Goons Just Want to Have Fun: The UBI Thread

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Goons Just Want to Have Fun: The UBI Thread

Mellow Seas: Oct 9, 2012; Can't post for 10 years!

This is a thread for discussing the theory, implementation and effects of a Universal Basic Income. What is UBI?

quote:

SA forum posters think they should be paid money to do nothing but sit around and post all day.

Good guess, my friend, but not quite there!

Mellow Seas posted:

They wouldn't be paid to sit around and post, they would be paid to be law-abiding human citizens who are warm, dry and fed. Posting all day would just be what they did because they like it and it's free.

Well, that's the thing about Universal Basic Income, is that it's universal. You wouldn't have to work to support someone who is able to work and doesn't want to, because you wouldn't have to work at all. You would work because you wanted more money, to get a really nice place, to buy fancy stuff, to impress romantic partners, to travel, for entertainment. I strongly believe that society can work that way - that people will be productive without coercion. As a basic standard of living can be achieved so efficiently with modern technology and economies of scale, the carrot has become tasty enough to make the world turn, and it's time to retire the stick.

Who would do tough-rear end, traumatic jobs like driving an ambulance? People who really wanted to help people, for whatever the job paid. It's possible that in that situation the job (and other tough jobs) would pay even better. And your wages could be invested, or spent and enjoyed, instead of just keeping you alive.

Wow, sounds nice, could it happen in the US?

Mellow Seas posted:

UBI is absolutely essential, and probably coming within 10-20 years; let's hope it's not one that reduces social support like Andrew Yang's. (A UBI without universal healthcare and some kind of housing guarantee would not work very well.)

The main thing, and this is something I hoped people would've realized in spring 2020, but it seems they didn't, is that such a huge, huge portion of the "work" that gets done is totally useless. Take the Walgreens refrigerator thing. Somebody designed that loving fridge door, people built them, somebody went around convincing people they were useful, executives spent time procuring them, people installed them. That's millions and millions of dollars in economic activity, thousands and thousands of man-hours, with an end result that made the world unequivocally shittier.

It's just, I think eventually they'll have no choice. The same reason that the WPA or Social Security was passed, or why Covid relief was passed: because the costs of not doing the thing were higher to the elites (in the form of extreme social unrest) than the cost of doing the thing. The fact that a prominent (if clearly unviable) primary candidate talked about it in 2020, and that some (extremely limited) "free money" provisions passed during the pandemic, makes it seem like it's being "felt out" by the ruling classes.

Think about the status of legal marijuana 25 years ago when the first medical laws were passed. It probably seemed pretty unlikely then, but now most Americans can get marijuana if they have a medical need, and a large minority can buy recreational weed from dispensaries. That "toe in the door" effect can be pretty pronounced. Hell, the Fight for 15 started just 10 years ago, as a grassroots action with very little support, and we did manage to get 42 votes for its inclusion in the ARP. (With the major caveat that $15 in 2012 is $18 now.)

Considering how broken the federal government's legislative apparatus is, and will continue to be for a while, I wonder if states or municipalities will begin to implement UBI (presumably with length-of-residency minimums) before the Feds do. That's what happened with weed and minimum wage, where many Americans now live under reasonable laws despite the US Congress's pathological inaction.

I could also be, you know, totally wrong. Happens to the best of us (so why shouldn't it also happen to me?).

The cold, unceasing march of technology, combined with the very culturally embedded idea that everybody should be working 40 hours a week to deserve to live, has created some stupid economic situations, where people are paid to do stuff that doesn't actually have to be done at all, because they "need" the "work".

Mellow Seas posted:

The next step in self-checkouts (already piloted by Amazon) is no checkouts at all. We have sufficient technology to electronically monitor what people are taking out of the store and simply charge them for it.

This is the kind of thing that ideally should be celebrated as an awesome breakthrough in convenience, but in a world where millions rely on menial labor to survive, and where the financial benefits will mostly accrue to Literally the Richest Man Alive, it's more complicated.

In a truly socialist society, we could just marvel at and celebrate the ways technological advancement makes our lives easier, instead of it just serving as another multiplier on the gini coefficient.

Hmm. I would feel better if a richer or more powerful person shared your optimism, Mellow Seas.

