Ask HN: Why do people assume UBI will work?

[sp527]

There's been a lot of exploration on the subject of UBI lately and there seems to be steadily increasing agreement that it's the only viable approach in the long run.

But there are something like 3B+ people in the world who presently live on $2.50/day or less. Even adjusting for cost of living, one is forced to conclude this income level is still just barely better than outright barbarism.

So why is UBI considered viable? What do we think is going to change about how human societies are structured between now and the future that will lift some lucky subset of (presumably first-world) citizens above a CoL-adjusted $2.50/day? Or do we assume UBI will happen and will leave people at just barely survivable income levels?

[celticninja]

I don't think anyone is assuming it will work, just that it hasn't been properly tried and it should be. We are much closer to a future now where most humans find themselves unemployed due to automation. You need to do something so UBI is currently the alternative (if you don't want mass unemployment and starvation or to start curtailing reproductive rights) getting the airtime and support.

[ardent_uno]

UBI can be one of two things.

It can be printing money and giving it to the poor, but everyone knows that's unsustainable because of inflation.

Ok, so that's ruled out.

The other option is redistributing wealth (taxing the rich and giving to the poor).

Phrased like this, it's clear UBI is not different at all from socialistic economic policies.

Will UBI work? Well, does socialism "work"? They're the same thing.

[supermdguy → ardent_uno]

A lot of the reason socialism doesn't work is there's no incentive to work hard. With UBI, it's possible to have a higher standard of living by working harder. Sure, it will be more difficult to get extremely rich because of higher taxes, but it's still a motivating possibility.