All of Yanling Guo's Comments + Replies

If definition was so important to me, I could argue with you what unconditional really means and if the unsupervised Uganda program falls under the definition of UBI even when it’s only granted to applicants with a valid proposal. But I give up, you win. And I don’t have to defend Britannica, because it’s so well established.

I don’t deny that many, maybe the majority, view UBI as unconditional. But to say ALL define UBI this way is a really strong statement, do you have any proof?

Here an example I found on Britannica:

Uganda’s UBI trial, the Youth Opportunities Program, enabled participants to invest in skills training as well as tools and materials, resulting in an increase of business assets by 57%, work hours by 17%, and earnings by 38%.

Christopher Blattman et al., “Generating Skilled Self-Employment in Developing Countries: Experimental Evidence from Uganda,” ssrn.com, Nov. 14, 2013

Link: https://www.britannica.com/procon/universal-basic-income-UBI-debate

2Richard_Kennaway
The article you link begins by bluntly saying, "Universal basic income (UBI) is an unconditional cash payment given at regular intervals by the government to all residents, regardless of their earnings or employment status." Yes! That is what UBI is! It continues, "UBI remains largely theoretical and, thus, does not have much of a history." Yes! That is also true! Various partial versions have been tried to a limited extent. But the Blattman et al paper the article cites does not claim to have anything to do with UBI. Neither "UBI" nor "universal" occur anywhere in that paper, and the welfare scheme it studies is nothing like UBI. The reference is irrelevant to the encyclopedia article, which has no business calling it "Uganda’s UBI trial". Have Encyclopedia Britannica sunk so low as to use chatbots to write for them? Eheu!

It doesn’t make sense to argue about definitions. If you define UBI so, then so does UBI mean for you. I’m actively pushing for a redefinition of UBI, or reshaping the policy as I said, because I thinks it’s the right thing to do.

Did I reply in so perfect English that it sounded like corrected by ChatGPT? Cheer to my English, which has improved so much! 🥂

2Richard_Kennaway
This is not about what UBI "means to me", but about what the basic idea is that everyone but you calls "UBI". The basic idea is to sweep away all of the various special-case means-tested benefits that require armies of staff to implement, and replace them by a single one that is paid to everyone. Are you alive? Are you a citizen? Then you get the UBI. That's it. That is the fundamental idea. You can advocate for different welfare systems involving means tests and training vouchers and food stamps and businesses lobbying for this and that, but you don't get to call that a "redefinition" of UBI, any more than you can redefine "blue" to mean the colour of bananas or "France" to mean Australia.

Thank you for the explanation.

By actively co-shaping UBI, businesses can make it more effective and efficient, by training the reserve workforce in the way needed by the economy, with more cost control. Of course, if businesses prefer to pay tax and let government do it, it’s also OK, can even be more efficient if businesses trust the expertise of the government. It’s analogous to when consumers buy from businesses, it’s always more efficient to have the specialized companies produce everything, but we also observe DIY projects and it’s good that they are ... (read more)

2Richard_Kennaway
As I just said in another comment, that is not what the term "UBI" was coined to mean. Everyone gets it, unconditionally. It's paid out in money, not coupons reserved for a particular use. No-one is required to do anything on account of receiving it. If you want to talk about other welfare schemes that do not work like that, go ahead, but don't call them UBI.

I’m personally responsible for every point in my post, not ChatGPT. While I can conceive some don’t like ChatGPT, I don’t understand what’s the purpose of human written comments if you use exactly the same phrases as Kennaway: “something ChatGPT might right”, etc.

I have genuine belief in what I published. This post is a call to the business to actively co-shape UBI instead of passively rejecting it. Whoever pays, has accordingly more say, like if Microsoft co-finances UBI, it can ask UBI recipients to learn its online courses and make certificates, so when... (read more)

3Algon
1. RE: "something ChatGPT might right", sorry for the error. I wrote the comment quickly, as otherwise I wouldn't have written it at all. 2. Using ChatGPT to improve your writing is fine. I just want you to be aware that there's an aversion to its style here. 3. Kennaway was quoting what I said, probably so he could make his reply more precise. 4. I didn't down-vote your post, for what it's worth. 5. There's a LW norm, which seems to hold less force in recent years, for people to explain why they downvote something. I thought it would've been dispiriting to get negative feedback with no explanation, so I figured I'd explain in place of the people who downvoted you. 6. I don't understand why businesses would be co-financing UBI instead of some government tax. Nor do I get why it would be desirable or even feasible, given the co-ordination issues. 7. If companies get to make UBI conditional on people learning certain things, then it's not a UBI. Instead, it's a peculiar sort of training program. 8. What does economic recovery have to do with UBI? 

