3 ms·

I dont know where you got your definition. To quote: BIEN lists the following five defining characteristics of basic income: Periodic: Distributed in regular

I dont know where you got your definition. To quote: BIEN lists the following five defining characteristics of basic income: Periodic: Distributed in regular payments, Cash payment: Distributed as funds rather than, for example, vouchers for goods or services. Individual: Each citizen (or adult citizen) receives the payment, rather than each household. Universal: All citizens receive the payment. Unconditional: Recipients are not required to demonstrate need or willingness to work. Your points 1, 2, and 3 are not definitions of UBI. EDIT: the Finland trial looked at many of the outcomes you described above- linked above. Only half of the results are currently available. As I'd already mentioned, there hasn't been much in the way of negative outcomes in existing UBI and UBI-like trials.

zdragnar 7y ago
Without points 1, 2 or 3, all you're testing is whether or not giving financially strapped people no-strings-attached money makes them happier and less stressed. Of course it does, at least in the short term (longer-term studies have demonstrated that money does not, in fact, buy happiness). That doesn't mean that any of this is good public policy, that it would be better than current policies, or that it would improve long-term outcomes. Notably, your Finland link indicated that there was no change to employment rates, which is unfortunate, and I think undermines a lot of the arguments I've heard from proponents of UBI- that people who are less stressed financially will be able to make better use of their time training into new industries, start small businesses, etc.
- dyarosla 7y ago
  Yes, I already mentioned the employment thing. And this was only in regards to 1year of the trial/ Moreover, all these positive outcomes you seem to dismiss (and add that in the long term money doesn’t buy happiness- which is neither here nor there) doesn't mean that any of this is NOT good public policy, that it would NOT be better or that it would NOT improve long-term outcomes. If anything, all the outcomes: lower stress, greater happiness, etc, are all known to lead to healthier individuals, with more fulfilling lives, with plenty of potential benefits for society as a whole. Moreover, trialing UBI is a red herring. How many welfare programs have been trialed before implementation? How many have been researched thoroughly on their per dollar outcome? The fact is, many of these programs are implemented without any trial and only on the basis of perceived outcomes that would lean positive. Why should UBI be any different? There are also plenty of examples that show that direct cash is oftentimes more favourable than some other variant; see the charity GiveDirectly’s entire premise. To argue that no successful trial has been run, that outcomes have not been favourable, or that the general idea of UBI is flawed until we research it to death, is to be overtly skeptical.
  - zdragnar 7y ago
    > Why should UBI be any different? It's the "U" part. Taking money from the middle and upper classes just to give it back to them is inherently inefficient and entirely pointless. Additionally, I disagree that it has been researched to death. People have infinite wants, and we have finite means. I would personally rather see this play out at a smaller level in reality (not a time limited trial that biases the outcome) before we go all in on 300 million people. And if we are not going to be replacing existing programs with it, I would rather not see it happen at all. That's my personal preferences based on what I currently know, at least.
    - dyarosla 7y ago
      Current proponents of UBI aren’t looking to fund it by taking money from the middle and upper class AND are looking to consolidate it with existing welfare programs. On these points we don’t disagree.

zdragnar 7y ago

Without points 1, 2 or 3, all you're testing is whether or not giving financially strapped people no-strings-attached money makes them happier and less stressed. Of course it does, at least in the short term (longer-term studies have demonstrated that money does not, in fact, buy happiness). That doesn't mean that any of this is good public policy, that it would be better than current policies, or that it would improve long-term outcomes. Notably, your Finland link indicated that there was no change to employment rates, which is unfortunate, and I think undermines a lot of the arguments I've heard from proponents of UBI- that people who are less stressed financially will be able to make better use of their time training into new industries, start small businesses, etc.

dyarosla 7y ago
Yes, I already mentioned the employment thing. And this was only in regards to 1year of the trial/ Moreover, all these positive outcomes you seem to dismiss (and add that in the long term money doesn’t buy happiness- which is neither here nor there) doesn't mean that any of this is NOT good public policy, that it would NOT be better or that it would NOT improve long-term outcomes. If anything, all the outcomes: lower stress, greater happiness, etc, are all known to lead to healthier individuals, with more fulfilling lives, with plenty of potential benefits for society as a whole. Moreover, trialing UBI is a red herring. How many welfare programs have been trialed before implementation? How many have been researched thoroughly on their per dollar outcome? The fact is, many of these programs are implemented without any trial and only on the basis of perceived outcomes that would lean positive. Why should UBI be any different? There are also plenty of examples that show that direct cash is oftentimes more favourable than some other variant; see the charity GiveDirectly’s entire premise. To argue that no successful trial has been run, that outcomes have not been favourable, or that the general idea of UBI is flawed until we research it to death, is to be overtly skeptical.
- zdragnar 7y ago
  > Why should UBI be any different? It's the "U" part. Taking money from the middle and upper classes just to give it back to them is inherently inefficient and entirely pointless. Additionally, I disagree that it has been researched to death. People have infinite wants, and we have finite means. I would personally rather see this play out at a smaller level in reality (not a time limited trial that biases the outcome) before we go all in on 300 million people. And if we are not going to be replacing existing programs with it, I would rather not see it happen at all. That's my personal preferences based on what I currently know, at least.
  - dyarosla 7y ago
    Current proponents of UBI aren’t looking to fund it by taking money from the middle and upper class AND are looking to consolidate it with existing welfare programs. On these points we don’t disagree.