
Universal Basic Income Will Likely Increase Social Cohesion - 2noame
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/scott-santens/universal-basic-income-wi_b_8354072.html
======
JackFr
If I read it correctly, in all of the case studies referenced in the article,
the basic income provided was exogenous. That is, the basic income going to
the villagers, was not coming from the villagers. So it's not surprising that
everyone got chummy when the money flowed in. However a complete picture would
show how the people paying felt about it.

~~~
paulsutter
The money for basic income will come from automation driven productivity
improvements. Many of the people who are "paying for it" (ie, putting in the
thousands of man-years to create those technologies) have exactly that intent,
to free people from drudgery.

EDIT: pvnick, yes the consensus is measured in decades. Some think fewer, some
think more, but yes and thanks.

~~~
pvnick
A $10,000 basic income, perhaps the bare minimum to prevent starvation and
homelessness in the most rural parts of the country, for everyone in the
United States over the age of 18 involves roughly 2.5 trillion dollars in
payouts per year, about 10% GDP for the country (about twice the GDP accounted
for by social security). Increasing basic income to $20,000 per year doubles
that to about 5 trillion, and that is still starvation wages in big cities. I
am curious as to how automation pays that kind of cash. That's a big freaking
number.

Your suggestion about automation providing the wealth for basic income is the
_only_ argument that makes sense, because wealth redistribution from the
nebulous "rich" just would not work on such a massive scale. Personally I
don't think we're there yet, but maybe in a couple decades when we have strong
AI and automation is more pronounced and self-improving.

~~~
drewrv
US GDP has risen by more than 5 trillion since the year 2000 driven mostly by
productivity improvements from tech. So we could already be doing it if we
wanted to.

~~~
eru
Is that in 2000 dollars?

~~~
dllthomas
Per the numbers Wolfram Alpha is giving, the increase seems to be close to $8
trillion nominally, which amounts to something over $5 trillion in 2000
dollars.

Edited to add: I wondered how much of this was population growth, and
certainly there has been some but real GDP per capita has grown about $5k over
that period.

~~~
eru
Thanks for looking into this!

------
Falkon1313
Consider agriculture. It used to employ over 80% of the workforce, now less
than 2%. But now, with over 98% unemployment, we're not starving. Instead,
we're wasting 40% of our food, exporting food, and reading articles about
obesity epidemics and how the grocery store is reducing its 57 varieties of
ketchup so that we won't have so much difficulty choosing.

Manufacturing is going that way. We're well into the disposable junk and
cheaper to replace than repair era. Relatively few people work in industry
now.

That only leaves services. But how many people does it take to hand you your
burger or bag your new cellphone? Repairmen have less to do now that most
everything is disposable. Even in the more professional level services,
salaries have been stagnant for decades, moreso than minimum wage in some
cases. Sure companies complain that they can't find good talent, but they're
not willing to pay for it, so they don't really need it.

The traditionalists say "people will just go do something else, like they
always have" but what? Well, for now, some could become Uber drivers or
such...until the automated cars come online in a few years. Then what? And how
many Uber drivers do we need? Can they make a good living doing that if
everyone else is too?

People moved from the farms to the cities to do industrial work, then commuted
from the suburbs to do commercial and services work. Where do they go when
none of the farms, cities, and suburbs need workers anymore (and they can't
afford to live in any of those places)?

~~~
MichaelMoser123
i think a major problem is that basic income will breed some very undesirable
attitudes with those people who will depend on long term basic income.
Dependency on handouts breeds passivity and indifference, you will also see a
very violent and angry younger generation - these people might be very angry
at anybody who sticks out of the gray norm of basic income.

i think basic income will not breed critical thinkers, instead you achieve a
state of intolerant and angry uniformity.

You might also study some prior experience here :
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_Sovieticus](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo_Sovieticus)

