Poll of the Day > If you don't support UBI or a minimum wage increase...

(+) Yeah! (+)

Would you support giving all workers who work full time an annual stipend of some sort from the government? What about just all workers?

Or like, in some form, a government reward for working full time other than, you know, health care.

Im sitting in one of my offices and heard this lady outside suggest this because she doesnt want people rewarded for not working and not striving professionally. Instead, just reward all workers.

I mean at first I thought you said UTI and was like What!!!??

But actually I would rather see a reduction in the work week for everyone over a UBI setup.

That also allows it to be a more gradual change.

So initially instead of a 40 hour work week you basically switch over to a 3 day/4day plan and that allows every day of the week to be covered.

Everyone has either 3 days off a week or 4 days off a week (or alternates), but you can generally support yourself and live comfortably with only 3 days of work a week.

Then get rid of all welfare as well, and have workfare. Still only 3-4 days a week, but you have to work to get gov assistance (even if it's only answering the phones etc).

Right now it can take hours to get through to the IRS or DMV etc, but if you used the entire population of people who are not working to answer phones (from home) that would no longer be an issue).

As far as child care etc, mothers can watch children besides their own, so instead of just giving free money/rent, you have those mothers (or fathers I guess) actually work as child care centers instead, allowing everyone to have free child care pretty much, for the same money that is being spent now.

In the end everyone who is working, has to work less, but everyone who is capable has to work.

---

The problem with this suggestion is full time isn't an employee's choice most of the time. There are workers that want more hours but can't get them, and some that have availability restrictions (schooling, childcare) preventing full time even if they wanted it. Employers can only have so many full time positions, and once they're taken everyone else gets snuffed. If employers opt to cut part timers to allow more full timers then jobs will be cut. Basically, it's a really poorly thought out suggestion that only benefits people already in good positions, while the less fortunate continue getting nothing.

UBI rewards workers plenty, because they get the UBI and a paycheck. That leads to a much better QOL compared to those just collecting UBI, especially if UBI is not livable income or replaces other social programs.

---

Veedrock- posted...

The problem with this suggestion is full time isn't an employee's choice most of the time. There are workers that want more hours but can't get them, and some that have availability restrictions (schooling, childcare) preventing full time even if they wanted it. Employers can only have so many full time positions, and once they're taken everyone else gets snuffed. If employers opt to cut part timers to allow more full timers then jobs will be cut. Basically, it's a really poorly thought out suggestion that only benefits people already in good positions, while the less fortunate continue getting nothing.

UBI rewards workers plenty, because they get the UBI and a paycheck. That leads to a much better QOL compared to those just collecting UBI, especially if UBI is not livable income or replaces other social programs.

As mentioned in the suggestion the amount of pay would increase to allow people to work that many hours, ie, they get the same pay for working 3 days as they do now for working 5 days (3-4 days becomes the new full time job).

Currently if you don't work x amount of hours you don't get benefits etc, but that would change as well. More importantly it would create a higher demand for workers because you would in effect almost double the number of jobs (needing 2 people per job compared to the current system).

Everyone needs to work at most 32 hours a week with the new system, and those working 4 days make significantly more than those working 3 (but only 3 is needed to actually support oneself).

The "norm" would be a 3 day/4day split....alternating each week probably, but some people could just work 3 days all the time and still be fine (just less spending money) and some people could work 4 days and have more spending/saving money etc.

Helps a ton with families with kids as well since you can alternate with the other parent so one is off every day of the week (or one parent works 4 days and the other 3 days all the time). Always have a parent to watch kids if needed when really young etc.

Most importantly it's fair, while a UBI situation isn't, and can end up causing significant problems with younger generations (as has been seen in places where it is already in effect at least from what I hear). Was a teacher (think it was in Sweden) I was chatting with awhile ago that said they were having a problem with high school students having any motivation or starting to work after graduation etc.

UBI could work if you have a VERY small number of jobs (like only enough for 20% of the population) but until you are anywhere near that low of a number, it makes sense to just spread the work around as evenly as possible, while allowing people to work more if they really want (but it's not neccesary at all).

---

wolfy42 posted...

