5 ms·

Finally, someone recognizes there's a vast range between truly basic income/expenses, vs maintaining a standard of living exceeding the norm of most people on t

Finally, someone recognizes there's a vast range between truly basic income/expenses, vs maintaining a standard of living exceeding the norm of most people on the planet. The US "poverty line" is at the ~80th percentile of world income, and one way or another one below it can get enough aggregate welfare payments to step well above that line. Contrast that with really basic costs of food ($1/meal traditional diet, or $12/day Soylent ready-to-drink), housing (one 100 sq ft simple "tiny house" per person, $1-10/day), data service ($1/day), plus other comparably humble-yet-sufficient services add up to something like $5000/yr (and much less in bulk or with other careful reductions). But that is, of course, outrageous to most BI advocates - viewing "basic" as a complete-and-served product, not a collection of staples requiring the recipient put some real effort into.

sliverstorm 11y ago
Perhaps the beauty of the notion of BI (and thus its growing popularity) is that you can attach whatever level you perceive as basic living expenses. To one man BI is to prevent starvation, to another it's not BI if it doesn't cover at least two car payments.
- mjevans 11y ago
  Define car payment; actually please don't, I can't see any point other than inflammation. A 'basic' income should ideally fulfill the basic structural needs of someone living in an area. * Adequate Shelter * Food (possibly basic, but it should be healthy. Food does tend to work better in bulk though, so not-for-profit health kitchens are something I'd recommend) * Health (including cleaning supplies/etc) * Enough whatever (transit, clothing, education, etc) to get a better job. * //basic// entertainment In these last two points I see work uniforms, transit, probably paper/notes, and likely --basic-- computers (think Raspberry Pi 3) with Internet access (generic TV/work). Edited: Added even more newlines
  - crdoconnor 11y ago
    Actually if it doesn't do this it would likely just end up acting as a subsidy to low wage employers. Only if it's enough to give people the freedom to walk away from their jobs is it actually meaningful, and realistically it's not going to be introduced at a level where it would.
    - ctdonath 11y ago
      And that leads to the other core issue few address: "supply and demand" still rules, and the economy would merely shift prices to drive beneficiaries right back where they were before. If you don't have to actually do anything to buy a gallon of gas or a loaf of bread, prices will rise until you once again have to work about 20 minutes of menial labor to earn whatever "extra" you need to buy it. Most people benefitting from BI wouldn't be using it to go start a business or produce fine art, they're going to sit around watching TV or procreating or finding some new imputed need to demand even more BI to cover. Harsh, yes, but fits my dismayed discoveries whenever I go out serving the poor (doesn't stop me, but does increase bitterness).
      - arebop 11y ago
        Do you also believe that welfare recipients would not miss welfare payments if they were suspended today, or does "supply and demand" not function presently to neutralize the effect of transfer payments in society? The second bit about people squandering resources has been nicely answered by Friedman in his discussion of negative income tax: it is better to have individual market participants make occasional mistakes than to suffer the greater inefficiencies of central planning [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xtpgkX588nM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xtpgkX588nM].
        AstralStorm 11y ago
        Of course such a tax is progressive, which hurts rich people much more than a flat payout. Other points made by Friedman are hilarious, especially the part about people not wanting to go to work when on basic income. It's basic. I don't know a person who wants to live in a near poverty situation.
ghaff 11y ago
Yes, if one wants to play this thought experiment with numbers that don't assume magic money trees, you're probably talking something in the $5-8K/yr/adult range (plus presumably still making Medicaid available for some). You'd still see a middle class income transfer, but go with it. The thing is that a lot of BI advocates I read seem to be envisioning this as something that lets them do their startup or create great art thing without worrying about having to have a job. I suppose that's possible on that level of income with maybe a bit of work on the side. But it's probably a lot closer to eeking out a very spartan existence in a crappy, very low cost of living area with a lot of excess housing no one wants.
- aidenn0 11y ago
  Paine advocates for roughly 10% of the GDP to be redistributed which indeed works out to $5600 in the US using 2014 numbers. This, however would easily lift a single-earner part-time minimum wage head-of-household of 3 from below the poverty line to above the poverty line ($5600 * 3 = $16800, which is just $3360 below the poverty line of $20160)
  - ghaff 11y ago
    While true, many advocates of this sort of plan are arguing for it so that workers don't have to work crappy minimum wage jobs but can go off and do something more creative. Or they can rely on basic income if their jobs are automated away.
    - dragonwriter 11y ago
      > While true, many advocates of this sort of plan are arguing for it so that workers don't have to work crappy minimum wage jobs but can go off and do something more creative. Or they can rely on basic income if their jobs are automated away. I think its not unreasonable to see UBI as something that could enable that, with sufficient growth in productivity driven by automation. I think that its naïve to think that you can set UBI at a level now that achieves that, though. 10% of GDP can provide a lot different living standard as GDP/capita increases.
solipsism 11y ago
> The US "poverty line" is at the ~80th percentile of world income This figure doesn't matter much, unless a person in the US can decide to buy a loaf of bread from Kyrgystan for 25.86 Som, does it? You'd have to adjust to make a meaningful comparison with the rest of the world. > Contrast that with really basic costs of food ($1/meal traditional diet, or $12/day Soylent ready-to-drink), housing (one 100 sq ft simple "tiny house" per person, $1-10/day), data service ($1/day), plus other comparably humble-yet-sufficient services add up to something like $5000/yr $5,000? Come on now. This guy[1] apparently lives on $7,000, but it is quite an extreme lifestyle. And he has an RV, the cost of which he doesn't count in his expenses. And he has a garden in which he grows his own food, which we don't all have a place to put. etc. Combine that with the fact that this lifestyle won't be feasible for everyone -- some of us need more medical insurance than he pays for, for example -- and when the lifestyle fails for people they end up in the ER or prison or otherwise taxing everyone else. I agree with your general premise, but let's not exaggerate, $5k/yr is not realistic. [1]: http://earlyretirementextreme.com/how-i-live-on-7000-per-year.html http://earlyretirementextreme.com/how-i-live-on-7000-per-yea...
- notahacker 11y ago
  > This figure doesn't matter much, unless a person in the US can decide to buy a loaf of bread from Kyrgystan for 25.86 Som, does it? You'd have to adjust to make a meaningful comparison with the rest of the world. If you adjust for purchasing power parity, US poverty lines are all still above the median world income. Around half the world lives on less than $10000 in notional US purchasing power per annum.
euyyn 11y ago
> The US "poverty line" is at the ~80th percentile of world income Is that after adjusting for cost of living?

