5 ms·

No problem with UBI as a theory, for all I know it might be strictly better than the status quo. Handing money out seems to have worked out for the banking syst

No problem with UBI as a theory, for all I know it might be strictly better than the status quo. Handing money out seems to have worked out for the banking system, hahaha. :[ The issue is that the economy is outrageously complicated and it isn't obvious that the people who want to bring in a UBI are the same people who will be working to bear the cost of a UBI. If it turns out to be unfair and negative, as any ambitious economic policy can be, it could be politically very costly verging on impossible to unwind.

maerF0x0 8y ago
I have yet to see any studies of UBI that focus on the Universal part. It should be going to rich and poor alike across a sufficient region to see how it works when people on UBI commingle. This is important because "fairness" in the system is often just about people being treated "the same". If the rich are receiving the same checks as everyone else its hard for them to complain about it.
- logfromblammo 8y ago
  Does the Alaska dividend count? As far as I know, everyone domiciled in the state gets the same check.
  - falcolas 8y ago
    That particular check amount depends on how long you've lived there.
    - ceejayoz 8y ago
      Not since SCOTUS struck that down in 1982. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alaska_Permanent_Fund https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alaska_Permanent_Fund > The first dividend plan would have paid Alaskans $50 for each year of residency up to 20 years, but the U.S. Supreme Court in Zobel v. Williams, 457 U.S. 55 (1982) disapproved the $50 per year formula as an invidious distinction burdening interstate travel. As a result, each qualified resident now receives the same annual amount, regardless of age or years of residency.
  - tom_mellior 8y ago
    It's not enough to live off it, so it's not a UBI.
    - logfromblammo 8y ago
      For the subsistence hunter-gatherers that usually barter, it is enough to soften the blow of a lean year, and a nice bonus in a fat year. For everyone else, it represents part of a new chainsaw, or snow machine, or set of fur traps, or some other vital tool of their trade or side-hustle that might be otherwise inaccessible without financing. The point is that everyone gets it, and it is very possible to examine how people spend it, and why they chose to spend it that way. Extrapolation can provide some limited insights as to what might happen if everyone got more in total, at more frequent intervals.
- endtime 8y ago
  If someone's taxes go up $1000 and they get a $250 UBI check for it, that person could definitely complain.
  - ck425 8y ago
    But they might also be able to afford to stop working for a year to say raise young children. I think the solution is to encourage everyone to take advantage of this system.
  - abathur 8y ago
    They could, but hopefully they'd be interested in considering how a UBI might broadly restructure social and economic dynamics, and whether that broad restructuring has effects someone sees as a fair trade (or even a great deal) for this money.
  - maerF0x0 8y ago
    I was speaking more colloquially. Yes of course they _can_ complain. But I was more suggesting that many people would not complain its unfair without making the connection to their taxes rising. Also, btw many UBI schemes do not intend to raise taxes, but to be a bureaucracy-free distribution algorithm.
baxtr 8y ago
I always wondered: if UBI was reality for everybody, wouldn’t then simply all prices go up by the UBI level and nothing changes after all?
- woah 8y ago
  Prices for what? How would anybody coordinate this?
  - endtime 8y ago
    That's what markets are for. The joke at Google is that if we get a company-wide raise, Mountain View landlords are the ones who celebrate.
  - rarec 8y ago
    Rent is a big one. For example, you charge your tenants $1000 a month now. UBI kicks in, everyone gets an extra $500. Why wouldn't a landlord up their rent charge to $1500, or even to just $1250? Who wouldn't want to do that?
    - AndrewDucker 8y ago
      Because they're in competition with each other, and thus they also want to undercut each other to ensure that they get tenants for their properties.
    - tom_mellior 8y ago
      At the same time, a lot of people will leave crowded cities when the UBI gives them other options. That should exert downward pressure on housing costs. (Also, laws against randomly raising rents by 50% would be useful.)
    - nemo44x 8y ago
      You're forgetting there is supply and demand as well. If there are more places to live than people who need them, then landlords and property owners will have to compete to offer the best price. This would drive prices downward, even if everyone has an equal constant added to their income. Then there's the possibility of some people working less or quitting one of their 2 jobs so they can enjoy their life a bit more. So their actual income could remain flat. If enough people do this then landlords wouldn't be able to increase rates either.

