VC Firm Y Combinator Launches an Experiment In Universal Basic Income (fastcoexist.com)

New submitter Gordon_Shure writes: Silicon Valley startup financer Y Combinator, remembered for successes like Airbnb and Dropbox, is launching an experiment to give people a Universal Basic Income. At present, the plan is for hundreds of participants to get repeated cash payments unconditionally. Then, assessors will record life consequences like changes in work patterns, self-employment, artistic endeavors, or idleness.

Recent focus on UBI in Finland, Switzerland and other countries see proponents claim a basic income will — in a world facing structural unemployment due to jobs taken by automated AI, robotics and machines — combat poverty and work insecurity. Others remain unconvinced. What do you think about the significance of what this kind of small-population study would show?

Comments

Interesting

[KermodeBear]

An interesting experiment, to be sure, and I'm glad that someone has the money to try it out.

It's hard to know until you're actually in the situation, of course, but I think that if I had a minimum income in addition to what I make now, I'd drop down to working part time and spend the balance volunteering and pursuing music again.

Re:Interesting

[ArmoredDragon]

As somebody who is very heavily opposed to communism and socialism, I'm interested in seeing the results of UBI (which is neither communism nor socialism, rather just a form of welfare) however I wouldn't want it anywhere I plan to live anytime soon, because it's one of those things where once you have it, it's practically impossible to take away, no matter what kinds of problems it creates or doesn't actually solve.

Re:Interesting

[Anonymous Coward]

It's a temporary study, so here's my prediction:

People currently living beyond their means will continue to live beyond their elevated means.
People capable of affording their current lifestyle will invest the additional income.
People who tend to make bad decisions will quit their jobs and pursue fame by some manner. Any success in this group will be seen as a strong argument for the UBI even if it proves to be statistically consistent with other people who drop their lives to pursue fame.

Re:Interesting

[pr0t0]

I'd drop down to working part time

While filling the remaining time with volunteering and strengthening the arts is noble, maybe even desirable in some sense; I'm guessing this modification to your work schedule is precisely why the UBI would fail on a larger scale...at least in the United States. It would seem to me the only way, or maybe just the best way, to judge it as a success is if not much else changed beyond lowering the costs of supporting those who cannot support themselves.

If a reduction in workforce productivity coincides with the UBI, a claim will be made that humans are lazy and will not work if they don't have to. Maybe they are correct. It was certainly the claim as to why Communism, or maybe Marxist Socialism, was or would be an inevitable failure. I'm not an economist, so my opinion on the matter is largely uninformed.

The UBI is interesting in principle, particularly if lowering the costs of supporting those who cannot support themselves can be achieved. If a measure of dignity and self-sufficiency can be returned to those people as well, all the better.

I personally wouldn't change my life at all.

Re:Interesting

[BitZtream]

Not really all the interesting.

In any economy you do this in that isn't already under tight controls ... the economy experiences an inflation period that effectively consumes the UBI payment and now people are worse off than they were before.

Re:Interesting

[ShanghaiBill]

now people are worse off than they were before.

In aggregate, this would almost certainly be true. But UBI is not supposed to create wealth, it is supposed to redistribute it. The "losers" would be people that work and pay taxes. The "winners" would be people that don't. So inequality would be reduced, at the cost of lower production through reduced incentives. But is the reduction in inequality enough to justify the reduction in productivity, especially when compared to alternatives like EITC? We don't know, and that is what this experiment is designed to find out.

Re:Interesting

[BarbaraHudson]

People dropping down to part-time work will increase demand for other people to fill in the gaps. It's better to have two people working part-time than one full-time and one idle, and the financial cost is the same either way.

With all the productivity gains in the last 45 years, we should be down to a 16-hour work week if the increases were divided equitably between employers and employees. So, since that didn't happen voluntarily, looks like the invisible hand is going to impose it on businesses whether they like it or not :-)

Re:Interesting

[Forgefather]

I'm not entirely convinced that the number of net work hours will even decrease. It is an interesting experiment, and I will hypothesize that the results will be determined by the financial state of the person that started receiving the UBI. I think that the largest change in behavior will come from people in the middle to lower income levels. People with very little income level will most likely have most of the money consumed simply escaping debt, which is usually what has them locked into lower income levels while the middle class will see the most change.

I predict that most of the middle of the road people who show up for a paycheck will cut back on hours worked during the day while most of the 'doers' will increase their average time worked. I feel that with more security on the financial side the people who are more naturally inclined to take risks and push the envelope will lose the largest disincentive to making a startup in their financial insecurity in the event of failure. Thus I predict certain groups will end up working even more hours than they were before because many people today work for reasons other than a paycheck.

Regardless of number of hours worked I feel that this move will have significant upward pressure on wages. With people cutting back hours due to disinterest there will be a decrease in the supply of labor and most of all UBI gives every single person bargaining power in terms of salary. For people of all income levels having an income that gives you the time and luxury to find a good job with a good salary gives you tremendous advantage in salary negotiations, which, properly leveraged, can translate to salary increases even in what were traditionally minimum wage jobs. Who wants to slave behind a cash register for 8 dollars an hour when they aren't desperate to feed their kids?

In the end the question will be whether those that choose to make do with the basic income can be supported by the the ones that choose to work, but the idea can certainly generate benefit for everyone involved through increased wages and a decreased number of people who show up to fill a seat.

Re:Interesting

[tlhIngan]

As somebody who is very heavily opposed to communism and socialism, I'm interested in seeing the results of UBI (which is neither communism nor socialism, rather just a form of welfare) however I wouldn't want it anywhere I plan to live anytime soon, because it's one of those things where once you have it, it's practically impossible to take away, no matter what kinds of problems it creates or doesn't actually solve.

You do realize you're paying for other people's laziness/unemployability all the time, right?

Anytime any politician says "We will cut back benefits to the lazy and all that" it's really code for "We, the 1%, want to pay less taxes supporting your sorry asses". Because the homeless won't suddenly decide that because their government benefits are cut back, they will suddenly work. A lot of homeless ARE working - they don't make enough to pay for rent, food and other necessities. The ones that aren't, are generally unemployable - mental illness, drugs, alcohol or other problems keep them from holding even the most basic of jobs.

