5 ms·

Any UBI study that doesn't include everyone in a society is not studying "universal" basic income at all. It's just giving some people money. It would be very s

Any UBI study that doesn't include everyone in a society is not studying "universal" basic income at all. It's just giving some people money. It would be very surprising if this didn't yield positive outcomes for that group. The big question marks surrounding UBI involve its implementation at a society-wide level. (What are the macroeconomic effects? What if people blow their UBI on dumb things and still end up starving?) Anything short of UNIVERSAL experimentation will not address these.

collyw 8y ago
I do agree, but this seems a step closer than everything else that has been labeled a UBI experiment before.
commandlinefan 8y ago
Not only that, but I don't believe (correct me if I'm wrong) that any UBI skeptics would argue that UBI wouldn't "help" the people who received it in the short-term, like in a 12-year-period, but that it's unsustainable in even the lifetime of a single generation. It's more like social security, which was a great deal for the first generation that started receiving it, but is getting more expensive and less beneficial with each passing year.
tobiasSoftware 8y ago
The other big question is about the cost side of it. True UBI claims to be able to not be that costly, as it will enable the shut down of all monetary forms of welfare. The resulting unemployment of those employees working welfare related jobs shouldn't even be that concerning, because then the benefit side of UBI would kick in for anyone unemployed. How you study all of that on a small scale is a mystery, as it seems to me that UBI is nearly impossible to bootstrap and will just have to be tried full force at some point with some limited studies as guidance.
stale2002 8y ago
I see this argument brought up, a lot, but the problem with it is that it is unfalseifiable. If UBI is so great, then similar "almost UBI" proposals should ALSO show good results. I sincerely doubt that there is a magic line between "similar but not UBI" programs and "UBI" programs where the good stuff immediately appears. If UBI is impossible to test, then we shouldn't do it. It would be insanely risky to spend trillions of dollars on something that its proponents claim can't be tested. So we should just not implement it in the first place.
- Romanulus 8y ago
  So if we can't test it don't do it... unless of course the case for is Communism where it has been tested and is constantly implemented (despite the terrible results).
- CPLX 8y ago
  > I sincerely doubt that there is a magic line between "similar but not UBI" programs and "UBI" programs where the good stuff immediately appears. Maybe, maybe not. But it's pretty clear that an economy or society fits the definition of a complex adaptive system, and it's pretty common knowledge in that field that it's possible for there to be phase change transitions, where effects come suddenly and all at once at a specific level of participation of the independent actors. Analogies include things like herd immunity, or sensitive dependence on initial conditions in weather forecasting.
  - stale2002 8y ago
    I don't know much about weather but something like herd immunity is definitely testable. Firstly, even a smallish percentage of immunity would still see population wide benefits. Secondly, as diseases are transmitted to people physically nearby, this could be tested by immunizing a large percentage of a single population, such as a small town full of people who don't travel much. If you are truly concerned about the population wide effects of UBI, then you could do something similar, like fund a small poor town, and give EVERYONE in that small town UBI. Unfortunately, I expect that of such a test were attempted, you'd see the same exact criticism of it, though. It'd probably be something like "you can't see the benefits unless the entire WORLD is on UBI!!!" or some other further doubling down on the unprovability of it all. My point being, that this scepticism of actually testing the damn thing seems more like a defense mechanism against the possibility of being wrong. It is just the same lazy approach that everyone has for their pet theories, as a way of deflecting any and all criticism by declaring it unfalsefiable
dghughes 8y ago
It does include everyone but if your income is over a certain amount you don't get anything. It's quite common in tax systems to be exempt or be required depending on your income level. UBI is in addition or on top of your income (if any). UBI isn't necessarily income in that it's a person's sole income. In my country people get unemployment benefits if they are laid off, welfare if really bad, food banks, dental care for kids under 18, daycare for kids under school age, medical care (but still carry insurance), some school's pay 70% tuition depending on the circumstances. So really UBI would combine all those into one, if you don't need it that's great but if you do there it is. Sure some people would live off it but it's no different than doing that now.
- snarf21 8y ago
  I think what the parent is saying is this is just simplified needs-based welfare. Remove the bureaucracy and remove the restrictions on employment status and/or savings. I'm not saying this is bad but I agree it isn't UBI.
smsm42 8y ago
> It's just giving some people money. It would be very surprising if this didn't yield positive outcomes for that group. It would be not surprising at all. It all depends on how you give the money and in what context. There are a lot of stories about people winning the lottery or getting an inheritance and ending up broke and in rehab (or worse). There is statistics that only a small percentage of people who found gold in various gold rushes managed to keep it long-term. There's a concept of "poverty trap", where combination of means-tested welfare programs and wage structure essentially makes stopping being poor unaffordable to the poor, because there's a summary income drop when moving up the scale of earned income, and the person can not afford taking that drop. There's also a concept of external dependency ruining local business, so that if you flood local marked with foreign aid and money, local businesses can not compete or sustain traditional price/market structure and once they are gone, there's no means to sustain the economy but continuing the stream of foreign aid forever. Giving people money is not always unquestionably positive, all depends on how. That's why real-life testing is important to know if UBI can work or not. > Anything short of UNIVERSAL experimentation will not address these. True but one can argue some insight can be gained from small-scale testing. When we test new drug, we do not test it on every person, even though every person's body is different. We test it on limited set of people, and hope they are representative. Sometimes it fails, but it's better than not having any drugs until we can test it on everyone, isn't it?
conanbatt 8y ago
Any person that believes they can run a real life experiment with the entire society lives in a special kind of bubble.
- tribune 8y ago
  I'm not advocating running an "experiment" at the level of an entire society, if that's what you mean. That "experiment" would be the first actual implementation of UBI, if it ever happens.

