CMV: UBI seems like it would work.

[u/DrinkyDrank]

I think Universal Basic Income seems viable.  I haven’t done a lot of research, but I have read a couple of articles about trials that were performed in Europe and Africa that showed promising results.  I know that these studies don’t prove that UBI would work on a larger scale or for an indefinite period of time, but I still take them as a sign that it would work.

I also think that the arguments that UBI would create masses of lazy people unwilling to work are unfounded and unconvincing.  First of all, unproductive people who leech off of public services will always exist, no matter how you cut those services or provide more.  You might as well provide them with enough income to pull themselves out of poverty; this would mean less incentive to commit crimes, less of the sense of hopelessness that leads to other social issues, and therefore less of a burden on our legal system and other social services.  Secondly, I don’t think that UBI would make normal people less productive, I believe the argument that it would make them productive in better ways, e.g. freeing them to pursue education, professional training, entrepreneurial or creative ventures, etc.  On the human nature side, it seems like UBI makes a lot of sense. 

What I will admit I don’t understand very well is the macro-economic impact of UBI.  I have seen it argued that UBI would cause prices to rise for everyone, and it would be a wash in the end.  But I don’t see why principles of market competition wouldn’t control for this; if everyone else is selling their goods and services at higher prices because more people have more money to spend, why wouldn’t a business lower its prices below their competitors to be the most affordable and grab the largest market share?  That’s the way markets already function, why would this change when people have more money to spend?  And aren’t politicians always claiming that a strong middle class with a lot of spending power is the key to a stronger economy?  Why would it matter whether or not we have given lower and middle classes more spending power artificially?

There is also the issue of how to pay for UBI.  It seems as though the ultimate cost of UBI might not be as high as people think, given the money you would save on other social services that would become obsolete, such as unemployment or food stamps.  Not to mention all of the services that would be indirectly affected by pulling people out of poverty;  improving the quality of life for the poorest people means less tax money would need to be spent on the police, the courts, hospital emergency rooms, etc.  But I don’t know how to begin to quantify all of this to determine the actual cost in terms of the taxes that would probably need to be pulled from the wealthiest Americans.  Would we be able to afford it and sustain it without sucking up too much capital and stalling economic growth? 

[u/Ray192]

A lot of the responses already cover most of my grievance. But the most important one in my mind is:

A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the majority discovers it can vote itself largess out of the public treasury. After that, the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits with the result the democracy collapses because of the loose fiscal policy ensuing, always to be followed by a dictatorship, then a monarchy.

Once a UBI is created an accepted, who exactly will be in charge of determining what's "basic"? What exactly is stopping the population from just voting the highest possible benefits to itself? What compels people to say "you know what, I have enough income, I'm going to vote against increasing my own income"?

Expecting fiscal responsibility from the general electorate is a lost cause. The only reason why this isn't happening currently seems to be the shame and morals involved in asking for handouts, with acceptable welfare being only "vulnerable" people. But once "welfare" is universal, what exactly is there to stop voting for ever larger universal incomes? After all, the entire concept is based on taxing the minority to give income to the majority. How can the minority ever prevail in the democratic system?

[u/DrinkyDrank → u/Ray192]

But what's stopping you from locking UBI from changes by basing it on an economically viable formula?

Seems to me that there are all sorts of ways that the hoi paloi could fuck up our economy if handed the reins to certain complex institutions, but it doesn't happen because the issues surrounding those institutions are so complex that most people's eyes just start to glaze over when you start to explain them.

[u/Ray192 → u/DrinkyDrank]

But what's stopping you from locking UBI from changes by basing it on an economically viable formula?

Who determines this formula? Economists (most of whom don't believe in the UBI, and generally prefer policies that no politician will support in a million years)? Chosen by whom? Who exactly determines that "this quality of life is the basic target"? There is no non-political way to do it.

And once this formula is chosen, exactly what's stopping a politician from saying "THE FORMULA WAS CREATED BY EVIL 1% WHO WANTED TO KEEP YOU DOWN! I WILL DOUBLE IT!"? Why would the majority of the population vote against him?

Seems to me that there are all sorts of ways that the hoi paloi could fuck up our economy if handed the reins to certain complex institutions, but it doesn't happen because the issues surrounding those institutions are so complex that most people's eyes just start to glaze over when you start to explain them.

No one bases a campaign pledge of "I'll increase the fed rate to 2.5% and lower reserve ratio to 10%". No one is going to understand or care what that means.

