9 ms·

The Road Not Taken Is Guaranteed Minimum Income

110 points by AndrewDucker 2y ago

rich_sasha 2y ago
UK is struggling to pay its meagre unemployment and disability benefits. The idea that we can pay a meaningful amount of money to everyone seems fanciful to me.
- ketzo 2y ago
  I mean, I don’t think it’s a fairytale idea; the implication of the opening discussion on wealth inequality is that the US would need to raise taxes fairly significantly to do so. The question is really just whether the political will to do so exists. If that’s what you’re referring to as fanciful, I guess I can see where you’re coming from.
  - rich_sasha 2y ago
    Some back of the envelope maths suggests that to pay every American adult 1k/month would require 3tn USD per year, or about 11% of total GDP (12K per person per year, 258m adults -> 3tn dollars, total GDP around 27tn). That's about 3x as much as what the US spends on its military. And 1k / month doesn't strike me as a big amount. I just don't really see how people think UBI is realistic in the current budgetary structure.
- relaxing 2y ago
  Decades of Conservative government will do that.
arionhardison 2y ago
.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  [flagged]
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - arionhardison 2y ago
    I didn't mean the only, but after reading your other comments, I understand why you replied so unintelligently.
    - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
      > didn't mean the only Then don’t say “only”.
      - arionhardison 2y ago
        Or maybe, you could just "think" and not take everything so literally.
        lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 2y ago
        Respectfully, how else should one read your comments if not literally?
        arionhardison 2y ago
        like a normal person that understands "hyperbole".
        lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 2y ago
        One can understand hyperbole and still not know that you were being emphatically hyperbolic instead of literally hyperbolic. Sometimes the hyperbolic statement is also literally true. This is a place of academic types who are used to being careful with hyperbole for this very reason. (In this particular case, the contention is also with the use of the word "only", which suggests a factual basis rather than opinion, so it's not necessarily an issue with hyperbole. But... meh, people can read better, too.) Not trying to say the point you intended to make is invalid or even that your word choice is invalid, just that the literal interpretation of your writing is also a valid one. Especially among people who don't know you personally. That said, I also believe that the other commenter could and should have read a stronger interpretation of your words (such as if "only" was replaced with "best" or "my most preferred") and replied to that or not replied at all.
- cootsnuck 2y ago
  I think you might be overcomplicating the problem in a way that actually makes it harder to solve, not easier. AI governance and optimizing business processes sounds cool and all, but we don’t need to "engineer" a way to address poverty. We already have a simple, effective, well researched solution...just give people money. We need to be careful of this notion that social ills caused by prioritizing "growth" over people are intractable problems that require us to throw technology at them. It's often a convenient smokescreen from those that don't want the problems addressed at all. And we do their work for them if we play along.
  - arionhardison 2y ago
    Perhaps, but the distribution of said funds has always been rought with fraud. I suppose you do have a point but if it were that easy, why is it not done? I am simply proposing another way, and honestly its a pretty said day where proposing and idea on a forum is met with such vitriol. I'm also working on https://crohns.ai/ https://crohns.ai/ and have had some really good feedback, should this also just be done by handing out money? The approach I am hearing from everyone here is that the world should just STFU and allow Trump and Musk to handle it because they are the big boys so everyone else should shut up. While agree that you all have the right to feel that way, it's simply not a reality the rest of us have to blindly accept. Also pretty said that simply "Trying" has become so uncool on a site like HN.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
rectang 2y ago
A scheme that benefits all, such as guaranteed minimum income, will always face great resistance in the US, because enough US citizens are zero-sum thinkers. If it helps people we hate, it must be bad. > Why aren’t we giving everyone a fair chance at Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness by providing them the fundamentals they need to get there? Because for a lot of Americans, relative order within the social hierarchy is more important than absolute level of prosperity: it's more important to have someone below us than it is to do well.
- robertlagrant 2y ago
  > A scheme that benefits all, such as uaranteed minimum income, will always face great resistance in the US, because enough US citizens are zero-sum thinkers. If it helps people we hate, it must be bad. I've only heard objections within the context of people being worried that giving money will reduce productivity and raise prices. > Because relative order within the social hierarchy is more important than absolute level of prosperity. It's more important to have someone below us than it is to do well. This is the "inequality" discussion. It's true that a lot of people are worried about relative order, and I agree that absolute prosperity is far more important, but I doubt those people are against UBI.
- mcherm 2y ago
  Yes, that does describe the current thinking (and behavior) of many US citizens. So the key question is this: how do we go about CHANGING those attitudes? The steps Jeff takes in this announcement seems like an excellent "lead by example" step toward doing that.
  - sfifs 2y ago
    It takes 2 generations of concerted effort. Your great grand children will have a different attitude if you start now. Evidence : untouchability is virtually gone in India (at least the urban part). I remember my great grand parents still had those mindsets when I was very young. It is an alien concept to our children.
