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

Why a Universal Basic Income Will Not Solve Poverty

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

231–240 of 251 posts

Re: Why a Universal Basic Income Will Not Solve Poverty

#231

Post by carapace »

sounds wrote: post #181
carapace wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was homeless for about four years, so I know exactly what you are talking about with people losing or never having the basic skills to cope with modern life. However, that's just not a reasonable argument against UBI. Consider: Having too much money is never a problem. Quoth the sage, "If it is money, it is good.", also "Too much is always better than not enough." Misspending that money is the problem. But if every…

While I was homeless I noticed how few people really made a difference. There are some, but you figure out pretty quickly which people to go to (and which to avoid). Do you think crime will increase when every person receives money at the same time? I think money management skills are going to be needed even more (but just receiving a deposit doesn't teach you how to master your money).

I definitely think some places will self-destruct, but I do have faith in the basic goodness of human nature. Gandhi said something to the effect that you can't make a system so perfect that the people in it need not still try to be good people. I've also heard it said that "Even God hesitates to offer anything but bread to the hungry man."

Will UBI solve the human condition? No. But it seems like a workable possible solution to how to handle rampant and permanent unemployment due to advancing automation. Something worth trying. ;-)

Re: Why a Universal Basic Income Will Not Solve Poverty

#232

Post by Grishnakh »

prostoalex wrote: post #198
Grishnakh wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>But wouldn't that lead to people living in the middle of nowhere where there aren't many jobs? In theory, no. A UBI is not a free pass for a luxurious lifestyle, it's a basic income. If you want more than that, you'll have to work. If you want to not work at all and sit on your ass, then sure, you can go move to Tornado Alley or frigid Minot or wherever and live cheap and make some extra cash doing odd jobs like sho…

> We'll probably see more movement to lower-cost, smaller cities Some midwestern states already offer free land+settlement programs to anybody who's willing to move in http://www.freelandks.com/availableland.html and market distortions made real estate in some US cities extremely affordable http://www.nydailynews.com/life-style/real-estate/1-buy-hous... Yet the economic activity in those geographies leaves much to be…

No one is taking advantage of those opportunities because there's no jobs there. With a UBI, people who want to just live off the UBI alone may decide to move to places like that, esp. if they're itching to "get away from it all" and live in solitude in a rural setting (in the case of KS anyway). They can't do it now because you can't survive without an income, and there's no jobs there. You can't survive on free land alone. Growing your own food isn't that easy, nor is it very nutritious (early farmers had terrible health and were a foot shorter than their hunter-gatherer ancestors; eating too much of the same thing is bad for you). Without an income, where are you going to get money for seeds? And how are you going to pay for other things like electricity to run your well pump, or parts to fix your well pump when it breaks? With a UBI, those things suddenly become possible if you really want that kind of lifestyle.

As for Detroit, $500 houses aren't very appealing in a place with a reputation for horrible crime, and where again there's no jobs (if there were good jobs there, the houses wouldn't cost $500). But who knows, a UBI might allow a bunch of young hipsters to move into the place and try to turn it into an art colony or something.

Re: Why a Universal Basic Income Will Not Solve Poverty

#233

Post by prostoalex »

Grishnakh wrote: post #232
prostoalex wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> We'll probably see more movement to lower-cost, smaller cities Some midwestern states already offer free land+settlement programs to anybody who's willing to move in http://www.freelandks.com/availableland.html and market distortions made real estate in some US cities extremely affordable http://www.nydailynews.com/life-style/real-estate/1-buy-hous... Yet the economic activity in those geographies leaves much to be…

No one is taking advantage of those opportunities because there's no jobs there. With a UBI, people who want to just live off the UBI alone may decide to move to places like that, esp. if they're itching to "get away from it all" and live in solitude in a rural setting (in the case of KS anyway). They can't do it now because you can't survive without an income, and there's no jobs there. You can't survive on free lan…

Fair enough. There're examples of that behavior in the retiree community, where a Social Security recipient moves to Costa Rica, Thailand, New Zealand or (until recent violence spike) Mexico to arbitrage their Social Security check into greater buying power.

Re: Why a Universal Basic Income Will Not Solve Poverty

#234

Post by 1123581321 »

thesimpsons1022 wrote: post #185
1123581321 wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is the least important point, but please keep in mind then that the decreased expenses (alternately, increased tax expenses) to offset the cost of BI will make others unhappy.

At this point we are just being handwavy. This is the problem with discussions like this, there aren't any hard facts to support the arguments. Are people being forced to pay .1 pct more of their income or 10 pct more? etc...

It's not hand-wavy to try to convince BI proponents to at least consider second-order effects. But you're right; better modeling and experiments will be good for future discussions.

Re: Why a Universal Basic Income Will Not Solve Poverty

#236

Post by sgnelson »

pavel_lishin wrote: post #191
sgnelson wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And what if they could afford health care (or rather the state stepped in) to help with that addiction/mental illness? A study just done about a year ago in the City I live in, housed a fairly large number of the non-temporary homeless people (between 20 and 50 I want to say, the numbers escape me) in an apartment complex that provided basic social services and access to health care. They found that in actuality, thi…

> I'm pretty sure you don't know what you're talking about. I'm 100% sure I don't know what I'm talking about! That's why I couched my opinion in all the weasel words like "probably" and "likely".

Okay. I'm sorry to have gotten on you. There so many comments in this thread I found to be so completely wrong, and/or unsympathetic, it had really bothered me, and I took it out on you. Thank you for admitting that you may not fully understand what is a very serious situation for many. And sadly, at least in the US, we do a rather poor job of solving the problem, not because we don't have the resources, but because a large amount of people (and their leaders) simply ignore or don't wish to fix the problem. It's frustrating, and all the more frustrating when you read comments about it on HN, which again, tend to lack sympathy for their fellow human beings. And again, I apologize.