I mean at first I thought you said UTI and was like What!!!??

But actually I would rather see a reduction in the work week for everyone over a UBI setup.

That also allows it to be a more gradual change.

So initially instead of a 40 hour work week you basically switch over to a 3 day/4day plan and that allows every day of the week to be covered.

Everyone has either 3 days off a week or 4 days off a week (or alternates), but you can generally support yourself and live comfortably with only 3 days of work a week.

Then get rid of all welfare as well, and have workfare. Still only 3-4 days a week, but you have to work to get gov assistance (even if it's only answering the phones etc).

Right now it can take hours to get through to the IRS or DMV etc, but if you used the entire population of people who are not working to answer phones (from home) that would no longer be an issue).

As far as child care etc, mothers can watch children besides their own, so instead of just giving free money/rent, you have those mothers (or fathers I guess) actually work as child care centers instead, allowing everyone to have free child care pretty much, for the same money that is being spent now.

In the end everyone who is working, has to work less, but everyone who is capable has to work.

This is what I always wanted.

Forget a wage increase, Id be perfectly happy making the same amount of money that I do right now and having actual time to, you know, live my life. No more of this working six days a week, driving 40 minutes to work, staying there for eight and a half hours, driving 40 minutes to get home, and at the end of the day really only having four hours of real me time bullshit.

---

Yeah, I worked my whole life. I don't look back and think "Man, I wish I made more money", I look back and think "Man, I wish I had more time to enjoy it".

As more jobs become automated, less work hours by people will be needed as well. The concept of just having more and more of the population not work at all, while a smaller number do jobs that can't be automated, sounds pretty horrid to me actually.

On the other hand, having people be able to work, have power over how much money they get/make, choose a career and learn skills, help people and feel like they are contributing to society, but ALSO have them able to spend more time at home, with kids if they have them, traveling etc...seems perfect.

I don't even think it would be healthy/good to have a society where nobody worked at all anyway. I think it's far better to have a job you don't hate, but that doesn't take up all your time either.

But maybe that is just me. I have liked most of the jobs I have had, even working fast food when young etc. Some people just don't like work at all, and I guess they would prefer UBI.

I just think even if that is the case, it's not fair, and you should still contribute at least a little to the work force.

---

Yeah I dont mind working at all, its just how much of my life it takes up. I literally feel like Im living to work. I know its supposed to be eight hours sleep, eight hours work, eight hours of your time but that doesnt take into account unpaid lunches / breaks, commute time, getting ready, etc. and all that really adds up.

Im looking to make this not my life anymore, but because of just how the world is, I dont have much hope for myself.

---

blu posted...

Would you support giving all workers who work full time an annual stipend of some sort from the government?

So the government fist takes money from those workers in the form of taxes then gives some of it back to them. Is that not what they're doing now when workers file tax returns? The existence of the program would lead to higher taxes at which point you achieve the same result from the program not existing. The only difference being that the workers now have to wait to get the money that was taken in order to give to them later.

---

I feel like people would get paid less for only 3 days a week, right? Because if I would earn less because Im working less, then I think it should be a decision. I dont mind the amount of work I do for the pay I get. If I could work less, but made less, Id probably decline, tbh... I understand if it works for some people, though...
---

wolfy42 posted...

Most importantly it's fair,

How is it more fair than literally everyone getting a paycheck? If you want to work, you get a paycheck and UBI. If you don't want to work, you can make do with the UBI which at best is going to provide a living somewhere around the poverty line (probably below it). If you can't work, you get UBI and disability or unemployment or whatever, assuming UBI doesn't replace welfare

---

---

I just wish more people in higher management positions were required to have experience working in the company prior. You can easily get people in corporate setting rules for people while also having never even set foot in the same room that the type of work they do takes place in.

---

All of those are unfeasible in the US.
---

The only way I woild ever support UBI is if we moved to a flat tax so everyone paid the same.

sales tax on Expensive luxury items would be fine.

As repugnant as the anti capitalistic socialist idea of ubi is then a plan where only employed people get the socialist benefit only offends the basic tenets capitalism even more. The market will never be free when governments can now further control private businesses through being entagled with them even more than they are now.

the more the government meddles in our social lives and economic lives the worse it is for all.

