5 ms·

I'm in favor of trying UBI to see the impact, testing it properly. I'm not a fan of this article however. While we are reasoning by analogy, It's fairly well d

by traskjd 10y ago

I'm in favor of trying UBI to see the impact, testing it properly. I'm not a fan of this article however. While we are reasoning by analogy, It's fairly well documented that most capital wealth does not survive past an initial generation or two. There's something about creating the wealth/passive income that creates a different behavior than being given it. This article does nothing to discuss that. The analogy included feels like it's just there to support a punchy headline. This is why I'm more excited to see some real tests and results in various countries and communities.

eridius 10y ago
> There's something about creating the wealth/passive income that creates a different behavior than being given it. My completely uninformed opinion is that this is largely due to one of the following: 1. Kids who grow up with so much passive income that they never need to work even for luxuries. UBI won't produce this, because anyone who wants luxuries will still have to work to afford them. 2. Passive income isn't automatically self-sustaining, so if kids aren't as good as their parents at actually managing their assets and/or business, then they may simply end up spending more than they make (especially if they're trying to maintain the same lifestyle their parents had even though they can't maintain all of the income). I think this ties back into #1 as well. The article said 30% of the income is capital assets, but if kids aren't good at business (or don't want to work at all), then they're relying on capital income for nearly all of their income instead of just a portion of it, which generally isn't self-sustaining without a change in lifestyle.
stretchwithme 10y ago
It's easy to test. Find someone and start paying them. Let us know how it works out.
- kybernetikos 10y ago
  This is in fact what people are doing. https://www.givedirectly.org/research-on-cash-transfers https://www.givedirectly.org/research-on-cash-transfers http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2017/01/02/finlands-basic-income-experiment-starts-really-its-testing-the-laffer-curve-for-poor-people/#53229bbd76af http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2017/01/02/finlands-... https://blog.ycombinator.com/basic-income/ https://blog.ycombinator.com/basic-income/
  - c0nducktr 10y ago
    We already did this in the 70s as well. https://catalog.hathitrust.org/Record/002169251 https://catalog.hathitrust.org/Record/002169251
- deleted 10y ago
  [deleted]
sp332 10y ago
But there are family dynasties. http://qz.com/694340/the-richest-families-in-florence-in-1427-are-still-the-richest-families-in-florence/ http://qz.com/694340/the-richest-families-in-florence-in-142... And wealth does get concentrated for long periods of time. Corporations, government agencies, endowments.
asmithmd1 10y ago
The Rockefeller, DuPont, and Kennedy families (just to name three) show that capital survives for many generations if enough has been accumulated that it is impossible to consume it all. I think between $50 and $100 million is the critical mass needed to create a "black hole" of money. Above that amount of money and more money is sucked in faster than one person can squander it.
- epx 10y ago
  These are probably the exceptions to the rule.
  - traskjd 10y ago
    There are exceptions, yes. An interesting model to look at is that of the Rothschild family. If you can cut past the conspiracy theories, they run the family wealth as a family bank. Family members can borrow from the bank, but they must attend an annual meeting and share their learnings with the rest of the family (at least that's my old memory of something I read). It's interesting how different folks approach it. The Vanderbilt family largely lost it all, the Rockefellers kept it (even after large charity). Personally, I'd put myself in the Buffett camp. Leave your children enough that they can do anything, but not so much that they can do nothing.

by traskjd 10y ago

eridius 10y ago

> There's something about creating the wealth/passive income that creates a different behavior than being given it. My completely uninformed opinion is that this is largely due to one of the following: 1. Kids who grow up with so much passive income that they never need to work even for luxuries. UBI won't produce this, because anyone who wants luxuries will still have to work to afford them. 2. Passive income isn't automatically self-sustaining, so if kids aren't as good as their parents at actually managing their assets and/or business, then they may simply end up spending more than they make (especially if they're trying to maintain the same lifestyle their parents had even though they can't maintain all of the income). I think this ties back into #1 as well. The article said 30% of the income is capital assets, but if kids aren't good at business (or don't want to work at all), then they're relying on capital income for nearly all of their income instead of just a portion of it, which generally isn't self-sustaining without a change in lifestyle.

stretchwithme 10y ago

It's easy to test. Find someone and start paying them. Let us know how it works out.

kybernetikos 10y ago
This is in fact what people are doing. https://www.givedirectly.org/research-on-cash-transfers https://www.givedirectly.org/research-on-cash-transfers http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2017/01/02/finlands-basic-income-experiment-starts-really-its-testing-the-laffer-curve-for-poor-people/#53229bbd76af http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2017/01/02/finlands-... https://blog.ycombinator.com/basic-income/ https://blog.ycombinator.com/basic-income/
- c0nducktr 10y ago
  We already did this in the 70s as well. https://catalog.hathitrust.org/Record/002169251 https://catalog.hathitrust.org/Record/002169251
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

sp332 10y ago

But there are family dynasties. http://qz.com/694340/the-richest-families-in-florence-in-1427-are-still-the-richest-families-in-florence/ http://qz.com/694340/the-richest-families-in-florence-in-142... And wealth does get concentrated for long periods of time. Corporations, government agencies, endowments.

asmithmd1 10y ago

The Rockefeller, DuPont, and Kennedy families (just to name three) show that capital survives for many generations if enough has been accumulated that it is impossible to consume it all. I think between $50 and $100 million is the critical mass needed to create a "black hole" of money. Above that amount of money and more money is sucked in faster than one person can squander it.

epx 10y ago
These are probably the exceptions to the rule.
- traskjd 10y ago
  There are exceptions, yes. An interesting model to look at is that of the Rothschild family. If you can cut past the conspiracy theories, they run the family wealth as a family bank. Family members can borrow from the bank, but they must attend an annual meeting and share their learnings with the rest of the family (at least that's my old memory of something I read). It's interesting how different folks approach it. The Vanderbilt family largely lost it all, the Rockefellers kept it (even after large charity). Personally, I'd put myself in the Buffett camp. Leave your children enough that they can do anything, but not so much that they can do nothing.