4 ms·

Funny how all the proponents of a Universal 'Basic' Income aren't proposing instead to make every 'Basic' item 'Free'. After all, if you believe their rhetoric

by jarym 10y ago

Funny how all the proponents of a Universal 'Basic' Income aren't proposing instead to make every 'Basic' item 'Free'. After all, if you believe their rhetoric, giving someone $500/mo should be the same as giving them free bread, eggs, milk, some clothes and some movie tickets. I wonder why... Maybe, the reality is that over time our 'Basic' needs increase. In certain parts of the world shoes are still considered a luxury whereas in others, Nikes and Adidas are considered 'basic'. 50 years ago car ownership was a luxury even in most 'developed' nations, as were televisions. Now they're considered 'Basic'. The reality is, the people touting UBI as a way forward suffer from having a thoroughly static and isolated view of the world. They fail to see that value creation is what's important, and drives society to further itself. As value creation goes up, the definition of 'basic' increases with it. I'm not for a minute advocating that the current system is anywhere near perfect - the wealthiest in our population are questionable value creators while at the same time there are value creators scraping by in the world so the way we reward people needs a rethink. I don't profess to know how to solve the poverty crisis and I very much want it to be solved as a citizen of the world. What I do know is that the only way to do it will involve reforming education so that future generations are inspired to advance humankind and create value in the process.

Deregibus 10y ago
>Funny how all the proponents of a Universal 'Basic' Income aren't proposing instead to make every 'Basic' item 'Free'. >After all, if you believe their rhetoric, giving someone $500/mo should be the same as giving them free bread, eggs, milk, some clothes and some movie tickets. It's not "funny", it's the core part of basic income that separates it from state-run socialism. Not making a determination about what is or isn't basic is one of the key points. You give a person their $500 each month and let them determine what it should be spent on. What is basic for one person may not be for another.
- jarym 10y ago
  Go back to 1950s USA where average annual salary was just over $3000 - if I told you back then I'd give you $500 a month - almost twice the average salary where do you think we'd all be now? Would we be even here? Now take your $500 a month and project forward another 50-60 years. What do you think it'll buy you then and why? By picking a monetary amount - be it $50, $500 or $1000 it IS absolutely making a determination about what's basic. And its doing it based on the living standards and cost of living of today. That's a large part of why its so flawed.
  - delinka 10y ago
    It seems to me it'd have to be specified as a formula based on the "poverty threshold" and "inflation." I really can't imagine just throwing out a number and expecting it to be unchanged for decades.
  - theaeolist 10y ago
    The precise amount will not be enshrined in the constitution. It will be most likely adjusted periodically to ensure subsistence without removing the motivation to work.
yagga 10y ago
Wise words. We do need a better way to measure value people create. For example, many geniuses (inventors, thinkers, etc) who do not have business skills live poor while creating more value than many CEOs that can manage, negotiate, raise funds, have connections, etc. Business people do create value too by connecting people, making things happen, etc., but often their value output is overrated. Many actors and musicians and sport peopl are overrated too vs doctors who save lives. They worth a lot only because of economy of scale. Everyone knows them and they monetize their followers. In some way it is a fair world, because we all put in nearly about the same conditions. Well, except our place of birth and genetics, which we have no choice over. But everything else is up to us, which kind of makes it fair because we compete in the same conditions. However, maybe it is a time for a new system. Why not? As far as the education, the nature will do its miracle. New generations will change everything, they will know what to do because they born in new world. Everything will work out on its own as it should. It is happening.
- holograham 10y ago
  You are conflating fairness vs. justice. The world is far from fair -- genetics, place of birth, medical conditions, accidents, etc will always exist like you mention. The moral/civil question is what is the role of government in an unfair world? Most governments opt to head down the justice route predominately (e.g. the US's Justice System holding 1/3 of our government powers) while creating a myriad of "fairness" regulations (e.g. welfare programs). The ultimate problem with this approach is people will rarely agree on what is fair. There is no set definition and wants/desires change over time -- even needs do to (like needing a cell phone now vs 20 years ago). This ever evolving definition of fairness is what ensures this debate will rage on indefinitely.
  - chongli 10y ago
    You are conflating fairness vs. justice. There's an entire philosophy based on the work of John Rawls [0] that codifies the conflation of these ideas [1]. It's not at all a simple matter to strive for justice in an unfair world. Some libertarian folks elsewhere in this discussion have brought up the idea that taxes are theft. On the opposite end of that spectrum, I've heard it argued that property rights are a form of violence. What does it mean for the rights of an individual if, in a hypothetical future, all arable land is owned, fenced off, tended by drones, and guarded with extreme prejudice? A Mad Max-style dystopia sprinkled with little walled gardens. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Rawls https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Rawls [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justice_as_Fairness https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justice_as_Fairness
_nalply 10y ago
I watched a documentary about the ICRC. They asked sellers to come to a village somewhere in Congo and gave the villagers coupons so that they could buy what they needed the most and exchanged the coupons for money. They created something like a temporary UBI for a village and a market for different needs. A family bought mattresses, another family corrugated sheets, another clothes, and so on. If you give people basic items for free this will go bad. You know the horror stories in development aid how people sell away the stuff they got for free.
- akjainaj 10y ago
  A friend of mine works in welfare (a state worker) and has told me most people there don't really need anything. They simply take whatever they can, and they sell or trade what they don't need. And what's even worse: many people turn violent if you don't give them whatever they ask for. So they had to put policemen there all day because they had hit the state workers many times. You know, I'm a socialist, but these kinds of stories really make me turn libertarian there for a moment. (This in Europe)
EliRivers 10y ago
"should be the same as giving them free bread, eggs, milk, some clothes and some movie tickets." I wouldn't spend any of my UBI on any of those things.

