3 ms·

I always think, instead of UBI in $$, UBI in items is a lot better. This alters the social-economic reality more dramatically than UBI in $$ but I think it is a

I always think, instead of UBI in $$, UBI in items is a lot better. This alters the social-economic reality more dramatically than UBI in $$ but I think it is a better option. So basically, instead of throwing a bunch of $$ to everyone every month and hopefully inflation doesn't happen, give everyone a basic condo with a reasonable number of electrical appliances in an UBI apartment (being UBI doesn't mean low quality, it should mean reasonably good quality but without those fancy stuffs), send everyone food package every week, free library card, free online university admission (they don't have to take them if they don't want to), etc., and maybe a bit of $$ just for entertainment and such. However, I think it's more important to help people to find meanings in their life. If I get UBI but feel lost, how do I find a sense of belonging? How do I find meaning in my life? Sure, if I'm smart or if I'm affluent, I might get into some really meaningful and well paid jobs, but UBI does not magically give people more job, it merely gives them more time to figure out -- and a life of time is not enough without guidance and help. To help people find belongings and feel "being useful", the government can also encourage volunteering, mass infrastructure maintenance projects, and promote many other activities, so people can earn some pay, learn some skills AND find meaning in their life.

zawaideh 2y ago
I’ve had a similar line of thought.. basically what you are proposing is sort of a voucher system. But, here is where my mind went, what if it is implemented as a bunch of tokens issued via a blockchain or even through a central authority. They can be freely traded if needed and prices can go up and down, but regardless of the price, there is a set number of them that get issued. Similarly, you can get issued tokens/rewards for doing needed work. I’ve wanted to spend more time thinking through this more thoroughly and flesh out the idea more.. without ever having the chance to
- em-bee 2y ago
  that sounds like it's just a different currency. so then we have to deal with two kinds of currency. i don't think that is beneficial.
serviceberry 2y ago
Governments try stuff like that pretty regularly (you can only buy certain things with food stamps, etc), but it's typically expensive to administer and inherently prone to abuse. Buy groceries with food stamps, sell groceries, buy drugs. On top of that, it's just inherently difficult to structure this in a way that's fair and useful to every person. If I inherited or built myself a nice rural home, I don't want a government-issue apartment - either instead or in addition to what I have. Do I get nothing? That's unfair. Do I get the stuff I don't want? "Lump sum in cash" is the most flexible and equitable system. But then - and that's a major problem with UBI - you end up with people who spend it irresponsibly and then need help to survive. So you end up with UBI in addition to all the existing social safety nets.
- em-bee 2y ago
  also dietary needs and preferences. it's way do complicated. it adds a burden not only to the administration but also to those who sell the goods and services received. another problem is that if i earn extra money i can't combine it with the basic income to eg afford a better apartment. everyone would be stuck with the apartment given. you end up with people who spend it irresponsibly and then need help to survive. So you end up with UBI in addition to all the existing social safety nets. i don't believe that. if you spend your income irresponsibly you are out of luck. change your habits. wait until the next payment and do better. if you can't do that then a social worker will help you.
- throwaway743 2y ago
  While cash like UBI offers flexibility, criticizing targeted aid like food stamps misses the point. These programs are essential safety nets for the most vulnerable. While some misuse might occur – often signaling deeper needs requiring more services, not less food – focusing on that minority ignores the vast majority who rely on this aid to simply survive. Suggesting it's "unfair" if you don't need specific help ignores the purpose of a safety net. How a society supports those facing hardship is a measure of its character. Worrying about potential misuse at the lowest rungs seems disproportionate when compared to massive government spending elsewhere. Ultimately, denying essential aid based on assumptions about how a few might misuse it is counterproductive and lacks compassion.
itishappy 2y ago
What am I going to do with a second home? I see where your head's at, but I think a huge portion of the reason for using dollars is that it's simple and easy to manage. You don't need to find suppliers, manage inventory, match individuals with housing, or audit for fairness. Potentially more importantly, you don't need to pay for those activities either!
- markus_zhang 2y ago
  Yeah, but I think with a government-initiated program, it's going to be a lot cheaper because of the scale. It definitely doesn't solve the problem of corruption or other political issues, but hopefully UBI creates better citizens (for a start, now whoever wants to participate in politics have the time to do more research and participate more) so that those issues get called out.
mppm 2y ago
This is basically the communist vision (in its original, positive sense) -- Universal Basic Provisioning achieved through automation and a moderate amount of community service. People are always quick to point out how governments will inevitably screw this up, likely making things even worse than they are now, but I think the idea has merit at least in principle. Unlike the idea of Universal Basic Income. Free markets and free money just don't go together. Especially if this money is given to the "productive underlayer" of society rather than investment bankers. That will just collapse the house of cards from the inside out. Administrators, middle managers and VPs of sales do not a functioning economy make.
- markus_zhang 2y ago
  I agree that historically such movements always ended up badly, e.g. Russia and China. I'd argue that Russia and China picked Socialism not because they had abundance of materials, but on the contrary, because they were too weak back then, so that Socialism gave them the tool of collectivism to fight against external threats and built up industries quickly. We have never tried something like that (as you said UBP) in a rich country. I guess Norway and Sweden are closer? But I'm not sure. Agree with your points on UBI.
  - mppm 2y ago
    I do wonder sometimes how UBP would play out in a developed country... Would it remove the need for bullshit jobs and refocus the market-oriented part of the economy towards real progress? Would it make people happier? Or would it make people spend even more of their lives scrolling, swiping and retweeting? In any case, this is a purely theoretical exercise -- even more so than UBI, the idea of UBP is very much incompatible with neoclassical economics, which thoroughly dominates economic and societal thought in most of the developed world.
zehaeva 2y ago
Ahh going back to the days of Government Cheese I see! Everything old is new again.
- markus_zhang 2y ago
  Government cheese was created when the country didn't have enough resources. What I'm talking about is abundance of resources. We never tried anything like that before.
  - jacobgkau 2y ago
    To be fair, government cheese (from what I understand) was actually created in order to save extra milk the government bought up as part of a price control effort. In other words, there was an abundance of milk (because the government subsidized it, causing more to be produced than the market needed). Once it was already sitting around, it's been used to address citizens in the country not having enough resources. Which is kind of the same thing your semi-universal basic provisions would address.
  - tekla 2y ago
    Literally the exact opposite. Government cheese was created because due to subsidies, there was way too much milk that was going to be dumped into the nearest river until the Govt paid the farmers to convert it all to cheese and bought it and shoved it into storage to prop up cheese prices. It is the definition of over-abundance, since all the farmers were going to have to shoot their dairy cows to actually afford to keep some around and continue producing milk
tayo42 2y ago
I think expecting the government to figure out your meaning off life is putting a bit of to much responsibility there.
- markus_zhang 2y ago
  But what is wrong if there is an extra option? You don't have to take the pill if you don't need it.
  - nradov 2y ago
    What's wrong is expecting other citizens to support people who are perfectly capable of working themselves.
metabagel 2y ago
> If I get UBI but feel lost, how do I find a sense of belonging? How do I find meaning in my life? That's rather a separate problem. The point of UBI is to make individuals and families more economically resilient. This should have a lot of beneficial spillover effects, but it's not a cure-all for every ill.
nradov 2y ago
And where exactly is that free furnished condo located? Do I get to live in Beverly Hills for free if I want to?
- markus_zhang 2y ago
  I agree that execution is the key, and I don't have the answers for a lot of the questions. I guess we (humans) will never achieve the equality that everyone agrees to, because every one has his or her own idea of equality, but maybe that shouldn't prevent us from trying.
  - nradov 2y ago
    You have a very strange idea of "everyone". I never agreed to economic equality.
    - markus_zhang 2y ago
      Yeah that's one view of equality (by not agreeing with the concept from the start), and why I said there is no single answer every one agrees to.
  - HideousKojima 2y ago
    >maybe that shouldn't prevent us from trying. When you're planning on taking the money for your utopian pipe dream from other people by force, you really ought to have a better justification than "it doesn't hurt to try!"

