A scheme that benefits all, such as guaranteed minimum income, will always face great resistance in the US, because enough US citizens are zero-sum thinkers. If it helps people we hate, it must be bad.<p>> <i>Why aren’t we giving everyone a fair chance at Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness by providing them the fundamentals they need to get there?</i><p>Because for a lot of Americans, relative order within the social hierarchy is more important than absolute level of prosperity: it's more important to have someone below us than it is to do well.
I am generally a bit skeptical of the concept of basic income, mostly because I think costs would just rise to match new spending power. IMO it would be better framed as Guaranteed Basic Needs (food, shelter, entertainment, etc.)<p>That said – one thing that has made me change my mind recently, though, is that UBI might serve as a buffer against the profit motive taking over <i>everything.</i> Increasingly it seems like other value systems are being overtaken by the desire to earn money. By "other value systems" I mean a huge variety of things that aren't driven by money: living a non-materialistic lifestyle in line with numerous religions, mastering a centuries-old craft that doesn't have much market demand, being a philosopher/thinker <i>not</i> defined by participation in academia (or the market), and so on.<p>Part of the growth of the profit motive can be attributed to the general precarious economic situation, unpredictability of future jobs, etc. But it's also because there are fewer and fewer cultural institutions that make up the ecosystem, because no one wants to make that bet anymore. Everything seems to default back to monetary/professional success, whether that be the "creator economy" or getting a professorship at a top university.<p>So I do wonder if UBI would be a mechanism for encouraging people to say, "I can count on making a basic living, so I'm going to study XYZ art form and become great at it."
Look at the major components that push up the guaranteed minimum income every year: rent/mortgage; health insurance; auto insurance; lack of public transportation; ripping off by utilities like PGE in California. The more one gets paid, that delta (increase in wages) is eaten by rents, insurers, etc.<p>Fix the housing mess, fix the insurance mess by dismantling cartels, etc.
I cannot imagine how UBI wouldn't fuel yet another mad increase in rents.<p>The fundamental problem with housing in economically strong areas is that there is nowhere near enough of it. That is creating a brutal competition already.<p>Once everyone is able to fork out +X thousand monthly from their UBI, how much of that X will be captured by landlords?
UK is struggling to pay its meagre unemployment and disability benefits. The idea that we can pay a meaningful amount of money to <i>everyone</i> seems fanciful to me.
Say what you will about anything else, but if you have never been there, I don't think many of you could understand the crippling, unbelievable poverty that exists in West Virginia that the author somehow managed to claw his way out of. It's the kind of multigenerational poverty where all economic activity in the area seems to have ceased completely. There aren't any "beggars" because there is no one to beg from. Dwellings are often made from found materials in the area. Especially if you are from the West Coast or the North East, you might find it hard to believe that places like this exist within the United States.<p>In these areas, if you happen to secure a job that makes in the 30k's, you are several standard deviations above the baseline and you are probably taking care of your entire extended family.<p>These areas are, by and large, completely ignored and abandoned by our country. They are things we don't <i>want</i> to look at, because it hurts our sense of national pride and national identity. It hurts our narrative of the "American Dream", because the American Dream does not exist or apply here.<p>This is not to say that the people here are not hard working and industrious, as much as they can be. But the lack of economic mobility in these areas is intense.<p>It's hard to understand the difference an unconditional 500 dollars per month would be here.<p>Perhaps you think most people would waste the money. Even if you are right, <i>some</i> would not -- and the <i>some</i> who would not are now not <i>responsible</i> for those who choose not to, and those bright stars can possibly break free of the situation they are in.<p>Huge kudos to the author for beating all the odds and still remembering where he came from.<p>If you have it in you, I would invite you to visit Charleston, WV sometime. Get a car and drive around. It is beautiful country, the area could use the tourism revenue, and it will certainly not be an experience you will forget.
A fundamental misunderstanding of human nature. There is a significant non-majority of the population that will take the money and do absolutely nothing but waste it.
It's hard to state how wrong that "solution" is. It comes from good intentions but as they say hell is paved with good intentions.<p>What is needed is that work pays more so that it's fairer and more attractive and that's it.
Instead of wasting time with an UBI that would have terrible problems down the line, just make laws so that wage inequality is reduced to a minimum. And laws to take everything of the ultra-rich beyond a certain point.<p>The problem isn't that there is not enough money (or ressources) to go around, the problem is that they are not fairly distributed, trying to fix it in a roundabout way will have more secondary issues than actually fixing anything.
Why are they calling it GMI instead of UBI now? Is it because all the UBI studies showed, yep, it doesn't work so they need a new name? I really doubt the slightly different accounting scheme will make any difference--after taxes are considered there's not any difference between UBI and GMI.
I’m deeply skeptical of UBI.<p>For one it would amount to rapid inflation that would erode much of the purported benefits. This is hard to argue with after we watched pandemic stimulus do exactly this. It made wealth inequality substantially worse. The average person is in the red. The wealthy scored.<p>Assuming you find some way to address that, the next problem is it doesn’t work with a democracy. People will vote for whoever offers to raise the income, and politicians will pander to it. Also hard to argue with after politicians on all sides promised tax cuts and increased spending despite running wartime level deficits.<p>UBI is nice in theory. In practice, I don’t see how you fix those issues.
I would encourage anyone who is a fan of systems like this to understand a bit more about how the US taxes and distributes its money. Specifically, look for writings from Jessica Riedel (formerly Brian Riedl). A great interview is at <a href="https://freakonomics.com/podcast/ten-myths-about-the-u-s-tax-system/" rel="nofollow">https://freakonomics.com/podcast/ten-myths-about-the-u-s-tax...</a>, and she gets to the meat of the problem towards the end.
At scale the other prong is housing supply. If guaranteed income is not paired with an intentional housing glut, it'll just get sucked up by landlords.
> Why aren’t we sharing the American Dream?<p>Maybe because a country is collection of individuals. It’s not that people have to sign up to the dream so they can be held accountable. It’s a romantic vision inspired 250 years ago, maybe it’s time to move on. It’s clearly out of touch with the reality of the people.
If for none other, the reason UBI or another solution to our economic deprivations are needed is that rising inequality is reducing the size of our markets. An affluent middle class participates while increasingly impoverished people are less able to as they become more poor.
What is the idea outcome for guaranteed minimum income in rural communities with no meaningful activity? They can’t actually set up a working community if they’re not doing anything.
Something that I don't understand, and would love to hear a counterpoint to, is how UBI doesn't just constitute shifting the zero point.<p>We're already in the situation where everything that actually matters (food, shelter, healthcare, transportation) is rapidly increasing in price. I don't see how giving everyone UBI wouldn't just exacerbate that.<p>This is probably naive, but I feel like if we deem something a necessity or "human right" then we should just give people these things free of charge. Like food, housing, healthcare should all have a free but basic government option. And maybe people who don't want the government version can get a tax credit towards their groceries, health insurance, or mortgage so that it benefits everyone and not just the poor. I guess that describes some kind of "Socialism" and has a whole host of issues and caveats, but it seems like a better system than UBI.