●Stories
●Firehose
●All
●Popular
●Polls
●Software
●Thought Leadership
Submit
●
Login
●or
●
Sign up
●Topics:
●Devices
●Build
●Entertainment
●Technology
●Open Source
●Science
●YRO
●Follow us:
●RSS
●Facebook
●LinkedIn
●Twitter
●
Youtube
●
Mastodon
●Bluesky
Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop
Forgot your password?
Close
Post
Load All Comments
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
/Sea
Score:
5
4
3
2
1
0
-1
More
| Reply
Login
Forgot your password?
Close
Close
Log In/Create an Account
●
All
●
Insightful
●
Informative
●
Interesting
●
Funny
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
byDrMrLordX ( 559371 ) writes:
Isn't that supposed to be covered by unemployment benefits?
byMr. Dollar Ton ( 5495648 ) writes:
No, unemployment benefits deal with frictional unemployment. The short-term, between jobs kind.
Structural unemployment, which is what allegedly the llms are about to unleash has always been dealt with by a more complex policy.
byDrMrLordX ( 559371 ) writes:
Yes but if you're dealing with mass unemployment due to AI, why set up a UBI when you could expand unemployment instead?
byMr. Dollar Ton ( 5495648 ) writes:
The theory behind UBI that I've heard is that it saves on administrative procedures. A lot.
Imagine UBI exists.
All the right wing nut talking points about "fraud" would disappear and all those billions spent on ICE and the like would go to the people.
Or some such.
Reply to This Parent
twitter
facebook
Flag as Inappropriate
byDrMrLordX ( 559371 ) writes:
Yeah, sure. As if it takes much in the way of administrative procedures to operate existing unemployment benefits programs at higher benefit levels and/or longer benefit durations (it doesn't).
byBert64 ( 520050 ) writes:
One of the biggest problems with existing programs is fraud (ie people making claims who shouldnt). Because such fraud happens there is then a lot of money spent on enforcement, as well as entitlement checks for anyone applying.
With a UBI scheme everyone gets it by default, so there is much less fraud and no entitlement checks. Everyone simply gets it wether they're employed or not.
It also means that actually working is beneficial, because someone working will always be better off than someone relying solely on their UBI. Contrast that with the current system where someone on low paid work might actually be worse off, or could be claiming welfare anyway to top up their low salary (more complexity).
Reply to This Parent
twitter
facebook
Flag as Inappropriate
byBadgerStork ( 7656678 ) writes:
How does UBI stop me from claiming twice and for my dead grandma and for twelve people who don't exist?
byangel'o'sphere ( 80593 ) writes:
By: you only get it once.
And no one cares about your grandma or other twelve persons ... because they have to make their own claims ... ooops. And as your grandma is dead, her UBI got suspended the day she died ... no idea what YOU want to claim about her.
bydfarrow ( 1683868 ) writes:
Yes, because there are absolutely no people fraudulently claiming welfare benefits for dead people or people who don't exist.
byOgive17 ( 691899 ) writes:
Your arguing extreme exceptions. Hopefully any program being set up would have safe guards in place to stop 99% of those attempts. I'm sure there will be some people who find a way to cheat the system but it would be a very tiny percentage.
bydrinkypoo ( 153816 ) writes:
This is quite rare. If it does happen it rarely happens for more than six months, because there are required reports where they tend to get caught. People don't get cash aid with a phone call, they have to actually come in to the office and documents are notarized, and there's a lot more scrutiny both before granting and afterwards with SIU investigations and the like based on third party reports of fraud. Social security benefit fraud of this type is even more rare because of the reports of death which are
bywhitroth ( 9367 ) writes:
What, the 1%-2% that cheat? That IS the actual percentage, not what Faux Noise is telling you.
Now, let's talk about how billionaires pay zip... and, assuming you're too young to remember the election of 2012, Mitt Romney, running against Obama, in a debate on tv, admitted to paying about 14%, as opposed to his secretary, who was paying 36% or 38%.
byRandseed ( 132501 ) writes:
You could just open a new Learing center in Minneapolis.
byOl Olsoc ( 1175323 ) writes:
One of the biggest problems with existing programs is fraud (ie people making claims who shouldnt). Because such fraud happens there is then a lot of money spent on enforcement, as well as entitlement checks for anyone applying.
With a UBI scheme everyone gets it by default, so there is much less fraud and no entitlement checks. Everyone simply gets it wether they're employed or not.
