UBI - Universal Basic Income - pros and cons

[bzpal]

It appears that UBI is going to be on the agenda in a much bigger way than ever before, so perhaps a good time to start looking at all the angles.  There has been some discussion on various threads, but not a lot. This article provided by Zep is making the case for it (I didn't register to read the whole thing), but there are many other opinions out there of people with just as much conviction against it.  My personal feeling is 'no' but I'm willing to be convinced if there would be a way to fund it using the natural resources whose profits usually go to corporations. It's worth discussing.

Guy Standing on how lockdowns make the case for a basic income

https://www.economist.com/by-invitation/2020/05/20/guy-standing-on-how-lockdowns-make-the-case-for-a-basic-income

[bzpal]

800 Compton residents to get guaranteed income in two-year pilot program

This seems great on the surface, but seeing who is involved, it may just be another attempt at social engineering, another way to buy more Socialist Democrats, which will eventually be paid by taxpayers. Scary!

 

http://www.scoopyweb.com/2020/10/800-compton-residents-to-get-guaranteed.html

Quote

The families will be randomly selected from a “pre-verified” group of low-income residents. A board made up of community organizations such as the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights and My Brother’s Keeper will advise the Compton Pledge on how to best reach marginalized communities.

The Compton Pledge has so far divulged little about the details, such as who donated to support the program, exactly how the participants will be selected, how much and how often recipients receive cash and what the research methods would be.

The Compton Pledge organizers want to maintain the integrity of the process, but ensure transparency once details are fleshed out, said Halah Ahmad, head of public relations and policy communications for the Jain Family Institute, a nonprofit research firm that helps design guaranteed income pilot programs.

The program will aim to include a representative sample of the 68% of Latino and 30% of Black residents in Compton, as well as those often excluded from federal and state aid programs, including undocumented immigrants and formerly incarcerated residents.

Ahmad said it remains to be seen whether a model that gives varying amounts of cash to needy residents will be effective and whether there are sustainable ways to fund a long-term guaranteed income program.

Brown said she had been aware of the concept of universal guaranteed income for years, but got to see it in action in February 2019 when Stockton Mayor Michael Tubbs launched the Stockton Economic Empowerment Demonstration, which gave 125 residents $500 a month for 18 months. In June 2020, Brown joined Tubbs as a founding member of the Mayors for a Guaranteed Income, a consortium of mayors working to launch more pilot programs in their cities. In July, Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey donated $3 million for the initiative.

By August, Brown began working with Compton Pledge partners to design its pilot program.

The concept of giving citizens free money with no strings attached was once a radical idea that has begun gaining traction, partly as a result of the pandemic. Opponents of guaranteed income have argued that extra cash with no strings attached would lead to higher levels of unemployment and that recipients might spend the money on drugs or alcohol or other “temptation goods.”

But decades of research has indicated that very few people work less after receiving cash transfers, and those who do use usually spend more with their families, Ahmad said. In a review of 19 studies on cash transfers between 1997 and 2014 by the World Bank, authors found that “Almost without exception, studies find either no significant impact or a significant negative impact of transfers on temptation goods.”

 

[emocmo]

The whole UBI argument simply sounds like counter-intuitive economics to me.

If you have a basket of goods that sell for $100 this week, and then you give EVERYONE $500 a week wouldn't that $500 be chasing the same $100 basket?  After a short while, wouldn't the owner of the basket simply raise the price to meet the new demand?

 

I am a big fan of feeding the poor and treating the sick who cannot afford current healthcare system. 

 

I understand that the concept of wealth for some comes from "having money."  And that is the fallacy of their argument:  Wealth comes from the accumulation of assets.

 

Continuing my analogy, if the people only spent $100 of their new money on their regular basket of goods--they could "invest" the additional $500 a month for 18 months (about $9,000) into something that could return them some wealth...that would spur the economy and make them "better off."

 

But that doesn't happen with people making $100,000 a year most of the time.   The average person would "buy more stuff" but their overall economic condition changes very little.  IU cannot imagine it happening to people who see an "additional" $500, $1000, or $1,200 a month as "rich."  That effect would last until the marketplace adjusted its price structure--probably in a month or two.