~~~
afterburner
Nice try with the commie scare. The Soviet Union was the opposite of UBI. They
maximized employment, even if it meant multiple people doing one boring job
(imagine 5 convenience store clerks in one store, forced to the there all
day). And most people couldn't actually choose what they would do in life.
This is the opposite of what UBI would do for people.

~~~
MichaelMoser123
commie scare? labeling away you opponents is a very nice method of arguing, it
also is not without historic precedence.

Now concerning choice - you better ask some long term unemployed about the
degree of choice that they are experiencing. I guess that this UBI thing is
only a catchword to turn long term unemployment into the socially accepted
norm.

Still in my book: UBI creates a situation that is very similar to the hidden
unemployment of socialism - indifference and apathy is the result when your
salary and living conditions have absolutely no connection to the effort that
you have to put into it all.

~~~
afterburner
Many put it tons of effort and live in near-poverty conditions. How do you
think that feels as a disconnect between effort and result? They are trapped,
with no options.

The indifference and apathy of bureaucratic communism comes from lack of
choice, starting with who to vote for.

And as for long-term-unemployment... that's kind of the reason UBI is being
proposed, because automation will eliminate so many jobs there simply won't be
enough work to go around.

Would you prefer the new norm to be the owners of that automation forcing
those locked out of work opportunities from birth into worse and worse living
conditions, because in the automated future their labour has no value?

~~~
MichaelMoser123
>Would you prefer the new norm to be the owners of that automation forcing
those locked out of work opportunities from birth into worse and worse living
conditions, because in the automated future their labour has no value?

i don't think that is inevitable; there is a lot you can do - shorter working
days come to mind. Also mind me but technology is also creating jobs, a
hundred years ago there were no programmers, that's a profession created by
technology. A hundred years ago there were more jobs in assembly, nowadays
work is more varied - employment is more specialized and there are professions
that nobody thought of back then.

The worst you can do is to label off a large percentage of your population and
to refuse to educate them. You end up in a situation where many shops need to
import H1B workers.

>The indifference and apathy of bureaucratic communism comes from lack of
choice, starting with who to vote for.

I think that in the soviet block most people were working on the construction
of Egyptian pyramids - projects that were not productive in any sense,
everything was subordinate to the the military industrial complex, etc. There
are many non democratic countries in the world, but here you had it that the
bureaucracy was totally out of touch with reality, that's a quite unique
situation.

i think that this would be the real danger - a ruling elite that is
disregarding any feedback and which is totally out of touch with reality. One
can argue that this can't happen in an enlightened democracy, i am not so sure
about that.

------
dclowd9901
I think it's especially telling that even in a 3rd world country where one
might expect profound poverty to be the norm, a basic income still provided a
cushion against the social friction that comes with poverty.

God damn lets just do this already.

------
lambdapie
Basic income is just classical economics rebranded, and basic income is not
drastically different from welfare systems that are simple, rule based, and
have minimal compliance monitoring, for example Australia's.

Most of the arguments for basic income apply just as well to a welfare system
like Australia's. The ones that to not are the worst ones. E.g. it's said that
basic income avoids disincentivizing work. And yet as an accounting identity,
all redistribution schemes must disincentive work for some people. Welfare
systems place a greater disincentive to work on the poorest, which to me makes
sense as many of these people have a lower intrinsic incentive to work in the
first place. In any case, the lower marginal effective tax rate for the poor
under basic income, is only possible because of a higher marginal effective
tax rate for the middle class.

~~~
jsprogrammer
Why would you need tax with a basic income? Flip it around and incorporate the
tax into the income distribution.

~~~
lambdapie
I don't understand your point. Can you clarify?

For reference, when I speak of "marginal effective tax rate" I mean the
marginal effective tax rate after including (1) welfare payments to you, (2)
the tax you pay and (3) any basic income you receive, although (3) does not
directly contribute to the marginal effective tax rate, since it is zero.

