Alaska's Universal Basic Income, Supported By Liberals and Conservatives Under Attack

[PoliTalker]

"How to Hand Out Free Money
When the robots take our jobs, we’ll need another form of income. Alaska can show us the way."

Mother Jones

"For nearly four decades, the Permanent Fund Dividend (PFD) program, designed to share revenue from the state’s oil wealth, has made flat annual payouts to anyone who has lived there for at least one calendar year, barring those with certain criminal convictions. While the program’s architects didn’t use the term, it’s the closest thing today to a universal basic income program that has durably existed anywhere in the world.

The concept of universal basic income—in which governments pay residents a set sum regularly, no strings attached—has gained momentum in recent years. A growing chorus of Silicon Valley executives has called the policy inevitable, as automation threatens to displace one-third of American workers by 2030, raising the specter of unemployed masses rioting in the streets. Others have revived the idea as an efficient solution to poverty and inequality. Y Combin*ator, the tech startup accelerator, will soon test basic income with 3,000 people in two states, following a smaller study in Oakland, California. The city of Stockton, California, will launch a guaranteed income pilot in 2019, and lawmakers in Hawaii and Chicago are considering following suit. Trials have also launched in Barcelona, Canada, Finland, Kenya, Uganda, and Switzerland. In the United States, the concept is inching its way into the mainstream; Hillary Clinton’s campaign memoir disclosed she seriously considered floating a universal basic income program called “Alaska for America” during her 2016 run."

PoliTalker anti-troll thread thief disclaimer: If this thread is stolen, plagiarized, will the thief have the nerve to use the entire OP, word for word? Including this disclaimer? If you want my take on it, you'll have to post to this original PoliTalker thread. I refuse to be an enabler for online bullies, so I won't post to a stolen thread. I won't even read it. If you don't see me, PoliTalker, posting in this thread check the author. This might be a hijacked thread, not the original.

Eventually, most jobs as we know them will be performed by robots. Artificial Intelligence is changing the way we work. This level of automation will dwarf anything seen in the past. And it will not generate more jobs than it eliminates. We are on the precipice of having a society where there are far more willing workers than jobs.

As if we don't have that already. We can fool ourselves by claiming jobs are abundant and unemployment is low, but it is rarely wise to fool ourselves. Yes, jobs are abundant and unemployment is low, technically, but the unemployment figures count anybody working one hour per week as not unemployed. Nobody can live on one hour's pay unless they are CEO of a major corporation, so for millions of Americans, work and paychecks are not enough to live on. There is not enough work for everybody, and much of the work that is there doesn't pay enough to live on.

And the situation is poised to become far worse.

The need for government assistance is about to be amplified.

Should we continue to pay lots of government workers to be part of a huge bureaucracy to decide who gets benefits and who doesn't?

What if there was another way? That's a lot of money to run government agencies and pay people to enforce elaborate rules to decide who is needy and who isn't. It's a lot of overhead. It costs the taxpayers a lot of money just to try to figure out who gets what.

What if we simply handed out the money instead?

If we had a UBI, much of the government safety net could be dismantled.

Who is going to pay for it all?

The ultra rich. That's who.

The ultra rich are far richer than most. Most people don't even have any idea how rich the super-rich are. But let me tell you. They are rich. Rich enough to cover this.

And they are about to get a lot richer. Extreme wealth inequality is not going to stop. AI is going to launch it into the stratosphere. The only people who will be able to afford the fancy AI machines that will, not only do most jobs but also service and repair the new AI machines as well as design and build improves AI machines, will be the super-wealthy. Workers will not be able to own their own 'worker machine' that goes and does their job for them. No. It will not work that way. The super-wealthy will own those machines and they won't need workers any more. The 'job creator' nonsense will be blown out of the water. The AI race will be a race to eliminate jobs.

Your job could be going away.

And you might not be able to get another one.

The very need for whatever you are trained for will be going away.

And so will your paychecks.

And revenue.

We are going to have to raise taxes on the super-wealthy, and we are going to have to tax them enough to pay for the UBI.

There's no other way to do it.

Unless you have a better idea.

[Irish Exit]

The Alaskan largess is under attack by democrats who want to ban fossil fuels. Without oil, Alaska is the land of pirates.

