
We're officially launching UBI - joeyespo
https://www.givedirectly.org/blog-post?id=7285958994145750939
======
chatmasta
How can you meaningfully experiment with UBI if the “BI” is not even
_universal_? My understanding is that many of the criticisms of UBI are based
on externalities that would only become manifest in a meaningfully large
population. For example, price increases and inflation might arise from
everyone having extra money.

If you’re only testing UBI on a small population, then 1) it’s not even
universal, and 2) there will not be enough “beta testers” to (in)validate
these criticisms.

So while this may be a “success” (how do you even measure that?) it’s not a
meaningful experiment at all.

~~~
moduspol
I agree that it's tough to measure "success," but at least it would be
presumably easy to measure failure. If we see exactly what opponents claim
will happen, it would suggest a more strict implementation might be worse.

My concern is that with this we're likely looking at an even worse version of
the problems seen with sending shoes to Africa [1]. Over the duration of this
experiment, it's quite possible you'll create a society that abandons skills /
equipment / expertise necessary to sustain an economy. That won't be a problem
until the experiment ends, and then you've left people in a place far less
than where you found them.

[1] [http://www.djiboutijones.com/2014/02/dont-send-your-used-
sho...](http://www.djiboutijones.com/2014/02/dont-send-your-used-shoes-to-
africa-or-maybe-do-send-them/)

~~~
shkkmo
This is the exact opposite of that. When you send free goods into an economy,
you inhibit demand which in turn inhibits economic growth. When you send money
into an economy, in increase demand and it will have the opposite effect.

~~~
moduspol
UBI doesn't send money in, it redistributes it.

And if solving economic problems were as simple as "just take more money from
the rich people and give it to the poor people," this problem would have been
solved centuries ago.

~~~
shkkmo
The post I was responding to wasn't citicizing UBI, but rather criticizing
this specific type of program which DOES inject money into the local economy
from outside doners.

> And if solving economic problems were as simple as "just take more money
> from the rich people and give it to the poor people," this problem would
> have been solved centuries ago.

When in history have we tried anything like UBI? How can we know if it works
if we have never tried it?

~~~
moduspol
We've provided subsidies and guarantees to try to help poor people and
manipulated markets with predictable results countless times. In the US,
higher education loans and urban housing are modern day examples of this.

UBI isn't inherently different. It's trying to pretend you can manipulate a
market with no detrimental side effects, but it's been tried many, many times.

~~~
shkkmo
The whole point of UBI is that markets are being manipulated as INDIRECTLY as
possible. You aren't subsidizing people to not work (unemployment benefits),
subsidizing people to work (minimum wage), subsidizing particular goods
(housing, education loans) or inflating demand for a specific set of goods
(food stamps).

You seem to be of the opinion that nothing can be done to eliminate poverty,
so why even try?

~~~
moduspol
I disagree. It may not be targeted to an industry, but it is a colossal
subsidy that will greatly affect markets in a lot of ways.

Plenty can be done to eliminate poverty. I'm confused why you would think
large-scale involuntary wealth redistribution is the only way.

~~~
shkkmo
> it is a colossal subsidy that will greatly affect markets in a lot of ways

It is, by definition, not a subsidy since it does not target a subset of
economic sectors.

> Plenty can be done to eliminate poverty.

Name one means of eliminating poverty without wealth re-distribution or
subsidies. The only ones I know of involve sterilizing, deporting, killing or
otherwise demographically elminating poor people.

~~~
moduspol
It will absolutely subsidize the industries most likely to gain from poorer
people having more money. The yacht and high-end watch industries will not
benefit while housing, auto, and entertainment industries absolutely will.
This is basic common sense.

Nobody's eliminated poverty yet, so it may be impossible. We do have ways of
fighting it, though, which can (and does) include charitable giving (note:
voluntary) and economic development of areas.

------
matt_wulfeck
Like others have said, pilot programs are a poor trial for UBI. You're
creating wealth for select individuals (even a village), so you aren't dealing
with economic issues such as inflation.

For example, read about Mansa Musa, who gave away so much gold in his
pilgrimage to Mecca in the 1300s that he caused devaluation of money
(hyperinflation) for nearly 10 years [1]. The huge influx of "free" money
caused lasting damage to the functioning of the economy.

I don't doubt doubt the effectiveness of UBI. I just also believe in the
efficiency of markets to absorb influxes of money while keeping the relative
cost of tangible assets the same.

1\.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Musa_I_of_Mali#Islam_and_pilgr...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Musa_I_of_Mali#Islam_and_pilgrimage_to_Meccasinglehandedly-
caused-economic-crises)

~~~
munk-a
I haven't seen any proposals for UBI that rely on printing money to fund the
benefits so I imagine that the Fed will still be able to control money
production rates and keep the total currency within fixed limits.

