Is the World Ready for a Guaranteed Basic Income? • Hacker News Board

Re: Is the World Ready for a Guaranteed Basic Income?

#101

Post by maxxxxx » Thu, Apr 14, 2016, 4:34 PM UTC

kspaans wrote: post #90

maxxxxx wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I also don't believe it can't work long term unless attitudes change dramatically. People who work for a low income will complain that there are people who get almost the same without doing any work. The same wealthy people who lobby for more tax cuts will also not want to pay for people who don't do anything. There will be a lot of people who will use the freedom granted by basic income for productive means but ther…

> but there will also be a lot of people who won't do anything productive and just live off their basic income. Won't do anything productive like spend money on food, housing, and entertainment? They will just sit inside and stare at the walls all day.

Not stare at walls but watch TV all day.

Re: Is the World Ready for a Guaranteed Basic Income?

#102

Post by ruggeri » Thu, Apr 14, 2016, 4:37 PM UTC

VincentEvans wrote: post #23

Why wouldn't all standard of living benefits of basic income get eliminated immediately by all relevant costs rising to soak it up? This happens every single time the poor get any sort of money. In poor neighborhoods the rents cost as much as people are able to pay, no more, no less. Do you know when most rental deposits are collected? Around the tax return season. If suddenly the poor had some money to spare - the r…

The orthodox theory says that, in a competitive marketplace, producers should not be able to "capture" gains in the wealth of consumers. If prices of a good rise, it's because consumers are purchasing more of the good, and the good has increasing marginal cost to produce. (I ignore some 2nd-order effects related to wages as a production cost).

That's the orthodox theory. You shouldn't buy it wholesale.

On the other hand, it would be a very heterodox environment indeed if producers were able to steal all the increases in wealth from consumers. That could only happen in an environment of no competition, not imperfect competition. Or an environment with 100% occupancy and no ability to build more units of housing.

Also, there would need to be no substitutes for the good. For instance, that people couldn't move between cities.

Surely the game is, to some extent, rigged. But can it be rigged so badly that it is possible to believe that transferring wealth from richer to poorer will not lead to an increase in the purchasing power of poorer people?

I don't have a decided opinion on guaranteed minimum income, but to deny that it would have a marked effect on purchasing power of the recipients of the wealth requires one to posit a truly exceptional economic theory. To attack minimum income on its efficacy of all things: that is either an ill-considered or truly radical view.

If minimum income can't help, what possibly could? The only option left would be the confiscation and redistribution of capital.

Re: Is the World Ready for a Guaranteed Basic Income?

#103

Post by Retric » Thu, Apr 14, 2016, 4:40 PM UTC

mc32 wrote: post #15

Retric wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At some point the poor are better off starting a revolution than being stuck at the bottom. We are heading to a future where most people are going to be poor because an average person with an average education is going to be unable to find a job.

Agitation comes when there is light at the end of the tunnel, it does not happen when there is complete darkness. That's to say the poor need the hope that change (revolution) will result in better things. They also need buy in from the better off (who would have the resources to stave off any revolution). People don't revolt for the sake of revolting there has to be an expected (positive) result at the end.

Slave revolts suggest otherwise. The important thing to remember is even if you win, revolts are incredibly expensive.

Re: Is the World Ready for a Guaranteed Basic Income?

#104

Post by unprepare » Thu, Apr 14, 2016, 4:40 PM UTC

codeismightier wrote: post #91

rayiner wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The key difference is mobility. Basic income means people don't have to live in Philly near their job. They can move to Iowa and dramatically raise their standard of living.

Can you explain a bit more about how these people can raise their standard of living by moving? Money is just an abstraction for real goods and services produced by the economy. Presumably we need people to live in Philly since that's where our industry is. If people moved away to some remote place, wouldn't our economy take a hit? Not to mention the transportation costs of servicing a more remote, less dense area.

Youre talking about a shotrage of labor.

The creates upward pressure on wages, as businesses need to attract more workers.

Dont see how this is a bad thing, given that wages have been stagnant for decades

Re: Is the World Ready for a Guaranteed Basic Income?

#105

Post by fnovd » Thu, Apr 14, 2016, 4:42 PM UTC

ancap wrote: post #95

inflagranti wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We have countless examples of capitalism failing too. But the argument that socialism is against human nature is obviously wrong, as humans are social animals. However, as any animal, if you corner them and put them in survival mode, things can get ugly. The purpose of modern states is exactly to provide security in multiple ways, one of them being shared financial security, to remove the need of constant struggle fo…

>But the argument that socialism is against human nature is obviously wrong, as humans are social animals. Socialism is anti-social (or were you confused by it having the word "social" in it?). Socialism says two people do not have the right to come to an agreement on the exchange of property and labor. What is social about that? How is that in harmony with human nature? >There were enough articles recently for insta…

>Socialism says two people do not have the right to come to an agreement on the exchange of property and labor. What is social about that? How is that in harmony with human nature?

No, socialism says focusing on group cooperation optimizes aggregate wealth. Socialism says that somewhere between a completely shared economy and a completely private economy is a sweet spot where you get the best of both worlds.

You're very focused on this "socialism is anti-social" stance, but not only does it not make any intuitive sense, it is not backed up by any data. Show me a modern, prosperous state that absolutely abstains from social programs or promoting collective interest.

