21 ms·

The evidence behind putting money directly in the pockets of the poor

241 points by hhs 6y ago

ponker 6y ago
I think you also have to take into account the political sustainability of a policy though. It might be better for a poor person to get $2 cash than $2 of bread. But the $2 cash handout will be perennially opposed by some voters. The program eligibility will be slashed, the program will be a political football at election times, etc... while the bread program will be mostly noncontroversial and allowed to operate in peace.
- huragok 6y ago
  I would look at Food Stamps and revise your argument.
  - MattGaiser 6y ago
    And when Republicans don’t want to abolish food stamps, they are trying to make it less cash driven. https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trumps-budget-resurrects-harvest-box-proposal-food-stamps/story?id=61627707 https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trumps-budget-resurrects-har... I would not go as far to say it operates in peace, but not having it cash based is the position of the less extreme people.
- marricks 6y ago
  There’s so many head games that goes into US politics that seems pointless. Democrats in particular compromise with themselves so much before even offering something to republicans before compromising even more. Republicans pretty much never do that, it’s just boom, let’s give big tax cuts to the rich or stop all immigration. Left side of the US needs to boldly actually fight for things rather than step my step planning out what “seems reasonable to republicans”, it’s just a bad losing idea, go boldly with what’s the moral and reasonable thing.
  - 3fe9a03ccd14ca5 6y ago
    Consider how all sides are pretty fractured, left and right. Policies that were widely popular for the political right a decade ago (free, unrestricted trade) is now dead in the water with tariffs or the threat of them raining down. Similarly what’s “important” on the left is very fluid, and the political left is headed for the same upheaval the political right experienced with the tea party where it essentially became a populist platform.
    - millstone 6y ago
      I disagree that "the right is fractured." The US political right has never been more unified, and its unifier is Trump. Trump is wildly popular among Republicans, and all the old seams have been closed: religious vs business, populist vs rich, etc. The left is legitimately fractured, but maybe it's not as bad as it looks. Sound and fury on social media in the Bernie camp, yet the party coalesced strongly around Biden. I'd like to hear the case for a left "political upheaval." Where will it come from? Bernie's theory was that youth would vote en masse, and that did not happen.
      - AnthonyMouse 6y ago
        You're just observing the fact that the Democrats had a primary fight this year and the Republicans didn't because Trump is the incumbent. The problem the left is having right now is articulating what it is they actually want to do. Their main rallying cry for some time has been that they're not Trump, but then what are they?
        tonyedgecombe 6y ago
        Not being Trump might just be enough.
        deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
        6y ago
- drapred7 6y ago
  This is an american perspective. In the UK, people are proud to be "on the dole" and very few support restricting it. EDIT: Of course brits will still look for work. My point is that Ive seen brits in talk shows audiences talk about taking public assistence without thinking of themselves as "bad people" the way American conservatives would. The desire to eliminate all public assistance is absent in Europe. Don't mean to offend brits, I think you guys have the right attitude here. Take assistance if you need it and dont needlessly refuse to help others.
  - DaiPlusPlus 6y ago
    As a Brit, I've never heard of anyone being "proud" of being on the dole - and the actual amount people get from Jobseekers Allowance and Universal Credit are pitifully tiny - the current JSA of £75/week doesn't even cover my weekly food shopping costs, let alone my mortgage.
    - angrais 6y ago
      Obviously if you're on jobseekers you're meant to make the most of what you have. £75 sounds like an extravagant weekly shop, even for a couple with a child.
      - DaiPlusPlus 6y ago
        I have a Red Bull addiction.
  - neilwilson 6y ago
    The notion that people are proud to be 'on the dole' in the UK is deeply pejorative and not at all backed up by the evidence. For example, sequence LFM2 at the Office of National Statistics entitled "inactive - wants a job". That's 1,869,000 people at the last estimate. The overwhelming number of people who end up short of work due to the structural failures of our current economic system want to work. And they should have the opportunity to do so.
  - onion2k 6y ago
- andrewfong 6y ago
  The political argument in favor of universal basic income stresses the importance of the universal. That is, when the argument is "the others are getting cash", some will oppose it. But if it's "we all get cash", the opposition is less. In America, Social Security straight up gives up cash to ALL older Americans. Assuming you live long enough, you'll get Social Security. It's not immune but it remains popular. Indeed, efforts to cut back on Social Security are framed as attempts to "save" it and keep the program solvent. In contrast, food stamps, welfare, and unemployment benefits are very much on the chopping block year after year, their recipients stereotyped as "welfare queens" trying to cheat the system.
  - burlesona 6y ago
    Technically Social Security doesn't go to all Americans. You have to work a minimum amount (and therefore pay a minimum amount in) to qualify. It's also possible to opt-out of social security, although it's not trivial to do so (IIRC you do this by claiming a conscientious objector status or something like that).
    - gvjddbnvdrbv 6y ago
      Hang on is social security tied to the draft?
      - JoshTriplett 6y ago
        No, there's a religion-based opt-out for religions that object to government support. But it only applies to income from the church (such as to ministers). There are a few other narrow cases as well, such as student workers and certain government jobs.
    - MattGaiser 6y ago
      At least one way is to get a religious exemption. https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/020315/there-any-way-opt-out-paying-social-security.asp https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/020315/there-any-wa...
    - 6y ago
- yalogin 6y ago
  This is the wrong argument I would say. If its economically the correct policy then all parties should be saying it and convincing the non-believers about the efficacy of the solution. Unfortunately there is no integrity in politics to do the right thing these days and so this will never happen. One party just opposes the other party's positions irrespective of whether they are good or not. Democrats are at least a bit better in that regard, they would not oppose the proposal outright, instead they try to criticize the implementation. Republicans on the other hand would argue (in unison) that killing babies is alright if the democrats say it's wrong.
  - heromal 6y ago
