Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Enough with Basic Income

salon.thefamily.co

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 214 posts

Re: Enough with Basic Income

#181

Post by SmellTheGlove »

Nicolas_Colin wrote: post #96
SmellTheGlove wrote: post #2

There are some good points in here. However, what I think the author misses is that we are within reach of a post-scarcity economy, at which point all of those historical economic references go out the window (since nearly all economic theory assumes scarcity). That possibility makes a UBI experiment very worthwhile to me. I don't think we're there today or anything like that, but it may be within our lifetimes that…

I wrote the article. Thank you for your response. I don't think post-scarcity will eat the entire economy anytime soon. In particular, I think that it will still be unaffordable to access proper medical care, child care, and housing. And I don't see how UBI solves that. Hence there are more pressing problems, like deploying a sustainable universal health insurance in the US (either public option or single payer) and…

> I wrote the article. Thank you for your response. I don't think post-scarcity will eat the entire economy anytime soon. In particular, I think that it will still be unaffordable to access proper medical care, child care, and housing. And I don't see how UBI solves that.

From a US-centric perspective, those things are true. But the rest of the industrialized world has largely solved access to medical care (even if they are still working on timeliness in some respects). Child care has been solved in parts of the world through a combo of subsidy and parental leave - you can look at parts of Canada and Northern Europe for some models. Housing is tricky - areas are expensive because they're either on the coasts or near major economic hubs. In a post-scarcity economy, there will still be upward pressure on the former, but the latter eases quite a bit. We'll see it sooner than this, though, as tech starts to go more and more remote, and production processes become more and more automated. Not tomorrow, but optimistically, within my childrens' lifetimes.

> Hence there are more pressing problems, like deploying a sustainable universal health insurance in the US (either public option or single payer) and reflecting on how we could make housing more affordable so that middle class and working class people can live where the jobs are located.

I agree with both of these. Both of these problems have some political solutions, though. They're not technical impossibilities.

Re: Enough with Basic Income

#182

Post by Nicolas_Colin »

anexprogrammer wrote: post #25

Fascinating that he picks Blair's Fabian speech as an example of the NHS being a thorn in government's side. I didn't vote for Blair, or support many of his policies, but his governance utterly transformed the NHS for the better. It was adequately funded for the first time in a couple of decades, at the time of this speech, and they were now searching for ways to measurably improve care, especially in comparatively n…

I agree as for what Blair did for the NHS, but it was precisely his way to deal with the NHS being a thorn in the side.

What's interesting is the underlying philosophy: instead of providing citizens with money, the New Labour tried to rebuild the best system possible for rich and poor alike. A UBI is unable to achieve that goal in healthcare.

As for the French example: I agree it isn't the theoretical concept of basic income (and thought I wrote so). Rather my point is that this is how basic income would end up after 1 or 2 electoral rounds.

Re: Enough with Basic Income

#183

Post by Nicolas_Colin »

tmvphil wrote: post #41

This article concludes by saying the best form of state intervention is "universal [healthcare] coverage". Why not both? It is only a very small far-right minority of basic income advocates who advocate eliminating the state's role in healthcare. If the argument is simply that enacting basic income will drain the political will to defend or enhance other needed government programs, then it's not so much an argument a…

I wrote the article, whose point is precisely that: what I called "bullshit" is the endless "problem-solution" conversation around basic income which, in my eyes, ignores politics as well as history and drains the political will to fight on other fronts, such as universal health insurance in the US (or affordable housing).

Re: Enough with Basic Income

#184

Post by Nicolas_Colin »

SubiculumCode wrote: post #167
Nicolas_Colin wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's true, but those two arguments exist only on paper. In practice, my guess is that it wouldn't be long before UBI is converted a means-tested benefit, for both financial and political reasons. As for advantage number 2, yes you're not told how to spend that income but chances are that income is far from enough to pay for proper healthcare / childcare / elderly care or well-located housing. The history of the socia…

Means testing is how you would LOSE political support. There has not been UBI so history tells you little. By supplement the market you mean

"Means testing is how you would LOSE political support" => yes you're right. And this is the reason why those (the Republican Party for instance) who are opposed to social policy out of principle invest a lot in transforming universal benefits into means-tested benefits.

We saw that happen in many cases in the recent period of austerity, because scarcity of resources is a powerful argument to convince the rich, then the middle class, to renounce their benefits in favor of the poor.

As for "there has not been UBI" I disagree. Many supporters provide examples such as the Alaska dividend. There are many lessons to be drawn from many social policies in developed countries.

In France alone we had two BI-like programs which, for various reasons, underwent slow financial and political destruction: - the RMI/RSA, about which I wrote in the article - less known is the "régime des intermittents du spectacle", which works like a universal unemployment insurance for freelancers in the entertainment industry (and it costs so much money to the taxpayer that governments regularly try to kill it). It only survives because the entertainment industry is a powerful lobby in France.

