[HN Gopher] Basic Income Pilot Project: Study results
___________________________________________________________________
Basic Income Pilot Project: Study results
Author : 3Vbgx5ro
Score : 165 points
Date : 2025-04-09 19:37 UTC (3 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.pilotprojekt-grundeinkommen.de)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.pilotprojekt-grundeinkommen.de)
| karol wrote:
| Who in their right mind wants that? UBI just means signing your
| soul away to the state, who then can mandate your lifestyle
| completely including health procedures and even military
| conscription. No thanks.
| AIorNot wrote:
| Why if the state provides a basic safety net should that
| preclude individual ambition?
|
| Should we not move toward a society that can not go hungry?
| dimitrios1 wrote:
| The false dichotomy is that you need big government to have a
| society that does not go hungry.
| MarcelOlsz wrote:
| During COVID, my friends and I were temporarily retired.
| Lamenting every moment since having to come out of retirement.
| We were all laid off and received about $2k/mo for awhile and
| what happened was we ended up hanging out every since day
| working on whatever we were working on, and feelings of
| inadequacy faded into the background. It was a micro golden age
| for us and that period of time has cemented UBI for us. It was
| a small amount of money and we lived with our parents but we
| were never more productive and happy.
|
| Hopefully before I die I can witness a strong implementation of
| UBI. It would directly reflect in culture in terms of music and
| the arts. Little funding for the arts currently combined with
| massive rent nearly everywhere leaves little room for cultural
| phenomenon that was possible in places like the lower east side
| bowery for example. Or arts funding in the USSR and other
| soviet bloc countries.
|
| Time is more valuable than anything else.
| isaacremuant wrote:
| You were the beneficiary of a bullshit short term policy that
| has wrecked the global and national economies and think that
| means it was a good thing to replicate?
|
| Your fun time was extremely damaging to people everywhere but
| of course, we can pretend "it was necessary because COVID"
| which we then knew and now it's undeniable, was an absolute
| farce of hygiene theater.
|
| The people who worked paid for you to do nothing at your
| parents home. That's all there is. Meanwhile, there also were
| massive transfers of wealth with the same excuse, from tax
| payers to the wealthies company owners.
| mantas wrote:
| > Or arts funding in the USSR and other soviet bloc
| countries.
|
| This is pretty good example why UBI is dangerous. Those
| funded artists were very happy to suck it up and go along
| with the regime. The censorship was in place, but self-
| censorship was even stronger.
|
| Meanwhile a lot of art existed outside of the system with
| people working some shitty jobs and doing arts in free time.
| Palomides wrote:
| ok, then look at the depression era US federal arts project
| conductr wrote:
| East side bowery was very cheap back then (it was also a
| pretty rough part of town, which is easy to forget). You just
| need to convince a hoard of like minded folks to congregate
| somewhere cheap and you can live like this. There's plenty of
| cheap places to live in the US. I kind of feel like we need
| to learn how to build new cities, we have the land, it's
| mostly cheap, we just continue to choose to reside in
| expensive places chasing jobs that help us cover the rent
| while working us to death.
| throwaway743 wrote:
| Idk man, I wouldn't call bowery rough or cheap by any
| stretch - 20 years ago, during covid, or now. For rough
| during covid or now, head to east new york. For cheap, head
| deeper into the other boroughs.
| nradov wrote:
| As a taxpayer this kind of nonsense fantasy is exactly why I
| would never vote for UBI.
| bigyabai wrote:
| > who then can mandate your lifestyle completely including
| health procedures and even military conscription. No thanks.
|
| Entirely unlike modern America, where utility providers for
| food and water are regulated for what's healthy and
| representative legislature decides when to draft you for
| Vietnam 2.
| dsr_ wrote:
| Military conscription has always been the role of the state.
|
| In the US, health procedures are currently in the hands of
| oligarchical profit-maximizing middlemen; the first
| assassination has already happened.
|
| I really don't know what your objection is to improving
| people's lives.
| _ink_ wrote:
| How so? Universal Basic Income means, you get it no matter
| what. So if they require you to serve to get money, that's no
| UBI.
| netsharc wrote:
| I remember reading about how the US military is a socialist
| society. Housing, income, free education, free healthcare for
| life...
|
| Funny how the biggest part of the US budget is funding that.
| metabagel wrote:
| Particularly if you live overseas on base. The military
| provides everything for you, albeit often through vendors
| such as AAFES. But yeah, free healthcare for sure.
|
| https://www.aafes.com/exchange-stores/
| dgfitz wrote:
| None of it is free, what are you talking about? It is very
| much earned.
|
| Free means you didn't do anything to get something.
|
| Ever been shot at before?
| miketery wrote:
| I'm surprised by the down votes. Possibly you could have made
| your point better, there are pros and cons.
|
| "A government big enough to give you everything you want is a
| government big enough to take from you everything you have."
| fwip wrote:
| [flagged]
| toomuchtodo wrote:
| I trust a functioning government over free market human
| participants. People always overweight their own ability to
| succeed, when the stats tell a different story.
|
| How are the governments and economies in the happiest
| countries structured, for example.
| anonzzzies wrote:
| > ... to take from you everything you have."
|
| Nothing to do with UBI; the gov of the country you live in
| can do that period. Really no clue what it has to do with
| UBI.
| dang wrote:
| (I think it was probably downvoted because it was too far
| over the line into ideological battle and other things that
| the site guidelines ask commenters to avoid here.)
|
| https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
| surgical_fire wrote:
| This is still a shit argument.
|
| Most people have nothing in the current system.
| GuinansEyebrows wrote:
| You have most of these limitations imposed on you as market
| effects anyways. You're no freer than you would be with UBI.
| nelsonfigueroa wrote:
| > Who in their right mind wants that?
|
| Those living in poverty. Speaking from personal experience.
|
| > UBI just means signing your soul away to the state, who then
| can mandate your lifestyle completely including health
| procedures and even military conscription.
|
| The state can already do this without UBI.
|
| Not saying UBI is flawless though.
| rsoto2 wrote:
| lol the state(aka society's strong arm) will always have an
| immense say in your life even if you are so oblivious to it.
| Government exists to redistribute money, might as well
| distribute it to the poor and do it universally.
|
| This study didn't say, we gave 1200 to people and then dictated
| their lives like a dictator.
| isaacremuant wrote:
| > Government exists to redistribute money
|
| Citation needed. Authoritarians always love to go dismiss
| anyone who doesn't just take anything they're given.
| unethical_ban wrote:
| Citation: All modern society and the last 1000 years.
|
| >Governments don't exist to redistribute money
|
| Citation needed.
| foobarchu wrote:
| >Government exists to redistribute money
|
| Citation needed
|
| It works both ways.
| ryoshoe wrote:
| Taxes are a form of wealth redistribution, and all
| governments require a revenue stream
| oulipo wrote:
| I don't think you understand what UBI means... it's just a
| stipend to replace some other welfare programs, and given to
| everybody. It doesn't mean you don't work and earn a salary in
| addition to that
| FranzFerdiNaN wrote:
| I agree. Much better to die because a free market health
| insurer denied your operation because it rather kept the money
| it would cost.
| ozmodiar wrote:
| The state gets more power over you without UBI (assuming a
| social safety net of any kind already exists) - without UBI it
| needs a larger apparatus to decide how to distribute funds, and
| it can pick arbitrary reasons to cut off your funds. Under UBI
| administration would be far simpler and cutting off your income
| for political reasons would be far more noticeable, since it's
| supposed to be universal.
| nottorp wrote:
| "Universal" basic income.
|
| "Universal" health care.
|
| What the word in quotes means is they're unconditional.
| osmsucks wrote:
| You're right. Better to sell your soul away to a corporation
| that can fire you at will.
| surgical_fire wrote:
| > Who in their right mind wants that?
|
| Anyone that is repulsed by a system that requires an underclass
| of desperate people for it to work.
|
| > UBI just means signing your soul away to the state
|
| As opposed to sign your soul away to corporations instead?
