3 ms·

The Deep and Enduring History of Universal Basic Income

10 points by gmays 3y ago

listenallyall 3y ago
Simply handing out money, as most UBI proposals suggest, is flawed, for many reasons. What does seem worthy of attempting, however, would be to build prison-like facilities where people could apply to live for free, the only real difference is no locks on the doors. Social areas, dining hall, a bed, labor opportunities... that's a Basic lifestyle, with far less opportunity for fraud, that might actually engender social interaction and provide experiences that enable people to find better jobs going forward. Call it Universal Basic Living.
- gumby 3y ago
  > Simply handing out money, as most UBI proposals suggest, is flawed, for many reasons. The majority of controlled experiments with UBI in OECD countries have shown reduction in poverty. What would be the "fraud" aspect of universal BI? Everyone would get it. Your (likely sarcastic) suggestion has been explored in "The Dispossed". Its working title was "An Ambiguous Utopia"
  - listenallyall 3y ago
    Giving free money to high-income and wealthy people makes absolutely no sense.
    - lmm 3y ago
      Oh but it does. It simplifies administration, and even more importantly, it's a great social unifier. People hate it when other people get something they don't; if you look at a lot of public services (healthcare, education, transport, arts), even when systems are similar on paper, whether the high-income and wealthy "buy in" to the publicly provided service or not makes a huge difference in whether it succeeds.
    - gumby 3y ago
      Seconding lmm’s comment: the main reason social security remains popular is that everyone receives it. Yes, it’s crazy that billionaires get it but there aren’t a lot of them. If you look at some of the “fraud prevention” criteria some states implement you find they often (true: not always) end up costing more than the fraud they are supposedly preventing. Meanwhile they provide hoops legitimately qualifying people find hard to jump through, which defeats the point of having the program in the first place. Sometimes I think that’s the actual goal of these programs.
      - listenallyall 3y ago
        Social Security is popular, with little controversy, because it is rather equitable: you pay into it while you're working, then you receive benefits when you're retired (or just old). In fact, wealthy people often get more out, because they paid more into it.
    - PlunderBunny 3y ago
      If it makes you feel better, adjust taxes so that those high income and wealthy people pay for the money they receive for free, but poor people don’t. Assuming your taxation system is low admin (e.g. a value added tax plus pay-as-you-earn income tax), this shouldn’t be burdensome from an administrative point of view. (This is easy when I wave my hand and say ‘just do these things’)
- diego_moita 3y ago
  > Simply handing out money, as most UBI proposals suggest, is flawed, for many reasons. Your argument is flawed, for many reasons. You see? If "for many reasons" works for you why shouldn't it work for me too?
  - listenallyall 3y ago
    You're right, my proposal does have flaws, as does every social program in the history of the world. But helicopter-dropping money has more flaws than most, and since you appear to not know any of them, here are a few off the top of my head: Handing out money causes inflation Checks may go to people who don't qualify, or are dead. People are free to spend the money in ways that weren't intended. The amount of money sent is unlikely to provide sustainability (food, rent, clothes, utilities). It is not the best interests of a nation to have individuals who live their entire adult life from 18-80+ without any intention of ever joining the labor force.
    - diego_moita 3y ago
      You're just inventing reasons, without any clear evidence. I've witnessed "helicopter-dropping money" in action, in Brazil [1]. It didn't have the flaws you invented out of your imagination. That "helicopter-dropping" worked so well that the right-wing government that succeeded the leftist that implemented it tried to do their version of it. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bolsa_Fam%C3%ADlia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bolsa_Fam%C3%ADlia
      - throwitaway222 3y ago
        Evidence? Did you not experience mind boggling inflation after they handed out money in the last 3 years?
