Universal basic income doesn’t work

[NewtonTrino]

Consider the following scenario. I have five adults in my house that would get the UBI. That's $5k per month. With that amount of money coming in we could turtle up. The kids could leave school and/or stop working. We have plenty of room to grow the family here. Nobody has to go to school, work or do anything else again.

Now maybe that's a feature but even 3 couples living on a farm compound could potentially live pretty nicely. $6k is enough to live on especially if you don't have any work expenses and can grow some of your own food. Acreage is cheap in the middle of nowhere USA, so you can expand the family compound as needed.

Now again maybe that's a feature but I think the incentives here might not generate the behavior a lot of people are assuming. Once people figure out they don't need to work how does the economy not death spiral?

[arthwollipot]

Originally Posted by NewtonTrino

Now again maybe that's a feature but I think the incentives here might not generate the behavior a lot of people are assuming. Once people figure out they don't need to work how does the economy not death spiral?

Because most people actually want to work. How long could you last, turtled up like that?

[psionl0]

Originally Posted by NewtonTrino

Consider the following scenario. I have five adults in my house that would get the UBI. That's $5k per month. With that amount of money coming in we could turtle up. The kids could leave school and/or stop working. We have plenty of room to grow the family here. Nobody has to go to school, work or do anything else again.

Now maybe that's a feature but even 3 couples living on a farm compound could potentially live pretty nicely. $6k is enough to live on especially if you don't have any work expenses and can grow some of your own food. Acreage is cheap in the middle of nowhere USA, so you can expand the family compound as needed.

Now again maybe that's a feature but I think the incentives here might not generate the behavior a lot of people are assuming. Once people figure out they don't need to work how does the economy not death spiral?

You are assuming that the UBI would be so high that most people would rather not work at all. Your assumption also flies in the face of what limited observations have been made about the UBI.

Sure, people can pool their money together and live cheaply. They can do that now (everybody just works part time) but that is unusual. A lot of people would still rather live in New York City than on a isolated bit of dirt in Arkansas - even if they can't afford it.

[NewtonTrino]

Originally Posted by arthwollipot

Because most people actually want to work. How long could you last, turtled up like that?

I mean they could still work if they felt like it I suppose. But why bother with it if you don't have to? A lot of people would just spend time with their kids, do some gardening, play some videogames or whatever they want. What would they get out of working?

[NewtonTrino]

Originally Posted by psionl0

You are assuming that the UBI would be so high that most people would rather not work at all. Your assumption also flies in the face of what limited observations have been made about the UBI.

I'm not aware of any kind of study that would allow the scenario I'm talking about.

Quote:

Sure, people can pool their money together and live cheaply. They can do that now (everybody just works part time) but that is unusual. A lot of people would still rather live in New York City than on a isolated bit of dirt in Arkansas - even if they can't afford it.

How can they do that now? If you move to a cheap area there are no jobs and you have no income. And if there are jobs you likely need vehicles, gas money etc. Under my scenario you can move to wherever is cheap. No need to worry about jobs. Transport is only needed for supply runs.

I mean if the choice is between working and living in NYC or doing whatever you want and living out in the country how many people would split which way?
You do realize a lot of people just work for the money and aren't in love with sitting in a cubicle or working in a hot kitchen/laundry/whatever right?

Given we have endless entertainment from the internet what does living in the city really give most people? Better options for restaurants because their work schedule doesn't allow them to cook?

[Ulf Nereng]

Originally Posted by NewtonTrino

I mean they could still work if they felt like it I suppose. But why bother with it if you don't have to? A lot of people would just spend time with their kids, do some gardening, play some videogames or whatever they want. What would they get out of working?

Status. Work gives status and respect. And more money, of course. Sure, many wouldn't bother to work, as you say, but what would be the percentages of each group? We don't really know, so it is a good thing that large scale experiments are being done to find out.

[NewtonTrino]

Originally Posted by Ulf Nereng

Status. Work gives status and respect. And more money, of course. Sure, many wouldn't bother to work, as you say, but what would be the percentages of each group? We don't really know, so it is a good thing that large scale experiments are being done to find out.

