[diekdnk]

The experiment was terribly flawed in that it only addressed the unemployed, and it didn't affect the existing unemployment system for them, making incentives perverse for all taking part. The UBI was offered tax-free on top.

It represents nothing like real life UBI and needs to be redesigned as a test.

[ajsnigrutin]

The biggest problems with such UBI experiments is the limited time of the experiment.

If I had a shitty, dead-end job, and someone offered me (eg.) 80% of an average paycheck in my country, FOR 2 YEARS, i'd be happier than before, and use that money to pay off loans, buy a new car, go for a vacation, etc., and keep my curent job.

If I had a shitty, dead-end job, and someone offered me (eg.) 80% of an average paycheck in my country, FOREVER(!), i'd probably quit, and live off UBI, and do other stuff (fun for me, but litle of value to to wider society, and with probably zero tax money to feed the UBI system). ...or, probably move somewhere, where I can get more for that amount of money.

Most countries have lottery systems made up in a way, that you can opt for a bulk sum or get monthly payouts from the lottery... i'm sure, that we could find people, who get monthly sums somewhere in the interesting rage, to check how they're doing now.... but usually, looking at loterry winners does not show results in favour of giving people "free money".

[mercer]

> If I had a shitty, dead-end job, and someone offered me (eg.) 80% of an average paycheck in my country, FOREVER(!), i'd probably quit, and live off UBI, and do other stuff (fun for me, but litle of value to to wider society, and with probably zero tax money to feed the UBI system). ...or, probably move somewhere, where I can get more for that amount of money.

While I do think this might be what some people will do, I think that over time, as we get used to such a thing, this is not at all what most people will do.

I've had periods of years in my life where I didn't have to think about money. After a short period of faffing off, I started doing all sorts of stuff. Some of it of direct value to society (volunteering) and some of it perhaps indirectly so (teaching myself new skills, working on 'products' that could be useful). I mean, even just spending time with others who themselves had it in short supply and valued my company could be considered 'useful to society'.

What I do know is that all of this time spent was generally more useful than a number of years of inane bullshit I worked on for various companies (getting paid well, but not really feeling satisfied with the result). So many projects that just stopped because of some decision higher up. So much work poured into websites that offer no value to society either. And the stress and depressions that goes with it leading to me being a 'burden' on society by using my health care bux on mental health care. I'm not a rare case.

Of course, this is anecdotal. But the assumption that people will just be lazy and offer nothing to society if they can is equally anecdotal, and honestly goes against everything I see in about 99% of the people around me.

People want to be useful. People want to be valued and needed. People want to be creative.

I consider it quite possible, or at least worth properly exploring, a society that provides in the basic needs regardless of whether you do pointless work for pointless company to allow you to spend your downtime on pointless consumption and entertainment (because no energy for anything else).

[ajsnigrutin]

> I've had periods of years in my life where I didn't have to think about money. After a short period of faffing off, I started doing all sorts of stuff. Some of it of direct value to society (volunteering) and some of it perhaps indirectly so (teaching myself new skills, working on 'products' that could be useful). I mean, even just spending time with others who themselves had it in short supply and valued my company could be considered 'useful to society'.

Do those activities generate enough money, so that government collects enough taxes from you, to cover your UBI + all the other costs (roads, schools,...)? If not, you're still a net burden on society.

> People want to be useful. People want to be valued and needed. People want to be creative.

Of course people want to be useful and creative. But peoples usefullness and creativeness has to create atlest 2xUBI of taxes (one that goes back to the worker and one that goes to someone who get UBI but doesnt work) + all the other costs.

If you're capable of doing stuff you like, being creative, liking that work, and creating that much income, why are you not doing it now?

> I consider it quite possible, or at least worth properly exploring, a society that provides in the basic needs regardless of whether you do pointless work for pointless company to allow you to spend your downtime on pointless consumption and entertainment (because no energy for anything else).

Problem with this society is, that it also requires people who are working, to cover the cost of the poeple who are not working. Curretnly most countries do that for a very small percentage of unemployed (welfare), and most people in those countries are already complaining about the high taxes. If you raise the taxes on the people left working, and let others live relatively normal lives without working, you'll get less and less of the former and more of the later. Yes, non-workers will create music, art, will travel, write blogs, etc., but none of that generates enough income to cover even their own cost.

[Shish2k]

> If you're capable of doing stuff you like, being creative, liking that work, and creating that much income, why are you not doing it now?

