# Just give them the money (the argument for basic income) **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 10, 2015, 4:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/just-give-them-the-money-the-argument-for-basic-income/714704 "2015-03-10T16:59:10Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 9\ **Page:** 16
**Author:** ![BwanaBob](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/bwanabob/32/2985_2.png) [@BwanaBob](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/BwanaBob)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2017, 5:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/just-give-them-the-money-the-argument-for-basic-income/714704/301 "2017-01-18T17:09:18Z")
> [@Shodan](#): > > The conclusions of the famous Seattle Income Maintenance/Denver Income Maintenance Project (known as [SIME/DIME](http://aspe.hhs.gov/HSP/SIME-DIME83/report.htm#Conclusions)) were that it causes people to work less, go to school (for non-work training) more, and has a deleterious effect on marriage. > > The difference between a program like the OP’s and casino/oil revenue distribution is that it is an income transfer from those who earn the money. > > Is this meant to be instead of other welfare programs, or in addition to them? > > Regards, > Shodan If I read that info right, their project took the free money away if you worked. Of course that be a disincentive. That’s not being proposed here. ---
**Author:** ![JcWoman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jcwoman/32/2889_2.png) [@JcWoman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JcWoman)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2017, 5:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/just-give-them-the-money-the-argument-for-basic-income/714704/302 "2017-01-18T17:35:13Z")
> [@Salvor](#): > > Long term that might not be a problem, I just think that in the short term that would spook people and scare them off the idea. Also, currently most of our revenue comes from income taxes for the federal government, if we had substantial chunks of the working population drop out of work, I’m not sure the transition would be smooth and we could get into a UBI version of the death spiral mentioned for healthcare. Okay, fair enough and that’s a good point. I think it’s time for mankind to develop a new economic system for the post-scarcity economy, but that’s way beyond my ken. But we do need to find a different way to govern and live that’s not so centered on money. It’s the same whenever someone suggests that Americans earn too much money so we’re not competitive with the world’s labor pool, so we should have our salaries cut. Well, you can do that as soon as landlords cut rents, utilities discount gas and electric, and etc. In the meantime… ---
**Author:** ![HurricaneDitka](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/96bed5/32.png) [@HurricaneDitka](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/HurricaneDitka)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2017, 7:01pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/just-give-them-the-money-the-argument-for-basic-income/714704/303 "2017-01-18T19:01:45Z")
> [@Damuri\_Ajashi](#): > > IMHO Hawaii is the natural place to do this. > > If I as a homeless ne’er do well, I would beg borrow and steal to get my ass to Hawaii where I could live on the beach with a better standard of living than the working poor in most other states (it would suck with a family but if I was single…). > > But their geographic isolation prevents then from being flooded with these ne’er do wells and they already have a fairly robust welfare state. Hawaii has a very low unemployment rate so we could see what sort of negative effects UBI would have on employment. So is geographic isolation to prevent the UBI state from being flooded with ne’er do wells a requirement to make it function properly? Does that mean it might be workable in Iceland or the UK or Scotland, but not the USA as a whole? ---
**Author:** ![Ruken](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f475e1/32.png) [@Ruken](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ruken)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2017, 11:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/just-give-them-the-money-the-argument-for-basic-income/714704/304 "2017-01-18T23:21:43Z")
I suspect it makes small-scale testing easier if movement is restricted. If everyone in the country has it then that’s less of an issue, since immigration is already restricted. ---
**Author:** ![Salvor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@Salvor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Salvor)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2017, 11:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/just-give-them-the-money-the-argument-for-basic-income/714704/305 "2017-01-18T23:23:59Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > So is geographic isolation to prevent the UBI state from being flooded with ne’er do wells a requirement to make it function properly? Does that mean it might be workable in Iceland or the UK or Scotland, but not the USA as a whole? If we are going to do a more widespread test (y combinator is doing a limited test within California but it’s small scale and not city wide) then I think starting with a city is fine. > **[Y Combinator is running a basic income experiment with 100 Oakland families](https://qz.com/696377/y-combinator-is-running-a-basic-income-experiment-with-100-oakland-families)** > > Silicon Valley is preparing for an automated