7 ms·

The important piece to note, which Zuckerberg may or may not understand, is that the UBI should be accompanied by the elimination of the rest of the welfare sta

The important piece to note, which Zuckerberg may or may not understand, is that the UBI should be accompanied by the elimination of the rest of the welfare state (yes, all of it, including minimum wage). Combined with requiring people to be US citizens for 18 years before qualifying should eliminate most of the qualms critics have with the idea. Overall, I don't think the tax burden is significant for a minimalist UBI, because the savings from eliminating our current welfare state full of mal-incentives will increase productivity.

klodolph 9y ago
So if I move to the US when I'm two years old, and become a naturalized citizen at age 7 after my parents finish the process, and then I go to college, and graduate at 22, I'm stuck without UBI for another three years?
- lend000 9y ago
  Yes, you would possibly need to get a job for a few years. 18 is an arbitrary number but there needs to be a limit, and there will always be an example of a person who falls into this 'tragic' category. Rationale: to prevent a massive influx of immigrants draining the treasury for free income, some of which they would probably send home, too. That wouldn't sit well with many people, nor be sustainable. There will of course, be people like in the situation you mentioned who feel marginally cheated, at least for a brief time.
  - klodolph 9y ago
    This is unconscionable, frankly, I'm appalled that someone could display such a cavalier attitude towards "tragic" stories. Nobody is disputing your stated goal, let us agree on that point. First of all, "feeling cheated" is inaccurate. In an economic environment where everyone has UBI and there is no minimum wage/SSI/SSDI/etc, depriving someone of UBI makes them unable to provide for themselves unless they are skilled and/or lucky. It's common to find a low paying job fresh out of college. Let's say you get a $30k salaried job. With UBI, that might be a $10k salaried job with $20k UBI. Take away UBI and now you're trying to afford housing in a market where the most financially destitute earn twice what you make. Second of all, immigration is a big part of what makes this country great and what sense does it make to pay immigrants less merely because they're immigrants? If they can do the same job, they should get the same pay, not just for moral but also for economic reasons. You can fix the system but if you start from the assumption that there is a simple solution (18 year minimum) for a complex problem, you will be consistently disappointed.
    - lend000 9y ago
      It's not a simple issue, but there are many complexities you seem to have overlooked. I believe in a high level of mobility and freedom in immigration, compared to the current limits, at least. I'm curious, what do you think would happen if we gave the UBI out to everyone immediately? To spell it out: we cannot afford to produce a UBI for the entire world, but if everyone is able to immigrate to America and receive America's UBI, we will have several billion of the world's poorest knocking on our door. The two are mutually exclusive in the real world, in which we both live. What is your solution? Yes, you are correct that long term citizens would have higher financial negotiating power than newer citizens who do not yet qualify. Does it need to be 18 years? Of course not -- the point of that number was that you should be an adult to receive a UBI. In our current immigration system, it may be difficult enough to get citizenship that perhaps the only requirement should be that you're an adult citizen. However, the most important takeaway for you is that if you just give away a UBI to every person that sets foot in America, immediately, you will either: 1. make it near impossible to immigrate to the US due to increased demand from people who were only persuaded by the UBI (in our current system) or 2. open the floodgates to unsustainable immigration that will drain more from the UBI pool than the system can support (in a higher mobility system, which I otherwise support) And in either case, you will have immense capital flight to other countries, which is obviously not in America's best interest. I'm open to suggestions on how to address immigration with a UBI; I don't deny that it's one of, if not the primary shortcoming without an obvious solution for UBI.
