Basic income doesn't emphasize divisions between poor and working people • Hacker News Board

Re: Basic income doesn't emphasize divisions between poor and working people

#81

Post by err4nt » Mon, Aug 29, 2016, 3:37 PM UTC

randall wrote: post #14

ep103 wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most of the reports I've seen have stated that actually, it works the other way around. That the vast majority of people who go into entrepreneurship only do so if they have money to fall back on, one way or another, should their business fail. So by that logic, basic income should actually significantly increase the likelihood of entrepreneurship, because while mincome will still be low enough that people will want…

Another data point: I became an entrepreneur while my wife worked fulltime. Many don't have this option.

Another data point: I was forced into it by economic circumstances (bills and no job). Literally EVERYBODY has this option.

Re: Basic income doesn't emphasize divisions between poor and working people

#82

Post by icebraining » Mon, Aug 29, 2016, 3:38 PM UTC

k__ wrote: post #30

IsaacL wrote: post #9

"If we’re interested in social policies that are resilient I think the dignity problem, or the moral aspects of these policies are worth considering more closely." I certainly agree the moral aspects are worth considering. No matter how you arrange your basic income scheme (and the tax system to support it), it's going to split the population into two groups: those who are net recipients of government money, and thos…

> it's going to split the population into two groups Isn't the point of UBI, that everyone gets the money? Not only those who don't work.

True, but if you pay more in taxes than you get from UBI, it's essentially an accounting operation; you're still a net payer in practice.

Re: Basic income doesn't emphasize divisions between poor and working people

#83

Post by beisner » Mon, Aug 29, 2016, 3:39 PM UTC

yummyfajitas wrote: post #36

sanxiyn wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What this seems to say is that people shouldn't starve, but to get food people should demonstrate that they are starving. I am unsure why demonstration is essential, because either way others are still obligated to provide food so that people aren't starving.

If my brother tells me he's hungry and broke I might make him dinner and let him crash on my couch. If I just saw him spend $500 on weed I'll probably tell him he's on his own. The demonstration is essential because if we don't require it, some people will exploit our kind nature to rob us. This is already a massive problem in programs where we do require demonstrations of need. See NPR's expose on rampant disability…

This kind of argument misses the forest for the trees. In any welfare system where we don't just say "screw 'em" to people who can't seem to support themselves enough to survive, there will be people who game the system. Now, I'd argue that those people almost always have the potential to be productive (and aren't productive because of motivational, situational, or basic economic reasons), but there is no benefits system we can introduce that will directly encourage these people to change. Yes, if we introduce basic income, by making things significantly better for everyone at the bottom we might slightly increase the number of people who don't contribute economically, and I agree that initially this feels like a moral problem that we might like to avoid. But in the grand scheme of things, I believe that a basic income will cause an increase in economic productivity (through increased access to education, less reliance on illicit activity, and removal of certain stressors that keep people locked in the cycle of poverty) to a MUCH larger demographic of people, vastly offsetting whatever inefficiencies are introduced by an increase in those who don't contribute to the economic system. Heck, even the reduction in bureaucratic expenditures might be enough to offset this cost. At the end of the day, any system will have a potential for introducing moral hazard, but I feel that any increase that might be introduced by basic income is vastly offset by the other economic benefits the system brings.

Re: Basic income doesn't emphasize divisions between poor and working people

#84

Post by yummyfajitas » Mon, Aug 29, 2016, 3:40 PM UTC

josho wrote: post #71

yummyfajitas wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If my brother tells me he's hungry and broke I might make him dinner and let him crash on my couch. If I just saw him spend $500 on weed I'll probably tell him he's on his own. The demonstration is essential because if we don't require it, some people will exploit our kind nature to rob us. This is already a massive problem in programs where we do require demonstrations of need. See NPR's expose on rampant disability…

> This is already a massive problem in programs where we do require demonstrations of need. See NPR's expose on rampant disability fraud: http://apps.npr.org/unfit-for-work/ But, the disability fraud is due in large part to the rampant unemployment, poverty, and gutted social safety net in that area. So, the option for those folks is disability or live on the streets. I wouldn't exactly say you are making the case fo…

No, the disability fraud is caused by healthy people lying in order to take money from others that they didn't earn.