In the kind of family compound I'm envisioning there wouldn't really be much opportunity to work anyway since you might be far away from jobs. Kids growing up wouldn't really be taught to get a job or what have you either. Work to them would be helping out on the family compound. Building more housing if needed, managing the family investment portfolio (after all you have should be saving some of your income even if it is basic), cooking and maintenance and then lots of leisure time spent on various hobbies. Once the work to live meme is gone why would it come back? Work or play becomes the same thing once the money motive is gone.

[psionl0]

Originally Posted by NewtonTrino

I'm not aware of any kind of study that would allow the scenario I'm talking about.

This is becoming a long thread. There are plenty of references here if you are interested in more than your pet theory.

[NewtonTrino]

Originally Posted by psionl0

This is becoming a long thread. There are plenty of references here if you are interested in more than your pet theory.

There is a study with a geographic area large enough for a few families to move to a farm in the boonies and live for an extended time period to try this out?

I would love a cite because it's certainly not in this thread.

[arthwollipot]

Originally Posted by NewtonTrino

I mean they could still work if they felt like it I suppose. But why bother with it if you don't have to? A lot of people would just spend time with their kids, do some gardening, play some videogames or whatever they want. What would they get out of working?

Money.

Basic is enough for subsistence and does not leave much room for luxuries like videogames. It's purpose is to keep people above the poverty line. Sure, that would be fine for some people, but most would like a little bit on top. For that, you'll need a job.

[NewtonTrino]

Originally Posted by arthwollipot

Money.

Basic is enough for subsistence and does not leave much room for luxuries like videogames. It's purpose is to keep people above the poverty line. Sure, that would be fine for some people, but most would like a little bit on top. For that, you'll need a job.

I think under the scenario I've outlined it would pay enough for games. $6k per month for 6 people living out in the country seems very doable. Electronics are cheap, especially if you shop around or don't buy the latest of the latest. Food is cheap and you can supplement with your own stuff if you choose to put in some labor.

Basic subsistence is going to vary greatly depending on circumstances. I'm suggesting a group of people could bend those circumstances towards the cheap side and pool their resources. This would allow their family to completely reject work altogether as a relic of the past. No more wage slavery or watching a clock from 9 to 5. No more dealing with bad customers or annoying bosses. Just do what you want to do with your time. What's not to love about UBI?

[psionl0]

Originally Posted by NewtonTrino

There is a study with a geographic area large enough for a few families to move to a farm in the boonies and live for an extended time period to try this out?

I would love a cite because it's certainly not in this thread.

So your pet theory reigns supreme even though trials have not seen large numbers of people moving out to the boonies and living in a hippy commune.

[Orphia Nay]

Originally Posted by TragicMonkey

How quickly? Because right now I can get transport right now. Like the vast majority of people I'm not willing to "upgrade" to a system that's less good than the current system.

I heard about climate change when I was 19 and have never wanted to try and get my licence in the 30-ahem years since.

I'm on a mission to get better public transport in my area.

Right now, the cities, PT timetables, and facilities are designed and planned by high-paid men in the capital city with their own car.

They don't consider women, women with children, students, pensioners, the sick, the disabled, or the environment, nor do they consider that remote areas need services at certain times whether it's high-usage or not.

Make public transport the easy choice. My pitch.


I'm also following people/companies who work on these movements:

Circular Economy
Healthy Streets
Smart Cities
Repair Café / Library of Things.

Look out for those.

All to do with people doing good in a sharing, digital, innovative, sustainable, no-waste, networked, highly-connected, "socialist capitalist" economy.

Not to mention the networks of energy and digital communication grids.

Originally Posted by Rolfe

I'd hate to try this without the NHS. If people are going to be required to budget for all possible medical and surgical requirements then even if they saved their entire UBI and became breatharians they couldn't possibly accumulate enough money. I actually think universal healthcare that is either free or very affordable at the point of need is an essential foundation for UBI.

I wasn't clear on how extensive the NHS is, plus my post was long enough already.

In Australia, Centrelink is welfare payments, Medicare is free public healthcare (which also needs to add dental!)

UBI definitely goes alongside healthcare for all.

Australia has a policy, "no child left behind". But they need to keep changing things to keep this appropriate, and right now, it's not too good, especially in outback areas and indigenous communities.