Re: Why a Universal Basic Income Will Not Solve Poverty

#237

Post by ahartman00 »

geon wrote: post #218
cmurf wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right. The income value I keep seeing floated is in the realm of US$8000 per year. This is not basic income, it's basically a large tax credit. I don't know why it's called basic income, there's nothing really basic about it when it can't completely pay for one basic thing like say rent or mortgage.

I'm pretty sure there are places in your country where $8000/year would be plenty enough to live on. Not in any luxury, obviously. Living in central SF, or Manhattan would be unfeasible. Is that s bad thing? BI could prevent urbanization, and make small businesses blossom in smaller countryside towns. And outside of a city you would have better opportunities to grow some food on your own, making your BI last a bit lo…

"BI could prevent urbanization, and make small businesses blossom in smaller countryside towns."

I agree that urbanization has its downsides. However, lets remember that they aren't making land anymore:) As someone who grew up on a farm, I remember looking at suburbs as they sprawled out, taking over farmland. I was thinking, what are those people going to eat? Also, my observation is that there are more small business downtown, whereas walmart has dominated rural areas. Totally anecdotal, I know.

"And outside of a city you would have better opportunities to grow some food on your own"

I imagine this must be a dream to those who grew up in cities, having a secluded house with a nice garden. I know i am living the dream with dozens of restaurants/bars/shops within walking distance! But if we take an acre of farmland, and replace it with a house, lawn, and .1 acre of garden, what happens to the food supply? Apartment buildings and urbanization have their pros.

Re: Why a Universal Basic Income Will Not Solve Poverty

#238

Post by Grishnakh »

prostoalex wrote: post #233
Grishnakh wrote: post #232

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No one is taking advantage of those opportunities because there's no jobs there. With a UBI, people who want to just live off the UBI alone may decide to move to places like that, esp. if they're itching to "get away from it all" and live in solitude in a rural setting (in the case of KS anyway). They can't do it now because you can't survive without an income, and there's no jobs there. You can't survive on free lan…

Fair enough. There're examples of that behavior in the retiree community, where a Social Security recipient moves to Costa Rica, Thailand, New Zealand or (until recent violence spike) Mexico to arbitrage their Social Security check into greater buying power.

Yes, but Costa Rica, Thailand, and New Zealand are not barren, desolate places where these retirees need to live "off the grid". They're civilized, populated places; retirees move there because the cost of living is much lower: they can afford a nice home and some servants which they can't afford on the Social Security pension here.

With a UBI scheme, this can't be allowed. People on Social Security can do this because they've earned that check by paying into the system over their working years (and in reality, expats like that have more money than just a measly SS check; it's not that cheap to live in those places, especially NZ; these are middle-class and up people with IRAs). UBI is not like this: it's unearned, but it's a dividend paid to citizens in the society for being part of that society, and taking advantage of the fruits of that society (like automated production). It's also an investment: it's meant to allow citizens to be free of severe financial worry, so they can take more risks (like starting a new business), or take more time off for good mental health. Part of the bargain, however, is that they have to actually stay in the society. That UBI check they get needs to be spent in the country, where it can be circulated back into the economy, for it all to work. If they just move to Costa Rica and spend all their UBI money there, that isn't helping the American economy.

Re: Why a Universal Basic Income Will Not Solve Poverty

#239

Post by ahartman00 »

otterley wrote: post #23
nullsmack wrote: post #6

The very first argument in the article is flawed which leads me to wonder how much of it is or isn't flawed. It talks about a Universal Basic Income for everyone over 21.. then it complains that would cost 3 trillion dollars for all of the 300 million Americans. According to the Census Bureau as of 2015 there were 321 million Americans and 24% were under 18. No clue how many were under 21. But that still takes it dow…

Also: "A universal basic income has many undesirable features, starting with its nonnegligible disincentive to work." I can think of two responses to this: (1) Perhaps work that doesn't pay more than a UBI can provide is not work worth doing -- (2) Except for charity work, which is extremely valuable, and which would be greatly incentivized because having a UBI would free up people's time to work on it.

(1) Perhaps work that doesn't pay more than a UBI can provide is not work worth doing

I largely agree with you here, coal mining being a notable exception. As much as I want to be only on renewables, coal makes up 33% [1] of our current production. They talk about how gas prices are a drag on the economy, I dont want to find out what happens when 33% of power becomes much more expensive!! And fwiw, I do not share the optimism/pessimism that all jobs will be obsolete in 5 years. I dont agree with people who are saying, "just automate it!" Easier said than done(which is a good thing).

1. https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.cfm?id=427&t=3

Re: Why a Universal Basic Income Will Not Solve Poverty

#240

Post by geon »

ahartman00 wrote: post #237
geon wrote: post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm pretty sure there are places in your country where $8000/year would be plenty enough to live on. Not in any luxury, obviously. Living in central SF, or Manhattan would be unfeasible. Is that s bad thing? BI could prevent urbanization, and make small businesses blossom in smaller countryside towns. And outside of a city you would have better opportunities to grow some food on your own, making your BI last a bit lo…

"BI could prevent urbanization, and make small businesses blossom in smaller countryside towns." I agree that urbanization has its downsides. However, lets remember that they aren't making land anymore:) As someone who grew up on a farm, I remember looking at suburbs as they sprawled out, taking over farmland. I was thinking, what are those people going to eat? Also, my observation is that there are more small busine…

The US has way lower population density than the EU, and even here there's plenty of space.

And you don't need much space to grow some veggies.

Post reply on HN