maerF0x0 8y ago

I have yet to see any studies of UBI that focus on the Universal part. It should be going to rich and poor alike across a sufficient region to see how it works when people on UBI commingle. This is important because "fairness" in the system is often just about people being treated "the same". If the rich are receiving the same checks as everyone else its hard for them to complain about it.

logfromblammo 8y ago
Does the Alaska dividend count? As far as I know, everyone domiciled in the state gets the same check.
- falcolas 8y ago
  That particular check amount depends on how long you've lived there.
  - ceejayoz 8y ago
    Not since SCOTUS struck that down in 1982. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alaska_Permanent_Fund https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alaska_Permanent_Fund > The first dividend plan would have paid Alaskans $50 for each year of residency up to 20 years, but the U.S. Supreme Court in Zobel v. Williams, 457 U.S. 55 (1982) disapproved the $50 per year formula as an invidious distinction burdening interstate travel. As a result, each qualified resident now receives the same annual amount, regardless of age or years of residency.
- tom_mellior 8y ago
  It's not enough to live off it, so it's not a UBI.
  - logfromblammo 8y ago
    For the subsistence hunter-gatherers that usually barter, it is enough to soften the blow of a lean year, and a nice bonus in a fat year. For everyone else, it represents part of a new chainsaw, or snow machine, or set of fur traps, or some other vital tool of their trade or side-hustle that might be otherwise inaccessible without financing. The point is that everyone gets it, and it is very possible to examine how people spend it, and why they chose to spend it that way. Extrapolation can provide some limited insights as to what might happen if everyone got more in total, at more frequent intervals.
endtime 8y ago
If someone's taxes go up $1000 and they get a $250 UBI check for it, that person could definitely complain.
- ck425 8y ago
  But they might also be able to afford to stop working for a year to say raise young children. I think the solution is to encourage everyone to take advantage of this system.
- abathur 8y ago
  They could, but hopefully they'd be interested in considering how a UBI might broadly restructure social and economic dynamics, and whether that broad restructuring has effects someone sees as a fair trade (or even a great deal) for this money.
- maerF0x0 8y ago
  I was speaking more colloquially. Yes of course they _can_ complain. But I was more suggesting that many people would not complain its unfair without making the connection to their taxes rising. Also, btw many UBI schemes do not intend to raise taxes, but to be a bureaucracy-free distribution algorithm.

baxtr 8y ago

I always wondered: if UBI was reality for everybody, wouldn’t then simply all prices go up by the UBI level and nothing changes after all?

woah 8y ago
Prices for what? How would anybody coordinate this?
- endtime 8y ago
  That's what markets are for. The joke at Google is that if we get a company-wide raise, Mountain View landlords are the ones who celebrate.
- rarec 8y ago
  Rent is a big one. For example, you charge your tenants $1000 a month now. UBI kicks in, everyone gets an extra $500. Why wouldn't a landlord up their rent charge to $1500, or even to just $1250? Who wouldn't want to do that?
  - AndrewDucker 8y ago
    Because they're in competition with each other, and thus they also want to undercut each other to ensure that they get tenants for their properties.
  - tom_mellior 8y ago
    At the same time, a lot of people will leave crowded cities when the UBI gives them other options. That should exert downward pressure on housing costs. (Also, laws against randomly raising rents by 50% would be useful.)
  - nemo44x 8y ago
    You're forgetting there is supply and demand as well. If there are more places to live than people who need them, then landlords and property owners will have to compete to offer the best price. This would drive prices downward, even if everyone has an equal constant added to their income. Then there's the possibility of some people working less or quitting one of their 2 jobs so they can enjoy their life a bit more. So their actual income could remain flat. If enough people do this then landlords wouldn't be able to increase rates either.