[ja30278]

I really don't understand how a 'basic' income is supposed to work.

What if I spend my basic income on drugs and hookers? are you willing to let me starve? what about my kids? If not, then the basic income can't actually replace the existing social programs.

If nobody need to work, then if employers want employees, they have to pay more to get them, which makes prices rise, which makes your 'basic' income insufficient again.

I don't get it.

[habosa]

The cost-rising point is greatly simplified. Yes the cost of labor will go up, however this does not mean the prices rise so much that your basic income is not very helpful, and here's why:

  * Only the cost of labor will increase, the cost of other inputs to making goods or providing services will not.
  * The cost of labor will not increase uniformly, but rather it will increase most at the low end (people who are more likely to refuse employment due to basic income) and less at the high end.  A software engineer making $120k is not likely to decide to stop working because he now gets $10k from the government.  However a part-time fry cook making $6k a year might.

So you have a slight increase in the price of goods (the x% of the cost of goods that was from low-paid labor just got y% higher) but an increase in purchasing power that is larger than x% * y% so overall people now have more purchasing power.

[dragonwriter]

> I really don't understand how a 'basic' income is supposed to work.

Its like the Alaska Permanent Fund[1], but with a broader -- and by design growing with the economy -- revenue base.

> What if I spend my basic income on drugs and hookers? are you willing to let me starve? what about my kids? If not, then the basic income can't actually replace the existing social programs.

Sure, it can still replace existing social benefit programs. For your kids, well, we already have provisions for taking children from the care of parents that abuse or fail to provide for them, and putting them in the care of the State with the parent responsible for support costs; allowing either redirecting the children's basic income from the parent to the new support provider (in a system where children have basic income) or diverting some defined portion the parent's basic income (in a system where children do not get allotted their own BI) to pay support costs is quite natural; this doesn't create an additional social benefit program.

As for you, some BI supporters would let you starve. Others might support having transitional food/shelter programs (which would be an additional short-term benefit program) available to avoid people falling through the cracks, but make the beneficiary responsible for the cost (possibly diverting some share of future BI payments until that debt was paid).

> If nobody need to work, then if employers want employees, they have to pay more to get them, which makes prices rise, which makes your 'basic' income insufficient again.

Under realistic assumptions about elasticity, Basic Income would have some effect on accelerating price inflation of goods demanded at the low end of the income distribution, which would mean that the quality of life any level of UBI could sustain with no outside income would be somewhat less than one would expect with the same amount of income before the UBI became available. But overall, those receiving the UBI would be able to afford more than without it.

Further, UBI can cut employer costs (while it reduces economic duress to work, it also reduces the need for a minimum wage and many UBI proposals have it replace the minimum wage; it also means bad-fit employees will have less resistance to moving on, and that people will generally have more freedom to seek optimum job fits -- which are good for workers, but also most productive for employers.)

And most people don't just work enough to meet basic necessities if they are capable of getting more, so most people able to do economically useful work probably would even with a UBI that met basic needs -- people like luxuries.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alaska_Permanent_Fund

[kamaal]

>>What if I spend my basic income on drugs and hookers? are you willing to let me starve? what about my kids? If not, then the basic income can't actually replace the existing social programs.

My guess is UBI is going to help very few people, most people's troubles are going to continue anyways. Unless you are seriously ill, or physically disabled, or stuck in warzone Africa you need to accept the fact you are responsible for yourself. In fact merely acknowledging this fact is likely to do more to fix your problems can free cash from the government.

If and when UBI happens, Rich won't need it, those middle class people with some responsibility will get some marginal upgrade on their income. Most people with no responsibility will spend it away on things they don't as always. They will continue to blame rich people for their problems, and consider rich people as evil for not endlessly doling out free cash for their parties.