Would this run away inflation be possible in a system where we're drawing
money out of the top of the economy?

------
whb07
I wonder what the differences are between UBI and the day to day life’s of
people who get straight cash payments for being citizens like: UAE, Saudi
Arabia, Native American tribesmen with successful casinos etc.

To my knowledge, it ain’t all sunshine and rainbows (technical term) for them
either. They suffer stagnation, heavy dependency into oil money(for those in
the Middle East), and it’s dsfinitely a time bomb which those in power know
it’s coming.

If anyone could present some points so we could further advance this point, id
be grateful

~~~
lucozade
I'm only really familiar with Abu Dhabi but there, idleness is a concern.

It's directly evident in schemes such as paying school children to exercise.

However, it is masked somewhat in the adult population as foreign companies
are required to employ natives in senior positions. Anecdotally, the
incumbents aren't famous for their work ethic.

But it's hard to argue that it's not overall positive for the local
population. Healthcare, education, services etc are all excellent.

That being said, I don't think these are useful comparators. The elephant in
the room is who is paying? In the case of Abu Dhabi, it's the buyers of their
oil. As such, you don't have an internal tension between the net tax consumers
and net tax generators. Nor do you have a significant allocation of resource
issue when there is a surfeit of resource.

And I think it's the latter issue that is a critical one for UBI.

Although not equivalent, I think the example of UK child benefit is
instructive. It was a universal benefit in the sense that it applied to all
children regardless of parental income (it differed by birth order but that's
not material to the point). While the economy was doing well, the money
flowed. Post crash, the economy tightened and it was an immediate target and
became means tested.

It's not clear to me that, even if you managed to get UBI implemented, it
would be stable. I would expect that it would need to show tangible,
widespread benefit in about one economic cycle. Otherwise, as soon as things
started to slow, you'd be seeing stories about the wasters and layabouts. It
wouldn't matter if there were many cf the refugee "deluge" or similar
triggers.

In other words, I can see UBI lasting only if a number of other, very
significant economic (cycles) and societal (selfishness) issues are resolved.
Tricky.

~~~
whb07
thats an issue I considered as well for the gulf states. What happens when
there is less oil consumption ? I’m very much hard pressed to think of a
global company that has come out of these for all intensive purposes UBI
countries. (Please don’t cite Aramco or Emirates etc. As they all are either
started or staffed largely by Americans and Brits)

------
vinceguidry
UBI desperately needs to be tried out on a semi-large scale as a social
experiment. We can't even form a useful moral argument about it until we know
its effects. Will it start shaping local and regional policy or is it just
going to quietly get discarded as a idea before its time?

~~~
ttoinou

       We can't even form a useful moral argument about it until we know its effects
    

Of course we can. It's ok for people to donate their money and time for this
kind of experiment. It's not ok for governments to tax citizens for a new
social giveaway unless others social benefits are reduced accordingly (which
will never happen).

~~~
pc86
The most popular UBI proposals that I've seen all contain some level of social
safety net reduction (some more than others). None of the proposals I've seen
suggest that social services remain at their current level and we give
everyone $ _N_ on top of that.

~~~
ttoinou
But, will it happen ? Are laws implemented according to the proposals ? Of
course the most urgent thing will be to implement UBI. And then to raise it.
No one will think about deleting previous welfare benefits

~~~
burkaman
Where do you live that politicians aren't constantly trying to remove welfare
benefits?

~~~
monkseal
This is why UBI will never become law. Once you start talking about taking
away benefits (Social Security, Medicare, SNAP, Food Stamps, HUD Housing
Subsidies), people will freak out. The backlash will be very loud.

Look at the tax reform debate now: When they proposed taking away
deductibility of mortgage interest or state and local taxes deductions, I
started seeing headlines from the New York Times and Washington Post about how
this a “Middle Class Tax Hike”...

I would compare UBI to the "second system syndrome" with software developers:
If only we can start over with an entirely new platform rather than addressing
the technical debt in the current system, all would be well.

