Powerful Political Forces Are Aligning Behind Minimum Income • Hacker News Board

Re: Powerful Political Forces Are Aligning Behind Minimum Income

#131

Post by pborowicz » Tue, Mar 22, 2016, 8:15 PM UTC

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…

Something I haven't seen talked about, but seem obvious to me. This would revitalize so many rural communities that lost or never had a major industry supplying jobs. This would stem the flow of youth out of places like Kansas or Upper Michigan. Can you imagine how much this would mean to communities like this?

Re: Powerful Political Forces Are Aligning Behind Minimum Income

#132

Post by CuriousSkeptic » Tue, Mar 22, 2016, 8:33 PM UTC

xrange wrote: post #30

Here's something I like to see some discussion on from Basic Income proponents. Does BI need to be rolled out everywhere-all-at-once, or is it possible to do small scale experiments to look at the effects? If you think it is possible to have meaningful smaller scale tests, how small can it be? 1000 participants? 100,000 participants? 10,000,000 participants? And then the big question, would there be any outcomes from…

Not a direct answer to your question. But possibly related.

First of all, I think we need a pretty large experiment to reach a conclusion, this because I don't think we are ready to measure the outcome until the experiment has had time to alter our perception of what is desirable. I'm afraid current measuement would be to tied to the current way of thinking, where productivity and gdp is overly emphasized.

I'm a proponent of basic income and do believe there are many economic and social benefits in practice, but it's primarily an ethical conclusion. So even if the theoretic benefits turns out to be false, I'd probably still need something else to change my ethical reasoning.

Like Thomas Paine, my primary argument for an UBI is that it is the way to make property rights fair. See https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geolibertarianism , but in general my line of thinking is that the right to exclusive control over a resource is not derived from labor alone, as is the popular interpretation of Locke today, but from the agreement with all competing interests. From that I derive that property title must be bundled with full compensation for the opperunity cost incurred on those who now lack access to the resources. To me the most efficient way to implement such a compensation is to demand a rent, equal to what the next highest bid for the resource would be. This rent is distribute equally to all citizen, and thus acts as the compensation for respecting the property owners exclusive rights.

I also happen to believe that it would be an effective way to balance the hoarding effect of capitalism. In the simple tax and divide scheme usually thought of it would at least create a flow in the other direction, increasing circulation.

But hopefully it would also remove some of the rent seeking possibilities from the market and make sure that resources are employed for more productive uses.

However, if you implement UBI my way you probably won't reach levels that would make most UBI proponents happy, which means an additional grant must be distributed according to those people. Perhaps the failure to recognize the true ethical reasoning and instead insisting on treating it as welfare would make me lose hope in ever reaching a workable implementation.

If you insist on treating it as welfare you're probably going to end up taxing he middle class to support the lower class. That would probably turn out pretty horrific for everyone.

Re: Powerful Political Forces Are Aligning Behind Minimum Income

#133

Post by notahacker » Tue, Mar 22, 2016, 8:36 PM UTC

devonkim wrote: post #38

Domenic_S wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This handwaviness is typical of pro-BI rhetoric. If there's a tech implosion and 500k workers lose their jobs, is $900/month in BI really going to offset their $3,000/month mortgages meaningfully?

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…

But then, in theory "getting some breathing room to make a move elsewhere where there may be jobs available" is exactly how a properly designed welfare system for people unemployed and looking for work is intended to function, without the added expense of extending the subsidy to stay-at-home spouses, early retirees and trust fund kids.

There may be many design flaws in the system that prevent people most in need of getting those funds from getting them, but "not being available to every citizen" isn't necessarily one of them. Plus if you're saving huge amounts by not subsidising the voluntarily economically inactive, you have an awful lot more to spend on helping those actually desperately in need.

Re: Powerful Political Forces Are Aligning Behind Minimum Income

#134

Post by pyoung » Tue, Mar 22, 2016, 8:56 PM UTC

pborowicz wrote: post #131

manyoso wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Something I haven't seen talked about, but seem obvious to me. This would revitalize so many rural communities that lost or never had a major industry supplying jobs. This would stem the flow of youth out of places like Kansas or Upper Michigan. Can you imagine how much this would mean to communities like this?

This could potentially have some positive secondary effects on the more populated areas as well. SF rent/home prices are insane, and part of the reason is due to the supply of good jobs. With less pressure to relocate to job centers, we could see an easing of demand in those areas. And this is a good counter-argument to those that claim a BI would just results in higher prices for everything.

Re: Powerful Political Forces Are Aligning Behind Minimum Income

#135

Post by CuriousSkeptic » Tue, Mar 22, 2016, 8:56 PM UTC

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?

To me UBI is tied to the commons, not e state. So would be perectly fine with an implementation that makes it clear the the state has no say in it.

But then again I don't advocate the B in UBI, I'm content with any amount that is fair and efficient. If the state want to add a complementary redistribution scheme on top of that, it's fine, but there should be a component they can't touch.

For example, one component might be in hands of the central banks as a way to control inflation and such.