future where technology takes over most occupations and the jobless forever outnumber the jobs. If you are going to go with a city though you need to restrict it to residents of the city and not allow anyone who shows up to get the income else the costs would spiral without more widespread funding. The interesting things to measure city wide would be to test what effects a UBI would have on local inflation, especially in things like housing/rent costs. Ideally it would be interesting to test cities with more constrained housing supply and stricter zoning laws and a city with looser standards that allowed for more building and supply to increase the supply of living spaces and drive down housing costs. In San Francisco things are quite restricted and no one wants to increase supply at a rate large enough to allow more people to live there affordably. Self interested nimbyism, and self interest in their own property values and views of the ocean. It’s sad, San Francisco and the general bay area is one of the few places in the nation that has enough concentrated wealth and technology fueled industry to create a modern dense west coast version of NY, but better. Can you imagine if they let them build San Francisco to something like neo seoul out of a sci fi movie? [![](http://vignette4.wikia.nocookie.net/cloudatlas/images/9/97/Neo_Seoul_Road.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20130705175734) ](http://vignette4.wikia.nocookie.net/cloudatlas/images/9/97/Neo_Seoul_Road.jpg/revision/latest?cb=20130705175734) But no, no more building, roadblock after roadblock. What about my desire to see more exotic futuristic metropolises? ---
**Author:** ![Salvor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@Salvor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Salvor)\ **Post date:** [January 18, 2017, 11:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/just-give-them-the-money-the-argument-for-basic-income/714704/306 "2017-01-18T23:26:09Z")
> [@Ruken](#): > > I suspect it makes small-scale testing easier if movement is restricted. If everyone in the country has it then that’s less of an issue, since immigration is already restricted. I have read that many UBI tests in places like Africa explicitly do NOT restrict movement, part of the goal is to see if the UBI makes it easier for people to migrate to some other location where they have better job prospects. So while I’d restrict a smaller citywide test to residents of the city initially for a period of years, I would not drop the UBI if they left for greener pastures somewhere else. ---
**Author:** ![Ruken](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/f475e1/32.png) [@Ruken](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ruken)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2017, 5:09am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/just-give-them-the-money-the-argument-for-basic-income/714704/307 "2017-01-19T05:09:48Z")
> [@Salvor](#): > > I have read […] Please tell us where so that we can read too. ---
**Author:** ![Salvor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/b5e925/32.png) [@Salvor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Salvor)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2017, 5:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/just-give-them-the-money-the-argument-for-basic-income/714704/308 "2017-01-19T05:43:48Z")
> [@Ruken](#): > > Please tell us where so that we can read too. > **[A Privately Funded Experiment in a Universal Basic Income](https://reason.com/2016/12/08/a-privately-funded-experiment-in-a-unive/)** > > Dozens of villages in Kenya will soon be receiving payments. > [@](#): > > The current plan is for 41 villages to go on the 12-year plan, 80 to go on the two-year plan, 80 to get the lump sums, and 100 to be in the control group. (The size of each category could shrink if GiveDirectly doesn’t hit its fundraising target.) To answer the first question that probably popped into your minds: No, a villager can’t change which deal he’s getting by moving from one town to another. _Once enrollment has started in a village, no new arrivals can take advantage of the payments there. **Conversely, if you’re already enrolled in the program, you still get the money if you leave your village. After all, one potential outcome the researchers want to look for is whether people will use their payments to move somewhere with greater opportunity.** _ That’s where I read that. ---
**Author:** ![Damuri\_Ajashi](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/898d66/32.png) [@Damuri\_Ajashi](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Damuri_Ajashi)\ **Post date:** [January 19, 2017, 7:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/just-give-them-the-money-the-argument-for-basic-income/714704/309 "2017-01-19T19:57:09Z")
> [@HurricaneDitka](#): > > So is geographic isolation to prevent the UBI state from being flooded with ne’er do wells a requirement to make it function properly? Does that mean it might be workable in Iceland or the UK or Scotland, but not the USA as a whole? It would work with the US at the national level because we can control who is entitled to legally reside in the US. A state cannot. Its one of the reasons why almost every senior at Berkeley is a California resident even thought they only make up two thirds of the entering class. UBI is a big deal. If its actually enough to live on, its a big deal. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/just-give-them-the-money-the-argument-for-basic-income/714704.md?page=15)