These people will not magically become productive members of society by cutting benefits. The working poor won't magically get better paying jobs (in fact, they'd likely lose their existing jobs), the mentally ill will not become employable (they need medical treatment, but they can't pay for that), etc.

Instead, those people will just become what the desperate do - steal/rob for the money and basic necessities they need. So instead of paying for their support through taxes, you're paying for them through increased crime, increased prices as stores have to cope with more shrinkage, increased security, etc. And yes, you can jail them - pay for more police officers, more courts, more jails. And medical bills - medical treatment inside the ER is the most expensive treatment option available - and the only one available, so you pay through increased insurance premiums helping people who can't pay at all for some of the most expensive medical treatment available.

Yes, it's all well and good to "be responsible" and "take care of yourself" and all that, but there will always be a segment of society that can't or won't. And it's either pay through taxes to take care of them, or abandon them and pay through other societal costs.

The only real question is - will basic income be done right? Because the basic income gets you basically very little - accomodations inside a large barracks-style room (you get a locker for your stuff, but that's it - you sleep with 8/16 other people at night), shared washroom facilities and entertainment, and 3 basic nutritionally complete meals a day.

That's what it really pays for - the absolute basics with very little discretionary money left over. Enough to live on, and for a few people, positively all they really need. If you want more spending money so you can live in more private accommodations, eat better food, have cash to pursue a hobby or anything else, then you need to do something to make extra money.

Sure, a few people will be happy to lounge around with the basics - that's fine. But a lot more people will want to improve their lot in life - I mean barracks style living only appeals so much.

Really, what happens is basic income transforms work from a necessity of survival (you can count having to steal or mug people as an occupation those without jobs have to do to survive), to a means to improve yourself. Eventually people want to have a private bathroom in their living arrangements, or private laundry, or watch more than just OTA TV, etc. So you work as much as you need to feel satisfied.

And it's sort of essential as robots and everything takes over - because those people whose jobs have been displaced aren't going to be able to find new replacement jobs no matter how much extra training they do.

Re: Interesting

[maple_shaft]

Despite the fact that the elephant in the room that macro economists are scared to death of is the drop in demand for goods and services in a mature economy. This causes natural deflation in a free market void of central bank interference. Japan for the first time is offering negative interest rates, a country that struggled with dropping consumer demand for decades. We are seeing the same things in the US and other countries where central banks are practically giving money for free with the hopes that it will trigger investment and demand. That and quantitative easing and creating new money out of thin air yet runaway inflation STILL does not occur! Most people work just hard enough to make just enough money to live a comfortable life with a few luxuries, but with productivity at record levels, not only do we have less and less need for productive workers for capitalists to make money, things that we have today that 40 years ago were toys of the rich are now common and cheap for the masses. Demand for more and more sophisticated luxuries is not continuous, it tapers off for most healthy functioning adults. This is clearly true or marketing services wouldn't be a billion dollar industry, using psychological tricks to convince people of needs that they don't have. This is only sustainable for only so long before we realize that demand cannot increase forever, constant growth cannot be sustained, and the value of human labor is approaching zero with productivity and automation gains. Universal income will not cause inflation as food and necessities on the supply side already surpass the possible demand from the population as a whole. With needs, we don't demand more food when our bellies are full, we don't demand additional homes and healthcare than what is necessary for us to stay alive. Everything else is a luxury and is a want not a need but in most people wants are limited too without psychological tricks. UBI will clearly not cause inflation, it is a necessary step towards a post consumer economy and society.

Re:Interesting

[tricorn]

A Basic Income doesn't have to be "barracks-style living". My thinking on a UBI is something on the order of $2000/month. Sure, in some places that won't get you much, in others you'll be quite comfortable. Yet, how many people here yearn to live on $24K/year and wouldn't take a job (if available) to improve your condition?

Re:Interesting

[monkeyxpress]

It's a temporary study, so here's my prediction:

People currently living beyond their means will continue to live beyond their elevated means.

What does this even mean when you have a global economy with surplus capacity? Machines/People are sitting around not making stuff because those living within their means just want to save, and those living beyond their means are being told not to borrow the money those living within their means are desperate trying to shove into their bank accounts through the finance industry. An entire economy can't save for next year's harvest by hoarding piles of green paper.

People capable of affording their current lifestyle will invest the additional income.

By desperately trying to find someone to borrow the money off them, even though negative real interest rates would suggest you ain't going to find any takers.

People who tend to make bad decisions will quit their jobs and pursue fame by some manner. Any success in this group will be seen as a strong argument for the UBI even if it proves to be statistically consistent with other people who drop their lives to pursue fame.

As opposed to doing a job we could easily automate but won't because those of us who still have utility value ensure (through housing benefits, tax credits) that subsistence level humans can out compete robots for all the rubbish jobs.

I'm not a fan of lazy people. But I don't think it makes sense to have them do jobs that robots could do under the threat of starvation, simply so that I can feel better about some kind of puritan work ethic that was beaten into me as a child.

Re:Interesting

[Anonymous Coward]

You do realize the entire left-right paradigm is essentially a fallacy when analyzed to any depth?

Re:Interesting

[jedidiah]

You mean large standing armies... yeah kind of.

Roads represent a natural monopoly. They also represent an area where there have been well documented historical abuses. You should only go full retard when it's necessary. You should not start out going full retard.

This is the difference between communists and the rest of us. You think that the government is the solution to try FIRST regardless of how many bad examples we might have of that practice.

Imposing a government monopoly should be the ABSOLUTE LAST option you try after everything else has failed.

The same idiots and thieves that you can't trust to run their own lives are the ones running the government.

Re:Interesting

[SoftwareArtist]

The question is whether it actually would reduce productivity. The summary mentions "a world facing structural unemployment due to jobs taken by automated AI, robotics and machines." If you believe (as I do, and as the people behind this study clearly do) that we're heading toward a world where productivity isn't driven by human labor, we'd better start figuring out how to support all those people who won't be needed to maintain productivity.

Besides, there are many kinds of "productivity", and economists are much better at measuring some than others. A parent who stays home to raise their children may be contributing far more to society than if they were running a cash register at the grocery. But conventional economic measures only include the latter while ignoring the former.