| stackedinserter wrote:
| I don't understand why you're downvoted. I grew up in a country
| that did exactly this, until collapsed. Strong social nets,
| free housing, free medicine for all, free education, no
| unemployment, sounds like heaven, right?
|
| The only problem is that every person is a government-owned
| livestock unit. Their thoughts, knowledge, career paths, kids,
| even their private life, everything is controlled by
| government, that also obligates you to watch after your
| neighbours and co-workers. You can't even leave the country
| without government permission. You can expelled if you don't
| like the government though. You can't work where you want after
| getting your degree, government will send you where they think
| they need you to be. School is never ending propaganda. We
| literally had "political information" every Monday, since grade
| 1. Also, since grade 1 you're in one of the tiers of the only
| allowed political party of the country. There's tier for grade
| 1 to 3, then for 4 to 8, then from 8 to 10. Every 18yo is
| drafted for 2 years for armed forces (3 for navy). I can go on
| and on.
|
| I remember it too well and would never trade messy and chaotic
| capitalist society to that labour camp with "free" rations.
|
| It's frightening that so many people in 1st world want to live
| in a cage with 3-times-a-day meal.
| HPsquared wrote:
| This kind of thing pops up now and again but the psychology is
| completely different to if basic income was actually universal
| and expected to continue in the long-term.
|
| Of course people don't quit their jobs and careers because they
| are part of a small group enrolled in a 3-year scientific study.
| Human behaviour is non-linear.
|
| The study doesn't cover the likely feedback effects on the
| broader economy that a universal rollout would have (increase in
| the money supply) or the broader socio-cultural changes that
| would likely accompany it.
|
| In short: scale matters for this kind of thing. Some things just
| can't be tested ahead of time empirically.
| bravura wrote:
| Quantity has a quality all of its own.
| missedthecue wrote:
| yeah, there are basically three questions people have for UBI.
|
| 1. Does it cause inflation
|
| 2. What is the impact on employment/productivity
|
| 3. Can we afford to tax ourselves to pay ourselves in a way
| that makes sense?
|
| These studies answer none of these.
| xvedejas wrote:
| I'm personally most worried about increases in general income
| levels being soaked up by real estate holders. It's what
| we've seen happen in the SF bay area rents in response to
| tech fortunes. I don't see UBI actually increasing welfare
| much without a tax on land value to make landholding less
| profitable and redirecting the value of land into the UBI
| fund.
| gnfedhjmm2 wrote:
| "Based on nothing I disagree"
| mediaman wrote:
| This only seems to be an issue if the marginal cost of
| building is too high to expand supply, though, right?
| Otherwise if people have more money, they bid up housing,
| then new stuff gets built, and supply profits decline.
|
| Of course, restricting supply is a problem. I also think
| this logic might break down in tightly restricted areas
| that are already vertically built out - Manhattan, for
| example, because costs per housing unit tend to follow a U
| curve with respect to height, where they decline with
| density but start increasing again at very high density,
| but that's not an issue in most places.
| mgfist wrote:
| This can broadly be alleviated by regulations that make it
| far cheaper and easier to build.
|
| Currently, demand is the only access by which housing
| markets are dictated in heavily NIMBY areas like SF. Supply
| is an underused level due to cost and permitting issues.
| serviceberry wrote:
| I don't think capital has any special attachment to real
| estate specifically. It's just that we have policies that
| essentially _require_ your money to be invested into
| something (because inflation); and we turned real estate
| into a safe investment asset through policies that create
| perpetual scarcity.
|
| You can probably come up with policies that penalize real
| estate investments, but (a) it will just cause the
| investors to chase some other asset class, instead of
| redistributing wealth; (b) unless scarcity is addressed,
| it's unlikely that housing prices are going to drop.
| Landlords extract profits from the assets they hold, but
| they don't cause there to be fewer homes or apartments
| available.
| schmidtleonard wrote:
| Why wouldn't they? It's an easy and profitable way to
| pump their property values. Obviously they make an
| exception when they stand to profit, but I invite you to
| attend any county zoning meeting ever if you think this
| doesn't happen. The meetings are nothing _but_ catfights
| of this exact description.
|
| I've always marveled at how it's 100% accepted to talk
| about poor people employing six dimensional chess and
| dubious strategies to scrape undeserved pennies from the
| system, but it's somehow unthinkable to even so much as
| contemplate the possibility that rich people are pulling
| obvious levers to extract millions. The double standard
| is absolutely wild.
| numpad0 wrote:
| Rent is charged monthly, and everyone consumes the value
| at the exact same pacing of 1/30th the rent per day.
| Consumers has no leverages, save for weak protections
| that won't be statistically significant, against price
| hikes. I think it's reasonable to assune it's more
| efficient at capturing UBI than regular commodities that
| can be rationed or splurged on.
| sdsd wrote:
| Wouldn't reducing the profitability of landholding via
| taxation discourage the creation of apartment buildings,
| thus reducing the supply of housing and making it more
| expensive?
| ipsento606 wrote:
| Georgists want building apartment buildings to be
| profitable based on the value of the building, not the
| land.
|
| The idea would be that holding land becomes less
| profitable, but buying land for development becomes
| cheaper.
| schmidtleonard wrote:
| It would make land cheaper and improve the profitability
| of doing the conversion. Paying people to sit on land is
| hilariously inefficient. Welfare for the rich.
| HenryBemis wrote:
| The human nature. The moment UBI is set at X amount, the
| cheapest rents will jump, so will the price of a coffee, of
| a burger & fries in a fast-food, etc.
|
| Greed will take over and try to get the _most_ out of the
| UBI as if we/you/they owe it to those people.
| parpfish wrote:
| as long as we're floating what-ifs...
|
| what if UBI led people to think "i can go live wherever i
| want, regardless of job/market conditions"?
|
| herds of young idealists and artist-types deciding to take
| over cheap realestate in rust-belt towns and rural areas
| because they no longer need to be next to a big urban
| center to 'make it'.
|
| we started to see this during covid WFH, but true UBI would
| be even bigger
| chgs wrote:
| Fund a UBI from a land value tax. The more land rents
| increase the higher the UBI
| s1artibartfast wrote:
| Land tax is one of the least ethical forms of taxation.
| It would be far better to fund it with income, sales, or
| capital gains taxes.
| oulipo wrote:
| Well the study at least answers your second point, it shows
| that people are enjoying their work more, and that they
| change jobs more often (ie take more risks) and stay as
| employed as before
|
| and #3 at least as already been well modelled economically,
| UBI replaces many other welfare programs, so we can
| definitely afford it
| DennisP wrote:
| And #3 implies that it's not going to cause inflation, any
| more than those other welfare programs do now.
|
| In general, as long as we're funding it with taxes instead
| of by printing money, it's not going to cause any extra
| inflation.
| TeMPOraL wrote:
| > _Well the study at least answers your second point, it
| shows that people are enjoying their work more, and that
| they change jobs more often (ie take more risks) and stay
| as employed as before_
|
| As GGP said, this doesn't compare. There's even nothing
| magically non-linear about it: people stay employed,
| because they know the UBI study will only last a few years,
| after which they'll need to get back to normal. It makes no
| sense to interrupt your career for it, as the "hole in your
| CV" will just turn into a severe and compounding
| disadvantage in lost years and experience.
| HenryBemis wrote:
| It's not just that. I fear tha UBI will be 'frozen in
| time', so let's say it's something insanely generous, EUR
| 5000 per month. After that happens, every month we will
| have a record inflation, and soon enough the EUR 5000
| will rent you Harry Potter's staircase-'flat' and 3
| pizzas.
|
| The only way I see this being sustainable is get as far
| as possible from the big cities, buy a tiny piece of
| land, by a durable tiny home, buy solar panels, get a
| tablet with all Gutenberg books, and find a soulmate that
| will follow you to that journey.
|
| No kids, no private schools, no parties, no nothing.
| Everything will be swallowed by inflation.
| TeMPOraL wrote:
| Yup, I 100% agree. This is my worry too. And it goes
| beyond real estate market and landlords - they are the
| obvious infinitely deep money sinkholes of society, but
| even if housing magically became free and available to
| everyone, I believe the sudden inflation would happen
| anyway.
