An experiment in giving cash to recently homeless people [video](bbc.com)
bbc.com
An experiment in giving cash to recently homeless people [video]
https://www.bbc.com/reel/video/p096hf4z/the-7-500-universal-basic-income-experiment
374 comments
I just want to underscore: Chiropractic is a pseudoscience and injures more people than it helps. I have heard too many stories of injuries and paralysis. It's a huge shame that our society allows these frauds to practice and advertize the whole sham as a respectable profession. It is not evidence-based, it's a total sham.
So why does every NFL and MLB team have a chiropractor on staff and why does the US Olympic team also hire them specifically (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sports_chiropractic)? If it’s a sham, why would these athletes and their organizations take a risk, especially when money is on the line? Also from what I am reading, serious injuries from chiropractic practice is very rare, and so your claim of “injures more than it helps” seems off, or at least misleading.
It seems to me that your depiction of chiropractors isn’t the whole story. A practice may be framed as a pseudoscience but still be effective or worthwhile, perhaps?
It seems to me that your depiction of chiropractors isn’t the whole story. A practice may be framed as a pseudoscience but still be effective or worthwhile, perhaps?
The whole point of scams is that money is on the line, otherwise it would just be random woo. In fact early Chiropractic was explicitly framed as a belief from irrefutable doctrine and rejecting inferential reasoning, essentially claiming defence as religious freedom, in order to exempt it from being regulated as practicing medicine without a license. Most Chiropractors nowadays do incorporate a degree of scientific reasoning and evidence into their practice, but personally it's not clear to me to what extent this is genuine or just adopting the terminology to paper over the holistic wellness metaphysics claptrap with a veneer of respectability.
Personally, I'd rather go to a real physiotherapist.
Personally, I'd rather go to a real physiotherapist.
People will do anything to get an edge up on the competition, even if the 'anything' is something dubious (placebo effect). I don't think we should look to the NFL as a source of medical truth. They have long papered over the dangers over a career in the NFL and the ensuing long term damage. The NFL, MLB, and Olympic teams are not authorities on medical advice. Their usage of chiropractic should not give rise to its credibility.
Massage may still feel worthwhile to the majority of people if it were also customary to drink a poison beforehand that makes 1% of customers deathly ill and just makes the other 99% feel a little weird. Most people will report "wow, that was a nice massage, and I definitely felt different afterwards", but how could you say there are any benefits beyond a simple massage, except perhaps a much heightened placebo effect? Chiropractic is risky, and strictly worse than massage or physical therapy. That's what you have to compare it with.
Thanks but I must disagree. Will you come with me awhile and let's look for the bigger fish here before pointing the finger?
Are you aware that for the poor, as I sadly came to find out, the injury attorney is in charge? Just like a coach who calls the plays and decides which players to put on the field, the atty decides on which doctor chiro surgeon etc to send the victim to.
The injury lawyer sent me to a chiropractor who has apparently been in business a long time.
Let me ask you: of all those stories you've heard of injury and paralysis by chiropractors...how many of them resulted from car accidents or other cases where the victim is 'sent' to the chiropractor as opposed to 'choosing' them?
I have met many over these past years who were car accident victims and at least anecdotally it seems like I am not much of an edge case in this specific regard.
I am not trying to argue with you. I guess I am thinking about what you said and I am trying to point out that mere cash payments to homeless are pointless if there are not other changes to these systemic frauds that exploit the poor, the weak, the homeless.
Are you aware that for the poor, as I sadly came to find out, the injury attorney is in charge? Just like a coach who calls the plays and decides which players to put on the field, the atty decides on which doctor chiro surgeon etc to send the victim to.
The injury lawyer sent me to a chiropractor who has apparently been in business a long time.
Let me ask you: of all those stories you've heard of injury and paralysis by chiropractors...how many of them resulted from car accidents or other cases where the victim is 'sent' to the chiropractor as opposed to 'choosing' them?
I have met many over these past years who were car accident victims and at least anecdotally it seems like I am not much of an edge case in this specific regard.
I am not trying to argue with you. I guess I am thinking about what you said and I am trying to point out that mere cash payments to homeless are pointless if there are not other changes to these systemic frauds that exploit the poor, the weak, the homeless.
I'm not sure I follow. The parent commenter isn't pointing any fingers or saying it's your fault that you were sent to a chiropractor. Simply that it's a bad idea to go to one in general if you do have a choice.
But I didnt have a choice so this repetitive noise about chiropractors did an excellent job of drowning my signal about homeless and payments.
Do you see how vigorously he is pushing this view against chiropractors and he is pushing it here in my comments?
Do you see how vigorously he is pushing this view against chiropractors and he is pushing it here in my comments?
You don't own this comment section, and I'm not making it harder for you to post by sharing my thoughts. The internet is big enough for the two of us.
If we spread the word about chiropractic being a scam, perhaps it will deter attorneys from subjecting people to such treatments and thus save someone in a similar position as you were from a future permanent injury.
I'm not sure what you're disagreeing with. Chiropractic is a scam and I'm sorry that it has such an impact on the poor. I'd call this an obvious systemic societal problem that we do this. Car wreck injuries should be met with a physical therapist at the very least, and no less.
A lot of Chiropractic practice is about regaining and preserving good posture and many places employ actual physical therapists and massage therapists. It's true they put too much stock in the spine being the root all ailments, but it's not a total sham. They may not be medical doctors but they certainly do do evidence-based treatments and understand anatomy. From your comment it sounds like you've never been to one and fundamentally don't understand what they are about.
Nononono, it is a total scam. They do not do any kind of evidence based treatment. Please stop spouting this nonsense here.
He's never been to one because it's a well-known scam, I would guess? They have no idea what "evidence-based" entails, and rely on the fact that neither do their clients ("Well, I went to a chiropractor and then felt no pain, so it works.").
I thank each of you for your thoughts. And its my fault for not getting to the next part of my story yet.
I believe there are good chiropractors despite my experience. I ended up finding a few who I believe have been able to reverse some the damage done prior.
To me there are good and bad doctors Good and bad chiropractors Good and bad attorneys Good and bad financial advisors (I was one for a short period into 9/11)
Shop around is my advice.
To the OP topic I would use any financial assistance first to address my spinal cord injury as opposed to further developing the RTS game mod I am creating.
And I guess my segment is no exception...there are good and bad homeless too.
We gotta look deeper than the labels!
I believe there are good chiropractors despite my experience. I ended up finding a few who I believe have been able to reverse some the damage done prior.
To me there are good and bad doctors Good and bad chiropractors Good and bad attorneys Good and bad financial advisors (I was one for a short period into 9/11)
Shop around is my advice.
To the OP topic I would use any financial assistance first to address my spinal cord injury as opposed to further developing the RTS game mod I am creating.
And I guess my segment is no exception...there are good and bad homeless too.
We gotta look deeper than the labels!
As with most disciplines, the variation between practitioners is bigger than the variation between disciplines.
If you have a practitioner who works for your problems, more power to you.
However, if you're looking for someone new - do not search among chiropractors. They are - on average - much more likely to harm you than a psychotherapist or osteopath.
If you have a practitioner who works for your problems, more power to you.
However, if you're looking for someone new - do not search among chiropractors. They are - on average - much more likely to harm you than a psychotherapist or osteopath.
Thank you very much for your comment. Osteopath just made my list.
It might be true that there are some chiropractors who are also skilled physical therapists or massage therapists.
But that's just a coincidence -- the name "chiropractor" does not imply those things. Chiropractic itself is not evidenced based in any way.
Aside: I wish you the best in your life and hope you find justice/success/happiness.
But that's just a coincidence -- the name "chiropractor" does not imply those things. Chiropractic itself is not evidenced based in any way.
Aside: I wish you the best in your life and hope you find justice/success/happiness.
Thank you. I believe you are right. I was merely trying to identify the people in my story concisely and accurately. With a helicopter hovering 300 feet overhead. In the dark.
To me its the nut of the homeless problem bias. I did not cry 'WOLF'. I said 'Chiropractor' and the rest is inference and in this case I believe mistaken judgement but I would be curious to know what others think.
To me its the nut of the homeless problem bias. I did not cry 'WOLF'. I said 'Chiropractor' and the rest is inference and in this case I believe mistaken judgement but I would be curious to know what others think.
It's been a longstanding problem that chiropractors have tried to co-opt people's conception of physical therapy to believe it is one and the same as chiropractic, so as to legitimize chiropractic as a real therapy. So I don't think the severe reaction on here to chiropractic should be taken as anything personal.
Choosing Chiropractic over evidence-based science is a bit like saying gambling on slots is a good way to make steady income. There are good slot machines and bad slot machines, just like there are good jobs and bad jobs; find the correct one and you'll be well off!
> there are good and bad doctors Good and bad chiropractors Good and bad attorneys Good and bad financial advisors
How about clairvoyants, mediums, and dowsers? Sometimes a whole profession is just nonsense.
> We gotta look deeper than the labels!
It isn't empty labeling. Chiropractic is pseudoscience. This is neither a matter of opinion, nor an open question.
How about clairvoyants, mediums, and dowsers? Sometimes a whole profession is just nonsense.
> We gotta look deeper than the labels!
It isn't empty labeling. Chiropractic is pseudoscience. This is neither a matter of opinion, nor an open question.
Excuse me but how are you still missing my point? I merely used the vocational terms to identify the people in my story.
If you can get past your witchhunt against chiropractors then I think you may understand more of what I am trying to say. With respect
If you can get past your witchhunt against chiropractors then I think you may understand more of what I am trying to say. With respect
> I have heard too many stories of injuries and paralysis.
There is a saying that every doctor has a graveyard. Chiropractors are no different.
I don't require any evidence, if given practitioner helps me with my problem, while traditional ones can't. It amazes me that people always need someone to blame. How about taking responsibility for your own health and your body well-being?
There is a saying that every doctor has a graveyard. Chiropractors are no different.
I don't require any evidence, if given practitioner helps me with my problem, while traditional ones can't. It amazes me that people always need someone to blame. How about taking responsibility for your own health and your body well-being?
> I don't require any evidence, if given practitioner helps me with my problem, while traditional ones can't.
Let's say you wake up with back pain, and there's nothing obviously wrong with your spine.
You can go to a physical therapist, and they will check your spine and muscles, move your body, tell you to do some exercises to improve your posture. There is no clear diagnosis beyond some muscle tension and no immediate relief, and you are disappointed, and when the pain goes away on its own in a few days you think visiting the therapist was pointless. You tell your friends how pointless traditional medicine is.
Or you visit a chiropracter. He tells you a very satisfying diagnosis, promises to heal you, and makes a few movements that feel surprising. You are impressed. After a few days the pain is completely gone! You are stoked! This person healed you! You don't need evidence from scientific trials, because you experienced the power of alternative medicine yourself!! You tell all your friends how you were healed by this persons magic hands!
Of course, without any treatment at all, the pain would also have gone away after a few days.
This is why we need evidence based medicine. (And this of course applies to traditional medicine as well -- just because real doctors went to university doesn't make them immune to this problems. There are plenty of doctors who prescribe inefficient treatments.)
Let's say you wake up with back pain, and there's nothing obviously wrong with your spine.
You can go to a physical therapist, and they will check your spine and muscles, move your body, tell you to do some exercises to improve your posture. There is no clear diagnosis beyond some muscle tension and no immediate relief, and you are disappointed, and when the pain goes away on its own in a few days you think visiting the therapist was pointless. You tell your friends how pointless traditional medicine is.
Or you visit a chiropracter. He tells you a very satisfying diagnosis, promises to heal you, and makes a few movements that feel surprising. You are impressed. After a few days the pain is completely gone! You are stoked! This person healed you! You don't need evidence from scientific trials, because you experienced the power of alternative medicine yourself!! You tell all your friends how you were healed by this persons magic hands!
Of course, without any treatment at all, the pain would also have gone away after a few days.
This is why we need evidence based medicine. (And this of course applies to traditional medicine as well -- just because real doctors went to university doesn't make them immune to this problems. There are plenty of doctors who prescribe inefficient treatments.)
> Of course, without any treatment at all, the pain would also have gone away after a few days.
And if you struggle for years with chronic back problems and doctors don't really have an answer except to prescribe addictive painkillers and then you see a chiro and everything is cleared up in a couple days?
Telling me that's a coincidence is just gaslighting.
Sorry, I have no clue what confluence of political/cultural forces have led to the inability of science to figure out how/why this stuff works.
Maybe in another 40 years. Good luck!
And if you struggle for years with chronic back problems and doctors don't really have an answer except to prescribe addictive painkillers and then you see a chiro and everything is cleared up in a couple days?
Telling me that's a coincidence is just gaslighting.
Sorry, I have no clue what confluence of political/cultural forces have led to the inability of science to figure out how/why this stuff works.
Maybe in another 40 years. Good luck!
Scientific studies have shown that the placebo effect is very real. You may think that a placebo could never help with your back pain, but I see no reason why a random person on the internet should be immune to the placebo effect.
"Do you know what they call 'alternative medicine' that's been proved to work?
Medicine."
- Tim Minchin
- Tim Minchin
> Chiropractors are no different.
Chiropractors are not doctors, nor hold any other medical-based degree.
Chiropractors are not doctors, nor hold any other medical-based degree.
How does it relate to the fact they all do mistakes?
The actions that chiropractors use that end up injuring people were not mistakes. They're an intended part of the practice. Since it's not an evidence-based profession, that doesn't matter to them. It's not like someone went around and yanked a thousand spines and made sure nobody was paralyzed before chiropractic became a thing. No, there's not any body of evidence. On the contrary, modern mainstream medicine is based on which interventions tend to help people measurably.
Do you recommend these treatments?
Acupuncture, massage, biofeedback therapy, laser therapy, electrical nerve stimulation and other nonsurgical spine treatments
Acupuncture, massage, biofeedback therapy, laser therapy, electrical nerve stimulation and other nonsurgical spine treatments
What you are saying is the intention of every chiropractor is to make harm, because they know upfront it wont work and will harm. Which is absurd.
Action of chiropractor is a mean to correct imbalance in the body. Most of the time it works, sometimes not. I would call it side effect, which any evidence-based pill has also.
Action of chiropractor is a mean to correct imbalance in the body. Most of the time it works, sometimes not. I would call it side effect, which any evidence-based pill has also.
The intention of every chiropractor is to conduct chiropractic treatments in exchange for money, not to willfully make harm.
The problem is that there is no expectation for a chiropractic treatment to be effective in solving any problem, since chiropractic is not evidence based. However there is evidence to show that there are significant risks of injury to undergoing chiropractic treatments.
The problem is that there is no expectation for a chiropractic treatment to be effective in solving any problem, since chiropractic is not evidence based. However there is evidence to show that there are significant risks of injury to undergoing chiropractic treatments.
Feels good to talk down to people. Good on you for showing this person that degrees are stupid and science is a sham.
That's not what he said. Chiropractic is a sham because it isn't science; the scientific method fails to show evidence that chiropractic treatments are effective.
"If alternative medicine worked it would be called 'medicine'"
"If alternative medicine worked it would be called 'medicine'"
Not disagreeing about chiropractors but...
> "If alternative medicine worked it would be called 'medicine'"
This seems a bit simplistic. There is some scope for exploration of new ideas in medicine, and many ideas may go untested until after they see adoption in the community.
They then might go through a double blinded trial (or several) that doesn't reveal any benefit beyond placebo, but even then, it's worth noting that some placebos work better than others, and likely placebos work differently for each individual. So for something like pain, which can be controlled somewhat by psychological intervention, a better placebo could have merit. But also, it could be found that some 'alternative medicines' supported by anecdata become scientifically validated interventions.
Not saying that unproven interventions should be thrust upon naive patients, but there are many willing and desperate people who've tried mainstream therapies without success
> "If alternative medicine worked it would be called 'medicine'"
This seems a bit simplistic. There is some scope for exploration of new ideas in medicine, and many ideas may go untested until after they see adoption in the community.
They then might go through a double blinded trial (or several) that doesn't reveal any benefit beyond placebo, but even then, it's worth noting that some placebos work better than others, and likely placebos work differently for each individual. So for something like pain, which can be controlled somewhat by psychological intervention, a better placebo could have merit. But also, it could be found that some 'alternative medicines' supported by anecdata become scientifically validated interventions.
Not saying that unproven interventions should be thrust upon naive patients, but there are many willing and desperate people who've tried mainstream therapies without success
> desperate people who've tried mainstream therapies without success
It would be wonderful if we could help desperate people without lying about the expected outcome of alternative treatment.
I don't think anybody will complain if you say something like "maybe you will find this medidation technique makes it easier to deal with your pain".
The problem is when people say "This technique will cure your pain. You only need to give me 5000€. Also, don't bother continuing with chemo, it just interferes with your natural healing powers."
It would be wonderful if we could help desperate people without lying about the expected outcome of alternative treatment.
I don't think anybody will complain if you say something like "maybe you will find this medidation technique makes it easier to deal with your pain".
The problem is when people say "This technique will cure your pain. You only need to give me 5000€. Also, don't bother continuing with chemo, it just interferes with your natural healing powers."
I don't think it has to be this way, or that is necessarily the norm. For example, in most countries you can sit as many 10-day Vipassana meditation courses as you like with zero obligation to pay. I did though, because I'd been suffering with debilitating whole body eczema since I was born, where the most effective treatment was corticosteroids. I've been free of this burden for years now. No-one told me it would cure my ills, and I would never have been prescribed this by my GP or dermatologist. Likewise, I would say to anyone YMMV and meditation isn't a panacea.
There are definitely fraudsters out there, but there's doctors who prescribe an ineffectual or even harmful medication for kick-backs, such as 'seminars' which are basically paid-for vacations. So keep in mind that conventional medicine isn't the paragon of ethics either
There are definitely fraudsters out there, but there's doctors who prescribe an ineffectual or even harmful medication for kick-backs, such as 'seminars' which are basically paid-for vacations. So keep in mind that conventional medicine isn't the paragon of ethics either
I agree with you and I want to make it clear that I don't think meditation itself is fraud. I'm pretty sure meditation is an effective way to deal with stress.
It also sounds plausible that reducing stress would help with skin problems -- I think it's pretty much consensus that neurodermatitis can be triggered by stress.
Another example are IR heat lamps: they were often used to help with joint pain. I don't know how effective they are, but at least they feel good. In my opinion, there's nothing wrong with buying a heat lamp and using it.
But someone I know was sold one of these lamps as a cure for her cancer, for about 100x the normal price of such lamps. There is no way a fancy lamp is going to help when the surgery failed. People will pay anything for a glimmer of hope, and peddlers of "alternative" treatments prey on this desperation. That's the problem with alternative medicine.
It also sounds plausible that reducing stress would help with skin problems -- I think it's pretty much consensus that neurodermatitis can be triggered by stress.
Another example are IR heat lamps: they were often used to help with joint pain. I don't know how effective they are, but at least they feel good. In my opinion, there's nothing wrong with buying a heat lamp and using it.
But someone I know was sold one of these lamps as a cure for her cancer, for about 100x the normal price of such lamps. There is no way a fancy lamp is going to help when the surgery failed. People will pay anything for a glimmer of hope, and peddlers of "alternative" treatments prey on this desperation. That's the problem with alternative medicine.
> I think it's pretty much consensus that neurodermatitis can be triggered by stress.
No offense intended, but you're a little out of your depth here. Keep in mind I had this for decades and thought of everything you could think of, and more. And yes, stress makes it worse, but quitting work and pretty much eliminating any stress from my life, didn't fix it.
> But someone I know was sold one of these lamps as a cure for her cancer, for about 100x the normal price of such lamps.
That's a bummer of a story. As I said, I wouldn't say this is the norm for alternative therapies.
> That's the problem with alternative medicine.
It is certainly a problem that exists within 'alternative medicine'. There are fewer check and balances, and government oversight, as per the traditional medical establishment, and there's nonsense like homeopathy, but unscrupulous things happen in conventional medicine too. Like say, trying to fix psychological issues with chemical interventions that aren't all that efficacious, or addictive pain meds that lead to overdoses.
Conventional medicine of course has plenty of merit, and is often backed up by rigorous clinical studies, but I'd also argue there's plenty of helpful encounters with 'alternative medicine'. I think also helps to have some epistemic humility, and that in order to be truly 'scientific', alternative therapies should be taken seriously, and studied properly, before they are dismissed... and yes, fraud is a problem that should be taken seriously too.
No offense intended, but you're a little out of your depth here. Keep in mind I had this for decades and thought of everything you could think of, and more. And yes, stress makes it worse, but quitting work and pretty much eliminating any stress from my life, didn't fix it.
> But someone I know was sold one of these lamps as a cure for her cancer, for about 100x the normal price of such lamps.
That's a bummer of a story. As I said, I wouldn't say this is the norm for alternative therapies.
> That's the problem with alternative medicine.
It is certainly a problem that exists within 'alternative medicine'. There are fewer check and balances, and government oversight, as per the traditional medical establishment, and there's nonsense like homeopathy, but unscrupulous things happen in conventional medicine too. Like say, trying to fix psychological issues with chemical interventions that aren't all that efficacious, or addictive pain meds that lead to overdoses.
Conventional medicine of course has plenty of merit, and is often backed up by rigorous clinical studies, but I'd also argue there's plenty of helpful encounters with 'alternative medicine'. I think also helps to have some epistemic humility, and that in order to be truly 'scientific', alternative therapies should be taken seriously, and studied properly, before they are dismissed... and yes, fraud is a problem that should be taken seriously too.
> No offense intended, but you're a little out of your depth here.
I wasn't trying to make any claims about how skin diseases work, I apologise if it came across this way. I just wanted to say that it sounds plausible to me that meditation could help with excemas, since to my knowledge some skin diseases correlate with stress.
I'm not saying that your exzemas were caused by stress. I also didn't say that removing stress would cure neurodermatitis -- these kinds of statements based on anecdotes are exactly what I'm trying to argue against.
(One interesting anecdote about neurodermatitis is that with all the people I knew it mostly went away at some point in their lives, and they don't know why)
> I wouldn't say this is the norm for alternative therapies.
I have a lot of relatives who are very fond of "alternative medicine", and almost all of it is total bullshit.
There's people determining the correct ingredients of a medicine using a pendulum, others determining food allergies by measuring electrical resistance of the skin, people who cure headaches with electric shocks, or those that cure epilepsy by taking specific "salts", and there's always some general purpose alcohol drops that help cure everything.
> alternative therapies should be taken seriously, and studied properly, before they are dismissed
So many people come up with devices that channel earth rays and complain that the establishment doesn't take them serious. If you try to make money with some made up treatment, it's on you to prove that it works. You can't just go peddle your cure for everything and then expect some scientist to come along and do the work for you.
If it's something sensible, then people do study it. Out of curiosity I typed the keywords "meditation" and "exzema" into Google scholar, and 5000 articles matched the query. I don't have any background in clinical research, so I have no idea how I'd go about to evaluate the quality of these articles, but it definitely does look to me like research is being done on alternative treatments.
I wasn't trying to make any claims about how skin diseases work, I apologise if it came across this way. I just wanted to say that it sounds plausible to me that meditation could help with excemas, since to my knowledge some skin diseases correlate with stress.
I'm not saying that your exzemas were caused by stress. I also didn't say that removing stress would cure neurodermatitis -- these kinds of statements based on anecdotes are exactly what I'm trying to argue against.
(One interesting anecdote about neurodermatitis is that with all the people I knew it mostly went away at some point in their lives, and they don't know why)
> I wouldn't say this is the norm for alternative therapies.
I have a lot of relatives who are very fond of "alternative medicine", and almost all of it is total bullshit.
There's people determining the correct ingredients of a medicine using a pendulum, others determining food allergies by measuring electrical resistance of the skin, people who cure headaches with electric shocks, or those that cure epilepsy by taking specific "salts", and there's always some general purpose alcohol drops that help cure everything.
> alternative therapies should be taken seriously, and studied properly, before they are dismissed
So many people come up with devices that channel earth rays and complain that the establishment doesn't take them serious. If you try to make money with some made up treatment, it's on you to prove that it works. You can't just go peddle your cure for everything and then expect some scientist to come along and do the work for you.
If it's something sensible, then people do study it. Out of curiosity I typed the keywords "meditation" and "exzema" into Google scholar, and 5000 articles matched the query. I don't have any background in clinical research, so I have no idea how I'd go about to evaluate the quality of these articles, but it definitely does look to me like research is being done on alternative treatments.
> I wasn't trying to make any claims about how skin diseases work, I apologise if it came across this way. I just wanted to say that it sounds plausible to me that meditation could help with excemas, since to my knowledge some skin diseases correlate with stress.
> (One interesting anecdote about neurodermatitis is that with all the people I knew it mostly went away at some point in their lives, and they don't know why)
You were informing me about the mechanisms of a disease I lived with for 36 desperate years, as if I was naive, and never read any literature, consulted any experts, and didn't know the basics, like say, that stress is a factor in eczema severity. Try to imagine how that might feel.
But I'm surprised you know of more than one person with neurodermatitis, I can only think of one other. What I had was atopic dermatitis, it was from birth, and never abated.
I read that for most people atopic dermatitis usually disappears around their late 20s, and that milestone came and went for me. Things only got worse. My whole body was covered - unlike for typical neurodermatitis. My dermatologist put me on a course of oral corticosteroids, which didn't really help, and also told me to take lightly bleached baths. The body-wide secondary infection meant my bed was damp from my broken skin leaking out everywhere. My whole body was screaming at me to scratch. I basically never had proper sleep.
I changed everything I could change. I quit my job (so no more exposure to air conditioning drying out my skin everyday, no more stressful deadlines), moved back home to a sunnier climate (low-dose UV is a treatment for eczema, so I'd sun myself every day), had healthy good food that avoided any of the allergens on my RAST tests, and the situation improved... but I still had it across my whole body, I still had no sleep.
