[yourcousinbilly]

UBI isn't the clear choice everyone makes it out to be. I'm all for lowering inequality and spreading out wealth. But, fundamentally, UBI is just a welfare program with way more money pouring in so it guarantees a livable income to everyone. We could achieve the same effect by just increasing the progressive welfare. We could remove those welfare cliffs where people lose money by making more money by smoothing out the curves. But, UBI does something more by taking money from those who need it and giving it to those who don't. Every dollar going to an upper middle class tech worker is a dollar not going towards uplifting the lowest of our society. We should care a little about efficiency because UBI will be CRAZY expensive and CRAZY anti-business when we increase taxes on them. There are less costly ways to achieve better income equality like better education or increased welfare which don't hurt business. Businesses could operate with way thinner profits sure, but other countries offer other options.

Here's a UBI debate for the interested: https://www.intelligencesquaredus.org/debates/universal-basi...

[visarga]

> I'm all for lowering inequality and spreading out wealth

I'd rather be for lowering inequality by spreading out the means of production, so people could be much more self reliant. This idea is called Distributism (the "Three acres and a cow" slogan of 1910) and stands in contrast to both capitalism and socialism. I see UBI as a demeaning form of help, that infantilises population and makes them state dependent, while self-reliance is based on one's own efforts and leads to better outcomes and increased self-esteem.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distributism

This is a great short vid about local self-reliance and the relation of normal people to big corporations:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kDw4dZLSDXg

Remember, if big corporations won't give people jobs any more, we always have one job left - taking care of ourselves directly. Self-reliance is a virtue, UBI is the opposite of that.

We're headed in a technological direction that will empower self-reliance more and more in the future. By using solar energy, 3d-printing, agro-bots, community ISPs, credit co-ops, and automation in all forms, a small community could become self-reliant without backbreaking work. A social-network of skilled people (gigs) would replace regular jobs. We just need to keep these technologies very accessible and to help people develop solutions.

Self-reliance is connected to the startup economy, the bootstrapping mindset, the anti-trust doctrine and creativity. It's the way to a good life without the perils of financial redistribution.

[aaron-lebo]

This is really interesting. I wish more people were focused on this as opposed to basic income. It mentions Christian Democrats being proponents of it, is there a major modern political figure you can point to?

The populism that the Republican and Democratic parties ate up in the US from about 1890 to 1920 had a lot of similar ideas. Woodrow Wilson (ignore his racism for the sake of argument) had a similar belief about government, as I understand it.

[pasquinelli]

i share your hope that a future where technology allows people to fire their boss rather than just allowing bosses to fire their workers is possible, and would be a wonderful outcome, but agrobots can't grow food without land. that's a problem. an even worse problem is that, given that self-reliant people don't kick anything up to anyone, they're vulnerable to the direct application of violence.

[orangecat]

But, UBI does something more by taking money from those who need it and giving it to those who don't. Every dollar going to an upper middle class tech worker is a dollar not going towards uplifting the lowest of our society.

The tech worker will be paying a lot more in taxes than the amount of their UBI check. It's mathematically equivalent to them not getting UBI at all and having a somewhat lower tax rate.

[yourcousinbilly]

True, why go through the motions of taking money then giving it back. Sounds like a great way to waste money through government inefficiency. It could possibly be efficient, but we should expect it not to be.

[skybrian]

UBI is expensive, but it also looks more expensive than it is, because for many people it's basically a tax rebate. You have to look at what people would get net of taxes.