6 ms·

Tiny Indian state proposes world’s biggest experiment with guaranteed income

59 points by Ankaios 8y ago

anm89 8y ago
Am I just missing it or does it not say how much they are giving per person?
- notahacker 8y ago
  Reading between the lines, it sounds like it's going to be mainly redistributing income from hydro-power generation sold to the rest of the country, which makes it sound similar to things like the Alaska Permanent Fund (i.e. a dividend paid from exceptional resource revenues which is below local subsistence levels rather than a taxpayer-funded redistribution programme) Some Indian sources (which also don't seem to have a figure_ suggest they're also proposing top up the fund by cutting other subsidy programmes, so it'd also be interesting to see the net impact on different sections of society if it happens
- _rpd 8y ago
  It's a campaign promise: "This, we will do three years of coming back to power in the state" ... "finer details were yet to be worked out." https://indianexpress.com/article/india/sikkim-says-it-will-become-first-state-to-roll-out-universal-basic-income-5531093/ https://indianexpress.com/article/india/sikkim-says-it-will-...
akshayB 8y ago
One of things I am super interested in is how the outcome of this experiment is measured. How do people end-up using this money, how local economy is impacted and does this address any issues like poverty/education.
docker_up 8y ago
I think it might help some people like artists, writers, etc, but in the long run, I think it will just create inflation, and in the US it will create higher home prices. Any time more money is injected into an area, it creates inflation. For example, when women started to enter the work force starting in the 70/80s, it lead to a dramatic rise in prices. Of course, I'm not saying that women entering the workforce is bad, I'm saying that when households effectively started doubling their income, it didn't result in more saved money, it resulted in higher house prices. The same goes with the income tax deduction for mortgage interest. The idea is that more money would go back to the mortgage payer, however, all it did is factor into the calculus of buying homes, so people could funnel that "savings" into a higher mortgage payment. If the US decided to give everyone $1000/month for free, I'm pretty sure that would just make the house prices higher by the equivalent amount.
- lotsofpulp 8y ago
  I would need to see data before I believe that women entering the workforce resulted in higher home prices in a significant way. I have no proof, but I guess it allowed women to more accurately value themselves in the market, therefore helping them pair up with other high income men, and causing home prices to go up where dual high income households tend to congregate. But on the other end of the spectrum, women may have displaced men and caused pay for men to go down, thus total household income would not have risen as much. Even more, men and women on the lower end of income scale are less likely to marry, therefore would have even less purchasing power when (or if) buying a home. https://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/02/06/marriage-is-for-rich-people/ https://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/02/06/marriage-is-fo...
  - cheez 8y ago
    If this kind of stuff interests you, check out "Coming Apart" by Charles Murray (yes that one)
  - tengbretson 8y ago
    Elizabeth Warren has an interesting take on the issue in the book "The Two-Income Trap" https://www.amazon.com/Two-Income-Trap-Middle-Class-Parents-Still/dp/0465097707 https://www.amazon.com/Two-Income-Trap-Middle-Class-Parents-...
  - alexpotato 8y ago
    > have no proof, but I guess it allowed women to more accurately value themselves in the market, therefore helping them pair up with other high income men, and causing home prices to go up where dual high income households tend to congregate. This makes sense to me. Even more so if we make the assumption that it's easier to be a married couple making $200K combined (e.g. 125K and 75K) vs one member of the marriage making $200K.
- whack 8y ago
  > in the long run, I think it will just create inflation Not if the basic-income is funded by taxes or other such sources. In which case all you're effectively doing is taking money (ie, resources) from the upper-class and redistributing it to the middle class. This is the exact same principle behind progressive taxation, as opposed to a flat tax.
zozbot123 8y ago
As I understand it, some small Indian tribes already have something very much like guaranteed income for their members, funded from casino profits. Anecdotally, the outcomes seem to mildly positive - worth noting, but not that dramatic; the social issues in Indian country are quite simply huge, and it's not quite clear that even a guaranteed income is enough to make a dent. I'm not aware of any formal academic paper analyzing these outcomes, however.
- gamblor956 8y ago
  Different kind of "Indian". Indian tribes = Native American / First Nations tribe in US/Canada. Derived from misunderstanding by the stupidest explorer that ever lived, Christopher Columbus. Indian = from India, a country in Asia. An Indian state in the country of India is the topic of this article.
vorg 8y ago
When a UBI experiment runs for only a limited-time or can be ended abruptly by a new government (e.g. Finland's just-finished 2-year trial run, Ontario's 2017 project ending abruptly after a year, or Stockton's proposed 18-month trial), the data it provides is of no value whatsoever when determining the viability of a permanent scheme.
tdeck 8y ago
Nitpicking a minor detail since this is a common misconception: > Most recently, it became the country’s first organic state, eliminating the use of pesticides and fertilizers. "Organic" does not mean "eliminating the use of pesticides and fertilizers". You can still use /organic/ pesticides and fertilizers, some of which (e.g. copper salts) can pose risks to health and/or the environment.