|
| I believe this to be a fundamental feature of _free
| market economy in general_. It 's something I started
| realizing many years ago, and thought about a lot ever
| since; in the last year, I distilled that belief into a
| concise phrase I now use for this:
|
| _The market constantly adjusts to keep the average
| disposable income to zero._
|
| Except now I realized that "average" is the wrong measure
| here, I should be saying "median", and also I've been
| mistakenly using the term "disposable income" (which
| actually means just after-tax income) to refer to
| "discretionary income" (what you're left with after
| covering taxes, bills, and essentials). Which leads me to
| the New and Better, Updated, Version 2.0 of my economic
| theory:
|
| _The market constantly adjusts to keep median
| discretionary income near zero._
|
| I'd imagine this is an obvious thing that's already been
| named 100 years ago, but so far my research only pointed
| me to things like "neutrality of money", and some
| specific examples of my statement holding, yet nothing
| that covers it entirely.
|
| (EDIT: in the unlikely case I'm not an idiot, and that
| this phrasing was not used/named before, I welcome
| credit; inquiries from the Nobel Foundation should be
| directed to my e-mail address, which is in my profile.)
| jay_kyburz wrote:
| If somebody offered me 1200 GBP a month, tax free, no
| strings attached, guaranteed for the rest of my life, there
| is no way I would continue working for somebody else. I
| would tinker around with open source and pet projects for
| the rest of my life.
|
| That's almost twice the aged pension here in Australia.
| (550 GBP)
|
| I guess I would also need some iron clad guarantee that the
| cost of living would not skyrocket.
| jsdwarf wrote:
| You could study various subsidy regimes during the COVID-19
| pandemic to answer this question. Some regimes subsidized
| resouces like energy, whereas other regimes provided
| something like an universal basic income (ubi) to small
| businesses/freelancers who were unable to serve their
| customers during lockdown. Austria was on the ubi side and we
| had huge problems with Inflation afterwards
| lawlessone wrote:
| >1. Does it cause inflation
|
| Our current system has inflation baked in, so im not sure how
| big an issue it is, so much as how much inflation?
| benmoose wrote:
| We need to get serious about wealth taxes. The amount of
| money locked up in assets and land is staggering and has been
| under taxed for far too long.
| y-curious wrote:
| I agree with the sentiment, but it matters very much how
| it's implemented. You would need to find a way to keep the
| money in your country, while also taxing more. It's
| actually very complicated, but yes, I agree with the
| notion.
| HPsquared wrote:
| Said assets and land are already being used though. It's
| just a case of people wanting to "redistribute" them.
| some1else wrote:
| My questions are more along the lines of: -
| Does it liberate people from meaningless employment? -
| Does it give a sufficient platform to people to bootstrap
| their own trade? - Does it give people the runway for
| meaningful creation / artistic self-actualization?
| buu700 wrote:
| Agreed. It's better than no data, but I don't really see what
| a study like this can hope to prove one way or another.
| Giving a handful of people free money isn't UBI any more than
| the lottery is UBI. It doesn't provide any information about
| the macroeconomic effects of an actual universal income, or
| about how a lifetime guarantee of continued payments would
| impact behavior.
|
| Personally, I think the necessity and viability of UBI will
| become apparent sooner than most would expect. If AI and
| related fields continue to advance at their current pace, at
| some point we'll be able to observe a clear trend toward an
| eventual government budget surplus paired with a mass
| unemployment crisis. Implementing a UBI or similar measure
| during that transitional period will be the only way to avoid
| a lot of unnecessary pain and societal upheaval.
|
| This won't cause excess inflation because the payments will
| be backed by real economic output; the payments will only
| serve to keep demand in line with supply. Eventually, we'll
| get to the point where a UBI with annual raises and a
| balanced budget can coexist. A pessimistic outlook would be
| that this heralds the end of human innovation and ingenuity;
| I personally predict that it kicks off a renaissance of
| entrepreneurship, invention, and scientific breakthroughs
| that at least matches the relative progress of the 20th
| century.
| numpad0 wrote:
| will it become a capped negative sales tax, in a way? I don't
| see how amount of currency smaller than individual UBI amount
| make tangible sense under its presence.
| rsoto2 wrote:
| It's funny, people like you will say a study is too small and
| focused to be worthwhile.
|
| But then we have the case of Alaska, an entire state receiving
| a yearly stipend(basic income). And the same type of people
| will say well it's too broad you can't possibly pinpoint any
| direct effects. https://www.ktoo.org/2015/02/20/alaska-tops-
| gallups-index-we...
|
| Science is not made for perfection and many studies are _not
| possible_ it doesn't mean there's nothing useful to gain from
| it for policy makers. It's also simpler to study smaller groups
| than effects on entire countries.
| exe34 wrote:
| > "It's awesome! I wasn't even aware that we were even close
| to being number 1, so seeing that was really nice to know,"
| Brown said
|
| It seems to have come as a shock to a lot of them to find out
| they were so happy.
| floxy wrote:
| Alaska Permanent Fund Dividend for 2024: $1,702, or
| $141.83/month
|
| https://pfd.alaska.gov/
| oulipo wrote:
| Perhaps, but they have actual arguments for their claim, and
| you have just hypotheses. Scientific studies like those are the
| best approximation we can have to a full rollout. So perhaps
| results won't be exactly the same with a full rollout, but at
| least they have already taken out the "people will just behave
| nonsensically / be worse off" hypotheses
| James_K wrote:
| > the likely feedback effects on the broader economy that a
| universal rollout would have
|
| It's interesting to describe as "likely" something for which
| there is no evidence. This is an actively anti-science belief.
| It seems to me as if you really don't like the idea of UBI and
| so are saying that, if it actually happened, the effect would
| be the opposite of what experimental data shows. This is pretty
| clearly biased.
|
| > (increase in the money supply)
|
| There is no effect on money supply if this is funded through
| taxes.
|
| > Some things just can't be tested ahead of time empirically.
|
| You can gradually expand the pool of people receiving UBI to
| see how these effects scale. Begin in one city, then increase
| to a larger region, then do it nationally.
| gmoot wrote:
| > There is no effect on money supply if this is funded
| through taxes
|
| Of course there is. Suppose we tax Elon several billion
| dollars. Now, instead of sitting in his money vault, it flows
| into the economy where it increases demand pressure.
| James_K wrote:
| He doesn't have a money vault. He has almost zero cash
| holdings. If you tax him, then he will have to sell assets
| to pay for those taxes, which removes money from the
| economy as that money was being actively spent on his
| assets. The only situation when money supply changes is if
| someone has a literal mattress full of cash hidden away.
| Even if you just have money in a savings account, it acts
| as a fractional reserve for the banking system meaning that
| there is a net decrease in money supply when you give it to
| the government as banks can no longer use it as the backing
| for loans.
| dalmo3 wrote:
| This is the UBI experiment I want to see:
|
| The government creates a new currency called $UBI, with the
| same legal tender status as the official currency for that
| country ($FIAT). I.e. people can use it to pay taxes, and
| people are required to accept it when doing commerce. Both
| currencies exist in parallel.
|
| In the true spirit of ubi, everyone is entitled to an equal
| amount of it, and no one should be worse off by it. So they
| need to issue the currency new currency to give away.
|
| They set up a system so everyone gets the same amount of money,
| at the same time, for maximum fairness. Everyone's income just
| goes up, equally.
|
| $UBI officially has 1:1 parity to $FIAT, and this parity is
| used to calculate how much they'll need to "print" out at a
| given month. Let's say it's living_wage*population_size. That
| amount can be adjusted once a year by factoring in the
| government reserves built up exclusively from tax returns. In
| other words, the monetary base is a known, deterministic
| quantity.
|
| They allow free exchange between $FIAT and $UBI, but the
| government does not officially exchanges it. They also allow
| people to set prices to their products and services freely.
| stevage wrote:
| What is the benefit of all this extra complexity?
| mrangle wrote:
| That's right. Community wide Universal Basic Income would cause
| price rises for shelf goods, negating the intended beneficial
| effect.
