Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by simonebrunozzi 3102 days ago
Sam,

let me offer one humble suggestion.

1) UBI (or anything similar) in Oakland is expensive. Back of the napkin calculation: $1,000/month/person = $12,000 = you need about $0.5M in capital to maintain that level of basic income without reducing the capital over time (I am applying the usual 4% interest on capital, for passive income - the number might be wrong or might change in the future (see Piketty) but let's use it for now). Instead, UBI in other regions of the world can be a small fraction of it (I can easily imagine 1/10th of what it costs in Oakland = $50,000).

2) You have ~15,000 YC alumni. Ask each one of them to commit at least 50k each (or multiples of it), to offer UBI to 15,000 people in a developing country. In exchange for that, you might give them a tiny share of YC (not equivalent to 50k, but perhaps a smaller amount). It shouldn't be seen as a great investment for them; it should be instead done mostly out of altruism.

3) UBI provided to 15,000 people (or possibly more) is the right type of experiment, at a big enough size. It's essentially a big village, or a number of small villages. It's also good to see this applied in a developing country: the impact can really be seen and observed properly.

4) I am pretty sure that there would be a number of volunteers willing to commit their time to observing and measuring the experiment, wherever it will be (however, I suggest to pick an English-speaking developing country, as it makes many other things easier).

2 comments

When calculating the capital needed to live off the interest, you need to subtract inflation from the interest, as 1000$ will be worth less and less every month. What you need to survive is "equivalent to 1000$ today", not "1000$".
The safe withdrawal rate of 4% (or whichever figure you pick) already includes inflation.

The rule is supposed to be that you have a high probability of withdrawing $X per year, each year, adjusting for inflation, where $X is 4% of your initial starting sum.

This micro-UBI thing is a bad experiment with good intentions.

UBI only works if it's fairly 'U'.

If you give UBI to 'one village' - that village will have tremendous leverage over the surrounding villages. Any rational application of commercial knowledge will - knowingly or unwittingly - drive competitors out of business, and that 'UBI village' could theoretically come to control a lot.

It only took a very small marginal advantage in transport costs for Oil companies to put others out of business and to create massive monopolies.

If you run a little 'sim village' experiment on that, you might find the UBI village owning all the regional real-estate over time and just extracting rent.

Another way of saying: a consistent, stable fixed income, even a not very big one, can be a powerful asset.

If you can convince an entire community to rearrange their finances, in certain jurisdictions you might get some interesting results even without UBI.

For example if you were to pay taxes in gold: https://www.forbes.com/sites/briandomitrovic/2014/09/08/tran...

"If you can convince an entire community to rearrange their finances"

If we all behaved conscientiously and responsibly, almost all of the world's problems would disappear.

You're making claims like you have empirical evidence, but I'm not aware of such an experiment.