Because it’s a huge risk with no safety net - even if I’m 95% confident that I could support myself as a freelancer, that’s 5% odds of ending up without health insurance / homeless / unable to support my family / dead / etc; so I stick with my FacelessMegaCorp(tm) job for now, and maybe I’ll freelance for entertainment after I retire :P

[bryanlarsen]

> Do those activities generate enough money, so that government collects enough taxes from you, to cover your UBI + all the other costs (roads, schools,...)? If not, you're still a net burden on society.

The median person on UBI would probably be a net burden on society.

The mean? Probably not. Albert Einstein's Theory of Relativity was a side project. It'd only take a couple of similar projects to make all of UBI worth it.

[fragmede]

Framing people as possibly being "net burden" on society presumes that "the market", and economics, perfectly encodes the value of an activity to society, and that taxes are omnipotently levied against the activity. Conmen (Enron; Bernie Madoff) and people who squander inherited wealth (trust-fund babies; Paris Hilton) arguably have a negative contribution to society, but pay plenty in taxes. Does their existence as high-value tax base truly outweigh a kind, loving person who had the misfortune to born poor, and not get the same opportunities in life as someone who's family donated a building to Harvard?

Capitalism is unable to recognize the value of lots of kinds of work (that is often done by women), especially when those performing the work aren't the kind to charge for it. Just because work is being given away for free doesn't mean it's worthless. Capitalism has some shortcomings and one of them is that it's unable to support certain business models that provide value to the world.

Wikipedia manages to exist on the largess of wealthy benefactors, and a ton of volunteer labor. Are those volunteers a "net burden" on society?

[quotemstr]

> Framing people as possibly being "net burden" on society presumes that "the market", and economics, perfectly encodes the value of an activity to society,

If not the market, then what? Why do you think resource allocation scheme X would be better than the market overall? Without prices, we're left with the people best at being loud demagogues deciding the application of society's limited resources. Is that really better? Has it ever worked to produce prosperity or happiness?

Yes, economic value reflects social value, and chasing profit produces social good. Every time somebody's rejected this principle, he's produced poverty and death.

[cortic]

UBI would be cheaper than the current system (in the UK at least, but likely other countries as well).

First off, those that are currently entitled to most benefits would be getting UBI instead, and those that are not currently entitled to (most) benefits would be getting UBI and paying it back in tax.. so in theory its the same cost, less the administration and means testing.

Its also high return as its mostly spent on the basics when it isn't directly taxed back, so the money changes hands (taxed) several times within weeks. But also savings from the health service (10 billion spent each year in UK on preventable poverty related disease) and on courts and police (another 5 billion spent on petty crime directly related to poverty -likely not the full figure). Or as mentioned; the massive possibility for profit as you free up millions from demeaning repetitive low tax jobs to chase their dreams and entrepreneurial ambitions or higher education, as well as a permanent stimulus to the economy replacing much of the bailouts currently needed.

IMO we also really need an automation tax, as more and more jobs are automated the extra profit can't/shouldn't be focused on the few, though this wouldn't be necessary for UBI.

edit; I also want to add that back in the 80s early 90s, the UK welfare system was basically a guaranteed lifelong income. People were still falling over themselves to get work, i remember 10K applicants for 50 ICI jobs (low wage long hours).

[ajsnigrutin]

> First off, those that are currently entitled to most benefits would be getting UBI instead, and those that are not currently entitled to (most) benefits would be getting UBI and paying it back in tax.. so in theory its the same cost, less the administration and means testing.

How many workers does britain have (percentage)?

In slovenia, a bit less than half of people work (we have a huge amount of pensioners, kids, students, and also some unemployed) + a huge public sector.

With UBI, an average worker would have to pay for two UBIs in taxes, to get one UBI back. And that's not counting the people quittin their jobs due to UBI (and moving to cheaper countries, where that money is worth more).

[cortic]

>an average worker would have to pay for two UBIs in taxes

An average worker would be paying less tax (in real terms) if we moved to UBI than they are paying for the current system.

Its also true that this isn't just going to be payed for in income tax. VAT and corporate tax will contribute as well, meaning people on UBI will be paying for it in part as they spend it(VAT), and as they don't claim some of their other allowances in benefits, healthcare and law enforcement we will save even more.

Try to stop thinking about this as 'the average worker' the country is a good deal more complex than that. systems will pay for themselves in a host of ways if they are needed and efficient; UBI is a more efficient income support system than the one we have.

[shkkmo]

> Problem with this society is, that it also requires people who are working, to cover the cost of the poeple who are not working. Curretnly most countries do that for a very small percentage of unemployed (welfare), and most people in those countries are already complaining about the high taxes.

You seem hung up on the idea that "working" is equivalent to "producing value".

