11

Hawaii the first US state that to officially evaluate basic income

Posted by $ nickursis 7 years, 9 months ago to Government
69 comments | Share | Flag

This is disturbing, government addressing a fundamental change in economic structure through "Basic Income". Since government doesn't make any money, but takes it from everyone, isn't that really "redistribution of wealth"? I would suggest training for real jobs, real skills, something that produces value would be better, but then Hawaii would have to fundamentally change and become a producer vice a vacation colony....


All Comments


Previous comments...   You are currently on page 3.
  • Posted by term2 7 years, 9 months ago
    This is being proposed in a lot of places, even by facebook's zuckerberg. Its obvious that when you provide a basic income, there is no longer any incentive to ever provide it yoursefl. The more people get the free money, the more who will want to join the program. It will grow exponentially until there is no longer money to fund it. STUPID idea. The problem is that it will take years for the flaws to become apparent, at which point no one will want to take away the benefits from the recipients (look at the fight to keep the freebies from obamacare)
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by evlwhtguy 7 years, 9 months ago
    Of course, the implementation of any major UBI program requires a great deal of political will. As Lee wrote, "Planning for the future isn't politically sexy and won't win anyone an election […]. But if we do it properly, we will all be much better off for it in the long run."

    Yeh bullshit....giving away freebees is not "Brave" it is pandering to the mob and will absolutely get you re-elected. This is like these Hollywood elites mouthing off about conservative politicians and acting like they are brave somehow...they aren't. There...up til Trump...has never been blowback.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by wiggys 7 years, 9 months ago in reply to this comment.
    why since it has failed since it has first been attempted would this failure stop them.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by scojohnson 7 years, 9 months ago
    Nothing like charging 50% of the people to pay for the other 50% to hang out on the beach and get high all day.

    On a flip side, we probably damn near do this already between Social Security, Gov Retirement, Unemployment, welfare, food stamps, incarceration, Medicaid, CHIP, WIC, heating assistance, Section 8 housing, and Disability payments.

    I just want to throw up at the idea of it. Nothing would take more incentive out of work, or decline civilization faster, than something this stupid.

    My only tepid support would come from - throw away all the other public subsidies, if this looks cheaper, fine. But no stacking or combining and a requirement for "public work", education, etc.. not just sitting on one's ass and exercising that medical 420-card all day.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by Mitch 7 years, 9 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Both of your scenarios are dystopian disasters, could you imaging a place where people are paid to do nothing and/or the government outlaws innovation. No thanks…

    These are counter intuitive to Objectivism…
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ WilliamShipley 7 years, 9 months ago in reply to this comment.
    The "rise of the robots" is one of the reasons I think that a UBI is inevitable. When we reach the point where all the goods we need can be produced with the labor of less than 5% of the population. Some means will have to be found to distribute those goods to the population. We cannot have vast storehouses of goods produced by robotic factories building up while people starve in the street.

    The alternative to the UBI is to require that productive concerns hire people at uneconomic rates. Make it illegal to use automated production equipment and hire people instead.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ blarman 7 years, 9 months ago in reply to this comment.
    That was the original intent of the Constitution: to allow each State to derive policies pursuant to what they want and then to allow everyone to judge the results and decide to implement or not accordingly. That's one of the reasons Federal law should never be the first place to try something, e.g. healthcare.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ Thoritsu 7 years, 9 months ago
    Would be great is one state did it, particularly Hawaii, and we could watch it fail. That might be the end of it.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by wiggys 7 years, 9 months ago
    once they establish an overall payment to every family that will increase the cost vacationers will have to pay. that will mean less vacationers and once again socialism will rear its ugly head to in this case hurt Hawaii. the Bahamas will become more attractive due to the price and also better diving.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Comment hidden due to member score or comment score too low. View Comment
  • Posted by Mitch 7 years, 9 months ago
    I think this discussion around a UBI by the left is the doorway to the utopian society they all wish for and we all know is impossible. They see the automation wave coming and see it as a way to initiate UBI. How wrong they are, they are setting up these people for a life of serfdom in beholden to the Hawaii government.

    I can’t see how something like this could actually working on the state level, almost all states budgets are an epic horror story where everyone dies in the end. Hawaii can’t print its own money so they have to take it from someone else, show me a Peter willing to be robed to pay Paul? Peter will ether leave or become another Paul. Pauls from other states will just show up and become new Pauls accepting the entitlements for the people of Hawaii.