It also means that actually working is beneficial, because someone working will always be better off than someone relying solely on their UBI. Contrast that with the current system where someone on low paid work might actually be worse off, or could be claiming welfare anyway to top up their low salary (more complexity).
I wonder how much less fraud there will be. As an example, a friend of my wife is working, yet has three autistic children she is receiving SSI payments for as well as support from her ex. The wife says that all three appear normal, well adjusted, and intelligent. The oldest one plans to start college in a couple years.
All strata of people commit fraud. Or is this just the standard Slashdot narrative that the honesty, morality, and basic decency of all humans is inversely proportional to how much money t
bydrinkypoo ( 153816 ) writes:
The SSA has to make a determination of disability before SSI (or for that matter SSDI) is granted, so blame the SSA for getting it wrong.
byOl Olsoc ( 1175323 ) writes:
The SSA has to make a determination of disability before SSI (or for that matter SSDI) is granted, so blame the SSA for getting it wrong.
And? Autism is pretty hard to prove, and yes, there was a time when a lot of things got rubber stamped. All that said, if the ATM spits out a thousand dollars, and you take it, then you are stealing it. The child claimed to be autistic to a point where he needs supplemental income just to live, yet presents normally socialized, and will be going to college is hardly a person who needs that money.
It isn't his fault, it is his mothers. but interesting that you support the fraud. No, just because there was
bydrinkypoo ( 153816 ) writes:
It isn't his fault, it is his mothers. but interesting that you support the fraud.
The SSA is using people who are not medical professionals to make what are effectively medical determinations. This is ever so much bullshit. People can appeal with the same facts (documentation etc) and have a much higher approval rate when they do, and then they have a yet higher approval rate if they employ a disability lawyer (who takes a portion of their back benefits as payment.)
I am very much not supporting fraud, I am saying that the people whose job it is to stop the fraud from occurring in the fir
byOl Olsoc ( 1175323 ) writes:
It isn't his fault, it is his mothers. but interesting that you support the fraud.
The SSA is using people who are not medical professionals to make what are effectively medical determinations. This is ever so much bullshit.
This is true. I don't actually think you support fraud, Just a rhetorical thingy.
In support of what you note, the approval process is seriously inconsistent. I knew a woman who was definitely in bad shape -yet no approval. In the 2010 era, they were granting SS disability to people in some communities that had jobs that were going away forever, like clothing manufacturers. They were not disabled, just going to be hard to employ (heard this on NPR)
The hell of the thing is that SSI - even basic Social Se
byspitzak ( 4019 ) writes:
In your example the woman's three children would get EXACTLY THE SAME AMOUT of UBI, no matter whether they are autistic and or her own situation and income. This is why fraud would be reduced, because there are many fewer things that a person can do to change how much they get. Obviously things like making up fake recipients would still work, but all "lie on the application" fraud is removed. At least pretend to understand the argument before saying anything.
byOl Olsoc ( 1175323 ) writes:
In your example the woman's three children would get EXACTLY THE SAME AMOUT of UBI, no matter whether they are autistic and or her own situation and income. This is why fraud would be reduced, because there are many fewer things that a person can do to change how much they get. Obviously things like making up fake recipients would still work, but all "lie on the application" fraud is removed. At least pretend to understand the argument before saying anything.
Had to get to insult level, didn't ya. Funny how people who would claim to be so much smarter than me believe that UBI is some sort of fraud deterrent.
Like this woman would be pure and law abiding if only they threw money at her and her children.
SOrry, perhaps you do not know as much about human nature as you purport to. She worked. She got Child support, she got Alimony.
She did not get the SSI money because she needed it. She got it by taking advantage of the system. She used the SSI to support he
byspitzak ( 4019 ) writes:
I think there are problems with UBI, but the basic fact that EVERYBODY GETS IT means it is impossible for there to be fraud where somebody who should not get it lies and recieves it, for the simple reason that no such person exists.
byOl Olsoc ( 1175323 ) writes:
I think there are problems with UBI, but the basic fact that EVERYBODY GETS IT means it is impossible for there to be fraud where somebody who should not get it lies and recieves it, for the simple reason that no such person exists.
Fortunately there is no other form of Fraud, amirite?
I think you are trying to box me in as some sort of right wing nut. So let's move on - okay, should everyone get UBI from birth? You said in all caps - "EVERYBODY GETS IT". So okay, at birth a person stars getting UBI. How much?