[bzpal]

I think the majority of people live hand-to-mouth, and a few extra hundred $ a month will only allow new shoes for the kids, better food on the table and maybe a bottle of wine now and then. But that means a lot to people who don't have it. Takes a lot of pressure off, and perhaps allows them to think about planning for their future. It's hard to plan for the future if you're not sure you'll be able to survive the next few months.

[plane]

5 hours ago, emocmo said:

The whole UBI argument simply sounds like counter-intuitive economics to me.

If you have a basket of goods that sell for $100 this week, and then you give EVERYONE $500 a week wouldn't that $500 be chasing the same $100 basket?  After a short while, wouldn't the owner of the basket simply raise the price to meet the new demand? 

 

I am a big fan of feeding the poor and treating the sick who cannot afford current healthcare system. 

 

I understand that the concept of wealth for some comes from "having money."  And that is the fallacy of their argument:  Wealth comes from the accumulation of assets.

 

Continuing my analogy, if the people only spent $100 of their new money on their regular basket of goods--they could "invest" the additional $500 a month for 18 months (about $9,000) into something that could return them some wealth...that would spur the economy and make them "better off."

 

But that doesn't happen with people making $100,000 a year most of the time.   The average person would "buy more stuff" but their overall economic condition changes very little.  IU cannot imagine it happening to people who see an "additional" $500, $1000, or $1,200 a month as "rich."  That effect would last until the marketplace adjusted its price structure--probably in a month or two.

Perhaps the $500/week is going to be a replacement for work. People are going to be replaced by automated systems and energy drink level outsourcing, for example, in the medical field, which I believe you are familiar with. And education. And the delivery business. And warfighting. And everything except lobbying and Goldman-Sachs. At some point, even the government bureaucracies will have served their purpose as useful idiots.

 

In other words, there could be a big deflation, even with a UBI.

 

And the argument of the anti-Luddites about people always finding things to do is missing the point that this is political. The elite want this Brave New World; it won't be that easy to start a small business.

[cowpoke]

1 hour ago, plane said:

Perhaps the $500/week is going to be a replacement for work. People are going to be replaced by automated systems and energy drink level outsourcing, for example, in the medical field, which I believe you are familiar with. And education. And the delivery business. And warfighting. And everything except lobbying and Goldman-Sachs. At some point, even the government bureaucracies will have served their purpose as useful idiots.

 

In other words, there could be a big deflation, even with a UBI.

 

And the argument of the anti-Luddites about people always finding things to do is missing the point that this is political. The elite want this Brave New World; it won't be that easy to start a small business.

 

Not many small businesses left after Covid-19.  The government forced many industries to simply shut down, and now they are going to bail out the deep-pocket mega-chain hotels, motels, restaurants, and such; after having made sure the truly small business owners were fully drowned.  If you're a billionaire global hotel owner, they've got your back; if you have just a few rentals, not so much.

[emocmo]

22 hours ago, bzpal said:

I think the majority of people live hand-to-mouth, and a few extra hundred $ a month will only allow new shoes for the kids, better food on the table and maybe a bottle of wine now and then. But that means a lot to people who don't have it. Takes a lot of pressure off, and perhaps allows them to think about planning for their future. It's hard to plan for the future if you're not sure you'll be able to survive the next few months.

That is a wonderful theory.  I would love to see some evidence that people who have not made great choices their entire lives—are suddenly making good ones.  
 

I know that sounds cynical, but I haven’t seen anything that proves otherwise. 

Edited October 20, 2020 by emocmo

[emocmo]

15 hours ago, cowpoke said:

 

Not many small businesses left after Covid-19.  The government forced many industries to simply shut down, and now they are going to bail out the deep-pocket mega-chain hotels, motels, restaurants, and such; after having made sure the truly small business owners were fully drowned.  If you're a billionaire global hotel owner, they've got your back; if you have just a few rentals, not so much.

If this were the case the country would have Fallen apart in 1876, 1936, 2009, and now.  
 

The people in this country are resilient. The small business/entrepreneur mindset is strong. 
 

The government has ALWAYS favored big business.  Part of it is patronage.  But it also makes economic sense.  If my shoe store goes out of business three people lose their jobs.  If Marriott goes out of business (I know you were talking about Trump, but I chose Marriott) hundreds of thousands lose their Jobs.  
 

There are plans for both.  Giving everyone $500 every month just seems like a bad idea economically.   No matter who is suggesting it. 
 

Personally, as a Libertarian, I am all for letting them all go the way the breezes take them.  If that means they fail, then they fail. 

