Hacker News Reader

Comment by lend000 | Hacker News Reader

The important piece to note, which Zuckerberg may or may not understand, is that the UBI should be accompanied by the elimination of the rest of the welfare state (yes, all of it, including minimum wage). Combined with requiring people to be US citizens for 18 years before qualifying should eliminate most of the qualms critics have with the idea. Overall, I don't think the tax burden is significant for a minimalist UBI, because the savings from eliminating our current welfare state full of mal-incentives will increase productivity.

View on HN

Lol what? UBI doesn't make up for medicaid, medicare and minimum wage for example. We should probably keep foodstamps as well. It's an advancement of the welfare state, that's the whole point Zuckerberg is making. Our current welfare state is inadequate which is why lots of kids don't get a fair shot. Zuckerberg's fix for this is to use more welfare to create a more even field for all kids to compete on.

You're right about medical, but the whole point of UBI is to provide a floor upon which anyone can live without the expensive bureaucracy of qualifying them. It's supposed to replace the welfare state with something more efficient. That's not a regression, with UBI you don't need foodstamps or any other kind of assistance (not counting healthcare which is a separate thing).

No, that's the point of UBI in your mind. This is actually what I think is harmful about our current obsession with UBI, all the politicians are slowly coming around to it and when they do that you know some people are about to get screwed. UBI isn't here to reduce welfare spending or to reduce welfare spending on the poor. Inequality has a direct effect on social mobility. Thus programs which exacerbate inequality are antithetical to the idea of a meritocracy. We need more, direct redistribution to the poor to fix America's problems with social mobility. Abolishing the minimum wage because of UBI? Come on.

That's the point of UBI in most people's minds, it's a better way to redistribute wealth and once in place should be the only way needed. Of what purpose is a food stamp program when we can simply make sure the UBI is enough to live on? UBI is about dealing with a world where we don't don't have enough jobs for everyone, that already covers the poor. Want more redistribution, raise the UBI. It's one program that can replace the entire welfare state. UBI would be a better and more efficient use of the existing welfare money as well as new funds so it can be given to everyone. It makes no sense to have UBI and a welfare state at the same time. And yes, you don't need a minimum wage when you have UBI, UBI is a minimum wage.

Minimum wages will have to stay, particularly if job market is heavily skewed towards employer, to stop competition driving it to bottom.

How is the job market going to be skewed towards the employer? That statement needs some clarification.

The way it seems to me, it would make sense that actually jobs would shift away from menial tasks (which will be replaced by automation eventually anyway) in favor of things that people actually consider a valuable use of time. You can't get people to do jobs they don't want to do if they don't have to do them. At least, not at a scale that leads to the situation you seem to be implying.

If you had $2000 in your pocket every month why would you waste your time on a job that pays $9/hr? Maybe you'll find some people who take 5- or 10-hr/wk contracts so they have a little extra beer money, but it definitely would eliminate the need to submit yourself to the job market woes that currently plague the poor. People value their time with a money analogue, since this is a moneyed system we're living in, so you won't find many who will choose to earn less than what they can see themselves paying on a daily basis.

That makes no logical sense. UBI is a minimum wage, there's no need for another.

I think what we are afraid of is a token "UBI" of say $5k a year or less which is nice if you need a small spending boost but it is not enough for food and rent.

Oh and rent! The rent is too damn high. We need to build more, property prices be damned! Yes, ugly houses are OK. No, I don't care if the "eye sore" is damaging your view. Your pleasant view is not as important as shelter for me.

UBI that isn't enough to live on isn't UBI; the point of UBI is to remove the "need" to work at all by providing a minimum level of income that's enough to survive on.

> Of what purpose is a food stamp program when we can simply make sure the UBI is enough to live on?

Many what might be called “moderate UBI proponents” have argued that certain use-specific universal or means-tested programs will still be needed because of social costs of failure of individuals to allocate funds properly to certain needs. Different sets have been suggested, but usually one or more of healthcare, food, and housing support programs (in roughly declining order of frequency with which I've seen them suggested) are proposed.

They're wrong, those problem can be solved simply by paying out the UBI more often in smaller amounts like a paycheck. Means testing leads to expensive bureaucracies and wasted money. UBI is meant to end that, not supplement it.

