3 ms·

People waiting for UBI can get in the same line as the people waiting for the singularity.

by blueadept111 8y ago

jmcgough 8y ago
Except UBI is something we can actually implement if we want to do so.
- TomMarius 8y ago
  Could you please be more specific? So far I haven't seen a proposal that solves price inflation and reliable money source is very unclear as well - it'd be great if you could clarify.
  - gdhbcc 8y ago
    There is no reason why you can't implement UBI today, using the exact same money you're spending right now in direct money transfers from social security. I did the math using ocde and national statistics institute data for my country (portugal), this was a couple of years ago, so I used 2014 data. I calculated that using only the existing expenses in Pensions, unemployment benefits, social insertion benefits, etc... you could sustain a UBI between 300 and 380 euros per month, enough to survive in a small town while sharing a flat. This might seem bad, but the only people who would receive less money compared to the existing distribution would be the 20% of the population with highest income, every one else would benefit from the change in distribution, even if you were to have no other benefit from less bureaucracy, etc...
    - TomMarius 8y ago
      What about people that need more from the social system due to their illnesses, disabilities, being veterans, etc? What about families - maternity pay (that is per child on top of other benefits)? And yeah, Portugal... what about the United States, a place with the most homeless people? What about Africa? South-east Asia? How do you motivate people to contribute to the social system when they know they will get a flat, low rate they're getting anyways? What motivates a high income individual (the group that pays it all) to not move away? There are a few places where it might be possible. Very few rich places. Saying that we could have UBI today implies it'd work around the world, at least in first world countries - especially in a thread about USA. This is like saying that the whole world can speak Czech because 10 million czechs do. How do you solve the problem that if someone gets free money monthly, their work has to be worth enough so it is worthwhile to work, even if it is part time, and thus their products are more expensive, including basic necessities, and negating almost all effect of UBI? Are you aware that this would push prices of food and housing way above what it costs today, relatively speaking? This problem would be solved with automation but we're not even near there and yet you're saying that we could do it today, how? How do you solve immigration that would necessarily happen and increase costs? Would you quit the EU? Also consider that there might be much better (more cost effective and easier done) solutions to the problem of homelessness that do not demotivate anyone.
      - gdhbcc 8y ago
        Ok this is a lot to go through so let me take it step by step. In regards to whether or not it works in the US, or other countries that is something i didnt calculate and quite frankly don't really care about. My goal when checking the data was simply to see if it was both feasible and beneficial in my own country (portugal), so I didn't bother to check the data for other countries. That being said the primary reason why it is so readily and clearly a better system than the existent is that there is a very large discrepancy between the high income and low and medium income in terms of how many cash benefits they get. For reference, in Portugal around 46% of all cash benefits expenses go to the 20% of the population with the highest income, the next quintile (the 20% poorest) receives only 18%. This, if I recall correctly, is not the case in the US, there the distribution is not so eschewed and so the social benefits to simply changing the distribution is not nearly as convincing. Now in regards to special cases that you mentioned, then indeed, there will definitely be some amount of people who will be harmed by the change, however we do have universal healthcare and it is quite good, so those people will always be a small minority. There is definitely something to research there, and we should definitely quantify just how many people will be affected, however we cannot justify harming 80% of the population just because we might harm a handful of outliers, that is in my view socially irresponsible. As for the motivation issue you mentioned, the fact of the matter is that the existing system already has those same issues, the only difference is a matter of intensity, which can be measured and the tax rates and expenditures adjusted accordingly. In regards to the matters of inflation, I don't see how any meaningful inflation can occur, for the simple fact that all my calculations assumed the exact same amount of spending as it currently exists. Yes, some specific parts of the economy (particularly in low cost housing/food) might see some inflation, due to the fact that people now have a roof over their head/food to eat, but the amount of homeless in portugal as is, is quite low, and there is no famine, so I cannot imagine that there will be significant changes in total consumption. As for motivation, it seems to me that not having a welfare cliff would go a long way to reducing unemployment (around 8% today, and around 16% at around the time I researched )
    - merklerooting 8y ago
      There's those who draw a disproportionately larger welfare burden (disabilities for one) not taken into account in a more simplistic UNI estimate of course ; but even so I'm surprised the net-benefit encompasses such a majority. (Compared to the current model) Very interested in reading similar comparisons on other European locales. Thank you for sharing the figures

People waiting for UBI can get in the same line as the people waiting for the singularity.

jmcgough 8y ago

Except UBI is something we can actually implement if we want to do so.

