A Universal Basic Income Is My Generation’s Moonshot(usv.com)
usv.com
A Universal Basic Income Is My Generation’s Moonshot
https://www.usv.com/post/55c811f33a13190003ad2b30/a-universal-basic-income-is-my-generations-moonshot
4 comments
One of my concerns is that modern peoples are already very out of touch with what matters for the creation of things of real value. We already have bizarre ideas that money = value. We already have people who fail to understand the real world underpinnings of the creation of value -- of how you need certain resources and preconditions to have any hope of creating value. We already have too many people who think you fix financial problems, like depression, by manipulating the market economy. We already have a great many people who are intelligent, educated and well-paid who are very out of touch with reality in terms of where food and other important resources come from.
The reason it matters to me to have people get money by participating in the economy and not just for existing is because that participation shapes their ideas about what matters. There is no upper limit to what humans can spend or consume. We see this again and again and again. And about 2/3 of lottery winners are bankrupt within 5 years. People who have no education in dealing with wealth just run through it. Their lottery winnings seem "limitless" to them and they just run through it all and end up bankrupt.
You are talking about doing that as a universal thing. You are talking about spreading the belief that we have so much wealth right now that every last person can just consume and not produce and it will somehow be okay.
I very strongly disagree with this notion. It is not that it simply disincentives work. It is that it further poisons the minds of people who already are out of touch with where real value comes from. I find this incredibly scary stuff.
You have to deal with the mental space of humans, not just their bodily needs. You talk about distributing enough money to keep people fed and what not at some basic level and you ignore what that does to their minds and self concept. I think this is extremely dangerous territory and will be disastrous.
The reason it matters to me to have people get money by participating in the economy and not just for existing is because that participation shapes their ideas about what matters. There is no upper limit to what humans can spend or consume. We see this again and again and again. And about 2/3 of lottery winners are bankrupt within 5 years. People who have no education in dealing with wealth just run through it. Their lottery winnings seem "limitless" to them and they just run through it all and end up bankrupt.
You are talking about doing that as a universal thing. You are talking about spreading the belief that we have so much wealth right now that every last person can just consume and not produce and it will somehow be okay.
I very strongly disagree with this notion. It is not that it simply disincentives work. It is that it further poisons the minds of people who already are out of touch with where real value comes from. I find this incredibly scary stuff.
You have to deal with the mental space of humans, not just their bodily needs. You talk about distributing enough money to keep people fed and what not at some basic level and you ignore what that does to their minds and self concept. I think this is extremely dangerous territory and will be disastrous.
If only people's income had a direct correlation with how much value they produce[1] and how hard they work. Sadly its mostly about power and scarcity. Why should the secretary make so much less than their boss? Why should a person who assembles cars make less than the CEO? Scarcity (lots of people could be a secretary) and power (The CEO has ascended ranks and built up power within a cohort) .
Re: Lotteries. Many lottery winners are bankrupt in a short time because they become a feeding ground for wolves too. Its not just the winner, but their friends, family, charities and the other sales targets they become. Thinking you have unlimited money and having a specific income ($1000 a month) are two very different things. Yes they may "Run through" the $1000. But there will be another $1000 next month.
When the money is dilute and universal there will be no reason to "feed" on any individual. so really you're comparing apples and oranges.
[1] http://www.forbes.com/sites/susanadams/2014/06/16/the-highes...
Re: Lotteries. Many lottery winners are bankrupt in a short time because they become a feeding ground for wolves too. Its not just the winner, but their friends, family, charities and the other sales targets they become. Thinking you have unlimited money and having a specific income ($1000 a month) are two very different things. Yes they may "Run through" the $1000. But there will be another $1000 next month.
When the money is dilute and universal there will be no reason to "feed" on any individual. so really you're comparing apples and oranges.
[1] http://www.forbes.com/sites/susanadams/2014/06/16/the-highes...
I agree there are things we should do differently. But arguing that a secretary or factory worker deserve a better compensation package seems pretty unrelated to basic income.