- WillPostForFood 2y ago
impostergc 2y ago
A fundamental misunderstanding of human nature. There is a significant non-majority of the population that will take the money and do absolutely nothing but waste it.
- barryrandall 2y ago
  What's the percentage?
- koch 2y ago
  Waste it how? By spending it? By participating in the economy? Thereby turning it into someone else's income?
- wesselbindt 2y ago
  What do you mean by wasting it? Is there a particular aspect of an outcome of a UBI study that you worry about?
  - ajsnigrutin 2y ago
    Was there an actual lifetime UBI study done? I mean... if i was given a livable amount of money for no work for a year or two, my quality of life would go up, but I wouldn't quit my job and move somewhere cheaper (where I could get more for that amount of money). But if i was guaranteed livable amount of money for the rest of my life, that would be a whole different story.
    - wesselbindt 2y ago
      So you're basing this on your feelings rather than the available data.
      - baumy 2y ago
        What else are we to base opinions on? There is no available data. It doesn't exist. The "data" you're referring to is tripe. To repeat the point you're replying to - a UBI study that examines human behavior from a set of people who are only guaranteed to be given some livable amount of income for a short period, and not for their entire lives, is completely useless. It isn't actually studying UBI. It's studying "what do people do if I give them $20k or so over a few installments?". Very boring thing to study. Honestly a waste of time and resources to even bother conducting such a study, the results can be put directly in the rubbish bin.
mwkaufma 2y ago
Instead of billionaire-directed patronage, just tax wealth and let the democratic process decide how to allocate it.
- PaulKeeble 2y ago
  The US (and UK) have been growing enormously in wealth inequality. This is the big actual problem wealth needs to be distributed more evenly as its harming many people. I think there are a lot of arguments for which mechanism is used, whether its inheritance or direct wealth tax or capital gains or something else, but the obvious cause of the problems today is inequality and that needs to be addressed.
  - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    > wealth needs to be distributed more evenly as its harming many people Why? Seriously. I used to believe this. But it’s increasingly apparent that a lot of people are idiots. Why is inequality in wealth fundamentally bad if the poorest are taken care of? (They’re not, in America. But I’m framing a hypothetical.) If a UBI proposal requires dismissing the concept of waste, it’s probably a stupid one.
    - jonway 2y ago
      One reason is that the intensely wealthy class doesn't simply spend their fortunes on more food or more sheds to store more lawnmowers or extra rice cookers or patronize more local businesses across the country. They might buy more beds for their now larger mansions, but their rate of consumption doesn't scale linearly with their wealth beyond the median. I seriously doubt they're commonly buying even 12 to 20 yachts, and if they buy 45 cars they aren't driving them enough to also be buying 45 times the maintenance since you can't drive more than one car at once. Instead they invest their fortunes into private equity and other capital like homes that, after driving the cost upwards, will now rent to the people who are, economically speaking, incomprehensibly far beneath them. They will acquire hospitals, doctor's practices, homes, drug rehab facilities, banking institutions, water utilities and electrical companies to fuel their own wealth. They squeeze out the stakeholder in preference for shareholders who will demand stock buybacks to provide additional returns on investment. The result is that the people who are on the losing end of wealth inequality will have no voice in how the resources are deployed, the cost of the utility provided, or the capital to compete in the market. It drives the cost of inelastic supply upwards as its utility is no longer a home but an investment vehicle. Generational wealth like farms become corporations which pay their profits to someone other than their local community. National banks squeeze out local institutions with stake in their local economies, they will burn cash to buy the market out from local economies and the profits of life vanish from the people who live it. When there is nothing left to buy, they'll buy the government. UBI, GMI are bandages for gaping wounds.
gotoeleven 2y ago
Why are they calling it GMI instead of UBI now? Is it because all the UBI studies showed, yep, it doesn't work so they need a new name? I really doubt the slightly different accounting scheme will make any difference--after taxes are considered there's not any difference between UBI and GMI.
- mtremsal 2y ago
  IIRC Piketty's book also made a similar suggestion of having the government as an employer of last resort, i.e. offering an unlimited number of jobs at a guaranteed minimum income. It's seen as a more "palatable" policy by many, as it's "just a job" and we've already tried something similar during the New Deal. For people who take these jobs, there's also a lot less stigma than "taking social security".
- 9rx 2y ago
  > Why are they calling it GMI instead of UBI now?* Because that's what it is? If it were UBI then it would be labeled UBI instead. > after taxes are considered there's not any difference between UBI and GMI. Mathematically that is true, but there is still a significant human difference. Consider a case where you have a loss of income. With UBI, the money will just show up at the usual interval to keep you going. With GMI, money will not show up until you go through the arduous process of notifying authorities that you are now eligible. And if you've ever dealt with people who manage these kinds of things before, you know they don't operate on an instant basis, so you could be going quite some time before the support finally shows up.
- barbazoo 2y ago
