Why do we need the Freedom Dividend?

[redqueen]

I used to support Bernie. I also really hoped Warren would run, back in 2008. When Bernie announced his candidacy a year ago I was ecstatic. Then I started reading about UBI, and really looking into the nuts and bolts of the different plans these candidates are proposing.

To put it simply, a $15 minimum wage just will not help that many people. Only, what, 3% of Americans are earning minimum wage. But 78% of us live paycheck to paycheck. This is basic math. Then add on to that the fact that companies like Target ended up cutting hours for employees after instituting a $15 MW. Retailers are already collapsing trying to compete with Amazon - what is the end goal here?

Then there's the federal jobs guarantee. Which sounded great to me, at first. Then, again, I started digging. The WPA gave money to private industry to put people to work. And it worked. But that was then. Does anyone really think that the vast majority of companies today are anything like the ones that were around in the mid 30's? Those companies had pensions, they paid people enough to live on. Oh and under that program - only ONE person from each household could get a job with the WPA. How many families can live on one wage now?

The market values stay at home parents' value at ZERO. Why do we accept this? Why do so many expect solutions designed almost 90 years ago to be effective today?

If we want to help the most people possible, UBI is the clear answer.

If you've been unsure who to support, but have been considering Yang, I urge you to do so now. NH may be our last chance to back a candidate who is proposing modern solutions, and addressing not only existing issues but looking toward the future and addressing those heading our way as well.

Yang appeals to democrats, independents, and even libertarians and conservatives. He is eminently likeable and champions the same unity message that Obama did.

If you're Yang-curious, I hope you'll take a much closer look, talk to some people who support him, and consider joining the YangGang. I promise you will not regret it.

[radical noodle]

1. I wouldn't necessarily call myself Yang curious

but I am curious about who receives the payments. Is it $1000 per month all year long? Does everyone receive the same amount? I can see this as a benefit for my underpaid daughter who teaches special ed in public school, has student loans to pay, and can barely make ends meet.

[redqueen]

3. Every American citizen 18 and up would receive the same amount, with one exception.

If you are in jail or prison, you don't get the dividend. However you can resume collection once you've served your sentence.

[radical noodle]

5. I'd have to agree with that

People in prison should not get a bunch of money to spend each month.

I actually do see a benefit of this plan over the minimum wage increase. Small businesses get hit hardest by that and will find a way around it, even if it means laying off employees to compensate. In the end, folks are not better off.

When the ACA was passed, everyone just found a way to get around covering their low paid employees, too, by reducing their hours and laying off folks.

This would be one way to make sure that people got the help that is intended.

Good OP for Yang.

[Sapient Donkey]

14. It also in a way gives some compensation to stay-at-home parents

Also see it as a giving people in abusive relationships a sense of security when they leave. There is a long list of benefits that come with the UBI.

[Newest Reality]

2. You really can't argue...

You really can't argue with those points, in fact, unless you live in some upper-class, gated community or the like, you can literally see the real, on the ground, economic situation and it is one of growing poverty and that's decay and it paves the road to things like populist Fascism, as we see.

How many people can see these facts though? The newspeak is booming economy. What? Well, the naked Emperor wearing the finest invisible clothes also spews how great this economy is and even better than ever. For most of us it is not, and it will not be in the future if we are ignored only the favored entities for whom the economy booms are considered to be America.

Thanks. I agree about Yang and think he does have deep insight into the real problems we face if we want to preserve the structure of this country at all. It is going to go critical without a real turnaround and more equitable distribution in some way and he sees that.

So, the secondary factor here is for people to really cast the idea that the country is doing great economically back into the noxious, deceptive pit of oligarchical propaganda designed to deflect from the truth of the poverty, loss and suffering that casts its shadow across this land.

[redqueen]

4. It seems that a lot of people watched his town hall last night and were impressed,

so I figured I'd make a case here this morning.

I'm really hoping that everyone who's said that they would support him but he has no chance will take a leap and join us.

[PETRUS]

6. Thanks for the post, redqueen.

I think I told you the other day that I didn't have a firm opinion about a UBI. That's still the case, but I'm leaning more towards thinking it's a good idea.

I do have a quick question: Your OP compares/contrasts UBI with a $15 minimum wage. Are the two policies in conflict? Why can't we have both a UBI and a higher wage floor?

[redqueen]

8. Thanks for asking - a lot of people think Yang is against a MW altogether.

He's not, but he's for a more nuanced policy. Californians have such a high cost of living that $15/hr isn't even liveable. But in other areas it's only close to being enough. So a MW doesn't necessarily need to be a state's rights issue, but it does need to be tailored to a given area based on the cost of living in that area.