Now since it is in your words, impossible to there to be any fraud under UBI. it's take this woman who funds her lifestyle with th eSSI her pretend autistic children get. So your system of everybody gets UBI - will autistic c
byMr. Dollar Ton ( 5495648 ) writes:
All strata of people commit fraud. Or is this just the standard Slashdot narrative that the honesty, morality, and basic decency of all humans is inversely proportional to how much money they have.
In all strata of people there is fraud that is committed. But in some strata the volumes of damage done per fraudster are huger because of the sheer scale possible, the percentage of the fraudsters in the stratum is enormouser because of the character traits one acquires to get into that stratum, and the chance to become the target of a rightful retribution is much, much smaller because the ability to influence the outcome is directly proportional to the fraud scale.
This ain't new or controversial, it is a
bysarren1901 ( 5415506 ) writes:
I love the idea but something tells me the ruling class will just have the masses murdered, possibly by AI drones, instead of just providing for us.
byMr. Dollar Ton ( 5495648 ) writes:
Of course, and why not if the masses are by and large supportive of this.
byphysicsphairy ( 720718 ) writes:
With a UBI scheme everyone gets it by default, so there is much less fraud
The idea you can disburse massive money with less oversight and get *less* fraud is as crazy as it sounds.
In fact we got a nice empirical taste in what to expect in the pandemic payouts. Numerous persons and addresses were invented. Checks were intercepted in the mail or redirected to a different address and washed. Or people were scammed e.g. by being sent fake "overpayments" they needed to "partially refund" to the scammers. That was hundreds of billions defrauded from the government just from two payouts
byDrMrLordX ( 559371 ) writes:
As others have noted, fraud is a problem no matter what. The more people that can draw off a program, the more potential there is for fraud. Means-testing/status-testing is not meant to be an enabler of fraud but rather a deterrent. If your administrative processes are already so broken that your solution is "fuck it, just give everyone money!" then there are much larger problems with your society than unemployment.
● your current threshold.
byMr. Dollar Ton ( 5495648 ) writes:
I did not say I subscribe to the theory, I just explained what it is.
The problem is more fundamental, capitalism has found the way to buy democracy wholesale and make the human life worthless, and this will work against any democracy and very fast.
Therefore you, writing here and your descendants are doomed if you leave it to large capital to decide.
The choice is yours - either press to get back your right of "life, liberty and pursuit of happiness" under some paradigm that is meaningful today, and it is obv
byDrMrLordX ( 559371 ) writes:
Considering this story relates to the UK specifically, it would only affect people living there. But. It does seem that any scheme that requires companies laying off employees to compensate them in the event that they are replaced by AI/automation would be a step away from letting "large capital to decide". Unless of course the entire program is created by lobbyists, in which case it could be used to stifle competition.
bysmoot123 ( 1027084 ) writes:
The theory behind UBI that I've heard is that it saves on administrative procedures.
The other big advantage of a truly universal UBI, universal meaning literally everyone gets paid, is it avoids disincentives to find work. If you lose your unemployment by getting a job, that's a big disincentive, particularly if the new wage is close to the unemployment benefit.
IIRC, there was research showing that a large number of people found jobs right as their unemployment was ending. I would be surprised if this wasn't the case.
byDrMrLordX ( 559371 ) writes:
That doesn't track. By that logic, a UBI would provide disincentive for ANYONE to work.
People getting unemployment or furlough pay will happily work under the table for cash if they find the opportunity. Maybe let them seek side jobs while still drawing unemployment? Especially if large percentages of your people are being laid off semi-permanently due to AI/automation?
bysmoot123 ( 1027084 ) writes:
That doesn't track. By that logic, a UBI would provide disincentive for ANYONE to work.
Right, it definitely will do that. By raising all incomes, UBI reduces the marginal value (you value the first dollar you earn much more than the 100,000th) of all dollars earned. Some number of people will decide that they value their time more than low income jobs and will reduce their hours. I don't remember exactly but I think the UBI experiments we've tried showed this does happen but don't remember the details.
What the Universal part also does is avoid depressing the marginal value of work. Today, you
There may be more comments in this discussion. Without JavaScript enabled, you might want to turn on Classic Discussion System in your preferences instead.
Slashdot
●
●
Submit Story
If A = B and B = C, then A = C, except where void or prohibited by law.
-- Roy Santoro
●FAQ
●Story Archive
●Hall of Fame
●Advertising
●Terms
●Privacy Statement
●About
●Feedback
●Mobile View
●Blog
Do Not Sell or Share My Personal Information
Copyright © 2026 Slashdot Media. All Rights Reserved.
×
Close
Working...
Working...