It seems like although there is very little debate around UBI in the EA movement, a lot of EAs I’ve spoken with are on board with the idea that Universal Basic Income (UBI) could be the logical foundation for human civilization. By logical foundation, I mean the optimal safety net and stabilizing force underpinning a successful economic organizing system long-term.
Advocating for UBI is definitely seeking systemic change, and for the purposes of this post, I’ll stick to UBI as an economic policy (one that has proponents from both the left and right).
There’s also a near-term cost-effectiveness argument for UBI: GiveDirectly is running UBI trials in the poorest places in the world using philanthropic—not tax- dollars. Unlike in developing countries, where niche health interventions such as the ones GiveWell researches can greatly exceed the lives saved via cash transfers, it is currently highly plausible that cash transfers are the most cost-effective way to spend aid money in developed countries. As such, we could accomplish exceptionally high impact if we combine philanthropic guaranteed income at scale with advocacy for systematic change in developed countries. I’m working on this topic specifically in another forum post.
The answer to, “Should UBI be a top priority for longtermism?” has two sub-questions.
UBI is basically a population-wide cash transfer program of the government instead of some nonprofit. Although I haven’t seen much discussion of UBI in EA, the Guaranteed Income Movement has a staggering amount of good research pointing towards UBI (guaranteed income) as an incredibly worthwhile policy with few downsides. I consider myself a part of both movements and think we should—at the very least—try to apply EA cost-benefit analysis to UBI.
Stress, depression, lack of hope, and other problems (versus the counterfactual) from living in poverty likely contribute to, (spitballing here), 0.2 WELLBYs (or QALYs—arguments exist for both) less per year.
165M People (in the U.S. alone) * 0.2 WELLBYs = 33 Million more WELLBYs/Yr
I’m not sure how far exactly we can extrapolate these benefits, but this is only a fraction of the potential benefits over short or longtermist time horizons.
What about the downsides?
The primary losers of UBI policy would be (extremely) wealthy people and people with very high incomes as they will get higher tax rates.
In 2022, 34.4% of American households saw a $100,000+ income. It would be reasonable to say households with over $100,000 annual income could probably be negatively affected by increased taxes.
34.4% * 332M = 115M Americans
They will likely lose some amount of WELLBYs as their lifestyles will be harder to maintain. Increased taxes, the resulting stress, and a slight decline in living standards could likely contribute to, (spitballing again because living with slightly less affluence isn’t the same as living in poverty), a loss of 0.05 WELLBYs per year. I think this could be a massive overestimation though because although some people would have higher taxes, they would also benefit from their friends, family, and neighbors being much more economically secure.
I think it’s more likely only people with over $500K in annual income would be negatively affected (and only as long as their family & friends are also in the same tax bracket). 1% of American households make 500K+ annually. The 1% comprises 1.32 Million Americans.
115M * 0.05 = 6M less WELLBYs/Yr
1.32M * 0.05 = 66K less WELLBYs/Yr
Based on this back-of-the-napkin cost-benefit estimation, it seems like the benefits by far outweigh the costs. Abolishing poverty could save something like 27 Million WELLBYs per year in the U.S. alone. (note this is only meant to be a directionally accurate ballpark estimate).
33M − 6M = 27 M net positive WELLBYs annually
Here are my general thoughts about the potential upsides (and concerns) I have about UBI & longtermism.
If money remains a thing and capitalism continues to look like the most efficient system for getting people the things they want, then guaranteed income should be one of the fundamental positives in the long-term future of humanity. Global guaranteed income could be an important part of permanently ending resource-based conflict and enabling humans to become more aligned.
In the same vein, establishing UBI as a human right could make it much harder for a (non-AI) actor to enslave humanity forever, reducing several S-risks. Given the dispersed power that UBI distributed evenly across society, people would be much more prepared for and highly resilient to malicious actors looking to entrench power.
If the disruption enabled by guaranteed income is inevitable, we could have a large impact by accelerating the disruption while ensuring that guaranteed income isn’t used for negative purposes. Dictatorial governments could, for example, tie social credit scores to the amount of a basic income. In the wrong hands, guaranteed income could be an extremely powerful tool to entrench social stratification. We can help to ensure that the growth of basic income is safe, effective, and dignified.
Is there a sound strategy for cost-effectively getting it enacted into policy?
In addition to the policy-focused side of things, my team and I at The Logical Foundation, have found what we believe to be an extremely neglected opportunity to build highly impactful philanthropically funded guaranteed income trials with the side benefit of growing public awareness and support for guaranteed income policy.
While I don’t think that we should shift significant resources from AI research or mitigating biological risks (among other priorities) to UBI advocacy, I do believe that 2 kinds of support for UBI could be worthwhile.
People who don’t have the technical skills to contribute to AI or Bioscience research may find working on UBI to be highly impactful and fit better with their skill sets.
Capacity building funding for UBI organizations (and 80,000 hours job recommendations), or funding that can not be spent on other top priorities for whatever reason (say the donor wants it spent in their—developed—country or explicitly on helping people in the near term).
Should UBI be a top priority for longtermism?
It seems like although there is very little debate around UBI in the EA movement, a lot of EAs I’ve spoken with are on board with the idea that Universal Basic Income (UBI) could be the logical foundation for human civilization. By logical foundation, I mean the optimal safety net and stabilizing force underpinning a successful economic organizing system long-term.