  Does it not work? Study after study seems to show positive effects. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-07-22/ubi-study-backed-by-openai-s-sam-altman-bolsters-support-for-basic-income https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-07-22/ubi-study... > After three years of distributing $1,000 monthly to beneficiaries in Illinois and Texas, the organization has released a trio of research papers on its findings. Like many of the other studies released before it, OpenResearch finds that recipients spend more to meet their basic needs and assist others, and don't drop out of the workforce — although they work slightly fewer hours. But the researchers’ biggest takeaway is that cash provides flexibility. I might be in a web search bubble so if you have any conclusive info that UBI doesn’t “work”, please do share.
upghost 2y ago
Say what you will about anything else, but if you have never been there, I don't think many of you could understand the crippling, unbelievable poverty that exists in West Virginia that the author somehow managed to claw his way out of. It's the kind of multigenerational poverty where all economic activity in the area seems to have ceased completely. There aren't any "beggars" because there is no one to beg from. Dwellings are often made from found materials in the area. Especially if you are from the West Coast or the North East, you might find it hard to believe that places like this exist within the United States. In these areas, if you happen to secure a job that makes in the 30k's, you are several standard deviations above the baseline and you are probably taking care of your entire extended family. These areas are, by and large, completely ignored and abandoned by our country. They are things we don't want to look at, because it hurts our sense of national pride and national identity. It hurts our narrative of the "American Dream", because the American Dream does not exist or apply here. This is not to say that the people here are not hard working and industrious, as much as they can be. But the lack of economic mobility in these areas is intense. It's hard to understand the difference an unconditional 500 dollars per month would be here. Perhaps you think most people would waste the money. Even if you are right, some would not -- and the some who would not are now not responsible for those who choose not to, and those bright stars can possibly break free of the situation they are in. Huge kudos to the author for beating all the odds and still remembering where he came from. If you have it in you, I would invite you to visit Charleston, WV sometime. Get a car and drive around. It is beautiful country, the area could use the tourism revenue, and it will certainly not be an experience you will forget.
- silverquiet 2y ago
  I remember "Justified" portraying the area (technically it's Harlan County in Eastern Kentucky) much like you describe, and then the show visited the black portions of the region and the poverty appeared even deeper. That said, as a resident of Texas, I can tell you that that sort of poverty isn't limited to Appalachia.
- rahimnathwani 2y ago
  People from all over the world move to New York and other US cities, for increased economic opportunities. Could we make it easier for people to migrate from WV?
inglor_cz 2y ago
I cannot imagine how UBI wouldn't fuel yet another mad increase in rents. The fundamental problem with housing in economically strong areas is that there is nowhere near enough of it. That is creating a brutal competition already. Once everyone is able to fork out +X thousand monthly from their UBI, how much of that X will be captured by landlords?
raincom 2y ago
Look at the major components that push up the guaranteed minimum income every year: rent/mortgage; health insurance; auto insurance; lack of public transportation; ripping off by utilities like PGE in California. The more one gets paid, that delta (increase in wages) is eaten by rents, insurers, etc. Fix the housing mess, fix the insurance mess by dismantling cartels, etc.
- spankalee 2y ago
  I'm a firm believer in the Housing Theory of Everything™ and in the urgency to fix our housing shortages, but... we can do both at once. A huge part of fixing housing is fixing regulations, not spending more money (though I'd love to see state funding and capacity to build counter-cyclically), so the solutions don't even compete for funds.
  - dredmorbius 2y ago
    "The Housing Theory of Everything", by John Myers & Sam Bowman & Ben Southwood (2021) Western housing shortages do not just prevent many from ever affording their own home. They also drive inequality, climate change, low productivity growth, obesity, and even falling fertility rates. <https://worksinprogress.co/issue/the-housing-theory-of-everything/ https://worksinprogress.co/issue/the-housing-theory-of-every...> That might be somewhat overstated. But not by much. Incidentally, much of the housing situation devolves from transport, and specifically the automobile, which reshaped both urban and rural landscapes far beyond patterns which had existed for millennia, based on the limits of pedestrian (and occasionally equestrian) mobility.
gwbas1c 2y ago
I would encourage anyone who is a fan of systems like this to understand a bit more about how the US taxes and distributes its money. Specifically, look for writings from Jessica Riedel (formerly Brian Riedl). A great interview is at https://freakonomics.com/podcast/ten-myths-about-the-u-s-tax-system/ https://freakonomics.com/podcast/ten-myths-about-the-u-s-tax..., and she gets to the meat of the problem towards the end.
etewiah 2y ago
Please run for president Jeff! Imagine an America led by Jeff Atwood - what a dream.
keiferski 2y ago
I am generally a bit skeptical of the concept of basic income, mostly because I think costs would just rise to match new spending power. IMO it would be better framed as Guaranteed Basic Needs (food, shelter, entertainment, etc.) That said – one thing that has made me change my mind recently, though, is that UBI might serve as a buffer against the profit motive taking over everything. Increasingly it seems like other value systems are being overtaken by the desire to earn money. By "other value systems" I mean a huge variety of things that aren't driven by money: living a non-materialistic lifestyle in line with numerous religions, mastering a centuries-old craft that doesn't have much market demand, being a philosopher/thinker not defined by participation in academia (or the market), and so on. Part of the growth of the profit motive can be attributed to the general precarious economic situation, unpredictability of future jobs, etc. But it's also because there are fewer and fewer cultural institutions that make up the ecosystem, because no one wants to make that bet anymore. Everything seems to default back to monetary/professional success, whether that be the "creator economy" or getting a professorship at a top university. So I do wonder if UBI would be a mechanism for encouraging people to say, "I can count on making a basic living, so I'm going to study XYZ art form and become great at it."
