3 ms·

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I was under the impression that wages are quite inflated in the USA and $1000/year is not a livable income (i.e. sufficient for che

by lucb1e 5y ago

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I was under the impression that wages are quite inflated in the USA and $1000/year is not a livable income (i.e. sufficient for cheap housing, cheap food, water, electricity, basic appliances like a fridge and washing machine, heating, and pretty much nothing else) even in Europe where I'm from. Or am I missing the point of a UBI?

thechao 5y ago
Discretionary income for a lot of families is — functionally — zero. The result is that any sort of financial issue becomes a devastating (possibly lifelong) burden. Most of these issues are single-occurrence and probably fall in the 200–500$ range. A 1000$ a year UBI would be life-changing for them. And by "them" I mean, like, 50% of the country. I'm in Texas, and the maximum amount of cash assistance possible — married parents, multiple kids, demonstrated need, is something like 83$ a month; I think, once?
- lucb1e 5y ago
  > the maximum amount of cash assistance possible — married parents, multiple kids, demonstrated need, is something like 83$ a month; I think, once? Huh, but, then you basically die. You can't live with kids on $83 monthly, let alone one-time. Surely there's something else if you don't have a job?
  - Spooky23 5y ago
    That’s just cash benefits. Men and married couples by design don’t get most benefits. Most safety net assistance isn’t in cash. There’s a stigma associated with the cash handouts — people typically seek food, health and rent assistance.
- jandrewrogers 5y ago
  Per the US BLS and Federal Reserve, the median discretionary household income is $1000 per month. That is after all ordinary expenses, not just necessary ones. There is a significant percentage of the US that has no discretionary income in any meaningful sense, and that is something we should be concerned about, but it is nowhere near 50%.
- nostrademons 5y ago
  Assuming prices of necessities don't rise to capture that UBI. Which is a very real concern; when all your potential customers have an extra $1000/year, you raise your prices by $1000/year and suddenly you have $(1000 * # customers) extra per year and they're back where they started. To really fix poverty, you need to address shortages, particularly ones in basic necessities. If there's a housing unit available for everyone, landlords will have no leverage to raise rents. If there's a preschool for every kid, the cost of childcare won't go up. If there's a doctor (really a health insurer - the issue is monopolization of the customer channel) for everyone and you can switch easily, the cost of healthcare won't go up. If you give money to people and don't fix the underlying shortages, the price just adjusts to capture that money.
  - cma 5y ago
    Isn't this assuming competion doesn't exist? For a fixed pool of rare trading cards or something this logic may hold though.
    - nostrademons 5y ago
      Yes, it's assuming competition doesn't exist, or that competitors are few enough in number that they can collude to not undercut each other. An increasing number of necessities are reaching that state, though. The U.S. has about 5 big health insurers, and in a given region you might only have a realistic choice between 2-3 of them. Many regions have only one broadband Internet provider, and one electric/gas/water/sewer/garbage utility. Childcare and housing are competitive, but with an undersupply that's gotten significantly worse during the pandemic. My county closed 75% of its registered daycares during lockdown; fortunately births plummeted and some are coming back, but there've already been pretty significant price increases. A lot of small-time landlords were forced out of the market by eviction moratoriums, so expect even more corporate-owned apartment complexes. Fix the competition issue and I'm all for UBI, but if you just institute UBI without fixing zoning and antitrust and regulatory capture it's just going to enrich a small class of people.
brokencode 5y ago
$1000 per person is a big deal, and would cover rent or mortgage costs for most of the people I know. Though honestly, a lot my family members would squander it on things like new cars or electronics instead of paying off debt or investing for retirement..
- lucb1e 5y ago
  GP was talking per year, not per month. This would be $83/month. Of course $1000 per month after taxes is a livable income (in Europe at least, I don't know what prices are like in the USA provided you're willing to move to a non-peak-price area) and does not merely cover housing, even if it's borderline poverty in richer countries with higher prices.
  - jdironman 5y ago
    Its not livable on it's own, but it could improve living conditions.
- andrekandre 5y ago
  > squander it on things like new cars or electronics instead of paying off debt or investing for retirement this is a big flaw in UBI as i see it (and probably a feature of it depending on who you are)
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
curiousllama 5y ago
Yea it’s not close. $1k is about 2% of the median family income (~$52k). Still, it would’ve been a nice little boost.
jandrewrogers 5y ago
Basic living expenses consume the entire income of ~15% of US households, per government and Federal Reserve studies. That's around 20 million households. For these people, an extra $1000 is a lot of money. $1000/year may not be UBI in a traditional sense but it also isn't nothing. In many parts of the US that is more than the average monthly rent for an apartment.
- lucb1e 5y ago
  > more than the average monthly rent for an apartment Sure so you get, in a good case, 3 months' rent out of it and then you still need to eat. Yes it helps, yes it would be great in addition to other social benefits, but a UBI it is not unless I have a wrong impression of what a UBI is supposed to be.
  - nerdponx 5y ago
    3 months' rent can be the difference between spiraling into financial ruin and not, or between becoming homeless and not.
    - lucb1e 5y ago
      Yes, > but a UBI it is not unless I have a wrong impression of what a UBI is supposed to be.

