8 ms·

the hardest part of UBI for me to understand is how much of it will be eaten by inflation and how much will actually help people. I’d like to see a lot of rese

the hardest part of UBI for me to understand is how much of it will be eaten by inflation and how much will actually help people. I’d like to see a lot of research on that part of the topic. Maybe take a zip code and give everyone UBI in that zip and see how things like housing prices change within that zip.

BitwiseFool 6y ago
Don't forget to raise everyone's taxes within that zip code as well. You need the full experience.
- avmich 6y ago
  Or don't raise taxes, if you subscribe to the idea that lowering taxes pay for themselves (to the budget).
- dillondoyle 6y ago
  One of the ideas is that we wouldn't need to raise taxes - simply replace some of the social safety net spending with a baseline monthly income.
  - chordalkeyboard 6y ago
    I’ve read that is politically untenable and financially impossible.
    - dillondoyle 6y ago
      Financially no. politically perhaps probably unless we convince Republicans. Beyond SNAP, some social security changes or simply nationalizing healthcare could provide enough savings alone. Impossible to know but many studies say between 200-450 billion per /year in total healthcare costs from universal. Albeit that's a kind of complicated 'swap' from employer & personal costs to a tax. I would love to see something like a passive sovereign fund / 1% corporate share tax use one of those coming trillions in Corona stimi. Taxpayers should directly benefit from federal policy and stimi that goes mostly goes to the corporate bottom line and valuations. Like a pension, the government has no voting/control. Add protections against runaway de-regulation incentives type governing policy. Hell cut military spending 10% gets $93 billion and if we're fixing healthcare cap the profit or pharma too.
      - chordalkeyboard 6y ago
        https://medium.com/david-grace-columns-organized-by-topic/a-little-math-shows-that-a-universal-basic-income-is-completely-totally-impossible-5534a13d441a https://medium.com/david-grace-columns-organized-by-topic/a-... >> There are about 242,000,000 adults living the United States. $18,000/year UBI X 242,000,000 people = $4,356,000,000,000 that’s $4.356 TRILLION Dollars per year. The total amount collected by the federal government from the income tax is about $1.5 Trillion Dollars per year. Since we would still have to run the rest of the government in addition to paying the UBI, the cost of the UBI plus the other government expenses we currently have would be about Six TRILLION Dollars.
        dillondoyle 6y ago
        I think most proposals - at least right now the serious ones - are only talking about those already receiving similar value government assistance. Personally I see something close to universal UBI way down the line assuming we can eliminate a large % of human jobs and reduce the amount of work significantly so even if you wanted to work there isn't any work to do. Take the profit dividends and redistribute it.
        chordalkeyboard 6y ago
        > I think most proposals - at least right now the serious ones - are only talking about those already receiving similar value government assistance Its not easy to discuss this when the proposal being discussed seems to shift. Arguing that existing programs should be replaced with a single payment for the current beneficiaries is not UBI and the two should not be conflated.
AnimalMuppet 6y ago
A zip code is too small, because mobility between zip codes is too high. It could cause housing inflation, say, but if you only give UBI to one zip code, they're trying to inflation the whole metro area's housing prices. Say the metro area is 20 zip codes. Then you only see 1/20th the effect, which means it's going to be much easier to miss.
- toast0 6y ago
  On the other hand, if you look at home pricing by year and zip code for the metro, you should see a big bump (or not) as UBI was implemented in that zip code. It would be interesting, but I suspect most of what you would learn is how fast people are to change their official addresses to something in the zip code, despite not actually residing at said address.
dfgdghdf 6y ago
Two of the most fundamental products people need are food and shelter, and both of these are low margin businesses (excluding high rent areas, but a UBI allows people to move more easily because you receive it regardless of employment status).
redis_mlc 6y ago
The data exists already, since women are generally eligible for welfare (while men aren't.) For example, around 60% of the SF "homeless budget" goes to permanent housing, maintly for women. Add to that additional welfare benefits. In other words, one demographic already gets stealth UBI.
roenxi 6y ago
Inflation is a red herring metric for assessing a UBI. Pretty much all the major schools of economic thought agree that under the current financial market regulation inflation is an overall policy position by government separate from any one specific policy. If UBI pushes inflation up, changes elsewhere can push it down. And UBI is a policy to be implemented in context, the big idea is to gain efficiencies by cutting back on now-redundant welfare nets. So the actual negative effect of a UBI, in theory, would be declines in real goods and services as resources are directed from economically productive to economically unproductive people. Devilishly difficult to measure.
- anm89 6y ago
  Say whatever you want but don't play the trick of just asserting there is consensus behind your opinion. There is extremely little consensus regarding inflation right now and because we are in uncharted territory monetarily and in terms of debt levels both public and private, and the consequences(and data) of that can take years to show up(frequently slowly and then all at once) almost everything is speculation, not data driven. So no, there is not broad consensus that we can just pull some levers and send inflation wherever we want, not even close.
- MrFantastic 6y ago
  UBI would lead to dramatic inflation in rents in desirable areas. There is only a finite amount of premium real estate. UBI would just jack up rents by the amount of payment in San Jose or Boulder because the people that want to live there mostly have jobs so their extra UBI would just go to making their commute better. UBI might help people move from West Virginia to Indianapolis but it won't help people in Bakersfield move to San Jose.
  - kart23 6y ago
    Taxes would take away the UBI for people that can afford desirable areas. Rents probably wouldn't go up in the manner you describe.
    - 6y ago
beaconstudios 6y ago
I think the biggest issue with UBI would be existential ennui. The human being is a beast of burden, we need purpose. If we have a path where we aim for near total employment but gradually reduce hours as automation reduces the need for labour, that would be better. Or maybe not automating everything? We can't all be AI/robot/software maintainers. Not everyone is capable of that. I think the shrinking of the necessary labour pool is a much harder, more dangerous problem and can't be solved just with giving everyone money.
- fartcannon 6y ago
  What do the wealthy do with their time? Some of them throw it away worthlessly, others make art. Or start businesses that fail. Some succeed. Some succumb to existential dread of a challenge free life. Some create new challenges. Why don't poor people deserve the same choices?
  - beaconstudios 6y ago
    You're imagining that I disagree with you, but I don't. I'm just anticipating the next problem: it's fine when only a fraction of a small population (the very wealthy) have a serious case of the Oblomovs, but when some percentage of everybody has no purpose in life that's going to be one hell of a problem.
    - fartcannon 6y ago
      Gotcha. I think it's worth a shot. As it stands, too many minds whither away because they weren't born with the chance.
      - exporectomy 6y ago
        In the west, that "chance" is rarely money. It's the whole upbringing that helps develop a person's abilities. Money can't fix that, especially not if everyone has it - i.e. it won't get you into a better school or neighborhood.
  - 6y ago

