
Why the world should adopt a basic income - pseudolus
https://www.economist.com/open-future/2018/07/04/why-the-world-should-adopt-a-basic-income
======
TaylorAlexander
My frustration with Basic Income is that it’s a legislative solution to a
productivity problem. Instead of redistributing wealth, a practice that can be
overturned any time, I advocate for the intentional construction of productive
machinery owned by the people. If all people owned shares in machines that
produced the goods we need for survival, we could receive the benefit of that
productivity directly. With a UBI, the idea is to continue letting a small
group of people control all the wealth, and then ask them to give us some.
It’s laughable to me that people believe you can let one group have all the
power and then force them to give some of that power to everyone else. Why
would they do that? The solution in my mind is to arrange things so that
everyone has a share of the wealth in the first place. I write a bit about
that here: [http://tlalexander.com/machine/](http://tlalexander.com/machine/)

~~~
ttonkytonk
As someone who is currently sleeping under a bridge most nights, I would be
happy to tolerate that frustration until a more equitable system can be
implemented.

~~~
TaylorAlexander
Surely, a UBI would help you immediately. But I don’t think we’ll see one any
time soon. Meanwhile I’m trying to develop a more equitable system. I hope it
works. It’s clearly unfair to me that I get to sleep in an apartment and some
people can’t. My hope is that by owning the means of production and sharing
the output, we can build a more equitable system.

Incidentally I talk about how someone can come in with nothing and end up with
part ownership in The Machine in its follow on essay, The Corporation.

[http://tlalexander.com/corporation/](http://tlalexander.com/corporation/)

------
foolfoolz
No UBI. The problem with UBI is social programs. we spend billions on safety
nets for specific cases and purposes. safe nets for food. safety nets for
healthcare. safety nets so parents can feed their children. this is a good
thing. this helps people do something they may not have been able to do

basic income does not replace any of these safety nets. you will still have to
have them. UBI is just increasing taxes

i’d rather add more safety nets to help those really in need than raise taxes
to pay everyone some small amount

~~~
tathougies
I mean, replacing food stamps with thousands of dollars a month means the
money could be spent buying food. I'm confused why you would think a UBI would
not be allowed to be used to purchase food? The libertarian perspective on
this is that we shouldn't tell people how to spend their money. If they can't
afford food because they have no money, then give them money. Those who buy
food will not starve. Those who don't, will, but they can't say they weren't
able to buy food.

~~~
jschmitz28
I think your parent post's implication may be that those receiving UBI who are
on specific government programs would not responsibly budget the right amount
of money to the right need, and that there will still be cases where people
have run out of money and need the same safety nets as before. If someone (or
their children) is starving to death, or in need of urgent medical care, are
you going to tell them that they should've budgeted better?

~~~
extralego
That is _not_ the problem.

To me, it seems important to tread with humbleness here because _UBI is not a
product of modern science. We are not the first to consider it, and it’s never
been considered quite an acceptable solution. Why is that?_

The problem is, as often with economics, a problem with _value_ and it’s ways
of fluctuating across geography, networks, business and social structures in a
matter of literally no time at all. Time is merely fuel to the fire.

Social programs are created by a government in the sense of a government that
is _of the people_. Governments are not inherently just rulers of the land.
They are ideally institutions built by people for the purpose of maintaining a
_state_ of civility and addressing common concern that might undermine that
state of civility.

Social programs, or safety nets, serve a very specific purpose: to maintain a
floor of minimum dignity (or less) considered acceptible in the sought civil
state. If this is defined in terms of money, that level of dignity is then
held victim to the precarity of value in a capitalist society; and that is not
a floor I would be willing to touch with a ten foot pole; certainly no
dignified person would expect another to either.

With commodities necessary to survive, it’s obvious how this can go wrong. We
are talking about food and shelter here. Social housing is well-proven and
extremely efficient. As it stands, masses of people in the US can’t afford
housing at their current wage.

The best argument for UBI is as another economic stimulus, which is absolutely
needed to prolong the final crash. The question seems to be who is included in
the beneficiaries. So, like much of this type of thing, if we don’t agree to
collectively give a shit about other people in the first place, it’s not worth
wasting time over.

~~~
tathougies
> certainly no dignified person would expect another to either.

Um... what? The government quantifies exactly how much it will spend on social
welfare programs each year. Simply dividing the budget out by the number of
people enrolled (also available from the government) paints a very clear
picture of how much 'civil dignity' is worth.

------
8xde0wcNwpslOw
Universal income, unrestricted immigration. Which is it that you really want?

Both of course, people tend to want it all, and dreams to pay for it all. In
100 years it'll supposedly all work out fine, despite "short term" problems,
no need to compromise.