The very idea of a state is a threat to (completely) free exchange of property and labor. Most people are willing to buy security from the state in the form of regulations and taxes. We think our food should be safe to eat, so we make rules and add a cost to ensure a baseline. We want advertisements to accurately represent products. As individuals, we have little recourse against an industry which has decided to curtail consumer health in favor of increased profits. The state is simply a mechanism to ensure our collective will is met, not as entities in a capitalist network but as the weird little thinking, walking primates that we are.

Re: Is the World Ready for a Guaranteed Basic Income?

#106

Post by kspaans » Thu, Apr 14, 2016, 4:59 PM UTC

maxxxxx wrote: post #101

kspaans wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> but there will also be a lot of people who won't do anything productive and just live off their basic income. Won't do anything productive like spend money on food, housing, and entertainment? They will just sit inside and stare at the walls all day.

Not stare at walls but watch TV all day.

Sounds like great news for distributors, and content creators.

Re: Is the World Ready for a Guaranteed Basic Income?

#107

Post by ancap » Thu, Apr 14, 2016, 5:00 PM UTC

maxerickson wrote: post #94

ancap wrote: post #44

In the past century we have countless examples of socialism failing, yet its proponents devise some new scheme, some new brand and try to sell it as if something will be different this time. Socialism will always fail because it is contradictory to human nature.

Planned economies failed. The socialist governments in Western Europe haven't failed yet. (there are even several countries with 3-4 weeks of vacation for everyone and similar annual per person productivity to the US...)

>The socialists governments in Western Europe haven't failed yet.

"Yet" is the operative word there.

Often socialism is applied, at least at first, in a very limited fashion, but then expand as the natural consequences come to fruition. For example, examine the minimum wage law. The natural consequence of the minimum wage law is the least productive individuals lose their jobs. Most often those individuals are youth and minorities, with the affect especially evident among young minorities. Reacting to this natural consequence, legislatures then want to enact social programs to provide for those who are unemployed. These social programs are funded through higher taxes, typically upon the most wealthy. The wealthy are incentivized to be free from the higher taxes and get around them through a myriad of creative ways. A cycle develops where social programs continue to expand, taxes continue to rise and the wealthy flee. This is very evident in France, currently. When the wealthy flee, the taxes fall onto the middle class. There is incentive for immigrants to come into the country. And so on and so forth.

The failures of socialism are most evident where the interventions are taking place. Healthcare is a sector where a lot of the interventions are taking place and the affects are glaring. You can see this in Western Europe with sub-prime healthcare. The problems in the socialist governments in Western Europe will be exasperated by the refugee crisis.

A socialist government and a planned economy are only different by a few degrees. Bad laws beget more bad laws and the problems will grow. How long until the parasite overpowers the host? Who knows.

Re: Is the World Ready for a Guaranteed Basic Income?

#108

Post by maxxxxx » Thu, Apr 14, 2016, 5:10 PM UTC

kspaans wrote: post #106

maxxxxx wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not stare at walls but watch TV all day.

Sounds like great news for distributors, and content creators.

True . It's a valid way to stimulate the economy :-). My point was that people who do something more will resent the people who just watch TV.

Re: Is the World Ready for a Guaranteed Basic Income?

#109

Post by mercutio2 » Thu, Apr 14, 2016, 5:13 PM UTC

ancap wrote: post #87

f_allwein wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The general argument (made e.g,. in the Alec Ross book) is that there will not be enough paid work left as more and more jobs are automated. So paying a basic income would become necessary to ensure people's survival (or prevent social unrest).

Just around my home I could easily hire a few people to do various jobs at any given time, but it is not cheap enough for me to justify doing that. Automation comes at a cost, and often humans laborers can do the job cheaper. The thing that will be pushing people out of a job is minimum wage, not the automation which often results in reaction to minimum wage.

Great! Then you should be strongly in favor of a basic income, because part of the logical construction of BI is the abolition of minimum wage.

Minimum wage is a collective agreement to avoid people working below subsistence wages. Once subsistence is guaranteed covered by BI, there will be much less need for low end wage distortions.

Admittedly, many wealthy people seem to prefer having subsistence not guaranteed, it makes negotiating for low wage low skill servants much easier. I suspect once we have BI, it will be much more expensive to pay someone to come clean your house.

Re: Is the World Ready for a Guaranteed Basic Income?

#110

Post by tzs » Thu, Apr 14, 2016, 5:20 PM UTC

ancap wrote: post #87

f_allwein wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The general argument (made e.g,. in the Alec Ross book) is that there will not be enough paid work left as more and more jobs are automated. So paying a basic income would become necessary to ensure people's survival (or prevent social unrest).

Just around my home I could easily hire a few people to do various jobs at any given time, but it is not cheap enough for me to justify doing that. Automation comes at a cost, and often humans laborers can do the job cheaper. The thing that will be pushing people out of a job is minimum wage, not the automation which often results in reaction to minimum wage.

You seem to be unaware that there is a minimum income required to survive. If one cannot get that income from their job(s), then they must get it from charity, welfare, theft, or some other means, or they must move to someplace where the minimum survival income is lower, or they must die.