There are plenty of rich people that others would like to take advantage of. People who inherited wealth or grew up middle class and earned their money tend to have develoed defense mechanisms. They know how to make themselves less of a target and to say no to most people. Lottery winners tend to lack those cultural or psychological assets.
I have no reason to believe universal basic income will cure mankind of avarice. Even very rich people often want moire, more, more. If this were not try, we likely wouldn't have the current set of problems we are wrestling with.
There are plenty of rich people that others would like to take advantage of. People who inherited wealth or grew up middle class and earned their money tend to have develoed defense mechanisms. They know how to make themselves less of a target and to say no to most people. Lottery winners tend to lack those cultural or psychological assets.
I have no reason to believe universal basic income will cure mankind of avarice. Even very rich people often want moire, more, more. If this were not try, we likely wouldn't have the current set of problems we are wrestling with.
> We already have too many people who think you fix financial problems, like depression, by manipulating the market economy
There's a doctor who treats debilitating mental and health issues by doing exactly this. He "prescribed them income"[1]. That alone solved more problems for these people than any other approach.
[1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FLRT0bvaz98
There's a doctor who treats debilitating mental and health issues by doing exactly this. He "prescribed them income"[1]. That alone solved more problems for these people than any other approach.
[1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FLRT0bvaz98
You misread me. I meant depression as in economic recession, not as in mental health disorder. Widespread economic problems are rooted in real world problems, such as real costs of energy going up. Manipulating market forces can help in real terms to a limited degree but they do not solve the problem and can, at times, make things far worse.
Oh yeah, you're right. I was way off on that interpretation. Apologies.
> One of my concerns is that modern peoples are already very out of touch with what matters for the creation of things of real value. We already have bizarre ideas that money = value.
First off, I do absolutely agree with this.
The concern I have is that this is an orthogonal problem.
With basic income, there's a good chance that we can fix poverty today (as the data consistently illustrates). As for economic education, you can figure that out at the same time. They're independent problems. Well, sort of. If someone who "gets it" still can't fix "their bodily needs" and they have no access to a job, then their lives simply won't improve. Some will, of course. But others will still starve because creating real value is a moving target. Worse, eating is a short-term concern. Creating value can take much longer. It won't be able to feed you until you see some ROI. So people in poverty are forced into nearsighted thinking, which is a barrier when trying to create real value. A basic income allows people to eat, heal, etc. so that they can participate in the economy in meaningful ways. Going off of what you're saying, this would give more people the means to participate (and I'll add: to experiment, fail, and learn), and so you'll have more people with their ideas shaped.
> One of my concerns is that modern peoples are already very out of touch with what matters for the creation of things of real value. We already have bizarre ideas that money = value.
First off, I do absolutely agree with this.
The concern I have is that this is an orthogonal problem.
With basic income, there's a good chance that we can fix poverty today (as the data consistently illustrates). As for economic education, you can figure that out at the same time. They're independent problems. Well, sort of. If someone who "gets it" still can't fix "their bodily needs" and they have no access to a job, then their lives simply won't improve. Some will, of course. But others will still starve because creating real value is a moving target. Worse, eating is a short-term concern. Creating value can take much longer. It won't be able to feed you until you see some ROI. So people in poverty are forced into nearsighted thinking, which is a barrier when trying to create real value. A basic income allows people to eat, heal, etc. so that they can participate in the economy in meaningful ways. Going off of what you're saying, this would give more people the means to participate (and I'll add: to experiment, fail, and learn), and so you'll have more people with their ideas shaped.
I seriously doubt that basic income can fix poverty, even absolute poverty. I am confident it cannot end relative poverty. I expect relative poverty to be with us always. My concern is this: Wealth grows out of power. It mostly runs in that direction and not the other. I know of too many historical examples of people trying to throw money at the problem and it accomplishing nothing.
iIRC, there is an island off the coast of Georgia where the wealthy white owner left it to his slaves. Decades later, the black inheritors were selling off their share as indivuduals and blowing the money on nice cars and what not. Whites were buying the land and turning it into an expensive vacation hotspot. Land value was going up. This was causing taxes to go up, forcing other blacks on the island to make hard choices, such as foregoing blood pressure medication in order to pay their taxes and not lose their house. Gifting the island to his slaves and freeing them did not make their descendents the equivalent of old money. It made them the equivalent of lottery winners.
