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

Powerful Political Forces Are Aligning Behind Minimum Income

nerdinvest.blogspot.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 158 posts

Re: Powerful Political Forces Are Aligning Behind Minimum Income

#71

Post by Kenji »

manyoso wrote: post #60
Kenji wrote: post #14

Haha, I love how the tech community is so liberal and critical against government when it comes to privacy and meddling with our private lives, yet that exact same community is mostly in agreement with UBI which in turn means being completely dependent on the state. If the state thinks you do something it does not like (you're a ''terrorist''), your UBI will be striked - you know that, right?

Liberals understand that we are the state as a government of the people, by the people and for the people. Probably we remember this from grade school and also we don't instinctively fear the 'other' like you guys.

I am not the state. And when I look around, a lot of states certainly aren't 'for' or 'by' the people. Maybe you have to start thinking independently, rather than smugly reciting one-liners from school. The state is a large entreprise that gives us some things and forces us to do things and pay money under the threat of violence and incarceration. I argue for voluntaryism, the notion that people enter into contracts and relationships by their own free will and without force, which is fundamentally at odds with most of what the state does.

Re: Powerful Political Forces Are Aligning Behind Minimum Income

#72

Post by mikeash »

Kenji wrote: post #14

Haha, I love how the tech community is so liberal and critical against government when it comes to privacy and meddling with our private lives, yet that exact same community is mostly in agreement with UBI which in turn means being completely dependent on the state. If the state thinks you do something it does not like (you're a ''terrorist''), your UBI will be striked - you know that, right?

As opposed to now, where your livelihood will be destroyed by just putting you in jail?

With UBI, if you hold a job you'll still be able to survive even if your benefits are revoked. You're not forcibly dependent on the state (at least not beyond the ways we are now, for roads and utilities and such), it's just an option. I imagine most people here would continue to hold their nice high-paying jobs even if UBI were implemented.

Re: Powerful Political Forces Are Aligning Behind Minimum Income

#73

Post by VLM »

jerelunruh wrote: post #36

Let's say that currently rent is $1,000 per month, food is $500, and Alice is earning $2,500. Now UBI is implemented and Alice and all fellow citizens receive $1,000 per month. What will keep the market from easing the entry level rent up to $1,500 and food to $1,000 since the money is available? At first glance it seems like we'd just be choosing a different number representing "broke".

"since the money is available?"

Sure about that? Some fraction of the population will buy a new iphone, some will experience the rare luxury of health insurance, some will repair the car they use to get to work or buy a better car to get to work, some will spend money on higher education, some can finally afford dental work, some will pay up whatever had garnished their wages (child support,taxes?), catch up on bills. Most of that money is not going to be available for basic food or rent.

The experience will vary greatly depending on the socioeconomic class and the size of the UBI. It'll also vary based on institutionalization status. College students will likely be expected to pay 100% of it toward tuition. Prisoners will likely either not get it or the state will keep it for restitution and court fees. On the other extreme the average slumlord likely will not see an additional penny.

Re: Powerful Political Forces Are Aligning Behind Minimum Income

#74

Post by sre_ops »

manyoso wrote: post #11
hackuser wrote: post #5

A rarely discussed benefit to minimum income: The higher the social benefits, then I think the greater the labor market liquidity, for both employers and workers. Currently everything else depends on your job: Either you have one, and you have income, benefits, and all that goes with them in a society where everything costs money; or you don't and you have nothing (or very little). But if you don't lose you house, st…

Some other major reasons people support UBI are: * Eliminating poverty and reducing economic inequality * Simplifying the social safety net * Preparing for a future where jobs have been automated * Stimulating entrepreneurship * Giving people the freedom to pursue their passions * Paying caregivers for their economic contributions to society * Recognizing a livable income as a human right * Paving the way for a new A…

It will be swallowed by an immediate increase of the price of goods and services UBI would be spent on.

Re: Powerful Political Forces Are Aligning Behind Minimum Income

#75

Post by manyoso »

drabiega wrote: post #59
manyoso wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not if the UBI is tied to the cost of living index. Essentially, this means the UBI will be immune to the regression of the VAT.

The problem is that UBI only works if it's redistributive. If you don't change the income distribution, the distribution of goods and services doesn't change. It seems to me like cost of living UBI + regressive taxation would just cause inflation with the UBI always lagging behind the newly higher costs.

Basically the point is that a VAT with a UBI tied to inflation WOULD be redistributive. It effectively nullifies the regressive portion of a VAT and ties the UBI to the overall productivity and cost of doing business of the nation.

Re: Powerful Political Forces Are Aligning Behind Minimum Income

#76

Post by X86BSD »

manyoso wrote: post #58
locopati wrote: post #34

Honest question - how does UBI address hikes in the cost of basic necessities (food, shelter, clothes) by companies knowing that everyone can afford them?

