Universal Basic Income – Poll Results from IGM Economic Experts Panel • Hacker News Board

Re: Universal Basic Income – Poll Results from IGM Economic Experts Panel

#101

Post by ncallaway » Thu, Jun 30, 2016, 7:44 PM UTC

jcizzle wrote: post #65

ncallaway wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why do you get to define what society is? Sure, if you take the definition that "society is the group of people who are working", then you get the conclusion that you are required to work to be in society. I'm going to present a different definition of society: > A society is a group of people involved in persistent social interaction, or a large social grouping sharing the same geographical or social territory, typi…

Well, you can go make your society where the only thing that matters is that people believe the same thing. And then I'll live in current society, where people put forth an effort to support that society's needs. And then we can figure out which one gets to define society based on which one survives long enough to write down the definition. (Also, wouldn't a society imply exclusion by its very definition?)

I'll point out that if you're arguing that the surviving society gets to make the definition, then the definitions I presented are backed by society (Wikipedia, Google, Dictionary.com), whereas the definition you have proposed is your own.

Re: Universal Basic Income – Poll Results from IGM Economic Experts Panel

#102

Post by ___eponymous___ » Thu, Jun 30, 2016, 7:50 PM UTC

antisthenes wrote: post #98

___eponymous___ wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree that earning money isn't selfish, but I think it's undeniable that America is a work culture. It's essentially viewed as morally bad to not have a job, even if you opt to live the kind of life that doesn't require a car, or thousands of dollars of furniture, etc. In my opinion the amount of money the average American spends on stupid shit is mindblowing, especially when you consider that almost everyone works…

Is it not at least equally as mindblowing as to how much the average American spends on life's bare necessities like shelter, food and health care? And at least 2 of those are only as high because of greed and deliberately exclusionary policies.

Well, of course. I would argue, however, that most spend far more on food than they need to, and likewise for shelter - maybe not so much poor Americans, but in my experience middle class, upper-middle class and above Americans spend absolutely ridiculous amounts of money on their houses (together with lots of fallacies like thinking that renting is "throwing away money" and such). Healthcare is unavoidable, that's going to be a major expense for basically anyone.

At least looking around at other adults, I've noticed many spend really, really appalling amounts of money on things that don't really improve their lives in any way - and furthermore, that they seem to do so solely because it's what their parents did, or what they think is appropriate in society. Moreover, most consider it essentially an ironclad mandate that they work a 40 hour week until they're too old to work any longer.

Re: Universal Basic Income – Poll Results from IGM Economic Experts Panel

#103

Post by harryh » Thu, Jun 30, 2016, 8:15 PM UTC

undersuit wrote: post #96

harryh wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why won't the people doing all that work to entertain each other earn an income for doing so, thus making it so a min income isn't necessary?

Then there is no safe way to fail. It would discourage innovation. You would have to stay with what works; even if you don't like it, it's getting harder to iterate, or there is a solid wall in the near future that you know you can't cross.

Well now you've significantly lowered the benefit of a UBI in our fully automated future. Before it was "if we don't do this then 90% of people will literally have no money and won't be able to live." You've changed it to "innovation among entertainers will be discouraged."

I think you might be able to get people on board to support the first justification. The second one is going to be a lot harder to sell.

Re: Universal Basic Income – Poll Results from IGM Economic Experts Panel

#104

Post by dllthomas » Thu, Jun 30, 2016, 8:29 PM UTC

___eponymous___ wrote: post #93

jcizzle wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Would the better job been the first in a series of steps to even better jobs/promotions in the future? Did that job have the same pay from now until retirement? Would a year of hard work in this job yield a raise that offset the loss to food stamps? If any of these are true, her's wasn't the rational decision, it was the most convenient, least risky decision.

You're talking about the "rational decision" as if there's only one value to optimize. If their "utility function" is described by more than just how much money they have/make, then it could be perfectly rational to turn down the job. That being said I do agree that if there's a huge difference in future earning power, it would still generally worth it to go for the job that involves giving up food stamps.

> That being said I do agree that if there's a huge difference in future earning power, it would still generally worth it to go for the job that involves giving up food stamps.

If you can manage to hold your life together well enough to continue to do the job, with fewer resources available.

Re: Universal Basic Income – Poll Results from IGM Economic Experts Panel

#105

Post by eanzenberg » Thu, Jun 30, 2016, 8:42 PM UTC

rm_-rf_slash wrote: post #10

eanzenberg wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do you reconcile the massive increase in spending this would cause?

Depends on the costs. If automation can push down food costs to minuscule levels (like a solar powered, robot-run, indoor greenhouse), you won't need to take as much in taxes. Granted, housing is often much more expensive relative to income - especially to the poor and working class - but that doesn't mean there can't be mass-produced, high density housing units. UBI really could work, but right now I don't think the…

I think it will work and I think it will come. What I most disagree with is the timescale for the shift to occur :)

Re: Universal Basic Income – Poll Results from IGM Economic Experts Panel

#106

Post by btilly » Thu, Jun 30, 2016, 8:43 PM UTC

jcizzle wrote: post #88

btilly wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is a simplistic but very ironic claim. One of the main problems with the existing social net is that it comes with "economic cliffs" where making a little more is not to your economic advantage. And then people who make the rational decision are seen as "lazy". For a real example, my niece had to turn down a job because it paid her $0.20 too much to stay on food stamps. And she couldn't be paid less because it wou…

Would the better job been the first in a series of steps to even better jobs/promotions in the future? Did that job have the same pay from now until retirement? Would a year of hard work in this job yield a raise that offset the loss to food stamps? If any of these are true, her's wasn't the rational decision, it was the most convenient, least risky decision.