Elon Musk: Free cash handouts �will be necessary� if robots take humans� jobs

Famous dickhead economist Milton Friedman actually supported a form of UBI

Your cool British socialist uncle thinks it's time

UBI proposals can be insufficient, and even used to reduce the solidity of the social safety net. Andrew Yang's proposal in the 2020 Democratic primary was along these lines.
Douglas Rushkoff on how a poorly implemented UBI can increase inequality

A list of real-life experiments with UBI can be found here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_basic_income#Pilot_programs_and_experiments

So, my posting colleagues, what are your thoughts on Universal Basic Income - the first step towards our aspirations of Fully Automated Luxury Gay Space Communism? Will it remain the stuff of science fiction and academia, or will it be making a difference in our lives just over the horizon? What should a UBI be set at, and how would the money for it be generated? Is this even something we want to do at all, or will it just create an unsustainably large idle class? What kind of things shouldn't be monetized, and just given to people for free, like health care?

Mellow Seas fucked around with this message at 14:59 on Mar 14, 2022

# ¿ Mar 14, 2022 14:33

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 15, 2024 17:57

Mellow Seas: Oct 9, 2012; Can't post for 10 years!

Some selected posts from USCE to kick us off:

Yinlock on how UBI could affect political messaging:

Yinlock posted:

This is why I tend to roll my eyes when politicians brag about how there's just SO MANY JOBS! Like Jobs(tm) are, on their own, some kind of precious resource. The people working those jobs are naturally unimportant, of course, what matters is the Jobs themselves.

Fister Roboto on deleterious trends UBI could fight against, and some interesting history:

Fister Roboto posted:

The problem isn't automation or streamlining themselves. The problem is that under capitalism, automation results in bigger profits for the capital class at the expense of the working class. Ideally, in a worker controlled economy, increased productivity from automation would mean shorter hours for the same pay, or greater pay for the same hours, or some other benefit to reflect the fact that workers are more productive. Instead it's just "lol you're fired, learn to code lmao". Any time something gets streamlined or a position gets removed, it's more money for the execs and gently caress you to the workers. It's exactly the same for both white and blue collar work, but there's a whole host of reasons for why that divide exists in the first place.

Fun fact, this is basically what the Luddites were all about. Contrary to popular belief, Luddism isn't generally anti-technology, but rather opposed to the unequal sharing of the boons of technology. They burned down textile factories because they were robbing weavers of their livelihoods. But for some reason, "luddite" has become a pejorative for someone who just hates technology because they're dumb and crazy I guess.

ex post facho on some speculative fiction:

ex post facho posted:

I'm going to take this discussion on automation and UBI to share one of my favorite examinations of the subject in a speculative fiction called "Manna", by Marshall Brain. I believe someone here on the forums once linked it to me and it's stuck with me ever since.

Marshall Brain posted:
With half of the jobs eliminated by robots, what happens to all the people who are out of work? The book Manna explores the possibilities and shows two contrasting outcomes, one filled with great hope and the other filled with misery.

Join Marshall Brain, founder of HowStuffWorks.com, for a skillful step-by-step walk through of the robotic transition, the collapse of the human job market that results, and a surprising look at humanity�s future in a post-robotic world.

Then consider our options. Which vision of the future will society choose to follow?

Essentially, the book follows a hypothetical U.S. society where a tasking AI automates away most jobs, except the citizens are simply immiserated and placed in bare-minimum survival conditions, for (what else) the enrichment of a handful of oligarchs.

quote:
America was no different from a third world nation. With the arrival of robots, tens of millions of people lost their minimum wage jobs and the wealth concentrated so quickly.

The rich controlled America�s bureaucracy, military, businesses and natural resources, and the unemployed masses lived in terrafoam, cut off from any opportunity to change their situation.

There was the facade of �free elections,� but only candidates supported by the rich could ever get on the ballot. The government was completely controlled by the rich, as were the robotic security forces, the military and the intelligence organizations. American democracy had morphed into a third world dictatorship ruled by the wealthy elite.

Ultimately, you would expect that there would be riots across America. But the people could not riot. The terrorist scares at the beginning of the century had caused a number of important changes. Eventually, there were video security cameras and microphones covering and recording nearly every square inch of public space in America. There were taps on all phone conversations and Internet messages sniffing for terrorist clues. If anyone thought about starting a protest rally or a riot, or discussed any form of civil disobedience with anyone else, he was branded a terrorist and preemptively put in jail. Combine that with robotic security forces, and riots are impossible.
Pretty bleak! It also goes on to describe the alternative society, and how eventually it comes to America. It's worth a read, although the hopefulness for that eventual automated society seems misplaced given America's current trends.

