3 ms·

If you gave the average person additional time or money, it's most likely that they'd piss it all away on some form of recreation > (And all the while complain

If you gave the average person additional time or money, it's most likely that they'd piss it all away on some form of recreation > (And all the while complaining about "the billionaires" and how unfair the system was.) It is an unfair system. That's valid criticism. The solution isn't throwing money at people indiscriminately. We have a broken healthcare system. Why not fix that first? Why not fix the water supplies in places like Flint? Why not create and administer more national parks, or feed the people in this country who are starving? Why not give the money in a targeted way, to solve the poverty issues UBI advocates claim to address? If you give money with no strings attached, how do you know it won't be squandered? The problem is that the UBI advocates have the same mindset as the deadbeats, they'd rather take the money and burn it. They don't care about development, they'd rather buy votes. UBI is just nihilism politically manifested edit: there's two kinds of people who advocate for UBI: rich people who are completely out of touch with average joe, and regular people who want free money

Kim_Bruning 4y ago
What makes you say that? As an opposite view: If you look at Maslow's hierarchy of needs[1] , you'll see that there are a lot of rungs up the ladder past the bottom one. The average person doesn't need to know who Maslow is, they have the needs just the same. The bottom 1 or 2 rungs are the hardest to reach. If you help people up, they'll be able to climb the rest of the way themselves. Equality of opportunity and all that. Sure, some people choose to rot at the level they're at, but most people want to have ALL their needs met, and will keep climbing. This is borne out by UBI trials. People do in fact do slightly less commercial work, but instead of lazing around, they'll typically go to school, or take care of children. The overall short term loss of productivity is fairly low. Longer term we don't know for sure since we've never run long enough experiments. I'd predict that those people who went to school would be more productive in the work force later, and the children who got more time invested in them by their parents also do better later in life. You are absolutely right that the free-rider effect exists. But based on my own life experiences at least, I think the free riders would be outnumbered by the climbers by quite a margin. What's your experience here? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow%27s_hierarchy_of_needs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow%27s_hierarchy_of_needs
- cr4nberry 4y ago
  As a disclaimer I'll say I'm not familiar with Maslow aside from the article you attached. > The bottom 1 or 2 rungs are the hardest to reach. I'm all for helping people reach the bottom two rungs through targeted spending. UBI is indiscriminate, if our goal is the bottom two rungs specifically why not target the spending for those instead of just giving free money? > Sure, some people choose to rot at the level they're at, but most people want to have ALL their needs met, and will keep climbing. I don't agree with this. Apparently (according to the article) Maslow based his theory off of people like Einstein or Spinoza. People like this are the exception, not the rule. The goal is to find these people and give them the opportunity to grow. Throwing money at people indiscriminately is an inefficient way of solving this problem > You are absolutely right that the free-rider effect exists. But based on my own life experiences at least, I think the free riders would be outnumbered by the climbers by quite a margin. What's your experience here? My experience is that most people aren't climbers. If you're fortunate enough to be surrounded only by climbers and no one else, you're a lucky person. From the standpoint of personal development, the world can only have so many people like Einstein or Spinoza. The solution to this isn't throwing money at everyone, the solution (imo) is building up a more effective public education system* so that exceptional people are given the opportunity to grow to their fullest potential regardless of socioeconomic status. *edit: I'll add that there's a lot of unexplored territory here and not enough experimentation. I think that something like online education (think khan academy) offers an inexpensive and scalable method of disseminating knowledge. The Internet has helped here. But only so many people will take advantage of the opportunities given. Instead of throwing money at people indiscriminately, why not pay people to take online classes and get certifications (and have a way of testing in person that prevents cheating)? This way the money has strings attached and we know that the spending will lead to a more educated populace
