Hacker News Reader

Comment by 6d6b73 | Hacker News Reader

Wouldn't that be a great way to implement a form of UBI all over the world? Just have all these non-profits,government and people advocating UBI sponsor these food packs and distribute it to every child in the world that needs it. Quickly and fairly cheaply get rid of child hunger and malnutrition and move to a next problem.

It costs about $0.30 per packet.There are about 1bln children in the world under the age of 15. It would cost 300mln/day to give every child this little life saver. It would cost 109bln to feed all kids in the world. Because of the volume I think it is safe to assume that we could lower the price to half of that. Since not every kid needs it,the real cost would probably be closer to 25bln$/year..

View on HN

The point of UBI is that it's cash. The providing agency doesn't get to prescribe that it goes to food, clothing, medicine, hobbies, etc. Also everyone gets the same amount so "not every kid needs it" doesn't matter.

What you're describing is some other form of welfare, and I'm not really against the idea, but it's not UBI.

But it could be a great way to experiment with UBI. Give everyone access to this basic food pack and see what happens. It will be cheaper to do than UBI, less controversial and really help a lot of people.

but this wouldn't prove anything about UBI, as a previous person commented this isn' cash therefore isn't an income. I support the idea don't get me wrong. but basic income it is not (unless there is some sort of secondary liquidity market and that seems to be counter productive to your first point).

Yes, it's not ubi, but I still think it would help as an ubi-related experiment. If it helps, instead of UBI call it Universal Basic Nutrition.

We would learn a lot from it - can we even manage program this big. Are people going to abuse it, and how we can prevent the abuse. will it help as much as we help it could. Will it improve health and well being of the people, and how it affects the economy. Is it sustainable?

The reasons that people might prefer universal basic income over receiving a food pack are the same reasons that people tend to prefer a paycheck from their employer in lieu of employer provided food and shelter. My mentor, the late David Crane FAIA, described it as "poor people wanting the same things I do." Employer provided food and shelter in lieu of cash wages would also be cheaper.

Yes and I agree, but it would be easier to get people behind something like Universal Basic Nutrition. I mean who doesn't want to keep kids healthy and well fed? and if it only costs few cents per kid?

But use this program to get some data point on how universal program like that would work, what problems would we need to solve, and what's the ROI.

It's probably even easier to get people behind not doing much and acting as if it is significant. The problem that universal basic income is attacking is a larger one than childhood nutrition and produces less feel good public relations. It is also possible to have both universal basic income and provide an independent infrastructure for providing food security...which is also a much less sexy idea problem than feeding malnourished children.

Or to put it another way, the ceiling can be set by considering what the people on the receiving end actually want rather than by people on the giving end.

The reason cash is better is because it can be turned into (nearly) any good. Vs receiving the food pack and having to try and sell it to get the cash for something else, say antibiotics. Also if everyone else is getting the food pack, good luck selling it for much money.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com