Policies that make the poor less poor(eclogiselle.com)
eclogiselle.com
Policies that make the poor less poor
https://www.eclogiselle.com/p/policies-that-make-poor-less-poor.html
384 comments
That's an argument for "progressive" support, and against the threshold effect, not for basic income.
There should be no hard threshold, social support should be linear, and be reduced with the more money you earn. Like taxes but in reverse.
There should be no hard threshold, social support should be linear, and be reduced with the more money you earn. Like taxes but in reverse.
The best way to do taxes' progressive support in reverse is to give everyone basic income, food stamps, and insurance and then offset that in the progressive tax rate.
Aside from removing stigma from using the universal minimums it solves the problem of losing 3X your income when combining separate state food program, city housing, and medical programs. That remains a problem even when individual programs move away from thresholds.
Aside from removing stigma from using the universal minimums it solves the problem of losing 3X your income when combining separate state food program, city housing, and medical programs. That remains a problem even when individual programs move away from thresholds.
How do you suppose basic income can work in countries like India that don't have the resources that are available to a first world country?
Even 2 dollars a day of basic income would complete exhaust the government budget.
Even 2 dollars a day of basic income would complete exhaust the government budget.
India does have something akin to basic income for rural households.
Fair, it's not just free money but it is a guarantee of at least 100 days of work a year.
https://www.uclg-cisdp.org/en/observatory/mahatma-gandhi-nat...
Fair, it's not just free money but it is a guarantee of at least 100 days of work a year.
https://www.uclg-cisdp.org/en/observatory/mahatma-gandhi-nat...
The government is only able to provide a total of around 54 crore person days of employment through this scheme. That is less than half crore people in a country of 130 crore people availing this "guarantee" of at least 100 days of work a year.
https://www.nrega.nic.in/netnrega/mgnrega_new/Nrega_StateRep...
https://www.nrega.nic.in/netnrega/mgnrega_new/Nrega_StateRep...
I think there's something like an inverse relationship between how many jobs are available and how much people need support. The US is actually among the top manufacturers still, but very little of it is still done by humans, so it doesn't create enough jobs. Even the jobs that remain for most people (retail/service) will eventually be automated away. There is plenty of money for UBI if the people who've benefited pay their fair share back into the systems that enabled those lopsided gains.
Some kind of support is needed in this case because none of the gains from all that efficiency are going to people who need money just to survive. It's probably not as important in places where it's still cheaper to hire humans than it is to install a robot in most cases.
Some kind of support is needed in this case because none of the gains from all that efficiency are going to people who need money just to survive. It's probably not as important in places where it's still cheaper to hire humans than it is to install a robot in most cases.
Please spend some time in a city in a third world country. I can't imagine a better way to cure for that level of inaccuracy of worldview.
I suggest Kolkata. The sight of frail old ladies barely covered by a single tattered sheet of cloth living on the footpath and begging for your alms has a way of communicating the reality of the world that nothing I can write could ever possibly match.
I suggest Kolkata. The sight of frail old ladies barely covered by a single tattered sheet of cloth living on the footpath and begging for your alms has a way of communicating the reality of the world that nothing I can write could ever possibly match.
I can't possibly afford the trip, so I'll have to take your word for it.
The minimum wage in the USA is $7 an hour. In India, 10% of people live below $2 a day. In the state where I come from (population >100 million), that number is over 33%.
Even if you find yourself less fortunate compared to other people in your country, please have some empathy for the scale of problems in other, less developed countries.
Even if you find yourself less fortunate compared to other people in your country, please have some empathy for the scale of problems in other, less developed countries.
You're reading too much into what I said. Nothing in it suggests a lack of empathy. I made no qualitative statements beyond the bit about rich people needing to pay back into the system that made their wealth possible. There is absolutely no judgement of any people in developing countries.
> It's probably not as important in places where it's still cheaper to hire humans than it is to install a robot in most cases.
Can you clarify what you meant by this? To me it seemed that you are implying that somehow the poor in third world countries are better off than the poor in first world countries because they still have their 2$ a day jobs.
Can you clarify what you meant by this? To me it seemed that you are implying that somehow the poor in third world countries are better off than the poor in first world countries because they still have their 2$ a day jobs.
Nope. Not saying anything of the sort. Your read is qualitative.
My comment was quantitative, strongly implied by the math. If I were going to make a qualitative statement, I would say life sucks for almost everyone on this godawful planet in different ways. You're trying to parse out a judgement of those relative conditions in me saying UBI might not be a universal solution to the hell-sphere theory of life on Earth. I don't know why.
My comment was quantitative, strongly implied by the math. If I were going to make a qualitative statement, I would say life sucks for almost everyone on this godawful planet in different ways. You're trying to parse out a judgement of those relative conditions in me saying UBI might not be a universal solution to the hell-sphere theory of life on Earth. I don't know why.
Like I said, my objection was based on the way you had phrased that last sentence in your comment.
> It's probably not as important in places where it's still cheaper to hire humans than it is to install a robot in most cases.
The reason universal basic income does not work in India is not because people here still have their $3/day jobs. It doesn't work because there is simply not enough wealth here to restribute, so the problem here is still one of creation of wealth.
> It's probably not as important in places where it's still cheaper to hire humans than it is to install a robot in most cases.
The reason universal basic income does not work in India is not because people here still have their $3/day jobs. It doesn't work because there is simply not enough wealth here to restribute, so the problem here is still one of creation of wealth.
Maybe basic income only applies to "first world countries". Maybe there is a notion of plenty that only applies to modern industrial societies with high resource/population ratios. Maybe India just isnt ready?
Of course that is what I believe. Should have been clear from the way I phrased the question.
There was nothing in the context that suggested that this this discussion was only about the poor in developed countries. After all, most of the world's poor actually live (unsurprisingly) in poor to low-medium income countries. Perhaps this is something that I should be mindful of in the future?
As someone born in a "third world country" I am obviously very interested personally in these problems. In the state I was born in, one out of three people is still below the poverty line (which is like 2 USD a day). To me it seems that for us it is much more practical to learn from whatever the fuck China is doing rather than a method whose primary appeal is ideological.
There was nothing in the context that suggested that this this discussion was only about the poor in developed countries. After all, most of the world's poor actually live (unsurprisingly) in poor to low-medium income countries. Perhaps this is something that I should be mindful of in the future?
As someone born in a "third world country" I am obviously very interested personally in these problems. In the state I was born in, one out of three people is still below the poverty line (which is like 2 USD a day). To me it seems that for us it is much more practical to learn from whatever the fuck China is doing rather than a method whose primary appeal is ideological.
[deleted]
People would prefer to choose how to allocate their income rather than forcing them to allocate a certain percentage to food via food stamps.
Also, in the same way that a universal basic income removes a layer of bureaucratic overhead, having universal healthcare also removes the burden of middlepeople handling insurance claims.
Also, in the same way that a universal basic income removes a layer of bureaucratic overhead, having universal healthcare also removes the burden of middlepeople handling insurance claims.
The problem with this approach in the real world is that multiple linear phase-outs of support from different programs might individually look "progressive" but in practice become poverty traps together e.g. if you're on one program because you have a disability and another because you've got small kids.
In an ideal world, somehow all the major programs are carefully co-designed to not do this, but given that they might come from different levels of government, have been designed at different times and have their phase-outs "legislated in" in ways that's hard to fix.
In an ideal world, somehow all the major programs are carefully co-designed to not do this, but given that they might come from different levels of government, have been designed at different times and have their phase-outs "legislated in" in ways that's hard to fix.
> That's an argument for "progressive" support, and against the threshold effect, not for basic income.
> There should be no hard threshold, social support should be linear, and be reduced with the more money you earn. Like taxes but in reverse.
UBI is a combination of two things:
(1) Gradual phase-out of support (I think this is your “progressive support”), and
(2) Recognizing that this isn’t just metaphorically “like taxes but in reverse” but it is largely identical (but for variations of definitions applied that do more to increase administrative costs than to advance any programmatic goal) functions performed by the tax bureaucracy, so that having multiple separate welfare bureaucracies assessing and measuring slightly different definitions of income and a few different add-on requirements for each program is mostly waste compared to having one common definition of income and one common benefit program for programs.
> There should be no hard threshold, social support should be linear, and be reduced with the more money you earn. Like taxes but in reverse.
UBI is a combination of two things:
(1) Gradual phase-out of support (I think this is your “progressive support”), and
(2) Recognizing that this isn’t just metaphorically “like taxes but in reverse” but it is largely identical (but for variations of definitions applied that do more to increase administrative costs than to advance any programmatic goal) functions performed by the tax bureaucracy, so that having multiple separate welfare bureaucracies assessing and measuring slightly different definitions of income and a few different add-on requirements for each program is mostly waste compared to having one common definition of income and one common benefit program for programs.
No, everything that's means tested ends up making being poor occasionally beneficial. Which you shouldn't ever do because that makes getting out of poverty harder.
They do work that way. Most states have a calculator that you can use to see what you are eligible for, based on income, family size, etc.
https://sharedsystems.dhsoha.state.or.us/SNAP_Estimate/frmEs...
https://sharedsystems.dhsoha.state.or.us/SNAP_Estimate/frmEs...
How much money do we spend on career public servants to gatekeep poor people from the services they need?
idk why you're invoking "career public servants" here except as some kind of ideological shibboleth; much of the money spent here in Australia (YMMV, but I would imagine this is true in much of the world) goes to outsourced service providers to "gatekeep poor people from the services they need".
Because their jobs would almost always be handled better via automation. Their departments are hilariously understaffed, inefficient, and force people who have benefits to spend hours every week on the phone during daytime working hours.
A lot of places - I don't know where you are - pretty much intentionally understaff these sort of services and make them inconvenient, with the goal being to reduce the use of the services. "Inefficiency" is not always an accident here.
In Australia, we have a lot of outsourcing and automation ("robodebt" was a recent scandal, where automated overpayment clawbacks were sent out to thousands of people, sometimes incorrectly). This hasn't improved matters.
The problem is not particularly connected to "public servants" - it's clearly possible to screw up this kind of thing whether private/public or in-person/automated. It's a matter of policy and attitude, not the delivery method.
If you build a system with the intent to humiliate and deter its users, it will waste everyone's time regardless of who provides it and how.
In Australia, we have a lot of outsourcing and automation ("robodebt" was a recent scandal, where automated overpayment clawbacks were sent out to thousands of people, sometimes incorrectly). This hasn't improved matters.
The problem is not particularly connected to "public servants" - it's clearly possible to screw up this kind of thing whether private/public or in-person/automated. It's a matter of policy and attitude, not the delivery method.
If you build a system with the intent to humiliate and deter its users, it will waste everyone's time regardless of who provides it and how.
You're missing the point. These public servants work public servant hours, aka, a very small subset of the total day during which a lot of people who are on public assistance are either working or are being pressured into finding work. They literally are not available when a lot of people on public assistance are free to communicate with them. The companies that limit their customer service hours to normal working hours are usually either small or financial institutions. Everyone else handles customers whenever customers have issues.
I __mostly__ agree. Though I disagree basic income, or even raising the minimum wage will have the intended effect.
Intended effect: Increase the buying power of those who proportionately receive the greatest additional income.
Likely real effect: The level of the tide rises, but the boat's don't change spots. The cost of rent and everything in the market goes up with the tide. The middle class, and even moderately well off professionals, get a quality of life and pay CUT (in effect, since they don't get the raise). The Rich who are rent-seeking, still get their rent and still win.
I agree with the Star Trek lifestyle goals, but they get there by providing for all equally. It's the major capitol things (leaving federation space, energy intensive development projects, etc) which still require funds other than basic allocation.
Intended effect: Increase the buying power of those who proportionately receive the greatest additional income.
Likely real effect: The level of the tide rises, but the boat's don't change spots. The cost of rent and everything in the market goes up with the tide. The middle class, and even moderately well off professionals, get a quality of life and pay CUT (in effect, since they don't get the raise). The Rich who are rent-seeking, still get their rent and still win.
I agree with the Star Trek lifestyle goals, but they get there by providing for all equally. It's the major capitol things (leaving federation space, energy intensive development projects, etc) which still require funds other than basic allocation.
>The cost of rent and everything in the market goes up with the tide. The middle class, and even moderately well off professionals, get a quality of life and pay CUT (in effect, since they don't get the raise).
I disagree - a UBI means that anyone who's able to live frugally may, at any time, retire. This gives enormous bargaining power to workers, as if the pay is too low then they can say "fuck it, I'm moving to <insert rural ghost town>, buying an abandoned house for $1, and living off my UBI".
Not only does this put downward pressure on rent, it also encourages jobs to be more available in rural areas, as people will move to there for lower costs of living instead of moving away because it's unaffordable due to lack of jobs/UBI.
Your wage is not determined by your productivity, it's determined by your bargaining power (your Best Alternative To Negotiated Agreement (BATNA) being the main one, but how unique your skills are determines your employer's BATNA).
In other words, employers will employ you for any amount that still lets them make a profit off of your labour, but they will pay you the least they can get away with paying without you walking away. Some people literally can't afford to walk away, and they're the people who are paid dogshit wages. A UBI would let them walk away until their job calls them with a good offer.
I disagree - a UBI means that anyone who's able to live frugally may, at any time, retire. This gives enormous bargaining power to workers, as if the pay is too low then they can say "fuck it, I'm moving to <insert rural ghost town>, buying an abandoned house for $1, and living off my UBI".
Not only does this put downward pressure on rent, it also encourages jobs to be more available in rural areas, as people will move to there for lower costs of living instead of moving away because it's unaffordable due to lack of jobs/UBI.
Your wage is not determined by your productivity, it's determined by your bargaining power (your Best Alternative To Negotiated Agreement (BATNA) being the main one, but how unique your skills are determines your employer's BATNA).
In other words, employers will employ you for any amount that still lets them make a profit off of your labour, but they will pay you the least they can get away with paying without you walking away. Some people literally can't afford to walk away, and they're the people who are paid dogshit wages. A UBI would let them walk away until their job calls them with a good offer.
Regarding UBI I have asked this in multiple forums (not HN) so I'll ask again and see if you (or anyone else) has a response to this. After the oil bonanza in the middle East, a number of countries pretty much had a UBI like system for all their citizens and most still do. In effect, what I saw when I've been there was not that people have engaged in creative endeavours, or things that UBI proponents often claim will happen once everyone has UBI. They imported lots of workers from poorer countries to do all the shitty work, and treat the workers horrifically. The amount of time spent toward religious activities is absurd. E.g., shops and markets entirely close down multiple times a day for prayers. This has other knock on effects as well. How do we know this is not what the US would head toward if UBI is implemented?
Interesting points. On the other hand, Norway found oil very late and was a very organized society by then. You can find the good drama miniseries "Lykkeland" showing the early part from a small town perspective. Fishermen became oilmen. Religious fundamentalism went down, wellbeing went up.
A UBI that doesn't apply to foreign migrants isn't exactly universal.
Also, the second order impact of oil money appreciating the currency and therefore the reducing the international competitiveness of non-oil industries definitely has a big impact. In contrast, in a UBI situation, GDP still depends on the productivity of the country, not just the wealth generated from a niche (in terms of employment) extractive sector.
Also, the second order impact of oil money appreciating the currency and therefore the reducing the international competitiveness of non-oil industries definitely has a big impact. In contrast, in a UBI situation, GDP still depends on the productivity of the country, not just the wealth generated from a niche (in terms of employment) extractive sector.
What's the plan for dealing with the increased immigration then? UBI significantly increases the cost per citizen for a country, which would make migration much worse.
The problem is the following: An export surplus is unsustainable over the long term. Achieving balanced trade is a good thing. However, if the entirety of your wealth is built on oil exports, it also means it is very cheap to import everything that isn't oil as people must sell you their (non oil) things in exchange for your oil.
You must diversify your economy to become less dependent on oil. However, it is easy for the government to take control over oil. The president can become a multi billionaire while ignoring the rest of your country.
You must diversify your economy to become less dependent on oil. However, it is easy for the government to take control over oil. The president can become a multi billionaire while ignoring the rest of your country.
The amount of time spent toward religious activities is absurd. E.g., shops and markets entirely close down multiple times a day for prayers.
Ah yes, the God of Commerce doesn’t like it when you give other gods more attention.
Ah yes, the God of Commerce doesn’t like it when you give other gods more attention.
It isn't about God of commerce, it is about forcing everyone to follow someone else's diktats. Its like how no one can buy alcohol on Sundays in many parts of the US except to a far larger extent.
Why do you believe the shop workers want to stay open? If
they're religious, they probably want to be praying.
If it's a theocratic state, that might be an issue, but if it's just a religious populace I see no reason to believe you're right.
If it's a theocratic state, that might be an issue, but if it's just a religious populace I see no reason to believe you're right.
Because many of them said so to me. A lot of people aren't that religious, the vice police literally beats people if they don't conform.
Somebody has to actually create all the stuff that people consume. UBI doesn't address that point. If these employers have to pay more to hire people, then prices will go up. When you have 200 million apples and 300 million people then UBI won't get the 100 million people an apple. Growing more apples does. And this same process would apply to virtually every good and service people consume.
You might be right on rent, but that would probably exacerbate the price of goods problem further since there would be fewer people willing to do those jobs.
UBI will only make people better off if more goods and services are produced as a result of it. Or alternatively, if goods and services are somehow moved from excessive consumption by the rich to the poor. But that last part is probably a drop in the bucket. Rich people still eat the same amount of food for dinner.
You might be right on rent, but that would probably exacerbate the price of goods problem further since there would be fewer people willing to do those jobs.
UBI will only make people better off if more goods and services are produced as a result of it. Or alternatively, if goods and services are somehow moved from excessive consumption by the rich to the poor. But that last part is probably a drop in the bucket. Rich people still eat the same amount of food for dinner.
Except that repeated experiments have found that raising wages and improving working conditions raises productivity and efficiency. Costs of good sold doesn't go up, so there's no need to raise prices.
People who are able to focus on their work because they can pay their bills, have good working conditions, are healthy and able to care for their families work better. Big surprise.
Of course there's an upper limit to this - if you're paying your apple pickers more than the retail price of the apples then you're going to be in trouble. But in those cases, the price of apples needs to be higher so that apple pickers can have some basic human dignity. Apples should cost more, but we have created an evil system that destroys apple pickers' lives so that the rest of us can have cheap apples. Let's not do that any more.
People who are able to focus on their work because they can pay their bills, have good working conditions, are healthy and able to care for their families work better. Big surprise.
Of course there's an upper limit to this - if you're paying your apple pickers more than the retail price of the apples then you're going to be in trouble. But in those cases, the price of apples needs to be higher so that apple pickers can have some basic human dignity. Apples should cost more, but we have created an evil system that destroys apple pickers' lives so that the rest of us can have cheap apples. Let's not do that any more.
I know my accounting degree is getting a little dusty but in what version of the world do you think you can "raise wages" while "costs of good sold" doesn't go up?
If wages become a smaller portion of COGS, then there’s no contradiction. Eg if you buy equipment to make the process more efficient, you can amortize that equipment into COGS and the labor component can remain flat or even decrease even with higher wages for staff.
Or your competitor can invest in equipment just the same and keep wages flat, and beat you on price. So nice sleight-of-hand but that's just an accountancy trick. Prices are still higher than they would otherwise be with stable wages.
Price isn't determined by input costs but by supply and demand..
That's a very naive take on the economic realities. Supply is very often determined by input costs. If it costs more to provide a product or service, supply drops driving up prices, which in turn can lead to a drop in demand. Depending on market elasticity, one common way the market gets out of this negative feedback loop is by compromising on quality in order to hold down prices.
You can see this in the current economy as restaurants and packaged foods suppliers in some sectors reduce the size of portions.
You can see this in the current economy as restaurants and packaged foods suppliers in some sectors reduce the size of portions.
When the supply of goods goes up too, the marginal cost of labour goes down or the percentace of product cost of labour is small.
All of those become more and more true (and are already true for a large class of products) as mechanization and automation increases.
All of those become more and more true (and are already true for a large class of products) as mechanization and automation increases.
Those things are happening anyway. They might reduce the magnitude of the effect, but prices will still go up as wages go up. Also as automation increases productivity, leading to a wealthier economy, workers move into service sectors which are labour intensive.
You can't just say, well, just reduce the amount fo labour to keep costs down. That labour still needs to be employed doing something.
You can't just say, well, just reduce the amount fo labour to keep costs down. That labour still needs to be employed doing something.
I think GP is arguing that increasing someone's hourly rate will proportionally increase their work output per hour. (I don't believe this to be true.)
https://s1.q4cdn.com/806093406/files/doc_downloads/2019/05/P...
it is in fact disproportionate, raising wages raising productivity by a greater amount.
Given the evidence, do you now believe this to be true?
it is in fact disproportionate, raising wages raising productivity by a greater amount.
Given the evidence, do you now believe this to be true?
The cost of video cards didn't go up despite everyone getting $2000 checks! I mean, you can't actually buy one unless you want to wait in line at a Microcenter for three days, but they are still the same price.
When you only raise it for a minority of a populace. While UBI is "universal" it gets clawed back via taxes for majority of populace. So prices really only raise for the products/services that are dominated by the marginal labor rates of those whose wages are net-increased. AFAIK, that is primarily the lower-end of the restaurant industry and the non-mechanized segments of agriculture (mainly squishy fruit/veg).
In the world of 'repeated experiments' ostensibly. Perhaps some should go wreck that world's economy and leave ours alone.
> Except that repeated experiments have found that raising wages and improving working conditions raises productivity and efficiency.
Source?
>Apples should cost more, but we have created an evil system that destroys apple pickers' lives so that the rest of us can have cheap apples. Let's not do that any more.
What if raising the price of apples lowers demand, causing less jobs to he available? Presumably apple picking is the best job those workers can get, so the likely consequence is that they'll be unemployed and we'll have to substitute 100% of their income (rather than 50% or whatever if they were picking apples). That seems like a poor allocation of labor/resources.
Source?
>Apples should cost more, but we have created an evil system that destroys apple pickers' lives so that the rest of us can have cheap apples. Let's not do that any more.
What if raising the price of apples lowers demand, causing less jobs to he available? Presumably apple picking is the best job those workers can get, so the likely consequence is that they'll be unemployed and we'll have to substitute 100% of their income (rather than 50% or whatever if they were picking apples). That seems like a poor allocation of labor/resources.
No large scale experiment exists for UBI.
But the experiments that have been done support it.
There's this set of objections to UBI based around "yes, ok, it works in the small scale, but it'll never work on a large scale".
If we did a large scale experiment, and it confirms that it works, the objections will move to "sure, OK, but it'll never work on a national level".
So let's just implement it and see if it works. If it doesn't work, we can always just go back to letting people starve.
There's this set of objections to UBI based around "yes, ok, it works in the small scale, but it'll never work on a large scale".
If we did a large scale experiment, and it confirms that it works, the objections will move to "sure, OK, but it'll never work on a national level".
So let's just implement it and see if it works. If it doesn't work, we can always just go back to letting people starve.
> But the experiments that have been done support it.
They really, really don't. All the experiments on a small scale show is the trivial conclusion that if you give people some central government funds for a year or two, they tend to be slightly less poor at the end. None of them come remotely close to suggesting that people are so much more productive that they can cover the costs of UBI to people already out of the labour force by choice, never mind those that may choose to exit it in future.
They really, really don't. All the experiments on a small scale show is the trivial conclusion that if you give people some central government funds for a year or two, they tend to be slightly less poor at the end. None of them come remotely close to suggesting that people are so much more productive that they can cover the costs of UBI to people already out of the labour force by choice, never mind those that may choose to exit it in future.
> If it doesn't work, we can always just go back to letting people starve.
Elderly people already get a UBI in the form of Social Security, and that's politically impossible to cut regardless of whether it's a good or bad idea.
Once you turn it on and people get used to it, you can never turn it off in a democracy.
