4 ms·

I'd go in the opposite direction, no money, but free services (local organic food, bikes, and housing (water+electricity+internet), possibly a laptop too)

gfodor 6y ago
The problem with this is that it undermines the end-game goal of UBI: efficient welfare powered by market forces. Any service-oriented approach would be different, and likely subject to the corrosive forces like corruption, cronyism, pork etc if deployed as national policy.
RangerScience 6y ago
Perhaps a net of various social services for the safety and welfare of the people? Perhaps it could be called a "social safety net"? There are a lot of reasons why people (myself included) think that UBI would be better than the welfare system we currently have, which is (AFAIK) like what you describe. Google around. My favorite reasons to expect UBI would work "better" are: 1) drastically simplifies the government's part of the system, 2) works within the existing economic system, and 3) empowers people to make their own decisions about their own lives, needs, and wants.
- luckylion 6y ago
  > drastically simplifies the government's part of the system But the government's part of the system is absolutely insignificant. > empowers people to make their own decisions about their own lives, needs, and wants I get that. But I also have a neighbor that will spend the cash component of the welfare he gets within the first 10 days of the month. If he got cash only and had to pay rent himself, I'm certain that he wouldn't. Obviously we can't let him be homeless, so the state would jump in and pay his rent. On top of giving him the money to pay his rent. That would obviously be an improvement for him (+700€/month to spend), but I don't see how it would be sustainable.
  - dahfizz 6y ago
    > But the government's part of the system is absolutely insignificant. The easiest data point I could find is that the Executive branch spent $228 Billion in 2010 on government salaries, excluding the military and USPS[1]. That's almost $700 per person per year if you converted it all to a UBI. That's far from insignificant. > But I also have a neighbor that will spend the cash component of the welfare he gets within the first 10 days of the month. If he got cash only and had to pay rent himself, I'm certain that he wouldn't I don't see why I am obligated to pay for someone who refuses to take care of himself. [1]https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/federal-eye/post/how-much-money-is-spent-on-federal-workers/2011/10/26/gIQAMSLBJM_blog.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/federal-eye/post/how-mu...
    - luckylion 6y ago
      > That's almost $700 per person per year if you converted it all to a UBI. That's far from insignificant. Right... but introducing UBI won't remove the necessity of the department of energy, or somebody sitting in an embassy in Russia, or the person who orders toilet paper for the Library of Congress. We'd save money on administrative overhead for the programs that are supposed to be replaced by UBI, but those salaries aren't what's eating the budget. > I don't see why I am obligated to pay for someone who refuses to take care of himself. I don't either, but we're a tiny minority. Well, at least in my country we are, in the US it may look somewhat different.
  - RangerScience 6y ago
    > system is absolutely insignificant. TBH I don't know. How much money is spent determining whether or not someone is eligible for welfare? How much is spent on sourcing vendors and distribution? > have a neighbor Ehhhhhh lot of things going on here and lots of ways to look at it. I can think of a bunch of ways to make this work out, but ultimately, it's a Chesterton's fence issue: without understanding why things are the way they are - which you'd only get by engaging with the person - any solution is both likely to fail, and likely to result in disempowerment; contributing both to an immediate failure and, I'd expect, many future failures. If UBI resolves, to pull a number from no-where, 90% of the issues social workers are needed for, now you've got 10x the social workers to do that engagement with your neighbor.
- dahfizz 6y ago
  Strongly agree. Any form of government-paid safety net is actually an inefficient UBI in disguise. By giving the money directly to people, they get to spend it how they want. By definition, they are extracting the most value possible from that UBI. If you instead give them goods + services through a government agency, you also have to pay all the bureaucrats and you are limiting the choices the recipients now have.

gfodor 6y ago

The problem with this is that it undermines the end-game goal of UBI: efficient welfare powered by market forces. Any service-oriented approach would be different, and likely subject to the corrosive forces like corruption, cronyism, pork etc if deployed as national policy.

RangerScience 6y ago

Perhaps a net of various social services for the safety and welfare of the people? Perhaps it could be called a "social safety net"? There are a lot of reasons why people (myself included) think that UBI would be better than the welfare system we currently have, which is (AFAIK) like what you describe. Google around. My favorite reasons to expect UBI would work "better" are: 1) drastically simplifies the government's part of the system, 2) works within the existing economic system, and 3) empowers people to make their own decisions about their own lives, needs, and wants.

luckylion 6y ago
> drastically simplifies the government's part of the system But the government's part of the system is absolutely insignificant. > empowers people to make their own decisions about their own lives, needs, and wants I get that. But I also have a neighbor that will spend the cash component of the welfare he gets within the first 10 days of the month. If he got cash only and had to pay rent himself, I'm certain that he wouldn't. Obviously we can't let him be homeless, so the state would jump in and pay his rent. On top of giving him the money to pay his rent. That would obviously be an improvement for him (+700€/month to spend), but I don't see how it would be sustainable.
- dahfizz 6y ago
  > But the government's part of the system is absolutely insignificant. The easiest data point I could find is that the Executive branch spent $228 Billion in 2010 on government salaries, excluding the military and USPS[1]. That's almost $700 per person per year if you converted it all to a UBI. That's far from insignificant. > But I also have a neighbor that will spend the cash component of the welfare he gets within the first 10 days of the month. If he got cash only and had to pay rent himself, I'm certain that he wouldn't I don't see why I am obligated to pay for someone who refuses to take care of himself. [1]https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/federal-eye/post/how-much-money-is-spent-on-federal-workers/2011/10/26/gIQAMSLBJM_blog.html https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/federal-eye/post/how-mu...
  - luckylion 6y ago
    > That's almost $700 per person per year if you converted it all to a UBI. That's far from insignificant. Right... but introducing UBI won't remove the necessity of the department of energy, or somebody sitting in an embassy in Russia, or the person who orders toilet paper for the Library of Congress. We'd save money on administrative overhead for the programs that are supposed to be replaced by UBI, but those salaries aren't what's eating the budget. > I don't see why I am obligated to pay for someone who refuses to take care of himself. I don't either, but we're a tiny minority. Well, at least in my country we are, in the US it may look somewhat different.
- RangerScience 6y ago
  > system is absolutely insignificant. TBH I don't know. How much money is spent determining whether or not someone is eligible for welfare? How much is spent on sourcing vendors and distribution? > have a neighbor Ehhhhhh lot of things going on here and lots of ways to look at it. I can think of a bunch of ways to make this work out, but ultimately, it's a Chesterton's fence issue: without understanding why things are the way they are - which you'd only get by engaging with the person - any solution is both likely to fail, and likely to result in disempowerment; contributing both to an immediate failure and, I'd expect, many future failures. If UBI resolves, to pull a number from no-where, 90% of the issues social workers are needed for, now you've got 10x the social workers to do that engagement with your neighbor.
dahfizz 6y ago
Strongly agree. Any form of government-paid safety net is actually an inefficient UBI in disguise. By giving the money directly to people, they get to spend it how they want. By definition, they are extracting the most value possible from that UBI. If you instead give them goods + services through a government agency, you also have to pay all the bureaucrats and you are limiting the choices the recipients now have.