The meditation practice of Vipassana solved the problem for me in 10 days... for free. Maybe I could have spent months going to CBT sessions and got the same results from a medically sanctioned clinical methodology... but why, when the better thing is orders of magnitude faster and cheaper? It just so happened the technique is basically not reacting to sensations, which seems perfectly designed psychological intervention for breaking the itch-scratch-itch cycle.
> I have a lot of relatives who are very fond of "alternative medicine", and almost all of it is total bullshit.
The examples you go on to describe are total BS and I agree these should never claim to be a stand in for already-proven medicine, like say taking a RAST test to determine allergies vs measuring skin conductivity. This sort of Gwyneth Paltrow stuff for me seems to be on the fringes and mostly benign, but the sorts of alternative medicines I'm thinking of are more psychological interventions, or maybe last-resort placebos, or even plant medicine outside what has been properly studied. I think there's some scope to bring these into the fold of conventional medicine should they prove their worth.
> You can't just go peddle your cure for everything and then expect some scientist to come along and do the work for you.
Agreed.
> but it definitely does look to me like research is being done on alternative treatments.
You're probably right. Though it took some time before meditation was taken seriously by science, and it's been around for millennia. I'm certain that if my GP said -- in some alternate dimension -- 'I prescribe you a Vipassana meditation retreat', and I took that 'medicine' in my teenage years, I would have been vastly better off. It's bizarre, to be at my peak cognition and physical fitness in my late 30s, because I'm no longer distracted by my whole body screaming at me with the largest organ on my body shredded from head to toe. But how was my doctor to know?
> (One interesting anecdote about neurodermatitis is that with all the people I knew it mostly went away at some point in their lives, and they don't know why)
You were informing me about the mechanisms of a disease I lived with for 36 desperate years, as if I was naive, and never read any literature, consulted any experts, and didn't know the basics, like say, that stress is a factor in eczema severity. Try to imagine how that might feel.
But I'm surprised you know of more than one person with neurodermatitis, I can only think of one other. What I had was atopic dermatitis, it was from birth, and never abated.
I read that for most people atopic dermatitis usually disappears around their late 20s, and that milestone came and went for me. Things only got worse. My whole body was covered - unlike for typical neurodermatitis. My dermatologist put me on a course of oral corticosteroids, which didn't really help, and also told me to take lightly bleached baths. The body-wide secondary infection meant my bed was damp from my broken skin leaking out everywhere. My whole body was screaming at me to scratch. I basically never had proper sleep.
I changed everything I could change. I quit my job (so no more exposure to air conditioning drying out my skin everyday, no more stressful deadlines), moved back home to a sunnier climate (low-dose UV is a treatment for eczema, so I'd sun myself every day), had healthy good food that avoided any of the allergens on my RAST tests, and the situation improved... but I still had it across my whole body, I still had no sleep.
The meditation practice of Vipassana solved the problem for me in 10 days... for free. Maybe I could have spent months going to CBT sessions and got the same results from a medically sanctioned clinical methodology... but why, when the better thing is orders of magnitude faster and cheaper? It just so happened the technique is basically not reacting to sensations, which seems perfectly designed psychological intervention for breaking the itch-scratch-itch cycle.
> I have a lot of relatives who are very fond of "alternative medicine", and almost all of it is total bullshit.
The examples you go on to describe are total BS and I agree these should never claim to be a stand in for already-proven medicine, like say taking a RAST test to determine allergies vs measuring skin conductivity. This sort of Gwyneth Paltrow stuff for me seems to be on the fringes and mostly benign, but the sorts of alternative medicines I'm thinking of are more psychological interventions, or maybe last-resort placebos, or even plant medicine outside what has been properly studied. I think there's some scope to bring these into the fold of conventional medicine should they prove their worth.
> You can't just go peddle your cure for everything and then expect some scientist to come along and do the work for you.
Agreed.
> but it definitely does look to me like research is being done on alternative treatments.
You're probably right. Though it took some time before meditation was taken seriously by science, and it's been around for millennia. I'm certain that if my GP said -- in some alternate dimension -- 'I prescribe you a Vipassana meditation retreat', and I took that 'medicine' in my teenage years, I would have been vastly better off. It's bizarre, to be at my peak cognition and physical fitness in my late 30s, because I'm no longer distracted by my whole body screaming at me with the largest organ on my body shredded from head to toe. But how was my doctor to know?
>but even then, it's worth noting that some placebos work better than others, and likely placebos work differently for each individual. So for something like pain, which can be controlled somewhat by psychological intervention, a better placebo could have merit.
Do you think it's ethical for manufacturers to advertise sugar pills as real drugs being able to treat illness, even though their effects are purely placebo?
Do you think it's ethical for manufacturers to advertise sugar pills as real drugs being able to treat illness, even though their effects are purely placebo?
I'll quote myself
> Not saying that unproven interventions should be thrust upon naive patients,
> Not saying that unproven interventions should be thrust upon naive patients,
Do you believe you’re representative of the population of homeless people (ie are their origin stories similar in nature to yours)?
Also, what life circumstances led to you sharing a motel room with a person who, out of nowhere, rushed at people with a knife? Had this person done similar acts prior to you / have they since / was there a dispute / were there drugs?
Also, what life circumstances led to you sharing a motel room with a person who, out of nowhere, rushed at people with a knife? Had this person done similar acts prior to you / have they since / was there a dispute / were there drugs?
Thanks for your question. I do not believe I am a representative example of the homeless population.
But I would venture to say I represent the effects of a culturally biased view of the entire homeless population. A bias that inaccurately portrays homeless as somehow 'deserving' of their miserable situation(s).
Drugs, mental issues, stupidity ... after all I have seen out here these are not typical root causes of homelessness. They are typical consequences of being homeless.
So i was renting a bedroom in a 2bd apartment. It wasnt a motel. I had been living there several months and there were no known issues although I could tell we likely were not to become friends due to differences in value systems. I suspect he has lied successfully many, many, many times in the past.
But I would venture to say I represent the effects of a culturally biased view of the entire homeless population. A bias that inaccurately portrays homeless as somehow 'deserving' of their miserable situation(s).
Drugs, mental issues, stupidity ... after all I have seen out here these are not typical root causes of homelessness. They are typical consequences of being homeless.
So i was renting a bedroom in a 2bd apartment. It wasnt a motel. I had been living there several months and there were no known issues although I could tell we likely were not to become friends due to differences in value systems. I suspect he has lied successfully many, many, many times in the past.
If you talk to homeless people a lot of them have interesting origin stories.
Please. Escape. LA.
LA has 66,433 [1] homeless people and there is not the resource system to help. LA has a huge drug culture which creates an aggressive gang culture. Homeless are taken advantage of by gangs. The camps that are allowed are not worth it! It is so bad - Typhoid Fever, Typhus & Tuberculosis are spreading among the homeless encampments [2]. Your best bet is to find a small town in the middle of no where America and pan handle. By the end of the day you will be cleaning someones garage for cash sleeping in a mechanics guest house. No one cares in LA.
[1] https://www.forbes.com/sites/chuckdevore/2019/06/04/typhoid-...
[2] https://www.npr.org/2020/06/12/875888864/homelessness-in-los...
LA has 66,433 [1] homeless people and there is not the resource system to help. LA has a huge drug culture which creates an aggressive gang culture. Homeless are taken advantage of by gangs. The camps that are allowed are not worth it! It is so bad - Typhoid Fever, Typhus & Tuberculosis are spreading among the homeless encampments [2]. Your best bet is to find a small town in the middle of no where America and pan handle. By the end of the day you will be cleaning someones garage for cash sleeping in a mechanics guest house. No one cares in LA.
[1] https://www.forbes.com/sites/chuckdevore/2019/06/04/typhoid-...
[2] https://www.npr.org/2020/06/12/875888864/homelessness-in-los...
I like your thinking. But Its hard to clean even a garage with a broken spine, and yes I have tried.
I have been seeking employment out of state too but this the Greater Depression we are in.
I have been seeking employment out of state too but this the Greater Depression we are in.
Arrrg and now there is a santa monica police helicopter hovering dirctly over my head for the past 10 minutes after I started writing this (pico blvd and ocean blvd). If you are in the area you can attest. Its hard out here.
Ok it's clear the chopper left.
Thank you for your insider’s perspective. It sounds like you had a lot of bad luck. Just curious: what do you need most at this point to get your life back on track, and if it’s money, how much?
Thank you for this question. I don't have an answer with high confidence right now. Still recovering from a trauma from Monday.
A year ago was different, with less traumas stacking on me.
It seems because a basic evaluation of the extent of my injury has been so elusive.
Im not a quitter but since monday im seriously starting to lean toward pivoting from trying to find work to pursuing disability income status.
A year ago was different, with less traumas stacking on me.
It seems because a basic evaluation of the extent of my injury has been so elusive.
Im not a quitter but since monday im seriously starting to lean toward pivoting from trying to find work to pursuing disability income status.
I might be able to help with the car accident injury. I had a rear-end car accident 11 years ago. I know the pain/suffering. It's like nothing you can imagine till you have it and then it never goes away, worst of all no professional knows what to do about it.
The last two years I've read pretty much everything and contacted every researcher/research group working on this. They have some good material, but eventually I had to adapt their work into my own techniques. I'm now about 80-90% fixed and in a few months I think I'll be all good.
I've developed an exercise program along with an elastic head sling that supports and strengthens the neck. If you're interested DM me on twitter https://bit.ly/2LTVMMl and I'll send you some info about how I did it, you might have to modify some things but I think the basic ideas will apply.
The last two years I've read pretty much everything and contacted every researcher/research group working on this. They have some good material, but eventually I had to adapt their work into my own techniques. I'm now about 80-90% fixed and in a few months I think I'll be all good.
I've developed an exercise program along with an elastic head sling that supports and strengthens the neck. If you're interested DM me on twitter https://bit.ly/2LTVMMl and I'll send you some info about how I did it, you might have to modify some things but I think the basic ideas will apply.
I just wanted to say thank you for posting. I read what you had to say and I plan on reading when you post again. That’s all. Thank you.
Wow I have had more constructive social interaction communicating here in the past half day than I have experienced in the past two years. Thank you hn! Im overwhelmed in a good way. Even if it just lasts for half a day before I screw it up somehow, it's a welcome change.
So please let me express how much I appreciate the responsiveness from each of you who have read my comments and especially each of you who have responded. I get that it isnt easy talking with a homeless person, it isnt easy talking to a new profile on hn, etc. So I very much appreciate the courageous among y'all.
Please don't give up on me if you want the rest of the story its just that I didn't anticipate the response.
But from comments it's more important to me to say:
1. To whoever posted asking for advice because you are facing an impending homeless situation please do not wait for my response. Take the details you wanted to share with me and instead take those to 1 or 2 people you already know right now its a Saturday and see if you strike some sort of 'partnership' where each gets value and you stay housed. Think outside the box on this. Be sure to approach people you already know but if that number is too low then ask who they would ask for help. You see how your credibility gets thin once you move further from direct contacts so i would say focus on the people you know. Ask for help from those you already know and do it now while you still can. If everyone says no...ask them why not. Perhaps down the road you can come up with a different way they can help, a way that bypasses their previous objection. Geez I sound like a sales manager but its what I would if I were you. Dont give up no matter what.
2. The back-n-forth about chiropractors in the comments seems to illustrate the key bias impeding any real effort to solve the homelessness problem. Not all chiropractors are bad, just as not all homeless are bad. Whether you use Webster's or Michael Jackson's definition of bad I think what I say stands true.
So please let me express how much I appreciate the responsiveness from each of you who have read my comments and especially each of you who have responded. I get that it isnt easy talking with a homeless person, it isnt easy talking to a new profile on hn, etc. So I very much appreciate the courageous among y'all.
Please don't give up on me if you want the rest of the story its just that I didn't anticipate the response.
But from comments it's more important to me to say:
1. To whoever posted asking for advice because you are facing an impending homeless situation please do not wait for my response. Take the details you wanted to share with me and instead take those to 1 or 2 people you already know right now its a Saturday and see if you strike some sort of 'partnership' where each gets value and you stay housed. Think outside the box on this. Be sure to approach people you already know but if that number is too low then ask who they would ask for help. You see how your credibility gets thin once you move further from direct contacts so i would say focus on the people you know. Ask for help from those you already know and do it now while you still can. If everyone says no...ask them why not. Perhaps down the road you can come up with a different way they can help, a way that bypasses their previous objection. Geez I sound like a sales manager but its what I would if I were you. Dont give up no matter what.
2. The back-n-forth about chiropractors in the comments seems to illustrate the key bias impeding any real effort to solve the homelessness problem. Not all chiropractors are bad, just as not all homeless are bad. Whether you use Webster's or Michael Jackson's definition of bad I think what I say stands true.
[deleted]
Please consider sharing more when you can. Also please reach out to all the government run programs to get all the help you can. At least that way the taxpayers money is put to good use. And don’t give up.
Why did you refuse the surgery? Do you think it would help with the pain?
I empathize with this person. It’s clear from his story he does not have a support network.
I think many of the decisions you make that are good decisions are helped by your friends and family. When people act alone or without support, they tend to make bad decisions. (Not to say this is always the case, just something I’ve noticed and felt in myself - I make bad decisions when I feel alone)
The first mistake he made was not seeking assistance after the stabbing incident. Either he didn’t trust anyone or he simply didn’t have anyone he could turn to to take him in. Many people would be able to go back to their parents or stay with a friend after something like that, but he felt that going homeless was the only option.
Even if I wanted to go homeless, I can think of a number of people who would literally drag me off the street and in to their house. Where was that for this person?
Surgery is a decision that an individual cannot make alone, it’s too overwhelming, you need support to get through that.
I think many of the decisions you make that are good decisions are helped by your friends and family. When people act alone or without support, they tend to make bad decisions. (Not to say this is always the case, just something I’ve noticed and felt in myself - I make bad decisions when I feel alone)
The first mistake he made was not seeking assistance after the stabbing incident. Either he didn’t trust anyone or he simply didn’t have anyone he could turn to to take him in. Many people would be able to go back to their parents or stay with a friend after something like that, but he felt that going homeless was the only option.
Even if I wanted to go homeless, I can think of a number of people who would literally drag me off the street and in to their house. Where was that for this person?
Surgery is a decision that an individual cannot make alone, it’s too overwhelming, you need support to get through that.
Thank you for your thoughts but you sir are selling me short.
>The first mistake he made was not seeking assistance after the stabbing incident
Sadly I found no assistance. I clarified some things about the surgery decision in another comment that may enlighten you.
>going homeless was the only option
No friends, no family. I have a brother who graduated Harvard Law under Dershowitz and worked for Weinstein. My younger brother. He called the police to tell them I was suicidal and they showed up at my ex-girlfriend's house to haul me away. (I was not, and have never been suicidal).
Sadly for me but luckily for you, you have much more support.
>The first mistake he made was not seeking assistance after the stabbing incident
Sadly I found no assistance. I clarified some things about the surgery decision in another comment that may enlighten you.
>going homeless was the only option
No friends, no family. I have a brother who graduated Harvard Law under Dershowitz and worked for Weinstein. My younger brother. He called the police to tell them I was suicidal and they showed up at my ex-girlfriend's house to haul me away. (I was not, and have never been suicidal).
Sadly for me but luckily for you, you have much more support.
In your story, you are the unfortunate recipient of a shit stick from everyone:
- your brother, a successful attorney who lied to the police to commit you
- your shelter, who kicked you out randomly without cause (people who run and work at shelters are generally well-intended
- your roommate, who literally attacked you with a knife completely randomly
- your lawyer, and potentially the surgeon he recommended
- the chiropractor
- the other driver
Each is believable, especially the chiropractor, but you’re essentially the completely passive and no-fault recipient of a giant shit stick from like 7 different people in short order.
I hate to ask this but do you think it’s possible there’s some common thread here? Your past behavior, mental health, drug use (and thus being exposed to people who attack others with knives during disputes), etc?
- your brother, a successful attorney who lied to the police to commit you
- your shelter, who kicked you out randomly without cause (people who run and work at shelters are generally well-intended
- your roommate, who literally attacked you with a knife completely randomly
- your lawyer, and potentially the surgeon he recommended
- the chiropractor
- the other driver
Each is believable, especially the chiropractor, but you’re essentially the completely passive and no-fault recipient of a giant shit stick from like 7 different people in short order.
I hate to ask this but do you think it’s possible there’s some common thread here? Your past behavior, mental health, drug use (and thus being exposed to people who attack others with knives during disputes), etc?
Thank you for responding. There is a common thread (me) and it includes all of my strengths and weaknesses. But no mental health or bad behaviour or drug use in my past.
Please dont get mad but even what you have summarized about me is not accurate. It seems as if you have dramatized my setbacks because I certainly dont have such a long list of people to point fingers at?
If I seem indignant its because it feels like your model wants to kill me by statistic because I am a fat tail data point.
Underneath I have had it rough no doubt, rougher than anyone with 99% SAT and 99% GMAT (logic) deserves.
Please dont get mad but even what you have summarized about me is not accurate. It seems as if you have dramatized my setbacks because I certainly dont have such a long list of people to point fingers at?
If I seem indignant its because it feels like your model wants to kill me by statistic because I am a fat tail data point.
Underneath I have had it rough no doubt, rougher than anyone with 99% SAT and 99% GMAT (logic) deserves.
There may be a longer family history here where support networks got burned - two most common I've seen are drug use and mental health issues. Criminal justice involvement much lower on list.
For transitional job programs - you don't get kicked out w out a reason - they work with lots of people. They agree not usually as ocial workers though - program is about jobs and employers usually.
Ok to use them for mail like onboarding paperwork from employers. Because of liability and other risks (folks can be hustling etc still) usually not ok too use mail service for other reasons.
For transitional job programs - you don't get kicked out w out a reason - they work with lots of people. They agree not usually as ocial workers though - program is about jobs and employers usually.
Ok to use them for mail like onboarding paperwork from employers. Because of liability and other risks (folks can be hustling etc still) usually not ok too use mail service for other reasons.
>Ok to use them for mail like onboarding paperwork from employers. Because of liability and other risks (folks can be hustling etc still) usually not ok too use mail service for other reasons.
That's it. Thank you.
This person tried to do something helpful for me by sending a care package. Had she told me upfront I would've said no dont do it. I knew the rules. I wasnt expecting her to send me anything.
That's it. Thank you.
This person tried to do something helpful for me by sending a care package. Had she told me upfront I would've said no dont do it. I knew the rules. I wasnt expecting her to send me anything.
Sorry - that sucks. I've done job reentry work - safest bet is to just give address to employers - they rarely send stuff anyways and def not care packages!
i‘ve been watching interviews with homeless people on the Invisible People youtube channel (highly recommend), and one thing that struck me is how skin deep most support networks are. having friends and family vanish the second they could come up with a reasonable excuse seems to be the hardest part for many of them.
Its dangerous to talk to anybody out here. I feel like I am taking a huge risk even posting about it.
If someone is close enough to talk to you they are close enough to hurt you.
To your point I had reached out to a collge girlfriend after my accident in 2017. She asked for my address and I gave her c/o Chrysalis which is a work help program here in Santa Monica. Unfortunately, she wanted to do somethinf nice so she sent a care package of shampoo and other things but I will never know. Chrysalis kicked me out for 'abusing' their mail service. I never even saw the package she sent to me. I received 2 dentist bills, 0 responses to the resumes i was sending out, and 1 unannounced care package. I am so clearly not an abuser of anything except possibly myself somehow.
Thank you. I would upvote your comment but havent yet found out how.
If someone is close enough to talk to you they are close enough to hurt you.
To your point I had reached out to a collge girlfriend after my accident in 2017. She asked for my address and I gave her c/o Chrysalis which is a work help program here in Santa Monica. Unfortunately, she wanted to do somethinf nice so she sent a care package of shampoo and other things but I will never know. Chrysalis kicked me out for 'abusing' their mail service. I never even saw the package she sent to me. I received 2 dentist bills, 0 responses to the resumes i was sending out, and 1 unannounced care package. I am so clearly not an abuser of anything except possibly myself somehow.
Thank you. I would upvote your comment but havent yet found out how.
> I would upvote your comment but havent yet found out how
Click the little upward-pointing triangle next to the username at the top of the comment. When the triangle disappears, you've upvoted. Upvotes can't be undone.
Click the little upward-pointing triangle next to the username at the top of the comment. When the triangle disappears, you've upvoted. Upvotes can't be undone.
upvotes can be undone with the unvote button.
Holy shit, I never noticed that link until now.
You, sir, get an upvote that I will most certainly not be withdrawing.
You, sir, get an upvote that I will most certainly not be withdrawing.
I think he accepted the surgery but regrets it for some reason. That’s how I read it at least.
No, I refused the surgery and I do not regret it one byte.
The accident atty had arranged a chiropractor who hurt me, and being homeless, to me it was clearly greedily intentional in order to 'Maximize my monetary recovery'. because the atty takes a % of the award!
The timing is critical to understanding the conveyor of terror I was on. The chiro did this to me after my accident MRI was taken.
So then the atty arranges a surgeon to perform c2-c5 spine surgery based on the old MRI and he tells me "it's routine. A piece of cake."
Felt like the perfectly plausibly deniable way to put me in a wheelchair as a quadriplegic and then charge the insurance company $2 million instead of a paltry $30000.
"Oh there were complications during the routine surgery.." is the risk I was facing.
The accident atty had arranged a chiropractor who hurt me, and being homeless, to me it was clearly greedily intentional in order to 'Maximize my monetary recovery'. because the atty takes a % of the award!
The timing is critical to understanding the conveyor of terror I was on. The chiro did this to me after my accident MRI was taken.
So then the atty arranges a surgeon to perform c2-c5 spine surgery based on the old MRI and he tells me "it's routine. A piece of cake."
Felt like the perfectly plausibly deniable way to put me in a wheelchair as a quadriplegic and then charge the insurance company $2 million instead of a paltry $30000.
"Oh there were complications during the routine surgery.." is the risk I was facing.
Wow, you sound like you’ve lost all your trust to humanity.
While the conspiracy to cash on your misfortune is possible, it requires an orchestration of multiple corrupt well educated individuals.
I like to think that doctors are intellectually honest people. They might have monetary motives and and biases but they wouldn’t lie.
You can stumble upon a psychopath but most people aren’t and the psychopaths also have a reputation to uphold. It’s dangerous to lie at well documented events like a surgery.
While the conspiracy to cash on your misfortune is possible, it requires an orchestration of multiple corrupt well educated individuals.
I like to think that doctors are intellectually honest people. They might have monetary motives and and biases but they wouldn’t lie.
You can stumble upon a psychopath but most people aren’t and the psychopaths also have a reputation to uphold. It’s dangerous to lie at well documented events like a surgery.
What do you need to improve your situation now?
Beyond the social communication here which has been hugely helpful, I need less pain and for my adrenaline levels to abate; I'm still wound up from Monday which is longer than typical.
And wifi access would let me chase down my 2020 w-2 to file for the 1200 and 600 federal help payments for which I am eligible but never received.
And wifi access would let me chase down my 2020 w-2 to file for the 1200 and 600 federal help payments for which I am eligible but never received.
if you ever tired of other places, please come visit shitmyself.com, or sm.chg.pw. friendlier name to come.
it has a captcha login, see my profile, but no account is required. i guarantee it works with any device, no matter how old.
i have lived on the street before, and many of the other visitors also street.
it has a captcha login, see my profile, but no account is required. i guarantee it works with any device, no matter how old.
i have lived on the street before, and many of the other visitors also street.
What a horrible story. My best to you, brother
Kuro5hin redux.
As a huge believer in UBI, I think it should also be paired with public healthcare, public housing and ideally public food allowances. Basically all living needs covered.
UBI without all of that does risk inflating the price of everything as the excess capital would just get sucked up into private companies and landlords.
It's an idea who's time has come though, wealth inequality is so extreme as to be essentially unfixable without a revolution, we have excess food production and the majority of "work" being done isn't actually to the benefit of humanity or even productive. Think about how much time is wasted in middle management, working on ad tech, marketing...
UBI without all of that does risk inflating the price of everything as the excess capital would just get sucked up into private companies and landlords.
It's an idea who's time has come though, wealth inequality is so extreme as to be essentially unfixable without a revolution, we have excess food production and the majority of "work" being done isn't actually to the benefit of humanity or even productive. Think about how much time is wasted in middle management, working on ad tech, marketing...
The real thing UBI must be paired with is a Land Value Tax. This helps prevent landlords from extracting the wealth, since their land-based monopoly won't give them profits; it gets recycled back into state programs (like UBI).
Most places do have property taxes. Many of them are significant.
Some of the UBI proposals are extremely expensive. It’s not as simple as extracting wealth from a tiny fraction of wealthy people. The only way to make UBI work will require increasing taxes all the way down to middle class tax brackets.
A middle class person might receive $10,000 of UBI, but see their taxes go up $11,000. Meanwhile a broke college student would receive the $10K UBI with $0 tax increase (or maybe a decrease in taxes)
Some of the UBI proposals are extremely expensive. It’s not as simple as extracting wealth from a tiny fraction of wealthy people. The only way to make UBI work will require increasing taxes all the way down to middle class tax brackets.
A middle class person might receive $10,000 of UBI, but see their taxes go up $11,000. Meanwhile a broke college student would receive the $10K UBI with $0 tax increase (or maybe a decrease in taxes)
I believe they mean Land Value Tax [0] in the Geoism/Georgism [1] sense, not in the traditional property tax sense; the main difference being that a land value tax does not take into account improvements to the property (e.g. buildings, parks, or any other development).
