[roceasta]

I like the idea of basic income but I confess that my ideal of a basic income recipient is someone akin to the 19th-century amateur scientist subsisting on a private income whilst making original contributions to human knowledge, and, as a side effect, to society.

Whereas the reality of people receiving free money might be somewhat different. There's the drip, drip welfare payments of just enough money to survive without being motivated to find a job. Then there's the fallout, family break-up and chaos that occur in the wake of a lottery win. Both morally questionable.

Or perhaps there might be a settling down period of people acting irresponsibly followed by a recognition that engagement with the problems of civilisation and survival doesn't end because one has food, shelter and internet. There are novels to write, structures to design, problems to solve and of course there's science to be done. Work is more fun than 'fun'. Pick something worthy of your talents or start the slide into mental disorder and addiction.

Whatever the truth it almost goes without saying that a study alone cannot sort these issues out. Perhaps it can help. But in science experiment is insufficient there has to be theory to go with. (This is a major reason why so few studies in medicine and psychology are reproducible. I assume in sociology too.) What makes it more difficult in this case is there are moral components which can't be assessed empirically, only by conjecture and criticism.

[eduren]

>Whereas the reality of people receiving free money might be somewhat different. There's the drip, drip welfare payments of just enough money to survive without being motivated to find a job.

That's why I always clarify that an essential piece of Basic Income is that it is unconditional. Whether you're on the bottom rung of society or the top, employed or unemployed, basic income should be the same amount.

When the choice to get a job changes from "Well I'd lose my benefits" to "Well my basic income is no longer enough, I'll work part time", then state welfare no longer becomes as much of a trap. It can finally make strides towards lifting people out of poverty.

[billmalarky]

If it isn't unconditional and universal, it's just welfare under a different brand name with the same inefficiencies and rent seeking political problems.

[greedo]

How will you work part time if there are no jobs due to robotic automation (not that I believe that's a significant problem for a century)?

[eduren]

I think the parent comment I was replying to was more concerned about the situation where we have UBI without full automation. In which case there may be a push for jobs not yet automated to be split into part time positions. If society really feels like keeping people employed is a moral good in the face of increasing automation, then there may be pressure to increase workforce numbers and reduce working hours. Especially possible if UBI can close the gap and maintain a safety net.

In addition, full, 100% automation doesn't seem likely to me. Service sectors of the economy may simply keep smaller human staffs in order to keep their hospitality atmosphere. Not enough to offset job loss in other sectors, but there are already plenty of businesses today that have a human element that don't _actually_ need them. It might even look like a luxury business model. No reason that will go away just because robots can do it better.

[moxious]

The same amount? No adjustment for San Francisco vs. nowheresville, Idaho?

[zanny]

Certainly not. Any UBI policy has to be set for a universal basic standard of living in a contiguous zone of free movement. US citizens can live anywhere in the US - UBI reverses the current bubble of housing prices that is concentrating people in cities that then resist increasing density and thus just drives property values to infinity. It lets people who don't want to live there the option to move elsewhere that is much cheaper and thus lets them live off the UBI.

Trying to peg UBI to regional cost of living costs an incredible amount of money (the cost of living in the Bay Area has to be at least 10x the rural Rust Belt) and has practically no benefit (because all it means is people get the privilege of living wherever they want on redistributed money, rather than choosing to either live where they want and seek the means to afford it or living where its cheapest and costing society less in macrospect.

[twoodfin]

This is, by the way, another reason UBI is a Utopian fantasy: It’s impossible to imagine an elected government resisting the temptation to fiddle with the formula to achieve policy goals and reward constituents, just like today’s tax code.

[overcyn]

So the homeless population in SF would mostly still be homeless? If UBI is unable to help those at the lowest rung of society, what's the point?

[zanny]

There would be an industry overnight that would pop up to help people migrate where cost of living is affordable on a UBI because that is an insane amount of dependable profit to be made. It would be as simple as "your first month pays the move, and every month after that is last months rent payment".

There already exist communities and retirement homes whose entire agreement with its residents is "give us your social security checks, we give you food shelter etc". If you know constant money is coming in, arranging your business around being super easy to use for that money is a very lucrative opportunity.

[anovikov]

It means putting 99% of recipients, or more, into illustion which will result in nothing but a severe depression in a few years. Suddenly being able to contribute to the world in a 'larger' way, they will quickly realize that they can't - just as many startup founders. Maybe, need to meet the bills by mind-numbing work is really a blessing for most people - i had stable income almost without work for years and i got very, very depressed.

[roceasta]

Having to work to survive keeps people engaged with reality and I think this may explain why people in the past and in developing countries today seem to be at least as happy and mentally resilient as modern westerners, maybe more so. In spite of hardship, disease and early death.

Whereas many of us spend our limited freedom chasing pleasurable (and unpleasurable) illusions that lead only to disorder and despair. That said, there are plenty of sane, wealthy people in the West who do important work for the sake of it, because they wish to. How do more of us become like them?

Also, despite apparently comfortable conditions, there are plenty of survival problems which remain. For example, meteor strikes, super-volcanoes, cancers, toxic ideologies/religions. Plus an unlimited number of as yet unidentified problems.

These problems are more abstract than working for a pay packet to buy food but they are nonetheless real. And they are not being sufficiently addressed! Universal Basic Income could turn out to be an important breakthrough in this regard, I think, if we also address the question I posed at the end of paragraph 2 above.

[wavefunction]

That sounds like Anecdata. Especially the 99% claim.

[hduwvzvshsuz]

I disagree that everyone would be depressed. Cityfolk probably but they deserve it because they will be the ones voting in ubi. They will also be the ones starving when us country people start only making enough food for ourselves and spend our days at the river drinking beers and fishing or hunting

[nabla9]

There is already sizeable group of have independently wealthy people with inherited money. If we look at how many of these people behave in different wealth categories, it might give a clue.

If it's determined that money makes lazy and that's moral hazard there should be really high tax for inheritance.

[mholmes680]

Easy answer: they lose it.

http://time.com/money/3925308/rich-families-lose-wealth/ "It takes the average recipient of an inheritance 19 days until they buy a new car."

[conanbatt]

Adam Smith details that the downfall of feudalism was this very same effect.