[eric_b]

UBI is a pipe-dream. Look what happened when we tried it on a small scale with stimulus to "everyone". Rents went up 20-40% across the board, and demand exceeded supply in most industries. This will happen in any UBI scenario - the cost of goods will rise to meet whatever money people have.

The reason is simple - we are not in a post-scarcity society. I don't know why people think we are. Desirable apartments, land, products and myriad other things still follow supply and demand. If you increase demand, and supply stays the same, you will get higher prices. And no, UBI will not encourage companies to increase supply - with what workers will they do it?

[postpawl]

"Rents went up 20-40% across the board"

I don't think you can blame that on the stimulus. There are tons of other forces driving up prices, including iBuyers and the lack of affordable new construction. The stimulus barely paid a month of rent for most people.

[jbay808]

I agree. I attribute the rent increase mainly to low interest rates. At high interest rates it's unlikely that landlords would have enough bargaining power to capture the UBI through rent increases.

My preferred policy would be to adjust interest rates to control inflation, and adjust UBI to control interest rates to keep them a healthy distance from zero.

[eric_b]

The stimulus is absolutely a factor. I agree there are other things pushing on both the demand side of the equation as well as the supply side. But UBI will never increase supply - at best you'd craft it in such a way so as to be neutral (though I don't know how you'd pull this off - someone has to work the crappy jobs)

But UBI absolutely will increase demand - and therefore prices until the same equilibrium is met but at a higher price. Basically, the poor will still be poor, but the rich will be poorer too. If a race to the lowest common quality of life is what you want, UBI is the answer. For any other scenario keep looking.

[postpawl]

Saying that UBI would be canceled out by demand increases sounds absolutely hyperbolic.

What would you do instead? Continue existing trickle down policies? Use weird neoliberal tax breaks that require an accountant to utilize?

If we continue down the path of the top 10% in the US owning 89% of stocks, we’re going to have bigger problems than slight price increases on essentials.

[eric_b]

We already have the answer. 2019 was arguably the greatest year for the American economy on record. Real wages for the lowest quartile were rising at one of the fastest (if not the fastest) rates in history. Poverty as measured among Black families was at its lowest record since WW2. Unemployment was 3ish% and people were coming off the bench to work. Inflation was < 2% and in some measurements hovering around 0.

So what was the big secret? You won't want to hear it. First and foremost it was the tax cuts and jobs act. Yeah yeah, a giveaway for the rich the media says. Nonsense. Second it was getting the government out of the way of the economy and business. Removing regulations was absolutely a factor in the success. And finally it was using our influence to benefit the US first and foremost (tariffs, foreign policy etc). Of course the media has poo pooed all these things, particularly because of who was at the helm when they happened. And I don't expect anyone on HN to agree with me.

[postpawl]

Saying that the tax cut and jobs act was a giveaway to the rich is accurate.

The bottom 10% barely got anything: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/ce/1-Distri...

[dataflow]

Have you looked at other (actual) UBI experiments people have carefully run and observed? Or are you just extrapolating from this one data point that hardly resembled UBI in the first place, never mind even remotely resembling a controlled experiment?

[eric_b]

There isn't a single UBI experiment that remotely approximates what people mean when they talk about UBI. They are all small samples and all for limited time periods. The COVID stimulus was the closest thing we've seen on the scale required to get meaningful results.

[dataflow]

How is a couple of isolated payments in the middle of a global pandemic that turned the entire world upside down the "closest thing we've seen" to an accurate UBI experiment?

It just sounds like you just don't know about what else has actually been done? Here's one link; you can find more if you Google: https://ssir.org/articles/entry/is_universal_basic_income_th...

[eric_b]

You have to be kidding me. This is your big experiment?

"There are 175,000 24-year-olds in Gyeonggi, and for one year, each receives the equivalent of $220 in a locally negotiable currency per quarter via a credit card."

So 1000 bucks a person for a year. COVID stimulus plus child tax credit went to millions of people... and even the smallest amounts were more than this experiment in SK.

Like... what else ya got?

[dataflow]

> This is your big experiment?

No, it's the first more-controlled experiment (more controlled than a pandemic!) I could think of off the top of my head. I don't know how to argue this when you seem to have no regard for the idea of controlling for other variables. Nor for the manner (like frequency) in which the funds are distributed. Nor for anything that I can see, other than the sheer amount of money dumped into the experiment. As if you can gauge accuracy by just looking at the amount of money dumped into the experiment? Aren't there a ton of other factors at play that can mess up the results (like the pandemic itself)?

> Like... what else ya got?

Like I said, you can find more if you Google, e.g.: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_income_pilots

But again, I'm not sure what else to cite when your only metric is the amount of money. I'm not claiming there was any other UBI experiment that spent this much money. If/when you consider other factors then there would be much more room for discussion.

[eric_b]

You sure like to be condescending. Every one of your replies to me starts with condescension. And I mean... my guy... I don't really think any of your comments are particularly compelling. I'm very aware of the state of UBI research, and I don't consider any of it to be very meaningful. I guess you do - that's great. But to completely discount the COVID stimulus is... cognitive dissonance.

[seventytwo]

Ok, so now tell us what you believe WILL work. Because we’ve been trying “trickle-down” for 50 years now, and all we have to show is runaway wealth inequality, corporate “personhood”, and international conglomerates that can influence our politics while avoiding our tax.

[hyperhopper]

> with what workers will they do it?

Fewer workers. That's the whole point.

For years, companies have been investing billions into automation and efficiency improvements. Less and less humans are required to do the same work.

Of course, we aren't at 0 yet, but it's trending lower and lower. It doesn't take doubling a human workforce to double output anymore.

[eric_b]

This is also a pipe-dream. You can't automate plumbing, drywalling, framing and dozens of other construction jobs. They already can't find people to work those jobs - when you add UBI do you think there will be more of those workers? No. So who's going to build the houses? Who's going to make the supplies? Who's going to pick up trash? Moreover, who's going to be a nursing assistant, a home care aid, or even a teacher?

[crooked-v]

The answer is "people who are paid enough to do so".

[eric_b]

Your response is smug and glib. You can make 150k without too much trouble as a plumber. Or a mason. And still they can't find people. If you can't find people to work for those wages now, you think UBI will make it better? Please do explain that to me.

[atom_arranger]

There are plenty of people who might still think that's bad value. Trades put a lot of stress on your body, and are not that easy, especially masonry from what I've heard.

If you think of people working in the service sector, like fast food, or retail, I don't think most of them would cut it as a mason.

Aside from that anyone who has a way to make similar money another way would probably do so instead, I certainly would.

[boomboomsubban]

>You can make 150k without too much trouble as a plumber.

So my 20 second research shows the average salary for a plumber is around $50,000, with 90% making under $75,000. I bet more would be willing to be a plumber for the kind of money you mention, but that's not standard.