Personally, I would be in favor of UBI, even as someone who would see a net loss on it after taxes, since it would mean that if I ever lose my job (or choose to quit), I will still have the UBI to support myself with while I look for a new one, making it a less stressful event.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_value_tax [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgism
Personally, I would be in favor of UBI, even as someone who would see a net loss on it after taxes, since it would mean that if I ever lose my job (or choose to quit), I will still have the UBI to support myself with while I look for a new one, making it a less stressful event.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_value_tax [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgism
Modern property taxes are a superset of pure Land Value Tax schemes.
In most jurisdictions, land and improvements are appraised separately and can be taxed at separate rates. Moving to a pure Georgism-style LVT would simply remove the taxation on the improvements.
> Personally, I would be in favor of UBI, even as someone who would see a net loss on it after taxes, since it would mean that if I ever lose my job (or choose to quit), I will still have the UBI to support myself with while I look for a new one, making it a less stressful event.
UBI isn't really targeted at someone like you. If you were laid off, you'd collect regular unemployment benefits. Many UBI proposals do away with unemployment benefits and replace them with UBI. If UBI was instituted at poverty level (about $1000/month) it would actually be less than the unemployment benefits in many locations.
However, that increased tax rate would also reduce your personal savings rate, meaning you'd have a reduced opportunity to build a personal savings buffer. If you're an engineer making engineer wages, you're definitely not coming out ahead under a UBI scheme. You are the source of the UBI money, not the recipient.
UBI isn't really meant to cover for things like people voluntarily quitting their jobs. It's meant to stop people from starving and going homeless in the event that they're unable to work.
UBI is vastly more expensive than many people estimate. To simply pay poverty-level UBI to the 330 million people in the United States, we'd need to spend $4.2 Trillion annually. That's about equivalent to the entire 2020 federal budget. In other words, just to keep UBI at poverty levels, we'd have to double the federal taxation across the board. Paying 200% of poverty levels would require tripling taxation.
We're not going to get there by simple Land Value Taxes.
In most jurisdictions, land and improvements are appraised separately and can be taxed at separate rates. Moving to a pure Georgism-style LVT would simply remove the taxation on the improvements.
> Personally, I would be in favor of UBI, even as someone who would see a net loss on it after taxes, since it would mean that if I ever lose my job (or choose to quit), I will still have the UBI to support myself with while I look for a new one, making it a less stressful event.
UBI isn't really targeted at someone like you. If you were laid off, you'd collect regular unemployment benefits. Many UBI proposals do away with unemployment benefits and replace them with UBI. If UBI was instituted at poverty level (about $1000/month) it would actually be less than the unemployment benefits in many locations.
However, that increased tax rate would also reduce your personal savings rate, meaning you'd have a reduced opportunity to build a personal savings buffer. If you're an engineer making engineer wages, you're definitely not coming out ahead under a UBI scheme. You are the source of the UBI money, not the recipient.
UBI isn't really meant to cover for things like people voluntarily quitting their jobs. It's meant to stop people from starving and going homeless in the event that they're unable to work.
UBI is vastly more expensive than many people estimate. To simply pay poverty-level UBI to the 330 million people in the United States, we'd need to spend $4.2 Trillion annually. That's about equivalent to the entire 2020 federal budget. In other words, just to keep UBI at poverty levels, we'd have to double the federal taxation across the board. Paying 200% of poverty levels would require tripling taxation.
We're not going to get there by simple Land Value Taxes.
LVT isn't sufficient to fund UBI, it's necessary to make sure UBI doesn't have additional distortionary effects. Property taxes are really not a good comparison for LVT, since they tax property improvements too much and the land itself too little. Calibration is important.
> A middle class person might receive $10,000 of UBI, but see their taxes go up $11,000. Meanwhile a broke college student would receive the $10K UBI with $0 tax increase (or maybe a decrease in taxes)
Is that a problem?
Is that a problem?
>... Think about how much time is wasted in middle management, working on ad tech, marketing...
While I agree about the prevalence of “bullshit jobs” in general, who are you to decide what jobs are “productive?” I wouldn’t trust any central authority to determine that, but rather the decentralized mechanisms that already exist in private enterprise / markets to determine that.
While I agree about the prevalence of “bullshit jobs” in general, who are you to decide what jobs are “productive?” I wouldn’t trust any central authority to determine that, but rather the decentralized mechanisms that already exist in private enterprise / markets to determine that.
> While I agree about the prevalence of “bullshit jobs” in general, who are you to decide what jobs are “productive?”
I don't think OP stated which jobs are important or unimportant. There is some interesting research regarding this issue. I'm paid 6 figures, and the case for my job wouldn't stand up to a lot of scrutiny. There is an entire team of me.
I don't think OP stated which jobs are important or unimportant. There is some interesting research regarding this issue. I'm paid 6 figures, and the case for my job wouldn't stand up to a lot of scrutiny. There is an entire team of me.
No central authority has to decide which job is bullshit. I don't think people like doing these bullshit jobs, they do them to survive. Give people UBI and they'll simply quit their telemarketing, soulless middle management, ad tech job...
Some of those people will play video games all day, some will create new tech, some will create art... and as you say, no one is in a position to judge which of those are "productive". It's just important to free people from the need to enrich others just to survive.
Some of those people will play video games all day, some will create new tech, some will create art... and as you say, no one is in a position to judge which of those are "productive". It's just important to free people from the need to enrich others just to survive.
> It's just important to free people from the need to enrich others just to survive.
Before I criticize, in full disclosure: I support UBI experiments. I have my concerns, but until we have data they’re just theory.
That out of the way: I don’t think it’s wildly out of line to assume a social contract that you need to provide some value to society to get access to resources (food / shelter / etc.) created by others. If I’m making food from a farm, you can’t just get food from me by existing, you need to offer something of value: working on my farm (services,) or exchanging goods I want to use, like better equipment. Or you give me money so that I can access those other two things.
And at the end of the day, we still need janitors, waste management, customer support callers, etc etc - jobs people hate, but must be done. And they will continue to be done regardless of UBI.
Before I criticize, in full disclosure: I support UBI experiments. I have my concerns, but until we have data they’re just theory.
That out of the way: I don’t think it’s wildly out of line to assume a social contract that you need to provide some value to society to get access to resources (food / shelter / etc.) created by others. If I’m making food from a farm, you can’t just get food from me by existing, you need to offer something of value: working on my farm (services,) or exchanging goods I want to use, like better equipment. Or you give me money so that I can access those other two things.
And at the end of the day, we still need janitors, waste management, customer support callers, etc etc - jobs people hate, but must be done. And they will continue to be done regardless of UBI.
I don't agree that a social contract that requires that you provide value before you receive the bare necessities, is a good one. I think humanity as a whole benefits when everyone is alleviated of the need to worry about basic survival. We've reached the stage in our technological evolution where this is starting to be possible.
Also, I'm not advocating for the complete erasure of private jobs and enterprise. Just that base level needs be met for all. You're free to take a customer support job if you want more money or it's your passion.
Also, I'm not advocating for the complete erasure of private jobs and enterprise. Just that base level needs be met for all. You're free to take a customer support job if you want more money or it's your passion.
> I think humanity as a whole benefits when everyone is alleviated of the need to worry about basic survival.
Why do you think this? I really have no clue how it will turn out. However thinking logically about it I think a great many good things are done every day BECAUSE of the need for survival in one sense or another.
Why do you think this? I really have no clue how it will turn out. However thinking logically about it I think a great many good things are done every day BECAUSE of the need for survival in one sense or another.
Not many good things are done in the name of survival. In fact being on the edge of survival is much more likely to drive you to crime through desperation. Take care of these needs on the other hand and people start spending time on things they care about.
Open source is a great example of this, if software engineers were struggling to put a roof over their heads and food on the table do you think we'd have the level of open source ecosystem we have today? The very fact we're both paid enough and have enough free time to contribute to that work has had produced great benefits for society. The goal of UBI is simply to extend that same freedom to everyone.
Not everyone will contribute back, but we'd free up a lot of people to create art, businesses, software etc. that would otherwise have been behind a fast food counter or stuck in an office.
Open source is a great example of this, if software engineers were struggling to put a roof over their heads and food on the table do you think we'd have the level of open source ecosystem we have today? The very fact we're both paid enough and have enough free time to contribute to that work has had produced great benefits for society. The goal of UBI is simply to extend that same freedom to everyone.
Not everyone will contribute back, but we'd free up a lot of people to create art, businesses, software etc. that would otherwise have been behind a fast food counter or stuck in an office.
I don't think most people would ever get as far as being able to create anything worthwhile without a job forcing them to work. It's easy to see in young people who haven't found the right job. They waste their lives plating video games or netflixing all day. Without to pressure to do anything no open source developer will be born out of this. No artist will emerge. They will Just stay in their comfy situation.
I've seen it dozen of times in my social circle and even with myself. A job provides perspective and can show you that you are truly worth something before you even believe it yourself. I'm quite certain that I and many of my peers would still play CS and whatever the current MMO is all day if I was never forced to get a job.
I've seen it dozen of times in my social circle and even with myself. A job provides perspective and can show you that you are truly worth something before you even believe it yourself. I'm quite certain that I and many of my peers would still play CS and whatever the current MMO is all day if I was never forced to get a job.
> A job provides perspective and can show you that you are truly worth something before you even believe it yourself.
People feeling worthless for not having a job is entirely down to society telling them that they're worthless if they don't have a job. This is exacerbated by the fact that not having having a job currently adds a great deal of stress by putting you in a position where you're highly likely to lose food and shelter.
> I don't think most people would ever get as far as being able to create anything worthwhile without a job forcing them to work. It's easy to see in young people who haven't found the right job. They waste their lives plating video games or netflixing all day. Without to pressure to do anything no open source developer will be born out of this. No artist will emerge. They will Just stay in their comfy situation.
I think you're vastly underestimating how creative most people can be and I find the fact that you believe the only path to self worth is by selling your labour to someone else very sad. There are plenty of people with ambition to create out there that are instead busy flipping burgers. The current work oriented approach does a really good job of suppressing the expression of that creativity, but it still doesn't manage to get rid of it. There are millions of artists, musicians, and hobbyists churning out bland corporate shite instead of the work they'd rather be doing and we'd be better off if they were free to pursue that instead.
Of course not everyone would immediately go out and start contributing new things, but I don't see how you can imply it wouldn't lead to a great number of more people doing so.
People feeling worthless for not having a job is entirely down to society telling them that they're worthless if they don't have a job. This is exacerbated by the fact that not having having a job currently adds a great deal of stress by putting you in a position where you're highly likely to lose food and shelter.
> I don't think most people would ever get as far as being able to create anything worthwhile without a job forcing them to work. It's easy to see in young people who haven't found the right job. They waste their lives plating video games or netflixing all day. Without to pressure to do anything no open source developer will be born out of this. No artist will emerge. They will Just stay in their comfy situation.
I think you're vastly underestimating how creative most people can be and I find the fact that you believe the only path to self worth is by selling your labour to someone else very sad. There are plenty of people with ambition to create out there that are instead busy flipping burgers. The current work oriented approach does a really good job of suppressing the expression of that creativity, but it still doesn't manage to get rid of it. There are millions of artists, musicians, and hobbyists churning out bland corporate shite instead of the work they'd rather be doing and we'd be better off if they were free to pursue that instead.
Of course not everyone would immediately go out and start contributing new things, but I don't see how you can imply it wouldn't lead to a great number of more people doing so.
Human history would disagree with you. We've had art as long as people have been able to create it.
There's nothing wrong with playing MMOs all day if that's what you want to do. In fact, you'd be providing social currency for the developer who created it, motivating them to create more art.
Also, don't forget that most people will still want to attract a mate, which is more of a positive motivation that trying not to starve to death.
There's nothing wrong with playing MMOs all day if that's what you want to do. In fact, you'd be providing social currency for the developer who created it, motivating them to create more art.
Also, don't forget that most people will still want to attract a mate, which is more of a positive motivation that trying not to starve to death.
And for as long as we had human history we had to work to survive. Also I'm not saying there would be no art. I'm saying the quantity of people doing art would sharply decrease.
There is nothing wrong with playing video games all day. Except that in general it doesn't truly make people happy. I would say its a local maximum.
Attracting a mate is allready too hard for many people right now. Going jobless and ensuring a lot of people will never find a reason to belong will probably that issue only worse.
There is nothing wrong with playing video games all day. Except that in general it doesn't truly make people happy. I would say its a local maximum.
Attracting a mate is allready too hard for many people right now. Going jobless and ensuring a lot of people will never find a reason to belong will probably that issue only worse.
I disagree that the majority of jobs give people happiness or a reason to live. Like you say, it's been a necessity for all of human history to work. Only now it's not, which is why so much work is meaningless.
Alleviating the threat of death due to unemployment is going to be a positive for most people.
Alleviating the threat of death due to unemployment is going to be a positive for most people.
You don't need UBI for "Alleviating the threat of death due to unemployment". You can have welfare systems that encourage you do get a job and only pay the minimum for you to live. These systems allready exists in some countries.
That's not what UBI is about.
That's not what UBI is about.
// I don't agree that a social contract that requires that you provide value before you receive the bare necessities, is a good one.
Ok let's think this through. I deserve potatoes but I hate my job picking potatoes so I quit. And so does everyone around me.
Where do we get the free potatoes we are entitled to?
Ok let's think this through. I deserve potatoes but I hate my job picking potatoes so I quit. And so does everyone around me.
Where do we get the free potatoes we are entitled to?
You get them from the same farm, picked by your replacement or the robot automation that's inevitable.
Short of the robot replacement, you are saying someone else has to do the dirty work I don't want to do but I should still get their produce.
The question is what happens when they don't want to work either - from where do we get potatoes?
The question is what happens when they don't want to work either - from where do we get potatoes?
Yes, everyone should get produce. We have the resources to make that happen.
Automation is inevitable, hence why UBI is necessary. UBI also doesn't mean that people can't get paid for work. It just means they don't die if they don't have a job.
Automation is inevitable, hence why UBI is necessary. UBI also doesn't mean that people can't get paid for work. It just means they don't die if they don't have a job.
I can't tell if you are intentionally or unintentionally obtuse.
Today before we have potato robots. If I don't want to pick potatoes and neither does anyone else, from where do we get potatoes?
I suspect you can't answer this because the answer is we both starve to death.
Today before we have potato robots. If I don't want to pick potatoes and neither does anyone else, from where do we get potatoes?
I suspect you can't answer this because the answer is we both starve to death.
I don't agree with your premise that no one wants to pick potatoes. Just because you can survive without a job, it doesn't mean people won't want more money and use the skills they have available to earn it (even if that's just physical labor).
Again that's temporary though as automation will happen, which you seem to not believe? It doesn't seem like rocket science to pick a potato. Self-driving cars seem like a much more difficult challenge.
Again that's temporary though as automation will happen, which you seem to not believe? It doesn't seem like rocket science to pick a potato. Self-driving cars seem like a much more difficult challenge.
//Just because you can survive without a job, it doesn't mean people won't want more money and use the skills they have available to earn it
Oh I see.
I can get $X without working and that should suffice to buy potatoes.
You are willing to pick potatoes but you need to get paid more than $X now (cuz you can get that free.) You'll pick potatoes for $2X.
Now potatoes cost $2X. I can't afford them with my $X UBI. Now what?
Oh I see.
I can get $X without working and that should suffice to buy potatoes.
You are willing to pick potatoes but you need to get paid more than $X now (cuz you can get that free.) You'll pick potatoes for $2X.
Now potatoes cost $2X. I can't afford them with my $X UBI. Now what?
Bullshit jobs and unpleasant jobs aren't the same.
>I don't think people like doing these bullshit jobs, they do them to survive. Give people UBI and they'll simply quit their telemarketing, soulless middle management, ad tech job
I think you're forgetting half the equation...with the possible exception of telemarketing, those jobs go quite a bit beyond mere survival in terms of pay.
People will still take those kinds of jobs because the value they get from pay. And that's fine.
People value their free time and that's fine too. But I think it's not realistic to think that people in general value their free time so much that if they have enough for survival that they wouldn't take jobs that exchange hard currency for that time.
What some combination of UBI/Basic Needs welfare will do, though, is prevent survival from weighing down that choice so people will demand more hard currency than they actually value that time without the infinite value sink of avoiding pain or death.
I know plenty of well off people that don't have to worry too much about affording to survive who spend a lot of time working hard and it's perfectly rational considering that they consider themselves better off with the trade.
I think you're forgetting half the equation...with the possible exception of telemarketing, those jobs go quite a bit beyond mere survival in terms of pay.
People will still take those kinds of jobs because the value they get from pay. And that's fine.
People value their free time and that's fine too. But I think it's not realistic to think that people in general value their free time so much that if they have enough for survival that they wouldn't take jobs that exchange hard currency for that time.
What some combination of UBI/Basic Needs welfare will do, though, is prevent survival from weighing down that choice so people will demand more hard currency than they actually value that time without the infinite value sink of avoiding pain or death.
I know plenty of well off people that don't have to worry too much about affording to survive who spend a lot of time working hard and it's perfectly rational considering that they consider themselves better off with the trade.
I agree with you, sorry I didn't state that clearly. I think private enterprise will continue to exist and people will willingly take jobs to make more money, accomplish something with others... the thing is with UBI, they won't have to, like you say.
And some of them will be re-hired in the same fields but to do those jobs that are not bullshit because of course some middle management jobs, advertising, etc., are useful.
It might also allow people to take jobs that are currently not done because they have low status or are simply regarded as uninteresting by employers.
I can easily imagine someone being willing to be a street cleaner if they had enough leverage to ensure that it was not a grindingly horrible job.
It might also allow people to take jobs that are currently not done because they have low status or are simply regarded as uninteresting by employers.
I can easily imagine someone being willing to be a street cleaner if they had enough leverage to ensure that it was not a grindingly horrible job.
>Some of those people will play video games all day, some will create new tech, some will create art... and as you say, no one is in a position to judge which of those are "productive". It's just important to free people from the need to enrich others just to survive.
I'm really not interested in funding this personally. And if I received UBI I would definitely play video games all day.
I'm really not interested in funding this personally. And if I received UBI I would definitely play video games all day.
Many bullshit jobs pay more and have better working conditions than many non bullshit jobs. Don't assume UBI would mean fewer people
working in ad tech.
Everyone is entitled to their opinion. They didn't say anything about banning specific jobs.
Good point indeed. Healthcare related expenses can derail one’s finances regardless of income level. How to finance both will be difficult for most countries but it is worth to experiment around the concept and fine tune over time.
What exactly then is the point of humanity? To sit around and consume bread and circuses?
Isn't this immensely dysgenic, where the productive members of society labour all day to produce goods and services for the unproductive, who will use their ample spare time to reproduce and vote for an expansion of UBI?
What need is there to even behave decently and civilly, when all of your needs and income are taken care of by the State? Why study or work hard as a child when your future (I will be a UBI recipient, as is my father, as was my father before him) is already established?
If we wish to help the working classes of the West, then we need simply eliminate all unskilled immigration and refugee programs. Demand for workers will rise and pressure on infrastructure, Government services, agriculture and housing will decrease - boosting quality of life without UBI.
The other major factor of poverty is of women having children out of wedlock. We should stop incentivizing single-motherhood, and offer universal access to family planning including further development of vasalgel.
Isn't this immensely dysgenic, where the productive members of society labour all day to produce goods and services for the unproductive, who will use their ample spare time to reproduce and vote for an expansion of UBI?
What need is there to even behave decently and civilly, when all of your needs and income are taken care of by the State? Why study or work hard as a child when your future (I will be a UBI recipient, as is my father, as was my father before him) is already established?
If we wish to help the working classes of the West, then we need simply eliminate all unskilled immigration and refugee programs. Demand for workers will rise and pressure on infrastructure, Government services, agriculture and housing will decrease - boosting quality of life without UBI.
The other major factor of poverty is of women having children out of wedlock. We should stop incentivizing single-motherhood, and offer universal access to family planning including further development of vasalgel.
Why not just stop all immigration and tighten and enforce anti corruption laws and close loop holes that allow the 1% and multinational corporations to cheat the system.
Immigration is a big part of the growth economic Ponzi scheme. It's not sustainable and it has been horrible for the environment. It also keeps business running profitably.
We have a growing homeless problem. We have racial ghettos. We have Indian reservation. We have an entire manufacturing belt that has been gutted. We have a growing problem of deaths of despair, including suicide and drug addiction. Instead of casually replacing these people with immigrants and allowing the wealthiest 1% to pay little to no taxes and allow companies like Apple and probably all the big tech companies to play offshore tax games, why not help America keep jobs here and increase the pay for those jobs?
This whole growth economics and emotionally manipulating people into accepting immigrants "to do the jobs Americans don't want to do" is one of the most horrific lies I have become aware of. There is no job an American won't do at the right (fair) price. The economy will not crumble if business has no choice but to take less profits and pay better wages.
Nothing will change until the incentive structure changes. I don't see anyone talking much about these things. I see monied interests pushing mass propaganda in order to ultimately keep wages low and keep income gains from increases in productivity going to the top.
Not everyone should or can program. I would rather live in a world where my COL increases if that means that the people around me, city workers, grocery baggers, etc. are payed better. I'm not even sure my COL would increase. I think through above mentioned changes to incentive structures money can be redirected in a more egalitarian way with very little downside.
Immigration is a big part of the growth economic Ponzi scheme. It's not sustainable and it has been horrible for the environment. It also keeps business running profitably.
We have a growing homeless problem. We have racial ghettos. We have Indian reservation. We have an entire manufacturing belt that has been gutted. We have a growing problem of deaths of despair, including suicide and drug addiction. Instead of casually replacing these people with immigrants and allowing the wealthiest 1% to pay little to no taxes and allow companies like Apple and probably all the big tech companies to play offshore tax games, why not help America keep jobs here and increase the pay for those jobs?
This whole growth economics and emotionally manipulating people into accepting immigrants "to do the jobs Americans don't want to do" is one of the most horrific lies I have become aware of. There is no job an American won't do at the right (fair) price. The economy will not crumble if business has no choice but to take less profits and pay better wages.
Nothing will change until the incentive structure changes. I don't see anyone talking much about these things. I see monied interests pushing mass propaganda in order to ultimately keep wages low and keep income gains from increases in productivity going to the top.
Not everyone should or can program. I would rather live in a world where my COL increases if that means that the people around me, city workers, grocery baggers, etc. are payed better. I'm not even sure my COL would increase. I think through above mentioned changes to incentive structures money can be redirected in a more egalitarian way with very little downside.
[deleted]
There are plenty of financial motivations to labor other than the threat of shame, lack of healthcare, homelessness & starvation.
There are even plenty of non-financial motivations to labor!
There are even plenty of non-financial motivations to labor!
I'm quite disappointed in the video. What is the result of the study? No word about the control...
All I get is that people don't spent it on booze (yea trust ppl, not all are addicts) , have more money for food and clothing (o really..) and that the one guy is doing a computer class.
As said, I think it's just a bad video, the actual results might be great. Comparing it to using that money trying to help homeless people in other ways would be even more interesting (finding out if this the best way to invest in to minimizing homelessnes).
All I get is that people don't spent it on booze (yea trust ppl, not all are addicts) , have more money for food and clothing (o really..) and that the one guy is doing a computer class.
As said, I think it's just a bad video, the actual results might be great. Comparing it to using that money trying to help homeless people in other ways would be even more interesting (finding out if this the best way to invest in to minimizing homelessnes).
This really looks like the results suggests that UBI is actually not effective at all, but BBC tried to pick the nice bits and emphasize them. If 80% had jobs a year after they wouldn't be shy about it.
The important question, IMO, is whether UBI costs less than other measures. It's administratively simple and it can potentially prevent greater costs by virtue of people being unhoused and consuming more services elsewhere.
That's enough for me to call it "effective". Being cheaper and better outcomes on the most difficult endpoints would be even better, of course, but I don't consider that essential.
That's enough for me to call it "effective". Being cheaper and better outcomes on the most difficult endpoints would be even better, of course, but I don't consider that essential.
That’s the only reason I even entertain the notion of UBI: if you’re going to have a massive welfare state, then the only sensible way is hand everyone $PovertyLine income no strings attached. Otherwise you get a massive costly self-serving bureaucracy making it agonizing for people to get benefits.
But you’ll still get the massive economic damage of discouraging productivity and funding vice.
If you’re going to do something wrong, at least do it right. But it’s still wrong.
But you’ll still get the massive economic damage of discouraging productivity and funding vice.
If you’re going to do something wrong, at least do it right. But it’s still wrong.
I've yet to meet anyone who thinks UBI is bad for the poor people. However I've heard no one explain how it can be effectively paid for.
Everytime there is this massive hand waving of laying off x thousands of civil servants, which isn't realistic in my mind.
Everytime there is this massive hand waving of laying off x thousands of civil servants, which isn't realistic in my mind.
Initially, something like this: you give $3.5k/yr to everyone. You cut $3.5k of specific, expensive to administer benefits/year from the people (20% of pop) receiving public benefits. You reduce social security payments by ~$3.5k (about 15% of pop). There's also interaction with EITC and likely some elimination of tax credits with low phase-outs.
Then, you reap some administrative benefit, because you've eliminated a lot of complexity in administration of these programs.
Then, you increase taxation by a bit less than $3500 on average for everyone else, maybe by increasing taxation by some uniform percentage on everything over the poverty line and maybe even sliding down tax brackets a little (it still would be more progressive).
You probably can't get rid of everything: e.g. SNAP makes sure people spend at least some money on food for their kids.
Then, you reap some administrative benefit, because you've eliminated a lot of complexity in administration of these programs.
Then, you increase taxation by a bit less than $3500 on average for everyone else, maybe by increasing taxation by some uniform percentage on everything over the poverty line and maybe even sliding down tax brackets a little (it still would be more progressive).
You probably can't get rid of everything: e.g. SNAP makes sure people spend at least some money on food for their kids.