|
| As the value of money is always relative to its scarcity. More
| money held by all individuals always leads to higher prices,
| because it leads to money being worth less. Life only becomes
| less expensive when making more money than others. This is a
| basic dynamic of how money works, at its most fundamental
| level.
|
| Society would need price controls to stop shelf prices from
| rising, and to maintain the beneficial effect of UBI (being
| able to afford more goods). At that point shortages are
| incoming, and UBI income functionally transforms from money to
| credits for goods. Even if it is still called money. Credits
| implies a limit on how much goods people are allotted, even if
| given credits / money to redeem said allotment. The government
| needs to decide how much in goods each individual is allotted.
|
| This is where it gets bad. Communist propaganda practice is to
| promise that the communist society will allot a maximum amount
| goods per person out of its GDP, implying an evenly distributed
| yet relatively well off populace. Visualize a pie that is cut
| in large slices and completely distributed.
|
| The rub is that the government gets to keep any part of the pie
| that is not distributed, and so its incentive is to distribute
| the least amount of the pie and the smallest slices. Which is
| what we see in practice. People given the minimum of their
| collective production value to sustain their existence. With
| the government hoarding the rest. Slaves in all but name.
|
| The government now has a taste of control over wealth
| distribution for part of its GDP, which it enacts via
| entitlement over some production value of work and private
| business. Whatever production value is left for the private
| sector economy is now tempting for the government to also take
| over and minimally distribute in the same manner, because again
| the government gets to keep much of the money. Private business
| and employment begin to become dirty words.
|
| We live in a World that is dominated by the fundamental nature
| of money, some would call it a fallen world. Making a low
| amount of money feels like a slave's existence.
|
| However, at least in a free market economy there is a type of
| escape hatch from that existence should someone figure out how
| to provide society with relatively more value than others.
| Whereas in a socialist society, that escape hatch tends to
| legally close as the years tick by and the personal allotment
| of goods declines.
| stevage wrote:
| > That's right. Community wide Universal Basic Income would
| cause price rises for shelf goods, negating the intended
| beneficial effect.
|
| If that were true, supermarkets in wealthy areas would be
| much more expensive than in poor areas, but they aren't.
|
| No one likes overpaying for groceries, and a modest
| government income isn't going to change that.
| lr4444lr wrote:
| Supermarkets in poor areas get reliable cash flow from EBT
| - it is arguably UBI in action. Its patrons tend to have
| lower rates of vehicle ownership and free time to seek
| better priced alternatives.
| yorwba wrote:
| > Of course people don't quit their jobs and careers because
| they are part of a small group enrolled in a 3-year scientific
| study.
|
| Except the study did show people quitting their jobs at a
| higher rate. But they mostly switched to new jobs instead of
| becoming unemployed. Of course people given the choice between
| working less or making more money usually choose the money.
| People who choose otherwise are already part-
| timing/episodically employed/on unemployment benefits/getting
| subsidized by their family.
|
| Presumably there's a level of UBI where most people wouldn't
| see the need to work anymore, but if they quit permanently,
| this will reduce the supply of goods, increasing prices and
| limiting how much UBI can buy, to the point where people are
| incentivized to start working again. So it's a self-regulating
| system. Of course it would be less disruptive to start with a
| very low UBI that gradually increases, instead of starting high
| and letting inflation sort out the rest.
| spidersenses wrote:
| >Of course it would be less disruptive to start with a very
| low UBI that gradually increases
|
| This is a very good point that I haven't even heard made by
| proponents of this idea before. Thanks!
| SoftTalker wrote:
| You could argue it's a self-regulating system as well with
| UBI at zero.
| meinersbur wrote:
| It also matters what jobs they change to.
|
| There is a documentary out there showing someone who could
| quit their regular job and become an artist thanks to an UBI
| pilot (Canada IIRC). It is presented as a positive example in
| that they did not become lazy, but just work something
| different and still make revenue close to what they earned on
| their job by selling art.
|
| How many people will become artists with UBI introduced
| nationally? Who is going to buy all that art?
| ForHackernews wrote:
| Who cares if anyone buys the art? In a world with basic
| income where people didn't have to worry about survival
| wages, people could make art just because they were moved
| to make art.
| unclad5968 wrote:
| And where will the money for UBI come from when everyone
| quits their job for non-income generating hobbies?
| ForHackernews wrote:
| Tax the AI companies? Their bots are built on the
| plundered wealth of all mankind and that wealth belongs
| to the commonweal by right.
|
| It's funny that this board can easily imagine AI
| destroying humanity but can't imagine a world where it
| enables them to quit their job.
| bko wrote:
| I don't know, they went from productive work (someone
| paying them to do it) to unproductive work.
|
| This is the old Keynesian argument I never bought that
| you can pay people to dig ditches and fill them back in
| and it would stimulate the economy.
| h2zizzle wrote:
| "still make revenue close to what they earned on their
| job by selling art."
|
| Read more closely.
| Izikiel43 wrote:
| > Except the study did show people quitting their jobs at a
| higher rate. But they mostly switched to new jobs instead of
| becoming unemployed.
|
| Didn't something similar happened during Covid due to
| stimulus checks? People were confident on applying for new
| jobs since they had the stimulus check as a backup.
| pj_mukh wrote:
| I think the nuance here is that the income in Universal Basic
| Income is a stand-in for "everyone's basic needs should be
| met". But income doesn't guarantee that, because prices go up
| and down for a variety of reasons.
|
| What people _actually_ want is Universal Basic Buying Power.
| I should be able to get a roof over my head, get food and an
| education. It sucks that it 's this complicated but in terms
| of government policy sometimes UBI is cash handouts, other
| times it should be supply-side investments, and as the
| original commenter laid out, none of these research
| experiments are running that experiment.
| h2zizzle wrote:
| I mean, even that's something of a misconception. Let's
| start with an axiom: there are enough people and resources,
| both locally and universally, to provide every human being
| with enough to eat every day and a safe place to sleep
| every night (acts of God notwithstanding). That's an
| objective truth; technologically and logistically, we are
| there as a civilization. So a _guarantee of access to
| something that already exists_ is a matter of policy, not
| economy. The doomsayers are just wrong on this one, unless
| the first act of UBI recipients would be to burn farms,
| blow up the rail network, and release pests into vacant
| housing, or something (though I don 't doubt that this
| scenario is precisely what they expect; after so many
| studies, it's safe to call anti-UBI rhetoric a
| rationalization of unsubstantiated class hysteria).
| potato3732842 wrote:
| > but the psychology is completely different to if basic income
| was actually universal and expected to continue in the long-
| term.
|
| Would it though? Do people really trust their governments that
| much?
|
| Poor people who this would be most applicable to tend to deal
| with the government a lot more than UBI proponents so their
| trust levels are probably different.
| stevage wrote:
| > Do people really trust their governments that much?
|
| In Europe? Yeah. Safety nets are not suddenly taken away.
| potato3732842 wrote:
| Social security wasn't taken away and probably never will
| be. How's it doing? What's it's 30yr outlook? You don't
| need to just trust that the program will exist, but that it
| will be useful on a timeline long enough that you can
| eschew investing in skills that make money. How many greeks
| do you think would trust their government to do that? What
| about the brits?
|
| But of course policy minutia that can make or break
| programs are unimportant compared to cheap internet
| comments.
| TuringNYC wrote:
| >> Social security wasn't taken away and probably never
| will be.
|
| In the US, the "trick" is usually just to extend the age
| at which you get social security. Life expectancy is not
| universally equal, they vary widely based on gender,
| race, economics. For some subsets of our population
| Social security has essentially be eliminated for half
| the cohort because it starts past the average life
| expectancy.
|
| (to be clear, I think this is atrocious)
| grafmax wrote:
| The money supply argument seems flawed to me. As long as poorer
| people gain a larger _share_ of the money supply, their
| increased spending power would outpace inflation. That's
| because inflation is a function of the money supply in total,
| not the money supply of those with lower income.
| pizzafeelsright wrote:
| We already have UBI.
