2 ms·

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

by 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?

by munk-a 5y ago

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?