Elderly people already get a UBI in the form of Social Security, and that's politically impossible to cut regardless of whether it's a good or bad idea.
Once you turn it on and people get used to it, you can never turn it off in a democracy.
> If it doesn't work, we can always just go back to letting people starve.
Only if the country still has the ability to change and the economy isn't permanently damaged.
Only if the country still has the ability to change and the economy isn't permanently damaged.
That's a vacuous statement. No large scale experiments have been done, so it proves nothing for or against UBI.
Small-scale experiments have been quite successful though.
Small-scale experiments have been quite successful though.
> Small-scale experiments have been quite successful though.
And are absolutely useless to study the very important effects that these kinds of systems have on a nation's economy.
And are absolutely useless to study the very important effects that these kinds of systems have on a nation's economy.
I'm not a fan of UBI. I agree with you that the small scale experiments are worthless.
I've looked to history for examples of actual real world attempts to guarantee some minimum quality of life for all citizens of a particular group. They consistently do well for some self selected and committed initial group and then go badly when the doors get flung open to include everyone.
One result I recall hearing about is instituting policies like "You don't work, you don't eat" in order to prevent freeloaders from utterly killing the whole system and taking everyone down with them.
I've looked to history for examples of actual real world attempts to guarantee some minimum quality of life for all citizens of a particular group. They consistently do well for some self selected and committed initial group and then go badly when the doors get flung open to include everyone.
One result I recall hearing about is instituting policies like "You don't work, you don't eat" in order to prevent freeloaders from utterly killing the whole system and taking everyone down with them.
>”You don’t work, you don’t eat”
Tale as old as time:
> For even when we were with you, we gave you this rule:“The one who is unwilling to work shall not eat.”
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Thessalonia...
Tale as old as time:
> For even when we were with you, we gave you this rule:“The one who is unwilling to work shall not eat.”
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=2%20Thessalonia...
>>Except that repeated experiments have found that raising wages and improving working conditions raises productivity and efficiency.
>No large scale experiment exists for UBI.
Non sequitur.
>No large scale experiment exists for UBI.
Non sequitur.
This is only a fundamental problem if UBI is so high there is no incentive to work whatsoever. Every UBI proposal I've seen puts the income level at, or some small fraction above, the poverty line. The majority of adults (currently) earning more than that are unlikely to want to lower their standards of living. Some will, sure, but not most. And likewise many of those in poverty would be willing to work to raise their standing of living beyond UBI, especially if they have more of an economic cushion to find a better position.
So I don't think we need worry about everyone stopping working. What we need to consider is the marginal effect of the small population that does. If the unemployment rates doubles, what impact would that have on the economy? There is a lot to figure out with a problem like that, but it is a different caliber of problem from total economic meltdown.
So I don't think we need worry about everyone stopping working. What we need to consider is the marginal effect of the small population that does. If the unemployment rates doubles, what impact would that have on the economy? There is a lot to figure out with a problem like that, but it is a different caliber of problem from total economic meltdown.
Whether or not individuals benefit from UBI isn't the point. The point is that it changes the nature of money printing in our economy from being top-down to being bottom-up and it changes the dynamics of how companies operate to get those dollars. The effects on individuals and prices hardly matters at all.
Right now we have a trickle-down economy which caters primarily to the needs of institutions and big capital holders. This is why our society is so politically charged and divided and why we have such fast growing inequality.
We're already essentially giving institutions and capital holders free money through capital appreciation. We need to give some free money to those at the bottom too or else it's not fair and it will lead to a revolution sooner or later.
Right now we have a trickle-down economy which caters primarily to the needs of institutions and big capital holders. This is why our society is so politically charged and divided and why we have such fast growing inequality.
We're already essentially giving institutions and capital holders free money through capital appreciation. We need to give some free money to those at the bottom too or else it's not fair and it will lead to a revolution sooner or later.
Yes according to the textbooks, production should go down if you remove desperation as a motivator to work, in the real world however almost every data point collected shows the opposite effect on the overall productivity, ie societies with extensive welfare schemes outproduce those who don't allow people an exit from the rat-race. Nobody have gone full UBI yet but the economies that have gone the closest to actually implementing UBI(say Scandinavia) is among the most productive and healthy economies around.
What does tend to happen when a system is put in place to provide support for those who refuses to accept any employment, is that the ability for wealth hoarders to use their hoards as a lever go gain more wealth and power declines as the bargaining power gets more even.
One of the benefits of universal(non-means-tested) welfare project is that the graft and administration overhead of those systems tend to be much lower then "charity" based welfare projects and UBI is the ultimate in low overhead universal welfare. And when you look at the structure of most post-industrial economies admin overhead and graft is more then 50% of the economy, i.e. it's by no means a given that we cannot keep up production of goods and services with even 60% of the population of UBI.
What does tend to happen when a system is put in place to provide support for those who refuses to accept any employment, is that the ability for wealth hoarders to use their hoards as a lever go gain more wealth and power declines as the bargaining power gets more even.
One of the benefits of universal(non-means-tested) welfare project is that the graft and administration overhead of those systems tend to be much lower then "charity" based welfare projects and UBI is the ultimate in low overhead universal welfare. And when you look at the structure of most post-industrial economies admin overhead and graft is more then 50% of the economy, i.e. it's by no means a given that we cannot keep up production of goods and services with even 60% of the population of UBI.
This argument is usually countered by pointing out that a lot of our production is mechanized nowadays, and this percentage is only increasing. Currently capital owners take the overwhelming majority of the gains from that, UBI tries to shift that more to everyone. UBI won't prevent more apples from being produced.
You rightly point out that that does not apply to supply-inflexible goods like housing in cities.
You rightly point out that that does not apply to supply-inflexible goods like housing in cities.
We already have that productivity and more, but we waste it.
Artificial scarcity is created by producing machines that intentionally break, bunkering and throwing away stuff, patent trolling and so on.
UBI alone likely won’t fix this though.
Artificial scarcity is created by producing machines that intentionally break, bunkering and throwing away stuff, patent trolling and so on.
UBI alone likely won’t fix this though.
The Saudi Arabia way is to bring in third world country workers. They have tons of natural resources per capita though, so I don’t think this luxury applies to most countries in the world.
> Somebody has to actually create all the stuff that people consume. UBI doesn’t address that point.
“UBI” isn’t actually a specific plan, its a broad concept within which there are many specific plans. But the broad concept itself does address this, though many of the more detailed plans do so in…more detail.
At a high level, one of the central points of UBI as a replacement for traditional means-tested welfare (and why some of its earliest advocates were right-libertarians, not lefties, such as Milton Friedman who advocated “negative income tax” which is identical to a UBI) is that it eliminates the disincentives to earning outside income that come with the sharp (sometimes greater than 1:1 when aggregated across all benefit programs a person qualifies for) funding reductions for outside income that come with means tested benefit programs, increasing the marginal reward (and thus incentive) to work.
> Rich people still eat the same amount of food for dinner.
No, they generally don’t. Oh, sure, that might be true by mass, or even by calories; but not by labor-hours of work that went into it, or dollar cost, which is what is relevant here. And that’s true across all categories of consumption.
“UBI” isn’t actually a specific plan, its a broad concept within which there are many specific plans. But the broad concept itself does address this, though many of the more detailed plans do so in…more detail.
At a high level, one of the central points of UBI as a replacement for traditional means-tested welfare (and why some of its earliest advocates were right-libertarians, not lefties, such as Milton Friedman who advocated “negative income tax” which is identical to a UBI) is that it eliminates the disincentives to earning outside income that come with the sharp (sometimes greater than 1:1 when aggregated across all benefit programs a person qualifies for) funding reductions for outside income that come with means tested benefit programs, increasing the marginal reward (and thus incentive) to work.
> Rich people still eat the same amount of food for dinner.
No, they generally don’t. Oh, sure, that might be true by mass, or even by calories; but not by labor-hours of work that went into it, or dollar cost, which is what is relevant here. And that’s true across all categories of consumption.
> “negative income tax” which is identical to a UBI
Some consider those distinct as they state the UBI would not decrease with additional earned income.
Some consider those distinct as they state the UBI would not decrease with additional earned income.
> Some consider those distinct as they state the UBI would not decrease with additional earned income.
They are the same; both have the effect that benefits are “drawn down” through marginal taxation of outside income, though Friedman’s specific NIT proposal had an exceptionally high (though still lower than the effective drawdown rates often faced by means-tested benefit recipients) marginal rate (50%) for the the below-break-even bracket (essentially, the bracket whose outside income was less than “Effective UBI”/(bottom tax rate)), which most UBI proponents would reject in favor of consistently progressive rates. But this isn’t an inherent feature of generalized negative income tax.
They are the same; both have the effect that benefits are “drawn down” through marginal taxation of outside income, though Friedman’s specific NIT proposal had an exceptionally high (though still lower than the effective drawdown rates often faced by means-tested benefit recipients) marginal rate (50%) for the the below-break-even bracket (essentially, the bracket whose outside income was less than “Effective UBI”/(bottom tax rate)), which most UBI proponents would reject in favor of consistently progressive rates. But this isn’t an inherent feature of generalized negative income tax.
UBI may not decrease, but progressive taxation on income, coupled with adjusting rates (to pay for the substantial increase in federal expenditures) will have the exact same mathematical effect.
Somebody has to actually create all the stuff that people consume. UBI doesn't address that point. If these employers have to pay more to hire people, then prices will go up.
An alternative is to greatly increase temporary work visas, and make those immigrants exempt from getting UBI as a clause in their immigration visa. Of course this might lead to other issues.
An alternative is to greatly increase temporary work visas, and make those immigrants exempt from getting UBI as a clause in their immigration visa. Of course this might lead to other issues.
Ok, this actually proves why it cannot work. UBI as a unemployment benefit replacement cannot apply to immigrants (to prevent abuse) thus we get a two class system where people pay taxes into the UBI pool but never get anything back.
However, UBI funded by taxes on bad behavior can still work but it would not act as a replacement for unemployment benefits.
However, UBI funded by taxes on bad behavior can still work but it would not act as a replacement for unemployment benefits.
people pay taxes into the UBI pool but never get anything back.
They get to live and work legally in the US and get a salary paid in US dollars. That seems to worth a lot to a lot of people. You are of course right about the very obvious two class system it will create and the long term social consequences of such a system are tricky to predict.
Edit: The US birthright citizenship rules might actually make this harder to implement.
They get to live and work legally in the US and get a salary paid in US dollars. That seems to worth a lot to a lot of people. You are of course right about the very obvious two class system it will create and the long term social consequences of such a system are tricky to predict.
Edit: The US birthright citizenship rules might actually make this harder to implement.
> They get to live and work legally in the US and get a salary paid in US dollars.
If this is so good why the need for a UBI for citizens in the first place?
If this is so good why the need for a UBI for citizens in the first place?
Because the US should want to provide a better quality of life for its citizens than what those people feeling and risking everything in a desperate attempt to get into the US have in their home countries.
The US (it’s just people) already has a higher quality of life for its citizens - that’s why people come here.
Serious question, but what's wrong with having a two class system? Wouldn't these people be better off living in the US rather than living in whatever country they are assumably leaving for economic opportunity, even if they don't have as many rights as a citizen.
There doesn't have to be something wrong with it, it's all down to the implementation details. For one, possibly extreme, example of how it could turn out badly, look at countries like Qatar and how they treat their second class workers.
I don't think UBI is ever the answer and the article hints at that. Giving the low paid workers 'bargaining power' doesn't negate the points OP made. Flooding the economy with free money to everyone also doesn't hold up to actual analysis. The US has 300M+ people, even $1000 a month to each person is utterly unrealistic in terms of our GDP.
The answer is highly targeted programs that increase general prosperity. Money for cheaper energy, better services, public works, public transportation, more housing and favorable investments in future technologies are what drive prosperity. Make people as a whole less motivated to work is the antithesis of economic prosperity.
The answer is highly targeted programs that increase general prosperity. Money for cheaper energy, better services, public works, public transportation, more housing and favorable investments in future technologies are what drive prosperity. Make people as a whole less motivated to work is the antithesis of economic prosperity.
> Make people as a whole less motivated to work is the antithesis of economic prosperity.
People don't stop working if you give them basic income.
They do stop working two or three jobs to make ends meet. This is good, because it kills people.
They do stop doing the shitty underpaid jobs that no-one wants to do if they can possibly avoid it. This is good. Those jobs need to be redesigned because they're shitty. There are many happy garbage removalists out there, or cleaners, or retail clerks. It's not necessarily the nature of the work that makes a job shitty, it's often the incidental bullshit around it that makes it shitty. Making employers as a whole less motivated to keep their employees happy is the antithesis of basic human respect, and needs to be changed.
We have to get out of this bullshit Protestant Work Ethic mindset that work is about suffering and that we get paid a salary to compensate for that suffering. Work is what gives our lives meaning. For some of us, that meaning is found in climbing the corporate ladder, others enjoy serving food, others have a sense of satisfaction from their cleaning gig.
If the only reason you work is because you're paid to do it, find another line of work. No-one deserves that kind of misery.
People don't stop working if you give them basic income.
They do stop working two or three jobs to make ends meet. This is good, because it kills people.
They do stop doing the shitty underpaid jobs that no-one wants to do if they can possibly avoid it. This is good. Those jobs need to be redesigned because they're shitty. There are many happy garbage removalists out there, or cleaners, or retail clerks. It's not necessarily the nature of the work that makes a job shitty, it's often the incidental bullshit around it that makes it shitty. Making employers as a whole less motivated to keep their employees happy is the antithesis of basic human respect, and needs to be changed.
We have to get out of this bullshit Protestant Work Ethic mindset that work is about suffering and that we get paid a salary to compensate for that suffering. Work is what gives our lives meaning. For some of us, that meaning is found in climbing the corporate ladder, others enjoy serving food, others have a sense of satisfaction from their cleaning gig.
If the only reason you work is because you're paid to do it, find another line of work. No-one deserves that kind of misery.
"People don't stop working if you give them basic income."
They do, or we wouldn't have any retired people.
"Basic income" is just another way of saying "receive a state pension at 18".
The alternative is obvious - ensure that everybody can always sell their labour hours at a fixed rate.
If you have to give up your hours to earn money, then that is the same as everybody else. There is no longer a differential between the "unemployed rate" and the "employed rate" which eliminates the rate per hour 'dead zone' required to attract people from "doing nothing" to "doing something".
They do, or we wouldn't have any retired people.
"Basic income" is just another way of saying "receive a state pension at 18".
The alternative is obvious - ensure that everybody can always sell their labour hours at a fixed rate.
If you have to give up your hours to earn money, then that is the same as everybody else. There is no longer a differential between the "unemployed rate" and the "employed rate" which eliminates the rate per hour 'dead zone' required to attract people from "doing nothing" to "doing something".
> They do, or we wouldn't have any retired people.
Most software engineers or equivalent workers could retire right now or within a few years with their savings if they kept their expenses at what basic income would give. Yet basically none of them do it, why?
Most software engineers or equivalent workers could retire right now or within a few years with their savings if they kept their expenses at what basic income would give. Yet basically none of them do it, why?
Because there is no guarantee that future expenses (medical, food, housing) will be fixed in cost
There you go, there is no guarantee of future UBI either.
That's just wrong. A Basic Income is nothing like a retirement pension.
The 'B' stands for 'Basic'. Most of us already work to get better things. That won't change.
Its a strawman that won't die - that the Basic Income is going to make people well-off for no work.
The 'B' stands for 'Basic'. Most of us already work to get better things. That won't change.
Its a strawman that won't die - that the Basic Income is going to make people well-off for no work.
> That's just wrong. A Basic Income is nothing like a retirement pension.
>The 'B' stands for 'Basic'. Most of us already work to get better things. That won't change.
To me UBI is like a pension because you're getting a monthly payment for not doing anything. Your point doesn't really refute that.
>The 'B' stands for 'Basic'. Most of us already work to get better things. That won't change.
To me UBI is like a pension because you're getting a monthly payment for not doing anything. Your point doesn't really refute that.
'Like a pension' means a whole lot of things, not just one cherry-picked feature. Pensions are enough to live on for instance.
Might as well call a dividend a pension - you get that 'unearned' as well.
Might as well call a dividend a pension - you get that 'unearned' as well.
I try to assume good faith with these people – that it's not a straw argument –, but in doing so, I'm stuck between a rock and a hard place:
• I can assume they're just wrong, and don't understand the implications of what they're saying, ignoring other people because they're profoundly confused
• or I can assume, instead, that they believe the basic entitlement of all people is less than the staying alive threshold – i.e., that human life doesn't have inherent value.
I hope this is a false dichotomy.
• I can assume they're just wrong, and don't understand the implications of what they're saying, ignoring other people because they're profoundly confused
• or I can assume, instead, that they believe the basic entitlement of all people is less than the staying alive threshold – i.e., that human life doesn't have inherent value.
I hope this is a false dichotomy.
Or you could try actually assuming good faith, and assume that rather than being evil people who want people to die or simply "confused", most critics of UBI take the view that people who need state support to have enough money to live should still be able to get it (conditional on signalling their willingness to work for it if able to, rather than citizenship) and people who do not need state support to have enough money to live on shouldn't automatically receive the same amount of money. The choice isn't between life and death, the choice is between some real or hypothetical welfare state system approximation of "to each according to his need" and "to each irrespective of his need"
And it's absolutely not a straw man argument to say that a UBI is equivalent to a non-contributory pension for the much younger though (unless you believe that state pensions should be too little to survive on!) and well-evidenced that the average person retires earlier when offered state pensions earlier, especially if (unlike many of the workers funding pensions) they've already paid off mortgages.
And it's absolutely not a straw man argument to say that a UBI is equivalent to a non-contributory pension for the much younger though (unless you believe that state pensions should be too little to survive on!) and well-evidenced that the average person retires earlier when offered state pensions earlier, especially if (unlike many of the workers funding pensions) they've already paid off mortgages.
I can try to provide a perspective.
From what moral authority do positive rights originate? (a right that requires someone to provide you with a good or service)
From what moral authority do negative rights originate? (a right that prevents somebody from interfering with you or harming you)
Over the course of hundreds or perhaps thousands of years, negative rights have been developed successfully in legal systems around the world. We've seen demonstrable evidence that enforcing protections of negative rights results in a happier and more productive population.
Different countries have also, generally more recently, brought forth positive rights by various means- welfare programs, socialism, full communism, or otherwise.
People that tend to care more about negative rights than positive rights tend toward right-libertarianism. Positive rights, in a sense, require those who can provide to forfeit some of their freedom, in order to help those who require it. There is a non-zero risk that a well-meaning welfare or socialist policy fails in its mission despite good intentions. Many of the communist states with the most heartfelt populist movements have seen the deepest failures. So in the right-libertarian mindset, there is a risk of a two-fold (or perhaps threefold) failure:
-It promised to provide (positive rights) prosperity to all, and it didn't
-It had to trample on the negative rights of the wealthy to try to redistribute their wealth
-(more vague)It eroded many individuals' notion of self-determination in the process, and in doing so left them less likely to work towards their own values.
Separately, there's the important notion of what the "staying alive threshold" is. Almost nobody in G7 countries dies of hunger or thirst, and those who do were likely in a crisis not determined by lack of access. Statistically, life expectancy increases with income up to and past $100,000/yr. The spectrum in between is fraught.
From what moral authority do positive rights originate? (a right that requires someone to provide you with a good or service)
From what moral authority do negative rights originate? (a right that prevents somebody from interfering with you or harming you)
Over the course of hundreds or perhaps thousands of years, negative rights have been developed successfully in legal systems around the world. We've seen demonstrable evidence that enforcing protections of negative rights results in a happier and more productive population.
Different countries have also, generally more recently, brought forth positive rights by various means- welfare programs, socialism, full communism, or otherwise.
People that tend to care more about negative rights than positive rights tend toward right-libertarianism. Positive rights, in a sense, require those who can provide to forfeit some of their freedom, in order to help those who require it. There is a non-zero risk that a well-meaning welfare or socialist policy fails in its mission despite good intentions. Many of the communist states with the most heartfelt populist movements have seen the deepest failures. So in the right-libertarian mindset, there is a risk of a two-fold (or perhaps threefold) failure:
-It promised to provide (positive rights) prosperity to all, and it didn't
-It had to trample on the negative rights of the wealthy to try to redistribute their wealth
-(more vague)It eroded many individuals' notion of self-determination in the process, and in doing so left them less likely to work towards their own values.
Separately, there's the important notion of what the "staying alive threshold" is. Almost nobody in G7 countries dies of hunger or thirst, and those who do were likely in a crisis not determined by lack of access. Statistically, life expectancy increases with income up to and past $100,000/yr. The spectrum in between is fraught.
The basic entitlement of “staying alive” requires somebody else to produce something and give it to you.
Why should they use up their finite life for your benefit - unless you are prepared to do the same in return.
If human life has inherent value why do you believe that you should have command of a chunk of somebody else’s?
The capital endowment of society is already used up paying for those who are retired, so you can’t call in that.
Why should they use up their finite life for your benefit - unless you are prepared to do the same in return.
If human life has inherent value why do you believe that you should have command of a chunk of somebody else’s?
The capital endowment of society is already used up paying for those who are retired, so you can’t call in that.
This is the big lie of opponents to the UBI. Nobody is doing much of anything so somebody can have a toaster. It's made in an automated factory from automated delivery of automatedly accumulated raw materials.
Yes, yes, of course some engineers and truck driver and so on were involved. But one person for every 10,000 toasters, because automation.
The lie comes in when the equivalency is made between somebody getting a 'free' anything, and somebody had to sacrifice for that, or work for that. This is no longer the case, and hasn't been for decades.
Automation has made it possible to provide for almost everybody, with a tiny fraction of the inputs it used to take 50 years ago. But folks who's impression of what a factory is, or what work means was made in the 1950's keep exclaiming incredulously "Who will make things, if everybody has a UBI?!"
At root I blame the Protestant Work Ethic. Well-meaning folks want to keep believing that hard work results in a commensurate benefit. This has been a diminishing force in America at least, for decades. In our lifetimes it will disappear.
Yes, yes, of course some engineers and truck driver and so on were involved. But one person for every 10,000 toasters, because automation.
The lie comes in when the equivalency is made between somebody getting a 'free' anything, and somebody had to sacrifice for that, or work for that. This is no longer the case, and hasn't been for decades.
Automation has made it possible to provide for almost everybody, with a tiny fraction of the inputs it used to take 50 years ago. But folks who's impression of what a factory is, or what work means was made in the 1950's keep exclaiming incredulously "Who will make things, if everybody has a UBI?!"
At root I blame the Protestant Work Ethic. Well-meaning folks want to keep believing that hard work results in a commensurate benefit. This has been a diminishing force in America at least, for decades. In our lifetimes it will disappear.
except that the reason why the whole Basic Income thing started was due to automation's possible effect on the job market. As I understood it, it's more about a future where there simply aren't enough jobs on the low end to work, or the economics would make them like Mechanical Turk; impossible to actually live on.
There won't be jobs for a lot of people to work to add to it.
There won't be jobs for a lot of people to work to add to it.
UBI really stands for "Unemployment Benefit Increase" - since that is effectively what it ends up being once you look past the monetary obfuscation and net everything off. It has to be sufficient to allow people to live on permanently, or it isn't an actual income. Any less and it becomes a wage subsidy to private employers, and we already know that doesn't work thanks to many years experience with 'tax credits' or 'Earned Income Tax Credits' (depending on your jurisdiction).
Ultimately if there are fewer jobs than there are people that want them, then wages get competed down - particularly in the secondary job market where individuals are near interchangeable. Give people money and the wages get competed down further. Which is what we see with the few retired people who continue to work. Very often they will volunteer just for something to do.
