5 ms·

The answer is it doesn't :-)

by axiosgunnar 5y ago

toomuchtodo 5y ago
A lazy answer if so, and a disappointing take on organizing society if that’s considered acceptable.
- wyager 5y ago
  Maybe because "organizing society" according to some grand central plan isn't actually a very effective strategy.
  - toomuchtodo 5y ago
    Labor laws, entitlements, taxes, and other public policy are “organizing society”, and based on quality of life metrics most of Europe is crushing it. Sounds effective to me. I am an American living in a third world country in a first world suit, so I am admittedly biased.
    - wyager 5y ago
      Taxes are less destructive than radically restructuring the entire economy, which most UBI advocates seem to want to do. Median household income in the US is significantly higher than any EU country except Luxembourg, Norway, Sweden, Denmark. I think most Americans who complain incessantly about how "third world" America is view Europe through rose-colored glasses. Any third-world aspects of the US (which do exist) are not caused by our economic policies.
      - zozbot234 5y ago
        The real idea behind the UBI is to "radically restructure" the economy in a freedom-promoting direction, closer to something like the US today than current policy in the EU.
        hef19898 5y ago
        How much economic and employment freedom does one have when health care is tied to the current employer?
        zozbot234 5y ago
        The EU doesn't have that particular dysfunction.
        hef19898 5y ago
        My point entirely. The EU already has more freedom than the US, in sense. UBI would only increase that difference, and would by no means make the EU more like the US. And again, the EU is made up of independent nations, so these EU/US comparisons are already wrong.
        AnimalMuppet 5y ago
        Fine, but what's the argument that this proposal will restructure the economy in a freedom-promoting direction? What's the argument that this is a move in the US direction, instead of away?
        wyager 5y ago
        Adding the state as a middleman for a huge fraction of all production does not promote freedom, unless your definition of “freedom” is “the unfettered ability to smoke weed and watch cartoons all day”. In reality, if UBI passes, it will be used as an excuse to un-person political undesirables while keeping people with no intrinsic ambition satiated.
  - anoncake 5y ago
    Ok, let's not use waterfall then.
- the-dude 5y ago
  If you really want to rebut his comment, tell us how it would work ( including where the money would come from ). Your comment is as lazy.
  - toomuchtodo 5y ago
    The money comes from taxing citizens, assets, and corporations, colloquially known as “productivity and wealth”. I’m not European, so it would be rude of me to speak authoritatively on the quality of life Europeans want for each other, but I’ll take a crack at it. A UBI should be an inflation indexed amount that allows for enough food, clothing, and shelter for a dignified life. Not extravagant, but not USSR communist quality. Americans might think of it as a “LeanFIRE” quality of life, or how the elderly live on Social Security. If we encounter any entitlements susceptible to inflation or supply constraints, we use automation and technology to solve for that (medicine, energy come to mind). Sam Altman proposed something similar to a UBI with American Equity [1], so I don’t think it’s too crazy of an idea to move towards implementation and experimentation. If you’re a central bank, buying up securities and distribute the dividends into citizen deposit accounts also held at the central bank is another path. [1] https://blog.samaltman.com/american-equity https://blog.samaltman.com/american-equity
    - nradov 5y ago
      And how much would that cost? Be sure to include inflationary effects in your calculation.
      - toomuchtodo 5y ago
        It would cost whatever citizens collectively are willing to shave off of wealth and productivity with taxes. You wouldn’t set a monthly amount and then throw your hands up and say it’s unaffordable. You’d start with the max amount you could reasonably convince a majority of citizens (who vote) to support and work backwards. I’m not an expert, by any means, but to say it’s impossible seems flippant and intellectually dishonest. A better way to approach it would be with caution and the understanding that a lot of research and effort is going to be required if it’s to be implemented soundly (or determined to be untenable).

The answer is it doesn't :-)

toomuchtodo 5y ago

A lazy answer if so, and a disappointing take on organizing society if that’s considered acceptable.

wyager 5y ago
Maybe because "organizing society" according to some grand central plan isn't actually a very effective strategy.
- toomuchtodo 5y ago
  Labor laws, entitlements, taxes, and other public policy are “organizing society”, and based on quality of life metrics most of Europe is crushing it. Sounds effective to me. I am an American living in a third world country in a first world suit, so I am admittedly biased.
  - wyager 5y ago
    Taxes are less destructive than radically restructuring the entire economy, which most UBI advocates seem to want to do. Median household income in the US is significantly higher than any EU country except Luxembourg, Norway, Sweden, Denmark. I think most Americans who complain incessantly about how "third world" America is view Europe through rose-colored glasses. Any third-world aspects of the US (which do exist) are not caused by our economic policies.
    - zozbot234 5y ago
      The real idea behind the UBI is to "radically restructure" the economy in a freedom-promoting direction, closer to something like the US today than current policy in the EU.
      - hef19898 5y ago
        How much economic and employment freedom does one have when health care is tied to the current employer?
        zozbot234 5y ago
        The EU doesn't have that particular dysfunction.
        hef19898 5y ago
        My point entirely. The EU already has more freedom than the US, in sense. UBI would only increase that difference, and would by no means make the EU more like the US. And again, the EU is made up of independent nations, so these EU/US comparisons are already wrong.
      - AnimalMuppet 5y ago
        Fine, but what's the argument that this proposal will restructure the economy in a freedom-promoting direction? What's the argument that this is a move in the US direction, instead of away?
      - wyager 5y ago
        Adding the state as a middleman for a huge fraction of all production does not promote freedom, unless your definition of “freedom” is “the unfettered ability to smoke weed and watch cartoons all day”. In reality, if UBI passes, it will be used as an excuse to un-person political undesirables while keeping people with no intrinsic ambition satiated.
- anoncake 5y ago
  Ok, let's not use waterfall then.
the-dude 5y ago
If you really want to rebut his comment, tell us how it would work ( including where the money would come from ). Your comment is as lazy.
- toomuchtodo 5y ago
  The money comes from taxing citizens, assets, and corporations, colloquially known as “productivity and wealth”. I’m not European, so it would be rude of me to speak authoritatively on the quality of life Europeans want for each other, but I’ll take a crack at it. A UBI should be an inflation indexed amount that allows for enough food, clothing, and shelter for a dignified life. Not extravagant, but not USSR communist quality. Americans might think of it as a “LeanFIRE” quality of life, or how the elderly live on Social Security. If we encounter any entitlements susceptible to inflation or supply constraints, we use automation and technology to solve for that (medicine, energy come to mind). Sam Altman proposed something similar to a UBI with American Equity [1], so I don’t think it’s too crazy of an idea to move towards implementation and experimentation. If you’re a central bank, buying up securities and distribute the dividends into citizen deposit accounts also held at the central bank is another path. [1] https://blog.samaltman.com/american-equity https://blog.samaltman.com/american-equity
  - nradov 5y ago
    And how much would that cost? Be sure to include inflationary effects in your calculation.
    - toomuchtodo 5y ago
      It would cost whatever citizens collectively are willing to shave off of wealth and productivity with taxes. You wouldn’t set a monthly amount and then throw your hands up and say it’s unaffordable. You’d start with the max amount you could reasonably convince a majority of citizens (who vote) to support and work backwards. I’m not an expert, by any means, but to say it’s impossible seems flippant and intellectually dishonest. A better way to approach it would be with caution and the understanding that a lot of research and effort is going to be required if it’s to be implemented soundly (or determined to be untenable).