Universal Basic Income Will Likely Increase Social Cohesion • Hacker News Board

Re: Universal Basic Income Will Likely Increase Social Cohesion

#101

Post by eru » Sat, Oct 24, 2015, 8:29 AM UTC

dantheman wrote: post #70

ploxiln wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

UBI can't replace welfare -- it cannot provide enough money to everyone to replace whole salaries. If you agree that welfare should exist to take care of people who cannot work or have expensive conditions that need to be treated then BI cannot replace it.

> If you agree that welfare should exist to take care of people who cannot work or have expensive conditions that need to be treated then BI cannot replace it.

That's what insurance is for.

(And the state (or parents) can take out insurance for the kids before they are born---ie before anyone knows whether they are at special risk of any diseases or conditions, thus charging the average is economically fine.)

Re: Universal Basic Income Will Likely Increase Social Cohesion

#102

Post by eru » Sat, Oct 24, 2015, 8:30 AM UTC

nosuchthing wrote: post #75

Rumford wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

> [...] presumably would draw backlash from wealthy business owners who would simply raise prices on basic goods.

Why don't greedy people raise prices already today?

Re: Universal Basic Income Will Likely Increase Social Cohesion

#103

Post by eru » Sat, Oct 24, 2015, 8:33 AM UTC

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…

> In any case, the lower marginal effective tax rate for the poor under basic income, is only possible because of a higher marginal effective tax rate for the middle class.

Yes. Though simplicity has its own benefits. Simple schemes are cheaper to run and monitor. And they cause less economic disruption of people moving away from efficient behaviour.

Re: Universal Basic Income Will Likely Increase Social Cohesion

#104

Post by eru » Sat, Oct 24, 2015, 8:36 AM UTC

visarga wrote: post #89

Basic Income sounds great on paper but I fear that it will lead to a new kind of servitude towards the state, that will be the only provider. Politicians will have even more access (direct access) to the quality of life of their electorate. What will stop states to link the "Chinese style credit score" to the quantum of BI one receives? How will we make sure the quantum of basic income is enough for a decent life? Ho…

You can look at central and northern European soziale Marktwirtschaft to get some of your questions about how it could work out in practice answered.

They don't have basic income, yet, but they do have fairly generous welfare payments, that do try to provide for a decent life.

Re: Universal Basic Income Will Likely Increase Social Cohesion

#105

Post by eru » Sat, Oct 24, 2015, 8:38 AM UTC

vorg wrote: post #95

ps4fanboy wrote: post #83

People are using Australia as an example, we have very large taxes (most people pay at least 25%, some 35%+) we also have a 10% tax on all goods and high GDP per capita. You cant fund social welfare programs without huge taxes on everyone not just the rich.

Australia along with Canada have the highest wealth per person of any countries in the world. Much of the wealth comes from a large land area divided by a tiny population. I remember reading in an Australian magazine about 15 yrs ago (but forget the details) that Australia is the country with the largest proportion of "made-up jobs", i.e. jobs in finance, law, IT, etc which don't actually contribute to the production…

Oh, indeed. The nanny state is strong here in New South Wales.

You can't open a nursery in a building above a certain height. Even if the kids are only ever going to be on the ground floor.

Re: Universal Basic Income Will Likely Increase Social Cohesion

#106

Post by eru » Sat, Oct 24, 2015, 8:38 AM UTC

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.

Move to Germany.

Re: Universal Basic Income Will Likely Increase Social Cohesion

#107

Post by dragonbonheur » Sat, Oct 24, 2015, 8:47 AM UTC

nickff wrote: post #92

dragonbonheur wrote: post #91

I find it both funny and appalling how Americans view any sort of movement in the common social interest as a threat. It's as if they want to maintain an inegalitarian status-quo that only protects the richest minority, even if they are not part of it. Absolutely ridiculous.

Some approach the issue from a Kantian perspective, and ask 'what right does A have to take B's money and give it to C?'[1] Others (of a more utilitarian leaning) wonder whether redistribution will 'kill the engine of prosperity'. The USA has overtaken Britain in per capita GDP by growing 1% (point) faster per year for 100 years, and many believe that redistribution reduces growth. What part of this is "absolutely ri…

The part of it that is ridiculous is that Americans protect their richest minority without being part of it.

Seriously, America is the country where paid sickness leaves or maternity leaves are not guaranteed.

America is the country where waiters are expected to make the most of their living income from tips and not from their salary.

America is the country where local governments have outlawed people from collecting rainwater while giving exclusive contracts to rich corporations to collect ground water or pollute it by dumping fracking waste into or near it.

America is the country where the police can rob normal people from their money without probable cause (civil asset forfeiture) and the majority will rally behind said policemen because "blue lives matter".

America is the country where home owners aren't free to plant vegetables in from of their own houses, on their own property and you call that country "the land of the free".