[PoliTalker]

Hello Kacper,

The Alaskan largess is under attack by democrats who want to ban fossil fuels. Without oil, Alaska is the land of pirates.

It is not just Democrats who want to ban fossil fuels. It is people who understand we cannot extract and burn everything that's in the ground without destroying our atmosphere and habitat.

If we look beyond the primary source of funding for this, on an existential level, the State taxed the RICH and handed out MONEY TO EVERYBODY.

And it WORKED.

So once you get past all the loaded partisan arguments, Alaska has proven that the concept works quite well.

Now that we know it does, we should institute it for the entire nation.

Because we are going to need to sooner or later.

This is one instance where we could do something BEFORE the damage of avoiding it wreaks havoc.

Side note.

Do you protect and defend the super-rich?

If so, why?

They don't need your help.

We are going to have to gang up on them and share the wealth.

[Irish Exit]

Hello Kacper,



It is not just Democrats who want to ban fossil fuels. It is people who understand we cannot extract and burn everything that's in the ground without destroying our atmosphere and habitat.

If we look beyond the primary source of funding for this, on an existential level, the State taxed the RICH and handed out MONEY TO EVERYBODY.

And it WORKED.

So once you get past all the loaded partisan arguments, Alaska has proven that the concept works quite well.

Now that we know it does, we should institute it for the entire nation.

Because we are going to need to sooner or later.

This is one instance where we could do something BEFORE the damage of avoiding it wreaks havoc.

Side note.

Do you protect and defend the super-rich?

If so, why?

They don't need your help.

We are going to have to gang up on them and share the wealth.

Alaska has not shown that basic income works because it doesn't have a sustainable source of revenue outside of oil to support the program.

I don't protect and defend the super rich. You do. You just don't see it. "Basic Income Guarantee" means "Corporate profits guarantee". It alters the natural dynamics of the market that otherwise check excess. You are not defending the little guy. You are defending replacing the little guy with a robot and still guaranteeing there is money for the products made by the robot.

[PoliTalker]

Hello Kacper,

Alaska has not shown that basic income works because it doesn't have a sustainable source of revenue outside of oil to support the program.

The UBI does work. Alaska has shown that because it has not destroyed the Alaskan economy. All the fears and worries about such a concept causing people to die from laziness have been proven moot. It doesn't matter what the source is. In this case, the source has been from taxing oil extraction. It could be from taxing a different kind of wealth, and be just as effective.

I don't protect and defend the super rich.

The question was not directed at you.

You do.

That's interesting. But I suppose I can see how this could be said.

You just don't see it.

I just said I did.

"Basic Income Guarantee" means "Corporate profits guarantee".

No it doesn't.

It alters the natural dynamics of the market that otherwise check excess.

The natural dynamics of the market are self-destructive. They need to be constantly altered by proper regulation, without which, capitalism would self-implode.

You are not defending the little guy.

I am defending society and a sustainable economy.

You are defending replacing the little guy with a robot

No, I am realistically acknowleding that this is unavoidable.

and still guaranteeing there is money for the products made by the robot.

Unless we want to go back to hunter-gatherer / subsistence-farmer status, society will produce and consume products. All I have done has been to recognize this.

[Irish Exit]

[QUOTE=PoliTalker;2810195]Hello Kacper,

The UBI does work. Alaska has shown that because it has not destroyed the Alaskan economy. All the fears and worries about such a concept causing people to die from laziness have been proven moot. It doesn't matter what the source is. In this case, the source has been from taxing oil extraction. It could be from taxing a different kind of wealth, and be just as effective.

The Alaskan checks are $2K per person. It isn't a basic income and you have yet to explain how they would fund that without oil revenue.

[anonymoose]

Hello Kacper,



The UBI does work. Alaska has shown that because it has not destroyed the Alaskan economy. All the fears and worries about such a concept causing people to die from laziness have been proven moot. It doesn't matter what the source is. In this case, the source has been from taxing oil extraction. It could be from taxing a different kind of wealth, and be just as effective.

The dividend seems to be all many Alaskans care about now. Politics reflects that.
https://www.adn.com/opinions/2019/01...c-fb9fce026ebb

That was from an uber liberal local columnist. The PFD has not been good for responsible politics.
Also i'm not going to say the PFD has destroyed the Alaskan economy but we're the worst economy in the union at the moment. And we're handing out PFD checks. does that make sense to you?