    The type of automation in information technology is quickly coming to the real world and it can’t be stopped. This will be a disruptive force where the clear majority of the effective employees’ ether can’t or won’t retrain to compete for the few jobs that build and maintain the automation. When your 53K dollar a year job can be replaced with a 100k dollar capital expense that will last 10+ years, you won’t stand much of a chance and neither will the business if it doesn’t replace you with a better model. Negates the benefits for healthcare, vacation, disability insurance and general shit head not showing up for work. No breaks, no vacations no sick leave and as long as its reliable, it’s a win for the business.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ 7 years, 9 months ago in reply to this comment.
    I think that is a real question they have not answered. Keep in mind, this law just authorizes them to form a group to evaluate the possibility, then they would need a more serious group to develop the plan, then a pilot...etc. So, a lot of those issues would need addressing. I am just fundamentally against any program to set a "basic living allowance" for everyone, talk about the ultimate control tool....
    Also, it would stifle the heck out of any effort to get people to take responsibility for their lives and do what they need to do toimprove and climb the ladder, why would anyone ever want to go to school when all they have to do is draw this money and hang out at the beach. Mobs of people on the beach, reduced tourism, reduced money, need to raise taxes and fees to keep the game going...What happens if you actually DO work and earn say, 100K a year, do you NOT get the feebie? If so, why? This will be a royal mess, straight out of several Sci Fi novels I have read....
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by CircuitGuy 7 years, 9 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Yes. There are huge downside risks too. It could be come a third-rail entitlement like Social Security and Medicare. Just doing it does not guarantee shutting down other gov't programs like food stamps or health insurance rules/subsidies.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by ISank 7 years, 9 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Well, we'll see, the state cannot not do much right. The thing could pass and our wimpy governor could sign it only to find a poorly written law that gets hung up in the courts.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ 7 years, 9 months ago in reply to this comment.
    No one is paying attention, as they all self focus on what they will do this weekend. Kalifornians are slowly learning, but they will be too late to stop the Democratic Empire, as it is already rooted there and I doubt it will ever be deposed, and it relies on giving out money it doesn't have.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ 7 years, 9 months ago in reply to this comment.
    Those may be arguments in support, but I am not in favor of it, it is still the state stealing money from others to distribute, thus gaining ultimate control and power. Right up there with communism. Remember Lenin sent everyone out to farms to "learn to work together".
    Reply | Permalink  
  • -1
    Posted by CircuitGuy 7 years, 9 months ago
    The problems with it are obvious, but I'll point out some good things about it.
    1. Cash payments are easier to shut off than an agency. The agency has its employees lobbying to keep their job. It often builds things rather than buying them, e.g. the VA, to shut it down you have decrease employees and sell/privatize assets.
    2. Hawaii can be a "test laboratory" for this idea, as the founders intended the states and local gov'ts to be. It's a smaller state by population, so fewer people are subjected to this experiment. It's remote, so the results will be less skewed by people moving there just to get the benefits.
    3. It's a naked form of the government taking your money and handing to the poor. If gov't buys healthcare, for example, we can talk about "this nation's healthcare system", without saying aloud whether you're talking about the market of providers and customers, the regulations, or the subsidies. Direct cash payments make it harder to hide what's happening.
    4. The poor may in some cases be surprising more resourceful than a social worker at spending the money. The social worker might be better at keeping people from blowing it all on alcohol and other drugs, but a few broke people will get that money with no strings attached and do something great with it that would not be allowed by maternalistic gov't programs.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by CarrieAnneJD 7 years, 9 months ago
    I'm generally glad that a state is doing this (so we can see how horrible it's going to be in reality), and I am so glad it's not MY state! Though I'm thinking the "let them try it so there's a cautionary example of the failure" plan is a bad one -- no one seems to care about Illinois, Puerto Rico, or California right now. Hhmmmm.
    Reply | Permalink  
  • Posted by ISank 7 years, 9 months ago
    Let's see the islands have a crumbling infrastructure, 1/2 way thru a costly Honolulu rail program and the more they spend on homelessness, the more the homeless grow. They are the top 1%ers of the homeless though with pets, smartphones, and green bottled beer.
    So yea, there's plenty of money for this program. Our state legislature is a disgrace.
    Aloha
    Reply | Permalink  

  • Comment hidden. Undo