sliverstorm 11y ago

Perhaps the beauty of the notion of BI (and thus its growing popularity) is that you can attach whatever level you perceive as basic living expenses. To one man BI is to prevent starvation, to another it's not BI if it doesn't cover at least two car payments.

mjevans 11y ago
Define car payment; actually please don't, I can't see any point other than inflammation. A 'basic' income should ideally fulfill the basic structural needs of someone living in an area. * Adequate Shelter * Food (possibly basic, but it should be healthy. Food does tend to work better in bulk though, so not-for-profit health kitchens are something I'd recommend) * Health (including cleaning supplies/etc) * Enough whatever (transit, clothing, education, etc) to get a better job. * //basic// entertainment In these last two points I see work uniforms, transit, probably paper/notes, and likely --basic-- computers (think Raspberry Pi 3) with Internet access (generic TV/work). Edited: Added even more newlines
- crdoconnor 11y ago
  Actually if it doesn't do this it would likely just end up acting as a subsidy to low wage employers. Only if it's enough to give people the freedom to walk away from their jobs is it actually meaningful, and realistically it's not going to be introduced at a level where it would.
  - ctdonath 11y ago
    And that leads to the other core issue few address: "supply and demand" still rules, and the economy would merely shift prices to drive beneficiaries right back where they were before. If you don't have to actually do anything to buy a gallon of gas or a loaf of bread, prices will rise until you once again have to work about 20 minutes of menial labor to earn whatever "extra" you need to buy it. Most people benefitting from BI wouldn't be using it to go start a business or produce fine art, they're going to sit around watching TV or procreating or finding some new imputed need to demand even more BI to cover. Harsh, yes, but fits my dismayed discoveries whenever I go out serving the poor (doesn't stop me, but does increase bitterness).
    - arebop 11y ago
      Do you also believe that welfare recipients would not miss welfare payments if they were suspended today, or does "supply and demand" not function presently to neutralize the effect of transfer payments in society? The second bit about people squandering resources has been nicely answered by Friedman in his discussion of negative income tax: it is better to have individual market participants make occasional mistakes than to suffer the greater inefficiencies of central planning [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xtpgkX588nM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xtpgkX588nM].
      - AstralStorm 11y ago
        Of course such a tax is progressive, which hurts rich people much more than a flat payout. Other points made by Friedman are hilarious, especially the part about people not wanting to go to work when on basic income. It's basic. I don't know a person who wants to live in a near poverty situation.

