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

A Basic Income Is Smarter Than a Minimum Wage

bloombergview.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 498 posts

Re: A Basic Income Is Smarter Than a Minimum Wage

#101

Post by fucking_tragedy »

paulpauper wrote: post #7
ThomPete wrote: post #3

It's not just smarter it's the only possible solution out of the two. Many people wrongly discuss the premise of basic income in the context of whether it's a better solution for for the job market. I.e. as a better way to solve unemployment fluctuations which in this view are still going up. But the whole point about Basic Income is what we do about there being fewer and fewer jobs that pay a proper salary.

Proponents of the UBI make the generous assumption that recipients will be as careful with money as they (the proponents) are . Choosing between food & housing credits vs. cash, the former has less room for abuse. Its like "I would never use my UBI on alcohol"...well you're not "most people"

Why do you care if someone spends it on alcohol? Where does this paternal instinct to tell someone else how to spend money come from?

Re: A Basic Income Is Smarter Than a Minimum Wage

#102

Post by kinghajj »

harryh wrote: post #2

$10,000 * US_POPULATION ~= $3.2T ~= The total annual tax revenue of the US federal government. Just something to keep in mind when discussing this topic.

Aren't UBI proposals designed so that those who earn more than the yearly stipend from employment don't receive it?

Re: A Basic Income Is Smarter Than a Minimum Wage

#103

Post by pdabbadabba »

merpnderp wrote: post #20
DickingAround wrote: post #6

It makes sense if-and-only-if that basic income isn't being doled out by the same organization which also runs the military-industrial or prison-industrial worlds. As an American, I think it's safe to say our federal government can't be trusted to not turn into a tyranny if it's everyone's primary employer. We would get even more massive corruption almost instantly. For example, some people would lobby to get those t…

The US is 16th in the world in perceived corruption. If the US is too corrupt for this, then it likely isn't workable on any real scale. And I agree, at least at the federal level and likely at most state levels, the US is far too corrupt to do this (and by corrupt I mean pork style politics where representatives horse trade favors and perks for votes, all at the behest of lobbyist who support their campaigns). https…

Just to clarify for anyone who is puzzled: a higher ranking in that survey means that a nation is perceived to be less corrupt. So the U.S.'s 16th-place ranking means that it is perceived to be the 16th least corrupt nation.

Saying that "[t]he US is 16th in the world in perceived corruption" seems to imply the opposite, to my ears.

Re: A Basic Income Is Smarter Than a Minimum Wage

#104

Post by enraged_camel »

RivieraKid wrote: post #81

Negative income tax makes more sense to me. (NIT is a system where you either get or give money from/to the governement, depending on your income.) First it's both a simple welfare and tax system in one package. Basic income as typically understood is only half of the story. It's also easier to reason about, the money flows are way more obvious, it's immediately clear whether you are a net contributor or receiver and…

I'm not sure how any of the things you said are true. How is negative income tax easier to reason about than "every citizen gets X dollars per month, unconditionally"? How is the money flow more obvious?

Furthermore, why is it important to identify whether someone is a net contributor or receiver?

Re: A Basic Income Is Smarter Than a Minimum Wage

#105

Post by sokoloff »

jandrese wrote: post #44
paulpauper wrote: post #4

But what about existing entitlement sending, which keeps growing? A UBI without preconditions will only compound that problem, because what is to stop people from wasting their basic income on frivolities while also drawing from existing welfare programs. Many people may agree to work for less than the current minimum wage, and on more flexible terms, if they're supplementing a guaranteed income, not scrambling to av…

Theoretically with UBI there is no need for a social safety net beyond catastrophe insurance (Medicare). In practice I'm not so sure. Many social safety net programs have restrictions because it's too easy for an alcoholic to pick up his entire family's check and spend it on booze. Also, UBI is political poison for the people who wring their hands in worry that someone is mooching off of their had work. And make no m…

So the alcoholic takes their entire check and blows it on booze? Don't care.

I specifically have to not care, so as to not erect a gigantic, wasteful government program designed to protect someone from their own short-sightedness (in my high-and-mighty opinion). In order for UBI to work, we have to give up substantially all notions of controlling what other people spend THEIR money on. That's the most appealing aspect of UBI to me. As someone who works hard and would end up shouldering the expense, I'm not particularly enamored of it, but the "get out of everyone else's business" aspects really do appeal.