Re:Interesting

[duckintheface]

The original definition of Marxist Socialism involves state ownership of the means of production. The nordic counties used to be socialist but that ended in the 1980s (I lived in Sweden at the time). France is the most socialist country in Western Europe. The social democracies of Europe (like Bernie's democratic socialism) do not involve the state owning production.

If you want to use the looser definition of socialism often employed in the US (transfer of wealth from top to bottom) then every government that has ever existed is socialist. So that's not a useful defintion.

Re:Interesting

[YrWrstNtmr]

And this $2000/month comes from...where?

Re:Interesting

[GameboyRMH]

Ah, the "rising tide causes inflation" idea, which is incompatible with any existing theory of how inflation works. I've even seen some people suggest that increased minimum wages would trigger the same effect. According to this idea, it seems that the only force keeping inflation in check is the desperation of underpaid workers.

Re:Interesting

[roman_mir]

I have 0 interest in people who will steal and rob and murder because they are poor. 0 interest and 0 use.

If you look at people who are very wealthy, they feel they have no choice but to hire private security regardless of them paying way more in every form of tax than any one of you ever will here in your entire life times. That is beside the fact that people who are extremely wealthy normally achieve that wealth by creating companies that cater to millions, tens or hundreds of millions of users and clients. That's the way to become a billionaire - run companies that produce on a scale that satisfies demands of millions of people. By making even 1 dollar off of millions of people you get millions in income. To satisfy demands of millions of people you have to create very good value, you likely have to do much better than the competition (of-course I am not talking about companies that rely on government provided monopolies and subsidies of any kind, who also do very well but not because they could do it on their own but because they have strong ties to government and money stolen from millions of individuals by governments).

So your average billionaire pays for private security in many different ways, whether this is enough to keep safe is an interesting question, probably nothing is ever enough for security, but the same is true for collectivist thieves - nothing is ever enough.

You can be paying millions in taxes and yet you will be called '1%, who is not paying their fair share' whatever the fuck that is.

I say that it is unfair to tax income of people who produce in the first place. Tax those who do not produce and who go out and steal, that's my position. Tax them, force them to repay everything they steal. But of-course this is too obvious to be accepted, because you will never make enough money that way to create the welfare state that you are rooting for every time you say that there has to be payment one way or another to those who will steal and murder.

AFAIC if you are stealing and murdering regardless of your circumstances, you are unfit to live in society where some people produce to live.

Re: Interesting

[Sibko]

UBI can't increase inflation - ever. It's not adding money to the economy, it's redistributing what already exists.

It's not the same thing as just giving everyone a million bucks. UBI is essentially a reformation of pre-existing welfare that gets rid of all the overhead and administrative costs involved in deciding who gets what.

Taxpayers on the high end (the upper 20% certainly) are paying tens of thousands, even hundreds of thousands or millions of dollars in taxes. They avoid what they can, but they still pay a lot. These people will get say, $800/mo back from the government. It's a pittance to them, and doesn't offset their taxes whatsoever.

Meanwhile someone making less than $10,000/year, is now doubling that to almost $20,000. That's HUGE for them.

UBI is, in essence, a redistribution of money from those who pay the highest taxes to those who pay the least, and it's done without even increasing taxes. Been a long time coming, to be quite honest.

More importantly, doubling the income of people in the lower income brackets is going to massively increase consumer spending. This is the connection that finally completes the circuit on the flow of money in our economies. Right now it's just been accumulating in the coffers of the very rich, being invested and re-invested in ways that always gain and never lose them money, which has resulted in stagnation across the western world.

Increased consumer spending will also come on top of and out of, increased wages that will result when people aren't faced with a reality of work for a pittance or die, and can now actually negotiate fair wages for themselves from a position of financial security.

The biggest winners in UBI economies are the lower and middle classes, but there are no actual losers in a UBI economy. Even the ultra-rich who are most effected by taxation, are going to see their investments and businesses increasing in profits due to the explosion in consumer spending. The only real issue is overcoming everyone's preconceived notions of what UBI is and does - like this idea that it increases inflation because people now have more money to spend. It might be more apt to say that UBI will 'simply' massively increase the velocity of money in the economy.

With that said, there's a fair number of the ultra-rich who seem to think the masses deserve to wallow in misery - it's not enough that they win, everyone else also has to lose. UBI won't be able to fix that, and these types will be the ones hardest to overcome in regards to implementation of UBI, because they have the wealth necessary to fight it to the death.

Right now, the solution our "elites" have come up with to offset our unsustainable stagnating economic systems, is to import foreigners to continue massive economic growth: More people to tax, more loans to give out, more debt to add to GDP "growth", and lower wages across the board to save money. It's the wrong approach because they aren't considering most of the actual social/economic costs doing this. As such, I'm not particularly concerned about all this for the future of humanity - in the long run something like a UBI will be implemented regardless. The alternatives are completely unworkable and will result in collapse or at least greatly reduced economic efficiency; while UBI achieves the opposite, both with increased velocity of money and allowing the economy to continue to function while it is further automated.

The nations that implement UBI-like systems will succeed, and the ones who don't will fail. The actual choice we're faced with in the near future here, isn't whether or not we should implement a system like UBI, but whether we'll put it off until after economic collapse, political/social instability, and civil unrest/war, or before.

Knowing humanity, we're definitely going to kill each other a bunch first.

Re:Interesting

[BarbaraHudson]

Do some proper research. Pre-industrial societies worked far less than you think. And it's a HUGE lie to say anything like " Productivity increases both improved the standard of living and made it possible to work less. More recently, productivity increases have gone mostly to improving the standard of living rather than reducing work." The productivity increases over the last 45 years have not been responsible for the increased standard of working - that's from the huge increase in average household debt. The productivity gains, after discounting for inflation, haven't shown up in worker's paychecks.

The middle class used to own a home, a car, send their kids to school, take an annual vacation, and save up for retirement, all on one income. That doesn't happen so much any more, especially on a single income. Most people, even with two incomes, are stretched.

The reason houses are getting larger is debt. Not increased incomes. And houses in the more desirable areas, despite huge increases in cost, are getting smaller. You've got houses that look like tear-downs going for insane prices.

