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

#201

Post by fweespeech » Mon, Aug 29, 2016, 6:33 PM UTC

dragonwriter wrote: post #182

fweespeech wrote: post #148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah. Many people who are into BI are unwilling to admit its a very expensive proposition that they insist will be fixed with "economic growth". Its the same handwaving the GOP does. Perfect example: There are 242,470,820 adults in the US. http://www.wsj.com/articles/a-guaranteed-income-for-every-am... > In my version, every American citizen age 21 and older would get a $13,000 annual grant deposited electronically i…

> Many people who are into BI are unwilling to admit its a very expensive proposition A mature BI (one providing an above-poverty-line benefit) is an expensive proposition, but you don't need a mature BI, or one that replaces all the programs you'd like to replace with one, to get net social benefit from it. So you start with a small BI, and phase out the things it is eventually planned to phase out only as the BI be…

> A mature BI (one providing an above-poverty-line benefit) is an expensive proposition

That was below-poverty-line benefits as defined by existing law. Its $10k income with a $3k mandatory payment for the equivalent of Medicaid/insurance.

The poverty line at the moment is ~$11k + Medicaid.

https://www.healthcare.gov/glossary/federal-poverty-level-FP...

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

#202

Post by jimmyk » Mon, Aug 29, 2016, 6:43 PM UTC

rorykoehler wrote: post #85

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…

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…

  What do you have against your brother putting $500 back into the economy? That's good for everyone

How is it good for everyone else? Everyone else now collectively has $500 less to spend on other goods and services. Instead of scarce resources being used to create those other goods and services, they will be used to grow weed. That sounds to me like it's decidedly bad for everyone else.

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

#203

Post by dragonwriter » Mon, Aug 29, 2016, 6:52 PM UTC

fweespeech wrote: post #201

dragonwriter wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Many people who are into BI are unwilling to admit its a very expensive proposition A mature BI (one providing an above-poverty-line benefit) is an expensive proposition, but you don't need a mature BI, or one that replaces all the programs you'd like to replace with one, to get net social benefit from it. So you start with a small BI, and phase out the things it is eventually planned to phase out only as the BI be…

> A mature BI (one providing an above-poverty-line benefit) is an expensive proposition That was below-poverty-line benefits as defined by existing law. Its $10k income with a $3k mandatory payment for the equivalent of Medicaid/insurance. The poverty line at the moment is ~$11k + Medicaid. https://www.healthcare.gov/glossary/federal-poverty-level-FP...

> That was below-poverty-line benefits as defined by existing law.

Its way above the poverty line for any household size greater than 1. ($11,880 + $4,140-4,160 per additional member) [0]

[0] https://aspe.hhs.gov/poverty-guidelines

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

#204

Post by [deleted] » Mon, Aug 29, 2016, 6:56 PM UTC

dragonwriter wrote: post #200

yummyfajitas wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, and an obese man might speculate that he'll starve in the future. That's not a reason for him to eat 3 cheeseburgers today. If we had a simple scarcity of labor, you'd see rapid, across the board increases in the market clearing cost of labor, you do not. This is simply not true. The way to check for a scarcity of labor is simply to determine whether there is labor worth performing at some non-zero price. Scarci…

> Not according to Keynesians So? This seems to be an argument-to-people-you-don't-even-purport-are-authorities... (Not to mention that it seems to be a hostile caricature of the Keynesian argument, which I'll get to in a second.) > they believe there was productive work people people could do that wasn't getting done, simply because nominal wages were too high. "Work isn't getting done because forces outside of mark…

[deleted]

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

#205

Post by kamaal » Mon, Aug 29, 2016, 6:56 PM UTC

dsr_ wrote: post #33

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…

"those who are net recipients... and those who are net contributors" We already have that in the US. For example, on a state-by-state basis: https://wallethub.com/edu/states-most-least-dependent-on-the... Every serious basic income article I've read addresses the question of who pays for it. The answer is, unsurprisingly, everyone who pays taxes.

>>The answer is, unsurprisingly, everyone who pays taxes.

1. Not every one would work to pay taxes, when there is a way to not work and still get paid.

2. Lesser the number of people who work lesser the pool of money to share among the remaining.

3. Those who still continue to work feel cheated all the time to be working and making up for everyone. While they push insane hours to make a living, punished all the time for earning, endlessly being asked to pay for others, or be called greedy and evil otherwise.

4. Mass exodus of people follows to places where there is a decent rewards in return for work.

5. Ecosystem as a whole has endless iteration of fewer and fewer contributors, and more and more people who think are entitled to free cash. At some point it all collapses in its own weight.

1 - 5 is basically the story of every single socialist economy in the past 150 years.

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

#206

Post by CPLX » Mon, Aug 29, 2016, 7:06 PM UTC

yummyfajitas wrote: post #192

CPLX wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's actually not a particularly interesting or unique view, it's obvious, and essentially the basis of civilization. Organisms that hoard resources have been targets of violence since we were all protozoa. A widely used basic definition of government is simply the group that has cornered the market on the recognized use of violence. Rich people have to do something to grapple with poverty or the poor people will kil…

Seems like effective policing and residential segregation will be a far more effective use of resources. Cops are cheap, welfare is expensive.