My recollection is that Rosewood was a relatively wealthy black community burned to the ground by whites. No arrests were ever made. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosewood_massacre
I also once saw a story about someone who left (in their will) funds for medical care for blacks that went largely unused.
The minimum wage law was passed in order to bring wages in the deep south in line with other parts of the country. A major goal of the legislation was to end the Southern practice of paying blacks half what whites were paid for the same work. The initial result: Widespread black unemployment as many blacks were fired by whites unwilling to pay them a white man's wage.
Historically, trying to throw money at the problem of black poverty in the US has had little positive impact and any impact it had tend to be small scale and short lived. Fighting for black rights has a far better track record of raising them up out of poverty.
I see no reason why that principle shouldn't generalize. I have grave concerns that basic income will create a very permanent underclass and the haves will not care and will blame the underclass for their problems. When you look at the history of social programs, the amount they pay tends to rapidly decline in real terms due to inflation.
We need to find systemic solutions that focus on helping everyone effectively participate in the economy. I believe that is the only thing that will not lead to some nightmare dystopian future.
Thank you for your replies. It has been a pleasure.
iIRC, there is an island off the coast of Georgia where the wealthy white owner left it to his slaves. Decades later, the black inheritors were selling off their share as indivuduals and blowing the money on nice cars and what not. Whites were buying the land and turning it into an expensive vacation hotspot. Land value was going up. This was causing taxes to go up, forcing other blacks on the island to make hard choices, such as foregoing blood pressure medication in order to pay their taxes and not lose their house. Gifting the island to his slaves and freeing them did not make their descendents the equivalent of old money. It made them the equivalent of lottery winners.
My recollection is that Rosewood was a relatively wealthy black community burned to the ground by whites. No arrests were ever made. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosewood_massacre
I also once saw a story about someone who left (in their will) funds for medical care for blacks that went largely unused.
The minimum wage law was passed in order to bring wages in the deep south in line with other parts of the country. A major goal of the legislation was to end the Southern practice of paying blacks half what whites were paid for the same work. The initial result: Widespread black unemployment as many blacks were fired by whites unwilling to pay them a white man's wage.
Historically, trying to throw money at the problem of black poverty in the US has had little positive impact and any impact it had tend to be small scale and short lived. Fighting for black rights has a far better track record of raising them up out of poverty.
I see no reason why that principle shouldn't generalize. I have grave concerns that basic income will create a very permanent underclass and the haves will not care and will blame the underclass for their problems. When you look at the history of social programs, the amount they pay tends to rapidly decline in real terms due to inflation.
We need to find systemic solutions that focus on helping everyone effectively participate in the economy. I believe that is the only thing that will not lead to some nightmare dystopian future.
Thank you for your replies. It has been a pleasure.
I think your comment is pretty spot-on.
One thought about the WALL-E scene though. While I'm not at all advocating the satiation of everyone, I do wonder about its perceived inevitability. If that was the only outcome, wouldn't we see evidence of this with the extremely rich today? (I'm talking about the case where wealth was strictly inherited here, not the self-made fortunes from hard work.)
I don't have any examples in mind, but I do think it's worth asking the question. If we assume those who are satiated would not work on anything of value, that might very well contain a similar misunderstanding to what you've highlighted here. We just need more data to know what level "too much" really is, or if that's even a thing at all (I believe it is, but I certainly can't prove it).
One thought about the WALL-E scene though. While I'm not at all advocating the satiation of everyone, I do wonder about its perceived inevitability. If that was the only outcome, wouldn't we see evidence of this with the extremely rich today? (I'm talking about the case where wealth was strictly inherited here, not the self-made fortunes from hard work.)