- spankalee 2y ago
  Providing the "needs" vs money to buy the needs would result in just as much inflation. Those goods and services still need to be paid for, even if it's the government paying for them. Money is just the simplest way to give assistance because it's fungible. Fewer rules to make, less administrative overhead, extremely flexible, responsive to changes in the market.
  - keiferski 2y ago
    If the government built giant housing blocks, so that anyone could have a basic apartment, how would that lead to inflation in the housing market? If anything the abundance of supply would dramatically deflate the costs. Note that I'm talking about orders of magnitude more of construction than current public housing projects.
richwater 2y ago
[flagged]
- barbazoo 2y ago
  Not at all. It reduces people’s agency and flexibility. Billionaires can do whatever they want with the wealth they syphoned off. I can absolutely imagine how that weakens connections between people and prevents new ones when you’re poor.
jncfhnb 2y ago
What is the idea outcome for guaranteed minimum income in rural communities with no meaningful activity? They can’t actually set up a working community if they’re not doing anything.
- jonway 2y ago
  If you were able to move the poverty level in a place like rural WV to zero, don't you think it would shortly become economically active?
  - jncfhnb 2y ago
    No? What would they do that creates value?
    - thankyoufriend 2y ago
      If there was a sudden surplus of money in the community, isn't it pretty likely people would spend it immediately? Sure, some - maybe a lot initially - would go towards drugs and this would require some attention. However, whatever goods/services currently exist there wouldn't be enough to supply this new level of demand. That would then incentivize people to start offering competition for those goods/services or creating bespoke goods/services for their new customer base. For the people who do actually want to save up and leave, they may now have the means to do so. Side rant: I don't think many people in this country grasp how expensive, time-consuming and anxiety-inducing moving is nowadays - especially longer distances or across states.
      - jncfhnb 2y ago
        Personally I doubt it. Most goods would continue to be imported. Wealth would flow in from the government and then flow out to external entities. Local service jobs don’t make for much of an economy unless you have tourism.
snovymgodym 2y ago
Something that I don't understand, and would love to hear a counterpoint to, is how UBI doesn't just constitute shifting the zero point. We're already in the situation where everything that actually matters (food, shelter, healthcare, transportation) is rapidly increasing in price. I don't see how giving everyone UBI wouldn't just exacerbate that. This is probably naive, but I feel like if we deem something a necessity or "human right" then we should just give people these things free of charge. Like food, housing, healthcare should all have a free but basic government option. And maybe people who don't want the government version can get a tax credit towards their groceries, health insurance, or mortgage so that it benefits everyone and not just the poor. I guess that describes some kind of "Socialism" and has a whole host of issues and caveats, but it seems like a better system than UBI.
barbazoo 2y ago
> Why aren’t we sharing the American Dream? Maybe because a country is collection of individuals. It’s not that people have to sign up to the dream so they can be held accountable. It’s a romantic vision inspired 250 years ago, maybe it’s time to move on. It’s clearly out of touch with the reality of the people.
erikerikson 2y ago
If for none other, the reason UBI or another solution to our economic deprivations are needed is that rising inequality is reducing the size of our markets. An affluent middle class participates while increasingly impoverished people are less able to as they become more poor.
Glyptodon 2y ago
At scale the other prong is housing supply. If guaranteed income is not paired with an intentional housing glut, it'll just get sucked up by landlords.
slashdev 2y ago
I’m deeply skeptical of UBI. For one it would amount to rapid inflation that would erode much of the purported benefits. This is hard to argue with after we watched pandemic stimulus do exactly this. It made wealth inequality substantially worse. The average person is in the red. The wealthy scored. Assuming you find some way to address that, the next problem is it doesn’t work with a democracy. People will vote for whoever offers to raise the income, and politicians will pander to it. Also hard to argue with after politicians on all sides promised tax cuts and increased spending despite running wartime level deficits. UBI is nice in theory. In practice, I don’t see how you fix those issues.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
seec 2y ago
It's hard to state how wrong that "solution" is. It comes from good intentions but as they say hell is paved with good intentions. What is needed is that work pays more so that it's fairer and more attractive and that's it. Instead of wasting time with an UBI that would have terrible problems down the line, just make laws so that wage inequality is reduced to a minimum. And laws to take everything of the ultra-rich beyond a certain point. The problem isn't that there is not enough money (or ressources) to go around, the problem is that they are not fairly distributed, trying to fix it in a roundabout way will have more secondary issues than actually fixing anything.

