Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by Verdex 2715 days ago
If people don't work on anything once they get UBI this isn't really a problem. Currently, there are many many people who already don't do anything. They only do a little as possible to avoid getting fired OR they do periodically get fired from every job they ever hold once their employers realize they're always going to be a drain on productivity.

Having these people on UBI would actually allow productivity to rise.

However, I'm really concerned about UBI because:

1) One way to get more money on UBI is to convince others to give you their money. Many people on UBI will stop producing positive or neutral work and start finding ways to trick their fellow citizens into giving them their money. We will still need some sort of welfare to provide food to people who are tricked into giving away all their money for worthless services or items.

2) Some people have terrible planning skills and just want to be happy now. They'll spend all of their UBI on worthless items and go hungry until the start of the next month. Worse, they'll spend their children's UBI allocation on worthless items as well (or trick their children into doing it if it turns out parents don't get direct access to their children's allocation). We will still need welfare to feed the children of these people.

3) Some people will decide that their calling in life is now to cause problems for others. The food check comes once a month, so now their full time job is dressing up as a clown and terrorizing random people. Don't have to get up for work? Be really loud until 4am. The people who actually do have to get up for work will naturally get the option to live in a gated community because we need the few that actually do produce more than ever. This very well may cause society to schism into people who work and people who don't.

4) The potential long term effects are pretty scary. If you never have to work will you worry about education, socialization, or how to function in a society? How many people will decide to never learn any skills whatsoever? Sure, we could build up a lot of automation to take care of these people, but the result is going to be a massive schism where some people only know how to take their UBI money card to the food silo. And their children are probably going to be in the same bucket.

Ultimately, I think we as a society have a responsibility to use our plenty to help those who are going without. However, I'm not convinced that UBI is the right way to make this happen.

4 comments

UBI is not so attractive that most people will choose to do nothing with their lives. UBI is intended to keep people from starving, but it's not a very pleasant life, devoid of comforts and aspirations. Sure, there will be people who want that, but there will be many others who don't.

The most important tool there is a good education, which is mandatory for even the children of the laziest and most shiftless. That's where they get exposed to the possibilities of what they could do, and be engaged by. They'll be presented with role models in the form of teachers, who do get up and do work every day, and live better lives because of it.

Maybe they'll create nothing more than pointless forms of art. But even so, what would be wrong with that? Movies and video games are both pointless idleness, but they create genuine joy, and there were lots of mis-steps as people learned what forms of them would be worth doing. Similarly, a lot of the most advanced science seemed like navel-gazing until it turned into transistors and lasers and GPS.

I don't mean to be blandly utopian. There are many ways UBI can fail, and we will probably do all of them in varying experiments. But neither would I be so dystopian about people doing nothing at all with their lives. People enjoy comforts and they enjoy having purpose. Between the way our existing technology creates more than enough food and shelter at little cost, and the desire of many people to improve their lot in ways that also continue to move society forward, I think we can afford to experiment with letting some people live lives of complete (but unenviable) idleness.

I'm sorry but 1), 2) and 3) are ridiculous. What are you basing those assumptions on ? I don't see how any of these points relate to UBI. Why would we be obligated to provide welfare to people who spend their allowance on things other than food and healthcare ?

4) is a very good point. We don't actually know what keeps our civilization running. UBI assumes that people have a natural drive to be productive, but we got to where we are in a context of natural selection, survival instincts and greed. Removing those aspects from society is rightfully scary.

With respect to 1,2,3.

People make some pretty bad decisions. And people like to trick other people into making bad decision. I didn't think this was controversial.

Why is this relevant to UBI? One of the benefits of UBI is that it allows us to get rid of the welfare system. However, if people are tricked into giving away their money OR if they spend all of their money on non-food items, we now have to decide if they just go hungry or if there is a welfare for them. This is more complicated because some of the people going hungry will be children who have irresponsible parents.

To recap. One of the arguments of UBI is that it will be cheaper than it looks because we can get rid of welfare. This argument only works if we're willing to let people who misspend their UBI go hungry. I'm not willing to let people go hungry if I can help if, so I'm only interested in a UBI program if we also find a way to feed irresponsible people. OR I'm not interested in UBI being enacted.

Is this not already a problem with the current welfare system in terms of selling food stamps? In which case is there any reason to suggest that UBI would worsen the problem significantly?
As you say, there will be cases like this. Laws can provide for them to be declared incompetent and to appoint a guardian who would be responsible for distributing their UBI funds. If it’s necessary to institutionalize them, their UBI would go to that institution for the duration.
So if you make bad decisions with money you get institutionalized? That sounds monstrous and unethical.
We have procedures now to have individuals declared incompetent and have guardians appointed. I agree, we don’t want the cure to be worse than the disease or to have corrupt institutions take advantage of people. Therefore, it would be best to error on the side of non-interference, which is about what we are doing now with the homeless.