Thanks for the great writing on rats in a rat park. In the outback, they've tried the "cashless welfare card", literally denying use of cash for drugs.

People feel like criminals for living on their native homeland.

Originally Posted by NewtonTrino

There is a study with a geographic area large enough for a few families to move to a farm in the boonies and live for an extended time period to try this out?

I would love a cite because it's certainly not in this thread.

In my community, there are programs to settle economic migrants / refugees in town and on farms.

I have neighbours who left the Democratic Republic of Congo.

Some migrants/refugees live in farmers' spare cottages on farms, yes.

Not sure if multiple families have settled on a farm, or why you want that scenario specifically.

These migrants and refugees are 50% more likely to be entrepreneurs than residents.


Where does UBI fit in?

The connectedness of countries, a more sharing world, and less trade and immigration restrictions are all part of Rutger Bregman's "Utopia for Realists", the current leader in the field of UBI, whom I mentioned and posted a YouTube of earlier.

If you search my posts, you'll find I'm talking about how global obesity levels, population growth and food distribution, and climate change are all interconnected in this, in (perhaps to some, unrelated) topics that end up asking similar questions.

[Ulf Nereng]

Quote:

I think under the scenario I've outlined it would pay enough for games. $6k per month for 6 people living out in the country seems very doable. Electronics are cheap, especially if you shop around or don't buy the latest of the latest. Food is cheap and you can supplement with your own stuff if you choose to put in some labor.

Basic subsistence is going to vary greatly depending on circumstances. I'm suggesting a group of people could bend those circumstances towards the cheap side and pool their resources. This would allow their family to completely reject work altogether as a relic of the past. No more wage slavery or watching a clock from 9 to 5. No more dealing with bad customers or annoying bosses. Just do what you want to do with your time. What's not to love about UBI?

That wouldn't break the system, even if several families chose such a lifestyle. There are certainly people in my country (Norway) who milk the system as much as they can, but not enough of them to break it. The large majority want the status and extra money that comes with working. They want the respect of their friends and family. To make their parents proud. To leave a heritage for those who come after them. Human nature militates against the scenario you are proposing.

[NewtonTrino]

Originally Posted by psionl0

So your pet theory reigns supreme even though trials have not seen large numbers of people moving out to the boonies and living in a hippy commune.

How is it a theory? It's just one possible strategy people could use under the UBI scenario. I came up with this strategy literally thinking about my own household where we already would have a $5k income under this scenario. There is no need for the kids to work. Therefore no need for them to go to school (which is expensive btw). No need for them ever to move away since we have enough land and can build more houses if needed. It's not a "pet theory" it's simply the practical application of the program for one family. Other families may respond differently, but this is what I would try.

[NewtonTrino]

Originally Posted by Ulf Nereng

That wouldn't break the system, even if several families chose such a lifestyle. There are certainly people in my country (Norway) who milk the system as much as they can, but not enough of them to break it. The large majority want the status and extra money that comes with working. They want the respect of their friends and family. To make their parents proud. To leave a heritage for those who come after them. Human nature militates against the scenario you are proposing.

The culture of Norway though is quite industrious is it not?. I'm not sure you can apply that same lesson to a country as large as the USA. Also, if work isn't being emphasized then over time might not public sentiment change? More people might opt to pursue their own interests instead of showing up at a job just for some extra cash. Remember, this is something everyone gets so there is no shame in getting the money. It's meant to open the kinds of doors I'm talking about is it not?

[arthwollipot]

Originally Posted by NewtonTrino

The culture of Norway though is quite industrious is it not?. I'm not sure you can apply that same lesson to a country as large as the USA. Also, if work isn't being emphasized then over time might not public sentiment change? More people might opt to pursue their own interests instead of showing up at a job just for some extra cash. Remember, this is something everyone gets so there is no shame in getting the money. It's meant to open the kinds of doors I'm talking about is it not?

Remember, most of the arduous or routine jobs are being done by robots. Turning up to work isn't a chore - with enough people living just off Basic there will be plenty of jobs for everyone, particularly in the creative fields which humans will continue doing even when AIs are doing it too, because being creative is human nature.

Essentially what you are describing isn't a bug, it's a feature.