110 points by AndrewDucker 2y ago

UK is struggling to pay its meagre unemployment and disability benefits. The idea that we can pay a meaningful amount of money to everyone seems fanciful to me.

ketzo 2y ago
I mean, I don’t think it’s a fairytale idea; the implication of the opening discussion on wealth inequality is that the US would need to raise taxes fairly significantly to do so. The question is really just whether the political will to do so exists. If that’s what you’re referring to as fanciful, I guess I can see where you’re coming from.
- rich_sasha 2y ago
  Some back of the envelope maths suggests that to pay every American adult 1k/month would require 3tn USD per year, or about 11% of total GDP (12K per person per year, 258m adults -> 3tn dollars, total GDP around 27tn). That's about 3x as much as what the US spends on its military. And 1k / month doesn't strike me as a big amount. I just don't really see how people think UBI is realistic in the current budgetary structure.
relaxing 2y ago
Decades of Conservative government will do that.

arionhardison 2y ago

JumpCrisscross 2y ago
[flagged]
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
- arionhardison 2y ago
  I didn't mean the only, but after reading your other comments, I understand why you replied so unintelligently.
  - JumpCrisscross 2y ago
    > didn't mean the only Then don’t say “only”.
    - arionhardison 2y ago
      Or maybe, you could just "think" and not take everything so literally.
      - lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 2y ago
        Respectfully, how else should one read your comments if not literally?
        arionhardison 2y ago
        like a normal person that understands "hyperbole".
        lcnPylGDnU4H9OF 2y ago
        One can understand hyperbole and still not know that you were being emphatically hyperbolic instead of literally hyperbolic. Sometimes the hyperbolic statement is also literally true. This is a place of academic types who are used to being careful with hyperbole for this very reason. (In this particular case, the contention is also with the use of the word "only", which suggests a factual basis rather than opinion, so it's not necessarily an issue with hyperbole. But... meh, people can read better, too.) Not trying to say the point you intended to make is invalid or even that your word choice is invalid, just that the literal interpretation of your writing is also a valid one. Especially among people who don't know you personally. That said, I also believe that the other commenter could and should have read a stronger interpretation of your words (such as if "only" was replaced with "best" or "my most preferred") and replied to that or not replied at all.
cootsnuck 2y ago
I think you might be overcomplicating the problem in a way that actually makes it harder to solve, not easier. AI governance and optimizing business processes sounds cool and all, but we don’t need to "engineer" a way to address poverty. We already have a simple, effective, well researched solution...just give people money. We need to be careful of this notion that social ills caused by prioritizing "growth" over people are intractable problems that require us to throw technology at them. It's often a convenient smokescreen from those that don't want the problems addressed at all. And we do their work for them if we play along.
- arionhardison 2y ago
  Perhaps, but the distribution of said funds has always been rought with fraud. I suppose you do have a point but if it were that easy, why is it not done? I am simply proposing another way, and honestly its a pretty said day where proposing and idea on a forum is met with such vitriol. I'm also working on https://crohns.ai/ https://crohns.ai/ and have had some really good feedback, should this also just be done by handing out money? The approach I am hearing from everyone here is that the world should just STFU and allow Trump and Musk to handle it because they are the big boys so everyone else should shut up. While agree that you all have the right to feel that way, it's simply not a reality the rest of us have to blindly accept. Also pretty said that simply "Trying" has become so uncool on a site like HN.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

rectang 2y ago

A scheme that benefits all, such as guaranteed minimum income, will always face great resistance in the US, because enough US citizens are zero-sum thinkers. If it helps people we hate, it must be bad. > Why aren’t we giving everyone a fair chance at Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness by providing them the fundamentals they need to get there? Because for a lot of Americans, relative order within the social hierarchy is more important than absolute level of prosperity: it's more important to have someone below us than it is to do well.

robertlagrant 2y ago
> A scheme that benefits all, such as uaranteed minimum income, will always face great resistance in the US, because enough US citizens are zero-sum thinkers. If it helps people we hate, it must be bad. I've only heard objections within the context of people being worried that giving money will reduce productivity and raise prices. > Because relative order within the social hierarchy is more important than absolute level of prosperity. It's more important to have someone below us than it is to do well. This is the "inequality" discussion. It's true that a lot of people are worried about relative order, and I agree that absolute prosperity is far more important, but I doubt those people are against UBI.
mcherm 2y ago
Yes, that does describe the current thinking (and behavior) of many US citizens. So the key question is this: how do we go about CHANGING those attitudes? The steps Jeff takes in this announcement seems like an excellent "lead by example" step toward doing that.
- sfifs 2y ago
  It takes 2 generations of concerted effort. Your great grand children will have a different attitude if you start now. Evidence : untouchability is virtually gone in India (at least the urban part). I remember my great grand parents still had those mindsets when I was very young. It is an alien concept to our children.
WillPostForFood 2y ago

impostergc 2y ago

A fundamental misunderstanding of human nature. There is a significant non-majority of the population that will take the money and do absolutely nothing but waste it.

