3 ms·

Perhaps UBI does require thinks like universal health coverage but that would not make it "deeply flawed" that would mean tweaking is needed. And that UBI requ

Perhaps UBI does require thinks like universal health coverage but that would not make it "deeply flawed" that would mean tweaking is needed. And that UBI requires low unemployment is directly contradicted by the head of the article where UBI is described as a potential solution for loss of jobs due to automation. But either way theorizing beforehand why it will or won't fail is comparatively unproductive; we can actually experiment and see if it works. And interestingly two conditions of the article; a sort of universal heath care and low unemployment, currently apply in the US. So the article should be predicting success there.

tatersolid 8y ago
> we can actually experiment and see if it works. Actually, we can’t test UBI without enormous risk. If the number of people involved isn’t close to 100%, it isn’t universal. Any societal effects for good or ill cannot be reasonably extrapolated to the full population. What might “work” for 5% of the population getting UBI might cause the next Great Depression at 100%.
- dragonwriter 8y ago
  > Actually, we can’t test UBI without enormous risk. Yes we can. > If the number of people involved isn’t close to 100%, it isn’t universal. Right, so your test has 100% coverage but not at a level that completely displaces all other means tested benefit programs. Maybe it initially just displaces, say, General Assistance type programs. Then you can gradually scale it up and continuously evaluate.
  - AnimalMuppet 8y ago
    I'm not sure that's a valid test. UBI at $10/month is absolutely worthless. UBI at $500/month is probably worthless. UBI at $1000/month is barely adequate. If you start the test at small amounts, you're going to experimentally decide that it doesn't work. But that only means that it doesn't work at those amounts. It could still work at larger amounts. Of course, it could bankrupt the country at larger amounts, too...
  - tatersolid 8y ago
    As animalMuppet said, if you’re not providing a “basic income” level to nearly everyone, your experiment is invalid. I also think UBI would simply cause massive inflation to the point where $X/month was no longer a sufficient “basic income”. It would turn into a subsidy for landlords, grocery stores, and predatory lenders at the very least.

tatersolid 8y ago

> we can actually experiment and see if it works. Actually, we can’t test UBI without enormous risk. If the number of people involved isn’t close to 100%, it isn’t universal. Any societal effects for good or ill cannot be reasonably extrapolated to the full population. What might “work” for 5% of the population getting UBI might cause the next Great Depression at 100%.

dragonwriter 8y ago
> Actually, we can’t test UBI without enormous risk. Yes we can. > If the number of people involved isn’t close to 100%, it isn’t universal. Right, so your test has 100% coverage but not at a level that completely displaces all other means tested benefit programs. Maybe it initially just displaces, say, General Assistance type programs. Then you can gradually scale it up and continuously evaluate.
- AnimalMuppet 8y ago
  I'm not sure that's a valid test. UBI at $10/month is absolutely worthless. UBI at $500/month is probably worthless. UBI at $1000/month is barely adequate. If you start the test at small amounts, you're going to experimentally decide that it doesn't work. But that only means that it doesn't work at those amounts. It could still work at larger amounts. Of course, it could bankrupt the country at larger amounts, too...
- tatersolid 8y ago
  As animalMuppet said, if you’re not providing a “basic income” level to nearly everyone, your experiment is invalid. I also think UBI would simply cause massive inflation to the point where $X/month was no longer a sufficient “basic income”. It would turn into a subsidy for landlords, grocery stores, and predatory lenders at the very least.