6 ms·

This is a test of charity, not UBI. 1. The money involved is voluntarily donated, not confiscated from taxpayers - an essential difference between tax-funded v

This is a test of charity, not UBI. 1. The money involved is voluntarily donated, not confiscated from taxpayers - an essential difference between tax-funded vs charity. 2. 3000 recipients is vanishingly small on a state or federal level. When everyone gets their monthly $UBI check, supply-and-demand dictates that "free money" will be duly devalued, with prices of low-end essential goods/services rising to match (say, basic rent rising to $1000/mo). 3. Many who currently produce wealth to make ends meet - paying income-scaled taxes included - may very well be enticed to "go Galt" by seeking a self-sufficient lifestyle where $UBI/mo covers all cash needs without one having to get a job per se. (I find this option quite attractive.) 4. Old aphorism: "tax what you want less of, subsidize what you want more of." UBI implements/enforces this by punishing the productive and rewarding the idle. Yes, some people will use the opportunity to do laudable activities - which won't necessarily contribute to the economy. Yes, some people will use this to bridge current welfare-to-work transition issues - which are better handled by narrowly fixing that bridging problem without having to involve the entire population. Yes, more people will wonder why they're pulling other people's economic weight, and consider the merits of humble low-income living. 5. I realize Y Combinator is in the business of giving money to people to encourage productivity. Methinks they're too used to working with the rare hyper-productive, and don't grok how many people are quite content with low-cost no-effort zero-productivity living.

billmalarky 9y ago
>When everyone gets their monthly $UBI check, supply-and-demand dictates that "free money" will be duly devalued, with prices of low-end essential goods/services rising to match (say, basic rent rising to $1000/mo). At first glance this seems intuitively correct, but I'd encourage anyone reading this to control+f my username in this thread for arguments showing otherwise.
- ctdonath 9y ago
  I did, and found your arguments wanting. You're conflating local with national behaviors, and conflating high-value goods/services with low. Take a low-income area and give everyone $1000/mo for no reason (they're not trading any local productivity for it), and rent & other basic costs will immediately rise accordingly. "Move!" you (and I) say - and the limited supply of inexpensive rural housing (matching UBIers' lack of need for jobs) will likewise rise accordingly, as the market of renters just vastly increased. Over time, low-end housing supply may increase, but now you've a market of homes which rather pointedly do not have jobs nearby - you've just created communities of people absolutely dependent on UBI.
  - billmalarky 9y ago
    >you've just created communities of people absolutely dependent on UBI. This will be the result of the steady march of automation displacing the human workforce regardless. Furthermore, the lack of a UBI system in a high unemployment due to automation scenario would lead to complete collapse of the market economy.
    - ctdonath 9y ago
      We went thru "displacing the human workforce" in the Industrial Revolution. Don't worry, we'll create more low-skill jobs - just like we did back then. ...unless legislators continue prohibiting people from working if they can't produce enough value per hour. Minimum wage is "debtor's prison" redux. There's plenty of low-skill low-value jobs I could hire people to do, regardless of technological advancement, if only regulations weren't so oppressive.
      - incompatible 9y ago
        Fighting the minimum wage is a political dead end. People won't vote for that, since they believe people who work a full week should have a decent standard of living. That's the case in Australia, at least.
        Consultant32452 9y ago
        In practice hardly anyone believes people who work a full week should have a decent standard of living. If people actually believed that, then no one would purchase goods manufactured in Mexico, China, etc. Instead, it's more accurate to say that people don't want the inconvenience of actually seeing poor people.
        incompatible 9y ago
        Self-interest overrides politics in this case. Forcing employers to pay more is also likely to be preferable to helping the low-paid in a way that involved raising taxes.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
irrational 9y ago
I can't wait for UBI. I have a six figure income, but I'll quit the moment I get UBI, move into a tiny apartment and then spend the remainder of my days happily reading library books.
- aaron-lebo 9y ago
  UBI at 12k a year per person is 3 trillion dollars (which says that's probably the upper range). If you're making six figures, you can make 20 years of UBI in 4 years and stash it in the bank. Why not quit now?
- OrwellianChild 9y ago
  Can't tell whether serious or sarcastic... If sarcastic, I'll take your point to mean that people already doing well in life are not likely to give up the trappings to go into UBI-funded early retirement. If serious, look into ChooseFI, the FIRE community, etc. It's totally possible to self-fund the transition from your current lifestyle to the one you're describing.
nugget 9y ago
> 3. Many who currently produce wealth to make ends meet - paying income-scaled taxes included - may very well be enticed to "go Galt" by seeking a self-sufficient lifestyle where $UBI/mo covers all cash needs without one having to get a job per se. (I find this option quite attractive.) I also find this theoretical aspect of UBI quite attractive - the potential for a lot of self-organization into self-sustaining communities of scale in rural, low cost of living areas.
incompatible 9y ago
Yeah, these "tests" of UBI always seem to be about the attractive side, people getting money for nothing, and never about the funding side. With a large-scale UBI in practice, you'd also have the effect of higher taxes that would claw back the UBI from those who have jobs, as well as an additional amount to cover the UBI for those who don't work. I still prefer a job guarantee scheme for dealing with under-employment. This gives anyone who is willing and capable of working the chance to earn the minimum wage, and hopefully gets some productive benefit in return.
dragonwriter 9y ago
> 3000 recipients is vanishingly small on a state or federal level. When everyone gets their monthly $UBI check, supply-and-demand dictates that "free money" will be duly devalued, with prices of low-end essential goods/services rising to match (say, basic rent rising to $1000/mo) No, that's not what “supply and demand” says. With normally-shaped supply curves, you would expect priced to increase but not so much as to prevent a net increase in what people who are net beneficiaries can afford.

