I love the idea of [U]BI simply because it exposes the emotional core of how fundamentally broken the philosophy of those who support it is.
It doesn't work. It can't work. Utopian ideals always end the same way: imposed only through tyranny.
Every study I've read by proponents starts from a view that it will work or must have a manner of working that is yet to be discovered because it meets the fundamental criteria of all their political beliefs; namely that all people are victims being oppressed by economic systems. Which is of course not true.
As with almost all "social science" studies, these are easily designed to prove whatever the author needs to.
maybe it does not work within your current paradigms.
people never considered widescale remote work as an option, when it became a necessity, we found a way to make it work.
i don't like blanket "it cant work" statements - not possible for one person to have the perspective to make such a judgement.
people deserve to live a life of dignity, what's the point of progress if it does not benefit all of us. not everything has to be driven by cold hearted free market ideas. we did not choose to exist.
Remote work has been functional for years before COVID hit and forced a migration.
It was always a middle layer management that was against and they still don't love it.
That aside, UBI when centralized through a bureaucracy is doomed to failure, ala the human condition, find a way to decentralize it and encourage human agency through an open system of shared, public, and private equity holdings..then maybe..(yeah I'm talking blockchain).
> people never considered widescale remote work as an option, when it became a necessity, we found a way to make it work.
That's literally untrue. Almost every job I've ever had has had some element of WFH for the last 20 years. Even if your false supposition were correct it wouldn't be remotely related or comparable.
> people deserve to live a life of dignity, what's the point of progress if it does not benefit all of us. not everything has to be driven by cold hearted free market ideas. we did not choose to exist.
As predicted above - imposition of an unsubstantiated widespread victimhood used to inversely justify a need rather than a natural driver for it.
Remote work existed long before covid and had some great successful examples across both America and in Europe. I worked fully remote for the past decade. I used HN often to find good remote jobs.
It was easy to see that remote work could work in more environments given the right push. Software and technology ultimately needed to improve and it absolutely has.
Now compare to UBI, it's just not feasible. We see countries with extreme inflation and how bad it is, we see that UBI requires tyranny to work, it's just not comparable to remote work in any way.
A lot of claims with nothing to back it up, there.
Folks have guaranteed incomes now. Lots of folk, lots of places. The world hasn't ended. Pensions, annuities, allowances, grants.
Of course it can work. 90% of everything is automated now. We don't need everybody to work for what we consume, and haven't for a couple decades now. If it weren't for a strong Protestant Work Ethic and make-work programs, we'd see far more people doing things other than slaving away at a job.
In future it'll only get more appealing, when nearly 100% of our needs are met by automation. Sure, build some pointless strawman about "What if nobody does anything?!!!" Not a problem, as long as folks who work earn more, then there will always be willing folks to do Engineering and whatnot.
Face it, it's only FUD and that troubling work ethic that get people so riled up. Not logic nor pragmatism.
> Folks have guaranteed incomes now. Lots of folk, lots of places. The world hasn't ended. Pensions, annuities, allowances, grants.
A pension or annuity paid for by your own effort is not even remotely related or comparable.
> Of course it can work. 90% of everything is automated now.
I'm not sure if it is funny or disturbing that you believe that. How sheltered, or privileged, must you be to believe it. The automation fantasy - I'll believe it when I see it.
So, in short, as per my post, your philosophy relies on an appeal to victimhood and a theoretician utopian advancement.
For something that's only Apparently 10% away it sure isn't manifesting in utopian robots everywhere
Yeah you must not work in the business. Factories with workers are evaporating as fast as they can be obsoleted. It's been going on for 2 decades now.
The obstacle to UBI is not financial nor technological. It's social. Old entrenched views that haven't been revisited since childhood, and the folks holding those views making decisions.
I think a generation will have to grow old and die before UBI will be found acceptable.
Only if money were to be printed out of thin air for the program, isn't it? If the money comes from a defined budget, I don't see why that would lead to inflation.
That's a very weird response. I'm obviously just talking about the inflation claim you brought up, pointing out possible sources of income for the program without "printing money". Not sure how "you don't know exactly so I'm right" fits here.