~~~
burkaman
Look up the Welfare Reform Act of 1996. And with UBI you'd be replacing
benefits, not removing them.

------
maxxxxx
When I look at the US and see how difficult it is to get universal health care
I don't think that UBI has a chance. The people in power would rather see
people starve on the streets.

~~~
grasshopperpurp
No idea why this is being downvoted. It's plain as day.

~~~
H99189
Not sure but maybe because it's not that politicians of all stripes want
people to starve but that there is disagreement on how to bring that about.
It's a painfully true reality that there are people who when given every
opportunity, trust funds, etc, they are still immense drags on their community
and economy as a whole with the destruction they leave behind in their wake.
How will UBI deal with it's empowerment of such people or such tendencies in
people? Until you do, you don't have workable system but an absolutely
disaster in the making that will amplify suffering rather than decrease it.

~~~
shkkmo
Nobody disputes that there are lazy people who wouldn't work if given UBI. The
dispute is whether that is actually a problem for UBI.

The questions we need answered to know this are:

1) How many (what proportion) of these lazy people are there?

2) How much economic output is wasted by employers trying to filter these lazy
people out of their workforce.

3) How much economic output is wasted by the systems employers have to create
to force the lazy people whom they do hire to be productive.

4) How much economic output can we gain by giving non-lazy people a safety net
that allows them to find ideal vocations for their talents and preferences.

Proponents of UBI generally maintain 1) is low enough to be out-weighted by
2-4) while skeptics claim it is high enough to out-weight 2-4)

Really, these questions can only be answered by data. While 2) and 3) will be
very hard to measure with small/medium studies, we can start getting a pretty
good idea of how big 1) and 4) are respectively. So far there have been
promising indications that 1) may well be out-weighted 4), but we need more,
better and larger studies to be sure.

UBI's biggest challenge will likely not be finding ways to minimize 1) vs. 4)
sufficiently, but will be finding ways to overcome people's cultural and
political fear of 1)

------
dawnbreez
I suspect that UBI, or something similar, will be necessary when
automation/AI/whatever-you-like is good enough to replace "front-end",
customer-facing jobs. At that point, it'll be hard to break into the job
market without having a degree in something, and there'll be a sharp spike of
unemployment in the lower class.

~~~
gremlinsinc
Replace that 'degree in something' with 'degree in an IT field'. There will
come a day, where programming and creative arts are the only things not fully
automated. Doctors, Surgeons, Lawyers, even Architects will probably be
automated by 2040.

Hopefully, that brings hospital care costs down, but I'm betting their still
greedy and just make 10x as much on 10x less staff.

I'm anxious for the ai revolution to just get on with already. UBI will be
needed eventually, I want us to hurry and get to the breaking point where
unemployment is 40% or greater across the globe because of automation so
policymakers start to see that without some safety net for people there will
be an uprising. I'm optimistic we can come together as a human race and solve
poverty someday.

But I'm not naive, it could become a dystopian world where the rich live in
lavish cities with closed walls, and everyone else lives outside those walls.

------
mbil
Here's more info about the program [https://www.givedirectly.org/basic-
income](https://www.givedirectly.org/basic-income)

    
    
      We will assess the impact of a basic income against a broad set of metrics, including:
      
      - economic status (income, assets, standard of living)
      - time use (work, education, leisure, community involvement)
      - risk-taking (migrating, starting businesses)
      - gender relations (especially female empowerment)
      - aspirations and outlook on life

~~~
rory096
And here's what they're paying out:

    
    
        Long-term basic income: 40 villages with recipients receiving roughly $0.75 (nominal) per adult per day, delivered monthly for 12 years
    
        Short-term basic income: 80 villages with recipients receiving the same monthly amount, but only for 2 years
    
        Lump sum payments: 80 villages with recipients receiving a lump sum payment equivalent to the total value of payments of the short-term stream
    
        Control group: 100 villages not receiving cash transfers

~~~
pc86
[removed: I'm dumb.]

~~~
rory096
It's _Kenya_ , not Kansas.

------
munk-a
I would be extremely interested to see the social/psychological effects of UBI
on how people treat the homeless. This is a bit divergent but if UBI was
introduced without any increase in mental care I am curious if the portion of
the population remaining homeless would be exploited for their earnings or
supported into stable life settings. I do believe it's a good idea to try UBI
but this particular point has always interested me.