    >One party just opposes the other party's positions irrespective of whether they are good or not. This was the proper place to stop. Both parties are full of politicians.
- AnthonyMouse 6y ago
  > But the $2 cash handout will be perennially opposed by some voters. The program eligibility will be slashed, the program will be a political football at election times, etc... while the bread program will be mostly noncontroversial and allowed to operate in peace. It's completely the opposite. You have to call the cash a tax credit and give it to everyone. Then no one can get rid of it because nobody wants a tax hike. As soon as you start having eligibility restrictions or purchasing restrictions or effort-based gatekeeping, it reduces the number of people who benefit from the program, which is how it gets ruined or dismantled once the number of beneficiaries are no longer enough people that politicians have to care about them. Make it so that everybody below the 51st percentile income is a net beneficiary and the program is locked in.
- syphilis2 6y ago
  I do not believe "some voters" will motivate the politicians. Instead it is the bread manufacturers, farms, importers, and every other large business with enough weight to convince politicians that a bread coupon is better for Americans than cash. Unsurprisingly they do this with cash not coupons.
- perfunctory 6y ago
  This kind of logic could be applied to any major social change in the past few centuries. It's always less friction to maintain status quo. And then change happens and everybody forgets about it. Is anybody perennially opposed to women suffrage anymore? Or is it a subject of a political football?
- PeterStuer 6y ago
  Actually the reverse. UBI is very much a neo-libral approved thing, as they have now concentrated so much of the wealth and left so little that the bottom is threatening to fall out of the system that for them is a perpetual money printing machine. So they would rather give a tiny amount to the serfs to prevent them from revolting. And unlike a loafof bread, they can still seduce them to spend their UBI check on conspicuous consumption, then blaming them for 'irresponsible spending' so their own conscience about their greed is appeased as 'if we gave them more money they would just spend it on more beer and a larger TV'.
3fe9a03ccd14ca5 6y ago
We have some forms of this, such as the earned income tax credit, but it doesn’t go nearly far enough. I like the the idea of a reverse income tax at the lower levels and wish it was more popular, but it needs to be done in a way that it doesn’t discourage earning more money.
- smegma2 6y ago
  A negative income tax would only discourage earning money in the same way that a progressive income tax does anyway, right? Or do you mean more from a psychological perspective?
  - phekunde 6y ago
    > A negative income tax would only discourage earning money How is that so?
dvduval 6y ago
Shouldn't firefighters compete to see who can spend the least amount of money putting out fires? Shouldn't health insurance agencies compete to see who can spend the least on healing people? Until we get these things straight why would he want to have the government spend money or making infrastructure stronger? After all, government spending is bad, right?
alecco 6y ago
I find this extremely politically biased. It states right from the start "The bulk of transfers are spent on food anyway", like that is a good thing. UN's policies are antiquated. The world's poor mostly have malnutrition (not undernourishment) and it's getting out of control. They want to apply cookie cutter policies for both sub-Saharan Africa and poor people in the rest of the world. I'd support a system like this if the money was spent mostly on healthy food and durable goods. But I fear a blunt money giveaway will exacerbate the existing problems. Do you ever wonder why so many evil corporations support democrats/labour/etc? Handouts get votes, and as long as handouts get spent mostly in things these corporations sell it's all good. Think junk food, rent (landowners), non-durable goods (mobile, shoes, clothing), gasoline, alcohol, and tobacco. It's a feedback loop of well meaning but lazy left wing politics and the worst of Capitalism. Think about it.
- drapred7 6y ago
  I think you've had a bit to much to think, bucko. https://www.christianpost.com/news/fast-food-chains-lobby-government-to-expand-food-stamp-payment-program-55202/ https://www.christianpost.com/news/fast-food-chains-lobby-go... https://cms.qz.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/file-20171009-6960-wzmn6e.png?w=450&h=267&crop=1&strip=all&quality=75 https://cms.qz.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/file-20171009-... Have fun.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - alecco 6y ago
    What? First link is about fast food chains wanting food stamps. 1- not actual cash handout 2. illustrates my point of pressure by fast food corporations looking for handout money. Second blurry link is about population growth, showing Africa expanding. That is missing the matching curves of extreme poverty falling drastically for those regions [1], even for sub-Saharan Africa. Further supporting my points of outdated approach to combat poverty. Capitalism is doing good in some ways by lifting all those people from poverty. But they are falling into a trap of poor health and poor money management. [1] https://ourworldindata.org/exports/share-of-population-living-in-extreme-poverty-by-world-region_v4_850x600.svg https://ourworldindata.org/exports/share-of-population-livin...
scoopertrooper 6y ago
Keep in mind this article largely restricts itself to considering direct cash transfers to people in low-medium developed countries. I would be careful about trying to generalise the conclusions to developed countries. It stands to reason that unrestricted welfare would reduce hours worked in developed countries. This would be especially true for young adults with no dependents. Why work overtime at McDonalds when your rent is already paid up for the month and there are so many fun video games to play? I think we just have to accept that UBI would give people that work undesirable/uninteresting jobs an off-ramp from the economy. The problem being that our economy depends on these people performing such jobs. Employers would have increase wages significantly above the UBI level in order to attract workers, but that would either erode the UBI through inflation or cause an inflationary spiral if the UBI were indexed. I haven't heard a satisfactory explanation as to how UBI avoids these pitfalls.
- MattGaiser 6y ago
  > Employers would have increase wages significantly above the UBI level in order to attract workers It also must be considered that many categories of jobs currently can’t be filled without some form of immigration because the existing social safety net of charities and government benefits never makes picking strawberries or meat cutting preferable to unemployment.
  - jdc 6y ago
    It seems to me employers would have to pay higher wages without migrant labour.
    - scoopertrooper 6y ago
      Or leave the ground fallow if it could not be farmed economically.
    - renewiltord 6y ago