Also, as I described above, a $15 MW could have real downsides for workers now. So it has to be implemented in a way that doesn't end up making things worse for the people we're trying to help (e.g. Target workers who got pushed from full time to part time, and lost benefits as a result).

So while a federal $15 MW looks good on paper, there are real reasons to think carefully before moving forward with the plan. And figuring out those issues won't be easy, or quick.

That's one of the reasons I really like the UBI as Yang has designed it - a way that will appeal to conservatives so that we can pass it, that will help more people than any other program in our nation's history, and a way that will stimulate the economy by pumping dollars into every small town and disadvantaged neighborhood in the country. It's like an immediate $6.25/hr raise for everyone not in jail, whether they're working or not.

Yang does think the minimum wage needs to be higher than $15/hr. But getting there without inadvertently making things worse will take some careful, time consuming work. I trust him to do it.

[PETRUS]

20. Makes sense.

I'd like to share my thoughts about UBI with you. For one thing, writing about something helps me to organize and clarify what's in my head, and I haven't yet gone through that exercise on this topic. Also, I'd very much like to hear your opinions about what I have to say (of course, nobody here is obligated to respond to anything, and if don't feel like giving me feedback I won't be insulted). A number of my thoughts follow the pattern of "on the one hand x, but on the other hand y," and it would be useful to me to know what that sounds like to someone else.

In no particular order:

One of my negative reactions to UBI proposals stems from my discomfort with passive income. It's one of the problems I have with capitalism - around a third of national income is capital income, i.e., money collected simply by owning assets, which is therefore money not going to the people whose labor is making the assets productive. (Sometimes that's a blurry line. I myself own a business and also devote 60 or more hours a week to it.) On the other hand, I also believe that everyone is born with equal rights to the earth and its resources, but the economy does not operate according to that principle. Thomas Paine talked about that in "Agrarian Justice," proposing cash as compensation for those who are essentially dispossessed, and a UBI is conceptually similar. Further (as Evelyn Yang pointed out in something else you posted recently), society depends on a lot of unpaid labor, and a UBI would be one way to compensate people who are contributing but not receiving a market income.

I also worry about the political sustainability of UBI. Would it be eroded over time, much the same way the "New Deal" has been whittled away and the purchasing power of the minimum wage hasn't been maintained? On the other hand, that sort of concern could apply to all sorts of other policies and doing nothing isn't helpful at all, so maybe it's not worth fretting about.

Also, and I realize this is a minority opinion in the US, I think markets are a terrible way to organize society. They're certainly a simple and powerful way to coordinate a large and complex economy, but there are a lot of destructive side-effects. I think market imperatives are one of the main reasons we're facing climate change and other issues of ecological overshoot. Personally, I'd like to figure out a way to decommodify as much as we can (there's ample real world evidence that this is possible for things like education and healthcare, and I'd like to think there are ways to do it in other areas). A UBI doesn't replace the market, it just gives more people more options to participate. On the other hand, apart from proposals like Medicare for all, I don't have a lot of practical suggestions about how to replace markets. I'm temperamentally opposed to top-down administration or "central planning," and the evidence suggests that's an ill-advised approach anyway.

Those aren't necessarily all my thoughts about UBI, but I've covered the main bits of what's been going on in my head. To sum up where all this had led me: I'm inclined to support a UBI as part of a basket of policy changes that also includes thinks like a higher minimum wage, a much more progressive tax code, and Medicare for all. Your thoughts?

[DanTex]

7. I like Yang, and a lot of what he says makes sense, especially with the "cliffs."

Of course, another solution to the cliffs would be to make those programs taper off instead.

Is there a reason, besides cost, to make people choose between UBI and other benefits? Because the choice basically means UBI does nothing for people that are currently taking other services, which is to say, it's a raise for everyone except the poor. And this regressiveness is made more so by the fact that it's funded by a VAT instead of a progressive income tax.

Libertarians like UBI because they want to use it to replace things like food stamps. I know Yang doesn't, but still the fear that once its in place it will be used politically for that purpose is real.

I saw a clip of Yang and Megan McCain talking about it, and he did well. I wish when McCain had said "I'm rich so I don't need UBI" that Yang would have pointed out that she never makes that argument when it comes to tax cuts.

[redqueen]

11. The reason to have it replace cash based programs is cost.

We have to get any policy passed by conservatives.

Also, please go out and talk to people using these programs. There aren't going to be many who would choose the program over cash with no hoops to jump through, no limits, and no humiliating processes.

