
The colossal problem with universal basic income [video] - jatsign
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m25YLByFVRw
======
stcredzero
UBI fails to take into account human nature. 1) Crime and social unrest is
directly correlated to perception of relative wealth inequality. Past a
certain point, relative wealth has a dominant effect on life expectancy! [b]

2) Given the above point, the solution would seem to be a progressive tax on
the wealthy. Unfortunately, this is very hard to make workable, as the wealthy
have control of most of the wealth and power, and failing that, are the most
mobile.

[http://www.sfindicatorproject.org/indicators/view/146](http://www.sfindicatorproject.org/indicators/view/146)

([b] Ichiro Kawachi, 2000. Income Inequality and Health. In Social
Epidemiology. Eds. Lisa Berkman and Ichiro Kawachi. New York: Oxford
University Press. Pp. 76-94.)

~~~
swayvil
The primary cause of crime and social unrest is stressful jobs and inability
to pay the bills. Get rid of that and see the general happiness explode.

~~~
DougN7
The bills for what though? A car, iphone, internet, Netflix, attending movies?
100+ years ago people were happy without that. The reason we wouldn’t be today
is our relatively poor way of life without them compared to those who have. I
think the parent (grandparent) poster is correct.

~~~
kthejoker2
Wow, check your privilege.

[https://flowingdata.com/2018/02/08/how-different-income-
grou...](https://flowingdata.com/2018/02/08/how-different-income-groups-spend-
money/)

Housing, health care, food, and transportation make up close to 75% of of all
household spending. And it's an even higher percentage the lower your income
level. _And_ on average people in our lowest income brackets spend more money
than make - so really it's like they spend 100% of their income on necessities
and then borrow for things like the Internet, travel to their uncle's funeral,
repairing their broken heater, and so on.

These are basic life functions, forget about an iPhone.

------
tim333
A talk by the Throwing Rocks as the Google Bus author. A little muddled but I
think his argument is the problem UBI is "it's just a way of perpetuating our
roles as consumers at the bottom of the pyramid not as owners" while I guess
the 0.1% still own everything.

Which I guess could be an issue although as we don't have UBI who knows how
it'd play out.

~~~
devoply
That's obviously how it would play out. The way it works right now is that
corporations for the work that you do for them give you money which you use to
buy goods from them. UBI makes it so that the government taxes corporations
and gives money to consumers to buy things from them. How much money is
entirely political but you can be assured that there will always be more need
for growth and that consumers will always be told to tighten their belts. You
will also never have enough money left over to invest or save a nest egg. So
over time more income share will go to the top.

~~~
tim333
The other main way for it to play out would be to vote in some left wing style
wealth redistribution. That kind of thing does happen. Maybe not just now but
if Google and Amazon's AGI robots were taking over everything I could see a
vote in that direction.

~~~
tim333
Looking that up I don't think redistributive tax has to be left wing. Top
income tax rates were 90%+ under Winston Churchill (Cons) and Eisenhower
(Rep).

------
athrowaway3z
2:45 : "we faked lower employment through ... unsustainable business
practices"

What sustainability is can be up for debate. But i've never seen of a version
that would put more people back in jobs than automation will take away.

3:55 : 'We will get the government to print more money, to give it to
workers'.

Either this is some very small thinking for 'Big Think' or you they are
skipping over a lot of assumptions that should be stated explicitly.

\---

One 'Universal Basic Asset' idea i like is giving every person a yearly carbon
credit that companies have to buy, instead of gifting it to the largest
polluters.

------
derekp7
I had a thought, wondering if it could work. For anyone who has the means, you
can set up a basic income for your children by contributing about 350/month
from the time they are born, then assuming 7% growth there will be over 250K
sitting in the trust fund. This is enough for $10,000 per year (4% drawdown
rate), which will provide them a basic income just as they are getting out of
college, and trying to find their way in the world.

The major problems I see with this, is inflation (adjust the monthly
contributions to keep up with inflation), and for multiple kids $350/month
will not be achievable for people of lower income.

~~~
nathanaldensr
_> assuming 7% growth_

That's a _big_ assumption, and doesn't take into account the reduced spending
power (cost inflation) during that time.

~~~
ahelwer
7% is in line with historical growth rate (below it, actually)

Cost inflation is assumed to be 3%, which is why the withdrawal rate is 4% (4%
+ 3% = 7%)

Anyway a 4% withdrawal rate is fine for 30 years (the duration of the trinity
study) but a lower withdrawal rate (say, 3.25%) is needed for longer timespans
like the 65-ish years of life expected of someone just graduating college, see
this: [https://earlyretirementnow.com/2016/12/07/the-ultimate-
guide...](https://earlyretirementnow.com/2016/12/07/the-ultimate-guide-to-
safe-withdrawal-rates-part-1-intro/)

------
nvahalik
To me, part of the problem is that nobody can simply "live" anymore. While
there are homesteaders who can effectively "live off the land", people can no
longer actually do that.

Instead of UBI, why not create a system where people can actually "live"
without needing to create a whole system where the government ends up
requiring people to pay into the system?