Offer a competing public job and you get a different effect. People move to that job and earn a wage. There is no argument about 'living incomes' then - if you are giving up your 8 hours you deserve a living wage. Private employers have to compete to get labour, rather than having it subsidised. Private wages are held up - particularly in the secondary job market which is changed overnight from a 'gig' economy into a 'talent' economy.
The private firms at that level will struggle pass the cost on, because if they do then those on the public job scheme will be permitted to replace them. You can't do that with an unemployed buffer stock. You can with an employed one that you can direct.
The resolution process in the 'battle of the markups' is moved from wage earners to low capital depth operations that frankly add very little value and ought to be competed out of existence by their higher capital depth competitors.
Ultimately if there are fewer jobs than there are people that want them, then wages get competed down - particularly in the secondary job market where individuals are near interchangeable. Give people money and the wages get competed down further. Which is what we see with the few retired people who continue to work. Very often they will volunteer just for something to do.
Offer a competing public job and you get a different effect. People move to that job and earn a wage. There is no argument about 'living incomes' then - if you are giving up your 8 hours you deserve a living wage. Private employers have to compete to get labour, rather than having it subsidised. Private wages are held up - particularly in the secondary job market which is changed overnight from a 'gig' economy into a 'talent' economy.
The private firms at that level will struggle pass the cost on, because if they do then those on the public job scheme will be permitted to replace them. You can't do that with an unemployed buffer stock. You can with an employed one that you can direct.
The resolution process in the 'battle of the markups' is moved from wage earners to low capital depth operations that frankly add very little value and ought to be competed out of existence by their higher capital depth competitors.
> They do, or we wouldn't have any retired people.
A lot of retired people still work, despite not needing the income.
> the rate per hour 'dead zone' required to attract people from "doing nothing" to "doing something".
There's this myth again. People don't need to be attracted from "doing nothing". The default state of people isn't sitting around on their porch drinking beer. I mean, don't get me wrong, that's fun for a while, but it's not a long-term occupation. The default state of people is doing useful work that gives their lives meaning. We don't need to be "attracted" to that. That's the default.
A lot of retired people still work, despite not needing the income.
> the rate per hour 'dead zone' required to attract people from "doing nothing" to "doing something".
There's this myth again. People don't need to be attracted from "doing nothing". The default state of people isn't sitting around on their porch drinking beer. I mean, don't get me wrong, that's fun for a while, but it's not a long-term occupation. The default state of people is doing useful work that gives their lives meaning. We don't need to be "attracted" to that. That's the default.
> The default state of people isn't sitting around on their porch drinking beer. I mean, don't get me wrong, that's fun for a while, but it's not a long-term occupation. The default state of people is doing useful work that gives their lives meaning... The default state of people is doing useful work that gives their lives meaning.
I disagree. That rosy perspective comes off as being really naive
I disagree. That rosy perspective comes off as being really naive
It's based on extensive experience. I've been homeless, long-term unemployed, manual labourer, company director, CEO, and everything in between. I also have an MBA, but that's probably irrelevant here.
People really don't want to sit around doing nothing. They want to be useful, contribute, lead productive lives. Sitting around on the porch drinking beer is really boring after a relatively short while.
Again, if the only reason you're working is because you're being paid, go find another line of work. No-one should be that miserable.
People really don't want to sit around doing nothing. They want to be useful, contribute, lead productive lives. Sitting around on the porch drinking beer is really boring after a relatively short while.
Again, if the only reason you're working is because you're being paid, go find another line of work. No-one should be that miserable.
Great, but I also have extensive life experience too meeting people from all walks of life, and I know plenty of people who would rather sit around and get loaded than work. Hell, there's enough of them already without UBI such that it is already a burden upon our healthcare system. The last thing we need is more of them.
> Again, if the only reason you're working is because you're being paid, go find another line of work. No-one should be that miserable.
reminds me of a great Office Space quote:
Michael Bolton : No, you're working at Initech because that question is bullshit to begin with. If everyone listened to her, there'd be no janitors, because no one would clean shit up if they had a million dollars.
Please tell me, who actually works because they enjoy cleaning shit up and not to just get paid?
> Again, if the only reason you're working is because you're being paid, go find another line of work. No-one should be that miserable.
reminds me of a great Office Space quote:
Michael Bolton : No, you're working at Initech because that question is bullshit to begin with. If everyone listened to her, there'd be no janitors, because no one would clean shit up if they had a million dollars.
Please tell me, who actually works because they enjoy cleaning shit up and not to just get paid?
The cleaner at my old office in the UK. Loved her job. Semi-retired old lady, came in, chatted to everyone, only worked a few hours a week, great cleaner.
Ex-girlfriend worked as a maid in a hotel in Broome while travelling. Perfect job, no responsibility, you could do it with a hangover, free accommodation, enough money to drink, an instant social life with the other employees. Stayed there for months until she decided she had to see other places.
I'm not saying they'd do it for free - well, possibly the cleaner in the UK (forgotten her name). But they definitely weren't stuck there doing a job they hated just for the money.
Ex-girlfriend worked as a maid in a hotel in Broome while travelling. Perfect job, no responsibility, you could do it with a hangover, free accommodation, enough money to drink, an instant social life with the other employees. Stayed there for months until she decided she had to see other places.
I'm not saying they'd do it for free - well, possibly the cleaner in the UK (forgotten her name). But they definitely weren't stuck there doing a job they hated just for the money.
It's great these people liked their jobs. I don't think you're going to find enough people like that to fill every janitor position though. Not to mention all the other jobs which tend to be less desirable that society needs. In any case, I think the discussion has changed here because there is a difference between 'hating your job' and 'doing a job to get paid'
And a lot of retired people do not work. Can society sustain a big portion of people of any age leaving the job market? Who will put together funds to pay UBI?
The answer is actually yes. But only if you drop the current crop of disproved morality based economic models that make up the bulk of the curriculum at most schools of business.
The reality is that any modern economy based on fiat-money have unlimited cash and tend to benefit enough from weakening the bargaining power of the entrenched elites though inflation funded welfare, that you can set the bar for how poor the poor are allowed to become without necessarily impacting the real world industrial/agricultural output, but because of dogmatic policies designed to facility wealth hording we pretend that we cannot really end poverty.
Another problem is that we measure societal success based on how well the 20% richest lives rather then on how well the 20% poorest live. which again support wealth hording policies that will eventually clash with the ideal that democracy, freedom and equally, should be available to everyone not just an small elite as was the case in ancient Rome or Greece(and to some extend The American south until ca 1970).
The reality is that any modern economy based on fiat-money have unlimited cash and tend to benefit enough from weakening the bargaining power of the entrenched elites though inflation funded welfare, that you can set the bar for how poor the poor are allowed to become without necessarily impacting the real world industrial/agricultural output, but because of dogmatic policies designed to facility wealth hording we pretend that we cannot really end poverty.
Another problem is that we measure societal success based on how well the 20% richest lives rather then on how well the 20% poorest live. which again support wealth hording policies that will eventually clash with the ideal that democracy, freedom and equally, should be available to everyone not just an small elite as was the case in ancient Rome or Greece(and to some extend The American south until ca 1970).
> weakening the bargaining power of the entrenched elites though inflation funded welfare
Why would this happen?
The rich and powerful do not have tons of cash. They have tons of assets, like houses, land, buildings, companies, boats, cars, etc. Inflation simply makes all of those things more valuable, so their wealth is not affected. Meanwhile all the extra free money that everybody else has is still not enough to buy those actual assets. Aren’t you pretending that supply and demand doesn’t exist?
Why would this happen?
The rich and powerful do not have tons of cash. They have tons of assets, like houses, land, buildings, companies, boats, cars, etc. Inflation simply makes all of those things more valuable, so their wealth is not affected. Meanwhile all the extra free money that everybody else has is still not enough to buy those actual assets. Aren’t you pretending that supply and demand doesn’t exist?
All of this is assets that can loose value when inflation goes up, as they are denoted in the same currency that's inflating the reason they don't now is that we deliberately tie the value of money to the value of land.
The problem for the wannabe feudalists is the same that killed off the landed gentry, when workers got rights and privileges in the 18th century, is that land not worked is not really worth anything so they will have to spend more and more of their profit maintaining the productivity as people gain more economic power to live elsewhere or differently.
And cheap land is around especially if you break free of the large cities.
The problem for the wannabe feudalists is the same that killed off the landed gentry, when workers got rights and privileges in the 18th century, is that land not worked is not really worth anything so they will have to spend more and more of their profit maintaining the productivity as people gain more economic power to live elsewhere or differently.
And cheap land is around especially if you break free of the large cities.
So... yeah, you're ignoring supply and demand.
We haven't tied the value of money to the value of land. Land has value. If you want it, you have to pay for it. (Unless you are advocating for the government to seize all property.)
If the value of money goes down (which is what you said to let happen), then the cost of land goes up. On what basis do you claim that hard assets will decrease in value as cash decreases in value? Can you name some examples where this has happened?
Edit: I don't think you can, because the definition of inflation means that the costs of things are going up.
We haven't tied the value of money to the value of land. Land has value. If you want it, you have to pay for it. (Unless you are advocating for the government to seize all property.)
If the value of money goes down (which is what you said to let happen), then the cost of land goes up. On what basis do you claim that hard assets will decrease in value as cash decreases in value? Can you name some examples where this has happened?
Edit: I don't think you can, because the definition of inflation means that the costs of things are going up.
That doesn't explain at all what would happen if 50% workforce walked out the door tomorrow and expected the rest of workforce to provide them.
Stopping money printing is an interesting idea though.
Stopping money printing is an interesting idea though.
> Stopping money printing is an interesting idea though.
If I'm reading it right, that's the opposite of what the person you replied to was suggesting:
> The reality is that any modern economy based on fiat-money have unlimited cash and tend to benefit enough from weakening the bargaining power of the entrenched elites though inflation funded welfare, that you can set the bar for how poor the poor are allowed to become
If I'm reading it right, that's the opposite of what the person you replied to was suggesting:
> The reality is that any modern economy based on fiat-money have unlimited cash and tend to benefit enough from weakening the bargaining power of the entrenched elites though inflation funded welfare, that you can set the bar for how poor the poor are allowed to become
I'm not sure how to read it TBH. When you print money, value of assets keep going up with the inflation. So the rich who have assets would stay rich, the poor would loose.
If OP wanted to claim the opposite, I don't see how it makes sense.
If OP wanted to claim the opposite, I don't see how it makes sense.
Is that any real difference from today where less then 30% actually works in direct production?
Remember that 50% is an majority and would be entitled to basically run the economy as they saw fit, and yet we have never had a case(outside of apartheid/slave states) where an majority did that.
What UBI represent is more of an re-balancing on the employer/employee power balance as it grant's the employee the power to say NO without facing complete ruin.
For UBI to work the presumption that people wont just retire to cheap housing in the countryside living on bread, beer and love, but for the most part seek some kind of meaningful occupation, which real data based economical models seems to suggest they will.
The problem here is of cause that everything about UBI invalidates any economic theory compatible with an moral philosophy derived from Luther and Calvin's (protestant) Punitive Christianity, which unfortunately is the base for a lot of modern economic theory.
Remember that 50% is an majority and would be entitled to basically run the economy as they saw fit, and yet we have never had a case(outside of apartheid/slave states) where an majority did that.
What UBI represent is more of an re-balancing on the employer/employee power balance as it grant's the employee the power to say NO without facing complete ruin.
For UBI to work the presumption that people wont just retire to cheap housing in the countryside living on bread, beer and love, but for the most part seek some kind of meaningful occupation, which real data based economical models seems to suggest they will.
The problem here is of cause that everything about UBI invalidates any economic theory compatible with an moral philosophy derived from Luther and Calvin's (protestant) Punitive Christianity, which unfortunately is the base for a lot of modern economic theory.
Be it direct production or not, it's still a part of modern economy.
When people think about UBI, they think about living on UBI and still using products and services of a modern economy. Not living off the grid in a shack bumfucknowhere and doing substance farming (and brewing beer, of course) on the side.
If people flat-out dropped out of the economy, that'd create another interesting problem. Who would use produce of those people who keep participating? Would participating people produce&consume enough to put together UBI for the folks who got out?
Going further... Off-grid folk would make bread & beer and those wouldn't be taxed. UBI-producer would make bread & beer and those would be taxed through the roof. What if off-grid folks kickstart black market and trade non-taxed stuff between themselves? While still receiving UBI from UBI-producers. Then it'd make sense for an UBI-producer to go shopping in said black market too :) Buying less products from other UBI-producers.
When people think about UBI, they think about living on UBI and still using products and services of a modern economy. Not living off the grid in a shack bumfucknowhere and doing substance farming (and brewing beer, of course) on the side.
If people flat-out dropped out of the economy, that'd create another interesting problem. Who would use produce of those people who keep participating? Would participating people produce&consume enough to put together UBI for the folks who got out?
Going further... Off-grid folk would make bread & beer and those wouldn't be taxed. UBI-producer would make bread & beer and those would be taxed through the roof. What if off-grid folks kickstart black market and trade non-taxed stuff between themselves? While still receiving UBI from UBI-producers. Then it'd make sense for an UBI-producer to go shopping in said black market too :) Buying less products from other UBI-producers.
if 50% workforce walked out the door tomorrow
You could always import more, UBI exempt, workers if that becomes a problem. Of course that might bring some of its own problems.
You could always import more, UBI exempt, workers if that becomes a problem. Of course that might bring some of its own problems.
Why would you come to work to a country with super high taxes?
On the other hand, workforce may be coming from another UBI territory with same taxation. What would happen in their former country? Would they still pay UBI taxes to it?
On the other hand, workforce may be coming from another UBI territory with same taxation. What would happen in their former country? Would they still pay UBI taxes to it?
> They do stop doing the shitty underpaid jobs that no-one wants to do if they can possibly avoid it. This is good. Those jobs need to be redesigned because they're shitty.
Re-designing jobs to be less shitty is one way, of course, but the reason they were not already done is not because the owners are evil per-se, but because it is too expensive, etc
See real world UBI examples in middle-east, where citizens get money, most of the world is done by imported labor, 2nd class citizens that are treated terribly, but their govt. and citizens are ok with the status quo.
So, here, we will have the worst of both worlds... - No money to pay for it ( No, the Fed printing press is not the equivalent of oil ) - More people to take care of.
--
> get out of this bullshit Protestant Work Ethic mindset that work is about suffering
Well, you created the strawman.
It is more about the values of diligence and discipline, no different from anything you want to achieve, like excelling in sports, arts, etc
Re-designing jobs to be less shitty is one way, of course, but the reason they were not already done is not because the owners are evil per-se, but because it is too expensive, etc
See real world UBI examples in middle-east, where citizens get money, most of the world is done by imported labor, 2nd class citizens that are treated terribly, but their govt. and citizens are ok with the status quo.
So, here, we will have the worst of both worlds... - No money to pay for it ( No, the Fed printing press is not the equivalent of oil ) - More people to take care of.
--
> get out of this bullshit Protestant Work Ethic mindset that work is about suffering
Well, you created the strawman.
It is more about the values of diligence and discipline, no different from anything you want to achieve, like excelling in sports, arts, etc
> Re-designing jobs to be less shitty is one way, of course, but the reason they were not already done is not because the owners are evil per-se, but because it is too expensive, etc
Or simply because they don't have to. Too expensive is very often code for "Sure, I could change the job, but that would cost ME something and I still get enough workers without doing it, so ..."
Or simply because they don't have to. Too expensive is very often code for "Sure, I could change the job, but that would cost ME something and I still get enough workers without doing it, so ..."
sure, we are witnessing mini-experiments like the raise in minimum wages in various areas across the country, and we get to witness the 2nd order effects - some beneficial, and some not ( some even unexpected )
An impartial observer will hopefully make predictions (driven by his biases, of course) but in a few years, use the hindsight to learn lessons.
An impartial observer will hopefully make predictions (driven by his biases, of course) but in a few years, use the hindsight to learn lessons.
> If the only reason you work is because you're paid to do it, find another line of work.
Find another line of work, sure. Quit your job without getting a new one and expect me to pay all of your expenses the rest of your life, not so much.
Find another line of work, sure. Quit your job without getting a new one and expect me to pay all of your expenses the rest of your life, not so much.
whats 300m * $1,000 a month? This is my biggest argument against UBI cause even 1,000 a month won't cut it in most us cities.
That's $1.2 trillion per year.
The USA spends $1.03 trillion per year on benefits at the moment, [0]. Most of that will be replaced. That's only federal benefits - more is spent by states.
I don't think this covers the administration costs of policing the benefits system (but I'm not sure).
There's also the veteran's pay and benefits which isn't technically part of this, but would be less necessary with UBI.
It's roughly equal to what the whole benefits system costs now.
[0] https://www.budget.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/CRS%20Report%20-...
The USA spends $1.03 trillion per year on benefits at the moment, [0]. Most of that will be replaced. That's only federal benefits - more is spent by states.
I don't think this covers the administration costs of policing the benefits system (but I'm not sure).
There's also the veteran's pay and benefits which isn't technically part of this, but would be less necessary with UBI.
It's roughly equal to what the whole benefits system costs now.
[0] https://www.budget.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/CRS%20Report%20-...
> This is my biggest argument against UBI cause even 1,000 a month won't cut it in most us cities.
What cities exist where you get more than $1,000/person-month in means-tested welfare?
Any benefit beyond the current means-tested welfare maximums from UBI is gravy; the main point is to replace means-tested welfare with a system that removes administative costs produced by duplication of function and perverse incentives created by fubding cliffs.
What cities exist where you get more than $1,000/person-month in means-tested welfare?
Any benefit beyond the current means-tested welfare maximums from UBI is gravy; the main point is to replace means-tested welfare with a system that removes administative costs produced by duplication of function and perverse incentives created by fubding cliffs.
Targeted programs don't generally work; they rely on the idea that whoever is doing the targeting can predict the future better than everyone else, which isn't usually true.
> Make people as a whole less motivated to work is the antithesis of economic prosperity.
Making people as a whole less trapped in dead-end jobs is great for economic prosperity. We know that people are more productive once they have a safety net that lets them take risk, e.g. there's a huge bump in people starting their own businesses - a big economic positive on average, but risky - once they hit the medicaid eligibility age. Or taking the time to retrain and switch careers - again, positive on average, but something a lot of people can't afford or don't dare to take the risk of.
> Make people as a whole less motivated to work is the antithesis of economic prosperity.
Making people as a whole less trapped in dead-end jobs is great for economic prosperity. We know that people are more productive once they have a safety net that lets them take risk, e.g. there's a huge bump in people starting their own businesses - a big economic positive on average, but risky - once they hit the medicaid eligibility age. Or taking the time to retrain and switch careers - again, positive on average, but something a lot of people can't afford or don't dare to take the risk of.
I don't have to be able to predict the future more than everyone else to vastly expand water reservoir's, increase education, build solar/wind/fission, public works... also, i've seen HN comments do extremely complex calculations about delta V but no one seems to do that math for UBI. what's 300m * $1000 a month? and 1,000 still doesn't cut it in most major cities.
> Targeted programs don't generally work; they rely on the idea that whoever is doing the targeting can predict the future better than everyone else, which isn't usually true.
What are you saying? That most government programs aren't working? Please share the data.
What are you saying? That most government programs aren't working? Please share the data.
As a low end worker, I have actually seen this happen from the stimulus checks alone. Many places in my town raises wages because they can't find people to work for pennies anymore.
Stimulus payments (particularly, the enhanced jobless benefits) are not like UBI, they are essentially means-tested welfare. Like means-tested welfare, you lose them rapidly by gaining outside income, eliminating (or reducing) the benefit of the first big chunk of outside income you gain if you are currently receiving them. That’s exactly the perverse incentive in means-tested welfare that UBI removes, you “lose” benefits only at the rate of marginal taxation, which (especially at the low end) is much slower than the rate at which means-tested welfare programs reduce benefits with additional income, making additional income opportunities more attractive to pursue for UBI recipients than means-tested welfare recipients.
Another way to look at it:
For a low-wage earner today, the choice is:
* Don't work, get $300/week * Work, get $400/week
Depending upon circumstances, many find the former option better.
But UBI is proposing an option like this:
* Don't work, get $300/week * Work, get $280 + $400/week
With this kind tradeoff, many more will chose latter option.
For a low-wage earner today, the choice is:
* Don't work, get $300/week * Work, get $400/week
Depending upon circumstances, many find the former option better.
But UBI is proposing an option like this:
* Don't work, get $300/week * Work, get $280 + $400/week
With this kind tradeoff, many more will chose latter option.
This is something I find many UBI opponents do not understand. And you explain it very well. Thanks.
In pretty much every developed economy, the government spends between 30% and 50% of GDP. The US economy is $21 trillion. $1000 per month for 300 M people is $3.6 trillion, or about 17%. It's within the realm of a political choice.
And of course the US doesn't actually have 300 M people over 18, 20% are under 16.
And of course the US doesn't actually have 300 M people over 18, 20% are under 16.
And also consider, that UBI would be clawed back via taxes for the majority of the population. And consider that social security is already accounted in the current spending.
The number is feasible for the US, though it would be one of the larger spending programs ever conceived. But not impossible.
The number is feasible for the US, though it would be one of the larger spending programs ever conceived. But not impossible.
> And consider that social security is already accounted in the current spending.
Social security is not means-tested welfare.
Social security is not means-tested welfare.
I presume that if we had a UBI, then we wouldn't also have social security (or social security would be a smaller layer on top of SS). If that is the case, then my point was that we can ignore the individuals currently receiving SS when accounting for the net additional costs of UBI.
> I presume that if we had a UBI, then we wouldn't also have social security
Why do you presume that? Its common for UBI advocates to advocate it (at least as it matures) replacing means-tested benefits; its a lot less common for them to advocate it replacing other things, including earned benefits.
Why do you presume that? Its common for UBI advocates to advocate it (at least as it matures) replacing means-tested benefits; its a lot less common for them to advocate it replacing other things, including earned benefits.
That is fair, it is less commonly advocated. And further, as a political matter, I don't think social security is going anywhere even with UBI.
But just from a cost standpoint, it seems unlikely that we could actually afford a UBI would that actually provides universal-net-income. In practice those making above a certain threshold (from actual work, investments, or pensions/social-security) would have some kind of claw-back baked into the tax-system. The system still needs to be universal, everyone gets UBI payments, so that we don't cause the perverse effects of current means-tested programs, yet in practice, many individuals would just pay-back the UBI in taxes.
But just from a cost standpoint, it seems unlikely that we could actually afford a UBI would that actually provides universal-net-income. In practice those making above a certain threshold (from actual work, investments, or pensions/social-security) would have some kind of claw-back baked into the tax-system. The system still needs to be universal, everyone gets UBI payments, so that we don't cause the perverse effects of current means-tested programs, yet in practice, many individuals would just pay-back the UBI in taxes.
> But just from a cost standpoint, it seems unlikely that we could actually afford a UBI would that actually provides universal-net-income.
The point of UBI isn’t provide a universal net income, that’s plainly impossible (at least, from first order effects; after factoring in induced economic growth, it may be possible, but it is still not the point.)
The point is to eliminate the welfare trap posed by rapid early clawback of outside income in means-tested welfare programs, and eliminate the inefficiencies of redundant tax and welfare bureaucracies. If you tie in taxes on capital income as a progreasive taxes on non-capital income, it can also be a way to mitigate inequality driven by progressive automation and other factors driving returns to capital and a narrow subset of labor.
The point of UBI isn’t provide a universal net income, that’s plainly impossible (at least, from first order effects; after factoring in induced economic growth, it may be possible, but it is still not the point.)
The point is to eliminate the welfare trap posed by rapid early clawback of outside income in means-tested welfare programs, and eliminate the inefficiencies of redundant tax and welfare bureaucracies. If you tie in taxes on capital income as a progreasive taxes on non-capital income, it can also be a way to mitigate inequality driven by progressive automation and other factors driving returns to capital and a narrow subset of labor.
