Hacker News Reader

>People who are unlucky to be earning just enough to be excluded in one way or the other, from these UBI handouts

Universal Basic Income means there are no such people, by definition.

>as in say an universal extra $10,000 bump to _absolutely everyone_ regardless of income class ( if that is what they even _mean_ when they say UBI; I doubt it is )

Yes it is. That is the definition of UBI.

>a) their kids cannot get into those choice daycare centers which weren't so crammed only a few years ago

>c) their favorite restaurants are always booked or have lines out the door ( a perennial theme in SF ) [2]

Your reference contradicts your point. It says SF has more restaurants per household than elsewhere, so one would assume they are much less crowded on average.

Moreover, if services start to become crowded as a result of increased demand, then new ones will open to cater to that demand.

> d) the rent pressure is greater for a smaller inventory of listings in the desirable neighborhoods

There's plenty of affordable desirable housing available, the problem is that it's nowhere near the jobs people need to pay for it. If you pay people Basic Income, they can afford to move out of the expensive cities which in turn reduces demand for housing within them.

Your comment is distinctly American.

The rest of the world is perfectly happy with universal healthcare, strong social safety nets, and "handouts" to children.

How do you think Brexit was sold to the British? Do you realize that the Brexiters (and all the European nativists) have been selling their agenda primarily on the basis that it would mean more handouts?

America is different. And we all know what that difference is. Americans are very much unique in rejecting basic social guarantees out of the fear that the "wrong people" will benefit.

I don't think that this is due to "fear that the 'wrong people' will benefit". I think the fear is that such programs will sap our will to improve. We fear becoming European. We fear becoming docile wards of the state. Keep in mind that everyone in the US descends from people that decided that the risk of exposure, wolves and bears was more tolerable than staying with their peers.

We now stand at a crossroads unseen by past humanity: unnecessary man. How do we deal with the fact that a portion of our population, perhaps even half, is quickly becoming a millstone about society's neck? Ideas like UBI are our first attempt to deal humanly. Soon we'll probably add to UBI voluntary sterilization or other population controls. How will we collectively in the West solve this? Burdening our State coffers by maintaining useless populations might not be the best thing.

An actual UBI (which this isn't) is by definition universal. Everyone gets it regardless of income or whether or not they work.

>In other words people are mostly fine with any entitlements to the poor & disadvantaged as long as it doesn't threaten their way of life or become a competitive element to the comforts & privileges they are accustomed to.

Threats to people's "way of life" is the central idea to your post, which I think is a great springboard for specifically cultural issues that surround UBI. At the very least, cultural inertia is a real barrier to this kind of policy, even if we grant it status of being strictly better economics. The article also fixates on the "people will become lazy"-thinking as a culturally entrenched barrier, but I think your post has other real barriers that are harder to bring to discussion.

>people don't want a handout-receiver...suddenly being able to afford the same niceties of life that they see themselves slaving at their 9-to-5s for.

The "basic income" part of UBI suggests that "niceties of life" are not paid for. How austere that definition - whether it includes your examples of daycare, economy flights, and popular restaurants - is up in the air.

>universal extra $10,000 bump to _absolutely everyone_ regardless of income class ( if that is what they even _mean_ when they say UBI; I doubt it is )

I'm also deeply suspicious of how "universal" we really mean; just consider how the article's "experiment" really samples only from the "best case" of entrepreneurial, well-educated professionals (w/ families).

As for your post, an assumption is that universality w/r/t income is the only meaningful way of looking at it. For example, single and family households have very different "basic needs." Following from the "per-need" basis, reasonably, shouldn't UBI handouts be larger with more dependents? This seems to get to part of your worries, given the examples of daycare, etc. Being young and single, my assumption is that UBI is relative to single living expenses, but the article makes a point about people raising families. I doubt it's economically feasible to pay up-to family household needs for everyone - taxes and social benefits make that distinction. Are there still cultural worries w/r/t UBI that scales on dependents? What does that do to incentives and cultural perception on raising families? Maybe UBI will eliminate income-class related cultural issues that plague us this century, but it'll shift those cultural lines over other lifestyle-related boundaries (i.e. single v. married v. family)?

>People who are unlucky to be earning just enough to be excluded in one way or the other, from these UBI handouts ( which already happen in disguised means and forms, but more on that later [1] ) but not enough - from their wages & other sources of income - to be living a comfortable life will...

This is awkwardly phrased and hard to parse to me. Being excluded from UBI after some amount of income contradicts your later ideas. Also, "work" that pays that low is assumed to be at the margin where either automation eliminates it, or it's so undesirable (flipping patties) you're free to fall back on UBI living to find other undesirable work you like. That's also assuming you really don't have skills, which leads me to ask: do we consider some level of skill-acquisition a basic need and thereby include "education" costs in UBI?

>e) their friends cannot afford to socialize as frequently as they once did ( or worse, have moved to a different part of the country simply because it is no longer affordable to remain ) due to the same wage pressures

I don't know what friends you have, but society as it feels like to me already poses career-advancement choices against staying close to friends, especially those that don't work in the same field. Once you reach some level of career success, the need to maintain it naturally constrains your mobility w/r/t friendship (diversity) in some ways. Having a UBI-line only makes the "some level of career success" explicit when you make more than that line and like the lifestyle. On the other hand, wouldn't UBI let friends be patient about finding work that keeps them together? You and I may argue about the value of our friends, but certainly there are very meaningful friendships out there on the status of "threats to lifestyle" that you insist. But now we've come to a turn: originally, the article claims UBI will incentivize working over "patiently waiting," but w/r/t friendship we have a different case to consider.