I linked the study below
Doesn't read well tbh. Savings in shelter costs where the only good comparison regarding cost effectiveness and even that they did in a weird way (how did the control also save money on shelter?).
Showing how much more cash savings ppl have after you hand them cash is almost ironic :).
Showing how much more cash savings ppl have after you hand them cash is almost ironic :).
I never understand these experiments. I don't think many people would argue that if you hand people a bunch of free money it improves their lives. Of course it does. That's the most obvious thing in the world, especially when the project is pre financed and can have no negative financial implications.
The problem is that every route to financing UBI involves a radical experiment in public finance that is likely to have cascading effects in every corner of our society, but has obvious issues with inflation,debt load, taxation and ethics. You don't get any data on any of the interesting problems of UBI buy handing people cash you already have.
edit: Also that data presents a very shoddy picture of efficacy here. Over a year, the people who get the cash end up having the same degree of homelessness and the same amount of cash in hand
The problem is that every route to financing UBI involves a radical experiment in public finance that is likely to have cascading effects in every corner of our society, but has obvious issues with inflation,debt load, taxation and ethics. You don't get any data on any of the interesting problems of UBI buy handing people cash you already have.
edit: Also that data presents a very shoddy picture of efficacy here. Over a year, the people who get the cash end up having the same degree of homelessness and the same amount of cash in hand
> don't think many people would argue that if you hand people a bunch of free money it improves their lives
Anecdotally, I’ve heard lots of people argue that poor people are only poor because they have poor financial skills (and in the case of homeless people, that they spend all their money on drugs) and giving them more money is trying to fill in a bottomless pit.
Anecdotally, I’ve heard lots of people argue that poor people are only poor because they have poor financial skills (and in the case of homeless people, that they spend all their money on drugs) and giving them more money is trying to fill in a bottomless pit.
I think you are taking a wide range of beliefs and summarizing them in the worst sounding way possible. I certainly believe that most homeless people have made some bad decisions to get where they are. I think many if not most of them probably have poor financial skills.
I also believe that many of them were born with a range of disadvantages and could have done very well under other circumstances.
A lot of them also do struggle with addiction and mental illness and it is worth considering that this can mix poorly with handing people a bunch of no strings cash. I don't think that's a reason not to do it at all but it shouldn't be ignored either.
I'm certainly not the worlds biggest expert on homeless people but I volunteer at a needle exchange and have encountered more than most so I'm somewhat speaking from experience. Sweeping this stuff under the rug doesn't make it not true.
I also believe that many of them were born with a range of disadvantages and could have done very well under other circumstances.
A lot of them also do struggle with addiction and mental illness and it is worth considering that this can mix poorly with handing people a bunch of no strings cash. I don't think that's a reason not to do it at all but it shouldn't be ignored either.
I'm certainly not the worlds biggest expert on homeless people but I volunteer at a needle exchange and have encountered more than most so I'm somewhat speaking from experience. Sweeping this stuff under the rug doesn't make it not true.
Two things:
I was mostly addressing the post I was replying to that claimed that nobody was opposed to direct cash payments - which I think is not true at all.
Also, I’m not trying to sweep it under the rug, and I’m not saying that many homeless people don’t have poor money management or addiction issues. However, there is a theory that giving homeless folks direct cash is a waste of time/money due to these issues and will produce no positive outcomes - which the experiment linked seems to contradict. In other words, while these issues do exist, direct cash payments do still seem to be at least somewhat effective.
(Also, thank you for spending your time and effort volunteering at a very non-glamorous but very important service!)
I was mostly addressing the post I was replying to that claimed that nobody was opposed to direct cash payments - which I think is not true at all.
Also, I’m not trying to sweep it under the rug, and I’m not saying that many homeless people don’t have poor money management or addiction issues. However, there is a theory that giving homeless folks direct cash is a waste of time/money due to these issues and will produce no positive outcomes - which the experiment linked seems to contradict. In other words, while these issues do exist, direct cash payments do still seem to be at least somewhat effective.
(Also, thank you for spending your time and effort volunteering at a very non-glamorous but very important service!)
There are many reasons someone can be poor, really bad money management is definitely a prevalent reason.
I chuckled at this post on WSB yesterday. Someone wrote "if I had any cash, I'd buy more GME to average out my cost." Someone wisely replied "this is why you don't have cash."
I chuckled at this post on WSB yesterday. Someone wrote "if I had any cash, I'd buy more GME to average out my cost." Someone wisely replied "this is why you don't have cash."
>I chuckled at this post on WSB yesterday. Someone wrote "if I had any cash, I'd buy more GME to average out my cost."
I chuckle at your chuckle. To me that "someone" sounds like a short trolling for more longs in the stock.
I say this as someone who has lurked WSB on reddit for a long time.
I chuckle at your chuckle. To me that "someone" sounds like a short trolling for more longs in the stock.
I say this as someone who has lurked WSB on reddit for a long time.
// To me that "someone" sounds like a short trolling for more longs in the stock.
Those tricky shorts, always looking to drive up the sock price. How'd I miss it?
// I ... lurked WSB on reddit for a long time.
I totally believe you!
Those tricky shorts, always looking to drive up the sock price. How'd I miss it?
// I ... lurked WSB on reddit for a long time.
I totally believe you!
> Anecdotally, I’ve heard lots of people argue that poor people are only poor because they have poor financial skills
This is certainly a thing. I know people who could be firmly in the middle class, but instead live paycheck to paycheck or worse due to very poor financial decisions they continue to make.
This is certainly a thing. I know people who could be firmly in the middle class, but instead live paycheck to paycheck or worse due to very poor financial decisions they continue to make.
Aren't those people middle class by definition? What you describe here is not poor at all.
I have yet to see anyone define middle class in a way that is useful and people agree on its definition. Therefore, any discussion about middle class that starts without a rigorous definition always ends with a disagreement about what is middle class.
I am especially entertained when “upper” and “lower” middle class come into play.
I am especially entertained when “upper” and “lower” middle class come into play.
This is what I reacted to:
> I know people who could be firmly in the middle class, but instead live paycheck to paycheck or worse due to very poor financial decisions
This is middle class person that spends all the money on useless things. But, I don't see how it is relevant example of poor person, they have good income.
> I know people who could be firmly in the middle class, but instead live paycheck to paycheck or worse due to very poor financial decisions
This is middle class person that spends all the money on useless things. But, I don't see how it is relevant example of poor person, they have good income.
Definitions of "middle class" can be logical, useful, or non-controversial. Pick one.
This has nothing to do with a UBI, regardless of the merits.
SF spends around $50k USD/homeless person year. I'd be pretty interested in seeing what'd happen if we just gave 50k in unmarked bills to each homeless person. Add some verification process to confirm that they're both homeless and haven't received their 50k for the year.
I suspect we'd end up with a better situation than today. If nothing else, many would return to their home cities, and it'd defund the homeless industrial complex.
SF spends around $50k USD/homeless person year. I'd be pretty interested in seeing what'd happen if we just gave 50k in unmarked bills to each homeless person. Add some verification process to confirm that they're both homeless and haven't received their 50k for the year.
I suspect we'd end up with a better situation than today. If nothing else, many would return to their home cities, and it'd defund the homeless industrial complex.
Eh , I grew up really poor. A significant number of those homeless people would spend the $50,000 on a new car.
It's just not a very clear issue. I'd argue anyone who doesn't make arrangements to leave California when they catch themselves slipping economically plays at least a part in their homelessness.
In almost every other place in America, you can make out an existence with a bit more than minimum wage. You might not have the best apartment but it's possible.
California, specifically LA and San Francisco are best described as living hells. While a tiny minority is doing fine, most people are either homeless or almost homeless. Even making 100K a year, you're not going to be able to save any money. The vast majority of the city makes less than that.
It's just not a very clear issue. I'd argue anyone who doesn't make arrangements to leave California when they catch themselves slipping economically plays at least a part in their homelessness.
In almost every other place in America, you can make out an existence with a bit more than minimum wage. You might not have the best apartment but it's possible.
California, specifically LA and San Francisco are best described as living hells. While a tiny minority is doing fine, most people are either homeless or almost homeless. Even making 100K a year, you're not going to be able to save any money. The vast majority of the city makes less than that.
$50k per homeless person year? That’s pretty hard to believe without data to back it up. You may very well be correct, but if you know your source, I would appreciate the chance to review it.
IIRC, it takes the budget identified for homeless and enforcement and divides it by the number of permanent homeless residents identified by surveying and canvassing.
The counter context is that this misses the people who were helped by these dollars and not included in the survey (temporarily homeless).
It seems reasonable that it’s probably closer to $10k than !50k, but I don’t think the data is that good on the size of the missing population.
The counter context is that this misses the people who were helped by these dollars and not included in the survey (temporarily homeless).
It seems reasonable that it’s probably closer to $10k than !50k, but I don’t think the data is that good on the size of the missing population.
You're right, it's not a good figure
https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/heatherknight/article/Bu...
TLDR:
> Last year, the city spent $305 million on homelessness. In the most recent one-night homeless tally in January 2017, the counters found 7,499 homeless people. People understandably divide the first number by the second and come up with the so-called fact that the city spends $40,672 per homeless person per year.
> “That’s a ridiculous number,” said Jeff Kositsky, director of the Department of Homelessness and Supportive Housing. “If that was the case, I should definitely not have a job.”
> Of the $250 million he spent last year, two-thirds went to people who aren’t homeless at all. That’s the amount spent on rental subsidies, eviction prevention and permanent supportive housing. Those are great causes, but they’re aimed at preventing people from becoming homeless or to house the formerly homeless.
> But divide $57 million by 15,000 homeless people who need city help each year, and you see the city spends $3,800 per person per year. Or $10.41 a day.
https://www.sfchronicle.com/bayarea/heatherknight/article/Bu...
TLDR:
> Last year, the city spent $305 million on homelessness. In the most recent one-night homeless tally in January 2017, the counters found 7,499 homeless people. People understandably divide the first number by the second and come up with the so-called fact that the city spends $40,672 per homeless person per year.
> “That’s a ridiculous number,” said Jeff Kositsky, director of the Department of Homelessness and Supportive Housing. “If that was the case, I should definitely not have a job.”
> Of the $250 million he spent last year, two-thirds went to people who aren’t homeless at all. That’s the amount spent on rental subsidies, eviction prevention and permanent supportive housing. Those are great causes, but they’re aimed at preventing people from becoming homeless or to house the formerly homeless.
> But divide $57 million by 15,000 homeless people who need city help each year, and you see the city spends $3,800 per person per year. Or $10.41 a day.
So, that ~200 million goes to supporting ~10k would-be homeless in supportive housing. That's ~$20k/year per person in supportive housing. That's also before accounting for Prop C which postdates that article, which will bring in an additional ~$250 million pa.
You can't say "if you exclude the people SF spends the most on, then it doesn't spend that much per person!"
Though I concede the average is probably closer to $25k/person serviced than $50k/person.
You can't say "if you exclude the people SF spends the most on, then it doesn't spend that much per person!"
Though I concede the average is probably closer to $25k/person serviced than $50k/person.
It seems to be per household, not per person.
It would help some of them, but sadly I think many would not be able to budget the 50k properly and would be homeless again within a few months due to debts, addictions, scams, etc.
That would be tremendously unfair to working people in or around SF, especially those making $50k or less. That in itself isn't a reason not to raise a bunch of people out of poverty, but what evidence is there that homeless people would move out? One could just as easily argue that most would blow the money on drugs and/or wait around for next year's $50k. Also, is it really a good idea to defund all the programs that this $50k/person pays for in order to turn it into cash handouts? My understanding is that a majority of homeless people are homeless because of an inability to manage their finances and their life, whether we think that's any fault of their own or not. Handing out cash isn't going to fix these people's childhoods, drug addictions, etc. The real way to deal with homelessness is to address the core problems: a poor educational & economic outlook for both young and old, and a thriving underground economy for hard, addictive drugs. These two fuel homelessness, poverty, crime, and child abuse. Watch Mark Laita's Soft White Underbelly: much of this generation may be beyond hope, but the next generation might be helped before they arrive.
I've heard this "unfair" argument since forever. You know what's tremendously unfair? Mental illness. And homeless are vastly more likely to suffer from mental illness. I'm sorry, but these people are actually suffering and need help. They need help. What part of that is so hard to internalize?
And I've heard soooo many people argue "you know what the real cause of homeless is, right? X!" And then, "no, the real core problem is X's cause!" And then, "no, it's Y that is to blame!" And then "well ever since Z happened, we can't do W". And on and on...an unending stream of excuses, a mountain of reasons to not do anything about it, to not spend any money on it, and certainly not to actually study the problem. Instead, it's just more punishment for being stupid or poor and blame. Because everything else is unfair to those working saps.
You know what might actually have half a chance of solving homelessness?
Giving a damn about them. Not arguing over how fair this or that is, not quibbling about core reasons, putting things off until the unfixable things get fixed. GIVE A DAMN.
And I've heard soooo many people argue "you know what the real cause of homeless is, right? X!" And then, "no, the real core problem is X's cause!" And then, "no, it's Y that is to blame!" And then "well ever since Z happened, we can't do W". And on and on...an unending stream of excuses, a mountain of reasons to not do anything about it, to not spend any money on it, and certainly not to actually study the problem. Instead, it's just more punishment for being stupid or poor and blame. Because everything else is unfair to those working saps.
You know what might actually have half a chance of solving homelessness?
Giving a damn about them. Not arguing over how fair this or that is, not quibbling about core reasons, putting things off until the unfixable things get fixed. GIVE A DAMN.
Okay, we're in agreement there. Homeless people's problems by and large aren't their fault. Certainly the solution isn't pointing fingers at them.
I guess the main thing I'm trying to say is that I take issue with the parent comment. I think it would be a huge, absurd mistake to take the funding for programs that meet material needs and instead give it directly to people with mental illnesses, drug addictions, and other issues. If these people were in shape to handle money, they'd likely have some. They need help, and cash is not help.
So... what exactly do you mean by "giving a damn?"
I guess the main thing I'm trying to say is that I take issue with the parent comment. I think it would be a huge, absurd mistake to take the funding for programs that meet material needs and instead give it directly to people with mental illnesses, drug addictions, and other issues. If these people were in shape to handle money, they'd likely have some. They need help, and cash is not help.
So... what exactly do you mean by "giving a damn?"
Volunteer at a soup kitchen, donate to a homeless shelter, donate food, clothing. The long term change that needs to happen is that we need to get back to paying slightly higher taxes and hiring more social workers.
>That would be tremendously unfair to working people in or around SF, especially those making $50k or less
how is it unfair to miss out on something that you were never promised/offered/entitled to in the first place? that's like saying it's unfair to ... everyone ... when a poor person wins the lottery.
>to address the core problems: a poor educational & economic outlook for both young and old
really? i thought the core problem of the homeless is that they are without a home? isn't it right there in the word?
how is it unfair to miss out on something that you were never promised/offered/entitled to in the first place? that's like saying it's unfair to ... everyone ... when a poor person wins the lottery.
>to address the core problems: a poor educational & economic outlook for both young and old
really? i thought the core problem of the homeless is that they are without a home? isn't it right there in the word?
A pretty large percentage of homeless people have severe mental illness [1]. Most people in that boat are not going to benefit much from being handed 50K without active support/guidance. But yeah it goes beyond "education", they need serious medical help.
[1] https://www.health.harvard.edu/newsletter_article/The_homele...
[1] https://www.health.harvard.edu/newsletter_article/The_homele...
A major contributor of the California homeless problem has been supposed to be tied to the de-institutionalization of many people of mental health institutions back in the 60s - its been a sad state of affairs since then. A patchwork of policy with good intentions but poor execution and funding. (https://www.kqed.org/news/11209729/did-the-emptying-of-menta...)
I started drafting a sincere reply, but I don't think you're arguing in good faith. What are you suggesting, that we give homes to homeless people? That's perfectly fine, then just say that.
>I started drafting a sincere reply, but I don't think you're arguing in good faith.
what is bad faith about taking someone's claims at face value? your claims are
1) 50k distribution to homeless people is unfair to people making less than 50k
2) the core issue of homelessness is a-bunch-of-things–none-of-which-is-being-without-a-home
>What are you suggesting, that we give homes to homeless people?
i'm not suggesting anything. i'm simply pointing out that your claims are vacuously false given some very obvious counterpoints.
but let's "faithfully engage" with your premise; norway has the lowest homelessness rate in the world. what do they do?
1) Reduce eviction petitions by 50% and eviction itself by 30%
2) Prevent individuals recently released from prison or a treatment institution from requiring temporary housing
3) Improve the quality of overnight shelters
4) Limit temporary housing stays to less than three months
5) Ensure safe rental housing for families with children
6) Limit temporary housing to exceptional circumstances, with these arrangements not exceeding three months
>The 2014 strategy plans to achieve these goals by providing assistance to individuals shifting from temporary to permanent housing, assistance in obtaining a suitable home within an insecure housing market, preventing evictions and social innovation."
note that all of these policies revolve around (unsurprisingly) homes.
[1] https://borgenproject.org/homelessness-in-norway/
what is bad faith about taking someone's claims at face value? your claims are
1) 50k distribution to homeless people is unfair to people making less than 50k
2) the core issue of homelessness is a-bunch-of-things–none-of-which-is-being-without-a-home
>What are you suggesting, that we give homes to homeless people?
i'm not suggesting anything. i'm simply pointing out that your claims are vacuously false given some very obvious counterpoints.
but let's "faithfully engage" with your premise; norway has the lowest homelessness rate in the world. what do they do?
1) Reduce eviction petitions by 50% and eviction itself by 30%
2) Prevent individuals recently released from prison or a treatment institution from requiring temporary housing
3) Improve the quality of overnight shelters
4) Limit temporary housing stays to less than three months
5) Ensure safe rental housing for families with children
6) Limit temporary housing to exceptional circumstances, with these arrangements not exceeding three months
>The 2014 strategy plans to achieve these goals by providing assistance to individuals shifting from temporary to permanent housing, assistance in obtaining a suitable home within an insecure housing market, preventing evictions and social innovation."
note that all of these policies revolve around (unsurprisingly) homes.
[1] https://borgenproject.org/homelessness-in-norway/
> I don't think many people would argue that if you hand people a bunch of free money it improves their lives. Of course it does.
The important question is what is the long-term impact.
For some people, a one-time donation can stop a downward spiral (pay the worst debts, and make sure you will not needlessly make new ones in the future; pay the medical bills) or even start an upward curve (buy a car, find a better paying new job that requires commute by car).
For other people, a one-time donation simply means some luxury for the following few days/weeks/months until they run out of money. Sometimes it even results in more debt, if they cannot sufficiently quickly revert their habits the moment the money is gone.
With the first group, I think the society will likely get its investment back. The problem is how to distinguish between them. Because the current attempts mostly select for people who are good at navigating the bureaucratic maze (which the first group is often actually worse at, because their situation is novel for them).
The important question is what is the long-term impact.
For some people, a one-time donation can stop a downward spiral (pay the worst debts, and make sure you will not needlessly make new ones in the future; pay the medical bills) or even start an upward curve (buy a car, find a better paying new job that requires commute by car).
For other people, a one-time donation simply means some luxury for the following few days/weeks/months until they run out of money. Sometimes it even results in more debt, if they cannot sufficiently quickly revert their habits the moment the money is gone.
With the first group, I think the society will likely get its investment back. The problem is how to distinguish between them. Because the current attempts mostly select for people who are good at navigating the bureaucratic maze (which the first group is often actually worse at, because their situation is novel for them).
If it destroys the broader economy to help .5% of people it doesn't particularly matter much how effective it was in helping that .5%.
This applies equally to the top .5% .
This applies equally to the top .5% .
I think if you gave 15 random homeless people a million dollars each and the right structure of accessing that capital (planning sessions, therapy, finding a home, finding training, dealing with addiction) then you would have 15 successful people join society where before they were a burden on all of us.
I suggest that 5 of them would be back on the streets within months, and another 5 would only be doing 'ok'.
Many people on the streets are really broken and have a lot of extremely negatively reinforcing habits, to the point wherein they are the most 'opposite of conscientious' we could imagine.
'Money' would just amplify those bad traits.
For example, if you gave a crack addict $1M, why for a second do you even think they would want to even bother undergoing 'training' or 'therapy' of any sort?
The assumption in 'here is a path towards stability' is that the individual is willing and able to even embark upon that path, which is quite a lot of work.
'Highly conscientious and rational actors' who take the steps necessary for stability and prosperity generally are not at the bottom to begin with.
I suggest it might take $500K in effort on the behalf of social services merely to induce some good behaviours.
So yes, $1M spent on social services, maybe free rent, 'on the job training', re-socialization, yes, that might work.
Edit: differentiating here between 'homeless' of various kinds, and 'working poor' obviously. Paying off the mortgage for 'working poor' might work really well to improve people's lives.
Edit: There are homeless people 100M away as I right this as my neighbourhood is mixed. There's a guy I've 'known of' literally for years, and I hear him have other conversations with bystanders. He has access to welfare and social services which is just barely enough to squeak by on rent, food, subsidized electricity, but usually in the summer he makes the choice to rough it, 'outside living' and opts to pay rent in the winter - so he can buy crack (assuming it's crack as that's the drug of choice here) as I see the 'transactions' happening in plain day out in the open. Pouring money on that situation is like pouring gasoline on a fire. There is absolutely no way giving him cash directly is going to help, we literally already do that and we can see the outcome. These situations call for something else.
Many people on the streets are really broken and have a lot of extremely negatively reinforcing habits, to the point wherein they are the most 'opposite of conscientious' we could imagine.
'Money' would just amplify those bad traits.
For example, if you gave a crack addict $1M, why for a second do you even think they would want to even bother undergoing 'training' or 'therapy' of any sort?
The assumption in 'here is a path towards stability' is that the individual is willing and able to even embark upon that path, which is quite a lot of work.
'Highly conscientious and rational actors' who take the steps necessary for stability and prosperity generally are not at the bottom to begin with.
I suggest it might take $500K in effort on the behalf of social services merely to induce some good behaviours.
So yes, $1M spent on social services, maybe free rent, 'on the job training', re-socialization, yes, that might work.
Edit: differentiating here between 'homeless' of various kinds, and 'working poor' obviously. Paying off the mortgage for 'working poor' might work really well to improve people's lives.
Edit: There are homeless people 100M away as I right this as my neighbourhood is mixed. There's a guy I've 'known of' literally for years, and I hear him have other conversations with bystanders. He has access to welfare and social services which is just barely enough to squeak by on rent, food, subsidized electricity, but usually in the summer he makes the choice to rough it, 'outside living' and opts to pay rent in the winter - so he can buy crack (assuming it's crack as that's the drug of choice here) as I see the 'transactions' happening in plain day out in the open. Pouring money on that situation is like pouring gasoline on a fire. There is absolutely no way giving him cash directly is going to help, we literally already do that and we can see the outcome. These situations call for something else.
Would you consider the five-year life outcomes of lottery winners to be a good or poor proxy for this experiment?
The lottery winners don't receive any counseling and planning as part of their winning package.
But, point taken - lottery winners are terrible at managing their newfound wealth.
But, point taken - lottery winners are terrible at managing their newfound wealth.
I believe you'd get a handful of early deaths, some mediocre outcomes, and maybe 3 or 4 successful people tops out of that experiment.
I think far less would be needed for each person.
If Britney Spears can have conservatorship, why can't other mentally disabled people?
If Britney Spears can have conservatorship, why can't other mentally disabled people?
The other big question with UBI is whether it is better to give people cash, or give them the things they need to live (food, housing, etc.). Personally, I think there is a significant portion of the population who is unable to manage their finances, so something like UBI won't work for them, and we can't afford both UBI, and significant funding for social programs.
This is super interesting. My last 5 years living on Rose Ave in LA we noticed a growing number of folks sleeping in tents, trucks & RVs on the blocks just west of us. I often wondered how many of the people living on (or basically on) the streets could completely fix their lives with a single payment of $5-10k.
Off topic, but I recall a YouTube video I watched a while back from maybe around a decade ago. There was some man out in LA who had experienced homelessness in his youth and wanted to help people in that situation. To do this, he crowed funded a project where he would build small shelters for people that had locks, and a solar panel feeding into an outlet. A lot of the people indicated that this was a major upgrade to their lives on the streets.
Of course the city, and more importantly, the homeowners were livid. There were complaints about having these shelters out and visible for worry of property values. Additionally there was complaints of these being on the sidewalk and that creating safety issues. The city ordered them to be seized and destroyed. The coordinators offered to have them moved , but they were met with not cooperation, and one of the men’s who had lost his shelter reported a cop sneering about how he should “get a job”. There was a city official going on about how this project wasn’t helping anyone and continued to allude to his vague plan to “end homelessness”. Wonder how that worked out for them.
Additionally there are a few channels that interview various people on the street and I recall one quote where a man said something along the lines of “I wish my family wouldn’t look down on me for being homeless”. In another, a man claimed he tried to reinitiate contact with his family, who had him arrested. Both of the men seemed sober, mentally stable, etc. in fact, the latter man ended up getting his life together in a stroke of luck. I have to wonder if these more to these stories, but disowning someone simply due to their economic status alone is absolutely insane to me.
Of course the city, and more importantly, the homeowners were livid. There were complaints about having these shelters out and visible for worry of property values. Additionally there was complaints of these being on the sidewalk and that creating safety issues. The city ordered them to be seized and destroyed. The coordinators offered to have them moved , but they were met with not cooperation, and one of the men’s who had lost his shelter reported a cop sneering about how he should “get a job”. There was a city official going on about how this project wasn’t helping anyone and continued to allude to his vague plan to “end homelessness”. Wonder how that worked out for them.