# ¿ Mar 14, 2022 15:00

Mellow Seas: Oct 9, 2012; Can't post for 10 years!

Timeless Appeal posted:

I find Hilary Clinton's UBI plan really, really interesting. Partially because I think if she had just run on it, she might have actually won, but also shows the potential issues that UBI runs into. The essential issue that Clinton ran into was fear that the UBI would have to be subsidized by cutting social programs elsewhere. I think it's a fair concern, and it makes me wonder how we should approach things.

Unsurprising that Clinton wussed out, but I thought this bit of the Vox article was worth highlighting:

quote:

Iran has a [UBI] program. While winding down the country�s extensive oil subsidies for citizens, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad implemented a flat cash dividend, paid out to every man, woman, and child in the country. It's been dialed back a bit since, but it also has shown few negative effects. A study examining the Iranian basic income�s effect on work concluded that �the program did not affect labor supply in any appreciable way.� That�s especially astounding given the size of the benefit: In 2011, when it was introduced, it provided about 29 percent of the median household income on average. In the US, that would mean paying out $16,390 to the average family.

That is a pretty significant income floor with no effect on labor supply!

# ¿ Mar 14, 2022 16:09

Mellow Seas: Oct 9, 2012; Can't post for 10 years!

The best way to fund a UBI, in my opinion, is just with regular income taxes, perhaps topped off with a transaction tax or carbon tax or something. That way you wouldn't be unable to make the math work like Clinton's team was.

The US GDP is about $63,000 per capita. Let's say we wanted to make the UBI $1,000 a month per man, woman and child. $12,000 a year. You would need to shave off about 20% of the economy to provide that - not insignificant, but if the labor supply remained roughly constant, very feasible (outside of the obvious political opposition).

This could also be paired with features that rich people liked. Such as: less progressive taxation. No more standard deduction. (The untaxed UBI would create a practical equivalent of progressive taxation and a standard deduction.) Maybe reducing or even eliminating the minimum wage, as everybody would be getting the equivalent of full-time work at $6 an hour just for breathing, and it would be much harder to coerce workers into working for a paltry sum when they could already eat and sleep without it.

Things that it should absolutely not be paired with, although bad people will try, are eliminating Medicaid and Medicare, or financial assistance for school. It would be impractical to pay for these things on a UBI of any realistic size, so education and healthcare would be less accessible instead of more for a ton of people.

Timeless Appeal posted:

The question of what do you about essential industries like truck drivers who might become redundant is a fair one, but there are also people who are holding white collar jobs and frankly doing busy work for a lot of their days. I think there needs to be a bigger question about the purpose of work and reimagining a virtuous society that no longer has to work all the time.

It's very possible that the perils of automated labor finally affecting unionized workers like truckers, or white collar workers like lawyers, engineers, and *cough* economists, or even wholly unexpected stuff like TV soundtrack composers, will make the idea of UBI more palatable to a wider swathe of the population.

General Dog posted:

Sounds inflationary to me, hard pass.

If you used taxes to pay for it instead of printing the money, it would be non-inflationary, in theory, because the money supply would be the same. Just better distributed. It might lead to inflation in some sectors, but overall it should be pretty neutral.

Now, if taking money from rich people and giving it to poor people means groceries cost twice as much and rare art costs 1/10 as much, that's not a great outcome. Is that how it would go?

Mellow Seas fucked around with this message at 16:31 on Mar 14, 2022

# ¿ Mar 14, 2022 16:19

Mellow Seas: Oct 9, 2012; Can't post for 10 years!

Gumball Gumption posted:

Why fight for a UBI over more socialist or communist policies for organizing our labor? You hit the nail on the head with how much unnecessary labor there is but we could direct that into other endeavors. I'm not against setting a standard of living but why a UBI over other options? UBI honestly feels like life support for capitalism, especially if the fourth revolution is coming (I'm skeptical) and we're moving to robots and automation taking over the majority of work. If we have the ability to eliminate most work why is that staying in the hands of capitalists?

