Live data from Hacker News

A Genealogy of the Idea of Universal Basic Income

lareviewofbooks.org

71–80 of 162 posts

Re: A Genealogy of the Idea of Universal Basic Income

#71
post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We never hear about the downsides of other countries models either. It's always a cherry-picking of the best policies and pretending there's never any trade offs. That kind of disingenuous promotion doesn't do any favors when it comes to convincing people.

Interestingly enough, 5-10 years ago in Spain you could hear some proponents of private healthcare to compare it with the US. Now I think there's enough understanding that the US model doesn't work that the proponents instead talk about Singapore or other private models, no one compares them to the US anymore. Some arguments against universal health care I have heard in Spain: • Not enough choice, since you cannot e.…

My impression is, if you compare health care costs across various wealthy countries, it's pretty clear that socialised health care is cheaper than privatised health care. Netherland has universal but privatised healthcare, and has one of the most expensive health care systems in Europe, costing more than half that of the American health care system. And it's not particularly better than the more socialised healthcare systems of the surrounding countries, as far as I can tell.

And the only place in health care where you can have a free market at all, is in elective treatments. Treatments that you can choose not to use when they are too expensive. For everything else, it's your health and possibly your life at stake; you can't really say no to treatment, so you pay whatever it takes, and that's a situation that's easily abused by profit-seeking companies.

Re: A Genealogy of the Idea of Universal Basic Income

#72

I think UBI as a single monolithic program for providing minimum resources to provide the basics of food/shelter etc can be much improved on by other means: [0]Instead, I think a constellation of smaller, targeted programs (think best-of-breed) might be more effective and provide a more robust effect: If a society provides universal healthcare, comprehensive unemployment benefits that don't have absurdly low caps, ho…

A patchwork of "targeted" programs is unsatisfactory for many reasons. It lets people fall through the cracks, and it results in unintended effects as the programs are not designed or managed in a consistent way. The need for some sort of minimal income floor is universal, and it should be addressed in a universally-applicable way.

But then people need to go out and shop for those things using UBI, for example compete for housing in markets that may offer no affordable housing, but housing subsidies would help resolve that.

If targeted programs can be poorly designed or mismanaged inconsistently, then so could UBI. The whole idea is to thoughtfully design a program. If that is possible, there's no reason we can't thoughtfully design targeted programs, and UBI would still be there in a lesser capacity precisely for those people that would fall through the cracks of those targeted programs.

UBI just feels like a kind of sledgehammer, when a dozen scalpels might perform better. I'll grant that UBI would be superior to the very loose "safety net" of social programs in the US though.

Even with a "strong" UBI program, I still think we'd need other programs as well-- UBI will be far too low for people that suddenly lose a job that pays 5x UBI and need to get by until they find new comparable employment, as an example.

Re: A Genealogy of the Idea of Universal Basic Income

#73
The problem with UBI is that we would turn it back into the welfare system we have now.

Let's say we pass a truly universal basic income bill -- every person gets the same amount of money from the government, every month. It wouldn't take long before politicians propose giving more money to teachers and single mothers, or taking benefits away from convicted felons and sex offenders.

Over time, bit by bit, we will entitle certain groups of people to more or less money than others. That will happen for the same reason our existing welfare system is the way it is - the voters believe that some people are more deserving of help than others. UBI would not remain universal, or basic, for very long.

Given that we can't actually end up with a universal or basic income system, and that we will end up largely re-creating the same kinds of entitlements that characterize our current welfare systems, we might as well just improve and extend our current systems.

Re: A Genealogy of the Idea of Universal Basic Income

#74

I don't think there is any sort of unanimity regarding UBI. Being compensated for staying home is not UBI, because it is not ongoing. I'm against UBI for reasons that became apparent while playing MMORPGs. Stay with me here and I'll explain. Players of an RPG want a fun game. But they also want to succeed/win. These goals partially conflict. If they prioritize winning too highly, and pester customer support to make t…

> In life, we want to be lazy. Therea plenty of evidence that this isn't really all that true, and that if there is even a modicum of apparent reward for extra labor, people will continue to put extra labor in for that reward, often even past the point where that extra nominal reward seems to provide any additional real utility for them. > . I'm already working less than 20 hours per week (pre-COVID) because my mortg…

>> In life, we want to be lazy.

> Therea plenty of evidence that this isn't really all that true

"All that true" doesn't mean anything and is ostensibly misleading, ie false. There are segments of the population (pareto) that try to excel, but they generally do not do it sustainably (burnout). Common terminology...scams, shortcuts, work smarter not harder, are all colloquialisms centered around basic human behavior. Even working in ANY industry, people do everything in their power to either accrue wealth simply and/or make their work easier, without taking on additional work and asking for more compensation for doing more with their time.

Re: A Genealogy of the Idea of Universal Basic Income

#75
post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is no free market in education credentials or in healthcare. Both sectors are heavily regulated by the government.