Re: A Basic Income Is Smarter Than a Minimum Wage

#106

Post by thesimon »

alttab wrote: post #57
empath75 wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The top marginal tax rate would have to be dramatically increased to pay for it. Also, you'd have to increase capital gains and estate taxes. Make no mistake, basic minimum income would be a massive redistribution of wealth. I'm in favor of it, but let's not pretend we can pay for it by shuffling around some social safety net spending.

It would completely remove the necessity to be productive. That can't turn out well. What's preventing me from having as many babies as I can knowing that they too will not have to work or find a job to be supported? I know this won't work at scale, because I understand math.

>It would completely remove the necessity to be productive. That can't turn out well.

As seen in welfare states in Scandinavia or Germany, where almost no one works because of the unemployment benefits.

Re: A Basic Income Is Smarter Than a Minimum Wage

#107

Post by maxerickson »

a3n wrote: post #43
kough wrote: post #29

> No one wants to hire them at a high minimum wage, especially when locals are readily available The main drawback to a minimum wage is that it artificially increases the cost of labor, to the point where it's no longer worth it to an employer to hire a low-output employee. I think we'd all agree that increasing employment is a good goal, but an increased minimum wage actually hinders progress on that front. As the m…

> The main drawback to a minimum wage is that it artificially increases the cost of labor, And? Why is that artificial increase a problem. Every law on the books is an artificial act. I don't see many people wringing their hands over the mortgage interest deduction, another of those artificial changes to the economy.

I bitch about the mortgage interest deduction on a regular basis. A national policy that drives up housing prices is plain stupid (and it obviously isn't helping the ~1/2 of the country that doesn't have any wealth build wealth).

I'm ambivalent about a minimum wage. I think the arguments about the imbalance in negotiating power have some merits, but the GP answered your question about why it is a problem with their next sentence, it likely makes some productive tasks uneconomic.

I think it's important to try to characterize the actual economic impact of a minimum wage though, just pointing to the expected negative marginal effect isn't a very useful argument.

Re: A Basic Income Is Smarter Than a Minimum Wage

#108

Post by Mikeb85 »

merpnderp wrote: post #97
Mikeb85 wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unfortunately, in the US the alternative to government power is corporate power.

Without government power, corporations don't have any power. They only exert their power through the government. What, is Apple coming to my house to tell me what to do, how I can work, or to collect a tax? Just like Disney keeps you from file sharing by using the government, so does the your local health insurance company keep out the competition by excessive government regulations they helped write.

Without government intervention, corporations control the labour market. With no minimum wage, no basic income, and increasing automation, do you really think corporations wouldn't drive wages down to zero?

There are countries with little to no government intervention, and countries with lots. The latter are objectively much better places.

Re: A Basic Income Is Smarter Than a Minimum Wage

#109

Post by brandnewlow »

ThrustVectoring wrote: post #93
kough wrote: post #29

> No one wants to hire them at a high minimum wage, especially when locals are readily available The main drawback to a minimum wage is that it artificially increases the cost of labor, to the point where it's no longer worth it to an employer to hire a low-output employee. I think we'd all agree that increasing employment is a good goal, but an increased minimum wage actually hinders progress on that front. As the m…

Wait, what? Employment is a net-negative, the denominator of economic productivity. If we have the same amount of material wealth, it's better to not work as hard to get it. "Increase employment" is targeting the wrong measure.

I think the parent comment was operating on an assumption that "staying busy" has its own benefits for people.

Re: A Basic Income Is Smarter Than a Minimum Wage

#110

Post by jack9 »

alttab wrote: post #57
empath75 wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The top marginal tax rate would have to be dramatically increased to pay for it. Also, you'd have to increase capital gains and estate taxes. Make no mistake, basic minimum income would be a massive redistribution of wealth. I'm in favor of it, but let's not pretend we can pay for it by shuffling around some social safety net spending.

It would completely remove the necessity to be productive. That can't turn out well. What's preventing me from having as many babies as I can knowing that they too will not have to work or find a job to be supported? I know this won't work at scale, because I understand math.

> It would completely remove the necessity to be productive. That can't turn out well.

Take a look at mobile games. People do lots of things just to be 1 rung higher on an artificial competitive ladder (reset every month) about endlessly punching a "Battle" button. I think this idea that necessity has ever driven productivity (look around at your job) is a long running joke.

Post reply on HN