      - c22 9y ago
        But it's not like all those people would stay in their home countries and just siphon away all our sweet sweet ubi hoard. These people would become US citizens and their societal output would become part of the country's aggregate output, some of which presumably funds the UBI program. As long as we don't assume people from economically disadvantaged regions are inherently incapable of providing as much value as individuals in advantaged regions then the only way allowing immigration is unsustainable is if UBI itself is unsustainable.
      - klodolph 9y ago
        > It's not a simple issue, but there are many complexities you seem to have overlooked. Funny, that was exactly my reaction when to your comment. > I'm curious, what do you think would happen if we gave the UBI out to everyone immediately? I'm confused why you're even bringing this up, since we agree this wouldn't work. If that's the position you're arguing against it's a straw man. I'm interested in UBI, but I think we'd need a system that isn't as deeply and fundamentally flawed as the "wait N years" system. I think it's a complicated enough issue that I have honestly no idea how to tackle it, so the comment that I am "overlooking" complexities seems completely out of left field. Anything that cuts off all the people on SSI is a non-starter.
rhizome 9y ago
Is there a reason why all of that should be eliminated besides that you think they're "mal-incentives?"
- danielhooper 9y ago
  It's simpler (cheaper)
  - rhizome 9y ago
    Well in that case, simpler and cheaper can be achieved through the reduction of military expenditures and increases in marginal tax rates for high earners.
    - lend000 9y ago
      Unrelated points. These things are not mutually exclusive.
      - rhizome 9y ago
        They don't have to be. I'm saying there are better sources of funding.
  - frgtpsswrdlame 9y ago
    If it's cheaper, doesn't that necessarily mean that people on welfare will be receiving less benefit? Actually much less since UBI will go to everyone, if it's cheaper in spite of that...
    - fzzzy 9y ago
      The overhead of administering the program is cheaper.
- lend000 9y ago
  See my other response -- negative incentives, bureaucratic cruft, etc. Similar to why you might prefer a 10 line program that is O(n) to a 4000 line program which is O(nlogn) -- seems obvious to me. There could certainly be exceptions for some programs (like Food stamps for children who don't yet qualify for UBI) or for things that are not bought with cash in a marketplace (if we ever had state health providers, for example), but for the most part, this comparison could eliminate dozens of government agencies and programs while expanding benefits.
frgtpsswrdlame 9y ago
Lol what? UBI doesn't make up for medicaid, medicare and minimum wage for example. We should probably keep foodstamps as well. It's an advancement of the welfare state, that's the whole point Zuckerberg is making. Our current welfare state is inadequate which is why lots of kids don't get a fair shot. Zuckerberg's fix for this is to use more welfare to create a more even field for all kids to compete on.
- gnaritas 9y ago
  You're right about medical, but the whole point of UBI is to provide a floor upon which anyone can live without the expensive bureaucracy of qualifying them. It's supposed to replace the welfare state with something more efficient. That's not a regression, with UBI you don't need foodstamps or any other kind of assistance (not counting healthcare which is a separate thing).
  - frgtpsswrdlame 9y ago
    No, that's the point of UBI in your mind. This is actually what I think is harmful about our current obsession with UBI, all the politicians are slowly coming around to it and when they do that you know some people are about to get screwed. UBI isn't here to reduce welfare spending or to reduce welfare spending on the poor. Inequality has a direct effect on social mobility. Thus programs which exacerbate inequality are antithetical to the idea of a meritocracy. We need more, direct redistribution to the poor to fix America's problems with social mobility. Abolishing the minimum wage because of UBI? Come on.
    - gnaritas 9y ago