America is the country that goes to war to make corporations and shareholders richer and you all call it "bringing them liberation and democracy" while America's legislators, judges, sheriffs and government officials can be bought by Political Action Committees and "unions", sometimes for as little as access to garden parties, golf clubs, tickets for sports events in VIP boxes and other trinkets.

Do you think those laws are to protect the people, or corporations like Walmart, Costco, Nestle, Halliburton, Exxon-Mobil and others?

Still absolutely ridiculous.

Here's the thing about the future of humanity: if we want to have a future without perpetual (American-caused) war, we must promote and nurture post-scarcity cultures.

Re: Universal Basic Income Will Likely Increase Social Cohesion

#108

Post by rebootthesystem » Sat, Oct 24, 2015, 8:48 AM UTC

Falkon1313 wrote: post #93

Consider agriculture. It used to employ over 80% of the workforce, now less than 2%. But now, with over 98% unemployment, we're not starving. Instead, we're wasting 40% of our food, exporting food, and reading articles about obesity epidemics and how the grocery store is reducing its 57 varieties of ketchup so that we won't have so much difficulty choosing. Manufacturing is going that way. We're well into the disposa…

> but what?

People making candles couldn't imagine another set of people would be employed for years making light bulbs. Newspaper owners, investors, writers and workers could not foresee the Internet. Nobody could imagine making money with software that played back fart sounds or allowed you to launch an angry bird into a structure.

The point is: Not being able to answer the question is of no consequence. Progress and change will still happen despite our collective lack of imagination and malfunctioning crystal balls.

Re: Universal Basic Income Will Likely Increase Social Cohesion

#109

Post by fauigerzigerk » Sat, Oct 24, 2015, 9:05 AM UTC

nickff wrote: post #92

dragonbonheur wrote: post #91

I find it both funny and appalling how Americans view any sort of movement in the common social interest as a threat. It's as if they want to maintain an inegalitarian status-quo that only protects the richest minority, even if they are not part of it. Absolutely ridiculous.

Some approach the issue from a Kantian perspective, and ask 'what right does A have to take B's money and give it to C?'[1] Others (of a more utilitarian leaning) wonder whether redistribution will 'kill the engine of prosperity'. The USA has overtaken Britain in per capita GDP by growing 1% (point) faster per year for 100 years, and many believe that redistribution reduces growth. What part of this is "absolutely ri…

>'what right does A have to take B's money and give it to C?'

The question implies that there is a natural or divine law, not made by A, B or C, that says what is and isn't B's money in the first place.

What if the people (i.e A, B and C) are a radically meritocratic bunch and they define B's property as everything that can be ascribed to B's individual effort, not to the country B was born in, not to the social group B was born into and not to pure chance?

Based on this meritocratic definition, some of what ends up in the B's possession at some point is not legally B's property and must be redistributed.

Re: Universal Basic Income Will Likely Increase Social Cohesion

#110

Post by omnomrentier » Sat, Oct 24, 2015, 9:09 AM UTC

intopieces wrote: post #86

nosuchthing wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Investing in free mass transportation, health care, affordable/free higher education, affordable food (or food stamps), and free public housing within 30 minutes to major city centers would seem like a sensible alternative to the basic income system of 'just give people money'. Basic Income seems like it would inevitably lead to inflation especially since 'fiat money' economics are so prone to emotional speculations.…

> affordable food (or food stamps), and free public housing within 30 minutes to major city centers would seem like a sensible alternative to the basic income system of 'just give people money'. We give people food stamps, they sell them for less than they're worth for cash. We have public housing. It's called "The Projects" and they're generally known as the rough area of town. Both of these services cost taxpayers…

Basic income is not going to be able to provide housing in the absence of other programs; it will just end up captured as increased rents against a static supply of deteriorating housing stock.

This model of BI (replacing existing programs) is nothing but a giveaway to landlords, which I assume accounts for the PR juice behind it.

It's possible to have social housing that's not terrible or stigmatized. Having moved from the US to the Netherlands, the contrast is remarkable. Social housing here is integrated in most neighborhoods, not a "hood" of its own. There are definitely exceptions of course, but even the Schilderswijk or Bijlmermeer are very pleasant places compared to most NYCHA projects.

It's mostly just rent-regulated housing, be it owned by non-profit housing corporations, coupled in case of direst need with a subsidy payment, and with agencies responsible for placement. Not, actually, much different the administrative structures present in most American cities. The main difference appears to be first an explicit goal of avoiding segregation, and second, scale. Most rental housing here is in the social sector, so the benefits extend beyond the very poor, which is critical for avoiding stigma and maintaining political support.

Replacing landlord oversight with cash payments to tenants is not going to do anything to improve the lot of the tenants. I'd rather see the US invest directly in expanding affordable housing integrated with neighborhoods.

Unfortunately, this is a political loser until a majority of voters stand to benefit directly from it. Things are going to have to get a lot worse before that happens.