$1000/month Universal Basic Income - Andrew Yang

[maizefolk]

The UBI presupposes a world with enough food and resources to go around, just not enough work for people to do to earn the money to buy either.

Soylent Green is more a story about a world that is running out of resources than a world without enough work to do. But if you'd prefer to explore that... ahem... cheerful scenario, a world where we did nothing but ate other people would last about 32 months* until we'd be left with only one person who had no one left to eat.

Revolution on the other hand seems a quite plausible risk in the medium to long term. If we do get a UBI, it won't be (solely) our of the goodness of people's hearts, but because the people with money and power decide that giving up some money to reduce the risk of a societal upheaval that leaves them with neither money nor power is a worthwhile trade.

A better analogy than the proletarian revolution might be to the French revolution. The combination of extreme wealth disparities with many people unable to earn enough money to feed themselves and their families tends to end poorly for all involved. The poor starve and the wealthy (and their families and loved ones) go to the guillotine.

*Source: https://what-if.xkcd.com/105/ Based on an estimate of one human being containing approximately enough calories to feed another human being for a month, and 32 halvings of the population being enough to reduce the population from ~7,000,000,00 to 1.

[Boofinator]

Thanks for the xkcd black hole today....

To answer your questions:

If, as seems likely to me, these modern studies replicate the results observed in the NGWIE and Mincome experiments that, aside from allowing mothers who chose to do so to spend more time with their children, a UBI does not produce any substantial decrease in labor force participation itself, would you change your views?

Yes, however I'm not sure it is possible to disentangle cause-and-effect in this scenario. A UBI is being proposed to mitigate job loss, but at the same time would be believed to not cause additional job loss (or minimal). I looked at the New Jersey experiment report, and of course the big difference between its implementation and a theoretical UBI would be the duration of benefits. The New Jersey experiment lasted three years, after which participants would know they would need a job; UBI would last indefinitely. Additionally, I don't feel UBI would have much affect on people already in the labor force, but instead would most seriously affect people trying to enter the labor force; measuring this affect would unquestionably take years. Finally, and I haven't sufficiently researched this, but there is the (my?) perceived association of welfare with an increase in long-term joblessness (and hence the bipartisan welfare reform act of the '90s).

To modify your own question from above, let's say 20% of the population is unable to find paid work, nor are they able to be absorbed by the modest social safety net we currently have (SSDI, private charity, support from/living with extended family, etc). Do you see that as a healthy and vibrant society? Or a society where you'd feel safe walking the streets at night?

I don't believe such a thing is possible except due to some government blunder that disincentivizes work either at the supply or demand side. But if this hypothetical scenario were to come to pass, the government should work to feed and shelter people, and perhaps UBI would be the best short-term solution. But if better incentives were put into place, people who want to work should be able to find it.

[Tyson]

I dunno, it seems like UBI is a solution to a problem we don't actually have yet. 

[maizefolk]

Yeah, the "What If" series is surprisingly addictive. Randall Moore is an under appreciated genius.

Anyway, thanks for the thoughtful response. You are right that no experiment is going to perfectly capture the effect of a permanent and nation-wide UBI. I agree that measuring the effect of a UBI on people entering the labor force would be particularly hard to measure. My own ancedotal experience living on twice the proposed UBI and not working in a traditional sense (it was a graduate school stipend) when I was young was that life still felt extremely tight and I was quite eager to move on an get a "grown up" job, but obviously other's experiences will differ.

Is there any experiment or dataset you could think of (short of just trying it for a couple of decades and seeing what would happen) that would convince you to change your opinion on what the effect of a UBI would be on people's willingness to work when jobs were available?

To modify your own question from above, let's say 20% of the population is unable to find paid work, nor are they able to be absorbed by the modest social safety net we currently have (SSDI, private charity, support from/living with extended family, etc). Do you see that as a healthy and vibrant society? Or a society where you'd feel safe walking the streets at night?

I don't believe such a thing is possible except due to some government blunder that disincentivizes work either at the supply or demand side. But if this hypothetical scenario were to come to pass, the government should work to feed and shelter people, and perhaps UBI would be the best short-term solution. But if better incentives were put into place, people who want to work should be able to find it.

This may be a core place where we just agree to disagree. But I do appreciate that you recognize and are up front about that fact that this is a belief rather than a proven fact. Good luck!

[WhiteTrashCash]

I'm still utterly convinced that UBI is a concept that exists because most Americans have never heard of Vanguard. Seriously.

And how in the world can we turn it into a bad thing when we're creating robots to do all our work? The obvious solution is to have robots work while we are playing frisbee and having a picnic in the park. It's a no-brainer.

[PDXTabs]

I'm still utterly convinced that UBI is a concept that exists because most Americans have never heard of Vanguard. Seriously.

And how in the world can we turn it into a bad thing when we're creating robots to do all our work? The obvious solution is to have robots work while we are playing frisbee and having a picnic in the park. It's a no-brainer.

I certainly agree with that last bit, but how are you supposed to buy the vanguard funds when you are never able to get a job from all the automation?

[maizefolk]

And how in the world can we turn it into a bad thing when we're creating robots to do all our work? The obvious solution is to have robots work while we are playing frisbee and having a picnic in the park. It's a no-brainer.

I believe this is, in fact, what is being proposed. And if we pull it off, I agree it'll definitely be a good thing.

[Bloop Bloop]

The difficulty is that the people who own the robots also have the right to what the robots produce.

I tend to agree that, until a full-time minimum wage job can no longer sustain a very frugal existence, there is no problem at hand.

[LennStar]

You will never get a Universal Basic Income (UBI) because the people with the money control the media and the politicians.

You are implying that all rich people are against the UBI. Which is wrong. In fact one of the richest Germans was one of the earliest (current wave) and loudest supporters.

2) I saw this movie when I was a kid .  It never quite left my mind.  It was called Soylent Green.  It'll be a great solution to the issue.  A needed product will be produced that will free up a lot of the land now used to produce beef cattle, etc.  It's a food product.  The ingredients will be a well kept secret like Coca Cola or the 7 herbs and spices in Kentiucky Fried Chicken.  It can be easily produced and can be exported to the burgeoning populations of China and India.  Farmers won't be needed for the product.  (Farmers, farmers - we don't need no stinkin farmers.)  It can be marketed as the "new" in style way to eat.  People can be sold anything with the right marketing.  There are current legal issues with the product, but I'm quite sure the GOP is working on them.

No need for that, you can buy it already. There are even a surprising number of additional flavors, like this one: https://www.amazon.com/Soylent-Nutritionally-Complete-Replacement-Powder/dp/B079JLYGKL/ref=sr_1_4?keywords=soylent&qid=1554885311&s=gateway&sr=8-4

welfare with an increase in long-term joblessness

What is better? A life full of meaning but without job, or a life full with job but without meaning?