There's probably even a named fallacy for what you're doing here.
Because I believe you have not thought this through and are using incredibly vague hand waving to justify a policy which can't be afforded. A ubi would be required such that it would fulfill the entirety of the persons need thus eliminating other benefits such as housing costs.(that being the main argument put forth in its favour)
Do some basic arithmetic and tell me how you come up with that money please.
I was quite explicit in my comment about what particular scenario I was addressing: that inflation would rise as result of redirecting already existing money. That's literally all of my main point.
Whether or not it can fit a government budget is a separate discussion. But I'll just say I'm very weary of these "destroying entire fields of research with basic arithmetic".
I'm not really gonna continue, feel free to have the last word if that's so important to you emotionally to the point of completely ignoring your interlocutor.
>A ubi would be required such that it would fulfill the entirety of the persons need
This is an incorrect view, perhaps you've been mislead or misunderstand? UBI is a government program in which every adult citizen receives a set amount of money regularly. That's it. The goals of a basic income system are to help alleviate poverty, not necessarily guarantee everyone's needs are fulfilled.
Look. Here's one way UBI could be done:
1) Create a tax on someone/something
2) From the money gained from said tax, redistribute it equally to everyone in society
Everyone now has a basic income. That's what universal basic income is. Social security is essentially basic income, it's just not universal, as it's only given to old folks who previously paid into it.
No ones arguing (or they at least shouldn't be) that it will guarantee everyone with enough money for everything they need (just as social security doesn't). But it can be done, and it can help alleviate poverty, particularly in the case for people who have absolutely 0 income.
> This is an incorrect view, perhaps you've been mislead or misunderstand?
UBI is widely understood to be a program that would replace all existing benefits. So in a European country for example would replace all cash, housing, child, family, disability benefits. Otherwise, there is no point. The practical argument being then you save money administering means tested benefits.
This is very easy to talk about without amounts which is why your vague and meaningless claims as to a source of the income are so useless.
> o ones arguing (or they at least shouldn't be) that it will guarantee everyone with enough money for everything they need
Then i would suggest you are out of touch with UBI advocates goals and ideas.
>UBI is widely understood to be a program that would replace all existing benefits...
It could certainly be done that way. It also doesn't have to be.
>Otherwise, there is no point. The practical argument being then you save money administering means tested benefits.
Sure lumping all benefits into one could reduce costs in overhead, but that doesn't mean there is no point to having separate benefits, as UBI is not means tested, and lumping means tested benefits into it would then get rid of any means. Now, whether this should be done or not is a matter of opinion, and one of which I'm not particularly arguing about. I'm merely showing you what UBI is, that it can be afforded, and that it can help alleviate poverty. I'm not arguing that it will provide enough income to meet everyones needs, nor arguing that we should implement it.
>This is very easy to talk about without amounts which is why your vague and meaningless claims as to a source of the income are so useless.
I find this a non sequitur. A non-zero amount is still an amount. If you argue I need to provide a number to prove that taxes can yield non-zero income/amounts, then I find you're being ridiculous.
>Then i would suggest you are out of touch with UBI advocates goals and ideas
I would suggest not lumping all UBI advocates as sharing the same goals/opinions. We need less grouping and labelling in politics, and more critical thinking. (I'm not a UBI advocate BTW).
And the map also shows where it has failed in the long term.
A hopelessly utopian endeavour that is devoid of any reality and only can work through some form of short term tyranny (lockdowns for example) and afterwards it is immediately stopped or phased out because it is unsustainable.
Anyone who thinks it can work forever on a larger scale, is really asking to bankrupt an entire country or wants another Greece-like eurozone crisis.
The way I see it, it would require the dirty work (and probably most non-dirty work) to be entirely automated. Up to and including repairing the automation.
You would need an entire restructuring of society. Humans need a purpose to avoid falling into depression. Jobs don’t need to be that purpose, but currently jobs fill that role for a huge percentage of the population (if not the career itself, the purpose of providing for themselves and their family). What can replace that is not completely clear yet.