3.6T a month? that would be greater than the whole of the US economy every year. Taxes are only a portion of that, so we would probably be spending 60-70% more than we are making from taxes on just UBI and no other social programs.
> 3.6T a month?
No.
with P as “person(s)":
300MP × 1k$/P/mo = 300G$/mo
300G$/mo × 12mo/yr = 3.6T$/yr
No.
with P as “person(s)":
300MP × 1k$/P/mo = 300G$/mo
300G$/mo × 12mo/yr = 3.6T$/yr
> The US has 300M+ people, even $1000 a month to each person is utterly unrealistic in terms of our GDP.
Except that this isn't how UBI should be implemented. An easy way to do it is to change Federal income taxes. Make $0/year? your tax bill is -$12000. Make $10000? perhaps it's now -$10000. And at some point - probably $40000 or $50000, it's 0, and then after that you pay gradually increasing taxes, the way it currently works.
so in other words, you don't have to give this cash to all 300M people. T(Though you do need to account for the fact that having this option available will change people's life choices, if we're going to estimate the funding needed)
Probably we'd also need to raise taxes somewhere to fund it - increasing marginal tax rates for higher tax brackets, possibly coupled with some new tax brackets at the upper end, seems like a possible answer.
Except that this isn't how UBI should be implemented. An easy way to do it is to change Federal income taxes. Make $0/year? your tax bill is -$12000. Make $10000? perhaps it's now -$10000. And at some point - probably $40000 or $50000, it's 0, and then after that you pay gradually increasing taxes, the way it currently works.
so in other words, you don't have to give this cash to all 300M people. T(Though you do need to account for the fact that having this option available will change people's life choices, if we're going to estimate the funding needed)
Probably we'd also need to raise taxes somewhere to fund it - increasing marginal tax rates for higher tax brackets, possibly coupled with some new tax brackets at the upper end, seems like a possible answer.
It’s not universal unless everyone gets the same amount.
They do get given the same amount, they just get different amounts taken back depending on how much they earned.
That’s just a tax. Wouldn’t progressive taxation already take care of that? Do we need another tax just to make UBI work?
No, UBI plus current progressive taxes is basically identical to the negative income tax idea. You might want to adjust levels or whatever but that's not strictly necessary.
Some people, mostly people who don't like the idea of UBI seem to think you can't tax it back again and everyone needs to always get X extra every year on top of what they would have before. I'm not sure if they dislike UBI because they think that, or think that because they dislike UBI.
Some people, mostly people who don't like the idea of UBI seem to think you can't tax it back again and everyone needs to always get X extra every year on top of what they would have before. I'm not sure if they dislike UBI because they think that, or think that because they dislike UBI.
You just described a "negative income tax", which isn't the same thing as UBI.
> You just described a “negative income tax”, which isn’t the same thing as UBI.
A negative income tax is exactly the same thing as a UBI in a system that also has progressive income taxes.
A negative income tax is exactly the same thing as a UBI in a system that also has progressive income taxes.
See the post above about the niece who couldn't take a better paying job because then she wouldn't qualify for food stamps...
Functionally they're equivalent. In a UBI/negative-income-tax schenariom things like food stamps also shouldn't be cut off at a simple threshold, but instead factored in at your marginal rate. If your marginal rate is always your marginal rate, then it's always beneficial to take a higher-paying job.
The problem with means testing is that it effectively raises the marginal rate, often to astronomical percentages. For example, the withdrawal of a $1000 benefit because of an additional $1 that pushes you over a means testing threshold means your marginal tax rate on that dollar is 100,000%. Of course the rational thing to do is to not earn that dollar, or indeed any of the next $1250 that it would take to get you back to where you started (assuming a normal marginal rate of 20%).
The problem with means testing is that it effectively raises the marginal rate, often to astronomical percentages. For example, the withdrawal of a $1000 benefit because of an additional $1 that pushes you over a means testing threshold means your marginal tax rate on that dollar is 100,000%. Of course the rational thing to do is to not earn that dollar, or indeed any of the next $1250 that it would take to get you back to where you started (assuming a normal marginal rate of 20%).
> In a UBI/negative-income-tax schenariom things like food stamps also shouldn't be cut off at a simple threshold, but instead factored in at your marginal rate.
In a mature UBI system [0], food stamps as use-restricted means-tested welfare wouldn't exist at all. (Food stamps in their original purpose as a system of agricultural subsidies might.) Their function would be rolled into the single benefit payment.
[0] transitional proposals often keep other means-tested programs during the transition, scaled back as UBI scales up.
In a mature UBI system [0], food stamps as use-restricted means-tested welfare wouldn't exist at all. (Food stamps in their original purpose as a system of agricultural subsidies might.) Their function would be rolled into the single benefit payment.
[0] transitional proposals often keep other means-tested programs during the transition, scaled back as UBI scales up.
In a UBI scenario food stamps shouldn't exist, i think? The idea is to replace most benefits with just the basic income and save money not tracking those benefits.
That's the idea. In practice you need to be careful as a failure mode of introducing UBI is it being used as an excuse to cut benefits without an adequate replacement.
For example, a reasonable stepping stone would be for people to get their food stamps by default, but then be able to "pay" some of the taxes on any income they earn using those food stamps. This means food stamps are being reduced gradually and at the marginal tax rate, so it's fairer than just falling off a cliff when you hit a threshold.
For example, a reasonable stepping stone would be for people to get their food stamps by default, but then be able to "pay" some of the taxes on any income they earn using those food stamps. This means food stamps are being reduced gradually and at the marginal tax rate, so it's fairer than just falling off a cliff when you hit a threshold.
The niece couldn't take the better paying job due to a "cliff" - the abrupt loss of food stamps due to a tiny increase in income.
If it was gradual withdrawal rather than a cliff, she could afford to take the job.
The UK's Universal Credit is supposed to be gradual and therefore work out to everyone's benefit. But in practice it has few of the good qualities of either UBI or negative taxation. Universal Credit has plenty of nasty cliffs, complicated rules and cruel penalties that push unlucky people deeply into poverty, and it also has an extremely heavy administration cost - every employer must file everyone's individual employment taxes every few weeks online and face heavy fines for getting anything wrong or being a day late.
If it was gradual withdrawal rather than a cliff, she could afford to take the job.
The UK's Universal Credit is supposed to be gradual and therefore work out to everyone's benefit. But in practice it has few of the good qualities of either UBI or negative taxation. Universal Credit has plenty of nasty cliffs, complicated rules and cruel penalties that push unlucky people deeply into poverty, and it also has an extremely heavy administration cost - every employer must file everyone's individual employment taxes every few weeks online and face heavy fines for getting anything wrong or being a day late.
That's the other argument for UBI - get rid of the bureaucracy approving benefits.
The bureaucracy exists to limit welfare spending though. If you have a fixed budget it is more efficient to only give it to those who truly need it even if it is self defeating over the long term. That is simply how politics works.
> he bureaucracy exists to limit welfare spending though. If you have a fixed budget it is more efficient to only give it to those who truly need it even if it is self defeating over the long term.
If it is self-defeating, it is not more efficient. And we already have a bureaucracy whose functions include verifying income claims and adjusting net payments based on them in the income tax system, we don’t need a bunch of different bureaucracies doing that redundantly with slightly varied definitions and rules and paperwork that serve little practical purpose besides justifying additional bureaucracies and enforcing self-defeating funding cliffs.
If it is self-defeating, it is not more efficient. And we already have a bureaucracy whose functions include verifying income claims and adjusting net payments based on them in the income tax system, we don’t need a bunch of different bureaucracies doing that redundantly with slightly varied definitions and rules and paperwork that serve little practical purpose besides justifying additional bureaucracies and enforcing self-defeating funding cliffs.
You will still need the bureaucracy there to be monitoring for abuse. I'd argue it'd be larger since the scale is increased
With UBI, there is no means testing. So the main “abuse” possible is income tax evasion.
It is possible that there would be fraud around pretending to be a person when that person doesn’t exist, or continuing to collect benefits for someone who is dead.
But “are you a live person” is much harder to fake than “did you make sure you didn’t do these 6 illegible things that would make you ineligible”.
It is possible that there would be fraud around pretending to be a person when that person doesn’t exist, or continuing to collect benefits for someone who is dead.
But “are you a live person” is much harder to fake than “did you make sure you didn’t do these 6 illegible things that would make you ineligible”.
> You will still need the bureaucracy there to be monitoring for abuse
When you eliminate means-testing in favor of income taxes and eliminste the myriad different definitions of income and assets for qualification for different programs and the opportunity it creates (and the incentive funding cliffs create) for specialized benefit fraud, there is no special “UBI abuse” to monitor for. You have to monitor for tax fraud, but we’ve got a bureaucracy doing that at society-wide scale anyway.
When you eliminate means-testing in favor of income taxes and eliminste the myriad different definitions of income and assets for qualification for different programs and the opportunity it creates (and the incentive funding cliffs create) for specialized benefit fraud, there is no special “UBI abuse” to monitor for. You have to monitor for tax fraud, but we’ve got a bureaucracy doing that at society-wide scale anyway.
That's a cliff in the benefits and tax system. If you make a tiny bit more, you shouldn't get worse off.
UBI could be a solution but has its own drawbacks. Progressive taxation without cliffs is another possible solution.
That is, you pay higher taxes but only from the amount above some threshold. That way, only the derivative of the tax rate has cliffs.
UBI could be a solution but has its own drawbacks. Progressive taxation without cliffs is another possible solution.
That is, you pay higher taxes but only from the amount above some threshold. That way, only the derivative of the tax rate has cliffs.
> UBI could be a solution but has its own drawbacks. Progressive taxation without cliffs is another possible solution.
You mean with no public support? Because UBI is social support without cliffs, and typically paired with progressive taxation. So if you mean progressive taxation with social support and no cliffs, that's not an alternative to UBI so much as a long-winded description of UBI.
> That is, you pay higher taxes but only from the amount above some threshold. That way, only the derivative of the tax rate has cliffs.
That's (ignoring things like the injection of means-tested welfare into the tax system via EITC) progressive taxation and tax bracket marginal rates work normally. UBI is just adding public benefits in without introducing cliffs.
You mean with no public support? Because UBI is social support without cliffs, and typically paired with progressive taxation. So if you mean progressive taxation with social support and no cliffs, that's not an alternative to UBI so much as a long-winded description of UBI.
> That is, you pay higher taxes but only from the amount above some threshold. That way, only the derivative of the tax rate has cliffs.
That's (ignoring things like the injection of means-tested welfare into the tax system via EITC) progressive taxation and tax bracket marginal rates work normally. UBI is just adding public benefits in without introducing cliffs.
That’s how progressive tax systems currently work (and always have worked).
You can't buy food now with a letter that says you're predicted to owe less tax next year.
UBI isn't a solution to poverty. Anyone who thinks that hasn't understood the underlying problems the "free market" and hence capitalism suffers from.
I have come to the realization that a perfectly free market is impossible as human nature and psychology dictates its self destruction. What is needed is a free market without the self destructive behavior. The five biggest candidates: export/import surpluses, excessive cash hoarding, rent seeking and cash inheritance [0]. The solution to these problems can involve a UBI but the UBI is never meant to achieve poverty reduction or provide bargaining power or whatever specific goal UBI proponents have in mind. It is merely a fair distribution mechanism.
Think of a speeding ticket whose payment is then used for a UBI. The point isn't that suddenly everyone can afford more things. The point is that a fine is a good punishment for a minor offense but the proceeds should not be used to fund the government lest it starts enforcing the law for the sake of government funding.
You can solve these 5 problems with taxation and fines and then redistribute the proceeds to everyone. The benefit will not come from the UBI, it will come from the fact that we cease self destructive behavior. Without the self destructive behavior we will be richer in real terms without engaging in a single hour of work. In other words, UBI is a good idea but not as a replacement for unemployment benefits.
[0] Cash represents a debt that society owes to the holder of the cash. Such a thing should never be inherited or held onto for long periods of time. If someone were to decide to spend all their money on stocks or gold and let their children inherit these tangibles, they would be acting in an exemplary manner as property should not be touched. As money represents the future property of others (it is not your property yet), it must not pass on.
I have come to the realization that a perfectly free market is impossible as human nature and psychology dictates its self destruction. What is needed is a free market without the self destructive behavior. The five biggest candidates: export/import surpluses, excessive cash hoarding, rent seeking and cash inheritance [0]. The solution to these problems can involve a UBI but the UBI is never meant to achieve poverty reduction or provide bargaining power or whatever specific goal UBI proponents have in mind. It is merely a fair distribution mechanism.
Think of a speeding ticket whose payment is then used for a UBI. The point isn't that suddenly everyone can afford more things. The point is that a fine is a good punishment for a minor offense but the proceeds should not be used to fund the government lest it starts enforcing the law for the sake of government funding.
You can solve these 5 problems with taxation and fines and then redistribute the proceeds to everyone. The benefit will not come from the UBI, it will come from the fact that we cease self destructive behavior. Without the self destructive behavior we will be richer in real terms without engaging in a single hour of work. In other words, UBI is a good idea but not as a replacement for unemployment benefits.
[0] Cash represents a debt that society owes to the holder of the cash. Such a thing should never be inherited or held onto for long periods of time. If someone were to decide to spend all their money on stocks or gold and let their children inherit these tangibles, they would be acting in an exemplary manner as property should not be touched. As money represents the future property of others (it is not your property yet), it must not pass on.
People can trade cash for property, so the "debt that society owes to the holder" is transferrable.
As such, why can't people transfer cash to their descendants directly? What's the point of trading it for property, which can then be traded back to cash anyway?
As such, why can't people transfer cash to their descendants directly? What's the point of trading it for property, which can then be traded back to cash anyway?
It's not supposed to be $1000 to each and everyone just like that. That's be too much for pretty much any government. But imagine that you give $1000 to a person without a job. Then said person gets a job and for every $1 they earn, you subtract $0.5 (or any other fraction that makes sense) from the UBI. When that person earns $2000 they do not get any more UBI. The majority of people with a job is not going to get any UBI, but they have that security should they lose their job. It will also be targeted at the people who earn the least amount of money.
This is the definition of UBI (from Wikipedia):
> Universal basic income (UBI), also called unconditional basic income [...] is a sociopolitical financial transfer concept in which all citizens of a given population regularly receive a legally stipulated and equal financial grant paid by the government without a means test.
Adding a means test to ensure that only some people receive the income would make it non-universal. You're describing a classic unemployment welfare system, but proponents of UBI argue that a universal income is simpler to administer and creates fewer perverse incentives.
> Universal basic income (UBI), also called unconditional basic income [...] is a sociopolitical financial transfer concept in which all citizens of a given population regularly receive a legally stipulated and equal financial grant paid by the government without a means test.
Adding a means test to ensure that only some people receive the income would make it non-universal. You're describing a classic unemployment welfare system, but proponents of UBI argue that a universal income is simpler to administer and creates fewer perverse incentives.
People would still pay taxes on income. If the taxes you pay are larger than the UBI amount then you effectively don't receive it any more, even if it's accounted in the way that you receive $1000 UBI and then pay $1000 (or $2000 or $5000) in taxes.
Bargaining power fixes:
Provide 'employment transition' by banking vacation carry over and get paid out when someone quits (optionally paid at the otherwise normal rate over time until depleted).
Medicare for all with dental, vision and hearing - Single payer healthcare so that it isn't tied to a job, and helps return those out of work to work if our medical tech is sufficient.
Make current US job benefits (vacation, sick pay, medical co-coverage) paid by taxes on corporations proportional to the pay for workers. Hourly workers should pro-rated with E.G. 20 hours of work for 'full benefits'. Also require hourly jobs to be scheduled in advance in some fair way that doesn't de-facto allow an abusive employer to have someone on call without paying them to be on call.
The socialization of the vacation benefits also benefits corporations, since they would no longer hold those assets on their balance sheet as liabilities.
Provide 'employment transition' by banking vacation carry over and get paid out when someone quits (optionally paid at the otherwise normal rate over time until depleted).
Medicare for all with dental, vision and hearing - Single payer healthcare so that it isn't tied to a job, and helps return those out of work to work if our medical tech is sufficient.
Make current US job benefits (vacation, sick pay, medical co-coverage) paid by taxes on corporations proportional to the pay for workers. Hourly workers should pro-rated with E.G. 20 hours of work for 'full benefits'. Also require hourly jobs to be scheduled in advance in some fair way that doesn't de-facto allow an abusive employer to have someone on call without paying them to be on call.
The socialization of the vacation benefits also benefits corporations, since they would no longer hold those assets on their balance sheet as liabilities.
You could simply just stop treating vacation time as a perk or something you earn and, instead, simply give everyone paid vacation time.
It doesn't have to be expensive: Norway collects taxes in a way that means you basically fund your own vacation: The downside is that you don't get that money if you didn't work last year, but there is a push to fix that.
And I completely agree about scheduling: Employers should pay extra for changing a schedule in too short of a frame. Yes, this also means that everyone might get paid extra for releasing the schedule too late.
I'd also add that everyone should have the right to work contracts. At a minimum, it'd state how to break the contract (fair notice, both sides, exceptions apply), rate of pay, number of hours expected (even for salary workers), and a start date.
It doesn't have to be expensive: Norway collects taxes in a way that means you basically fund your own vacation: The downside is that you don't get that money if you didn't work last year, but there is a push to fix that.
And I completely agree about scheduling: Employers should pay extra for changing a schedule in too short of a frame. Yes, this also means that everyone might get paid extra for releasing the schedule too late.
I'd also add that everyone should have the right to work contracts. At a minimum, it'd state how to break the contract (fair notice, both sides, exceptions apply), rate of pay, number of hours expected (even for salary workers), and a start date.
[deleted]
> UBI means that anyone who's able to live frugally may, at any time, retire
Will never happen: a soon as it starts rolling to a significant number of people, the minimal rent set by landlords will be the amount of UBI. In addition to its other issues, it can't work in a market where landlords can freely set their rents.
Will never happen: a soon as it starts rolling to a significant number of people, the minimal rent set by landlords will be the amount of UBI. In addition to its other issues, it can't work in a market where landlords can freely set their rents.
>Will never happen: a soon as it starts rolling to a significant number of people, the minimal rent set by landlords will be the amount of UBI.
https://old.reddit.com/r/VanDwellers
There are plenty of country towns that are rapidly emptying due to lack of jobs, and literally offer to sell you a house for $1 if you commit to living in it (and maintaining it) for a year. An awful lot of small towns are desperate for new residents.
There's no actual housing shortage. There's a shortage of housing near the jobs.
But even if that's not the case, riddle me this: how much does rural land cost? An average of ~$3000/acre in the USA (an acre is 4046sqm). Source: https://www.landsoar.com/acre-of-land-cost/
If landlords increase the cost of rent, people will just build cheap houses in cheap areas.
https://old.reddit.com/r/VanDwellers
There are plenty of country towns that are rapidly emptying due to lack of jobs, and literally offer to sell you a house for $1 if you commit to living in it (and maintaining it) for a year. An awful lot of small towns are desperate for new residents.
There's no actual housing shortage. There's a shortage of housing near the jobs.
But even if that's not the case, riddle me this: how much does rural land cost? An average of ~$3000/acre in the USA (an acre is 4046sqm). Source: https://www.landsoar.com/acre-of-land-cost/
If landlords increase the cost of rent, people will just build cheap houses in cheap areas.
Landlords' bargaining power goes down a lot once people don't have to live somewhere where there are jobs available.
On the other hand: with UBI even the landlords in the middle of nowhere can demand higher rent, since everyone now has a spare $1000 per month
Laws of economy are like laws of physics: you cannot cheat them. All the UBI will do is it will raise the nominal prices of everything, but no poor person will be better off because of it.
Small scale experiments on UBI are successful only because they are small scale, so they cannot affect economy at large. Once you make UBI truly universal the reality kicks in, and inflation eats it all.
Laws of economy are like laws of physics: you cannot cheat them. All the UBI will do is it will raise the nominal prices of everything, but no poor person will be better off because of it.
Small scale experiments on UBI are successful only because they are small scale, so they cannot affect economy at large. Once you make UBI truly universal the reality kicks in, and inflation eats it all.
> with UBI even the landlords in the middle of nowhere can demand higher rent
If that was happen it would only encourage people on UBI to buy the cheapest houses or by land to build. Not being bound to a location, they would be able to do so easily.
> All the UBI will do is it will raise the nominal prices of everything [...] inflation eats it all.
Plain false. UBI does not create new money out of nowhere.
If that was happen it would only encourage people on UBI to buy the cheapest houses or by land to build. Not being bound to a location, they would be able to do so easily.
> All the UBI will do is it will raise the nominal prices of everything [...] inflation eats it all.
Plain false. UBI does not create new money out of nowhere.
Of course UBI will create new money - how else are you going to finance it? Giving each adult American $1000 per month would cost at least $2.5 trillion. Let's assume that UBI replaces all other Social Security spending - that's currently $1.2T, so you are still $1.3T short. You cannot collect that much in new taxes.
Even assuming that you somehow manage to finance UBI with tax raises alone think about what you'll be doing: you would be moving money from the rich to the poor, which sounds good in theory, until you realize that rich people and corporations keep their money in financial assets. Now, the reason why all the FED money printing so far caused only mild inflation is because the money flew to financial markets. If you use taxes to redirect it to common people then you are doubly screwing them: you are crashing stock markets, ruining their 401(k) savings, and at the same time causing price inflation of everyday things.
Even assuming that you somehow manage to finance UBI with tax raises alone think about what you'll be doing: you would be moving money from the rich to the poor, which sounds good in theory, until you realize that rich people and corporations keep their money in financial assets. Now, the reason why all the FED money printing so far caused only mild inflation is because the money flew to financial markets. If you use taxes to redirect it to common people then you are doubly screwing them: you are crashing stock markets, ruining their 401(k) savings, and at the same time causing price inflation of everyday things.
> Of course UBI will create new money
Not at all. In a lot of countries it's not possible to arbitrarily create money out of nowhere.
Most proposed UBI implementation replace the existing welfare and a plethora of financial aids, programs and tax reliefs, leaving the overall tax rates roughly similar to the existing one.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_basic_income
Not at all. In a lot of countries it's not possible to arbitrarily create money out of nowhere.
Most proposed UBI implementation replace the existing welfare and a plethora of financial aids, programs and tax reliefs, leaving the overall tax rates roughly similar to the existing one.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_basic_income
> On the other hand: with UBI even the landlords in the middle of nowhere can demand higher rent, since everyone now has a spare $1000 per month
There are still no jobs there, so either those landlords keep the rent low enough that people can afford some kind of existence on UBI, or their houses stand empty (like they do at the moment). And competition would limit rent - on a national scale there is already a lot more housing than needed and the result is that rent is very low in flyover country, but people still can't afford to live there, whereas landlords in the cities that have jobs are currently a de facto oligopoly that can squeeze and squeeze.
> Laws of economy are like laws of physics: you cannot cheat them. All the UBI will do is it will raise the nominal prices of everything, but no poor person will be better off because of it.
At first order UBI is wealth transfer not wealth creation - the working poor will be better off, the middle/upper class will be worse off. At second order UBI unlocks a lot of real value that's currently a deadweight loss: people who could work for a few hours a week, but don't because that would lose them their benefits. It frees up the labour that's currently burned on complex benefit administration to be redirected to doing something productive instead. And by making it easier for people to change jobs, get training/education, or start a business, it increases labour efficiency.
There is no free lunch in economics, and if anyone tells you their policy will make people better off then you're right to ask where the brass tacks of that value creation actually lie. But UBI has some compelling answers.
There are still no jobs there, so either those landlords keep the rent low enough that people can afford some kind of existence on UBI, or their houses stand empty (like they do at the moment). And competition would limit rent - on a national scale there is already a lot more housing than needed and the result is that rent is very low in flyover country, but people still can't afford to live there, whereas landlords in the cities that have jobs are currently a de facto oligopoly that can squeeze and squeeze.