[anonymoose]

Hello Kacper,



The UBI does work. Alaska has shown that because it has not destroyed the Alaskan economy. All the fears and worries about such a concept causing people to die from laziness have been proven moot. It doesn't matter what the source is. In this case, the source has been from taxing oil extraction. It could be from taxing a different kind of wealth, and be just as effective.

The Permanent Fund dividend was a bad idea. Enshrining it in the Alaska Constitution would be harebrained.
If you can say anything for certain about many lawmakers, it is this: They never, ever give up pushing their ideas — no matter how lousy those ideas might be.

Take, for instance, the notion of enshrining the Permanent Fund dividend — itself a particularly harebrained public policy decision dating back to 1980 — in the Alaska Constitution, thereby compounding the Legislature’s 39-year-old error.

Lawmakers — Republicans and Democrats alike, I’m sorry to say — have embarrassed themselves over the past few years with repeated attempts to constitutionally ensure the Permanent Fund dividend is paid, no matter what.

This time around, Democratic Sen. Bill Wielechowski, as he did in 2016, has offered Senate Joint Resolution 1. In the House, Democratic Rep. Chris Tuck has offered mirror legislation in House Joint Resolution 3. If approved by two-thirds of the Legislature and voters, the amendment would enshrine the dividends and a formula to calculate them.

The impetus for all this appears to be former Gov. Bill Walker’s overriding the statute-based formula in 2016 and vetoing $696 million of the $1.4 billion appropriated by the Legislature for dividends as the state faced massive budget deficits.

Wielechowski sued, challenging the governor’s veto authority. The Alaska Supreme Court sided with Walker. The Legislature, not to be outdone, overrode the formula in the following two years. The money remains stashed in the fund’s $16.6 billion earnings reserve account.

A lingering question unanswered by the save-the-dividend-at-all-costs crowd is this: If oil prices crash, as they did in the 1980s and again a few years ago — and prices were to remain low — what then? Dividends are nice, but Alaska has other constitutional obligations, funding retirees and education among them. Would an enshrined dividend, complete with its own formula, elevate the annual payout above retirement pay or funding education, which have no constitutionally mandated spending formula, when push comes to shove? That seems almost unthinkable.

In a state with a long, sad history of boom-and-bust cycles and only one resource to pay the bills, how can anybody begin to guarantee — constitutionally guarantee, no less — an annual dividend, when nobody even knows for sure how much money the state will have next Thursday? What happens when there is not even enough money to pay the required dividends? What if there is not enough money for dividends and government services, even truncated government services? What goes away to pay dividends? Public safety? Health? Courts? Medicaid?

Count me among the grievously conflicted, those who like the dividend, but know it is wrong, wrong, wrong. OK, count me among the grievously conflicted, those who love the dividend, but know it is wrong, wrong, wrong. It is free dough, a sinfully guilty pleasure akin to ignoring your doctor and eating a pile of Chicago hot dogs, pizza and chocolate cake — and washing it all down with $200-a-shot hooch. And the idea of reimbursing the dividends shorted over the past few years? That is more than appealing — despite real questions about where the dough would come from.

That the dividend, as hatched, was a bad idea is undebatable. It has pushed and tugged at Alaska’s fiscal policy for decades and now is the tail wagging the dog. Ostensibly created as a buffer to protect the state’s oil wealth savings account from greedy lawmakers, it has morphed into a vast entitlement program. Over the years, as Alaskans grew more attached to their slice of Alaska’s oil wealth, the now-$61 billion saving and investment account’s raison d’être evolved — from being the Alaska Permanent Fund to the Alaska Permanent Dividend Fund.

When it comes to the dividends, it would be nice to stuff the genie back in the bottle, rethink the entire idea and find a better way to keep government honest, but we are all grown-ups here. The dividend is going nowhere; that train left years ago. It now is an integral part of the Alaska economy, a financial cornerstone for many Alaskans and economic manna from heaven. Doing away with it could be calamitous on many levels.