The difficulty is that the people who own the robots also have the right to what the robots produce.

Yes. Exactly the same as now, where people who own the factories and the work hours have the right to tell the worker what to produce.
Your point is?

[Bloop Bloop]

My point is that forcing big companies to put their robots to work in order to provide a UBI (or universal basic services) is somewhat difficult. You need legislative approval and not all legislatures are going to do that.

I have no doubt that if the robot / automation revolution comes, then the owner companies will provide some level of subsistence to the needy, but probably not unconditional - I think we may very well see "commercial welfare" become a thing.

[LennStar]

My point is that forcing big companies to put their robots to work in order to provide a UBI (or universal basic services) is somewhat difficult. You need legislative approval and not all legislatures are going to do that.

I have no doubt that if the robot / automation revolution comes, then the owner companies will provide some level of subsistence to the needy, but probably not unconditional - I think we may very well see "commercial welfare" become a thing.

WTF? Why the hell should they do that?
The companies are not even doing any "welfare" today - like keeping workers for a year or two if there is a crisis. Contrary they kick out people even when making billions of profits.

I know that some people see the "free market" as a religous-level savior, but even if you accept that, there is no market reason at all to provide welfare for companies.
You can compare that to waste, noise emissions and any other externality you can come up. If there is no law, they will not make it.

[pecunia]

The difficulty is that the people who own the robots also have the right to what the robots produce.

I tend to agree that, until a full-time minimum wage job can no longer sustain a very frugal existence, there is no problem at hand.

You are right - With the minimum wage, dumpster diving for food and makeshift cardboard shelters over sewer grates for warmth, life is great.  Supplemental money is still available with the selling of ones blood.

There is one problem that i have seen continually.  Have you ever noticed that the "Will Work For Food" signs that people produce are nearly always poorly done?  It would be a small cost from some private organization to produce more legible copies of these signs and have them freely distributed at the dumpsters in the backs of restaurants.  This would also be an incentive for poorly paid restaurant workers to stay at their jobs knowing that they are just a paycheck or two from the use of these signs.  Just a thought.

[Boofinator]

Is there any experiment or dataset you could think of (short of just trying it for a couple of decades and seeing what would happen) that would convince you to change your opinion on what the effect of a UBI would be on people's willingness to work when jobs were available?

I'd be interested to spend more time researching the long-term effects of welfare, as implemented since the 1930's in America. If anyone is aware of studies or articles that aren't too deep or shallow, and that are scientific and non-partisan, I'd be interested to see if there were long-term unintended consequences from these programs (rather than using my hunches). All I know about welfare was the 1990's push for welfare reform, which from the little bit I've read on it seems to have been successful in improving outcomes for the lower classes who have need the assistance.

And how in the world can we turn it into a bad thing when we're creating robots to do all our work? The obvious solution is to have robots work while we are playing frisbee and having a picnic in the park. It's a no-brainer.

Nobody is saying that automation is a bad thing. What I am saying is that automation won't lead to nonstop fun days at the park. There will always be competition to some level between individuals and societies, and the first losers in that competition would be those who spend all day having fun at the park. This isn't to say that automation won't increase our number of fun days at the park, but rather that it cannot eliminate work on a fundamental level.

Let's take a look at society as a whole. A couple hundred years ago, agriculture was the primary occupation for some 90% of the U.S. population, whereas now it is down to about 2% (https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SL.AGR.EMPL.ZS). If we told those people that roughly 88% of the current jobs would be eliminated in a couple hundred years due to technological innovation, how many of them would have dreamed of playing in the park all day? Would you be the buzzkill who would tell them that actually no, everybody would still have to work, we'd just have new jobs in engineering, science, information technology, childhood education, etc.? Since they'd have almost no concept of these occupations, they'd certainly scoff at the thought. But nonetheless, that's how history turned out. We may think this time is different, but I don't think the data has yet to prove this hypothesis out.

You are right - With the minimum wage, dumpster diving for food and makeshift cardboard shelters over sewer grates for warmth, life is great.  Supplemental money is still available with the selling of ones blood.

Not sure what level of sarcasm this is, but I feel I should point out that there has been homelessness and poverty as far back as history goes. I don't think UBI is going to fix this (though I could be wrong).

[pecunia]

- SNIP -

Not sure what level of sarcasm this is, but I feel I should point out that there has been homelessness and poverty as far back as history goes. I don't think UBI is going to fix this (though I could be wrong).

It's not the UBI.  That will never become a reality.  I was trying to point out in a silly way that the minimum wage is not adequate to sustain a very good lifestyle today.  Raising the minimum wage is a politically difficult enough task and should be done before attempting this dream of UBI.  Someone who is willing and able to work a 40 hour job should be guaranteed a humane level of survival.

[maizefolk]

All I know about welfare was the 1990's push for welfare reform, which from the little bit I've read on it seems to have been successful in improving outcomes for the lower classes who have need the assistance.

1990s welfare reform in substantial part focused on addressing the disincentive to work provided by the withdrawal of benefits if a person decided to pursue employment again.

"Those on welfare realized that taking up a job would mean not only losing benefits but also incur child care, transportation and clothing costs. Their new jobs probably would not pay well or include health insurance, whereas on welfare they would have been covered by Medicaid."

Since you don't lose your UBI if you return to work, I would say that looking at what happened in the 90s is a far poorer predictor of what would happen with a UBI than the actual experiments which have tested providing either a guaranteed income or a negative income tax as the former provides no active disincentive to pursue work, and the negative income tax provides a substantially smaller active disincentive to pursue work than pre-1990s welfare.

What I am saying is that automation won't lead to nonstop fun days at the park. There will always be competition to some level between individuals and societies, and the first losers in that competition would be those who spend all day having fun at the park. This isn't to say that automation won't increase our number of fun days at the park, but rather that it cannot eliminate work on a fundamental level.

Losing competitions can be fun sometimes. Essentially anyone who actually does the RE part of FIRE is losing out in their competition with equally talented/skilled people in the same career track who continue to work. But in years on this forum I've heard remarkably few complaints about the horrible consequences of spending more fun days at the park instead of continuing on in the careerism race.

Not sure what level of sarcasm this is, but I feel I should point out that there has been homelessness and poverty as far back as history goes. I don't think UBI is going to fix this (though I could be wrong).

Yet the proportion of the population living in homelessness and poverty (either in the USA or around the world) has changed dramatically from one historical era to another. So I don't think the argument that there may still be some poor or homeless people is a compelling argument against reducing the number of human beings who must suffer either of both of these conditions.

