3 ms·

Nah, it's not. Monthly lottery winners are. If you know that 'free money' is just a temporary thing, you don't quit your job and move somewhere where that amo

Nah, it's not. Monthly lottery winners are. If you know that 'free money' is just a temporary thing, you don't quit your job and move somewhere where that amount of money is enough to survive, and just stop working.... if ubi is permanent, and guaranteed to be "enough" to minimalistically survive, many more people would do that.

spywaregorilla 5y ago
If a noteworthy number of people decided they were going to not work, the cost of labor would rise, and prices would rise until those people needed to work again.
jdavis703 5y ago
I think this depends. If you work in a fungible occupation with limited career growth you very easily can take a year off. And most of these UBI experiment have targeted low-income folks who most likely work these kind of jobs.
munk-a 5y ago
Monthly lottery winners are a pretty poor basis for evaluating UBI since that is promoting an arbitrary individual to wealth - rather than providing a baseline income to a whole community. The effects of the later can easily be conceived to be quite different from targeted welfare. One of the common counter-arguments against UBI is that because the boon is applied across the board (and not just effecting the needy) that it will essentially cancel out and just cause a momentary bump in inflation - I think there are several very logical reasons that isn't the case but lottery winners are extremely poor experiments to disprove that theory. As an example of how prevalent that counter-argument is please see all the siblings specifically about how UBI = inflation. (Also - I don't think this debate is settled - I think there are compelling reasons why UBI is not just free inflation... but there are also several reasons suggesting that it is - the UBI counter-argument is not at all illogical).
- inglor_cz 5y ago
  > providing a baseline income to a whole community The rich oil sheikdoms in the Gulf are already providing a good income to all their citizens (not the working class gastarbeiters). We should definitely observe them and learn from their experience. It is not precisely the same as UBI, but closer than anything else I can think of.
  - munk-a 5y ago
    Canada has also carried out a few interesting UBI experiments with pretty positive feedback - but I think America needs to see something happen domestically to give it a serious consideration.
    - klyrs 5y ago
      If only Alaska was considered "domestic" enough... https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alaska_Permanent_Fund https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alaska_Permanent_Fund
  - chii 5y ago
    > sheikdoms in the Gulf are already providing a good income to all their citizens which is looking to failing as soon as the price of oil drops. The saudis are now having to pay VAT to the state, for the first time recently. UBI doesn't work if the productivity of the country would drop as a result of implementing a UBI. And i can't think of any reason why productivity would not drop, since there would definitely be some people who are currently productive, but would drop that productivity if there would be a UBI that's livable for them. The argument that there would be a percentage who would increase their productivity (such as starting their own small business, etc) is merely speculative, since if they could start a small business, why don't they do it now, without waiting on UBI? If the UBI is what enables them to invest their time and capital, what makes UBI the only way to obtain capital, rather than seed capital? If it is _only_ UBI that can give them this seed capital, then they are effectively being subsidized by tax payers to entrepreneurship - if that was the goal, why not make that explicit, and give grants for such?
throwaway210222 5y ago
