5 ms·

As someone who's been on employment insurance before. I can't understand the appeal of ubi. Getting a small amount of money to do nothing is excruciating. It's

As someone who's been on employment insurance before. I can't understand the appeal of ubi. Getting a small amount of money to do nothing is excruciating. It's really not a fun way to live.

SolaceQuantum 8y ago
It's a small amount of money so that you can dedicate more time to your children (instead of picking up another part-time job), more time to your education (instead of picking up employment during your highschool years), more time to your training (so the poor can actually educate themselves with certs instead of working 3 jobs to afford insulin or some other healthcare), more time to volunteer organizations, more time for political engagement, so on and so forth. It's not to do nothing. It's to enable people to do what they want when time is money and both are scarce.
deleted 8y ago
[deleted]
mazlix 8y ago
I've seen people use UBI to mean "employment insurance" but that's misuse of the term. From wikipedia: "A Basic Income would vary with age, but there would be no other conditions: so everyone of the same age would receive the same Basic Income, whatever their gender, employment status, family structure, contribution to society, housing costs, or anything else." So it's not a small amount of money to do nothing, but just an "extra" small amount of money coming out of either welfare budgets and/or additional taxes.
- int_19h 8y ago
  It's effectively the same, because most people will be paying more taxes than they'll receive in their UBI check. So only a relatively small part of the population would actually receive money, with the rest effectively subsidizing them. The main advantage over doing explicit means-testing is that this all is much simpler to maintain - you just need to adjust the amount and the tax until you end up with the cut-off (the point at which people are paying more into the system than they are receiving) is where you want it to be. It can even be dynamic, depending on how well the economy is doing.
Dirlewanger 8y ago
It's not meant to be solely sustainable. Lots of people get this wrong though, which means the name Universal Basic Income probably isn't the best name for it. Maybe Universal Supplemental Income? Could very well be the idea needs a rebranding before a larger adoption ever happens.
- Wowfunhappy 8y ago
  I actually do see it as solely sustainable, in the scenario I outlined. If the world gets to a point where it doesn't make sense for everyone to have a job—because there aren't enough jobs to be done—we'll want to let some people live in relative comfort without working, at all. Less comfort than the people who do still have jobs, but enough that it's a real choice.
- jpindar 8y ago
  Researchers have tried using different names for it and comparing people's reactions. Terms like "national dividend" or "citizen's dividend" got the most favorable results.
natoliniak 8y ago
> It's really not a fun way to live. this is exactly why I find UBI appealing. For those who are unable to work, it will provide minimum means not to fall into abject poverty, but it will still carry enough incentive to improve oneself, find meaningful work and be a net contributor.
- ams6110 8y ago
  For those who are really unable to work, we already have a safety net.
- grawprog 8y ago
  Minimum wage here is $15/hour. If you make that you are below the poverty line. The poverty line here is $41,866/year. I work 6 days a week most weeks and make a bit above that and it's still a struggle sometimes affording bills and other expenses and I really don't live very extravagantly. So unless you're giving that out...you will be living in abject poverty with a ubi. I really think people who advocate for this have never been poor in their lives or spent time around poor people and have no concept of what it's really like to live with very little money. Especially on hacker news. Though i'm guessing it's hard to see from the ivory out in silicon valley. Then there's the fact that the way our economic system works, the value of currency and inflation is based on the amount of money in circulation. A ubi just makes all the money worth less.
  - zozbot123 8y ago
    If you have UBI, you don't need a high minimum wage. By getting rid of high minimum wages and of a host of heavy and intrusive labor regulations that keep marginal workers out of the market, structural unemployment can be expected to fall and earned-incomes at the low end to increase. You might be living in abject poverty if UBI was all you had, but that's not the point. It's a supplement to your existing income. BTW we already have something very much like this for low-wage workers, known as the EITC - there's nothing unrealistic about this as a policy proposal! UBI is a bit simpler and doesn't require the recipient to be working at all times, so it can make a lot more sense for marginal and "gig" workers, and for people who are just entering the labor market.