[LennStar]

Let's take a look at society as a whole. A couple hundred years ago, agriculture was the primary occupation for some 90% of the U.S. population, whereas now it is down to about 2% (https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/SL.AGR.EMPL.ZS). If we told those people that roughly 88% of the current jobs would be eliminated in a couple hundred years due to technological innovation, how many of them would have dreamed of playing in the park all day? Would you be the buzzkill who would tell them that actually no, everybody would still have to work, we'd just have new jobs in engineering, science, information technology, childhood education, etc.? Since they'd have almost no concept of these occupations, they'd certainly scoff at the thought. But nonetheless, that's how history turned out. We may think this time is different, but I don't think the data has yet to prove this hypothesis out.

While I acknoledge your point, your example is totally unusable.

Back when 3/4 of all people worked in agriculture, it was mainly subsistence economy. Everyone did (nearly) everything for daily life. And for the rest there was the village smith.
This is uncomparable to today's society where 90% can NOT work in substiance even if they wanted (and a lot of people say things like "in pension I get a garden").

[Bloop Bloop]

- SNIP -

Not sure what level of sarcasm this is, but I feel I should point out that there has been homelessness and poverty as far back as history goes. I don't think UBI is going to fix this (though I could be wrong).

It's not the UBI.  That will never become a reality.  I was trying to point out in a silly way that the minimum wage is not adequate to sustain a very good lifestyle today.  Raising the minimum wage is a politically difficult enough task and should be done before attempting this dream of UBI.  Someone who is willing and able to work a 40 hour job should be guaranteed a humane level of survival.

I don't think the minimum wage is meant to sustain a very good lifestyle. It is meant to sustain a frugal life. I think a frugal life still counts as a humane one. The min wage in my country (Australia) is approx $38,000 a year, or USD $28,000 a year. After tax (and after applying low income offsets) it is about $35,000 a year or $700 a week. Could I survive on that? Yes, but I'd have to be quite frugal, but it's eminently doable, as I'm sure most here would agree. Could I support a wife and three kids? No, although with the significant additional government welfare payments that come with having children, I might be able to have a go at it. Point is though, a single can live on a min wage without having to resort to dumpster diving.

[Boofinator]

- SNIP -

Not sure what level of sarcasm this is, but I feel I should point out that there has been homelessness and poverty as far back as history goes. I don't think UBI is going to fix this (though I could be wrong).

It's not the UBI.  That will never become a reality.  I was trying to point out in a silly way that the minimum wage is not adequate to sustain a very good lifestyle today.  Raising the minimum wage is a politically difficult enough task and should be done before attempting this dream of UBI.  Someone who is willing and able to work a 40 hour job should be guaranteed a humane level of survival.

First, I'll start with 'never say never' (perhaps in a little mousey voice). I agree that the current political climate wouldn't allow for such a thing, but political winds could shift quickly. As was mentioned up-thread, the King of France wasn't too worried about the state of things less than ten years before his head was on the chopping block.

As for minimum wage, the current value in most states is roughly equal to the proposed UBI (after taxes). At this wage you couldn't raise a family, but you could definitely survive pretty easily. That being said, I've never made the minimum wage, even from day 1 working shitty jobs; I find if you are dependable and responsible, employers will quickly increase your wage to ensure you don't start looking for a less shitty minimum wage job. (I don't mean to project this outcome everywhere.)

[Kyle Schuant]

What is better? A life full of meaning but without job, or a life full with job but without meaning?

It is not clear to me that those are our only choices. I believe that if not everyone, then at least more people, can have a life with both job and meaning. Some here see a UBI as a base level of support to make up for the jobs robots will take. But I don't believe that will happen. We simply don't have the resources to have the technotopia we've been promised since 1880 or so, we don't even have the resources to keep what we've got now.


I see the UBI as a way to remove the bureaucracy and the useless moralising the poor are subject to but which the middle and upper classes exempt themselves from. As well, I see it as a kickstart for those who are smart and hardworking enough to improve their lives in some way. With a UBI, more people could seek higher education, take a chance on a job requiring them to move across the country, or start their own small business. As in the GiveDirect experiments, "not everyone needs a goat" - just give them the money and they'll spend it sensibly to improve their lives.


My experience of being poor, and even at one time homeless, is that the poor are actually very creative, hardworking, and resilient, but that they lack the educational, time and financial resources to improve their lives. Society as a whole believes that with enough moralising and threats, the poor will improve their lives, but a century or more of experience in the Western world trying this approach favoured by the right-wing suggests that it doesn't work, still less does the "let's not judge, let's just give" approach of the left-wing.


I suggest a different approach, the approach most of us use with our own children, of giving them enough resources and encouragement to go and do things on their own. We'd just take the patronising part out of it, since the poor are not society's children, and are grown up enough to do things on their own - if given the means to do so. At the moment they're kept too busy negotiating the bureaucratic obstacles society puts in their way, treated with unveiled hostility by bureaucrats and the middle class, and with patronising trivialising by the left.

[Kyle Schuant]

I don't think the minimum wage is meant to sustain a very good lifestyle. It is meant to sustain a frugal life. I think a frugal life still counts as a humane one. The min wage in my country (Australia) is approx $38,000 a year, or USD $28,000 a year. After tax (and after applying low income offsets) it is about $35,000 a year or $700 a week. Could I survive on that? Yes, but I'd have to be quite frugal, but it's eminently doable, as I'm sure most here would agree. Could I support a wife and three kids? No, although with the significant additional government welfare payments that come with having children, I might be able to have a go at it. Point is though, a single can live on a min wage without having to resort to dumpster diving.

The original standard of the minimum wage in Australia was, as wikipedia notes on the famous Harvester decision case,

H.B. Higgins declared that "fair and reasonable" wages for an unskilled male worker required a living wage that was sufficient for "a human being in a civilised community" to support a wife and three children in "frugal comfort", while a skilled worker should receive an additional margin for their skills, regardless of the employer's capacity to pay.

Now, we can argue whether the current minimum wage in Australia meets these standards. But it is evident that people can and do survive without dumpster diving on this and lower incomes - including supporting a spouse and children. What is more significant is that few people in Australia actually receive a permanent full-time minimum wage; most people at that skill level are doing part-time casual work. $19 or so an hour on 37.5 hours a week with 10 days' sick leave and 20 days' holiday leave annually and paid public holidays is one thing; $24 an hour with casual loading, no paid leave, and 2-4 x 5 hour shifts a week which can be cancelled with only 2 hours' notice is another.


What is not often appreciated by the middle and upper classes of the West is just how tenuous life on lower incomes is. In any week your income might drop from "sufficient" to "insufficient" because of the whims of some bureaucrat at Centrelink, or his computer software falsely accusing you of theft, or the whims of management of your workplace. People can and do adjust to just about any income level, so long as it's secure. The life of the poor in Australia today is not that of people with a permanent full-time minimum wage job, for which most would be insanely grateful. It's much more tenuous than that.


