4 ms·

Thank you for your response. I wrote this article because it seems to me the basic income discussion is orchestrated by people, notably in technology, who are u

Thank you for your response. I wrote this article because it seems to me the basic income discussion is orchestrated by people, notably in technology, who are unaware of politics and reluctant to get their hands dirty. I know that UBI, on paper, looks like it’s a good answer to many of the challenges listed at the end. But I don’t think that UBI, once put in place, would be as strong, politically, as other universal programs such as universal social insurance: => Round #1: new left-wing government enacts UBI with appropriate funding. => Round #2: left-wing government loses elections, new right-wing government decides to target UBI on the poor in order to master the costs. UBI becomes BI without the "U". => Round #3: the rich find that their taxes are too high and denounce the BI-claiming poor as welfare queens, contributing to the right-wing government winning reelection and weakening BI even more. There are two kinds of universal benefits: the rich (and the middle class) all need universal health insurance (in case they have cancer), but they don’t really need UBI because they earn enough money from other sources. So I’m not sure why, even if they’re supportive at the beginning, they would keep on supporting UBI under the inevitable ideological and financial pressure that comes with a polarized democratic society. Considering this perspective, my understanding is that all the energy thrown in BI-related discussions is wasted while it could be invested in favor of universal health insurance for instance (which the US still lacks even with Obamacare, and which could benefit for the attention and design skills from the tech community).