|
| Social security disability, TSA, Federal and State Workers in
| education and "general services".
| rsoto2 wrote:
| No we do not. None of those are UBI and are not universally
| distributed.
| rsoto2 wrote:
| We don't even have single payer healthcare my dawg. The "u" in
| ubi is for universal.
| jghn wrote:
| TSA, and to a large extent the US Military as well, is just a
| jobs program that avoids triggering the median American's
| aversion to "socialism".
|
| The others that you mentioned aren't this.
|
| And the point of "U" is "Universal", which isn't at all what
| you said.
| Cthulhu_ wrote:
| Those are federal services, that's not the same as UBI. The
| premise of UBI (in my limited understanding of it) is that,
| especially in more socialist countries, you can get rid of a
| lot of programs that support the poor / sick / etc in favor of
| a system where everyone gets the same amount, and the
| bureaucratic systems in place that check to make sure people
| are entitled to these benefits can be dissolved.
|
| For example, I live in the Netherlands which according to
| Americans is a really socialist country; if you lose your job
| from getting fired, you are entitled to unemployment benefits.
| However, only if you prove you are actively looking for a
| different job, if you don't or can't prove that, you get
| shorted.
|
| There's the dole (bijstand), but a lot of counties put a lot of
| conditions on there; some even told people to grab some tools
| and get to work on maintaining the public spaces as part of
| keeping their benefits. Which is employment, which should mean
| they get a contract and wage, worker's rights, etc.
| James_K wrote:
| I feel as though this study is only addressing the bottom
| percentile of questions about UBI, the kind of complaints from
| people who think "those lazy poors shouldn't be given money". I
| think most people are able to understand that, yes, people's
| lives improve when you give them more money. My real questions
| are macroeconomic. Does UBI create a Keynesian stimulus effect on
| the economy, or is it primarily inflationary? What is the saving
| on means testing benefits? How does tax law need to be adjusted
| to ensure proper dispersal of funds?
|
| Edit: I should emphasis that these questions come from a place of
| genuine curiosity, rather than simply throwing things up to get
| in the way of a policy being implemented. I believe larger trials
| are required to gather better data, with a view towards expanding
| the pool of recipients.
| throwaway48476 wrote:
| Redistribute policies only work in countries with high social
| trust. There's a strong correlation between social trust and
| wealth inequality.
| HPsquared wrote:
| Pretty much any policy can work (to some extent, for a while)
| in a society with sufficiently high social trust. But that
| trust is not static and can be built or depleted over time by
| those same policies.
| chris_va wrote:
| This really does not seem like a balanced take, e.g. it does not
| address the main question of inflation destroying whatever value
| might be created.
|
| If we redistribute money (which is a proxy for scarcity) to a
| small number of people, it is hard to observe the aggregate
| effect on the rest of the economy. If we redistribute money to
| everyone, we reduce the value (e.g. velocity of money increases
| without a commensurate change in economic output), so there would
| be massive inflation. It's possible that the _continual_ massive
| inflation will cost less than the stability created by UBI, and
| it 's possible it could be the extreme opposite. So, it would be
| a Grand Experiment, like Communism, and like all grand
| experiments it could end very poorly, and these studies do
| nothing to address that.
| grafmax wrote:
| As long as lower economic strata gain an increased portion of
| the money supply, they ought to be able to purchase more than
| they did before, even after inflation. At a high level
| inflation is a function of the money supply not the money
| supply of the lower strata.
| James_K wrote:
| It can be done on the scale of a city or region within a
| country. The idea it would have an inflationary effect is
| somewhat misguided. There are only so many goods available in
| the economy, and redistributing money can't decrease that. Your
| real wealth, that is the quantity of goods and services you
| have access to, will go up if you are below the mean, and down
| if you are above it, under a scheme of redistribution. The
| inflationary effect is actually a desired result, as it will
| increase the economic incentive to produce goods appealing to
| people on the lower end of the income scale. In the long term,
| you should expect a real terms decrease in the price of
| essential goods and an increase in the price of luxury goods as
| the spending power of the rich falls in comparison to the
| middle and lower classes. You can see the precise opposite of
| this at play currently. Rising inequality, the exact opposite
| of redistribution, has driven massive increases in the
| production of luxury goods and simultaneous inflation and
| decreases in the production of essential goods.
|
| TL;DR A free market serves the consumers with money, and
| redistributing money re-balances the market towards serving a
| certain group of people. I believe a downwards redistribution
| would be favourable to the present upwards one.
| markus_zhang wrote:
| I always think, instead of UBI in $$, UBI in items is a lot
| better. This alters the social-economic reality more dramatically
| than UBI in $$ but I think it is a better option.
|
| So basically, instead of throwing a bunch of $$ to everyone every
| month and hopefully inflation doesn't happen, give everyone a
| basic condo with a reasonable number of electrical appliances in
| an UBI apartment (being UBI doesn't mean low quality, it should
| mean reasonably good quality but without those fancy stuffs),
| send everyone food package every week, free library card, free
| online university admission (they don't have to take them if they
| don't want to), etc., and maybe a bit of $$ just for
| entertainment and such.
|
| However, I think it's more important to help people to find
| meanings in their life. If I get UBI but feel lost, how do I find
| a sense of belonging? How do I find meaning in my life? Sure, if
| I'm smart or if I'm affluent, I might get into some really
| meaningful and well paid jobs, but UBI does not magically give
| people more job, it merely gives them more time to figure out --
| and a life of time is not enough without guidance and help.
|
| To help people find belongings and feel "being useful", the
| government can also encourage volunteering, mass infrastructure
| maintenance projects, and promote many other activities, so
| people can earn some pay, learn some skills AND find meaning in
| their life.
| zawaideh wrote:
| I've had a similar line of thought.. basically what you are
| proposing is sort of a voucher system. But, here is where my
| mind went, what if it is implemented as a bunch of tokens
| issued via a blockchain or even through a central authority.
| They can be freely traded if needed and prices can go up and
| down, but regardless of the price, there is a set number of
| them that get issued.
|
| Similarly, you can get issued tokens/rewards for doing needed
| work.
|
| I've wanted to spend more time thinking through this more
| thoroughly and flesh out the idea more.. without ever having
| the chance to
| em-bee wrote:
| that sounds like it's just a different currency. so then we
| have to deal with two kinds of currency. i don't think that
| is beneficial.
| serviceberry wrote:
| Governments try stuff like that pretty regularly (you can only
| buy certain things with food stamps, etc), but it's typically
| expensive to administer and inherently prone to abuse. Buy
| groceries with food stamps, sell groceries, buy drugs. On top
| of that, it's just inherently difficult to structure this in a
| way that's fair and useful to every person. If I inherited or
| built myself a nice rural home, I don't want a government-issue
| apartment - either instead or in addition to what I have. Do I
| get nothing? That's unfair. Do I get the stuff I don't want?
|
| "Lump sum in cash" is the most flexible and equitable system.
| But then - and that's a major problem with UBI - you end up
| with people who spend it irresponsibly and then need help to
| survive. So you end up with UBI in addition to all the existing
| social safety nets.
| em-bee wrote:
| also dietary needs and preferences. it's way do complicated.
| it adds a burden not only to the administration but also to
| those who sell the goods and services received.
|
| another problem is that if i earn extra money i can't combine
| it with the basic income to eg afford a better apartment.
| everyone would be stuck with the apartment given.
|
| _you end up with people who spend it irresponsibly and then
| need help to survive. So you end up with UBI in addition to
| all the existing social safety nets._
|
| i don't believe that. if you spend your income irresponsibly
| you are out of luck. change your habits. wait until the next
| payment and do better. if you can't do that then a social
| worker will help you.
| throwaway743 wrote:
| While cash like UBI offers flexibility, criticizing targeted
| aid like food stamps misses the point. These programs are
| essential safety nets for the most vulnerable. While some
| misuse might occur - often signaling deeper needs requiring
| more services, not less food - focusing on that minority
| ignores the vast majority who rely on this aid to simply
| survive.