Additionally there are a few channels that interview various people on the street and I recall one quote where a man said something along the lines of “I wish my family wouldn’t look down on me for being homeless”. In another, a man claimed he tried to reinitiate contact with his family, who had him arrested. Both of the men seemed sober, mentally stable, etc. in fact, the latter man ended up getting his life together in a stroke of luck. I have to wonder if these more to these stories, but disowning someone simply due to their economic status alone is absolutely insane to me.
Living rent-free (or practically so) in a shack or your van is the ultimate insult to society. You're showing everyone else up as idiots. Especially if you don't have to answer to anyone.
People think it's about shelter, but it's actually about status. Not having to do what people tell you to do all the time is very high status. To preserve the conventional status hierarchy you have to be dehumanised, outlawed or "othered".
Anything but decades of servitude to land and capital holders won't be tolerated. That's why the "good people" have to drive you out.
People think it's about shelter, but it's actually about status. Not having to do what people tell you to do all the time is very high status. To preserve the conventional status hierarchy you have to be dehumanised, outlawed or "othered".
Anything but decades of servitude to land and capital holders won't be tolerated. That's why the "good people" have to drive you out.
It sounds like you're describing the distrust that has existed between settled and unsettled people since... well, since at least the beginning of recorded history.
[deleted]
Also I regret the phrasing “fix their lives” here. A better description of what I’m wondering is if that amount of money could get the folks in question housed and afford them the time to do what it takes to stay housed.
Also RV living is probably quite attractive in some ways, it feels almost dirty spending such a large amount of the money you work for paying off someone else's mortgage or enriching them simply for owning stuff.
There is some appeal for sure, especially in places with good weather and hugely expensive rent. But I spent a week in a very nice tour bus with a very nice bathroom. That was enough to rid me of the idea.
I'm a UBI skeptic but I think we need to keep running these experiments to gather data points. The pro-UBI crowd often times points out - and I think fairly - that a lot of these experiments are too small duration and scope to be very useful. It'd be interesting to see say an entire county try UBI for a year.
Also, they don’t phase out any of the targeted programs that also support these people, which is one of the main things that UBI proponents so I will offset the cost
Another USB skeptic here. This is one of those issues where everyone seems to have an opinion. We should let the data to decide.
the hardest part of UBI for me to understand is how much of it will be eaten by inflation and how much will actually help people.
I’d like to see a lot of research on that part of the topic. Maybe take a zip code and give everyone UBI in that zip and see how things like housing prices change within that zip.
I’d like to see a lot of research on that part of the topic. Maybe take a zip code and give everyone UBI in that zip and see how things like housing prices change within that zip.
Inflation is a red herring metric for assessing a UBI. Pretty much all the major schools of economic thought agree that under the current financial market regulation inflation is an overall policy position by government separate from any one specific policy. If UBI pushes inflation up, changes elsewhere can push it down. And UBI is a policy to be implemented in context, the big idea is to gain efficiencies by cutting back on now-redundant welfare nets.
So the actual negative effect of a UBI, in theory, would be declines in real goods and services as resources are directed from economically productive to economically unproductive people. Devilishly difficult to measure.
So the actual negative effect of a UBI, in theory, would be declines in real goods and services as resources are directed from economically productive to economically unproductive people. Devilishly difficult to measure.
UBI would lead to dramatic inflation in rents in desirable areas. There is only a finite amount of premium real estate.
UBI would just jack up rents by the amount of payment in San Jose or Boulder because the people that want to live there mostly have jobs so their extra UBI would just go to making their commute better.
UBI might help people move from West Virginia to Indianapolis but it won't help people in Bakersfield move to San Jose.
UBI would just jack up rents by the amount of payment in San Jose or Boulder because the people that want to live there mostly have jobs so their extra UBI would just go to making their commute better.
UBI might help people move from West Virginia to Indianapolis but it won't help people in Bakersfield move to San Jose.
Taxes would take away the UBI for people that can afford desirable areas. Rents probably wouldn't go up in the manner you describe.
> probably
Government funded things go up in price. Prime example: eductation and child care.
Government funded problems that lead to government funded solutions.
Government funded things go up in price. Prime example: eductation and child care.
Government funded problems that lead to government funded solutions.
The point of UBI is that it isn't government funding, the government have no control how it is spent, people get to decide themselves how to spend it. People wont choose to spend it all on housing just like they currently don't choose to spend all of their disposable income on housing.
isn't government funding? it's literally redistrubtion of wealth by the government.
I never said they had control of what's spent... just that government help leads to higher prices. And it's easily provable that where government puts money, prices go up. Supply and demand - more money available? prices go up.
I never said they had control of what's spent... just that government help leads to higher prices. And it's easily provable that where government puts money, prices go up. Supply and demand - more money available? prices go up.
UBI is literally government funding.
The point of it is to provide all with means to buy staple goods/services, and as with all government funded goods/services the price will go up.
The point of it is to provide all with means to buy staple goods/services, and as with all government funded goods/services the price will go up.
Yeah, if you do it uncontrolled and with the prime motivation of a few people getting rich in the process.
My university in Europe literally costs me a hundred bucks a year, and child care is a similar story (although my country has some problems with providing enough capacity).
My university in Europe literally costs me a hundred bucks a year, and child care is a similar story (although my country has some problems with providing enough capacity).
and you also pay a MASSIVE amount more in taxes and your education is more controlled with shortfalls and limitations.
https://www.heritage.org/education/commentary/free-college-w...
https://www.aei.org/articles/what-european-countries-sacrifi...
"capacity" amazing how forced markets can't create capacity? its also why healthcare is rationed in places like Europe and Canada. Free? Sure if you don't mind waiting months or years...
https://www.heritage.org/education/commentary/free-college-w...
https://www.aei.org/articles/what-european-countries-sacrifi...
"capacity" amazing how forced markets can't create capacity? its also why healthcare is rationed in places like Europe and Canada. Free? Sure if you don't mind waiting months or years...
Man, your conservative think tank articles aren't even consistent - the first one decries the increase in cost caused by free education in the UK, the second one celebrates the "increased funding" caused by the end of free education in the UK.
The first link is really egregious in that it just cites a bunch of non-sequitur cherry-picked facts and doesn't even compare outcomes, or even anything with the US.
The second link tries harder, but it's still obvious that it came to a conclusion and tried to find ways to explain that conclusion, instead of showing the curiosity to find which system is actually better. There are way more variables in a school system than "degree attainment" and "money spent". E.g. European schools generally don't spend any money on sports stadiums etc - is that extra funding in the US actually creating any useful results? Many European school systems also have more focus on getting people prepared for work straight out of High School with trade and other focused programs directly in high school, does that lead to fewer cases of "I dunno I just needed a degree to pass HR checks so I got something random" and actually better job outcomes? Who knows, maybe not, would love to see a proper treatment.
The first link is really egregious in that it just cites a bunch of non-sequitur cherry-picked facts and doesn't even compare outcomes, or even anything with the US.
The second link tries harder, but it's still obvious that it came to a conclusion and tried to find ways to explain that conclusion, instead of showing the curiosity to find which system is actually better. There are way more variables in a school system than "degree attainment" and "money spent". E.g. European schools generally don't spend any money on sports stadiums etc - is that extra funding in the US actually creating any useful results? Many European school systems also have more focus on getting people prepared for work straight out of High School with trade and other focused programs directly in high school, does that lead to fewer cases of "I dunno I just needed a degree to pass HR checks so I got something random" and actually better job outcomes? Who knows, maybe not, would love to see a proper treatment.
> aren't consistent
Those idea's aren't opposing and aren't the brunt of my point.
"Free Education" causes an increase in cost? Self evident. No market feedback and an increase in demand? Massive cost increased. And removing the "free education" (not really free) results in increased funding (more money from individuals than from a single government program) doesn't negate the first point. So your "they aren't consistent" example doesn't in any way shape or form contain two opposing points - they are actually complementary points. Government control of markets make them more expensive and opening markets leads to more money in the market? complementary ideas that feed each other.
And, as I said, those are tangential points to my main idea: "Free education" isn't free and the thought that it doesn't come with it's own shortfalls, issues and complications is short sighted.
> less sports and focus on jobs
Again, tangential ideas but that's largely because those schools don't have freedom as extensions of Big Government.
I'm okay with less time in sports and more focus on functional educations - but those do come at the cost of freedom on the part of schools AND students and lower capacity, etc.
These ARE complicated topics and your points aren't 100% wrong or pointless... but again - my main point is that free isn't free and for the few bonus's that are lauded ("free"), it's amazing that the shortcomings and limitations somehow get left out of the conversation.
Those idea's aren't opposing and aren't the brunt of my point.
"Free Education" causes an increase in cost? Self evident. No market feedback and an increase in demand? Massive cost increased. And removing the "free education" (not really free) results in increased funding (more money from individuals than from a single government program) doesn't negate the first point. So your "they aren't consistent" example doesn't in any way shape or form contain two opposing points - they are actually complementary points. Government control of markets make them more expensive and opening markets leads to more money in the market? complementary ideas that feed each other.
And, as I said, those are tangential points to my main idea: "Free education" isn't free and the thought that it doesn't come with it's own shortfalls, issues and complications is short sighted.
> less sports and focus on jobs
Again, tangential ideas but that's largely because those schools don't have freedom as extensions of Big Government.
I'm okay with less time in sports and more focus on functional educations - but those do come at the cost of freedom on the part of schools AND students and lower capacity, etc.
These ARE complicated topics and your points aren't 100% wrong or pointless... but again - my main point is that free isn't free and for the few bonus's that are lauded ("free"), it's amazing that the shortcomings and limitations somehow get left out of the conversation.
There is only a near-infinite amount housing in the desirable west coast cities that could be built.
Make enough high rise towers like Chicago or NY and the price will go down. But people’s (voters) tax sheltered investments (homes) would also go down in value.
Make enough high rise towers like Chicago or NY and the price will go down. But people’s (voters) tax sheltered investments (homes) would also go down in value.
The notion that we can just arbitrarily control inflation in the context of UBI-like spending is not responsible, it's simply not true.
Say whatever you want but don't play the trick of just asserting there is consensus behind your opinion.
There is extremely little consensus regarding inflation right now and because we are in uncharted territory monetarily and in terms of debt levels both public and private, and the consequences(and data) of that can take years to show up(frequently slowly and then all at once) almost everything is speculation, not data driven.
So no, there is not broad consensus that we can just pull some levers and send inflation wherever we want, not even close.
There is extremely little consensus regarding inflation right now and because we are in uncharted territory monetarily and in terms of debt levels both public and private, and the consequences(and data) of that can take years to show up(frequently slowly and then all at once) almost everything is speculation, not data driven.
So no, there is not broad consensus that we can just pull some levers and send inflation wherever we want, not even close.
Can you share any relevant evidence regarding inflation being a policy position?
Two of the most fundamental products people need are food and shelter, and both of these are low margin businesses (excluding high rent areas, but a UBI allows people to move more easily because you receive it regardless of employment status).
A zip code is too small, because mobility between zip codes is too high. It could cause housing inflation, say, but if you only give UBI to one zip code, they're trying to inflation the whole metro area's housing prices. Say the metro area is 20 zip codes. Then you only see 1/20th the effect, which means it's going to be much easier to miss.
On the other hand, if you look at home pricing by year and zip code for the metro, you should see a big bump (or not) as UBI was implemented in that zip code.
It would be interesting, but I suspect most of what you would learn is how fast people are to change their official addresses to something in the zip code, despite not actually residing at said address.
It would be interesting, but I suspect most of what you would learn is how fast people are to change their official addresses to something in the zip code, despite not actually residing at said address.
Don't forget to raise everyone's taxes within that zip code as well. You need the full experience.
One of the ideas is that we wouldn't need to raise taxes - simply replace some of the social safety net spending with a baseline monthly income.
I’ve read that is politically untenable and financially impossible.
Financially no. politically perhaps probably unless we convince Republicans.
Beyond SNAP, some social security changes or simply nationalizing healthcare could provide enough savings alone.
Impossible to know but many studies say between 200-450 billion per /year in total healthcare costs from universal. Albeit that's a kind of complicated 'swap' from employer & personal costs to a tax.
I would love to see something like a passive sovereign fund / 1% corporate share tax use one of those coming trillions in Corona stimi. Taxpayers should directly benefit from federal policy and stimi that goes mostly goes to the corporate bottom line and valuations. Like a pension, the government has no voting/control. Add protections against runaway de-regulation incentives type governing policy.
Hell cut military spending 10% gets $93 billion and if we're fixing healthcare cap the profit or pharma too.
Beyond SNAP, some social security changes or simply nationalizing healthcare could provide enough savings alone.
Impossible to know but many studies say between 200-450 billion per /year in total healthcare costs from universal. Albeit that's a kind of complicated 'swap' from employer & personal costs to a tax.
I would love to see something like a passive sovereign fund / 1% corporate share tax use one of those coming trillions in Corona stimi. Taxpayers should directly benefit from federal policy and stimi that goes mostly goes to the corporate bottom line and valuations. Like a pension, the government has no voting/control. Add protections against runaway de-regulation incentives type governing policy.
Hell cut military spending 10% gets $93 billion and if we're fixing healthcare cap the profit or pharma too.
https://medium.com/david-grace-columns-organized-by-topic/a-...
>> There are about 242,000,000 adults living the United States. $18,000/year UBI X 242,000,000 people = $4,356,000,000,000 that’s $4.356 TRILLION Dollars per year. The total amount collected by the federal government from the income tax is about $1.5 Trillion Dollars per year. Since we would still have to run the rest of the government in addition to paying the UBI, the cost of the UBI plus the other government expenses we currently have would be about Six TRILLION Dollars.
>> There are about 242,000,000 adults living the United States. $18,000/year UBI X 242,000,000 people = $4,356,000,000,000 that’s $4.356 TRILLION Dollars per year. The total amount collected by the federal government from the income tax is about $1.5 Trillion Dollars per year. Since we would still have to run the rest of the government in addition to paying the UBI, the cost of the UBI plus the other government expenses we currently have would be about Six TRILLION Dollars.
I think most proposals - at least right now the serious ones - are only talking about those already receiving similar value government assistance.
Personally I see something close to universal UBI way down the line assuming we can eliminate a large % of human jobs and reduce the amount of work significantly so even if you wanted to work there isn't any work to do. Take the profit dividends and redistribute it.
Personally I see something close to universal UBI way down the line assuming we can eliminate a large % of human jobs and reduce the amount of work significantly so even if you wanted to work there isn't any work to do. Take the profit dividends and redistribute it.
> I think most proposals - at least right now the serious ones - are only talking about those already receiving similar value government assistance
Its not easy to discuss this when the proposal being discussed seems to shift. Arguing that existing programs should be replaced with a single payment for the current beneficiaries is not UBI and the two should not be conflated.
Its not easy to discuss this when the proposal being discussed seems to shift. Arguing that existing programs should be replaced with a single payment for the current beneficiaries is not UBI and the two should not be conflated.
Or don't raise taxes, if you subscribe to the idea that lowering taxes pay for themselves (to the budget).
I think the biggest issue with UBI would be existential ennui. The human being is a beast of burden, we need purpose. If we have a path where we aim for near total employment but gradually reduce hours as automation reduces the need for labour, that would be better.
Or maybe not automating everything? We can't all be AI/robot/software maintainers. Not everyone is capable of that.
I think the shrinking of the necessary labour pool is a much harder, more dangerous problem and can't be solved just with giving everyone money.
Or maybe not automating everything? We can't all be AI/robot/software maintainers. Not everyone is capable of that.
I think the shrinking of the necessary labour pool is a much harder, more dangerous problem and can't be solved just with giving everyone money.
I don't understand this argument. People are extremely good at inventing purposes for themselves within their context. If you give people a livable but meager amount of money it's true some people will fritter their life away for a while. But a significant portion of the people on UBI will invent a niche for themselves. The ennui itself is a motivator for people to find something useful to do.
The reason people have a problem with UBI is that we have a tendency to equate our moral- or self-worth with our economic productivity. If you don't draw a salary for services rendered it seems like you're not worth anything.
There are tons of occupations people can have that generate no significant monetary value. Volunteering and taking care of children are two such occupations. These both have tons of value to society. So it's clear to me that economic output is not the only source of value. Maybe it's time for society to recognize the value of those non-economic occupations by paying people for them?
The reason people have a problem with UBI is that we have a tendency to equate our moral- or self-worth with our economic productivity. If you don't draw a salary for services rendered it seems like you're not worth anything.
There are tons of occupations people can have that generate no significant monetary value. Volunteering and taking care of children are two such occupations. These both have tons of value to society. So it's clear to me that economic output is not the only source of value. Maybe it's time for society to recognize the value of those non-economic occupations by paying people for them?
> People are extremely good at inventing purposes for themselves within their context
/some/ people are. I grew up with a good number of people whose families were trapped in this kind of an ennui and it honestly seemed like death in slow motion. Why do you think daytime TV is so popular? There's plenty of people who are already out there on benefits who are unemployed and haven't become artists or volunteers.
> a significant portion of the people on UBI will invent a niche for themselves.
I'm not worried about the creative types that can do this. I worry about those who can't. Meaninglessness is pretty wearing on the soul.
> The reason people have a problem with UBI is that we have a tendency to equate our moral- or self-worth with our economic productivity.
That's a very American thing. I'm from the UK and, outside of maybe London, the protestant work ethic is not as significant.
> Maybe it's time for society to recognize the value of those non-economic occupations by paying people for them?
I'm all for that, but how do we categorically make "society" value these things? You can hope that the norm shifts to doing things like this post-UBI, but I'm not quite so optimistic. I've seen what long term unemployment with no prospects can do to people.
/some/ people are. I grew up with a good number of people whose families were trapped in this kind of an ennui and it honestly seemed like death in slow motion. Why do you think daytime TV is so popular? There's plenty of people who are already out there on benefits who are unemployed and haven't become artists or volunteers.
> a significant portion of the people on UBI will invent a niche for themselves.
I'm not worried about the creative types that can do this. I worry about those who can't. Meaninglessness is pretty wearing on the soul.
> The reason people have a problem with UBI is that we have a tendency to equate our moral- or self-worth with our economic productivity.
That's a very American thing. I'm from the UK and, outside of maybe London, the protestant work ethic is not as significant.
> Maybe it's time for society to recognize the value of those non-economic occupations by paying people for them?
I'm all for that, but how do we categorically make "society" value these things? You can hope that the norm shifts to doing things like this post-UBI, but I'm not quite so optimistic. I've seen what long term unemployment with no prospects can do to people.
> I'm not worried about the creative types that can do this. I worry about those who can't. Meaninglessness is pretty wearing on the soul.
Is it better those people are forced to work in unskilled labour, like now?
Even with UBI, they could still voluntarily subject themselves to unskilled labour if they felt it quenched feelings of meaninglessness.
Is it better those people are forced to work in unskilled labour, like now?
Even with UBI, they could still voluntarily subject themselves to unskilled labour if they felt it quenched feelings of meaninglessness.
What do the wealthy do with their time? Some of them throw it away worthlessly, others make art. Or start businesses that fail. Some succeed. Some succumb to existential dread of a challenge free life. Some create new challenges.
Why don't poor people deserve the same choices?
Why don't poor people deserve the same choices?
You're imagining that I disagree with you, but I don't. I'm just anticipating the next problem: it's fine when only a fraction of a small population (the very wealthy) have a serious case of the Oblomovs, but when some percentage of everybody has no purpose in life that's going to be one hell of a problem.
Gotcha. I think it's worth a shot. As it stands, too many minds whither away because they weren't born with the chance.
In the west, that "chance" is rarely money. It's the whole upbringing that helps develop a person's abilities. Money can't fix that, especially not if everyone has it - i.e. it won't get you into a better school or neighborhood.
Thinking about what people do and don’t deserve to have is a very shallow view of the world. No one _deserves_ to make those choices. Some people get to make them but that doesn’t mean they or anyone else deserves that privilege. At most it’s a happy accident that some people get this choice.
> I think the biggest issue with UBI would be existential ennui. The human being is a beast of burden, we need purpose.
I think that's exactly why it's possible UBI might actually work. We can redistribute away the problem of not having enough money to eat or live, but we can't (and shouldn't) redistribute away the problem of creating a satisfying life for oneself. There must still be an incentive and challenge to improve the world we live in.
I think that's exactly why it's possible UBI might actually work. We can redistribute away the problem of not having enough money to eat or live, but we can't (and shouldn't) redistribute away the problem of creating a satisfying life for oneself. There must still be an incentive and challenge to improve the world we live in.
I haven't watched the video, but from the short description this doesn't sound like universal basic income:
> it handed C$7,500 (US$5,900) with no strings attached to a number of recently homeless people
I'm absolutely all for direct cash assistance and housing assistance for homeless and housing insecure populations. I think direct cash and housing first models are absolutely the best first approaches for the unhoused and I'm glad to see more experiments in that vein.
> it handed C$7,500 (US$5,900) with no strings attached to a number of recently homeless people
I'm absolutely all for direct cash assistance and housing assistance for homeless and housing insecure populations. I think direct cash and housing first models are absolutely the best first approaches for the unhoused and I'm glad to see more experiments in that vein.
Ok, we've changed the title to use a more precise phrase from the article abstract.
I think it's important to understand that "universal basic income" has two usages now: the more precise definition that everyone on HN is familiar with, but also more generally the concept of giving money to poor people with no strings attached. That idea is gradually getting more research and the research has been producing interesting results for some time now.
Of course it's an oxymoron to use "UBI" to refer to the latter. The word 'universal' already contradicts it, as does 'basic income' arguably. But language does not spread by precision, and there are more interesting things to discuss here than terminology.
I think it's important to understand that "universal basic income" has two usages now: the more precise definition that everyone on HN is familiar with, but also more generally the concept of giving money to poor people with no strings attached. That idea is gradually getting more research and the research has been producing interesting results for some time now.
Of course it's an oxymoron to use "UBI" to refer to the latter. The word 'universal' already contradicts it, as does 'basic income' arguably. But language does not spread by precision, and there are more interesting things to discuss here than terminology.
yep. It's very important UBI be given to everyone regardless of status/income otherwise it's not a valid economic experiment. This is just welfare with more money.
>otherwise it's not a valid economic experiment.
It can still be a valid economic experiment, it just isn't UBI.
It can still be a valid economic experiment, it just isn't UBI.
Yep, this is a great point. There are a lot of great experiments that show that direct cash assistance is a really good
Valid experiment, but not a full UBI experiment.
That said, I do think these kinds of experiments are still helpful for evaluating UBI as a policy. It's good to know that direct cash assistance is an effective welfare program for a lot of cases. It's probably also worth evaluating where direct cash assistance falls short as a safety net.
Valid experiment, but not a full UBI experiment.
That said, I do think these kinds of experiments are still helpful for evaluating UBI as a policy. It's good to know that direct cash assistance is an effective welfare program for a lot of cases. It's probably also worth evaluating where direct cash assistance falls short as a safety net.
An experiment is always more limited than the thing it is being used to study.
If you are experimenting with a limited budget you really cannot afford to give it to absolutely everyone; just as in an experiment in physics or chemistry you try to simplify the environment so as to both make the signal clearer and to get it done with the resources available.
It's a balancing act. If you insist that the only valid experiment regarding UBI is to give it to everyone then no experiments can ever be done.
If you are experimenting with a limited budget you really cannot afford to give it to absolutely everyone; just as in an experiment in physics or chemistry you try to simplify the environment so as to both make the signal clearer and to get it done with the resources available.
It's a balancing act. If you insist that the only valid experiment regarding UBI is to give it to everyone then no experiments can ever be done.
If you experiment properly, you take people who were in a region on $startdate and give them UBI indefinitely, also levying enough additional tax or welfare cuts on that region to pay for it. That's geographically more limited, and it might be temporally more limited if it turns out to be a massive failure forcing the curtailment of the whole thing, but it's very different from testing to draw the amazing conclusion that penniless people given $7.5k are on average more financially secure a year later, which actually tells you less about a hypothetical UBI than the existing welfare state.
(There might be other public policy reasons to test giving cash handouts to homeless people, like "is this more efficient use of funds than spending the equivalent on homeless hostels and counselling?" but likewise, you have to construct the experiment to actually look at that side of things)
(There might be other public policy reasons to test giving cash handouts to homeless people, like "is this more efficient use of funds than spending the equivalent on homeless hostels and counselling?" but likewise, you have to construct the experiment to actually look at that side of things)
> If you are experimenting with a limited budget you really cannot afford to give it to absolutely everyone;
A real UBI program would also be experimenting with a limited budget. The universal part is a big part of what makes UBI unusual in comparison to the common means tested approaches, and is therefore the part that needs some of the most careful research.
A real UBI program would also be experimenting with a limited budget. The universal part is a big part of what makes UBI unusual in comparison to the common means tested approaches, and is therefore the part that needs some of the most careful research.
the money has to come from somewhere.
Why would you and I, members of the society with our needs met, also need to get money... This massively increases the cost of the programs.
this is the part that i don't get...
Why would you and I, members of the society with our needs met, also need to get money... This massively increases the cost of the programs.
this is the part that i don't get...
Because it removes the administrative overhead almost completely. Arguably, that saves even more money than trying to only give it to people who "need" it.
> Arguably, that saves even more money than trying to only give it to people who "need" it.
Some people argue this, but never with reference to the actual data, which unambiguously proves them wrong. The UK Department of Work and Pensions' unusually bureaucratic approach to eligibility results in admin spends of a little over £6bn, or around 3% of its total budget. If you could eliminate all those costs you'd be able to pay working age Brits a UBI of around £180 per annum!
Some people argue this, but never with reference to the actual data, which unambiguously proves them wrong. The UK Department of Work and Pensions' unusually bureaucratic approach to eligibility results in admin spends of a little over £6bn, or around 3% of its total budget. If you could eliminate all those costs you'd be able to pay working age Brits a UBI of around £180 per annum!
You could double that number to account for the "fraud and error" spend at DWP: I would presume that further spending in this regard is dedicated to other departments.