---

Conner4REAL posted...

The market will never be free when governments can now further control private businesses

Read a history book sometime if you want to know what happens when private entities arent regulated. It leads to some pretty horrific outcomes.

---

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

I don't support UBI. Me thinks money better spent to do something like free school lunches, supporting childcare, expanding earned income tax credit.

---

blu posted...

Would you support giving all workers who work full time an annual stipend of some sort from the government? What about just all workers?

No, don't be ridiculous. And instead of making up stipends, just lower taxes by cutting entitlements for working-age NEETs (at which point they'll be forced to go out and get jobs themselves; obviously this can only be done AFTER the government stops shutting down the economy). And pretty much all functions in society would be eased if more people worked full-time, including cops and prisons since a good portion of people involved in illegal trades do so in lieu of honest work.

blu posted...

Or like, in some form, a government reward for working full time other than, you know, health care.

People shouldn't need a "reward" to do what they should be doing anyway, and giving rewards for what's expected of them can just them less likely to do what's expected of them because they'll hold out for extras.

wolfy42 posted...

But actually I would rather see a reduction in the work week for everyone over a UBI setup.

That also allows it to be a more gradual change.

So initially instead of a 40 hour work week you basically switch over to a 3 day/4day plan and that allows every day of the week to be covered.

And if we had greater worker involvement, maybe social changes like those might be more tenable, who knows? Instead right now you have people working 50-70 hours per week because enough workers can't be found and, in general, the 40-hour work week has long been a myth, particularly for white-collar employees.

Otherwise there are plenty of jobs which offer longer working days for a shorter working week. While the overall number of hours remain the same, having an extra day or two off can be appealing to people. (Conversely, there are other jobs where people work 6 shorter days, which appeals to other people. And while there might be people who would enjoy working 7 shorter days, I'm not sure that's offered all that much.)

Veedrock- posted...

The problem with this suggestion is full time isn't an employee's choice most of the time. There are workers that want more hours but can't get them, and some that have availability restrictions (schooling, childcare) preventing full time even if they wanted it.

Greater worker involvement means that the cost of childcare would go down. And you can work full-time and go to school full-time, which I know because I fucking did it. However, a lot of college students today don't even work at all, which is fucking insane until you realize that the government lets them put their education on a credit card -- and then is open to canceling that debt afterward -- so there's limited incentive for them to work while in school.

LinkPizza posted...

I feel like people would get paid less for only 3 days a week, right? Because if I would earn less because Im working less, then I think it should be a decision. I dont mind the amount of work I do for the pay I get. If I could work less, but made less, Id probably decline, tbh... I understand if it works for some people, though...

That really depends on the society as a whole and how it was implemented. Back when the 40-hour workweek became a thing, it was driven by industry leaders. However, government -- directly and indirectly -- hurt many of those same industries, leading to the labor being outsourced. Obviously is society was exactly as it is now, you couldn't immediately have a shorter workweek and generally a shorter workweek has feasibility issues when it comes to skilled work. However, it's worth noting that, in lieu of offering more money or tangible benefits, employers in fields have been sometimes offering their highly-skilled workers more flexible hours, shorter working hours, etc (which works more in theory than practice for some jobs, because there's still work that needs to be done)

And, technically speaking, you can spread a roughly 40-hour workweek across 3 days. At that point it's the same working hours across fewer days. And there are jobs that offer 3-4 day work weeks like that.

---

Zeus posted...

And, technically speaking, you can spread a roughly 40-hour workweek across 3 days. At that point it's the same working hours across fewer days. And there are jobs that offer 3-4 day work weeks like that.

I know. But Im not really all about that every week. What I work now is just 80 hours every 2 weeks, which works well. And I can leave early or stay late if I want. I just kind of like how its set up. Less days would also mean longer days for the same amount of hours. And while Im fine with that every once in a while, everyday would suck if it were that long...
---

Increase personal tax exemptions.

---

wolfy42 posted...

I mean at first I thought you said UTI and was like What!!!??

But actually I would rather see a reduction in the work week for everyone over a UBI setup.