I don't see how the two are related. I don't think people find a great sense of purpose in a job if the only thing that job provides them is to not starve to death.
I'm not saying the current source of purpose is the best source. I'm just saying life is currently organized around working for most people. Something (or many things) will need to replace that structure.
The natural environment already provides everything people need, if there aren't too many of them. The "fully automated luxury communism" we seek is already implemented by biology, and powered by the sun. Enclosure ended it.
Don't have to imagine, I'm living it. In my country of Finland every adult citizen is granted free housing, heating, electricity, water, Internet, healthcare and food. If you ask, you can also get extra for hobbies and irregular needs like furniture and appliances.
It's great. I've been able to dedicate my life to the highly uncertain career of computer art research. Never needed to work a job I didn't like. Zero debt.
Looking quickly at https://www.kela.fi/web/en , I see, for example, that, yes, there are unemployment benefits, but there is a work requirement.
I see that the sickness allowance is tied to income (though there is a minimum rate).
I see that there is an entire section called "Conscripts", which is worth noting.
I see a section that maybe(?) applies to your situation (?):
> Researchers who receive a Finnish grant for at least 4 months must take out insurance under the Farmers’ Pensions Act (MYEL) if the grant amounts to at least EUR 4,131 annually (in 2022). The entitlement to Kela benefits for researchers who receive a grant is based on this pension insurance policy for self-employed persons. The insurance is provided by the Farmers’ Social Insurance Institution (MELA).
Is your work funded by grants from the Finnish government?
In the US, there are various kinds of research grants too of course (none tied to housing, AFAIK, though it surely contributes to work requirements), but they are quite competitive to get, and the getting of them is basically what comprises the fairly high-status career of "professor". (Also some parts of the Defense and non-profit sectors.)
The specific mechanism is 'basic social assistance / income support'. It is a minimum amount of money that everyone has the right to, and is tied to your actual living expenses. To receive it one has to apply for it, a number of months at a time (varies, 1-6 months usually), and provide your bank account statement indicating that you've received no money from anywhere else (other income is subtracted), and you must send your bills as they come to receive matching compensation.
What you need to understand is that the institution handing them out, Kela, naturally must appear scary and imposing, impenetrable bureaucracy. Because simply giving out money is faux pas. So they have to use language like "this is a last resort emergency support you must only seek when all other options are exhausted". In reality, you simply refuse service from the unemployment office and they'll gladly hand you your benefits without complaint.
If they decline or give you less than you're entitled to (very rare), you simply complain to the complaints processing department and they got you covered. Personally I've never had much trouble.
There is a heavy cultural sentiment for "mooching off the government" in this manner. But my back of the envelope calculation indicates that every bum in Finland receiveing these benefits costs the average taxpayer about $1/month. Some of these people literally do nothing but drink beer for the full amount. I'm working on turning my life-long passion hobby into a career.
To get the NZ one you have to be over 65, have lived in NZ for 5 years after turning 50 and be a resident or citizen. If you never paid a cent of tax you are entitled to it.
The article mentions that many of its examples were conditional. This is another example. Limited for sure, but by age rather than luck, programme attendance, tribal affiliation, income, region etc, which those in the article were.
The article had a pretty loose definition of ‘universal’.
Basic income is like communism. Sounds good on paper. No matter where and how you try it, it will never be a true ubi experiment. And is ultimately doomed to fail because of human nature.
Communism works great, it just doesn't scale. Finland guarantees every adult citizen free education, housing, heating, electricity, water, Internet, healthcare, and food. They also provide extra funding for hobbies and irregular needs like furniture and appliances. In Israel, communal settlements called kibbutz hold all wealth is held in common and reinvest all profits in the settlement.
60 comments
[ 5.2 ms ] story [ 126 ms ] threadIt doesn't work. It can't work. Utopian ideals always end the same way: imposed only through tyranny.
Every study I've read by proponents starts from a view that it will work or must have a manner of working that is yet to be discovered because it meets the fundamental criteria of all their political beliefs; namely that all people are victims being oppressed by economic systems. Which is of course not true.