We live in a society where the system is frequently optimized to employ as many people as possible. This creates incentives to encourage a lot of work being done to win zero-sum games rather than producing value for the economy as a whole. I would argue that we are already in a situation where the majority of the population can be supported by a minority of the workers. We have long been living in a world where the limits on economic growth is consumption, not production.

If we instead have the need to encourage people to find what motivates them and provide tools to the motivated to maximize that productivity I think you will see very different social structures arise.

Beyond that, I think the removal of the lazy from the work force is actually a net positive. Employers can spend less time filtering the mostly useless to find good workers. The 10x producers among us don't have to spend as much working around the lazy coworkers and managers. Even the "lazy" among us have the freedom to discover their passions and find ways to contribute more to society than they would as a low end wage slave.

> Yes, non-workers will create music, art, will travel, write blogs, etc., but none of that generates enough income to cover even their own cost.

I think you are selling people short here, or perhaps projecting your dreams on others. There is also a great deal of work that people want to do but the value of which is not easily captureable by an employer.

> If you raise the taxes on the people left working, and let others live relatively normal lives without working, you'll get less and less of the former and more of the later.

This is actually a good thing as long as you maintain sufficient production. As production declines, the standard of living provided by basic income declines which increases the incentives of the semi-lazy to work, which then leads to increased production. As long as UBI is carefully phased in, the system should equilibrilize.

Most of these dynamics aren't possible to explore in limited studies like this one. All these types of studies can do is dispell common myths about individual bevaior and the only way to really find out what will happen is to gradually phase in a UBI.

[mercer]

> Of course people want to be useful and creative. But peoples usefullness and creativeness has to create atlest 2xUBI of taxes (one that goes back to the worker and one that goes to someone who get UBI but doesnt work) + all the other costs.

> If you're capable of doing stuff you like, being creative, liking that work, and creating that much income, why are you not doing it now?

I dunno, it's all speculation of course, but I'd say my 'usefulness' has gone up once I didn't have to bow to my bosses' whims. It's hard to quantify that, of course, but even if I go for a quantifiable measure, I'm probably more of a benefit to society than otherwise: I've been working on various business ideas that could improve the efficiency of other businesses, my volunteering reduced the burden I put on my country's health care system (on account of needing less therapy), and possibly reduced the effect on others around me. The money I make doing 'extra' work, that I wouldn't have to do, has benefitted my younger siblings who in turn might benefit society.

Personally I don't like this kind of thinking though. I'm convinced that a decent chunk of the population is just driven to do and create in a way that is valuable to other parts of the population. Trying to reduce this to 2xUBI is somewhat futile, and honestly not a society I want to actively encourage. In fact, engaging with this thought strikes me as already a bit of a needless capitulation. How much money could we save by reducing the pointless corporate work, military spending, etc, and how does UBI relate to that? At least for a significant experiment I suspect it's not much.

> I consider it quite possible, or at least worth properly exploring, a society that provides in the basic needs regardless of whether you do pointless work for pointless company to allow you to spend your downtime on pointless consumption and entertainment (because no energy for anything else).

>> Problem with this society is, that it also requires people who are working, to cover the cost of the poeple who are not working. Curretnly most countries do that for a very small percentage of unemployed (welfare), and most people in those countries are already complaining about the high taxes. If you raise the taxes on the people left working, and let others live relatively normal lives without working, you'll get less and less of the former and more of the later. Yes, non-workers will create music, art, will travel, write blogs, etc., but none of that generates enough income to cover even their own cost.

I think what I'm driving at is that this 'working' and 'not working' would be redefined. So much work is busiwork. So much 'work' is very tenuously measurably good for society. And, conversely, so much 'work' is not really considered work, but crucial to a functioning society.

In the same way that we (many Western nations) already got rid of having to worry (generally) about some of the most basic needs, UBI is one option to reduce that even further. I think, with the recent decades of insane progress when it comes to automation, that this is possible. And I'd rather see what happens and roll back the changes than just not do it because we can't fully predict the outcome.

[ajsnigrutin]

> I dunno, it's all speculation of course, but I'd say my 'usefulness' has gone up once I didn't have to bow to my bosses' whims. It's hard to quantify that, of course, but even if I go for a quantifiable measure, I'm probably more of a benefit to society than otherwise: I've been working on various business ideas that could improve the efficiency of other businesses, my volunteering reduced the burden I put on my country's health care system (on account of needing less therapy), and possibly reduced the effect on others around me. The money I make doing 'extra' work, that I wouldn't have to do, has benefitted my younger siblings who in turn might benefit society.

Why can't you do that now, by starting your own business and being your own boss?