        SubiculumCode 3y ago
        https://www.statista.com/statistics/276319/monthly-inflation-rate-in-brazil/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/276319/monthly-inflation... Mindboggling? Seems pretty close to what most countries experienced.
- MrLeap 3y ago
  "prison-like facilities where people could apply to live for free, the only real difference is no locks on the doors" ^- the phrasing of this amuses me for so many reasons. How much of the concept of prison remains if the doors are left unlocked? Not much, I'd wager. It's been a long dream of mine to build 1-3 small houses on our rural land and let people with a personal project spend +/- a year working on it rent free. Been building water/electrical infra with it in mind. It'll be a cool experiment to run if I ever get there.
  - listenallyall 3y ago
    To be clear, I am not proposing putting people in prison. It's just that prisons do have long-term residents, and therefore, every life need is offered, such as food and shelter, but also basic medical care, barbers, a commissary, a library, job opportunities, indoor and outdoor recreation. A UBL facility could have these same amenities but nicer. An army base is a similar model, maybe that sounds less oppressive.
    - MrLeap 3y ago
      I understood. The phrasing just amused me -- it might even be just the right phrasing get past the people who don't want to help the poor. Maybe the SRO rooms at the YMCA weren't too far off from this concept historically. I don't even know if that still exists, or just stories from a bygone era.
- smitty1e 3y ago
  Or they can enlist in the military for this sort of experience, and get paid, too. Certain behavioral restrictions apply, but the concept of externalizing all of the lower-level Maslow's Hierarchy needs has been thoroughly worked. It is also the case that a hitch in the military inoculates many against these sorts of authoritarian experiences. Sure, "three hots and a cot" are nice enough, but humans, as a general matter, do not flourish well under these kinds of captivity.
- SubiculumCode 3y ago
  "A modest proposal" from Johnathon 'listenallyall' Swift
  - listenallyall 3y ago
    I'm not in favor of UBI existing at all. But if you insist, claiming the goal is to provide people with basic sustainability, then providing it directly is going to be more effective than simply handing out money and letting people fend for themselves.
diego_moita 3y ago
Brazilian here. I saw the effects of "Bolsa Família", an implementation of UBI in Brazil, years ago. The linked article mentions it. The best argument in support of UBI is that poor people spend it locally. Rich people tend to spend most of their money on luxury goods that most of the time come from other places. They generate wealth elsewhere. Poor people tend to spend on basic needs mostly supplied locally: food, shelter, transportation, sanitation, etc. Because of that UBI's multiplying effect on generating more income is powerful. Conservatives like to say that low taxes for the rich benefit everyone because they generate progress, it is called supply-side economics. I wouldn't advocate high taxes "per se" as in taxes to give money to the government. However, it is possible that high taxes can have a much more powerful impact on development if the money is spent wisely. However, I accept that politicians spending public money is a rare exception, not the rule.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- andrenth 3y ago
  Bolsa Família is not UBI, because it’s not universal. It has resulted in an alarming number of cities where more than half of the population does not work. There are people who have been living on benefits for more than a decade. They would be unable to get a job now, even if they wanted to, because they’ve been out of the job market for so long. The result is a large amount of people who are forever dependent on the State to live.
throwitaway222 3y ago
Can someone explain what would pay for the UBI? Of course it's popular, when you make a survey and ask: "How would you love to have $1000 per month transferred into your account?" And then they translate that into "UBI is popular." You ask a different set of questions: How would you like your either your taxes to increase to help everyone with UBI, OR we can do it without raising taxes, but every year the price of cheese will rise by $1 per ounce?

