4 ms·

If they see an explosion of immigration, it’s because of the illegal immigrant labor market created by the massive spike in wages and massive decline in availab

If they see an explosion of immigration, it’s because of the illegal immigrant labor market created by the massive spike in wages and massive decline in available labor. The governments can’t keep people out but also can’t make the new people citizens else it would instantly bankrupt UBI. This seems like the Achilles heel of UBI.

Retric 5y ago
There are two option either immigrants are allowed to integrate with society at which point UBI should be close to cost neutral, or they aren’t allowed to integrate with society at which point immigrants don’t qualify for UBI.
- nybble41 5y ago
  I don't see anything about being "allowed to integrate with society" which would make it "cost neutral" for someone to immigrate to a country and begin drawing a UBI without any obligation to work for it. (Of course if one does have to work for it then it's not UBI; that's just a regular job.)
  - Retric 5y ago
    It’s not a question of what a single immigrant does, but what all immigrants do as a group. It might be that immigrants on net cost more in UBI than they contributed to the UBI program but such imbalance could just as easily go the other direction. In the end working must provide incentives for natives to work for any UBI system to exist and those same incentives would apply to immigrants.
    - nybble41 5y ago
      > working must provide incentives for natives to work for any UBI system to exist Well, yes, and that's kind of an unsolved problem. The immigration issue doesn't help. > It’s not a question of what a single immigrant does, but what all immigrants do as a group. Agreed, but what kind of immigrants will a country with a UBI (available to immigrants) tend to attract, ones that want to work or ones that want to collect the UBI? The former group would be better served immigrating somewhere else with lower taxes and no UBI. Like-minded "natives" would most likely do the same, to some extent, though leaving one's birth country is not something undertaken lightly.
      - Retric 5y ago
        > ones that want to work or ones that want to collect the UBI? It’s likely that a country with a UBI will have better paying low level jobs even adjusting for tax action than a country without. That’s going to attract people who want to work. A tiny country implementing UBI may be swamped by people seeking UBI, but I doubt the global pool of people willing to move just to be very poor in some country and are willing to stay that way is all that large. Put another way, many countries have a functioning social safety net. But immigrants tend to be seeking a better life which is generally why they became immigrants in the first place. It’s a massive filter on people willing to step up to new challenges which is why immigrant populations tend to be more economically mobile than native populations.
        nybble41 5y ago
        > It’s likely that a country with a UBI will have better paying low level jobs even adjusting for tax action than a country without. You think a UBI will increase total after-tax purchasing power for above-average earners (i.e. those paying more in taxes to support the UBI than they receive in UBI) compared to not having the UBI? I would be very interested to see how you came to that conclusion as it seems inherently contradictory. > But immigrants tend to be seeking a better life which is generally why they became immigrants in the first place. I'm not disagreeing with that at all. I'm just saying that I don't see countries with UBIs being very attractive to these kinds of immigrants. For the same amount of work they would be better off somewhere else where they can keep a larger share of the fruits of their labor rather than paying to support others who aren't as motivated.
        Retric 5y ago
        > You think a UBI will increase total after-tax purchasing power for above-average earners (i.e. those paying more in taxes to support the UBI than they receive in UBI) compared to not having the UBI? I would be very interested to see how you came to that conclusion as it seems inherently contradictory. Not will, can. Also, the comparison point is other countries not the same country before and after UBI. UBI doesn’t exist in a vacuum, I doubt poor countries would set one up. A country could set one up specifically because the benefits in say reduced crime outweigh the tax burden. But the kind of country which is rich enough to make that choice is also the kind of country rich and stable enough to attract a highly skilled and motivated immigrants. Or such a country could tightly control immigration, biasing it toward high incomes etc. In other words you can’t assume anything about such a system without knowing how and by whom it’s implemented.

Retric 5y ago

There are two option either immigrants are allowed to integrate with society at which point UBI should be close to cost neutral, or they aren’t allowed to integrate with society at which point immigrants don’t qualify for UBI.

nybble41 5y ago
I don't see anything about being "allowed to integrate with society" which would make it "cost neutral" for someone to immigrate to a country and begin drawing a UBI without any obligation to work for it. (Of course if one does have to work for it then it's not UBI; that's just a regular job.)
- Retric 5y ago
  It’s not a question of what a single immigrant does, but what all immigrants do as a group. It might be that immigrants on net cost more in UBI than they contributed to the UBI program but such imbalance could just as easily go the other direction. In the end working must provide incentives for natives to work for any UBI system to exist and those same incentives would apply to immigrants.
  - nybble41 5y ago
    > working must provide incentives for natives to work for any UBI system to exist Well, yes, and that's kind of an unsolved problem. The immigration issue doesn't help. > It’s not a question of what a single immigrant does, but what all immigrants do as a group. Agreed, but what kind of immigrants will a country with a UBI (available to immigrants) tend to attract, ones that want to work or ones that want to collect the UBI? The former group would be better served immigrating somewhere else with lower taxes and no UBI. Like-minded "natives" would most likely do the same, to some extent, though leaving one's birth country is not something undertaken lightly.
    - Retric 5y ago
      > ones that want to work or ones that want to collect the UBI? It’s likely that a country with a UBI will have better paying low level jobs even adjusting for tax action than a country without. That’s going to attract people who want to work. A tiny country implementing UBI may be swamped by people seeking UBI, but I doubt the global pool of people willing to move just to be very poor in some country and are willing to stay that way is all that large. Put another way, many countries have a functioning social safety net. But immigrants tend to be seeking a better life which is generally why they became immigrants in the first place. It’s a massive filter on people willing to step up to new challenges which is why immigrant populations tend to be more economically mobile than native populations.
      - nybble41 5y ago
        > It’s likely that a country with a UBI will have better paying low level jobs even adjusting for tax action than a country without. You think a UBI will increase total after-tax purchasing power for above-average earners (i.e. those paying more in taxes to support the UBI than they receive in UBI) compared to not having the UBI? I would be very interested to see how you came to that conclusion as it seems inherently contradictory. > But immigrants tend to be seeking a better life which is generally why they became immigrants in the first place. I'm not disagreeing with that at all. I'm just saying that I don't see countries with UBIs being very attractive to these kinds of immigrants. For the same amount of work they would be better off somewhere else where they can keep a larger share of the fruits of their labor rather than paying to support others who aren't as motivated.
        Retric 5y ago
        > You think a UBI will increase total after-tax purchasing power for above-average earners (i.e. those paying more in taxes to support the UBI than they receive in UBI) compared to not having the UBI? I would be very interested to see how you came to that conclusion as it seems inherently contradictory. Not will, can. Also, the comparison point is other countries not the same country before and after UBI. UBI doesn’t exist in a vacuum, I doubt poor countries would set one up. A country could set one up specifically because the benefits in say reduced crime outweigh the tax burden. But the kind of country which is rich enough to make that choice is also the kind of country rich and stable enough to attract a highly skilled and motivated immigrants. Or such a country could tightly control immigration, biasing it toward high incomes etc. In other words you can’t assume anything about such a system without knowing how and by whom it’s implemented.