UBI as a productivity dividend • Hacker News Board

Re: UBI as a productivity dividend

#91

Post by EGG_CREAM » Sat, Mar 14, 2026, 7:14 PM UTC

estearum wrote: post #77

EGG_CREAM wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am a progressive government. The free market has failed to provide a necessary service. So now I pass a law that creates a not for profit contractor that builds houses. It’s not that complicated. We do it with fire departments, police, and many other services already. Free market might have been more efficient theoretically, but when it fails in practice we find another solution.

Yes, so un-complicated that we're now talking about state-built housing just to make UBI do anything other than enrich landlords. UBI is a bad idea. State-built housing is not necessarily a bad idea. You can just do the latter and skip the former.

I kind of lost the UBI plot, to be fair. I don’t really understand what UBI actually had to do with this exercise fundamentally, the exact same thing happens with or without it, it’s just that the floor of what “affordable housing” is gets risen. Unless you think that an unfettered, UBI-less economy doesn’t produce expensive housing? Which, I think we have many real world case studies in almost every major city in rich countries to disprove that assertion.

I do see what you mean, I think, now that I’m rereading and contemplating. A monthly stipend probably does more to raise prices than anything useful, unless you also pair it with regulation to stop the wealthy and powerful from taking it all for themselves. And at that point you could have just done those regulations without UBI. Hmm.

Do you think a few lump sum payments over a citizens lifetime would have the same effect? Maybe some large sum paid when you reach age of majority and then again at retirement?

Re: UBI as a productivity dividend

#92

Post by NicuCalcea » Sat, Mar 14, 2026, 7:14 PM UTC

estearum wrote: post #79

NicuCalcea wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't see why UBI would necessarily be an increase of income for everyone. It could be that, but it could also be a decrease in hours worked, or a more equal distribution of wealth, or any combination of these. I don't want a higher income, I want to benefit from the productivity gains I and everyone else made happen by having more time to do things I like.

> I don't want a higher income, I want to benefit from the productivity gains I and everyone else made happen by having more time to do things I like. Why don't you just do that now and work half the amount of hours you're currently working?

Money.

Re: UBI as a productivity dividend

#93

Post by estearum » Sat, Mar 14, 2026, 7:17 PM UTC

NicuCalcea wrote: post #92

estearum wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I don't want a higher income, I want to benefit from the productivity gains I and everyone else made happen by having more time to do things I like. Why don't you just do that now and work half the amount of hours you're currently working?

Money.

More precisely: purchasing power.

And that's my point.

Your purchasing power will not change.

Re: UBI as a productivity dividend

#94

Post by markus_zhang » Sat, Mar 14, 2026, 7:17 PM UTC

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #55

markus_zhang wrote: post #43

UBI is good on paper but far from enough. Without Universal Ownership of the State, UBI is easily removed by inflation. A better yet more difficult model is universal basic resources (food stamp to exchange for packages, social housing, etc.). People can work X hours on these social projects after reviewing some training (e.g. training of plumbing to maintain the social housing apartments). This also gives them some…

> UBI is easily removed by inflation Source? A $20k UBI wouldn’t likely secularly increase food costs on a per-calorie basis. Those folks are already eating. There will just be supply-chain friction as the system adjusts to their newly-expressable preferences.

Just my hunch, as no major country has really rolled out UBI for everyone.

For example, how about supermarkets increasing prices? We already saw that happening for a few years since the COVID. And how about landlords increasing rents?

Re: UBI as a productivity dividend

#95

Post by phil21 » Sat, Mar 14, 2026, 7:18 PM UTC

estearum wrote: post #79

NicuCalcea wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't see why UBI would necessarily be an increase of income for everyone. It could be that, but it could also be a decrease in hours worked, or a more equal distribution of wealth, or any combination of these. I don't want a higher income, I want to benefit from the productivity gains I and everyone else made happen by having more time to do things I like.

> I don't want a higher income, I want to benefit from the productivity gains I and everyone else made happen by having more time to do things I like. Why don't you just do that now and work half the amount of hours you're currently working?

> Why don't you just do that now and work half the amount of hours you're currently working?

Show me the job like mine where this is an option, and I'll take it in a second. Hire another me and we'll split duties.

These sorts of "professional job that pays a professional hourly rate but is for 20 hours a week" are exceedingly rare. You'll usually be taking far less than 50% pay - far worse if you include benefits in the calculation.

I've been halfway keeping my eye open for such an opportunity so I could fund the basics of my life, plus have time to do personal projects with utterly no chance of monetary payback. Just stuff like paint the house, teach myself how to weld, work on backyard art, volunteer, etc.

I could certainly find a job that pays 50% of what I get now for working the same number of hours though. Perhaps moderately less stress and no "off hours" chance of being called in for an emergency. But that's not a great tradeoff since I'm looking to trade money for time.

This may not be the point you're making, but it really is sort of frustrating this isn't an option. I get why - I employ folks too and understand the overheads involved - but man it's the dream!