10 points by gmays 3y ago

Simply handing out money, as most UBI proposals suggest, is flawed, for many reasons. What does seem worthy of attempting, however, would be to build prison-like facilities where people could apply to live for free, the only real difference is no locks on the doors. Social areas, dining hall, a bed, labor opportunities... that's a Basic lifestyle, with far less opportunity for fraud, that might actually engender social interaction and provide experiences that enable people to find better jobs going forward. Call it Universal Basic Living.

gumby 3y ago
> Simply handing out money, as most UBI proposals suggest, is flawed, for many reasons. The majority of controlled experiments with UBI in OECD countries have shown reduction in poverty. What would be the "fraud" aspect of universal BI? Everyone would get it. Your (likely sarcastic) suggestion has been explored in "The Dispossed". Its working title was "An Ambiguous Utopia"
- listenallyall 3y ago
  Giving free money to high-income and wealthy people makes absolutely no sense.
  - lmm 3y ago
    Oh but it does. It simplifies administration, and even more importantly, it's a great social unifier. People hate it when other people get something they don't; if you look at a lot of public services (healthcare, education, transport, arts), even when systems are similar on paper, whether the high-income and wealthy "buy in" to the publicly provided service or not makes a huge difference in whether it succeeds.
  - gumby 3y ago
    Seconding lmm’s comment: the main reason social security remains popular is that everyone receives it. Yes, it’s crazy that billionaires get it but there aren’t a lot of them. If you look at some of the “fraud prevention” criteria some states implement you find they often (true: not always) end up costing more than the fraud they are supposedly preventing. Meanwhile they provide hoops legitimately qualifying people find hard to jump through, which defeats the point of having the program in the first place. Sometimes I think that’s the actual goal of these programs.
    - listenallyall 3y ago
      Social Security is popular, with little controversy, because it is rather equitable: you pay into it while you're working, then you receive benefits when you're retired (or just old). In fact, wealthy people often get more out, because they paid more into it.
  - PlunderBunny 3y ago
    If it makes you feel better, adjust taxes so that those high income and wealthy people pay for the money they receive for free, but poor people don’t. Assuming your taxation system is low admin (e.g. a value added tax plus pay-as-you-earn income tax), this shouldn’t be burdensome from an administrative point of view. (This is easy when I wave my hand and say ‘just do these things’)
diego_moita 3y ago
> Simply handing out money, as most UBI proposals suggest, is flawed, for many reasons. Your argument is flawed, for many reasons. You see? If "for many reasons" works for you why shouldn't it work for me too?
- listenallyall 3y ago
  You're right, my proposal does have flaws, as does every social program in the history of the world. But helicopter-dropping money has more flaws than most, and since you appear to not know any of them, here are a few off the top of my head: Handing out money causes inflation Checks may go to people who don't qualify, or are dead. People are free to spend the money in ways that weren't intended. The amount of money sent is unlikely to provide sustainability (food, rent, clothes, utilities). It is not the best interests of a nation to have individuals who live their entire adult life from 18-80+ without any intention of ever joining the labor force.
  - diego_moita 3y ago
    You're just inventing reasons, without any clear evidence. I've witnessed "helicopter-dropping money" in action, in Brazil [1]. It didn't have the flaws you invented out of your imagination. That "helicopter-dropping" worked so well that the right-wing government that succeeded the leftist that implemented it tried to do their version of it. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bolsa_Fam%C3%ADlia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bolsa_Fam%C3%ADlia
    - throwitaway222 3y ago
      Evidence? Did you not experience mind boggling inflation after they handed out money in the last 3 years?
      - SubiculumCode 3y ago
        https://www.statista.com/statistics/276319/monthly-inflation-rate-in-brazil/ https://www.statista.com/statistics/276319/monthly-inflation... Mindboggling? Seems pretty close to what most countries experienced.
MrLeap 3y ago
"prison-like facilities where people could apply to live for free, the only real difference is no locks on the doors" ^- the phrasing of this amuses me for so many reasons. How much of the concept of prison remains if the doors are left unlocked? Not much, I'd wager. It's been a long dream of mine to build 1-3 small houses on our rural land and let people with a personal project spend +/- a year working on it rent free. Been building water/electrical infra with it in mind. It'll be a cool experiment to run if I ever get there.
- listenallyall 3y ago
  To be clear, I am not proposing putting people in prison. It's just that prisons do have long-term residents, and therefore, every life need is offered, such as food and shelter, but also basic medical care, barbers, a commissary, a library, job opportunities, indoor and outdoor recreation. A UBL facility could have these same amenities but nicer. An army base is a similar model, maybe that sounds less oppressive.
  - MrLeap 3y ago
    I understood. The phrasing just amused me -- it might even be just the right phrasing get past the people who don't want to help the poor. Maybe the SRO rooms at the YMCA weren't too far off from this concept historically. I don't even know if that still exists, or just stories from a bygone era.
smitty1e 3y ago
Or they can enlist in the military for this sort of experience, and get paid, too. Certain behavioral restrictions apply, but the concept of externalizing all of the lower-level Maslow's Hierarchy needs has been thoroughly worked. It is also the case that a hitch in the military inoculates many against these sorts of authoritarian experiences. Sure, "three hots and a cot" are nice enough, but humans, as a general matter, do not flourish well under these kinds of captivity.
SubiculumCode 3y ago
"A modest proposal" from Johnathon 'listenallyall' Swift
- listenallyall 3y ago
  I'm not in favor of UBI existing at all. But if you insist, claiming the goal is to provide people with basic sustainability, then providing it directly is going to be more effective than simply handing out money and letting people fend for themselves.

diego_moita 3y ago

Brazilian here. I saw the effects of "Bolsa Família", an implementation of UBI in Brazil, years ago. The linked article mentions it. The best argument in support of UBI is that poor people spend it locally. Rich people tend to spend most of their money on luxury goods that most of the time come from other places. They generate wealth elsewhere. Poor people tend to spend on basic needs mostly supplied locally: food, shelter, transportation, sanitation, etc. Because of that UBI's multiplying effect on generating more income is powerful. Conservatives like to say that low taxes for the rich benefit everyone because they generate progress, it is called supply-side economics. I wouldn't advocate high taxes "per se" as in taxes to give money to the government. However, it is possible that high taxes can have a much more powerful impact on development if the money is spent wisely. However, I accept that politicians spending public money is a rare exception, not the rule.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
andrenth 3y ago
Bolsa Família is not UBI, because it’s not universal. It has resulted in an alarming number of cities where more than half of the population does not work. There are people who have been living on benefits for more than a decade. They would be unable to get a job now, even if they wanted to, because they’ve been out of the job market for so long. The result is a large amount of people who are forever dependent on the State to live.

throwitaway222 3y ago

Can someone explain what would pay for the UBI? Of course it's popular, when you make a survey and ask: "How would you love to have $1000 per month transferred into your account?" And then they translate that into "UBI is popular." You ask a different set of questions: How would you like your either your taxes to increase to help everyone with UBI, OR we can do it without raising taxes, but every year the price of cheese will rise by $1 per ounce?