[patents]

20 minutes ago, emocmo said:

If this were the case the country would have Fallen apart in 1876, 1936, 2009, and now.  
 

The people in this country are resilient. The small business/entrepreneur mindset is strong. 
 

. . .

I have much respect for the resiliency of the people in this country, but I suggest that the people today are not the hardy stock of the populace in 1876 or 1936. Additionally, I believe that the ONLY reason that the country did not completely fall apart either in 2009 or today is that it was papered over by the FED (so to speak). And, we have not yet come close to recovering even from the debt binge of 2009.

 

It takes some time to breed certain characteristics out of a species, and between 1936 (1936ish) and now, self sufficiency is being bred out due to various forms of welfare and forced dependency on the government(s). Also, the changes in the educational system from the early 1900s to teaching socialization of students rather than factual knowledge put forth by John Dewey takes many generations to be effective.

 

While the small business/entrepreneur mindset may be strong, I feel that it is substantially weaker in the populace as a whole than decades ago.

[emocmo]

1 minute ago, patents said:

I have much respect for the resiliency of the people in this country, but I suggest that the people today are not the hardy stock of the populace in 1876 or 1936. Additionally, I believe that the ONLY reason that the country did not completely fall apart either in 2009 or today is that it was papered over by the FED (so to speak). And, we have not yet come close to recovering even from the debt binge of 2009.

 

It takes some time to breed certain characteristics out of a species, and between 1936 (1936ish) and now, self sufficiency is being bred out due to various forms of welfare and forced dependency on the government(s). Also, the changes in the educational system from the early 1900s to teaching socialization of students rather than factual knowledge put forth by John Dewey takes many generations to be effective.

 

While the small business/entrepreneur mindset may be strong, I feel that it is substantially weaker in the populace as a whole than decades ago.

 

I understand your point.  I DO think there are plenty of people in this country who are able to pick themselves up.

 

One of the things I would point to during these times is the amount of "savings" and "debt repayment" that has happened in the past six months.  I think the general population realized what a lousy position they were in financially--and they have taken steps to put themselves in a better place.

 

I wonder if the "people" are as bad off as the "evening news" leads us to believe they are.  I am not a fool--I know that there are ghettos in the urban sprawl that are doing poorly.  I know that there are homes that struggle.  I know there are people with virtually no "survival" skills out there.  But I also know that people are inherently good--at least most of us.

 

Unfortunately the historical method for getting the country out of a mess is to start a war somewhere.    I think that count down has probably already started.  And if that happens, I think this time it will be as much a "home game" as it has been an "away game" the last several times.  We are due.

 

My son in law was just told his next deployment has been switched from Eastern Europe to Nigeria.  Not exactly the place you want to spend a year of your life.

 

[patents]

52 minutes ago, emocmo said:

. . .

One of the things I would point to during these times is the amount of "savings" and "debt repayment" that has happened in the past six months.  I think the general population realized what a lousy position they were in financially--and they have taken steps to put themselves in a better place.

. . .

If you are referring to the USG's reported savings rate, I was astounded when I looked into the details how that metric is defined and calculated. The USG definition of savings is not even close to how I would define the concept.

 

Just curious - Do you really think that in the past 6 months that people in the aggregate have been putting more aside as savings (using the ordinary definition of that term and not the USG definition), rather than drawing down what little savings most people have? (Again, I am really asking about the numbers of people, not necessarily the quantity of dollars exactly since the rich are getting richer and can easily skew the figure if calculated on a total dollar basis.) (And, I am talking about savings, not an increase in asset value for what might be considered savings. An ounce of gold remains and ounce, but the value of a bank account changes.)

[emocmo]

1 hour ago, patents said:

If you are referring to the USG's reported savings rate, I was astounded when I looked into the details how that metric is defined and calculated. The USG definition of savings is not even close to how I would define the concept.

 

Just curious - Do you really think that in the past 6 months that people in the aggregate have been putting more aside as savings (using the ordinary definition of that term and not the USG definition), rather than drawing down what little savings most people have? (Again, I am really asking about the numbers of people, not necessarily the quantity of dollars exactly since the rich are getting richer and can easily skew the figure if calculated on a total dollar basis.) (And, I am talking about savings, not an increase in asset value for what might be considered savings. An ounce of gold remains and ounce, but the value of a bank account changes.)

