3 ms·

How about Alaska, using a link from your own article? https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2019/9/5/20849020/alaska-permanent-fund-universal-basic-income https:/

How about Alaska, using a link from your own article? https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2019/9/5/20849020/alaska-permanent-fund-universal-basic-income https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2019/9/5/20849020/alaska-... The fund is running out of money and there have been cuts to public services to keep it going because it’s now a political must have https://alaskabeacon.com/2024/02/19/permanent-fund-corp-board-again-warns-that-the-fund-is-running-out-of-spendable-money/ https://alaskabeacon.com/2024/02/19/permanent-fund-corp-boar...

rahimnathwani 2y ago
And that's not even UBI. Unless $2k is enough to pay for a year of food, shelter and heating in Alaska.
- jncfhnb 2y ago
  If you’re going to make argument then you’re surely going to disregard every experiment which also fails that criteria, which is all of them, right?
  - rahimnathwani 2y ago
    I haven't read through all of them. Are there any that satisfy the conditions I consider essential, which I explained in my other comment? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40403308 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40403308
    - jncfhnb 2y ago
      No. Your criteria also omits the U
      - rahimnathwani 2y ago
        Your criteria also omits the U Good point. Personally I think an experiment that omits the U would still be a reasonable test to see whether people would continue to work.
        jncfhnb 2y ago
        It seems impossible that they would not continue to work. Some of them would not either because they want to do nothing or because they want to invest in their skills; and so there would be a labor shortage and wages would rise and prices would rise and it would all equilibrium out to the point where people need to work to survive again (or UBI is raised to meet the B) and the whole economy gets a little less competitive with outsourced labor that doesn’t play this game. That’s not a complete loss, mind you. A situation where poor people need to work to survive but a large percent of their income is guaranteed has merits.
wizzwizz4 2y ago
The Alaska Permanent Fund funds more than just the Permanent Fund Dividend (their UBI initiative): it's a source of funding for the whole government. These issues seem specific to that. Per your second link, the budget issues are due to wider changes in the economy, and affect everything. Given how long the Permanent Fund Dividend existed without causing any issues, is there anything specific that can be blamed on the PFD? Your first link is just about politics. Per the data table on Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permanent_Fund_Dividend#Annual_individual_payout https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permanent_Fund_Dividend#Annual...), the massive increase described in that article didn't happen. In 2018, the PFD payout was $1600; in 2019, it was $1606. Not $6700. If adequate, long-term funding can be acquired, I don't see why a UBI initiative should have these issues. The general principle "money represents other people's labour" applies, so if UBI prevents people from performing valuable labour within the economy (i.e., working for money), that could cause problems (though my instinct says that performing valuable services for others should be enough to avoid problems, regardless of whether payment is involved). Is there evidence of that happening in Alaska? doi:10.2139/ssrn.3118343 (also from "my" article) argues not. For somewhere that isn't Alaska, the money would presumably have to come from taxes. I don't know enough to design that, but I don't see why it shouldn't be possible – especially if UBI has positive effects on the economy, as some theorists claim. (I don't tend to trust economic theorists.)
- jncfhnb 2y ago
  If adequate funding can be secured then everyone can be a billionaire. But since that’s hard, supporting the PFD, which is now a political must have, has required cutting public services which is what you said critics were unfounded in warning about.
  - wizzwizz4 2y ago
    Why are you special-casing the PFD? I could equally say "providing polling places, ballot counting, and all the other democratic infrastructure – which are now a political must-have – has required cutting public services such as the PFD", and it'd be just as true. If the knock-on economic effects of the PFD are putting more money into the system than it's taking out, it's obviously worth keeping (even when money is tight, unless that's expected to be temporary and certain other conditions are met). If the PFD is valued directly, then it's also worth keeping, regardless of the economic effects. We don't kill the elderly once they retire, even though that policy is of greater cost to the economy than benefit. The naïve "it costs money that could be spent on other things" claim can be used to criticise any policy. The real question isn't whether it's good or bad, because we know there are circumstances that it's good. The question is, under what circumstances is UBI bad? UBI seems to work in theory, so I'm mighty suspicious that it seems to work universally in practice. ("Economic theory just doesn't work that well," I continue to insist.) But the only failure mode I've seen, anywhere, is "it costs money" (e.g. https://www.employment-studies.co.uk/news/universal-basic-income-pros-cons-and-evidence https://www.employment-studies.co.uk/news/universal-basic-in...). All other criticisms appear hypothetical, so I don't get why we pay them so much heed.

