4 ms·

I'm in favour of UBI, but note that it'd require extremely strict immigration policy as well as good enforcement of it, which is generally something the left ve

by est31 5y ago

I'm in favour of UBI, but note that it'd require extremely strict immigration policy as well as good enforcement of it, which is generally something the left very much dislikes. As already seen with covid aid, people wouldn't work in low wage jobs any more. This would lead to inflation or disappearance of some amenities. E.g. you might have to put your groceries into your bag yourself, or might have to pay a dollar extra for that service. This isn't something negative though, just a neutral change I guess. It would help a lot of poor and suffering people, but note that even in countries with good unemployment benefits, homeless people still exist.

dragonwriter 5y ago
> I'm in favour of UBI, but note that it'd require extremely strict immigration policy as well as good enforcement of it What do you mean by “strict” and why is this inaginee5 to be necessary? Note that UBI is usually envisioned with a defined population but the absence of means or behavior testing within that population, either “citizens” or “citizens and LPRs” or “citizens and aliens with work authorization” or “citizens and aliens with satisfactory immigration status in a specific set of visa categories based on basis and duration” would all be valid populations, with wildly different impacts on the viability of UBI with any given immigration policy. > I'm in favour of UBI, but note that it'd require extremely strict immigration policy as well as good enforcement of it, COVID aid isn't like UBI, critically, key parts of it (enhanced unemployment) are conditioned on absence of work or reduction of it below pre-benefits levels, and thus forces people to choose between benefits and work. This is the kind of incentive with means tested benefits that UBI is intended to fix.
- est31 5y ago
  To your first point, regardless of which class of people you consider for UBI inclusion, even if you only consider citizens of the USA, it will have a tremendously attractive effect for billions of people around the globe. Even now quite many people want to immigrate in to the USA and the USA has multiple systems designed to keep them out, but UBI will make this way worse, which is why I said that enforcement needs to be very strict. Plus I'd say it would be even more unfair for the undocumented immigrants than it is now because they would not get any UBI. But if you gave UBI to the undocumented, way more people would attempt to become undocumented immigrants, by overstaying their visas, etc. Which then probably will lead to you having to issue less short term visas, or actually deporting undocumented immigrants.
astrange 5y ago
COVID aid was designed to discourage (some kinds of) work because we literally didn't want people to (do that kind of) work; that being the point of closing the stores. It was more like disaster relief than anything else. It also didn't create new money insofar as it was used to pay existing debts like rent; what it did was avoid a financial crisis. Other kind of aid designs don't do this very much; demand is infinite and won't go away if you give people some money.

by est31 5y ago

dragonwriter 5y ago

> I'm in favour of UBI, but note that it'd require extremely strict immigration policy as well as good enforcement of it What do you mean by “strict” and why is this inaginee5 to be necessary? Note that UBI is usually envisioned with a defined population but the absence of means or behavior testing within that population, either “citizens” or “citizens and LPRs” or “citizens and aliens with work authorization” or “citizens and aliens with satisfactory immigration status in a specific set of visa categories based on basis and duration” would all be valid populations, with wildly different impacts on the viability of UBI with any given immigration policy. > I'm in favour of UBI, but note that it'd require extremely strict immigration policy as well as good enforcement of it, COVID aid isn't like UBI, critically, key parts of it (enhanced unemployment) are conditioned on absence of work or reduction of it below pre-benefits levels, and thus forces people to choose between benefits and work. This is the kind of incentive with means tested benefits that UBI is intended to fix.

est31 5y ago
To your first point, regardless of which class of people you consider for UBI inclusion, even if you only consider citizens of the USA, it will have a tremendously attractive effect for billions of people around the globe. Even now quite many people want to immigrate in to the USA and the USA has multiple systems designed to keep them out, but UBI will make this way worse, which is why I said that enforcement needs to be very strict. Plus I'd say it would be even more unfair for the undocumented immigrants than it is now because they would not get any UBI. But if you gave UBI to the undocumented, way more people would attempt to become undocumented immigrants, by overstaying their visas, etc. Which then probably will lead to you having to issue less short term visas, or actually deporting undocumented immigrants.

astrange 5y ago

COVID aid was designed to discourage (some kinds of) work because we literally didn't want people to (do that kind of) work; that being the point of closing the stores. It was more like disaster relief than anything else. It also didn't create new money insofar as it was used to pay existing debts like rent; what it did was avoid a financial crisis. Other kind of aid designs don't do this very much; demand is infinite and won't go away if you give people some money.