> Personally I don't like this kind of thinking though. I'm convinced that a decent chunk of the population is just driven to do and create in a way that is valuable to other parts of the population. Trying to reduce this to 2xUBI is somewhat futile, and honestly not a society I want to actively encourage. In fact, engaging with this thought strikes me as already a bit of a needless capitulation. How much money could we save by reducing the pointless corporate work, military spending, etc, and how does UBI relate to that? At least for a significant experiment I suspect it's not much.

We can verify this by observing people who are currently not working and are getting welfare. Somehow, very few of them do so. Some even avoid doing real work (you have to actively look for a job here if you want to receive welfare), by literally coming to interviews and saying that they're there just for the 'stamp' (proof they were there).

> I think what I'm driving at is that this 'working' and 'not working' would be redefined. So much work is busiwork. So much 'work' is very tenuously measurably good for society. And, conversely, so much 'work' is not really considered work, but crucial to a functioning society.

But stuff we deem "crucial" (by our own, individual standards), we're also willing to pay for. Water, food, entertainment, cars, gadget, clothes, vacations, travel, books, music, perfumes, etc. Is something really crucial, if noone wants to pay for that? If someone is willing to pay 100euros for a stinky alcohol-water mix (perfume), and they're not willing to pay for your work, is your work crucial?

> How much money could we save by reducing the pointless corporate work, military spending, etc, and how does UBI relate to that?

Corporations are paying their own money for that work... they'd be the one saving, not you. Military spending can still be lowered, and workers would get to keep more of their own money, why does it have to be given to non-workers? (i'm not talking bout disabled people, etc, i'm talking about able-bodied people, who are able to work, but would choose not to).

[mercer]

>> I dunno, it's all speculation of course, but I'd say my 'usefulness' has gone up once I didn't have to bow to my bosses' whims. It's hard to quantify that, of course, but even if I go for a quantifiable measure, I'm probably more of a benefit to society than otherwise: I've been working on various business ideas that could improve the efficiency of other businesses, my volunteering reduced the burden I put on my country's health care system (on account of needing less therapy), and possibly reduced the effect on others around me. The money I make doing 'extra' work, that I wouldn't have to do, has benefitted my younger siblings who in turn might benefit society.

> Why can't you do that now, by starting your own business and being your own boss?

I can, because I ended up in a situation where I basically have the equivalent of UBI. My point is that it is indeed what I'm doing, and I believe others would too, given the opportunity.

>> Personally I don't like this kind of thinking though. I'm convinced that a decent chunk of the population is just driven to do and create in a way that is valuable to other parts of the population. Trying to reduce this to 2xUBI is somewhat futile, and honestly not a society I want to actively encourage. In fact, engaging with this thought strikes me as already a bit of a needless capitulation. How much money could we save by reducing the pointless corporate work, military spending, etc, and how does UBI relate to that? At least for a significant experiment I suspect it's not much.

> We can verify this by observing people who are currently not working and are getting welfare. Somehow, very few of them do so. Some even avoid doing real work (you have to actively look for a job here if you want to receive welfare), by literally coming to interviews and saying that they're there just for the 'stamp' (proof they were there).

As I said before/elsewhere, I think this is transitional effect. Not only is welfare avoided by those who would be productive anyways, the very stigma and context of welfare can encourage 'doing nothing'. It's a bit like your employer allowing you to work from home: at first, it's quite likely you'll abuse this freedom to not wear pants all day and pretend to work. I truly believe that changing this to a 'default', over time, makes it less common for the majority of people to actively do nothing. People hate doing nothing by nature.

>> I think what I'm driving at is that this 'working' and 'not working' would be redefined. So much work is busiwork. So much 'work' is very tenuously measurably good for society. And, conversely, so much 'work' is not really considered work, but crucial to a functioning society.

> But stuff we deem "crucial" (by our own, individual standards), we're also willing to pay for. Water, food, entertainment, cars, gadget, clothes, vacations, travel, books, music, perfumes, etc. Is something really crucial, if noone wants to pay for that? If someone is willing to pay 100euros for a stinky alcohol-water mix (perfume), and they're not willing to pay for your work, is your work crucial?

Most people don't want to pay for love, and yet here we are. Most people don't want to pay for a (good) family, and here we are.

Reducing crucial to 'what people are willing to pay for' is, even on a cursory inspection, complete bullshit that nobody who isn't extremely dysfunctional actually lives by.

>> How much money could we save by reducing the pointless corporate work, military spending, etc, and how does UBI relate to that?

> Corporations are paying their own money for that work... they'd be the one saving, not you. Military spending can still be lowered, and workers would get to keep more of their own money, why does it have to be given to non-workers? (i'm not talking bout disabled people, etc, i'm talking about able-bodied people, who are able to work, but would choose not to).