Are you somehow claiming that wealthy Americans are unable to make choices for themselves, i.e. they are incompetent? If so, lets find them caretakers who can manage their lives for them. Lets not let them continue making bad choices that cost the rest of us.

I have no problem with smoking weed and I do it myself sometimes. I have a problem with spending your own money on weed and then turning to me claiming you are hungry. Spend your own money before you spend mine.

Re: Basic income doesn't emphasize divisions between poor and working people

#85

Post by rorykoehler » Mon, Aug 29, 2016, 3:40 PM UTC

yummyfajitas wrote: post #36

sanxiyn wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What this seems to say is that people shouldn't starve, but to get food people should demonstrate that they are starving. I am unsure why demonstration is essential, because either way others are still obligated to provide food so that people aren't starving.

If my brother tells me he's hungry and broke I might make him dinner and let him crash on my couch. If I just saw him spend $500 on weed I'll probably tell him he's on his own. The demonstration is essential because if we don't require it, some people will exploit our kind nature to rob us. This is already a massive problem in programs where we do require demonstrations of need. See NPR's expose on rampant disability…

What do you have against your brother putting $500 back into the economy? That's good for everyone (except for him in the example you gave). If you were smart you would have sold him the weed and made yourself a few hundred bucks. Then you could easily feed him with the profit. The local grocer can then feed his family with the extra money he made because you bought more from him due to your sudden windfall and so on. The economy benefits from money circulation. Basic income is going to improve the health of the economy by giving spending power and financial security to everyone. In turn this will make people looser with their everyday spending which will be of phenomenal benefit for the overall health of the economy. You're thinking about it as if it's your personal account. Money doesn't work like that at scale.

Re: Basic income doesn't emphasize divisions between poor and working people

#86

Post by yummyfajitas » Mon, Aug 29, 2016, 3:43 PM UTC

beisner wrote: post #83

yummyfajitas wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If my brother tells me he's hungry and broke I might make him dinner and let him crash on my couch. If I just saw him spend $500 on weed I'll probably tell him he's on his own. The demonstration is essential because if we don't require it, some people will exploit our kind nature to rob us. This is already a massive problem in programs where we do require demonstrations of need. See NPR's expose on rampant disability…

This kind of argument misses the forest for the trees. In any welfare system where we don't just say "screw 'em" to people who can't seem to support themselves enough to survive, there will be people who game the system. Now, I'd argue that those people almost always have the potential to be productive (and aren't productive because of motivational, situational, or basic economic reasons), but there is no benefits sy…

Actually the increase is more than "slight". It's a 13% reduction in work effort, more than double the reduced work effort caused by the great recession.

http://public.econ.duke.edu/~erw/197/forget-cea%20(2).pdf

Heck, even the reduction in bureaucratic expenditures might be enough to offset this cost.

Why don't you do a back of the envelope calculation to demonstrate how this could possibly work?

I have yet to see a single successful attempt at this.

Re: Basic income doesn't emphasize divisions between poor and working people

#87

Post by err4nt » Mon, Aug 29, 2016, 3:43 PM UTC

troncheadle wrote: post #8

err4nt wrote: post #3

As a Canadian entrepreneur I worry that mincome/basic income will serve to knock the wind out of the sails of many innovators and entrepreneurs who, like me, are currently DRIVEN to work hard, research, push the industry along and crank up competition. I would much, much rather work hard, earn more money, and feed my neighbour - than have no hope of digging myself out of my situation no matter hos hard I worked, bein…