I'm sorry you have to withstand the opposition from those who have to weather
the problems in the meantime. Perhaps a loaner crystal ball could help us
weave our reservations.

~~~
AnthonyMouse
> Universal income, unrestricted immigration. Which is it that you really
> want?

Very few people actually want totally unrestricted immigration, and most of
them -- the only consistent ones -- are either unitary world government
proponents or full on anarchists. Otherwise you're inviting seven billion
people to vote in your country's elections, and then nothing stops them from
voting for the same sort of wealth redistribution policies or anything else to
the detriment of the existing population. It's not _pick one: open borders or
redistribution of wealth_ , it's _pick one: open borders or democracy_.

The ideological inconsistency you're observing is realpolitik in action.
People who want more socialist policies don't want unrestricted immigration,
they only want just enough immigration from socialist-leaning countries that
they have the majorities needed to pass their policies. Meanwhile people on
the right are trying to keep the same people out for the same reason --
Republicans don't oppose immigration because they're "racist", it's because
those immigrants disproportionately vote for Democrats. Neither party will be
consistent because consistency loses them votes.

------
RhysU
UBI incentivizes producing more people. Like throwing nutrients limitlessly
into a petri dish. Which is awesome. Unless the nutrients or the petri dish
are finite.

~~~
dragonwriter
> UBI incentivizes producing more people.

As an alternative to means-tested benefit programs (especially those that
beyond means-testing are expressly conditioned on having dependent children)
it does not, in fact, it reduces that incentive.

> Like throwing nutrients limitlessly into a petri dish.

It's not like that at all.

------
kozikow
It's funny that at the time I wrote this comment another front page post is
about people escaping high taxation areas:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17476342](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17476342)
.

~~~
alexandercrohde
It's not like America needs wealthy people. We really just need basic
resources (e.g. arable land, metal) and technology, and it's only a matter of
time until people needn't work.

------
DoreenMichele
There are several problems with basic income. For starters, housing costs are
crazy right now and the US lacks universal health coverage. If we could could
solve those two things, you would see a lot fewer people calling for basic
income.

I have alimony in about the amount that is frequently cited as how much
America should give people for basic income. Without additional income on top
of that, I can't pay rent and keep myself fed. I was willing to move almost
anywhere in the US to find a low rent place to get myself off the street. Most
people can't or won't do that. Most places in the US do not have rentals cheap
enough for someone to live on $10k or so a year.

In other words, if you don't address the lack of affordable housing, basic
income won't support most people. And if you do, you go a long ways towards
not needing basic income. The lack of affordable housing is an issue that
needs to be tackled regardless. Talking about basic income strikes me as
taking time away from problems that must be addressed regardless.

I see basic income as a lazy answer posited by people who would like to
imagine you can throw money at the problem because they can't figure out how
to effectively address some of the issues here. I don't think that actually
works. I think that would actually go some pretty bad places.

------
ghosterrific
If you think that raising taxes for UBI will result in the politicians
_actually_ allocating the money to UBI.... then you just need to look at how
current monies are raised and spent.

Here's what will happen:

\- taxes raised for "insert acronym of flavor here" (UBI)

\- 95% allocated to every citizen, permanent resident, legal immigrant,
illegal migrant, etc.

\- Over time they will decrease the allocation relative to the amount they
collect.

Next thing you know, "UBI" is just another line item on your paycheck
deductions just like "EI" and "CPP" is a deduction in Canada for "Employment
Insurance" and "Canada Pension Plan".

Neither of which will actually solve the problem because that was not the
(hidden) goal to begin with.

There will be just as much, if not more poverty because:

\- smart, hardworking people will leave the country because they are tired of
getting abused with excessive taxes.... draining productivity

\- poorest people will take on brutal loans for things they do not need
(lottery, drugs, cars, shiny clothes)

\- poorest people will become lethargic. "Free" unearned income is poison to
ambition and creativity.

\- "Free" income is not Free because it is given based on an inflating money
supply. It means your children or grandchildren will be paying it via hidden
tax of inflation and effectively sold into debt slavery.

We are watching the final stages take place where the communist revolution
will be complete. As it stands, the USA is heavily socialist and stopped being
capitalistic once they seized control of the economy in 1913 and began central
planning via fiat money printing and manipulating interest rates.

Plan accordingly over the next 5-20 years

------
danyboii
He doesn't talk about inflation and handwaves the cost concerns.

------
wernercd
Why the world won't adopt a basic income: Basic Economics.

------
ttonkytonk
The social justice aspect can include the idea that income derived from
resources belongs to everybody. This is reflected on American Indian
reservations that distribute revenues even from casinos to all members.

As far as the issue of "encouraging laziness", anyone who has read the
Bhagavad Gita is familiar with the idea that alongside the tendency towards
rest is an equal tendency towards movement and action.

------
aklemm
Call it a dividend; we could all expect out monthly American Dividend check
and it would perhaps help congeal some sense of common purpose as well.