Sure, or you could halve it since much of it's admin for pensions, and stuff like disability allowance and housing benefit you don't want to eliminate unless you're cool with UBI leaving people immobile or homeless, and you can't do payments to 36m working age people with no admin. Either way, it's still an order of magnitude or two less than UBI costs.
Sure, you can fire a few low paid Jobcentre employees if you're convinced retaining that sort of admin offers no actual benefit to anyone attending, but it turns out that paying 8 million people who are neither in employment nor willing/able to ask for appointments at Jobcentres a livable income isn't cheaper
Sure, you can fire a few low paid Jobcentre employees if you're convinced retaining that sort of admin offers no actual benefit to anyone attending, but it turns out that paying 8 million people who are neither in employment nor willing/able to ask for appointments at Jobcentres a livable income isn't cheaper
this is a good point, but is this true though?
Assuming it costs $10000 per person/yr
If we can agree that 80% of society has their needs met, then if we give to all, we now have an additional 4 times of the overall outlay.
I dont think the cost of administration would be so much, and if so, we should aim to cut down those as much as possible,
I also pulled out that 80% number. As this goes down to 50%, then the argument is easier made that the administrative cost is now equal to the cost of funds we could have just given away.
Assuming it costs $10000 per person/yr
If we can agree that 80% of society has their needs met, then if we give to all, we now have an additional 4 times of the overall outlay.
I dont think the cost of administration would be so much, and if so, we should aim to cut down those as much as possible,
I also pulled out that 80% number. As this goes down to 50%, then the argument is easier made that the administrative cost is now equal to the cost of funds we could have just given away.
This misses what is probably the more important point, which is that any system which tries to measure who has their needs met is going to screw up.
People won't fill out the paperwork, they'll check the wrong box, the papers will get lost, the wrong flag will be entered on the database, they won't fulfill the criteria on paper but still really need the help: people in need fall through the cracks all the time.
Also, great care needs to be taken with welfare to avoid income traps. It's easy to set up a system where working more means you lose money, and that's hard to get out of. This remains a problem with US welfare and disability payments.
With a UBI, it's simple: do they know who you are, and have you been paid yet.
And the people who have enough are generally easy to find, and have, let's say, a preexisting relationship with the IRS. It's easy enough to tax the UBI back from them, and it would be comforting, if and when they unexpectedly lose their job, to know that a check will be arriving. One less thing to think about.
I have some reservations about UBI, but I'm familiar with the case for it, which I'm conveying here without a full endorsement.
People won't fill out the paperwork, they'll check the wrong box, the papers will get lost, the wrong flag will be entered on the database, they won't fulfill the criteria on paper but still really need the help: people in need fall through the cracks all the time.
Also, great care needs to be taken with welfare to avoid income traps. It's easy to set up a system where working more means you lose money, and that's hard to get out of. This remains a problem with US welfare and disability payments.
With a UBI, it's simple: do they know who you are, and have you been paid yet.
And the people who have enough are generally easy to find, and have, let's say, a preexisting relationship with the IRS. It's easy enough to tax the UBI back from them, and it would be comforting, if and when they unexpectedly lose their job, to know that a check will be arriving. One less thing to think about.
I have some reservations about UBI, but I'm familiar with the case for it, which I'm conveying here without a full endorsement.
Exactly this. In the UK we have "universal credit", which is a guaranteed payment for people out of work. In practice, claiming this can be so difficult that many must turn to food banks and private charities before they receive their payments.
I like to say that our current welfare system is a safety net, and like all nets it has holes in it through which people fall. UBI is more like a safety blanket, which will catch anyone who falls into it.
if I understood you right, all 100 of us get the $10000, then the 80 of us who file with the IRS gets taxed back for that 10k, so in sum, only 20 X 10000 = 200K get spent.
I can get behind this.
I can get behind this.
Requiring "means testing", i.e. excluding people who are not in need, is often shown to cost more money than it saves.
(and allows some people who don't technically qualify to fall through the gaps)
If you receive an extra $10,000 that you say you don't need, you could receive it and be in a tax band which gets taxed an extra $10,000. That's more straightforward.
(and allows some people who don't technically qualify to fall through the gaps)
If you receive an extra $10,000 that you say you don't need, you could receive it and be in a tax band which gets taxed an extra $10,000. That's more straightforward.
What you're describing is welfare, not UBI. The core principle of UBI is that it's distributed regardless of income.
the other issue (and the bigger one imo) is that the experiment described in the video seems to be a one-off payment, which you would expect to have very different behavioral outcomes. if you gave me $7500, I would probably just put it all in SPY and pretend it didn't happen. if you promised me $7500/yr, I might actually change my lifestyle a bit.
Direct cash is not without problems. Theft, mismanagement, exploitation, violence are all known issue of just throwing money at people.
I’ll admit the administrative costs are low compared to no/low income housing or food assistance.
But this can be a be careful of what you wish for type of thing. A lot of homeless people are not prepared to just have cash. I know from my time working with a local shelter.
I’ll admit the administrative costs are low compared to no/low income housing or food assistance.
But this can be a be careful of what you wish for type of thing. A lot of homeless people are not prepared to just have cash. I know from my time working with a local shelter.
The question isn't wether there are problems with direct cash, but rather if it has fewer problems than existing systems, which this study finds evidence of.
The political problem of direct cash transfers is that people find them odious. Money is earned and should not be given, but food can be. This is incredibly illogical but it's our political reality, one that can hopefully be changed.
The political problem of direct cash transfers is that people find them odious. Money is earned and should not be given, but food can be. This is incredibly illogical but it's our political reality, one that can hopefully be changed.
This is on top of already existing systems though. I don't think many people ever doubted that giving everyone an extra $12k per year or whatever made out of thin air would help some people, but in real life, the money has to come from somewhere. Plenty of people don't want to pay the increase in taxes that would be necessary to help the homeless publicly like that. Many people believe that more targeted spending is a more efficient and possibly a more effective way to help the homeless. Converting current public aid to just cash payments would probably be less effective.
It's not illogical to prefer giving food and housing to cash. Somewhere around a third of homeless people are addicted to drugs or alcohol. Many have mental problems or just very bad financial skills. Many don't have a way to keep that money safe. If you give homeless people money, there's a very good chance it'll be blown on drugs, booze, or lotto tickets or just stolen. Some people it will help; some it won't. Whereas if you take that same increase in funding proposed and instead, say, expand housing programs, fund food banks, or provide mental health treatment, you know all that money is going to help people. Plus it can help people in ways that they may not help themselves otherwise.
It's not illogical to prefer giving food and housing to cash. Somewhere around a third of homeless people are addicted to drugs or alcohol. Many have mental problems or just very bad financial skills. Many don't have a way to keep that money safe. If you give homeless people money, there's a very good chance it'll be blown on drugs, booze, or lotto tickets or just stolen. Some people it will help; some it won't. Whereas if you take that same increase in funding proposed and instead, say, expand housing programs, fund food banks, or provide mental health treatment, you know all that money is going to help people. Plus it can help people in ways that they may not help themselves otherwise.
> It's not illogical to prefer giving food and housing to cash.
It's not inherently logical either. Your assertion that indirect funding is somehow more effective is unproven. If you want to be strictly logical about it, you decide up front what the actual goals are, and you try and find the most cost effective way to reach them.
It may be counterintuitive, but it's entirely plausible that on the whole direct funding is more effective. There is at least some good evidence pointing this way in some areas. If you dig into any of this stuff in any real depth, you'll find that the "common sense" solutions are often wrongheaded for non obvious ways.
Further: breaking the world into "normal folks" and "homeless people incapable of managing their finances" is far too reductive. There certainly are people whose addictions or mental health issues or whatever make it difficult for them to manage their own finances, but that is a small fraction of the people who rely on some sort of public assistance.
It's not inherently logical either. Your assertion that indirect funding is somehow more effective is unproven. If you want to be strictly logical about it, you decide up front what the actual goals are, and you try and find the most cost effective way to reach them.
It may be counterintuitive, but it's entirely plausible that on the whole direct funding is more effective. There is at least some good evidence pointing this way in some areas. If you dig into any of this stuff in any real depth, you'll find that the "common sense" solutions are often wrongheaded for non obvious ways.
Further: breaking the world into "normal folks" and "homeless people incapable of managing their finances" is far too reductive. There certainly are people whose addictions or mental health issues or whatever make it difficult for them to manage their own finances, but that is a small fraction of the people who rely on some sort of public assistance.
> I don't think many people ever doubted that giving everyone an extra $12k per year or whatever made out of thin air would help some people, but in real life, the money has to come from somewhere.
No, in real life money (especially in a country whose debt is denominated in currency it controls) is, almost literally, just made out of thin air. There are consequences of having more money around, and sometimes it is useful to destroy some money in a different distribution to offset some of the effects of creating money that was created and distributed a particular way, but that's a different issue. (This is the relatively uncontroversial part of Modern Monetary Theory; the controversial part is the follow-up “...and, therefore, we she engage in deficit spending a lot more freely than we do now.”
The myth of the fisc (a metaphor held over from commodity money times when it was a decent repres5 of reality) is that money has to come from somewhere.
> Plenty of people don't want to pay the increase in taxes that would be necessary to help the homeless publicly like that.
The idea that taxes are necessary to pay for spending is the myth of the fisc. It's true only to the extent that the government decides it should be true. (Which, as much as people in government talk about it when opposing spending they don't like or promoting tax increases they do like, isn't all that much, hence the absence of anything approximating long-term fiscal balance.)
> Whereas if you take that same increase in funding proposed and instead, say, expand housing programs, fund food banks, or provide mental health treatment, you know all that money is going to help people.
No, you don't; waste, fraud, and abuse in selectively targeted government programs is a very, very real thing, and a lot of the money that doesn't go into waste, fraud, and abuse goes into control measures to prevent waste, fraud, and abuse, instead of to the actual program purpose.
Source: more than 20 years in public sector work, the part of it that wasn't in IT specifically in fiscal management aimed at accounting for proper use of funds.
No, in real life money (especially in a country whose debt is denominated in currency it controls) is, almost literally, just made out of thin air. There are consequences of having more money around, and sometimes it is useful to destroy some money in a different distribution to offset some of the effects of creating money that was created and distributed a particular way, but that's a different issue. (This is the relatively uncontroversial part of Modern Monetary Theory; the controversial part is the follow-up “...and, therefore, we she engage in deficit spending a lot more freely than we do now.”
The myth of the fisc (a metaphor held over from commodity money times when it was a decent repres5 of reality) is that money has to come from somewhere.
> Plenty of people don't want to pay the increase in taxes that would be necessary to help the homeless publicly like that.
The idea that taxes are necessary to pay for spending is the myth of the fisc. It's true only to the extent that the government decides it should be true. (Which, as much as people in government talk about it when opposing spending they don't like or promoting tax increases they do like, isn't all that much, hence the absence of anything approximating long-term fiscal balance.)
> Whereas if you take that same increase in funding proposed and instead, say, expand housing programs, fund food banks, or provide mental health treatment, you know all that money is going to help people.
No, you don't; waste, fraud, and abuse in selectively targeted government programs is a very, very real thing, and a lot of the money that doesn't go into waste, fraud, and abuse goes into control measures to prevent waste, fraud, and abuse, instead of to the actual program purpose.
Source: more than 20 years in public sector work, the part of it that wasn't in IT specifically in fiscal management aimed at accounting for proper use of funds.
Unless you're talking about federal programs, the money is absolutely not made out of thin air. States and cities cannot print money, and most have mandatory balanced budget laws.
> A lot of homeless people are not prepared to just have cash
Sure, that's a fair hypothesis. But studies have shown that it tends not to be true, and that direct cash assistance is actually often a remarkably effective intervention, and often more effective than other welfare programs.
The studies have generally shown that a lot of homeless people actually are prepared to just have cash.
I don't think direct cash assistance is a panacea or anything, but the data shows it is often much more effective than people expect it to be.
The studies on this are actually fairly conclusive, so if you want to push back I'd need to see solid data as pushback. Anecdotes won't really convince me otherwise on this topic, because we've had a lot of experiments that have created a pretty strong record.
Sure, that's a fair hypothesis. But studies have shown that it tends not to be true, and that direct cash assistance is actually often a remarkably effective intervention, and often more effective than other welfare programs.
The studies have generally shown that a lot of homeless people actually are prepared to just have cash.
I don't think direct cash assistance is a panacea or anything, but the data shows it is often much more effective than people expect it to be.
The studies on this are actually fairly conclusive, so if you want to push back I'd need to see solid data as pushback. Anecdotes won't really convince me otherwise on this topic, because we've had a lot of experiments that have created a pretty strong record.
A combination of direct cash assistance and mental healthcare would go a long way towards eliminating homelessness.
I have not performed the study, but suspect that in the long run this would be less costly than the current system since it's much easier to maintain mental health when you have housing. I would expect most of the participants to eventually integrate back into society and no longer be dependent on the subsidies for basic needs.
I have not performed the study, but suspect that in the long run this would be less costly than the current system since it's much easier to maintain mental health when you have housing. I would expect most of the participants to eventually integrate back into society and no longer be dependent on the subsidies for basic needs.
Do you have any sources for these claims?
Sources would be anyone who's grown up in a poor neighborhood. The day that government checks clear gets weird. Drug and liquor lines grow, as do those for sexual services. And of course the flurry of activity invites robbery, etc. Housing projects, for example homeless housing in SF, will ban visitors on and around those days.
I know it may be hard to believe, but 20-something drug addicts, the mentally ill, etc, don't exactly manage their budget as well the 40-year-old 85th percentile income earning HN programmer or 75-year-old retired school teacher.
That's not a moral judgment. It's just a fact. And to the degree it's a cultural artifact (i.e. maybe drug addicts in Sweden are veritable CFOs), a UBI won't change that overnight.
I know it may be hard to believe, but 20-something drug addicts, the mentally ill, etc, don't exactly manage their budget as well the 40-year-old 85th percentile income earning HN programmer or 75-year-old retired school teacher.
That's not a moral judgment. It's just a fact. And to the degree it's a cultural artifact (i.e. maybe drug addicts in Sweden are veritable CFOs), a UBI won't change that overnight.
> a UBI won't change that overnight.
Of course not but that doesn't mean it isn't worth trying. Your other objections regarding poor neighbourhoods and so on are not so much an argument against UBI as an argument against the conditions that made those neighbourhoods poor in the first place; of course those causes need to be tackled as well, but not everyone who is poor is also a drunken, sex-crazed, drug addict.
Of course not but that doesn't mean it isn't worth trying. Your other objections regarding poor neighbourhoods and so on are not so much an argument against UBI as an argument against the conditions that made those neighbourhoods poor in the first place; of course those causes need to be tackled as well, but not everyone who is poor is also a drunken, sex-crazed, drug addict.
I'm not objecting to UBI, and certainly not to UBI-like experiments. Nor was SV_BubbleTime, AFAICT. But SV_BubbleTime makes a significant and important point, and a legitimate retort to the opinion, "direct cash and housing first models are absolutely the best first approaches for the unhoused".
San Francisco adopted precisely those policies 15 years ago, providing free housing and direct cash payments, and most who live in San Francisco and understand the history of the policies probably have reservations about free housing and direct cash being the "best first approaches". Even Governor Newsom, who was the mayor who did the most to accelerate and materialize those policies (e.g. ~8k housing units for the homeless have been built or converted since 2005) has admitted that those policies were incomplete and naive.
EDIT: s/15k housing units/8k housing units/. Per https://londonbreed.medium.com/homelessness-recovery-plan-40.... (Google search sucks these days so difficult to find the better sources I originally had in mind.) Note that these are units, not shelter beds. San Francisco has built more permanent housing for the homeless than the entire homeless population when the program started.
San Francisco adopted precisely those policies 15 years ago, providing free housing and direct cash payments, and most who live in San Francisco and understand the history of the policies probably have reservations about free housing and direct cash being the "best first approaches". Even Governor Newsom, who was the mayor who did the most to accelerate and materialize those policies (e.g. ~8k housing units for the homeless have been built or converted since 2005) has admitted that those policies were incomplete and naive.
EDIT: s/15k housing units/8k housing units/. Per https://londonbreed.medium.com/homelessness-recovery-plan-40.... (Google search sucks these days so difficult to find the better sources I originally had in mind.) Note that these are units, not shelter beds. San Francisco has built more permanent housing for the homeless than the entire homeless population when the program started.
> Sources would be anyone who's grown up in a poor neighborhood.
So you've got opinions and anecdotes at best, then.
Source: grew up in a poor neighborhood.
So you've got opinions and anecdotes at best, then.
Source: grew up in a poor neighborhood.
> Average weekly mortality due to illicit drug overdose was 40% higher during weeks of income assistance payments compared to weeks without payments (P<0.001). Consistent increases in mortality appeared the day after cheque disbursement and were significantly higher for two days, and marginally higher after 3 days, even when controlling for other temporal trends.
Source: "Illicit drug overdose deaths resulting from income assistance payments: Analysis of the 'check effect' using daily mortality data", https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27402469/
> The findings suggest that scheduling and staffing practices of various emergency service areas in Hennepin County reflect patient load variation associated with time of welfare check distribution. Systematic variation of time or amount of welfare could lead to improved distribution and reduction of emergency services demand.
Source: "Correlation of emergency health care use, 911 volume, and jail activity with welfare check distribution", https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/1648313/
To be clear, these aren't arguments for removing or rejecting cash assistance altogether:
> The implications are that there is a general check effect and that it was not reduced by ending benefits to persons with drug and alcohol related disabilities.
Source: "Psychiatric emergencies: the check effect revisited", https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10331323/
> Disability payments impact the timing of substance use, but receipt of disability payments is not associated with more overall substance use than unalleviated poverty. Money management-based clinical interventions, which may involve assignment of a representative payee, can minimize the purchase of substances with disability payments.
Source: "The Check Effect Reconsidered", https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3094507/
An example alternative model is California's In-Home Supportive Services (IHSS): https://www.payingforseniorcare.com/california/inhome-suppor... On the face of it, it's a voucher program for the disabled and elderly to obtain in-home assistance (cleaning, bathing, laundry, shopping, etc). But it's actually more of a jobs program for the unemployed or underemployed able-bodied. And in cities like San Francisco a significant fraction of recipients of the vouchers are older drug addicts, and a large number of those paid with the vouchers are able-bodied older adults. There's plenty of rules violations and cheating all around (because people will be people), but arguably the money is nonetheless more well spent--e.g. less of the public expenditure is diverted to drugs--than if the program simply provided cash directly to the recipients.
Obviously, a single mother working two part-time jobs has much more to gain (as does the public) by no-strings-attached, direct cash assistance. Not all poverty looks the same, and not all of the impoverished have or even want the same incentives. That's the point being debated and that seems to chafe people the wrong way for some reason.
Source: "Illicit drug overdose deaths resulting from income assistance payments: Analysis of the 'check effect' using daily mortality data", https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27402469/
> The findings suggest that scheduling and staffing practices of various emergency service areas in Hennepin County reflect patient load variation associated with time of welfare check distribution. Systematic variation of time or amount of welfare could lead to improved distribution and reduction of emergency services demand.
Source: "Correlation of emergency health care use, 911 volume, and jail activity with welfare check distribution", https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/1648313/
To be clear, these aren't arguments for removing or rejecting cash assistance altogether:
> The implications are that there is a general check effect and that it was not reduced by ending benefits to persons with drug and alcohol related disabilities.
Source: "Psychiatric emergencies: the check effect revisited", https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/10331323/
> Disability payments impact the timing of substance use, but receipt of disability payments is not associated with more overall substance use than unalleviated poverty. Money management-based clinical interventions, which may involve assignment of a representative payee, can minimize the purchase of substances with disability payments.
Source: "The Check Effect Reconsidered", https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3094507/
An example alternative model is California's In-Home Supportive Services (IHSS): https://www.payingforseniorcare.com/california/inhome-suppor... On the face of it, it's a voucher program for the disabled and elderly to obtain in-home assistance (cleaning, bathing, laundry, shopping, etc). But it's actually more of a jobs program for the unemployed or underemployed able-bodied. And in cities like San Francisco a significant fraction of recipients of the vouchers are older drug addicts, and a large number of those paid with the vouchers are able-bodied older adults. There's plenty of rules violations and cheating all around (because people will be people), but arguably the money is nonetheless more well spent--e.g. less of the public expenditure is diverted to drugs--than if the program simply provided cash directly to the recipients.
Obviously, a single mother working two part-time jobs has much more to gain (as does the public) by no-strings-attached, direct cash assistance. Not all poverty looks the same, and not all of the impoverished have or even want the same incentives. That's the point being debated and that seems to chafe people the wrong way for some reason.
> That's the point being debated and that seems to chafe people the wrong way for some reason.
It chafes because it's a common argument for doing nothing at all, or removing all agency from people in the situation. That removal of agency is absolutely a bad thing. I'd argue that people who feel they lack agency in their life are much more likely to attempt to escape that life through drug addiction.
It also grossly over-represents the number of drug addicts in the population of poor people, most of whom would just benefit from the extra money, and is used to falsely equate the two groups.
It chafes because it's a common argument for doing nothing at all, or removing all agency from people in the situation. That removal of agency is absolutely a bad thing. I'd argue that people who feel they lack agency in their life are much more likely to attempt to escape that life through drug addiction.
It also grossly over-represents the number of drug addicts in the population of poor people, most of whom would just benefit from the extra money, and is used to falsely equate the two groups.
> That's not a moral judgment.
That was still a moral judgement. Welfare and UBI always have this issue in that everyone has a moral opinion on what recipients of money should spend it on.
If you have money, nobody cares what you spend it on, but if you don't have money, suddenly everyone has an opinion on what you should and shouldn't be allowed to use it for.
That was still a moral judgement. Welfare and UBI always have this issue in that everyone has a moral opinion on what recipients of money should spend it on.
If you have money, nobody cares what you spend it on, but if you don't have money, suddenly everyone has an opinion on what you should and shouldn't be allowed to use it for.
[deleted]
A moral judgment is "it is wrong to do X". It isn't a moral judgement to say "We don't want to spend our society's money subsidizing drug and alcohol addiction, we want to spend it on getting homeless people jobs, houses, etc." It isn't a moral judgment to say "we have observed that drug and alcohol addiction are harmful to the addicts and to the society we want to create, so we don't want to spend our money on that." Usually people aren't quite so precise and assume that the "we have observed ... to be harmful" is understood.
"We don't want to spend our society's money subsidizing drug and alcohol addiction, we want to spend it on getting homeless people jobs, houses, etc."
That is a moral judgement. It may be one you agree with, but it's wrong to say that's not a moral judgement.
That is a moral judgement. It may be one you agree with, but it's wrong to say that's not a moral judgement.
> Sources would be anyone who's grown up in a poor neighborhood. The day that government checks clear gets weird. Drug and liquor lines grow, as do those for sexual services. And of course the flurry of activity invites robbery, etc. Housing projects, for example homeless housing in SF, will ban visitors on and around those days.
Wake up wake up wake up it’s the first of the month Get up get up get up cash your check and move on
Bone thugs described it in 1999 https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=PArF9k2SbQk
Wake up wake up wake up it’s the first of the month Get up get up get up cash your check and move on
Bone thugs described it in 1999 https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=PArF9k2SbQk
You know those aren’t sources and sf is a local microcosm.
Your post lack humanity and nuance. Perhaps you’re jaded by your experiences which is fair but not representative.
Consistent access to sufficient money is life changing for people who grew up without. The change isn’t immediate. You don’t just suddenly adapt. You don’t unlearn the coping mechanisms you develop to survive while your poor. It takes time.
Poverty fucks you up.
Your post lack humanity and nuance. Perhaps you’re jaded by your experiences which is fair but not representative.
Consistent access to sufficient money is life changing for people who grew up without. The change isn’t immediate. You don’t just suddenly adapt. You don’t unlearn the coping mechanisms you develop to survive while your poor. It takes time.
Poverty fucks you up.
It isn't lacking humanity. I grew up poor as well. And what the poster says does indeed happen a lot. This is not to say I don't think the poor should be helped. I was helped with school grants and loans to get me to where I am today, Medicaid, and also welfare for my parents and I. So personally I know how it was, and I know how it is to have to fight that. It is hard and the poor need help for sure.
The problem of poverty can come multiple ways. One way is lack of opportunity or being in a hole you can't get out of (kids and nobody to care for them, no home, nobody to look up to, mental illness, drug addiction, health problems). But there's also people that just aren't going to do their part to help themselves either. So what we need to do is help people get out of holes to get on their feet. There's a substantial portion of people that will take that money and do exactly what the OP said.
The problem of poverty can come multiple ways. One way is lack of opportunity or being in a hole you can't get out of (kids and nobody to care for them, no home, nobody to look up to, mental illness, drug addiction, health problems). But there's also people that just aren't going to do their part to help themselves either. So what we need to do is help people get out of holes to get on their feet. There's a substantial portion of people that will take that money and do exactly what the OP said.
I don’t do what I need to do to help myself most of the time. Turns out my reason might be an executive function disorder. Perhaps many of these people who don’t do their part to help them selves are actually suffering from poor mental health?
The problem is that in trying to distinguish between the two groups you'll inevitably fuck it up and ruin the lives of people who could otherwise have turned it around.
Not sure you can call this UBI. It's targeted aid to those most (visibly) in need. At the very least UBI should be universal. As well as social programs. Otherwise you'll just end up fomenting tensions among those who receive it and those that don't, and eventually it'll be killed. And then there's the problem of UBI not linked to (real) inflation is not really BI in the long run.
They published a impact report with more details about the results: https://forsocialchange.org/s/2020_09_30_FSC_Statement_of_Im...
This has absolutely nothing to do with UBI. It's like the world has a mass delusion.