As someone who's been on employment insurance before. I can't understand the appeal of ubi. Getting a small amount of money to do nothing is excruciating. It's really not a fun way to live.

SolaceQuantum 8y ago

It's a small amount of money so that you can dedicate more time to your children (instead of picking up another part-time job), more time to your education (instead of picking up employment during your highschool years), more time to your training (so the poor can actually educate themselves with certs instead of working 3 jobs to afford insulin or some other healthcare), more time to volunteer organizations, more time for political engagement, so on and so forth. It's not to do nothing. It's to enable people to do what they want when time is money and both are scarce.

deleted 8y ago

[deleted]

mazlix 8y ago

I've seen people use UBI to mean "employment insurance" but that's misuse of the term. From wikipedia: "A Basic Income would vary with age, but there would be no other conditions: so everyone of the same age would receive the same Basic Income, whatever their gender, employment status, family structure, contribution to society, housing costs, or anything else." So it's not a small amount of money to do nothing, but just an "extra" small amount of money coming out of either welfare budgets and/or additional taxes.

int_19h 8y ago
It's effectively the same, because most people will be paying more taxes than they'll receive in their UBI check. So only a relatively small part of the population would actually receive money, with the rest effectively subsidizing them. The main advantage over doing explicit means-testing is that this all is much simpler to maintain - you just need to adjust the amount and the tax until you end up with the cut-off (the point at which people are paying more into the system than they are receiving) is where you want it to be. It can even be dynamic, depending on how well the economy is doing.

Dirlewanger 8y ago

It's not meant to be solely sustainable. Lots of people get this wrong though, which means the name Universal Basic Income probably isn't the best name for it. Maybe Universal Supplemental Income? Could very well be the idea needs a rebranding before a larger adoption ever happens.

Wowfunhappy 8y ago
I actually do see it as solely sustainable, in the scenario I outlined. If the world gets to a point where it doesn't make sense for everyone to have a job—because there aren't enough jobs to be done—we'll want to let some people live in relative comfort without working, at all. Less comfort than the people who do still have jobs, but enough that it's a real choice.
jpindar 8y ago
Researchers have tried using different names for it and comparing people's reactions. Terms like "national dividend" or "citizen's dividend" got the most favorable results.

natoliniak 8y ago

> It's really not a fun way to live. this is exactly why I find UBI appealing. For those who are unable to work, it will provide minimum means not to fall into abject poverty, but it will still carry enough incentive to improve oneself, find meaningful work and be a net contributor.

ams6110 8y ago
For those who are really unable to work, we already have a safety net.
grawprog 8y ago
Minimum wage here is $15/hour. If you make that you are below the poverty line. The poverty line here is $41,866/year. I work 6 days a week most weeks and make a bit above that and it's still a struggle sometimes affording bills and other expenses and I really don't live very extravagantly. So unless you're giving that out...you will be living in abject poverty with a ubi. I really think people who advocate for this have never been poor in their lives or spent time around poor people and have no concept of what it's really like to live with very little money. Especially on hacker news. Though i'm guessing it's hard to see from the ivory out in silicon valley. Then there's the fact that the way our economic system works, the value of currency and inflation is based on the amount of money in circulation. A ubi just makes all the money worth less.
- zozbot123 8y ago
  If you have UBI, you don't need a high minimum wage. By getting rid of high minimum wages and of a host of heavy and intrusive labor regulations that keep marginal workers out of the market, structural unemployment can be expected to fall and earned-incomes at the low end to increase. You might be living in abject poverty if UBI was all you had, but that's not the point. It's a supplement to your existing income. BTW we already have something very much like this for low-wage workers, known as the EITC - there's nothing unrealistic about this as a policy proposal! UBI is a bit simpler and doesn't require the recipient to be working at all times, so it can make a lot more sense for marginal and "gig" workers, and for people who are just entering the labor market.