Re:Interesting

[lsatenstein]

As somebody who is very heavily opposed to communism and socialism, I'm interested in seeing the results of UBI (which is neither communism nor socialism, rather just a form of welfare) however I wouldn't want it anywhere I plan to live anytime soon, because it's one of those things where once you have it, it's practically impossible to take away, no matter what kinds of problems it creates or doesn't actually solve.

You offer no advantages to starving and restricting health/legal access to the poor. Your method increases the crime rate, as people who have nothing, will do anything to survive.

A person on the production line doesn't have a well endowed 491K. You know what it's like, food, medicine, rent money has to be juggled.

I too am opposed to communism, where the state owns it all. Democratic socialism is what makes a world class country.

So...

[psergiu]

Does the study include some "middle-class" test subjects so see how well they do after paying higher taxes ?

Re:So...

[vux984]

I am not intimately familiar with the tax regime where ever you live, but every where I've ever lived, as your income goes up your taxes go up incrementally only on the additional income.

e.g. if you make 10,000 you get taxed, 0$
if you make 30,000 you get taxed 0$ on the first 10, and then 10% of the next 20, for a total of 2k

if you make 50,000 you get taxed 0$ on the first 10, 10% on the next 20k, and then 30% on the next 30k. For a total of ~12k.

In super progressive taxation, it can get up to 60% and beyond. But that rate only starts on the dollars OVER X$.

So you don't "lose money" by reaching a higher tax bracket, you just make progressively less with each additional dollar.

Ie... your first thousand dollars you keep every penny of those dollars, but your 200,000th dollar you keep only 45 cents of that dollar.

So,even if I'm in the top tax bracket, and you give me another 10,000 in income I'll take it. I'll only keep 4,000. But that's still 4,000 more than I had. And if I'm smart, and invest it or shelter it I get to keep more than if I just use it as more walking-around-money.

Making more money and "Paying higher taxes" still means I took home more money than if I hadn't made more money in the first place.

So this all boils down to: "Does the study include some "middle-class" test subjects so see how well they do after paying higher taxes ?"

Why EXACTLY do you see this as a likely issue? Are you just unfamiliar with how taxes actually work? Or bad at math? Or is there some genuine issue that arises where you live if someone gave you a bunch of money that it would somehow ruin your life?

Its true there are some edge cases in tax law, where as your income goes up you no longer qualify for certain deductions or subsidies, but even then its nearly always a zero sum game. And worst case you end up with the same amount you started with despite receiving more money. But these usually only affect the lower/barely middle class.

The only "trap" to suddenly making more money is not being aware what you can keep, and spending more than you actually were entitled to keep, creating a tax bill you don't have money to pay. (e.g. if you make 50,000 a year set aside money to pay a tax bill for someone who makes 50k a year, and someone gives you a new 10k in income, going on a 10k vacation with it is pretty stupid.)

Re:So...

[Junta]

I don't see where the parent claimed that the higher taxes would be through being elevated by UBI. His point was that the money has to come from somewhere (given the current state of economy, taxes), and in his example he believed the working class would carry a higher burden than the UBI would offset. You couldn't fund a UBI out of anything even vaguely pretending to be a 'fixed' currency without taking it from those with money, and contrary to people who sharpen the pitchforks, the 'wealthy' don't have enough to take to deliver what people want from a UBI. Now one could reasonably make the argument that things aren't that simple (money isn't fundamentally anything but an arbitrary number), but the argument gets very complex and subjective (trying to use a rational set of systems to characterize a population that frequently acts irrationally works ok most of the time, but this is a stretch so it's hard to predict).

All that said, the tax bracket confusion and deductions are two things that puzzle me the most about common talk. "No, don't pay down your mortgage early, then you lose the tax deduction!" I could either have a few thousand dollars, or not have it, but be comforted knowing it got me out of a couple hundred dollars of tax bill, brilliant!

Re: So...

[narcc]

Why do you think most people would do nothing? The motivation to improve their lot in life aside, I can't imagine most people are willing to just stay idle. I can think of few people who would. From pursuing personal projects, to volunteering for causes they think are important, just about everyone I know has something that would productively occupy their time.

Most people, you'll find, want to feel useful. Most people take pride in the work that they do.

A carpenter I know who volunteers >40 hours a week at a social club, of which I'm a member, often proudly shows-off pictures of the work he's done during the week. At that same club, a retired woman volunteers so often she's regularly scheduled for shifts like our regular employees. She loves the work the club does for the local community and wants to contribute in some meaningful way. So much so that she essentially works for free full-time. She's been offered a paycheck countless times and continues to refuse it. She doesn't think that she'd be helping the club if she took a wage.

That's just two people, but I can easily go on. You mentioned farming and grave digging. I don't know anyone in the latter category, but I can't imagine that it would be difficult to find people willing to maintain a cemetery. (There is at least one around here that is all volunteer.) As for farming, I do know a fellow who left an otherwise excellent career to return to farming, despite a significant cut in pay. He grew up on a farm, and finds a lot of fulfillment in that sort of work.

Fulfillment is the key here, I think. If you hate working and would rather be idle than do something productive, you simply aren't finding any value in the work you do. You're working for a paycheck, trading your life for money. That's not what most people want. Even among those with few options, they try to take pride in the work that they do. Some of them will even brag about how they've mastered each of the sections/tasks/machines and can work at any station. They seek more than a wage, but a sense of satisfaction.

If that's been denied to you, though circumstance or poor choices, I'm sorry. No one in this modern age should be working just to survive or working in some absurd quest to accumulate wealth. I'd recommend that you find work that you enjoy, or that at least that offers you something more than a check at the end of the week. Perhaps, then, you'd understand why someone would work voluntarily.

Patreon

[0100010001010011]

Sounds a lot like Patreon where people will pay you for "self-employment, artistic endeavors, or idleness."

But has just ended up turning into a grandstanding for a certain minority of people.

My prediction is the money will flow to the loudest and most offensive grandstanders and people that could have been helped by this will most likely be ignored.

Then again I don't earn $4.7k/month not doing anything for FreeBSD under a name very containing FreeBSD.

Modified life plan for this goal..

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm an electrical engineer. I've worked in lots of neat jobs.

