4 ms·

It's more than the expense of paying the money and whether people will continue to work. What needs to also be closely studied is: - Effect on crime - Effect

It's more than the expense of paying the money and whether people will continue to work. What needs to also be closely studied is: - Effect on crime - Effect on drug addiction - Effect on family outcomes - Effect on education opportunities I'd gladly pay more taxes if I could draw a direct link between UBI and a safer, happier society.

pqh 9y ago
I'd also be interested in effect on resource consumption. GDP isn't everything. I can't say it better than Kennedy: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=77IdKFqXbUY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=77IdKFqXbUY
defertoreptar 9y ago
Don't forget economic productivity.
MereInterest 9y ago
There was an experiment in Canada in the 70s, Mincome. It went really well, from everything I can find about it, with increased school attendance and decreased hospital visits. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mincome https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mincome
cmiles74 9y ago
There was recently an article about a study on the prevalence of hookworm in is US south[0]. It seems to me that basic income could go a long way towards resolving this issue. One of the examples cited in the article involved a trailer park where they pumped sewage into open pools. If every member of the park was getting some form of basic income, the state could require the trailer park to install a septic system and the trailer park, in turn, could charge it's renters more and put in the system. Currently it sounds like a blood from a stone situation: no one has any money, so requiring the park to install a sanitation system would simply cause it to file bankruptcy, likely with no change of any kind. [0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15179440 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15179440
- chimeracoder 9y ago
  > If every member of the park was getting some form of basic income, the state could require the trailer park to install a septic system and the trailer park, in turn, could charge it's renters more and put in the system. What you're describing is a special case of the exact sort of inflation that critics are afraid of (more money for tenants across the board just means more money that rentiers can extract). If the argument is "we could use tax money (via a stipend to citizens, and then extracted as rent) to implement a law that required a trailer park to provide a functioning sewage system", then the easiest and most efficient way to do that would be use tax money to provide a functioning sewage system.
  - cmiles74 9y ago
    I think the issue is that in this case the municipality does not have a functioning sanitation system. Requiring that the municipality implement such a system would require a pretty massive outlay of money and would likely be a tough sell: the state would need to require it of the municipality and somehow fund it. That said, you make a good point that landlords (in many cases) extract as much "value" from their tenants as they possibly can. If they knew each tenant was getting a fixed amount of additional income we could expect them to increase rents by approximately that amount and that would be bad. My example was optimistic in that it presumed this would not be the case. I do think my basic idea is sound: if people had a basic income of a certain amount, then we could expect systems supporting those people to improve (to some degree) by a portion of that amount.
  - lotu 9y ago
    > If the argument is "we could use tax money (via a stipend to citizens, and then extracted as rent) to implement a law that required a trailer park to provide a functioning sewage system", then the easiest and most efficient way to do that would be use tax money to provide a functioning sewage system. That's assuming the only objective was to fix trailor park sewage, when realistically there are thousands or maybe tens of thousands of similar problems that different populations. The federal government simply doesn't have the resources and logistical capabilities, to identify and address each need in turn. If they tried lots of needs would end up overlooked. So instead you provide the UBI and let the money get directed to the most pressing need.
blunte 9y ago
The governments routinely implement plans without reasonable research to back up their claims, so why not try this? There have been some studies, and from my recollection the takeaway is that most people, once their basic needs are met, strive to actually do something "useful". People on average do not become drug-addled sloths. For many reasons it is difficult to do a comprehensive, long term study on this idea. The first, of course, is the cost. People or organizations with the money to spend on research tend to be motivated by profit, and thus far we've been taught (incorrectly, I would argue) that giving things away doesn't result in having more for yourself.
- e40 9y ago
  The governments routinely implement plans without reasonable research to back up their claims, so why not try this? Because it's a huge change to society and it might have unexpected consequences. I feel this way, even being on the pro BI side.
  - vorotato 9y ago
    Right there's a pervasive "I'm fine so can we not rock the boat?" instead of a "fuck you got mine". BI could be real good, but I'd kinda like to see it implemented on a smaller scale first...

pqh 9y ago

I'd also be interested in effect on resource consumption. GDP isn't everything. I can't say it better than Kennedy: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=77IdKFqXbUY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=77IdKFqXbUY

defertoreptar 9y ago

Don't forget economic productivity.

MereInterest 9y ago

There was an experiment in Canada in the 70s, Mincome. It went really well, from everything I can find about it, with increased school attendance and decreased hospital visits. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mincome https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mincome

cmiles74 9y ago

There was recently an article about a study on the prevalence of hookworm in is US south[0]. It seems to me that basic income could go a long way towards resolving this issue. One of the examples cited in the article involved a trailer park where they pumped sewage into open pools. If every member of the park was getting some form of basic income, the state could require the trailer park to install a septic system and the trailer park, in turn, could charge it's renters more and put in the system. Currently it sounds like a blood from a stone situation: no one has any money, so requiring the park to install a sanitation system would simply cause it to file bankruptcy, likely with no change of any kind. [0]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15179440 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15179440

chimeracoder 9y ago
> If every member of the park was getting some form of basic income, the state could require the trailer park to install a septic system and the trailer park, in turn, could charge it's renters more and put in the system. What you're describing is a special case of the exact sort of inflation that critics are afraid of (more money for tenants across the board just means more money that rentiers can extract). If the argument is "we could use tax money (via a stipend to citizens, and then extracted as rent) to implement a law that required a trailer park to provide a functioning sewage system", then the easiest and most efficient way to do that would be use tax money to provide a functioning sewage system.
- cmiles74 9y ago
  I think the issue is that in this case the municipality does not have a functioning sanitation system. Requiring that the municipality implement such a system would require a pretty massive outlay of money and would likely be a tough sell: the state would need to require it of the municipality and somehow fund it. That said, you make a good point that landlords (in many cases) extract as much "value" from their tenants as they possibly can. If they knew each tenant was getting a fixed amount of additional income we could expect them to increase rents by approximately that amount and that would be bad. My example was optimistic in that it presumed this would not be the case. I do think my basic idea is sound: if people had a basic income of a certain amount, then we could expect systems supporting those people to improve (to some degree) by a portion of that amount.
- lotu 9y ago
  > If the argument is "we could use tax money (via a stipend to citizens, and then extracted as rent) to implement a law that required a trailer park to provide a functioning sewage system", then the easiest and most efficient way to do that would be use tax money to provide a functioning sewage system. That's assuming the only objective was to fix trailor park sewage, when realistically there are thousands or maybe tens of thousands of similar problems that different populations. The federal government simply doesn't have the resources and logistical capabilities, to identify and address each need in turn. If they tried lots of needs would end up overlooked. So instead you provide the UBI and let the money get directed to the most pressing need.

blunte 9y ago

The governments routinely implement plans without reasonable research to back up their claims, so why not try this? There have been some studies, and from my recollection the takeaway is that most people, once their basic needs are met, strive to actually do something "useful". People on average do not become drug-addled sloths. For many reasons it is difficult to do a comprehensive, long term study on this idea. The first, of course, is the cost. People or organizations with the money to spend on research tend to be motivated by profit, and thus far we've been taught (incorrectly, I would argue) that giving things away doesn't result in having more for yourself.

e40 9y ago
The governments routinely implement plans without reasonable research to back up their claims, so why not try this? Because it's a huge change to society and it might have unexpected consequences. I feel this way, even being on the pro BI side.
- vorotato 9y ago
  Right there's a pervasive "I'm fine so can we not rock the boat?" instead of a "fuck you got mine". BI could be real good, but I'd kinda like to see it implemented on a smaller scale first...