TomMarius 8y ago
Could you please be more specific? So far I haven't seen a proposal that solves price inflation and reliable money source is very unclear as well - it'd be great if you could clarify.
- gdhbcc 8y ago
  There is no reason why you can't implement UBI today, using the exact same money you're spending right now in direct money transfers from social security. I did the math using ocde and national statistics institute data for my country (portugal), this was a couple of years ago, so I used 2014 data. I calculated that using only the existing expenses in Pensions, unemployment benefits, social insertion benefits, etc... you could sustain a UBI between 300 and 380 euros per month, enough to survive in a small town while sharing a flat. This might seem bad, but the only people who would receive less money compared to the existing distribution would be the 20% of the population with highest income, every one else would benefit from the change in distribution, even if you were to have no other benefit from less bureaucracy, etc...
  - TomMarius 8y ago
    What about people that need more from the social system due to their illnesses, disabilities, being veterans, etc? What about families - maternity pay (that is per child on top of other benefits)? And yeah, Portugal... what about the United States, a place with the most homeless people? What about Africa? South-east Asia? How do you motivate people to contribute to the social system when they know they will get a flat, low rate they're getting anyways? What motivates a high income individual (the group that pays it all) to not move away? There are a few places where it might be possible. Very few rich places. Saying that we could have UBI today implies it'd work around the world, at least in first world countries - especially in a thread about USA. This is like saying that the whole world can speak Czech because 10 million czechs do. How do you solve the problem that if someone gets free money monthly, their work has to be worth enough so it is worthwhile to work, even if it is part time, and thus their products are more expensive, including basic necessities, and negating almost all effect of UBI? Are you aware that this would push prices of food and housing way above what it costs today, relatively speaking? This problem would be solved with automation but we're not even near there and yet you're saying that we could do it today, how? How do you solve immigration that would necessarily happen and increase costs? Would you quit the EU? Also consider that there might be much better (more cost effective and easier done) solutions to the problem of homelessness that do not demotivate anyone.
    - gdhbcc 8y ago
      Ok this is a lot to go through so let me take it step by step. In regards to whether or not it works in the US, or other countries that is something i didnt calculate and quite frankly don't really care about. My goal when checking the data was simply to see if it was both feasible and beneficial in my own country (portugal), so I didn't bother to check the data for other countries. That being said the primary reason why it is so readily and clearly a better system than the existent is that there is a very large discrepancy between the high income and low and medium income in terms of how many cash benefits they get. For reference, in Portugal around 46% of all cash benefits expenses go to the 20% of the population with the highest income, the next quintile (the 20% poorest) receives only 18%. This, if I recall correctly, is not the case in the US, there the distribution is not so eschewed and so the social benefits to simply changing the distribution is not nearly as convincing. Now in regards to special cases that you mentioned, then indeed, there will definitely be some amount of people who will be harmed by the change, however we do have universal healthcare and it is quite good, so those people will always be a small minority. There is definitely something to research there, and we should definitely quantify just how many people will be affected, however we cannot justify harming 80% of the population just because we might harm a handful of outliers, that is in my view socially irresponsible. As for the motivation issue you mentioned, the fact of the matter is that the existing system already has those same issues, the only difference is a matter of intensity, which can be measured and the tax rates and expenditures adjusted accordingly. In regards to the matters of inflation, I don't see how any meaningful inflation can occur, for the simple fact that all my calculations assumed the exact same amount of spending as it currently exists. Yes, some specific parts of the economy (particularly in low cost housing/food) might see some inflation, due to the fact that people now have a roof over their head/food to eat, but the amount of homeless in portugal as is, is quite low, and there is no famine, so I cannot imagine that there will be significant changes in total consumption. As for motivation, it seems to me that not having a welfare cliff would go a long way to reducing unemployment (around 8% today, and around 16% at around the time I researched )
  - merklerooting 8y ago
    There's those who draw a disproportionately larger welfare burden (disabilities for one) not taken into account in a more simplistic UNI estimate of course ; but even so I'm surprised the net-benefit encompasses such a majority. (Compared to the current model) Very interested in reading similar comparisons on other European locales. Thank you for sharing the figures