Alright John Gault. If we're talking nation level, your startup is not a 'tentpole.' How does your market cap compare to GE, Google, Amazon, Lockheed? Those are redwoods, and there are plenty of those. You're a maple sapling, there are plenty of those too. You're doing that thing where the middle class rebels against their own interests by positioning said interests as the interests of the working class, because they…

The resources that I built my business on:

- a chair

- a table

- electricity

- any computer

- internet

- coffee (for food)

- bathroom

If you can bring your own laptop to a starbucks, they have plenty of the rest of those. A laptop can cost as little as 230$ USD, so thats really the only barrier and I beleive its an attainable goal for anybody in North America. If your life depending on having a laptop, thats something anybody could find.

My point is that business will leave. Those with the most means (Google, etc) would be out of the coutry by the end of the week! It would take longer for the small guys to pack up and move, but the point is that knowing how I would respond surely must be an attitude others have too. Just had to get that out there while we're talking about mincome yet again.

Re: Basic income doesn't emphasize divisions between poor and working people

#88

Post by icebraining » Mon, Aug 29, 2016, 3:43 PM UTC

bsbechtel wrote: post #31

exabrial wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your last two sentences couldn't be any more eloquent. When reasoning on these issues, one should always carefully examine the phrase: "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness". Every single word is chosen very carefully.

A basic right is something you inherently have, and cannot be taken away. It's not something to be provided by the government. I wish more people had a better understanding of this.

There is no such accepted definition of "basic right".

Re: Basic income doesn't emphasize divisions between poor and working people

#89

Post by mordocai » Mon, Aug 29, 2016, 3:44 PM UTC

epistasis wrote: post #47

krupan wrote: post #37

Every time basic income comes up people seem to missunderstand the key points: 1) It's basic income, like, enough for beans and rice and a small apartment. Nobody who is willing to work at least a part time job is going to just sit back and live off of basic income alone for their whole life. 2) It's a huge reduction and simplification of government, replacing several huge bureaucratic entities with one that effectiv…

I'm not sure if there's agreement on either of those points, honestly. A good number of people who talk about basic income are talking about giving less than is enough for subsistence living. And many talk about keeping additional programs in place, such as disability (somebody with special medical needs will not be able to live on the same income as somebody that can care for themselves and does not need additional…

As far as special medical needs, if we'd go ahead and switch to single payer/otherwise socialized healthcare while we're at it then the job of making sure that the disabled have enough would not be basic income, but the healthcare system.

Re: Basic income doesn't emphasize divisions between poor and working people

#90

Post by yummyfajitas » Mon, Aug 29, 2016, 3:44 PM UTC

heartsucker wrote: post #74

yummyfajitas wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We stop when the marginal cost of additional oversight exceeds the marginal benefit of additional fraud prevented. I.e., we keep increasing oversight until diminishing returns causes $1 of additional fraud prevention spending to reduce fraud by $0.99. I don't know where that point lives, but as NPRs expose demonstrates, that amount is certainly larger than zero and probably a lot larger than where we are now.

I was taking the most simplistic approach. Your point is better than mine, but usually the argument I see is that "there are welfare queens, and that's not fair, therefore there shouldn't be welfare at all." I was more arguing against that.

I'm arguing for good government, not no government.

Unfortunately good government requires carefully understanding and administering a bureaucracy, taking into account individual incentives, and building something non-simple.

Basic income is just a cheap mental hack used to seduce the lazy. It's like looking at a webapp, realizing that 75% of your compute cycles are doing error handling and then saying "aha, the solution is to ignore all errors!" It's seductive, brilliant in it's simplicity, and complete idiocy.

Among other things, this is why essentially no basic income proponents are willing to even do a back of the envelope calculation to show how it would work. (Similarly, "eliminate all error handling" guy will refuse to write a proof of concept.)

[edit: I altered this comment to explain in better detail what I think is wrong with BI, but eliminated a sentence that SandBOx replied to. I believe the real goal of most BI proponents is to create a vote bank of government dependents.]