5 ms·

Along the same lines, it turns out to be drastically cheaper to not means-test welfare payments and just hand out money without regard to the financial status o

by fao_ 3y ago

Along the same lines, it turns out to be drastically cheaper to not means-test welfare payments and just hand out money without regard to the financial status of the claimant. That is to say, if the amount of money invested in means-testing and the current welfare system were withdrawn and put instead into a universal basic income, it would be drastically cheaper. On top of that, but we have a well-grown mound of evidence now that universal basic income isn't just cheaper but also leads to improved socioeconomic status of the lower classes and improved health and decreased stress in communities, pretty much across the board. But instead of actually implementing that, our government instead focuses on putting out propaganda against "welfare cheats", implementing progressively more punitive means-testing measures, and the argument around UBIs is held in a permastate of "the evidence isn't there yet, we need one more study-" (likely with the hope that the study contradicts the current body of evidence and swings against UBI, no doubt). The conservative (and the new labour) approach is always to push towards the punitive option, to the point where I wonder if it's a pathology among people who have attended public schooling (if you're reading from the US, I mean private school). See also: "Basic income could cut poverty to lowest for 60 years at no net cost, according to new research " [University of York] - https://www.york.ac.uk/news-and-events/news/2022/research/basic-income-could-cut-poverty/ https://www.york.ac.uk/news-and-events/news/2022/research/ba... Estimated cost around 6bn in Wales - https://www.futuregenerations.wales/wp-content/uploads/2021/11/Nov-2021-Summary-v2.pdf https://www.futuregenerations.wales/wp-content/uploads/2021/...

lolinder 3y ago
Can you link to some of the studies that form this mound of evidence? I tried a search on Google Scholar, but new information seems to dry up around 2021. After that I see a lot of people talking about it but no new evidence. This 2020 summary [0] found that much the research to that point was lacking—we've studied various components of UBI, but never all together (for example, many pilots were apparently means tested). The biggest theoretical concern I have is inflation. The papers I can find (like this one [1]) agree that inflation will most likely occur, the question is how much. With a limited understanding of economics, I have a hard time imagining how giving everyone $1000/mo could do anything but raise prices on basic things until they are once again out of reach of our poorest people. We can't study that directly without a full scale test, but are you aware of attempts to address the question? [0] https://basicincome.stanford.edu/uploads/Umbrella%20Review%20BI_final.pdf https://basicincome.stanford.edu/uploads/Umbrella%20Review%2... [1] https://socialprotection.org/sites/default/files/publications_files/SSRN-id3920748.pdf https://socialprotection.org/sites/default/files/publication...
- thomastjeffery 3y ago
  It's not as if 2021 was that long ago. The answer to the inflation problem is to basically ignore it. The result is that poor people have enough to live, and rich people have less buying power. That's not a bug: it's the entire point. Wealth concentration is the problem. Here in the US, the wealth owned by half of the population totals up to less than the total wealth of 50 people. Wealth concentration is beyond out of hand. It's destroying every facet of society.
  - lolinder 3y ago
    > It's not as if 2021 was that long ago. I didn't say it was, I meant that too communicate "so this 2020 summary probably isn't missing much". Inflation in the last few years has been far worse for poor people than for the rich. Homes and rent are unaffordable. Groceries are coming in smaller and smaller (and emptier and emptier) packages for the same price. Wages at the lowest levels are stagnant, while CEO salaries continue to go up. Yachts do not inflate beyond the capabilities of the top 50, but inflation has put real pressure on the bottom X% of the population. Do we have reason to believe that UBI-caused inflation will be better targeted at the ultra-rich?
    - JieJie 3y ago
      As one of the people impacted by losing the $150 a month extra SNAP (food stamp) money we were getting throughout the pandemic, inflation was barely noticeable while we were getting it. The effects of inflation became most noticeable when the extra $150 a month was ended, because the inflated prices never went down when the inflationary pressure was removed.
      - lolinder 3y ago
        But if the extra $150/mo were never removed and the inflationary pressure never let up, I would expect it to become noticeable eventually, and UBI would exert even more inflationary pressure than pandemic-era stimulus/welfare. When inflation does catch up to the UBI, do you just keep raising the UBI forever and ever? How does that not turn into hyperinflation?
slibhb 3y ago
Welfare is taking money from productive people and giving it to unproductive people. In order for this to work in a democracy, you have to convince the productive people that the unproductive people are unproductive for good reasons (i.e. means testing). If you don't do this, the productive people will vote for anti-welfare politicians. Or maybe I just "have a pathology".
- woleium 3y ago
  How, in your system, does one define productive? Is a person who chooses to care for a disabled relative full time instead of working productive? Is a middle manager who provides little more than bureaucratic oversight (but none the less draws a salary and pays taxes) productive? Is an undiscovered-in-their-lifetime artist productive?
- Levitz 3y ago
  So you would rather burn away money than giving it to someone who doesn't deserve it? The idea is honestly crazy to me, if you had to choose between giving money to the 70% most needy people or giving it to the 80% most needy and also to a random 20%, would you really choose the first option?
  - Proven 3y ago
    It's wildly insane to assume one can simply "know" who "needs help". It's even worse to assume that a person - regardless of whether they can or can't easily tell - would be motivated to find out if they weren't handing out own food or money.
  - slibhb 3y ago
    Your hypothetical has no relation to actual choices that voters and governments face. The point I made was that people will not vote for welfare unless it's means tested. It's really that simple. Politics aside, I'm skeptical of UBI. UBI advocates claim that people will start companies and launch careers with their stipend. Yes, some people will do that but most will become layabouts. When the machines do all the labor, we can all become layabouts. But as long as our food, housing, healthcare and so on comes from other people's labor (and it still does) then we have an obligation to be productive.

