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

71–80 of 178 posts

Re: Universal Basic Income Will Likely Increase Social Cohesion

#71

Post by Tossrock »

Dagwoodie wrote: post #57
vlunkr wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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. U…

Galileo's father was essentially a famous renaissance rock star. Newton was the son of a wealthy farmer. Leibniz's and Lord Kelvin's fathers were both professors. Maxwell's father was a baronet, and Werner von Braun's father was a literal duke. Turing was from upper middle class english gentry. Larry and Sergei went to Montessori school.

Re: Universal Basic Income Will Likely Increase Social Cohesion

#72

Post by dragonwriter »

skybrian wrote: post #49
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…

There's no minimum needed to get started. $100 a month isn't going to pay the rent or even be noticed by a lot of people, but on the margin, it will make a difference to people living on the edge. Also remember that the average person breaks even, so affordability isn't really an issue.

> There's no minimum needed to get started.

You probably want the initial value to be high enough that you can actually displace some existing means-tested aid programs, even though you may not initially be able to do all of them.

Re: Universal Basic Income Will Likely Increase Social Cohesion

#73

Post by lukeschlather »

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.

This is the essential problem with libertarianism. You can't personally be in control of money, it has to be granted by some sort of central authority. Even Bitcoin, which ostensibly is decentralized, still has central planning in the form of developing the software and the rules around how the blockchain functions. Bitcoin is designed to have very lightweight central planning, but it's still there.

Re: Universal Basic Income Will Likely Increase Social Cohesion

#74

Post by dragonwriter »

lambdapie wrote: post #61
bandrami wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You use the term "monetary velocity" as if it was some term of trade, but I have a PhD in economics and I've never seen it used this way. Are you referring to a specific school of thought or author when you use this term? Redistributing money from people who are not going to spend it to people who will (or vice versa) is not zero sum. This is the essence of (neo-)Keynsianism but it only applies during recessions. In…

> You use the term "monetary velocity" as if it was some term of trade, but I have a PhD in economics and I've never seen it used this way.

"Monetary velocity" is not the usual phrasing I've seen, but from the context it was presented in and the description fo the effects attributed to it (and, well, the name -- even though its not exactly the usual term) its fairly obviously the same thing as "velocity of money" [0], a fairly basic economic concept covered in most introductory economics courses.

> Of course redistribution has a positive effect on welfare as defined by the sum of total utility, but it doesn't increase, for example, GDP.

That's debatable. Redistribution to a group more likely to expend money within the domestic economy can increase the velocity of money in the domestic economy even if it has no effect on overall velocity (which it can also have), increasing GDP, in either case.

In any case, measuring economy health by aggregate measures like GDP is not done because those are real fundamental goals, its done because measuring the sum of utility isn't practical. Improving the some of utility without increasing one of the headline proxies isn't "zero effect" in the first place.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Velocity_of_money

Re: Universal Basic Income Will Likely Increase Social Cohesion

#75

Post by nosuchthing »

Rumford wrote: post #64
Turing_Machine wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You must not be a libertarian, so stop projecting it as a libertarian ideal, because it isn't. One of the best-known advocates of UBI/negative income tax was Milton Friedman, and he most definitely was a libertarian. There's a difference between idealistic versions of political philosophies that don't match human behavior, and practical versions of those philosophies that do. Let's say we wind up with 50 million peop…

Oh not this again. First of all, Friedman advocated a negative income tax as a replacement to the ad-hoc mess of redistributive taxes, grants and welfare programs that exist now. Add a UBI to food stamps, unemployment benefits, farm subsidies, Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and the problems only get worse. Second, this doomsday scenario of 50 million people waking up one day to discover there isn't a single thi…

What do you imagine alternative solutions to the problems of economic (im)mobility?

Free money to all citizens seems like a bold economic policy with no attainable goal and presumably would draw backlash from wealthy business owners who would simply raise prices on basic goods.

Instead why not just invest in public infrastructure like transportation and public housing, and education?

Re: Universal Basic Income Will Likely Increase Social Cohesion

#76

Post by creadee »

donatj wrote: post #4

If I could live and not have a job, I wouldn't have a job. I could do my art and enjoy my life and the economy would crumble while everyone else watches Netflix.

Maybe some would buy your art instead of paying Netflix to watch other people's art?

I think it's safe to say we don't have a clue how things would pan out with a UBI, since none of the examples have been universal yet.

A few things are a given though:

1) Many people wouldn't consider the UBI to be enough to sustain their lifestyles so they'd continue to work.

2) Low-paid work that people don't like doing will have to become higher-paid work. (Or at least the total of its pay + the UBI will have to become higher. I'm assuming here there'd be no minimum wage.)

3) Higher-paid work which people like doing may become lower-paid or charity work, depending on the work.

4) Work that's not currently done because it's uneconomic may start to get done.

5) Most benefits currently provided could be done away with.

In other words, it'd transform society. Whether it'd be for the better or worse remains to be seen. It's by far the most interesting economic idea around at the moment though, so let's hope some country tries it soon!

Re: Universal Basic Income Will Likely Increase Social Cohesion

#77

Post by randyrand »

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.

Automation does not create profit, it reduces prices!!!!*

*In markets ones with at least some competition

Also, its important to note that even the machine owners wont make profits in a competitive market.

Re: Universal Basic Income Will Likely Increase Social Cohesion

#78

Post by icelancer »

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.

>UBI is far from libertarianism

Many libertarians are in favor of UBI. Including this poster.

Re: Universal Basic Income Will Likely Increase Social Cohesion

#79

Post by gaius »

creadee wrote: post #76
donatj wrote: post #4

If I could live and not have a job, I wouldn't have a job. I could do my art and enjoy my life and the economy would crumble while everyone else watches Netflix.

Maybe some would buy your art instead of paying Netflix to watch other people's art? I think it's safe to say we don't have a clue how things would pan out with a UBI, since none of the examples have been universal yet. A few things are a given though: 1) Many people wouldn't consider the UBI to be enough to sustain their lifestyles so they'd continue to work. 2) Low-paid work that people don't like doing will have t…

Many people wouldn't consider the UBI to be enough to sustain their lifestyles so they'd continue to work

No they wouldn't. They'd vote for an increase in UBI.

Re: Universal Basic Income Will Likely Increase Social Cohesion

#80

Post by tene »

jsprogrammer wrote: post #65
lambdapie wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I'm just thinking that instead of taxing some other money (primarily debt) to fund the basic income, the basic income itself can be the money (though, additional monies may be desired), which would obviate any need for taxes/reclaimation.

The usual justification for this is that it's simpler, and reduces additional incentives to cheat the system and additional overhead. We currently have a means already in place to claim a portion of an individual's income, through taxes. More-traditional means-tested welfare systems have additional overhead of a second system trying to investigate your income to determine how the government chooses to interfere in your finances. The proposed intuition is that you get a simpler system with less overhead by just giving out a flat UBI payment, and also claiming some amount of that back via taxes that people already file, rather than employing an army of people to investigate your income every month before deciding how much to give out.

I'm not entirely certain that I've actually answered the question you intended to ask. If I'm way off the mark, could you try rephrasing a bit?

Post reply on HN