59 points by Ankaios 8y ago

anm89 8y ago

Am I just missing it or does it not say how much they are giving per person?

notahacker 8y ago
Reading between the lines, it sounds like it's going to be mainly redistributing income from hydro-power generation sold to the rest of the country, which makes it sound similar to things like the Alaska Permanent Fund (i.e. a dividend paid from exceptional resource revenues which is below local subsistence levels rather than a taxpayer-funded redistribution programme) Some Indian sources (which also don't seem to have a figure_ suggest they're also proposing top up the fund by cutting other subsidy programmes, so it'd also be interesting to see the net impact on different sections of society if it happens
_rpd 8y ago
It's a campaign promise: "This, we will do three years of coming back to power in the state" ... "finer details were yet to be worked out." https://indianexpress.com/article/india/sikkim-says-it-will-become-first-state-to-roll-out-universal-basic-income-5531093/ https://indianexpress.com/article/india/sikkim-says-it-will-...

akshayB 8y ago

One of things I am super interested in is how the outcome of this experiment is measured. How do people end-up using this money, how local economy is impacted and does this address any issues like poverty/education.

docker_up 8y ago

I think it might help some people like artists, writers, etc, but in the long run, I think it will just create inflation, and in the US it will create higher home prices. Any time more money is injected into an area, it creates inflation. For example, when women started to enter the work force starting in the 70/80s, it lead to a dramatic rise in prices. Of course, I'm not saying that women entering the workforce is bad, I'm saying that when households effectively started doubling their income, it didn't result in more saved money, it resulted in higher house prices. The same goes with the income tax deduction for mortgage interest. The idea is that more money would go back to the mortgage payer, however, all it did is factor into the calculus of buying homes, so people could funnel that "savings" into a higher mortgage payment. If the US decided to give everyone $1000/month for free, I'm pretty sure that would just make the house prices higher by the equivalent amount.

lotsofpulp 8y ago
I would need to see data before I believe that women entering the workforce resulted in higher home prices in a significant way. I have no proof, but I guess it allowed women to more accurately value themselves in the market, therefore helping them pair up with other high income men, and causing home prices to go up where dual high income households tend to congregate. But on the other end of the spectrum, women may have displaced men and caused pay for men to go down, thus total household income would not have risen as much. Even more, men and women on the lower end of income scale are less likely to marry, therefore would have even less purchasing power when (or if) buying a home. https://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/02/06/marriage-is-for-rich-people/ https://economix.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/02/06/marriage-is-fo...
- cheez 8y ago
  If this kind of stuff interests you, check out "Coming Apart" by Charles Murray (yes that one)
- tengbretson 8y ago
  Elizabeth Warren has an interesting take on the issue in the book "The Two-Income Trap" https://www.amazon.com/Two-Income-Trap-Middle-Class-Parents-Still/dp/0465097707 https://www.amazon.com/Two-Income-Trap-Middle-Class-Parents-...
- alexpotato 8y ago
  > have no proof, but I guess it allowed women to more accurately value themselves in the market, therefore helping them pair up with other high income men, and causing home prices to go up where dual high income households tend to congregate. This makes sense to me. Even more so if we make the assumption that it's easier to be a married couple making $200K combined (e.g. 125K and 75K) vs one member of the marriage making $200K.
whack 8y ago
> in the long run, I think it will just create inflation Not if the basic-income is funded by taxes or other such sources. In which case all you're effectively doing is taking money (ie, resources) from the upper-class and redistributing it to the middle class. This is the exact same principle behind progressive taxation, as opposed to a flat tax.

zozbot123 8y ago

As I understand it, some small Indian tribes already have something very much like guaranteed income for their members, funded from casino profits. Anecdotally, the outcomes seem to mildly positive - worth noting, but not that dramatic; the social issues in Indian country are quite simply huge, and it's not quite clear that even a guaranteed income is enough to make a dent. I'm not aware of any formal academic paper analyzing these outcomes, however.

gamblor956 8y ago
Different kind of "Indian". Indian tribes = Native American / First Nations tribe in US/Canada. Derived from misunderstanding by the stupidest explorer that ever lived, Christopher Columbus. Indian = from India, a country in Asia. An Indian state in the country of India is the topic of this article.

vorg 8y ago

When a UBI experiment runs for only a limited-time or can be ended abruptly by a new government (e.g. Finland's just-finished 2-year trial run, Ontario's 2017 project ending abruptly after a year, or Stockton's proposed 18-month trial), the data it provides is of no value whatsoever when determining the viability of a permanent scheme.

tdeck 8y ago

Nitpicking a minor detail since this is a common misconception: > Most recently, it became the country’s first organic state, eliminating the use of pesticides and fertilizers. "Organic" does not mean "eliminating the use of pesticides and fertilizers". You can still use /organic/ pesticides and fertilizers, some of which (e.g. copper salts) can pose risks to health and/or the environment.