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

Moving Forward on Basic Income

blog.ycombinator.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

651–660 of 1001 posts

Re: Moving Forward on Basic Income

#651

Post by _rpd »

empath75 wrote: post #201
czzarr wrote: post #181

What I don't understand with BI is this: if you give everyone the same amount of money, won't prices and rents adjust accordingly by exactly that amount, thereby nulling the effect ?

I think that what you would see is rents exploding in certain places like SF, but if you don't need to be in a particular city for work or social services, a lot of people would move to places like Cleveland or Detroit that are much cheaper to live in.

Detroit is cheaper right now, but people aren't moving there. Post-BI, Detroit landlords will raise rent to capture any additional disposable income, so everywhere will still be in the same relative position.

Re: Moving Forward on Basic Income

#652

Post by Mz »

SwellJoe wrote: post #635
xienze wrote: post #60

So, a question for the BI fans: I've seen it said repeatedly that BI will save us money (or at least, not be so outrageously expensive) in part because we can eliminate existing welfare programs. "Just cut a single check, no more overhead from several agencies", they say. But riddle me this: what do you do when someone on BI has a financial emergency or, as will happen with some regularity, just flat-out blows all th…

The system does currently say "tough shit" once resources have been exhausted. They just come in a bunch of different forms, and are sometimes incredibly difficult to deal with. I got somewhat involved in activism and support work for homeless folks a few years ago, and it was eye-opening. So many of the chronically homeless are mentally ill; and so many of them find it impossible to navigate the system to receive be…

There is a lot wrong with how things currently work. I don't think that fact proves that we would be better off with basic income.

I am currently homeless. While homeless, I started a website to try to help me keep track of services that were actually useful to me with as few strings attached as possible so that I could, in fact, work on solving my problems and not get trapped in a vicious cycle of poverty. There are some things that are currently being done that are useful. And I think we would be better off identifying those things and trying to grow those things and get more attention for those things than simply throwing it all and starting over with something entirely new, which tends to have the effect of fucking over the people who are familiar with the current system and managing to get something out of it without ever delivering the sweeping benefits that are always promised.

I am very much for finding a solution the terrible problem of "housing inflation" where new housing now is around 2500 sq. ft. The rise of homelessness in the U.S. is directly related to the rise in size and cost of housing.

I am also very much for developing more gig work that actually works. A lot of it is done very badly, but gig work has allowed me to develop an earned income of my own while still homeless and my problems are getting gradually better. I think this is a better approach than basic income.

I also think we are at a place where we can help people be physically healthier and where we can start to resolve the root causes of mental illness. Getting myself physically healthier has been a cornerstone of my plans to resolve my problems and get off the street. Poverty relief problems are terrible about not trying at all to actually help people improve their health status or mental health status. This helps make them more intractable problems.

Thank you for your excellent comment, and for the work you have done to help homeless people.

Re: Moving Forward on Basic Income

#653

Post by ffwd »

billmalarky wrote: post #241
colinplamondon wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Personally, I'd hope the system would absolutely tell them "tough shit". There's got to be a line where the safety net gives out, because someone is too expensive to help. That's where family and charity hopefully take over. At the same time, I think your instinct is right, and it's something I've never heard mentioned before. It's almost inevitably that there'll then be the "food security" fund, and the "housing gua…

>It's almost inevitably that there'll then be the "food security" fund, and the "housing guarantee" fund Seems like basic income allows for this issue to be resolved by private organizations easier since cash is much more liquid than welfare/other government benefits. So basically what I'm getting at, is if you can't manage your own life, there will be a corporation that provides shelter, food, and basic necessities…

Just as a tangential addon to this - I think if this were to happen, a computer with internet would have to be part of the basic necessities package. Maybe it's because I'm a nerd or the internet has had such a huge effect on me, but I feel with the internet and proper guidance to get tutorials, search things online and so on can really help those people produce things and learn. Without it, they might end up just roaming in the streets, doing drugs, maybe watch TV. Not to be cliche but I really feel like if people aren't introduced to the more "intellectual" side of life, they may never seek it themselves.

Re: Moving Forward on Basic Income

#655

Post by treehau5 »

jernfrost wrote: post #588
treehau5 wrote: post #479

Why is the underlying assumption always "as technology continues to replace jobs and generate massive wealth" in the world of BI? It seems like BI is an answer to a false dichotomy. What if we fix our society instead? What if instead of massive seeking of profiteering we actually double down on our efforts to improve lives today , right now in this very moment instead of some far distant realization of "when all jobs…

Automation is an absolute necessity to end poverty. Do you really think stone age people could have ended their abject poverty by just "fixing" their society? It is the immense wealth create through increased automation which has allowed the general well being of most people in the western world today. We can't simply fix the world today by some political decision. There simply isn't enough wealth in the world to cre…

I would like to take the time to follow up to some of your points. I don't think you are wrong, or are invalid, just offering other thoughts to your thinking.

>Automation is an absolute necessity to end poverty.

I have found that the people who are biased towards automation being society's silver bullet are the only one's who think this.

> Do you really think stone age people could have ended their abject poverty by just "fixing" their society?