A UBI would take the uncertainty away and allow people to plan their lives better, and improve their lives. Similarly, reintroducing import tariffs and rebuilding the manufacturing industry, and bringing in laws so that large companies' record profits are no longer followed by record redundancies, and so on are other things which could likewise reducing the chaotic uncertainty of low-income lives.

[Boofinator]

What is better? A life full of meaning but without job, or a life full with job but without meaning?

It is not clear to me that those are our only choices. I believe that if not everyone, then at least more people, can have a life with both job and meaning. Some here see a UBI as a base level of support to make up for the jobs robots will take. But I don't believe that will happen. We simply don't have the resources to have the technotopia we've been promised since 1880 or so, we don't even have the resources to keep what we've got now.


I see the UBI as a way to remove the bureaucracy and the useless moralising the poor are subject to but which the middle and upper classes exempt themselves from. As well, I see it as a kickstart for those who are smart and hardworking enough to improve their lives in some way. With a UBI, more people could seek higher education, take a chance on a job requiring them to move across the country, or start their own small business. As in the GiveDirect experiments, "not everyone needs a goat" - just give them the money and they'll spend it sensibly to improve their lives.


My experience of being poor, and even at one time homeless, is that the poor are actually very creative, hardworking, and resilient, but that they lack the educational, time and financial resources to improve their lives. Society as a whole believes that with enough moralising and threats, the poor will improve their lives, but a century or more of experience in the Western world trying this approach favoured by the right-wing suggests that it doesn't work, still less does the "let's not judge, let's just give" approach of the left-wing.


I suggest a different approach, the approach most of us use with our own children, of giving them enough resources and encouragement to go and do things on their own. We'd just take the patronising part out of it, since the poor are not society's children, and are grown up enough to do things on their own - if given the means to do so. At the moment they're kept too busy negotiating the bureaucratic obstacles society puts in their way, treated with unveiled hostility by bureaucrats and the middle class, and with patronising trivialising by the left.

Just want to say I appreciate the insightful commentary. I feel that if somebody wants to convince enough people that UBI is a good idea, it should probably not start from the position of "there aren't enough jobs to go around", at least at the current level of unemployment. This "not-enough-job" approach seems to advocate for UBI from a position of fear (fear of not enough employment opportunities and the resulting starvation of the lower-class masses), whereas advocacy from a position of vision toward the possibilities of economic growth and success is a more palatable reason, at least in my opinion. (I'm still not convinced it will be a good policy, but at the same time I'm much less opposed to it when framed this way.)

[PDXTabs]

Just want to say I appreciate the insightful commentary. I feel that if somebody wants to convince enough people that UBI is a good idea, it should probably not start from the position of "there aren't enough jobs to go around", at least at the current level of unemployment. This "not-enough-job" approach seems to advocate for UBI from a position of fear (fear of not enough employment opportunities and the resulting starvation of the lower-class masses), whereas advocacy from a position of vision toward the possibilities of economic growth and success is a more palatable reason, at least in my opinion. (I'm still not convinced it will be a good policy, but at the same time I'm much less opposed to it when framed this way.)

That is an interesting perspective. But they can both be true at the same time.

[shenlong55]

I don't think the minimum wage is meant to sustain a very good lifestyle. It is meant to sustain a frugal life. I think a frugal life still counts as a humane one. The min wage in my country (Australia) is approx $38,000 a year, or USD $28,000 a year. After tax (and after applying low income offsets) it is about $35,000 a year or $700 a week. Could I survive on that? Yes, but I'd have to be quite frugal, but it's eminently doable, as I'm sure most here would agree. Could I support a wife and three kids? No, although with the significant additional government welfare payments that come with having children, I might be able to have a go at it. Point is though, a single can live on a min wage without having to resort to dumpster diving.

Although I think a UBI is a better solution than a minimum wage, I don't think I'd be advocating for a minimum wage increase if the minimum wage in America was anywhere near that.  It's currently less than half of that if you can even find full time work.  That's in addition to having to pay exorbitant amounts for healthcare since we also don't have universal healthcare.

[Boofinator]

Just want to say I appreciate the insightful commentary. I feel that if somebody wants to convince enough people that UBI is a good idea, it should probably not start from the position of "there aren't enough jobs to go around", at least at the current level of unemployment. This "not-enough-job" approach seems to advocate for UBI from a position of fear (fear of not enough employment opportunities and the resulting starvation of the lower-class masses), whereas advocacy from a position of vision toward the possibilities of economic growth and success is a more palatable reason, at least in my opinion. (I'm still not convinced it will be a good policy, but at the same time I'm much less opposed to it when framed this way.)

That is an interesting perspective. But they can both be true at the same time.

Yes, this data has been brought up a few times. What I'd really like to see is a breakdown of this graph showing why people aren't in the workforce. For example, in the 18-64 year old demographic, there has definitely been an increase in 1) education (a good thing), 2) prison (a bad thing, but likely unrelated to technology and automation), 3) affluence allowing for earlier retirements, 4) a literal inability to get a job, and 5) probably some others I'm not thinking of. My guess is that category 4 hasn't changed a lot in the intervening time period, and what we're seeing instead primarily relates to those other reasons.

[JLee]

I don't think the minimum wage is meant to sustain a very good lifestyle. It is meant to sustain a frugal life. I think a frugal life still counts as a humane one. The min wage in my country (Australia) is approx $38,000 a year, or USD $28,000 a year. After tax (and after applying low income offsets) it is about $35,000 a year or $700 a week. Could I survive on that? Yes, but I'd have to be quite frugal, but it's eminently doable, as I'm sure most here would agree. Could I support a wife and three kids? No, although with the significant additional government welfare payments that come with having children, I might be able to have a go at it. Point is though, a single can live on a min wage without having to resort to dumpster diving.

Although I think a UBI is a better solution than a minimum wage, I don't think I'd be advocating for a minimum wage increase if the minimum wage in America was anywhere near that.  It's currently less than half of that if you can even find full time work.  That's in addition to having to pay exorbitant amounts for healthcare since we also don't have universal healthcare.

Yep.  Federal minimum wage is $7.25/hr ($10.16 AUD) and average health care cost is $440 single / $1168 family.  As there's no universal health care and all employers aren't required to provide health care. a full time employee earning minimum wage and paying average family health care costs would be left with $88.67 a month.

It's a completely different world.

(edit: this is also ignoring payroll tax/etc, so in reality it would be less)

[maizefolk]

Yes, this data has been brought up a few times. What I'd really like to see is a breakdown of this graph showing why people aren't in the workforce. For example, in the 18-64 year old demographic, there has definitely been an increase in 1) education (a good thing), 2) prison (a bad thing, but likely unrelated to technology and automation), 3) affluence allowing for earlier retirements, 4) a literal inability to get a job, and 5) probably some others I'm not thinking of. My guess is that category 4 hasn't changed a lot in the intervening time period, and what we're seeing instead primarily relates to those other reasons.