|
| Suggesting it's "unfair" if you don't need specific help
| ignores the purpose of a safety net. How a society supports
| those facing hardship is a measure of its character. Worrying
| about potential misuse at the lowest rungs seems
| disproportionate when compared to massive government spending
| elsewhere. Ultimately, denying essential aid based on
| assumptions about how a few might misuse it is
| counterproductive and lacks compassion.
| markus_zhang wrote:
| Yeah I agree there are a lot of problems in this kind of
| schemes. I don't have answers for any of them, because giving
| a concrete answer to any of these questions probably leads to
| more questions.
|
| You can still have some $$ in that package, so it's not
| entirely out of flexibility. I also guess people who receives
| food packages, as you said, may be willing to exchange for
| other stuffs. TBH the most important reason I pick provisions
| (with a bit of $$) over 100% $$ is because of the scale.
| teamonkey wrote:
| All sorts of benefits get scrutiny along the lines of "what
| if _they_ spend it in ways _I_ disapprove of?" Inherent in
| UBI is the notion of increased personal freedom.
|
| The study showed that people used the money in unusual ways,
| spreading it around and sharing it, usually in ways that
| benefited the economy, but would not be allowed by a more
| heavily-regulated system like food stamps.
| itishappy wrote:
| What am I going to do with a second home?
|
| I see where your head's at, but I think a huge portion of the
| reason for using dollars is that it's simple and easy to
| manage. You don't need to find suppliers, manage inventory,
| match individuals with housing, or audit for fairness.
| Potentially more importantly, you don't need to pay for those
| activities either!
| markus_zhang wrote:
| Yeah, but I think with a government-initiated program, it's
| going to be a lot cheaper because of the scale. It definitely
| doesn't solve the problem of corruption or other political
| issues, but hopefully UBI creates better citizens (for a
| start, now whoever wants to participate in politics have the
| time to do more research and participate more) so that those
| issues get called out.
| mppm wrote:
| This is basically the communist vision (in its original,
| positive sense) -- Universal Basic Provisioning achieved
| through automation and a moderate amount of community service.
| People are always quick to point out how governments will
| inevitably screw this up, likely making things even worse than
| they are now, but I think the idea has merit at least in
| principle. _Unlike_ the idea of Universal Basic _Income_. Free
| markets and free money just don 't go together. Especially if
| this money is given to the "productive underlayer" of society
| rather than investment bankers. That will just collapse the
| house of cards from the inside out. Administrators, middle
| managers and VPs of sales do not a functioning economy make.
| markus_zhang wrote:
| I agree that historically such movements always ended up
| badly, e.g. Russia and China. I'd argue that Russia and China
| picked Socialism not because they had abundance of materials,
| but on the contrary, because they were too weak back then, so
| that Socialism gave them the tool of collectivism to fight
| against external threats and built up industries quickly.
|
| We have never tried something like that (as you said UBP) in
| a rich country. I guess Norway and Sweden are closer? But I'm
| not sure.
|
| Agree with your points on UBI.
| mppm wrote:
| I do wonder sometimes how UBP would play out in a developed
| country... Would it remove the need for bullshit jobs and
| refocus the market-oriented part of the economy towards
| real progress? Would it make people happier? Or would it
| make people spend even more of their lives scrolling,
| swiping and retweeting? In any case, this is a purely
| theoretical exercise -- even more so than UBI, the idea of
| UBP is very much incompatible with neoclassical economics,
| which thoroughly dominates economic and societal thought in
| most of the developed world.
| zehaeva wrote:
| Ahh going back to the days of Government Cheese I see!
|
| Everything old is new again.
| markus_zhang wrote:
| Government cheese was created when the country didn't have
| enough resources. What I'm talking about is abundance of
| resources. We never tried anything like that before.
| jacobgkau wrote:
| To be fair, government cheese (from what I understand) was
| actually _created_ in order to save extra milk the
| government bought up as part of a price control effort. In
| other words, there was an abundance of milk (because the
| government subsidized it, causing more to be produced than
| the market needed).
|
| Once it was already sitting around, it's been _used_ to
| address citizens in the country not having enough
| resources. Which is kind of the same thing your semi-
| universal basic provisions would address.
| tayo42 wrote:
| I think expecting the government to figure out your meaning off
| life is putting a bit of to much responsibility there.
| markus_zhang wrote:
| But what is wrong if there is an extra option? You don't have
| to take the pill if you don't need it.
| metabagel wrote:
| > If I get UBI but feel lost, how do I find a sense of
| belonging? How do I find meaning in my life?
|
| That's rather a separate problem. The point of UBI is to make
| individuals and families more economically resilient. This
| should have a lot of beneficial spillover effects, but it's not
| a cure-all for every ill.
| nradov wrote:
| And where exactly is that free furnished condo located? Do I
| get to live in Beverly Hills for free if I want to?
| markus_zhang wrote:
| I agree that execution is the key, and I don't have the
| answers for a lot of the questions.
|
| I guess we (humans) will never achieve the equality that
| everyone agrees to, because every one has his or her own idea
| of equality, but maybe that shouldn't prevent us from trying.
| nradov wrote:
| You have a very strange idea of "everyone". I never agreed
| to economic equality.
| markus_zhang wrote:
| Yeah that's one view of equality (by not agreeing with
| the concept from the start), and why I said there is no
| single answer every one agrees to.
| no-dr-onboard wrote:
| "Why do you think individuals deserve universal basic income?"
| keybored wrote:
| Some people think that basic income is the solution to the
| problem. I'm not sure. But I'm open to it. Maybe a basic income
| could serve as a transition for former millionaires and
| billionaires who didn't have real jobs. Transitioning to a real
| job via a jobs program might not be in the cards for them
| considering their skillsets. But a basic income could help them
| transition over a few years.
|
| But eventually they should try to find some kind of full-time,
| real job. Like the rest of us.
| djha-skin wrote:
| Paying someone who provides no return on investment is simply a
| bad investment. Of _course_ extra money doesn 't hurt the person
| getting paid. It hurts the government. They are now giving
| someone value (payng them) in exchange for no immediate value in
| return. This kind of expenditure at any business or organization
| would be recognized as one of poor judgement. Value can't be
| generated out of thin air. People must pay for what they use,
| either by money or sweat. Lack of recognition of these basic
| facts isn't good. UBI is not viable.
| ipsento606 wrote:
| > This kind of expenditure at any business or organization
| would be recognized as one of poor judgement
|
| The purpose of a business is to generate a return on
| investment.
|
| Are you suggesting that the purpose of a government is to
| generate a return on investment?
|
| > We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more
| perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility,
| provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare,
| and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our
| Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the
| United States of America.
| rtp4me wrote:
| The purpose of government is to generate opportunity for the
| masses so they can become self sustainable.
|
| A better quote for you: "Ask not what your country can do for
| you -- ask what you can do for your country" (JFK).
| foobarchu wrote:
| Ok, so what do you propose to do instead as AI gradually eats
| the world? A stated goal of most companies in that space is
| essentially to make human work redundant, so shall we just kill
| off all the ones who aren't needed anymore?
| jay_kyburz wrote:
| Not the grandparent, but I've been waiting for somebody to
| ask!
|
| The gov should guarantee a minimum wage job for everybody.
| You get out of bed, do something useful, you get a pay check.
| You might even learn a trade or develop skills.
|
| Don't like your boss, or the work not right for you, there
| can be plenty of other jobs for you to move into.
|
| What are all these jobs? I'm glad you asked!
|
| We need to plant billions of trees to soak up CO2, then tend
| the forests. We could use a few massive desalination
| projects. We can convert the world to green energy. We can
| care for our elderly better. We could use a lot more
| teachers. (How does 10 kids per teacher sound!). Of course
| would could have more homes and nicer cities. (How good would
| it be for the gov to pay you to build your own house!)
|
| There is a very long list of cool stuff we could do if you
| don't need rich people to invest in it first!
| djha-skin wrote:
| Who owns the AI, demanding payment for its use? Who owns the
| GPUs that the AI runs on? Who sold those people the silicon?
