Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The first results from the biggest basic income experiment

vox.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 181 posts

Re: The first results from the biggest basic income experiment

#11

Post by crooked-v »

danbruc wrote: post #7
MrBlueIncognito wrote: post #4

The idea of UBI, to me at least, is a mind-blowing one. It’s a shame something like this doesn’t exist on a large scale already. I know I’m probably missing something important here, but can someone outline any good reasons, if any, that it hasn’t been implemented yet?

In a certain way every country with taxes and good welfare system has an UBI, the difference is more of an implementation detail.

There's a huge difference between typical welfare programs and UBI, in that the fundamental principle of the latter is just handing over money with no strins attached and trusting people to (on average) use it efficiently and effectively.

Re: The first results from the biggest basic income experiment

#12

Post by coffeebeqn »

mantas wrote: post #3

Money flow into poor communities of course works. Relatively little money required on global scale. And they probably were given to the organization in some sort of a grant. What happens if you do this in a major economy using it as the source of money? We know what would happen if a bunch of money were printed. What if it was taken out of taxes and crapton of government programs were cancelled? Especially long term.

I always figured UBI would basically replace and end all government poverty programs at least

Re: The first results from the biggest basic income experiment

#13

Post by underlipton »

MrBlueIncognito wrote: post #4

The idea of UBI, to me at least, is a mind-blowing one. It’s a shame something like this doesn’t exist on a large scale already. I know I’m probably missing something important here, but can someone outline any good reasons, if any, that it hasn’t been implemented yet?

The closest thing we had to it - welfare and unemployment benefits without work requirements or onerous means testing - were dismantled on the basis of shoddy (read: nonexistent) research and amidst an atmosphere of racism and classism, and with the current status quo perpetuated by the perverse incentives of public-private "work search support" contracts. Any analysis of resistance to the implementation of UBI should consider this history. Some reporting on the matter:

https://99percentinvisible.org/episode/magic-bureaucrat-rive...

https://revealnews.org/podcast/the-welfare-to-work-industria...

https://www.cbpp.org/research/test-work-requirements-dont-cu...

We've known for a while now that the best approach is to just give people the money needed for them to improve their circumstances (whether that be capital for business or funding for training or other support services like therapy or housing).

EDIT: And a tangential link of some special interest: https://www.npr.org/sections/codeswitch/2013/12/20/255819681...

Re: The first results from the biggest basic income experiment

#14

Post by forward1 »

mantas wrote: post #3

Money flow into poor communities of course works. Relatively little money required on global scale. And they probably were given to the organization in some sort of a grant. What happens if you do this in a major economy using it as the source of money? We know what would happen if a bunch of money were printed. What if it was taken out of taxes and crapton of government programs were cancelled? Especially long term.

Then quite obviously the value of that money would be reduced in a significant way, as it no longer represents goods or labor to the same degree.

Re: The first results from the biggest basic income experiment

#15

Post by SeanAnderson »

I don't know much about UBI. How do people generally see it being implemented?

Does everyone get the exact same, flat amount? Do only people below a certain income get it? Does the amount gradually decline based on current income? Does the amount change based on cost of living? If someone remains destitute after being given UBI - is that now more clearly "on them," or do they now qualify for additional support?

Genuinely curious. It seems like these questions are very challenging to answer in a way that feels good/fair to all involved.

(edit, follow up questions:)

- If everyone gets the same amount then how would we reach alignment on fair amount if COL in different areas is wildly different? The gap between highest/lowest rent in America is 4x - 800 vs 3200. Said differently, is there a goal outcome with UBI or is the goal to just give out some money? Are we trying to make sure just everyone's rent is covered, rent and food, or just easing the pain a little?

- If we give everyone money every month, and that money immediately goes into circulation, doesn't that just cause inflation and then we're right back to where we started?

Re: The first results from the biggest basic income experiment

#16

Post by toomuchtodo »

crooked-v wrote: post #11
danbruc wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In a certain way every country with taxes and good welfare system has an UBI, the difference is more of an implementation detail.

There's a huge difference between typical welfare programs and UBI, in that the fundamental principle of the latter is just handing over money with no strins attached and trusting people to (on average) use it efficiently and effectively.

Social Security and Medicare comes to mind (age tested of course, Medicaid if you are in some measure of poverty) in the US. Retirees receive a monthly check as long as they're alive (worst case, they spend through it too quick and go without between monthly pay dates), and they receive healthcare regardless of their ability to manage their finances.

I see a wide swath of the population strata in my travels, and I can tell you with absolute certainty that some benefits must remain universal and UBI alone (only the fiat, no other support) is insufficient, due to combinations of lack of education, unsophistication, and mental health challenges. We don't rely on people coughing up for police and fire protection on the spot, for example.

I think that's the real conversation: what must be universal (healthcare for sure, non market housing potentially [1]), and what do we fill in with direct fiat transfers on a monthly cadence (which provides for autonomy and choice in matters where discretionary spend is involved). Non market/"socialized" housing ensures a relief valve so these aggregate support mechanisms aren't simply soaked up by rent seekers (with the potential for a "benefit rent" price spiral). You cannot hold hostage what you cannot buy and extract returns from. Think in systems.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38117223

(i provide material support to and advocate for some folks very much on the margin as well as some elderly folks, so these ideas and optimal potential configurations are top of mind, strong opinions on the topic)

Re: The first results from the biggest basic income experiment

#17

Post by Bjartr »

SeanAnderson wrote: post #15

I don't know much about UBI. How do people generally see it being implemented? Does everyone get the exact same, flat amount? Do only people below a certain income get it? Does the amount gradually decline based on current income? Does the amount change based on cost of living? If someone remains destitute after being given UBI - is that now more clearly "on them," or do they now qualify for additional support? Genui…

AIUI, if it's not something everyone gets (universal) and it's not the same amount for everyone (basic), it's not UBI.

Re: The first results from the biggest basic income experiment

#18

Post by elif »

MrBlueIncognito wrote: post #4

The idea of UBI, to me at least, is a mind-blowing one. It’s a shame something like this doesn’t exist on a large scale already. I know I’m probably missing something important here, but can someone outline any good reasons, if any, that it hasn’t been implemented yet?

Inflation and labor demand

Re: The first results from the biggest basic income experiment

#19

Post by beardyw »

SeanAnderson wrote: post #15

I don't know much about UBI. How do people generally see it being implemented? Does everyone get the exact same, flat amount? Do only people below a certain income get it? Does the amount gradually decline based on current income? Does the amount change based on cost of living? If someone remains destitute after being given UBI - is that now more clearly "on them," or do they now qualify for additional support? Genui…

Well the U stands for universal. It is likely that taxes will fund it, so your taxes when working would probably offset it. That's my understanding.

Re: The first results from the biggest basic income experiment

#20

Post by Ajay-p »

X6S1x6Okd1st wrote: post #6
MrBlueIncognito wrote: post #4

The idea of UBI, to me at least, is a mind-blowing one. It’s a shame something like this doesn’t exist on a large scale already. I know I’m probably missing something important here, but can someone outline any good reasons, if any, that it hasn’t been implemented yet?

https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2020/2/19/21112570/univer... Exactly what qualifies for you may mean it does already exist on a large scale or doesn't. Alaska's UBI program gave 1.3k this year, which I'm guessing many commenters here would say is too small to be a real UBI, but it is universal and has been going for almost 50 years

I wouldn't call the permanent fund a UBI. It's proceeds from the sale of oil, whereas every other UBI requires some taxation, wealth transfer, or cuts in spending elsewhere.
Post reply on HN