Hacker News Reader

Comment by offby37years | Hacker News Reader

UBI is a death sentence within direct democracies short of robot/AI provided abundance. Introduction beforehand sows the seed for a direct transfer of wealth from the 49% haves to the 51% have-nots.

View on HN

> UBI is a death sentence within direct democracies

Direct democracies are virtually nonexistent at the national level; Switzerland, which is still a mostly-representative democracy, is probably the closest thing there is.

> Introduction beforehand sows the seed for a direct transfer of wealth from the 49% haves to the 51% have-nots.

Means-tested welfare plus taxation, which most countries have, does that, too; I don't see how UBI is any more dangerous in that regard, nor do I see the runaway spiral of voting unsustainable benefits anywhere, despite the popular meme that this is the natural consequence of democratic control of the public purse. So, before I take this particular slippery slope argument seriously, I'm going to need to see some convincing argument of how UBI is different in some relevant way.

The dose makes the poison. The universal nature drastically increases the proportion, from a single-digit minority to a majority approaching 99%, who stand to benefit from increased redistribution. From there it's a spiral to complete redistribution.

But if the threat is people voting to expand it, they can just as easily vote to expand means tested welfare, and just as many people “stand to benefit”. There doesn't seem to be any basis at all to the speculation that UBI crosses some divide where this effect—which has long been used as an argument against democracy itself though it has never been demonstrated—will suddenly become real.

You're describing an artificial minority maintained through means-testing. That's not UBI.

Yes, means-tested welfare is different than UBI. But it's not different in a way that I see any coherent argument makes UBI more prone to being turned into a transfer from the wealthier bare-minority to the poorer bare-minority through democratic process. (Classically, that threat is an argument against democracy generally, recently it's been retooled as an argument against UBI; in both forms its a narrative appealing to the assumed ignorance and venality of the masses that doesn't seem to have much support in actual behavior of real democratic systems.)

> Introduction beforehand sows the seed for a direct transfer of wealth from the 49% haves to the 51% have-nots.

And why is that inherently bad? It may be bad (I happen not to think so) but would like more than a bare assertion that that is the case.

For example, in favor: from an economics PoV, increased liquidity and discretionary income on the part of the poorer population should increase economic activity (e.g. velocity of money) which is good for business.

It simultaneously incentivises skilled emigration and unskilled immigration. It would drive an exodus of any entrepreneurial talent.

Or help fund early stage companies, and otherwise make it feasible to take small risks which improve capital fluidity and transaction/innovation velocity. Not every entrepreneur is a petulant nomad.

Skilled emmigration to where? Europe, Britain, and Canada have as much if not more hindrances, no?

> It would drive an exodus of any entrepreneurial talent.

Why?

Depends how much the transfer is. It sound like the implication is a lot. In which case entrepreneurs will move to where their potential returns aren’t dampened. Same reason people have moved TO silicone valley, ambitions of outsized rewards..

While I imagine it could easily be nitpicked in some fashion, it could be the case that automation values/milestones/something were used to determine the total amount to be distributed evenly among citizens (rather than an arbitrary number).

You state this as fact when it is clearly an opinion about what would happen with a UBI. Moreover, if UBI was implemented as a tax refund, then there is plenty of precedent for not being alarmed.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com