VAT on its own is regressive. VAT + UBI is not, it is the opposite.

Bernie's FJG also highlights the reduction of spending on aid programs like snap as a means of reducing cost, but unlike Yang's plans, he has provided few (if any?) details on how that program will work.

Again - any plan has to be passed by conservatives (not just GOP, conservative Dems who are answerable to the voters who elected them) too. We cannot lose sight of that point.

[DanTex]

16. I don't see how Yang's UBI isn't regressive.

People who opt out get nothing. People who receive benefits now and opt in get UBI but lose their benefits. Everyone else, which is to say the wealthiest whatever percent, get UBI without losing anything. That seems regressive, giving something to everyone except the poorest people.

If you didn't have to give anything up to get UBI, I can see how UBI+VAT would be progressive, because poorer people on average would pay less VAT. So the progressive equation is really UBI-VAT. But for Yang it's UBI-VAT-Benefits for people who opt in and just -VAT for people who opt out.

I take your point about people not having to fill out forms and go through a humiliating process. Even still, those people will have to give something up to get UBI, unlike wealthier people who don't. And some people, who get enough benefits in the status quo, will choose to keep filling out the forms, in which case they get nothing.

Yes, proponents of FJG do claim reducing cost of things like snap as a selling point. But there the idea is once people get jobs and make more money they won't need and/or qualify for snap because they'll make enough without it. Basically, get a job, make more money, so overall you're in better shape even with less snap. But UBI, as currently proposed, does nothing for people with snap, unless they want to give up the snap for UBI.

I agree about both Bernie not giving details, and about getting things through congress. There Yang wins.

Here's the thing about Bernie. He doesn't give details, he gives a vision. That's fine with me because his vision actually exists in tons of countries all over the world. His vision is Social Democracy (not Democratic Socialism, I don't know why he uses the wrong term). And even if he did provide detailed numbers, like you said nothing he proposed would get through congress, at least not in its current form, so what's the point, aside from satisfying pundits who are still going to attack him no matter what he says?

I like Bernie because I agree with that vision. Congress or not, I would feel great about him pushing that vision, not just signing bills and making executive orders, but also the bully pulpit and even the validation the Social Democratic vision would get from having him elected president.

As I've said, I'm split between Bernie, Yang, and Warren. I like Bernie's vision best. Yang I think is probably most electable. Warren would probably be the best of the three at "getting things done".

[redqueen]

18. "Vision" doesn't put food on the table.

I've been on food stamps. I know people on disability. And I know people who can't get disability despite being unable to work.

I'll take a plan that will pass and that will help people soonest over a vision.

[DanTex]

19. I get that, and I totally respect your views.

At some point it becomes a matter of opinion, and choosing between different things I like both of. Yeah, a UBI, with a means to pay for it, and a good argument for getting it through congress, that's very strong.

An unabashed Social Democrat in the White House, also very strong.

If we get either in November, I'll be dancing in the streets.

[brooklynite]

9. "Yang appeals to democrats, independents, and even libertarians and conservatives." No he doesn't...

The people he DOES appeal to may be "democrats, independents, and even libertarians and conservatives.". His problem is that, broadly, he doesn't appeal to anyone. He got 5% of the vote in IA. He's getting 2% in the NH tracking poll, 4% in Nevada, 3% in South Carolina, and on Super Tuesday, 5% in California, 2% in Texas, 1% In Massachusetts and 2% in Florida. Blame the media all you want for "ignoring him", but he's been running for 9 months and isn't generating any upward moimentum.

[mr_lebowski]

10. These are indeed compelling facts ...

Too bad it's easily branded with the evil words 'liberal', 'socialism' and 'free stuff' ...

[redqueen]

12. You would be very surprised how many conservatives support his ideas.

But they do, precisely because this is not socialism. And it isn't free.

It's capitalism that doesn't start at 0.

[mr_lebowski]

13. I'm talking about how it can labeled ... not 'facts' as such ...

Don't you know we live in a post-Fact world now?

It's pretty tough sell convincing 'the people' that the govt handing $1000 out to every person isn't 'giving out stuff for free'.

Euphemistically, not literally ... of course it 'costs somebody', it's not literally free. Nothing is.

I'm totally cool with it, but I'm the sort to actually understand before forming opinions.

Most people (present company excepted) ... ain't.

[Sapient Donkey]

17. I like to say it's like greasing the squeaky wheels of capitalism

That sometimes helps gets the knee-jerk "it's socialism" people to think about it a little bit more. Most people seem to understand that in our system you pretty much need money to make money. Also, pointing out that it's one of the most efficient ways to distribute money to the economy since people know their individual needs more than anyone else. Not to mention those needs could change month to month or even week to week.