coredog64 10y ago
To come at it from the other side, UBI is sold as a replacement for a number of other social programs. I find it very hard to believe that, in the US at least, any of those other social programs would be dismantled and stay dead. It is more likely that UBI would temporarily replace one or two programs in the social safety net before being supplemented with two or three more new ones. As both US parties currently have significant trust issues with one another, I would say UBI is a complete non-starter.
roymurdock 10y ago
Thanks for writing the article. It was well thought out and pretty comprehensive. I couldn't seem to find a clear definition of UBI in the article, which helps people discuss the concept as many people view possible UBI programs completely differently. While I am in agreement that UBI is massively overhyped and not a true, large-scale solution to income inequality, I'm happy that it has gotten so much interest and might lead to productive conversations around tax reform.
SubiculumCode 10y ago
Perhaps I missed it but one large advantage of badic income is 1: not means tested—losing benefits because you found a better job is a huge problem with current systems. I know from first hand experience as I went through school. 2: Universal and free market oriented. You are not told how to spend that income and you can then use it to support small business/entrepreneurial endeavors.
- Nicolas_Colin 10y ago
  It's true, but those two arguments exist only on paper. In practice, my guess is that it wouldn't be long before UBI is converted a means-tested benefit, for both financial and political reasons. As for advantage number 2, yes you're not told how to spend that income but chances are that income is far from enough to pay for proper healthcare / childcare / elderly care or well-located housing. The history of the social state shows us that transferring money to people is not enough: you also have to supplement the market and correct its imperfections.
  - SubiculumCode 10y ago
    Means testing is how you would LOSE political support. There has not been UBI so history tells you little. By supplement the market you mean
    - Nicolas_Colin 10y ago
      "Means testing is how you would LOSE political support" => yes you're right. And this is the reason why those (the Republican Party for instance) who are opposed to social policy out of principle invest a lot in transforming universal benefits into means-tested benefits. We saw that happen in many cases in the recent period of austerity, because scarcity of resources is a powerful argument to convince the rich, then the middle class, to renounce their benefits in favor of the poor. As for "there has not been UBI" I disagree. Many supporters provide examples such as the Alaska dividend. There are many lessons to be drawn from many social policies in developed countries. In France alone we had two BI-like programs which, for various reasons, underwent slow financial and political destruction: - the RMI/RSA, about which I wrote in the article - less known is the "régime des intermittents du spectacle", which works like a universal unemployment insurance for freelancers in the entertainment industry (and it costs so much money to the taxpayer that governments regularly try to kill it). It only survives because the entertainment industry is a powerful lobby in France.
AnthonyMouse 10y ago
> Round #2: left-wing government loses elections, new right-wing government decides to target UBI on the poor in order to master the costs. UBI becomes BI without the "U". The flaw here is that this would seem to apply to any form of social assistance. Why hasn't the same thing happened to social security? The answer is that Round #2 doesn't make sense. You can't take someone who is making $60K/year + $10K UBI and take away the UBI without lowering their taxes unless you want them to burn you in effigy. But if all you propose to do is replace $10K in UBI with $10K in tax cuts for the same people, who is going to be the lobby in favor of that? The dynamic you're describing is what happens to things like education assistance. Because people would rather have in $1 in cash money tax cuts than $1 in education vouchers. But the UBI is cash that spends just the same as the tax cut would.
- Nicolas_Colin 10y ago
  The dynamic (converting universal benefits into means-tested benefits) happened 2 years ago in France with universal childcare benefits ("allocations familiales"). It's true that people weren't happy, but the pressure in favor of austerity was just too much and it was implemented very gradually. It hasn't happened to Social Security because, if I'm not mistaken, the pension amount is proportional to what you earned during your career => hence the rich pay more but also receive more. Same with unemployment benefits. This is actually the only way to make a universal monetary benefit politically sustainable. And UBI, with its fixed amount, doesn't match that criteria.
- GFK_of_xmaspast 10y ago
  > Why hasn't the same thing happened to social security I think the reason that social security survives while welfare benefits continue to be slashed regularly is perfectly clear.
aconz2 10y ago
> I wrote this article because it seems to me the basic income discussion is orchestrated by people, notably in technology, who are unaware of politics and reluctant to get their hands dirty. While I myself am a programmer and support basic income, I have talked with many people outside the technology world who are also in favor of such a system. YC is getting their hands dirty with their research project and Finland's government is most definitely aware of politics. The only way for us (US citizens) to get our hands dirty in politics when not voting is talking about these things. > ... energy thrown in BI-related discussions is wasted while it could be invested in favor of universal health insurance for instance ... BI and health insurance, universal or not, solve very different issues. Both deserve attention and one doesn't preclude the other. I do think that a very important part of BI discussions is what programs it can replace, what it can supplement, and what it doesn't solve.
- Nicolas_Colin 10y ago
  Actually, talking is not the only way. Were 19th century factory workers content with talking? No: they initiated the labor movement and conquered the modern social state. The fact that so many people talk about BI without leaving their job, raising funds, going on strike, founding unions, etc., is proof in my eyes that we're having an intellectual discussion, not waging a political battle. The one precedent of authentic political action in the current context, the foundation of the Freelancers Union, was meant to fight for health coverage for freelancers, not a monetary benefit.
  - listentojohan 10y ago
    > The fact that so many people talk about BI without leaving their job, raising funds, going on strike, founding unions, etc., is proof in my eyes that we're having an intellectual discussion, not waging a political battle. I don't exactly think that going on strike or leaving your job, serves as a good argument for UBI - quite the contrary. And no, the same cannot be said for worker rights or work similar issues. I do think that unions have a great role to play in this, and that they could easily focus and do research on the effects on UBI, much like the YC project.
WheelsAtLarge 10y ago
I would add that, one answer to replace all the welfare system is not a fix. Yes, the current system looks like a complicated pointless machine but it's a system that got that way because it needs to fulfill many needs. One solution for all sounds great but nothing is that simple. Like knots in tangled string. We need to fix the system one knot at a time. We might even need to cut out whole sections but there's not one simple solution for the whole problem. It's interesting how many of the techies out there would laugh at the idea of replacing the internet with just computers and wires - what could be simpler. Yet according to many, we can replace a complicated system like welfare with a simple system like basic income. To me this points out lack of understanding and as you said, reluctance to get ones hands dirty.
- orangecat 10y ago
  It's interesting how many of the techies out there would laugh at the idea of replacing the internet with just computers and wires - what could be simpler. Well, dumb pipes are in fact simpler and superior to the centralized systems of control and preferential treatment that telcos are constantly trying to impose.
grecy 10y ago
What gets me about your article is your utter lack of willingness to allow people to attempt to improve something. Maybe BI won't work, and any money invested in it will be wasted. Maybe BI will work, and it will eventually solve many problems with today's Western societies. Who are you to tell the rest of us we're not even allowed to try? Is it your money being invested in the attempt? Will it negatively impact you? If we take your attitude, possible improvements will never be attempted, and therefore, nothing will ever improve. >My understanding is that all the energy thrown in BI-related discussions is wasted while it could be invested in favor of universal health insurance for instance. It's fantastic that you have another idea! Don't waste your energy nay-saying people who are trying something other than your idea, get to work making your idea happen!
- Nicolas_Colin 10y ago
  I sincerely regret that the US is currently missing critical opportunities such as that to deploy a state-of-the-art universal health insurance, while most of the energy of those who could support that effort is dedicated to discussing basic income. Also I point out that real-life enactments such as the French RMI, even though they succeeded at providing critical resources to those in need, are under extraordinary financial and political pressure. That pressure explains why it's become so complex, ridden with adverse effects and hated by much of the political spectrum. I'm fairly certain that basic income would suffer the same fate. Therefore I see it as a political dead end and a distraction from much-needed debates on critical social risks in the digital age.
  - grecy 10y ago
    I understand and respect your opinion. Your opinion does not give you the right to stop others from voicing theirs, and working hard to achieve what they think is a worthwhile goal. The fact you ignored that's what my comment is saying, and merely paraphrased your article makes me think you don't care about other people's opinions and ideas, which is a really, really great way to make people not care about yours.
  - arielb1 10y ago
    Universal healthcare is probably a good idea. And while it is a form of basic income, it feels fairly orthogonal to it politically. I'm not really sure why an "old age and unemployment" security net is intrinsically more politically stable than a "basic income" social security net. You need some deal of political cleverness to implement both.