A few years ago I realized none of those technical jobs would get me off the hamster wheel; having enough investments so I could eat, pay for basic living expenses, and then make nifty things and services instead. Financial independence. This is not the same thing as being filthy rich; for an accurate number, it involves having about $500k in liquid assets under investment generating income. Assuming you're willing to live someplace cheap. (I am)

I'm not from money, quite the opposite, and am unwilling to risk it all on ability to raise capital. I didn't understand how the rich stayed rich. I know what not having money to buy food feels like. Not going there. Ever again.

I looked at where the money is, and there's lots of it in financial-related industries, particularly if you're good with numbers - and even "advanced" financial math isn't that difficult relative to engineering.

My goal - through a career change and making other investment a life priority - was to get off the hamster wheel. I've devoted 10 years, or a measurable percentage of my life to this so I can enjoy the rest. I'm 6 years into my plan, and on track to make my goals, along with my wife, who shares my ambition to be free. ...but look at this!

Guaranteed income offers everyone that chance. Go do what you want to the net benefit of society. Remove that worry and fear. Remove the stigma. Hell, call it a citizenship dividend.

People will work; it's in our natures. What will change is what and how they work; most (many) jobs are pointless and should be automated. They WILL be automated in short order. Once this happens you can become a prison state, ripe for chaos; or you can adopt a scheme like this one.

We live in the future. This will be interesting.

Re:Modified life plan for this goal..

[liquid_schwartz]

People will work; it's in our natures.

I'm not sure I agree with your premise. I know that some people will always work. Myself and my mom for example. My two sisters probably wouldn't. My ex wife, a childhood friend, and a few others I know all avoid work as much as possible. Fun experiment, ask a lazy person do help you and see how fast they are busy that day. I am not against the citizen dividend as long as the citizens have to something other than breathe to get it. Work and pay taxes, great you qualify. If you're retired or not working a paying job then you have to do something else. I like what Maine has done with regards to people who want free stuff, where you have to volunteer a certain number of hours to qualify. Everyone I know on disability is doing a big fat nothing to help the world that helps them. This is wrong. I'm not against helping people, however money for nothing is a bad idea.

Re:Modified life plan for this goal..

[monkeyxpress]

Wow this is such a different take from me. I'm also an electrical engineer. I got tired of the hamster wheel, but not because of the financial serf-dom side of things (I never found the pay an issue), but because it was just incredibly boring. Even working for great companies on cool projects generally boils down to doing a whole lot of mundane form filling, process following and politicking. The days of being able to do neat engineering work just got less and less, and as you get older you quickly realise that nobody generally wants to create the 'next big thing'. They just want to do a bunch of small marketing driven improvements to maintain profits for as long as possible and sweat capital (just look at the iPhone/iPad). NBT is too risky and disruptive and few companies will do it unless forced to.

The reality though is that if the boredom didn't get to you, you could (and still can in many places) have a great middle class life as an EE.

For me I ended up starting a business. It was extremely exciting, but the downside is it was like peeling away the nice facade that is the middle class and realising that most of the people who run the show are somewhere between an immature 2 year old who keeps throwing their toys out of the cot, and an ice cold sociopath who will hunt you down and destroy your life in a completely non-sensical way if you happen to stubble into the path of whatever it is they think they were born to do in life.

Now I just find it hard to take anything seriously, including the whole notion of 'financial security'. There is no such thing unless you are Kim Jong Un and own your own country (even then...). The true escape from this life is to realise it is all a crazy game that most people take too seriously, and that we will all die in a pretty short amount of time.

Re:Modified life plan for this goal..

[Compholio]

... Fun experiment, ask a lazy person do help you and see how fast they are busy that day. ...

I am most interested in this because I find that lazy people get in the way of real work since you make them look bad if you get anything done. It would be very interesting to have the workplace composed solely of the people that actually wanted to be there.

Re:Modified life plan for this goal..

[monkeyxpress]

I meant that the iPhone/iPad were the sorts of fun projects that most engineers would love to have worked on when they were first designed, but now it is just 'make it thinner' and 'remove a connector' incremental engineering. Nothing against Apple - it just illustrates that even the most NBT companies still end up with lots of jobs that are very boring.

Re:Modified life plan for this goal..

[shawn2772]

money for nothing is a bad idea

Maybe it is, maybe it isn't. The only way to know for sure is to discard anecdote-based assertions like yours and do the research.

However, I think research on this topic has to be done on a larger scale and a longer duration. A five-year study might tell you a few things but the participants are going to make their decisions around that five-year time horizon. Also, scattered individual participants will likely act differently than people would in a society where everyone understood that work was optional.

I know that some people will always work. Myself and my mom for example. My two sisters probably wouldn't. My ex wife, a childhood friend, and a few others I know all avoid work as much as possible.

Even if you're absolutely right that only a smallish percentage of people would choose to work, if projections that automation will make it unnecessary for most people to work are correct, isn't that exactly what we'll need? Figuring out what that percentage is and what the others will choose to do seems like really useful research.

Personally, I think that most people do enjoy working, as long as they're doing something they find challenging and useful. I think it's part of human nature that people want to be productive, if for no other reason than to gain the respect of others. I think most of the people who don't want to work now don't want to because they feel like society tries to force them to do it against their will, and only offers them boring, repetitive or unpleasant work. They get social affirmation from others who feel similarly put-upon. I don't know if that would be the case if no one had to work.

Also, it's worth considering that UBI can never provide more than the basics, by definition, because whatever level of income UBI provides will become the definition of "basic". It's likely that what's considered "basic" 50 years from now will seem luxurious by today's standards, but it will still be basic, and anyone who wants more will have to earn it, through work.

I think if I didn't need an income I'd still do exactly what I am doing today. I used to think that I'd leave the corporate world and write open source software in a less structured environment, but I think working for a large corporation (Google) provides me with leverage that I wouldn't have in another context, and thereby increases my ability to make contributions to the world. Also, although I presently need to work in order to live, my work provides me with a much higher standard of living than "basic", which I enjoy and would also be willing to work to receive.

Re:Modified life plan for this goal..

[Daemonik]

People always point to someone else and say "they don't work" or "they're wasting their money".. it's usually never that simple. Our system of employment is very hit or miss, and isn't really capable of even determining what jobs a person would be good at or find interesting.

