Resource Allocation in a DAG

[Türkçe]
[Substack]

I am seeking opinions regarding the applications of a graph algorithm that I have been thinking about.

Representing a biological family tree as a directed acyclic graph, can this algorithm be the basis of an alternative universal basic income (UBI) system where the amount of payment one receives is determined by the structure of their family tree? I don’t consider myself knowledgeable or experienced enough to make definitive comments about basic income schemes, but this algorithm could alleviate some financial pressures faced by countries implementing UBI. However, it would likely introduce significant ethical and philosophical concerns. I am collecting opinions to see if/how this algorithm could be useful.

Some notes regarding this algorithm:

• This algorithm might not be that relevant today, but if UBI payments become widespread and increase to substantial levels (e.g. due to automation), countries might need to discuss algorithms like this to avoid financial strain.
• For a nuclear family with a typical family tree (no loops, etc.), the parents split their UBI with their children such that the family’s total UBI income remains constant, regardless of the number of children. Parents pass down each of their children the same amount of UBI, independent of how many descendants each child has.
• As the population increases, someone’s UBI payment must decrease, assuming that the total budget for UBI payments is constant. Even in the case where the total budget can increase, someone’s percentage share of the total budget must decrease. The key question is: given a newborn baby, whose UBI payment should this baby’s birth decrease? This algorithm provides one approach, which hopefully adheres to the least of $n$ evils principle. There are only two cases where your UBI can decrease due to a new birth:
  1. The baby is your child or the child of one of your direct descendants. Why might it be fair that your UBI decreases in this case? Because it is your actions, directly or indirectly, that led to the child’s birth.
  2. The baby is the child of one your direct ancestors. Why might it be fair that your UBI decreases in this case? Because, after all, it is directly or indirectly due to the actions of your direct ancestors that you even exist and have a UBI in the first place.
• Vertices that are on and off represent people who are alive and dead, respectively.
• A significant (ethical and philosophical, not mathematical) challenge remains in determining the UBI incomes of people who join the community later and do not fully descend from the “founders.”

P.S. Note that “UBI income” is an example of RAS syndrome!