4 ms·

A think a more workable and politically palatable version of UBI would be some form of universal utility allowance. E.g. the first x kWh electric you use, or t

A think a more workable and politically palatable version of UBI would be some form of universal utility allowance. E.g. the first x kWh electric you use, or the first X litres of water, or the first x GB of data you use is entirely free, for everyone (where X is some reasonable number that someone could just conceivably survive on). Then as you use more and more the prices start to gradually increase across a series of bands so that the heaviest users are subsidising those using the least. It would promote efficiency, would be progressive, and would allow people to live without quite so much "bill fear" for essential utilities. Plus it is not literally putting money in people's hands which is often unpopular with some demographic groups. People would still need to work but there would be some element of safety net.

skybrian 7mo ago
That seems worse because it doesn't encourage conservation enough. You want people to be able to keep the gains if they conserve energy, to set the right incentives.
cogman10 7mo ago
> Plus it is not literally putting money in people's hands which is often unpopular with some demographic groups I'd be really opposed to this. It'd only be ok if we nationalized the industries where we set these rules and rates. Otherwise, this ends up being a simple handout to private industries. For example, let's say we say x liters of water. Well who's deciding how much x liters cost? If it's a private company and the government is guaranteeing it, you can bet water (which is relatively cheap where I live) will end up being the most expensive resource imaginable. And that may actually be true depending on the location, but it'd also be true in non-desert areas with plenty of water. We've effectively had that here with the ACA, where the government has decided that it will cover the first $800 or so dollars of your health insurance. What happened? Magically, the cost of health insurance increased by $800. Private industries aren't stupid, they'll always charge the maximum price the market will bear. And when we start talking about captured industries like data provider, power provider, or your water provider... well that's where we can trust private industry the least as they literally have the public over a barrel. Utility boards are an OK solution, but the better solution is to turn these into public institutes instead of private ones.
- physPop 7mo ago
  Aren't utilities, by definition, state owned? Or is that also backwards in america?
  - righthand 7mo ago
    Utilities in America refers to the service relative to ideas of basic needs for survival in the US so they are often public infrastructure with private operators but in the case of some things like the internet, it’s purely privatized.
  - ocdtrekkie 7mo ago
    It depends. Water is usually provided by the city here, but most electricity and natural gas is corporate-delivered.
  - idle_zealot 7mo ago
    We don't even own all of our roads here. Sometimes we sell city streets to parking companies.
- konaraddi 7mo ago
  > We've effectively had that here with the ACA, where the government has decided that it will cover the first $800 or so dollars of your health insurance. What happened? Magically, the cost of health insurance increased by $800. I don’t think that’s an accurate description of ACA [1], it didn’t lead to a dollar to dollar increase in premiums (share a citation if otherwise), and it’s a bit misleading to say it led to an increase in premiums because plans pre-ACA were effectively inaccessible to and lacking in benefits for impoverished people or people with pre-existing conditions. [1] Here’s a brief description of ACA from Wikipedia: > The act largely retained the existing structure of Medicare, Medicaid, and the employer market, but individual markets were radically overhauled.[1][11] Insurers were made to accept all applicants without charging based on pre-existing conditions or demographic status (except age). To combat the resultant adverse selection, the act mandated that individuals buy insurance (or pay a monetary penalty) and that insurers cover a list of "essential health benefits". Young people were allowed to stay on their parents' insurance plans until they were 26 years old.
zozbot234 7mo ago
A non-tradable utility allowance would incent people to waste these basic goods, and a tradable utility allowance, while obviously fixing this, would be no different than a UBI that was indexed to the price of basic utilities.
cwillu 7mo ago
The “demographic groups” that find it unpopular dislike anything that can be remotely construed as giving to the poor. There is literally no purpose trying to cater to them while trying to set up a social program.

skybrian 7mo ago

That seems worse because it doesn't encourage conservation enough. You want people to be able to keep the gains if they conserve energy, to set the right incentives.

cogman10 7mo ago

> Plus it is not literally putting money in people's hands which is often unpopular with some demographic groups I'd be really opposed to this. It'd only be ok if we nationalized the industries where we set these rules and rates. Otherwise, this ends up being a simple handout to private industries. For example, let's say we say x liters of water. Well who's deciding how much x liters cost? If it's a private company and the government is guaranteeing it, you can bet water (which is relatively cheap where I live) will end up being the most expensive resource imaginable. And that may actually be true depending on the location, but it'd also be true in non-desert areas with plenty of water. We've effectively had that here with the ACA, where the government has decided that it will cover the first $800 or so dollars of your health insurance. What happened? Magically, the cost of health insurance increased by $800. Private industries aren't stupid, they'll always charge the maximum price the market will bear. And when we start talking about captured industries like data provider, power provider, or your water provider... well that's where we can trust private industry the least as they literally have the public over a barrel. Utility boards are an OK solution, but the better solution is to turn these into public institutes instead of private ones.

physPop 7mo ago
Aren't utilities, by definition, state owned? Or is that also backwards in america?
- righthand 7mo ago
  Utilities in America refers to the service relative to ideas of basic needs for survival in the US so they are often public infrastructure with private operators but in the case of some things like the internet, it’s purely privatized.
- ocdtrekkie 7mo ago
  It depends. Water is usually provided by the city here, but most electricity and natural gas is corporate-delivered.
- idle_zealot 7mo ago
  We don't even own all of our roads here. Sometimes we sell city streets to parking companies.
konaraddi 7mo ago
> We've effectively had that here with the ACA, where the government has decided that it will cover the first $800 or so dollars of your health insurance. What happened? Magically, the cost of health insurance increased by $800. I don’t think that’s an accurate description of ACA [1], it didn’t lead to a dollar to dollar increase in premiums (share a citation if otherwise), and it’s a bit misleading to say it led to an increase in premiums because plans pre-ACA were effectively inaccessible to and lacking in benefits for impoverished people or people with pre-existing conditions. [1] Here’s a brief description of ACA from Wikipedia: > The act largely retained the existing structure of Medicare, Medicaid, and the employer market, but individual markets were radically overhauled.[1][11] Insurers were made to accept all applicants without charging based on pre-existing conditions or demographic status (except age). To combat the resultant adverse selection, the act mandated that individuals buy insurance (or pay a monetary penalty) and that insurers cover a list of "essential health benefits". Young people were allowed to stay on their parents' insurance plans until they were 26 years old.

zozbot234 7mo ago

A non-tradable utility allowance would incent people to waste these basic goods, and a tradable utility allowance, while obviously fixing this, would be no different than a UBI that was indexed to the price of basic utilities.

cwillu 7mo ago

The “demographic groups” that find it unpopular dislike anything that can be remotely construed as giving to the poor. There is literally no purpose trying to cater to them while trying to set up a social program.