Fun experiment, ask a person if they are busy that day and offer them some money to help you instead of assuming they should for free, see how fast they come over. Your "lazy person" may have just figured out that busting their ass for nothing isn't the best thing they can do with their time.

Re:Modified life plan for this goal..

[Actually, I do RTFA]

, however money for nothing is a bad idea.

Way to beg the question.

It's entirely possible that the extra work done by the few innovators not flipping burgers offsets the other costs to all the lazy people. And society as a whole benefits.

Re:Modified life plan for this goal..

[narcc]

Everyone I know on disability is doing a big fat nothing to help the world that helps them. This is wrong.

They're disabled. That means they're limited in some physical or mental way that prevents them from performing tasks a person without said disability can perform.

Further, not all (or even most) disabled people do nothing. I suspect that the majority want to contribute. It's just human nature. Some disabled people can do certain kinds of work, but many cannot due to circumstances arising from their disability. (Transportation being a major issue.) I know one kid, very bright, who suffers from a pretty bad degenerative physical disability. Even writing and typing are tedious and difficult for him, due to the nature of his disorder. Unfortunately, the assistance he'd need to be successful academically (and he's quite capable) are out of his reach, not being born to a wealthy family, or in a country that properly cares for its citizens. Still, he does what he can to improve himself, learning what he can on his own, even though his efforts are unlikely to affect anyone other than himself. We are not providing him with an opportunity to succeed, you say that he "is doing a big fat nothing to help the world that helps them."

I'd also question the belief that it's wrong for a society to help those unable to help themselves. No one stands on their own. There are no true individualists. We are all unable to help ourselves, and we all benefit from the contributions of others. What makes you believe that you're entitled to those benefits while others are not? Because you're able to work? What makes your work more valuable that the work of others? Do you measure it by salary? Are you certain that those who contribute the most to society through their work are the same ones who benefit the most monetarily? If not, why are you so certain that your contributions entitle you more than others?

I'm not against helping people, however money for nothing is a bad idea.

I think it's pretty clear that you are against helping people. The general claim you make that social welfare is a "bad idea" seems to cement that.

Re:Modified life plan for this goal..

[UnderCoverPenguin]

Everyone I know on disability is doing a big fat nothing to help the world that helps them.

Do you know why they doing nothing? Retraining for a desk job might not be a viable option. It requires time and money. Often more money than a disabled person is able to afford. And even when one does retrain, it can be very hard to get employment. Also, the disability system has perverse incentives to not retrain (because, if you can be retrained, you are not (legally) disabled).

I know a former nurse who was force out of clinical practice due to an injury. At the time, she was lucky the hospital she worked at was willing to move her in to a clerical position. In the meantime, because, as a nurse, she had learned enough about pharmacy to qualify, she retrained as a pharmacist. Over time, continuing complications from her injury ultimately confined her a wheelchair. Despite the fact she could still do her job very well, the fact that she could not reach supplies on shelves above a certain height with out help caused her employer to lay her off. Unfortunately, there were no longer any "desk jobs" available that she qualifies for with out at least 2 years of expensive retraining - or she was over qualified. She did take classes, but could only afford 1 class at a time, so it took twice as long to retrain. Despite her efforts, potential employers are still not interested. Health care related employers consider her over qualified, while non-health care related employers are looking for people with 5+ years "industry experience" and/or are afraid she will try to return to healthcare related work. The only job she has been able to get is 10 hours/week as a minimum wage greeter in a retail store So, she's been forced to move back in with her parents - who have only a tiny one bedroom apartment.

How many other disabled people are in a similar situation? How many are afraid to even to even try, given how many of those who do try are treated?

Probably won't work in the US

[DrYak]

Expect the concept being shut down in the US because of "looking like an evil commie plan" in 4... 3... 2... 1...

I won't be surprised if :
- This US experiment will be one of the first to happen actually in real life (given the speed of politics here around in Europe. Specially in Switzerland).
- This experiment will bring lots of useful data.
- Right wing politics won't let it be in the US.
- Meanwhile, northern european country (I would bet mostly on scandinavian and germanic) will manage to implement it successfully.
- By the time the US finally decides giving it a try Universal Basic Income will have been successfully implemented in the whole Europe (not only the Nordic countries which are already economically stable and successful nowadays and I my opinion prime candidate for success, but I bet even *Greece* and the like will get a working U.B.I. before the US stops considering automatically putting a "commie" tag attached to it).

Time limit too short

[phantomfive]

They will only be paying people for five years. If someone paid me for five years, I would be constantly worried about what would happen at the end of five years. I wouldn't want to re-enter the workforce with degraded skills, etc.

But if I knew I would be getting that money for the rest of my life, it very likely would affect my habits.

If it were that easy

[Masked Coward]

If economic problems could be solved by such simplistic policies, it would have been done thousands of years ago and we wouldn't be discussing it.

Virtually no one takes pleasure in the suffering of others caused by economic circumstances, and likewise we fight for our own economic stability. When I think about the benefits of getting rich (which I am not), it's not about the stuff I can buy. It's the peace of mind that comes with having more control over my own circumstances, knowing that I'm not one unfortunate event away from ruin.

Yes, there are some who gain their standing by exploiting others, but I can't buy into the narrative that people who have money are generally greedy and don't want anyone else to have it. And since I have a basic understanding of economics, I know for certain that a universally guaranteed income solves nothing and is just a feel-good pipe dream

Re:If it were that easy

[blue9steel]

If economic problems could be solved by such simplistic policies, it would have been done thousands of years ago and we wouldn't be discussing it.

Nonsense. In order for a UBI to make sense, you need A) Sufficient economic surplus that you can actually afford to pay one and B) Not be labor constrained. Neither of those conditions applied until very recently.

Re:Cynical

[conquistadorst]

Where is the money to provide this "Universal Basic Income" going to come from? How will employers that still have a workforce respond in terms of existing wages? How much inflation will this cause? What will happen to home prices/rents/leases/etc costs? Don't seeing it working realistically until human nature changes dramatically...