I'd like that too, but unfortunately we're limited by what data is available.

#1 is definitely increasing which reduces work force participation for 18-64, but shouldn't have (much) impact on the obnoxiously titled "prime age" workforce participation rate of 25-55 year olds, which is where we are seeing a lot of the decline.

#2 While the proportion of adults in prison spiked dramatically in the 1980s, it's slowed dramatically since the mid 1990s.



#3 What are you basing your view that #3 has been increasing over time? My own impression is that people are either retiring much later if they can keep their jobs or are forced into early retirement based on taking social security if they are laid off in their 60s and cannot find a new job.

Supporting this, the average age when americans expect to retire has been increasing rather than decreasing over time.



#4 Yes, while there are a lot of different models proposed in this thread, I would argue that so far all the data discussed in this thread would seem to point to a shortage of jobs that unemployed and/or folks not currently counted as participating in the labor force are qualified to do seems to explain a lot of what we are seeing.

#5 Yes it is always a possibility that there are other factors we don't know about yet. I'm not arguing we've proven beyond all doubt that a reduction in job opportunities with good fit for the workforce is the primary driver of the drop in labor force participation, just that it is more consistent with all the data we've been able to gather so far than any of the alternative models proposed to date.

I've gotten dinged on this forum before for trying to show my work and reasoning without citing some person with credentials in the field to back it up. That seems backwards to me, but for those who are interested, the Kansas City Fed put out a very nice paper (unfortunately as a PDF, apologies to anyone wanting to read on their phone) trying to identify the factors responsible for the decline in labor force participation specifically among men ages 25-55 last year. Their argument is that the biggest factor driving this decline is a loss of "middle skill" jobs, which right now (well actually in the past two decades) are those most vulnerable to automation.

[Boofinator]

Thanks for sending the Kansas City Fed paper. Here are my takeaways:

1) Non-participation among prime-age men rose 3.2% from 1996 to 2016 in absolute terms, or 39% in relative terms (8.2% to 11.4%).
2) If you look at Table 2 and do the math, there's been a 20% increase in Disabled and Ill, an 88% increase in Family Care, an 86% increase in Education, and a 93% increase in Retired (and a 17% increase in Other). So my takeaway here is there are huge gains in the Family Care, Education, and Retired categories, and modest gains elsewhere (the more negative categories).
3) Per your prison graphic, prison accounts for about half a percent of the overall decrease in labor participation, though likely larger for those without a high school diploma.
4) (Unrelated to the Kansas City Paper) Apparently the underground economy has been taking some of the slack (and when you're talking a couple trillion dollars, that's probably in the neighborhood of at least 1-2%). https://www.cnbc.com/id/100668336

I don't doubt that machines are taking a lot of jobs, I just question whether it is enough to suggest a UBI is needed, and even moreso whether a UBI will exacerbate the issue.

[pecunia]

Lots of numbers.  Lots of people.  Maybe some measurement error too. 

[maizefolk]

2) If you look at Table 2 and do the math, there's been a 20% increase in Disabled and Ill, an 88% increase in Family Care, an 86% increase in Education, and a 93% increase in Retired (and a 17% increase in Other). So my takeaway here is there are huge gains in the Family Care, Education, and Retired categories, and modest gains elsewhere (the more negative categories).

I don't think you can so quickly leap to the assumption that people who report that they are caring for family or retired are not negative categories. There isn't a category for "I couldn't find a job so I just gave up" so people who are out of the labor force are going to have to say something. When you're younger I'm staying home to help with children or aged parents is a lot less prejorative than "my spouse/sibling is supporting me because I cannot find work" or "I had to move back in with my parents because I was broke."

Similarly, there are plenty of threads on the mustachian and single and ask a mustachian subforums about how guys who are FIRE run into trouble dating because when they say they're retired, women interpret that as being unemployed. The frequency with which I hear this coming up suggests that there are clearly an awful lot of people who are not in a financially secure position to be retired but who never the less use that word to describe their situation.

Also, I'm looking at table #2 and my numbers don't line up with yours. Just to be clear is this the table you're looking at?



If so, I see a a 13.8% decrease in the proportion of prime working age men who aren't in the labor fore who say they are disabled (you say 20% increase), a 35.2% increase in the proportion who say they're engaged in family care (you say 88% increase), 34% increase in the percent who say they went back to school (you say 86%), a 38.9% increase in the percent who say they are retired (you say 93%) and a 15.9% decrease in the proportion giving other reasons (you have a 17% increase)

3) Per your prison graphic, prison accounts for about half a percent of the overall decrease in labor participation, though likely larger for those without a high school diploma.

No argument on this one. Although please do keep in mind that higher rates of crime and imprisonment is also consistent with more people not being able to find legal employment that allow them to keep the lights on. Certainly plenty of other things that could be causing this increase in imprisonment though, so I'm not arguing this is data in support of my model, just that it's also not data that contradicts my model.

I don't doubt that machines are taking a lot of jobs, I just question whether it is enough to suggest a UBI is needed, and even moreso whether a UBI will exacerbate the issue.

Well that's interesting. So you are saying that for you it's a threshold. How many people would need to be unable to find work because their skills have been replaced by automation in order for you to feel a UBI is called for? Is it a percentage or an absolute number?

Also, could you clarify what you mean by where a UBI will exacerbate the issue of people's ability to work being replaced by machines/AI?

[Boofinator]

The percentages were calculated to reflect the total change in the general population (whereas the table is just showing the percentages for non-participants). Basically each 2016 figure was multiplied by 11.4/8.2 (the general ratio of non-participants from 2016:1996) and then the percentages were calculated. I feel this better reflects reality among the general population.

I'm not sure a threshold would convince me that UBI would alleviate unemployment, because I fundamentally believe that people can add value to society if they choose to work (even getting a minimum wage job if necessary). My great-grandmother was an immigrant maid, and certainly added value, even if that might not have been her dream occupation. So it's kind of like a belief on my end, that a lack of jobs will never, ever be a concern, though people might not like to have to change careers midstream due to the disruption of automation and globalization.

My comment regarding exacerbation relates to my belief that some people would choose not to get a job at all if UBI existed. These people would then never be able to get a job even if they wanted to, once they were out of the work market for a certain period of time.

I could certainly be wrong in all of this. Though I tend to think UBI would not work as well as advertised, I am not completely opposed. Even if it turned out to be a really bad policy, the U.S. would carry on being a relatively successful country.

