3 ms·

> I'm writing "sufficient amount", because it is obvious that a basic income experiment that doesn't allow people to get by without working would not be basic i

> I'm writing "sufficient amount", because it is obvious that a basic income experiment that doesn't allow people to get by without working would not be basic income either, but a subsidy to the salary, as they already exist in many social welfare systems. This is not "obvious" at all, and there's no reason why we couldn't start meeting people halfway, in a sense. Realistically, no amount of BI would allow people to "get by" in a highly-desirable urban location like SF or the Valley. It would probably be priced for areas with a more manageable cost of living, and even there most folks would be supplementing it with at least part-time or "gig" work.

GuB-42 8y ago
> Realistically, no amount of BI would allow people to "get by" in a highly-desirable urban location. Isn't it part of the idea for a UBI? If you can't live where it is expensive, go find a better job or move out. UBI, at least my idea of it is far from easy, it is something to ensure your survival, but if you want confort, and choosing where you want to live is part of it, then you need to work. There is only so much money that can be allocated do welfare, and you can't give more to some people without taking it from others. It means that if you are already living on subsidies, chances are that your situation is going to get worse with UBI. OTOH, part timers in poor areas will be much better off since they will get full UBI + pay with low expenses. Maybe that's why UBI doesn't work. Not because it is an incitation to do nothing, but because it may be devastating to families who already live on subsidies. And if we don't remove existing subsidies, then there isn't enough money.
- 13415 8y ago
  I kind of agree. A very low UBI that barely allows people to subsist will not solve any existing social problems, it might instead effectively become a subsidy for extremely low income classes without increasing vertical social mobility, and therefore in the long run further increase the gap between the poor and the rich that has been increasing since WW2. Personally, I believe that the best way to decrease social tensions and prevent a dystopian impoverishment of the majority of the population is to lower the gap between the rich and the poor and to limit the amount of wealth that can be transmitted by heritage, for example with a Skandinavian tax and welfare model and by putting a strict upper bound on the amount of assets and resources that can be inherited. It seems to me that UBI can only work as intended if it was fairly high, and that is perhaps not realistic for political and economic reasons.

GuB-42 8y ago

> Realistically, no amount of BI would allow people to "get by" in a highly-desirable urban location. Isn't it part of the idea for a UBI? If you can't live where it is expensive, go find a better job or move out. UBI, at least my idea of it is far from easy, it is something to ensure your survival, but if you want confort, and choosing where you want to live is part of it, then you need to work. There is only so much money that can be allocated do welfare, and you can't give more to some people without taking it from others. It means that if you are already living on subsidies, chances are that your situation is going to get worse with UBI. OTOH, part timers in poor areas will be much better off since they will get full UBI + pay with low expenses. Maybe that's why UBI doesn't work. Not because it is an incitation to do nothing, but because it may be devastating to families who already live on subsidies. And if we don't remove existing subsidies, then there isn't enough money.

13415 8y ago
I kind of agree. A very low UBI that barely allows people to subsist will not solve any existing social problems, it might instead effectively become a subsidy for extremely low income classes without increasing vertical social mobility, and therefore in the long run further increase the gap between the poor and the rich that has been increasing since WW2. Personally, I believe that the best way to decrease social tensions and prevent a dystopian impoverishment of the majority of the population is to lower the gap between the rich and the poor and to limit the amount of wealth that can be transmitted by heritage, for example with a Skandinavian tax and welfare model and by putting a strict upper bound on the amount of assets and resources that can be inherited. It seems to me that UBI can only work as intended if it was fairly high, and that is perhaps not realistic for political and economic reasons.