There was even a plan from one of the 2016 Presidential candidates that could be a good starting point for helping them [1].

[1] https://web.archive.org/web/20160321063455/https://www.hilla...

I agree to the people losing its life shattering, especially when one considers entire communities and ways of life are built around it. Another aspect to consider though is that coal in its entirety employs less people than Arbys the fast food restaurant. If tomorrow, the news announced that Arbys was in danger of going out of business, the country would shrug. Coal wields a disproportionate amount of political and cultural power for the number of people it employs and the damage it does.

Maybe because Arby’s jobs are shit, and even if they weren’t the skills easily transfer to the thousands of other restaurants.

Coal jobs are in that waning category of blue collar jobs that you can have a decent life on. So it’s lamented the same way as when auto plants close, manufacturing plants close, etc.

You’re right it has too much power, but you have to put more effort into understanding why.

Of course it's anecdotal evidence, but I listened to a podcast a while ago (don't remember which one) that invited a government clerk that helped people find retraining programs. According to her, her department has so few people applying that they would accept literally any request for training - even if it had nothing to do with what the funds were allocated for (in this case retraining from coal to solar). According to her, a big part of the problem is you have people in (usually small) towns whose parents lived their entire lives working coal, and think that the only way to be a man is to work it too.

I'd be curious to see how this trend holds up among the various blue-collar careers. My parents were commercial fishermen and they wanted me to get as far away from fishing as possible.

Can't speak to that specifically, but one thing I have heard in other similar cases is that the people who try the retraining programs, find that they don't work. Some people can sit in a classroom and listen to a lecture and learn something, other people learn by doing something on the job.

If we still had widespread apprenticeship as a way to learn, this would be fine. Classroom training isn't really the greatest way to learn something. But it's the way our society has doubled down on in the last generation or so, to the point that high schools shut down shop class programs and expanded AP, regarding anyone who didn't go to college as a failure.

Again, I don't know if it applies to the case you're discussing, just raising it as a possible explanation.

Problem is, retraining programs are generally ineffective, between 0-15% according to some sources. So transitioning workers from job A to job B is really more of a pipe dream than a reality.

It’s also partially why calls for UBI and other alternative solutions are gaining traction nowadays (although, atm only one person is running on that platform for President in the states)

Have there been any "successful" UBI experiments? I've seen results from a few that didn't pan out as expected, but conclusions were generally either that the method was flawed (which might be a cop-out) or that the amount provided didn't rise to the level of "true" UBI.

I'm genuinely curious as to whether it could replace other existing welfare programs, or if it would exacerbate self-destructive behaviors in the absence of opportunities for earned and delayed gratification.

Many UBI ‘trials’ have been run but stopped short of completion. Results never pointed to any negatives (unless you count level unemployment as a negative like it was counted in Finland). Generally outcomes are positive. Moreover programs akin to UBI have worked in places like Alaska.

Many of these trials are cut short due to ‘unsustainability’- generally due to the fact that the programs aren’t actually paid for by anything- UBI on its own is unsustainable ! As such, the candidate I mentioned above is running on a platform that looks to consolidate existing welfare programs and implement a VAT to help afford the policy.

Links please. You are making a lot of statements without any backing like "are gaining traction" and "have worked". Since you are having to educate us on these basic facts of the thing your excited about, could you go further and provide us good places to learn more?

UBI trends (inc in coverage, news, searches) : https://trends.google.com/trends/explore?date=today%205-y&ge...

Alaska program akin to UBI : https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alaska_Permanent_Fund

Finland UBI trial results : https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2019/02/the-results-finlands-...

(Political page) 35 UBI or cash transfer experiments: https://www.yang2020.com/35-ubi-programs-cash-transfer-exper...

The petro fund in Alaska, are you joking? It paid out less than $2000 for the entire year. That has as much relation to UBI as the standard deduction.

I don’t believe the size of the payout is the right metric to be looking at. There’s more in common with UBI than you might think:

The government paid out some amount, to all residents, regardless of income, to be used unconditionally. Pretty much the defn of UBI.