| Who owns the real estate upon which the GPUs run? All those
| people will demand payment for services rendered or goods
| delivered.
|
| My personal favorite: Who fixes the AI when it breaks?
|
| The lawn mower replaced human work, but it needs _just
| enough_ direction that it's still worth money for humans to
| run them, auto-run lawn mowers notwithstanding.
|
| AI will make people faster, but humans will only do work for
| other humans that do their share by giving value back.
|
| I don't believe we will ever live in a world where people
| won't want people working for them, or doing something for
| them.
| rtp4me wrote:
| How about get educated/trained in something AI can't eat?
| Become a HVAC technician, Nurse/Doctor, lawn care maintenance
| owner, teacher, industrial shop owner, etc. There are plenty
| of fields that don't require AI to compete. They just require
| effort on your part to become educated and participate.
| rtp4me wrote:
| Thanks for this. Young people think UBI is great since they
| don't have much invested in the system. Instead they just have
| propaganda from media/social sites telling them how the world
| is falling apart, how they don't have a chance to succeed, etc.
| The answer: UBI! It is the "easy" answer since it literally
| requires no effort on their part to participate in society.
| They get up, eat free food, live in a free house, and enjoy the
| day without any worry.
|
| Sounds great until they realize the human condition eventually
| kicks in. People will decide not to work - they will just take
| and not give back. In the end, we need a society where people
| are required to put forth the effort to participate.
| jsdwarf wrote:
| Many alleged benefits of basic income can be explained by flaws
| in the study design. No I will not quit my 40h if the 1200EUR are
| paid out for three years only.
|
| But i will use the money to hire cleaning ladies or baby sitters
| -> more spare time than control group.
| metabagel wrote:
| I don't get it. Where's the flaw?
| mgraczyk wrote:
| My big questions that do not seem to be answered in the paper:
|
| 1. Did any participants drop out? Were there exactly 107 treated
| participants at both the start and end of the trial? Previous UBI
| experiments I've seen have huge biases where dropped out
| participants are excluded, but dropping out is affected by
| treatment.
|
| 2. The ~1700 participants were selected from the 20,000
| applicants via a procedure that accounted for their opinion about
| UBI, "the sample was supposed to contain an equal number of
| proponents and opponents of a universal basic income". Why was
| this done? Can we see how these survey responses correlate with
| outcome? Maybe the participants are much more/less supportive of
| UBI than the German population.
|
| 3. The participation criteria required that participants "had a
| personal, monthly income between EUR 1,100 and 2,600" and "were
| not unemployed for more than one year". This seems like it would
| introduce a lot of bias, participants are all members of the 94%
| of Germans I would expect to have their labor participation least
| affected by UBI.
|
| Seems quite a bit better overall than the studies in the Bay Area
| over the last few years
| jay_kyburz wrote:
| A far more interesting study would be to give its to a bunch of
| graduating high school students, guaranteed for the rest of
| their lives, and see how many are contributing meaningfully to
| the economy at the end of a few years.
| IshKebab wrote:
| 1. People _will_ stop working if they don 't need to _and won 't
| need to in future_. This is obvious to anyone who has met people.
|
| 2. We obviously can't afford UBI. Most governments have severe
| deficits even _without_ UBI. "Tax the rich! Then we'll be able
| to afford it!".. yes well that's orthogonal. Let me know when you
| figure out how to do that.
|
| These studies are a waste of money.
| supplied_demand wrote:
| ==1. People will stop working if they don't need to and won't
| need to in future. This is obvious to anyone who has met
| people.==
|
| You are arguing against a proposal nobody is making. In this
| study, EUR1,200/month isn't really enough that people wouldn't
| need to work. The average wage in Germany was EUR4,479/month in
| 2023.
| itishappy wrote:
| 1. This isn't at all obvious to me. Look at the number of
| people who continue working well into retirement or the people
| who volunteer their time. I tried sitting on my ass for three
| months after college and it drove me so crazy I picked up WebGL
| despite having zero intention of using it in my career.
|
| 2. Most UBI proposals I've seen involve replacing existing
| programs with UBI. My personal favorite proposal is a flat tax
| that's fully redistributed. There's no deficit possible here,
| if tax revenue goes down, so do payments.
| HideousKojima wrote:
| >Look at the number of people who continue working well into
| retirement or the people who volunteer their time.
|
| Only 20% of people 65 or older in the US continue to work,
| and I imagine most of that 20% are doing part time or
| intermittent work.
| itishappy wrote:
| Nice stat! The national average is 60%. Wonder how many of
| those half-retired folks still need the money?
| lelanthran wrote:
| > Look at the number of people who continue working well into
| retirement or the people who volunteer their time.
|
| And those people are a fraction of people who _don 't_
| continue working when they don't have to.
|
| You can't make decisions based on the behaviour of such a
| small minority.
| itishappy wrote:
| That was an example off the top of my head. Is that the
| most represenative sample? Another group that doesn't need
| money includes doctors, lawyers, and executives in their
| 40s and 50s. I don't see many of them quitting the moment
| they're able. What do you feel the appropriate rate for the
| entire population is? What's the rate required to sustain
| society?
|
| The only decision I intend to make (and the only one I feel
| qualified to make) is that I'd like to see more data. We
| shouldn't be making decisions off of assumptions either
| way.
| s1artibartfast wrote:
| Well we don't have enough people working today to sustain
| society, so it seems to be in the wrong direction.
| metabagel wrote:
| > 2. We obviously can't afford UBI. Most governments have
| severe deficits even without UBI. "Tax the rich! Then we'll be
| able to afford it!".. yes well that's orthogonal. Let me know
| when you figure out how to do that.
|
| That's not at all obvious. I'm not rich, but I recall when I
| made far less money and was taxed at a marginal rate which was
| 4% higher than the one which applies to me now. In the U.S.,
| we've made a conscious decision to keep cutting taxes and
| running large deficits. We could decide to raise taxes and pay
| for UBI. Yes, that's a political problem, but it's not at all
| the problem that we can't afford UBI.
| zipy124 wrote:
| 1. If this was true the wealthy would not work, and yet a large
| majority still do, socialites and other classes are very small
| minorities of the wealthy.
| jillesvangurp wrote:
| There already is something similar to UBI. People don't starve,
| they have shelter, and they generally get taken care off when
| they have medical emergencies. That's true in most countries.
| What you get at that level is typically not great. But it is
| provided for by societies and governments across the world and
| lots of people are dependent on that.
|
| That current system is actually more expensive than UBI. At its
| best it would be about as expensive. For example, some
| countries spend almost as much on unemployment programs as they
| do on the actual unemployment benefits. Which, if you think
| about it is mildly ridiculous. People that show up at a
| hospital are not going to die abandoned in the gutter (well
| mostly, Michael Moore documented a few negative examples for
| this in the US). And of course, having your life saved might
| bankrupt you in the US. Even if you are insured. And even there
| they'll likely patch you up at least. And in most other
| countries, everybody is insured so it's not a problem. The
| modern sign of poverty is being morbidly obese because of the
| excess of low quality nutrition people seem to be able to get
| their hands on via food stamps and what little benefits they
| can scrape together. Which then causes health issues. Which
| further burdens the unemployment and benefits system.
|
| All this is stupid, inefficient, costly, and not that great if
| you are on the receiving end (to put it mildly). But
| formalizing the status quo in UBI form might make things a bit
| more efficient and better. It would still not be great or that
| attractive as a lifestyle. But then the message becomes "just
| get a job if you want/need more". Don't worry about starving.
| Worry about getting something nice for yourself and work to
| secure that. Most people have more ambition than just coasting
| on benefits. And would you employ the ones that don't?
|
| People think of this in closed world terms (somebody has to pay
| for it), not realizing that most economic growth is a complex
| system with money being created and distributed (in complex
| ways) by central banks, which then causes inflation to happen,
| and spending to compensate for that. A lot of jobs are more
| about distributing money to people and getting them to spend it
| than getting people to do something that adds value. The most
| important function many people have in our economy is just
| spending their money. Skipping the part where these people
| pretend to be useful in some bullshit job isn't that big of a
| deal.