Whether they are right or wrong about the need, the fact is that there is a sizable contingent of UBI supporters that do believe certain other programs are necessary. It is not at all the case that UBI is promoted universally, or even overwhelmingly, as a complete replacement for the welfare state, or even a complete replacement for simply the means-tested compobebts of the welfare state.

Of course, because UBI itself isn't an accepted concept yet; once it becomes one, the natural result of rolling it out will be the elimination of all other welfare programs in favor of the UBI. It's a better abstraction, and good abstractions displace bad ones eventually.

> Abolishing the minimum wage because of UBI?

I would prefer a gradual phase in of UBI with a reduction of minimum hourly wage (after it is increased to $15/hr and indexed to inflation) by 1/2000 the annual value of UBI. This presumes you keep EITC, if EITC is eliminated, it's a little more complicated.

Honestly, UBI isn't going to fix anything if the mentality are still in the frame of mind that making money is an end to itself. Until, the american society learns that adolatring money is completely wrong, there isn't any hope for any of this to succeed.

If we need to keep minimum wage, then UBI needs to be increased until we don't need minimum wage.

There are plenty of issues with healthcare at the moment, but what effect do you think it has that a large segment of the population (and the majority of drug takers) are subsidized to get drugs for almost nothing with effectively zero price negotation? (Re: Medicaid -- the government does not negotiate as well as the market, especially when lobbyists are on both sides of the negotiation). And would you agree that unemployment benefits encourage being unemployed until you no longer qualify? Then there's TANF: have more kids, get more income. What need is there for a minimum wage when you have a "livable" income already, from UBI? We would no longer have to ensure that homeless people cannot voluntarily enter into an employment contract for less than $15/hour (which guarantees they remain unemployed). Food stamps? You must understand that the UBI is cash that can be used for anything.

The common theme here is that these complex programs will not only come with bureaucracy and deadweight loss, but they also include complex side-effects, mostly negative economic incentives. Another common theme is that money can be used for any of these things, and that's exactly what a UBI provides.

I think it can replace min wage..but defintely need medicare for all also- - but with GBI -- less people have to work to maintain life -- which will mean more jobs will be open for those w/ the initiative to earn more and enjoy more feature comforts -- w/ more open jobs the wages will increase naturally as a result of supply/demand of jobs.. GBI is actually one way to raise the supply and lower demand of jobs so that prices re-stabilize and such that working actually makes more sense....

One of the biggest concerns I hear about UBI is where the money comes from. I think think your point about eliminating the welfare state systems is a big part of the solution. Think of all the bureaucratic cruft that exists right now and how many of those resources could be diverted into more impactful areas such as paying for UBI that enables more to participate in the economic flow of goods and services. It's easier said than done, but I think a lot of the UBI's implementation costs could be covered by consolidating expensive and complicated systems into a simpler solution like UBI.

The money will come from the same place money comes from now: banks. The value backing that money will come from the same place value comes from now: energy applied to capital. Given that the whole reason money and capital even came to exist in the first place is that humans have some compulsive drive to do relatively complex things once their basic, life sustaining needs are met, there's very little rational reason to be worried about less value being produced in a post UBI world.

One very good reason to keep (not necessarily in their exact current forms, mind you) the current bureaucracies involved in housing, health care, etc, is that that bureaucracy factors out the energy involved in obtaining those life sustaining societal structures. Certainly make the bureaucracy more efficient, but entirely eliminating it makes the society as a whole less efficient.

I'm confused about the downvotes you're receiving. You're right. The fractional reserve, and especially derivatives, has created trillions of dollars in the last decade.

See here for a visualization of the world's money supply: http://money.visualcapitalist.com/all-of-the-worlds-money-an...

If I buy a grain of sand from you for $10, have I just massively expanded the number of dollars in existence?

Market capitalisations != money.

Market capitalization general corresponds with the amount of debt a company is able to take on, and the creation of debt literally is the creation of money.

Yes. If you create an etf or stock index or public stock, you have massively created the number of dollars in existence.

So if I move to the US when I'm two years old, and become a naturalized citizen at age 7 after my parents finish the process, and then I go to college, and graduate at 22, I'm stuck without UBI for another three years?

Yes, you would possibly need to get a job for a few years. 18 is an arbitrary number but there needs to be a limit, and there will always be an example of a person who falls into this 'tragic' category.

