Hacker News Reader

Comment by u678u | Hacker News Reader

How does that work across the EU though? Eastern Europe has minimum wages of just a few EUR/hr.

I did not read this proposal, but if it is meant to pass as an EU directive, it will then require the member states to ratify it as an actual law, following the general principles contained in the directive. So for example, if the EU directive that passes says "The amount of the UBI has to be between 50% and 80% the average salary", the countries can set a number that way, which can be revised or not in the future, etc. That's how it usually works, for example PSD2, about payment services, had general ideas that obviously member states implemented differently in the details.

In theory, if a member state implements a directive in a way that is not faithful, it might risk a fine from the EU, but member states generally do not care much about it, I am not even sure if all of the fines that have been issued in the past have been paid...

The initiative is apparently to introduce “basic incomes”, plural, which is presumably determined based on local economic circumstances. Not sure how that reduces “regional disparities” and achieves “territorial cohesion”, though.

All that will happen is people will pretend to live in rich expensive countries and actually live in cheaper countries. I already see this all the time with benefits.

Source, please?

In my peer group. Incentives drive behaviour

So, none. Obviously there will always be some assholes, that should not determine policy unless it gets out of hand.

The whole point of UBI is to remove means testing. I think we can set a number that works on average and let people move to suit their needs. We definitely should avoid all incentives to game the system as it will only distract and get the initiative bogged down in paper pushing bs.

Unfortunately, living standards differ too much within the EU for that.

I don't think that is a concern. I had this exact conversation on Reddit a couple days ago. What I wrote:

>The flip side is it's much easier to make up the difference due to the increased economic opportunity in <high cost of living area>. If you can't it's a good incentive to move somewhere cheaper in turn reducing the pressure on housing in <high cost of living area>.

Say I'd like to live in Monaco or Luxembourg. No one owes me that privilege. I can't just demand to get that. Even if I get a job in a grocery store or whatever to legitimise my residency.

If you're from Monaco or Luxembourg, you absolutely have the right to live there. You can't force people to emigrate because they're poor, that's ridiculous. And moving from a high COL to a low COL area in the EU still amounts to emigration.

In contrast people are being forced to move now without UBI. Take Portugal for example. Lots of the younger generation can't afford to stay in Lisbon or Porto due to rising costs and low pay.

This would probably be implement as a Directive (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Directive_(European_Union)), meaning individual EU countries need to devise their own laws on how to reach the goal of an UBI.

The amount of UBI will most likely depend on how much money an individual needs to buy food, pay rent and pay basic utilities, in a given country.

My guess? By adapting the UBI to local salaries and living costs. Kind of like Amazon is obviously paying more Luxembourg or Munich than Poland.

UBI is supposed to be a baseline guarantee, so it would be quite OK to size it for the cheapest, least developed areas in the EU free-movement area. This should be coupled with very low or non-existent taxation of entry-level wages, so this "low" UBI would still be a meaningful subsidy even in the wealthiest areas of the EU.

How would it be meaningful when the rent you need to pay in Munich is several times what you need to live in eastern Poland?

> How would it be meaningful when the rent you need to pay in Munich is several times what you need to live in eastern Poland?

Not advocating for this. But the assumption would be if you can’t afford Munich, move.

There is no inherent right to live in Munich, whilst there is a natural right to life and a decent subsistence even for those who cannot immediately secure gainful employment. UBI is about securing the latter, not the former - and doing it at the lowest possible cost.

> There is no inherent right to live in Munich, while there is a natural right to life and a decent subsistence even for those who cannot immediately secure gainful employment.

Why do you believe in one and not the other? I don't see any compelling categorical difference between either of these. The latter just "feels better" because "life and decency" are positively connoted. In both cases, the "right" is that person A has to pay the cost for person B to live a certain way. If you restricted your argument, to, say, a "right" to the bare minimum nutritional supply to survive, that would be categorically different. However, that's not an issue in the EU anyway.

Yes, there is a natural right to live where you're at home.

So if at some point I have a home in, let's say Beverly Hills, then I have a natural right to live there for the rest of my life?

Possibly.

The EU is no unified entity. Fot obvious reasons, any UBI would be adapted to local circumstances. Side note, unemployment benefits are based the last salaries already, as a result they tend to reach the cap more often in places like Munich than the Polish border. Social security is not based on region, any rent subsidies are so. And while there is no right to live in Munich, there the right to live where you want. Or to continue to live in the place you already live, if not necessarily the house or apartment.

The answer is it doesn't :-)

A lazy answer if so, and a disappointing take on organizing society if that’s considered acceptable.

Maybe because "organizing society" according to some grand central plan isn't actually a very effective strategy.

Labor laws, entitlements, taxes, and other public policy are “organizing society”, and based on quality of life metrics most of Europe is crushing it. Sounds effective to me. I am an American living in a third world country in a first world suit, so I am admittedly biased.

Taxes are less destructive than radically restructuring the entire economy, which most UBI advocates seem to want to do.

Median household income in the US is significantly higher than any EU country except Luxembourg, Norway, Sweden, Denmark. I think most Americans who complain incessantly about how "third world" America is view Europe through rose-colored glasses. Any third-world aspects of the US (which do exist) are not caused by our economic policies.