Advocating for UBI is definitely seeking systemic change, and for the purposes of this post, I’ll stick to UBI as an economic policy (one that has proponents from both the left and right).
There’s also a near-term cost-effectiveness argument for UBI: GiveDirectly is running UBI trials in the poorest places in the world using philanthropic—not tax- dollars. Unlike in developing countries, where niche health interventions such as the ones GiveWell researches can greatly exceed the lives saved via cash transfers, it is currently highly plausible that cash transfers are the most cost-effective way to spend aid money in developed countries. As such, we could accomplish exceptionally high impact if we combine philanthropic guaranteed income at scale with advocacy for systematic change in developed countries. I’m working on this topic specifically in another forum post.
The answer to, “Should UBI be a top priority for longtermism?” has two sub-questions.
- Is UBI actually such a great idea?
Cash transfers are the most widely researched intervention in the world, and also the most consistently positive intervention. GiveWell states that “Cash transfers have the strongest track record we’ve seen for a non-health intervention, and are a priority program of ours.”
UBI is basically a population-wide cash transfer program of the government instead of some nonprofit. Although I haven’t seen much discussion of UBI in EA, the Guaranteed Income Movement has a staggering amount of good research pointing towards UBI (guaranteed income) as an incredibly worthwhile policy with few downsides. I consider myself a part of both movements and think we should—at the very least—try to apply EA cost-benefit analysis to UBI.
Here goes.
50% of Americans don’t have $400 in cash on hand to deal with an emergency.
50% of people in the U.S. = 165M
Stress, depression, lack of hope, and other problems (versus the counterfactual) from living in poverty likely contribute to, (spitballing here), 0.2 WELLBYs (or QALYs—arguments exist for both) less per year.
165M People (in the U.S. alone) * 0.2 WELLBYs = 33 Million more WELLBYs/Yr
I’m not sure how far exactly we can extrapolate these benefits, but this is only a fraction of the potential benefits over short or longtermist time horizons.
What about the downsides?
The primary losers of UBI policy would be (extremely) wealthy people and people with very high incomes as they will get higher tax rates.
In 2022, 34.4% of American households saw a $100,000+ income. It would be reasonable to say households with over $100,000 annual income could probably be negatively affected by increased taxes.
34.4% * 332M = 115M Americans
They will likely lose some amount of WELLBYs as their lifestyles will be harder to maintain. Increased taxes, the resulting stress, and a slight decline in living standards could likely contribute to, (spitballing again because living with slightly less affluence isn’t the same as living in poverty), a loss of 0.05 WELLBYs per year. I think this could be a massive overestimation though because although some people would have higher taxes, they would also benefit from their friends, family, and neighbors being much more economically secure.
I think it’s more likely only people with over $500K in annual income would be negatively affected (and only as long as their family & friends are also in the same tax bracket). 1% of American households make 500K+ annually. The 1% comprises 1.32 Million Americans.
115M * 0.05 = 6M less WELLBYs/Yr
1.32M * 0.05 = 66K less WELLBYs/Yr
Based on this back-of-the-napkin cost-benefit estimation, it seems like the benefits by far outweigh the costs. Abolishing poverty could save something like 27 Million WELLBYs per year in the U.S. alone. (note this is only meant to be a directionally accurate ballpark estimate).
33M − 6M = 27 M net positive WELLBYs annually
Here are my general thoughts about the potential upsides (and concerns) I have about UBI & longtermism.
If money remains a thing and capitalism continues to look like the most efficient system for getting people the things they want, then guaranteed income should be one of the fundamental positives in the long-term future of humanity. Global guaranteed income could be an important part of permanently ending resource-based conflict and enabling humans to become more aligned.
In the same vein, establishing UBI as a human right could make it much harder for a (non-AI) actor to enslave humanity forever, reducing several S-risks. Given the dispersed power that UBI distributed evenly across society, people would be much more prepared for and highly resilient to malicious actors looking to entrench power.
If the disruption enabled by guaranteed income is inevitable, we could have a large impact by accelerating the disruption while ensuring that guaranteed income isn’t used for negative purposes. Dictatorial governments could, for example, tie social credit scores to the amount of a basic income. In the wrong hands, guaranteed income could be an extremely powerful tool to entrench social stratification. We can help to ensure that the growth of basic income is safe, effective, and dignified.
Is there a sound strategy for cost-effectively getting it enacted into policy?
There are already several organizations working to move guaranteed income into policy. I also think that many of these organizations would be capable of deploying extra funding in ways that would accelerate guaranteed income policy.
In addition to the policy-focused side of things, my team and I at The Logical Foundation, have found what we believe to be an extremely neglected opportunity to build highly impactful philanthropically funded guaranteed income trials with the side benefit of growing public awareness and support for guaranteed income policy.
While I don’t think that we should shift significant resources from AI research or mitigating biological risks (among other priorities) to UBI advocacy, I do believe that 2 kinds of support for UBI could be worthwhile.
People who don’t have the technical skills to contribute to AI or Bioscience research may find working on UBI to be highly impactful and fit better with their skill sets.
Capacity building funding for UBI organizations (and 80,000 hours job recommendations), or funding that can not be spent on other top priorities for whatever reason (say the donor wants it spent in their—developed—country or explicitly on helping people in the near term).