barryrandall 2y ago
What's the percentage?
koch 2y ago
Waste it how? By spending it? By participating in the economy? Thereby turning it into someone else's income?
wesselbindt 2y ago
What do you mean by wasting it? Is there a particular aspect of an outcome of a UBI study that you worry about?
- ajsnigrutin 2y ago
  Was there an actual lifetime UBI study done? I mean... if i was given a livable amount of money for no work for a year or two, my quality of life would go up, but I wouldn't quit my job and move somewhere cheaper (where I could get more for that amount of money). But if i was guaranteed livable amount of money for the rest of my life, that would be a whole different story.
  - wesselbindt 2y ago
    So you're basing this on your feelings rather than the available data.
    - baumy 2y ago
      What else are we to base opinions on? There is no available data. It doesn't exist. The "data" you're referring to is tripe. To repeat the point you're replying to - a UBI study that examines human behavior from a set of people who are only guaranteed to be given some livable amount of income for a short period, and not for their entire lives, is completely useless. It isn't actually studying UBI. It's studying "what do people do if I give them $20k or so over a few installments?". Very boring thing to study. Honestly a waste of time and resources to even bother conducting such a study, the results can be put directly in the rubbish bin.

mwkaufma 2y ago

Instead of billionaire-directed patronage, just tax wealth and let the democratic process decide how to allocate it.

PaulKeeble 2y ago
The US (and UK) have been growing enormously in wealth inequality. This is the big actual problem wealth needs to be distributed more evenly as its harming many people. I think there are a lot of arguments for which mechanism is used, whether its inheritance or direct wealth tax or capital gains or something else, but the obvious cause of the problems today is inequality and that needs to be addressed.
- JumpCrisscross 2y ago
  > wealth needs to be distributed more evenly as its harming many people Why? Seriously. I used to believe this. But it’s increasingly apparent that a lot of people are idiots. Why is inequality in wealth fundamentally bad if the poorest are taken care of? (They’re not, in America. But I’m framing a hypothetical.) If a UBI proposal requires dismissing the concept of waste, it’s probably a stupid one.
  - jonway 2y ago
    One reason is that the intensely wealthy class doesn't simply spend their fortunes on more food or more sheds to store more lawnmowers or extra rice cookers or patronize more local businesses across the country. They might buy more beds for their now larger mansions, but their rate of consumption doesn't scale linearly with their wealth beyond the median. I seriously doubt they're commonly buying even 12 to 20 yachts, and if they buy 45 cars they aren't driving them enough to also be buying 45 times the maintenance since you can't drive more than one car at once. Instead they invest their fortunes into private equity and other capital like homes that, after driving the cost upwards, will now rent to the people who are, economically speaking, incomprehensibly far beneath them. They will acquire hospitals, doctor's practices, homes, drug rehab facilities, banking institutions, water utilities and electrical companies to fuel their own wealth. They squeeze out the stakeholder in preference for shareholders who will demand stock buybacks to provide additional returns on investment. The result is that the people who are on the losing end of wealth inequality will have no voice in how the resources are deployed, the cost of the utility provided, or the capital to compete in the market. It drives the cost of inelastic supply upwards as its utility is no longer a home but an investment vehicle. Generational wealth like farms become corporations which pay their profits to someone other than their local community. National banks squeeze out local institutions with stake in their local economies, they will burn cash to buy the market out from local economies and the profits of life vanish from the people who live it. When there is nothing left to buy, they'll buy the government. UBI, GMI are bandages for gaping wounds.

gotoeleven 2y ago

Why are they calling it GMI instead of UBI now? Is it because all the UBI studies showed, yep, it doesn't work so they need a new name? I really doubt the slightly different accounting scheme will make any difference--after taxes are considered there's not any difference between UBI and GMI.

mtremsal 2y ago
IIRC Piketty's book also made a similar suggestion of having the government as an employer of last resort, i.e. offering an unlimited number of jobs at a guaranteed minimum income. It's seen as a more "palatable" policy by many, as it's "just a job" and we've already tried something similar during the New Deal. For people who take these jobs, there's also a lot less stigma than "taking social security".
9rx 2y ago
> Why are they calling it GMI instead of UBI now?* Because that's what it is? If it were UBI then it would be labeled UBI instead. > after taxes are considered there's not any difference between UBI and GMI. Mathematically that is true, but there is still a significant human difference. Consider a case where you have a loss of income. With UBI, the money will just show up at the usual interval to keep you going. With GMI, money will not show up until you go through the arduous process of notifying authorities that you are now eligible. And if you've ever dealt with people who manage these kinds of things before, you know they don't operate on an instant basis, so you could be going quite some time before the support finally shows up.
barbazoo 2y ago
Does it not work? Study after study seems to show positive effects. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-07-22/ubi-study-backed-by-openai-s-sam-altman-bolsters-support-for-basic-income https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2024-07-22/ubi-study... > After three years of distributing $1,000 monthly to beneficiaries in Illinois and Texas, the organization has released a trio of research papers on its findings. Like many of the other studies released before it, OpenResearch finds that recipients spend more to meet their basic needs and assist others, and don't drop out of the workforce — although they work slightly fewer hours. But the researchers’ biggest takeaway is that cash provides flexibility. I might be in a web search bubble so if you have any conclusive info that UBI doesn’t “work”, please do share.

