Politics Discussion Thread (Heated Arguing Warning)

[Bacchus]

That's a very strange calculation. The point of the UBI is not to provide the recipients with an average quality of life, which is mathematically impossible in any case. The point of UBI is to give people who are badly off through no fault of their own a platform from which they can work their way to a decent life, and which preserves their dignity. What that means on the real estate front is a room, not a house; on the transport front a bike, not a car. The third biggest item on your list is healthcare, for which you've managed to arrive at a figure that's over five times bigger than the current average, private health insurance bill in the UK (source). So yeah, cut about 100 from your transport estimate, another 500 from health, and maybe 200 from housing/sanitation, and you are somewhere there, indeed at about a half of the original at 800/month. Which, believe it or not, actually tallies pretty well with what the government actually ends up paying anyway, except it also has to pay itself, and hand out all these 'benefits testing' contracts.

UBI could be claimed in addition to wages, of course, otherwise it's not really U.

[Huinesoron]

That's a very strange calculation. The point of the UBI is not to provide the recipients with an average quality of life, which is mathematically impossible in any case.

Very true, which is why I was working down the list of 'basic needs'. There's a whole discussion elsewhere (can't find it again) on what qualifies as 'relative poverty', which includes things like 'can take two weeks' holiday per year not with family'. I didn't even touch that: just the listed needs.

The point of UBI is to give people who are badly off through no fault of their own a platform from which they can work their way to a decent life, and which preserves their dignity. What that means on the real estate front is a room, not a house;

A room is viable if you're single. It's less viable, but doable, for a couple (though 'preserves their dignity' suffers). It's pretty much impossible if you have children. I was working on the model of a small flat - perhaps a studio flat, perhaps one with the luxury of a separate bedroom. We paid... something like £450 for our single-room apartment, actually, but that was almost ten years ago now.

on the transport front a bike, not a car.

I've done this! It's miserable, but provided you work close to where you live, it's doable. I suppose the argument could be made that if you work you can afford a car?

That said, carrying bags of shopping on a bicycle is ridiculously dangerous. I've done that, too, and I never want to do it again.

The third biggest item on that list is healthcare, for which you've managed to arrive at a figure that's over five times bigger than the current average, private health insurance bill in the UK (source).

That's because I used the current average, unsubsidised healthcare expenses, including insurance bills and additional costs, from the US. The UK has a publically-funded healthcare system; I chose to take figures from somewhere that doesn't.

Your link discusses in very little detail those additional costs, but they're going to include prescriptions, excess (the link says 'many policies' include this), and anything that isn't covered in your policy. Pregnancy is on that list, as are organ transplants and chronic illnesses. Just like a car, a person's healthcare needs are far more than just their insurance premiums. (Oh, yeah, I forgot car insurance, which is a legal requirement...)

So yeah, cut about 500 from your transport estimate,

Valid. You can take the bus to the shops. Unless the government's shut down the bus route through where you live, in which case you can... walk?

another 500 from health,

Vehemently disagree. Unless there's a good reason to say that a post-NHS healthcare system will not tend towards the same state as the US system.

and maybe 200 from housing/sanitation,

This absolutely depends where you live, but okay, sure.

and you are somewhere there, at about a quarter of the original at 450/month. Which, believe it or not, actually tallies pretty well with what the government actually ends up paying anyway,

Around $365 billion, which does indeed come in below the combined benefits + Education + NHS budget of ~ £450 billion. If you allow me to add healthcare back in, though, you end up back at £870 billion, which is vastly more.

except it also has to pay itself, and hand out all these 'benefits testing' contracts.

But you can't write off the entire budget for those various departments. You still need a vast administration apparatus to hand out 66 million payments each month (week?). And I can't imagine you can actually get rid of the Departments of Education and Health. No inspections? No standardisation? No checks on 'hi, I'm Doctor Sketchy, and this is my new treatment'? Sounds like the 19th century all over again!   So you end up paying more even with your smaller numbers.

