5 ms·

The point of Universal Basic Income is not to provide a good standard of living, but to provide enough for bare necessities. A standard of being alive, if you w

by ant6n 11y ago

The point of Universal Basic Income is not to provide a good standard of living, but to provide enough for bare necessities. A standard of being alive, if you will. The point is that there would be fewer people in precarious situations where they cannot afford food and shelter. With basic food and shelter not being the primary motivator to work, more people may do innovative things that could help the economy ... and humanity overall. Any employers of professionals, i.e. medium/high income would probably have to pay the same amount of money, because the higher taxes would cancel out the benefit of the minimum income - the net effect of UBI on medium/high incomes is relatively small.

refurb 11y ago
A bare standard of living where? San Francisco would be what? $50K per year? Or Kalamazoo, MI where you coulf get by on $15K? Do we force people to move?
- quadrangle 11y ago
  The best answer is that we actually do keep having other universals like health care, education, access to water… $15k in SF with that other universal stuff could work if you have small space and roommates. So, get roommates, get some additional income, or move to Kalamazoo. We could also work on building more affordable housing too.
  - ant6n 11y ago
    And transit!
- pen2l 11y ago
  Of course. That's completely within reason to request. The UBI should be something like $20K, you can survive in a lot of places in America for that money.
- nugget 11y ago
  A variable basic income formula creates incentives for fraud and malinvestment and incurs more administrative costs and overhead. Keep it simple. Give the same amount to each citizen like Alaska does with their natural resources fund. In terms of behavior, create the proper incentives and you won't need to force people to do anything. It's my belief that if we had a national basic income, set at the same level for all citizens, we would see a lot of interesting revitalization of rural areas. Some hipsters will move to the middle of nowhere where it's dirt cheap to live and start to build desirable communities, and over time others will follow. You can live for $500/month off the beaten path in temperate climates, especially if you're willing to pool resources and get your hands dirty with a dozen or so like minded friends. Detaching (basic) income from work (proximity to urban job centers) would be a fascinating experiment and I just hope I live long enough to see it.
  - lisivka 11y ago
    But why somebody else need to pay for that? What will happen with dirt-cheap home when UBI will be denied to it owner? Do _you_ want to pay someone $500 just because?
    - nugget 11y ago
      Sometimes democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what to eat for dinner. You spend your life thinking you are the wolf and then wake up one day to realize you're the sheep and the wolves are at the door.
- aninhumer 11y ago
  If you want to live in San Francisco, you need a job that pays enough to let you, just like you do now. And if someone is already living there, then either they're already earning enough, or they're going to be forced out regardless of UBI.
  - newjersey 11y ago
    This is the correct answer that people don't want to hear. People in Manhattan complain the rent is too damn high. Of course, they can't even imagine moving across the river to NJ though. That'd be beneath them. A good leader can't just tell people what they want to hear. Gentrification is OK. We don't have a right to live in an area we are priced out of and that is OK. However, I have a little gnawing voice in my head that a basic income might not be able to keep up with housing cost increases... We will still be throwing some vulnerable people under the bus. I can't see how ubi can fully eliminate need for social workers or programs with administrative oversight (high costs). I personally think a universal basic income should not be universal. It should only apply to people who have the right and opportunity to spend their money as they see fit. Exclude the children, the prisoners, and the infirm, for example. If the goal is automation, we don't need as many people. If the economy can survive a contraction in labor supply, we could nudge people to not have children. That would be awesome.
    - eru 11y ago
      What's wrong with children?
      - newjersey 11y ago
        If society doesn't need more babies, we should not encourage people to have more babies. Of course, this is not true today. I am talking about a situation where economic activity (and growth) does not depend on ever increasing human consumption. My assumptions are likely flawed (please don't take my words at face value). As your sibling comment suggests, I am about to watch a ted talk https://www.ted.com/talks/hans_rosling_shows_the_best_stats_you_ve_ever_seen/ https://www.ted.com/talks/hans_rosling_shows_the_best_stats_... My unverified, unscientific thoughts: My ideal is we move beyond this ideal of 2.4 children per couple. I want us to go even beyond one child policy. I want it to be socially acceptable for couples to choose to not have children. More than that, I want it to be sustainable for people to have -- on average -- fewer than one child. Now, it seems we are already moving in that direction. It seems as of 2012, we are already at 1.88 in the US, 1.66 in China PR, and 1.41 in Japan. https://www.google.com/search?q=total+fertility+rate+usa https://www.google.com/search?q=total+fertility+rate+usa I'd say we can do better and drive it further down all over the world but we cannot promote this until we have some kind of assurance that doing so will not cause the global economy to stagnate, or worse, contract. If people live longer and are productive for longer, we can safely transition into a more automated future with fewer humans than we have today.
- lmm 11y ago
  I think we should. There's only so much San Francisco to go around, so it should go to the people who are getting a lot of benefit from being there or who really really want to be there and are willing to sacrifice other things for it, not to those who had the random luck to be born there.
- mrow84 11y ago
  A bare standard of living in the administrative unit in question, in this case the USA. One of the reasons people move to cities is to find work - with BI they wouldn't need to do that, so they wouldn't need to move to cities (and could move out if they were already there, without risking penury). BI increases market freedom, allowing society to utilise all available resources (such as land), without the positive feedbacks inherent in a system where a significant fraction of market participants cannot make free choices.