> if ubi is permanent… The most likely outcome is that very quickly all the UBI money will be going to the few landlords and soon people will need "UBI plus a job" to pay rent and make ends meet. And whilst the masses our back out in the wilds scrounging up their money, the landlord class will be consolidating into an every smaller group. Inflation is what happens when too much money chases a limited supply of goods. And desirable housing is always limited.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- kiba 5y ago
  That's why you need to fight asset inflation, reduce red tapes and increasing housing opportunities.
  - throwaway210222 5y ago
    Sure, but it behoves advocates to UBI to say: "We have a solution that not only includes handing outs cash to everyone forever, but to fight the associated, unavoidable rent inflation we will introduce sweeping changes to hard-earned building standards, negatively alter the character of many many neighbourhoods, and add a massive beurocracy to introduce and enforce with the power of the state all sorts of price controls." They don't do this because obviously far fewer people would think its a good idea.
    - kiba 5y ago
      I thought the problem was with bureaucracy, especially with restrictive zoning laws, and the propensity to say no.
    - onetrueliberal 5y ago
      Bureaucracy is a wellspring of employment.
- jlmorton 5y ago
  Rent is only affected by income/capacity to pay to the extent that supply is limited. You could give everyone currently living in Detroit $10,000/month, and it wouldn't impact rental prices at all, because there is an abundance of supply. Do the same thing in NYC, and indeed rental prices will soar.
est31 5y ago
If 20 quit their low wage job and one of them finally has time to study and become a researcher or doctor, I think it's worth it.
- ajsnigrutin 5y ago
  What if they become a shitty musician? And curent researchers get paid even less, because their money goes to a kid who'd rather play his ukulele inestead of working?
  - MisterBastahrd 5y ago
    That's a valid argument only if you believe that a person only lives a life worth living if they have utility to others.
    - munk-a 5y ago
      And honestly - the internet has democratized content creation to such an extent that a lot of really niche interests can attract funding (just, not very much).
jandrese 5y ago
Using Lotto Winners as your experiment has the problem of selecting only the people who play the lotto. Your data will be biased towards less fiscal responsibility.
- SketchySeaBeast 5y ago
  While I'm certain that there are people who spend an irresponsible amount on lottery tickets, I don't know if those are also the lottery winners. I'd be very interested in any statistics for that. Where I am lottery tickets cost about the same as a Starbucks coffee, and I'd bet the average lottery player buys tickets less than the average Starbucks drinker buys coffee, making me wonder about the label of "less fiscally responsible", unless we're also grouping all Starbucks drinks in there. And given the astronomically poor odds of winning, I also wonder how much more regular players win vs those who buy a ticket once every month or two - does it really help enough to be obvious in the statistics.
  - PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago
    The lottery ticket purchase is a gamble: spend money, almost certainly get nothing, tiny chance of winning big. The coffee purchase is just that, a purchase: spend money, get coffee. The amounts might be similar but the transaction class is totally different.
    - SketchySeaBeast 5y ago
      I don't know, it's really a form of entertainment. The odd chances I do buy a ticket it's to think about what I would do if I won. I'm not expecting to win, I just like the idea. And both are transient and rather empty - neither provide any real value outside of a brief joy.