[maizefolk]

I'm not sure a threshold would convince me that UBI would alleviate unemployment, because I fundamentally believe that people can add value to society if they choose to work (even getting a minimum wage job if necessary). So it's kind of like a belief on my end, that a lack of jobs will never, ever be a concern,

I think this is the key statement people need to understand about your position. You seem to be saying that your view of the evidence is driven by your belief about what the answer has to be, rather than the other way around.

Nothing wrong with that, but you do need to make it clear in posts where you're disagreeing with people who are trying to figure out what the correct answer is based on the data, rather than figure out what the correct data is based on the answer.

[LennStar]

I'm not sure a threshold would convince me that UBI would alleviate unemployment, because I fundamentally believe that people can add value to society if they choose to work (even getting a minimum wage job if necessary).

A) You are confusing work with getting paid to do things.

B) Nobody forbids you to do paid work when you get an UBI.

[Boofinator]

I'm not sure a threshold would convince me that UBI would alleviate unemployment, because I fundamentally believe that people can add value to society if they choose to work (even getting a minimum wage job if necessary). So it's kind of like a belief on my end, that a lack of jobs will never, ever be a concern,

I think this is the key statement people need to understand about your position. You seem to be saying that your view of the evidence is driven by your belief about what the answer has to be, rather than the other way around.

Nothing wrong with that, but you do need to make it clear in posts where you're disagreeing with people who are trying to figure out what the correct answer is based on the data, rather than figure out what the correct data is based on the answer.

The evidence shows low unemployment, the majority of the increase in nonparticipants is in education, retirement, and family care, and economics 101 says there'll always be jobs as long as government keeps incentives balanced between capital and labor.

So, I would have to say that we're both forming beliefs based off the data and logic, but happen to come to different conclusions. Is that an accurate assessment?

ETA: Maybe I should be using a word other than 'belief', as it implies 'faith' to a certain extent. What would be a better word here? Position?

[Boofinator]

I'm not sure a threshold would convince me that UBI would alleviate unemployment, because I fundamentally believe that people can add value to society if they choose to work (even getting a minimum wage job if necessary).

A) You are confusing work with getting paid to do things.

B) Nobody forbids you to do paid work when you get an UBI.

A) Capitalism, especially modern capitalism, will have its fair share of leeches. (In fact, I'm not sure any economic model could eliminate said leeches). Those businesses that don't identify and work to eliminate the dead weight will tend to lose their competitiveness, and eventually will go out of business (or, they're government employees, and different actions are necessary). Also, from an economic standpoint, I think there's very little distinction between 'work' and 'getting paid to do things', because if you're getting paid that means your company is adding value to someone somewhere (ignoring grift).

B) Agreed, and if this were the only outcome I'd be all for UBI. As mentioned earlier, my concern is for those that would give up at getting a job at all because rather than get through the struggle of breaking into the working class, they can coast on UBI.

[maizefolk]

So, I would have to say that we're both forming beliefs based off the data and logic, but happen to come to different conclusions. Is that an accurate assessment?

My observation has been that your argument has shifted when presented with different data contradicting your original points, but always trying to preserve the two conclusions the 1) if people are given enough money so that they don't have to fear starving if they cannot find work they will chose not to work 2) technological advancement will not reduce the number of people able to find productive work.

I have presented evidence that would suggest each of these two conclusions are false. I agree it is not conclusive evidence. So far your response has been that the evidence is not enough to convince you to abandon your belief in the truth of these two assertions. This, rather than to present substantial evidence that #1 and #2 are, in fact, true. It appears that, to you, these two conclusions are just inherently obvious (see your comment about "Econ 101" saying this without any explanation of the reasoning or logic of how you are getting from the principles taught in that course to the two conclusions you believe to be correct).

Hence, I regret to say that I cannot agree with you that this is, in fact, an accurate assessment.

ETA: Maybe I should be using a word other than 'belief', as it implies 'faith' to a certain extent. What would be a better word here? Position?

No, I think belief is the right word. A belief is something inherent. There may be a level of evidence that will convince a given person that a belief is incorrect, but the belief is still a default view in the absence of any evidence to support it.

[LennStar]

I think there's very little distinction between 'work' and 'getting paid to do things',

Then you are in contradiction to the science which btw. says about 50% of work is done unpaid.

And, may I ask, what is the problem with "leeches" as you called them?
The problem we face is, after all, not that we don't produce not enough, the problem is that we produce way more than we can afford. If 30% change to "leeches", that would be a good thing!

Not to mention that this is extremely unlikely and contrary to all that we know about human psychology. If you really beleive in a capitalistic free market, than you should welcome the UBI as a means to make the market more free. Let the market forces find out a salary where the "leeches" will be motivated to work!
And if that level is not reached, it only is the proof that their work was not needed, right?

[Bloop Bloop]

I think there's very little distinction between 'work' and 'getting paid to do things',

Then you are in contradiction to the science which btw. says about 50% of work is done unpaid.

And, may I ask, what is the problem with "leeches" as you called them?
The problem we face is, after all, not that we don't produce not enough, the problem is that we produce way more than we can afford. If 30% change to "leeches", that would be a good thing!

Not to mention that this is extremely unlikely and contrary to all that we know about human psychology. If you really beleive in a capitalistic free market, than you should welcome the UBI as a means to make the market more free. Let the market forces find out a salary where the "leeches" will be motivated to work!
And if that level is not reached, it only is the proof that their work was not needed, right?

A UBI would distort the free market because it would give people unearned money, which would rob them of the impetus to do the crappy jobs that someone has to do. I'd rather have people doing those crappy jobs than redistribute money to stop people doing those crappy jobs.

I prefer a world where the motivation to work is earning money and earning one's keep, not one where everyone has all basic needs met - in the latter world, no one will want to do the shitty labour, and we need people to do that. To be fair, I believe in disability pensions and things like that for non-able-bodied people, but otherwise, I like life to have a bit of an edge.

[Kyle Schuant]

Of course, the wealthy need the motivation of their wealth, and the poor need the motivation of their poverty. We can give money to the wealthy, and that is good and proper and will make them work harder, but giving money to the poor is wrong and terrible and will make them lazy. By contrast, if we take money from the wealthy they will give up on making money at all, but if we take money from the poor this will motivate them to work harder.

Oddly, these are arguments we only ever see the wealthy make. There could, perhaps, be some degree of self-interest in this reasoning.

[Bloop Bloop]

In what world do we 'take' money from the poor? They barely pay any income tax. Even when accounting for regressive sales taxes, they still come off way better than the wealthy in terms of the tax churn. Have a look at this:

http://comparativetaxation.treasury.gov.au/content/report/html/06_Chapter_4-04.asp

I can't believe how advocates of low income workers seem to think the tax/welfare rules are stacked against them. They're not.