by ant6n 11y ago

refurb 11y ago

A bare standard of living where? San Francisco would be what? $50K per year? Or Kalamazoo, MI where you coulf get by on $15K? Do we force people to move?

quadrangle 11y ago
The best answer is that we actually do keep having other universals like health care, education, access to water… $15k in SF with that other universal stuff could work if you have small space and roommates. So, get roommates, get some additional income, or move to Kalamazoo. We could also work on building more affordable housing too.
- ant6n 11y ago
  And transit!
pen2l 11y ago
Of course. That's completely within reason to request. The UBI should be something like $20K, you can survive in a lot of places in America for that money.
nugget 11y ago
A variable basic income formula creates incentives for fraud and malinvestment and incurs more administrative costs and overhead. Keep it simple. Give the same amount to each citizen like Alaska does with their natural resources fund. In terms of behavior, create the proper incentives and you won't need to force people to do anything. It's my belief that if we had a national basic income, set at the same level for all citizens, we would see a lot of interesting revitalization of rural areas. Some hipsters will move to the middle of nowhere where it's dirt cheap to live and start to build desirable communities, and over time others will follow. You can live for $500/month off the beaten path in temperate climates, especially if you're willing to pool resources and get your hands dirty with a dozen or so like minded friends. Detaching (basic) income from work (proximity to urban job centers) would be a fascinating experiment and I just hope I live long enough to see it.
- lisivka 11y ago
  But why somebody else need to pay for that? What will happen with dirt-cheap home when UBI will be denied to it owner? Do _you_ want to pay someone $500 just because?
  - nugget 11y ago
    Sometimes democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on what to eat for dinner. You spend your life thinking you are the wolf and then wake up one day to realize you're the sheep and the wolves are at the door.
aninhumer 11y ago
If you want to live in San Francisco, you need a job that pays enough to let you, just like you do now. And if someone is already living there, then either they're already earning enough, or they're going to be forced out regardless of UBI.
- newjersey 11y ago
  This is the correct answer that people don't want to hear. People in Manhattan complain the rent is too damn high. Of course, they can't even imagine moving across the river to NJ though. That'd be beneath them. A good leader can't just tell people what they want to hear. Gentrification is OK. We don't have a right to live in an area we are priced out of and that is OK. However, I have a little gnawing voice in my head that a basic income might not be able to keep up with housing cost increases... We will still be throwing some vulnerable people under the bus. I can't see how ubi can fully eliminate need for social workers or programs with administrative oversight (high costs). I personally think a universal basic income should not be universal. It should only apply to people who have the right and opportunity to spend their money as they see fit. Exclude the children, the prisoners, and the infirm, for example. If the goal is automation, we don't need as many people. If the economy can survive a contraction in labor supply, we could nudge people to not have children. That would be awesome.
  - eru 11y ago
    What's wrong with children?
    - newjersey 11y ago
      If society doesn't need more babies, we should not encourage people to have more babies. Of course, this is not true today. I am talking about a situation where economic activity (and growth) does not depend on ever increasing human consumption. My assumptions are likely flawed (please don't take my words at face value). As your sibling comment suggests, I am about to watch a ted talk https://www.ted.com/talks/hans_rosling_shows_the_best_stats_you_ve_ever_seen/ https://www.ted.com/talks/hans_rosling_shows_the_best_stats_... My unverified, unscientific thoughts: My ideal is we move beyond this ideal of 2.4 children per couple. I want us to go even beyond one child policy. I want it to be socially acceptable for couples to choose to not have children. More than that, I want it to be sustainable for people to have -- on average -- fewer than one child. Now, it seems we are already moving in that direction. It seems as of 2012, we are already at 1.88 in the US, 1.66 in China PR, and 1.41 in Japan. https://www.google.com/search?q=total+fertility+rate+usa https://www.google.com/search?q=total+fertility+rate+usa I'd say we can do better and drive it further down all over the world but we cannot promote this until we have some kind of assurance that doing so will not cause the global economy to stagnate, or worse, contract. If people live longer and are productive for longer, we can safely transition into a more automated future with fewer humans than we have today.
lmm 11y ago
I think we should. There's only so much San Francisco to go around, so it should go to the people who are getting a lot of benefit from being there or who really really want to be there and are willing to sacrifice other things for it, not to those who had the random luck to be born there.
mrow84 11y ago
A bare standard of living in the administrative unit in question, in this case the USA. One of the reasons people move to cities is to find work - with BI they wouldn't need to do that, so they wouldn't need to move to cities (and could move out if they were already there, without risking penury). BI increases market freedom, allowing society to utilise all available resources (such as land), without the positive feedbacks inherent in a system where a significant fraction of market participants cannot make free choices.