~~~
jsprogrammer
I'm just thinking that instead of taxing some other money (primarily debt) to
fund the basic income, the basic income itself can be the money (though,
additional monies may be desired), which would obviate any need for
taxes/reclaimation.

~~~
dragonwriter
> I'm just thinking that instead of taxing some other money (primarily debt)
> to fund the basic income, the basic income itself can be the money

The basic income can't be the money that pays for the basic income, unless
your concept is that the government _prints_ additional money for the basic
income directly (note this is distinct from the Fed printing money and buying
government securities, which is just debt financing.) That's possible, just as
it is for any government spending, if you break the whole independent central
bank system.

------
dragonbonheur
I find it both funny and appalling how Americans view any sort of movement in
the common social interest as a threat. It's as if they want to maintain an
inegalitarian status-quo that only protects the richest minority, even if they
are not part of it. Absolutely ridiculous.

~~~
nickff
Some approach the issue from a Kantian perspective, and ask 'what right does A
have to take B's money and give it to C?'[1]

Others (of a more utilitarian leaning) wonder whether redistribution will
'kill the engine of prosperity'. The USA has overtaken Britain in per capita
GDP by growing 1% (point) faster per year for 100 years, and many believe that
redistribution reduces growth.

What part of this is "absolutely ridiculous"?

[1]
[http://www.swarthmore.edu/SocSci/rbannis1/AIH19th/Sumner.For...](http://www.swarthmore.edu/SocSci/rbannis1/AIH19th/Sumner.Forgotten.html)

~~~
dragonbonheur
The part of it that is ridiculous is that Americans protect their richest
minority without being part of it.

Seriously, America is the country where paid sickness leaves or maternity
leaves are not guaranteed.

America is the country where waiters are expected to make the most of their
living income from tips and not from their salary.

America is the country where local governments have outlawed people from
collecting rainwater while giving exclusive contracts to rich corporations to
collect ground water or pollute it by dumping fracking waste into or near it.

America is the country where the police can rob normal people from their money
without probable cause (civil asset forfeiture) and the majority will rally
behind said policemen because "blue lives matter".

America is the country where home owners aren't free to plant vegetables in
from of their own houses, on their own property and you call that country "the
land of the free".

America is the country that goes to war to make corporations and shareholders
richer and you all call it "bringing them liberation and democracy" while
America's legislators, judges, sheriffs and government officials can be bought
by Political Action Committees and "unions", sometimes for as little as access
to garden parties, golf clubs, tickets for sports events in VIP boxes and
other trinkets.

Do you think those laws are to protect the people, or corporations like
Walmart, Costco, Nestle, Halliburton, Exxon-Mobil and others?

Still absolutely ridiculous.

Here's the thing about the future of humanity: if we want to have a future
without perpetual (American-caused) war, we must promote and nurture post-
scarcity cultures.

~~~
worik
America is the country that sends the most on health for the worst outcomes

America is the country that spends millions/billions/trillions invading desert
countries and does not fund public education

America is the country where politicians have to publish in a register the
bribes they take so voters know who they really represent (it is not he
voters!)

America is the country that would not regulate derivatives and off market
trading

America is not unique in any one of these things. But it is unique in being so
rich and so dysfunctional. So smart and creative so cruel and failure prone.

And they have more military than the rest of the world combined, and they are
quite will to use it for the indiscriminate slaughter of millions. Sending
uniformed psychopaths all over the world to kill and maim was quite risky, so
now all those smarts are turning to robots! Killing and maiming by remote
control. Evil.

My hope? The USA elects a Tea Party slate of candidates and goes isolationist.

They can keep Elon Musk if they put their seven (or is it nine?) carrier
groups in port and leave them there.

In a word (or two): Fuck Off.

~~~
task_queue
> My hope? The USA elects a Tea Party slate of candidates and goes
> isolationist.

The Tea Party can be motivated to support our continued invasions as long as
it fits in their framework or is promoted by their figureheads, just like any
other party.

There's too much money to be made in fucking up the world.

------
gfsn54nsf
I wonder if universal basic income is going to change the ad hoc basic income
we already have in place -- the one where I'm supporting my retired parents,
my wife, and my pre-workforce kid.

~~~
jacquesm
If you're supporting your retired parents that's a strong signal of a big
failure at a societal level.

~~~
donatj
I disagree. That's why you have children.