Rationale: to prevent a massive influx of immigrants draining the treasury for free income, some of which they would probably send home, too. That wouldn't sit well with many people, nor be sustainable. There will of course, be people like in the situation you mentioned who feel marginally cheated, at least for a brief time.

This is unconscionable, frankly, I'm appalled that someone could display such a cavalier attitude towards "tragic" stories. Nobody is disputing your stated goal, let us agree on that point.

First of all, "feeling cheated" is inaccurate. In an economic environment where everyone has UBI and there is no minimum wage/SSI/SSDI/etc, depriving someone of UBI makes them unable to provide for themselves unless they are skilled and/or lucky. It's common to find a low paying job fresh out of college. Let's say you get a $30k salaried job. With UBI, that might be a $10k salaried job with $20k UBI. Take away UBI and now you're trying to afford housing in a market where the most financially destitute earn twice what you make.

Second of all, immigration is a big part of what makes this country great and what sense does it make to pay immigrants less merely because they're immigrants? If they can do the same job, they should get the same pay, not just for moral but also for economic reasons.

You can fix the system but if you start from the assumption that there is a simple solution (18 year minimum) for a complex problem, you will be consistently disappointed.

It's not a simple issue, but there are many complexities you seem to have overlooked. I believe in a high level of mobility and freedom in immigration, compared to the current limits, at least. I'm curious, what do you think would happen if we gave the UBI out to everyone immediately?

To spell it out: we cannot afford to produce a UBI for the entire world, but if everyone is able to immigrate to America and receive America's UBI, we will have several billion of the world's poorest knocking on our door. The two are mutually exclusive in the real world, in which we both live. What is your solution?

Yes, you are correct that long term citizens would have higher financial negotiating power than newer citizens who do not yet qualify. Does it need to be 18 years? Of course not -- the point of that number was that you should be an adult to receive a UBI. In our current immigration system, it may be difficult enough to get citizenship that perhaps the only requirement should be that you're an adult citizen.

However, the most important takeaway for you is that if you just give away a UBI to every person that sets foot in America, immediately, you will either:

1. make it near impossible to immigrate to the US due to increased demand from people who were only persuaded by the UBI (in our current system)

2. open the floodgates to unsustainable immigration that will drain more from the UBI pool than the system can support (in a higher mobility system, which I otherwise support)

And in either case, you will have immense capital flight to other countries, which is obviously not in America's best interest.

I'm open to suggestions on how to address immigration with a UBI; I don't deny that it's one of, if not the primary shortcoming without an obvious solution for UBI.

But it's not like all those people would stay in their home countries and just siphon away all our sweet sweet ubi hoard. These people would become US citizens and their societal output would become part of the country's aggregate output, some of which presumably funds the UBI program. As long as we don't assume people from economically disadvantaged regions are inherently incapable of providing as much value as individuals in advantaged regions then the only way allowing immigration is unsustainable is if UBI itself is unsustainable.

> It's not a simple issue, but there are many complexities you seem to have overlooked.

Funny, that was exactly my reaction when to your comment.

> I'm curious, what do you think would happen if we gave the UBI out to everyone immediately?

I'm confused why you're even bringing this up, since we agree this wouldn't work. If that's the position you're arguing against it's a straw man.

I'm interested in UBI, but I think we'd need a system that isn't as deeply and fundamentally flawed as the "wait N years" system. I think it's a complicated enough issue that I have honestly no idea how to tackle it, so the comment that I am "overlooking" complexities seems completely out of left field.

Anything that cuts off all the people on SSI is a non-starter.

> I'm confused why you're even bringing this up, since we agree this wouldn't work. > Anything that cuts off all the people on SSI is a non-starter.

I didn't realize you were anti-UBI altogether. Is this the only reason you are anti-UBI then? But no ideas on how to improve it? And you believe the current welfare complex is superior?

Regardless, I would argue that even with an X-year rule to curb UBI-related immigration, a UBI would be vastly superior to our current system. If the income is truly basic, you have not significantly adjusted demand in the economy against what is already being purchased (to raise prices, as you mentioned) in the "necessity" category, specifically, and the reduced welfare in other areas may actually serve to bring artificial demand down in some cases (e.g. instead of feeling obligated to spend all of your food stamps because you can't use them for something else, people may be more focused on what they need). Yes, the currently homeless will also have money to compete with immigrants for inexpensive housing, but I don't think the formerly homeless would be complaining about that. Will it be harder to be an immigrant than a US citizen? Yes, that has and will always be the case for numerous reasons -- however, I don't think the financial effect of a UBI creates this unlivable economy you describe, and it provides a bright future to look forward to.