 

I think they are not "using" their credit cards-not out of some altruistic version of paying down their debt--but because they are not going out.  I know when i was working out of the house I would use a credit card for gas purchases and take out dinner at least once a week.  It was merely convenience.  I haven't done that since March.  In my case its small dollars because I never went much of anywhere.  But if it was $50 a week, that is $1,000 at least in credit card reduction.

 

However, I am loathe to spend money on "some" things that used to be common.  I cannot remember the last "starbucks" coffee I bought.  And the thought of dropping $4 on a cup of coffee now seems silly again.  I believe there has been some "habit re-sets" over the past several months.  I know my adult children have actually started to cook dinner most nights--they were getting take out or those food delivery boxes.

 

These are the types of long term economic events that change generations. 

 

I always found it interesting how MY parents lived on farms during the Depression.  My Dad said he did not realize he was poor until he went into the Army.  They ALWAYS had food.  My In Laws grew up in a city during the Depression.  Their stories were very different:  Losing houses, unemployed, and being on "the dole."

 

I think we will look back at these days and it will be a similar review--depending on your context.

 

[bzpal]

2 hours ago, emocmo said:

That is a wonderful theory.  I would love to see some evidence that people who have not made great choices their entire lives—are suddenly making good ones.  
 

I know that sounds cynical, but I haven’t seen anything that proves otherwise. 

 

People born into poverty conditions don't have many choices or opportunities to get themselves out of it and often wind up trying to make $ selling drugs, theft or prostitution. If UBI could help those people avoid that and make something of themselves over a certain period of years, I'm all for it. The $ saved in fighting crime would cover the payments. But I wouldn't go along with payments for life, so they'd never have to work or improve their situations by their own incentives.

[patents]

30 minutes ago, emocmo said:

 

I think they are not "using" their credit cards-not out of some altruistic version of paying down their debt--but because they are not going out.  I know when i was working out of the house I would use a credit card for gas purchases and take out dinner at least once a week.  It was merely convenience.  I haven't done that since March.  In my case its small dollars because I never went much of anywhere.  But if it was $50 a week, that is $1,000 at least in credit card reduction.

 

However, I am loathe to spend money on "some" things that used to be common.  I cannot remember the last "starbucks" coffee I bought.  And the thought of dropping $4 on a cup of coffee now seems silly again.  I believe there has been some "habit re-sets" over the past several months.  I know my adult children have actually started to cook dinner most nights--they were getting take out or those food delivery boxes.

 

These are the types of long term economic events that change generations. 

 

I always found it interesting how MY parents lived on farms during the Depression.  My Dad said he did not realize he was poor until he went into the Army.  They ALWAYS had food.  My In Laws grew up in a city during the Depression.  Their stories were very different:  Losing houses, unemployed, and being on "the dole."

 

I think we will look back at these days and it will be a similar review--depending on your context.

 

I am not sure that I completely understand your post. I totally understand your point about not spending as much money as in the pre-plague times. But, if you intend that to relate to savings, that concept is the issue that confuses me and, in fact, that concept goes into the USG savings definition/calculation.

 

To me less spent particularly on credit cards is not savings. And, in my opinion any purchases made on a credit card do not impact one's checking or savings account UNTIL money is transferred. A coffee (especially anything consumable) bought with a credit card increases debt and savings is unchanged at that time. Paying the credit card is the act that impacts spending. That is my simplistic view, but the approach is not that of the USG. [[If you still bought the cup of coffee, but did not have to pay the $50 per month, did you still save more money because your checking account balance did not go down?]]

 

I still believe that the majority of US citizens have less "ready money" (such as demand deposits) today than pre-plague times. So many people lost their jobs and the extra unemployment benefits have ended. Month over month things may have improved, but comparing to 10 months ago, we are still not close to recovering in so many areas.

[plane]

6 hours ago, emocmo said:

If this were the case the country would have Fallen apart in 1876, 1936, 2009, and now.  
 

The people in this country are resilient. The small business/entrepreneur mindset is strong. 
 

The government has ALWAYS favored big business.  Part of it is patronage.  But it also makes economic sense.  If my shoe store goes out of business three people lose their jobs.  If Marriott goes out of business (I know you were talking about Trump, but I chose Marriott) hundreds of thousands lose their Jobs.  
 