by jarym 10y ago

Deregibus 10y ago

>Funny how all the proponents of a Universal 'Basic' Income aren't proposing instead to make every 'Basic' item 'Free'. >After all, if you believe their rhetoric, giving someone $500/mo should be the same as giving them free bread, eggs, milk, some clothes and some movie tickets. It's not "funny", it's the core part of basic income that separates it from state-run socialism. Not making a determination about what is or isn't basic is one of the key points. You give a person their $500 each month and let them determine what it should be spent on. What is basic for one person may not be for another.

jarym 10y ago
Go back to 1950s USA where average annual salary was just over $3000 - if I told you back then I'd give you $500 a month - almost twice the average salary where do you think we'd all be now? Would we be even here? Now take your $500 a month and project forward another 50-60 years. What do you think it'll buy you then and why? By picking a monetary amount - be it $50, $500 or $1000 it IS absolutely making a determination about what's basic. And its doing it based on the living standards and cost of living of today. That's a large part of why its so flawed.
- delinka 10y ago
  It seems to me it'd have to be specified as a formula based on the "poverty threshold" and "inflation." I really can't imagine just throwing out a number and expecting it to be unchanged for decades.
- theaeolist 10y ago
  The precise amount will not be enshrined in the constitution. It will be most likely adjusted periodically to ensure subsistence without removing the motivation to work.

yagga 10y ago

Wise words. We do need a better way to measure value people create. For example, many geniuses (inventors, thinkers, etc) who do not have business skills live poor while creating more value than many CEOs that can manage, negotiate, raise funds, have connections, etc. Business people do create value too by connecting people, making things happen, etc., but often their value output is overrated. Many actors and musicians and sport peopl are overrated too vs doctors who save lives. They worth a lot only because of economy of scale. Everyone knows them and they monetize their followers. In some way it is a fair world, because we all put in nearly about the same conditions. Well, except our place of birth and genetics, which we have no choice over. But everything else is up to us, which kind of makes it fair because we compete in the same conditions. However, maybe it is a time for a new system. Why not? As far as the education, the nature will do its miracle. New generations will change everything, they will know what to do because they born in new world. Everything will work out on its own as it should. It is happening.

holograham 10y ago
You are conflating fairness vs. justice. The world is far from fair -- genetics, place of birth, medical conditions, accidents, etc will always exist like you mention. The moral/civil question is what is the role of government in an unfair world? Most governments opt to head down the justice route predominately (e.g. the US's Justice System holding 1/3 of our government powers) while creating a myriad of "fairness" regulations (e.g. welfare programs). The ultimate problem with this approach is people will rarely agree on what is fair. There is no set definition and wants/desires change over time -- even needs do to (like needing a cell phone now vs 20 years ago). This ever evolving definition of fairness is what ensures this debate will rage on indefinitely.
- chongli 10y ago
  You are conflating fairness vs. justice. There's an entire philosophy based on the work of John Rawls [0] that codifies the conflation of these ideas [1]. It's not at all a simple matter to strive for justice in an unfair world. Some libertarian folks elsewhere in this discussion have brought up the idea that taxes are theft. On the opposite end of that spectrum, I've heard it argued that property rights are a form of violence. What does it mean for the rights of an individual if, in a hypothetical future, all arable land is owned, fenced off, tended by drones, and guarded with extreme prejudice? A Mad Max-style dystopia sprinkled with little walled gardens. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Rawls https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Rawls [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justice_as_Fairness https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justice_as_Fairness

_nalply 10y ago

I watched a documentary about the ICRC. They asked sellers to come to a village somewhere in Congo and gave the villagers coupons so that they could buy what they needed the most and exchanged the coupons for money. They created something like a temporary UBI for a village and a market for different needs. A family bought mattresses, another family corrugated sheets, another clothes, and so on. If you give people basic items for free this will go bad. You know the horror stories in development aid how people sell away the stuff they got for free.

akjainaj 10y ago
A friend of mine works in welfare (a state worker) and has told me most people there don't really need anything. They simply take whatever they can, and they sell or trade what they don't need. And what's even worse: many people turn violent if you don't give them whatever they ask for. So they had to put policemen there all day because they had hit the state workers many times. You know, I'm a socialist, but these kinds of stories really make me turn libertarian there for a moment. (This in Europe)

EliRivers 10y ago

"should be the same as giving them free bread, eggs, milk, some clothes and some movie tickets." I wouldn't spend any of my UBI on any of those things.