I don't have any examples in mind, but I do think it's worth asking the question. If we assume those who are satiated would not work on anything of value, that might very well contain a similar misunderstanding to what you've highlighted here. We just need more data to know what level "too much" really is, or if that's even a thing at all (I believe it is, but I certainly can't prove it).
When I think about infinite consumption, it says to me "There is literally no limit to how many X a person would take". I really think there is a limit.
I will never (consistently) eat more than 3000 calories a day. I couldnt imagine living >1000 sq ft per person. 3 cars per person ought to satisfy every occasion (Sports car, SUV, Comfort car), etc etc. There is some finite limit before the marginal object is worth less than the difficulty of obtaining/maintaining it. ex, adding a car means I, at the very least, need to buy it, drive it to my garage and walk around it to get to my other car each day.
I think food is the ultimate example of a post scarcity good: if pizza was free (forever), how many would you take? 1, 1000, 1000000? I'd take 1 a day and maybe put a few in my freezer just in case. But I certainly wouldnt have 1000x or even 10x as much pizza.
The extremely wealthy display wealth for differentiation, not because they actually enjoy all 100000 sq ft of living space they own. Its a status symbol to say " I have a house in every state" or whatever else they brag about. IMO part of the reason its so absurd to have those in want of health care, whilst others brag about horsepower, square feet, planes and yachts.
I will never (consistently) eat more than 3000 calories a day. I couldnt imagine living >1000 sq ft per person. 3 cars per person ought to satisfy every occasion (Sports car, SUV, Comfort car), etc etc. There is some finite limit before the marginal object is worth less than the difficulty of obtaining/maintaining it. ex, adding a car means I, at the very least, need to buy it, drive it to my garage and walk around it to get to my other car each day.
I think food is the ultimate example of a post scarcity good: if pizza was free (forever), how many would you take? 1, 1000, 1000000? I'd take 1 a day and maybe put a few in my freezer just in case. But I certainly wouldnt have 1000x or even 10x as much pizza.
The extremely wealthy display wealth for differentiation, not because they actually enjoy all 100000 sq ft of living space they own. Its a status symbol to say " I have a house in every state" or whatever else they brag about. IMO part of the reason its so absurd to have those in want of health care, whilst others brag about horsepower, square feet, planes and yachts.
I am homeless and I think basic income is nightmare fuel: http://micheleincalifornia.blogspot.com/2014/09/nightmare-fu...
I think a lot of innovation will spring from this too, and many others have said that once basic provisions like shelter, food, clean drinking water and telecoms are being met; all that's left to do is create art and innovate. Bigger budgets does not necessarily mean more innovation happens, it more often than not enfeebles somebody because they can't allocate the time to create anything. 9-5 culture is a bane for many artists who after work, have one solid hour of making art before they burn out and have to attend to other duties.
What happens if all the guys producing food and clean water decide that they've had enough and want to retire?
They will be replaced by those that are bored and want to produce food, purify water, or clean streets for a better life.
Oh, wait were you implying humans are inherently lazy and willing to live in their own filth until they starve to death?
Maybe in a world with basic income, undesirable but essential jobs are compensated at a rate that begins to make them desirable?
Oh, wait were you implying humans are inherently lazy and willing to live in their own filth until they starve to death?
Maybe in a world with basic income, undesirable but essential jobs are compensated at a rate that begins to make them desirable?
Sure, I'm sure people are gonna line up to work in a coffee shop, be a cashier in a supermarket, work at a bank customer service, man the town dump teller, etc.
Don't put words in my mouth. I didn't say that humans are lazy, far from it. I'm saying there are necessary and undesirable tasks - undesirable in essence - to be performed and I don't see people volunteering to accomplish them if there is no money incentive.
Good luck finding people to work at the DMV in a world with basic income.
Don't put words in my mouth. I didn't say that humans are lazy, far from it. I'm saying there are necessary and undesirable tasks - undesirable in essence - to be performed and I don't see people volunteering to accomplish them if there is no money incentive.