As with almost all "social science" studies, these are easily designed to prove whatever the author needs to.
people never considered widescale remote work as an option, when it became a necessity, we found a way to make it work.
i don't like blanket "it cant work" statements - not possible for one person to have the perspective to make such a judgement.
people deserve to live a life of dignity, what's the point of progress if it does not benefit all of us. not everything has to be driven by cold hearted free market ideas. we did not choose to exist.
It was always a middle layer management that was against and they still don't love it.
That aside, UBI when centralized through a bureaucracy is doomed to failure, ala the human condition, find a way to decentralize it and encourage human agency through an open system of shared, public, and private equity holdings..then maybe..(yeah I'm talking blockchain).
That's literally untrue. Almost every job I've ever had has had some element of WFH for the last 20 years. Even if your false supposition were correct it wouldn't be remotely related or comparable.
> people deserve to live a life of dignity, what's the point of progress if it does not benefit all of us. not everything has to be driven by cold hearted free market ideas. we did not choose to exist.
As predicted above - imposition of an unsubstantiated widespread victimhood used to inversely justify a need rather than a natural driver for it.
What's the point of getting an ice cream if not everyone gets one?
It was easy to see that remote work could work in more environments given the right push. Software and technology ultimately needed to improve and it absolutely has.
Now compare to UBI, it's just not feasible. We see countries with extreme inflation and how bad it is, we see that UBI requires tyranny to work, it's just not comparable to remote work in any way.
....because it exposes the emotional core of how fundamentally broken the philosophy of those who object to it.
Folks have guaranteed incomes now. Lots of folk, lots of places. The world hasn't ended. Pensions, annuities, allowances, grants.
Of course it can work. 90% of everything is automated now. We don't need everybody to work for what we consume, and haven't for a couple decades now. If it weren't for a strong Protestant Work Ethic and make-work programs, we'd see far more people doing things other than slaving away at a job.
In future it'll only get more appealing, when nearly 100% of our needs are met by automation. Sure, build some pointless strawman about "What if nobody does anything?!!!" Not a problem, as long as folks who work earn more, then there will always be willing folks to do Engineering and whatnot.
Face it, it's only FUD and that troubling work ethic that get people so riled up. Not logic nor pragmatism.
A pension or annuity paid for by your own effort is not even remotely related or comparable.
> Of course it can work. 90% of everything is automated now.
I'm not sure if it is funny or disturbing that you believe that. How sheltered, or privileged, must you be to believe it. The automation fantasy - I'll believe it when I see it.
So, in short, as per my post, your philosophy relies on an appeal to victimhood and a theoretician utopian advancement.
For something that's only Apparently 10% away it sure isn't manifesting in utopian robots everywhere
The obstacle to UBI is not financial nor technological. It's social. Old entrenched views that haven't been revisited since childhood, and the folks holding those views making decisions.
I think a generation will have to grow old and die before UBI will be found acceptable.
In the hypothetical future where UBI replaces jobs lost to automation, it’s not clear that would be inflationary.
There's probably even a named fallacy for what you're doing here.
Do some basic arithmetic and tell me how you come up with that money please.
Whether or not it can fit a government budget is a separate discussion. But I'll just say I'm very weary of these "destroying entire fields of research with basic arithmetic".
This is an incorrect view, perhaps you've been mislead or misunderstand? UBI is a government program in which every adult citizen receives a set amount of money regularly. That's it. The goals of a basic income system are to help alleviate poverty, not necessarily guarantee everyone's needs are fulfilled.
Look. Here's one way UBI could be done:
1) Create a tax on someone/something
2) From the money gained from said tax, redistribute it equally to everyone in society
Everyone now has a basic income. That's what universal basic income is. Social security is essentially basic income, it's just not universal, as it's only given to old folks who previously paid into it.
No ones arguing (or they at least shouldn't be) that it will guarantee everyone with enough money for everything they need (just as social security doesn't). But it can be done, and it can help alleviate poverty, particularly in the case for people who have absolutely 0 income.
UBI is widely understood to be a program that would replace all existing benefits. So in a European country for example would replace all cash, housing, child, family, disability benefits. Otherwise, there is no point. The practical argument being then you save money administering means tested benefits.