      Some things we might never have again. For instance you might not get sufficient utility out of strawberries at $30/kg. The market for people who do might be very small. Then the guy who wants to grow strawberries at cost X, the guy who wants to get strawberries at cost Y, and the guy who wants to be paid to pick strawberries at cost Z all want to indulge in the activity but because one part of the chain falls below a legislated minimum, an economically efficient action does not occur. That doesn't mean it's bad that it doesn't occur. Just that if the equilibrium price has any link of the chain be legally unacceptable you might literally kill a market. There is no new equilibrium. There just isn't product.
mrdoops 6y ago
A market's throughput is limited by the number of participating actors. If a large percentage of the population can't participate, the market's capability to price, evaluate and represent value is hindered. UBI makes sense for a purpose of bringing more buyer's/actors to the game. It's especially useful considering our dependence on jobs as the primary activating mechanism shows strain under the troubles of scaling human coordination and hiring. In a sort of backwards way we get more jobs when more people can contribute to the flow of money. However UBI doesn't solve the problem of debt still piping the cash back into the hands of banks and other financial institutions. What are these UBI checks going to be spent on? Rent that's too high? Student loans for indulgent tuition prices? Without blocking the pipes from the poor to the the actors with pipes of their own, these throughput problems aren't solved more than delayed. An actor is still a single actor, so if one actor has an over aggregation of wealth and has trouble spending it effectively the potential of that wealth is wasted when at least some actors don't have enough. So surely trillions of dollars of UBI injected directly into the hands of the poor will stimulate the economy. But for how long until the cash starts to aggregate again into slower pools of cash where throughput is limited? In a sense we almost want inflation if these "overaggregators" are so abundant, but only if the population is maintained at a base level of wealth relative to the inflation. Otherwise the rich, who probably got rich by being more effective with their money respond to the market changes faster and the UBI stimulation is only temporary. But if UBI causes significant inflation, and the pipes going directly to every individual have enough back pressure, it could be a great situation where the overaggregators lose value to inflation as they struggle to spend or invest.
- AnthonyMouse 6y ago
  > However UBI doesn't solve the problem of debt still piping the cash back into the hands of banks and other financial institutions. That isn't a problem it's expected to solve. It's a completely independent problem that already happens whether you have a UBI or not. The solutions there are likewise independent. Build more housing so it isn't supply constrained and doesn't increase in price to consume any gains made by the working class. Stop issuing student loans (students now have a UBI and don't need them), because student loans inflate the cost of college relative to other things which loans aren't available for. A UBI doesn't do that because the money isn't only available when spend on college. > An actor is still a single actor, so if one actor has an over aggregation of wealth and has trouble spending it effectively the potential of that wealth is wasted when at least some actors don't have enough. That's not how money works. Money in a bank account isn't being "wasted" because it isn't consuming resources, and if hoarding is causing currency scarcity (i.e. deflation) then additional money can easily be printed. > So surely trillions of dollars of UBI injected directly into the hands of the poor will stimulate the economy. But for how long until the cash starts to aggregate again into slower pools of cash where throughput is limited? For as long as they keep getting the UBI. Where do you think the money to fund it would come from?
JackFr 6y ago
This is not an article about UBI. It’s interesting that all if the comments are about the usefulness of UBI, while this article is merely about the efficacy of delivering aid in kind vs in cash.
- Antecedent 6y ago
  Most top level comments started that way then one mentioned UBI and down the rabbit hole we jumped.
Antecedent 6y ago
There is very little real unemployment in America. Most people just think themselves too good to cut lawns, chop meat, pick fruit, fillet fish, or work on a factory line. Why would we want to enable snobbery? Let’s have UBI when there actually are no jobs. Not when there are just no fun jobs.
- alpaca128 6y ago
  > Most people just think themselves too good to cut lawns, chop meat, pick fruit, fillet fish, or work on a factory line. Most people just think they wouldn't get paid enough for doing that. If the job is the very opposite of fun but doesn't pay significantly more than unemployment then that's not the fault of potential workers. Considering how unfun and stressful jobs like package delivery are but still get people to do it, I wonder how bad the pay and/or work conditions are for widely unfilled positions.
  - luckylion 6y ago
    These jobs are often filled by immigrants who don't have the same options as citizens. If being unemployed and living off of benefits is not an option, the unfun and stressful jobs become a lot more attractive.
- _Microft 6y ago
  Keeping one-self away from harmful jobs, physically, psychologically or economically is not snobbery, it is self-care.
  - luckylion 6y ago
    Most jobs are harmful in some way. Shall we only allow some people to practice self-care, while we ask others to do those same harmful jobs so the self-carers may enjoy what the harmful jobs produce?
    - onemoresoop 6y ago
      Harmful jobs should pay accordingly. Some will self sacrifice for the potential higher earnings.
proc0 6y ago
"Poor people spend cash grants well" As in they buy things they need? What else are they gonna do, not eat and die? If you are really poor you basically have no choice to only buy what you need. The problem is, once they are in a slightly better situation, they probably won't start investing that money or opening a business, because they don't need to. The problem is psychological, and "grants" just patronize poor people from the start, preventing them form seeing themselves as their own primary benefactor.
- _Microft 6y ago
  > The problem is, once they are in a slightly better situation, they probably won't start investing that money or opening a business, because they don't need to. This is a claim that you will need to support by a reputable source.
  - luckylion 6y ago
    > This is a claim that you will need to support by a reputable source. I keep saying it: Germany is a great real-life study to support this. We have those "slightly better situations". And we have plenty of people being stuck in it. It's not because there's some law or some stigma stopping them, we even have good programs and subsidies that will continue to pay your benefits for up to two years while you're getting your business off the ground, you can get cash subsidies on top to invest in your business (up to 5k Euros), and you will also get vouchers for consulting and services, and your health insurance will be paid by the government. Yet it does not happen in large numbers. It's frustrating, and I agree, it seems plausible that it should, but it doesn't. Sure, you may say "that's just Germany, Germans are weird", but I believe you should make an argument why it wouldn't be the same elsewhere under similar circumstances. And I'm somewhat sure that other European countries have similar programs and are seeing similar results, so you may want to make sure that Germany is the outlier.