To your point about standard deduction - it on the other hand does not pay out anything if you don’t make anything. The petro fund is an actual dividend, very much not a deduction.

UBI is substantially different than just handing out cash. The basic premise:

1) It is sufficient to provide a "basic" level of income 2) It is more efficient than targeted welfare programs (medicare, medicaid, food stamps, etc) 3) Community outcomes are improved by way of economic (retraining / small business starting), health (less stress / more treatment) and poverty (less stress = smarter financial choices)

So far, I haven't seen any experiment actually test any of those things. I don't know of any where participation has been contingent upon giving up other programs (so we don't know if it's better than targeted welfare), and none have lasted long enough to know if any behavior changes were influenced by the knowledge that the cash was going to be cut off in the future.

As such, I haven't seen much "success" in the way of UBI experiments.

I dont know where you got your definition.

To quote:

BIEN lists the following five defining characteristics of basic income:

Periodic: Distributed in regular payments, Cash payment: Distributed as funds rather than, for example, vouchers for goods or services. Individual: Each citizen (or adult citizen) receives the payment, rather than each household. Universal: All citizens receive the payment. Unconditional: Recipients are not required to demonstrate need or willingness to work.

Your points 1, 2, and 3 are not definitions of UBI.

EDIT: the Finland trial looked at many of the outcomes you described above- linked above. Only half of the results are currently available. As I'd already mentioned, there hasn't been much in the way of negative outcomes in existing UBI and UBI-like trials.

Without points 1, 2 or 3, all you're testing is whether or not giving financially strapped people no-strings-attached money makes them happier and less stressed. Of course it does, at least in the short term (longer-term studies have demonstrated that money does not, in fact, buy happiness).

That doesn't mean that any of this is good public policy, that it would be better than current policies, or that it would improve long-term outcomes.

Notably, your Finland link indicated that there was no change to employment rates, which is unfortunate, and I think undermines a lot of the arguments I've heard from proponents of UBI- that people who are less stressed financially will be able to make better use of their time training into new industries, start small businesses, etc.

Yes, I already mentioned the employment thing. And this was only in regards to 1year of the trial/

Moreover, all these positive outcomes you seem to dismiss (and add that in the long term money doesn’t buy happiness- which is neither here nor there) doesn't mean that any of this is NOT good public policy, that it would NOT be better or that it would NOT improve long-term outcomes.

If anything, all the outcomes: lower stress, greater happiness, etc, are all known to lead to healthier individuals, with more fulfilling lives, with plenty of potential benefits for society as a whole.

Moreover, trialing UBI is a red herring. How many welfare programs have been trialed before implementation? How many have been researched thoroughly on their per dollar outcome? The fact is, many of these programs are implemented without any trial and only on the basis of perceived outcomes that would lean positive. Why should UBI be any different?

There are also plenty of examples that show that direct cash is oftentimes more favourable than some other variant; see the charity GiveDirectly’s entire premise.

To argue that no successful trial has been run, that outcomes have not been favourable, or that the general idea of UBI is flawed until we research it to death, is to be overtly skeptical.

> Why should UBI be any different?

It's the "U" part. Taking money from the middle and upper classes just to give it back to them is inherently inefficient and entirely pointless.

Additionally, I disagree that it has been researched to death. People have infinite wants, and we have finite means. I would personally rather see this play out at a smaller level in reality (not a time limited trial that biases the outcome) before we go all in on 300 million people. And if we are not going to be replacing existing programs with it, I would rather not see it happen at all. That's my personal preferences based on what I currently know, at least.

Current proponents of UBI aren’t looking to fund it by taking money from the middle and upper class AND are looking to consolidate it with existing welfare programs.

On these points we don’t disagree.

I don't have recent stats, but there were a significant number of people living off the petro fund. Alaska is a totally different beast.

I'm fine with UBI, but I don't think it fixes this kind of problem. A good job is not just a source of income (though of course it is that). It has a lot of other psychological and social impacts as well, which UBI doesn't replace.

But again, not saying it's not a good thing, just that it doesn't really solve this problem.