      That's the point of UBI in most people's minds, it's a better way to redistribute wealth and once in place should be the only way needed. Of what purpose is a food stamp program when we can simply make sure the UBI is enough to live on? UBI is about dealing with a world where we don't don't have enough jobs for everyone, that already covers the poor. Want more redistribution, raise the UBI. It's one program that can replace the entire welfare state. UBI would be a better and more efficient use of the existing welfare money as well as new funds so it can be given to everyone. It makes no sense to have UBI and a welfare state at the same time. And yes, you don't need a minimum wage when you have UBI, UBI is a minimum wage.
mrdoops 9y ago
One of the biggest concerns I hear about UBI is where the money comes from. I think think your point about eliminating the welfare state systems is a big part of the solution. Think of all the bureaucratic cruft that exists right now and how many of those resources could be diverted into more impactful areas such as paying for UBI that enables more to participate in the economic flow of goods and services. It's easier said than done, but I think a lot of the UBI's implementation costs could be covered by consolidating expensive and complicated systems into a simpler solution like UBI.
- pharrington 9y ago
  The money will come from the same place money comes from now: banks. The value backing that money will come from the same place value comes from now: energy applied to capital. Given that the whole reason money and capital even came to exist in the first place is that humans have some compulsive drive to do relatively complex things once their basic, life sustaining needs are met, there's very little rational reason to be worried about less value being produced in a post UBI world. One very good reason to keep (not necessarily in their exact current forms, mind you) the current bureaucracies involved in housing, health care, etc, is that that bureaucracy factors out the energy involved in obtaining those life sustaining societal structures. Certainly make the bureaucracy more efficient, but entirely eliminating it makes the society as a whole less efficient.
  - maneesh 9y ago
    I'm confused about the downvotes you're receiving. You're right. The fractional reserve, and especially derivatives, has created trillions of dollars in the last decade. See here for a visualization of the world's money supply: http://money.visualcapitalist.com/all-of-the-worlds-money-and-markets-in-one-visualization/ http://money.visualcapitalist.com/all-of-the-worlds-money-an...
    - deleted 9y ago
      [deleted]
    - 9y ago
dageshi 9y ago
I would be absolutely amazed if any government actually agreed to dismantle their welfare states in return for UBI. There will always be pressure on politicians for one group or another to receive more money for one reason or another which will require all the government beurocracy to administer it.
- lend000 9y ago
  Agreed -- it would be very difficult politically, not that that matters in terms of which policies we should advocate. The drug lobbyists, for example, absolutely love Medicare. They prefer the government with its friendly politicians and bureaucrats "negotiate" the prices of drugs that the government subsidizes, rather than allow price discovery in a market system.
mahyarm 9y ago
So if your a typical immigrant to the USA, your going to wait +25 years before you can get UBI then? 5 years minimum of green card waiting for citizenship and 2-10 years just waiting to get a green card in the first place?
gremlinsinc 9y ago
I agree, as long as it's adjusted to account for inflation, changes in housing costs, and truly meets the minimum thresholds... I think we should institute consumption taxes though to help fund it, and maybe have a different rate for those w/ state id's that are 'verified' citizens vs those who aren't citizens.. Basically so immigrants/tourists pay more to be here than the rest of us... I also think that we can only get rid of all other programs as long as GBI also includes medicare for all. Medical is a basic need as much as a roof.
dragonwriter 9y ago
> Combined with requiring people to be US citizens for 18 years before qualifying The safety net programs that UBI would replace don't require that (some require citizenship, others require only satisfactory immigration status, none have anything like an 18 year citizenship requirement.)
namlem 9y ago
There's no way we could do that. Social security pays on average much more than any realistic basic income. Are we supposed to slash the income of retirees in half?

