and the introduction of taking said 1 € jobs (if they are offered) for people under long term employment)

Formally it is ALG II (unemployment benefits stage II) ... i.e. if people are jobless for a short period (AFAIK half a year), they can receive ALG I ... but afterwards they have to aply for ALG II in order to continue receiving any benefits. If they are recipients of ALG II, they can be forced to attend to workshops (often of rather dubious value) and also to take 1 Euro €€-jobs.


As for the woman working in a brothel:
AFAIK it is partially true. According to my knowledge it is actually true that said woman had to take a 1 Euro€€-job in a brothel. She didn't work there as a prostitute, however, but as a barkeeper or waitress in the brothels bar.