    - viklove 6y ago
      Germany isn't a great example to use when talking about what's best for the United States. For one, Germany is 96% white and doesn't face the same issues the US faces with diversity and cultural variation. When the population is homogenous, it's much easier to agree on and implement solutions.
thomasfl 6y ago
I prefer the term freedom money rather than universal basic income. I seriously believe that most people when given the responsibility and the opportunities that universal basic would gives, would choose to improve both their own lives and others. People would probably choose not to do work that is considered harmful for the environment, like chopping down rainforests. When introducing ubi, governments would probably at the same time encourage people to take part in voluntary activities rather than playing videgames.
known 6y ago
During pandemic UK is giving $3000 per month to workers; US is giving $1200; Canada is giving $2000; And India is giving $7; https://archive.vn/p4EzC https://archive.vn/p4EzC
- mydongle 6y ago
  The US's $1200 was a one time payment though, no?
  - Supermancho 6y ago
    The HEROES Act will be a second round.
  - onemoresoop 6y ago
    Yes and it didn't go where needed. I didn't need it for example, I'm employed. Plus the fact that it's a one time thing it's likely to mean nothing to people who can't pay their rents/bills. Edit: Another batch may come soon but it still amounts to nothing for the gravity of the situation so many are in. Some sort of weak mitigation.
    - GhostVII 6y ago
      They are also increasing the eligibility for unemployment, and increasing payments by $600 a week.
cousin_it 6y ago
I think this is off base, at least if we're talking about the US. The central problem is high prices for housing, healthcare and education. The first step to solving that problem is research: we need to figure out the right theory of cost disease, its causes and prevention. Scott made a start here: https://slatestarcodex.com/2017/02/09/considerations-on-cost-disease/ https://slatestarcodex.com/2017/02/09/considerations-on-cost... Once we fix it (by regulation if need be), and these goods become appropriately cheap, poor people will have much less trouble getting by. Whereas if you don't fix it, and instead give money to people, the mysterious force that extracts that money into rising housing/healthcare/education costs will just learn to extract a little more, and you're back where you started.
_Microft 6y ago
Here is an article giving an example of cash-based support lifting people out of home-less: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/free-money-might-be-the-best-way-to-end-poverty/2013/12/29/679c8344-5ec8-11e3-95c2-13623eb2b0e1_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/free-money-might-be-...
- luckylion 6y ago
  That article is weird. > A year later, 11 of the 13 had roofs over their heads. (Some went to hostels; others to shelters.) > The cost? About 50,000 pounds, including the wages of the aid workers. No, apparently the cost is the same, at least in the cases of those at shelters (I don't know who pays for the hostels), plus 50,000 pounds. Don't get me wrong, it might still be a good idea, even if just nudges them to get into programs, not sleep on the street etc. But just pretending those programs don't cost money and it's therefore cheaper sounds so close to lying to me that I don't know how to tell the difference.
perfunctory 6y ago
> Poor people spend cash grants well. > In low and middle income country settings, cash transfers also mostly do not affect whether, or how much, people work.
duncan_bayne 6y ago
This seems like an intuitive outcome. Austrians have been saying for years that State calculation to achieve desired economic outcomes is doomed to failure ( https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_calculation_problem https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_calculation_problem). This just seems like a special case of that. Of course, I'd personally like to see this taken further, and see a) welfare programs in kind in general replaced with cash, and then b) taxpayer funding of same replaced by charitable giving (quite the opposite to the UBI folks, and motivated by quite a different morality). This feels like quite a viable transition to me.
exabrial 6y ago
Or... _just stop taxing them to death_ and leave the money in their pockets. Removing 15%-35% of their income forcefully, skimming a bunch off the top, then returning a small percentage of it isn't an efficient system. Likewise "just print more money" devalues what little savings they have and promotes paycheck-to-paycheck behavior, enslaving them systemically.
- bubbleRefuge 6y ago
  Inflation is a market phenomena. Supply and demand. Printing money doesn't necessarily cause inflation if people don't spend it. If its sits in a bank account. And hyper-inflation needs an accelerator component such as payments tied to CPI or something along those lines which causes a feedback loop. We have never seen demand side inflation in this country (USA) ever. But you are right about removing income taxes. Federal income taxes and corporate taxes should go away. A simple Federal real estate tax would be the easiest and fairest way to do it. Remove the brain drain that filing a 1040 is. Put intuit out of business.
tbstbstbs 6y ago
That perfectly lines up with a project we currently work at http://basicincomemachine.com http://basicincomemachine.com Our idea are vending machines for jobs. Everybody who looks for work or medicinal assistance gets help in less than 30 seconds. The hypothesis behind BIM is proximity: For some people, it is too complicated to follow a routine to pick-up a job.
lolsal 6y ago
What happens if people who receive UBI still need assistance? Do we ignore them and say "should have spent your UBI better"? Do we support them with existing or new welfare systems? I'm genuinely curious.
- boublepop 6y ago
  What happens to people who need assistance otherwise today? The answer depends on where in the world you are. In third world countries and the US the answer is: ”you should have spent your money better”, and in developed countries other than the US it’s: “we’ve got you back” UBI isn’t supposed to change that. It’s about making BI universal.
  - luckylion 6y ago
    > in developed countries other than the US it’s: “we’ve got you back” UBI isn’t supposed to change that. It’s about making BI universal. That's going to be a problem with UBI. If the rent isn't paid directly any longer but the money is given to the person instead and they decide they'd rather buy fun things instead of paying rent, and we're saying "we've got your back", we're going to pay for the exact same social programs we have today and UBI on top.
blargmaster33 6y ago
They are poor for a reason