I'm saying the difference between workers and non-workers is something we need to re-assess. You're sort of getting there by making a distinction between 'disabled' and 'able-bodied'. Those are not clear distinctions. Is someone with mental health issues that prevent them from being able to deal with workplace stress 'able-bodied'? Or 'disabled'? What if we experimentally try to do away with that distinction and provide UBI and see how things go?

[bluntfang]

>Do those activities generate enough money, so that government collects enough taxes from you, to cover your UBI + all the other costs (roads, schools,...)? If not, you're still a net burden on society.

I challenge your assumption that someone's worth to society can be accounted for by tax revenue.

[ajsnigrutin]

If you provide something that the society wants, they're willing to pay for it. If you make good beer, people will buy it, if you make good music, people will pay for tickets to listen to your shows, if you make great art, people will buy it,...

Tax revenue is just a percentage of the income you make.

Is your work/activity/service really worth anything, if noone is willing to pay for it?

[mercer]

Nobody paid my mother to raise me well. Nobody pays me to call her, or visit her. Nobody pays me to coach my younger siblings. Nobody paid that one great teacher to cultivate a love for programming in me, when just doing okay was enough. Nobody paid that one guitar player/singer who left a lasting impression on me with his song.

Nobody pays for my girlfriend to show affection to me, or spend time with me. Nobody pays... you get the point.

So many of the best things in my experience have not been quantifiable, or in fact even actively hostile to commerce. That guitar player was not getting paid, but he wanted to play because he liked the vibe of the bar. For all I know he was good enough that he usually gets played. I know that some of the top performers in my country (stadium-level audiences) would do so at no cost at this bar, randomly, and if you were lucky it was when you went there for a beer.

I do hope you don't really see the world as a matter of finances and payment. It's depressingly reductive.

[bluntfang]

>Is your work/activity/service really worth anything, if noone is willing to pay for it?

people pay for sex, yet sex workers aren't legally able to report their income and pay taxes.

[jonkho]

Fair enough, but I’m more concerned if UBI turned out to be a bad policy, would it be repealed? Practically speaking, the government has a poor track record of back pedaling on bad policies once they are in place.

[mercer]

Possibly. it's an interesting point.

I'd say no, though. My experience so far has been that my government has had no problems repealing (to various degrees) things like health care, education/student loans, or public ownership of various things. From my limited knowledge this has been similar in much of the Western world, at least.

[ajsnigrutin]

Better question is, after they took away/shrunk down the service, did they lower the taxes because of that cost saving?

In slovenia, we still have the "financial crisis" (2008) 22% VAT, which we "temporary" increased back then (from 20%).

[mercer]

To a degree I feel discussing this is a distraction of my basic point (we have become productive enough even in just a few decades to indulge in these experiments).

But honestly I think it's a great point. Our taxes did not go down, as far as I know. I'll check in one of the coming days, but I'd be shocked to find out it did...

[ajsnigrutin]

I'm skeptical about this too.... especialy if the UBI was the 'thing' that got them elected in the first place. And people would be protesting because they'd be losing 'free money'.

[golf3]

This program has to work for the least common denominator. I think a common pitfall is intelligent people designing systems in a bubble of intelligent friends then wondering why it fails spectacularly in public.

[econcon]

UBI would have helped me. I am building plastic recycling machine in my free time and I am also helping communities build their own machine.

If there was UBI, I'd have completely focused on developing the machine and helping others around me full time.

Here's my project: https://medium.com/endless-filament/make-your-filament-at-ho...

Now my project is successful, I've given away tons of face shields and also made $4000 by selling filament on on e-commerce websites.

It took me a long time to get here, UBI would have definitely made it faster.

[andarleen]

You will probably want to spend your time doing fun things, but the moment you need to upgrade your car, your tv or buy that sweet new tool for your hobby you will need to take a job.

But the biggest benefit of ubi imo is that if you want to spend your time, say, building a new product or clearing your mind in order to be more productive in the future, you will have that option. Tho I do see a lot of people just sitting around doing nothing, and ubi leading to inflation.

Imo the best way to implement ubi is by automating as much as possible, to increase productivity, and to use the extra time and money to reduce the amount of work people need to put in for a living. Thus far automation disproportionately benefited employers and not the society and the workers, money wise. If a robot makes 10 times more shoes, then taxing that bot the equivalent of 5 full time workers is fair.