rahimnathwani 2y ago

And that's not even UBI. Unless $2k is enough to pay for a year of food, shelter and heating in Alaska.

jncfhnb 2y ago
If you’re going to make argument then you’re surely going to disregard every experiment which also fails that criteria, which is all of them, right?
- rahimnathwani 2y ago
  I haven't read through all of them. Are there any that satisfy the conditions I consider essential, which I explained in my other comment? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40403308 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=40403308
  - jncfhnb 2y ago
    No. Your criteria also omits the U
    - rahimnathwani 2y ago
      Your criteria also omits the U Good point. Personally I think an experiment that omits the U would still be a reasonable test to see whether people would continue to work.
      - jncfhnb 2y ago
        It seems impossible that they would not continue to work. Some of them would not either because they want to do nothing or because they want to invest in their skills; and so there would be a labor shortage and wages would rise and prices would rise and it would all equilibrium out to the point where people need to work to survive again (or UBI is raised to meet the B) and the whole economy gets a little less competitive with outsourced labor that doesn’t play this game. That’s not a complete loss, mind you. A situation where poor people need to work to survive but a large percent of their income is guaranteed has merits.

wizzwizz4 2y ago

The Alaska Permanent Fund funds more than just the Permanent Fund Dividend (their UBI initiative): it's a source of funding for the whole government. These issues seem specific to that. Per your second link, the budget issues are due to wider changes in the economy, and affect everything. Given how long the Permanent Fund Dividend existed without causing any issues, is there anything specific that can be blamed on the PFD? Your first link is just about politics. Per the data table on Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permanent_Fund_Dividend#Annual_individual_payout https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permanent_Fund_Dividend#Annual...), the massive increase described in that article didn't happen. In 2018, the PFD payout was $1600; in 2019, it was $1606. Not $6700. If adequate, long-term funding can be acquired, I don't see why a UBI initiative should have these issues. The general principle "money represents other people's labour" applies, so if UBI prevents people from performing valuable labour within the economy (i.e., working for money), that could cause problems (though my instinct says that performing valuable services for others should be enough to avoid problems, regardless of whether payment is involved). Is there evidence of that happening in Alaska? doi:10.2139/ssrn.3118343 (also from "my" article) argues not. For somewhere that isn't Alaska, the money would presumably have to come from taxes. I don't know enough to design that, but I don't see why it shouldn't be possible – especially if UBI has positive effects on the economy, as some theorists claim. (I don't tend to trust economic theorists.)

jncfhnb 2y ago
If adequate funding can be secured then everyone can be a billionaire. But since that’s hard, supporting the PFD, which is now a political must have, has required cutting public services which is what you said critics were unfounded in warning about.
- wizzwizz4 2y ago
  Why are you special-casing the PFD? I could equally say "providing polling places, ballot counting, and all the other democratic infrastructure – which are now a political must-have – has required cutting public services such as the PFD", and it'd be just as true. If the knock-on economic effects of the PFD are putting more money into the system than it's taking out, it's obviously worth keeping (even when money is tight, unless that's expected to be temporary and certain other conditions are met). If the PFD is valued directly, then it's also worth keeping, regardless of the economic effects. We don't kill the elderly once they retire, even though that policy is of greater cost to the economy than benefit. The naïve "it costs money that could be spent on other things" claim can be used to criticise any policy. The real question isn't whether it's good or bad, because we know there are circumstances that it's good. The question is, under what circumstances is UBI bad? UBI seems to work in theory, so I'm mighty suspicious that it seems to work universally in practice. ("Economic theory just doesn't work that well," I continue to insist.) But the only failure mode I've seen, anywhere, is "it costs money" (e.g. https://www.employment-studies.co.uk/news/universal-basic-income-pros-cons-and-evidence https://www.employment-studies.co.uk/news/universal-basic-in...). All other criticisms appear hypothetical, so I don't get why we pay them so much heed.