zawaideh 2y ago

I’ve had a similar line of thought.. basically what you are proposing is sort of a voucher system. But, here is where my mind went, what if it is implemented as a bunch of tokens issued via a blockchain or even through a central authority. They can be freely traded if needed and prices can go up and down, but regardless of the price, there is a set number of them that get issued. Similarly, you can get issued tokens/rewards for doing needed work. I’ve wanted to spend more time thinking through this more thoroughly and flesh out the idea more.. without ever having the chance to

em-bee 2y ago
that sounds like it's just a different currency. so then we have to deal with two kinds of currency. i don't think that is beneficial.

serviceberry 2y ago

Governments try stuff like that pretty regularly (you can only buy certain things with food stamps, etc), but it's typically expensive to administer and inherently prone to abuse. Buy groceries with food stamps, sell groceries, buy drugs. On top of that, it's just inherently difficult to structure this in a way that's fair and useful to every person. If I inherited or built myself a nice rural home, I don't want a government-issue apartment - either instead or in addition to what I have. Do I get nothing? That's unfair. Do I get the stuff I don't want? "Lump sum in cash" is the most flexible and equitable system. But then - and that's a major problem with UBI - you end up with people who spend it irresponsibly and then need help to survive. So you end up with UBI in addition to all the existing social safety nets.