That strategy is working great in Rio and Sao Paolo, perhaps you could visit and report back on their success.

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

#207

Post by psycr » Mon, Aug 29, 2016, 7:11 PM UTC

troncheadle wrote: post #122

psycr wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Opportunity is not evenly distributed, yes. But neither is skill. > Basic income doesn't come off the backs of small business, and that is a silly reason to be so afraid of it. What's the name of your business?

That's just willfully ignorant. For majority of people, differences in opportunity are SO much more influential in their lives than differences in skill or intelligence. Consider three kids -- one is rich, suburban white, IQ is 170. The other is rich, suburban white, IQ is 75. The third is poor, inner city black, IQ 170. In this situation, which lives do you think look most similar to one another? If you answered 'ob…

> If we want to compare across QoL, opportunity, really almost any metric, we're going to group across socio-economic lines, not IQ.

Do you have any academic literature to support your claim? The only evidence you offered was just an insistence that I should agree, which shouldn't convince any fair minded person. Here's something that I found within 15 seconds of journal searching, that contradicts it: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1741-1130.2011....

> The results from a series of follow-up studies indicate that the IQ score at age 13 could be viewed as a relatively good indicator for future life outcomes, defined in terms of attained education, occupational status, and material well being

Finally:

> Really, come on. That kind of 'they can just pull themselves up by the bootstraps' is ignorant enough to sound like dog whistling.

I don't think we can, and I don't think I said anything like that.

Also, what's the name of your business?

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

#208

Post by duaneb » Mon, Aug 29, 2016, 7:46 PM UTC

1123581321 wrote: post #42

duaneb wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Don't let basic income advocates evade the question of who pays for their utopian scheme. Have you witnessed this?

I have seen it in every discussion. Some of the forms of evasion include: * focusing on the wealth/profit generated by a surge in entrepreneurship from the millions suddenly motivated to start successful businesses * focusing on the unlimited wealth created by robots/asteroids/solar in space which will fund any program we wish * focusing on how we can't afford not to try BI, i.e., the default system is a financial fa…

I don't think there's even a common model, yet. Some are designed only to benefit the poor, like negative income tax rates.

It's kind of silly to discuss the details when there aren't any. People need to be open to giving cash to the poor to even begin thinking about how best to implement it, and the US at least has been going in the opposite direction since the original Clinton welfare reform, which emphasizes employment assistance over direct monetary assistance, with mixed results.

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

#209

Post by 1123581321 » Mon, Aug 29, 2016, 7:58 PM UTC

duaneb wrote: post #208

1123581321 wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have seen it in every discussion. Some of the forms of evasion include: * focusing on the wealth/profit generated by a surge in entrepreneurship from the millions suddenly motivated to start successful businesses * focusing on the unlimited wealth created by robots/asteroids/solar in space which will fund any program we wish * focusing on how we can't afford not to try BI, i.e., the default system is a financial fa…

I don't think there's even a common model, yet. Some are designed only to benefit the poor, like negative income tax rates. It's kind of silly to discuss the details when there aren't any. People need to be open to giving cash to the poor to even begin thinking about how best to implement it, and the US at least has been going in the opposite direction since the original Clinton welfare reform, which emphasizes emplo…

I do not agree. Understanding of and agreement on the details makes it possible for people to be open to such a broad idea. Currently, the details are discouraging, so it makes sense for proponents to downplay them, but in the long run, they will have more success solving the prerequisites and working their way up. My opinion is that a career in robotics is the most effective way of solving those prerequisites.

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

#210

Post by parenthephobia » Mon, Aug 29, 2016, 8:28 PM UTC

kamaal wrote: post #205

dsr_ wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"those who are net recipients... and those who are net contributors" We already have that in the US. For example, on a state-by-state basis: https://wallethub.com/edu/states-most-least-dependent-on-the... Every serious basic income article I've read addresses the question of who pays for it. The answer is, unsurprisingly, everyone who pays taxes.

>>The answer is, unsurprisingly, everyone who pays taxes. 1. Not every one would work to pay taxes, when there is a way to not work and still get paid. 2. Lesser the number of people who work lesser the pool of money to share among the remaining. 3. Those who still continue to work feel cheated all the time to be working and making up for everyone. While they push insane hours to make a living, punished all the time…

I'm not aware of any socialist economy collapsing simply due to mass underemployment. Most socialist ex-economies collapsed primarily due to the effects of the end of the cold war. They were generally already devastated by WW2. It is by no means certain that a capitalist economy would have fared any better.

Not that it necessarily matters, since most "socialist" economies didn't really have anything like a basic income. The closest was probably the USSR, where everyone was notionally guaranteed an income, but only because everyone was guaranteed a job, and voluntary long-term joblessness was illegal.

The fact of the matter is that there has never been a country-scale attempt at implementing a basic income. Nothing even resembling a basic income has been employed in a country that didn't also have its economy devastated by war - whether civil, cold, or world. The small-scale trials of basic income have had either neutral or positive outcomes.