UBI could be claimed in addition to wages, of course, otherwise it's not really U.

At which point you have to assume everyone will claim it, because... why wouldn't you? Especially if minimum wage is abolished (likely by the first Conservative government after the change, as a gift to the businesses of Britain - oh, sorry, an 'economic stimulus package').

And, given that people are bad with money, particularly in the long term (hope you can predict the state of the economy and your own health from your retirement through to death!), you're still going to have constant levels of poverty; only now there's no flexibility in the safety net.

hS

[Bacchus]

The US is an absolute outlier in terms of healthcare for a whole set of reasons, all of which skew the average up -- the presence of the super-rich, the inefficiency and lack of competition, the medical guild with a ridiculous entry barrier, etc. Maybe compare Switzerland -- fully 'private' healthcare, no state-provided services, but everyone must buy insurance (from one of private providers). The payments are about 300-500 CHF a month.

Some standardisations and inspections would remain for the appropriate govt departments, sure. The Food Standards Agency gets by on GBP160m, the Department of Work and Pensions spends a billion on administration.

On the room, bike, and so on -- I've done all that too, and it's perfectly liveable. It's not great, but neither does it need to be. And yeah, cycling with bags on bike handles was not fun, but buses, and maybe an Uber\rideshare once a week for the shop.

As for not being able to have kids whilst not (yet) having a job -- surely that's a feature, not a bug? I proceed on the assumption that UBI, for the vast majority of people, is a temporary backstop that they actively seek to complement. Sure, some people will choose to live off it, and some people might not have choice but to do so (support of such people over the long term should be up to the community, not the state), but it's not the point of the policy to give them a good livelihood. If you choose to live as a pure freeloader, your life should suck, there is no way about it, it's just not fair to force working people to give you a good livelihood, they are not your slaves. You definitely shouldn't be encouraged to have kids on the basis that others will provide for them.

It's also why, in the world that I imagine as sensible, well-off people won't be claiming UBI despite the ability to do so, exactly because they understand that it constitutes coercion. I am not a robber, so why would I force people to give me money under threat of violence, if I can make do without it? In my world, UBI would be adopted simply because it's not efficient to have the government and politicians determine who deserves what and how much, it would still be adopted specifically on the understanding that there are people that need it, and those are the people it strives to serve. If you don't need it, but you claim it, you commit a fraud on your fellows -- it's not a fraud that's prosecuted, we accept that it's not just worth our while to do so, but it's a fraud nonetheless.

[Huinesoron]

As for not being able to have kids whilst not (yet) having a job -- surely that's a feature, not a bug? (...) You definitely shouldn't be encouraged to have kids on the basis that others will provide for them.

So I'm pretty sure 'discourage the poor from having children' is, in fact, a form of eugenics. One of the milder forms, sure, but when your policy is 'if you get pregnant, you will not be able to afford healthcare without losing other basic needs', that's definitely eugenic-y.

hS

[Mardoc]

It's also why, in the world that I imagine as sensible, well-off people won't be claiming UBI despite the ability to do so, exactly because they understand that it constitutes coercion.

If you can solve this problem, then just about any system would work, including pure communism. And when you're tallying up the budget for this hypothetical, don't forget to subtract the entire police and military budgets, since you can rely on the good nature of man to avoid their necessity.

[Gavagai]

2 Huinesoron

1) You are not supposed to live a comfortable, dignified life on UBI, the idea that it should cover things like education, transport, comfortable housing, etc. is beyond absurd. It seems that you see it as a tool to create an institutionalized underclass which would use UBI as a sole and permanent source of income. Of course, this I would not accept.
2) Healthcare in the US is ridiculously overpriced, do not use it as an estimate.

EDIT: sorry, I misread you, thought that you have included a smartphone in the list of your "basic needs".