Always looking at ways to refine my policy ideas, so thank you for pointing out how extreme 18 years is given how long it already takes to become a citizen. However, it's always nice to see complaints that follow up with proposed solutions, which is unfortunately uncommon on HN political threads.

> I didn't realize you were anti-UBI altogether.

I'm still not sure where you're getting these conclusions about what my position is, especially when I say things like "I'm interested in UBI" which contradict it. If you have a question about my position just ask, if you don't care then don't respond, but I feel like I'm talking to Eliza.

What we seem to agree on is that "just give citizens money" doesn't work.

> And you believe the current welfare complex is superior?

Superior to what? It's hard to even compare something that exists in all its complexity with something that is just an idea you could write down on a napkin. How do you even evaluate a UBI proposal that doesn't have numbers in it?

One complaint here is that people who currently receive SSI should not be dropped by the new system. Rules like "you must be a US citizen for 18 years" are simply unworkable.

> however, I don't think the financial effect of a UBI creates this unlivable economy you describe, and it provides a bright future to look forward to.

It's already hard to be an immigrant, such a system would mean that immigrants get paid significantly less than non-immigrants. I am not interested in a system that deincentivizes immigration that severely. And again, it's hard to evaluate the potential effects a proposal without numbers or quantitative analysis, so I can merely say "I disagree" here and there's not much substance available to change my mind.

One thing to watch out for in these threads is that sometimes people will dismiss or devalue viewpoints or arguments merely because they do not provide alternative solutions to complex problems. That behavior is nothing more than a transparent attempt to shut arguments down without responding to their content.

Is there a reason why all of that should be eliminated besides that you think they're "mal-incentives?"

It's simpler (cheaper)

Well in that case, simpler and cheaper can be achieved through the reduction of military expenditures and increases in marginal tax rates for high earners.

Unrelated points. These things are not mutually exclusive.

They don't have to be. I'm saying there are better sources of funding.

If it's cheaper, doesn't that necessarily mean that people on welfare will be receiving less benefit? Actually much less since UBI will go to everyone, if it's cheaper in spite of that...

The overhead of administering the program is cheaper.

See my other response -- negative incentives, bureaucratic cruft, etc.

Similar to why you might prefer a 10 line program that is O(n) to a 4000 line program which is O(nlogn) -- seems obvious to me.

There could certainly be exceptions for some programs (like Food stamps for children who don't yet qualify for UBI) or for things that are not bought with cash in a marketplace (if we ever had state health providers, for example), but for the most part, this comparison could eliminate dozens of government agencies and programs while expanding benefits.

I would be absolutely amazed if any government actually agreed to dismantle their welfare states in return for UBI. There will always be pressure on politicians for one group or another to receive more money for one reason or another which will require all the government beurocracy to administer it.

Agreed -- it would be very difficult politically, not that that matters in terms of which policies we should advocate.

The drug lobbyists, for example, absolutely love Medicare. They prefer the government with its friendly politicians and bureaucrats "negotiate" the prices of drugs that the government subsidizes, rather than allow price discovery in a market system.

> Combined with requiring people to be US citizens for 18 years before qualifying

The safety net programs that UBI would replace don't require that (some require citizenship, others require only satisfactory immigration status, none have anything like an 18 year citizenship requirement.)

I agree, as long as it's adjusted to account for inflation, changes in housing costs, and truly meets the minimum thresholds... I think we should institute consumption taxes though to help fund it, and maybe have a different rate for those w/ state id's that are 'verified' citizens vs those who aren't citizens.. Basically so immigrants/tourists pay more to be here than the rest of us...

I also think that we can only get rid of all other programs as long as GBI also includes medicare for all. Medical is a basic need as much as a roof.

So if your a typical immigrant to the USA, your going to wait +25 years before you can get UBI then? 5 years minimum of green card waiting for citizenship and 2-10 years just waiting to get a green card in the first place?

There's no way we could do that. Social security pays on average much more than any realistic basic income. Are we supposed to slash the income of retirees in half?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com