> Laws of economy are like laws of physics: you cannot cheat them. All the UBI will do is it will raise the nominal prices of everything, but no poor person will be better off because of it.
At first order UBI is wealth transfer not wealth creation - the working poor will be better off, the middle/upper class will be worse off. At second order UBI unlocks a lot of real value that's currently a deadweight loss: people who could work for a few hours a week, but don't because that would lose them their benefits. It frees up the labour that's currently burned on complex benefit administration to be redirected to doing something productive instead. And by making it easier for people to change jobs, get training/education, or start a business, it increases labour efficiency.
There is no free lunch in economics, and if anyone tells you their policy will make people better off then you're right to ask where the brass tacks of that value creation actually lie. But UBI has some compelling answers.
That dynamic only really works when the supply is fixed. Many places don't restrict the supply of building more, or denser, homes the way the big coastal cities foolishly prefer.
As demand and prices rise, supply will to rise to meet it, if not physically or legally constrained.
As demand and prices rise, supply will to rise to meet it, if not physically or legally constrained.
It's true locally but you can always move away so it is not a global problem.
The bigger problem is that you have to punish working people with an income tax that funds the UBI. In most cases taxation is basically a punishment for bad behavior. You can optimize taxes the same way you can optimize profits. Tax involving activities cut into profits, so they should be avoided, at least from the perspective of an accountant.
i.e. people don't stop working because they have money, they stop working because they get less money from work
The bigger problem is that you have to punish working people with an income tax that funds the UBI. In most cases taxation is basically a punishment for bad behavior. You can optimize taxes the same way you can optimize profits. Tax involving activities cut into profits, so they should be avoided, at least from the perspective of an accountant.
i.e. people don't stop working because they have money, they stop working because they get less money from work
Where I live it is reasonably common to have housing co-ops in larger towns and cities. Rent is much more affordable because their goal is sustainability, not profit extraction.
Ubi will only allow people to retire if it's a substantial amount. Can society really afford that right now?
Will this increase the number of houses available? I think the opposite.
But in places where they've ignored the nay sayers and decided to raise minimum wage, the "likely real effect" you mention didn't happen. In fact, small businesses did great because poor people (who actually spend money) could afford to go to them. I'm surprised this argument against raising it still lingers after real life studies have been done.
> The cost of rent and everything in the market goes up with the tide.
Exactly. This is what happened in France with the allocations logement (APL). Since the state was now funding a part (let's say 150€ over 400€ rent), what the landlords did was rising the rents by about the same amount. Results were net negatives:
1. Purchasing power of student didn't change
2. Rent augmented for everyone in the segment of housing that could be rent to students
3. Rich people get richer
Exactly. This is what happened in France with the allocations logement (APL). Since the state was now funding a part (let's say 150€ over 400€ rent), what the landlords did was rising the rents by about the same amount. Results were net negatives:
1. Purchasing power of student didn't change
2. Rent augmented for everyone in the segment of housing that could be rent to students
3. Rich people get richer
Rent gouging only works if people are limited in where they rent. If you don't need a job, then you don't need to live near your job and can instead live wherever the rent is cheapest.
Which is usually a small shrinking country town where people are leaving because there are no jobs.
Which is usually a small shrinking country town where people are leaving because there are no jobs.
Housing is often a sellers market. If you can find a place where it isn't you get to save money.
This complaint is actually part of the core economic thesis put forwards in the lyrics of the most popular punk song in Sweden[1], written in the mid 70s.
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P5vvrUrBuQQ
[1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P5vvrUrBuQQ
[deleted]
They don't rise though, at least not the same amount, as proven by places with much higher wages where things are not more expensive as a result.
> The middle class, and even moderately well off professionals, get a quality of life and pay CUT
I can't help but wonder if that isn't the actual goal.
I can't help but wonder if that isn't the actual goal.
[deleted]
Except that basic income is a flat amount, and taxes are progressive and %. Thus, there's an equilibrium point. It doesn't cause some runaway inflation. It would also allow removing the minimum wage which would increase available low-skilled jobs.
Inflation won’t cancel out UBI because there are many people on this earth who spend more than UBI today.
In other words, the money spent every month in the US economy is much more than the money UBI would add.
It’s true that there would be inflation but it would not cancel the full effect.
In other words, the money spent every month in the US economy is much more than the money UBI would add.
It’s true that there would be inflation but it would not cancel the full effect.
> The level of the tide rises
Precisely. People are trying to treat the symptoms of inflation by throwing money (UBI) at the problem. The problem isn't that people don't have enough money; the problem is that the cost of living has become less and less affordable. The solution is to reduce the cost of living by offering people basic affordable alternatives - not giving people more money to afford housing, but helping the price of housing reduce over time (a process that, if it were entirely handled by the private sector, we would call commoditization and hail as a success). Not by giving people more money to spend on K-12 education, but by making K-12 education free (wait... we already did that one). If we give people more money (Pell grants for university degrees), the price just spirals out of control.
Treat the problem, not the symptoms.
Precisely. People are trying to treat the symptoms of inflation by throwing money (UBI) at the problem. The problem isn't that people don't have enough money; the problem is that the cost of living has become less and less affordable. The solution is to reduce the cost of living by offering people basic affordable alternatives - not giving people more money to afford housing, but helping the price of housing reduce over time (a process that, if it were entirely handled by the private sector, we would call commoditization and hail as a success). Not by giving people more money to spend on K-12 education, but by making K-12 education free (wait... we already did that one). If we give people more money (Pell grants for university degrees), the price just spirals out of control.
Treat the problem, not the symptoms.
So rent control / social housing (like council houses in the UK) combined with ubi?
The boats don't have to change spots in order to stay afloat.
Yep, I used to work for my country's social security department, and personally moved from "stealing to survive" to "getting by on social security" to "it's a shit job that pays shit, but it's better than the dole" to eventually a comfortable low six figures salary.
And it sucks whenever you approach the edge of the assistance thresholds.
I was always grateful for the assistance, but it was always stressful when you were in the "just over the threshold" area.
And when I was working with people receiving assistance, managing that transition was critical in getting people into work.
I used to phrase it as "yep, you're only going to earn $20 a week more than the dole working fulltime in this job, but in three years, if you stayed on the dole, you'd still only be on the dole. Odds are you'll be doing far better after 3 years of working."
Policy makers are trying to minimise the impact of them, but people not receiving assistance expect those who are to be subject to strong limits.
And it sucks whenever you approach the edge of the assistance thresholds.
I was always grateful for the assistance, but it was always stressful when you were in the "just over the threshold" area.
And when I was working with people receiving assistance, managing that transition was critical in getting people into work.
I used to phrase it as "yep, you're only going to earn $20 a week more than the dole working fulltime in this job, but in three years, if you stayed on the dole, you'd still only be on the dole. Odds are you'll be doing far better after 3 years of working."
Policy makers are trying to minimise the impact of them, but people not receiving assistance expect those who are to be subject to strong limits.
As someone who’d be paying rather than receiving these benefits, I’d much rather there be a smooth curve that scales down benefits aligned with income, but anything that creates a sharp distinctive to be productive offends me a lot more than spending a few extra hundred dollars per net tax payer.
A year ago, I would have agreed with this in its entirety. Today, I still agree with most of it, but I disagree with the last paragraph. If basic income isn't enough to survive on, then you'll still need some other services and so you'll still have the funding cliff. But if it is enough to survive on, then too many people who are capable of working will choose to instead just survive on it indefinitely.
> But if it is enough to survive on, then too many people who are capable of working will choose to instead just survive on it indefinitely.
So what? I would argue that most people want to feel purpose in life. If they don’t work, they want to do something else to feel fulfilled, something to be looked up to for, something to feel good about doing. It could be art, a sport, maybe just gardening, picking up trash in their neighborhood or organizing local events/classes. Most retired people don’t just sit in front of the tv waiting to die, or become criminals because they don’t have a job.
I think it would be amazing if most people didn’t have to work for a living. And only the people that want to work did so.
So what? I would argue that most people want to feel purpose in life. If they don’t work, they want to do something else to feel fulfilled, something to be looked up to for, something to feel good about doing. It could be art, a sport, maybe just gardening, picking up trash in their neighborhood or organizing local events/classes. Most retired people don’t just sit in front of the tv waiting to die, or become criminals because they don’t have a job.
I think it would be amazing if most people didn’t have to work for a living. And only the people that want to work did so.
I appreciate the moonshot thinking, but I don’t think this is a realistic framework for human civilization. We already live in a society in which not everyone contributes (rich and poor), and it’s problematic. Inequality and resentment are inevitable when some contribute (or feel like they contribute) more than others. I think humans are generally not evil, but we are also quite fickle. I think you’re describing the dystopia of The Hunger Games from the perspective of a Capitol resident. :)
> We already live in a society in which not everyone contributes (rich and poor), and it’s problematic.
There is more than enough wealth to feed and house everyone, so the issue is not of contribution, but distribution.
And boy oh boy, are things badly distributed. Look at the graphs of worker productivity compared to average wage for the last hundred years - they are staggering.
There is more than enough wealth to feed and house everyone, so the issue is not of contribution, but distribution.
And boy oh boy, are things badly distributed. Look at the graphs of worker productivity compared to average wage for the last hundred years - they are staggering.
>I appreciate the moonshot thinking, but I don’t think this is a realistic framework for human civilization. We already live in a society in which not everyone contributes (rich and poor), and it’s problematic.
That's right - "the idle rich" is not just a saying.
That's right - "the idle rich" is not just a saying.
> Most retired people don’t just sit in front of the tv waiting to die
Citation? I'd like you to be right, but my subjective experience is that a lot of them pretty much do.
Citation? I'd like you to be right, but my subjective experience is that a lot of them pretty much do.
I had a great-grandmother that kept very, very busy after retiring until dementia took over: The other great grandmother complained at 95+ that her knees wouldn't work well enough to keep busy. And this is how folks that feel fairly healthy tend to be, as long as they have enough money. Don't get me wrong: Pretty much everyone slows down when they age, and a lot of mundane tasks can easily get more difficult or take more time - but folks are still busy with a full life.
And then you start hitting a sliding scale, and poor health, poverty, lack of transportation and/or wheelchair access, and a slew of other things makes it really easy to wind up being the person that sits at home. The other unfortunate reality is that some of the folks are sitting because they are dying. I've not yet died, but I suspect it tires you.
I also don't think this is a trend that will stay: I'm 42, and I have a completely different relationship to television than my mother. Unlike her, I rarely sit down and simply watch a show - and I know lots of folks like this. Games and hobbies and communication with others and all this other stuff is going on. And assuming we can still use our fingers and wrists well enough, I think this will stay.
And then you start hitting a sliding scale, and poor health, poverty, lack of transportation and/or wheelchair access, and a slew of other things makes it really easy to wind up being the person that sits at home. The other unfortunate reality is that some of the folks are sitting because they are dying. I've not yet died, but I suspect it tires you.
I also don't think this is a trend that will stay: I'm 42, and I have a completely different relationship to television than my mother. Unlike her, I rarely sit down and simply watch a show - and I know lots of folks like this. Games and hobbies and communication with others and all this other stuff is going on. And assuming we can still use our fingers and wrists well enough, I think this will stay.
What you're describing isn't real life.
Living as a species takes work - granting a portion of the population to essentially become dead weight, with entitlement to being able to live off the fruits of other peoples labor won't end well.
Living as a species takes work - granting a portion of the population to essentially become dead weight, with entitlement to being able to live off the fruits of other peoples labor won't end well.
This is what we have now, is it not? The ultra-rich aren't numerous and many of them hide well, but this is what they're doing and the amount of wealth they seem to hoard (and be continually acquiring) is a lot more than the wealth needed to provide for the bottom. The less rich (but still very rich) who do still choose to work are similarly siphoning off large amounts from the backs of others. They are very skilled at getting the majority of the population to look the other way and blame poor people (and the other usual suspects), but as you suggest, they can't hide forever.
If that won't end well, I genuinely look forwards to seeing how we deal with them.
If that won't end well, I genuinely look forwards to seeing how we deal with them.
the ultra-rich built amazon, made very profitable trades, or inherited the labor of the ancestors. Also, you seems to be applying that there is a fixed pie wealth. The rich can create wealth where there wasn't before. Rob the rich and give to the poor is also a terrible strategy.
inherited the labor of the ancestors
Bingo. They didn't do shit to deserve it, they didn't work hard, and there's an entire industry of smart, morally ambiguous people dedicated to helping them hide it and keep it, and (as Abigail Disney discusses) convincing them that they deserve it, that poor people would simply waste it.
granting a portion of the population to essentially become dead weight, with entitlement to being able to live off the fruits of other peoples labor won't end well Well, there they are, doing just that.
Once you get to a certain amount of wealth, you don't need to do anything. Smart trades? None of that's needed. I'm a tiny little part of it; I work full-time, but once my personal wealth reached about six times my salary, it made more money each year than I did. Six times [0]. That is pennies in the big scheme of things. There's nothing smart about my trades; dull funds and diversity. Piketty was on to something; Bill Gates made more money from being rich than he ever did from Microsoft. Maybe he deserved all his riches from Microsoft, but does he now also deserve to sit back, do nothing, and perpetually watch his wealth grow more and more obscenely by taking a part of the wealth generated by people actually working? How about his Grandchildren? Do they deserve that? Young was right; meritocracy is what we've got, and this is what it does - the rich shall inherit the earth.
Also, you seems to be applying that there is a fixed pie wealth.
I disagree. I made no such "application", as you put it. Implying, I guess you mean, but I still disagree. There is not a fixed pie wealth. Every day, a lot of people are creating more and more wealth, and the very wealthy every day sit back and rake in a nice helping of it for themselves. As I also do, and I'm not remotely near very wealthy.
Rob the rich and give to the poor is also a terrible strategy.
How about "make them at least pay taxes like the poor schlubs generating the wealth they're perpetually helping themselves to?" Is that a better strategy? How about "alter the system a bit so that labour pays better than simply being rich, or at least benefits the labourer ahead of the rich?" That one probably sounds like batshit crazy communist land.
[0] It's ridiculous, but it's true. I don't do calls, I don't do puts, most of it is in dull index funds and a big chunk of the rest is in slightly less dull fund offerings from Baillie Gifford and the like. Once you get some capital, it will happily act like a leech on society, siphoning off wealth generated by other people's work into your own pocket. I ride on the very, very long tail of this system set up to benefit the rich; I only hope that I die before their endless squeeze catches up with me as well.
Bingo. They didn't do shit to deserve it, they didn't work hard, and there's an entire industry of smart, morally ambiguous people dedicated to helping them hide it and keep it, and (as Abigail Disney discusses) convincing them that they deserve it, that poor people would simply waste it.
granting a portion of the population to essentially become dead weight, with entitlement to being able to live off the fruits of other peoples labor won't end well Well, there they are, doing just that.
Once you get to a certain amount of wealth, you don't need to do anything. Smart trades? None of that's needed. I'm a tiny little part of it; I work full-time, but once my personal wealth reached about six times my salary, it made more money each year than I did. Six times [0]. That is pennies in the big scheme of things. There's nothing smart about my trades; dull funds and diversity. Piketty was on to something; Bill Gates made more money from being rich than he ever did from Microsoft. Maybe he deserved all his riches from Microsoft, but does he now also deserve to sit back, do nothing, and perpetually watch his wealth grow more and more obscenely by taking a part of the wealth generated by people actually working? How about his Grandchildren? Do they deserve that? Young was right; meritocracy is what we've got, and this is what it does - the rich shall inherit the earth.
Also, you seems to be applying that there is a fixed pie wealth.
I disagree. I made no such "application", as you put it. Implying, I guess you mean, but I still disagree. There is not a fixed pie wealth. Every day, a lot of people are creating more and more wealth, and the very wealthy every day sit back and rake in a nice helping of it for themselves. As I also do, and I'm not remotely near very wealthy.
Rob the rich and give to the poor is also a terrible strategy.
How about "make them at least pay taxes like the poor schlubs generating the wealth they're perpetually helping themselves to?" Is that a better strategy? How about "alter the system a bit so that labour pays better than simply being rich, or at least benefits the labourer ahead of the rich?" That one probably sounds like batshit crazy communist land.
[0] It's ridiculous, but it's true. I don't do calls, I don't do puts, most of it is in dull index funds and a big chunk of the rest is in slightly less dull fund offerings from Baillie Gifford and the like. Once you get some capital, it will happily act like a leech on society, siphoning off wealth generated by other people's work into your own pocket. I ride on the very, very long tail of this system set up to benefit the rich; I only hope that I die before their endless squeeze catches up with me as well.
you're right, wealth creates wealth. You lending money in the form of investment allows companies to borrow at better rates, expanding production and prosperity. & you're right, at a certain point when you have enough capital it doesn't make sense to be a laborer anymore as you can move markets enough with your cash to be an 'Investor' instead of a laborer.
Granted, obviously the current system is not perfect and does need a mechanism to make the rich pay their fair share in the economy. But saying all the rich just inherited their wealth and they did nothing to deserve it is plain incorrect.
Granted, obviously the current system is not perfect and does need a mechanism to make the rich pay their fair share in the economy. But saying all the rich just inherited their wealth and they did nothing to deserve it is plain incorrect.
> So what?
This is how the poor stay poor, and those who are "just broke" become poor. In fact, people who are working are much more likely to engage in other community activities and volunteer.
This is how the poor stay poor, and those who are "just broke" become poor. In fact, people who are working are much more likely to engage in other community activities and volunteer.
People stay poor because there is no opportunity for them to stop being poor by working. If they were poor voluntarily then we wouldn't have to give a damn about them as we already did everything possible.
If you gave a poor person the opportunity to become rich through work, would they still decide to stay poor?
When you are being rewarded for hard work it is hard to grasp the concept that some not all people are being rewarded for hard work. Pretty much every entrepreneur falls into that trap. Everything they do can have a direct impact to their bottom line so they work hard and long hours. Meanwhile they wonder why their employees with low wages that are often below planned minimum wage increases do the bare minimum to not get fired. It is pretty obvious. They are going on a silent strike as that is the last drip of their bargaining power. We then get lessons that the poor are poor because of laziness.
If you gave a poor person the opportunity to become rich through work, would they still decide to stay poor?
When you are being rewarded for hard work it is hard to grasp the concept that some not all people are being rewarded for hard work. Pretty much every entrepreneur falls into that trap. Everything they do can have a direct impact to their bottom line so they work hard and long hours. Meanwhile they wonder why their employees with low wages that are often below planned minimum wage increases do the bare minimum to not get fired. It is pretty obvious. They are going on a silent strike as that is the last drip of their bargaining power. We then get lessons that the poor are poor because of laziness.
>In fact, people who are working are much more likely to engage in other community activities and volunteer.
I can definitely say that people who are forced to work with capricious scheduling, or those that have to work more than one job just to survive are a lot less likely to do that.
I can definitely say that people who are forced to work with capricious scheduling, or those that have to work more than one job just to survive are a lot less likely to do that.
> I think it would be amazing if most people didn’t have to work for a living.
Who doesn't? But we are not in a post-scarcity economy.
Who doesn't? But we are not in a post-scarcity economy.
We aren't. We are merely in a buyers market for labor and a sellers market for housing which is squeezing workers.
"Enough to live on" isn't a great way to live, and I think people are plenty motivated by wanting a bit of discretionary spending.
That said, there are other potential problems with UBI, like incentivising anyone on it to move to the most affordable cities, which are often already suffering from unemployment and underemployment.
That said, there are other potential problems with UBI, like incentivising anyone on it to move to the most affordable cities, which are often already suffering from unemployment and underemployment.
Well isn't the point of ubi that people less people could work. Productivity with automation has never been higher and we still work ourselves to death for less pay. We need to take the path of increased automation anyway since we've got some sort of ubi for the elderly population already. Now it's a burden for the young people. If we could automate a lot of basic needs like food production and processing, construction, transport etc you would have unlimited near costless basic needs met and provide for the elderly. Then it would just be panem et circenses but a bit more advanced and without the slavery and the need for empire building like the romans but just technological advancement and automation.
Yes, if we could automate away all of our low-skill jobs, then UBI would make more sense. But we haven't done that yet, so it doesn't yet.
You've got it backwards - low-skill jobs are done manually because low-skill labour is cheap. Low-skill labour is cheap because most people in it literally can't afford to not work.
We don't need to automate away all our low-skill jobs: we could just pay the workers more. Most workers are paid well below the actual value of their productivity because they have a crappy BATNA, and there's no need for employers to pay much higher than the worker's BATNA.
The more you pay the workers, the more profit in a machine that can replace min-wage workers, and the sooner a machine will be cheaper than the well-paid workers.
You've got it backwards.
We don't need to automate away all our low-skill jobs: we could just pay the workers more. Most workers are paid well below the actual value of their productivity because they have a crappy BATNA, and there's no need for employers to pay much higher than the worker's BATNA.
The more you pay the workers, the more profit in a machine that can replace min-wage workers, and the sooner a machine will be cheaper than the well-paid workers.
You've got it backwards.
There is an argument that low wages hold automation back by reducing cost pressure to automate, therefore UBI, since it would increase the cost of low-skill workers, would spur automation in that sector.
I think it's a simple, logical argument, but I'm not sure if it would survive a collision with reality^^
I think it's a simple, logical argument, but I'm not sure if it would survive a collision with reality^^
At the risk of sounding dumb: I agree fully with UBI and automating away menial jobs that don't bring people fulfillment. But what happens once we've done that? Do the top .1% just own all of the automation equipment and thus most of the industries? Do we need some way to commoditize that aspect then, (seize the means of automation?)?
It's super hard to wrap one's head around this future where we have the challenge of preventing a few very rich from owning literally everything IMO
> But if it is enough to survive on, then too many people who are capable of working will choose to instead just survive on it indefinitely.
If this turned out to be true, perhaps this says more about contemporary society than human nature. The tendency to offer low wages to replaceable workers, to force people into taking multiple jobs in order to survive, and to dictate a lower social status to some of the most essential roles in human society is bound to taint some people's impressions of work.
If this turned out to be true, perhaps this says more about contemporary society than human nature. The tendency to offer low wages to replaceable workers, to force people into taking multiple jobs in order to survive, and to dictate a lower social status to some of the most essential roles in human society is bound to taint some people's impressions of work.
I don't get it. Why the concern about what other people decide to do? They already get to live their lives without consulting us.
The biggest roadblock to improving the standard of living of most people in America, is this suspicious impulse folks have of suspecting somebody might 'get away' with something. It's time to recognize this unworthy impulse and discard it.
The biggest roadblock to improving the standard of living of most people in America, is this suspicious impulse folks have of suspecting somebody might 'get away' with something. It's time to recognize this unworthy impulse and discard it.
The thing that bothers me is the presumption of laziness. There are plenty of people who are willing to work long and hard, yet are disenchanted with the exploitative nature of work as it stands today. Just think of all of the people who would like to start their own businesses or work for themselves[0], yet cannot afford to do so or cannot afford to absorb the risk.
Part of the reason may be the implicit lessons we receive from a very young age. We must always be cautious of people who try to take advantage of us. It is a valuable less, because it is true, yet we seem to take it the wrong way. Rather than dealing with the criminal, the people who would defraud us, we treat everyone as criminal.
[0] There is a particular group of peoples in my country who are often portrayed as being lazy or exploiting the system. In many, if not most, cases this prejudice is just plain wrong. Since many of those people live outside of the system, they perform types of work that many of us would not even consider: hunting for their own food (and everything that involves), cutting their own fuel wood, hauling their own garbage to the dump, and much more. None of that work involves a paycheck, so it doesn't count. That attitude is just plain wrong. (Not to mention the other problems with prejudices, such as it discounting those who do function within the rest of western society.)