upghost 2y ago

Say what you will about anything else, but if you have never been there, I don't think many of you could understand the crippling, unbelievable poverty that exists in West Virginia that the author somehow managed to claw his way out of. It's the kind of multigenerational poverty where all economic activity in the area seems to have ceased completely. There aren't any "beggars" because there is no one to beg from. Dwellings are often made from found materials in the area. Especially if you are from the West Coast or the North East, you might find it hard to believe that places like this exist within the United States. In these areas, if you happen to secure a job that makes in the 30k's, you are several standard deviations above the baseline and you are probably taking care of your entire extended family. These areas are, by and large, completely ignored and abandoned by our country. They are things we don't want to look at, because it hurts our sense of national pride and national identity. It hurts our narrative of the "American Dream", because the American Dream does not exist or apply here. This is not to say that the people here are not hard working and industrious, as much as they can be. But the lack of economic mobility in these areas is intense. It's hard to understand the difference an unconditional 500 dollars per month would be here. Perhaps you think most people would waste the money. Even if you are right, some would not -- and the some who would not are now not responsible for those who choose not to, and those bright stars can possibly break free of the situation they are in. Huge kudos to the author for beating all the odds and still remembering where he came from. If you have it in you, I would invite you to visit Charleston, WV sometime. Get a car and drive around. It is beautiful country, the area could use the tourism revenue, and it will certainly not be an experience you will forget.

silverquiet 2y ago
I remember "Justified" portraying the area (technically it's Harlan County in Eastern Kentucky) much like you describe, and then the show visited the black portions of the region and the poverty appeared even deeper. That said, as a resident of Texas, I can tell you that that sort of poverty isn't limited to Appalachia.
rahimnathwani 2y ago
People from all over the world move to New York and other US cities, for increased economic opportunities. Could we make it easier for people to migrate from WV?

inglor_cz 2y ago

I cannot imagine how UBI wouldn't fuel yet another mad increase in rents. The fundamental problem with housing in economically strong areas is that there is nowhere near enough of it. That is creating a brutal competition already. Once everyone is able to fork out +X thousand monthly from their UBI, how much of that X will be captured by landlords?

raincom 2y ago

Look at the major components that push up the guaranteed minimum income every year: rent/mortgage; health insurance; auto insurance; lack of public transportation; ripping off by utilities like PGE in California. The more one gets paid, that delta (increase in wages) is eaten by rents, insurers, etc. Fix the housing mess, fix the insurance mess by dismantling cartels, etc.

spankalee 2y ago
I'm a firm believer in the Housing Theory of Everything™ and in the urgency to fix our housing shortages, but... we can do both at once. A huge part of fixing housing is fixing regulations, not spending more money (though I'd love to see state funding and capacity to build counter-cyclically), so the solutions don't even compete for funds.
- dredmorbius 2y ago
  "The Housing Theory of Everything", by John Myers & Sam Bowman & Ben Southwood (2021) Western housing shortages do not just prevent many from ever affording their own home. They also drive inequality, climate change, low productivity growth, obesity, and even falling fertility rates. <https://worksinprogress.co/issue/the-housing-theory-of-everything/ https://worksinprogress.co/issue/the-housing-theory-of-every...> That might be somewhat overstated. But not by much. Incidentally, much of the housing situation devolves from transport, and specifically the automobile, which reshaped both urban and rural landscapes far beyond patterns which had existed for millennia, based on the limits of pedestrian (and occasionally equestrian) mobility.

gwbas1c 2y ago

I would encourage anyone who is a fan of systems like this to understand a bit more about how the US taxes and distributes its money. Specifically, look for writings from Jessica Riedel (formerly Brian Riedl). A great interview is at https://freakonomics.com/podcast/ten-myths-about-the-u-s-tax-system/ https://freakonomics.com/podcast/ten-myths-about-the-u-s-tax..., and she gets to the meat of the problem towards the end.

etewiah 2y ago

Please run for president Jeff! Imagine an America led by Jeff Atwood - what a dream.

keiferski 2y ago

I am generally a bit skeptical of the concept of basic income, mostly because I think costs would just rise to match new spending power. IMO it would be better framed as Guaranteed Basic Needs (food, shelter, entertainment, etc.) That said – one thing that has made me change my mind recently, though, is that UBI might serve as a buffer against the profit motive taking over everything. Increasingly it seems like other value systems are being overtaken by the desire to earn money. By "other value systems" I mean a huge variety of things that aren't driven by money: living a non-materialistic lifestyle in line with numerous religions, mastering a centuries-old craft that doesn't have much market demand, being a philosopher/thinker not defined by participation in academia (or the market), and so on. Part of the growth of the profit motive can be attributed to the general precarious economic situation, unpredictability of future jobs, etc. But it's also because there are fewer and fewer cultural institutions that make up the ecosystem, because no one wants to make that bet anymore. Everything seems to default back to monetary/professional success, whether that be the "creator economy" or getting a professorship at a top university. So I do wonder if UBI would be a mechanism for encouraging people to say, "I can count on making a basic living, so I'm going to study XYZ art form and become great at it."

