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

#91

Post by clarry » Mon, Aug 29, 2016, 3:45 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.

I want to become an enterpreneur, but can't afford it. I'm not interested in "make money fast" schemes just for the sake of making money. I have ideas, things I want to try to build, but building my product would not happen overnight no matter how f*ing hard I work. More likely a minimum of anywhere between 6 and 12 months is required before it's feasible to start selling the product, and from there on it could take long before the income becomes a steady livelihood.

I don't have the money to pay the bills for that long, I can't afford to become an enterpreneur. BI could change my life overnight.

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

#92

Post by err4nt » Mon, Aug 29, 2016, 3:45 PM UTC

kohanz wrote: post #12

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…

Sorry, but this is the same argument we see time and time again against higher taxes (not just Mincome). We saw it in 2008 with "Joe the Plumber". Some entrepreneurs are driven by maximizing profit margins and some aren't. If your opinion was widely shared, there would be almost no entrepreneurial success stories in countries with a much more socialist approach than even Canada (e.g. throughout Europe). I am a Canadi…

If they give taxes a bump of course, but what if they radically rearrange taxes. There are many voices i hear who believe people above certain limits should be taxed 90% or more, and some cutoff limits Ive heard have been 250k, or even 100k.

If you suddenly fell into a 90% taxation bracket would you still be just as happy as today?

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

#93

Post by irishcule » Mon, Aug 29, 2016, 3:46 PM UTC

sanxiyn wrote: post #21

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…

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.

I thought the point of basic income was that EVERYONE gets it? How can that be exploited?

Some will get a basic income and choose not to work and continue to live, others will choose to work (while also receiving the basis income) and will have a better lifestyle because of them choosing to work. Is this not how this work or am I wrong?

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

#94

Post by clavalle » Mon, Aug 29, 2016, 3:46 PM UTC

yummyfajitas wrote: post #56

clavalle wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So it is your sincere belief that most poor people are 'broken' in the sense that they can't even make rational decisions where 'rational' means 'likely to improve one's life'?

I don't know. In the past I argued that the poor are completely rational and simply choose to exploit the safety net. It's a hypothesis I can't rule out. https://www.chrisstucchio.com/blog/2011/why_the_poor_dont_wo... But that doesn't explain many of their other bad behaviors, e.g. wife beating.

Domestic abuse is not limited to the poor.

But, back to the point, assuming they are not as rational as the rest of us, somehow sub human, is a harmful position to take -- it precludes any positive action to change the incentive structure of the poor -- in your view, no matter what is done, they are still broken creatures beyond help. That you admittedly take that position with other more useful hypothesis still worthy of exploration is deeply disturbing. All the more so since I doubt you are alone and that your position is common.

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

#95

Post by jackcosgrove » Mon, Aug 29, 2016, 3:47 PM UTC

jonwachob91 wrote: post #80

jackcosgrove wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why break it down by state except to make a politically charged generalization? The modern economy is dependent on cities and states are a mostly arbitrary political division inherited from a time when cultivated land area determined economic value.

Because most welfare is paid for by the states...

The link is about state economic dependence on the federal government, not which layer of government distributes welfare benefits.

It's just a rehashing of the red state-blue state federal dependence argument, which is really the rural-urban dependence argument.

If you want to knock rural areas as being net welfare recipients, just call them rural areas rather than red states. But even that's still an unhelpful generalization.

If you really want to be granular, you would single out the urban neighborhoods, suburbs, and yes rural areas (such as oil patches) that are net contributors.

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

#96

Post by Applejinx » Mon, Aug 29, 2016, 3:47 PM UTC

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…

As an American entrepreneur I've run a small business for nearly ten years, over that time earning nearly a quarter of a million dollars (yeah, not quite Facebook). I've observed that my income closely tracks a Fed metric having to do with disposable income of working class citizens (almost perfectly tracks a metric of increases/decreases in that labor share)

As such I'm finding your attitude impractical. Why do I, as a business owner, care whether you personally think some third person is a try-hard eager beaver? If you yourself don't want to work, you should indeed leave. I'm not at all sure you understand the math of this. Personally, I'm all for the poorer classes having spending money, because as near as I can work out, sometimes they will spend it on me. When they starve, I starve.