  - Kim_Bruning 4y ago
    > I'm all for helping people reach the bottom two rungs through targeted spending. UBI is indiscriminate, if our goal is the bottom two rungs specifically why not target the spending for those instead of just giving free money? That does sound like conventional common sense, but this is a situation where common sense actually isn't. It turns out that attempting to target too specifically can quickly turn into a logistic nightmare. (Next part YMMV, this is very high level, see your local laws/systems for details) Many welfare systems already just give people money directly, because the assumption in western countries is pretty much that most people over 18 are quite capable of managing their own money as is, and can do so better than any centralized socialist committee. Those who cannot might be placed under adult guardianship/ward of the court (depending on where you this system has many different names), at which point in time the guardian/ward can (assist in) mak(ing) fine grained decisions. Some systems do have some amount of limited targeting, and most of them are means tested. Most modern welfare is a kind of Conditional basic income. One path to understanding why people propose an UNconditional basic income is the discovery of the welfare trap: The means testing that your common sense tells you is supposed to ensure that only people who need it temporarily get welfare, actually traps them in welfare semi-permanently. If you're not working, your expenditure is lower as well, since you don't need a car or tools, and things don't wear out as much. This can easily be a swing of something like €500-€1000 or more. Say you are a rational actor, you have €1000/mo welfare [1], and you can get a job for €1500/mo [2], should you take it? Answer: No. You will have less net remaining at the end of the month, or might even run out of cash entirely. And... unfortunately many welfare systems take savings into account wrt means testing as well, so you don't have a runway. Thus, the trap is complete. [3] If you drop the conditionality of the payments, the trap evaporates. So the outcome of giving people money unconditionally is ironically that more rational actors will actually get a job and not need it anymore. [4] [5] Ok, that's answer one, and it's getting pretty long. I'll put other answers in another comment, if I get to it. [1] Typical amount for a single adult in .nl [2] This is presumably one reason why EU nation minimum wages are often a bit over Eur 1500. This does help mitigate somewhat, but it's still a dicey proposition. [3] This is obviously something of a toy problem. IRL means testing and subsidies can be a bit more intelligent, but when researching you'll find that the underlying issue definitely there. [4] This is somewhat borne out in real world tests. However, the tests I give most credibility to -while some people do start working- also see some people dropping out of the commercial working population to put more effort into childcare and/or go back to school, as well as free riders (because there are always free riders). The net result is that roughly the same amount of people keep working. One can argue over exact definition of working population, quality of working population, effect on crime rate... etc. But if you'd expect the amount of workers to drop precipitously, that doesn't tend to happen. [5] This -then- also explains how you pay for UBI. You can tax people post-hoc once they're working again. This is how a similar proposal [6] by the Nixon Administration would have actually ended up working, sadly that proposal didn't pass. [6] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_income_tax https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_income_tax