I completely understand your cynicism because I agree but I don't see an amount specified in the article. If it's something meager like $7K-$15K then I'm not sure it would truly change much of anything. I mean in the US, I think we more or less already have this under different names and parameters? I would be of the opinion that welfare, medicaid, medicare, social security, and the standard tax deduction all touch the spirit of a "universal basic income" except through complex rules, inclusions, and exclusions. I think current laws' end result is trying surgically pinpoint the people that need it "more" but than others. More or less they favor the people that are old, impoverished, or crippled but even those doing well still get some minimal benefits annually. Without knowing all of the rules it would be hard for me to be supportive or not but if they did away with all of the other existing systems of support I would certainly be in favor of overhauling and simplifying the entire system top to bottom. Now if the amount was something like $30K or more, my opinion would shift drastically.

The description is a lie...

[pulse2600]

The money is not unconditional. First, the article does not specifically say they have decided on having no strings attached or not, just that they would prefer it that way. However even that is a lie. Right there in the summary, it says:

"Then, assessors will record life consequences like changes in work patterns, self-employment, artistic endeavors, or idleness".

If they are doing that, the money is not unconditional. You must provide this information or have someone study/watch what you do with your life. Those are conditions. Give me the money and expect nothing in return - that is unconditional. And this ladies and gentlemen is exactly why I don't want to live in a socialist shithole. If the nannystate provides us with our income or some portion of it, they will eventually (or immediately) require us to let them watch and analyze everything and anything we do with our lives. If you take this money, this is what you want for yourself and the rest of society. Period.

No one who takes this money values their freedom. I never want to hear anyone who would even consider taking this money bitch about the NSA, CIA, FBI, TSA, backdoors, cryptography, or neocon wingnuts....because these leftist moonbat experiments will truly destroy the freedom of all humanity.

The UBI ignores human nature

[timholman]

The problem with a UBI is that it is (in theory) supposed to replace the multitude of payments through various government social programs with a single check or debit card given to every recipient every month, at which point the various government agencies that administer housing, food stamps, etc., can be shut down. Government bureaucracies never shutter themselves voluntarily, and it won't happen with a UBI, either.

The UBI operates under the assumption that everyone manages money in a rational manner, which is completely at odds with actual experience. Many people will take their UBI and immediately spend it on drugs, alcohol, gambling, or bling, while ignoring the monthly rent, the electric bill, buying groceries for the children, etc. Others will be cheated out of their money by criminals or even other family members. So do we let those families starve or get evicted because the heads of household are incapable of managing money for themselves or their dependents?

Of course not. Those people will need to be helped (sarcasm intended). So the various government agencies will continue to expand and spend even more money on housing, food, medical care, etc. The UBI won't even make a dent in entitlement budgets. Instead, it will become "free money" to be squandered on a thousand other things besides basic human needs.

Anyone who doesn't think it won't happen need only look at inner city schools in the U.S. In theory, every child should be getting meals at home thanks to government SNAP benefits to their parents or guardians. In practice, schools give many kids a free breakfast and lunch every school day, and even give them food bags to take home for the weekend, because Mom or Dad can't be bothered to buy food for the kids with the SNAP money. Where does the money go? No one knows or even attempts to find out. They just give the kids free food and cross their fingers.

The UBI will not change human nature. It will instead become one of the biggest entitlement boondoggles in the history of civilization.

Re:The UBI ignores human nature

[amiga3D]

Yes. We have problems now with welfare recipients using money for everything but it's intended purpose. I've donated coats to children that live in homes with cable tv and a donk with 30" rims sitting in the driveway. I feel sorry for the kids, they didn't choose their fucked up parents. I think any kind of basic living stipend should be in the form of food, clothing and housing. If they want money they should work for it.

It is all in the name

[NEDHead]

I find that when I try to discuss the consequences of a future without scarcity I frequently get the shopworn 'people don't deserve what they don't earn, and it will be bad, bad, bad'.

Yet when I ask what someone might do if they won a big lottery prize it is all about the good times. Likewise the perfect retirement is about leisure and freedom from want.

So Puritanism seems to be appropriate, for the other guy...

No choice

[duckintheface]

Automation and AI are for real. I've heard about job replacement by automation my whole life. But now it is seriously happening and not just for menial labor. Professional services and complex tasks are being replaced as fast as the software can be written.

So it is useless to talk about UBI as if it is optional. The only alternative is some form of luddite resistance to automation. UBI is a much better solution. It can be funded by taxing the massive profits coming from the automation. So the only real obstacle is the mindset that resists the idea of not requiring work for survival. Get over it.

Re:No choice

[ShanghaiBill]

Automation and AI are for real. I've heard about job replacement by automation my whole life. But now it is seriously happening and not just for menial labor.

There is actually very little evidence for that. America is at full employment. Labor force participation is not back to where it was in 2007, but that is mostly due to an aging population, not lack of jobs. If you look around the world, countries with the most automation (Japan, Germany, America) have the lowest unemployment, while countries with the least automation (India, Africa, Latin America) have the highest. This is exactly the opposite of what your theory would predict.

Automation is nothing new. Automated looms destroyed the jobs of weavers two centuries ago. In the late 1800s, automation of agriculture destroyed the majority of the jobs. Plenty of people predicted gloom and decline. Yet the opposite happened: The economy prospered and living standards soared. Technology makes workers more productive, and makes good and services cheaper in terms of human labor. There is little evidence that "this time things are different".

We already know what will happen

[koan]

It's called communism, but aside from ideology, it will just reiterate what we already know about human behavior.

Some will always find a way to be productive, and some are happy to idle away their lives.

Liquor & drug industry would profit massively

[mileshigh]

Most people need externally-imposed structure, even though they hate it. Otherwise, it's too easy to put things off until "later." Case in point: statistics inform me, dear reader, that you're probably 10+ pounds over your ideal weight. As a /. reader, you probably consider yourself to be above-average motivated, etc, but I'll bet you're (still) planning to get rid of the weight, and how's that working out? Now, if you suddenly couldn't get any kind of sex whenever you're 3+ lbs. over your ideal weight, how long would it take you to get and stay skinny?

For many people, financial need is what gives them that sense of urgency. Some may view having a "crappy" job like working as a waiter as human bondage that should be automated, but they're ignoring the fact that said job is what gets that person up in the morning and gives their life structure. Otherwise, it's just too easy to smoke a joint and think about what you'd like to do today... but probably won't get around to doing.