~~~
Turing_Machine
That philosophy is directly responsible for overpopulation. If you need to
have children to keep from starving to death when you're old, you'll want to
have a lot of them.

Note that the areas where this is true are precisely the ones with
catastrophically high birth rates, and the areas where there are pensions,
social programs, etc. are precisely the ones where population is stable, or
even falling.

~~~
lmz
> Note that the areas where this is true are precisely the ones with
> catastrophically high birth rates, and the areas where there are pensions,
> social programs, etc. are precisely the ones where population is stable, or
> even falling.

And then those countries with pensions and falling population are mentioned as
ones who need to import immigrants in order to keep their pension pyramid
scheme working...

~~~
Turing_Machine
Well, you could do other things to encourage more births. It's been done
before, with significant success.

~~~
tsotha
Where? Every country I'm aware of that dipped below replacement fertility has
not been able to recover.

~~~
Turing_Machine
Israel, for one.

[http://latitude.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/08/28/children-of-
isr...](http://latitude.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/08/28/children-of-israel/)

------
donatj
If I could live and not have a job, I wouldn't have a job. I could do my art
and enjoy my life and the economy would crumble while everyone else watches
Netflix.

~~~
TeMPOraL
If I could live and not have a job, I wouldn't have a job either. I could grow
as an engineer, finally pivot into biotech, finish the couple of open source
projects I know would be useful to many as opposed to the bullshit job I have
in webdev (had, actually, right now I'm finally working on something remotely
useful - manufacturing management). The economy would be totally fucking fine,
enjoyed by all people, many of whom gotten bored to near-death after watching
Netflix for an entire month and decided to follow their passions instead -
passions they never had time to follow, because they had to work their asses
off in low-paying jobs so that their families could eat a warm meal every
other day.

~~~
vlunkr
You underestimate the laziness of countless spoiled children who have lived in
their parents basements watching netflix and playing video games for years
when they could be following their passions.

~~~
Dagwoodie
"This sounds great, I haven't had any time off since I was 21 through 24!" \-
Phillip J Fry

Seriously though, I'd wager the vast majority, if not all of the world's
greatest inventions of the last millenium came not from those who inherited
great wealth but those who had to struggle, worry, pray and perhaps cry about
their fate before their survival instincts threw their imagination and
determination into overdrive. UBI on the face of it seems like a noble idea
but we are far too confident in what we think we know about the human spirit
and our own nature to on average, try to follow the path of least resistance.
It can certainly work well in small groups that have strong moral and ethical
backbones but I fear it will ruin a land's people in direct proportion to how
far it tries to implement it.

~~~
Tossrock
Galileo's father was essentially a famous renaissance rock star. Newton was
the son of a wealthy farmer. Leibniz's and Lord Kelvin's fathers were both
professors. Maxwell's father was a baronet, and Werner von Braun's father was
a literal duke. Turing was from upper middle class english gentry. Larry and
Sergei went to Montessori school.

------
jqm
What I'd like to see is machines on the street (like drinking fountains) that
dispense (at no charge) nutritious meals. I'd like to see a global network of
(robot cleaned) rooms anyone can go into at any time, (at no charge), and
sleep. I'd like to see free transportation. Free education. Free places you
can go work. Free places to go watch a movie. The best medical care at no
charge. I'd like for people to completely have to stop worrying about
providing for biological needs and have those met with 0 friction.

And... I'm pretty sure all this will happen with time.

The problem now is we have this myopia about money. We think it's something
more than just the symbol or variable it actually is. But really it's a fairly
new invention. We have done without it for most of our history.

Don't get me wrong... the invention of money as a concept has allowed great
leaps forward in technology and progress. But the concept isn't eternal and it
has it's downsides. One is that it creates a certain amount of friction. You
have people spending too much effort playing with the symbol rather than what
it represents.

Ideally, I'd like to own absolutely nothing. Except for a great big sack. When
I need something, I'd tell the sack and out comes the thing I need. When I'm
done, it goes back and the sack and disappears and no more worrying about it.
That's how I think it should be.