Another component might be an institution representing the commons. An organization charged with deciding what should remain a commons, and what could be rented out as private property. F.ex. pollution rights could be their mandate to allocate.

Edit: Also, checkout https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geolibertarianism it doesn't have to be either or

Re: Powerful Political Forces Are Aligning Behind Minimum Income

#136

Post by Mithaldu » Tue, Mar 22, 2016, 9:05 PM UTC

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…

I'm from Germany. We have all the upsides you mention, with a system that's less drastic than Basic Income.

There are more details involved, but roughly speaking: If you fulfill certain minimum requirements of being in training, beyond retirement age, medically inhibited from working or prove to the state that you send at least two job applications per month, the state guarantees you a certain quality of life.

You're guaranteed decent housing (rent, phone, internet, water, electricity, heat other utilities), health insurance (and various other small insurances), and in addition to that receive (currently) 391€ per month per person, and if you have extraordinary expenses (usually medical or social stuff) they're covered for you. (And yes, my own sister lives on this. She's well cared for. It's honestly an amazing boon on the rest of the family.)

And despite all this workers here aren't even easy to terminate. For early termination the workplace has to prove active illegal acts, or prove that they informed you of low performance and you did nothing to improve, with limits on both lay-offs or quitting usually being between 3-6 months (depending on the contract).

Re: Powerful Political Forces Are Aligning Behind Minimum Income

#137

Post by Mithaldu » Tue, Mar 22, 2016, 9:06 PM UTC

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?

Please review my comment here to consider whether it counts as "field testing": https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11339951

Re: Powerful Political Forces Are Aligning Behind Minimum Income

#138

Post by Domenic_S » Tue, Mar 22, 2016, 9:08 PM UTC

imgabe wrote: post #119

Domenic_S wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This handwaviness is typical of pro-BI rhetoric. If there's a tech implosion and 500k workers lose their jobs, is $900/month in BI really going to offset their $3,000/month mortgages meaningfully?

Is it better than the $0 a month that they would get if that happened now?

You're asking rhetorically, but I actually don't know the answer. At first, maybe. It seems by simple algebra "EVERYONE has $900" is the same as "everyone has $0", except now you planned your life around that extra mine-as-a-human-right-$900, but the mortgage companies know you're getting it, because everyone gets it. So now your minimum payment isn't X, it's X+$900.

Re: Powerful Political Forces Are Aligning Behind Minimum Income

#139

Post by hackuser » Tue, Mar 22, 2016, 9:29 PM UTC

jpadkins wrote: post #116

manyoso wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> Recognizing a livable income as a human right I was with you until that one. The fundamental right to other people's wealth is a very slippery slope. I believe human rights should only be negative rights. > Paving the way for a new American Dream in the 21st century reads like political marketing fluff. dilutes the message.

> The fundamental right to other people's wealth is a very slippery slope.

All rights - everything a society does - require contributions from others. The premise that people somehow create wealth all by themselves and therefore have no obligation to share it is false.

Everyone's wealth depends on enormous contributions from everyone else, current and past. How did they build their app without the free K-12 education (and the education of your teachers), the roads, telecommunications, laws, protocols, police ... the economists whose centuries of work have provided the wealth your investors and customers have; the scientists who developed the theories; all the open source developers who gave away their work and set open statndards; the soldiers who work for paltry wages in the crappiest working conditions in the world, and some of whom died, to provide the security necessary for our economy and society to survive; the political leaders who generation after generation have built democracy and civil rights ... whoever developed English and the ones who developed C++ ...

All these people give us the opportunity to thrive. Do you think we would do so well without them? Are many startups happening in Somalia or Syria? Why should you or I be excluded from contributing and pulling our weight?

Re: Powerful Political Forces Are Aligning Behind Minimum Income

#140

Post by psadauskas » Tue, Mar 22, 2016, 9:46 PM UTC

bryanlarsen wrote: post #110

noonespecial wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Draw it out into the absurd to watch it work: Consider a society with 2 members, Mr Rich (net worth $10M) and Mr. Poor (net worth $100). Mr. Rich is 100,000 X richer than Mr. Poor right now. Institute a ridiculous UBI of $1M/year for everyone. At the end of the year, Mr. Poor has $1,000,100 and Mr Rich has $11M but Mr Rich is now only ~ 11 X richer than Mr Poor. Now sure cheeseburgers at Micky-D's are now $700 but th…

Mr Rich will have $9M because his taxes would have gone up by $2M/year to pay for the program. And the cheeseburgers are still the same price. Mr. Poor was buying cheeseburgers before he got BI and he's still buying cheeseburgers; neither supply nor demand has changed. Mr. Rich bought caviar before and after. If McDonald's gets greedy and raises its prices because it thinks it can, Burger King is still making money s…

Except McDonald's can't find any workers that are willing to work for $8.15/hr any more. I think prices of most things will go up, not because of inflation, but because you have to pay more for the people to serve them. On the other hand, customer service will probably go up, because nobody is there any more because they have to.