Think of it this way.

You get a subsidized apartment that’s fixed too 30% of your income so long as you make under 150% the federal poverty level. In 21 that was $12,880 for an individual meaning they would pay $322/mo for rent. I’m virtually every area of the country an apartment at that rent is impossible to find. Should this person really make themself homeless to earn more money doing abullshit job?

This is a welfare cliff and they’re everywhere. Healthcare, insurance, transportation, housing, food, clothing, charity, etc.

The real problem here is a society that is brainwashed into thinking it’s “normal” for a 21 year old to move out and get a place of his own, let alone doing it at minimum wage. I don’t even know why anyone would want to live alone at that age. Everything about life is both easier and more pleasant surrounded by close family.

Housing and meals have natural economies of scale. Even tasks like fetching medicine while you’re sick or waiting for package become easier.

It’s a travesty how many people these days think the standard course of action is to try to live as an island.

Easier and more pleasant isn't a universal. Some people have truly horrible families. Occasionally they themselves are the horrible family member, and the others are so much better off without them around.

> thinking it’s “normal” for a 21 year old to move out and get a place of his own, let alone doing it at minimum wage.

Well, parents aren't legally obligated to provide support past age 18, which means many don't. And youths that are wards of the state because of abuse or their parents becoming incarcerated, dying, etc, are not supported beyond age 18. So this is at least a frequent corner case we'll have to deal with, even if social norms change so that more parents support kids past 18.

> At what point do they have "enough" income?

If you require public assistance for housing and food, I think you don't have enough income.

But public benefits can phase out, leaving you in an awkward place where you have more income but less household resources and become unable to feed your family by virtue of making more.

>If you require public assistance for housing and food, I think you don't have enough income.

Public assistance? Like UBI?

By using your definition, it is BETTER if we stop giving people money. I'm pretty sure that is not the intended direction

> Public assistance? Like UBI?

I think it's important that to whatever extent we decide that some people need assistance, that we do it in a way that doesn't have a cliff and preferably doesn't have any phase-out at all, for the reasons I described.

Yes, the assistance is still economically distortive, but less so than otherwise. Everyone still has an incentive to increase their income and economic output.

This idea came to me from none other than Milton Friedman, in the form of the negative income tax.

When the top 1% makes more income than the entire bottom 50% that average can look pretty skewed.

If you are going to compare income of different people, can you please indicate the geographical region you pick, and how you decided on the size?

For instance, the income distribution of people within Beverly Hills is probably pretty OK - no need to redistribute anything there!

But if you zoom out, you can look at the entire world and realize that the poorest of the USA are richer than many people around the world and should pay their welfare

Since we are speaking about the US, the numbers I provided were us specific and anything that is done would be financed via us taxes, I'm pretty confident everyone knows I'm referring to the US as a whole.

"realize that the poorest of the USA are richer than many people around the world and should pay their welfare"

Why should us taxes subsidize world welfare (not that it already doesn't)?

Of course, when we're talking about a UBI, there are always some geographic distributions of wealth that one might quibble with: from large urban states to rural states. Taxes paying for UBI flowing out of California will exceed UBI flowing into California; taxes paying for UBI flowing out of Wyoming will be dwarfed by UBI flowing into Wyoming.

And, further, beyond the balance of transfers in absolute dollars-- $1000/mo in California impacts resident life less than $1000/mo in Wyoming.

I don't think this is a strong reason to not do UBI, but it's a confound.

would be interesting to see if a UBI actually caused more people to move to states like Wyoming and Montana. Many people too poor to actually move (lack of deposit, moving costs, etc.) would actually have the funds to move if they saved ubi for a few months. Leaving a HCOL for a LCOL state with a UBI would be a life changer for people if they were willing to do so.

As a US citizen, I feel my first duty is to my country. There are enough problems at home without trying to fix the world.

The USA also has really high living expenses.

Besides which, the median is a much better measure than average.

I want the standard of living to increase. What is hard to understand about that?