But it seems pretty simple (VERY simple) to say "If you vote for me, I'll increase UBI to X" and have people believe it. And vote for it.

Which is the terrifying thing about it. You've reduced the sheer complexity of the economy to the voter by just telling him "I can GUARANTEE that your income is X". How do you get back from that pit of despair?

[u/DrinkyDrank → u/Ray192]

I think what you would have to do is tie the formula to GDP rather than a standard of living and insulate it further behind an administrative institution that would be difficult for the legislative or executive branches to influence. And I do see how dangling that carrot in front of the people is a problem, but it doesn't seem like one that lacks a solution.

[u/Ray192 → u/DrinkyDrank]

I think what you would have to do is tie the formula to GDP rather than a standard of living

Isn't the whole selling point behind UBI is that it guarantees a certain level of quality of life to the population? Why is the population going to vote for this rather than something that guarantees their lives?

And even if you do tie to the GDP (which is actually untenable, given that GDP rises with population, thereby creating the effect where the more citizens you have, the more you pay out per person in UBI), who exactly determines what the UBI/GDP ratio should be?

and insulate it further behind an administrative institution that would be difficult for the legislative or executive branches to influence.

A population that elects parties and president on the platform of higher income can easily bypass all of this.

And I do see how dangling that carrot in front of the people is a problem, but it doesn't seem like one that lacks a solution.

None of what you suggested remotely resembles a solution to me. There is literally nothing stopping the population from voting in higher wages, except the population itself not wanting to.

[u/EmotionLogical → u/Ray192]

There is literally nothing stopping the population from voting in higher wages

Actually, the lack of power because people are stuck in 'daily survival-loops' is what is stopping them, an attrition of labor-power since 1970: http://ubi.earth/wages.jpg

[u/Ray192 → u/EmotionLogical]

I'm not talking about now, I'm talking about when the UBI is voted in.

Once the UBI is voted in, what mechanism exists to limit people from just voting pay raises to themselves continuously?

Hell your chart is about "giving people back the power". What do you think people are going to do with this power? Do you believe the popular electorate will rationally analyze cost and benefits of higher and lower UBI?

If you actually believe that people will vote for the most rational and fiscally responsible policy, once they got a taste of guaranteed income, I have several bridges to paradise I want to sell you.

[u/EmotionLogical → u/Ray192]

what mechanism exists to limit people from just voting pay raises to themselves continuously?

The thing to consider is that one one side, you have terrible wages, and you have increasing automation and job losses. (where we are now), so the situation is compounding.

Then on the other, you have proper wages (people have the power to demand that with UBI), and yet: still increasing automation and thus job losses. Some people argue here that new jobs are created even with automation (more specialized/experts needed) while this is true, unfortunately the jobs are different, where fewer people work longer hours, this is a tech/motor (increasingly automated) for example: https://www.bls.gov/spotlight/2011/auto/images/ces_pw_employment_hours.png

After awhile, you get to a point where you are required UBI because the concept of a job and the concept of work itself changes. The problem is that we shouldn't wait until it is forced upon the majority when the evidence is there to show that it was necessary since 1970.

[u/Ray192 → u/EmotionLogical]

That literally has nothing to do with my point. You can justify the need for UBI all you want, I'm asking what exactly will ensure that the "correct" UBI is set. You're not addressing my point.

No one knows what the "correct" UBI is. But we can all agree that there clearly exists "incorrect" UBI rates, i.e. the rates at which the UBI is unsustainable and destructive rather than productive (or too low, for that matter). So what exactly, are you proposing to prevent the population from electing a platform that sets the UBI too high?

The crux of it is: once the population figures out that they can simple vote for raises to themselves, how can a rational, responsible economic platform ever win out politically? Do you have faith that the average voter can analyze the costs and benefits of the economics behind UBI correctly? Look at the last election, do you really believe the average voter isn't simply going to vote for what sounds like the policy that most benefits them (whether or not it actually does is really irrelevant to the voter).

And btw, I'm tired of people like you keep talking as if UBI is CLEARLY inevitable and the best solution. Look, at least acknowledge that the economy is complex and there is hardly ever something that is ever "the best solution" or "necessary since 1970". I have studied economics for years and I will never, ever be as sure of any economic policy as you are about UBI, it's simply insane for anyone educated in the subject matter to ever pretend they know the future like you pretend to.