There are plans for both.  Giving everyone $500 every month just seems like a bad idea economically.   No matter who is suggesting it. 
 

Personally, as a Libertarian, I am all for letting them all go the way the breezes take them.  If that means they fail, then they fail. 

Comparing 1876 or 1936 with today seems strange. There was no bureaucratic state, no welfare state, and only the strong survived. If they didn't create small businesses everywhere, they would have died. And power and money were much more in regions and local areas than today. DC's riches put almost all of the US to shame now.

 

No law in the 1800's could have been passed to outlaw small business. Now, half the population would support it. For safety.

[emocmo]

13 minutes ago, plane said:

Comparing 1876 or 1936 with today seems strange. There was no bureaucratic state, no welfare state, and only the strong survived. If they didn't create small businesses everywhere, they would have died. And power and money were much more in regions and local areas than today. DC's riches put almost all of the US to shame now.

 

No law in the 1800's could have been passed to outlaw small business. Now, half the population would support it. For safety.

 

You do realize that MOST American jobs are in small businesses, right?

I am from a family of four kids.  At one point or another, 3 of the four of us made our livings in businesses we partnered in, or started outright.

Small businesses are all over the place.  They are not cobblers, or carpenters anymore.  They are writers, trainers, software writers.  And a photographer or two.  (That was me!)

 

 

[emocmo]

2 hours ago, patents said:

I am not sure that I completely understand your post. I totally understand your point about not spending as much money as in the pre-plague times. But, if you intend that to relate to savings, that concept is the issue that confuses me and, in fact, that concept goes into the USG savings definition/calculation.

 

To me less spent particularly on credit cards is not savings. And, in my opinion any purchases made on a credit card do not impact one's checking or savings account UNTIL money is transferred. A coffee (especially anything consumable) bought with a credit card increases debt and savings is unchanged at that time. Paying the credit card is the act that impacts spending. That is my simplistic view, but the approach is not that of the USG. [[If you still bought the cup of coffee, but did not have to pay the $50 per month, did you still save more money because your checking account balance did not go down?]]

 

I still believe that the majority of US citizens have less "ready money" (such as demand deposits) today than pre-plague times. So many people lost their jobs and the extra unemployment benefits have ended. Month over month things may have improved, but comparing to 10 months ago, we are still not close to recovering in so many areas.

 

I havent looked at "savings" defined by the government in many years.  M2 is it?  I honestly forget.  The point about the credit card is pretty simple:  I paid off my credit cards monthly.  So, not using them means that I am not paying them.  The balance in my checking account's base has increased.  Marginally, of course--but think of that on a grand scale.  If I swept that into a savings account, it would have been reflected in the "old" M2.  I doubt people are using coffee money to open CDs and Money Market accounts.

 

In terms of Credit Card debt, I despise anecdotal evidence, but in this case I have some.  I know several people who were furloughed.  Their unemployment and $600 was more than their income--and they paid off their credit cards.  Their spouses continued working so the "gross" income into the home was higher.  Lower communuter costs, lower food costs, and higher income.  What are you going to do with the surplus?  I think a lot of us know people in that situation.

 

I can only definitively speak to my own personal situation.  Not spending money on "luxury" things like going to the movies or out to dinner has saved me thousands of dollars since the start of this.  My wife was sick, in chemo, and in surgery again during this time...so we would have curtailed anyway.  But I have more cash in my "deductible" fund (the money I set aside to pay for the health insurance deductible) and in my "Christmas box" where I used to toss the $1 bills at the end of the week than I have EVER had.  And I stopped working when my wife got sick--about 19 months now.

 

My wife makes a decent salary and I am living off a small pension and my savings.  Honestly, aside from the cancer, this hasn't been horrible in terms of long term lifestyle challenges.

 

 

 

[Buzzard]

Suppose a Universal Basic Income was distributed in the form of digital 'Bank Reserve' dollars. And, suppose these digital-only 'Bank Reserve' dollars could only be used to pay down bank debt. If someone had no bank debt, then they could use the 'Bank Reserve' dollars to pay off credit card debt.

 

This plan would actually reduce the money supply. Since these proposed 'Bank Reserve' dollars could only pay off debt, they would extinguish dollars. This plan would stimulate the economy, because it would allow dollars that were servicing debt to instead go towards investing and consumption. The only looser in this plan would be the commercial banks, that would see there interest income from loans diminish as loans were repaid.