[Orphia Nay]

Jeremy Riffkin is the writer and speaker who was consulted by Angela Merkel and Premier Li to develop the EU and China's Circular Economy policies.

He coined the concept of The Third Industrial Revolution.

His new book was out in September, "The Green New Deal: Why the Fossil Fuel Civilization Will Collapse by 2028 and the Bold Economic Plan to Save Life on Earth."

I want to get Rutger Bregman and Jeremy Riffkin together to have a public talk.

Bregman talks about UBI, Riffkin talks about the sharing economy and "socialist capitalism".

I'd love to hear them smooth out some possible doubts others might have on the possibility of these ideas working together.

[NewtonTrino]

Originally Posted by arthwollipot

Remember, most of the arduous or routine jobs are being done by robots. Turning up to work isn't a chore - with enough people living just off Basic there will be plenty of jobs for everyone, particularly in the creative fields which humans will continue doing even when AIs are doing it too, because being creative is human nature.

This is all speculative and far more out there than anything I've said. I'm just going to deal with this as if it happened today where AI doesn't magically do all the crappy jobs.

Quote:

Essentially what you are describing isn't a bug, it's a feature.

I completely accept that it could be considered a feature. It sounds pretty good to me.

[arthwollipot]

Originally Posted by NewtonTrino

This is all speculative and far more out there than anything I've said. I'm just going to deal with this as if it happened today where AI doesn't magically do all the crappy jobs.

Did you watch the video I posted? I recommend it. The time where AI is doing all the crappy jobs is approaching fast.

[Orphia Nay]

Ooh, look what I just saw on Bregman's Twitter yesterday!

https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2...study-stimulus

A charity dropped a massive stimulus package on rural Kenya — and transformed the economy


"Now, a research team has released a study of a large-scale GiveDirectly program that distributed over $10 million in cash to rural residents of Siaya County, Kenya, near Lake Victoria. But this time, the focus was not on the individuals who received aid. Instead, the researchers wanted to find out what effect the cash had on the region of Kenya where the aid was being distributed — the first major study to test “general equilibrium” effects of the policy.

"Most striking of all, the study estimates a “fiscal multiplier” of 2.6 for this area of Kenya, implying that every $1 invested in fiscal stimulus will grow the local economy by $2.60. That’s somewhat larger than the multiplier estimated in places like the US when in recession. But “there’s probably many low- and middle-income countries that look more like Kenya than the US,” Miguel says. “These numbers could be very useful in understanding fiscal multipliers in many places across the world.”"
==


The study:

http://emiguel.econ.berkeley.edu/ass...2019-11-20.pdf

[NewtonTrino]

Originally Posted by arthwollipot

Did you watch the video I posted? I recommend it. The time where AI is doing all the crappy jobs is approaching fast.

I'm highly skeptical about that but it's also a completely different topic is it not?

[psionl0]

Originally Posted by NewtonTrino

How is it a theory? It's just one possible strategy people could use under the UBI scenario. I came up with this strategy literally thinking about my own household where we already would have a $5k income under this scenario. There is no need for the kids to work. Therefore no need for them to go to school (which is expensive btw). No need for them ever to move away since we have enough land and can build more houses if needed. It's not a "pet theory" it's simply the practical application of the program for one family. Other families may respond differently, but this is what I would try.

Is that all it takes for you to oppose a UBI? "One family"?

Either you believe that so many families would do this that it threatens the economy or you would rather have 100 people suffer than allow 1 person to "rort" the system.

[P.J. Denyer]

Originally Posted by Random

Late to the thread, but I have to know. Am I the only person who doesn't have a problem with recipients of government handouts buying lottery tickets? They are giving money they believe they can spare back to the government!

Personally I think the fact that so many people who can't really afford it spend money on lottery tickets to be a symptom of a number of problems (including but not limited to the lack of more realistic avenues to financial security & a poor understanding of probability) than a problem of behaviour itself.

[P.J. Denyer]

Originally Posted by rjh01

I will suggest that there be frequent small buses that will take you to the local shops. From there you can catch a train (or LRV) to wherever. Cars will only be used for tradespeople and others who need to go strange places.