No amount of exceptionalism will change that simple fact, and if you're honest about the math you see that the whole point is getting rid of 'a few strong tentpoles'. Those guys are distorting the system and SHOULD leave. Celebrating them is a fool's game.

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

#97

Post by err4nt » Mon, Aug 29, 2016, 3:47 PM UTC

sanxiyn wrote: post #7

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…

This seems to be against redistribution, not basic income. Basic income is "how" of redistribution. "How much" part is very much orthogonal. Are you okay as long as basic income does not increase amount of redistribution, or do you have some specific objection to basic income as a method of redistribution?

Using the government to redistribute money to those in need is like giving your right arm a blood transfusion from your own left arm, but spilling 2/3 of the blood on the way over.

I strongly believe in charity and social assistance, but its MY job, not the governments job to make sure my family and neighbours are fed and safe. Government needs to deal with national and international issues. What happens to my neighbour is MY responsibility and I believe citizens can organize and redistribute resources for muuuuuch cheaper than a government can.

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

#98

Post by mordocai » Mon, Aug 29, 2016, 3:48 PM UTC

err4nt wrote: post #87

troncheadle wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 somethin…

$230 extra above living expenses is not attainable without title loans or something similar for many in America.

Not to mention that if the laptop breaks you have to know how to fix it yourself or pay $100+ to fix it (or buy another new one for $230). If you don't know enough about computers to transfer data off a "dead" machine then you have to pay $100+ for someone to do that even with the new one.

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

#99

Post by intopieces » Mon, Aug 29, 2016, 3:48 PM UTC

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…

>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 those who are net contributors.

When the idea of basic income is boiled down entirely to dollars and cents, sure. But, because of the volatility in the labor market, there isn't a way for an individual to know or predict whether they or someone else will be a net giver or a net-taker, as these things must be measured across a person's lifetime. J.K. Rowling was a taker for years, now she's wholeheartedly a giver. These status are primarily self-assigned and perceived based on.... well, I'm not sure what they're based on. See the author's 'popularity' argument, see the interviews with people who are anti-welfare but pro-mincome for themselves.

It's also worth considering -- as every discussion of UBI brings up -- the incalculable, invaluable net effects of such a scheme (and indeed of welfare itself). There are intangible benefits that are unnoticed even to the 'net contributors' -- that is, people who are housed and fed are less likely to stab you in the street for your iPhone.

>Don't let basic income advocates evade the question of who pays for their utopian scheme.

If a particular advocate of UBI doesn't include the tax increase in every point she makes about the system, it's only because that's a given, and has always been mentioned in some other comment. If you believe a particular funding scheme is flawed, have at it.

>you imply that others are obligated to provide them with that income.

UBI doesn't imply that others are obligated to provide them with income. It's explicit in the system. Unless you believe all taxation is theft (in which case: Game over, you'll never come around to UBI), it's safe to say that you believe 'society' has some obligation to the health and safety of its members. UBI is just the free-market expression of that: Rather than have the government try to create a massive, bloated system that tries to predict what people need, give them the tools they need to get it themselves. That tool is money.

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

#100

Post by pkaye » Mon, Aug 29, 2016, 3:49 PM UTC

sanxiyn wrote: post #54

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…

How can some people exploit basic income system to "rob us"? Maybe they can fabricate people which don't actually exist? (Or more realistically, delay reporting death to collect basic income of dead people.) These are concerns, but hopefully modern government can deal with fake identities. These still seem a lot better than current welfare system. If you consider giving basic income to people who spend $500 on weed "…

The problems would be that the real implementation of basic income will never be as simple as proposed. We would start out by saying every adult will get a fixed amount. Then the question comes out about people with disabilities needing extra money for their care. So we carve out an exception. Then what about parents who squander the money and the detrimental effects on their kids. Do we let the kids starve? What about kids in foster care? What if parents have lots of kids? Should kids also get a basic income? As we add more and more exceptions there are more opportunities for abuse of the system.