4 ms·

I'd be curious to see it play out in a smaller country for a few years. The U.S. is a big place to gamble on it. No one is saying flip the switch for 328.2 mil

I'd be curious to see it play out in a smaller country for a few years. The U.S. is a big place to gamble on it. No one is saying flip the switch for 328.2 million, I know that, but at the same time it would be best to do an MVP on a smaller scale with, say, a population of 5 million and then learn and iterate from there. Even when testing with 5 million though, you often have countries of that size having more of a shared culture that's tighter knit, such as the Nordic countries. Perhaps somewhere like Singapore or Hong Kong could be a test. But there's so many variables again between so many countries. Perhaps a test case could be the whole state of Colorado, but then you have border permeability issues...

devonkim 6y ago
One of the problems with UBI on a small scale in the US is that it’s difficult to study the macroeconomic effects that people are so worried about. The studies on direct cash assistance in terms of social science are rather strong evidence in favor of what left leaning proponents claim. The reservations typically come from the American right which is more of a Social Darwinist party these days than a conservative one, which is closer to the Reagan Republican era GOP. We probably need tens of billions of dollars to pilot UBI properly in the US across borders and to help setup the infrastructure to distribute the funds. But compared to another missile program, the social good of such a program is undeniable. Which is probably why it’ll be rejected in today’s hell world US politics.
- metrokoi 6y ago
  One point to consider is that once UBI is rolled out, it can never be taken back, even if it is disastrous from a bureaucratic, economic, or social standpoint. I think the success of UBI is heavily dependant on the details of how it is funded and paid out, and getting people to decide on what the best method is will be more difficult than getting it accepted.
rch 6y ago
One (edit: another) problem with that thinking is that the U.S. is a uniquely capable financial entity with an associated population, while your other examples are merely political entities. To a certain extent we have an opportunity to experiment now. Might as well learn what we can.
paimoe 6y ago
Even if it works brilliantly in other places, you'll still have a big part of the US saying "it'll never work here, we're too different" etc. Same arguments as the metric system that's been great everywhere for such a long time.
- HideousKojima 6y ago
  >Same arguments as the metric system that's been great everywhere for such a long time. The biggest argument against the metric system is that it would cost trillions to retool all factories etc. to metric. Secondarily, countries like Canada and the UK aren't 100% metric and use a weird sort of Frankenstein system (i.e. Brits measuring body weight in "stone"). And if anything that's worse than one or the other

devonkim 6y ago

One of the problems with UBI on a small scale in the US is that it’s difficult to study the macroeconomic effects that people are so worried about. The studies on direct cash assistance in terms of social science are rather strong evidence in favor of what left leaning proponents claim. The reservations typically come from the American right which is more of a Social Darwinist party these days than a conservative one, which is closer to the Reagan Republican era GOP. We probably need tens of billions of dollars to pilot UBI properly in the US across borders and to help setup the infrastructure to distribute the funds. But compared to another missile program, the social good of such a program is undeniable. Which is probably why it’ll be rejected in today’s hell world US politics.

metrokoi 6y ago
One point to consider is that once UBI is rolled out, it can never be taken back, even if it is disastrous from a bureaucratic, economic, or social standpoint. I think the success of UBI is heavily dependant on the details of how it is funded and paid out, and getting people to decide on what the best method is will be more difficult than getting it accepted.

rch 6y ago

One (edit: another) problem with that thinking is that the U.S. is a uniquely capable financial entity with an associated population, while your other examples are merely political entities. To a certain extent we have an opportunity to experiment now. Might as well learn what we can.

paimoe 6y ago

Even if it works brilliantly in other places, you'll still have a big part of the US saying "it'll never work here, we're too different" etc. Same arguments as the metric system that's been great everywhere for such a long time.

HideousKojima 6y ago
>Same arguments as the metric system that's been great everywhere for such a long time. The biggest argument against the metric system is that it would cost trillions to retool all factories etc. to metric. Secondarily, countries like Canada and the UK aren't 100% metric and use a weird sort of Frankenstein system (i.e. Brits measuring body weight in "stone"). And if anything that's worse than one or the other