4 ms·

I'd rather see someone work on the Universal part first. Get distributions, however small, into the hands of every individual. Scaling up the distributions isn

I'd rather see someone work on the Universal part first. Get distributions, however small, into the hands of every individual. Scaling up the distributions isn't a difficult problem to solve, the universal part is.

pc86 9y ago
A dollar a day to every US citizen is $114 billion a year. At that expense I would think scaling it at all once it reaches universality is nearly impossible. Even if we're theoretically giving every $10k/yr, upping that to $10,365/yr still costs well over $100 billion.
- grondilu 9y ago
  Make it a dollar a year, then. Or a cent a year. The point was to install and test the required infrastructure (identity check, payment method and so on...) and then increase the amount.
- Turing_Machine 9y ago
  > Even if we're theoretically giving every $10k/yr, upping that to $10,365/yr still costs well over $100 billion. Not if most of it is coming back in income taxes, it doesn't.
gbear605 9y ago
The questions that GiveDirectly are looking at are not about the technical implementation, but whether it actually produces good results.
logfromblammo 9y ago
Step 1: Distribute 2 L of clean, potable drinking water to every person, every day, at no additional cost to them. Step 2: Distribute 2200 kcal of nutritionally adequate food to every person, every day, at no additional cost to them. Step 3: Allocate 20 m^3 of private, secure shelter to every person, with right-of-occupation intervals lasting no less than 4 years, at no additional cost to them. Step 4: Allocate ~350 L/day for treated water and sewer lines--sufficient for cooking, cleaning, hygiene, and sanitation--to every person, at no additional cost to them. Step 5: Distribute 800 W of electrical power to every person, at no additional cost to them. Step 6: Allocate 50 Mb/s data network bandwidth to every person, at no additional cost to them. Step 7: Build sufficient additional public infrastructure for transportation, healthcare, business, and recreation, such that a reasonable amount of use of those commons is available to every person at no additional cost. Step 8: Distribute a quantity of spendable currency to every person, with no requirements for eligibility or restrictions on its use. Starting at step 8 is, in my opinion, a recipe for inflation and rent-seeking. UBI is, in essence, an attempt to create a mixed economic system that is communist at the bottom end and capitalist at the top end. If you do not establish the minimum quality-of-life boundary by producing or taxing-in-kind the required goods and services as an inherently governmental (+ non-profit NGO) function, the rent-seekers in the upper class can and will capture some of the benefit intended for the lower class, and possibly enough of it that the lower class can no longer solely subsist upon it. If the subsistence-level of existence is guaranteed, there is no longer any leverage provided to a person with more resources by virtue of the poorer person needing to accept a bad deal in order to live, while the richer person can walk away from the table without meaningful consequence. Workers cannot be as easily exploited if everyone can afford to quit their jobs. Renters can always fall back to their sleeping cubicle.
- shkkmo 9y ago
  We do not know which of 1-7 are needed by which people, so giving them to everyone is wasteful. In addition, providing those basic necessities for free destroys the paid market for those goods and harms economic growth. > UBI is, in essence, an attempt to create a mixed economic system that is communist at the bottom end and capitalist at the top end. I think you do not know what "communism" means. There is nothing in UBI about public ownership of the means of production. > If the subsistence-level of existence is guaranteed, there is no longer any leverage provided to a person with more resources by virtue of the poorer person needing to accept a bad deal in order to live, while the richer person can walk away from the table without meaningful consequence. Workers cannot be as easily exploited if everyone can afford to quit their jobs. This is exactly why UBI is a good thing. Workers are freed to find the most effective use of their skills (rather than relying on capitalists to do it for them) which will hopefully lead to higher economic efficiency.
  - logfromblammo 9y ago
    Destroying the paid market for a minimum standard of existence is the whole rassafrassin' point! The idea that you have to pay something if you want to continue living is the root cause of trade relationships that are fundamentally skewed against the already-disadvantaged party. You give everyone the bare minimum for free, and charge for anything on top of that. It's the freemium model applied to national economies, and the market for smartphone apps suggests that it would work fine. People complaining about pay-to-win are preferable to those complaining about pay-to-not-die. It doesn't have to be communism where the government owns a government corn field and government trucks and government dispensaries, so that it can distribute corn to the residents. It could also be acceptance of those specific foundation goods and services in lieu of cash taxes, where your cash dividend from shares in AgriCorp is not taxed, because the company already paid that tax in the form of truckloads of UBI corn. And your dividend from TransporTech is not taxed, because the company already paid that tax by moving that UBI corn from the grain elevator to the distribution points. And your dividend from Grocerino is not taxed, because the company already paid that tax by giving up shelf space and administering the food part of the ration card system. Or maybe your salary from nonprofit FoodServ Inc is not taxed, because that company moves that UBI corn into the food deserts where the for-profit grocery stores either do not have a presence or choose to not pay their taxes in-kind.