See, I kind of agree with you that UBI is life support for capitalism - but I think the primary problem with capitalism is the threat of starvation and homelessness if you don't provide labor to capital! I think if implemented correctly, UBI could legitimately "fix" capitalism. It eliminates a lot of worst-case scenarios and removes a major avenue for coercion.

quote:

In short, if we have the ability to eliminate unnecessary labor, the tools to automate large scale menial tasks, and could provide the resources to provide an equitable standard of living to everyone why would we be doing it with a UBI instead of the more radical changes those would allow?

A big part of the appeal of UBI is that it's easier to envision a political path for it than, say, full socialism. It is minimally disruptive to society, because you're just basically grafting it on the society you already have, instead of tearing down your industries and institutions and starting from scratch. (I think you know I am a big fan of political feasibility. :v:

) And it would change the power dynamics of society to have the threat of destitution taken off the table.

And it's not a classically Marxist idea that labor should be optional. I think it is a key feature of UBI that people should be allowed to not work if they don't feel up to it. We have a conception of "disability" in this country but it is difficult to access and extremely unevenly applied (not to mention inadequate). Maybe people should be able to decide themselves what they're "able" to do.

Do you think people should be able to opt out of the workforce? In other words, should we "legalize" being a bum artist or a NEET basement dweller without having the financial means (through a trust fund or mom's good graces) to support that lifestyle? ("No" is a legitimate answer! It's what most people think.)

Now, you could achieve that without a UBI, if say, you had disability- or unemployment-like payments that could be claimed indefinitely with no means testing besides not working. But that just seems more politically infeasible to me, because people are more amenable to benefits they receive themselves. (Yes, the increased taxation would mean it was actually reducing the income of well-off people, but they would still be glad to have "received the benefit".)

# ¿ Mar 15, 2022 01:00

Mellow Seas: Oct 9, 2012; Can't post for 10 years!

Ghost Leviathan posted:

Take some money out of the massively overfunded and wasteful military and police for starters.

It would be enough for just a portion, but it could contribute. The US spends about $1 trillion on law enforcement and the Pentagon; that's enough to get you about a $3k/year per capita UBI. Of course, even though the budgets are bloated, it's not practical to zero them out. But yeah - it is a start!

If you could divert half those funds (politically infeasible right now, but I mean, this is a UBI thread, so...) that's $1500 of your UBI. Add in a financial transaction tax and carbon taxes, like Clinton's plan - that would probably raise about $400b, so there's another $1,200 or so. Anything vaguely popular that reduces the size of other tax hike helps the effort. (You need to about double tax revenue to fund a $12k/year UBI.)

I think a wealth tax is a particular must-have. Warren's proposal (which was incredibly modest - 2 cents for every dollar above 50 million) would add enough for another thousand bucks annually, and you could scale that up real quick by reducing the exemption.

DEEP STATE PLOT posted:

'goons just wanna have funds' was right there and you hosed it up, voted 1

I found this post compelling and briefly considered taking the L and changing the title, but... nah. I like mine. I will not explain my reasoning.

# ¿ Mar 16, 2022 02:23

Mellow Seas: Oct 9, 2012; Can't post for 10 years!

Man I just had a real fuckin' crack-ping thinking about those wealth tax numbers in this context.

For 2% of the money above the equivalent of 750 years of median US household income, you can give everybody in the loving country a thousand dollars. Jesus Christ.

# ¿ Mar 16, 2022 02:26

Mellow Seas: Oct 9, 2012; Can't post for 10 years!

Another municipal guaranteed income pilot program is happening in California, in San Diego, on the heels of similar programs in Stockton and West Hollywood.

The program is limited, of course - this trial will provide payments to 150 households.

It's not explicitly means tested by income, but children are required and only residents of four low-wealth zip codes are eligible.

Guaranteed income program will provide $500 monthly to San Diego families in need

\/\/\/\/ Yeah, their value is mostly as case studies (and none of them have ever had unfavorable results, to my knowledge.) In a big state like CA with a lot of captured industries, or a small, niche state like VT, you might be able to sustain a state program, but outside of possibly LA and NYC I don't see any municipality having any luck with it.

Mellow Seas fucked around with this message at 21:13 on Mar 16, 2022

# ¿ Mar 16, 2022 21:03

Mellow Seas: Oct 9, 2012; Can't post for 10 years!