by lucb1e 5y ago

thechao 5y ago

Discretionary income for a lot of families is — functionally — zero. The result is that any sort of financial issue becomes a devastating (possibly lifelong) burden. Most of these issues are single-occurrence and probably fall in the 200–500$ range. A 1000$ a year UBI would be life-changing for them. And by "them" I mean, like, 50% of the country. I'm in Texas, and the maximum amount of cash assistance possible — married parents, multiple kids, demonstrated need, is something like 83$ a month; I think, once?

lucb1e 5y ago
> the maximum amount of cash assistance possible — married parents, multiple kids, demonstrated need, is something like 83$ a month; I think, once? Huh, but, then you basically die. You can't live with kids on $83 monthly, let alone one-time. Surely there's something else if you don't have a job?
- Spooky23 5y ago
  That’s just cash benefits. Men and married couples by design don’t get most benefits. Most safety net assistance isn’t in cash. There’s a stigma associated with the cash handouts — people typically seek food, health and rent assistance.
jandrewrogers 5y ago
Per the US BLS and Federal Reserve, the median discretionary household income is $1000 per month. That is after all ordinary expenses, not just necessary ones. There is a significant percentage of the US that has no discretionary income in any meaningful sense, and that is something we should be concerned about, but it is nowhere near 50%.
nostrademons 5y ago
Assuming prices of necessities don't rise to capture that UBI. Which is a very real concern; when all your potential customers have an extra $1000/year, you raise your prices by $1000/year and suddenly you have $(1000 * # customers) extra per year and they're back where they started. To really fix poverty, you need to address shortages, particularly ones in basic necessities. If there's a housing unit available for everyone, landlords will have no leverage to raise rents. If there's a preschool for every kid, the cost of childcare won't go up. If there's a doctor (really a health insurer - the issue is monopolization of the customer channel) for everyone and you can switch easily, the cost of healthcare won't go up. If you give money to people and don't fix the underlying shortages, the price just adjusts to capture that money.
- cma 5y ago
  Isn't this assuming competion doesn't exist? For a fixed pool of rare trading cards or something this logic may hold though.
  - nostrademons 5y ago
    Yes, it's assuming competition doesn't exist, or that competitors are few enough in number that they can collude to not undercut each other. An increasing number of necessities are reaching that state, though. The U.S. has about 5 big health insurers, and in a given region you might only have a realistic choice between 2-3 of them. Many regions have only one broadband Internet provider, and one electric/gas/water/sewer/garbage utility. Childcare and housing are competitive, but with an undersupply that's gotten significantly worse during the pandemic. My county closed 75% of its registered daycares during lockdown; fortunately births plummeted and some are coming back, but there've already been pretty significant price increases. A lot of small-time landlords were forced out of the market by eviction moratoriums, so expect even more corporate-owned apartment complexes. Fix the competition issue and I'm all for UBI, but if you just institute UBI without fixing zoning and antitrust and regulatory capture it's just going to enrich a small class of people.

brokencode 5y ago

$1000 per person is a big deal, and would cover rent or mortgage costs for most of the people I know. Though honestly, a lot my family members would squander it on things like new cars or electronics instead of paying off debt or investing for retirement..

lucb1e 5y ago
GP was talking per year, not per month. This would be $83/month. Of course $1000 per month after taxes is a livable income (in Europe at least, I don't know what prices are like in the USA provided you're willing to move to a non-peak-price area) and does not merely cover housing, even if it's borderline poverty in richer countries with higher prices.
- jdironman 5y ago
  Its not livable on it's own, but it could improve living conditions.
andrekandre 5y ago
> squander it on things like new cars or electronics instead of paying off debt or investing for retirement this is a big flaw in UBI as i see it (and probably a feature of it depending on who you are)
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

curiousllama 5y ago

Yea it’s not close. $1k is about 2% of the median family income (~$52k). Still, it would’ve been a nice little boost.

jandrewrogers 5y ago

Basic living expenses consume the entire income of ~15% of US households, per government and Federal Reserve studies. That's around 20 million households. For these people, an extra $1000 is a lot of money. $1000/year may not be UBI in a traditional sense but it also isn't nothing. In many parts of the US that is more than the average monthly rent for an apartment.

lucb1e 5y ago
> more than the average monthly rent for an apartment Sure so you get, in a good case, 3 months' rent out of it and then you still need to eat. Yes it helps, yes it would be great in addition to other social benefits, but a UBI it is not unless I have a wrong impression of what a UBI is supposed to be.
- nerdponx 5y ago
  3 months' rent can be the difference between spiraling into financial ruin and not, or between becoming homeless and not.
  - lucb1e 5y ago
    Yes, > but a UBI it is not unless I have a wrong impression of what a UBI is supposed to be.