I grew up with a lot of kids with rich-kid allowances. Not huge amounts of money, but typically in that annual $30 - 60K range that's being proposed for a UBI. In about half the cases they've wasted their potential. In other words, they're middle-aged fuck-ups still sucking on the parental teat, and their well-meaning parents can't bring themselves to cut them off.

And guess what? They mostly spend their days pleasantly high or buzzed. Based on this (not conjecture), my experience is that giving many people an allowance gives them one less reason to stay off drink and drugs.

re: Racing to the Bottom

[salgak2016]

Given a private sector, the more likely outcome is that salaries would drop additionally by the amount of the UBI. Why do I say this ? I work in DC Metro. We HAVE people who get paid a fixed amount monthly, Military Retirees. While considered valuable employees with needed experience and skills, they routinely get lower offers simply BECAUSE the employers know they already have an outside income stream. . . .

Re:TANSTAAFL

[pr0nbot]

I have some savings that earn approx 7% interest per year. You can argue the interest payments are the premium I'm paid for the risk of default, or perhaps that they represent the opportunity cost of spending the money, but it's pretty hard for me to understand how I'm "earning" them in any sense that relates to actual work. I could go into cryogenic suspension and the money would still roll in.

I'd wager that most rich people aren't really rich from earnings; they're rich from renting out their capital.

Do you understand how UBI/SNAP work?

[mx b]

Many people will take their UBI and immediately spend it on drugs, alcohol, gambling, or bling, while ignoring the monthly rent, the electric bill, buying groceries for the children, etc.

[CITATION NEEDED]

Do you have evidence this is true for welfare and other checks, or is it just how you feel? I suspect you've never been in the heartbreaking situation (which I'm glad you haven't experienced it!) of having so little income that you have to decide between food and the electric bill. I'm sure there are some outliers that can't be helped and will spend on drugs but you need to understand this is a small minority compared to all poor people.

So the various government agencies will continue to expand and spend even more money on housing, food, medical care, etc. The UBI won't even make a dent in entitlement budgets. Instead, it will become "free money" to be squandered on a thousand other things besides basic human needs.

Again, citation? Has anyone's plan specifically said "We will grow government larger and larger"? Most of the proposals I've seen have been the opposite; if you make a fair tax system (stop giving tax handouts to the rich) and implement UBI instead of the hodgepodge of programs we have no (SS, medicare, medicaid, etc.), we'd save billions by eliminating duplicate administrative costs.

Now my concern is that many people are employed by the federal government, so the real cost will be all the people worried about losing their jobs and becoming poor. But if there's UBI, they won't lose their home if laid off. And, its possible we could pivot many of these jobs to other agencies -- for example, more workers in the justice dept to reduce the time we wait for hearings/court cases, or to the VA to get caught up on paperwork and get veterans help, or even dept of the interior and let them clean up state and national parks or become EPA inspectors to actually enforce our laws. Random ideas here, but the point is that government will likely be reduced, and worst case, be about the save size but massive amounts of people repurposed to things that need to get done but aren't under the current bureaucracy.

Anyone who doesn't think it won't happen need only look at inner city schools in the U.S. In theory, every child should be getting meals at home thanks to government SNAP benefits to their parents or guardians. In practice, schools give many kids a free breakfast and lunch every school day, and even give them food bags to take home for the weekend, because Mom or Dad can't be bothered to buy food for the kids with the SNAP money. Where does the money go? No one knows or even attempts to find out. They just give the kids free food and cross their fingers.

What do you mean "Where does that money go?". I don't even know where you got this from.

As someone that was personally on SNAP in the past (long story, but basically as a new college instructor, you actually make so little money that I qualified for SNAP for a while. True story.), I can tell you that it is not a check in the mail of free money. You get a debit card that is pre-loaded with a small amount of money (a maximum of $200 per month for an individual; I challenge you to keep your food budget under $200 per month = about $7 a day. You do get more money for each dependent you have, but it's a small increase.). This card can ONLY be used by stores that accept SNAP, and it is restricted to ONLY purchase food items. For example, you cannot swipe your SNAP card to purchase lottery tickets or alcohol. You're not even allowed to buy "prepared food" (meaning like food you'd get from a restaurant; so you have to buy frozen foods or canned foods only, and cook at home).

Anyone on SNAP that can't feed their kids is probably running up against that roughly $7 per day limit. Even if you double it to $15/day for a family, can you spend $15 per day consistently? A pound of chicken is pushing $10. Milk is a f

Re:There's a big difference between lazy.

[Your.Master]

I'll preface this by saying I think that the lazy person who is also starving / homeless because they are so lazy, *is* a myth. The hardest working people in society are at the bottom rungs. That doesn't mean that the CEO of the multimillion dollar corporation doesn't work his ass off. But the janitor working 2 full time jobs and one part time job to make rent is also working his ass off.

And it doesn't have to be paid work either. [examples]

That's where it falls over. You (maybe not you personally, but you generically) can find the same fulfillment in reading, playing video games, solving logic puzzles, considering philosophy, socialising with peers, playing sports, commenting on Internet forums, etc.. You could call that "work" in a sense, but it's the sort of work that nobody would give a shit about if you stopped doing (except the writers you pay to write books, developers you pay to develop games, people who read your brilliantly insightful comments on Slashdot, etc.). I can tell you the sense of accomplishment from completing all the toughest SpaceChem challenges is as much or more than any accomplishment I've ever had in my career, and I'd rather get the SpaceChem style accomplishments because I had fun doing it. This is at least as mentally active as a monk's chores.

The lazy person who doesn't want to do any work *that anybody else needs* absolutely exists. I have no data on how common they are relative to the people who have a deep-seated need to be valued by others, but it's common enough. That's what's at issue here.

Fortunately, there is an answer. A universal basic income doesn't have to be so luxurious that lazy people don't want more, and will trade their labour to get more. And if you can afford it to be so luxurious that they don't work? Then so what, they don't work. Clearly you didn't need them to generate this luxury lifestyle for everyone.

I really, honestly don't know how a UBI will work out in practice. It's barely been experimented on. I hope it works. The principles behind it are not unsound. But practical economics is often way more complicated than our simple pure theories predict.