 

You read it here first.

 

 

[emocmo]

12 minutes ago, Buzzard said:

Suppose a Universal Basic Income was distributed in the form of digital 'Bank Reserve' dollars. And, suppose these digital-only 'Bank Reserve' dollars could only be used to pay down bank debt. If someone had no bank debt, then they could use the 'Bank Reserve' dollars to pay off credit card debt.

 

This plan would actually reduce the money supply. Since these proposed 'Bank Reserve' dollars could only pay off debt, they would extinguish dollars. This plan would stimulate the economy, because it would allow dollars that were servicing debt to instead go towards investing and consumption. The only looser in this plan would be the commercial banks, that would see there interest income from loans diminish as loans were repaid.

 

You read it here first.

 

 

 

Great...now that I've paid off my debt they come up with a new "mouse trap."  Screwed again!  :0)

[Buzzard]

11 minutes ago, emocmo said:

... My wife was sick, in chemo, and in surgery again during this time...so we would have curtailed anyway.... And I stopped working when my wife got sick--about 19 months now....

That is a very difficult situation. I was in a similar situation from 2015 -2017, then my wife went into hospice. It was a very unraveling time. And now you are having to care for your wife and deal with the Covid-19 madness. Hang in there. Man, the year 2020 sucks. It is a dumpster-fire of year.

[emocmo]

Just now, Buzzard said:

That is a very difficult situation. I was in a similar situation from 2015 -2017, then my wife went into hospice. It was a very unraveling time. And now you are having to care for your wife and deal with the Covid-19 madness. Hang in there. Man, the year 2020 sucks. It is a dumpster-fire of year.

 

Yes, the past 19 months have sucked.  Actually, since 2012...but that is a much longer story.  Dying close relatives have literally diasy-chained (to the day) since 12/9/12.

 

But, I decided that we will drag each other along until one of us cries "uncle."  We've had to remind each other of that on exactly 2 occasions.  We are clear now.  The disease takes 80% in 12 months.  95% in 5 years.  I always thought she was one in a million.  I will be happy with 5/100.

[Buzzard]

10 minutes ago, emocmo said:

 

Great...now that I've paid off my debt they come up with a new "mouse trap."  Screwed again!  :0)

No, no, you would not be screwed. In this plan, you would just use your credit card to go buy a TV or something, and then pay the bill with your Universal Basic Income 'Bank Reserve' dollars.

 

This is not anybody's official plan, but I wish it was. This is a synthesis of various "Universal Basic Income" ideas and "Debt Jubilee" ideas.

Edited October 20, 2020 by Buzzard

[patents]

19 minutes ago, Buzzard said:

Suppose a Universal Basic Income was distributed in the form of digital 'Bank Reserve' dollars. And, suppose these digital-only 'Bank Reserve' dollars could only be used to pay down bank debt. If someone had no bank debt, then they could use the 'Bank Reserve' dollars to pay off credit card debt.

 

This plan would actually reduce the money supply. Since these proposed 'Bank Reserve' dollars could only pay off debt, they would extinguish dollars. This plan would stimulate the economy, because it would allow dollars that were servicing debt to instead go towards investing and consumption. The only looser in this plan would be the commercial banks, that would see there interest income from loans diminish as loans were repaid.

 

You read it here first.

 

 

Maybe the FED should create way more bank reserves since the FED creates the reserves themselves sua sponte. Then those bank reserves could be used to pay off ALL the debt in the world, and all of us would be without any debt anywhere. Sounds like a plan. (I think AOC or another of her similar political philosophy proposed it in fact.)

[Buzzard]

1 minute ago, patents said:

Maybe the FED should create way more bank reserves since the FED creates the reserves themselves sua sponte. Then those bank reserves could be used to pay off ALL the debt in the world, and all of us would be without any debt anywhere. Sounds like a plan. (I think AOC or another of her similar political philosophy proposed it in fact.)

The problem with that idea is that it would be unfair to people without debt. And, it would overly beneficial to people and business with large debt.

[equanimity]

What occurs to me is to simply dole out several years' worth of UBI to everybody, and let everybody create their own personal reset. A one-time big payment and no limits on where it goes.  Everybody is moved X number of squares on their own grid, then nothing else is forthcoming for awhile.  Followed by a re-evaluation over the next few years, to see what changed. Maybe a 5-years-later topoff after the results are in.