The answers are unclear, no, and no.

Also your conclusion about "rational decision" is clearly wrong. Taking risks is not necessarily rational. Doubly not when you are a single mother with 3 kids and a deadbeat ex.

Taking the job guaranteed losing her money. If she kept the job for a couple of years, she would have started to break even, but it would be quite a few years until she was ahead of where she was. Instead she continued to look for a job that either paid just little enough to keep food stamps, or offered a prospect of paying enough to offset losing food stamps.

Your reasoning is based on the theory that your best way up is to take the best job you can and then work your way up. That was how things worked when I was a kid. But today people tend to improve their job by switching jobs, not by being promoted in their current one. Therefore staying underpaid is often a better route up than switching to a job you don't want in the hope of maybe being promoted some day.

Re: Universal Basic Income – Poll Results from IGM Economic Experts Panel

#107

Post by eanzenberg » Thu, Jun 30, 2016, 8:49 PM UTC

drabiega wrote: post #83

cheald wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The reason it does so is that it's the only viable way to fund it. 235,715,590 people 21+ in the US. At $13k/year that's just over $3 trillion dollars per year. Social Security spending was $888b in 2015, Medicare spending was $546b in 2015, and other welfare spending was $1.031b. If you cut all SS, Medicare, and other welfare spending and redirected it into a $13k/yr UBI, you'd still be about 20% short of your neces…

Every thread about UBI is full of people doing this same math. Anyone who thought that you could have UBI without taxes to zero it out for most of the population has long since been convinced. Who are you writing this for?

Until it is explained how it will be funded this fact should always be brought up.

Re: Universal Basic Income – Poll Results from IGM Economic Experts Panel

#108

Post by eanzenberg » Thu, Jun 30, 2016, 8:52 PM UTC

sharemywin wrote: post #81

The problem is the math don't add up. To give 13k per adult(242M) you need 3.2T. The total us Budget in 2015 was 3.8T so you need to increase taxes by 81%. If you subtract out all the welfare benefits you(615B(16%)) you still need to raise taxes buy 65%.

This should literally always be the top comment until it's explained how to handle the tremendous cost.

Re: Universal Basic Income – Poll Results from IGM Economic Experts Panel

#109

Post by stcredzero » Thu, Jun 30, 2016, 8:53 PM UTC

___eponymous___ wrote: post #94

stcredzero wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is there anything particularly Trump-esque about, "Work = being part of society?" Is your logic that anything Trump likes is automatically wrong? Or is that an entirely subjective appeal? My personal experience with periods of time where I was under-employed, is that "Work = being part of society." People feel better when they know they are actively contributing. That's just a simple truth.

>People feel better when they know they are actively contributing. That's just a simple truth. I find this interesting, because it's a great example of some of the values implicit in American society. Note that the way you expressed it, essentially the only way to contribute to society is by working a job. I don't think it's a stretch to claim that that's a very narrow-minded way of looking at it. In my opinion Ameri…

Note that the way you expressed it, essentially the only way to contribute to society is by working a job.

Note the way I expressed it, the emphasis is on contributing. Your particular spin strikes me as an eagerness to oppose a particular POV, then you go on to project that POV onto me. I don't thrive as well when contributing as a volunteer, which I did when under employed, as when I have a full time job. Keep in mind the efficient market hypothesis. Most of the jobs constituting valuable contributions are going to be paid. There are going to be exceptions, of course, but not all of those roles are going to be suitable for everybody.

Re: Universal Basic Income – Poll Results from IGM Economic Experts Panel

#110

Post by stcredzero » Thu, Jun 30, 2016, 8:59 PM UTC

jcizzle wrote: post #88

btilly wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is a simplistic but very ironic claim. One of the main problems with the existing social net is that it comes with "economic cliffs" where making a little more is not to your economic advantage. And then people who make the rational decision are seen as "lazy". For a real example, my niece had to turn down a job because it paid her $0.20 too much to stay on food stamps. And she couldn't be paid less because it wou…

Would the better job been the first in a series of steps to even better jobs/promotions in the future? Did that job have the same pay from now until retirement? Would a year of hard work in this job yield a raise that offset the loss to food stamps? If any of these are true, her's wasn't the rational decision, it was the most convenient, least risky decision.

If any of these are true, her's wasn't the rational decision, it was the most convenient, least risky decision.

It shouldn't take far-seeing, risk taking, and great inconvenience to get out of poverty. If our society wants to bring people out of poverty, it should make the choices leading to that obvious, low risk, and convenient.

If the context was game development, this wouldn't even be an issue. People do what they're incentivized to do.