[jonkho]

I imagine for most people, and I’m talking about the ones that would continue keep at their their existing job, if there was an extra $2000/month spare cash coming in or $4000 for a couple, it wouldn’t be a difficult stretch of imagination to say they would spend the money on the two most immediately obvious things: 1) upgrade their car 2) upgrade their shelter. If everyone is now affording a new $1000/month car payment and a $2000/month in extra rent budget, how would this ultimately not lead to people trying to outbid each other and cause inflation, especially rent? Wouldn’t rent or mortgage payments essentially rise to absorb this new quantity of money? Would this be essentially a transfer of wealth to landlords?

[ajsnigrutin]

First of all, if ~50% of people work in a country (from age 0 to pensioners), they continued to work, and got 2k extra 'free money', they'd have to pay more than those 2k back in taxes, to cover the 2k for people who don't work at all.

If we somehow took 2k/person/month from some nonexisting trillionaire, who has the money to finance it for everyone, then probably yes, prices would go up, because everybody has now 2k/month more to spend.

[jonkho]

If the average worker had to pay for those that didn’t via increased taxes of $1000 a month (to balance that budget), I cannot see that happening without a revolt. Would you even agree to pay an extra $500 per month in taxes to pay for someone else’s living expenses? Most workers are living almost paycheck to paycheck as is.

[andarleen]

Not if the extra “free” money are covered by increased productivity due to automation, as it happened over the past decades. Typically the main beneficiaries from increased productivity are shareholders or company founders, and that is why money gets clogged in a few hands. Workers should also benefit more from from it as it is also their productivity that grew 10x along with that of the company. So we are not really talking about free money, we are talking about money you are entitled to anyway. Sure it is your company that invested in new tech to grow productivity, but it is the society as a whole that enabled it - try making robots or new tech in a society ridden by unemployment, inequality, civil unrest and so on. Furthermore, UBI would reduce corporate socialism and get us back to a free flow of capital, as the wealth would be fairly spread across society.

[luckylion]

The issue is that we all already benefit from increased automation and new technologies. We all carry computers with us with powerful batteries and access to the internet.

It's the (much rarer) high-skill workers whose productivity has shot through the roof by using technology as leverage. The individual low-skill worker's productivity hasn't really increased by a lot, unless you say "we've built a robot that does 95% of the work, but let's attribute all of the output to the remaining 3 humans".

> Furthermore, UBI would reduce corporate socialism and get us back to a free flow of capital, as the wealth would be fairly spread across society.

The issue with "fair" is that it's very subjective. Some may say "it's fair when everyone has the same", others may argue that it's unfair when somebody who works hard gets the same as someone who chooses not to work at all.

[andarleen]

A transfer of wealth would indeed be an issue. But I am wondering, would UBI give more people the option to live outside large cities, given that the scarcity of income is no longer an issue? And as such the demand for rent would go down? Will try and comment less, because debate on HN gets heavily penalised unless it conforms to certain patterns. But yeah UBI and inflation / transfers of wealth are an interesting topic.

[luckylion]

Germany might be an example to look at this. We have welfare that's paid out wherever you live. It's conditional in so far that it's expected that you look for a job and aren't rich, but that's about it. It has a fixed money component (~400€/month) and covers rent (up to some amount that's set locally, depending on the local rent prices), utilities, health insurance etc directly.

Therefore, if you're okay with the amount of money you'd get, you'd probably be better off if you're not living in a large city, because, rent aside, city living is a bit more expensive. Also, considering that you're supposed to look for work, living in a city (where the jobs are, if they are anywhere) would increase the chances of you being expected to take a job, which you wouldn't have to in more rural areas.

People still move to the cities, even though the job market isn't promising for low-skill workers there either.

There are certainly many reasons, but some I believe to be involved: it's harder to get an apartment when you're on social benefits (even more so if not in the community you're currently living in), it's harder to live in a rural area if you don't have a car (which you'll likely not be able to buy while on benefits), few people have the means to move when money is tight.

[andarleen]

I have to read more on how this works in Germany, but the idea of UBI would be that everyone would get 400 eur. I know that is not possible right now without taxing individual income even more, and as such my view is we should come up with tech we can tax. I dont have the specific silver bullet for how it could work, but would it be possible to tax every robot that replaces a human worker? Or tax anything that 10x’s productivity in any field, but at a level where it still is very motivating for an investor to make that 10x investment by letting them keep 8x of the output?

[ajsnigrutin]

With 80% of an average finnish paycheck, you can live a really great life in one of the southern or eastern european countries, with a car and tools too.

> But the biggest benefit of ubi imo is that if you want to spend your time, say, building a new product or clearing your mind in order to be more productive in the future, you will have that option. Tho I do see a lot of people just sitting around doing nothing, and ubi leading to inflation.

