9 ms·

UBI is not a good solution because you still have to provision everything on the market, so it's a subsidy to private companies that sell the necessities of lif

by leshow 1y ago

UBI is not a good solution because you still have to provision everything on the market, so it's a subsidy to private companies that sell the necessities of life on the market. If we're dreaming up solutions to problems, much better would be to remove the essentials from the market and provide them to everyone universally. Non-market housing, healthcare, education all provided to every citizen by virtue of being a human.

sneak 1y ago
You can’t provide valuable things for “free” en masse without institutionalizing either slavery or robbery. The value must come from somewhere. The costs of what you propose are enormous. No legislation can change that fact. There ain’t no such thing as a free lunch. Who’s going to pay for it? Someone who is not paying for it today. How do you intend to get them to consent to that? Or do you think that the needs of the many should outweigh the consent of millions of people? The state, the only organization large enough to even consider undertaking such a project, has spending priorities that do not include these things. In the US, for example, we spend the entire net worth of Elon Musk (the “richest man in the world”, though he rightfully points out that Putin owns far more than he does) about every six months on the military alone. Add in Zuckerberg and you can get another 5 months or so. Then there’s the next year to think about. Maybe you can do Buffet and Gates; what about year three? That’s just for the US military, at present day spending levels. What you’re describing is at least an order of magnitude more expensive than that, just in one country that only has 4% of people. To extend it to all human beings, you’re talking about two more orders of magnitude. There aren’t enough billionaires on the entire planet even to pay for one country’s military expenses out of pocket (even if you completely liquidated them), and this proposed plan is 500-1000x more spending than that. You’re talking about 3-5 trillion dollars per year just for the USA - if you extrapolate out linearly, that’d be 60-200 trillion per year for the Earth. Even if you could reduce cost of provision by 90% due to economies of scale ($100/person/month for housing, healthcare, and education combined, rather than $1000 - a big stretch), it is still far, far too big to do under any currently envisioned system of wealth redistribution. Society is big and wealthy private citizens (ie billionaires) aren’t that numerous or rich. There is a reason we all pay for our own food and housing.
- mcny 1y ago
  > You’re talking about 3-5 trillion dollars per year just for the USA I just want to point out that's about a fifth of our GDP and we spend about this much for healthcare in the US. We badly need a way to reduce this to at least half. > There is a reason we all pay for our own food and housing. The main reason I support UBI is I don't want need based or need aware distribution. I want everyone to get benefits equally regardless of income or wealth. That's my entire motivation to support UBI. If you can come up with another something that guarantees no need based or need aware and does not have a benefit cliff, I support that too. I am not married to UBI.
  - listenallyall 1y ago
    > I support UBI Honestly, what type of housing do you envision under a UBI system? Houses? Modern apartment buildings? College dormitory-like buildings? Soviet-style complexes? Prison-style accommodations? B stands for basic, how basic?
    - ben_w 1y ago
      (Not the person you're replying to) I think a UBI system is only stable in conjunction with sufficient automation that work itself becomes redundant. Before that point, I don't think UBI can genuinely be sustained; and IMO even very close to that point the best I expect we will see, if we're lucky, is the state pension age going down. (That it's going up in many places suggests that many governments do not expect this level of automation any time soon). Therefore, in all seriousness, I would anticipate a real UBI system to provide whatever housing you want, up to and including things that are currently unaffordable even to billionaires, e.g. 1:1 scale replicas of any of the ships called Enterprise including both aircraft carriers and also the fictional spaceships. That said, I am a proponent of direct state involvement in the housing market, e.g. the UK council housing system as it used to be (but not as it now is, there're not building enough): • https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_housing_in_the_United_Kingdom https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_housing_in_the_United_K... • https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_house https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_house
victorbjorklund 1y ago
So basically the model North Korea practices?
- ido 1y ago
  > Non-market housing, healthcare, education all provided to every citizen This can also describe Nordic and Germanic models of welfare capitalism (incrementally dismantled with time but still exist): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welfare_capitalism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welfare_capitalism
jostylr 1y ago
Your solution would ultimately lead to treating all those items as uniform goods, but they are not. There are preferences different people have. This is why the price system is so useful. It indicates what is desired by various people and gives strong signals as to what to make or not. If you have a central authority making the decisions, they will not get it right. Individual companies may not get it right, but the corrective mechanism of failure (profit loss, bankruptcy) corrects that while when governments provide this, it is extremely difficult to correct it as it is one monolithic block. In the market, you can choose various different companies for different needs. In the government in a democracy, you have to choose all of one politician or all of another. And as power is concentrated, the worst people go after it. It is true with companies, but people can choose differently. With the state, there is no alternative. That is what makes it the state rather than a corporation. It is also interesting that you did not mention food, clothing and super-computers-in-pockets. While government is involved in everything, they are less involved in those markets than with housing, healthcare, and education, particularly in mandates as to what to do. Government has created the problem of scarcity in housing, healthcare, and education. Do you really think the current leadership of the US should control everyone's housing, healthcare, and education? The idea of a UBI is that it strips the politicians of that fine-grained control. There is still control that can be leveraged, but it comes down to a single item of focus. It could very well be disastrous, but it need not be whereas the more complex system that you give politicians control over, the more likely it will be disastrous.