em-bee 2y ago
also dietary needs and preferences. it's way do complicated. it adds a burden not only to the administration but also to those who sell the goods and services received. another problem is that if i earn extra money i can't combine it with the basic income to eg afford a better apartment. everyone would be stuck with the apartment given. you end up with people who spend it irresponsibly and then need help to survive. So you end up with UBI in addition to all the existing social safety nets. i don't believe that. if you spend your income irresponsibly you are out of luck. change your habits. wait until the next payment and do better. if you can't do that then a social worker will help you.
throwaway743 2y ago
While cash like UBI offers flexibility, criticizing targeted aid like food stamps misses the point. These programs are essential safety nets for the most vulnerable. While some misuse might occur – often signaling deeper needs requiring more services, not less food – focusing on that minority ignores the vast majority who rely on this aid to simply survive. Suggesting it's "unfair" if you don't need specific help ignores the purpose of a safety net. How a society supports those facing hardship is a measure of its character. Worrying about potential misuse at the lowest rungs seems disproportionate when compared to massive government spending elsewhere. Ultimately, denying essential aid based on assumptions about how a few might misuse it is counterproductive and lacks compassion.

itishappy 2y ago

What am I going to do with a second home? I see where your head's at, but I think a huge portion of the reason for using dollars is that it's simple and easy to manage. You don't need to find suppliers, manage inventory, match individuals with housing, or audit for fairness. Potentially more importantly, you don't need to pay for those activities either!

markus_zhang 2y ago
Yeah, but I think with a government-initiated program, it's going to be a lot cheaper because of the scale. It definitely doesn't solve the problem of corruption or other political issues, but hopefully UBI creates better citizens (for a start, now whoever wants to participate in politics have the time to do more research and participate more) so that those issues get called out.

mppm 2y ago

This is basically the communist vision (in its original, positive sense) -- Universal Basic Provisioning achieved through automation and a moderate amount of community service. People are always quick to point out how governments will inevitably screw this up, likely making things even worse than they are now, but I think the idea has merit at least in principle. Unlike the idea of Universal Basic Income. Free markets and free money just don't go together. Especially if this money is given to the "productive underlayer" of society rather than investment bankers. That will just collapse the house of cards from the inside out. Administrators, middle managers and VPs of sales do not a functioning economy make.

markus_zhang 2y ago
I agree that historically such movements always ended up badly, e.g. Russia and China. I'd argue that Russia and China picked Socialism not because they had abundance of materials, but on the contrary, because they were too weak back then, so that Socialism gave them the tool of collectivism to fight against external threats and built up industries quickly. We have never tried something like that (as you said UBP) in a rich country. I guess Norway and Sweden are closer? But I'm not sure. Agree with your points on UBI.
- mppm 2y ago
  I do wonder sometimes how UBP would play out in a developed country... Would it remove the need for bullshit jobs and refocus the market-oriented part of the economy towards real progress? Would it make people happier? Or would it make people spend even more of their lives scrolling, swiping and retweeting? In any case, this is a purely theoretical exercise -- even more so than UBI, the idea of UBP is very much incompatible with neoclassical economics, which thoroughly dominates economic and societal thought in most of the developed world.

zehaeva 2y ago

Ahh going back to the days of Government Cheese I see! Everything old is new again.

markus_zhang 2y ago
Government cheese was created when the country didn't have enough resources. What I'm talking about is abundance of resources. We never tried anything like that before.
- jacobgkau 2y ago
  To be fair, government cheese (from what I understand) was actually created in order to save extra milk the government bought up as part of a price control effort. In other words, there was an abundance of milk (because the government subsidized it, causing more to be produced than the market needed). Once it was already sitting around, it's been used to address citizens in the country not having enough resources. Which is kind of the same thing your semi-universal basic provisions would address.
- tekla 2y ago
  Literally the exact opposite. Government cheese was created because due to subsidies, there was way too much milk that was going to be dumped into the nearest river until the Govt paid the farmers to convert it all to cheese and bought it and shoved it into storage to prop up cheese prices. It is the definition of over-abundance, since all the farmers were going to have to shoot their dairy cows to actually afford to keep some around and continue producing milk

tayo42 2y ago

I think expecting the government to figure out your meaning off life is putting a bit of to much responsibility there.

markus_zhang 2y ago
But what is wrong if there is an extra option? You don't have to take the pill if you don't need it.
- nradov 2y ago
  What's wrong is expecting other citizens to support people who are perfectly capable of working themselves.

metabagel 2y ago

> If I get UBI but feel lost, how do I find a sense of belonging? How do I find meaning in my life? That's rather a separate problem. The point of UBI is to make individuals and families more economically resilient. This should have a lot of beneficial spillover effects, but it's not a cure-all for every ill.

nradov 2y ago

And where exactly is that free furnished condo located? Do I get to live in Beverly Hills for free if I want to?

markus_zhang 2y ago
I agree that execution is the key, and I don't have the answers for a lot of the questions. I guess we (humans) will never achieve the equality that everyone agrees to, because every one has his or her own idea of equality, but maybe that shouldn't prevent us from trying.
- nradov 2y ago
  You have a very strange idea of "everyone". I never agreed to economic equality.
  - markus_zhang 2y ago
    Yeah that's one view of equality (by not agreeing with the concept from the start), and why I said there is no single answer every one agrees to.
- HideousKojima 2y ago
  >maybe that shouldn't prevent us from trying. When you're planning on taking the money for your utopian pipe dream from other people by force, you really ought to have a better justification than "it doesn't hurt to try!"