The real idea behind the UBI is to "radically restructure" the economy in a freedom-promoting direction, closer to something like the US today than current policy in the EU.

How much economic and employment freedom does one have when health care is tied to the current employer?

The EU doesn't have that particular dysfunction.

My point entirely. The EU already has more freedom than the US, in sense. UBI would only increase that difference, and would by no means make the EU more like the US. And again, the EU is made up of independent nations, so these EU/US comparisons are already wrong.

Fine, but what's the argument that this proposal will restructure the economy in a freedom-promoting direction? What's the argument that this is a move in the US direction, instead of away?

Adding the state as a middleman for a huge fraction of all production does not promote freedom, unless your definition of “freedom” is “the unfettered ability to smoke weed and watch cartoons all day”. In reality, if UBI passes, it will be used as an excuse to un-person political undesirables while keeping people with no intrinsic ambition satiated.

Ok, let's not use waterfall then.

If you really want to rebut his comment, tell us how it would work ( including where the money would come from ). Your comment is as lazy.

The money comes from taxing citizens, assets, and corporations, colloquially known as “productivity and wealth”. I’m not European, so it would be rude of me to speak authoritatively on the quality of life Europeans want for each other, but I’ll take a crack at it. A UBI should be an inflation indexed amount that allows for enough food, clothing, and shelter for a dignified life. Not extravagant, but not USSR communist quality. Americans might think of it as a “LeanFIRE” quality of life, or how the elderly live on Social Security.

If we encounter any entitlements susceptible to inflation or supply constraints, we use automation and technology to solve for that (medicine, energy come to mind).

Sam Altman proposed something similar to a UBI with American Equity [1], so I don’t think it’s too crazy of an idea to move towards implementation and experimentation. If you’re a central bank, buying up securities and distribute the dividends into citizen deposit accounts also held at the central bank is another path.

[1] https://blog.samaltman.com/american-equity

And how much would that cost? Be sure to include inflationary effects in your calculation.

It would cost whatever citizens collectively are willing to shave off of wealth and productivity with taxes. You wouldn’t set a monthly amount and then throw your hands up and say it’s unaffordable. You’d start with the max amount you could reasonably convince a majority of citizens (who vote) to support and work backwards.

I’m not an expert, by any means, but to say it’s impossible seems flippant and intellectually dishonest. A better way to approach it would be with caution and the understanding that a lot of research and effort is going to be required if it’s to be implemented soundly (or determined to be untenable).

It is dishonest not to set a minimum amount : you said it yourself, it needs to cover the Basic stuff. So there is a minimum.

For the EU, this is in the ballpark € 1000 - € 1500 - € 2000 ( we already have people on 'benefits' in NL, so there is consensus about this 'living minimum' ).

If you would really care so much as you claim you do, you could have easily provided a basic budget for this grand plan.

But you can't.

I appreciate the snark, but there’s a reason policy is made in real life and not on “Hacker News.”

Exactly. In real life you run the numbers and that is why we don't have UBI.

Because something has not yet been done, does not mean it cannot be done.

Sam Altman used to "predict" that it is inevitable that 80 percent permanent unemployment is coming and this is why we need a UBI. He's changed his tune a lot about the details and I have no reason to believe he's got any kind of special expertise that qualifies him to speak on this topic. It's just a pet subject of his and he's very rich, so he can get eyeballs on his ideas. And then people imagine that means he must have good ideas on the topic when it means no such thing.

There are people in the US on Social Security who are homeless. UBI doesn't solve one of the key issues in the US: The high cost of housing rooted in broken housing policies and broken city planning.

I don’t disagree that housing and healthcare policy are intertwined with UBI policy and implementation. An unregulated free market is unsustainable, and therefore UBI alone isn’t going to solve the welfare problem.

I would love your take, as someone who has a lot of experience with homelessness and life challenges, what you envision as impactful public policy to help set a firm quality of life floor for everyone.

No reason why the UBI needs to be a flat universal rate rather than adjusted based off local economic factors.

How would that work in practice? Wouldn't people just move to the higher UBI areas?

The higher UBI areas would also be higher cost of living areas so in the right setup there would be little incentive to move just for UBI benefits.

But you would get to live in a higher cost area, at no cost to you.

What is the motive to live in a high cost of living area? Usually the two biggest reasons are economic and social opportunity. Economic opportunity is irrelevant in this instance if UBI cancels out in the two locations. Will there be enough social opportunities for people to leave their friends, family, and home country to move to a higher cost of living area?

Freedom of movement in the EU is conditional on you contributing to the economy; if you move just for the benefits, you will be kicked out (in theory)

What about asylum seekers and war refugees?

Not citizens, they don't have any freedom of movement to start with.

Most of them will not be able to work unless, or until, they're granted work visas.

The exact same is already true for minimum wage and salary in general, and while some people do migrate, there has arguably been no society-ending migration wave due to this reason. This is a common trope that has no basis whatsoever.

Although you can move freely to any country, to recieve benefits in a most countries you need to have had a job for 3 months before you can claim any benefits.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com