How many "normal" people, above 40, with minimal education, currently packing meat, cleaning the streets, or picking up produce will spend that time to build a new product? You and your 'startup buddies'.. maybe. Most, not.

> Imo the best way to implement ubi is by automating as much as possible, to increase productivity > If a robot makes 10 times more shoes, then taxing that bot the equivalent of 5 full time workers is fair.

But we're already doing this.... a washing machine cost a couple of paychecks here (former yugoslavia), and now i can buy one for less than 20% of an average paycheck (not yugoslavia anymore, but i haven't moved). If we tax the automation "difference", then we have to go back to old, pre-automation prices.

How much profit does VOX make on this: https://www.mimovrste.com/pralni-stroji/vox-wm-1051-pralni-s... 221.90EUR washing machine? 22% of that is VAT, a part of the price pays for "free" transport to the home, then the seller has to earn something, import duties, transport from china(?) to slovenia, manufacturing, raw materials, testing, development + 5 year guarantee (anything happens, a technician comes to your home to fix it... just the cost of that is probably more than the whole washing machine profit). + all other cost (loss, items destroyed in transport, returns, etc. I don't see a lot of profit for the manufacturer here... and and tax would just be moved onto the consumer who'd have to pay a higher price (so they'd need higher UBI, higher tax, higher price,...).

[ornornor]

Why can’t we ever design one such experiment right? It’s as if we were giving ammunition to those opposed to it by conducting trials that have flaws! Would it really be so hard to run a proper test that follows all the best practices and isn’t biased/flawed so that we could once and for all point at it and say “we can conclusively say UBI is/isn’t viable based on this experiment”?

I mean if a country goes all the way to overcoming political and opinion opposition along with securing funding to actually run such a trial, why not go all the way and do it right?

[luckylion]

A "real" test would be much harder, and to be actually useful, it would also have to contain a way to finance itself, i.e. by testing it not on a selected group of people, but on a region and adding additional taxes for everyone in the region large enough to offset the payments.

If you're only testing the outcome, but not the income, you're essentially allowing "free energy" people to plug their magic machines into a wall socket while you test the energy output of their machines.

Much fewer people will agree to run that test (as it'll negatively affect their bottom line), and I do believe that proponents of UBI will also be more hesitant to run it, as it might prove that adding e.g. 20% to income tax will motivate tax payers to migrate away from UBI zones.

[TotempaaltJ]

AFAIK one component of UBI is that you throw out (most of?) the other welfare benefits you might get. By saving money on that, you could potentially offset or even compensate for the required added income tax.

[jfindley]

This sort of thing gets mentioned a lot, but in practice doesn't work. The amount of money spent on welfare benefits[0], plus the cost of the administration, ends up several orders of magnitude less money than UBI wage x Population size. This is the key problem with UBI: making it actually universal costs an unsustainably huge sum of money, and making it not universal just means you've re-invented welfare benefits, but worse.

0: Doesn't really matter which country you choose the results will be the same

[dogma1138]

It’s also important to note that the direct and indirect benefits of traditional welfare are also considerably higher than even the highest suggested UBI allowances.

For example in the UK housing benefits would be greatly dependent on where you live in some London councils housing benefits can be as high as £400 per week, this alone is more than the highest proposed UBI allowances that aim to match the tax free allowance (currently at £12.5K).

UBI with removal of all other benefits could easily mean that the people that need it the most would be getting less and sometimes much less.

[swebs]

In science, evidence determines your viewpoints. In politics, its the other way around.

If the results of an experiment support your views, then it was a great experiment and proof that you were right all along.

If the results of an experiment contradict your views, then you can fully scrutinize every aspect of the test to come up with reasons why it got such a wrong result.

[plutonorm]

I don't think science is free from those flaws either. Science advances one death at a time.

[swebs]

There are certainly plenty of fields that have a these problems and are vulnerable to be politically driven. I'd say the further toward the "soft" sciences you go, the more you're able to manipulate results to fit certain viewpoints. 538 has a nice little demo showing off the problem.

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/p-hacking/

[KittenInABox]

Is CS a soft science? There’s a ton of massaging in machine learning IME.

[swebs]

Yes, some branches definitely. Especially human-computer interaction. Other branches like discrete math or algorithm analysis are impossible to fudge. Machine learning is somewhere in the middle.

[travisporter]

Awesome site! Sadly p hacking is also a problem in many fields not just the soft sciences. It’s a bit of a dig at science but is it a fundamental flaw of the scientific method?

[notahacker]

Doing the test properly means that the subsidy has to be paid for by much higher taxes on the study group only [as opposed to general government revenue raised mainly from taxes on the control group] and that the subsidy has to be credibly promised for life, not just for a year or two.