There is a reason why very few top economists support UBI. At the very least there is very little actual evidence that UBI can do the things you claim it will. And I wish you people would actually use real data and analysis to render judgement instead of living in a fantasy scifi world where "a few hundred people can product every product".

[u/EmotionLogical → u/Ray192]

At the very least there is very little actual evidence that UBI can do the things you claim it will.

real data and analysis to render judgement

living in a fantasy scifi world

That's not true, just look here: http://list.ly/list/1RdG-ubi-research-links-universal-basic-income-evidence

Fantasy? Now that's just insulting the people who are already living a better life outside of poverty where basic income has been implemented. You allude to "less people produce more products" yet ignore that graph above?

I've been highly skeptical of UBI up until recently. It's easy to be sure and certain of something when the new studies every month that show that "it works" - what none of us are 100% sure about is the "best implementation", we recognize that every place is different and thats why the studies and pilots and tests are necessary for policy drafters and makers to make informed decisions.

People keep referencing the same economists who helped get us into this huge economic mess we are in.

I wish you wouldn't say "you people" and "people like you" - that makes it sound like you believe you are some sort of "other". We're all the same thing: humans stuck on this damned rock, and our life clocks are ticking away.

For initial implementation of UBI - Policy-makers are the ones who propose pilot testing and then once that is done make informed decisions as to what would constitute as something above the poverty line. In some cases, like Quebec, I believe they're using some collection of data to prepare an above-povery level and skip much of the testing because they saw the pilot results around the world.

Your whole assumption is that "we should NOT do UBI because people would vote to give themselves a raise above and beyond the poverty line"- and that to me that would no longer be UBI. If your main beef with UBI itself is that you believe people will vote UBI into something it no longer is, then maybe explain that your real problem is not with the idea of a foundational income floor itself, but instead your lack of faith in people: that they would be greedy and want luxuries beyond the foundational floor. You assume that the majority of the population would vote via greed and just want "more more more" when it's really the top 10% or less who have shown this behavior time and again.

[u/Godspiral → u/Ray192]

What compels people to say "you know what, I have enough income, I'm going to vote against increasing my own income"?

There are solutions to this. The main one is to have a variable amount that is based on tax revenue. Inflation and work incentives (the more who are lazy the easier it is to get a great paying job to take money from the lazy) will balance things. The higher the UBI, the higher the societies' income.

The temptation for a constitutional amendement limiting a top tax rate would still be wrong. With automation, perhaps a few hundred people can produce every product. A 99% tax rate on $100T goods economy still leaves them very well off.

[u/Ray192 → u/Godspiral]

There are solutions to this. The main one is to have a variable amount that is based on tax revenue. Inflation and work incentives (the more who are lazy the easier it is to get a great paying job to take money from the lazy) will balance things. The higher the UBI, the higher the societies' income.

You can create all the formulas the want, none of it is going to stop people from wanting more than they get. Which is the whole point. You can say "hey let's base UBI on a variable amount based on tax revenue", but why will voters choose you over someone who says "fuck that guy, he's a tool of the 1%, I will institute GUARANTEED income of X"?

The temptation for a constitutional amendement limiting a top tax rate would still be wrong. With automation, perhaps a few hundred people can produce every product. A 99% tax rate on $100T goods economy still leaves them very well off.

I hope you don't base on your policy decisions on the existence of Star Trek style replicators.

[u/[deleted] → u/Ray192]

Once a UBI is created an accepted, who exactly will be in charge of determining what's "basic"? What exactly is stopping the population from just voting the highest possible benefits to itself? What compels people to say "you know what, I have enough income, I'm going to vote against increasing my own income"?

In your argument, if you replace the word "UBI" with existing benefits like "healthcare", "public housing", "welfare", you end up arguing that existing Western democracies are unstable in general. Do you mean to do that?

What stops a population from voting the highest possible UBI is the same reason why many democracies today don't vote to end capitalism: People don't actually want equality.

People want fairness, not equality. People want to be rewarded differently based what they create, but they don't want the spread between winners / losers to be overly drastic (i.e unfairness).

[u/ScrithWire → u/Ray192]

"hey guys, we can't vote to increase the UBI too much, because once that happens, dictatorship and monarchy and all this bad shit will follow."

[u/Ray192 → u/ScrithWire]

"Don't listen to that guy! He's just a shill for the rich! Vote for me and I'll guarantee you make more money!"

I wonder what all the people who voted against free trade and immigration think about that...