4 ms·

This handwaviness is typical of pro-BI rhetoric. If there's a tech implosion and 500k workers lose their jobs, is $900/month in BI really going to offset their

This handwaviness is typical of pro-BI rhetoric. If there's a tech implosion and 500k workers lose their jobs, is $900/month in BI really going to offset their $3,000/month mortgages meaningfully?

devonkim 11y ago
It's the difference between living on the street homeless like a lot of families experienced in the Rust Belt and getting some breathing room to make a move elsewhere where there may be jobs available. My big concern with BI is that costs of many staples could simply rise as consumer spending goes up due to such depressed wages for most people and we'll be back in the same situation where a shocking number of people still can't afford healthy food or a roof over their head.
- jonnycowboy 11y ago
  In a limited supply environment staples will rise (ie: real estate in certain cities) but with BI you can move anywhere and have a roof over your head. Food prices will not raise meaningfully.
  - tankenmate 11y ago
    Especially considering that most OECD nations produce more than enough food to cover reasonable consumption; there is plenty of waste, direct, indirect, diversion of foodstuffs to ethanol production etc.
- notahacker 11y ago
  But then, in theory "getting some breathing room to make a move elsewhere where there may be jobs available" is exactly how a properly designed welfare system for people unemployed and looking for work is intended to function, without the added expense of extending the subsidy to stay-at-home spouses, early retirees and trust fund kids. There may be many design flaws in the system that prevent people most in need of getting those funds from getting them, but "not being available to every citizen" isn't necessarily one of them. Plus if you're saving huge amounts by not subsidising the voluntarily economically inactive, you have an awful lot more to spend on helping those actually desperately in need.
dllthomas 11y ago
> is $900/month in BI really going to offset their $3,000/month mortgages meaningfully? ... yes? They aren't breaking even, and they'll have to find something to do for more income (or move) pretty soon, but it certainly extends their runway.
imgabe 11y ago
Is it better than the $0 a month that they would get if that happened now?
- Domenic_S 11y ago
  You're asking rhetorically, but I actually don't know the answer. At first, maybe. It seems by simple algebra "EVERYONE has $900" is the same as "everyone has $0", except now you planned your life around that extra mine-as-a-human-right-$900, but the mortgage companies know you're getting it, because everyone gets it. So now your minimum payment isn't X, it's X+$900.

This handwaviness is typical of pro-BI rhetoric. If there's a tech implosion and 500k workers lose their jobs, is $900/month in BI really going to offset their $3,000/month mortgages meaningfully?

devonkim 11y ago

It's the difference between living on the street homeless like a lot of families experienced in the Rust Belt and getting some breathing room to make a move elsewhere where there may be jobs available. My big concern with BI is that costs of many staples could simply rise as consumer spending goes up due to such depressed wages for most people and we'll be back in the same situation where a shocking number of people still can't afford healthy food or a roof over their head.

jonnycowboy 11y ago
In a limited supply environment staples will rise (ie: real estate in certain cities) but with BI you can move anywhere and have a roof over your head. Food prices will not raise meaningfully.
- tankenmate 11y ago
  Especially considering that most OECD nations produce more than enough food to cover reasonable consumption; there is plenty of waste, direct, indirect, diversion of foodstuffs to ethanol production etc.
notahacker 11y ago
But then, in theory "getting some breathing room to make a move elsewhere where there may be jobs available" is exactly how a properly designed welfare system for people unemployed and looking for work is intended to function, without the added expense of extending the subsidy to stay-at-home spouses, early retirees and trust fund kids. There may be many design flaws in the system that prevent people most in need of getting those funds from getting them, but "not being available to every citizen" isn't necessarily one of them. Plus if you're saving huge amounts by not subsidising the voluntarily economically inactive, you have an awful lot more to spend on helping those actually desperately in need.

dllthomas 11y ago

> is $900/month in BI really going to offset their $3,000/month mortgages meaningfully? ... yes? They aren't breaking even, and they'll have to find something to do for more income (or move) pretty soon, but it certainly extends their runway.

imgabe 11y ago

Is it better than the $0 a month that they would get if that happened now?

Domenic_S 11y ago
You're asking rhetorically, but I actually don't know the answer. At first, maybe. It seems by simple algebra "EVERYONE has $900" is the same as "everyone has $0", except now you planned your life around that extra mine-as-a-human-right-$900, but the mortgage companies know you're getting it, because everyone gets it. So now your minimum payment isn't X, it's X+$900.