Re: Enough with Basic Income

#185

Post by k-mcgrady »

aminok wrote: post #154
k-mcgrady wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Interesting. >> "replace all taxes with user fees for use of government services and assets (like roads)" I'm guessing with this we would also have to drastically reduce the number of services the government is providing? For example there will be certain services that they few people use but cost a lot to provide so if we aren't all contributing they can't continue to offer them. As for a split rate tax I hadn't hea…

Yes, moving to the tax system as proposed would require a massive reduction in government spending. >However I don't understand how you can think tax on trade is authoritarian yet other tax forms aren't. Land, and to a lesser extent the property that's built on it, can more justifiably be taxed, because an individual has less of a natural right of ownership over it. This is due to land being a natural resource, that…

Thanks for taking the time to explain your thinking on this.

Re: Enough with Basic Income

#186

Post by makomk »

WheelsAtLarge wrote: post #113
SmellTheGlove wrote: post #2

There are some good points in here. However, what I think the author misses is that we are within reach of a post-scarcity economy, at which point all of those historical economic references go out the window (since nearly all economic theory assumes scarcity). That possibility makes a UBI experiment very worthwhile to me. I don't think we're there today or anything like that, but it may be within our lifetimes that…

Post-scarcity while a nice idea is something that will never be reached. All we have to do is look a Maslow's hierarchy of needs( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maslow%27s_hierarchy_of_needs ) there are no absolutes there only relatives. You can never fulfill relative needs for all. Here's a very simple example. We can make a very strong argument that we've reached a very high mark on safety. We live in a society that…

In some sense, the Internet is a basic need because it acts as a more efficient way of filling people's other needs than what preceded it: the need for social interaction, for entertainment, the need to learn more about the world...

Re: Enough with Basic Income

#187

Post by makomk »

at-fates-hands wrote: post #33
newjersey wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You have to fill in many papers, prove that you don’t have sufficient income or any valuable property, go through many humiliating and intrusive controls. If you want to earn (a small amount of) money without working, then you must endure it all. In most cases it is necessary to seek the help of a social worker to carry out the procedure in its entirety. This is exactly the reason I want basic income. I want nobody…

>> It is not like we can't afford it. Have you looked at the US Economy lately? (Jan 2016) Why 2016 keeps getting uglier for US economy - http://www.cnbc.com/2016/01/29/why-2016-keeps-getting-uglier... (April 2016) Americans' confidence in economy at 2016 low - http://money.cnn.com/2016/04/28/news/economy/us-economic-con... (June 2016) The next recession is already here—and there isn't much the Fed can do - http://ww…

The US economy is certainly looking pretty dire, but it's not for a lack of resources: there's enough food, land, etc to support everyone. That's probably part of the problem. The economy is founded on an expectation of growth forever and there's nowhere left to grow within the US. The current output is likely enough to supply everyone with all the food, water and consumer gadgets they care to consume.

Re: Enough with Basic Income

#188

Post by xapata »

xapata wrote: post #127
rayiner wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Libertarians intersect with liberals only on a handful of social issues: gay marriage, drugs, and abortion. Most of the social issues near-and-dear to the left are not compatible with libertarianism. There is nothing libertarian about the Civil Rights Act of 1964--which curtailed peoples' freedom to serve which customers they chose to serve or hire which employees they chose to hire. There is nothing libertarian abou…

Depends on what your definition of "liberty" is and how you balance different kinds.

I guess the downvoters are saying there's only one obvious way.

Re: Enough with Basic Income

#189

Post by Double_Cast »

Nicolas_Colin wrote: post #179
Double_Cast wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you not see how this argument is symmetric though? It's like when Alice says to Bob "Your vote for the green party was wasted, it could have gone towards the democratic party". Sure it could have. But was Alice's vote not also wasted, when her vote could have gone towards the green party? What prevents all the dems from voting green? "Momentum; i.e. the green party's candidacy is far less realistic" says Alice. "T…

Maybe in the future you can vote for a party with which you are not perfectly aligned, then weigh on it while it exerts power to bring it closer to your views? I happen to think it's the greatest challenge to be tackled by civic tech startups... See this older story https://salon.thefamily.co/software-eating-politics-the-case...

Voters' power over a coalition varies directly with the voters' volatility. If I pledge my vote to the democrats, that gives them confidence to do what they want. Which means they'll be less likely to incorporate ideas from the greens. But I digress. My point is that I have a knee jerk reaction to arguments of the type "dems deserve your green votes".

So you believe UHC is better than UBI. All good. But to end the debate on UBI because it subtracts from a related discussion is ridiculous. I read the link, and I recognize that political campaigns require large expenditures. I also believe the market place of ideas can accomidate both discussions.

By calling UBI a "distraction", you are implying it'd be more convenient if the UBI discussion didn't exist because it's more convenient than letting the UBI and UHC compete on a their merits. It signals that it is inconceivable to you that UBI might in fact be the better idea, and that you'd bet the farm on UHC's superiority.

Sam Altman: "Let's perform a UBI experiment and see how it goes."

Nicolas Colins: "I'm a historian. I already know the outcome. The experiment is a waste of time and money."

Okay bud.

Re: Enough with Basic Income

#190

Post by aminok »

k-mcgrady wrote: post #185
aminok wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, moving to the tax system as proposed would require a massive reduction in government spending. >However I don't understand how you can think tax on trade is authoritarian yet other tax forms aren't. Land, and to a lesser extent the property that's built on it, can more justifiably be taxed, because an individual has less of a natural right of ownership over it. This is due to land being a natural resource, that…

Thanks for taking the time to explain your thinking on this.

You're most welcome.
Post reply on HN