This doesn't help homelessness in the conventional sense -
"Participants were identified as not struggling with significant mental health or substance abuse issues."
Giving lumps of money of course helps the people you give it to. That would be a stupid experiment.
What is of interest and has generally been shown to work is giving unconditional money is more efficient than conditional money or programs.
The waste on bureaucracy is more than the good from helping people spend it. No evidence either way in this video.
This doesn't help homelessness in the conventional sense -
"Participants were identified as not struggling with significant mental health or substance abuse issues."
Giving lumps of money of course helps the people you give it to. That would be a stupid experiment.
What is of interest and has generally been shown to work is giving unconditional money is more efficient than conditional money or programs.
The waste on bureaucracy is more than the good from helping people spend it. No evidence either way in this video.
In that video there is a mention that Milton Friedman supported basic income. That is wrong! He opposed UBI. He instead proposed NIT(Negative Income Tax)[0]. As an engineer, I think NIT is far more efficient than UBI. UBI is like "spray and pray" policy, whereas NIT provides support to those who actually require it, automatically.
[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xtpgkX588nM
[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xtpgkX588nM
UBI and NIT have the exact same end effect in terms of how much wealth goes where. They are simply different ways of doing the accounting.
Aren’t NIT and UBI effectively the same thing?
Think of NIT as steepening the progressive tax rate curve, and allowing it to dip below the y (tax rate) axis for sufficiently low x (income). There exist several “refundable tax credits” today in the US that effectively do this at a small scale, albeit with a lumpy phase-out curve that runs into the same disincentive cliffs as many other welfare programs.
UBI, on the other hand, shifts the curve rightward, so everyone’s income is relatively higher and is thus subject to more taxes. (You’d obviously also need to raise taxes overall if your goal is to keep it budget-neutral).
UBI, on the other hand, shifts the curve rightward, so everyone’s income is relatively higher and is thus subject to more taxes. (You’d obviously also need to raise taxes overall if your goal is to keep it budget-neutral).
UBI, universal basic income, is universal. Lowering the tax rate below zero for some people is not universal but only some percentage of the population.
> Lowering the tax rate below zero for some people is not universal but only some percentage of the population.
So what?
As long as everyone above the NIT line saves the same dollar amount in tax payments that they would have got from UBI, there's no difference.
So what?
As long as everyone above the NIT line saves the same dollar amount in tax payments that they would have got from UBI, there's no difference.
I love these videos from 60 years ago. It is exhibit A of how unintelligible today’s public dialog is in comparison.
Math to do this in the USA in case you're intererested:
210,000,000 working age adults * $5900 / mo * 12 months ~= 15 TRILLION dollars per year.
The annual GDP of the USA is about 21.5 trillion.
210,000,000 working age adults * $5900 / mo * 12 months ~= 15 TRILLION dollars per year.
The annual GDP of the USA is about 21.5 trillion.
If UBI were to be implemented in the US, there's no way it'd be $5900/mo. Andrew Yang's plan (https://2020.yang2020.com/what-is-freedom-dividend-faq/), which was actually realistic, would've given out $1000 per month.
>which was actually realistic, would've given out $1000 per month.
I am not from the US, would it be realistic to live on 1k USD a month?
I am not from the US, would it be realistic to live on 1k USD a month?
That would get you pretty far outside of the biggest cities. It wouldn’t make for a glamorous life, but it would be enough that at minimum you wouldn’t have to worry about food and housing.
For context, during the recession I managed to survive one year of severe underemployment, living in Houston, on an income of less than $20k for the year. Things were tight, and I had no savings at the end of that year, so I’m glad it didn’t last any longer. But if I imagine having that same experience with an extra $1k/mo in baseline income, it would have gone from “stressful” to “not where I want to be, but okay.”
For context, during the recession I managed to survive one year of severe underemployment, living in Houston, on an income of less than $20k for the year. Things were tight, and I had no savings at the end of that year, so I’m glad it didn’t last any longer. But if I imagine having that same experience with an extra $1k/mo in baseline income, it would have gone from “stressful” to “not where I want to be, but okay.”
A big advantage of UBI is that it allows a smooth transition from living only on UBI into better paid employment because you don't lose the income once you start working. A long term study would reveal if this lowers unemployement overall.
Is it enough to live on? Well I think that depends on expectations, but it is a start and it is certainly better than nothing.
Is it enough to live on? Well I think that depends on expectations, but it is a start and it is certainly better than nothing.
That amount would likely require universal health care to make it comfortable to live off of. You would still not be able to afford decent housing in a major city though, as you would have to split a studio apartment with several people.
With UBI I always question should it even afford a decent housing in major city. Or is it more reasonable to expect it to pay for decent housing(a flat) and basic living expenses including food, clothing and other necessities in some town with reasonable basic services?
Huge swaths (40% or so?) of the US live outside of big cities. It's just inconceivable that every one of them is seriously deprived and miserable doing so. They have friends, hobbies, lives that they can do outside of dense urban areas.
You should be able to afford major city if you are able to split the fixed costs of living with someone. Its more likely that people on UBI without any supplemental income would live in a suburb of the major city.
A true UBI would make abuse of low wage workers difficult as they can easily leave the job without worrying about being able to eat.
A true UBI would make abuse of low wage workers difficult as they can easily leave the job without worrying about being able to eat.
Yes, especially with room mates, family, a spouse, etc. (if you split the bill of course)
And again, that's only from the UBI. If you have even a crappy part-time minimum-wage job, your quality of life would increase by quite a lot.
And again, that's only from the UBI. If you have even a crappy part-time minimum-wage job, your quality of life would increase by quite a lot.
FY2021 budget is about $5T. Private healthcare spending, which is basically just a private tax is another $1.2T. So, we're starting with a "real" budget of $6.2T.
This is about 2-3X the budget.
Then of course, you can begin walking the number backwards at tax time, and can recover more from folks at the top end of the wealth and income spectrum to offset.
This is about 2-3X the budget.
Then of course, you can begin walking the number backwards at tax time, and can recover more from folks at the top end of the wealth and income spectrum to offset.
didn't give them $5,900 monthly, that was annual. $5,900 monthly would be more than most people in US make after tax.
Hence the reason the final total was above GDP. That should have been a red flag that there was a problem in the calculation.
This study gave a single (USD-equivalent) $5,900 payment, not a recurring monthly payment. The benefit was demonstrated to last a number of months.
It's worth comparing this to the US median income. That's about $32k annually, which equals $2,666 / month. I wouldn't expect a universal basic income program to attempt to be an equivalent alternative to earning the median income.
It's worth comparing this to the US median income. That's about $32k annually, which equals $2,666 / month. I wouldn't expect a universal basic income program to attempt to be an equivalent alternative to earning the median income.
Definitely agree that doing this per month per citizen would be infeasible, though an interesting alternative is doing a negative income tax.
Effectively UBI but declines as the person makes money.
Some rough calculations:
In 2019 there were 34m people in poverty[1], lets assume 2 people per household (lower than nationwide average of ~3) so 17m households.
Topping each of them up to above the poverty line (~13k/y/person) would be 26k / household / year would be 442bn (and that's assuming all people below poverty line make 0 dollars).
Not bad considering the government already spends over twice that (1tr) on welfare each year[3].
Like others have said healthcare, housing issues etc would still be very damaging to some, but it's an interesting concept that could put every person in the country above the poverty line for not that much $$.
I also like that it (theoretically) still encourages working since a) poverty line is still a lower quality of life. and b) when you're below the line and make more money, the government gives you less $$ but less than you are making. i.e. if you make an extra 2 dollars, the government stopped reduces by 1, or something akin to that.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_income_tax
[2] https://www.census.gov/library/publications/2020/demo/p60-27...
[3] https://www.budget.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/CRS%20Report%20-...
Effectively UBI but declines as the person makes money.
Some rough calculations:
In 2019 there were 34m people in poverty[1], lets assume 2 people per household (lower than nationwide average of ~3) so 17m households.
Topping each of them up to above the poverty line (~13k/y/person) would be 26k / household / year would be 442bn (and that's assuming all people below poverty line make 0 dollars).
Not bad considering the government already spends over twice that (1tr) on welfare each year[3].
Like others have said healthcare, housing issues etc would still be very damaging to some, but it's an interesting concept that could put every person in the country above the poverty line for not that much $$.
I also like that it (theoretically) still encourages working since a) poverty line is still a lower quality of life. and b) when you're below the line and make more money, the government gives you less $$ but less than you are making. i.e. if you make an extra 2 dollars, the government stopped reduces by 1, or something akin to that.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_income_tax
[2] https://www.census.gov/library/publications/2020/demo/p60-27...
[3] https://www.budget.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/CRS%20Report%20-...
So basically like what exists e.g. in France: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revenu_de_solidarit%C3%A9_acti...
Yes, the GDP for the US in 2020 was ~21T and 15T is quite large in perspective.
However, this UBI would generate tax income to offset. In fact, its been stated that welfare like food stamps (SNAP) actually brings in more 170% revenue vs. assistance provided [1]. If this is tax revenue positive (even if the return isn't as high as food stamps), why would the cost be a concern?
[1] https://4thworldmovement.org/food-stamps-waste-money/
However, this UBI would generate tax income to offset. In fact, its been stated that welfare like food stamps (SNAP) actually brings in more 170% revenue vs. assistance provided [1]. If this is tax revenue positive (even if the return isn't as high as food stamps), why would the cost be a concern?
[1] https://4thworldmovement.org/food-stamps-waste-money/
It was a one-time payment, not a monthly recurring one.
For comparison the Federal Budget submitted for 2019 was 4.4 Trillion dollars. Almost 1 Trillion was Military. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_budget
Not sure how you calculate things like tax credits and other methods of inflation/printing money.
Not sure how you calculate things like tax credits and other methods of inflation/printing money.
This wasn't a monthly stipend (and it wasn't UBI) - it was one time payment.
Even if we were talking UBI, this calculation is pretty meaningless; nobody believes a version of UBI would be rolled out without tax changes.
Even if we were talking UBI, this calculation is pretty meaningless; nobody believes a version of UBI would be rolled out without tax changes.
I'm no UBI proponent. However, I think most UBI proposals have tax adjustments for those with income (better proposals are gradients, not step functions). So not all 210 million adults get it long term...
Recipients in the video didn't receive 5,900 every month, just once.
I wonder about the GDP, because it took $3 trillion dollars to keep the country humming when less than 30% of the workforce was thrown into turmoil for a few months.
Why do this for someone making 200k/year? I’d imagine we’d select people below a certain income level
Because it's much easier to just subtract the UBI at tax time from the high earners than to create an entirely new bureaucracy deciding who gets UBI.
[deleted]
So it's not really universal and ultimately it boils down to welfare and benefits as they exist, e.g. in Europe. So what's new?
Edit: for example in France there is a minimum income benefit that everyone is entitled, one might call that 'universal basic income', then: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revenu_de_solidarit%C3%A9_acti...
The suggestion that this should be paid to everyone then clawed back from most people though taxes is rather odd. A lot of these discussions on UBI in the US seem to either be utopian or try to reinvent the wheel...
Edit: for example in France there is a minimum income benefit that everyone is entitled, one might call that 'universal basic income', then: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revenu_de_solidarit%C3%A9_acti...
The suggestion that this should be paid to everyone then clawed back from most people though taxes is rather odd. A lot of these discussions on UBI in the US seem to either be utopian or try to reinvent the wheel...
I'm not sure how much you know about existing welfare systems in the US, but they are nothing close to getting a $6k check every month..plenty of people earning <$40k aren't eligible for them. Some people earning $0 can't even get them, and the ones that are aren't getting anywhere near a livable amount of money.
People in higher tax brackets probably wouldn't immediately benefit sure, but tax bracket isn't permanent.
People in higher tax brackets probably wouldn't immediately benefit sure, but tax bracket isn't permanent.
Guaranteed minimum income on a regular basis.
That's welfare and benefits as they exist in Europe (at least in some countries).
So when American speak of convoluted UBI systems do they in fact just mean having an European level of welfare state?
So when American speak of convoluted UBI systems do they in fact just mean having an European level of welfare state?
Welfare in many cases is hugely bureaucratic. It is there, but it means things like filling forms and sending your bank statements every 3 months to be reviewed. Not to mention the unemployment benefits you must claim first which can take weeks to process with no payments. That is if you decide to take short job.
I would see it to be much simpler just to take some basic level of current benefits and last resort benefits and just giving it to everyone. And then claiming it back in some way like higher income tax.
I would see it to be much simpler just to take some basic level of current benefits and last resort benefits and just giving it to everyone. And then claiming it back in some way like higher income tax.
It is far too bureaucratic
In Germany I can't get welfare, because I have too many savings. After graduating from university, I also could not get unemployment benefits because I had not earned enough when working as student.
Last time my work contract / research grant was about to expire, they said I would not get unemployment benefits, because I need to have a valid government id and my id card was expired. My still valid passport would not count. Although the grant was renewed, so I did not need unemployment benefits.
Now the grant is expiring again, and probably won't be renewed soon, so I applied again. I forgot I need to apply 3 months before expiration, so I only did it 1 month before. Now they want a copy of my work contract (which I do not have, because I seem to have lost the contract) as well as a attestation from my employer how long I have worked there (which I also do not have. The university said they will write one, but have not yet). Not sure what is going to happen now
In Germany I can't get welfare, because I have too many savings. After graduating from university, I also could not get unemployment benefits because I had not earned enough when working as student.
Last time my work contract / research grant was about to expire, they said I would not get unemployment benefits, because I need to have a valid government id and my id card was expired. My still valid passport would not count. Although the grant was renewed, so I did not need unemployment benefits.
Now the grant is expiring again, and probably won't be renewed soon, so I applied again. I forgot I need to apply 3 months before expiration, so I only did it 1 month before. Now they want a copy of my work contract (which I do not have, because I seem to have lost the contract) as well as a attestation from my employer how long I have worked there (which I also do not have. The university said they will write one, but have not yet). Not sure what is going to happen now
Yes, it certainly wouldn't be "less" of a welfare state than the European countries you're referencing, that's pretty obvious. I don't think proponents of it are claiming otherwise.
I'm not sure what you mean by convoluted though. To me it seems much less convoluted to the existing patchwork welfare we have in this country.
I'm not sure what you mean by convoluted though. To me it seems much less convoluted to the existing patchwork welfare we have in this country.
> So it's not really universal
UBI is never universal, that is just a marketing term. Where should the money come from? To finance UBI, you first have to get the money from somewhere, and for those people, UBI means just paying higher taxes.
UBI is never universal, that is just a marketing term. Where should the money come from? To finance UBI, you first have to get the money from somewhere, and for those people, UBI means just paying higher taxes.
Even if someone was making $1m/day, they still would get it.
The reason behind giving it to everyone of working age is to prevent people from falling into cracks like what can happen with unemployment.
The reason behind giving it to everyone of working age is to prevent people from falling into cracks like what can happen with unemployment.
Cause then it will be more profitable to make 199k than 201k. Cut-offs are just a bad idea. If you want to phase it out with income you can just deduct it from taxes. It's easier and cheaper.
I think UBI would work with half as much cash. Maybe 4k / month if it isn't in addition to free healthcare. $4k per month is how much I spent in NYC not including health insurance.
And what most people seem to forget is that the vast bulk of the UBI money is immediately spent on local goods and services so it quite likely generates a lot of local economic activity.
Or 10 percent of US Army budget
You honestly think the US military annual budget is 150 trillion / year?
Honestly if someone told me that, I might believe them haha. $706B. Enough to provide basic income for $300/month.
Do you really think giving everyone $3,600 per year would be worth having no military whatsoever?
Nope, not at all, I was just pointing it out as a frame of reference to anchor the conversation.
I still don't see why this should be universal. It's a nice slogan but it's not unreasonable to have a cutoff.
It's convenient because you can kill off all of the "entitlements" programs at the same time. Drop SNAP, unemployment, disability, drop social security, medicaid, drop everything, and cut a check. This materializes in substantial administrative cost reductions.
It's an efficiency.
You can claw back from folks who don't need it at tax time.
It's an efficiency.
You can claw back from folks who don't need it at tax time.
> You can claw back from folks who don't need it at tax time.
Completely agree. Means-test the taxation, not the handout.
If rich people are getting the handout and don't need it, adjust tax to offset the handout with a phaseout.
We have a well developed process/venue to handle fairness of taxation - best place for means-testing.
Completely agree. Means-test the taxation, not the handout.
If rich people are getting the handout and don't need it, adjust tax to offset the handout with a phaseout.
We have a well developed process/venue to handle fairness of taxation - best place for means-testing.
I hear this argument a lot but:
1. Some people on disability need far more than any reasonable UBI would provide
2. SNAP, Social Security, Medicaid: Debt is an issue here. Even if you shield UBI payments from bankruptcy, that would still require those with large debt burdens to declare bankruptcy. Libertarians will say that choosing to starve rather than file bankruptcy is a valid life choice, but proponents of the mentioned entitlement programs will probably disagree.
1. Some people on disability need far more than any reasonable UBI would provide
2. SNAP, Social Security, Medicaid: Debt is an issue here. Even if you shield UBI payments from bankruptcy, that would still require those with large debt burdens to declare bankruptcy. Libertarians will say that choosing to starve rather than file bankruptcy is a valid life choice, but proponents of the mentioned entitlement programs will probably disagree.
Genuine question:
> 1. Some people on disability need far more than any reasonable UBI would provide
Is that due to medical needs? Because if so, that would seem to be a job not for UBI but for a proper medical system, which this country is also woefully lacking.
> 2. SNAP, Social Security, Medicaid: Debt is an issue here. Even if you shield UBI payments from bankruptcy, that would still require those with large debt burdens to declare bankruptcy. Libertarians will say that choosing to starve rather than file bankruptcy is a valid life choice, but proponents of the mentioned entitlement programs will probably disagree.
While true, and I agree that it would have to be shielded from bankruptcy...
At that point we're saying libertarians are the "10th dentist who hates Colgate."
While I appreciate their principled stance today, I'm confident that given the choice to cash their UBI check or starve, they'll be the first ones in line at the bank.
> 1. Some people on disability need far more than any reasonable UBI would provide
Is that due to medical needs? Because if so, that would seem to be a job not for UBI but for a proper medical system, which this country is also woefully lacking.
> 2. SNAP, Social Security, Medicaid: Debt is an issue here. Even if you shield UBI payments from bankruptcy, that would still require those with large debt burdens to declare bankruptcy. Libertarians will say that choosing to starve rather than file bankruptcy is a valid life choice, but proponents of the mentioned entitlement programs will probably disagree.
While true, and I agree that it would have to be shielded from bankruptcy...
Gallup found that voters who identify as libertarians ranged from 17 to 23% of the American electorate. However, a 2014 Pew Poll found that 23% of Americans who identify as libertarians have little understanding of libertarianism.
At that point we're saying libertarians are the "10th dentist who hates Colgate."
While I appreciate their principled stance today, I'm confident that given the choice to cash their UBI check or starve, they'll be the first ones in line at the bank.
>> 1. Some people on disability need far more than any reasonable UBI would provide
> Is that due to medical needs? Because if so, that would seem to be a job not for UBI but for a proper medical system, which this country is also woefully lacking.
First of all, you suggested eliminating (among other things) medicaid in favor of UBI.
Secondly, define "medical needs" if you are mentally incapable of managing your life, then someone has to care for you in a non-medical manner. As an extreme case, there are people who, if you walk up to them and say "please give me all your money," they will ... give you all their money.
> Is that due to medical needs? Because if so, that would seem to be a job not for UBI but for a proper medical system, which this country is also woefully lacking.
First of all, you suggested eliminating (among other things) medicaid in favor of UBI.
Secondly, define "medical needs" if you are mentally incapable of managing your life, then someone has to care for you in a non-medical manner. As an extreme case, there are people who, if you walk up to them and say "please give me all your money," they will ... give you all their money.
> First of all, you suggested eliminating (among other things) medicaid in favor of UBI.
Medicaid is a pretty predatory program in its implementation. It provides the bare minimum of care and comes after your personal effects to try and pay for it - for those over 55, states are required by law to recover whatever they spend on you, and they put a lien on your house. [1]
This serves to lock in systemic inequalities by taking away the inheritance from poor children while wealthy folks see their estate tax burdens removed or eliminated - it's a regressive tax on the poorest.
The program is an atrocity. It deserves to be nuked from orbit and replaced with something humane. It's only one step above "just let them die at the entrance to the hospital."
There's two ways to move forward if you choose to eliminate Medicaid. You either take a portion of the UBI payments and purchase private care, or you expand Medicare to, well, All.
> Secondly, define "medical needs" if you are mentally incapable of managing your life, then someone has to care for you in a non-medical manner. As an extreme case, there are people who, if you walk up to them and say "please give me all your money," they will ... give you all their money.
I do actually consider those to be medical needs but understand the point of contention there.
[1] https://aspe.hhs.gov/basic-report/medicaid-liens
Medicaid is a pretty predatory program in its implementation. It provides the bare minimum of care and comes after your personal effects to try and pay for it - for those over 55, states are required by law to recover whatever they spend on you, and they put a lien on your house. [1]
This serves to lock in systemic inequalities by taking away the inheritance from poor children while wealthy folks see their estate tax burdens removed or eliminated - it's a regressive tax on the poorest.
The program is an atrocity. It deserves to be nuked from orbit and replaced with something humane. It's only one step above "just let them die at the entrance to the hospital."
There's two ways to move forward if you choose to eliminate Medicaid. You either take a portion of the UBI payments and purchase private care, or you expand Medicare to, well, All.
> Secondly, define "medical needs" if you are mentally incapable of managing your life, then someone has to care for you in a non-medical manner. As an extreme case, there are people who, if you walk up to them and say "please give me all your money," they will ... give you all their money.
I do actually consider those to be medical needs but understand the point of contention there.
[1] https://aspe.hhs.gov/basic-report/medicaid-liens
Lots of libertarians like UBI; it's pretty much the smallest government you can have that still ensures a floor to everyone's quality of life. Milton Friedman advocated a negative income tax, which is similar.
I must have been unclear; the question is should we allow people to leverage their UBI, and should we guarantee people food and medical care if they are careless with their UBI.
Libertarians would probably say "maybe" and "no" respectively, while others are more likely to say "no" and "yes".
Personal responsibility and freedom imply the freedom to be irresponsible and starve. Lots of people feel icky about that.
Libertarians would probably say "maybe" and "no" respectively, while others are more likely to say "no" and "yes".
Personal responsibility and freedom imply the freedom to be irresponsible and starve. Lots of people feel icky about that.
This is exactly what I was planning on typing out as an answer. Well put.
Because making it universal is cheaper.
If you set the cutoff threshold high, then you're barely saving any money and end up spending a lot more on the bureaucracy than you'd save. On the flip side, if it's anywhere close to the income of a middle-class person then you could get an effect where earning more money makes you worse off.
Of course you can taper it off instead of making it a sudden cut-off, but that makes the bureaucracy even bigger.
If you set the cutoff threshold high, then you're barely saving any money and end up spending a lot more on the bureaucracy than you'd save. On the flip side, if it's anywhere close to the income of a middle-class person then you could get an effect where earning more money makes you worse off.
Of course you can taper it off instead of making it a sudden cut-off, but that makes the bureaucracy even bigger.
The argument is that it gets rid of as much of the bureaucratic nonsense.
Say you send everyone a check, adjust income tax so it washes out at something like 2x or 3x the base rate. No extra bureaucracy because your tax authority already has to to that, and at the same time you can same money on administration of a bunch of current programs (and get rid of them). Note that it clearly doesn't replace all programs. But UBI + universal health care of some sort would sure make a dent (US specific).
There are valid critiques of UBI's viability but universality isn't one of them.
Say you send everyone a check, adjust income tax so it washes out at something like 2x or 3x the base rate. No extra bureaucracy because your tax authority already has to to that, and at the same time you can same money on administration of a bunch of current programs (and get rid of them). Note that it clearly doesn't replace all programs. But UBI + universal health care of some sort would sure make a dent (US specific).
There are valid critiques of UBI's viability but universality isn't one of them.
You are adding costs and extra work because now you have to make sure everyone is on the income bracket and all the complexities of auditing. Its just much more simple and elegant to make it universal, those at the top brackets will have a negative net due to taxes anyway, so why bother?
Cutoffs create fiscal cliffs. This is not reasonable. You would need to make it so it's smoothly decreases with income and if you're at it you can just skip that step and deduct it from taxes paid.
Money Printer go brrrrrr
It is clear that the Modern Monetary policy is one of infinite spending so why not... by the end of the year we will probably 1/2 to that number in COVID relief anyway
It is clear that the Modern Monetary policy is one of infinite spending so why not... by the end of the year we will probably 1/2 to that number in COVID relief anyway
[deleted]
I like the idea of UBI but for now, it seems viable only for countries with high GDP per capita. In Brazil, suppose GDP reaches 10 Trillion BRL[1] with about 14.1 million unemployed people[2] and 1% of the GDP is "distributed" for the unemployed people (actually making this a non-universal UBI), that gives around 7000 BRL (about 1200 USD) per person per year. It may reach a survivable amount with a lower unemployment rate and higher GDP.
I really can only see UBI working for countries above a threshold GDP per capita.
[1] https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.MKTP.CD?location...
[2] https://www.reuters.com/article/us-brazil-economy-employment...
I really can only see UBI working for countries above a threshold GDP per capita.
[1] https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.MKTP.CD?location...
[2] https://www.reuters.com/article/us-brazil-economy-employment...
[deleted]
Can anyone explain to me how UBI is actually paid for, and who will do the work that nobody wants to do if we no longer need to work?
> Can anyone explain to me how UBI is actually paid for.
The great thing about UBI money is that most of it would go straight back into the economy. That mom who has been putting off getting the AC fixed might pay a repairman to sort it out, a daughter is given money to buy her dad a birthday present, maybe the guy that's been putting off getting that weird lump checked out because he has no insurance goes to the doctor. Much of the value is therefore immediately recaptured through tax, and contributes towards the wages of the people they're interacting with.