I'm not certain that busses will continue to be the most efficient form of mass transit when(if?) self driving cars are ubiquitous. Changes to employment mean that you don't tend to have large numbers of people who live close together all getting up in the morning and travelling to the same location to work at the same time and shopping patterns are likely to continue to change as online shopping isn't going anywhere. Shared driverless cars would prioritise economy over performance, reduce congestion and virtually eliminate parking problems, and would be making trips based on actual demand unlike busses that will spend a considerable portion of their time running at less than capacity and in most cases take a circuitous route to pick up and drop off people regardless of whether or not there is anyone requiring those stops.


This talk of driverless vehicles has turned into a major digression as others have said. Personally I think we've stumbled into quite an interesting subject for discussion. Perhaps one of the mods could split it off?

[P.J. Denyer]

Originally Posted by psionl0

Is that all it takes for you to oppose a UBI? "One family"?

Either you believe that so many families would do this that it threatens the economy or you would rather have 100 people suffer than allow 1 person to "rort" the system.

I wonder what his proported family who 'might grow their own food' will do with the excess crop (either due to over production or just getting sick of eating the same thing every day)? Without the pressure of meeting the rent/mortgage how many hobbies and interests get monetised into small businesses? How many people get to study who couldn't otherwise afford to? How many start the business of their dreams because they can afford to risk failure?

[Darat]

Originally Posted by TragicMonkey

What would you do if there were an UBI scheme and you got money? Since I'm making a decent salary already I would just invest whatever they gave me. So on the one hand I'd be putting money back into companies, but I'd be extracting money as well in the form of dividends, and eventually I'd sell those investments to cash in. I wouldn't be spending the UBI directly on consumer goods or services. So would I be helping, hurting, or neutral to the overall economy in my use of my share of the UBI? And what percentage of the population would do the same as I?

In a sense all people in jobs already get a UBI it is just disguised as "tax thresholds" and the like. So I don't think that would change. And perhaps what could be adjusted is when you do a job you get paid additional. So say the basic income is €100 a week, your current job wouldn't pay the amount it pays you today plus the €100. It would in effect pay you your current amount minus the €100 you already get.

[Darat]

Originally Posted by arthwollipot

Did you watch the video I posted? I recommend it. The time where AI is doing all the crappy jobs is approaching fast.

It will be interesting to see how the many "professional" occupations survive this next phase of labour replacement. It is going to be the doctors, the consultants and so that go. These have never actually been "skilled" jobs, just "information deep" jobs.

[Rolfe]

A lot of diagnostics is heavy-duty pattern recognition. I was involved in early attempts to computerise the process which didn't realise that, which treated it more as a series of algorithms. The results weren't just useless they were actively dangerous. However with vastly increased processing power and information availability, and the decision-making process being correctly based in pattern recognition, it could well be done, and done better than human clinicians.

The challenge then will be continuing research. If the only doctors are the researchers it's hard to see how that will work. A cutting edge needs a knife behind it. You can't just train medical researchers who never see real patients and real illnesses. There could be a danger of the system becoming sclerotic and resistent to incorporating further advances - or even to achieving further advances. I suppose some was through will eventually be found though.

[Rolfe]

Originally Posted by P.J. Denyer

This talk of driverless vehicles has turned into a major digression as others have said. Personally I think we've stumbled into quite an interesting subject for discussion. Perhaps one of the mods could split it off?

I quite like the way this issue has integrated with the topic of the thread and I'd be sorry to lose these poste from the thread. If the digression goes on maybe it would be better just to start a new thread and leave this one as it is?

[Rolfe]

Originally Posted by psionl0

As I said upthread, focusing on how much a person who is only on UBI needs for a reasonable life style is the wrong approach. The main objective needs to be an economic one. We want enough people seeking additional employment to meet current demands. Set the UBI too low and too many people are forced into poor paying demeaning jobs. Set it to high and too many people may choose not to work resulting in labour shortages and inflation.

I think this is actually a very perceptive point. Rather than micromanaging exactly how much the payment should be, look at whether the level set is achieving the overall objective.

But the point about the differing costs of living in different locations is also a pertinent one and I'm not sure how that should be addressed. It may be that the differing costs will level out due to market forces.

Yes, UBI would be payable at any age. I imagine it would be scaled to age though, maybe with an infant rate then a minor's rate before the adult rate was reached. There might also be a higher senior rate to account for seniors not being expected to work and things like fuel (and possibly healthcare?) being a bigger burden on the elderly.