klodolph 9y ago

So if I move to the US when I'm two years old, and become a naturalized citizen at age 7 after my parents finish the process, and then I go to college, and graduate at 22, I'm stuck without UBI for another three years?

lend000 9y ago
Yes, you would possibly need to get a job for a few years. 18 is an arbitrary number but there needs to be a limit, and there will always be an example of a person who falls into this 'tragic' category. Rationale: to prevent a massive influx of immigrants draining the treasury for free income, some of which they would probably send home, too. That wouldn't sit well with many people, nor be sustainable. There will of course, be people like in the situation you mentioned who feel marginally cheated, at least for a brief time.
- klodolph 9y ago
  This is unconscionable, frankly, I'm appalled that someone could display such a cavalier attitude towards "tragic" stories. Nobody is disputing your stated goal, let us agree on that point. First of all, "feeling cheated" is inaccurate. In an economic environment where everyone has UBI and there is no minimum wage/SSI/SSDI/etc, depriving someone of UBI makes them unable to provide for themselves unless they are skilled and/or lucky. It's common to find a low paying job fresh out of college. Let's say you get a $30k salaried job. With UBI, that might be a $10k salaried job with $20k UBI. Take away UBI and now you're trying to afford housing in a market where the most financially destitute earn twice what you make. Second of all, immigration is a big part of what makes this country great and what sense does it make to pay immigrants less merely because they're immigrants? If they can do the same job, they should get the same pay, not just for moral but also for economic reasons. You can fix the system but if you start from the assumption that there is a simple solution (18 year minimum) for a complex problem, you will be consistently disappointed.
  - lend000 9y ago
    It's not a simple issue, but there are many complexities you seem to have overlooked. I believe in a high level of mobility and freedom in immigration, compared to the current limits, at least. I'm curious, what do you think would happen if we gave the UBI out to everyone immediately? To spell it out: we cannot afford to produce a UBI for the entire world, but if everyone is able to immigrate to America and receive America's UBI, we will have several billion of the world's poorest knocking on our door. The two are mutually exclusive in the real world, in which we both live. What is your solution? Yes, you are correct that long term citizens would have higher financial negotiating power than newer citizens who do not yet qualify. Does it need to be 18 years? Of course not -- the point of that number was that you should be an adult to receive a UBI. In our current immigration system, it may be difficult enough to get citizenship that perhaps the only requirement should be that you're an adult citizen. However, the most important takeaway for you is that if you just give away a UBI to every person that sets foot in America, immediately, you will either: 1. make it near impossible to immigrate to the US due to increased demand from people who were only persuaded by the UBI (in our current system) or 2. open the floodgates to unsustainable immigration that will drain more from the UBI pool than the system can support (in a higher mobility system, which I otherwise support) And in either case, you will have immense capital flight to other countries, which is obviously not in America's best interest. I'm open to suggestions on how to address immigration with a UBI; I don't deny that it's one of, if not the primary shortcoming without an obvious solution for UBI.
    - c22 9y ago
      But it's not like all those people would stay in their home countries and just siphon away all our sweet sweet ubi hoard. These people would become US citizens and their societal output would become part of the country's aggregate output, some of which presumably funds the UBI program. As long as we don't assume people from economically disadvantaged regions are inherently incapable of providing as much value as individuals in advantaged regions then the only way allowing immigration is unsustainable is if UBI itself is unsustainable.
    - klodolph 9y ago
      > It's not a simple issue, but there are many complexities you seem to have overlooked. Funny, that was exactly my reaction when to your comment. > I'm curious, what do you think would happen if we gave the UBI out to everyone immediately? I'm confused why you're even bringing this up, since we agree this wouldn't work. If that's the position you're arguing against it's a straw man. I'm interested in UBI, but I think we'd need a system that isn't as deeply and fundamentally flawed as the "wait N years" system. I think it's a complicated enough issue that I have honestly no idea how to tackle it, so the comment that I am "overlooking" complexities seems completely out of left field. Anything that cuts off all the people on SSI is a non-starter.

rhizome 9y ago

Is there a reason why all of that should be eliminated besides that you think they're "mal-incentives?"

danielhooper 9y ago
It's simpler (cheaper)
- rhizome 9y ago
  Well in that case, simpler and cheaper can be achieved through the reduction of military expenditures and increases in marginal tax rates for high earners.
  - lend000 9y ago
    Unrelated points. These things are not mutually exclusive.
    - rhizome 9y ago
      They don't have to be. I'm saying there are better sources of funding.
- frgtpsswrdlame 9y ago
  If it's cheaper, doesn't that necessarily mean that people on welfare will be receiving less benefit? Actually much less since UBI will go to everyone, if it's cheaper in spite of that...
  - fzzzy 9y ago
    The overhead of administering the program is cheaper.
lend000 9y ago
See my other response -- negative incentives, bureaucratic cruft, etc. Similar to why you might prefer a 10 line program that is O(n) to a 4000 line program which is O(nlogn) -- seems obvious to me. There could certainly be exceptions for some programs (like Food stamps for children who don't yet qualify for UBI) or for things that are not bought with cash in a marketplace (if we ever had state health providers, for example), but for the most part, this comparison could eliminate dozens of government agencies and programs while expanding benefits.

frgtpsswrdlame 9y ago

Lol what? UBI doesn't make up for medicaid, medicare and minimum wage for example. We should probably keep foodstamps as well. It's an advancement of the welfare state, that's the whole point Zuckerberg is making. Our current welfare state is inadequate which is why lots of kids don't get a fair shot. Zuckerberg's fix for this is to use more welfare to create a more even field for all kids to compete on.