Kim_Bruning 4y ago

What makes you say that? As an opposite view: If you look at Maslow's hierarchy of needs[1] , you'll see that there are a lot of rungs up the ladder past the bottom one. The average person doesn't need to know who Maslow is, they have the needs just the same. The bottom 1 or 2 rungs are the hardest to reach. If you help people up, they'll be able to climb the rest of the way themselves. Equality of opportunity and all that. Sure, some people choose to rot at the level they're at, but most people want to have ALL their needs met, and will keep climbing. This is borne out by UBI trials. People do in fact do slightly less commercial work, but instead of lazing around, they'll typically go to school, or take care of children. The overall short term loss of productivity is fairly low. Longer term we don't know for sure since we've never run long enough experiments. I'd predict that those people who went to school would be more productive in the work force later, and the children who got more time invested in them by their parents also do better later in life. You are absolutely right that the free-rider effect exists. But based on my own life experiences at least, I think the free riders would be outnumbered by the climbers by quite a margin. What's your experience here? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow%27s_hierarchy_of_needs https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow%27s_hierarchy_of_needs

cr4nberry 4y ago
As a disclaimer I'll say I'm not familiar with Maslow aside from the article you attached. > The bottom 1 or 2 rungs are the hardest to reach. I'm all for helping people reach the bottom two rungs through targeted spending. UBI is indiscriminate, if our goal is the bottom two rungs specifically why not target the spending for those instead of just giving free money? > Sure, some people choose to rot at the level they're at, but most people want to have ALL their needs met, and will keep climbing. I don't agree with this. Apparently (according to the article) Maslow based his theory off of people like Einstein or Spinoza. People like this are the exception, not the rule. The goal is to find these people and give them the opportunity to grow. Throwing money at people indiscriminately is an inefficient way of solving this problem > You are absolutely right that the free-rider effect exists. But based on my own life experiences at least, I think the free riders would be outnumbered by the climbers by quite a margin. What's your experience here? My experience is that most people aren't climbers. If you're fortunate enough to be surrounded only by climbers and no one else, you're a lucky person. From the standpoint of personal development, the world can only have so many people like Einstein or Spinoza. The solution to this isn't throwing money at everyone, the solution (imo) is building up a more effective public education system* so that exceptional people are given the opportunity to grow to their fullest potential regardless of socioeconomic status. *edit: I'll add that there's a lot of unexplored territory here and not enough experimentation. I think that something like online education (think khan academy) offers an inexpensive and scalable method of disseminating knowledge. The Internet has helped here. But only so many people will take advantage of the opportunities given. Instead of throwing money at people indiscriminately, why not pay people to take online classes and get certifications (and have a way of testing in person that prevents cheating)? This way the money has strings attached and we know that the spending will lead to a more educated populace
- Kim_Bruning 4y ago
  > I'm all for helping people reach the bottom two rungs through targeted spending. UBI is indiscriminate, if our goal is the bottom two rungs specifically why not target the spending for those instead of just giving free money? That does sound like conventional common sense, but this is a situation where common sense actually isn't. It turns out that attempting to target too specifically can quickly turn into a logistic nightmare. (Next part YMMV, this is very high level, see your local laws/systems for details) Many welfare systems already just give people money directly, because the assumption in western countries is pretty much that most people over 18 are quite capable of managing their own money as is, and can do so better than any centralized socialist committee. Those who cannot might be placed under adult guardianship/ward of the court (depending on where you this system has many different names), at which point in time the guardian/ward can (assist in) mak(ing) fine grained decisions. Some systems do have some amount of limited targeting, and most of them are means tested. Most modern welfare is a kind of Conditional basic income. One path to understanding why people propose an UNconditional basic income is the discovery of the welfare trap: The means testing that your common sense tells you is supposed to ensure that only people who need it temporarily get welfare, actually traps them in welfare semi-permanently. If you're not working, your expenditure is lower as well, since you don't need a car or tools, and things don't wear out as much. This can easily be a swing of something like €500-€1000 or more. Say you are a rational actor, you have €1000/mo welfare [1], and you can get a job for €1500/mo [2], should you take it? Answer: No. You will have less net remaining at the end of the month, or might even run out of cash entirely. And... unfortunately many welfare systems take savings into account wrt means testing as well, so you don't have a runway. Thus, the trap is complete. [3] If you drop the conditionality of the payments, the trap evaporates. So the outcome of giving people money unconditionally is ironically that more rational actors will actually get a job and not need it anymore. [4] [5] Ok, that's answer one, and it's getting pretty long. I'll put other answers in another comment, if I get to it. [1] Typical amount for a single adult in .nl [2] This is presumably one reason why EU nation minimum wages are often a bit over Eur 1500. This does help mitigate somewhat, but it's still a dicey proposition. [3] This is obviously something of a toy problem. IRL means testing and subsidies can be a bit more intelligent, but when researching you'll find that the underlying issue definitely there. [4] This is somewhat borne out in real world tests. However, the tests I give most credibility to -while some people do start working- also see some people dropping out of the commercial working population to put more effort into childcare and/or go back to school, as well as free riders (because there are always free riders). The net result is that roughly the same amount of people keep working. One can argue over exact definition of working population, quality of working population, effect on crime rate... etc. But if you'd expect the amount of workers to drop precipitously, that doesn't tend to happen. [5] This -then- also explains how you pay for UBI. You can tax people post-hoc once they're working again. This is how a similar proposal [6] by the Nixon Administration would have actually ended up working, sadly that proposal didn't pass. [6] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_income_tax https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_income_tax