241 points by hhs 6y ago

I think you also have to take into account the political sustainability of a policy though. It might be better for a poor person to get $2 cash than $2 of bread. But the $2 cash handout will be perennially opposed by some voters. The program eligibility will be slashed, the program will be a political football at election times, etc... while the bread program will be mostly noncontroversial and allowed to operate in peace.

huragok 6y ago
I would look at Food Stamps and revise your argument.
- MattGaiser 6y ago
  And when Republicans don’t want to abolish food stamps, they are trying to make it less cash driven. https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trumps-budget-resurrects-harvest-box-proposal-food-stamps/story?id=61627707 https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trumps-budget-resurrects-har... I would not go as far to say it operates in peace, but not having it cash based is the position of the less extreme people.
marricks 6y ago
There’s so many head games that goes into US politics that seems pointless. Democrats in particular compromise with themselves so much before even offering something to republicans before compromising even more. Republicans pretty much never do that, it’s just boom, let’s give big tax cuts to the rich or stop all immigration. Left side of the US needs to boldly actually fight for things rather than step my step planning out what “seems reasonable to republicans”, it’s just a bad losing idea, go boldly with what’s the moral and reasonable thing.
- 3fe9a03ccd14ca5 6y ago
  Consider how all sides are pretty fractured, left and right. Policies that were widely popular for the political right a decade ago (free, unrestricted trade) is now dead in the water with tariffs or the threat of them raining down. Similarly what’s “important” on the left is very fluid, and the political left is headed for the same upheaval the political right experienced with the tea party where it essentially became a populist platform.
  - millstone 6y ago
    I disagree that "the right is fractured." The US political right has never been more unified, and its unifier is Trump. Trump is wildly popular among Republicans, and all the old seams have been closed: religious vs business, populist vs rich, etc. The left is legitimately fractured, but maybe it's not as bad as it looks. Sound and fury on social media in the Bernie camp, yet the party coalesced strongly around Biden. I'd like to hear the case for a left "political upheaval." Where will it come from? Bernie's theory was that youth would vote en masse, and that did not happen.
    - AnthonyMouse 6y ago
      You're just observing the fact that the Democrats had a primary fight this year and the Republicans didn't because Trump is the incumbent. The problem the left is having right now is articulating what it is they actually want to do. Their main rallying cry for some time has been that they're not Trump, but then what are they?
      - tonyedgecombe 6y ago
        Not being Trump might just be enough.
        deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
        6y ago
drapred7 6y ago
This is an american perspective. In the UK, people are proud to be "on the dole" and very few support restricting it. EDIT: Of course brits will still look for work. My point is that Ive seen brits in talk shows audiences talk about taking public assistence without thinking of themselves as "bad people" the way American conservatives would. The desire to eliminate all public assistance is absent in Europe. Don't mean to offend brits, I think you guys have the right attitude here. Take assistance if you need it and dont needlessly refuse to help others.
- DaiPlusPlus 6y ago
  As a Brit, I've never heard of anyone being "proud" of being on the dole - and the actual amount people get from Jobseekers Allowance and Universal Credit are pitifully tiny - the current JSA of £75/week doesn't even cover my weekly food shopping costs, let alone my mortgage.
  - angrais 6y ago
    Obviously if you're on jobseekers you're meant to make the most of what you have. £75 sounds like an extravagant weekly shop, even for a couple with a child.
    - DaiPlusPlus 6y ago
      I have a Red Bull addiction.
- neilwilson 6y ago
  The notion that people are proud to be 'on the dole' in the UK is deeply pejorative and not at all backed up by the evidence. For example, sequence LFM2 at the Office of National Statistics entitled "inactive - wants a job". That's 1,869,000 people at the last estimate. The overwhelming number of people who end up short of work due to the structural failures of our current economic system want to work. And they should have the opportunity to do so.
- onion2k 6y ago
andrewfong 6y ago
The political argument in favor of universal basic income stresses the importance of the universal. That is, when the argument is "the others are getting cash", some will oppose it. But if it's "we all get cash", the opposition is less. In America, Social Security straight up gives up cash to ALL older Americans. Assuming you live long enough, you'll get Social Security. It's not immune but it remains popular. Indeed, efforts to cut back on Social Security are framed as attempts to "save" it and keep the program solvent. In contrast, food stamps, welfare, and unemployment benefits are very much on the chopping block year after year, their recipients stereotyped as "welfare queens" trying to cheat the system.
- burlesona 6y ago
  Technically Social Security doesn't go to all Americans. You have to work a minimum amount (and therefore pay a minimum amount in) to qualify. It's also possible to opt-out of social security, although it's not trivial to do so (IIRC you do this by claiming a conscientious objector status or something like that).
  - gvjddbnvdrbv 6y ago
    Hang on is social security tied to the draft?
    - JoshTriplett 6y ago
      No, there's a religion-based opt-out for religions that object to government support. But it only applies to income from the church (such as to ministers). There are a few other narrow cases as well, such as student workers and certain government jobs.
  - MattGaiser 6y ago
    At least one way is to get a religious exemption. https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/020315/there-any-way-opt-out-paying-social-security.asp https://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/020315/there-any-wa...
  - 6y ago
yalogin 6y ago
This is the wrong argument I would say. If its economically the correct policy then all parties should be saying it and convincing the non-believers about the efficacy of the solution. Unfortunately there is no integrity in politics to do the right thing these days and so this will never happen. One party just opposes the other party's positions irrespective of whether they are good or not. Democrats are at least a bit better in that regard, they would not oppose the proposal outright, instead they try to criticize the implementation. Republicans on the other hand would argue (in unison) that killing babies is alright if the democrats say it's wrong.
- heromal 6y ago
  >One party just opposes the other party's positions irrespective of whether they are good or not. This was the proper place to stop. Both parties are full of politicians.
AnthonyMouse 6y ago
> But the $2 cash handout will be perennially opposed by some voters. The program eligibility will be slashed, the program will be a political football at election times, etc... while the bread program will be mostly noncontroversial and allowed to operate in peace. It's completely the opposite. You have to call the cash a tax credit and give it to everyone. Then no one can get rid of it because nobody wants a tax hike. As soon as you start having eligibility restrictions or purchasing restrictions or effort-based gatekeeping, it reduces the number of people who benefit from the program, which is how it gets ruined or dismantled once the number of beneficiaries are no longer enough people that politicians have to care about them. Make it so that everybody below the 51st percentile income is a net beneficiary and the program is locked in.
syphilis2 6y ago
I do not believe "some voters" will motivate the politicians. Instead it is the bread manufacturers, farms, importers, and every other large business with enough weight to convince politicians that a bread coupon is better for Americans than cash. Unsurprisingly they do this with cash not coupons.
perfunctory 6y ago
This kind of logic could be applied to any major social change in the past few centuries. It's always less friction to maintain status quo. And then change happens and everybody forgets about it. Is anybody perennially opposed to women suffrage anymore? Or is it a subject of a political football?
PeterStuer 6y ago
Actually the reverse. UBI is very much a neo-libral approved thing, as they have now concentrated so much of the wealth and left so little that the bottom is threatening to fall out of the system that for them is a perpetual money printing machine. So they would rather give a tiny amount to the serfs to prevent them from revolting. And unlike a loafof bread, they can still seduce them to spend their UBI check on conspicuous consumption, then blaming them for 'irresponsible spending' so their own conscience about their greed is appeased as 'if we gave them more money they would just spend it on more beer and a larger TV'.

