Hacker News Reader

Governments try stuff like that pretty regularly (you can only buy certain things with food stamps, etc), but it's typically expensive to administer and inherently prone to abuse. Buy groceries with food stamps, sell groceries, buy drugs. On top of that, it's just inherently difficult to structure this in a way that's fair and useful to every person. If I inherited or built myself a nice rural home, I don't want a government-issue apartment - either instead or in addition to what I have. Do I get nothing? That's unfair. Do I get the stuff I don't want?

"Lump sum in cash" is the most flexible and equitable system. But then - and that's a major problem with UBI - you end up with people who spend it irresponsibly and then need help to survive. So you end up with UBI in addition to all the existing social safety nets.

All sorts of benefits get scrutiny along the lines of “what if they spend it in ways I disapprove of?” Inherent in UBI is the notion of increased personal freedom.

The study showed that people used the money in unusual ways, spreading it around and sharing it, usually in ways that benefited the economy, but would not be allowed by a more heavily-regulated system like food stamps.

also dietary needs and preferences. it's way do complicated. it adds a burden not only to the administration but also to those who sell the goods and services received.

another problem is that if i earn extra money i can't combine it with the basic income to eg afford a better apartment. everyone would be stuck with the apartment given.

you end up with people who spend it irresponsibly and then need help to survive. So you end up with UBI in addition to all the existing social safety nets.

i don't believe that. if you spend your income irresponsibly you are out of luck. change your habits. wait until the next payment and do better. if you can't do that then a social worker will help you.

While cash like UBI offers flexibility, criticizing targeted aid like food stamps misses the point. These programs are essential safety nets for the most vulnerable. While some misuse might occur – often signaling deeper needs requiring more services, not less food – focusing on that minority ignores the vast majority who rely on this aid to simply survive.

Suggesting it's "unfair" if you don't need specific help ignores the purpose of a safety net. How a society supports those facing hardship is a measure of its character. Worrying about potential misuse at the lowest rungs seems disproportionate when compared to massive government spending elsewhere. Ultimately, denying essential aid based on assumptions about how a few might misuse it is counterproductive and lacks compassion.

Yeah I agree there are a lot of problems in this kind of schemes. I don't have answers for any of them, because giving a concrete answer to any of these questions probably leads to more questions.

You can still have some $$ in that package, so it's not entirely out of flexibility. I also guess people who receives food packages, as you said, may be willing to exchange for other stuffs. TBH the most important reason I pick provisions (with a bit of $$) over 100% $$ is because of the scale.

What am I going to do with a second home?

I see where your head's at, but I think a huge portion of the reason for using dollars is that it's simple and easy to manage. You don't need to find suppliers, manage inventory, match individuals with housing, or audit for fairness. Potentially more importantly, you don't need to pay for those activities either!

Yeah, but I think with a government-initiated program, it's going to be a lot cheaper because of the scale. It definitely doesn't solve the problem of corruption or other political issues, but hopefully UBI creates better citizens (for a start, now whoever wants to participate in politics have the time to do more research and participate more) so that those issues get called out.

And where exactly is that free furnished condo located? Do I get to live in Beverly Hills for free if I want to?

I agree that execution is the key, and I don't have the answers for a lot of the questions.

I guess we (humans) will never achieve the equality that everyone agrees to, because every one has his or her own idea of equality, but maybe that shouldn't prevent us from trying.

You have a very strange idea of "everyone". I never agreed to economic equality.

Yeah that's one view of equality (by not agreeing with the concept from the start), and why I said there is no single answer every one agrees to.

>maybe that shouldn't prevent us from trying.

When you're planning on taking the money for your utopian pipe dream from other people by force, you really ought to have a better justification than "it doesn't hurt to try!"

Ahh going back to the days of Government Cheese I see!

Everything old is new again.

Government cheese was created when the country didn't have enough resources. What I'm talking about is abundance of resources. We never tried anything like that before.

To be fair, government cheese (from what I understand) was actually created in order to save extra milk the government bought up as part of a price control effort. In other words, there was an abundance of milk (because the government subsidized it, causing more to be produced than the market needed).

Once it was already sitting around, it's been used to address citizens in the country not having enough resources. Which is kind of the same thing your semi-universal basic provisions would address.

Literally the exact opposite. Government cheese was created because due to subsidies, there was way too much milk that was going to be dumped into the nearest river until the Govt paid the farmers to convert it all to cheese and bought it and shoved it into storage to prop up cheese prices.

It is the definition of over-abundance, since all the farmers were going to have to shoot their dairy cows to actually afford to keep some around and continue producing milk

I’ve had a similar line of thought.. basically what you are proposing is sort of a voucher system. But, here is where my mind went, what if it is implemented as a bunch of tokens issued via a blockchain or even through a central authority. They can be freely traded if needed and prices can go up and down, but regardless of the price, there is a set number of them that get issued.

Similarly, you can get issued tokens/rewards for doing needed work.

I’ve wanted to spend more time thinking through this more thoroughly and flesh out the idea more.. without ever having the chance to

that sounds like it's just a different currency. so then we have to deal with two kinds of currency. i don't think that is beneficial.

I think expecting the government to figure out your meaning off life is putting a bit of to much responsibility there.

But what is wrong if there is an extra option? You don't have to take the pill if you don't need it.

What's wrong is expecting other citizens to support people who are perfectly capable of working themselves.

> If I get UBI but feel lost, how do I find a sense of belonging? How do I find meaning in my life?

That's rather a separate problem. The point of UBI is to make individuals and families more economically resilient. This should have a lot of beneficial spillover effects, but it's not a cure-all for every ill.

This is basically the communist vision (in its original, positive sense) -- Universal Basic Provisioning achieved through automation and a moderate amount of community service. People are always quick to point out how governments will inevitably screw this up, likely making things even worse than they are now, but I think the idea has merit at least in principle. Unlike the idea of Universal Basic Income. Free markets and free money just don't go together. Especially if this money is given to the "productive underlayer" of society rather than investment bankers. That will just collapse the house of cards from the inside out. Administrators, middle managers and VPs of sales do not a functioning economy make.

I agree that historically such movements always ended up badly, e.g. Russia and China. I'd argue that Russia and China picked Socialism not because they had abundance of materials, but on the contrary, because they were too weak back then, so that Socialism gave them the tool of collectivism to fight against external threats and built up industries quickly.

We have never tried something like that (as you said UBP) in a rich country. I guess Norway and Sweden are closer? But I'm not sure.

Agree with your points on UBI.

I do wonder sometimes how UBP would play out in a developed country... Would it remove the need for bullshit jobs and refocus the market-oriented part of the economy towards real progress? Would it make people happier? Or would it make people spend even more of their lives scrolling, swiping and retweeting? In any case, this is a purely theoretical exercise -- even more so than UBI, the idea of UBP is very much incompatible with neoclassical economics, which thoroughly dominates economic and societal thought in most of the developed world.