billmalarky 9y ago

>When everyone gets their monthly $UBI check, supply-and-demand dictates that "free money" will be duly devalued, with prices of low-end essential goods/services rising to match (say, basic rent rising to $1000/mo). At first glance this seems intuitively correct, but I'd encourage anyone reading this to control+f my username in this thread for arguments showing otherwise.

ctdonath 9y ago
I did, and found your arguments wanting. You're conflating local with national behaviors, and conflating high-value goods/services with low. Take a low-income area and give everyone $1000/mo for no reason (they're not trading any local productivity for it), and rent & other basic costs will immediately rise accordingly. "Move!" you (and I) say - and the limited supply of inexpensive rural housing (matching UBIers' lack of need for jobs) will likewise rise accordingly, as the market of renters just vastly increased. Over time, low-end housing supply may increase, but now you've a market of homes which rather pointedly do not have jobs nearby - you've just created communities of people absolutely dependent on UBI.
- billmalarky 9y ago
  >you've just created communities of people absolutely dependent on UBI. This will be the result of the steady march of automation displacing the human workforce regardless. Furthermore, the lack of a UBI system in a high unemployment due to automation scenario would lead to complete collapse of the market economy.
  - ctdonath 9y ago
    We went thru "displacing the human workforce" in the Industrial Revolution. Don't worry, we'll create more low-skill jobs - just like we did back then. ...unless legislators continue prohibiting people from working if they can't produce enough value per hour. Minimum wage is "debtor's prison" redux. There's plenty of low-skill low-value jobs I could hire people to do, regardless of technological advancement, if only regulations weren't so oppressive.
    - incompatible 9y ago
      Fighting the minimum wage is a political dead end. People won't vote for that, since they believe people who work a full week should have a decent standard of living. That's the case in Australia, at least.
      - Consultant32452 9y ago
        In practice hardly anyone believes people who work a full week should have a decent standard of living. If people actually believed that, then no one would purchase goods manufactured in Mexico, China, etc. Instead, it's more accurate to say that people don't want the inconvenience of actually seeing poor people.
        incompatible 9y ago
        Self-interest overrides politics in this case. Forcing employers to pay more is also likely to be preferable to helping the low-paid in a way that involved raising taxes.
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

irrational 9y ago

I can't wait for UBI. I have a six figure income, but I'll quit the moment I get UBI, move into a tiny apartment and then spend the remainder of my days happily reading library books.

aaron-lebo 9y ago
UBI at 12k a year per person is 3 trillion dollars (which says that's probably the upper range). If you're making six figures, you can make 20 years of UBI in 4 years and stash it in the bank. Why not quit now?
OrwellianChild 9y ago
Can't tell whether serious or sarcastic... If sarcastic, I'll take your point to mean that people already doing well in life are not likely to give up the trappings to go into UBI-funded early retirement. If serious, look into ChooseFI, the FIRE community, etc. It's totally possible to self-fund the transition from your current lifestyle to the one you're describing.

nugget 9y ago

> 3. Many who currently produce wealth to make ends meet - paying income-scaled taxes included - may very well be enticed to "go Galt" by seeking a self-sufficient lifestyle where $UBI/mo covers all cash needs without one having to get a job per se. (I find this option quite attractive.) I also find this theoretical aspect of UBI quite attractive - the potential for a lot of self-organization into self-sustaining communities of scale in rural, low cost of living areas.

incompatible 9y ago

Yeah, these "tests" of UBI always seem to be about the attractive side, people getting money for nothing, and never about the funding side. With a large-scale UBI in practice, you'd also have the effect of higher taxes that would claw back the UBI from those who have jobs, as well as an additional amount to cover the UBI for those who don't work. I still prefer a job guarantee scheme for dealing with under-employment. This gives anyone who is willing and capable of working the chance to earn the minimum wage, and hopefully gets some productive benefit in return.

dragonwriter 9y ago

> 3000 recipients is vanishingly small on a state or federal level. When everyone gets their monthly $UBI check, supply-and-demand dictates that "free money" will be duly devalued, with prices of low-end essential goods/services rising to match (say, basic rent rising to $1000/mo) No, that's not what “supply and demand” says. With normally-shaped supply curves, you would expect priced to increase but not so much as to prevent a net increase in what people who are net beneficiaries can afford.