~~~
ythn
This may be slightly on a tangent, but how would UBI be distributed to the
homeless - esp. people who have no address or documents or identification of
any kind?

Is step one everyone needs a national ID in order to receive UBI?

~~~
PeterisP
A national ID makes it much simpler and more practical, so probably yes, but
it's not that big of a deal as only a handful of countries don't have a usable
form of national ID (some have usable ID cards, some have passports for
everyone, etc). In this issue, as with many others, USA is an exception that
has problems that almost noone else in the world has.

------
programminggeek
The math on UBI doesn't work. It simply resets $0 to some higher amount set by
UBI. It's a means of inflation and hilariously, it will make the rich even
richer, because it will remove some incentives to do what it takes to get rich
- learn skills and information that make you wealthy.

The story that comes after UBI and other forms of socialism is that humans are
greedy and terrible to each other and institutionalized theft only makes greed
and corruption worse.

Oh, and the funniest part is it will look initially like a good idea because
it will probably improve the lives of those who are given money in small and
rare cases, and the positive effect will dwindle the more universal it
becomes.

A wiser move would be to teach others how to compete more effectively, but
that doesn't sell as well as free money. The people doing these programs
aren't stupid and I think it is our generation's "Let them eat cake!" moment.
It's certainly good marketing to do so, and I think they believe it will truly
make a difference.

One last thought on my silly little rant, "Do you think Mark Zuckerberg or
Bill Gates or Warren Buffet should get UBI paid out to him?"

~~~
Turing_Machine
> One last thought on my silly little rant, "Do you think Mark Zuckerberg or
> Bill Gates or Warren Buffet should get UBI paid out to him?"

Of course they would. That's how it works, dude.

------
rafiki6
There seems to be lots of confusion about what constitutes UBI here. This
isn't talking about America or developed nations. And government led UBI
experiments in developed nations were always doing UBI in place of other
social welfare benefits.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_income_pilots](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_income_pilots)

The argument isn't about if UBI is good or bad. It's if UBI is better than the
current social welfare structure. The question is, "is it cheaper and more
efficient to just give people money and get rid of the several programs we
have?".

And I'm quite sure any UBI done on a large scale will end up taking money away
from those who don't need it in the form of higher taxes so it effectively
balances out.

Yes it is income redistribution. That's not necessarily bad. We already do it
in several forms. It helps society more than it hurts it. Most people are
ambitious and don't want to live at or below the poverty line for the rest of
their lives. Some do, that's unfortunate.

~~~
smacktoward
But the "U" in "UBI" stands for _universal_. In other words, UBI means
_everyone_ gets a basic income, not just the subset of everyone who currently
receives welfare benefits. You get it whether you need it or not.

This distinction actually has political significance. One of the explanations
that has been offered for why Social Security in the U.S. has proven so
impervious to cutbacks or other political meddling is that it is universal in
this sense as well; there's no maximum income at which you no longer receive
Social Security benefits. This universality has helped Social Security escape
the "for poor/minority/lazy people only" stigmas that peoples' prejudices
attach to more selective welfare programs.

None of which is to say that you can't have a basic income project that isn't
universal, of course; just that such a project is not a UBI.

------
pfarnsworth
Congrats, and good luck. I'm personally against the idea of UBI because I
don't believe it works at a large scale because all it will do is create
inflation, but I'm genuinely curious to see me proven wrong. That's the whole
point of experimentation, so I fully support this.

~~~
shkkmo
> I don't believe it works at a large scale because all it will do is create
> inflation.

Inflation is not necessarily a bad thing, high inflation and low inflation (or
deflation) are both bad. (Specifically, it is expectations of high or low
inflation are bad as they tend to compound into further increases or decreases
in inflation.)

This is why the Fed in the US targets a base inflation rate of 2%, the
expectation of a stable rate of inflation help keep that inflation rate stable
and support economic activity.

While limiting inflation used to be the primary concern of monetary policy, we
have seen more and more effort being put into limiting deflation and
maintaining a healthy level of inflation.