~~~
RhysU
I get one of those. Roads. Police. Firefighters. Not being invaded by foreign
powers. Rule of law. Etc. There's no fixed dollar amount, but I use that cash
flow to build my life.

~~~
scotty79
Yes. I'd be happy if more people acknowledged that.

Wouldn't hurt if we also got a bit of actual cash on top of that though.

------
tomohawk
A negative income tax is a much better idea.

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xtpgkX588nM](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xtpgkX588nM)

~~~
hnburnsy
The US already has this with EITC and CTC. These programs paid out over 70
billion in 2017 to over 27 million families.

~~~
maxerickson
Sort of. Except EITC is anemic and a work incentive with a focus on children
rather than a negative income tax.

Someone supporting a kid gets a much larger max benefit than someone earning
the max benefit with no children ($3,400 vs $510) and the benefit tapers away
for low incomes.

------
jboggan
"And that after this is accomplished, and the brave new world begins

When all men are paid for existing and no man must pay for his sins,

As surely as Water will wet us, as surely as Fire will burn,

The Gods of the Copybook Headings with terror and slaughter return!"

[0] -
[http://www.kiplingsociety.co.uk/poems_copybook.htm](http://www.kiplingsociety.co.uk/poems_copybook.htm)

------
timwis
Can someone explain how this doesn't create an obvious inflation issue?

~~~
mac01021
The state doesn't need to grow the money supply if it takes from the people
the same amount that it distributes to the people.

Even then the prices of various products will likely be affected, but the
nature and extent of those effects are not obvious.

~~~
AnthonyMouse
> Even then the prices of various products will likely be affected, but the
> nature and extent of those effects are not obvious.

They're also likely to be beneficial, because the existing programs that would
be replaced are the ones causing exactly the sort of price inflation we don't
want by inflating the prices of necessities like food, housing and medicine.

When the government is paying for your healthcare, you get all the unnecessary
tests. When the government is giving you the cash equivalent and whatever you
don't spend on medicine you get to keep, you only get the necessary tests and
then have money left over to take a vacation. So the price of healthcare goes
down and the price of cruise tickets goes up, which seems like a pretty good
trade off.

~~~
kwhitefoot
> When the government is paying for your healthcare, you get all the
> unnecessary tests.

Where does this happen?

~~~
AnthonyMouse
> Where does this happen?

What do you mean? The entire US healthcare system operates this way. Either
the government is your insurance (medicare, medicaid and similar state
programs, federal employees etc.), or they subsidize private insurance through
tax incentives and direct subsidies for low income people that
encourage/require comprehensive insurance rather than catastrophic coverage.

Then none of those people have the incentive to compare prices or decline
unnecessary procedures because the insurance is paying for most or all of it.

------
api_or_ipa
The Economist has really gone down hill in the past few years. I expect them
to publish numbers, not vaguely Marxist reflections lamenting an age of
supposed increasing hardship, although I was amused by the idea of social
inheritance.

~~~
tathougies
The economist is self-avowed libertarian. UBI is a libertarian idea.

~~~
johndevor
How exactly is redistributing income a libertarian idea? Seems like the exact
opposite to me.

~~~
pknopf
From another commenter...

> Universal basic income is an old libertarian idea. It's greatest advocate is
> probably Milton Friedman. It's seen as more equitable than welfare programs,
> which libertarians view as too highly regulated and thus an infringement on
> individual freedom. That's the libertarian argument against welfare. You add
> that to the libertarian argument for welfare (that people can't be truly
> free if they're having to pay for things like health emergencies, etc) and
> you invariably conclude that the way to maximize individual freedoms is to
> provide a universal basic income, if you're going to have any kind of
> welfare program

~~~
danyboii
I don't think he ever supported a UBI. He supported a Negative Income Tax
which is different.

~~~
tathougies
It depends on how you taxonomize terms. Negative Income Tax (which is what
Friedman supports) is a type of UBI. As I've said elsewhere in this chain, the
policies being proposed today are not really what the libertarians had in
mind, since they co-exist with other forms of welfare, which libertarians
would be wholeheartedly against. That being said, it's not surprising why the
economist would run a story on this... it is still a libertarian idea.

Also, the comment quoted above was made by me... the same guy you responded
to, ha! :)

------
poster123
Where does this basic income come from? If everyone is entitled to a basic
income as a matter of right, that means others must be coerced into handing
over the fruits of their labor. When the government no longer serves to defend
people and their property rights but becomes primarily a means of
redistribution, I think it loses its legitimacy.

~~~
contravariant
What is government if not a system for redistributing labour and resources?

~~~
skookumchuck
A government is for protecting our inalienable rights.

~~~
kwhitefoot
> our inalienable rights.

I take it that you have a universal definition of 'inalienable rights'.