3fe9a03ccd14ca5 6y ago

We have some forms of this, such as the earned income tax credit, but it doesn’t go nearly far enough. I like the the idea of a reverse income tax at the lower levels and wish it was more popular, but it needs to be done in a way that it doesn’t discourage earning more money.

smegma2 6y ago
A negative income tax would only discourage earning money in the same way that a progressive income tax does anyway, right? Or do you mean more from a psychological perspective?
- phekunde 6y ago
  > A negative income tax would only discourage earning money How is that so?

dvduval 6y ago

Shouldn't firefighters compete to see who can spend the least amount of money putting out fires? Shouldn't health insurance agencies compete to see who can spend the least on healing people? Until we get these things straight why would he want to have the government spend money or making infrastructure stronger? After all, government spending is bad, right?

alecco 6y ago

I find this extremely politically biased. It states right from the start "The bulk of transfers are spent on food anyway", like that is a good thing. UN's policies are antiquated. The world's poor mostly have malnutrition (not undernourishment) and it's getting out of control. They want to apply cookie cutter policies for both sub-Saharan Africa and poor people in the rest of the world. I'd support a system like this if the money was spent mostly on healthy food and durable goods. But I fear a blunt money giveaway will exacerbate the existing problems. Do you ever wonder why so many evil corporations support democrats/labour/etc? Handouts get votes, and as long as handouts get spent mostly in things these corporations sell it's all good. Think junk food, rent (landowners), non-durable goods (mobile, shoes, clothing), gasoline, alcohol, and tobacco. It's a feedback loop of well meaning but lazy left wing politics and the worst of Capitalism. Think about it.

drapred7 6y ago
I think you've had a bit to much to think, bucko. https://www.christianpost.com/news/fast-food-chains-lobby-government-to-expand-food-stamp-payment-program-55202/ https://www.christianpost.com/news/fast-food-chains-lobby-go... https://cms.qz.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/file-20171009-6960-wzmn6e.png?w=450&h=267&crop=1&strip=all&quality=75 https://cms.qz.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/file-20171009-... Have fun.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- alecco 6y ago
  What? First link is about fast food chains wanting food stamps. 1- not actual cash handout 2. illustrates my point of pressure by fast food corporations looking for handout money. Second blurry link is about population growth, showing Africa expanding. That is missing the matching curves of extreme poverty falling drastically for those regions [1], even for sub-Saharan Africa. Further supporting my points of outdated approach to combat poverty. Capitalism is doing good in some ways by lifting all those people from poverty. But they are falling into a trap of poor health and poor money management. [1] https://ourworldindata.org/exports/share-of-population-living-in-extreme-poverty-by-world-region_v4_850x600.svg https://ourworldindata.org/exports/share-of-population-livin...

scoopertrooper 6y ago

Keep in mind this article largely restricts itself to considering direct cash transfers to people in low-medium developed countries. I would be careful about trying to generalise the conclusions to developed countries. It stands to reason that unrestricted welfare would reduce hours worked in developed countries. This would be especially true for young adults with no dependents. Why work overtime at McDonalds when your rent is already paid up for the month and there are so many fun video games to play? I think we just have to accept that UBI would give people that work undesirable/uninteresting jobs an off-ramp from the economy. The problem being that our economy depends on these people performing such jobs. Employers would have increase wages significantly above the UBI level in order to attract workers, but that would either erode the UBI through inflation or cause an inflationary spiral if the UBI were indexed. I haven't heard a satisfactory explanation as to how UBI avoids these pitfalls.