While there are many Weilechowskis and Tucks among us who sincerely believe enshrining the dividend is a good idea, they are wrong. At some point, a constitutionally protected dividend would inflict real fiscal damage. The answer is not in making the dividends unassailable, it is in changing the statute to provide an affordable dividend and electing lawmakers and a governor who will follow established law — and punishing them at the ballot box when they do not. The dividend program, you will remember, chugged along just fine without constitutional protection from 1980 until Walker’s veto.

Adopting a new, untenable and burdensome constitutional amendment with the potential for catastrophic consequences is not just an idea.

It is a lousy idea.

So now I've provided two opinion pieces from local op-ed writers.

The dividend seems to be all many Alaskans care about now. Politics reflects that.
https://www.adn.com/opinions/2019/01...c-fb9fce026ebb

One very liberal, the other very conservative.
Both opinions are very very negative about the PFD . Not only is it dysfunctional but downright bad for the state.

[kudzu]

The Alaskan largess is under attack by democrats who want to ban fossil fuels. Without oil, Alaska is the land of pirates.

You do know that Sarah Palin killed 4 Exxon projects before she quit as governor of Alaska.

[Irish Exit]

You do know that Sarah Palin killed 4 Exxon projects before she quit as governor of Alaska.

So? Does not change that 1) The Alaskan checks are not a basic income and 2) Alaska is completely dependent on oil for those checks. Alaska has a very high cost of living. a couple grand a year isn't going to put a dent in that.

[kudzu]

So? Does not change that 1) The Alaskan checks are not a basic income and 2) Alaska is completely dependent on oil for those checks. Alaska has a very high cost of living. a couple grand a year isn't going to put a dent in that.

You're right.. Palin killed the Exxon projects and increased the checks that year by $2,000... and she considers herself to be a conservative Republican.

[Irish Exit]

You're right.. Palin killed the Exxon projects and increased the checks that year by $2,000... and she considers herself to be a conservative Republican.

It was a one time payment of an extra $1,200.00 and the dividend formula resulted in a higher than usual base payment. It would have been a lot more the last couple years but the governor keeps obstructing the higher pay outs.

As for whether or not Palin is or was a true scotsman, doesn't matter to me. I don't carry GOP water.

[PoliTalker]

Hello Kacper,

So? Does not change that 1) The Alaskan checks are not a basic income and 2) Alaska is completely dependent on oil for those checks. Alaska has a very high cost of living. a couple grand a year isn't going to put a dent in that.

Did you know that some Alaskans are so poor that their only income is the Permanent Fund Dividend, PFD?

Some people live in such remote areas that money is not their biggest challenge in survival.

For them, the PFD IS their only income, it is quite basic, and it is what they live on.

[Frank Apisa]

Something akin to a Universal Basic Income will be the norm throughout the world...IN EVERY COUNTRY, INCLUDING THE UNITED STATES...at some point relatively soon. My guess is it will happen well within the lifetimes of poeople now alive...in fact, well within the lifetimes of people now adults.

The notion of "earning one's living" is an anachronism that we are well rid of.

The notion of working is fine...but not to earn a living. Not today...not with what we have going for us.

Experiments will happen along these lines...some will be more successful than others...some will be total flops.

But it is the only way to go.

[PoliTalker]

Hello Frank,

I didn't think it would take long for you to want to be part of this important discussion. Thanks for your interest.

Something akin to a Universal Basic Income will be the norm throughout the world...IN EVERY COUNTRY, INCLUDING THE UNITED STATES...at some point relatively soon. My guess is it will happen well within the lifetimes of poeople now alive...in fact, well within the lifetimes of people now adults.

The notion of "earning one's living" is an anachronism that we are well rid of.

The notion of working is fine...but not to earn a living. Not today...not with what we have going for us.

Experiments will happen along these lines...some will be more successful than others...some will be total flops.

But it is the only way to go.

Oh, it's coming alright.

No matter how far into past economies the right wants to cling.

From the OP link:

"Y Combin*ator, the tech startup accelerator, will soon test basic income with 3,000 people in two states, following a smaller study in Oakland, California. The city of Stockton, California, will launch a guaranteed income pilot in 2019, and lawmakers in Hawaii and Chicago are considering following suit. Trials have also launched in Barcelona, Canada, Finland, Kenya, Uganda, and Switzerland. In the United States, the concept is inching its way into the mainstream"