I suppose that's one way to look back at history, quite revisionist, however. Great nations were united under great causes. Alexander the Great build the most diverse empire on this principle. Russia is currently being (mostly) united under its renewal of it's Orthodox roots, that were suppressed during the Atheistic regime that crippled it prior. Value systems can be provably shown to improve the well-being of societies. Obviously the problems arise when different value systems clash, which is why I am against the current era of globalization, but that's another story. (I think it's okay that different people be different). The other side of your point here I think is the technology. Yes the technology helped the stone age folks, but so did education -- sharing knowledge. The tools, in my opinion, always had one purpose in mind: better the fellow man. Our current tools we are building have lost this purpose long ago, or it's ends are highly questionable, at best they are being built with this utopian view in mind, without considering the great tragedy that will happen in between then, which was my original point. The rich oligarch caveleaders didnt oppress the other lesser pleblean cavepeople when they invented the hammer or fire, or keep it to themselves. It immediately improved everyone's situation.

> It is the immense wealth create through increased automation which has allowed the general well being of most people in the western world today.

I am really glad us fortunate to live in the western world are benefiting. By the way, as it relates to the overall population, the "western world" is miniscule.

> E.g the years bad blood between blacks and whites in America can't be changed by merely passing a set of laws.

I would 100% agree. We have to get the people who promote this worldview of separation out of positions of power. Here's what some people will consider a cooky view: Both sides of that issue are financially incentivized to keep racisim alive and well.

> It is likely much faster to develop an advance AI system than getting blacks and white American to trust each other

I take the symbolism as us having a black president for 8 years with generally good favorability ratings, and an excellent impact on the country overall as a sign things can improve much faster than you give it credit for. Cognitive systems, on the other hand, I think is much further away.

Re: Moving Forward on Basic Income

#656

Post by rjbwork »

INTPenis wrote: post #528
xienze wrote: post #60

So, a question for the BI fans: I've seen it said repeatedly that BI will save us money (or at least, not be so outrageously expensive) in part because we can eliminate existing welfare programs. "Just cut a single check, no more overhead from several agencies", they say. But riddle me this: what do you do when someone on BI has a financial emergency or, as will happen with some regularity, just flat-out blows all th…

Of course there are safety nets, look I can only speak from my perspective living in Sweden but it's my perception that we already have a sort of basic income through the various social services available. I never understood BI until you said "cut a check", so that's the difference between BI and what we have today in a welfare state. Because today you get a grant for your rent and you get a basic minimum income from…

>The problem with having many small creaks like that is most people don't know about all their rights, or are just too lazy to pursue them.

That's why it's better to just cut EVERYONE a check. Everyone starts at the same BASIC level of subsistence, and there are no welfare cliffs, administration overheads, frauds, tricks, etc. etc. etc. Then we work to improve our situations - as we ought.

Re: Moving Forward on Basic Income

#657

Post by projectileboy »

xienze wrote: post #60

So, a question for the BI fans: I've seen it said repeatedly that BI will save us money (or at least, not be so outrageously expensive) in part because we can eliminate existing welfare programs. "Just cut a single check, no more overhead from several agencies", they say. But riddle me this: what do you do when someone on BI has a financial emergency or, as will happen with some regularity, just flat-out blows all th…

I would think it would be the end of the line, just as social welfare programs are today. For example, if you run out of food stamps for the month, you can't just go get more.

Re: Moving Forward on Basic Income

#658

Post by danielweber »

colinplamondon wrote: post #67
xienze wrote: post #60

So, a question for the BI fans: I've seen it said repeatedly that BI will save us money (or at least, not be so outrageously expensive) in part because we can eliminate existing welfare programs. "Just cut a single check, no more overhead from several agencies", they say. But riddle me this: what do you do when someone on BI has a financial emergency or, as will happen with some regularity, just flat-out blows all th…

Personally, I'd hope the system would absolutely tell them "tough shit". There's got to be a line where the safety net gives out, because someone is too expensive to help. That's where family and charity hopefully take over. At the same time, I think your instinct is right, and it's something I've never heard mentioned before. It's almost inevitably that there'll then be the "food security" fund, and the "housing gua…

You could create basic income as a family of associated benefits.

For example, give everyone a housing voucher. They can only spend it on housing, with the assumption they will need to top up from other funds

It would still be "universal" because everyone has it and you don't suffer clawbacks.

Re: Moving Forward on Basic Income

#659

Post by star0zero »

I'm a complete armchair economist and realize that a lot of really smart people are tackling this, but, in my limited understanding of supply and demand, my concern would be that a new floor for basic goods and services would materialize due to the new buying power of those on Basic Income. Doesn't that artificially inflate the base price of those goods and services without ever having a natural (market-based) opportunity to decrease? I'm interested in any literature that might address this basic principal, because I suspect it may be more complicated than I am imagining. This is sort of tangential (from a healthcare perspective), but I'm also interested in any research from a historical perspective pertaining to adjusted price history as health insurance became more popular / commonplace within society (probably, in particular, American society as I'm sure it has been allowed to flourish for much longer here). Any help in pointing me in the right direction would be most appreciated.

Re: Moving Forward on Basic Income

#660

Post by abalone »

From Sam's original post on BI: "We have some examples of something close to a basic income in other countries, but we’d like to see how it would work in the US."[1]

Why the focus on the US, exactly? Why not focus the research grant on the undoubtably massively larger data set of basic income / welfare programs in more Social Democratic style governments? Just from a scientific standpoint wouldn't that be a better study?

[1] https://blog.ycombinator.com/basic-income

Post reply on HN