> who will do the work that nobody wants to do if we no longer need to work?
Generally the wages for some of those kinds of jobs will rise to counter how undesirable they are. Some types of work may end up disappearing, office workers might be forced to dust their own desks. I think this is a much more moral and desirable outcome than the current situation where we rely on putting people in a position where they are forced into degrading, disgusting, or dangerous work. All too often that work is then used to belittle and degrade those people further.
The great thing about UBI money is that most of it would go straight back into the economy. That mom who has been putting off getting the AC fixed might pay a repairman to sort it out, a daughter is given money to buy her dad a birthday present, maybe the guy that's been putting off getting that weird lump checked out because he has no insurance goes to the doctor. Much of the value is therefore immediately recaptured through tax, and contributes towards the wages of the people they're interacting with.
> who will do the work that nobody wants to do if we no longer need to work?
Generally the wages for some of those kinds of jobs will rise to counter how undesirable they are. Some types of work may end up disappearing, office workers might be forced to dust their own desks. I think this is a much more moral and desirable outcome than the current situation where we rely on putting people in a position where they are forced into degrading, disgusting, or dangerous work. All too often that work is then used to belittle and degrade those people further.
> The great thing about UBI money is that most of it would go straight back into the economy.
Your first part of the comment sounds like the Broken Window Fallacy and doesn’t answer the question.
> I think this is a much more moral and desirable outcome than the current situation where we rely on putting people in a position where they are forced into degrading, disgusting, or dangerous work. All too often that work is then used to belittle and degrade those people further.
Nice in theory, until you need a plumber for a broken toilet 3am on a Tuesday but nobody is a plumber anymore
(That’s speaking from experience working in the harsher conditions in the plumbing industry)
Your first part of the comment sounds like the Broken Window Fallacy and doesn’t answer the question.
> I think this is a much more moral and desirable outcome than the current situation where we rely on putting people in a position where they are forced into degrading, disgusting, or dangerous work. All too often that work is then used to belittle and degrade those people further.
Nice in theory, until you need a plumber for a broken toilet 3am on a Tuesday but nobody is a plumber anymore
(That’s speaking from experience working in the harsher conditions in the plumbing industry)
> Your first part of the comment sounds like the Broken Window Fallacy and doesn’t answer the question.
Then you only read half of it. The question is how would it be paid for, and the answer I gave is that most of it would be paid for through increased tax revenue from increased economic activity. This is topped up by removing spending on the beauraucracy involved in means testing.
> Nice in theory, until you need a plumber for a broken toilet 3am on a Tuesday but nobody is a plumber anymore
UBI doesn't prevent anyone from being an emergency plumber, you just have to pay them enough that the task is actually worth doing rather than what they've been forced into accepting.
Then you only read half of it. The question is how would it be paid for, and the answer I gave is that most of it would be paid for through increased tax revenue from increased economic activity. This is topped up by removing spending on the beauraucracy involved in means testing.
> Nice in theory, until you need a plumber for a broken toilet 3am on a Tuesday but nobody is a plumber anymore
UBI doesn't prevent anyone from being an emergency plumber, you just have to pay them enough that the task is actually worth doing rather than what they've been forced into accepting.
I believe it’s funded by taxation.
As for the second part, that’s a good question. I haven’t personally seen any UBI/direct payment studies that led to a significant reduction in people working so that question hasn’t yet been studied as far as I’m aware.
If there’s a study that you’ve seen where cash payments to individuals led to a situation where everyone “no longer need to work” and the consequence was a labor shortage, I’d love to read it! That sounds like it’d have to have a pretty large sample size, decently long duration and some top notch analysis to posit a 1:1 “Providing basic housing and quality of life to individuals that may or may not need it” and “No labor is available” ratio.
As for the second part, that’s a good question. I haven’t personally seen any UBI/direct payment studies that led to a significant reduction in people working so that question hasn’t yet been studied as far as I’m aware.
If there’s a study that you’ve seen where cash payments to individuals led to a situation where everyone “no longer need to work” and the consequence was a labor shortage, I’d love to read it! That sounds like it’d have to have a pretty large sample size, decently long duration and some top notch analysis to posit a 1:1 “Providing basic housing and quality of life to individuals that may or may not need it” and “No labor is available” ratio.
> I believe it’s funded by taxation.
You can’t tax people who don’t earn anything beside what you’re already giving them. It needs to be bootstrapped and then be sustainable.
> if there’s a study...
You don’t even need a study. Let’s look at the following thought experiment. Let’s assume that UBI payments will match minimum wage laws. Now then... the people who have to get up and travel around 2+ hours to get to their job just to warn minimum wage - if they can stay home with their families and get paid the same instead, you’ve just incentivised them to quit.
The companies where they had employees who are now at home getting UBI are forced to shut because they can’t find workers.
I’m blanking on it, but I’m sure Das Kapital brings up these examples when going through testimony to the Factory Act.
You can’t tax people who don’t earn anything beside what you’re already giving them. It needs to be bootstrapped and then be sustainable.
> if there’s a study...
You don’t even need a study. Let’s look at the following thought experiment. Let’s assume that UBI payments will match minimum wage laws. Now then... the people who have to get up and travel around 2+ hours to get to their job just to warn minimum wage - if they can stay home with their families and get paid the same instead, you’ve just incentivised them to quit.
The companies where they had employees who are now at home getting UBI are forced to shut because they can’t find workers.
I’m blanking on it, but I’m sure Das Kapital brings up these examples when going through testimony to the Factory Act.
> You don’t even need a study. Let’s look at the following thought experiment.
I don’t mean to sound flippant, but I’m more inclined to take seriously things like results of studies rather than things like thought experiments. In this post in a roundabout way you’re making the case that things like homelessness (for example) need to exist in the real world because otherwise society breaks down in a simulation you’ve run in your head.
Personally the way my thought experiment goes it’s possible that the workforce stays the same or even expands due to things like childcare being less strenuous or the inclusion of people that previously couldn’t participate due to lack of access to housing/transportation.
That’s just a thought experiment in my head though. I’d love to see a study.
I don’t mean to sound flippant, but I’m more inclined to take seriously things like results of studies rather than things like thought experiments. In this post in a roundabout way you’re making the case that things like homelessness (for example) need to exist in the real world because otherwise society breaks down in a simulation you’ve run in your head.
Personally the way my thought experiment goes it’s possible that the workforce stays the same or even expands due to things like childcare being less strenuous or the inclusion of people that previously couldn’t participate due to lack of access to housing/transportation.
That’s just a thought experiment in my head though. I’d love to see a study.
Maybe I’m misunderstanding, but where am I advocating for homelessness?
Childcare is another example, at least in Australia - child care workers are on minimum wages, and some have to work in multiple places to make a decent living. If UBI guaranteed on par living expenses, why work and deal with the stresses of having multiple jobs? The onflow of having nobody work in the childcare sector means that people who needed to put their own kids in child care so that they could earn a wage, can’t, because they would instead need to stay home and look after their own kids.
And this example is actually a fact of life in Australia for people with low pay because paying for actual child care is damn expensive and new mothers end up putting their kids in child care for only a few weeks before pulling them out and staying home because of the costs. This is a common theme in Australia and not just a small sample size.
Childcare is another example, at least in Australia - child care workers are on minimum wages, and some have to work in multiple places to make a decent living. If UBI guaranteed on par living expenses, why work and deal with the stresses of having multiple jobs? The onflow of having nobody work in the childcare sector means that people who needed to put their own kids in child care so that they could earn a wage, can’t, because they would instead need to stay home and look after their own kids.
And this example is actually a fact of life in Australia for people with low pay because paying for actual child care is damn expensive and new mothers end up putting their kids in child care for only a few weeks before pulling them out and staying home because of the costs. This is a common theme in Australia and not just a small sample size.
> Maybe I’m misunderstanding, but where am I advocating for homelessness?
Your suggestion that everyone would simply stop working if people were able to survive on an equivalent to a minimum wage stipend relies heavily on the assumption that people only work in order to provide food and shelter for themselves.
In this model people never do labor for reasons such as passion, interest, curiosity, a sense of civic duty, or simply to have more money to spend on recreation. By your reasoning the only reason why anyone would ever work, ever, is to avoid starvation or being homeless. For that motivation to exist, there would need to be a constant real threat of starvation or loss of housing tied to your ability to find and perform work (which is the current system in the US.)
That motivation couldn’t be real if homelessness didn’t exist. For your model to work it quite literally relies on homeless people existing as a sort of reminder that you have to continue working.
Your suggestion that everyone would simply stop working if people were able to survive on an equivalent to a minimum wage stipend relies heavily on the assumption that people only work in order to provide food and shelter for themselves.
In this model people never do labor for reasons such as passion, interest, curiosity, a sense of civic duty, or simply to have more money to spend on recreation. By your reasoning the only reason why anyone would ever work, ever, is to avoid starvation or being homeless. For that motivation to exist, there would need to be a constant real threat of starvation or loss of housing tied to your ability to find and perform work (which is the current system in the US.)
That motivation couldn’t be real if homelessness didn’t exist. For your model to work it quite literally relies on homeless people existing as a sort of reminder that you have to continue working.
I wonder how Andrew Yang's going to make sense of his advocacy for bitcoin ánd Universal Basic Income.
This is great if you're struggling for cash to pay rent – just declare yourself homeless and get $7,500 cash from the government. It reminds me a little how most people on welfare in my family pretend they (or their kids) have disabilities to get more money from the state.
I know I sound cruel, but sometimes I don't think educated, middle-class people really understand how destructive these kinds of incentives are to poor people. The only way these kinds of programs work is when there is limited resources and a high threshold for who receives support. As it stands I almost guarantee this will cause more homelessness as poor people begin to abuse it.
I'm from a poor family and I was born in a poor neighbourhood of my city in the UK. I'm not exaggerating when I say around 80% of females in my family are single mothers living in council homes. The reason for this is obvious – if you're from a working class background in the UK your best bet to move our of your parents home is to have a kid.
I love my sister, but she's absolutely screwed her life up chasing welfare programs like this. She didn't particularly want a kid, but she really wanted to move out of my parent's home like her friends so she ended up having a one night stand with a guy she met in a bar. She then declared herself homeless and spent all her inheritance money on a BMW so she would be put to the top of the council house list – this was done on advice from some charity who helps people like my sister get the most out of welfare system, ethical or not.
Before I'm judged too harshly here I should say I've allowed a few homeless people to sleep in my home over the years. I probably should do more, but I do at least acknowledge that there are benefits to carefully selecting those who genuinely need help getting out of a difficult situation. But unfortunately there is no helping some (perhaps most) of them, and I say this as someone who has tried. Anyone who has actually spent any amount of time around homeless people would understand that giving them money is often the absolute worst thing you can do. 99% of the time these are not educated middle class people like you and I who will make good decisions with that money. One guy I knew for example received endless help from charities and the government, but the guy had a drug addiction and had absolutely no interest in getting clean or helping himself out of his homelessness. His life was an endless cycle of finding enough money for drugs from people thinking they're helping him, then almost dying and ending up in hospital taking resources away from the NHS. A homeless person I was helping at the time said quite bluntly, "I know this sounds bad, but it would be better for everyone if he overdosed tonight". But it was the truth. No amount of money or compassion could help him. We really did try.
I'm all for giving homeless people money, but I'm convinced it can't be done by the government. It needs to be done by individuals with limited resources who can select those who they feel are likely to use that money to turn their lives around. Or even better, if you want to help someone who's homeless and in need of help just offer them a spare room in your home.
These types of programs have awful incentives and are pushed in my experience by educated middle class people who have no idea why people end up in situations like this and so end up incentivising people to make awful life decisions through bad government welfare programs.
I know I sound cruel, but sometimes I don't think educated, middle-class people really understand how destructive these kinds of incentives are to poor people. The only way these kinds of programs work is when there is limited resources and a high threshold for who receives support. As it stands I almost guarantee this will cause more homelessness as poor people begin to abuse it.
I'm from a poor family and I was born in a poor neighbourhood of my city in the UK. I'm not exaggerating when I say around 80% of females in my family are single mothers living in council homes. The reason for this is obvious – if you're from a working class background in the UK your best bet to move our of your parents home is to have a kid.
I love my sister, but she's absolutely screwed her life up chasing welfare programs like this. She didn't particularly want a kid, but she really wanted to move out of my parent's home like her friends so she ended up having a one night stand with a guy she met in a bar. She then declared herself homeless and spent all her inheritance money on a BMW so she would be put to the top of the council house list – this was done on advice from some charity who helps people like my sister get the most out of welfare system, ethical or not.
Before I'm judged too harshly here I should say I've allowed a few homeless people to sleep in my home over the years. I probably should do more, but I do at least acknowledge that there are benefits to carefully selecting those who genuinely need help getting out of a difficult situation. But unfortunately there is no helping some (perhaps most) of them, and I say this as someone who has tried. Anyone who has actually spent any amount of time around homeless people would understand that giving them money is often the absolute worst thing you can do. 99% of the time these are not educated middle class people like you and I who will make good decisions with that money. One guy I knew for example received endless help from charities and the government, but the guy had a drug addiction and had absolutely no interest in getting clean or helping himself out of his homelessness. His life was an endless cycle of finding enough money for drugs from people thinking they're helping him, then almost dying and ending up in hospital taking resources away from the NHS. A homeless person I was helping at the time said quite bluntly, "I know this sounds bad, but it would be better for everyone if he overdosed tonight". But it was the truth. No amount of money or compassion could help him. We really did try.
I'm all for giving homeless people money, but I'm convinced it can't be done by the government. It needs to be done by individuals with limited resources who can select those who they feel are likely to use that money to turn their lives around. Or even better, if you want to help someone who's homeless and in need of help just offer them a spare room in your home.
These types of programs have awful incentives and are pushed in my experience by educated middle class people who have no idea why people end up in situations like this and so end up incentivising people to make awful life decisions through bad government welfare programs.
I agree that there are people who will not transcend to become ultra productive members of society. However, I see everything you said as an argument in favor of UBI, not against. No one would have to fake disabilities, throw money away at a BMW, or have kids they don't want. Also many times the impact of a stable source of income isn't realized until much later when people realize that they are free to do other things than worry about money all day. I don't see what's wrong with making people less miserable, I don't care if they spend the money on alcohol or whatever thing society deems immoral. Life is hard and it's getting harder, this is just a cushion.
I'm actually very pro-UBI for this reason. My only concern is that the moment it's introduced people will start to argue that some people deserve more help and history would suggest those well-intentioned arguments will eventually win public support and the benefits of UBI will be lost.
Something that really upset me recently is that for the first time in her life my partner's mum decided she wanted to get a job but when she went to the job centre she was told it was a bad idea because she would get less support from the government. We were both hoping a job might finally get her clean, especially if she was socialising with other people with jobs and functional families. Unfortunately she's now back to abusing drugs and using prostitution as a means to get some extra cash. I'd be lying if I said it doesn't make me extremely angry. We need to be careful we don't create bad incentive structures.
Something that really upset me recently is that for the first time in her life my partner's mum decided she wanted to get a job but when she went to the job centre she was told it was a bad idea because she would get less support from the government. We were both hoping a job might finally get her clean, especially if she was socialising with other people with jobs and functional families. Unfortunately she's now back to abusing drugs and using prostitution as a means to get some extra cash. I'd be lying if I said it doesn't make me extremely angry. We need to be careful we don't create bad incentive structures.
Related, Rutger Bregman’s Ted talk on how poverty impacts decision making and how giving free cash improves the ability to manage money.
https://www.ted.com/talks/rutger_bregman_poverty_isn_t_a_lac...
https://www.ted.com/talks/rutger_bregman_poverty_isn_t_a_lac...
Even Hayek approved the idea of a universal basic income. The freedom that a free market provides can only exist when each side of the agreement are free to walk away, in reality many people are in a 'work for me for low pay and bad conditions or starve' kinda of deal which is effectively coercion and against any idea of freedom.
Instead of directly giving people money they build highly inefficient aid programs full of bureaucracy just because of pure distrust, if you dont believe that the individual can make the best decisions for themselves and society then you dont really believe in capitalism.
Instead of directly giving people money they build highly inefficient aid programs full of bureaucracy just because of pure distrust, if you dont believe that the individual can make the best decisions for themselves and society then you dont really believe in capitalism.
Hayek as a proponent of Basic Income, not Unversal Basic Income
Hayek believed Basic Income should only be offered to those who genuinely unable to work or provide for themselves in the economy
Hayek believed Basic Income should only be offered to those who genuinely unable to work or provide for themselves in the economy
It's not a UBI experiment until the taxation part of the equation is also included in the experiment. Injecting outside money like manna from heaven is not UBI
Would you argue that:
Missions before Apollo 11 were not moon landing experiments because they didn't land on the moon.
Projects before ITER (hopes to be) are not nuclear fusion power experiments because the reaction is not self-sustaining.
Movie previews aren't audience reaction experiments if the audience didn't pay for the tickets.
Or are partial experiments to learn something in fact reasonable, normal and necessary?
Missions before Apollo 11 were not moon landing experiments because they didn't land on the moon.
Projects before ITER (hopes to be) are not nuclear fusion power experiments because the reaction is not self-sustaining.
Movie previews aren't audience reaction experiments if the audience didn't pay for the tickets.
Or are partial experiments to learn something in fact reasonable, normal and necessary?
I'm not sure that partial experiments which test none of the putative downsides are of much benefit to a debate though.
I certainly would contest, for example, the suggestion that Neil Armstrong walking on a sidewalk would have represented a moonwalking experiment, because we didn't need to experiment to learn that astronauts are capable of perambulation on earth or learn anything about low gravity from it. Similarly, if you wish to test the hypothesis that a welfare state would be best reorganized on the to each irrespective of his need principle with taxes adjusted accordingly, you're not creating evidence for it by learning that unusually poor people are better off after receiving one off windfall of $7500. The assumption that poor people are better off with more money is already baked into the status quo solution.
I certainly would contest, for example, the suggestion that Neil Armstrong walking on a sidewalk would have represented a moonwalking experiment, because we didn't need to experiment to learn that astronauts are capable of perambulation on earth or learn anything about low gravity from it. Similarly, if you wish to test the hypothesis that a welfare state would be best reorganized on the to each irrespective of his need principle with taxes adjusted accordingly, you're not creating evidence for it by learning that unusually poor people are better off after receiving one off windfall of $7500. The assumption that poor people are better off with more money is already baked into the status quo solution.
I believe the person you're responding to is saying that increased taxation is such a necessary component of any UBI system that any test which doesn't take that into account is flawed.
I understand that and disagree.
Agreed. People love socialism so much until they live inside a socialist country. They believe the mantra you will be able to receive without giving, everybody doing what they love, how better it will be spending time doing music or whatever you love doing.
UBI is only possible if you have taxes way higher than social-democracies in Europe with the current economy we have. The reality is that the economy will tank with UBI and taxes would be higher and higher.
Productive people like me will instantly move to a free country where UBI is not applied. That is where Universal in U comes. They want to force the entire world doing that, so people productive can't escape.
It is nothing new, it was done by the first Christians or communists promising the lala land. In Russia they promised people will do whatever they wanted with their time after people give in.
In reality the moment it was applied in Russia, forced labor was applied, and they took all your money and a terrible dictatorship followed.
In the first Christian communities, they will take all your money first, as you had to sell everything you had for entering the community. Then as St Paul said, the one that does not work does not eat, from the money they had already taken from you.
The experiment has been repeated so many times in the past only people that ignore History would love to repeat it.
Right now, UBI idea comes from the financial elite. They want all your wealth, your autonomy and the power that comes from it.
UBI is only possible if you have taxes way higher than social-democracies in Europe with the current economy we have. The reality is that the economy will tank with UBI and taxes would be higher and higher.
Productive people like me will instantly move to a free country where UBI is not applied. That is where Universal in U comes. They want to force the entire world doing that, so people productive can't escape.
It is nothing new, it was done by the first Christians or communists promising the lala land. In Russia they promised people will do whatever they wanted with their time after people give in.
In reality the moment it was applied in Russia, forced labor was applied, and they took all your money and a terrible dictatorship followed.
In the first Christian communities, they will take all your money first, as you had to sell everything you had for entering the community. Then as St Paul said, the one that does not work does not eat, from the money they had already taken from you.
The experiment has been repeated so many times in the past only people that ignore History would love to repeat it.
Right now, UBI idea comes from the financial elite. They want all your wealth, your autonomy and the power that comes from it.
Maybe the cash can be prioritized in terms of
1) Housing - a hotel kind of setup, where all need to pitch in somehow.
2) Daily healthy food vouchers - extra bonus if they are involved in food prep.
3) Full physical and mental checkups
4) Cash program for those are able to get off this, and earn their own living. This would get them started.
Why don't these experiments get set up as a closed system, where all the participants are also paying taxes into the UBI program to sustain its costs?
They can even go a step further and set up an experimental currency to model what happens when experimental federal government running the experimental program has an experimental budget deficit and sells experimental bonds to the experimental central bank to pay for it all.
Why don't the experiments account for these factors?
They can even go a step further and set up an experimental currency to model what happens when experimental federal government running the experimental program has an experimental budget deficit and sells experimental bonds to the experimental central bank to pay for it all.
Why don't the experiments account for these factors?
You're talking to people who think a typical homeless junkie is going to start volunteering or making art or babysitting if he gets a monthly stipend. Not a strawman--that's what they think. Just forget it.
How are you going to decide which corporations are you going to tax? How are you going to get citizens from the upper percentage of the tax bracket to just agree to join a voluntary experiment.
It turns out that designing studies for national policies is REALLY hard due to the complexity of our modern society. Institutions exist across a large variety of scales and the smaller the study the more you have to account for external factors and abstract out things like funding sources, which are not directly connected to the effect of the money on the populace being studied.
It's much easier to look separately at the effects of income, and compare that to separate studies on the effect of higher taxation, to see if the tradeoffs are worth it.
It turns out that designing studies for national policies is REALLY hard due to the complexity of our modern society. Institutions exist across a large variety of scales and the smaller the study the more you have to account for external factors and abstract out things like funding sources, which are not directly connected to the effect of the money on the populace being studied.
It's much easier to look separately at the effects of income, and compare that to separate studies on the effect of higher taxation, to see if the tradeoffs are worth it.
'Closed system' is not accurate.
The Federal Reserve created over $3.38 Trillion in 2020. Since that goes to banks that can lend 10x their reserves, they effectively created over $33 Trillion last year.
That's about enough to give every US citizen $100,000 for the year. More than enough for a UBI.
Not that I think that's a good idea. But a closed system suggests its a zero sum game when it clearly is not.
The Federal Reserve created over $3.38 Trillion in 2020. Since that goes to banks that can lend 10x their reserves, they effectively created over $33 Trillion last year.
That's about enough to give every US citizen $100,000 for the year. More than enough for a UBI.
Not that I think that's a good idea. But a closed system suggests its a zero sum game when it clearly is not.
That is not really how that works...
Because the people receiving this should it be implemented nationwide shouldn't be paying those taxes anyway?
The "Universal" in UBI has a meaning, which intends that everyone is an unconditional recipient, including taxpayers.
Edit:
To add, I'm not sure why we think a real "experiment" wouldn't also include the actual payment into the program. Is there an explanation? All I can see is the intent of the "experiment" is to say, "UBI is good [no matter the cost]." This is unconvincing, to say anything is worth the effort regardless of the cost. But I don't want to set up a strawman. I'm curious if people have a good reason to say why the cost should not be accounted for, or if it somehow is, and I'm just not seeing it.
Edit:
To add, I'm not sure why we think a real "experiment" wouldn't also include the actual payment into the program. Is there an explanation? All I can see is the intent of the "experiment" is to say, "UBI is good [no matter the cost]." This is unconvincing, to say anything is worth the effort regardless of the cost. But I don't want to set up a strawman. I'm curious if people have a good reason to say why the cost should not be accounted for, or if it somehow is, and I'm just not seeing it.
I managed to setup my hn login last month but have yet to figure out how to follow the comment threads effectively from my phone.
Yes Los Angeles. Some call it ground zero of the US homeless problem.
It started on a Friday morning in December 2015 when my roommate/landlord rushed me from behind with a knife at 8 am in Santa Monica California. Long story short, police believed my white assailant when he lied and said I made it all up. They put his lie down on the report and lied further saying I was agitated and looked crazy (i was in shock because the attack was a huge surprise, and had I not sensed the attack in time it would have been a 7" henkl straight through the heart from behind). I left next day, homeless day#1, but filled with hope for a better tomorrow with no further unprovoked attacks from behind.
I got a job at McD and worked min wage living out of an old chevy cavalier i bought off craigslist for $300. And it took a full year to save up enough to rent a small room. Just as I was calling the first ads, in Feb 2017, an armed forces veteran rear ended me in broad daylight breaking my neck and totaling my cavalier. He told me it was his second accident in two months. Hmmm so i guess he fuct up someones Christmas before messing up my Valentines day.
I went to an accident attorney who sent me to a chiropractor who broke my neck further and also broke my back. I was expecting therapy, just as any of you might expect. But I was served pain instead, essentially giving me a replay of the original knife attack trauma.
So I was not happy when they next recommended I now needed surgery. It was just to use me as meat to bid up the price of an insurance settlement. The surgeon they sent me to wore makeup. As easy as it sounds now to say no to that...it was hard to say no because I have been in constant pain every hour of every day since that car accident.
Arg this is too tiring to type this much with thumbs. From my meager start on hn a part of me feels like it isnt even worth sharing the rest of my story. But I am a social creature and I do not want to be homeless until death which is what the Santa Monica police want at this rate.
So consider experimenting more please, and you are welcome to start with me.