[LennStar]

In what world do we 'take' money from the poor? They barely pay any income tax. Even when accounting for regressive sales taxes, they still come off way better than the wealthy in terms of the tax churn. Have a look at this:

http://comparativetaxation.treasury.gov.au/content/report/html/06_Chapter_4-04.asp

I can't believe how advocates of low income workers seem to think the tax/welfare rules are stacked against them. They're not.

I think you totally missed the topic here.

But coming back to your post, you are proposing we make slavery a common institution again?
Because the difference between "be a slave or die" and "work or die" is just the name. And the salaray slave is often the worse options, because a "historical" slave at least was valuable to it's owner, a work slave is just a tool you can replace by putting up a 10$ ad.

[seattlecyclone]

A UBI would distort the free market because it would give people unearned money, which would rob them of the impetus to do the crappy jobs that someone has to do.

It would rob them of the impetus to do these jobs for little pay because the alternative is starvation and/or homelessness.

I'd rather have people doing those crappy jobs than redistribute money to stop people doing those crappy jobs.

If these jobs still need to be done, someone will still do them. The employer will just have to treat their employees well enough to get them to want to do that work when they actually have a real choice in the matter.

Like I said above, this will be a pretty major paradigm shift. Grungy work might go from being some of the lowest-paid to some of the highest-paid, simply because nobody actually has to do it anymore. Therefore while I do support moving toward a UBI, I wouldn't start it at $1,000/month. That would create quite a bit of chaos with masses of people leaving their jobs all at once. I'd start it much lower and gradually ramp it up so that employers and employees have a chance to adapt to the new normal.

[maizefolk]

I think there's very little distinction between 'work' and 'getting paid to do things',

I would say there are plenty of ways people work that don't result in them getting paid to do things.

Do you consider volunteer work (from firefighters to volunteer workers in hospitals) to not be real work? What about home or car maintenance? Not work if you don't do it yourself? What if I want to build a cabin? Clearly if I hire someone to do the same actions it is work for them. Is it no longer work if I do it myself?

There are also plenty of things people get paid to do which are not work.

I get paid to own stocks. I'm grateful that I have the option to do this, but I don't consider owning stocks work. People in Alaska get paid for living in the state year round. Now making it through an Alaska winter is a lot harder than owning stocks, but I still imagine most people wouldn't consider where you chose to live to be a form of work.

[FIPurpose]

A UBI would distort the free market because it would give people unearned money

So we're just going to continue to pretend like the vast number of other things in our society that create wealth inequalities and "unearned" money are legitmate? But a UBI would be illegitimate?

1. Inheritances
2. Income/ Capital Gains disparity
3. Market monopolies/ oligopoloies
4. Unnecessarily inflated education costs
5. Tax Havens
6. Political access/ Insider Information

Our market is already distorted. It's been distorted a long time, and is getting worse each year.

[FIPurpose]

@shenlong55 I was replying to @pecunia 's comment, but I can see how it is relevant to your's as well.

I don't think UBI will work if labor protections are removed. So I wouldn't be for UBI if minimum wage/ other labor protections are removed.

A part of Yang's UBI that also don't like is the removal of welfare programs. I would be more supportive of a UBI that is smaller, but runs along side of our current welfare programs.

Interesting.  Why do you think a UBI wouldn't work if labor protections are removed?

So I realize that this was a post from a few pages back, but I never responded to it. Hopefully @shenlong55 is still listening to this thread haha.

I think politically UBI as a trade off of other social programs would be a bad move. We would be entrusting the government to provide a tax structure around UBI to make sustainable, and I don't think we have a relatively promising system that would help protect the poor from being abused.

Imagine you're a poor person living on close to nothing. UBI comes out and you can make a decision between $1000/ month cash or you continue to receive 1200-1500 in benefits. Even though long-term the better solution is to stay with the benefit system, I think this would actually trick more poor people into making a worse decision for themselves in the long-term. Thus maintaining or worsening the cycle of poverty rather than helping it. In the same way that land lords of rent-controlled apartments will pay someone to leave their unit, it's taking advantage of someone's bad situation and forcing them into a bad decision.

We also have direct statistics, related to food, housing, and medical and have the flexibility to direct the money where it is needed most.

I just don't think we can trust our politicians to create a fair UBI that forces people to make that trade off.

A UBI that is built on top of the existing benefit system would be fine. I think. That would more or less be a negative income tax that is applied to everyone at a flat rate. Paid through a combination of increased capital gains and high income.

While I think a "luxury" VAT is a good idea, I have to question who would end up defining what "luxury" means. We might end up debating in congress whether a VAT on tampons or razor blades or "luxury". Though you won't hear any complaints from me if we want to raise excise or ad valorem taxes on yachts or private jets.

[LennStar]

Like I said above, this will be a pretty major paradigm shift. Grungy work might go from being some of the lowest-paid to some of the highest-paid, simply because nobody actually has to do it anymore. Therefore while I do support moving toward a UBI, I wouldn't start it at $1,000/month. That would create quite a bit of chaos with masses of people leaving their jobs all at once. I'd start it much lower and gradually ramp it up so that employers and employees have a chance to adapt to the new normal.

Just to close this chapter: Nobody, absolutely nobody, is saying we should make a drastic switch, going from 0$ today to 1000$ on the 1.1.2020.
Everyone, especially the proponents of an UBI, is aware that this would be the biggest socio-economic shift since the end of slavery (which btw. has still not been eradicated, even if you don't count 12*7 sweatshops in Bangladesh).
 It is a decade long project.

End of this.


I think the biggest emotional problem ist the beggar-giver one. We basically have 2 systems today: The "insurances" like for health, where (nearly) nobody is going against the solidarity principle. We don't say: People that no longer work are excluded from health care, especially since they create the most cost. This is just unmoral.

The second sort of system is basically a beggar system: You have to proof that you are in need, that you deserve a help.
This is a power structure, which should not be underestimated. As a unemployed, you are under stronger obervations, scrutinity and orders than even when you sell your body and mind to an employer.
It is a power structure based on the one giving and the one receiving. Ever wondered why beggars sit on the earth (and not e.g. on a podest) and look down?
Would people give to a beggar that stands and looks them in the eyes? Most would not. Because that would mean they are giving to an equal, and you can't have "monetary pity" with someone equal. With giving you are establishing a power structure of dominance (quite similar to ancient patronage system) and can still feel good about it.
If you give unconditional, in that very moment, you declare that all those people receiving the UBI are your equal. The giving changes from a posture of superior sympathy to a posture of obligation. It changes from a "compassion" that is given to a right that is exercised. Which of course, for many people, means a degrading of their own worth.
It is actually quite comparable to the fight for the voting right for women (or Blacks going in "white" schools etc.)