Any increase in inflation due to UBI would be caused by UBI causing demand
growth to outstrip supply growth. Yet boosting demand is exactly the tool we
need to deal with economic downturns.

I think the path to introducing UBI is to legally couple UBI increases with
slightly lesser minimum wage, unemployment and welfare decreases. We then give
the Fed the power to trigger this as needed to stimulate the economy when
needed and avoid deflation.

I think it is a positive sign that the anti-UBI skeptics seem to be shifting
away from the "but people will be lazy" argument to the "but it will cause
inflation" argument.

~~~
pfarnsworth
Inflation would cause the recipients of UBI who need it most to suffer the
most. Unless we increase UBI, which would cause more inflation, and this then
becomes positive feedback loop.

As a homeowner with a substantial but fixed-rate mortgage and a well-paying
job, I would LOVE to see high inflation.

------
eksu
Can someone explain to me why UBI is preferable to a negative income tax?

I don’t get why we’ve come up with a worse version of a 40 year old idea. Are
these two ships passing in the night or were there some perceived problems
with Negative Income Tax that UBI is supposed to solve.

~~~
mbesto
Wait, aren't they essentially the same thing?

~~~
eksu
No.

Universal Basic Income is ‘Universal’, meaning there’s no qualification to
receive it. Basically it’s flat and it goes to everyone equally, rich and
poor.

A negative income tax is a progressive tax system that starts off in the
negatives and works itself up as you move up in brackets or (ideally) on a
smooth curve or line.

~~~
mbesto
> A negative income tax is a progressive tax system that starts off in the
> negatives and works itself up as you move up in brackets or (ideally) on a
> smooth curve or line.

But if UBI says you get $30k/year in gross income and then if you choose not
to do UBI, then you pay taxes on your income, isn't that essentially the same
thing? Because if you get $30k/year in income from UBI, it wouldn't make any
sense to tax an income that comes from taxes...right?

~~~
WorldMaker
Some theories of UBI believe UBI may only work if it is taxable income. Those
theories include some sort of assumption that the defining characteristic of a
fiat currency is it's value to pay taxes, so the way to control
(hyper-)inflation is continue to set the value of the currency in tax policy.
From that perspective the taxable portion of the income becomes a "year long
loan" and that loan amount is useful to set expectations (versus
interest/inflation) on the value of the overall UBI.

------
matt4077
From the linked article about previous results with one-time cash grants:

 _As it turns out, that assumption was wrong. Across many contexts and
continents, experimental tests show that the poor don’t stop trying when they
are given money, and they don’t get drunk. Instead, they make productive use
of the funds, feeding their families, sending their children to school, and
investing in businesses and their own futures. Even a short-term infusion of
capital has been shown to significantly improve long-term living standards,
improve psychological well-being, and even add one year of life._

------
Gargoyle
I'd rather see someone work on the Universal part first. Get distributions,
however small, into the hands of every individual.

Scaling up the distributions isn't a difficult problem to solve, the universal
part is.

~~~
pc86
A dollar a day to every US citizen is $114 billion a year. At that expense I
would think scaling it _at all_ once it reaches universality is nearly
impossible. Even if we're theoretically giving every $10k/yr, upping that to
$10,365/yr still costs well over $100 billion.

~~~
grondilu
Make it a dollar a year, then. Or a cent a year. The point was to install and
test the required infrastructure (identity check, payment method and so on...)
and then increase the amount.

------
fareesh
The results from this experiment will likely be used to influence government
policy at some point or another. Whoever is funding this effort is probably
going to do that in phase 2, once the results are sufficiently in their favor.
Isn't this a convoluted implementation of the Wal-Mart model? Keep minimum
wages low and influence policy to be as such, so that people use food stamps,
which are mostly spent at Wal-Mart. I remember Bernie Sanders talking about
this during the 2016 campaign.

I can't help but think that some corporate research department has already
done a study on Universal Basic Income in terms of how it will affect the
bottom line of the donors, and this is part of a plan to influence government
policy in various parts of the world, with the ultimate end goal of lining
their own pockets.

I find this to be far more believable than the idea that people are genuinely
altruistic and charitable in 2017, perhaps the most vain, narcissistic, virtue
signalling self-obsessed period in history, which is a period that directly
follows the most egregious example of corporate greed and fraud that led to
the housing crisis and wall street collapse.

I would be very skeptical of any and all data that is generated from such
experiments until we know who the donors are. I think it's only fair to ask.