BitwiseFool 6y ago

Don't forget to raise everyone's taxes within that zip code as well. You need the full experience.

avmich 6y ago
Or don't raise taxes, if you subscribe to the idea that lowering taxes pay for themselves (to the budget).
dillondoyle 6y ago
One of the ideas is that we wouldn't need to raise taxes - simply replace some of the social safety net spending with a baseline monthly income.
- chordalkeyboard 6y ago
  I’ve read that is politically untenable and financially impossible.
  - dillondoyle 6y ago
    Financially no. politically perhaps probably unless we convince Republicans. Beyond SNAP, some social security changes or simply nationalizing healthcare could provide enough savings alone. Impossible to know but many studies say between 200-450 billion per /year in total healthcare costs from universal. Albeit that's a kind of complicated 'swap' from employer & personal costs to a tax. I would love to see something like a passive sovereign fund / 1% corporate share tax use one of those coming trillions in Corona stimi. Taxpayers should directly benefit from federal policy and stimi that goes mostly goes to the corporate bottom line and valuations. Like a pension, the government has no voting/control. Add protections against runaway de-regulation incentives type governing policy. Hell cut military spending 10% gets $93 billion and if we're fixing healthcare cap the profit or pharma too.
    - chordalkeyboard 6y ago
      https://medium.com/david-grace-columns-organized-by-topic/a-little-math-shows-that-a-universal-basic-income-is-completely-totally-impossible-5534a13d441a https://medium.com/david-grace-columns-organized-by-topic/a-... >> There are about 242,000,000 adults living the United States. $18,000/year UBI X 242,000,000 people = $4,356,000,000,000 that’s $4.356 TRILLION Dollars per year. The total amount collected by the federal government from the income tax is about $1.5 Trillion Dollars per year. Since we would still have to run the rest of the government in addition to paying the UBI, the cost of the UBI plus the other government expenses we currently have would be about Six TRILLION Dollars.
      - dillondoyle 6y ago
        I think most proposals - at least right now the serious ones - are only talking about those already receiving similar value government assistance. Personally I see something close to universal UBI way down the line assuming we can eliminate a large % of human jobs and reduce the amount of work significantly so even if you wanted to work there isn't any work to do. Take the profit dividends and redistribute it.
        chordalkeyboard 6y ago
        > I think most proposals - at least right now the serious ones - are only talking about those already receiving similar value government assistance Its not easy to discuss this when the proposal being discussed seems to shift. Arguing that existing programs should be replaced with a single payment for the current beneficiaries is not UBI and the two should not be conflated.