spankalee 2y ago
Providing the "needs" vs money to buy the needs would result in just as much inflation. Those goods and services still need to be paid for, even if it's the government paying for them. Money is just the simplest way to give assistance because it's fungible. Fewer rules to make, less administrative overhead, extremely flexible, responsive to changes in the market.
- keiferski 2y ago
  If the government built giant housing blocks, so that anyone could have a basic apartment, how would that lead to inflation in the housing market? If anything the abundance of supply would dramatically deflate the costs. Note that I'm talking about orders of magnitude more of construction than current public housing projects.

richwater 2y ago

[flagged]

barbazoo 2y ago
Not at all. It reduces people’s agency and flexibility. Billionaires can do whatever they want with the wealth they syphoned off. I can absolutely imagine how that weakens connections between people and prevents new ones when you’re poor.

jncfhnb 2y ago

What is the idea outcome for guaranteed minimum income in rural communities with no meaningful activity? They can’t actually set up a working community if they’re not doing anything.

jonway 2y ago
If you were able to move the poverty level in a place like rural WV to zero, don't you think it would shortly become economically active?
- jncfhnb 2y ago
  No? What would they do that creates value?
  - thankyoufriend 2y ago
    If there was a sudden surplus of money in the community, isn't it pretty likely people would spend it immediately? Sure, some - maybe a lot initially - would go towards drugs and this would require some attention. However, whatever goods/services currently exist there wouldn't be enough to supply this new level of demand. That would then incentivize people to start offering competition for those goods/services or creating bespoke goods/services for their new customer base. For the people who do actually want to save up and leave, they may now have the means to do so. Side rant: I don't think many people in this country grasp how expensive, time-consuming and anxiety-inducing moving is nowadays - especially longer distances or across states.
    - jncfhnb 2y ago
      Personally I doubt it. Most goods would continue to be imported. Wealth would flow in from the government and then flow out to external entities. Local service jobs don’t make for much of an economy unless you have tourism.

snovymgodym 2y ago

Something that I don't understand, and would love to hear a counterpoint to, is how UBI doesn't just constitute shifting the zero point. We're already in the situation where everything that actually matters (food, shelter, healthcare, transportation) is rapidly increasing in price. I don't see how giving everyone UBI wouldn't just exacerbate that. This is probably naive, but I feel like if we deem something a necessity or "human right" then we should just give people these things free of charge. Like food, housing, healthcare should all have a free but basic government option. And maybe people who don't want the government version can get a tax credit towards their groceries, health insurance, or mortgage so that it benefits everyone and not just the poor. I guess that describes some kind of "Socialism" and has a whole host of issues and caveats, but it seems like a better system than UBI.

barbazoo 2y ago

> Why aren’t we sharing the American Dream? Maybe because a country is collection of individuals. It’s not that people have to sign up to the dream so they can be held accountable. It’s a romantic vision inspired 250 years ago, maybe it’s time to move on. It’s clearly out of touch with the reality of the people.

erikerikson 2y ago

If for none other, the reason UBI or another solution to our economic deprivations are needed is that rising inequality is reducing the size of our markets. An affluent middle class participates while increasingly impoverished people are less able to as they become more poor.

Glyptodon 2y ago

At scale the other prong is housing supply. If guaranteed income is not paired with an intentional housing glut, it'll just get sucked up by landlords.

slashdev 2y ago

I’m deeply skeptical of UBI. For one it would amount to rapid inflation that would erode much of the purported benefits. This is hard to argue with after we watched pandemic stimulus do exactly this. It made wealth inequality substantially worse. The average person is in the red. The wealthy scored. Assuming you find some way to address that, the next problem is it doesn’t work with a democracy. People will vote for whoever offers to raise the income, and politicians will pander to it. Also hard to argue with after politicians on all sides promised tax cuts and increased spending despite running wartime level deficits. UBI is nice in theory. In practice, I don’t see how you fix those issues.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

seec 2y ago

It's hard to state how wrong that "solution" is. It comes from good intentions but as they say hell is paved with good intentions. What is needed is that work pays more so that it's fairer and more attractive and that's it. Instead of wasting time with an UBI that would have terrible problems down the line, just make laws so that wage inequality is reduced to a minimum. And laws to take everything of the ultra-rich beyond a certain point. The problem isn't that there is not enough money (or ressources) to go around, the problem is that they are not fairly distributed, trying to fix it in a roundabout way will have more secondary issues than actually fixing anything.