Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Universal Basic Income Will Likely Increase Social Cohesion

huffingtonpost.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 178 posts

Re: Universal Basic Income Will Likely Increase Social Cohesion

#51

Post by Rumford »

jjaredsimpson wrote: post #23
JackFr wrote: post #7

If I read it correctly, in all of the case studies referenced in the article, the basic income provided was exogenous. That is, the basic income going to the villagers, was not coming from the villagers. So it's not surprising that everyone got chummy when the money flowed in. However a complete picture would show how the people paying felt about it.

This is makers v takers argument.

Please elaborate. Is that a reason to dismiss the argument? Is it not obvious that tax payers are naturally at odds with tax eaters?

Re: Universal Basic Income Will Likely Increase Social Cohesion

#52

Post by hamburglar »

vlunkr wrote: post #42
TeMPOraL wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If I could live and not have a job, I wouldn't have a job either. I could grow as an engineer, finally pivot into biotech, finish the couple of open source projects I know would be useful to many as opposed to the bullshit job I have in webdev (had, actually, right now I'm finally working on something remotely useful - manufacturing management). The economy would be totally fucking fine, enjoyed by all people, many o…

You underestimate the laziness of countless spoiled children who have lived in their parents basements watching netflix and playing video games for years when they could be following their passions.

> You underestimate the laziness of countless spoiled children

Not to mention that many people underestimate the laziness of themselves given infinite free time. Posting to HN is a significant indicator. :)

Re: Universal Basic Income Will Likely Increase Social Cohesion

#53

Post by lambdapie »

jsprogrammer wrote: post #50
lambdapie wrote: post #34

Basic income is just classical economics rebranded, and basic income is not drastically different from welfare systems that are simple, rule based, and have minimal compliance monitoring, for example Australia's. Most of the arguments for basic income apply just as well to a welfare system like Australia's. The ones that to not are the worst ones. E.g. it's said that basic income avoids disincentivizing work. And yet…

Why would you need tax with a basic income? Flip it around and incorporate the tax into the income distribution.

I don't understand your point. Can you clarify?

For reference, when I speak of "marginal effective tax rate" I mean the marginal effective tax rate after including (1) welfare payments to you, (2) the tax you pay and (3) any basic income you receive, although (3) does not directly contribute to the marginal effective tax rate, since it is zero.

Re: Universal Basic Income Will Likely Increase Social Cohesion

#54

Post by tsotha »

Turing_Machine wrote: post #28
lmz wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Note that the areas where this is true are precisely the ones with catastrophically high birth rates, and the areas where there are pensions, social programs, etc. are precisely the ones where population is stable, or even falling. And then those countries with pensions and falling population are mentioned as ones who need to import immigrants in order to keep their pension pyramid scheme working...

Well, you could do other things to encourage more births. It's been done before, with significant success.

Where? Every country I'm aware of that dipped below replacement fertility has not been able to recover.

Re: Universal Basic Income Will Likely Increase Social Cohesion

#55

Post by SCAQTony »

paulsutter wrote: post #22
JackFr wrote: post #7

If I read it correctly, in all of the case studies referenced in the article, the basic income provided was exogenous. That is, the basic income going to the villagers, was not coming from the villagers. So it's not surprising that everyone got chummy when the money flowed in. However a complete picture would show how the people paying felt about it.

The money for basic income will come from automation driven productivity improvements. Many of the people who are "paying for it" (ie, putting in the thousands of man-years to create those technologies) have exactly that intent, to free people from drudgery. EDIT: pvnick, yes the consensus is measured in decades. Some think fewer, some think more, but yes and thanks.

I am not a sociologist but I do believe the strong should assist the weak but handing out cash to a set of people who may have disabilities, addictions, severe IQ deficits or otherwise may be a "fast curtain" to a "bad second act."

I believe offering free food and shelter would be far less expensive and a better investment.

Example: 25% of the homeless suffer from mental illness, what would they do with free money? http://www.studentsagainsthunger.org/

40% of the food supply in the United States is wasted and thus could be possibly reclaimed or reistributed: http://www.worldfooddayusa.org/food_waste_the_facts

The Federal government has plenty of land. Micro houses would be a one time cost and shelter should be built very inexpensively. A Finnish micro house costs under $11,000 http://www.gizmag.com/finnish-micro-house/22580/

Re: Universal Basic Income Will Likely Increase Social Cohesion

#56

Post by smegger001 »

Turing_Machine wrote: post #35
TeMPOraL wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> However, the people who already have far, far more wealth than everyone else have nothing to gain from that way of thinking, as they already have most of the wealth without having to pay UBI. So why would they allow it? That sounds less like a problem with the idea and more like an obstacle to implementation. Also, what do the rich have to gain by not helping make UBI happen? Probably starvation, unrest and war as…

Probably starvation, unrest and war as automation puts the lower ends of the economy out of jobs and destabilizes the society. Yes. We're definitely headed toward a world where significant percentage of the population have no skill or talent that anyone will willingly pay them money to perform. There are ways of papering this over, but most of them are pretty unappealing. For instance, bringing back a servant, or eve…

Why would being a servant be considered ugly or unappatizing? Is it different really than any other service industry job? So instead of being a fry cook at burger king for minimum wage they prepare dinner for someone that is more affluent and that is somehow lacking dignity as more than the former, how?