[Bacchus]

I'm not budgeting for this hypothetical People will overclaim, and the proposal will only work if the savings on policing are large enough, it's what I explicitly said way up to THH.

[Gavagai]

But really, this list of necessities is something. Personal computers literally did not exist forty years ago and now it is inconceivable for you that a person can live without buying a new one every five years. It is faster than I change my PCs.

[Bacchus]

As for not being able to have kids whilst not (yet) having a job -- surely that's a feature, not a bug? (...) You definitely shouldn't be encouraged to have kids on the basis that others will provide for them.

So I'm pretty sure 'discourage the poor from having children' is, in fact, a form of eugenics. One of the milder forms, sure, but when your policy is 'if you get pregnant, you will not be able to afford healthcare without losing other basic needs', that's definitely eugenic-y.

hS

I think we are talking a little past each other -- you are speaking from a social engineering point of view, I'm speaking primarily from an individual responsibility point of view. Would you have children if you are aware that you cannot support them and don't plan on being able to support them? If one of your close friends, recently fired and without clear prospects on the horizon, sought your advice on the possibility of bringing children into her life, would you advise her to do go ahead with that, or sort her affairs out first? That's the perspective I was taking, I did then make the assumption that a good first approximation how to structure society is to follow advice that we would give ourselves and people close to us. If you make a policy proposition that encourages behavior that cuts sharply against advice that you would take or give -- that to me requires some kind of reasoning beyond "well, this seems a nice thing to do". Of course, I could also be wrong even on the personal ethics front, maybe you should have children every time you have the chance (not sarcasm, I think the argument can actually be made).

[Huinesoron]

But really, this list of necessities is something. Personal computers literally did not exist forty years ago and now it is inconceivable for you that a person can live without buying a new one every five years. It is faster than I change my PCs.

Per Wikipedia:

David Gordon's paper, "Indicators of Poverty and Hunger", for the United Nations, further defines absolute poverty as the absence of any two of the following eight basic needs:


Food: Body mass index must be above 16.
Safe drinking water: Water must not come solely from rivers and ponds, and must be available nearby (fewer than 15 minutes' walk each way).
Sanitation facilities: Toilets or latrines must be accessible in or near the home.
Health: Treatment must be received for serious illnesses and pregnancy.
Shelter: Homes must have fewer than four people living in each room. Floors must not be made of soil, mud, or clay.
Education: Everyone must attend school or otherwise learn to read.
Information: Everyone must have access to newspapers, radios, televisions, computers, or telephones at home.
Access to services: This item is undefined by Gordon, but normally is used to indicate the complete panoply of education, health, legal, social, and financial (credit) services.

You're right that I got my timing muddled up - it doesn't seem like it's been that long since '09! But yes, my computer lasted eight years (running Vista at that), so 10 years would have been more reasonable.  So feel free to halve the value for the computer.

I think we are talking a little past each other -- you are speaking from a social engineering point of view, I'm speaking primarily from an individual responsibility point of view. Would you have children if you are aware that you cannot support them and don't plan on being able to support them? If one of your close friends, recently fired and without clear prospects on the horizon, sought your advice on the possibility of bringing children into her life, would you advise her to do go ahead with that, or sort her affairs out first? That's the perspective I was taking, I did then make the assumption that a good first approximation how to structure society is to follow advice that we would give ourselves and people close to us. If you make a policy proposition that encourages behavior that cuts sharply against advice that you would take or give -- that to me requires some kind of reasoning beyond "well, this seems a nice thing to do". Of course, I could also be wrong even on the personal ethics front, maybe you should have children every time you have the chance (not sarcasm, I think the argument can actually be made).

Well, you're the one who described 'our welfare system discourages the poor from having kids' as 'a feature, not a bug'. For the record, my first child was born a few months after moving out of the aforementioned studio apartment, while I was working behind the counters at McDonalds - maybe it's not a good idea to make assumptions about my rationality.  

hS