I’d further suggest that only a portion of their UBI go to the institution, while the balance would be available to assist with the later transition out.

It also seems ripe for abuse. I can already see people going around declaring people "unfit" and getting a cut of their UBI from the committing institution.
What's worse, having a guardian to help you spend money or sleeping on the streets?
"a guardian to help you spend money" is different from "institutionalized", which is what the parent and grandparent wrote. And sleeping on the streets is a real alternative to institutionalization that people can and sometimes do prefer.
Is your handle a wordplay upon Ry Cooder, or are you actually a wry coder, or both?
Yes
Why not welfare on top of that too, for the people who get tricked to waste their welfare money?

and what about those who waste their ubi money, welfare money, and backup welfare money? we need a failsafe fund for those too!

People are free to make their own decisions. It's good to help people and lessen the blow of mistakes, but at some point, a stupid person who keeps getting tricked into wasting their money, is not very helpful to anyone around.

If you're being given free money just for existing, and you can't figure out how to keep it? I think thats your problem, not society's.

None of those "tricking other people" problems you mention have anything to do with UBI, per se. They are all about human nature, both the trickers and the tricked. That is not going to change just because of UBI being enacted / implemented. The potential solutions lie deeper down the stack (of turtles).

"There's a sucker born every minute."

https://www.google.co.in/search?q=quote+there%27s+a+sucker+b...

Barnum may not have said it, but it holds true even today ... probably every millisecond, if you take the ratio of the world's population to the number of suckers/suckees/suckincidents ...

I don't think it's hard to find societies that subsist on income that comes 'for free'. Investors, traditional aristocrats - hell, the ancient spartan citizens. These are all people who had their wealth decoupled from their productive labour.
I'm also worried about inflation. If you give everyone $X/month to spend on essentials but the supply of those essentials doesn't change, then a very likely outcome is that the price of essentials, in aggregate, will go up by $X/month.

We already see some of this with student loans. The government decided that education is important, so it created federally-backed student loans that anyone can apply for, and effectively increased the amount of money available for education by a large amount. Some of this did go into increasing the number of kids that could go to college, but much of it just went into increasing the price of education. Plus, the supply of good jobs didn't really go up by much, so all those extra kids who went to college are now fighting over the same jobs they would've gotten in the first place, just with crushing debt burdens.

+1 on this also. I'm not sure how this would play out. The prices might just normalize for the middle class, as if they ended up getting no UBI at all. But if rent and food prices go up across the board then it'll be as if it has no effect at all.

The upside is that the UBI will still support people that end up with financial shocks -- something unexpected happening in their lives. That little bit could help a lot

People keep saying that UBI will replace wages at the low end so those people won't have more money to spend. But for the middle class there will be inflation.
I'm still worried about this, and I can't get anyone to sketch a model showing this would not be the case (but see below, maybe it's way too easy to sketch a model showing anything you want).

Closest I got to seeing a counterargument is me vs. JoeAltmaier a couple of weeks ago:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18569493

Yes, this is my main concern as well, and I haven't seen a satisfying answer to it. I'm bullish on UBI anyway because it answers a lot of questions of how to handle poverty and what to do with our societal wealth, but this one unanswered and fundamental question remains.
Most people will want to do something useful to supplement their basic income because it will only be enough to pay for the basic necessities. Would you want to live like a poor student for the rest of your life, renting a bedroom and being only able to afford thrift shop clothes and ramen noodles? Most people aspire to have their own place, date other people, have friends, etc. Most people have some minimum amount of drive for status. That will ensure that they make some effort to rise above the bare minimum.

As for how to pay for this, consider that central banks have printed trillions of dollars and basically handed that money to corporations, bailing them out of their debt. We live in the world of corporate welfare. We could expand the money supply and give that money to the people instead. In some ways, this is more capitalist than the alternative. Why? Because corporations who get too far into debt should die. If you give money to the people, you at least ensure that corporations will have to sell people something that they actually need/want, instead of being able to count on a corporate bailout.

> Most people will want to do something useful to supplement their basic income

Most people will want to do something to supplement their basic income. It doesn't have to be useful. In fact it could be to scam other people out of their UBI. Additionally, if we schism society into people who work and people who don't work, then it will almost definitely be to scam other people out of their UBI because that will be the most obvious course of action to get more money having been isolated from people who do actual work.