by fao_ 3y ago

lolinder 3y ago

Can you link to some of the studies that form this mound of evidence? I tried a search on Google Scholar, but new information seems to dry up around 2021. After that I see a lot of people talking about it but no new evidence. This 2020 summary [0] found that much the research to that point was lacking—we've studied various components of UBI, but never all together (for example, many pilots were apparently means tested). The biggest theoretical concern I have is inflation. The papers I can find (like this one [1]) agree that inflation will most likely occur, the question is how much. With a limited understanding of economics, I have a hard time imagining how giving everyone $1000/mo could do anything but raise prices on basic things until they are once again out of reach of our poorest people. We can't study that directly without a full scale test, but are you aware of attempts to address the question? [0] https://basicincome.stanford.edu/uploads/Umbrella%20Review%20BI_final.pdf https://basicincome.stanford.edu/uploads/Umbrella%20Review%2... [1] https://socialprotection.org/sites/default/files/publications_files/SSRN-id3920748.pdf https://socialprotection.org/sites/default/files/publication...

thomastjeffery 3y ago
It's not as if 2021 was that long ago. The answer to the inflation problem is to basically ignore it. The result is that poor people have enough to live, and rich people have less buying power. That's not a bug: it's the entire point. Wealth concentration is the problem. Here in the US, the wealth owned by half of the population totals up to less than the total wealth of 50 people. Wealth concentration is beyond out of hand. It's destroying every facet of society.
- lolinder 3y ago
  > It's not as if 2021 was that long ago. I didn't say it was, I meant that too communicate "so this 2020 summary probably isn't missing much". Inflation in the last few years has been far worse for poor people than for the rich. Homes and rent are unaffordable. Groceries are coming in smaller and smaller (and emptier and emptier) packages for the same price. Wages at the lowest levels are stagnant, while CEO salaries continue to go up. Yachts do not inflate beyond the capabilities of the top 50, but inflation has put real pressure on the bottom X% of the population. Do we have reason to believe that UBI-caused inflation will be better targeted at the ultra-rich?
  - JieJie 3y ago
    As one of the people impacted by losing the $150 a month extra SNAP (food stamp) money we were getting throughout the pandemic, inflation was barely noticeable while we were getting it. The effects of inflation became most noticeable when the extra $150 a month was ended, because the inflated prices never went down when the inflationary pressure was removed.
    - lolinder 3y ago
      But if the extra $150/mo were never removed and the inflationary pressure never let up, I would expect it to become noticeable eventually, and UBI would exert even more inflationary pressure than pandemic-era stimulus/welfare. When inflation does catch up to the UBI, do you just keep raising the UBI forever and ever? How does that not turn into hyperinflation?

slibhb 3y ago

Welfare is taking money from productive people and giving it to unproductive people. In order for this to work in a democracy, you have to convince the productive people that the unproductive people are unproductive for good reasons (i.e. means testing). If you don't do this, the productive people will vote for anti-welfare politicians. Or maybe I just "have a pathology".

woleium 3y ago
How, in your system, does one define productive? Is a person who chooses to care for a disabled relative full time instead of working productive? Is a middle manager who provides little more than bureaucratic oversight (but none the less draws a salary and pays taxes) productive? Is an undiscovered-in-their-lifetime artist productive?
Levitz 3y ago
So you would rather burn away money than giving it to someone who doesn't deserve it? The idea is honestly crazy to me, if you had to choose between giving money to the 70% most needy people or giving it to the 80% most needy and also to a random 20%, would you really choose the first option?
- Proven 3y ago
  It's wildly insane to assume one can simply "know" who "needs help". It's even worse to assume that a person - regardless of whether they can or can't easily tell - would be motivated to find out if they weren't handing out own food or money.
- slibhb 3y ago
  Your hypothetical has no relation to actual choices that voters and governments face. The point I made was that people will not vote for welfare unless it's means tested. It's really that simple. Politics aside, I'm skeptical of UBI. UBI advocates claim that people will start companies and launch careers with their stipend. Yes, some people will do that but most will become layabouts. When the machines do all the labor, we can all become layabouts. But as long as our food, housing, healthcare and so on comes from other people's labor (and it still does) then we have an obligation to be productive.