[seattlecyclone]

Like I said above, this will be a pretty major paradigm shift. Grungy work might go from being some of the lowest-paid to some of the highest-paid, simply because nobody actually has to do it anymore. Therefore while I do support moving toward a UBI, I wouldn't start it at $1,000/month. That would create quite a bit of chaos with masses of people leaving their jobs all at once. I'd start it much lower and gradually ramp it up so that employers and employees have a chance to adapt to the new normal.

Just to close this chapter: Nobody, absolutely nobody, is saying we should make a drastic switch, going from 0$ today to 1000$ on the 1.1.2020.

From Andrew Yang's website:

Who would get UBI in Andrew Yang’s plan?
Every U.S. citizen over the age of 18 would receive $1,000 a month, regardless of income or employment status, free and clear. No jumping through hoops. Yes, this means you and everyone you know would receive a check for $1,000 a month every month starting in January 2021.

You're technically correct that he is not asking for it to go from $0 to $1,000 at the beginning of 2020 (nearly a year before the election even happens), but he is calling for it to happen a year after that.

[Boofinator]

So, I would have to say that we're both forming beliefs based off the data and logic, but happen to come to different conclusions. Is that an accurate assessment?

My observation has been that your argument has shifted when presented with different data contradicting your original points, but always trying to preserve the two conclusions the 1) if people are given enough money so that they don't have to fear starving if they cannot find work they will chose not to work 2) technological advancement will not reduce the number of people able to find productive work.

I have presented evidence that would suggest each of these two conclusions are false. I agree it is not conclusive evidence. So far your response has been that the evidence is not enough to convince you to abandon your belief in the truth of these two assertions. This, rather than to present substantial evidence that #1 and #2 are, in fact, true. It appears that, to you, these two conclusions are just inherently obvious (see your comment about "Econ 101" saying this without any explanation of the reasoning or logic of how you are getting from the principles taught in that course to the two conclusions you believe to be correct).

Hence, I regret to say that I cannot agree with you that this is, in fact, an accurate assessment.

ETA: Maybe I should be using a word other than 'belief', as it implies 'faith' to a certain extent. What would be a better word here? Position?

No, I think belief is the right word. A belief is something inherent. There may be a level of evidence that will convince a given person that a belief is incorrect, but the belief is still a default view in the absence of any evidence to support it.

We're going to have to agree to disagree. My argument has not shifted, though it has incorporated additional facts attained throughout this discussion. I presented several facts that supported my conclusion regarding the proposed inability to get jobs (low unemployment, very large increases in retirement, child care, and education in the nonparticipants), but instead you accuse me of shifting goalposts and not using facts. Regarding your 1) and 2) (my bold above): 1) I said specifically that a subset of the population would be less inclined to work with UBI, and never did I state this would apply to everyone; and 2) this statement I agree with, with the exception of the word productive (whether work is productive or not is frankly irrelevant, as one can make the argument that any job on the face of the earth is productive or unproductive; alternatively, one can go with the economic definition of value, which means something that somebody else would exchange money for). And the reason I don't agree with your inconclusive evidence is because the burden of proof is on you, as the statement that 'jobs are not going to be available to everyone' is contrary to fundamental economics and recorded history (this isn't to say that there haven't been disruptive spells of unemployment).

I think there's very little distinction between 'work' and 'getting paid to do things',

I would say there are plenty of ways people work that don't result in them getting paid to do things.

Do you consider volunteer work (from firefighters to volunteer workers in hospitals) to not be real work? What about home or car maintenance? Not work if you don't do it yourself? What if I want to build a cabin? Clearly if I hire someone to do the same actions it is work for them. Is it no longer work if I do it myself?

There are also plenty of things people get paid to do which are not work.

I get paid to own stocks. I'm grateful that I have the option to do this, but I don't consider owning stocks work. People in Alaska get paid for living in the state year round. Now making it through an Alaska winter is a lot harder than owning stocks, but I still imagine most people wouldn't consider where you chose to live to be a form of work.

First, let me say that my quote was taken slightly out of context, because I did condition it with 'from an economic standpoint'. Obviously there are lots of differences in the grand scheme of things between work and getting paid. But for each of your examples, you can tie things together with the value added by work: the cabin was built and no money was exchanged, but presumably you could now sell it and be compensated for your work (or you have imputed rent); the firefighters are protecting lots of property owned throughout their community, and the replacement costs for that property would require a lot of work; with stocks you are paying other people to work for you in order to provide you with more capital; and for Alaskans, I'd have to agree with you that it is almost completely unrelated to work and more related to the suckiness of living in Alaska (I wanted to live in Alaska as a child, but alas that strange desire has passed).

[Bloop Bloop]

To answer a few replies:

1. No, I've never said that if you don't work you ought to die. That's a complete straw man. The government should give an unconditional allowance that pays for frugal shelter and food. The government should provide basic education and medical services.

2. Subject to the above, I believe in market forces. There are some adjustments necessary such as competition and anti-collusion laws. There is some state intervention required, hence some tax required. I'm not against progressive taxation per se, as long as it's not too progressive. The problem with a UBI is that it would require greater progressiveness in taxes, which would dull the work of people like us, who through high incomes or frugality have made our own good choices.

3. If we do have to have a UBI, I'd prefer it to be funded by estate taxes rather than income taxes. An estate / inheritance is never earned income so it can't be as easily morally justified.

[Boofinator]

Would people give to a beggar that stands and looks them in the eyes? Most would not. Because that would mean they are giving to an equal, and you can't have "monetary pity" with someone equal. With giving you are establishing a power structure of dominance (quite similar to ancient patronage system) and can still feel good about it.
If you give unconditional, in that very moment, you declare that all those people receiving the UBI are your equal. The giving changes from a posture of superior sympathy to a posture of obligation. It changes from a "compassion" that is given to a right that is exercised. Which of course, for many people, means a degrading of their own worth.
It is actually quite comparable to the fight for the voting right for women (or Blacks going in "white" schools etc.)

If you would like to give unconditionally, there is nobody stopping you.

That being said, you bring up a good point. Should people have the right to some of society's value? I think most people would say yes. The question is, how much value? I think the poor are currently receiving a lot of benefits from society, to include a free education for the youth, welfare for those in need, free hospital visits for those that cannot pay, lenient bankruptcy laws, etc. I think where I probably disagree with you is that I think there is an implicit exchange undertaken, in that these members of society are expected to contribute back to society (if they can).

There is very little overlap with the plights of women and black people, as being poor isn't an inherited trait.

[Bloop Bloop]

And yes, a generous UBI would degrade some of our earned worth, which is why I don't support a generous UBI.

What's the point of working hard to leanFIRE/FIRE by 35 if a UBI comes in and gives everyone an unconditional leanFIRE/FIRE lifestyle?