> Street promoters make me sad. If they can find no job they better stay at home and learn something new, but they have no time for it, so they are stuck doing useless, maybe even harmful, work.

If these people really have such a large earning potential if they were just learning something new, why not let coworkers get together and finance a fund: The worker (let's call him John Doe) will get his existing income for, say, 2 years, financed by the coworkers together. John Doe on the other hand is of course obligated to learn something new (what exactly is agreed upon beforehand). After these two years for the next, say, five years John Doe has to donate, say, 40% of his gross income back to the coworkers who financed him this opportunity. Both sides should be willing to agree on such a deal: John Doe gets his opportunity to learn new things and (hopefully) get a much better job afterwards and his coworkers will (hopefully) get a lot more money back than they originally invested.

These contracts are really hard to enforce, and is essentially selling equity in yourself. If you sell 100% of your own equity, that'd be pretty much slavery right? Some people (maybe justifiably) feel very uncomfortable with the idea of selling their own future equity. For one thing, it reduces the incentives for someone to work hard.

Yale did something like this in the 70s and finally killed it because of issues with how it was structured. Also it felt really unfair to high wage earners that they were sometimes paying multiples of what their tuition originally was.

Oregon is trying this out now [2].

[1] http://yaledailynews.com/blog/2001/03/27/70s-debt-program-fi...

[2] http://www.salon.com/2015/03/26/two_years_after_signing_of_l...

> For one thing, it reduces the incentives for someone to work hard.

If you work harder, you will still have more money - that's what % is about.

> Some people (maybe justifiably) feel very uncomfortable with the idea of selling their own future equity.

If they have a problem with that, then they should negate something like "40% for every gross dollar over 1000 per month". You are

> Also it felt really unfair to high wage earners that they were sometimes paying multiples of what their tuition originally was.

That's why I wrote "coworkers", so that it is not a "poor workers against big bank" scheme but "poor workers invest in one of their peer" - this is a lot more at eye level. If the coworkers agree to less - fine. If you are more on the social side: Why not simply invest the, say, 40% into financing the education of the next "poor worker"?

It's a matter of trust.

People in other societies do this all the time -- entire families in China, for example, will pay in invest in others' education or pay for them to emigrate to the US, with the understanding that if the person succeeds they will bring over other family members or send back money.

But do coworkers really know and trust each other so well to do this without enforcement mechanisms? Lawyers are extremely expensive, so while you theoretically have recourse to the law, in practice even drafting an airtight contract can easily cost tens of thousands of dollars.

Again there's two problems: cultural (I think to most Americans it's a blow to pride admitting they need help from others), and also enforcing 'percentage of paycheck' contracts is difficult. Just see how much trouble people have enforcing alimony or child support payments, even when the case is 100% legally clear.

> People in other societies do this all the time -- entire families in China, for example, will pay in invest in others' education or pay for them to emigrate to the US, with the understanding that if the person succeeds they will bring over other family members or send back money.

Indeed I had this in the back of my mind when I suggested my idea.

> enforcing 'percentage of paycheck' contracts is difficult. Just see how much trouble people have enforcing alimony or child support payments, even when the case is 100% legally clear.

Alimony and child support payments are forced upon them from above - this is nothing that anybody would willingly agree to if he/she could choose freely. On the other hand: Getting financed to learn something new is something people would willingly agree to. And if after that they earn more than before even after "donating" the 40%, they are still better off than before.

You need a really big group of people to make that happen, because there will be failure cases at every stage of the process. In fact, you might even need an entire country to buy in.

Which is basically a description of what happens when countries provide free uni education...

How is this different to a student loan, in any meaningful sense.

> How is this different to a student loan

* Student loan is "poor student vs. large bank". My suggestion is "peers finance peer".

* Student loan have to be paid back completely (with interest, of course). In my suggestion you pay back a defined percentage of the gross income for a defined number of years. So the risk that the person will only get a badly paying job is not on the person that is financed, but on the financers. This in particular means that the person taking the "loan" will avoids the risk that he will need many more years than originally anticipated to pay back the "loan".

I've met someone who spun a sign for a living... he was a huge stoner... I love weed, but he clearly smoked too much of it while his brain was still developing and he could barely hold a conversation... Now... maybe he was self-medicating or whatever... but the point was he failed out of high school, failed out of a few jobs... and then ended up spinning a sign because he really had no meaningful skill to contribute to society. (And I think he failed at showing up to work so he lost that job eventually...)

I suspect most people who are in really shit jobs are there because they have issues... they can't show up on time, they don't follow employment rules, or they have something just wrong with them (they are sex-offenders, or have untreated behavioral issues or whatever)... not the sort of people who should be empowered to just sit around. I will go so far as to say nobody who really has potential ends up spinning a sign for very long... they use the job to cover their rent, and they find a way to get a better job.

Anyway I don't want to come off as against a UBI, I but I've never met someone who benefited by sitting around doing nothing. I think it's bad for people to be lazy -- like fundamentally brain-rotting to sit around being idle. I like the idea of a UBI that's tied to doing something... anything... getting outside and picking up trash in the road ditches even... or getting vocational training (which we should find a way to make free)... or getting mental health treatment... Prove you have a regular paycheck, or prove you are clocking in 30 hours at some "just move your body" type of approved activity every week to qualify.

At any given time, some fraction of people are going to be burnouts. That's just a fact. I think they still deserve a baseline of wellbeing, without judgment. If they use it to better themselves, great. If not, oh well. But we spend so much time and effort trying to pick the winners rather than simply giving people a minimal foundation.

For those of us with work ethic (the vast majority of everyone, to varying extents), our extra effort will be rewarded by the market, if we do something that other people find valuable, or intrinsically, if we're just doing what we love.

I think UBI have a hard time gaining traction in the US. You're asking me to pay higher taxes to have an outcome where someone can actually do less than they currently do to contribute to society.

UBI is a very interesting concept, but in order to sell it you'd have to have a phased approach... one of the phases I think would have to include some sort of checks and balances.

Agree.

While we are making recommendations about what people with issues should be doing with themselves, let me add, on the other end of the spectrum - overconfident, mindlessly ambitious characters in society, should be sent off to explore the deep sea, climb mountains etc. So that whatever random goal they are chasing has minimal impact on society at large.