The UBI can be scaled by the cost of living index which will shelter it from inflation. We have a sovereign money supply for a reason. Let's use it!

I keep seeing people say use the cost of living index. Do any of you realize what a fraud that is? They have taken out the two most expensive categories people spend money on to survive. Food and energy. And it's been like that for decades. That index is as useless as tits on a tree.

Re: Powerful Political Forces Are Aligning Behind Minimum Income

#77

Post by mindslight »

twoodfin wrote: post #56
jerelunruh wrote: post #36

Let's say that currently rent is $1,000 per month, food is $500, and Alice is earning $2,500. Now UBI is implemented and Alice and all fellow citizens receive $1,000 per month. What will keep the market from easing the entry level rent up to $1,500 and food to $1,000 since the money is available? At first glance it seems like we'd just be choosing a different number representing "broke".

BI shouldn't be more inflationary in the aggregate than any other government scheme that redistributes income in a comparable way. The only difference would be which goods have more money chasing them. That choice would be made by the market (of net BI recipients after any tax clawback) instead of by politicians & bureaucrats, which has a certain appeal. Currently, if you want access to much redistributed income, you…

> The only difference would be which goods have more money chasing them. That choice would be made by the market

... for what people must spend on, and where it's hard to create new competition. So, rent - exactly where most middle-class surplus is going today (and I think a large part of what makes people yearn for BI).

Re: Powerful Political Forces Are Aligning Behind Minimum Income

#78

Post by manyoso »

roymurdock wrote: post #70
hackuser wrote: post #5

A rarely discussed benefit to minimum income: The higher the social benefits, then I think the greater the labor market liquidity, for both employers and workers. Currently everything else depends on your job: Either you have one, and you have income, benefits, and all that goes with them in a society where everything costs money; or you don't and you have nothing (or very little). But if you don't lose you house, st…

1. UBI can be thought of as large-scale debt forgiveness. You are simply giving people the means to escape (often, but not always) self-imposed debts. 2. UBI would lead to a huge jump in inflation (as a %, nearly as much as the initial UBI stimulus % of total money in circulation) as the vast majority of UBI recipients would have a large propensity to immediately spend that money, thereby simply releasing it into cir…

This is simply wrong and has been shown to be wrong empirically. Details here: https://medium.com/basic-income/wouldnt-unconditional-basic-...

Re: Powerful Political Forces Are Aligning Behind Minimum Income

#79

Post by tankenmate »

jonnycowboy wrote: post #45
devonkim wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's the difference between living on the street homeless like a lot of families experienced in the Rust Belt and getting some breathing room to make a move elsewhere where there may be jobs available. My big concern with BI is that costs of many staples could simply rise as consumer spending goes up due to such depressed wages for most people and we'll be back in the same situation where a shocking number of people…

In a limited supply environment staples will rise (ie: real estate in certain cities) but with BI you can move anywhere and have a roof over your head. Food prices will not raise meaningfully.

Especially considering that most OECD nations produce more than enough food to cover reasonable consumption; there is plenty of waste, direct, indirect, diversion of foodstuffs to ethanol production etc.

Re: Powerful Political Forces Are Aligning Behind Minimum Income

#80

Post by sbuttgereit »

DiffEq wrote: post #44
hackuser wrote: post #5

A rarely discussed benefit to minimum income: The higher the social benefits, then I think the greater the labor market liquidity, for both employers and workers. Currently everything else depends on your job: Either you have one, and you have income, benefits, and all that goes with them in a society where everything costs money; or you don't and you have nothing (or very little). But if you don't lose you house, st…

Yet nowhere has this been "field tested" for any length of time. Unless one makes the case that it has been tested in the form of several countries in the 20th century. Places like the the Soviet Union, China, etc. We see that it failed in those places and in Soviet countries it failed fantastically. The fatal flaw in all of this...who is going to pay for it?

That and what economic activity will be suppressed as capital moves away from prior uses. Nobody is talking about generating new wealth to make this happen: it's pure consumption and some of that will be at the expense of capital investment. The seen and the unseen indeed. Unless there's more than hand-wavy dismissive talk about the negatives such schemes bring, one is foolish to think that this does anything positive at all.... and that's just the utilitarian perspective.

Morally, that any one person, by virtue of their relative wealth alone, is judged a provider, at gunpoint if necessary, to others who, by virtue of their relative lack of wealth alone, is considered worthy of substance, is such an inversion of right and wrong as to warrant some serious soul-searching about what makes one worthy of punishment or reward. Yes, poverty is a problem. Yes, there are institutional barriers to getting out of poverty. I don't see how doubling down on those problems does anything than ease the conscious of the haves.

Post reply on HN