Yes, I used ChatGPT to polish the English, it did a great job 👍 while I am of course myself responsible for every point in this post.

To your comments:

This post points out that it’s better for the business to actively co-shape UBI instead of passively rejecting it. For humanitarian reasons, it’s good to ensure the existential minimum for everyone, even those too old or too sick to learn or work. If this minimum is already covered by other governmental programs or philanthropic organizations, there’s no need to include it in UBI. If business co-shape UBI, t... (read more)

2Richard_Kennaway
I don't think you (or the chatbot that helped you with that reply) understand what "UBI" means. UBI is the proposal that everyone is given a fixed basic income, funded from taxes, unconditional upon anything. No means tests, no requirement to do anything to qualify, nothing. Everyone gets it, no matter what their circumstances. It might coexist with other welfare schemes, but those are not part of UBI.

I haven’t logged in for three months, so I just read your comment. Sure economics can’t explain everything and cost-benefit analysis is not the only factor affecting popularity (though often the most relevant). Can you be more specific about what do you think makes the card so popular, even if it didn’t satisfy the cost-benefit criterion?

1philh
I don't know anything about the card. I haven't re-read the post, but I think the point I was making was "you haven't successfully argued that this is good cost-benefit", not "I claim that this is bad cost-benefit". Another possibility is that I was just pointing out that the specific quoted paragraph had an implied bad argument, but I didn't think it said much about the post overall.

Yes, the special card I suggested is like food stamps (I guess with food stamps you can also choose between different foods and are not bound to a particular food) or Medicare (where you can also choose I guess), only the card idea is slightly more oriented to the supply side (a flat supply curve is the premise), while ultimately the consumers also benefit.

I guess in many aspects I‘m also a poor person, but I haven’t yet found the time to really think about it, because I really doubt if things would be any different if I would be a bit richer. I certainly ... (read more)

I fully agree with Radford, while all others also made some good points. My question is: why does UBI have to be paid out as dollar, and not e.g. in form of coupons for say, e-books? The cost for producing one more copy of ebook is almost zero, so you can even finance it by printing money and the price won’t go up, as the quantity varies with demand.

You could even do it on a larger scale: you give everyone a special card with certain amount which can only be used at vendors who agree to keep price constant. For instance, if strawberry sellers have plenty s... (read more)

3Gordon Seidoh Worley
I think you're right that, for many goods, it would be better if we did goods rather than money transfers, similar to how we have SNAP/food stamps, Medicaid/Medicare, etc. programs today. This is because, having been poor myself at times and been around poor people, many people are stuck in poverty not because they want to be but because they have trouble managing money effectively, such that cash transfers would be less effective at improving quality of life than goods transfers. Yes, this is reasoning from anecdata, but I've seen it enough to think it's an important aspect of policy design for wealth transfers. That said, UBI would serve a somewhat different purpose and in theory subsibdize people who today manage their money fine, but in the future may not have a source of income due to automation from AI.

Great post! Really. I used to be a picky reader and even if you show me the tweet of a Nobel laureate, I can immediately pick out a few points to criticize, which, of course, doesn’t mean that they aren’t way better than me in economics. A few tweets doesn’t say much about someone’s achievement, if you read my tweets, you can certainly find more to pick on. That you’ve achieved a lot in life, doesn’t even need to be mentioned by me, all know it.

Although I don’t agree with every point in this post, I quite like its philosophical touch, which possibly explai... (read more)

You are right to say that money alone is not enough to eliminate poverty, although that’s no sufficient argument to disprove the effectiveness of UBI, because you only distinguish between poverty and no-poverty, but not between more-poverty and less-poverty. I don’t know if UBI can reduce poverty, but if you want to disprove it then you need to say more.

It’s amazing that you addressed various aspects of poverty and not reduced it to more shirts vs fewer shirts, but you somehow mingled everything up so that it’s difficult to see your point. In the story abo... (read more)

[This comment is no longer endorsed by its author]Reply

Your writing sounds like someone put you under pressure to finance UBI and combat poverty. I think that’s not good. If they want you to pay for something, then it’s their job to explain to you why it’s ultimately good for you. Of course, in case the difference is too big, they also have the right to cut tie with you — a threat which is only effective if they are doing it better than you or you are doing better in the community with them than outside.

If you are not under pressure but want to hinder others in implementing UBI and combatting poverty, then you... (read more)

[This comment is no longer endorsed by its author]Reply1