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

211–220 of 498 posts

Re: A Basic Income Is Smarter Than a Minimum Wage

#211

Post by tikhonj »

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"

Is it that generous? My understanding is that in empirical trials, direct cash transfers are one of the most effective programs for alleviating poverty.

Of course, I've seen this evidence in a different context that might be somewhat biased: GiveDirectly[1] provides some credible research and are supported by Effective Altruist organizations like GiveWell[2]. There have also been experiments specific to basic income with similar conclusions[3].

To be fair, none of these studies are remotely bulletproof. Further research would help significantly, as is almost always true in the social sciences. But, in this light, the default position should be that the poor largely wouldn't waste their money—I'd put even shaky studies up against "common sense" any day.

[1]: https://www.givedirectly.org/research-on-cash-transfers

[2]: http://www.givewell.org/charities/top-charities

[3]: Unfortunately, I can't find the summary I was thinking of. The Canadian Mincome study[4] is one such experiment and the conclusions, tentative as they may be, are worth a look.

[4]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mincome

Re: A Basic Income Is Smarter Than a Minimum Wage

#212

Post by yanilkr »

ewzimm wrote: post #148
yanilkr wrote: post #95

A Basic Income from Govt comes at a huge price of loss of individual liberty. If someone gives you free stuff, they will expect controls like where you are allowed to spend your money and time. This model of taking from the productive sources and rewarding everyone else will have to break at a certain point. how come you get rewarded for enjoying the gossip column and I spend extra effort doing something else which i…

I hope you can see how other people see it very differently. First, basic income can be implemented different ways, including a base that everyone gets regardless of income, fair in the same way that everyone gets equal access to the roads regardless of income. Anyone can get to where they're going, but how enjoyable that trip will be depends on what kind of car you can afford. There are still huge advantages to bein…

You think UBI will eliminate corruption?

All the money collected as taxes goes to the govt every year and the govt is still in debt and taxes go up every other year.

People voluntarily invest their extra savings in the wall street, look at the level of productivity and innovation that brings. the prices of electronics keeps going down.

Looks like wall street is the clear winner here. Corruption is everywhere and only the free market reduces it.

Re: A Basic Income Is Smarter Than a Minimum Wage

#213

Post by dv_dt »

imtringued wrote: post #155
kapnobatairza wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Does a basic income need to be generated directly through government spending? With all the talk about QE and "helicopter money" over the past 8-9 years, I'm curious why very few have considering the merits of a basic income through inflation. What if the central bank had a mechanism to fund special "basic income" accounts at banks on a yearly basis... These accounts would not be considered deposits but would rather…

The effects of Quantitative Easing can be reversed by the central bank because it's merely an asset swap. It's only a temporary measure.

It's a temporary measure whose end and efficacy remains unknown. It seems like the QE injection really only affected 'Wall street' with very little of it escaping to cause mainline economic activity.

Re: A Basic Income Is Smarter Than a Minimum Wage

#214

Post by p4wnc6 »

msellout wrote: post #177
p4wnc6 wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I generally agree with this, but I think it is often overstated. There are still many domains of employment where there is room to raise the minimum wage significantly before getting anywhere near the margin at which the employer feels it's not worthwhile to hire the additional worker. Food service, for example. There are examples on the other end of the spectrum too, such as cashiers in a major convenience store cha…

You have some good points, but I think calling anything a "right" will bring downvotes. I suggest not asserting anything is a "natural right" as that's too open to interpretation and brings a visceral reaction for many people.

That's a fair point. I mean it in the sense of "net better off for everyone, including the very employers who are forced to pay higher wages (assuming they weren't doing legally questionable things to begin with)."

Re: A Basic Income Is Smarter Than a Minimum Wage

#215

Post by gknoy »

vinceguidry wrote: post #185

To give everyone in the US a basic income of $500 a month would cost ~$2 trillion dollars. Plus the cost of the inevitably humongous bureaucracy that will be necessary to administer it.

How would there need to be a huge bureaucracy to administer it? The IRS already handles annual funds-transfer (and validation) for citizens.

Moreover, replacing welfare (which has bureaucracy to check eligibility) with a flat "everyone gets paid X" would remove the need for the bureaucracy that _currently_ exists to administer welfare programs.

It seems to me that there would be substantially lower administration costs for such a plan, since there's no need to verify whether people are eligible, other than filing tax returns. Perhaps verifying that someone is actually alive is necessary, but that still seems to be less than the current checks that exist.

Re: A Basic Income Is Smarter Than a Minimum Wage

#216

Post by BurningFrog »

Nogwater wrote: post #125
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…

> I think we'd all agree that increasing employment is a good goal I don't agree, and I'm not sure why people would see employment for its own sake would be a good thing. I want to increase some of the things that employments brings (purchasing power, a sense of purpose, etc...) and not others (loss of time, feeling trapped, etc...).

In the minimum wage context, the advantages are pretty clear.

Mostly bringing people outside of productive society inside it. Homeless, unemployed, addicts etc.

This is not about making middle class college graduate parents work more.

Re: A Basic Income Is Smarter Than a Minimum Wage

#217

Post by clarkmoody »

Mikeb85 wrote: post #108
merpnderp wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Also without government intervention, there is competition between firms in the market. If firms wish to stay innovative (and in business), they must compete for high-quality labor. They must provide a safe product to consumers, or they will lose reputation in the market. Without government barriers to entry (regulation), when firms act in non-competitive ways or fail to innovate, competitors arise to keep them honest or put them out of business.

How did the countries with lots of government get where they are ("objectively much better places" according to you)? Did the USA always have a government that took such a massive percentage of total output? Only by extracting the wealth of capitalism can the socialist/progressive agenda even exist. We have so much prosperity in market economies that we can contemplate things like basic income.

Re: A Basic Income Is Smarter Than a Minimum Wage

#218

Post by lujim »

Jtsummers wrote: post #9
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 people wouldn't fight the loss of a $1/year/person here or there. I'm not sure. Around here, people fight [EDIT: against] the 1 cent local sales tax add-on that goes to schools (and can only go to schools).

That's because the normal shell game with the "only for schools" taxes often involve adding 1 cent to school budgets with the new tax and subtracting 1 cent of school funding from some existing source.

Re: A Basic Income Is Smarter Than a Minimum Wage

#219

Post by pyoung »

enraged_camel wrote: post #104
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?

A lot of folks like to argue against BI by pointing out population*(BI $/person) = $$$$$ (really big number). The counter argument is that most people won't be netting the full BI as they would be paying it back in taxes somehow. The NIC is essentially BI, but with better visibility into where the break even point is on the income scale.

Re: A Basic Income Is Smarter Than a Minimum Wage

#220

Post by randyrand »

QuotedForTruth wrote: post #136
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 counter argument is that human labor has an actual cost. That is the cost to keep a human alive and in some level of comfort. Government benefits of many different types have "artificially" lowered this cost. Where employees refuse to pay enough for a human to live on, the government picks up the slack. Raising the minimum wage may be "artificial," but its not the first control placed on some otherwise natural la…

> Where employees refuse to pay enough for a human to live on, the government picks up the slack

This would be the perfect system, but the current system is that the difference between the maximum employment wage (low) and minimum wage (high) is paid by the company, not the gov, causing unemployment.

A negative income tax is the preferable system here.

Post reply on HN