4 ms·

After deriding UBI for a long time, and believing it won't work, I came up with a trial model that, IMHO, would allow it to be tested out with minimal damage to

After deriding UBI for a long time, and believing it won't work, I came up with a trial model that, IMHO, would allow it to be tested out with minimal damage to the economy (even though I still don't think it would work): Take a country, US for example. Let's say that society determines that a reasonable UBI is $1000/month (ignore the number, this is about the process, not the amount). When I say "everyone", I mean "every US resident who has been a US citizen for at least X years". - Year 1: everyone begins receiving $10/month, conditioned to willing to have employment and spending tracked by researchers. Everyone who receives a payout and also receives social support funds, sees the social support funds reduced by $10 per month. - Year 5: if researches see no significant negative results and the economy continues to grow, etc. the payout is increased to $50/month. Otherwise, if there are significantly negative outcomes, the payout is eliminated. - Year 10: repeat, payout increased to $100/month. - Year 15: repeat, payout increased to $200/month. - Year 20: repeat, payout increased to $500/month. - Year 25: repeat, payout increased to $750/month. - Year 30: repeat, payout increased to $1000/month. All other social payouts are ended.

Suncho 9y ago
I agree with your plan of gradually ramping up the amount of the basic income to find the optimal amount. However, I would question a couple parts: > every US resident who has been a US citizen for at least X years Why limit it in this way? > conditioned to willing to have employment Why? Isn't one of the biggest benefits of basic income that it gives more people more of an option not to work? And what does "willing to have employment" mean? Every man has his price. If you pay people enough, they will work, no?
- ucaetano 9y ago
  > Why limit it in this way? X can be 0. I didn't set it to any specific number to avoid discussing it (some people would want a cool-down period, others don't). > conditioned to willing to have employment Why? "willing to have (employment and spending) tracked by researchers" :)
romwell 9y ago
I disagree with this model. A lot of positive externalities that UBI will bring simply won't kick in at low payout levels, whereas the negatives which will be brought in by diversion of funds will be apparent. The externalities I am talking about are of this form: -Increased benefits to public health as people are less stressed about losing jobs -Increased entrepreneurship and all the benefits that come from it -Increased cultural output and the increased geopolitical influence The whole point of UBI is that's it's not another handout. It's giving everyone an option to not have to work a day job to survive (something that moderately well-off people, or people with upper-middle-class parents already have). The impact of "what if most of the citizens didn't have to work to survive" can't be estimated with a small hand-out, because it will not achieve that. In other words, UBI is somewhat binary in nature: either you have it, or you don't. It doesn't scale down beyond a certain point.
- ucaetano 9y ago
  > In other words, UBI is somewhat binary in nature: either you have it, or you don't. It doesn't scale down beyond a certain point. Then we're better off without it. It would be completely naive to try to roll it out in full scale without knowing the potential impact. Not worth taking the risk.

Suncho 9y ago

I agree with your plan of gradually ramping up the amount of the basic income to find the optimal amount. However, I would question a couple parts: > every US resident who has been a US citizen for at least X years Why limit it in this way? > conditioned to willing to have employment Why? Isn't one of the biggest benefits of basic income that it gives more people more of an option not to work? And what does "willing to have employment" mean? Every man has his price. If you pay people enough, they will work, no?

ucaetano 9y ago
> Why limit it in this way? X can be 0. I didn't set it to any specific number to avoid discussing it (some people would want a cool-down period, others don't). > conditioned to willing to have employment Why? "willing to have (employment and spending) tracked by researchers" :)

romwell 9y ago

I disagree with this model. A lot of positive externalities that UBI will bring simply won't kick in at low payout levels, whereas the negatives which will be brought in by diversion of funds will be apparent. The externalities I am talking about are of this form: -Increased benefits to public health as people are less stressed about losing jobs -Increased entrepreneurship and all the benefits that come from it -Increased cultural output and the increased geopolitical influence The whole point of UBI is that's it's not another handout. It's giving everyone an option to not have to work a day job to survive (something that moderately well-off people, or people with upper-middle-class parents already have). The impact of "what if most of the citizens didn't have to work to survive" can't be estimated with a small hand-out, because it will not achieve that. In other words, UBI is somewhat binary in nature: either you have it, or you don't. It doesn't scale down beyond a certain point.

ucaetano 9y ago
> In other words, UBI is somewhat binary in nature: either you have it, or you don't. It doesn't scale down beyond a certain point. Then we're better off without it. It would be completely naive to try to roll it out in full scale without knowing the potential impact. Not worth taking the risk.