For obvious reasons, this is politically different to achieve.

[dexterdog]

A real world would have to include everybody in the economy or you will not disprove the objection that it will just create inflation on necessities. It's the problem with economic experimentation. There is only one actual economy and there is no real way to A-B.

[mbar84]

A real test would have to

- pick participants at random (regardless of employment status) - give money to all the participants - make all participants pay higher taxes to finance

For this to be realistic, the participants would not have a choice whether or not to participate. So yeah, I can't for the life of me think why we "can't ever design such experiment right".

[ornornor]

> So yeah, I can't for the life of me think why we "can't ever design such experiment right".

Your sarcasm undermines your point.

[diekdnk]

The test was conducted by a popular right wing party "Kokoomus", which is heavily opposed to the system. This might affect the design of the test

[swebs]

>According to its 2006-adopted platform, the National Coalition Party's policy is based on "freedom, responsibility and democracy, equality of opportunity, education, supportiveness, tolerance and caring".[9] The party is described by literature as a liberal[2] and conservative[3] as well as a liberal-conservative[4] party in the centre-right[8] with catch-all party characteristics.[29] The non-profit Democratic Society described it as "the heir to both liberal and conservative strains of right-of-centre thought" that is becoming increasingly liberal compared to its official stance of conservatism.[6]

>Specifically, it contains elements of cultural and economic liberalism and social reformism.[30] For example, it supports multiculturalism, work-based immigration, gay rights and same sex marriage.[6][31][32][33] Although formerly considered to have been critical of the Nordic welfare model and campaigning for strict doctrines of economic liberalism, in the 1970s the party shifted to supporting more social liberalism, such as increased social security and a welfare state, justified by increased individual liberty.[34]

They've really pivoted on that issue in the past few decades.

[pasiaj]

"Kokoomus ... is heavily opposed to the system"

There is no "system". There is an endless number of possible implementations of UBI on a spectrum that ranges from communist to libertarian.

One of the main UBI stalwarts in Finland is the pinnacle capitalist ideolog and banker Björn Whalroos, who wants UBI to replace ALL other welfare-state programs, including universal health care.

On the other end of the spectrum are proposals for UBI with a purpose to solve issues caused by globalization, patch-work employment, etc.

Kokoomus has strong proponents of UBI and if I recall correctly, the party approved a resolution for studying UBI 13 years ago in their 2007 national convention.

[jillesvangurp]

Agreed, this kind of experiment is flawed in many ways.

For me the argument for UBI is very simple: it's a simpler version of the status quo in most countries in terms of administrative overhead that offers more freedom to individuals. Those are two good things IMHO.

It's precisely for this reason that it's controversial because conservatives on both side of the political spectrum consider the notion that people should do work (no matter how meaningless) part of their core values.

Communism was all about workers and probably the closest we ever got to having UBI in some countries. Work ethos is very much a core value. So the notion of rewarding people for not working is controversial in communist circles. Most would consider communism a failed experiment from an economic point of view because it also included notions of central planning, equally (low) wages for everyone, and little differentiation in terms of skills & value of those skills. I.e. equating the two would be a mistake.

Fiscal conservatives on the other hand argue for a small state and are perpetually worried about "who is paying for this".

The argument for UBI and against both points of view is that we already have it in the sense that most countries provide healthcare, housing, foodstamps, and other benefits for basically everyone, including the homeless people, the elderly, children, and many others that in any case are not part of the working population. Also, in many countries, the working population is shrinking in the sense that unemployment statistics exclude whole parts of the population that are effectively not considered to be working and are therefore not actually unemployed (children, students, married women looking after children, medically disabled people, retired people, long term out of job people, the homeless, etc.). We take care of all these people already and that costs money. It actually is a rather large part of the current budget of whatever country you are in. Where these programs fall short, inevitably it causes a lot of problems and misery. Also the collective programs we have for doing this are a combination of very expensive and inefficient. E.g. some countries spent more on unemployment bureaucracy and programs than on the actual benefits.

UBI is about acknowledging & formalizing the status quo that no matter what, you will have the means to take care of yourself at some minimum definable level. IMHO, it has the potential to vastly simplify things in the sense that it would remove the need for minimum wage, state pensions, etc. and the associated bureaucracy. So there's an upside in terms of less administrative overhead and vastly less complexity & risk for employers & citizens.

The existing system of benefits could be redefined on top of a UBI and would likely get a more optional character. To the point where you could privatize this; which I imagine might be a popular topic in the US and other places with a strong libertarian minded population.