From the video: "We can't just give these people houses because they don't
have jobs".

Yeah, because they don't just get "the house" they also have to pay property
taxes, and for the utilities, and for everything else that is required, you
know, actually live in the house.

Maybe this is overly simplistic, but it seems like you can do one of two
things: prop "the system" up by continuing to require things like property
taxes and the like, or find a way for people to be able to actually, you know,
OWN their property and do whatever they want with it so that they could be
completely self-sufficient.

EDIT: Actually, that seems to be something along the lines of what he is
saying: "UBI perputates people as consumers but not as owners" (my paraphrase)

~~~
petermcneeley
Very few people would want to live this "self-sufficient" lifestyle. I dont
think people are opposed to efficiencies of scale or the advancements that can
come from multinational corporations. I think that its not just simplistic
reasoning is completely wrongheaded.

~~~
WalterSear
Even fewer comprehend the difficulties and sacrifice it would entail.

------
TheChaplain
UBI seems like a interesting idea but I don't think it's more than a small
part of a bigger solution.

It could possibly help people from having 3-4 part time jobs just to make ends
meet, but other problematic areas still exist.

Affordable housing, get people off the street / living in their cars.

Public medical care that doesn't require insurance or bankrupt you.

Higher education system that doesn't leave you with a life long debt.

------
robenkleene
I've never heard UBI discussed in terms of its benefits to innovation, which
is its most important characteristic. There is exactly one _reliable_ way to
innovate: Be able to spend a huge amount of time doing unpaid work.

Right now there are essentially three groups that can afford to innovate:
Students, the wealthy, and the people the wealthy give money to (via VC
money). (Note that I'm using "wealthy" broadly here, if you can not have
income for 1-5 years, you're wealthy by these standards).

UBI is basically having faith in human race is natural innovators, funding for
the creativity of the _entire_ human race, instead of just a tiny subset of
the population.

To address the straw man upfront: Capitalism of course incentivizes innovation
as well, and just as important as UBI. These approaches can, and must co-
exist, and in fact form the two sides of the innovation coin: Incentivize
(capitalism) and enabled (UBI).

The counterarguments to this model are ridiculous, because they assume you
have to throw out capitalism to get UBI. Where are you going to get that goop
for the 3D printer? You pay people to mine it! Why in the world would you
think that wouldn't work? If you give every human $100,000 a year (for
example), you think no one is going to be willing to work to earn more money?
Which human race have you been watching when you formed those beliefs? All
those rich people who earned their first million and then stopped?

~~~
sauwan
I agree with that entirely. In fact, you can take it one step further and say
that it is essential for freedom. One of the huge hurdles for many people
leaving their jobs is health insurance. The other is money. If people don't
need to worry about their health, and have enough for food and shelter, now
companies need to directly compete on job quality, because workers don't feel
compelled to work SOMEWHERE.

And while I see his point that it's funneling more money to the top, I think
that's also missing the point that someone needs to pay for all this universal
basic income...and that's probably the people at the top...

------
chris_va
There are so many issues with this video, I don't even know where to begin. I
like this one line: "The US Department of Agriculture burns food every week in
order to keep the prices of that food high, even though there's people who are
starving and people who need homes." ... OK, let's ignore the fact that the
world produces far more food than it needs and people still starve. Obviously
the problem is with the USDA, if only they didn't do that everything would be
fine /s. Every line in here reads like it's pandering to a specific viewpoint
in an attempt to legitimize the UBI message. "I think people shouldn't starve,
therefore this person must be right".

To me, "the" colossal big problem with UBI (if there is only one) is the
probable hyperinflation and crash that happens as a result of redistributing
many trillions of dollars without the creation of commensurate economic value.
Guaranteed employment (where at least some economic value is getting created)
is a less risky approach to accomplishing the same goal.

------
pontifier
I don't see UBI in this way at all. Nothing would stop a UBI recipient from
investing a portion of that income.

In my mind a UBI allows increased economic freedom. It especially benefits the
people currently most in need of it.

That's not a bad thing.

------
yarrel
Read "Inventing The Future" by Srnicek & Williams.

Please.

~~~
orthecreedence
Can you give a quick synopsis so we know _why_ we should read it? What did you
get out of it that you liked, and how does it relate to UBI?

------
swayvil
Douglas appears to be saying that UBI is bad because it supports and
perpetuates all of the bad stuff about capitalism (wrecking the environment
and concentrating wealth in the hands of the wealthy)

It does this because UBI means giving people money, and then they buy the
usual crap from the usual wealthy guys.

Have I got that right?

But the alternative, "give everybody a job", does the exact same thing.

So the "colossal problem" with UBI is that it does nothing to cure the evils
of capitalism?

Ok. Well it does cure some other big evils.

I think Douglas's point is just hot air. Sorry.

------
wafflesraccoon
Isn't Big Think funded by the Kock family[0]? I'd take this information with a
grain of salt, they typically lean hard on conservative perspective.