gnaritas 9y ago
You're right about medical, but the whole point of UBI is to provide a floor upon which anyone can live without the expensive bureaucracy of qualifying them. It's supposed to replace the welfare state with something more efficient. That's not a regression, with UBI you don't need foodstamps or any other kind of assistance (not counting healthcare which is a separate thing).
- frgtpsswrdlame 9y ago
  No, that's the point of UBI in your mind. This is actually what I think is harmful about our current obsession with UBI, all the politicians are slowly coming around to it and when they do that you know some people are about to get screwed. UBI isn't here to reduce welfare spending or to reduce welfare spending on the poor. Inequality has a direct effect on social mobility. Thus programs which exacerbate inequality are antithetical to the idea of a meritocracy. We need more, direct redistribution to the poor to fix America's problems with social mobility. Abolishing the minimum wage because of UBI? Come on.
  - gnaritas 9y ago
    That's the point of UBI in most people's minds, it's a better way to redistribute wealth and once in place should be the only way needed. Of what purpose is a food stamp program when we can simply make sure the UBI is enough to live on? UBI is about dealing with a world where we don't don't have enough jobs for everyone, that already covers the poor. Want more redistribution, raise the UBI. It's one program that can replace the entire welfare state. UBI would be a better and more efficient use of the existing welfare money as well as new funds so it can be given to everyone. It makes no sense to have UBI and a welfare state at the same time. And yes, you don't need a minimum wage when you have UBI, UBI is a minimum wage.

mrdoops 9y ago

One of the biggest concerns I hear about UBI is where the money comes from. I think think your point about eliminating the welfare state systems is a big part of the solution. Think of all the bureaucratic cruft that exists right now and how many of those resources could be diverted into more impactful areas such as paying for UBI that enables more to participate in the economic flow of goods and services. It's easier said than done, but I think a lot of the UBI's implementation costs could be covered by consolidating expensive and complicated systems into a simpler solution like UBI.

pharrington 9y ago
The money will come from the same place money comes from now: banks. The value backing that money will come from the same place value comes from now: energy applied to capital. Given that the whole reason money and capital even came to exist in the first place is that humans have some compulsive drive to do relatively complex things once their basic, life sustaining needs are met, there's very little rational reason to be worried about less value being produced in a post UBI world. One very good reason to keep (not necessarily in their exact current forms, mind you) the current bureaucracies involved in housing, health care, etc, is that that bureaucracy factors out the energy involved in obtaining those life sustaining societal structures. Certainly make the bureaucracy more efficient, but entirely eliminating it makes the society as a whole less efficient.
- maneesh 9y ago
  I'm confused about the downvotes you're receiving. You're right. The fractional reserve, and especially derivatives, has created trillions of dollars in the last decade. See here for a visualization of the world's money supply: http://money.visualcapitalist.com/all-of-the-worlds-money-and-markets-in-one-visualization/ http://money.visualcapitalist.com/all-of-the-worlds-money-an...
  - deleted 9y ago
    [deleted]
  - 9y ago

dageshi 9y ago

I would be absolutely amazed if any government actually agreed to dismantle their welfare states in return for UBI. There will always be pressure on politicians for one group or another to receive more money for one reason or another which will require all the government beurocracy to administer it.

lend000 9y ago
Agreed -- it would be very difficult politically, not that that matters in terms of which policies we should advocate. The drug lobbyists, for example, absolutely love Medicare. They prefer the government with its friendly politicians and bureaucrats "negotiate" the prices of drugs that the government subsidizes, rather than allow price discovery in a market system.

mahyarm 9y ago

So if your a typical immigrant to the USA, your going to wait +25 years before you can get UBI then? 5 years minimum of green card waiting for citizenship and 2-10 years just waiting to get a green card in the first place?

gremlinsinc 9y ago

I agree, as long as it's adjusted to account for inflation, changes in housing costs, and truly meets the minimum thresholds... I think we should institute consumption taxes though to help fund it, and maybe have a different rate for those w/ state id's that are 'verified' citizens vs those who aren't citizens.. Basically so immigrants/tourists pay more to be here than the rest of us... I also think that we can only get rid of all other programs as long as GBI also includes medicare for all. Medical is a basic need as much as a roof.

dragonwriter 9y ago

> Combined with requiring people to be US citizens for 18 years before qualifying The safety net programs that UBI would replace don't require that (some require citizenship, others require only satisfactory immigration status, none have anything like an 18 year citizenship requirement.)

namlem 9y ago

There's no way we could do that. Social security pays on average much more than any realistic basic income. Are we supposed to slash the income of retirees in half?