That also allows it to be a more gradual change.

So initially instead of a 40 hour work week you basically switch over to a 3 day/4day plan and that allows every day of the week to be covered.

Everyone has either 3 days off a week or 4 days off a week (or alternates), but you can generally support yourself and live comfortably with only 3 days of work a week.

Then get rid of all welfare as well, and have workfare. Still only 3-4 days a week, but you have to work to get gov assistance (even if it's only answering the phones etc).

Right now it can take hours to get through to the IRS or DMV etc, but if you used the entire population of people who are not working to answer phones (from home) that would no longer be an issue).

As far as child care etc, mothers can watch children besides their own, so instead of just giving free money/rent, you have those mothers (or fathers I guess) actually work as child care centers instead, allowing everyone to have free child care pretty much, for the same money that is being spent now.

In the end everyone who is working, has to work less, but everyone who is capable has to work.

This doesn't sound to bad at all. Actually, I would opt for something that isnt so much on the work mentality culture to where you turn into a zombie or development a mental illness. For example from past experience with this one job... There was a position where you work Mon thru Sat. Saturdays are always mandatory. And to add an extra kick to your ass, you only get PTO after a year of working there. How many days do you ask? Only 5 days. 5 fucking days... its pathetic and sad. Now, another job I work at once hired in, you get 15 days right off the bat with an additional 5 sick days. So thats 20 days!!

If there is anything our work culture that needs a revamp is our PTO. I work to live, I dont live to work. You dont want to become burnt out by the time your 40 pledging loyalty to a company that treats you like "family" which I hate when they use that term so much. Its important not just to have that suitable income, true... but its also important to live.

Yeah, remember central to my idea above, you get paid MORE for the hours you work, instead of just giving money away for free with UBI.

That money is still given to people, just you work for it, and get more for the hours you work.

So basically you needed to work 40+ hours in the current/old system, but instead of giving everyone $1500 a month for free, that gets added to your salary/hourly wage, and now you only need to work 24-32 hours a week.

Instead of a universal basic income, you have a universal basic salary. You don't boost min wage (because that just increases prices etc, and isn't fair to people who were making more then min wage before (but not by a ton), you implement a supplimental salary that americans get for the first 32 hours they work each week. It's limited to a certain income range though, so if your making 100k+ you don't actually get a suppliment.

Sadly you'll need to provide SOME incentive for many companies to hire employes only for 32 hours or so (or let them work that many or less), so it would prob make sense to give a $1/hr or something like that to the company the employee works for as well.

Basically instead of giving $1500 to all americans, you give $1000 extra to any americans working 32 hours a week (broken up by hour so you could just work 16 hours and get half ($500), who is making less than X income per yet/month etc (Based on your previous months income).

So right now you work for $13 an hour, work 40 hours a week and get $520 net pay for the week. With the above system you get the same $13 hours a week, but only need to work 32 hours (1 day less), but have a takehome now of $416+$250 or $666 (that was totally random I didn't plan it!!).

So you actually take home more, work less and it's WAY cheaper then a UBI system would be (and way more fair).

More to the point because of that you could still get by and be making almost the same as before only working 24 hours a week (3 days) and it's probably about exactly the same if you alternate (3 days then 4 days repeat).

That would make working so much easier with young kids.

Also along with that you nix most of the welfare programs and make them workfair (but still affected by the same system above). You can have a parent work at day care centers etc, so they both spend time with their kids, and watch other kids as well, you can have disabled people (physically) answer phones etc etc. There is tons of wasted potential for our workforce right now, which is a shame. I don't believe it's healthy to just stay at home and not work, but at the same time there is no reason why people need to spend so much of their waking hours working anymore, we have technology and resources to allow the average american to work only half of the days each week (3.5 days on average) easily.

Everyone would have more energy when going to work in such a case, even jobs they don't like won't be as bad as they have a break from it every week. It gives people more time to better themselves and train, parents more time with kids etc.

UBI I think would be a disaster and I have not heard good things from the places that have implemented it.

UBS though, that could solve alot of problems (although some form of rent control/regulated housing etc is needed in many cities or the prices will just go up due to demand along with any wage increase).

---