Maybe rebrand UBI as the government funding a few million startups? That and universal healthcare probably would free up enough people to start their passion project. Enough to cover the ones that want to be artists, caregivers, or just go surfing/play video games.
My favourite brainwave on UBI was to brand it a negative income tax. Would stymie a lot of the more traditional fiscal conservative arguments (albeit not going to counter the drive for regressive rates).
The thing that fascinates me about UBI (apart from the right wing capitalists promoting socialist utopias) is the effect it (presumably) will have on salaries and companies. I mean HN is populated by people who mostly enjoy their STEM related work, but even so if we did not have to pay mortgages tomorrow I suspect 75% would hand in their notice and go something else - still working but working on their own start ups or the like.
I cannot see a way to bring it in without collapsing the economy basically.
The B in UBI is pretty important and seems to be at odds with what you're thinking. It's meant to be a basic income that guarantees you won't starve or be homeless somewhere in the country. That's it. A backup to fall upon or a subsistence if you don't want to/can't work or a life booster for low income earners. No fancy cars, apartment in a coastal city, big house, vacations, meals out, etc. How many HN readers would quit their jobs tomorrow and move to Alabama to live on $20k/year?
Anyone talking about UBI as though it would be a significant income source and fund a "fun" life is an idle dreamer - that will never work.
I think the biggest impediment to UBI is the 'U'niversal part. It can only be one way, at 18yo you start getting a monthly UBI check, no questions no conditions.
It will never be that way, it will always be muddied by some conditions. Like income restrictions bonuses based on various protect group clauses and million other details.
We have welfare systems at the moment that achieve this - and it's not really working. Yes, Europe is full of "generous welfare" systems - from actual cash to nationalised health services. They are expensive but do not break the dependance on shitty jobs to pay the rent.
When I hear UBI I do not hear "welfare system that is just about enough to get by in cheapest area of the country." That we already have in most of Europe. And what happens is the cheapest area of the country turns into a wasteland where no-one wants to put a business and the local doctors get the worst set of long-term health cases anywhere.
What I hear when I hear UBI is "lets try a new equilibrium to solve the problem of fairness."
And as your friendly neighbourhood Software Socialist, I would like to try and explain, poorly, with barely any context.
We, the people, conceive of a form of Venture Capitalism, called government. We shall, since more or less 1945, invest in our main resource, babies, feeding them, educating them, and providing basic infrastructure such as contract law, and bridges. And they shall achieve great things. They shall find ways to organise space engineers in ways that NASA could not, or start political parties the way legacy parties cannot, and will build new capabilities. And as VCs we shall find a way to exit our investment, ready for new investments. We shall call these exits Taxation.
And we shall use these exits to invest in the new set of babies - and because of the veil of ignorance, we do not know which ones will be the next valuable entrepreneurs so we will invest in them all, equally. Fairly.
Lets see what the back of the envelope figures look like
US Adults- 250M
US GDP - 23 Trillion Dollars (!)
GDP per adult is 92,000 dollars. (The global version of that calculation is ~10,000 dollars)
To me UBI is an expression of democracy. We do not live in 'idiocracy'. We all know on a basic level we need to work to produce. Its just that the choice of where and how and who with to do that work is not a free choice. The choice of who to vote for is (kinda) free. But if we imagine democracy not as 'where do you put your vote' but 'where do you allocate your sliver of the total capital allocation' we get a different, interesting question. Why can I not vote to allocate my capital each day as I go to work? I would vastly prefer to have my capital allocated to the solar energy transition. So would many folks. That is barely a choice on most ballot papers. But it is a choice in the market place.
UBI is somewhere around there.
Today the question is "why do I have to do the shitty work for shitty pay?"
Current but unsatisfactory answers include :
- your parents were not wealthy
- you have not invested 20% of your income over thirty years in the stock market
- you or your parents were not able to invest in real estate
- we really need someone to do the shitty job and have built a social underclass for that reason.
But if we break those traps, the question is "where is my work best allocated". There is a lot to figure out. But the current system is unlikely to be what we need to cut our current gordian knot
Replying to myself it's worth noting that (IMO) the Invisible Hand is a efficient allocation mechanism, not a strategic goal. The Hand has no mind nor any goal in mind - direction is given by the choice - by the opportunity cost left behind.
A group of restaurants where I live decided to collectively go 'tip-less' autogratuity with health insurance cost added. I was ok with the experiment and to support the cause. Well by my account it failed. Within about 6 months the quality of service and food dropped so bad I stopped going to those restaurants. I'd say by the parking lots other people are following my lead.
I suspect UBI would have similar but wider reaching results.