[Sapient Donkey]

15. I like Yang and the idea of a UBI

The big question I have is how do we pay for it. I don't usually go for the "but how to do we pay for it" arguments on most things, but with UBI I think it's a big question that needs to be asked due to the massive cost. I would like to see some good math that works out the reduced expenses we'd have as a result of a UBI and also how an additional tax (such as a VAT) will affect the price of consumer goods.

Additionally, I would like to see what other plans are being proposed to give a similar increase of economic mobility or even just quality of life improvements to those who likely opt out of the program because they receive more in benefits now than they would with a UBI. I mostly think of a single parent with low-wage job and a couple kids. She or he may be taking in more benefits than $1k/mo. What else will be done to help this family? Also, based on my understanding of how a VAT works, at least some portion of the costs will be passed down to consumers. Which would mean folks who opt out of the UBI will have some cost increases with no gain for themselves (outside of the overall societal improvements we might see) Obviously the kids will benefit greatly once they reach 18 years old, but what about before that? I would like to see something attached to a UBI plan that ensures those people don't slip through the cracks.

It looks like Yang has added more programs that stack with the UBI. I don't think the housing assistance was originally listed. I would really like to see more data on how much people receive now in benefits and how it would look with the UBI. I think if that research is put out there and it shows that relatively few people will fall through the cracks, and that there is something in place to catch those that do fall through, then it would be really hard reject the UBI concept (assuming the numbers to pay for it all work out too, of course)

[redqueen]

21. 7-Eleven unveils store without cashiers

7-Eleven has opened a cashierless store at its corporate headquarters in Texas as a test before launching to a "wider audience."

The store is for 7-Eleven employees only who use an app to sign up, check in at the store, enter the store, shop and exit. The 700-square-foot store carries 7-Eleven's most popular products, including beverages, snacks, food, groceries, over-the-counter drugs and non-food items.

"Ultimately, our goal is to exceed consumers' expectations for faster, easier transactions and a seamless shopping experience," said Mani Suri, 7-Eleven senior vice president and chief information officer. "Introducing new store technology to 7-Eleven employees first has proven to be a very productive way to test and learn before launching to a wider audience.

"They are honest and candid with their feedback, which enables us to learn and quickly make adjustments to improve the experience. This in-house, custom built technology by 7-Eleven engineers is designed for our current and future customers. We continue to innovate, and coupling fresh, innovative, healthy food options with a frictionless shopping experience could be a game-changer."

It is unknown how soon this concept will be presented to the general public.

https://www.theindychannel.com/news/national/7-eleven-unveils-store-without-cashiers?

[redqueen]

22. Macy's is closing roughly 125 stores. Here's list of first round of closings

After previously announcing that it would close 298 locations, Macy's said Tuesday that it will now shutter nearly 100 more.

The retailer also said that it is cutting about 2,000 positions , eliminating 9% of its corporate and support positions.
...
Macy's, once the model of the luxury department store, has struggled to stay afloat during a time when Amazon has remade the shopping landscape and one time retail giants like Payless and Toys R Us are going out of business.
...
https://amp.desmoinesregister.com/amp/4665130002?

[redqueen]

23. More retailers file for bankruptcy twice as they struggle with rising debt, pressure from Amazon

...
It's a scenario that's getting more common for traditional retailers as they find themselves under pressure from a sea change in where and how people are shopping. Retailers like Barneys and RadioShack have found themselves on the brink twice — going through a bankruptcy filing once, emerging, and then heading back to court, again. In cases where the company files specifically for Chapter 11 twice, the scenario is referred to as Chapter 22.
...
Overall, the number of retail bankruptcies is rising. There were 22 retail bankruptcies in 2019, compared with 17 in 2018, according to a tracking by CB Insights. The firm has tracked over 80 retail bankruptcies dating back to 2015.

Part of the problem is that it is only becoming more difficult to remain relevant as a retailer in an age where Amazon is dominating more categories online as consumers shop from their couches instead of in stores. Many two-time bankruptcy offenders are names that relied too heavily on foot traffic in malls, like teen retailer Wet Seal and shoe store chain Payless.

For such companies, filing for bankruptcy is a lever pulled to break leases on stores when they have too much real estate and need to close some shops.
...
https://www.cnbc.com/amp/2020/02/01/why-many-retail-chains-like-fairway-have-filed-for-bankruptcy-twice.html