coredog64 10y ago

To come at it from the other side, UBI is sold as a replacement for a number of other social programs. I find it very hard to believe that, in the US at least, any of those other social programs would be dismantled and stay dead. It is more likely that UBI would temporarily replace one or two programs in the social safety net before being supplemented with two or three more new ones. As both US parties currently have significant trust issues with one another, I would say UBI is a complete non-starter.

roymurdock 10y ago

Thanks for writing the article. It was well thought out and pretty comprehensive. I couldn't seem to find a clear definition of UBI in the article, which helps people discuss the concept as many people view possible UBI programs completely differently. While I am in agreement that UBI is massively overhyped and not a true, large-scale solution to income inequality, I'm happy that it has gotten so much interest and might lead to productive conversations around tax reform.

SubiculumCode 10y ago

Perhaps I missed it but one large advantage of badic income is 1: not means tested—losing benefits because you found a better job is a huge problem with current systems. I know from first hand experience as I went through school. 2: Universal and free market oriented. You are not told how to spend that income and you can then use it to support small business/entrepreneurial endeavors.

Nicolas_Colin 10y ago
It's true, but those two arguments exist only on paper. In practice, my guess is that it wouldn't be long before UBI is converted a means-tested benefit, for both financial and political reasons. As for advantage number 2, yes you're not told how to spend that income but chances are that income is far from enough to pay for proper healthcare / childcare / elderly care or well-located housing. The history of the social state shows us that transferring money to people is not enough: you also have to supplement the market and correct its imperfections.
- SubiculumCode 10y ago
  Means testing is how you would LOSE political support. There has not been UBI so history tells you little. By supplement the market you mean
  - Nicolas_Colin 10y ago
    "Means testing is how you would LOSE political support" => yes you're right. And this is the reason why those (the Republican Party for instance) who are opposed to social policy out of principle invest a lot in transforming universal benefits into means-tested benefits. We saw that happen in many cases in the recent period of austerity, because scarcity of resources is a powerful argument to convince the rich, then the middle class, to renounce their benefits in favor of the poor. As for "there has not been UBI" I disagree. Many supporters provide examples such as the Alaska dividend. There are many lessons to be drawn from many social policies in developed countries. In France alone we had two BI-like programs which, for various reasons, underwent slow financial and political destruction: - the RMI/RSA, about which I wrote in the article - less known is the "régime des intermittents du spectacle", which works like a universal unemployment insurance for freelancers in the entertainment industry (and it costs so much money to the taxpayer that governments regularly try to kill it). It only survives because the entertainment industry is a powerful lobby in France.

AnthonyMouse 10y ago

> Round #2: left-wing government loses elections, new right-wing government decides to target UBI on the poor in order to master the costs. UBI becomes BI without the "U". The flaw here is that this would seem to apply to any form of social assistance. Why hasn't the same thing happened to social security? The answer is that Round #2 doesn't make sense. You can't take someone who is making $60K/year + $10K UBI and take away the UBI without lowering their taxes unless you want them to burn you in effigy. But if all you propose to do is replace $10K in UBI with $10K in tax cuts for the same people, who is going to be the lobby in favor of that? The dynamic you're describing is what happens to things like education assistance. Because people would rather have in $1 in cash money tax cuts than $1 in education vouchers. But the UBI is cash that spends just the same as the tax cut would.