Tempora Mutantur posted:

so this first page is almost done and there is literally no mention of "without rent controls UBI will just funnel even more money into the hands of the wealthy" except for the indirect reference to Manna or whatever the book is with the dystopia

I'm really sorry that I don't have exact figures, but I would imagine everyone who has lived in america (and isn't a trustfund kid/otherwise lucky enough to never think about money) knows that everyone in this country (except for rubes) will try to extract as much rent as possible for as little effort as possible, such as oh I don't know the literal current housing market which, as a reminder, was pricegouging people still reeling from an international pandemic

or how we are literally seeing this sort of unnecessary price-gouging right now with regard to gas prices in the US despite oil being cheap and people struggling, because hey, the people who have the oil want more money and will get it even when it doesn't benefit them but degrades a nation's ability to function

so if you just gave everyone more money from UBI, yeah that may work for the few days it takes before everyone else who has less reliance on money price gouges on rent/food because now they know hey, these people, I can charge them more and take that UBI! (assuming we're talking about UBI because the theoretical goal of the convo is "how to improve the lives of many people currently struggling due to capitalism's creation of widespread poverty in the citizens of its nations" unless it's more just "we like UBI and could not give a gently caress about what happens to the people but goddamn I personally would like to not have to work as hard")

talking about UBI in a vacuum is very fruitless/disingenuous for this reason, because at the end of the day if your society isn't structured around keeping people fed, housed, healthy, and educated enough to realize they need to fight for these things because otherwise capitalists/greedy shitlords will literally enslave people to fight anyone trying to make things better, then UBI is just "giving money to rich people but with more steps" if you aren't going to necessarily enforce rent control and price control on things like food and medicine

Hey, I think this is an important issue and I'm glad you brought it up. (I haven't read Manna, but I did recognize the "high/low inequality post-scarcity" theme in the excerpt.)

Don't get me wrong - my priority is making sure that everybody can eat, sleep indoors, receive education and get medical care. (Phones/internet are also essential but so cheap to provide that it's barely worth talking about.) UBI is just a method for doing it, and like I said in OP, it doesn't address all of those needs (ie not education or healthcare.)

You might be over-applying cynicism, here. Would prices go up? Well, sure. But there are limits to that. "Markets" aren't the magic Chicago economists and neoliberals pretend they are, but they do work. If somebody can rent their space for less, they'll rent it out more easily. Gas prices went up with the oil price spike and are coming down exceptionally slowly, but they will come down because the gas station that sells for $3.90 will sell way more than gas than the one that sells for $4.10.*

There is still an advantage to selling something at a lower price, and that will apply even if you increase incomes.

And keep in mind that this isn't like the stimulus checks, where the money supply goes up with no counterbalance: immediately following the implementation of a UBI, poor people would have more money, but upper middle class people (and above) would have somewhat less.

Also, bear in mind that under the worst case scenario of what you have described, people who currently have no food or place to sleep will at least have one or the other, right?

Tempora Mutantur posted:

so my post is essentially asking, I love UBI, but UBI requires a lot of infrastructure to work, which I also want, so: why are we talking about UBI without the necessary price controls and enforcement of the very necessities you are purportedly trying to get into the hands of people who would benefit from UBI?

what political party/parties, at least within the US, do you think have the capacity and will to enact and enforce the necessary price controls to not make UBI immediately become a funnel of money to the rich through increased rents?

what are some mechanisms you think would help enact UBI with the necessary pricing controls to actually give people a materially better life, e.g. using that UBI income to remain housed instead of homeless, fed instead of starving, healthy instead of sick?

tl;dr: is the goal of this discussion to identify potential ways to give people more money, or ways to give them a materially better life? because those are two different things and UBI in a vacuum only does the former, not the latter.

...the goal of the discussion is talk about UBI. I would say "a materially better life" that is guaranteed, even if it's done so in a non-monetary way, is fair game for discussion here. After all, money is fake, apartments and bread are real.

You're right that some price controls would be very helpful - like a nationwide limit on rent increases to 5% a year, or something. In a reality where we have recognized that a UBI can be beneficial, I think something like that would be pretty possible.

The "problem" with poor people isn't complicated: they don't have enough money. That is the only way they are different from any other American. And as somebody who has lived in this country with no money, and seen what a terrible, terrible loving place it is in that condition, I can also say that if you have money, America is actually... pretty good? Like, on the spectrum from "subsistence farming" to "Star Trek replicator" we're way closer to the latter than the former right now, provided you have the money to access our bounty.

