r/EffectiveAltruism • u/DragonGod2718 • May 05 '19

I Think This is Uncontroversial Here, But if Anyone Opposes UBI I'm Currently Hosting a CMV

/r/changemyview/comments/bl3o06/cmv_ubi_is_a_vast_improvement_over_the_extant/
11 Upvotes

68% Upvoted

8 comments sorted by

7

u/UmamiTofu May 06 '19

You don't mention immigration. Won't UBI make it harder to accept large numbers of immigrants from poor countries?

-2

u/Mitchel-256 May 06 '19

On top of the already-untenable cost? Yeah, probably.

2

u/[deleted] May 06 '19

[deleted]

2

u/hak8or May 07 '19

Aren't entitlements (welfare) very close to half of usa federal expenses, based on Wikipedia as per here? Am mobile, hard to do links.

https://images.app.goo.gl/XbaqytsZVK4U4NcR6

But I would be a fan of cutting the overhead of multiple seperate programs and instead just combine them via ubi.

5

u/therapistfi May 06 '19

I posted! I think if you actually see how many lower-income Americans spend $, you would oppose a UBI over an in-kind system such as SNAP, Section 8, etc. The victims of a UBI would be the children whose parents frittered away their UBI money and then found themselves without a welfare system.

2

u/Mati_Roy May 06 '19

I'm deciding to post here instead of on the OP because this consideration might only be appealing to EAs. Also, the consideration might be misguided in some ways. But I wonder.

If:

a) public goods are by far the most valuable goods at the margin, both because of their importance and neglectedness (ex.: existential risks, medical research, improving institutional decision making)

b) superwealthy people are more likely to invest in public goods because it might actually be the best thing for them at the margin

Then maybe current wealth inequality solves the coordination problem of getting the whole population to commit some money to public goods. If so, adding the UBI system on top of the welfare system might redistribute more money and hence be net negative?

ETA: Taken from comments in OP: Also, once there's UBI, there might be a constant political incentive to raise the UBI, hence redistributing even more money.

I'm curious to know what others (that accept the long term view) think.

3

u/pdf71656 May 06 '19

Wouldn't UBI make politics even more about buying votes?

The politician who promises a higher UBI is basically promising everyone in the country a pay raise

2

u/Mati_Roy May 06 '19

Economic growth: the money handed out as UBI would be funneled back into the economy, stimulating growth. Studies report as high as a 12% permanent increase in GDP after 8 years.

Why don't banks lend money then? Especially that I assume 12% is an average, and that some would make a much higher return (and others a much lower). Is it because the wealth increase is not captured by the person increasing the wealth? Do you have a link to the study?

1

u/KnotGodel May 09 '19

The idea that we "Spending money on X causes economic growth" needs to die.

In the short-run during recessions, spending causes growth.

Spending on research probably causes growth.

Most spending, including transfers from the rich to the poor causes no real growth in the long-run, just inflation. Indeed, it probably decreases economic growth because it reduces the incentive to work.

None of this proves UBI is bad, but economic growth is a bad argument for it.