AnimalMuppet 6y ago

A zip code is too small, because mobility between zip codes is too high. It could cause housing inflation, say, but if you only give UBI to one zip code, they're trying to inflation the whole metro area's housing prices. Say the metro area is 20 zip codes. Then you only see 1/20th the effect, which means it's going to be much easier to miss.

toast0 6y ago
On the other hand, if you look at home pricing by year and zip code for the metro, you should see a big bump (or not) as UBI was implemented in that zip code. It would be interesting, but I suspect most of what you would learn is how fast people are to change their official addresses to something in the zip code, despite not actually residing at said address.

dfgdghdf 6y ago

Two of the most fundamental products people need are food and shelter, and both of these are low margin businesses (excluding high rent areas, but a UBI allows people to move more easily because you receive it regardless of employment status).

redis_mlc 6y ago

The data exists already, since women are generally eligible for welfare (while men aren't.) For example, around 60% of the SF "homeless budget" goes to permanent housing, maintly for women. Add to that additional welfare benefits. In other words, one demographic already gets stealth UBI.

roenxi 6y ago

Inflation is a red herring metric for assessing a UBI. Pretty much all the major schools of economic thought agree that under the current financial market regulation inflation is an overall policy position by government separate from any one specific policy. If UBI pushes inflation up, changes elsewhere can push it down. And UBI is a policy to be implemented in context, the big idea is to gain efficiencies by cutting back on now-redundant welfare nets. So the actual negative effect of a UBI, in theory, would be declines in real goods and services as resources are directed from economically productive to economically unproductive people. Devilishly difficult to measure.

anm89 6y ago
Say whatever you want but don't play the trick of just asserting there is consensus behind your opinion. There is extremely little consensus regarding inflation right now and because we are in uncharted territory monetarily and in terms of debt levels both public and private, and the consequences(and data) of that can take years to show up(frequently slowly and then all at once) almost everything is speculation, not data driven. So no, there is not broad consensus that we can just pull some levers and send inflation wherever we want, not even close.
MrFantastic 6y ago
UBI would lead to dramatic inflation in rents in desirable areas. There is only a finite amount of premium real estate. UBI would just jack up rents by the amount of payment in San Jose or Boulder because the people that want to live there mostly have jobs so their extra UBI would just go to making their commute better. UBI might help people move from West Virginia to Indianapolis but it won't help people in Bakersfield move to San Jose.
- kart23 6y ago
  Taxes would take away the UBI for people that can afford desirable areas. Rents probably wouldn't go up in the manner you describe.
  - 6y ago

beaconstudios 6y ago

I think the biggest issue with UBI would be existential ennui. The human being is a beast of burden, we need purpose. If we have a path where we aim for near total employment but gradually reduce hours as automation reduces the need for labour, that would be better. Or maybe not automating everything? We can't all be AI/robot/software maintainers. Not everyone is capable of that. I think the shrinking of the necessary labour pool is a much harder, more dangerous problem and can't be solved just with giving everyone money.

fartcannon 6y ago
What do the wealthy do with their time? Some of them throw it away worthlessly, others make art. Or start businesses that fail. Some succeed. Some succumb to existential dread of a challenge free life. Some create new challenges. Why don't poor people deserve the same choices?
- beaconstudios 6y ago
  You're imagining that I disagree with you, but I don't. I'm just anticipating the next problem: it's fine when only a fraction of a small population (the very wealthy) have a serious case of the Oblomovs, but when some percentage of everybody has no purpose in life that's going to be one hell of a problem.
  - fartcannon 6y ago
    Gotcha. I think it's worth a shot. As it stands, too many minds whither away because they weren't born with the chance.
    - exporectomy 6y ago
      In the west, that "chance" is rarely money. It's the whole upbringing that helps develop a person's abilities. Money can't fix that, especially not if everyone has it - i.e. it won't get you into a better school or neighborhood.
- 6y ago