Good luck finding people to work at the DMV in a world with basic income.
> I'm saying there are necessary and undesirable tasks
This is a good point.
It's also a reason why this idea is valuable. It enables people to turn away these undesirable tasks. Today, someone might take on a poor task with a poor working condition so their children can get the nutrition they need. A basic income provides the family with what they need without anyone becoming desperate enough to take a job for a lower pay than it's actually worth.
These jobs can finally be part of the open market. If nobody will do it for $12/hr, you increase the pay. When you start to see people taking the job again, you know you've hit the right income point. (People aren't getting rich off of basic income alone. The incentive to work is to have a more expensive lifestyle.)
This is the dual to pricing discussions here on HN. If the market won't buy at X, you don't withhold food from their tables to get them to buy. You either lower the price, or you make your product have more perceived valuable. With these undesirable jobs, you either raise the pay, or improve the working conditions.
This is a good point.
It's also a reason why this idea is valuable. It enables people to turn away these undesirable tasks. Today, someone might take on a poor task with a poor working condition so their children can get the nutrition they need. A basic income provides the family with what they need without anyone becoming desperate enough to take a job for a lower pay than it's actually worth.
These jobs can finally be part of the open market. If nobody will do it for $12/hr, you increase the pay. When you start to see people taking the job again, you know you've hit the right income point. (People aren't getting rich off of basic income alone. The incentive to work is to have a more expensive lifestyle.)
This is the dual to pricing discussions here on HN. If the market won't buy at X, you don't withhold food from their tables to get them to buy. You either lower the price, or you make your product have more perceived valuable. With these undesirable jobs, you either raise the pay, or improve the working conditions.
So you increase the pay of the guy working at the bank teller, now you just cut into the bank profits, guess they'll just increase their processing fees. Now clients have to pay more to perform operations at the bank (since they have to pay the poor guy at the teller $20/h instead of 12), and now they need a bigger basic income to keep up.
I'm not necessarily rejecting the idea of a basic income, but to me it seems like the biggest flaw. I do not believe people would just sit around idle (at least most of them wouldn't), but I also believe that there are hard, not rewarding jobs out there that are crucial to a working society and to me it is unthinkable that someone would volunteer to take them if they don't need to.
I'm not necessarily rejecting the idea of a basic income, but to me it seems like the biggest flaw. I do not believe people would just sit around idle (at least most of them wouldn't), but I also believe that there are hard, not rewarding jobs out there that are crucial to a working society and to me it is unthinkable that someone would volunteer to take them if they don't need to.
> now you just cut into the bank profits
Sounds like bank profits are the underlying problem here (at least in this example). If they did increase their fees, people can always go to another bank that didn't. This is the beauty of a true open market. But if a teller is paid less than the job is worth, and the bank can't afford to increase fees, is withholding basic needs from the working class worth the extra cash for the much smaller group of shareholders?
So ok, I get what you're really trying to say. There are jobs that don't make sense to pay more than $X, and that are unpleasant. Take garbage pickup. (I don't know how unpleasant this job actually is, but I can't think of a better example right now.) If it's absolutely terrible at the current pay, and people don't have to do it, then it makes sense that people simply won't.
But now garbage will start to pile around people's homes, or be dumped irresponsibly. Are we all better off? Not at all, which (I think) is what you're implying. But there's more than one answer here.
- As the piles of trash grow in number, so does the value in collecting it. So the pay will increase naturally. People will be willing to put some of their income, basic or not, into garbage collection.
- Or a startup seizes the opportunity to create a better, on-demand garbage pickup service and charges a premium. That way they can afford to attract employees and still make a profit.
- Or people do volunteer and become neighborhood heros for it. In this case, the currency received is social instead of monetary.
- Or a someone automates trash collection and volunteering is no longer necessary.
Perhaps some jobs can't use any of these solutions. But I do think we can be more creative than forcing an entire class of people into desperation so they do the dirty work for us.