| alabastervlog wrote:
| > 1. People will stop working if they don't need to and won't
| need to in future. This is obvious to anyone who has met
| people.
|
| Tons of people work jobs they don't like, instead of jobs they
| would prefer, because the former pays a _ton_ better than the
| latter, even though they could (barely, perhaps) get by on the
| lower salary.
|
| They do this because they like stuff, want prestige, and maybe
| want to raise a family in circumstances other than poverty.
|
| It's not obvious to me _at all_ that UBI at levels anyone is
| even half-seriously proposing would cause more than a very few
| people to stop working.
| lantry wrote:
| Yes, the studies are a waste of money when you've already made
| up your mind about the way the world "obviously" works, and
| aren't willing to test your assumptions or change your mind.
| throw7 wrote:
| I don't think UBI will work. Once it's universal, it will be
| soaked up somewhere in the economy. I would bet on land/real
| estate.
| sharkjacobs wrote:
| I'm not sure that I understand, are you saying that UBI might
| not work because real estate could become more expensive?
| krapp wrote:
| They're implying that landlords will immediately raise rents
| by the amount of UBI, rendering it pointless.
| pkdpic wrote:
| Seems like one of the primary themes in responses here is
| inflation, which seems like it makes sense.
|
| But is the point of this study to provide a basis / justification
| for larger tests? And if so would the next step be to test a UBI
| for the full population of a small city or state?
|
| The discussion around inflation though is making me wonder if any
| non-global plan for a UBI would be enough. Is it something that
| would have to be adopted universally / globally before the real
| effects on inflation / economies could be determined? If so is
| this just a doomed concept?
| Animats wrote:
| _This group consisted of people between the ages of 21 and 40,
| living alone, with a net monthly income between EUR1,100 and
| EUR2,600 - in other words, middle-class individuals who were
| still relatively early in their careers and could move around
| flexibly in the labour market._
|
| That's a group where financial help can pay off.
| dahdum wrote:
| Important to note their findings only apply to a smaller subset
| of people, and do not include those with the most need.
|
| > The findings of the pilot project will be generalizable not to
| the entire German population, but to 21- to 40-year-old
| individuals in single-person households with middle incomes.
|
| The reason:
|
| > We were thus faced with the decision of selecting 122 people
| who represented the entire country but did not provide
| scientifically reliable data on the effects of a basic income, or
| selecting 122 people from a more limited group from whom we could
| draw definitive conclusions. In the end, we chose the latter.
|
| https://www.pilotprojekt-grundeinkommen.de/en/blog/how-the-p...
| mathgradthrow wrote:
| The cost of an annuity that pays your basic, fundamental living
| expenses: Food, shelter, water, etc. can be thought of as a debt
| that all people are born with. In the US, you can obtain a room
| in an apartment, basic food, internet access, and transportation
| (minimal versions of all of these), for something like
| $15,000/year.
|
| such a lifetime annuity would cost the average 18 year old on the
| order of 200-300 thousand dollars. This means that an 18 year old
| starts with about the same level of implicit debt, that a doctor
| who has just finished medical school has explicit debt, except
| that student debt doesn't scale with inflation.
|
| A key feature of a society which values social mobility is
| reducing the debt burden of its children. I don't think the
| answer on basic income is cut and dry, and I do think its
| important for people to sustain themselves via their own efforts,
| but since you likely wouldn't increase the debt burden of a
| teenager, and you also didn't select the debt burden of the
| average teenager. You should at least consider the possibility
| that you would actually choose to reduce, by some amount, the
| debt burden of the average teenager.
| jjice wrote:
| Not that it's the point of what you're saying, but at 300k, a
| 15k yearly payout would be 5%. I'm almost certain that no-one
| would ever give a 5% inflation adjusted annuity to an 18 year
| old for 300k.
|
| All that to say that the value you propose is probably even
| higher than what you lay out.
| mathgradthrow wrote:
| I just got a quote for 16k/year for an 18 year old for 300k,
| so I think I did a pretty good job with my estimate actually
| :P.
| wave_function wrote:
| Does that 16K/Year adjust for inflation?
| gorpy7 wrote:
| Maybe there should be a universal basic job. jobs can be rated by
| how much value is created- it can't be moving rocks from one
| location then back again. maybe that's too hard to calculate.
| weekly, if you create enough value, you've earned your basic
| income. This might be 2 days of road work. you get 40k for this.
| take responsibility and up your skills with the remaining time. I
| don't think it's ever a good idea to give money out just for
| being- i understand there are sales taxes etc. I hate the idea of
| creating jobs, it has always felt wrong. If the jobs fulfill a
| valuable and timely need, sure. But i'd rather kill jobs, i say,
| if you can automate your job with no loss in value, you should be
| paid at least double that for the rest of your days. If we focus
| on creating value, we'll all benefit. it's just a matter of
| measuring value i suppose. things like teaching a valuable skill
| should be of enormous value- as an example. call me crazy.
| carlosjobim wrote:
| Hitler for one always bragged about eradicating all
| unemployment in a stroke by ordering the autobahn projects.
|
| The core of the problem today is this: With modern tools, a
| modern worker gets 100 times more work done than a worker
| without modern tools. And you need to hire people who can use
| those modern tools and are trustable. Now, for most jobs you
| can train anybody to do it, but you cannot train people to be
| trustable and not destroy or steal your modern tools.
|
| The massive infrastructure projects and massive industrial
| projects of the past could swallow all the workers you could
| throw at them. And it didn't matter much at all if a worker was
| any combination of a drunk, a brawler, somebody who didn't
| speak the language, involved with organized crime at his spare
| time. As long as he did his job. But today, the very
| specialized and efficient tools are too sensitive and you want
| to be careful who gets near them and operates them.
|
| Putting the unemployed to do big infrastructure projects or
| similar is still better than them doing nothing - but mostly
| for their own development and spirits, rather than the actual
| work being done.
| AndyKelley wrote:
| Seems like an efficient way to recycle wealth that keeps pooling
| too much at the top. I think we can all agree that there's a
| limit to how much wealth inequality is healthy for society, and
| most people would agree that we're past that point now.
| stevage wrote:
| > With a basic income, the participants receiving a basic income
| saved an average of EUR450 more per month than the control group.
|
| So where did the other 1050 euros go? It says their consumption
| habits went up slightly then back down. And they donated a tiny
| amount more and gave a bit to their community. There still seems
| to be 500 euros or so missing?
| phkahler wrote:
| UBI doesn't even work algebraically. Where do you take the money
| out of the economy to pay for it?
| AndyKelley wrote:
| The money naturally flows from those who don't own assets, to
| those who do. So, to keep the economy flowing healthily, the
| cycle needs to be completed by taxing those who own a lot of
| assets.
| huitzitziltzin wrote:
| Of all the things which are never going to happen, I put
| universal basic income at the top of the list. Faster than light
| travel seems vastly more likely than universal basic income.
|
| I don't believe we can pay for it, nor do I believe that it's
| remotely politically feasible.
|
| Studies like this are perfectly nice but I can't imagine they are
| actually designed to confidently predict the general equilibrium
| effects of rolling out UBI on an entire society. (The studies may
| not be designed with that in mind but it's crucial.)
| stevage wrote:
| Elsewhere in this thread, someone saying this already exists in
| Alaska.
| lr4444lr wrote:
| Sorry if this offends, but I am deeply skeptical that the effect
| of UBI is independent of common culturally influenced behaviors
| of where it might be implemented. Try it in an opioid epidemic
| stricken rust belt town in the American Midwest, or an urban
| ghetto (I'm not totally sold that the selection criteria for the
| Stockton study were unbiased) and let us know how it goes.
| bentt wrote:
| UBI is great on an individual level, but as we saw with the Covid
| Stimulus payments in the US, they cannot help but be quite
| inflationary. That's my biggest worry about injecting huge
| amounts of money into a system that is truly universal.
|
| And if it's not truly universal, then it's a bad idea. Means
| tested money is just an incentive to fit the criteria.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2025-04-09 23:00 UTC)