[0]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Think](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Think)

~~~
jatsign
Kind of an ad hominem argument. I'm a liberal and I think we probably will
need a UBI at some point, but I do see the point he's making, where a lot of
big tech proponents seem to side-step the problems they're helping to create
(loss of jobs) by calling for universal basic income.

~~~
lallysingh
Is it side-stepping if UBI actually happens?

~~~
jerf
He gives an argument that the answer is still "yes". If UBI happens and Uber
et al still ends up with all the money, then the argument still holds. Using a
non-existent UBI as an argument for how they behave today is another level of
problem.

------
orthecreedence
I used to be a big proponent of UBI.

After doing a lot of reading and research, I'm not. I think people should be
paid for the work they do, whether directly or indirectly.

I'm now much more in favor of things like social dividends: taxing profits of
businesses and distributing it equally amongst the population, taxing estates
at 90+% and distributing it equally amongst the population, etc.

Another idea I like is the social fund: it buys controlling shares in
publicly-traded companies, forces them to issue dividends, then sends 10-20%
of the dividends to the citizens, and spends the other 80-90% on buying more
shares in other companies, with the net effect of socializing the profits of
large companies.

Yes, most of these ideas would fall under some loose definition of
"socialism." That said, it ties passive income to overall productivity,
something that UBI doesn't do.

------
jacknews
"Universal Basic Assets"

I agree with this.

------
simonh
I think it’s useful to look at the basic social contract here. Voters already
have a degree of ownership over the state. They are shareholders that get to
elect a board to run the state on their behalf. In that sense maybe a dividend
is reasonable. Looking at it another way, the relationship between citizen and
stats is one of responsibilities on both sides.

Citizens are responsible for the defence of the state, in the most extreme
case through conscription into the armed forces, which puts an obligation on
the state to protect them. This and the realisation by the government that
many citizens were not fit for such service, was one of the impetuses behind
the consensus on the creation of the National health Service in the UK. Partly
it was quid-pro-quo for the sacrifices ordinary people made, but partly it was
just good national security policy to ensure the nation had a healthy labour
and fighting force. This isn’t socialism, it’s just good governance.

So while I see a clear justification for a social dividend for citizens, I
don’t necessarily see a UBI as a sensible form in which to express it. The
form that dividend takes should take into account the form of the obligations
of citizens to state and vice-versa. For me health care is an obvious one. The
state has a clear interest in a healthy population, ready for work and capable
of defending it. I plain don’t comprehend how US conservatism doesn’t see
this, it’s been plainly obvious to European conservatives since WW2 or
earlier, perhaps because we faced a more existential threat than the US did.
Pensions and Medicare or it’s equivalent are also just good policy, who wants
thousands of destitute old people dying on the streets.

Unemployment benefit and UBI are more arguable. Both are a form of social
dividend, but could disincentivize work. I’m not an absolutist about this, I
think it’s certainly true that people from time to time can find themselves
unable to work or find a job and need a helping hand and I think that’s fine
and reasonable, however people able to work have an obligation to do so. I
worry that a lot of discussion about UBI leans towards freeing people from the
need to work. I’m sorry, but someone needs to do those jobs. We’re a very long
way from a Star Trek utopia where AI does all the hard labour.

Employment rates and open positions in the west are both pretty high. The
global economy has gobbled up hundreds of thousands of Chinese workers without
breaking step and wages in China have until recently been soaring. The current
economic risks have nothing to do with AI taking our jobs. It may happen, but
it isn’t really now and I don’t think it’s likely to for many decades to come.
Automation has been stealing jobs for hundreds of years, yet somehow there’s
more work than ever.

~~~
orthecreedence
I think a lot of the interest over UBI comes from wealth disparity (rich
getting much, much richer, middle class shrinking). On top of this, people are
working harder than ever and salaries are mostly stagnant. In other words,
wealth is being siphoned away from those creating value into the pockets of
people who already have immense wealth.

I'm personally more in favor of real social dividends: a public fund that owns
stock in publicly-traded companies and returns some portion as a dividend, and
some portion it reinvests into buying more stock. The idea being people are
getting a dividend (like UBI) but it's based on overall productivity so
there's a connection between working and the payout (obviously, the connection
is a few steps removed, but it's there nonetheless).

Regarding democracy/ownership, I think it's somewhat debatable. We're told the
government represents us, but how many of your interests are represented by
the Democratic party? How many by the Republicans? I can safely say at most
10-15% of my interests are ever really taken into account in a two-party
system. I'd say people who are incredibly wealthy have a much greater say in
political outcomes than the general population. In essence, we are _told_ we
have ownership over the state, but in reality our ownership share is
collectively small.

~~~
simonh
I'm a Brit, but I think in both our systems we can see the electorate making
actual decisions and politicians adjusting their policies and behaviour to
voter sentiment. Whatever we might think about the outcomes, the swing from
Obama to Trump in the US and the Brexit vote in the UK were both examples of
the electorate making a real choice.

Big companies have much less influence over here though due to our stricter
campaign finance laws.

