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

991–1000 of 1001 posts

Re: Moving Forward on Basic Income

#991

Post by undersuit »

soared wrote: post #767
paul wrote: post #483

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That assumes a fixed supply of housing, which is only true in deeply dysfunctional places like SF. In most of the US, housing cost is close to replacement cost, so if landlords try to raise rents, people can just move someplace cheaper, especially since they are no longer dependent on a job to support themselves.

There are plenty of 'dysfunctional' places just like SF. Plenty of cities have limited area to expand into. For example, Boulder local gov owns a ring of land around the city, making it impossible to expand outwards (or upwards). Housing supply isn't fixed if you think people are willing to live in Wyoming - which they pretty much aren't.

Why aren't people willing to live in Wyoming?

Re: Moving Forward on Basic Income

#992

Post by danudey »

maerF0x0 wrote: post #631
danudey wrote: post #627

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As with current welfare programs: you get a check every , end of story. People are free to make bad decisions and get themselves evicted, but those situations will be because someone is incapable of managing their money, not because they're incapable of making it. Likewise, landlords will be more willing to give people a chance because they know you're not going to 'lose your job' so to speak. That said, the idea of…

Just because someone isn't going to lose their "job" (BI), what's to say it will end up in the landlord's hand? They can still default on payments. I wonder if signing over all/some of the BI to the landlord so it goes direct could be a good upgrade. It comes with the creditworthiness of the state (in california that is less than 100% mind you). Thoughts on the risk of someone not paying their BI to the landlord?

Presumably eviction?

If you currently make a living wage and you don't pay your rent you still get evicted, so I don't think it would necessarily be any different.

Re: Moving Forward on Basic Income

#993

Post by undersuit »

Jemaclus wrote: post #748
BraveNewCurency wrote: post #641

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'm not an economist, and I don't know the ins and outs of basic income, but that one throwaway page in The Expanse made me think a lot about what I think basic income should look like... and I don't think it should look like a monthly check. 1) If Basic Income is doled out slowly (say every week or every day as a credit card), then it's nearly impossible for someone to die from starvation. Should we also take away…

Gonna have to disagree with you. I think your view is a bit pessimistic. > Who gets to decide what level of shelter is "good enough for basic"? Who decides what quality of t-shirt is "good enough"? Who decides which level of Ramen is "good enough"? > No offense, but the idea in your book sounds a lot closer to "prison" than Basic Income. You don't have a choice in prison. In prison, you eat what they feed you, live w…

Sounds like everyone starts in prison and then through good behavior(righteous Government approved work ethic) you can get released.

Re: Moving Forward on Basic Income

#994

Post by tim333 »

blastrat wrote: post #942

Hey EVERYBODY, this topic is all what actual economists , you know literal big E Economists, study; so, while actual economists can disagree about this topic, they disagree from a basis of understanding some things. People who have not studied economics--for which the prerequisite is calculus and also statistics so if you haven't taken those, you haven't taken economics--...people who have not studied economics, micr…

A lot of big E Economics is pretty bad. Often because they try to use calculus and also statistics and statistics on human behaviour but humans don't behave that way.

Re: Moving Forward on Basic Income

#995

Post by someguydave »

treehau5 wrote: post #550
dragonwriter wrote: post #508

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 BI is usually presented as a right now improvement, that also gives more improvement as technology advances. So, the false dichotomy I see is yours: between "improvement right no…

> BI is usually presented as a right now improvement Not as far as I've seen, and not in this article this discussions about, or any of the articles it subsequently links to in it's body. " Although basic income seems fiscally challenging today, in a world where technology replaces existing jobs and basic income becomes necessary, technological improvements should generate an abundance of resources and the cost of li…

Amen. Honestly I think that the popular idea (in the technology world) that magical hardware/software are going to "replace all the jobs" is wishful thinking. I don't think that the very baubles that amuse and distract humanity will also be its doom or its salvation.

Re: Moving Forward on Basic Income

#996

Post by someguydave »

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…

>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 are automated" which is a highly debatable premise, and if even true, a long ways away.

I would note that the "fight to prevent future catistrophic climate change" is exactly like this as well...

"We must immediately upend the existing social order because of some distant and uncertain threat that looms in the future!"

Re: Moving Forward on Basic Income

#997

Post by Snowdax »

justifier wrote: post #849

wow, as of writing this comment there are 1114 points and 1134 comments i remember only a few years ago developing a model for capitalism without the need to acquire capital and being mocked, ridiculed, and chastised i am glad to see that this conversation is so mainstream now and the strongest voices are becoming those in support

I would argue that the idea is not quite mainstream yet outside the tech community. The tech community though is very concerned about UBI as we see automation barrelling down the line and making a large percentage of the population unemployable. When that happens many a programmer would like to not be lynched in the streets by Luddite mobs for doing their job.

Re: Moving Forward on Basic Income

#998

Post by paul »

psc wrote: post #836
paul wrote: post #483

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That assumes a fixed supply of housing, which is only true in deeply dysfunctional places like SF. In most of the US, housing cost is close to replacement cost, so if landlords try to raise rents, people can just move someplace cheaper, especially since they are no longer dependent on a job to support themselves.

I think the GP is referring more specifically to Henry George Theorem ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_George_theorem ). The theorem has pretty solid theoretical backing, so I don't see why it wouldn't apply to basic income. At the very least it's a good question to research. My understanding is that all owners of would increase the rents/prices of their unimproved land, not just housing landlords. Everywhere yo…

"under certain conditions". There is an enormous amount of unimproved land in the world, and most of it is quite inexpensive.

I do like the idea of a land tax though, and believe that it's a good way to fund BI (along with carbon tax).

Re: Moving Forward on Basic Income

#1000

Post by blastrat »

tim333 wrote: post #994
blastrat wrote: post #942

Hey EVERYBODY, this topic is all what actual economists , you know literal big E Economists, study; so, while actual economists can disagree about this topic, they disagree from a basis of understanding some things. People who have not studied economics--for which the prerequisite is calculus and also statistics so if you haven't taken those, you haven't taken economics--...people who have not studied economics, micr…

A lot of big E Economics is pretty bad. Often because they try to use calculus and also statistics and statistics on human behaviour but humans don't behave that way.

big E economists are entirely aware of the pitfalls and the limitations of their field, they know it's far from exact, and they know it much better than people who don't study economics. Those who are ignorant of historical mistakes are doomed to repeat them.

and in terms of rational vs irrational behavior, the behavior of fluids is describable without deriving from the behavior of the particles that make up the fluid; and the limitations of the approach is understood, again, not by lay people but by experts in the field.

Post reply on HN