------
ConceptJunkie
No it won't. Full stop.

It will drive a further wedge between the producers and consumers in society,
which plays right into the class warfare rhetoric that the politicians who
would support UBI are always fomenting.

Who's going to pay for UBI? Everyone! I see the amount of $10,000 thrown
about. There are 235 million adults in the U.S. That's $2.35 trillion per
annum, more than 13% of the GDP. You don't think the taxation required to
generate that kind of money won't reach far down into the middle class? Dream
on.

And we are going sacrifice $2.35 trillion for what? It won't increase
productivity. If anything it will reduce it somewhat. Yes, I'm ignoring the
benefit it will be to the truly needy, and that's important, but for the
majority of the country, the UBI will be way more offset by the much higher
amount they have to pay in additional taxes.

Social cohesion, my ass.

~~~
JoeAltmaier
Straw man. Using 'taxation' as a boogeyman is where everybody goes, when first
thinking about this topic.

Read more about it. Printing money is another way - I know, it has other
effects, but that could be very useful in the current financial situation.
There are other solutions as well.

'Money' is an imaginary concept managed by arbitrary rules, and if a BI is
created then rules will have to be changed.

------
ps4fanboy
People are using Australia as an example, we have very large taxes (most
people pay at least 25%, some 35%+) we also have a 10% tax on all goods and
high GDP per capita. You cant fund social welfare programs without huge taxes
on everyone not just the rich.

~~~
vorg
Australia along with Canada have the highest wealth per person of any
countries in the world. Much of the wealth comes from a large land area
divided by a tiny population. I remember reading in an Australian magazine
about 15 yrs ago (but forget the details) that Australia is the country with
the largest proportion of "made-up jobs", i.e. jobs in finance, law, IT, etc
which don't actually contribute to the production and distribution of goods
and services. By making laws which businesses must comply with by creating
"made-up jobs", the government is ensuring there's enough work for everyone, a
form of basic income.

~~~
eru
Oh, indeed. The nanny state is strong here in New South Wales.

You can't open a nursery in a building above a certain height. Even if the
kids are only ever going to be on the ground floor.

------
visarga
Basic Income sounds great on paper but I fear that it will lead to a new kind
of servitude towards the state, that will be the only provider. Politicians
will have even more access (direct access) to the quality of life of their
electorate. What will stop states to link the "Chinese style credit score" to
the quantum of BI one receives?

How will we make sure the quantum of basic income is enough for a decent life?
How will we convince people that they got enough and avoid falling into
dissatisfaction with it? I suppose people will always bitch about BI being too
low.

~~~
eru
You can look at central and northern European soziale Marktwirtschaft to get
some of your questions about how it could work out in practice answered.

They don't have basic income, yet, but they do have fairly generous welfare
payments, that do try to provide for a decent life.

------
SHIT_TALKER
In the studies mentioned, were immigrants able to move into the areas
receiving UBI and avail themselves of those funds? It doesn't appear so. What
difference might that have made? And wouldn't that have made them more
realistic experiments? (Were the experiments specifically designed to produce
positive outcomes?) Can the experiments even be considered to have been about
UBI? What does giving money to a small group and finding it makes them happy
have to do with the likely outcome of a state-level wealth distribution
scheme? Doesn't receiving money for nothing make everyone happier and more
trusting?

~~~
Falkon1313
I don't know whether they did that in the studies, but here in the U.S., we
have a long tradition of immigrants moving in and participating in the local
bounty. We celebrate it, in fact. A major holiday coming up next month is
centered around exactly that - immigrants being thankful for the wealth they
had received.

~~~
SHIT_TALKER
That's one of the most disingenuous statements I've ever read. The first
European colonists were all scratching an existence out of the ground via
their labor and celebrated, as was their religious tradition, the bountiful
harvest they had "received" via Providence. That in no way resembles a modern
nation-state making direct cash payments (money taken via taxes from the
native population) to whoever makes it, by hook or by crook, across the
border.

------
viahartdotcom
Just like communism.