collyw 8y ago

I do agree, but this seems a step closer than everything else that has been labeled a UBI experiment before.

commandlinefan 8y ago

Not only that, but I don't believe (correct me if I'm wrong) that any UBI skeptics would argue that UBI wouldn't "help" the people who received it in the short-term, like in a 12-year-period, but that it's unsustainable in even the lifetime of a single generation. It's more like social security, which was a great deal for the first generation that started receiving it, but is getting more expensive and less beneficial with each passing year.

tobiasSoftware 8y ago

The other big question is about the cost side of it. True UBI claims to be able to not be that costly, as it will enable the shut down of all monetary forms of welfare. The resulting unemployment of those employees working welfare related jobs shouldn't even be that concerning, because then the benefit side of UBI would kick in for anyone unemployed. How you study all of that on a small scale is a mystery, as it seems to me that UBI is nearly impossible to bootstrap and will just have to be tried full force at some point with some limited studies as guidance.

stale2002 8y ago

I see this argument brought up, a lot, but the problem with it is that it is unfalseifiable. If UBI is so great, then similar "almost UBI" proposals should ALSO show good results. I sincerely doubt that there is a magic line between "similar but not UBI" programs and "UBI" programs where the good stuff immediately appears. If UBI is impossible to test, then we shouldn't do it. It would be insanely risky to spend trillions of dollars on something that its proponents claim can't be tested. So we should just not implement it in the first place.

Romanulus 8y ago
So if we can't test it don't do it... unless of course the case for is Communism where it has been tested and is constantly implemented (despite the terrible results).
CPLX 8y ago
> I sincerely doubt that there is a magic line between "similar but not UBI" programs and "UBI" programs where the good stuff immediately appears. Maybe, maybe not. But it's pretty clear that an economy or society fits the definition of a complex adaptive system, and it's pretty common knowledge in that field that it's possible for there to be phase change transitions, where effects come suddenly and all at once at a specific level of participation of the independent actors. Analogies include things like herd immunity, or sensitive dependence on initial conditions in weather forecasting.
- stale2002 8y ago
  I don't know much about weather but something like herd immunity is definitely testable. Firstly, even a smallish percentage of immunity would still see population wide benefits. Secondly, as diseases are transmitted to people physically nearby, this could be tested by immunizing a large percentage of a single population, such as a small town full of people who don't travel much. If you are truly concerned about the population wide effects of UBI, then you could do something similar, like fund a small poor town, and give EVERYONE in that small town UBI. Unfortunately, I expect that of such a test were attempted, you'd see the same exact criticism of it, though. It'd probably be something like "you can't see the benefits unless the entire WORLD is on UBI!!!" or some other further doubling down on the unprovability of it all. My point being, that this scepticism of actually testing the damn thing seems more like a defense mechanism against the possibility of being wrong. It is just the same lazy approach that everyone has for their pet theories, as a way of deflecting any and all criticism by declaring it unfalsefiable

dghughes 8y ago

It does include everyone but if your income is over a certain amount you don't get anything. It's quite common in tax systems to be exempt or be required depending on your income level. UBI is in addition or on top of your income (if any). UBI isn't necessarily income in that it's a person's sole income. In my country people get unemployment benefits if they are laid off, welfare if really bad, food banks, dental care for kids under 18, daycare for kids under school age, medical care (but still carry insurance), some school's pay 70% tuition depending on the circumstances. So really UBI would combine all those into one, if you don't need it that's great but if you do there it is. Sure some people would live off it but it's no different than doing that now.

snarf21 8y ago
I think what the parent is saying is this is just simplified needs-based welfare. Remove the bureaucracy and remove the restrictions on employment status and/or savings. I'm not saying this is bad but I agree it isn't UBI.

smsm42 8y ago

> It's just giving some people money. It would be very surprising if this didn't yield positive outcomes for that group. It would be not surprising at all. It all depends on how you give the money and in what context. There are a lot of stories about people winning the lottery or getting an inheritance and ending up broke and in rehab (or worse). There is statistics that only a small percentage of people who found gold in various gold rushes managed to keep it long-term. There's a concept of "poverty trap", where combination of means-tested welfare programs and wage structure essentially makes stopping being poor unaffordable to the poor, because there's a summary income drop when moving up the scale of earned income, and the person can not afford taking that drop. There's also a concept of external dependency ruining local business, so that if you flood local marked with foreign aid and money, local businesses can not compete or sustain traditional price/market structure and once they are gone, there's no means to sustain the economy but continuing the stream of foreign aid forever. Giving people money is not always unquestionably positive, all depends on how. That's why real-life testing is important to know if UBI can work or not. > Anything short of UNIVERSAL experimentation will not address these. True but one can argue some insight can be gained from small-scale testing. When we test new drug, we do not test it on every person, even though every person's body is different. We test it on limited set of people, and hope they are representative. Sometimes it fails, but it's better than not having any drugs until we can test it on everyone, isn't it?

conanbatt 8y ago

Any person that believes they can run a real life experiment with the entire society lives in a special kind of bubble.

tribune 8y ago
I'm not advocating running an "experiment" at the level of an entire society, if that's what you mean. That "experiment" would be the first actual implementation of UBI, if it ever happens.