ghaff 11y ago

Yes, if one wants to play this thought experiment with numbers that don't assume magic money trees, you're probably talking something in the $5-8K/yr/adult range (plus presumably still making Medicaid available for some). You'd still see a middle class income transfer, but go with it. The thing is that a lot of BI advocates I read seem to be envisioning this as something that lets them do their startup or create great art thing without worrying about having to have a job. I suppose that's possible on that level of income with maybe a bit of work on the side. But it's probably a lot closer to eeking out a very spartan existence in a crappy, very low cost of living area with a lot of excess housing no one wants.

aidenn0 11y ago
Paine advocates for roughly 10% of the GDP to be redistributed which indeed works out to $5600 in the US using 2014 numbers. This, however would easily lift a single-earner part-time minimum wage head-of-household of 3 from below the poverty line to above the poverty line ($5600 * 3 = $16800, which is just $3360 below the poverty line of $20160)
- ghaff 11y ago
  While true, many advocates of this sort of plan are arguing for it so that workers don't have to work crappy minimum wage jobs but can go off and do something more creative. Or they can rely on basic income if their jobs are automated away.
  - dragonwriter 11y ago
    > While true, many advocates of this sort of plan are arguing for it so that workers don't have to work crappy minimum wage jobs but can go off and do something more creative. Or they can rely on basic income if their jobs are automated away. I think its not unreasonable to see UBI as something that could enable that, with sufficient growth in productivity driven by automation. I think that its naïve to think that you can set UBI at a level now that achieves that, though. 10% of GDP can provide a lot different living standard as GDP/capita increases.

solipsism 11y ago

> The US "poverty line" is at the ~80th percentile of world income This figure doesn't matter much, unless a person in the US can decide to buy a loaf of bread from Kyrgystan for 25.86 Som, does it? You'd have to adjust to make a meaningful comparison with the rest of the world. > Contrast that with really basic costs of food ($1/meal traditional diet, or $12/day Soylent ready-to-drink), housing (one 100 sq ft simple "tiny house" per person, $1-10/day), data service ($1/day), plus other comparably humble-yet-sufficient services add up to something like $5000/yr $5,000? Come on now. This guy[1] apparently lives on $7,000, but it is quite an extreme lifestyle. And he has an RV, the cost of which he doesn't count in his expenses. And he has a garden in which he grows his own food, which we don't all have a place to put. etc. Combine that with the fact that this lifestyle won't be feasible for everyone -- some of us need more medical insurance than he pays for, for example -- and when the lifestyle fails for people they end up in the ER or prison or otherwise taxing everyone else. I agree with your general premise, but let's not exaggerate, $5k/yr is not realistic. [1]: http://earlyretirementextreme.com/how-i-live-on-7000-per-year.html http://earlyretirementextreme.com/how-i-live-on-7000-per-yea...

notahacker 11y ago
> This figure doesn't matter much, unless a person in the US can decide to buy a loaf of bread from Kyrgystan for 25.86 Som, does it? You'd have to adjust to make a meaningful comparison with the rest of the world. If you adjust for purchasing power parity, US poverty lines are all still above the median world income. Around half the world lives on less than $10000 in notional US purchasing power per annum.

euyyn 11y ago

> The US "poverty line" is at the ~80th percentile of world income Is that after adjusting for cost of living?