Nicolas_Colin 10y ago
The dynamic (converting universal benefits into means-tested benefits) happened 2 years ago in France with universal childcare benefits ("allocations familiales"). It's true that people weren't happy, but the pressure in favor of austerity was just too much and it was implemented very gradually. It hasn't happened to Social Security because, if I'm not mistaken, the pension amount is proportional to what you earned during your career => hence the rich pay more but also receive more. Same with unemployment benefits. This is actually the only way to make a universal monetary benefit politically sustainable. And UBI, with its fixed amount, doesn't match that criteria.
GFK_of_xmaspast 10y ago
> Why hasn't the same thing happened to social security I think the reason that social security survives while welfare benefits continue to be slashed regularly is perfectly clear.

aconz2 10y ago

> I wrote this article because it seems to me the basic income discussion is orchestrated by people, notably in technology, who are unaware of politics and reluctant to get their hands dirty. While I myself am a programmer and support basic income, I have talked with many people outside the technology world who are also in favor of such a system. YC is getting their hands dirty with their research project and Finland's government is most definitely aware of politics. The only way for us (US citizens) to get our hands dirty in politics when not voting is talking about these things. > ... energy thrown in BI-related discussions is wasted while it could be invested in favor of universal health insurance for instance ... BI and health insurance, universal or not, solve very different issues. Both deserve attention and one doesn't preclude the other. I do think that a very important part of BI discussions is what programs it can replace, what it can supplement, and what it doesn't solve.

Nicolas_Colin 10y ago
Actually, talking is not the only way. Were 19th century factory workers content with talking? No: they initiated the labor movement and conquered the modern social state. The fact that so many people talk about BI without leaving their job, raising funds, going on strike, founding unions, etc., is proof in my eyes that we're having an intellectual discussion, not waging a political battle. The one precedent of authentic political action in the current context, the foundation of the Freelancers Union, was meant to fight for health coverage for freelancers, not a monetary benefit.
- listentojohan 10y ago
  > The fact that so many people talk about BI without leaving their job, raising funds, going on strike, founding unions, etc., is proof in my eyes that we're having an intellectual discussion, not waging a political battle. I don't exactly think that going on strike or leaving your job, serves as a good argument for UBI - quite the contrary. And no, the same cannot be said for worker rights or work similar issues. I do think that unions have a great role to play in this, and that they could easily focus and do research on the effects on UBI, much like the YC project.

WheelsAtLarge 10y ago

I would add that, one answer to replace all the welfare system is not a fix. Yes, the current system looks like a complicated pointless machine but it's a system that got that way because it needs to fulfill many needs. One solution for all sounds great but nothing is that simple. Like knots in tangled string. We need to fix the system one knot at a time. We might even need to cut out whole sections but there's not one simple solution for the whole problem. It's interesting how many of the techies out there would laugh at the idea of replacing the internet with just computers and wires - what could be simpler. Yet according to many, we can replace a complicated system like welfare with a simple system like basic income. To me this points out lack of understanding and as you said, reluctance to get ones hands dirty.

orangecat 10y ago
It's interesting how many of the techies out there would laugh at the idea of replacing the internet with just computers and wires - what could be simpler. Well, dumb pipes are in fact simpler and superior to the centralized systems of control and preferential treatment that telcos are constantly trying to impose.

grecy 10y ago

What gets me about your article is your utter lack of willingness to allow people to attempt to improve something. Maybe BI won't work, and any money invested in it will be wasted. Maybe BI will work, and it will eventually solve many problems with today's Western societies. Who are you to tell the rest of us we're not even allowed to try? Is it your money being invested in the attempt? Will it negatively impact you? If we take your attitude, possible improvements will never be attempted, and therefore, nothing will ever improve. >My understanding is that all the energy thrown in BI-related discussions is wasted while it could be invested in favor of universal health insurance for instance. It's fantastic that you have another idea! Don't waste your energy nay-saying people who are trying something other than your idea, get to work making your idea happen!

Nicolas_Colin 10y ago
I sincerely regret that the US is currently missing critical opportunities such as that to deploy a state-of-the-art universal health insurance, while most of the energy of those who could support that effort is dedicated to discussing basic income. Also I point out that real-life enactments such as the French RMI, even though they succeeded at providing critical resources to those in need, are under extraordinary financial and political pressure. That pressure explains why it's become so complex, ridden with adverse effects and hated by much of the political spectrum. I'm fairly certain that basic income would suffer the same fate. Therefore I see it as a political dead end and a distraction from much-needed debates on critical social risks in the digital age.
- grecy 10y ago
  I understand and respect your opinion. Your opinion does not give you the right to stop others from voicing theirs, and working hard to achieve what they think is a worthwhile goal. The fact you ignored that's what my comment is saying, and merely paraphrased your article makes me think you don't care about other people's opinions and ideas, which is a really, really great way to make people not care about yours.
- arielb1 10y ago
  Universal healthcare is probably a good idea. And while it is a form of basic income, it feels fairly orthogonal to it politically. I'm not really sure why an "old age and unemployment" security net is intrinsically more politically stable than a "basic income" social security net. You need some deal of political cleverness to implement both.