Part of the reason may be the implicit lessons we receive from a very young age. We must always be cautious of people who try to take advantage of us. It is a valuable less, because it is true, yet we seem to take it the wrong way. Rather than dealing with the criminal, the people who would defraud us, we treat everyone as criminal.
[0] There is a particular group of peoples in my country who are often portrayed as being lazy or exploiting the system. In many, if not most, cases this prejudice is just plain wrong. Since many of those people live outside of the system, they perform types of work that many of us would not even consider: hunting for their own food (and everything that involves), cutting their own fuel wood, hauling their own garbage to the dump, and much more. None of that work involves a paycheck, so it doesn't count. That attitude is just plain wrong. (Not to mention the other problems with prejudices, such as it discounting those who do function within the rest of western society.)
> too many people who are capable of working will choose to instead just survive on it indefinitely
So? We should have make-work jobs and force people to do them as punishment for being poor? Forcing people to go and do a menial job that doesn't really need doing just because you think it's character building is not a good way to run a healthy society.
So? We should have make-work jobs and force people to do them as punishment for being poor? Forcing people to go and do a menial job that doesn't really need doing just because you think it's character building is not a good way to run a healthy society.
Most unskilled jobs today are not "make-work" and do need doing.
In India, there's a job creation program that guarantees a paid job to anyone who wants it:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Rural_Employment_Guar...
Unsurprisingly, most of the job is the "dig a ditch today, fill it in tomorrow" variety.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Rural_Employment_Guar...
Unsurprisingly, most of the job is the "dig a ditch today, fill it in tomorrow" variety.
We could let them build housing like the Chinese do but houses need more than just labor. They need materials. Wasting the materials to build a ghost town can backfire.
Subsidizing salaries for private jobs may backfire through corruption.
So digging the hole and filling it back it is.
Subsidizing salaries for private jobs may backfire through corruption.
So digging the hole and filling it back it is.
If there's so few real jobs in India that that program actually makes sense to have, then maybe UBI does make sense there. But there's plenty of unfilled jobs in the US, so UBI doesn't make sense here.
> there’s plenty of unfilled jobs in the US, so UBI doesn’t make sense here.
The point of UBI is to make it easier to fill productive jobs by (1) reducing the marginal disincentive to work posed by the funding structure of means-tested welfare, and (2) putting a bunch of people back into looking for productive jobs who are currently working in government welfare bureaucracy doing jobs that duplicate functions performed in the tax bureaucracy and/or serve the nonproductive purpose of maximizing the disincentive to additional work by welfare recipients.
The point of UBI is to make it easier to fill productive jobs by (1) reducing the marginal disincentive to work posed by the funding structure of means-tested welfare, and (2) putting a bunch of people back into looking for productive jobs who are currently working in government welfare bureaucracy doing jobs that duplicate functions performed in the tax bureaucracy and/or serve the nonproductive purpose of maximizing the disincentive to additional work by welfare recipients.
The rapidity with which they're being replaced by stupid kiosks and robots in countries with strong minimum wage laws says otherwise.
> But if it is enough to survive on, then too many people who are capable of working will choose to instead just survive on it indefinitely.
This is one of the main benefits, if not the main benefit, of UBI. Someone’s survival is finally not dependent on working!
Right now, shitty jobs pay crap, because people have to take some job or starve. If you took away the starve part, millions of people no longer have to put up with a shitty job. If it really had to be done, the employer would be forced to raise the wage in order to attract people to voluntarily take the job. If UBI took care of everyone’s basic needs, then wages would have to rise to make it worth it to do a now-optional job. Would you flip burgers for minimum wage if UBI allowed you to live in an apartment and eat? I wouldn’t, but I might do it for $40k/yr extra over UBI.
This is a major goal of UBI, not a failure case.
This is one of the main benefits, if not the main benefit, of UBI. Someone’s survival is finally not dependent on working!
Right now, shitty jobs pay crap, because people have to take some job or starve. If you took away the starve part, millions of people no longer have to put up with a shitty job. If it really had to be done, the employer would be forced to raise the wage in order to attract people to voluntarily take the job. If UBI took care of everyone’s basic needs, then wages would have to rise to make it worth it to do a now-optional job. Would you flip burgers for minimum wage if UBI allowed you to live in an apartment and eat? I wouldn’t, but I might do it for $40k/yr extra over UBI.
This is a major goal of UBI, not a failure case.
>But if it is enough to survive on, then too many people who are capable of working will choose to instead just survive on it indefinitely.
And why is that a problem? I see it as a net benefit. The only people working will be those that want to work, and in my opinion it will reduce all the posturing and politics that go on in a workplace because people don't want to be there.
And why is that a problem? I see it as a net benefit. The only people working will be those that want to work, and in my opinion it will reduce all the posturing and politics that go on in a workplace because people don't want to be there.
> The only people working will be those that want to work
and there wouldn't be enough of them to support the remaining.
The "funding" of UBI have to come from a technological advance, such as effectively free energy, which powers automation in such a way that owners of these resources would not miss a small tax to pay for the bare minimum UBI.
and there wouldn't be enough of them to support the remaining.
The "funding" of UBI have to come from a technological advance, such as effectively free energy, which powers automation in such a way that owners of these resources would not miss a small tax to pay for the bare minimum UBI.
> then too many people who are capable of working will choose to instead just survive on it indefinitely.
Is this actually true? I feel like the research I've seen about this is mixed at best, and we really don't know if (meaningfully) fewer people would work if they didn't have to just to get by.
Intuitively it may sound nice, but I wouldn't be surprised if there was a counterbalancing force at play, namely human curiosity and desire to do more than just, "get by".
Is this actually true? I feel like the research I've seen about this is mixed at best, and we really don't know if (meaningfully) fewer people would work if they didn't have to just to get by.
Intuitively it may sound nice, but I wouldn't be surprised if there was a counterbalancing force at play, namely human curiosity and desire to do more than just, "get by".
> If basic income isn’t enough to survive on, then you’ll still need some other services and so you’ll still have the funding cliff. But if it is enough to survive on, then too many people who are capable of working will choose to instead just survive on it indefinitely.
If it maxes out approximately where current means-tested welfare does, then it will be at a place where you wouldn’t need additional programs to acheive the same level of living possible for those with no outside income under current means-tested welfare. If, as UBI rather than means tested welfare, it also didn’t face the strong disincentive to additional income posed by the current “funding-cliff” effect of means-tested welfare, the obvious effect would be more people working who would under the current system be welfare-dependent, not less.
Your analysis seems to be comparing it to a no-welfare position, but that’s not the system it is replacing.
If it maxes out approximately where current means-tested welfare does, then it will be at a place where you wouldn’t need additional programs to acheive the same level of living possible for those with no outside income under current means-tested welfare. If, as UBI rather than means tested welfare, it also didn’t face the strong disincentive to additional income posed by the current “funding-cliff” effect of means-tested welfare, the obvious effect would be more people working who would under the current system be welfare-dependent, not less.
Your analysis seems to be comparing it to a no-welfare position, but that’s not the system it is replacing.
Survive. Not thrive. If someone is inclined to make it work on so minimal an amount even when able to make more, they won't be useful at a job anyway.
I'm a fan of UBI, but I don't think this cliff phenomenon is an argument for it; it's an argument for gradual phase-outs instead of cliffs.
Gradual phase-outs are better than cliffs.
That said, losing e.g. $5 of benefits per $10 you earn plus an income tax of e.g. 10% is the same as a marginal tax rate of 60% in terms of distorting the market. Flatter cliffs are less distortionary, and a UBI is what what happens when you take that concept to its limit.
That said, losing e.g. $5 of benefits per $10 you earn plus an income tax of e.g. 10% is the same as a marginal tax rate of 60% in terms of distorting the market. Flatter cliffs are less distortionary, and a UBI is what what happens when you take that concept to its limit.
> I’m a fan of UBI, but I don’t think this cliff phenomenon is an argument for it
Yes it is. In fact, its the central argument advanced by advocates on both the left and right who have advocated UBI (or the equivalent-policy-under-a-different-name of "negative income tax".)
> it’s an argument for gradual phase-outs instead of cliffs.
Gradual phase-out (through the effect of income taxes, at the marginal tax rate set by the earned income) instead of cliffs (through traditional means-tested funding mechanism) is the central point of UBI.
If you are a “fan of UBI” and you don’t understands UBIs central function and motivation, what is it exactly you are a fan of?
Yes it is. In fact, its the central argument advanced by advocates on both the left and right who have advocated UBI (or the equivalent-policy-under-a-different-name of "negative income tax".)
> it’s an argument for gradual phase-outs instead of cliffs.
Gradual phase-out (through the effect of income taxes, at the marginal tax rate set by the earned income) instead of cliffs (through traditional means-tested funding mechanism) is the central point of UBI.
If you are a “fan of UBI” and you don’t understands UBIs central function and motivation, what is it exactly you are a fan of?
I think the point is that gradual phase out instead of cliffs does not require UBI. It's a feature of UBI, but it can be done without UBI too.
> I think the point is that gradual phase out instead of cliffs does not require UBI.
Yeah, UBI is just “gradual phaseout” plus “eliminate duplication of function between the multiple welfare bureaucracies and between th aggregt of them and the tax bureaucracy”.
You can in principal do the first without the second, if you have a strong ideological devotion to government waste, but since switching to a gradual phase-out, ceteris paribus, increases the cost for any given level of support for those most in need, realizing available efficiencies at the same time is kind of important for practicality.
Yeah, UBI is just “gradual phaseout” plus “eliminate duplication of function between the multiple welfare bureaucracies and between th aggregt of them and the tax bureaucracy”.
You can in principal do the first without the second, if you have a strong ideological devotion to government waste, but since switching to a gradual phase-out, ceteris paribus, increases the cost for any given level of support for those most in need, realizing available efficiencies at the same time is kind of important for practicality.
You probably don't know the half of it.
One of the things about public services in the US is that they are punitive in nature. They are designed to make you feel terrible about yourself and give you as big a hassle as possible.
If you're a low wage employee, you might need food stamps, cash assistance, housing assistance, child care assistance, and medical assistance. Every single one of those is a different government agency with a 9-5 schedule that doesn't do weekends or federal holidays.
Did your day care for your 2 kids forget to give you a form to fill out? Well then, when your child care has lapsed, have fun waiting 3-6 months for slots to open up. No, we don't care that you have a job which is why they're in daycare to begin with. Have fun with our antiquated automated service in which you wait 2 hours to talk to someone for 5 minutes in order to get a code to call back every week to check on the status of your case.
Rinse and repeat that for every state agency and program. Keeping up with state benefits is a 10 hour a week job if you have kids, and that's if everything is going okay.
On top of everything else, one of the reasons poor kids tend to have worse outcomes is because their parents are consistently stressed out from virtually every direction. If it's not the crappy job, it's the social services people. If it isn't the social services people, it's the stress of parenting adults.
One of the things about public services in the US is that they are punitive in nature. They are designed to make you feel terrible about yourself and give you as big a hassle as possible.
If you're a low wage employee, you might need food stamps, cash assistance, housing assistance, child care assistance, and medical assistance. Every single one of those is a different government agency with a 9-5 schedule that doesn't do weekends or federal holidays.
Did your day care for your 2 kids forget to give you a form to fill out? Well then, when your child care has lapsed, have fun waiting 3-6 months for slots to open up. No, we don't care that you have a job which is why they're in daycare to begin with. Have fun with our antiquated automated service in which you wait 2 hours to talk to someone for 5 minutes in order to get a code to call back every week to check on the status of your case.
Rinse and repeat that for every state agency and program. Keeping up with state benefits is a 10 hour a week job if you have kids, and that's if everything is going okay.
On top of everything else, one of the reasons poor kids tend to have worse outcomes is because their parents are consistently stressed out from virtually every direction. If it's not the crappy job, it's the social services people. If it isn't the social services people, it's the stress of parenting adults.
This is an argument for a lot of things - progressive support structures, a robust social safety net run by people who know what they're doing as opposed of bureaucrats, maybe even against full-time employment earning you less than food stamp levels of income. But even as a supporter of UBI I don't see how this is an argument for that unless you ignore 5 or 6 other, simpler fixes.
It is an argument for economic reforms. Whether that means UBI or something else is another matter. There is a good thread here about UBI and it’s pros and cons so I will mention another possible avenue: improve worker ownership in the means of production. My favorite incarnation of this is that proposed by Richard Wolff: make the necessary changes so that a sizable fraction of the firms in the economy are cooperatives. Specifically cooperatives where the workers in the firm are also in control of the firm and it’s direction.
With control of the firm, they can vote for certain benefits at no direct cost, and thus don’t need as much cash.
Now UBI and worker ownership of the means of production can be combined, but I thought I’d mention the latter as a possible alternative solution to be considered when talking about solving structural economic problems.
With control of the firm, they can vote for certain benefits at no direct cost, and thus don’t need as much cash.
Now UBI and worker ownership of the means of production can be combined, but I thought I’d mention the latter as a possible alternative solution to be considered when talking about solving structural economic problems.
Alternatively, the benefit can be on a decreasing curve / phased out to prevent these cliff situations?
> Alternatively, the benefit can be on a decreasing curve / phased out to prevent these cliff situations?
That’s not an alternative to UBI, that’s what UBI (in a system which has income taxes) is. The marginal income tax rate provides the phased reduction in effective benefits.
That’s not an alternative to UBI, that’s what UBI (in a system which has income taxes) is. The marginal income tax rate provides the phased reduction in effective benefits.
That’s better, but still inefficient. One example is a minimum guaranteed income. There is no cliff, but it removes the financial incentive to work more or find a better job for people earning below the threshold.
The conspiracy theory is that it's to deliberately keep people poor and suffering. Hanlon's razor and all, but it's hard to come up with another justification.
Anyone work in government or know a lot about the relevant history? Is there a good reason why it works like this?
Anyone work in government or know a lot about the relevant history? Is there a good reason why it works like this?
It disincentivizes people to ask for raises. That's a feature if you run a business.
I'm skeptical of the idea that it was accidental.
I'm skeptical of the idea that it was accidental.
Isn’t a cliff simply a ramp with infinite slope? I would suspect the problem is that if we can’t tune something as simple as a step function correctly (which is just an x intercept), it seems even less likely we would be able to tune a ramp (more variables - x intercept and a slope, and that’s assuming it should even be linear instead of e.g. quadratic).
> Isn’t a cliff simply a ramp with infinite slope? I would suspect the problem is that if we can’t tune something as simple as a step function correctly (which is just an x intercept), it seems even less likely we would be able to tune a ramp (more variables - x intercept and a slope, and that’s assuming it should even be linear instead of e.g. quadratic).
One of the challenges of tuning means-tested welfare phase-outs is that means-tested welfare consists of dozens of different programs, most of which have additional qualifications besides the means test, governed by different levels of government, often with different definitions of what income counts against the phaseout.
UBI makes that simpler by consolidation.
One of the challenges of tuning means-tested welfare phase-outs is that means-tested welfare consists of dozens of different programs, most of which have additional qualifications besides the means test, governed by different levels of government, often with different definitions of what income counts against the phaseout.
UBI makes that simpler by consolidation.
Something as simple as “for each $1.00 you earn above the eligibility threshold, this benefit will decrease by $0.50.” would do the trick.
For those close to the line, there would always be a benefit to accepting that slightly better job.
For those close to the line, there would always be a benefit to accepting that slightly better job.
Your comment prompted me to think basic income should supplement the difference between your salary and some acceptable wage for the locale -- specifically addressing housing, medical, and food. This would encourage people to have a job, even a "bad" one, and hopefully assuage the "free money" detractors.
I'm mostly scared they'll try to implement a home run solution, screw it up, and then retard society for the near future.
I'm mostly scared they'll try to implement a home run solution, screw it up, and then retard society for the near future.
I think I know exactly the right way to do a UBI, so I created a brief write-up. I'm interested in feedback:
https://m-davis.com/blog/?p=43
That is an argument for having a support system with a curve that is an always and anywhere differentiable, so that we don't get perverse cases like your niece (hope she is doing better now, btw).
I'm not pro UBI. But I did jot down a half baked thought not hugely long ago that we ought to dramatically reduce the barriers to food stamps for any and all Americans who want them.
hellnu(2)
This is what generally kills me about a lot of public policy in the US. I think people need to be helped and assisted when down and out without removing agency or deincentizing upward mobility. Too many policies create an awkward situation where you are incentivized to not work or improve your situation in the short term because you may actually worsen your financials by doing so. For example, if you are laid off you are better off just taking unemployment then taking a lower paid job until you find something more suitable.
Section 8 housing is also a great example of bad public policy. Since landlords are under no obligation to accept the vouchers, and even when landlords are they will find another reason not to accept the vouchers, it segregates poor people into specific apartment complexes that do accept the vouchers. These properties are usually terrible and not worth the market value cost. Years ago I lived in a very nice apartment that was cheaper and in much better condition than the apartments that accepted section 8 housing in my town.
Perhaps a universal basic income makes the most sense as it would provide choice without labeling someone as poor. I suspect this would simply lead to an increase in housing and commodity prices across the board, but at least people have the agency to decide what they need most. I also suspect it would be a much more efficient and effective form of public assistance.
Section 8 housing is also a great example of bad public policy. Since landlords are under no obligation to accept the vouchers, and even when landlords are they will find another reason not to accept the vouchers, it segregates poor people into specific apartment complexes that do accept the vouchers. These properties are usually terrible and not worth the market value cost. Years ago I lived in a very nice apartment that was cheaper and in much better condition than the apartments that accepted section 8 housing in my town.
Perhaps a universal basic income makes the most sense as it would provide choice without labeling someone as poor. I suspect this would simply lead to an increase in housing and commodity prices across the board, but at least people have the agency to decide what they need most. I also suspect it would be a much more efficient and effective form of public assistance.
The education is just as hard as the incentives. With a complicated system, it’s hard to get people to understand their incentives.
For example, I’ve known people who have turned down raises because it would put them into a higher tax bracket. They thought it would result in less money overall (which is not how it works, in case anyone reading finds themselves in this situation).
That’s a benefit of something like UBI. It’s easy to understand your incentives.
For example, I’ve known people who have turned down raises because it would put them into a higher tax bracket. They thought it would result in less money overall (which is not how it works, in case anyone reading finds themselves in this situation).
That’s a benefit of something like UBI. It’s easy to understand your incentives.
Yes, I agree. People do not have the time to learn all of the nuances of all of these complicated government policies. It is not that any of them are hard to understand, it is that no one has the bandwidth to worry about one more thing in their life. There is a reason most people pay hundreds if not thousands of dollars for someone else to do their taxes for them.
There was a complete lack of education about how taxes, governments, zoning, city planning, or any of that community type stuff in school when I went through it 30 years ago.
I do not see why kids cannot be taught how the system works, including marginal tax rates which is a one day lesson in 5th grade math.
I do not see why kids cannot be taught how the system works, including marginal tax rates which is a one day lesson in 5th grade math.
> I do not see why kids cannot be taught how the system works, including marginal tax rates which is a one day lesson in 5th grade math.
No government, more so democratic states, wants their citizenry to know and understand the system that subjugates them.
Think of all the things you learned after high school, then reflect on the things you were taught. Refer especially to the history of one's country. Now do you see?
No government, more so democratic states, wants their citizenry to know and understand the system that subjugates them.
Think of all the things you learned after high school, then reflect on the things you were taught. Refer especially to the history of one's country. Now do you see?
I grew up in the US and was taught very well about my country's history in public school, as far as I'm aware. Are you implying that non-democratic governments are somehow more transparent?
Yes, I wanted to avoid being cynical, but I did have that thought. Although, the US does do a decent job of making all this information available via the internet.
Slight tangent but I've always wondered what the economic impact would be if public transit were just free.
If there was no monetary nor mental overhead to getting around the city could that boost commerce enough to pay for it?
If there was no monetary nor mental overhead to getting around the city could that boost commerce enough to pay for it?
My understanding is that one of the serious practical downsides to free public transit in American cities is that lots of homeless people use it. This sounds silly (like, isn't that the goal?), but some fraction of those people are smelly and/or scary, and what tends to happen is that anyone who has a choice stops using those parts of the system. And then however one might feel about that outcome, what tends to happen next is that the transit system loses political support and funding.
There's probably a common sense solution somewhere that includes both free ridership and also fairly strong enforcement around loitering and hygeine, but I don't know if any city has managed to really nail it.
Incidentally, I think a lot of similar problems come up in cities that have free public bathrooms. A small number of abusers tend to make those bathrooms extremely unpleasant for everyone else.
There's probably a common sense solution somewhere that includes both free ridership and also fairly strong enforcement around loitering and hygeine, but I don't know if any city has managed to really nail it.
Incidentally, I think a lot of similar problems come up in cities that have free public bathrooms. A small number of abusers tend to make those bathrooms extremely unpleasant for everyone else.
Part of the problem is in being one of the only services that offers itself for free. If the homeless don't have ready access to showers and basic hygiene products, but do have ready access to public transit, then you get a lot of unhygenic people on public transit.
If homeless people do not have ready access to shelter, but do have ready access to public transit, then you get them spending time on public transit for the shelter it provides, which means they use it a lot more then they would if they were using it for transit. Public transit isn't even particularly good shelter, but since most places don't allow loitering (with selective enforcement against the undesirables), you again get them congregating on the few places that do.
If homeless people do not have ready access to shelter, but do have ready access to public transit, then you get them spending time on public transit for the shelter it provides, which means they use it a lot more then they would if they were using it for transit. Public transit isn't even particularly good shelter, but since most places don't allow loitering (with selective enforcement against the undesirables), you again get them congregating on the few places that do.
Another dynamic I've seen is the effect of every community doing it differently. I live in a community that leans a little more liberal and wealthy than many of the counties around it. For a period some 15 years ago, there was a real public outreach to do better. Facilities were added, taxes were raised a little, but it was mostly good at first. And then word got out that we were where the free stuff was at. This caused a spike in homeless immigration to the area, and then the system wasn't enough. This has led to a real reversal in public attitudes about this. The resources aren't infinite, and being nicer than your neighbors just creates a feedback loop that doesn't stabilize.
The tragedy of the commons in action.
> Part of the problem is in being one of the only services that offers itself for free.
It's worse than that imho.
I live somewhere that provides a fair bit of support and free services (e.g., transitional housing) for the homeless. That doesn't get rid of the homelessness, all it means is that the remaining people without access to shelter and showers are those that are generally incompatible with polite society for a variety of reasons. (Crime, severe drug abuse, severe mental illness, etc.)
Implementing it as "anyone can hop on wherever" implements a weak filter for the worst of the homeless population using it as shelter. Those who've been refused or kicked out of available shelter.
I could see it working more as a "free transit passes" program so they could be revoked and not re-issued for people that were going to cause ongoing issues in the same way someone that shows up to transitional housing and gets high and assaults other tenants and neighbours could be removed.
It's worse than that imho.
I live somewhere that provides a fair bit of support and free services (e.g., transitional housing) for the homeless. That doesn't get rid of the homelessness, all it means is that the remaining people without access to shelter and showers are those that are generally incompatible with polite society for a variety of reasons. (Crime, severe drug abuse, severe mental illness, etc.)
Implementing it as "anyone can hop on wherever" implements a weak filter for the worst of the homeless population using it as shelter. Those who've been refused or kicked out of available shelter.
I could see it working more as a "free transit passes" program so they could be revoked and not re-issued for people that were going to cause ongoing issues in the same way someone that shows up to transitional housing and gets high and assaults other tenants and neighbours could be removed.
“A fair bit of support and free services” != a home, so it should be unsurprising that the homeless remain. Getting a job that can afford a home is hard enough if you already have a home. Without a home at all, getting a job is just unrealistic.
You can say all you want about Castro, but he did in fact eliminate homelessness in Cuba.
You can say all you want about Castro, but he did in fact eliminate homelessness in Cuba.
> “A fair bit of support and free services” != a home
The city provides studio apartments with "daily meals, laundry, showers, housing application assistance, community and health service referrals, skills building, relationship building, connection to volunteer and employment opportunities, and other support services".