Sounds like bank profits are the underlying problem here (at least in this example). If they did increase their fees, people can always go to another bank that didn't. This is the beauty of a true open market. But if a teller is paid less than the job is worth, and the bank can't afford to increase fees, is withholding basic needs from the working class worth the extra cash for the much smaller group of shareholders?
So ok, I get what you're really trying to say. There are jobs that don't make sense to pay more than $X, and that are unpleasant. Take garbage pickup. (I don't know how unpleasant this job actually is, but I can't think of a better example right now.) If it's absolutely terrible at the current pay, and people don't have to do it, then it makes sense that people simply won't.
But now garbage will start to pile around people's homes, or be dumped irresponsibly. Are we all better off? Not at all, which (I think) is what you're implying. But there's more than one answer here.
- As the piles of trash grow in number, so does the value in collecting it. So the pay will increase naturally. People will be willing to put some of their income, basic or not, into garbage collection.
- Or a startup seizes the opportunity to create a better, on-demand garbage pickup service and charges a premium. That way they can afford to attract employees and still make a profit.
- Or people do volunteer and become neighborhood heros for it. In this case, the currency received is social instead of monetary.
- Or a someone automates trash collection and volunteering is no longer necessary.
Perhaps some jobs can't use any of these solutions. But I do think we can be more creative than forcing an entire class of people into desperation so they do the dirty work for us.
This is beyond fantasy.
Nearly everyone in America has a smart phone in their pocket more powerful than the most powerful computers of just a few years ago. On that device is all of worlds information, a Google search away. What do people mostly do with this access and power - nothing - Facebook, Reddit, and other distractions. Giving people handouts will not lead to an revolution of art, culture, and businesses... It will lead to sloth, resentment, and failure.
Our society already produces enough abundance and opportunity such that any hardworking individual can EARN a life that most people in history could only dream about.
Nearly everyone in America has a smart phone in their pocket more powerful than the most powerful computers of just a few years ago. On that device is all of worlds information, a Google search away. What do people mostly do with this access and power - nothing - Facebook, Reddit, and other distractions. Giving people handouts will not lead to an revolution of art, culture, and businesses... It will lead to sloth, resentment, and failure.
Our society already produces enough abundance and opportunity such that any hardworking individual can EARN a life that most people in history could only dream about.
The data from past trials shows different results than your own knee-jerk conclusion.
Here are some consistent findings across multiple studies[1]:
- Fewer hospitalizations
- Fewer school dropouts
- Decrease in child labor
- Dramatically lower food poverty
- Dramatically lower crime rate
- Dramatically lower child malnutrition rate
- Increase in High School completion rates
- Increase in self-employment and the number of income sources
That last one is the most counter-intuitive. Until you think about it. People become more entrepreneurial when you remove the risk of them falling into poverty if they fail (especially because failure is the norm).
Keep in mind that if you want to live a more luxurious lifestyle, you'll still need to work to get it. This isn't an "everybody is rich" utopia. This is more about eliminating poverty and creating opportunity for everyone.
[1]: https://www.reddit.com/r/BasicIncome/wiki/studies
Here are some consistent findings across multiple studies[1]:
- Fewer hospitalizations
- Fewer school dropouts
- Decrease in child labor
- Dramatically lower food poverty
- Dramatically lower crime rate
- Dramatically lower child malnutrition rate
- Increase in High School completion rates
- Increase in self-employment and the number of income sources
That last one is the most counter-intuitive. Until you think about it. People become more entrepreneurial when you remove the risk of them falling into poverty if they fail (especially because failure is the norm).
Keep in mind that if you want to live a more luxurious lifestyle, you'll still need to work to get it. This isn't an "everybody is rich" utopia. This is more about eliminating poverty and creating opportunity for everyone.
[1]: https://www.reddit.com/r/BasicIncome/wiki/studies
> I think a lot of innovation will spring from this too
Me too. Like new ways to spy on, enslave and control those cursed with ability and forced to create the "shelter, food, clean drinking water and telecoms" that your utopia requires.