Regulation isn’t the reason those sectors aren’t free markets. On the contrary, regulation exists because they can’t be free markets. Both lead to market failures due to information disparities, principal-agent problems, massive externalities, and a lack of free choice (in the case of health care).

The issue is the amount of regulation, of course. Regulatory capture can have worse effects than most market failures, and healthcare is one of the most obviously "captured" sectors.

Re: A Genealogy of the Idea of Universal Basic Income

#76
I am a free market advocate, libertarian-lite, that believes that UBI is the correct social safety net. I am clearly not unique in this regard, as this actually seems to be the most common type of UBI advocate I've encountered.

That being said, the one lingering question I have comes down to a variant of inflation. I think most people think of inflation as something that only happens as a result of monetary policy, but that's not entirely true. Let's say that UBI could be entirely funded through taxation, no new money is introduced into the system. There is still a form of inflation on certain goods. For example, let's take an extreme example of redistribution: we take all of the money from a billionaire and redistribute it. One billionaire doesn't buy 100,000,000 TVs for their house, but 1,000,000 people with $1,000 might each buy a TV. 1,000,000 people with an extra $1,000 has a much larger impact on demand for typical consumer goods than having that wealth be more concentrated. Of course stricter taxation of the uber-wealthy would have impacts lessening demand for large investments, so it's not a blanket inflation in the same way that just printing money would be, but it still has all of the same characteristics of inflation within certain consumer markets.

It's all very complicated, and I would like to see it modeled. If I'm a landlord, and I know that my tenants now have an extra $12,000 a year, do I raise rents? I think the natural argument is that because the scarcity or value of my real estate didn't actually change, I open myself to being undercut by competition if I try to arbitrarily raise the value of my property to reflect increased demand. But the problem is that it might not be entirely true that the value of my real estate didn't change. When I have to call a plumber, or gardener, or construction worker for a remodel, are their rates going to be the same? Are rates going to go up or down? It's very hard for me to know for sure.

It reminds me a bit of debt. Debt shouldn't necessarily produce inflation, but it definitely does. Do you think houses would cost hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars if the average person didn't have access to debt? Would it cost 50k+ in order to attend college? No. Access to debt dramatically increases the prices on the things purchased by the available debt, regardless of whether or not this theoretically is meant to produce inflation. My concern is that, as with access to debt, the increase in wealth will be met with an increase in cost across the board, and not due to exploitation, but because the effects are that most consumer products and services actually just end up costing as a natural reflection of increased demand.

Re: A Genealogy of the Idea of Universal Basic Income

#77
post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've not heard this. Can you explain how? And are you also suggesting that UBI proponents support abolition of other kinds of social insurance, replacing them with (not augmenting them with) UBI?

Yeah, the whole idea of ubi is you replace the patchwork of various social programs (and the overhead of each program) with a basic ubi for everyone. It's supposed to be much more efficient and there's no disincentives to self improvement (because you never lose your benefits). I personally don't actually think it disincentives working very much because people who want to work for more than just the minimum always wi…

I get how losing a benefit if you start working could be an even greater disincentive than UBI. I wasn't catching that point previously, so thanks.

Re: A Genealogy of the Idea of Universal Basic Income

#78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes. I'd say: No UBI without good affordable health care for all. No UBI without good affordable education for all. No UBI without humane unemployment benefits for all. No UBI for all, because you already managed it.

Wouldn’t a (high enough) UBI mean the free market would create “affordable” education and “affordable” health care and obviate the need for unemployment benefits?

No country that has achieved high-quality affordable education and health care for its citizens has done it via market-based means. It probably can't be done.

Re: A Genealogy of the Idea of Universal Basic Income

#79

The problem with UBI is that we would turn it back into the welfare system we have now. Let's say we pass a truly universal basic income bill -- every person gets the same amount of money from the government, every month. It wouldn't take long before politicians propose giving more money to teachers and single mothers, or taking benefits away from convicted felons and sex offenders. Over time, bit by bit, we will ent…

While this is always a threat, it does not mean it is inevitable. 1 person, 1 vote is a universal principle that seems to be holding across the [democratic] world. If anything, the momentum seems to be towards giving the vote back to the few who lose it (felons, etc)

Re: A Genealogy of the Idea of Universal Basic Income

#80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The whole point of UBI is that it has lower disincentives against work than other kinds of social insurance. When you say that UBI discourages working, that's perhaps true compared w/ no social insurance at all but it's not a very meaningful comparison.

I've not heard this. Can you explain how? And are you also suggesting that UBI proponents support abolition of other kinds of social insurance, replacing them with (not augmenting them with) UBI?

Existing social insurance schemes typically are of the form: you get $1000/mth, but, if you do any work, it subtracts from your payment. So, if you work less than $1000/mth, you're working, say, 100 hours "for nothing".

To make it worse, there is often an income point where the payment goes to zero (ex. if you make more than $800, you are no longer eligible, leaving a $200 gap). Or there are certain benefits that are lost (child credits, transit credits).

With UBI, you get $1000, but then every hour worked puts more money in your pocket.

Post reply on HN