It's not a home, but it certainly means that the people availing themselves fully of the opportunities presented to them aren't unwelcome on transit because of their inability to maintain basic hygiene.
The city provides studio apartments with "daily meals, laundry, showers, housing application assistance, community and health service referrals, skills building, relationship building, connection to volunteer and employment opportunities, and other support services".
It's not a home, but it certainly means that the people availing themselves fully of the opportunities presented to them aren't unwelcome on transit because of their inability to maintain basic hygiene.
So the argument against an interesting idea that has been implemented successfully in some localities is that there is an unrelated problem (homelessness) that has also been addressed successfully in other places.
I agree that potential problems should always be anticipated. But if the conclusion is "well we have homelessness so we can't offer a service that will be taken advantage of by homeless people in unintended ways" we can just as well agree that everyone with a six figure income move into a gated community and leave the rest of society to THE PURGE.
The obvious conclusion for a self-respecting society should be "let's try free public transit and also throw money and mental health support at the homeless population until they don't exist any more."
I agree that potential problems should always be anticipated. But if the conclusion is "well we have homelessness so we can't offer a service that will be taken advantage of by homeless people in unintended ways" we can just as well agree that everyone with a six figure income move into a gated community and leave the rest of society to THE PURGE.
The obvious conclusion for a self-respecting society should be "let's try free public transit and also throw money and mental health support at the homeless population until they don't exist any more."
> But if the conclusion is "well we have homelessness so we can't offer a service that will be taken advantage of by homeless people in unintended ways"
The objection isn't that homeless people will use the service, it's that they'll effectively make it unusable by everyone else.
Yes, in an ideal world that wouldn't happen. But whether or not we should have homeless people, we do, so proposals need to take this reality into account. If you think you can "just fix" homelessness, then do that first and worry about transit after.
The objection isn't that homeless people will use the service, it's that they'll effectively make it unusable by everyone else.
Yes, in an ideal world that wouldn't happen. But whether or not we should have homeless people, we do, so proposals need to take this reality into account. If you think you can "just fix" homelessness, then do that first and worry about transit after.
I was just thinking about this when typing up a top level reply. If you make things free, sometimes people will abuse it or do weird things - for example, homeless people taking sponge baths in public library bathrooms. But I doubt homeless people would clean themselves in public libraries at the same frequency if they had convenient access to "public showers" or some such.
But there are a lot of wrinkles to this kind of thinking. What if there is access to shelter, but it imposes some kind of deal breaking restriction like no drug usage? Or no felons? Let's get even more controversial - what if the shelter bans sex offenders, should homeless sex offenders be forced to shower in libraries? Things get complicated, and a lot of politicians aren't willing to die on these hills when their housed constituents have strong emotional reactions to these things.
But there are a lot of wrinkles to this kind of thinking. What if there is access to shelter, but it imposes some kind of deal breaking restriction like no drug usage? Or no felons? Let's get even more controversial - what if the shelter bans sex offenders, should homeless sex offenders be forced to shower in libraries? Things get complicated, and a lot of politicians aren't willing to die on these hills when their housed constituents have strong emotional reactions to these things.
It's called the tragedy of the commons.
Nuh. None of those fix the problem. They just fix tiny issues around the problem.
The only way to reduce homeless is rebuild traditional value and traditional family structure. Less people get divorced, less kids get abandoned. People always get last resort from the big family and the church and family friends and church friends, etc.
Get help from the government and charity organizations should be rare cases.
But we are on the destructive path for a long time. Part of it is natural consequence of social change, but it's also partly due to some people think they are capable of design a new society from top to bottom.
The only way to reduce homeless is rebuild traditional value and traditional family structure. Less people get divorced, less kids get abandoned. People always get last resort from the big family and the church and family friends and church friends, etc.
Get help from the government and charity organizations should be rare cases.
But we are on the destructive path for a long time. Part of it is natural consequence of social change, but it's also partly due to some people think they are capable of design a new society from top to bottom.
Yeah, because 100 years ago there were not any tramps, hobos or bums.
> Less people get divorced, less kids get abandoned.
Afaik, most abandoned homeless kids are queers, most often trans. Then kids with behavioral issues (yes, stemming from crappy parents in the first place). I really dont understand how return to traditional values and family structure would improve either.
Afaik, most abandoned homeless kids are queers, most often trans. Then kids with behavioral issues (yes, stemming from crappy parents in the first place). I really dont understand how return to traditional values and family structure would improve either.
Many homeless person are facing a little more than a hygiene crisis and it's not something a few free baths around can fix and you don't need that many to ruin the premises of a free service
Back around WWII when most households didn't have warm running water here in Denmark, there were places where you could go and have a shower or a bath for a small fee. Would that be a possibility, or is that as untouchable politically as pay toilets?
I wonder if it's possible to have a multi-tier system where you have a free compartment but also a separate paid compartment with much higher standards (and prices).
The higher prices of the paid compartment would go towards subsidizing the free compartment.
The higher prices of the paid compartment would go towards subsidizing the free compartment.
In theory, I think is a good idea. An even better benefit in my mind is that it addresses the original articles complaint by providing a form of means testing without actually means testing. The free compartment is available to everyone weather they need it or not (that is to say, weather they can demonstrate in a satisfactory manner that they need it or not), however the people that don't actually need it will self-select out.
The problem is political. At least in the US, this approach would be opposed by both major political ideologies: the right because it is a government hand out, and the left because it is unfair to have a "poor" section of the bus (see the reaction to mixed income apartments having a separate section 8 entrance, or restricting the amenities that section 8 residents are allowed to use, which is essentially what you are proposing).
Further, the nature of bureaucracies in our economics system (be they for profit or government) is to prioritize profit centers at the expense of cost centers, so it would be difficult to maintain the "poor" compartment to an adequate level. Compounding on this is the fact that the poor and homeless tend to be the least politically powerful groups, and maintaining adequete funding for this scheme would be difficult,
The problem is political. At least in the US, this approach would be opposed by both major political ideologies: the right because it is a government hand out, and the left because it is unfair to have a "poor" section of the bus (see the reaction to mixed income apartments having a separate section 8 entrance, or restricting the amenities that section 8 residents are allowed to use, which is essentially what you are proposing).
Further, the nature of bureaucracies in our economics system (be they for profit or government) is to prioritize profit centers at the expense of cost centers, so it would be difficult to maintain the "poor" compartment to an adequate level. Compounding on this is the fact that the poor and homeless tend to be the least politically powerful groups, and maintaining adequete funding for this scheme would be difficult,
If the prices are too high, that could lead to issues where someone who b can't afford to regularly be taking it might not end up riding if the free compartment is regularly full even if the paid one never is. OTOH, I suppose it's also possible some people might not ride now due to prices but would be able to if there were a way to ride completely for free.
This sounds like a strange idea, but when I traveled in Europe, there were always first and second class carriages on the trains. You could do the same thing with transit. Every other bus is free. People could then choose between hanging out with the people for a few blocks, or paying for a ride.
What an innovative idea! Here in the states, economic indicators are a great proxy for many other aspects. Maybe we could do a trial in Montgomery, Alabama, surely nothing would go wrong.
It would be helpful to us non-US persons if you'd explain what signal you're proxying with "Montgomery, Alabama". As it is this means nothing to a large number of people reading your comment.
I think they are referring to Rosa Parks, where the economic difference would lead to segregation.
[deleted]
That's an incidental effect of not providing proper housing. Blaming homeless people for not having somewhere to go is like victim shaming. Giving homeless people homes is cheaper than not.
As the brother of a homeless person, many do have a place to go, but choose the homeless lifestyle. My brother moved to a big west coast city to be homeless. Cheaper housing there wouldn't have helped him.
Not everyone chooses to be homeless, so painting all homeless with one brush would be disingenuous.
For example, I know 6 sane, smarter-than-average, old guys who drift around the SF Bay Area mid-Peninsula region who don't drink or do drugs, but are poor and cannot afford housing on their own. 2 have managed to get accommodations, 1 by the COVID lockdown. That's 4 left looking for 24-hour coffee shops, laundromats, bus stops, and diners.
For example, I know 6 sane, smarter-than-average, old guys who drift around the SF Bay Area mid-Peninsula region who don't drink or do drugs, but are poor and cannot afford housing on their own. 2 have managed to get accommodations, 1 by the COVID lockdown. That's 4 left looking for 24-hour coffee shops, laundromats, bus stops, and diners.
But giving all homeless homes isn't the solution either, lest you want crime and drug filled ghettos.
The solution in my mind requires everything, at once. Homes for those who need it. Mental support for those who need it. And enforcement for those who merely want to abuse and corrupt the system.
The homeless problem lumps everyone together into one camp and while they do suffer equally, their reasons are vastly different. There is no single solution, and it certainly will be difficult.
Unfortunately i see the friction involved in _actually_ solving this problem as so great that it will never be done. Though some extreme measures may be taken.
The solution in my mind requires everything, at once. Homes for those who need it. Mental support for those who need it. And enforcement for those who merely want to abuse and corrupt the system.
The homeless problem lumps everyone together into one camp and while they do suffer equally, their reasons are vastly different. There is no single solution, and it certainly will be difficult.
Unfortunately i see the friction involved in _actually_ solving this problem as so great that it will never be done. Though some extreme measures may be taken.
> But giving all homeless homes isn't the solution either, lest you want crime and drug filled ghettos.
Doesn't ghettos implies that they're all in the same place? Maybe having a few everywhere would avoid that problem.
Doesn't ghettos implies that they're all in the same place? Maybe having a few everywhere would avoid that problem.
There are bigger problems that won't ever get solved. This small one won't be the first.
Hate and demonization of homeless people is entirely inappropriate. I suggest you look at yourself before judging people you don't know.
There is no hate at all here. What about what i said makes you think that?
Furthermore, what about being homeless is good? Since all i said is a way to resolve homelessness, in my eyes, yet you perceive that as hate. To me it is hateful to leave those people in this state.
Furthermore, what about being homeless is good? Since all i said is a way to resolve homelessness, in my eyes, yet you perceive that as hate. To me it is hateful to leave those people in this state.
You are the one that painted all homeless with one brush when you said:
> That's an incidental effect of not providing proper housing.
There are many causes, it is not only an effect of not providing proper housing, which I think was GC's point.
> That's an incidental effect of not providing proper housing.
There are many causes, it is not only an effect of not providing proper housing, which I think was GC's point.
But free housing in that west coast city could have reduced the amount he cost that city.
Yep. It's also important that free housing doesn't turn into concentration camps (defined as collecting people into areas separate from communities) to hide former homeless people. Expanding Section 8 and similar with rapid SRO placement would be an easier solution in the short-term, while there is a need for dedicated/incentivized Section 8 and true affordable housing inventory against the wishes of NIMBYs.
Unlimited access to housing, medicine, and food does not make you a responsible adult.
This is it exactly - in areas without a "homeless problem" however you want to define that - you have a completely workable solution (example: airport shuttle trains, etc).
Where you have an issue the fare requirement is often used an excuse to enforce a minimum level of "cleanliness" if you will.
Where you have an issue the fare requirement is often used an excuse to enforce a minimum level of "cleanliness" if you will.
That's a symptom though; if you don't want homeless people looking for shelter, you should solve the homeless crisis instead of making public transit expensive.
I mean there's a lot of people who would gain a lot of opportunities if they could afford to commute, so free public transit would also reduce the homeless and poverty situation.
What really makes me angry is that it's not a dichotomy; the US is the richest country in the world, they can give free health care, housing and education to everyone. But they refuse, instead (nationally) pumping it into the military while (privately) funneling it upwards to the extremely rich.
That money could be redistributed to raise the minimum wage (and if you get paid minimum wage, your employer is effectively saying "I'd pay you less if I could") and improve the lives of everyone.
But the people in power (and their voters) don't want that, because that means considering those worse off as them as equals. It boils down not to economics, but egoism, classism and racism. It's the "as long as I got mine" attitude.
I mean there's a lot of people who would gain a lot of opportunities if they could afford to commute, so free public transit would also reduce the homeless and poverty situation.
What really makes me angry is that it's not a dichotomy; the US is the richest country in the world, they can give free health care, housing and education to everyone. But they refuse, instead (nationally) pumping it into the military while (privately) funneling it upwards to the extremely rich.
That money could be redistributed to raise the minimum wage (and if you get paid minimum wage, your employer is effectively saying "I'd pay you less if I could") and improve the lives of everyone.
But the people in power (and their voters) don't want that, because that means considering those worse off as them as equals. It boils down not to economics, but egoism, classism and racism. It's the "as long as I got mine" attitude.
I hear this a lot, but it isn't as much of a problem as it would seem. The emery go round in Emerville and Oakland, and the Alameda Loop shuttle are both free and don't have this problem. It seems like the solution here is everyone disembarking at the end of the route. And you have areas where public transit isn't free that do have this problem
Nailed it.
I would love to use public transit in SF, but instead I'll just keep using Uber for my own sanity and health.
I would love to use public transit in SF, but instead I'll just keep using Uber for my own sanity and health.
Perfect. Tax Uber to subsidize free public transit.
This turns into an adverse selection death spiral. The people who abuse the service will be subsidized by those who were driven off by them.
That might work in the short run. In the long run, voters who don’t see value in the service will inevitably tire of paying for it.
Making public transit broadly appealing is the way to sustain it. Finding competing services to tax to pay for it is a minor part of the overall strategy I think.
Making public transit broadly appealing is the way to sustain it. Finding competing services to tax to pay for it is a minor part of the overall strategy I think.
My relatively small city has free public transit, it's very nice. There isn't a big homeless population though. A quick Google search shows that quite a few bigger cities are also doing it for free.
[deleted]
Why would public transportation need to be paid for by "boosted commerce" to be beneficial? Why does it need to be profitable?
As a public service, do we ask fire departments to be profitable? What consequences happen when we try and make other essential services profitable, e.g. police?
Should armed forces be made to be profitable?
How do you define profitability in the first place... how do you define the costs and benefits?
Why does this question only ever seem to come up when we're talking about things that raise quality of life for the poor?
As a public service, do we ask fire departments to be profitable? What consequences happen when we try and make other essential services profitable, e.g. police?
Should armed forces be made to be profitable?
How do you define profitability in the first place... how do you define the costs and benefits?
Why does this question only ever seem to come up when we're talking about things that raise quality of life for the poor?
> Why does it need to be profitable?
It doesn't need to be profitable, but if it isn't, then the money to subsidize it needs to come from somewhere. Do you think raising taxes for this would be politically popular, especially if most taxpayers wouldn't use it?
> As a public service, do we ask fire departments to be profitable?
It is politically popular to use tax dollars to fund fire departments.
> Should armed forces be made to be profitable?
This is a textbook example of a public good. You can't give national defense only to people who pay for it. Either the whole country has it or nobody does.
> How do you define profitability in the first place... how do you define the costs and benefits?
This seems fairly obvious: if the income from fares exceeds the costs to pay the drivers, maintain the vehicles, etc.
> Why does this question only ever seem to come up when we're talking about things that raise quality of life for the poor?
Because people don't like paying for things that they don't get value from, even if other people do.
It doesn't need to be profitable, but if it isn't, then the money to subsidize it needs to come from somewhere. Do you think raising taxes for this would be politically popular, especially if most taxpayers wouldn't use it?
> As a public service, do we ask fire departments to be profitable?
It is politically popular to use tax dollars to fund fire departments.
> Should armed forces be made to be profitable?
This is a textbook example of a public good. You can't give national defense only to people who pay for it. Either the whole country has it or nobody does.
> How do you define profitability in the first place... how do you define the costs and benefits?
This seems fairly obvious: if the income from fares exceeds the costs to pay the drivers, maintain the vehicles, etc.
> Why does this question only ever seem to come up when we're talking about things that raise quality of life for the poor?
Because people don't like paying for things that they don't get value from, even if other people do.
In LA a majority of voters elected to raise sales taxes several times to improve transit, despite only like 20% of commuters using it city wide (transit use is extremely high in certain neighborhoods like Westlake, though). LA metro is considering slashing fares because they make up something like 5% of the operating budget, thanks to these sales tax measures and federal grants. It's not just LA metro that is funded like this, cleveland RTA is also funded by a portion of sales tax revenues.
Why don't we talk about raising taxes when we want to raise spending for ("subsidize") the police, or the military? Why does it only seem to be a concern when we're talking about services like public transportation?
Where are people opposed to taxes being used to fund fire departments, and why?
Why don't we see public transportation as one of your "public goods"?
Is it possible those people who you say are so concerned about value are maybe not seeing how they gain from having public transportation for their community, or are they more concerned about someone else deriving more value from a service than they would?
Where are people opposed to taxes being used to fund fire departments, and why?
Why don't we see public transportation as one of your "public goods"?
Is it possible those people who you say are so concerned about value are maybe not seeing how they gain from having public transportation for their community, or are they more concerned about someone else deriving more value from a service than they would?
> Why don't we see public transportation as one of your "public goods"?
By definition, public goods must be non-excludable. Public transportation is excludable.
> Is it possible those people who you say are so concerned about value are maybe not seeing how they gain from having public transportation for their community, or are they more concerned about someone else deriving more value from a service than they would?
The problem isn't that the value to someone else is greater than the value to them. It's that what they'd pay for it in taxes is greater than the value to them.
By definition, public goods must be non-excludable. Public transportation is excludable.
> Is it possible those people who you say are so concerned about value are maybe not seeing how they gain from having public transportation for their community, or are they more concerned about someone else deriving more value from a service than they would?
The problem isn't that the value to someone else is greater than the value to them. It's that what they'd pay for it in taxes is greater than the value to them.
> Is it possible those people who you say are so concerned about value are maybe not seeing how they gain from having public transportation for their community
The commenter seems to be talking about the part of public transportation that isn’t excludable.
The commenter seems to be talking about the part of public transportation that isn’t excludable.
> Why does this question only ever seem to come up when we're talking about things that raise quality of life for the poor?
Because in general people like paying for things that are useful to them and don't like paying for things that aren't. The poor don't pay much in the way of taxes, so things that are only used by the poor are of course less likely to get funded.
Because in general people like paying for things that are useful to them and don't like paying for things that aren't. The poor don't pay much in the way of taxes, so things that are only used by the poor are of course less likely to get funded.
The poor pay a disproportionate amount of taxes for what they get back. They certainly pay more than the billionaire class does. Perhaps the lack of funding has to do with power structures more than some subjective measure of utility.
> The poor pay a disproportionate amount of taxes for what they get back
How are you measuring this?
How are you measuring this?
[deleted]
Because if it is profotable whilst being free then its a much easier sell.
No need to get all righteous, I'm not saying all public services need to be profitable, I'm saying we need to stop evaluating public services on strictly on their cashflow as many often are, and instead look at them in terms of the greater economic system they operate in.
No need to get all righteous, I'm not saying all public services need to be profitable, I'm saying we need to stop evaluating public services on strictly on their cashflow as many often are, and instead look at them in terms of the greater economic system they operate in.
> Slight tangent but I've always wondered what the economic impact would be if public transit were just free.
Look at areas where the cost of distance is high. Rural areas. Areas with bad transit. Islands. Then reverse that.
Basically anything you do to decrease the cost (in money or time) of moving from A to B flattens the cost of living. The poor guy who just wants to hang a picture doesn't have to put up with the insane costs of some wire and nails at the local hardware store that mostly caters to yuppies and has the pricing to match. He can justify the cost in time and money of getting on the subway or get in his car and go where it's cheap. Now apply this to every economic transaction from buying milk to getting a job and everything in-between. The second and third order effects are immense. People can afford to stop transacting with bad jobs and bad landlords because they can afford to access the alternative equivalent services.
Of course improving transit never gets much support because the people with the money don't want it spend on the subways they don't use and they don't want to have to compete with the poors for access to car infrastructure so you never see that stuff democratized, just more fees and whatnot to discourage use by those not wealthy enough.
Look at areas where the cost of distance is high. Rural areas. Areas with bad transit. Islands. Then reverse that.
Basically anything you do to decrease the cost (in money or time) of moving from A to B flattens the cost of living. The poor guy who just wants to hang a picture doesn't have to put up with the insane costs of some wire and nails at the local hardware store that mostly caters to yuppies and has the pricing to match. He can justify the cost in time and money of getting on the subway or get in his car and go where it's cheap. Now apply this to every economic transaction from buying milk to getting a job and everything in-between. The second and third order effects are immense. People can afford to stop transacting with bad jobs and bad landlords because they can afford to access the alternative equivalent services.
Of course improving transit never gets much support because the people with the money don't want it spend on the subways they don't use and they don't want to have to compete with the poors for access to car infrastructure so you never see that stuff democratized, just more fees and whatnot to discourage use by those not wealthy enough.
That could also be good for the environment, in that it encourages use of shared transportation and lowers barriers.
I commute on transit and in my experience, those that can't afford transit simply don't pay the fare, so I'd guess impact would be pretty limited for those that might benefit the most from free transit. They either hop on via the back of the bus on the second set of doors away from the driver, walk directly onto the train platform without tapping up a fare card, or for the few stations that do have turnstyles, they use the emergency exit gate which says is alarmed, but in fact is not and swings open freely.
Seattle used to have free transit inside the downtown core, maybe there's some data from the period they were doing that.
Long-time Seattle resident and transit rider here. Seattle's erstwhile "Ride Free Zone" was instituted with the aim of promoting tourist activity and applied solely to rides that began and ended within a tiny part of the city center; for example, if you were a homeless person in the U District making a trip downtown, you would still have to pay, each way. So - except for very short trips - it was not necessarily something that meaningfully benefited poor people nor low-income people.
More recently Seattle's Transit Riders Union (among other groups) has advocated for more substantial free transit. Some baby steps in this direction have been realized with such things as free transit for high school students.
More recently Seattle's Transit Riders Union (among other groups) has advocated for more substantial free transit. Some baby steps in this direction have been realized with such things as free transit for high school students.
Yes, Seattle discontinued its mobile homeless shelter program, and instead moved it to occupy city parks and sidewalk greenery.
I don't know how much that will matter in the states, but when we tried it in Denmark (in some towns), it meant people took the bus more - but it was those who would otherwise take their bike or walk, not people who would otherwise use their car.
It makes sense too. I can get a 30 day pass to drive with public transportation as much as I want, but it is so much faster to take my car that I essentially only take it (prepandemic).
It makes sense too. I can get a 30 day pass to drive with public transportation as much as I want, but it is so much faster to take my car that I essentially only take it (prepandemic).
This has been done, I’ve lived in cities where this was the case for a while. In at least some cities, this turned public transit into a mobile homeless shelter, drug den, etc. So normal people stopped using public transit because it was unsafe and unpleasant.
Free public transport has been researched and it's not clear if it's positive. It's certainly not a slam dunk community good -
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S22136... ( https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cstp.2017.10.002 )
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S22136... ( https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cstp.2017.10.002 )
Anecdotal: The Dutch government offers students free public transit. This allowed me and millions of others to be able to attend a much better (college, uni level) education than I would otherwise be able to have. Or it would involve a 25 kilometer bike ride every day.
Another anecdotal one: Many companies offer travel / commute expense cover. If my commute wasn't covered by my employer, I'd be spending €250 a month out of pocket just to get to work (in addition to the time spent). It would make me reconsider working for that employer in favor of something more local.
Another anecdotal one: Many companies offer travel / commute expense cover. If my commute wasn't covered by my employer, I'd be spending €250 a month out of pocket just to get to work (in addition to the time spent). It would make me reconsider working for that employer in favor of something more local.
I like these kinds of solutions way better than just removing all fare gates, because then you won't have a huge influx of people who will abuse the service and drive away anyone with the means to avoid public transit.
Abstract from your link suggests that the study was pretty inconclusive.