[Rolfe]

Originally Posted by P.J. Denyer

I wonder what his proported family who 'might grow their own food' will do with the excess crop (either due to over production or just getting sick of eating the same thing every day)? Without the pressure of meeting the rent/mortgage how many hobbies and interests get monetised into small businesses? How many people get to study who couldn't otherwise afford to? How many start the business of their dreams because they can afford to risk failure?

An extended family or a group of family and friends living together and being self-sufficient (including engaging in smallholding-level agriculture and building by the sound of it) sounds like a perfectly fine lifestyle in this context. Since this isn't going to be the way most people will live, I fail to see the problem.

This group already owns the land. Most people don't own that sort of land. They're producing a fair bit of their own food (this is work, you know, it's just not conventional wage-slave employment) in order to have enough money for some luxuries. I don't see it as gaming the system in any way. In fact, if this sort of comminal living - I mean a group consisting of both family and friends - became the norm, it's possible everyone's mental health would improve, caring for children, sick members of the group and elderly members of the group would be a communal task to the benefit of both society and the cared-for.

I say go for it.

[William Parcher]

Originally Posted by NewtonTrino

Consider the following scenario. I have five adults in my house that would get the UBI. That's $5k per month. With that amount of money coming in we could turtle up. The kids could leave school and/or stop working. We have plenty of room to grow the family here. Nobody has to go to school, work or do anything else again.

Now maybe that's a feature but even 3 couples living on a farm compound could potentially live pretty nicely. $6k is enough to live on especially if you don't have any work expenses and can grow some of your own food. Acreage is cheap in the middle of nowhere USA, so you can expand the family compound as needed.

Now again maybe that's a feature but I think the incentives here might not generate the behavior a lot of people are assuming. Once people figure out they don't need to work how does the economy not death spiral?

The $1000/month that I used as an example upthread was just an arbitrary quick easy number used for convenience. It's not actually realistic in America. It would only work in very limited situations. All other situations would require more money even for daily survival.

I can't imagine how a single fixed amount for all Americans could work. It would result in many people getting far too little to pay for basic simple needs and at the same time others become wealthy because they are paid far beyond what's needed for simple basic needs.

[William Parcher]

Originally Posted by Rolfe

This group already owns the land.

Which one of them already owns the land?

[Rolfe]

I don't know. Ask Newtontrino, it's his scenario.

[William Parcher]

Originally Posted by Rolfe

I don't know. Ask Newtontrino, it's his scenario.

Newton's answer doesn't matter. One is the landowner and therefore the landlord and the others in the group pay rent to him. It doesn't really matter which person owns the land or what their name is.

Somebody owns that place and can decide what to charge for rent to be part of the group. The landlord knows exactly how much each person gets as guaranteed by the government. You know what this leads to, right?

[Rolfe]

It could be a joint ownership.

[William Parcher]

Originally Posted by Rolfe

It could be a joint ownership.

By choice, or will the government force that?

[psionl0]

Originally Posted by Rolfe

But the point about the differing costs of living in different locations is also a pertinent one and I'm not sure how that should be addressed. It may be that the differing costs will level out due to market forces.

Originally Posted by William Parcher

I can't imagine how a single fixed amount for all Americans could work. It would result in many people getting far too little to pay for basic simple needs and at the same time others become wealthy because they are paid far beyond what's needed for simple basic needs.

Don't expect too much from a UBI. It's not going to solve all of the world's problems. For a majority, it is just something they will get instead of a tax free threshold.

It is mainly for people at the other end of the scale. These are people who will no longer be in a welfare trap. They can get casual or seasonal work without losing any UBI or risking being thrown off welfare altogether (and considering how long it can take to get back on it again, working comes with a very expensive penalty).

People will still be expected to live within their means. There is no obligation to provide anybody with a penthouse suite in a New York apartment.

[William Parcher]

Originally Posted by psionl0

People will still be expected to live within their means. There is no obligation to provide anybody with a penthouse suite in a New York apartment.

Forget the penthouse in NYC. Nobody here is talking about that. How much is the 1 bedroom apartment down at street level in NYC?