Lotteries avoid issues with the deciding committee handing these to their friends.

To an extent, it also can provide better data on outcomes. Instead of biasing for the most motivated, it includes a wider pool, so of whom may otherwise be seen as "unworthy". Then people do people things.

How else would you handle distributing a limited resource pot without making judgment about what art is good/valid?

you see this a lot with these pilots. its funny because you don't really see the actual benefits until everyone gets it. Someone can breathe and take some classes to get into a profession or take some time to get into better shape to become a first responder or start a business.

A lottery among pre-selected candidates. Just about anything can be considered to be art, so it is inevitable that there would be far more demand than fulfillment. After all, if they gave $1500 per month to anyone who claimed to be an artist, literally every single citizen would suddenly become committed to their "art."

I'm already a musician, but if I weren't, I'd become an artist today.

This is kind of ridiculous and not even ubi. Universal means universal. And this is clearly not universal. So if only some people get the grant, there needs to be a talent competition and the 2000 best artists should be the winners. Otherwise imagine being objectively a better artist than someone else who got the grant and you didn't get it. 😡

You can't just do a "study' of UBI. Every single study attempt I've seen looks like: -They have funding from something or another, they do not model the taxation half at all -They end up means testing because they can't model taxation, so they fixate on those in need exclusively. -They tend to last maybe a year or two. The beneficiaries know this is a limited term benefit and need to make the most of it. -They do not target everyone, so the local market won't even notice the difference in base earning power. You still have lots of poor people excluded from the study. -They did not just force people into the program, participants had to actively seek out participation.

What the experiments have repeatedly proven is that welfare can work to give motivated poor people a needed reprieve to get their feet on solid ground, which we already knew. We haven't had an actual "study" of real UBI, just studies on welfare that they say is about UBI. About the only difference from actual welfare programs is that the participants are not audited to try to make sure the benefit shuts off the second they get a job. Which may be a good indicator at least that auditing the benefits could stand to be more lax.

UBI might work, but to date we haven't actually tried it in any useful way. We have universal income in some places, but it's generally well short of even basic.

I agree we don't know what exactly would happen if UBI was implemented globally, and what the large-scale effects would be. But saying "there is no evidence" goes too far. There have been UBI experiments, both intentional and by accident.

We generally know how people react in different contexts to different variants of a low to moderate UBI, what the health and work outcomes are, etc. Sure, a "full" UBI would be different. But it would be silly to expect people to react in a completely different way from what we have already seen, at least for a low UBI.

If you need a reminder about past experiments, listen to Scott Santens (youtube, 10min, from 2020). He is obviously very biased (UBI advocate) but he knows all the nuances about past UBI experiments.

Fuck, oops. Swipe typing on Android is a minefield of typos. But it's so fast one handed.

One day AI will properly fix my typos. Maybe.

I don't think there's a meaningful difference. If you're a citizen or permanent resident of a country with UBI you should get the UBI if you're of working age. No exceptions.

It's not the only progressive policy that's needed. Certain regulations over the cost of basic services and commodities is essential too. Housing/rent, food, and healthcare prices to name a few need to be controlled or there's a risk those dependent on the UBI will be priced out of the market. That's the biggest challenge to making it work, next to of course taxing the wealthy their fair share.

You mean in Ireland?

So far I am unaware of a UBI policy having been appropriately implemented anywhere in the world.

It would be the end of "bullshit jobs" and make employment outside of specialist roles people actually want to do a sellers' market.

You'll have to raise the pay, benefits, and other working conditiona until it actually becomes a job people want to do, rather.

Right now there are enough desperate people, particularly immigrants in many countries, willing to do anything. That should be an ethical problem for all of us.

Immigrants probably wouldn't get the UBI and would still be more likely to take up unwanted jobs, so there would still need to be instruments like minimum wage (or better, guaranteed minimum income) that apply to all people engaged in full time work. The GMI should only be needed in industries with low profits or no profits so these employers can offer attractive and fair wages.

What? How is it random? Having sold your art makes you a professional artist, by definition. Then they sampled at random because it's a pilot program

No, it would lead to loads of self-proclaimed artists. Successful and real are not the same thing

Well shite.