> Findings suggest certain flaws limit the program’s potential success since the program design is misaligned with its primary stated goals, and several program goals relating to external effects of fare reform cannot be evaluated. Although it would be valuable for transport managers in other cities to learn about this experience, the Tallinn fare-free public transport program provides scant transferable evidence about how such a program can operate outside of a politicized context,
> Findings suggest certain flaws limit the program’s potential success since the program design is misaligned with its primary stated goals, and several program goals relating to external effects of fare reform cannot be evaluated. Although it would be valuable for transport managers in other cities to learn about this experience, the Tallinn fare-free public transport program provides scant transferable evidence about how such a program can operate outside of a politicized context,
[deleted]
SF public transit is de facto free. I don’t think it’s led to any particular surge of commercial activity.
> SF public transit is de facto free.
Huh? I mean, sure, enforcement is pretty lax, but most people who ride buses in SF do indeed pay. The homeless generally do not, and drivers look the other way. (Frankly, I'm ok with this, as long as they aren't violent or using the bus as a toilet.)
Huh? I mean, sure, enforcement is pretty lax, but most people who ride buses in SF do indeed pay. The homeless generally do not, and drivers look the other way. (Frankly, I'm ok with this, as long as they aren't violent or using the bus as a toilet.)
Transport within Melbourne's entire downtown area is free: https://www.ptv.vic.gov.au/assets/default-site/Maps-and-Time...
Same in Perth Western Australia
also the current Lab gov has promised to cap Public Transport at a maximum of $4.90.
A pretty significant saving https://twitter.com/MarkMcGowanMP/status/1350648142585217025...
*Goes into effect Jan 2022
also the current Lab gov has promised to cap Public Transport at a maximum of $4.90.
A pretty significant saving https://twitter.com/MarkMcGowanMP/status/1350648142585217025...
*Goes into effect Jan 2022
Calgary, Canada; has free transit in the downtown core. But not very far, and not to the suburbs. But makes it very convenient when you are in the centre, and don't need to think twice about moving around that core.
In Vancouver it's unenforced, about half of people actually pay for their tickets.
The free tram zone is great, but only covers the CBD which is pretty tiny.
I have a disability but didn't have money to get a doctor's appointment to fill out the paperwork proving I qualified for discounted bus fare as a disabled person. One of the things I wished for while homeless was a program that would provide me with free access to a doctor for purposes of filling out such paperwork and getting me access to the discount to which I am legally entitled but have never received.
[...]
In my case, without ever managing to arrange to get my disabled fare card, my life got better simply moving to places with cheaper bus fare and a lower cost of living. Keeping public transit affordable and/or making sure it is good quality and will get people where they need to go can help poor people more than other groups who are more likely to own their own vehicle.
[...]
In my case, without ever managing to arrange to get my disabled fare card, my life got better simply moving to places with cheaper bus fare and a lower cost of living. Keeping public transit affordable and/or making sure it is good quality and will get people where they need to go can help poor people more than other groups who are more likely to own their own vehicle.
Thanks for another great post about something that a lot of people on this forum don't even think about.
I think part of what this boils down to, more than just means testing or fares/rates/etc. is that any time you put up logistical/bureaucratic/cognitive/complicated barriers to something, you discourage its use beyond what you're directly trying to prevent (in name - sometimes the barriers are entirely intentional. something something voting...)
This goes beyond just poor peoples' access to public transportation. Most adults experience this in at least some way dealing with government bureaucracy. It's key in product design - making something confusing and hard to use will discourage its use, even if it delivers a lot of value once the difficulty is overcome. Humans only have limited amounts of patience, focus, attention, time. If you are poor those are even more scarce, since they're being spent on basic day-to-day survival.
Anyway, I think particular public policy options that could fix these types of problems may delve a bit too far into politics. But I think the problem is fixable. Make things simpler
I think part of what this boils down to, more than just means testing or fares/rates/etc. is that any time you put up logistical/bureaucratic/cognitive/complicated barriers to something, you discourage its use beyond what you're directly trying to prevent (in name - sometimes the barriers are entirely intentional. something something voting...)
This goes beyond just poor peoples' access to public transportation. Most adults experience this in at least some way dealing with government bureaucracy. It's key in product design - making something confusing and hard to use will discourage its use, even if it delivers a lot of value once the difficulty is overcome. Humans only have limited amounts of patience, focus, attention, time. If you are poor those are even more scarce, since they're being spent on basic day-to-day survival.
Anyway, I think particular public policy options that could fix these types of problems may delve a bit too far into politics. But I think the problem is fixable. Make things simpler
>in name - sometimes the barriers are entirely intentional. something something voting...
Voting. Packing heat. Getting a parking pass for the state park. Building a garage. Basically anything the white collar and higher class doesn't trust the poors to do to their liking gets all sorts of bureaucratic red tape added.
Voting. Packing heat. Getting a parking pass for the state park. Building a garage. Basically anything the white collar and higher class doesn't trust the poors to do to their liking gets all sorts of bureaucratic red tape added.
The rich are getting really rich via real estate.
Rents are getting too high and people can't save to buy a place of their own anymore.
I believe if you fix the housing problem (fundamentally limiting how much property a person or corporation can own), then you'll make life easier for a huge percentage of poor people stuck in debt traps that leave them without a crucial asset for survival - a roof over there head.
Rents are getting too high and people can't save to buy a place of their own anymore.
I believe if you fix the housing problem (fundamentally limiting how much property a person or corporation can own), then you'll make life easier for a huge percentage of poor people stuck in debt traps that leave them without a crucial asset for survival - a roof over there head.
This,
The policies that today make the rich richer ... well, make the poor, poorer - who would think!
It should be noted that a policies make marginal housing impossible and so create the situation of anyone losing ordinary housing sinking to absolute destitution. We need more mobile home parks, more residential hotels and so-forth. And oppositely, these are seen things lower home values and so relentlessly attacked (though SF seems to be allowing more of these to open up lately, according to what I see on craigslist).
The policies that today make the rich richer ... well, make the poor, poorer - who would think!
It should be noted that a policies make marginal housing impossible and so create the situation of anyone losing ordinary housing sinking to absolute destitution. We need more mobile home parks, more residential hotels and so-forth. And oppositely, these are seen things lower home values and so relentlessly attacked (though SF seems to be allowing more of these to open up lately, according to what I see on craigslist).
You could try giving them money. I'm poor and after the reality of covid hit and I was out of a job, I confided in my best friend to give me a loan of $5000 in order to give me some sense of security, so that I could snap myself out of the curse of poverty-induced short term thinking. The kind of thinking that pushes someone into bad dead-end jobs instead of going back to school or learning a trade to gain superior skills because paying rent in the short term is more important, eat cheap nutritonally-void junk food to save a buck, and to skip the health insurance and pray for good luck that they may not get sick or have a freak accident everyday of their living, breathing lives. I have not actually used a single dollar of my friend's money. My mind was clear enough to figure out how to apply for unemployment insurance. Then the inflow of unemployment insurance only gave me compound interest on that sense of security that could only be afforded by a good enough lump sum of money in my savings account. At some point I decided I don't need the unemployment insurance anymore because I didn't want to just find some random minimum wage job to pay the bills (which was no longer a fear due to the money I had in my savings). So I got off of it, and then started making key efforts everyday to put myself into community college. So that's the short/long story of how I was able to find myself back in school in my late 20s after a long 7 years of struggle. Could've saved a lot of time if someone gave me that loan 7 years ago, but hey, better late than never.
Great points in the article.
One thing I see traveling around the world and observing cultures, is lack of direction. It's a common theme in every country and culture.
And by that I don't mean just providing raw information.
But actually holding someone by the hand and showing them a better way too -- and arming them with the information and examples in real life to show that it actually works.
Example -- it's all well and good to give that mom lower bus fares. Good. But also how do you help that mom to craft a good sustainable 5 year plan to get her out of poverty by following it.
What's needed is to point out that - say - becoming a nurse is a good option. And that to become that nurse you start with A, then go to B, then C then Nurse.
The low bus fares alone, not gonna do that.
One thing I see traveling around the world and observing cultures, is lack of direction. It's a common theme in every country and culture.
And by that I don't mean just providing raw information.
But actually holding someone by the hand and showing them a better way too -- and arming them with the information and examples in real life to show that it actually works.
Example -- it's all well and good to give that mom lower bus fares. Good. But also how do you help that mom to craft a good sustainable 5 year plan to get her out of poverty by following it.
What's needed is to point out that - say - becoming a nurse is a good option. And that to become that nurse you start with A, then go to B, then C then Nurse.
The low bus fares alone, not gonna do that.
If you look at the list some are enablers that help to achieve the others.
If you get this ones:
- Get to where they need to go conveniently and inexpensively. - Get access to education, training and credentialing. - Get access to things that support their health, whether that is nutritious food, adequate exercise, clean air or medical treatment.
It is easier to get this other ones:
- Access housing that is within their budget. - Get access to earned income.
All this seems quite basic. And it should be in place as it benefits everybody in the long term. But, I guess that that's the problem, short term some people will get more if this does not happen. Long term investment is lacking.
If you get this ones:
- Get to where they need to go conveniently and inexpensively. - Get access to education, training and credentialing. - Get access to things that support their health, whether that is nutritious food, adequate exercise, clean air or medical treatment.
It is easier to get this other ones:
- Access housing that is within their budget. - Get access to earned income.
All this seems quite basic. And it should be in place as it benefits everybody in the long term. But, I guess that that's the problem, short term some people will get more if this does not happen. Long term investment is lacking.
This is just a hunch, and obviously overly simplistic but I think the key phrase is investment in that a lot of infrastructure or policy action looks for tangible ROI and the people at the top either don't believe that it is there for these types of issues, or it doesn't fall within their ideology to help provide such things. And this is a total shame because society can benefit so much if we were able to look past the dollar sign as a measuring stick.
"I have a disability but didn't have money to get a doctor's appointment to fill out the paperwork proving I qualified for discounted bus fare as a disabled person." I am not from the US and I have a question: Did ObamaCare provide a solution for such cases?
Medicaid has provided free healthcare to people with qualifying disabilities since long before Obamacare. Obamacare did encourage states to expand Medicaid to low-income people regardless of health status and provide them with funding to do so, so in most of the US [0] it expanded Medicaid availability to people who previously weren't "disabled enough" to qualify.
[0] https://www.kff.org/medicaid/issue-brief/status-of-state-med...
[0] https://www.kff.org/medicaid/issue-brief/status-of-state-med...
"Access housing that is within their budget."
It's by far the biggest issue to address. And also the most difficult one.
So easy to say. So hard to implement. Especially if the goal is that the access does not go away as income goes up.
Most solutions out there involve shoveling money at the problem. But in practice, this will just make housing prices go up. The poor will still be left out in the cold.
The only solution which might work is building more units that would appeal to people with low income in desirable locations. This is still almost impossible due to zoning restrictions, but it's the only way out.
So easy to say. So hard to implement. Especially if the goal is that the access does not go away as income goes up.
Most solutions out there involve shoveling money at the problem. But in practice, this will just make housing prices go up. The poor will still be left out in the cold.
The only solution which might work is building more units that would appeal to people with low income in desirable locations. This is still almost impossible due to zoning restrictions, but it's the only way out.
UBI would sort out a lot of these friction points. So much bureaucracy is tied up in eligibility, inspection and compliance. Just be done with it. Fake tokens, food stamps etc are just resource drains.
Hopefully this isn't too dumb of a question but: can the current levels of (above average) unemployment benefits give insight into what might ACTUALLY happen under UBI? I am currently traveling around the USA and hitting a mix of large metro areas and small towns, and everyone seems to be struggling with filling employment demand. I am guessing we will still need to see what or if there are longer term impacts...but just curious on the above question.
If you were going to adjust a 1960's salary to today and take into account housing costs etc. they would probably be making in the 20 or 30 dollars per hour range. I read discussions of 7 dollars for some of these positions.
The issue is not that employers are struggling to fill vacancies it is that the salaries have not kept up with cost of living for so long that people are now reaching a tipping point. As others have put it, it is not a shortage of people but a shortage of suckers.
Irrespective of UBI the cost of goods and services should probably have a much smaller profit margin or much higher price tag, but no one able to influence or correct this stands to benefit.
The issue is not that employers are struggling to fill vacancies it is that the salaries have not kept up with cost of living for so long that people are now reaching a tipping point. As others have put it, it is not a shortage of people but a shortage of suckers.
Irrespective of UBI the cost of goods and services should probably have a much smaller profit margin or much higher price tag, but no one able to influence or correct this stands to benefit.
Maybe we are talking about different things, but I’m particularly talking about the 600$ a week that some are getting due to the government benefits(which equates to something like 20$/hour).
Also, the issue IS that employers are having trouble filling positions. You’re conflating cause with effect. It doesn’t matter if the effect is due to lack of housing or terrible wages, the result is that people don’t go to work in those places.
Also, the issue IS that employers are having trouble filling positions. You’re conflating cause with effect. It doesn’t matter if the effect is due to lack of housing or terrible wages, the result is that people don’t go to work in those places.
I was curious about your comment so I looked it up[0] and yep, around $20 seems about right.
- [0]: https://www.epi.org/publication/the-federal-minimum-wage-has...
- [0]: https://www.epi.org/publication/the-federal-minimum-wage-has...
Also a house was probably one to five years worth of salary for a lot of people in most developed nations.
Many people in minimum wage jobs today would not be able to save enough for a house within their whole work life.
Owning a house and not having housing costs associated is a huge disposable income multiplier.
Many people in minimum wage jobs today would not be able to save enough for a house within their whole work life.
Owning a house and not having housing costs associated is a huge disposable income multiplier.
This blog appears inspired by this comment:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27573799
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27573799
Good advice, but I feel it's like saying "The way to free the slaves is to free the slaves".
Everyone knows it's true, most slaves and non-slaveholders agree both morally and pragmatically it's the way forward.
And yet strangely, the people who became rich from owning slaves, when offered the opportunity to free those slaves, instead started an expensive and catastrophic war to try to prolong the practice.
What would you do if your absolute and relative wealth relied on a bunch of other people being poor?
Everyone knows it's true, most slaves and non-slaveholders agree both morally and pragmatically it's the way forward.
And yet strangely, the people who became rich from owning slaves, when offered the opportunity to free those slaves, instead started an expensive and catastrophic war to try to prolong the practice.
What would you do if your absolute and relative wealth relied on a bunch of other people being poor?
is that me or as long as you get 'free' and good quality, healthcare, education, food, and home, it is kind of OK being poor?
Are you asking it it's socially acceptable of being poor?
It's a difficult question to answer or to ask. Some being people gave up motivation to get out of poverty for political or personal reasons, some people are happy enough in poverty, some people try hard to get out of poverty but are lacking education, degrees, experience, opportunity, appropriate network or just the proper social norm that let them be accepted in an environment that allows them to get out of poverty.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asceticism
“The philosopher Diogenes was eating bread and lentils for supper. He was seen by the philosopher Aristippus, who lived comfortably by flattering the king. Said Aristippus, 'If you would learn to be subservient to the king you would not have to live on lentils.'
Said Diogenes: 'Learn to live on lentils and you will not have to be subservient to the king".”
It's a difficult question to answer or to ask. Some being people gave up motivation to get out of poverty for political or personal reasons, some people are happy enough in poverty, some people try hard to get out of poverty but are lacking education, degrees, experience, opportunity, appropriate network or just the proper social norm that let them be accepted in an environment that allows them to get out of poverty.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asceticism
“The philosopher Diogenes was eating bread and lentils for supper. He was seen by the philosopher Aristippus, who lived comfortably by flattering the king. Said Aristippus, 'If you would learn to be subservient to the king you would not have to live on lentils.'
Said Diogenes: 'Learn to live on lentils and you will not have to be subservient to the king".”
I live in ATX near I-35. Homelessness is being brutally re-criminalized here. It's all about sweeping poor people under the rug so tourists can get drunk without being offended that the society is so unjust, uncaring, and unequal.
We need to separate two things:
1) Homelessness is never a desirable state and it helps no one, especially tourism which employs a lot of lower middle class people. Look at SF and Portland.
2) Just because homelessness is bad != not providing assistance and putting these people in jail. They’re two separate issues. I would vote for progressive issues that are highlighted in the article but I can’t stand progressives that try to demean others by calling them ‘cruel’ and gain moral high-ground over others. It’s unproductive.
We should never accept crime and shitty streets as an acceptable compromise. We can do much much better as the article indicates. I am disappointed at how many people in SF Bay Area think that tent cities are okay and they think they’re some kinda of a saint for caring for the homeless. If they really cared, they wouldn’t have let this problem happen in the first place. Anyone who is trying to solve the problem is looked down upon here which is mind boggling. Immediately labeling people as cruel without having a deeper discussion is not going to solve the problem.
We should strive to eliminate homelessness and not make it the new normal.
1) Homelessness is never a desirable state and it helps no one, especially tourism which employs a lot of lower middle class people. Look at SF and Portland.
2) Just because homelessness is bad != not providing assistance and putting these people in jail. They’re two separate issues. I would vote for progressive issues that are highlighted in the article but I can’t stand progressives that try to demean others by calling them ‘cruel’ and gain moral high-ground over others. It’s unproductive.
We should never accept crime and shitty streets as an acceptable compromise. We can do much much better as the article indicates. I am disappointed at how many people in SF Bay Area think that tent cities are okay and they think they’re some kinda of a saint for caring for the homeless. If they really cared, they wouldn’t have let this problem happen in the first place. Anyone who is trying to solve the problem is looked down upon here which is mind boggling. Immediately labeling people as cruel without having a deeper discussion is not going to solve the problem.
We should strive to eliminate homelessness and not make it the new normal.
Then do something and stop talking about "more discussions." Tax the crap out of empty investment housing. Give people homes.
I lived in vehicles for 9 years, so don't get self-righteous or white-knighting. It is cruel to criminalize poverty, and it is cruel to "benignly" neglect homeless people with a lack of services, treating them like criminals in the assistance programs, offer a troublesome patchwork of charity resources rather than integrated delivery, and give only a pittance of assistance instead of doing what is cost-effective and humane to get people into better situations holistically and comprehensively. Mental healthcare including psychiatry, social skills training, and therapy, substance treatment, nutrition, and good medical care are just some of the essential aspects of raising people up.
The US typically has an awful and abhorrent track-record when it comes to delivering necessary social services. For example, in Santa Clara County, an average homeless man without Social Security can expect to receive ~$149 in almost cash and ~$205 in SNAP (previously known as a "food stamps"). The ABAWD requirement comes-and-goes periodically with mandating work in order to receive benefits. (How can a homeless person hold a job if they don't have shoes or the resources to clean themselves?)
Healthcare is provided by substandard Medi-Cal (Medic-Aid) which now includes slightly less horrible dental services (Denti-Cal).
Cell phones are provided by the Lifeline service.
I lived in vehicles for 9 years, so don't get self-righteous or white-knighting. It is cruel to criminalize poverty, and it is cruel to "benignly" neglect homeless people with a lack of services, treating them like criminals in the assistance programs, offer a troublesome patchwork of charity resources rather than integrated delivery, and give only a pittance of assistance instead of doing what is cost-effective and humane to get people into better situations holistically and comprehensively. Mental healthcare including psychiatry, social skills training, and therapy, substance treatment, nutrition, and good medical care are just some of the essential aspects of raising people up.
The US typically has an awful and abhorrent track-record when it comes to delivering necessary social services. For example, in Santa Clara County, an average homeless man without Social Security can expect to receive ~$149 in almost cash and ~$205 in SNAP (previously known as a "food stamps"). The ABAWD requirement comes-and-goes periodically with mandating work in order to receive benefits. (How can a homeless person hold a job if they don't have shoes or the resources to clean themselves?)
Healthcare is provided by substandard Medi-Cal (Medic-Aid) which now includes slightly less horrible dental services (Denti-Cal).
Cell phones are provided by the Lifeline service.
Our overlords have no desire to make the poor less poor
Imagine there is a magic button, that once pressed, solves the basic needs of shelter, food, clothing, access to water, education, healthcare... permanently, for every living person.
The only catch is that this magical work still costs natural resources to work. Topsoil, fresh water, oil, fish, lumber, pollinators, etc... every necessary resource to keep things working gets allocated and used automatically.
What will happen right after pressing this button is that there will be a massive population boost followed by a massive allocation of resources because perceive no longer perceives economic resistance as their families grow. So population grows exponentially and so does resource sage. Then, once resource depletion is imminent, a war over resources would take place.
After years of non-stop war, people will realize that peace is possible if they establish reproduction quotas. But each time the quotas are not respected, war happens again.
Would that be a better world? I don't think so.
The only catch is that this magical work still costs natural resources to work. Topsoil, fresh water, oil, fish, lumber, pollinators, etc... every necessary resource to keep things working gets allocated and used automatically.
What will happen right after pressing this button is that there will be a massive population boost followed by a massive allocation of resources because perceive no longer perceives economic resistance as their families grow. So population grows exponentially and so does resource sage. Then, once resource depletion is imminent, a war over resources would take place.
After years of non-stop war, people will realize that peace is possible if they establish reproduction quotas. But each time the quotas are not respected, war happens again.
Would that be a better world? I don't think so.
People who can afford to have all their basic needs met without worry have less children on average.
See: population decline in advanced economies, especially Nordic countries and middle/upper middle class America.
Humans are still animals that act on instinct, and our instinctive behavior is, when faced with dangerous short term threats, to reproduce en-masse.
War torn countries are the best example of this, humans fall back to a mass quantity strategy for survival.
But in a situation of resource abundance? People have less kids and invest more in each child.
See: population decline in advanced economies, especially Nordic countries and middle/upper middle class America.
Humans are still animals that act on instinct, and our instinctive behavior is, when faced with dangerous short term threats, to reproduce en-masse.
War torn countries are the best example of this, humans fall back to a mass quantity strategy for survival.
But in a situation of resource abundance? People have less kids and invest more in each child.
[deleted]
> there will be a massive population boost
Care to explain? There is a high correlation between level of education and a reduced number of children.
Care to explain? There is a high correlation between level of education and a reduced number of children.
Most of those resources you mention are renewable (and we're working on getting rid of the need for oil), their limits are an economic and / or technologic problem that can be solved, especially if we can get more people educated and working on these problems.
Anyway as another commenter pointed out, birth rates will decline on their own if people are comfortable and happy. Which presents itself with its own problems in the current economic system that seems to depend on constant population growth, and in many economies where birth rates have declined they compensated with immigration. Which presents its own challenges of course, but then, the US was founded by colonizer invaders, the local population genocided, then built up by millions and millions of immigrants (voluntary or slaves).
Anyway as another commenter pointed out, birth rates will decline on their own if people are comfortable and happy. Which presents itself with its own problems in the current economic system that seems to depend on constant population growth, and in many economies where birth rates have declined they compensated with immigration. Which presents its own challenges of course, but then, the US was founded by colonizer invaders, the local population genocided, then built up by millions and millions of immigrants (voluntary or slaves).
> Most of those resources you mention are renewable
They are replenishable/renewable at a rate. And that rate has been for many years slower than the consumption rate. https://news.ycombinator.com/threads?id=29athrowaway When the consumption rate is higher than the replenishment rate, the resource is depleted over time.
They are replenishable/renewable at a rate. And that rate has been for many years slower than the consumption rate. https://news.ycombinator.com/threads?id=29athrowaway When the consumption rate is higher than the replenishment rate, the resource is depleted over time.
That link is an accidental paste/typo.
My niece wound up being a case in point. She got a job offer for $0.20/hour more than would allow her to stay on food stamps. As a single mother of 3, she could not afford to go off of food stamps. The job she would have joined was a union job and so could not pay her anything other than the union rate. The result? She remained in a job that she was overqualified for and turned down the better job because she literally could not afford to take it.
If you think that this is an argument for basic income, it is. And exactly because having it be not means tested avoids this kind of perverse incentive that helps trap people in poverty.