Basic Income Is a Dead End

It seems like the main concern among nay-sayers is that they can't conceive of a world where some people choose basic leisure over working low-status, poorly-compensated jobs.

Because upward mobility, while still possible, is difficult for most. You'll notice that critics of UBI don't offer alternatives, just the status quo.

0. The costs would be manageable. You could pay for a generous BI ($9k per adult, $2k per child, nothing for people already on SS) just by raising U.S. taxes to the non-U.S. OECD average, and eliminating non-SS/Medicare/Medicaid welfare spending.

1. "First, basic income would further divide society and prevent social mobility." I grew up quite privileged. I can't even say with a straight face that having dad's bank account to fall back on "held me back." To the contrary, it has allows me to take career risks I'd never have taken otherwise. Remember: education is a risk! People who have mouths to feed can't afford the opportunity cost.

2. "Second, an unconditional basic income lacks social legitimacy." Arguably, a check everyone would receive would have a lot more social legitimacy than today's hodge-podge of means-tested welfare programs.

3. "Third, an unconditional basic income runs counter to the needs of a society with rapidly growing immigration." Immigration is not a necessity; it can be limited to achieve more important social goals.

1) Landlords can capture all extra money by raising rents. Solution: land value tax (which can probably finance UBI all by itself).

2) Some people have high medical costs. Solution: free health care for everyone. No "insurance" where rejecting sick people is profitable!

3) Loss of meaning in life. Solution: free education for everyone. Let people study and socialize all their lives if they want. Don't force them to find jobs or starve!

However, OP's conclusion was "therefore UBI is a bad idea" and never considered what society could be like if we all collected UBI and maintained similar unemployment we (in the US) have today.

My vision is that we collect UBI and have mandatory employment for X years and Y% allowed "time off / sabbatical / whatever" during which you are granted UBI. During the days/weeks/months you exceed the allowed time off, you are not granted UBI.

Of course, the policy needs to be far more nuanced with regard to people who are unable to work, unable to find work, attempting to help people find work in their field of expertise, etc.

I've never spoken to anyone about this concept at length, so I'd love to hear HN's thoughts.

"Any resolve to invest in themselves and to improve their lives through work would be put to the test every day..."

1. "Seeking employment is the only important reason for investing in oneself." I believe that a duty to family is important to most people.

2. "The loss of work as a motivator for self-improvement would be bad." Perhaps other motivations would take the place of work, and people could focus on achieving other ends in their self-improvement.

E. G. Like oh you need work to socialize and learn the language. But if people didn't have work(and could pay bills), couldn't they find other places to socialize?

Disclaimer : I am pro ubi and I feel like most of these in article are weakly debated

It's a worthwhile read.

This article just sounds like some cross between anti-UBI propaganda and defeatist nonsense. Stern addresses many of these issues.

But -- more importantly -- he argues that our economy will become more and more automated over time and jobs will go away and simply not come back. So we need to figure out some way to have an egalitarian society in a world where overall productivity is high but need for workers is low.

It's a big shift. I'm not sold on UBI as the sole solution, but it seems like a good place to start looking for ideas. Apparently some places that already have some form of it (like Alaska!) have seem some successes. And apparently the United States nearly passed some form of UBI legislation in the 70s with the support of none other than Richard Milhous Nixon.

As a part of this change, I do agree that we're going to have to loosen some of our moral aversion to people not working full-time jobs all the time. There's a lot of good you can do for yourself and the world if you're not obligated to give all your time to some menial day job.

Not saying it is coordinated, but I find the timing suspicious. Feels like it's agenda driven.

Not to mention most of the objections (like in this article) are just arguments from incredulity or traditional. Most are "well it's just impossible" as a presupposition.

It's the kind of low-level FUD that you expect to see in political articles but as they are all presented as an economic article it seems to fly more under the radar (this kind of nonsense writing is usually called out for what it is when it's politics).

Of course UBI is inherently political and, more telling, threatens an entire way of life for some very powerful forces.

Again... not saying it is coordinated, but it would be easy to see why there would be a push to discredit the idea in the US.

I'll admit it, the idea to be paid to do nothing is completely strange to me, and my basic instinct tells me that unemployment would skyrocket, but I'm willing to forego all of that if the system proves to be more efficient and slashes the total cost of government and reduces the tax burden as many of these articles suggest.

> Any resolve to invest in themselves and to improve their lives through work would be put to the test every day

Yes, because work sucks for most. Maybe work will have to improve in order to compete.

> It is therefore likely that basic income would redistribute resources from those who are employed to those who are not

People who earn money already hate or not paying taxes. They already despise or not people who do not work.

> Migrant workers and other immigrants need more mechanisms to help with social integration, not fewer.

You need to have a really stellar program to be better than cash

This is why I dislike basic income

It has become the term for a state run program and people have to tried to sell it by reassuring skeptics that it will replace the systems in place

I disagree on all accounts

Capitalism without the need to acquire capital should be offered by banks and all other state run aide programs left as they are

1. moral hazard: "Basic income is a seductive poison."

2. redistribution is unpopular: "The middle class, who would finance the basic income but who would not benefit from it materially, are unlikely to find social justice or solidarity in this 'unconditional' redistribution."

3. moral hazard + immigrant peril: "Migrant workers and other immigrants need more mechanisms to help with social integration, not fewer."

In other words, the scolding moralist argument. Which, I must admit, is really quite a throwback in this era of "say anything to get rich" conservatism. I also think UBI will never accomplish what many of its proponents promise, but for rather different reasons:

1. Rent will eat it all. Every penny and more will be absorbed by housing costs - it will end up as an enormous wealth transfer to landowners and lenders. For the big money backing UBI, this is the dream.

2. You can't actually replace all other social programs with it, because some people will not spend it on health insurance or rent or food for their kids, and the results won't be politically acceptable.

3. Did I mention rent?