Me too. Like new ways to spy on, enslave and control those cursed with ability and forced to create the "shelter, food, clean drinking water and telecoms" that your utopia requires.
The idea of basic income is to provide enough to not die or be a burden on society, but not enough to really enjoy life. As well we already are providing shelter, food, water, telecoms. The problem is that the bureaucracy eats up so much money in the process that it becomes even more expensive than just paying everyone in the US $720 a month and saying "youre on your own".
Kinda Warren Buffetts's inheritance ideas: "a very rich person should leave his kids enough to do anything but not enough to do nothing." (quoting cnbc article here: http://www.cnbc.com/2015/03/09/boomers-mimic-warren-buffett-... )
Kinda Warren Buffetts's inheritance ideas: "a very rich person should leave his kids enough to do anything but not enough to do nothing." (quoting cnbc article here: http://www.cnbc.com/2015/03/09/boomers-mimic-warren-buffett-... )
I was thinking more along the lines of something scalable like the hexayurt project (hexayurt.com). Having five sheets of inexpensive plywood is "cursed with ability" is it? and having a FirefoxOS smartphone phone that cost $20.00 is spy apparatus? Hardly.
Guaranteed income?
What happens as more and more people decide to live on the dole? Are you going to force them to work? What happens when the last wealthy people you could tax into paying for it flee your country with their money?
Utopia fails because, "HUMAN."
What happens as more and more people decide to live on the dole? Are you going to force them to work? What happens when the last wealthy people you could tax into paying for it flee your country with their money?
Utopia fails because, "HUMAN."
> What happens as more and more people decide to live on the dole? Are you going to force them to work?
Ceteris paribus, prices go up, and living exclusively on the unconditional basic income becomes less attractive. With a UBI, there's no reason not to work if you are unsatisfied with what you get from the UBI, since you don't lose subsidy for working. So, there's a natural negative feedback control system.
> What happens when the last wealthy people you could tax into paying for it flee your country with their money?
If people making profits in the country that could be taxed leave, then profit making opportunities open up that others could, and someone will, take advantage of.
Ceteris paribus, prices go up, and living exclusively on the unconditional basic income becomes less attractive. With a UBI, there's no reason not to work if you are unsatisfied with what you get from the UBI, since you don't lose subsidy for working. So, there's a natural negative feedback control system.
> What happens when the last wealthy people you could tax into paying for it flee your country with their money?
If people making profits in the country that could be taxed leave, then profit making opportunities open up that others could, and someone will, take advantage of.
That's fine if you can stop them from tearing you apart for not increasing their basic stipend as the cost of living increased.
You aren't going to defeat human nature.
Those theories have been around for hundreds (thousands) of years, but oddly, it never happens. There's a reason for that.
People are not automatons and they usually think for themselves (with varying degrees of success) and won't fall into line with the rules necessary to sustain a utopian society.
You'll be left with nothing but a gun in your hand trying to force your well upon them. Forced utopia begs for revolution.
You aren't going to defeat human nature.
Those theories have been around for hundreds (thousands) of years, but oddly, it never happens. There's a reason for that.
People are not automatons and they usually think for themselves (with varying degrees of success) and won't fall into line with the rules necessary to sustain a utopian society.
You'll be left with nothing but a gun in your hand trying to force your well upon them. Forced utopia begs for revolution.
There are 2 main veins of basic income that I've heard: 1. Basic income that distributes goods from automation (ie, robot economy) . Not really what's being discussed here.
2. A basic income that is enough to not die and not enough such that most people would be satiated. Those that are not satiated would be encouraged to work on something, both that others want and that they want to do. Jobs that people would love to do would pay very little, jobs that suck (something to do with poop, surely) would pay more, the market forces are still at play.
If #1 ever becomes real such that all human want is satiated (I do not believe in infinite demand for consumption) or #2 pays too much, then yes it sounds like a scene from that movie WALL-E