Re: UBI as a productivity dividend

#96

Post by PaulDavisThe1st » Sat, Mar 14, 2026, 7:19 PM UTC

estearum wrote: post #86

PaulDavisThe1st wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This just isn't true across the time and space of human cultures and civilizations. There are plenty of places, even in the USA within the last 50 years, that have had a housing surplus. The current problems have tended to arise when desirable work is geographically limited which then leads to a much larger housing shortage in those areas despite the presence of sufficient housing across a broader territory.

> There are plenty of places, even in the USA within the last 50 years, that have had a housing surplus. Yes, bad places at bad times. Can you name good ones?

Defining "good" and "bad" in this context requires lots of other answers first.

When NYC had a housing surplus in the late 1970s, many people considered it to be a bad place. But even as they did so, a new generation of artists were moving into it. So was it a bad place at a bad time? Or a good place at a good time?

When Seattle had a housing surplus in the late 1970s ("Will the last person to leave Seattle please turn out the lights?" said the billboard in I5), many people considered it to be a bad place. But that was actually the beginning of a slow and steady population growth that now sees it as an incredibly desirable and expensive place to live.

Clearly, there are plenty of people for whom both cities were, at those times, "bad". But equally clearly, there are lots of other people for whom the very same places were, to some degree, just what they were looking for.

And these effects occur on even smaller scales. The neighborhood in London where I was born was basically a slumlords dream in the 1960s. Tons of empty housing, all very cheap (so cheap that my grandparents could afford a large home there). By the late 80s, it had become incredibly desirable and rather expensive. You can say "it was a bad place at a bad time in the 60s", but a bunch of people considered that an ideal place to be.

If we had completely equal distribution of financial resources, this sort of thing might be less of a factor. But as long as there are people looking for "value" and others looking for "luxury", the good/bad distinction doesn't really describe the world very usefully.

Re: UBI as a productivity dividend

#97

Post by [deleted] » Sat, Mar 14, 2026, 7:21 PM UTC

K0balt wrote: post #82

zer00eyz wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Unions the actual solution No, they are not. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dodge_v._Ford_Motor_Co . Changing the table stakes is what needs to happen: see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mondragon_Corporation for a counter example. Unions just create an us vs them mentality. The fact that the NUMMI plant ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NUMMI ) was not reproducible is a pretty strong indicator of that.

Sorry, my AI autocorrected “ubi is” to “unions”. When I came back to all these “unions bad” comments I was like WTF are they on about??? lol. But, I will say, often, unions are very positive things. Other times, basically evil. So, I think unions are a mixed bag. But the threat of potential unionization is almost a universal good, so it’s a right worth exercising once in a while.

[deleted]

Re: UBI as a productivity dividend

#98

Post by NicuCalcea » Sat, Mar 14, 2026, 7:21 PM UTC

estearum wrote: post #93

NicuCalcea wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Money.

More precisely: purchasing power. And that's my point. Your purchasing power will not change.

If we worked fewer hours for the same pay, our purchasing power would remain the same. I'm not saying there won't be any disruption at all, but we did it before with the five-day work week.

Re: UBI as a productivity dividend

#99

Post by AnimalMuppet » Sat, Mar 14, 2026, 7:21 PM UTC

K0balt wrote: post #78

dmitrygr wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> most of the arguments against it are moot points or simply falsehoods. Ah the “I am sure we can all agree … that I’m right” argument. In actuality, there are plenty of very good arguments against unions. That you don’t like them changes nothing

lol “unions” was thanks to AI deciding “ubi is” couldn’t be what I meant. This might be saying something about the possibility of this working out.

OK, but the same response still applies. There still are plenty of arguments against UBI, and you still need to actually refute them rather than just dismiss them with "they're false or moot".

Re: UBI as a productivity dividend

#100

Post by estearum » Sat, Mar 14, 2026, 7:22 PM UTC

EGG_CREAM wrote: post #91

estearum wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, so un-complicated that we're now talking about state-built housing just to make UBI do anything other than enrich landlords. UBI is a bad idea. State-built housing is not necessarily a bad idea. You can just do the latter and skip the former.

I kind of lost the UBI plot, to be fair. I don’t really understand what UBI actually had to do with this exercise fundamentally, the exact same thing happens with or without it, it’s just that the floor of what “affordable housing” is gets risen. Unless you think that an unfettered, UBI-less economy doesn’t produce expensive housing? Which, I think we have many real world case studies in almost every major city in ri…

> A monthly stipend probably does more to raise prices than anything useful, unless you also pair it with regulation to stop the wealthy and powerful from taking it all for themselves. And at that point you could have just done those regulations without UBI.

Yes largely correct, but more specifically than "wealthy and powerful," I am referring directly to the landed class, wealthy or not. This type of infusion will ultimately be baked into the cost of land, which will propagate up to rent, then up to wages, then up to goods. The gains will accrue almost entirely to the landed class in the form of higher land rents with no symmetrical increase in costs because land itself does not incur costs.

> Do you think a few lump sum payments over a citizens lifetime would have the same effect? Maybe some large sum paid when you reach age of majority and then again at retirement?

It wouldn't have the same effect but it'd have an analogous effect in the localized markets in which those subsidies are applied. For example, you'd expect the price of land (and so rent → wages → goods) to increase where retiring people congregate. But it'd be less harmful to the exact degree that the subsidy itself is less broadly "helpful."