spywaregorilla 5y ago

If a noteworthy number of people decided they were going to not work, the cost of labor would rise, and prices would rise until those people needed to work again.

jdavis703 5y ago

I think this depends. If you work in a fungible occupation with limited career growth you very easily can take a year off. And most of these UBI experiment have targeted low-income folks who most likely work these kind of jobs.

munk-a 5y ago

Monthly lottery winners are a pretty poor basis for evaluating UBI since that is promoting an arbitrary individual to wealth - rather than providing a baseline income to a whole community. The effects of the later can easily be conceived to be quite different from targeted welfare. One of the common counter-arguments against UBI is that because the boon is applied across the board (and not just effecting the needy) that it will essentially cancel out and just cause a momentary bump in inflation - I think there are several very logical reasons that isn't the case but lottery winners are extremely poor experiments to disprove that theory. As an example of how prevalent that counter-argument is please see all the siblings specifically about how UBI = inflation. (Also - I don't think this debate is settled - I think there are compelling reasons why UBI is not just free inflation... but there are also several reasons suggesting that it is - the UBI counter-argument is not at all illogical).

inglor_cz 5y ago
> providing a baseline income to a whole community The rich oil sheikdoms in the Gulf are already providing a good income to all their citizens (not the working class gastarbeiters). We should definitely observe them and learn from their experience. It is not precisely the same as UBI, but closer than anything else I can think of.
- munk-a 5y ago
  Canada has also carried out a few interesting UBI experiments with pretty positive feedback - but I think America needs to see something happen domestically to give it a serious consideration.
  - klyrs 5y ago
    If only Alaska was considered "domestic" enough... https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alaska_Permanent_Fund https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alaska_Permanent_Fund
- chii 5y ago
  > sheikdoms in the Gulf are already providing a good income to all their citizens which is looking to failing as soon as the price of oil drops. The saudis are now having to pay VAT to the state, for the first time recently. UBI doesn't work if the productivity of the country would drop as a result of implementing a UBI. And i can't think of any reason why productivity would not drop, since there would definitely be some people who are currently productive, but would drop that productivity if there would be a UBI that's livable for them. The argument that there would be a percentage who would increase their productivity (such as starting their own small business, etc) is merely speculative, since if they could start a small business, why don't they do it now, without waiting on UBI? If the UBI is what enables them to invest their time and capital, what makes UBI the only way to obtain capital, rather than seed capital? If it is _only_ UBI that can give them this seed capital, then they are effectively being subsidized by tax payers to entrepreneurship - if that was the goal, why not make that explicit, and give grants for such?

throwaway210222 5y ago

> if ubi is permanent… The most likely outcome is that very quickly all the UBI money will be going to the few landlords and soon people will need "UBI plus a job" to pay rent and make ends meet. And whilst the masses our back out in the wilds scrounging up their money, the landlord class will be consolidating into an every smaller group. Inflation is what happens when too much money chases a limited supply of goods. And desirable housing is always limited.

deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
kiba 5y ago
That's why you need to fight asset inflation, reduce red tapes and increasing housing opportunities.
- throwaway210222 5y ago
  Sure, but it behoves advocates to UBI to say: "We have a solution that not only includes handing outs cash to everyone forever, but to fight the associated, unavoidable rent inflation we will introduce sweeping changes to hard-earned building standards, negatively alter the character of many many neighbourhoods, and add a massive beurocracy to introduce and enforce with the power of the state all sorts of price controls." They don't do this because obviously far fewer people would think its a good idea.
  - kiba 5y ago
    I thought the problem was with bureaucracy, especially with restrictive zoning laws, and the propensity to say no.
  - onetrueliberal 5y ago
    Bureaucracy is a wellspring of employment.
jlmorton 5y ago
Rent is only affected by income/capacity to pay to the extent that supply is limited. You could give everyone currently living in Detroit $10,000/month, and it wouldn't impact rental prices at all, because there is an abundance of supply. Do the same thing in NYC, and indeed rental prices will soar.

est31 5y ago

If 20 quit their low wage job and one of them finally has time to study and become a researcher or doctor, I think it's worth it.

ajsnigrutin 5y ago
What if they become a shitty musician? And curent researchers get paid even less, because their money goes to a kid who'd rather play his ukulele inestead of working?
- MisterBastahrd 5y ago
  That's a valid argument only if you believe that a person only lives a life worth living if they have utility to others.
  - munk-a 5y ago
    And honestly - the internet has democratized content creation to such an extent that a lot of really niche interests can attract funding (just, not very much).

jandrese 5y ago

Using Lotto Winners as your experiment has the problem of selecting only the people who play the lotto. Your data will be biased towards less fiscal responsibility.

SketchySeaBeast 5y ago
While I'm certain that there are people who spend an irresponsible amount on lottery tickets, I don't know if those are also the lottery winners. I'd be very interested in any statistics for that. Where I am lottery tickets cost about the same as a Starbucks coffee, and I'd bet the average lottery player buys tickets less than the average Starbucks drinker buys coffee, making me wonder about the label of "less fiscally responsible", unless we're also grouping all Starbucks drinks in there. And given the astronomically poor odds of winning, I also wonder how much more regular players win vs those who buy a ticket once every month or two - does it really help enough to be obvious in the statistics.
- PaulDavisThe1st 5y ago
  The lottery ticket purchase is a gamble: spend money, almost certainly get nothing, tiny chance of winning big. The coffee purchase is just that, a purchase: spend money, get coffee. The amounts might be similar but the transaction class is totally different.
  - SketchySeaBeast 5y ago
    I don't know, it's really a form of entertainment. The odd chances I do buy a ticket it's to think about what I would do if I won. I'm not expecting to win, I just like the idea. And both are transient and rather empty - neither provide any real value outside of a brief joy.