~~~
zacharycohn
It's very much the opposite of "Walmart wants to keep people on food stamps so
they spend their food stamps at Walmart" because they're getting cash they can
spend anywhere.

~~~
fareesh
In theory yes, but if you had research saying that if people received
universal basic income, your specific industry, maybe food, maybe alcohol,
maybe cigarettes, would have a 10% increase in purchases, disproportionate to
all the others, you'd think it was a good idea.

------
ttoinou

       Now it’s time for us to do our jobs, and wait to learn. 
    

They will never learn anything from this experiment as long as they keep
hiding where does the money come from. Let's not fool ourselves : if UBI is
implemented, money will come from taxpayers citizens, and will increase the
power of governments over our lives.

For good arguments against UBI, cf Hazlitt : [https://fee.org/articles/income-
without-work/](https://fee.org/articles/income-without-work/) .

    
    
      - UBI is not a right because it would mean some have a duty to work and transfer wealth to others. 
      - Costs are always badly estimated. Proponents of UBI obviously never look at the big picture
      - There's no such a thing as "living in dignity", more is always welcomed
      - Old social welfare benefits will never die
      - Money can't flow from rich people for a long period of time. They either stop having money or emigrate in others countries

~~~
SilasX
There may be an issue with government control, but I think the "how is it
funded" is a bigger problem: an experiment were the money comes from a
different society is not going to model the effects of the taxes needed to
fund it. You're not seeing a major downside of the policy, which is the
deadweight loss induced by having all those work/investment acts taxed more.

(I know, "people still work", "people still invest". That's not the problem.
The problem is the marginal unit of labor/investment, and quantifying how that
compares to the benefit of the UBI.)

There's also, of course, the issue of how much gets eaten away by higher
rents, which everyone just assumes away.

~~~
ttoinou
I agree. Maybe all this experiment can prove is that giving money directly to
people in "poor" countries is more effective than international aid programmes
that started after WWII. Big news.

------
Romanulus
This is a poor implementation of Welfare 2.0 and it will fail just like the
first iteration.

~~~
monkseal
At its heart, UBI sounds like a good thing but it ignore basic human nature
and particularly in-group and out-group conflicts. UBI in America would
calcify a class system where one group of people works and another lives off
their work. The working group will come to resent the non-working group and it
will further divide the society. People are living a bubble if they don’t
think this would be a major source of political and social friction.

Also, I don’t think the proponents of UBI can account for how many people
would simply not work if they had the option. I love programming but there are
some days where I don’t like my boss and my co-workers. I endure some
discomfort but at the end of the day, I’m compensated for that. If you told me
I would get 50k per year and free housing, I would probably spend most of my
time snowboarding and playing video games rather sit in 1 hour planning
meeting. I would probably be much more likely to do this if all my friends
were snowboarding and playing video games ….

~~~
shkkmo
Nobody is talking about giving you 50k and free housing. You would likely
receive much closer to 15k (federal poverty level) and free housing (if any)
would likely not be in a ski town. Good luck affording food and rent in a ski
town, plus enough video games to keep you busy all year on 15k.

You might quit your full time job, but you would probably find some part-time
programming work you enjoyed to allow you to afford good snowboards, new video
games, and trips to other ski towns.

Disclaimer: I am currently doing part-time freelance work and living in a ski
town.

Plus, if you truly love programming, you would still want to work on side
projects and assist with open source development that you find interesting or
valuable.

Nobody disputes that there are lazy people who wouldn't work if given UBI. The
questions are:

1) How many of these lazy people are there?

2) How much economic output is wasted by employers trying to filter these lazy
people out of their workforce.

3) How much economic output is wasted by the systems employers have to create
to force the lazy people they do hire to be productive.

4) How much economic output can we gain by giving non-lazy people a safety net
that allows them to find ideal vocations for their talents and preferences.

~~~
monkseal
> 1) How many of these lazy people are there? > 2) How much economic output is
> wasted by employers trying to filter these lazy people out of their
> workforce.