This is very easy to talk about without amounts which is why your vague and meaningless claims as to a source of the income are so useless.
> o ones arguing (or they at least shouldn't be) that it will guarantee everyone with enough money for everything they need
Then i would suggest you are out of touch with UBI advocates goals and ideas.
It could certainly be done that way. It also doesn't have to be.
>Otherwise, there is no point. The practical argument being then you save money administering means tested benefits.
Sure lumping all benefits into one could reduce costs in overhead, but that doesn't mean there is no point to having separate benefits, as UBI is not means tested, and lumping means tested benefits into it would then get rid of any means. Now, whether this should be done or not is a matter of opinion, and one of which I'm not particularly arguing about. I'm merely showing you what UBI is, that it can be afforded, and that it can help alleviate poverty. I'm not arguing that it will provide enough income to meet everyones needs, nor arguing that we should implement it.
>This is very easy to talk about without amounts which is why your vague and meaningless claims as to a source of the income are so useless.
I find this a non sequitur. A non-zero amount is still an amount. If you argue I need to provide a number to prove that taxes can yield non-zero income/amounts, then I find you're being ridiculous.
>Then i would suggest you are out of touch with UBI advocates goals and ideas
I would suggest not lumping all UBI advocates as sharing the same goals/opinions. We need less grouping and labelling in politics, and more critical thinking. (I'm not a UBI advocate BTW).
Plus by correctly taxing resource extraction.
A hopelessly utopian endeavour that is devoid of any reality and only can work through some form of short term tyranny (lockdowns for example) and afterwards it is immediately stopped or phased out because it is unsustainable.
Anyone who thinks it can work forever on a larger scale, is really asking to bankrupt an entire country or wants another Greece-like eurozone crisis.
How would it go?
Why should it be dissatisfying or why should people so easily adapt to the absence of that struggle?
It's great. I've been able to dedicate my life to the highly uncertain career of computer art research. Never needed to work a job I didn't like. Zero debt.
Looking quickly at https://www.kela.fi/web/en , I see, for example, that, yes, there are unemployment benefits, but there is a work requirement.
I see that the sickness allowance is tied to income (though there is a minimum rate).
I see that there is an entire section called "Conscripts", which is worth noting.
I see a section that maybe(?) applies to your situation (?):
> Researchers who receive a Finnish grant for at least 4 months must take out insurance under the Farmers’ Pensions Act (MYEL) if the grant amounts to at least EUR 4,131 annually (in 2022). The entitlement to Kela benefits for researchers who receive a grant is based on this pension insurance policy for self-employed persons. The insurance is provided by the Farmers’ Social Insurance Institution (MELA).
Is your work funded by grants from the Finnish government?
In the US, there are various kinds of research grants too of course (none tied to housing, AFAIK, though it surely contributes to work requirements), but they are quite competitive to get, and the getting of them is basically what comprises the fairly high-status career of "professor". (Also some parts of the Defense and non-profit sectors.)
Is that how your work is funded?
I'm really curious.
What you need to understand is that the institution handing them out, Kela, naturally must appear scary and imposing, impenetrable bureaucracy. Because simply giving out money is faux pas. So they have to use language like "this is a last resort emergency support you must only seek when all other options are exhausted". In reality, you simply refuse service from the unemployment office and they'll gladly hand you your benefits without complaint.
If they decline or give you less than you're entitled to (very rare), you simply complain to the complaints processing department and they got you covered. Personally I've never had much trouble.
There is a heavy cultural sentiment for "mooching off the government" in this manner. But my back of the envelope calculation indicates that every bum in Finland receiveing these benefits costs the average taxpayer about $1/month. Some of these people literally do nothing but drink beer for the full amount. I'm working on turning my life-long passion hobby into a career.
Everyone gets it and it isn’t means tested.
But it isn't ubi/bi because you earn it by paying national insurance. If you don't have enough years of NI history in the country you don't get it.
https://www.workandincome.govt.nz/eligibility/seniors/supera...
The article had a pretty loose definition of ‘universal’.