pc86 9y ago

A dollar a day to every US citizen is $114 billion a year. At that expense I would think scaling it at all once it reaches universality is nearly impossible. Even if we're theoretically giving every $10k/yr, upping that to $10,365/yr still costs well over $100 billion.

grondilu 9y ago
Make it a dollar a year, then. Or a cent a year. The point was to install and test the required infrastructure (identity check, payment method and so on...) and then increase the amount.
Turing_Machine 9y ago
> Even if we're theoretically giving every $10k/yr, upping that to $10,365/yr still costs well over $100 billion. Not if most of it is coming back in income taxes, it doesn't.

gbear605 9y ago

The questions that GiveDirectly are looking at are not about the technical implementation, but whether it actually produces good results.

logfromblammo 9y ago

Step 1: Distribute 2 L of clean, potable drinking water to every person, every day, at no additional cost to them. Step 2: Distribute 2200 kcal of nutritionally adequate food to every person, every day, at no additional cost to them. Step 3: Allocate 20 m^3 of private, secure shelter to every person, with right-of-occupation intervals lasting no less than 4 years, at no additional cost to them. Step 4: Allocate ~350 L/day for treated water and sewer lines--sufficient for cooking, cleaning, hygiene, and sanitation--to every person, at no additional cost to them. Step 5: Distribute 800 W of electrical power to every person, at no additional cost to them. Step 6: Allocate 50 Mb/s data network bandwidth to every person, at no additional cost to them. Step 7: Build sufficient additional public infrastructure for transportation, healthcare, business, and recreation, such that a reasonable amount of use of those commons is available to every person at no additional cost. Step 8: Distribute a quantity of spendable currency to every person, with no requirements for eligibility or restrictions on its use. Starting at step 8 is, in my opinion, a recipe for inflation and rent-seeking. UBI is, in essence, an attempt to create a mixed economic system that is communist at the bottom end and capitalist at the top end. If you do not establish the minimum quality-of-life boundary by producing or taxing-in-kind the required goods and services as an inherently governmental (+ non-profit NGO) function, the rent-seekers in the upper class can and will capture some of the benefit intended for the lower class, and possibly enough of it that the lower class can no longer solely subsist upon it. If the subsistence-level of existence is guaranteed, there is no longer any leverage provided to a person with more resources by virtue of the poorer person needing to accept a bad deal in order to live, while the richer person can walk away from the table without meaningful consequence. Workers cannot be as easily exploited if everyone can afford to quit their jobs. Renters can always fall back to their sleeping cubicle.

shkkmo 9y ago
We do not know which of 1-7 are needed by which people, so giving them to everyone is wasteful. In addition, providing those basic necessities for free destroys the paid market for those goods and harms economic growth. > UBI is, in essence, an attempt to create a mixed economic system that is communist at the bottom end and capitalist at the top end. I think you do not know what "communism" means. There is nothing in UBI about public ownership of the means of production. > If the subsistence-level of existence is guaranteed, there is no longer any leverage provided to a person with more resources by virtue of the poorer person needing to accept a bad deal in order to live, while the richer person can walk away from the table without meaningful consequence. Workers cannot be as easily exploited if everyone can afford to quit their jobs. This is exactly why UBI is a good thing. Workers are freed to find the most effective use of their skills (rather than relying on capitalists to do it for them) which will hopefully lead to higher economic efficiency.
- logfromblammo 9y ago
  Destroying the paid market for a minimum standard of existence is the whole rassafrassin' point! The idea that you have to pay something if you want to continue living is the root cause of trade relationships that are fundamentally skewed against the already-disadvantaged party. You give everyone the bare minimum for free, and charge for anything on top of that. It's the freemium model applied to national economies, and the market for smartphone apps suggests that it would work fine. People complaining about pay-to-win are preferable to those complaining about pay-to-not-die. It doesn't have to be communism where the government owns a government corn field and government trucks and government dispensaries, so that it can distribute corn to the residents. It could also be acceptance of those specific foundation goods and services in lieu of cash taxes, where your cash dividend from shares in AgriCorp is not taxed, because the company already paid that tax in the form of truckloads of UBI corn. And your dividend from TransporTech is not taxed, because the company already paid that tax by moving that UBI corn from the grain elevator to the distribution points. And your dividend from Grocerino is not taxed, because the company already paid that tax by giving up shelf space and administering the food part of the ration card system. Or maybe your salary from nonprofit FoodServ Inc is not taxed, because that company moves that UBI corn into the food deserts where the for-profit grocery stores either do not have a presence or choose to not pay their taxes in-kind.