MattGaiser 6y ago
> Employers would have increase wages significantly above the UBI level in order to attract workers It also must be considered that many categories of jobs currently can’t be filled without some form of immigration because the existing social safety net of charities and government benefits never makes picking strawberries or meat cutting preferable to unemployment.
- jdc 6y ago
  It seems to me employers would have to pay higher wages without migrant labour.
  - scoopertrooper 6y ago
    Or leave the ground fallow if it could not be farmed economically.
  - renewiltord 6y ago
    Some things we might never have again. For instance you might not get sufficient utility out of strawberries at $30/kg. The market for people who do might be very small. Then the guy who wants to grow strawberries at cost X, the guy who wants to get strawberries at cost Y, and the guy who wants to be paid to pick strawberries at cost Z all want to indulge in the activity but because one part of the chain falls below a legislated minimum, an economically efficient action does not occur. That doesn't mean it's bad that it doesn't occur. Just that if the equilibrium price has any link of the chain be legally unacceptable you might literally kill a market. There is no new equilibrium. There just isn't product.

mrdoops 6y ago

A market's throughput is limited by the number of participating actors. If a large percentage of the population can't participate, the market's capability to price, evaluate and represent value is hindered. UBI makes sense for a purpose of bringing more buyer's/actors to the game. It's especially useful considering our dependence on jobs as the primary activating mechanism shows strain under the troubles of scaling human coordination and hiring. In a sort of backwards way we get more jobs when more people can contribute to the flow of money. However UBI doesn't solve the problem of debt still piping the cash back into the hands of banks and other financial institutions. What are these UBI checks going to be spent on? Rent that's too high? Student loans for indulgent tuition prices? Without blocking the pipes from the poor to the the actors with pipes of their own, these throughput problems aren't solved more than delayed. An actor is still a single actor, so if one actor has an over aggregation of wealth and has trouble spending it effectively the potential of that wealth is wasted when at least some actors don't have enough. So surely trillions of dollars of UBI injected directly into the hands of the poor will stimulate the economy. But for how long until the cash starts to aggregate again into slower pools of cash where throughput is limited? In a sense we almost want inflation if these "overaggregators" are so abundant, but only if the population is maintained at a base level of wealth relative to the inflation. Otherwise the rich, who probably got rich by being more effective with their money respond to the market changes faster and the UBI stimulation is only temporary. But if UBI causes significant inflation, and the pipes going directly to every individual have enough back pressure, it could be a great situation where the overaggregators lose value to inflation as they struggle to spend or invest.

AnthonyMouse 6y ago
> However UBI doesn't solve the problem of debt still piping the cash back into the hands of banks and other financial institutions. That isn't a problem it's expected to solve. It's a completely independent problem that already happens whether you have a UBI or not. The solutions there are likewise independent. Build more housing so it isn't supply constrained and doesn't increase in price to consume any gains made by the working class. Stop issuing student loans (students now have a UBI and don't need them), because student loans inflate the cost of college relative to other things which loans aren't available for. A UBI doesn't do that because the money isn't only available when spend on college. > An actor is still a single actor, so if one actor has an over aggregation of wealth and has trouble spending it effectively the potential of that wealth is wasted when at least some actors don't have enough. That's not how money works. Money in a bank account isn't being "wasted" because it isn't consuming resources, and if hoarding is causing currency scarcity (i.e. deflation) then additional money can easily be printed. > So surely trillions of dollars of UBI injected directly into the hands of the poor will stimulate the economy. But for how long until the cash starts to aggregate again into slower pools of cash where throughput is limited? For as long as they keep getting the UBI. Where do you think the money to fund it would come from?

JackFr 6y ago

This is not an article about UBI. It’s interesting that all if the comments are about the usefulness of UBI, while this article is merely about the efficacy of delivering aid in kind vs in cash.

Antecedent 6y ago
Most top level comments started that way then one mentioned UBI and down the rabbit hole we jumped.

Antecedent 6y ago

There is very little real unemployment in America. Most people just think themselves too good to cut lawns, chop meat, pick fruit, fillet fish, or work on a factory line. Why would we want to enable snobbery? Let’s have UBI when there actually are no jobs. Not when there are just no fun jobs.

alpaca128 6y ago
> Most people just think themselves too good to cut lawns, chop meat, pick fruit, fillet fish, or work on a factory line. Most people just think they wouldn't get paid enough for doing that. If the job is the very opposite of fun but doesn't pay significantly more than unemployment then that's not the fault of potential workers. Considering how unfun and stressful jobs like package delivery are but still get people to do it, I wonder how bad the pay and/or work conditions are for widely unfilled positions.
- luckylion 6y ago
  These jobs are often filled by immigrants who don't have the same options as citizens. If being unemployed and living off of benefits is not an option, the unfun and stressful jobs become a lot more attractive.
_Microft 6y ago
Keeping one-self away from harmful jobs, physically, psychologically or economically is not snobbery, it is self-care.
- luckylion 6y ago
  Most jobs are harmful in some way. Shall we only allow some people to practice self-care, while we ask others to do those same harmful jobs so the self-carers may enjoy what the harmful jobs produce?
  - onemoresoop 6y ago
    Harmful jobs should pay accordingly. Some will self sacrifice for the potential higher earnings.

proc0 6y ago

"Poor people spend cash grants well" As in they buy things they need? What else are they gonna do, not eat and die? If you are really poor you basically have no choice to only buy what you need. The problem is, once they are in a slightly better situation, they probably won't start investing that money or opening a business, because they don't need to. The problem is psychological, and "grants" just patronize poor people from the start, preventing them form seeing themselves as their own primary benefactor.