I am pretty lazy but I'm not lazy all the time. I don't think there exists
such a classes of "lazy people" vs "non-lazy people". Laziness is a mood, a
state. It can be altered by motivation. Income is one important motivator
although arguably not the only one.

My point is, if we have welfare state with UBI, we will form in-groups and
out-groups just as you describe. The taxes of all the "non-lazy” group will be
unbearable high. You will hear choruses of complaints from them. They will
resent those “lazy people”. Let’s add some other component like race, language
or country of origin and you have society more divided than before. These are
just a few of the unintended consequences I would see.

And 15k is hardly enough to sell this program politically. You can get that
now on disability.

> You might quit your full time job, but you would probably find some part-
> time programming work you enjoyed to allow you to afford good snowboards

I can get by on a used snowboard. I could also steal on from one of those
“non-lazy people” :)

~~~
shkkmo
>I am pretty lazy but I'm not lazy all the time. I don't think there exists
such a classes of "lazy people" vs "non-lazy people". Laziness is a mood, a
state. It can be altered by motivation. Income is one important motivator
although arguably not the only one.

Yes, "number of lazy people" is a heuristic to talk about the over effect on
the productive effort put in the by population at large.

> My point is, if we have welfare state with UBI, we will form in-groups and
> out-groups just as you describe.

Look at the current economic demographics and tell me that we don't already
have these groups? The distinctions between these groups have been widening
for almost 40 years now. These groups are not based on laziness, but on
systemic economic disadvantages.

I suspect we will see fairly evenly distributed continium of effort between
highly motivated workers (workaholics) and un-motivated mooches (bums).

> Let’s add some other component like race, language or country of origin and
> you have society more divided than before.

I would expect to see UBI as a democratizing influence, especially when it
comes the the creation of small businesses and the ability of acquire
education. I believe UBI would help erase the economic divides that currently
exist along racial lines as it would help erase some of the inherent
advantages of middle and upper class citizens who already have functional
support networks that provide a similar safety net to UBI.

> And 15k is hardly enough to sell this program politically. You can get that
> now on disability.

I expect that 15k number to be more of a mid to long term goal with UBI that
it's starting point.

> the taxes of all the "non-lazy” group will be unbearable high.

That is your presumption. Tax rates of 100%, fully redirected to UBI (or spent
any other way) would obviously be a huge drag on the economy. Tax rates of 0%
are also huge drag on the economy since there is of government spending that
stimulate and support economic activity.

Thus there is a point past which increasing taxes is ineffective, as the drag
on the economy outweighs reduces the taxes collected more than the increased
rate increases the taxes collected. Let's call this the point of diminishing
revenue.

There is also point prior to the point of diminishing revenue. That point is
where, given a certain portfolio of spending by the government, the economic
boost provided by that spending no longer out weighs the economic drag due to
taxes. Let's call this the point of diminishing growth.

While where is points lie is hotly debated by politicians, their existence is
not particularly controversial (except among communists and anti-tax kooks).

I don't claim to know what those points are. Realistically, they will be
constantly shifting and should be determined by data gathering and science
rather than politicians.

Obviously, any taxes beyond the point of diminishing revenue are pointless.
For UBI to be to advantageous to all members of society, both lazy and
motivated, we also shouldn't tax past the point of diminishing growth.
Currently, maybe this is 1000 dollars a year, possibly even as high as 10k. I
doubt it is as high as 15k currently but I expect that we will get there as
automation increases. The hope is that as lower levels of UBI stimulate
economic growth and boost economic efficiency, we will reach the point where
higher levels of UBI are affordable and advantageous more quickly.

Since we don't know what this point is, it makes sense to introduce UBI
gradually and slowly increase it, paired with decreases to welfare,
unemployment, disability and the minimum wage. These changes should be
triggered by a organization more like the Fed than like our Congress.

> I can get by on a used snowboard. I could also steal on from one of those
> “non-lazy people” :)

You can already do all of this. I am proof that this "dream life" of yours is
already pretty feasible (without theft even) with our skillsets. The fact that
you are not pursuing this leads me to think that you don't have an accurate
understanding of your own motivations.

------
Bromskloss
Maybe the post should state what "UBI" means.

------
colemannugent
_> Send money directly to the extreme poor_

Ahh, so GiveDirectly is a charity? It certainly isn't universal, so calling it
UBI seems misleading at best.