Re: Universal Basic Income Will Likely Increase Social Cohesion

#57

Post by Dagwoodie »

vlunkr wrote: post #42
TeMPOraL wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If I could live and not have a job, I wouldn't have a job either. I could grow as an engineer, finally pivot into biotech, finish the couple of open source projects I know would be useful to many as opposed to the bullshit job I have in webdev (had, actually, right now I'm finally working on something remotely useful - manufacturing management). The economy would be totally fucking fine, enjoyed by all people, many o…

You underestimate the laziness of countless spoiled children who have lived in their parents basements watching netflix and playing video games for years when they could be following their passions.

"This sounds great, I haven't had any time off since I was 21 through 24!" - Phillip J Fry

Seriously though, I'd wager the vast majority, if not all of the world's greatest inventions of the last millenium came not from those who inherited great wealth but those who had to struggle, worry, pray and perhaps cry about their fate before their survival instincts threw their imagination and determination into overdrive. UBI on the face of it seems like a noble idea but we are far too confident in what we think we know about the human spirit and our own nature to on average, try to follow the path of least resistance. It can certainly work well in small groups that have strong moral and ethical backbones but I fear it will ruin a land's people in direct proportion to how far it tries to implement it.

Re: Universal Basic Income Will Likely Increase Social Cohesion

#58

Post by bandrami »

lambdapie wrote: post #36
chrispeel wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The 'unconditional' I take to mean that everyone, rich and poor, would get the same money. So even though the people with high income are paying more in taxes to cover this, they're also getting the same amount paid to them in a separate check. So yes, they're paying more in taxes, but they're also getting the same benefit as everyone else, and this will take some of the sting off. UBI is an excellent libertarian/sma…

UBI might be a great policy, but your argument makes no sense from an accounting point of view. Every kind of redistribution must sum to zero across all people. Basic income is no different in this regard. So to say that basic income is different because the right and poor both receive it is pure sophistry.

Every kind of redistribution must sum to zero across all people.

Only if it has no impact on monetary velocity. Redistributing money from people who are not going to spend it to people who will (or vice versa) is not zero sum.

Lemma: redistribution is itself a monetary policy, given the velocity differences of different money holders.

Re: Universal Basic Income Will Likely Increase Social Cohesion

#59

Post by ploxiln »

vlunkr wrote: post #40
chrispeel wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The 'unconditional' I take to mean that everyone, rich and poor, would get the same money. So even though the people with high income are paying more in taxes to cover this, they're also getting the same amount paid to them in a separate check. So yes, they're paying more in taxes, but they're also getting the same benefit as everyone else, and this will take some of the sting off. UBI is an excellent libertarian/sma…

It's still a net loss for them. Yes they're getting some too, but it's just their money coming back to them. You'd be foolish to feel comforted by that. Also, UBI is far from libertarianism. Libertarians want to be in control of their own money.

I'm kinda libertarian, and I kinda like the idea of a UBI, because it means we no longer need people in power to make decisions about who gets welfare and other social support, and all the gaming and corruption involved.

I've come around to the idea that there can't and won't be zero public social support, so UBI seems like the fairest, least-overhead way to take care of it.

The downside is, the argument/power of who to let in the country, or who in the country gets UBI, gets a lot more serious. There really aren't any easy answers here...

Re: Universal Basic Income Will Likely Increase Social Cohesion

#60

Post by eggnet »

Turing_Machine wrote: post #44
pvnick wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A $10,000 basic income, perhaps the bare minimum to prevent starvation and homelessness in the most rural parts of the country, for everyone in the United States over the age of 18 involves roughly 2.5 trillion dollars in payouts per year, about 10% GDP for the country (about twice the GDP accounted for by social security). Increasing basic income to $20,000 per year doubles that to about 5 trillion, and that is stil…

"A $10,000 basic income, perhaps the bare minimum to prevent starvation and homelessness in the most rural parts of the country, for everyone in the United States over the age of 18" You are assuming that every one of those people stops working and lives exclusively on the dole. That's almost certainly not going to be the case.

If you limit basic income, that's called welfare. I thought the point of basic income is that everyone gets it.

Now sure... wealthy people will pay more in taxes than they receive in basic income. But it would still be a tax credit.

Post reply on HN