_Microft 6y ago
> The problem is, once they are in a slightly better situation, they probably won't start investing that money or opening a business, because they don't need to. This is a claim that you will need to support by a reputable source.
- luckylion 6y ago
  > This is a claim that you will need to support by a reputable source. I keep saying it: Germany is a great real-life study to support this. We have those "slightly better situations". And we have plenty of people being stuck in it. It's not because there's some law or some stigma stopping them, we even have good programs and subsidies that will continue to pay your benefits for up to two years while you're getting your business off the ground, you can get cash subsidies on top to invest in your business (up to 5k Euros), and you will also get vouchers for consulting and services, and your health insurance will be paid by the government. Yet it does not happen in large numbers. It's frustrating, and I agree, it seems plausible that it should, but it doesn't. Sure, you may say "that's just Germany, Germans are weird", but I believe you should make an argument why it wouldn't be the same elsewhere under similar circumstances. And I'm somewhat sure that other European countries have similar programs and are seeing similar results, so you may want to make sure that Germany is the outlier.
  - viklove 6y ago
    Germany isn't a great example to use when talking about what's best for the United States. For one, Germany is 96% white and doesn't face the same issues the US faces with diversity and cultural variation. When the population is homogenous, it's much easier to agree on and implement solutions.

thomasfl 6y ago

I prefer the term freedom money rather than universal basic income. I seriously believe that most people when given the responsibility and the opportunities that universal basic would gives, would choose to improve both their own lives and others. People would probably choose not to do work that is considered harmful for the environment, like chopping down rainforests. When introducing ubi, governments would probably at the same time encourage people to take part in voluntary activities rather than playing videgames.

known 6y ago

During pandemic UK is giving $3000 per month to workers; US is giving $1200; Canada is giving $2000; And India is giving $7; https://archive.vn/p4EzC https://archive.vn/p4EzC

mydongle 6y ago
The US's $1200 was a one time payment though, no?
- Supermancho 6y ago
  The HEROES Act will be a second round.
- onemoresoop 6y ago
  Yes and it didn't go where needed. I didn't need it for example, I'm employed. Plus the fact that it's a one time thing it's likely to mean nothing to people who can't pay their rents/bills. Edit: Another batch may come soon but it still amounts to nothing for the gravity of the situation so many are in. Some sort of weak mitigation.
  - GhostVII 6y ago
    They are also increasing the eligibility for unemployment, and increasing payments by $600 a week.

cousin_it 6y ago

I think this is off base, at least if we're talking about the US. The central problem is high prices for housing, healthcare and education. The first step to solving that problem is research: we need to figure out the right theory of cost disease, its causes and prevention. Scott made a start here: https://slatestarcodex.com/2017/02/09/considerations-on-cost-disease/ https://slatestarcodex.com/2017/02/09/considerations-on-cost... Once we fix it (by regulation if need be), and these goods become appropriately cheap, poor people will have much less trouble getting by. Whereas if you don't fix it, and instead give money to people, the mysterious force that extracts that money into rising housing/healthcare/education costs will just learn to extract a little more, and you're back where you started.

_Microft 6y ago

Here is an article giving an example of cash-based support lifting people out of home-less: https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/free-money-might-be-the-best-way-to-end-poverty/2013/12/29/679c8344-5ec8-11e3-95c2-13623eb2b0e1_story.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/free-money-might-be-...

luckylion 6y ago
That article is weird. > A year later, 11 of the 13 had roofs over their heads. (Some went to hostels; others to shelters.) > The cost? About 50,000 pounds, including the wages of the aid workers. No, apparently the cost is the same, at least in the cases of those at shelters (I don't know who pays for the hostels), plus 50,000 pounds. Don't get me wrong, it might still be a good idea, even if just nudges them to get into programs, not sleep on the street etc. But just pretending those programs don't cost money and it's therefore cheaper sounds so close to lying to me that I don't know how to tell the difference.

perfunctory 6y ago

> Poor people spend cash grants well. > In low and middle income country settings, cash transfers also mostly do not affect whether, or how much, people work.

duncan_bayne 6y ago

This seems like an intuitive outcome. Austrians have been saying for years that State calculation to achieve desired economic outcomes is doomed to failure ( https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_calculation_problem https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_calculation_problem). This just seems like a special case of that. Of course, I'd personally like to see this taken further, and see a) welfare programs in kind in general replaced with cash, and then b) taxpayer funding of same replaced by charitable giving (quite the opposite to the UBI folks, and motivated by quite a different morality). This feels like quite a viable transition to me.

exabrial 6y ago

Or... _just stop taxing them to death_ and leave the money in their pockets. Removing 15%-35% of their income forcefully, skimming a bunch off the top, then returning a small percentage of it isn't an efficient system. Likewise "just print more money" devalues what little savings they have and promotes paycheck-to-paycheck behavior, enslaving them systemically.

bubbleRefuge 6y ago
Inflation is a market phenomena. Supply and demand. Printing money doesn't necessarily cause inflation if people don't spend it. If its sits in a bank account. And hyper-inflation needs an accelerator component such as payments tied to CPI or something along those lines which causes a feedback loop. We have never seen demand side inflation in this country (USA) ever. But you are right about removing income taxes. Federal income taxes and corporate taxes should go away. A simple Federal real estate tax would be the easiest and fairest way to do it. Remove the brain drain that filing a 1040 is. Put intuit out of business.

tbstbstbs 6y ago

That perfectly lines up with a project we currently work at http://basicincomemachine.com http://basicincomemachine.com Our idea are vending machines for jobs. Everybody who looks for work or medicinal assistance gets help in less than 30 seconds. The hypothesis behind BIM is proximity: For some people, it is too complicated to follow a routine to pick-up a job.

lolsal 6y ago

What happens if people who receive UBI still need assistance? Do we ignore them and say "should have spent your UBI better"? Do we support them with existing or new welfare systems? I'm genuinely curious.

boublepop 6y ago
What happens to people who need assistance otherwise today? The answer depends on where in the world you are. In third world countries and the US the answer is: ”you should have spent your money better”, and in developed countries other than the US it’s: “we’ve got you back” UBI isn’t supposed to change that. It’s about making BI universal.
- luckylion 6y ago
  > in developed countries other than the US it’s: “we’ve got you back” UBI isn’t supposed to change that. It’s about making BI universal. That's going to be a problem with UBI. If the rent isn't paid directly any longer but the money is given to the person instead and they decide they'd rather buy fun things instead of paying rent, and we're saying "we've got your back", we're going to pay for the exact same social programs we have today and UBI on top.

blargmaster33 6y ago

They are poor for a reason