3 ms·

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 issu

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.
  - jncfhnb 2y ago
    Ballots are a political must have in the sense that they are required for the political system to function The PFD is a political must have in the sense that voters are now telling the government they would rather cut other services to keep it You previously disparaged critics for saying that there’s no evidence this would cut public services. You are now changing your argument to say that it’s worth it in spite of that being shown to be a realized risk.
    - wizzwizz4 2y ago
      > Ballots are a political must have in the sense that they are required for the political system to function No they're not. Many countries have unelected leadership, and their political systems function. Ballots (and the rest of the democratic infrastructure) are something that people want, because they see them as good to have. > The PFD is a political must have in the sense that voters are now telling the government they would rather cut other services to keep it The cuts described in your first link didn't happen, because of public pressure against the cuts. But let's pretend the Alaskan electorate did demand cuts elsewhere, to maintain or increase the PFD. If the budget reduces, "people would prefer to cut something else" is a sign of a service being valued by the populace. How is that an argument against the service?
      - jncfhnb 2y ago
        > The cuts described in your first link didn't happen, because of public pressure against the cuts. Yes the did (and are doing). They didn’t get the 6.7k, but they did have to make cuts in large part because the payout was unsustainably high. > How is that an argument against the service? Don’t give a shit. I’m arguing against your claim that there’s no evidence UBI could lead to cuts in public services.
        wizzwizz4 2y ago
        You're saying "this cost is bad because if we don't cut this cost, we have to cut other costs", but that's true for the other costs as well. The original claim was asymmetrical (that UBI programmes cost money for no benefit; i.e., that they're a waste of money). You can't use a symmetrical argument to support an asymmetrical claim.

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.
- jncfhnb 2y ago
  Ballots are a political must have in the sense that they are required for the political system to function The PFD is a political must have in the sense that voters are now telling the government they would rather cut other services to keep it You previously disparaged critics for saying that there’s no evidence this would cut public services. You are now changing your argument to say that it’s worth it in spite of that being shown to be a realized risk.
  - wizzwizz4 2y ago
    > Ballots are a political must have in the sense that they are required for the political system to function No they're not. Many countries have unelected leadership, and their political systems function. Ballots (and the rest of the democratic infrastructure) are something that people want, because they see them as good to have. > The PFD is a political must have in the sense that voters are now telling the government they would rather cut other services to keep it The cuts described in your first link didn't happen, because of public pressure against the cuts. But let's pretend the Alaskan electorate did demand cuts elsewhere, to maintain or increase the PFD. If the budget reduces, "people would prefer to cut something else" is a sign of a service being valued by the populace. How is that an argument against the service?
    - jncfhnb 2y ago
      > The cuts described in your first link didn't happen, because of public pressure against the cuts. Yes the did (and are doing). They didn’t get the 6.7k, but they did have to make cuts in large part because the payout was unsustainably high. > How is that an argument against the service? Don’t give a shit. I’m arguing against your claim that there’s no evidence UBI could lead to cuts in public services.
      - wizzwizz4 2y ago
        You're saying "this cost is bad because if we don't cut this cost, we have to cut other costs", but that's true for the other costs as well. The original claim was asymmetrical (that UBI programmes cost money for no benefit; i.e., that they're a waste of money). You can't use a symmetrical argument to support an asymmetrical claim.