And a lot of the things that are lovely about America, even if you do have money - the stress, the ultra-competitiveness, the racism, the hyper-individuality - would probably improve if they weren't propped up by fear of starvation, which is a deep human lizard-brain fear that is shared by even Jeff Bezos on some level. Every breath everybody takes would become a little easier.

*Historically, increases in gas prices are steady and across-the-board, while decreases happen in chunks, station-by-station, at a slower rate. Since oil prices have gone down gasoline prices will go down. It happened in 2008, it happened in 2013, it'll happen next time.

Mellow Seas fucked around with this message at 14:18 on Mar 18, 2022

# ¿ Mar 18, 2022 14:10

Mellow Seas: Oct 9, 2012; Can't post for 10 years!

thehandtruck posted:

Correct. Americans hate themselves and each other. They torpedo opportunities to be happier because it may make their neighbor happy. That is UBI. Countless opportunities happen on large and small scales and are destroyed without the help of the Koch brothers or Hillary Clinton (but that is a huge factor too of course). It's a collective unconscious drive and it can't be healed at this point.

Im actually trying to find a study for you guys. I met a researcher who studied spite by using capsaicin. Apparently she went to different countries for participants. After codification, guess which country had the least hesitancy to upping the capsaicin amount for the other participants in their group?

"Americans hate themselves and each other" is a great point, and a major obstacle. You can also use it to argue for UBIs, if you're clever.

"Your boss might fire you tomorrow, you shouldn't trust him. Wouldn't you want to be taken care of?"
"Some people just work for a paycheck and don't care about their work. Wouldn't you like to stop working with those kinds of people?"
"Women need a UBI so that they and their children are not stuck in abusive marriages."

# ¿ Mar 18, 2022 17:37

Mellow Seas: Oct 9, 2012; Can't post for 10 years!

Page 2, LFG.

So, a similar idea to UBI is "baby bonds" - a bond given to a child upon its birth, which is then invested, and accessible upon their 18th (or whateverth) birthday.

For example, if you opened a $50,000 account for each child in the US when it is born (chosen for arbitrary reasons that will become clear by the end of this sentence), and it grew at six percent, you would have $200,000 when you turn 20, and a 6% return on that would be... $12,000 a year!

As it happens, it already costs mid-five figures to deliver a child, according to hospitals and insurers.

Problems:
-It assumes the continued exponential growth of investments, which is looking like a pretty bad bet already. (The majority of the developed world has had a flat GDP since 2007 or so, and the US and China are manipulating their numbers.)

-It can be squandered, especially by a young, undeveloped mind, leaving you a person who is destitute and also gets to be shamed by society for blowing their free money.

-It doesn't do anything for people who are already adults.

Benefits:
- Young adults can choose to use their bonds more aggressively, and reinvest it, which could smooth out income inequality, or save it, which could make personal finances less precarious.

-It is likely ahead of UBI right now in terms of political plausibility.

The UK has baby bonds, and they are popular, but they are nowhere near large enough to replicate a UBI (�250.)

Some links:
Baby Bonds: A Universal Path to Ensure the Next Generation Has the Capital to Thrive (Duke University)

Baby Bonds in Bloomberg, 1 day ago

Mellow Seas fucked around with this message at 20:48 on Mar 18, 2022

# ¿ Mar 18, 2022 17:38

Adbot: ADBOT LOVES YOU

# ¿ May 15, 2024 17:57

Mellow Seas: Oct 9, 2012; Can't post for 10 years!

thehandtruck posted:

"Some people just work for a paycheck and don't care about their work. Wouldn't you like to stop working with those kinds of people?"
"what?"

I lol'd.

But yeah those silly arguments aren't enough to break through a 1000 year cultural tradition of "if you don't work for the Lord of the manor, and you're not the Lord, uh, I don't even know how to finish that sentence, go start working for the Lord please. :black101:

thehandtruck posted:

It's a great OP though, thank you. And again I do think UBI can and will work in other countries. I'm excited to see it implemented and it does seem to be gaining steam.

Thanks!

Mellow Seas fucked around with this message at 16:28 on Mar 19, 2022

# ¿ Mar 19, 2022 16:24

The Something Awful Forums > Discussion > Debate & Discussion > Goons Just Want to Have Fun: The UBI Thread