by leshow 1y ago

sneak 1y ago

You can’t provide valuable things for “free” en masse without institutionalizing either slavery or robbery. The value must come from somewhere. The costs of what you propose are enormous. No legislation can change that fact. There ain’t no such thing as a free lunch. Who’s going to pay for it? Someone who is not paying for it today. How do you intend to get them to consent to that? Or do you think that the needs of the many should outweigh the consent of millions of people? The state, the only organization large enough to even consider undertaking such a project, has spending priorities that do not include these things. In the US, for example, we spend the entire net worth of Elon Musk (the “richest man in the world”, though he rightfully points out that Putin owns far more than he does) about every six months on the military alone. Add in Zuckerberg and you can get another 5 months or so. Then there’s the next year to think about. Maybe you can do Buffet and Gates; what about year three? That’s just for the US military, at present day spending levels. What you’re describing is at least an order of magnitude more expensive than that, just in one country that only has 4% of people. To extend it to all human beings, you’re talking about two more orders of magnitude. There aren’t enough billionaires on the entire planet even to pay for one country’s military expenses out of pocket (even if you completely liquidated them), and this proposed plan is 500-1000x more spending than that. You’re talking about 3-5 trillion dollars per year just for the USA - if you extrapolate out linearly, that’d be 60-200 trillion per year for the Earth. Even if you could reduce cost of provision by 90% due to economies of scale ($100/person/month for housing, healthcare, and education combined, rather than $1000 - a big stretch), it is still far, far too big to do under any currently envisioned system of wealth redistribution. Society is big and wealthy private citizens (ie billionaires) aren’t that numerous or rich. There is a reason we all pay for our own food and housing.

mcny 1y ago
> You’re talking about 3-5 trillion dollars per year just for the USA I just want to point out that's about a fifth of our GDP and we spend about this much for healthcare in the US. We badly need a way to reduce this to at least half. > There is a reason we all pay for our own food and housing. The main reason I support UBI is I don't want need based or need aware distribution. I want everyone to get benefits equally regardless of income or wealth. That's my entire motivation to support UBI. If you can come up with another something that guarantees no need based or need aware and does not have a benefit cliff, I support that too. I am not married to UBI.
- listenallyall 1y ago
  > I support UBI Honestly, what type of housing do you envision under a UBI system? Houses? Modern apartment buildings? College dormitory-like buildings? Soviet-style complexes? Prison-style accommodations? B stands for basic, how basic?
  - ben_w 1y ago
    (Not the person you're replying to) I think a UBI system is only stable in conjunction with sufficient automation that work itself becomes redundant. Before that point, I don't think UBI can genuinely be sustained; and IMO even very close to that point the best I expect we will see, if we're lucky, is the state pension age going down. (That it's going up in many places suggests that many governments do not expect this level of automation any time soon). Therefore, in all seriousness, I would anticipate a real UBI system to provide whatever housing you want, up to and including things that are currently unaffordable even to billionaires, e.g. 1:1 scale replicas of any of the ships called Enterprise including both aircraft carriers and also the fictional spaceships. That said, I am a proponent of direct state involvement in the housing market, e.g. the UK council housing system as it used to be (but not as it now is, there're not building enough): • https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_housing_in_the_United_Kingdom https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_housing_in_the_United_K... • https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_house https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_house

victorbjorklund 1y ago

So basically the model North Korea practices?

ido 1y ago
> Non-market housing, healthcare, education all provided to every citizen This can also describe Nordic and Germanic models of welfare capitalism (incrementally dismantled with time but still exist): https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welfare_capitalism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welfare_capitalism

jostylr 1y ago

Your solution would ultimately lead to treating all those items as uniform goods, but they are not. There are preferences different people have. This is why the price system is so useful. It indicates what is desired by various people and gives strong signals as to what to make or not. If you have a central authority making the decisions, they will not get it right. Individual companies may not get it right, but the corrective mechanism of failure (profit loss, bankruptcy) corrects that while when governments provide this, it is extremely difficult to correct it as it is one monolithic block. In the market, you can choose various different companies for different needs. In the government in a democracy, you have to choose all of one politician or all of another. And as power is concentrated, the worst people go after it. It is true with companies, but people can choose differently. With the state, there is no alternative. That is what makes it the state rather than a corporation. It is also interesting that you did not mention food, clothing and super-computers-in-pockets. While government is involved in everything, they are less involved in those markets than with housing, healthcare, and education, particularly in mandates as to what to do. Government has created the problem of scarcity in housing, healthcare, and education. Do you really think the current leadership of the US should control everyone's housing, healthcare, and education? The idea of a UBI is that it strips the politicians of that fine-grained control. There is still control that can be leveraged, but it comes down to a single item of focus. It could very well be disastrous, but it need not be whereas the more complex system that you give politicians control over, the more likely it will be disastrous.