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

191–200 of 214 posts

Re: Enough with Basic Income

#191

Post by Nicolas_Colin »

Double_Cast wrote: post #189
Nicolas_Colin wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 de…

Well, yes, that's my position:

- there have been a lot of large-scale BI policy experiments in the past in many countries, and none turned out so well on the long term. Yes it's true that technology changes many things, but I think it should be exploited primarily to improve existing benefits (considering the criticality of healthcare and housing, two major factors of both economic insecurity and inequalities);

- I think a healthcare single-payer or public option experiment would be more impactful, because this is what is currently at stake in Congress, the Supreme Court and the coming presidential election + it's important to win many small victories in the present rather than a hypothetical large one in a distant future (any union leader would agree). Finish the job on healthcare, and you'll discover that it becomes easier to advance the cause of UBI.

I guess you're more of a communist and I'm more of a social-traitor ;-)

Re: Enough with Basic Income

#192

Post by jpindar »

andrenth wrote: post #173
jpindar wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not how basic income is supposed to work. The person who worked would get $1000 basic income PLUS their $1200 wages = $2400. Sure, above a certain level people's taxes would go up, so they pay back some of their basic income as tax. But that wouldn't kick in until people are earning rather more than $1200 a month.

Ignoring the magical thinking aspect of this (where will this money come from), this assumes that people will still want to work after receiving basic income. This also has the inflationary consequences that I mentioned in another comment: you're effectively increasing wages without increasing productivity. This will cause prices to rise because employers will face higher taxes so that the state can support basic inc…

Do you really think most people would prefer being poor to working and thus not being poor? Look at all the lengths people will go to to get money. Most people really, really, really like having money, and that doesn't stop just because they get a little bit of it.

Sure, some people won't work. But most of those would be people who either would have a hard time finding work, or who have some specific other thing they'd rather be doing.

Re: Enough with Basic Income

#193

Post by Nicolas_Colin »

arielb1 wrote: post #162
Nicolas_Colin wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I sincerely regret that the US is currently missing critical opportunities such as that to deploy a state-of-the-art universal health insurance, while most of the energy of those who could support that effort is dedicated to discussing basic income. Also I point out that real-life enactments such as the French RMI, even though they succeeded at providing critical resources to those in need, are under extraordinary fi…

Universal healthcare is probably a good idea. And while it is a form of basic income, it feels fairly orthogonal to it politically. I'm not really sure why an "old age and unemployment" security net is intrinsically more politically stable than a "basic income" social security net. You need some deal of political cleverness to implement both.

They're more stable because the rich, while paying more, also receive more. The pension amount is proportional to past professional income, as is that of unemployment benefits. Therefore old age and unemployment social insurances are not that redistributive, so the rich like and support them because they don't see it as "the rich pay for the poor".

Re: Enough with Basic Income

#194

Post by throwaway2016a »

rayiner wrote: post #95
throwaway2016a wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I found your comment constructive and I don't want to start an off-topic debate, just open something up to private contemplation. You, of course, have a right to your own opinion. Many (all?) libertarians lean left on a great many social issue and consider the social part of libertarianism as important if not more important than the right leaning economic part. I think the term "libertarian right" while not an incorr…

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…

"There is nothing libertarian about EPA and OSHA" is not 100% accurate. Care should be used when saying "nothing"

Many (not all, maybe not even most, but definitely a good amount) libertarians are environmentalist and see the EPA as a valuable tool to ensure that people's rights are violated.

However, in general the cause is the same but the approach is different. For example, just of those two causes should be handled by the courts (as a libertarian sees it at least) rather than through regulatory agencies.

To rephrase, Libertarian's generally agree people should be safe at work. They just disagree with the top down approach to solving that issue.

Re: Enough with Basic Income

#195

Post by throwaway2016a »

jnbiche wrote: post #88
throwaway2016a wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I found your comment constructive and I don't want to start an off-topic debate, just open something up to private contemplation. You, of course, have a right to your own opinion. Many (all?) libertarians lean left on a great many social issue and consider the social part of libertarianism as important if not more important than the right leaning economic part. I think the term "libertarian right" while not an incorr…

This is fair comment. I'm also a libertarian and wouldn't really consider myself to be "right". I suppose most Americans would consider me to be left on social issues and somewhat right on economic issues. On the other hand, in my experience, libertarians are pretty far from being liberals, and even farther from being typical Democrats. Personally, I share even less with typical Democrats than with typical (non-Trump…

> On the other hand, in my experience, libertarians are pretty far from being liberals, and even farther from being typical Democrats.

To be fair I think "The Libertarian Left" would also be miss-leading. We defy the left and right labels :)

Re: Enough with Basic Income

#196

Post by rayiner »

throwaway2016a wrote: post #194
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…

"There is nothing libertarian about EPA and OSHA" is not 100% accurate. Care should be used when saying "nothing" Many (not all, maybe not even most, but definitely a good amount) libertarians are environmentalist and see the EPA as a valuable tool to ensure that people's rights are violated. However, in general the cause is the same but the approach is different. For example, just of those two causes should be handl…

> Many (not all, maybe not even most, but definitely a good amount) libertarians are environmentalist and see the EPA as a valuable tool to ensure that people's rights are violated.

In certain narrow situations where there is an identifiable property right at issue (e.g. dumping waste on private land). But there aren't a lot of libertarian theorists espousing a general "right" to untouched wilderness, preserving endangered species, or having clean rivers.

> To rephrase, Libertarian's generally agree people should be safe at work.

Libertarians generally believe that the level of safety in the workplace should be set by the market, rather than by a regulatory agency. I.e. if a workplace is known for being unsafe, it won't be able to hire employees (or will have to pay a premium for employees to take on the extra risk). Liberals in contrast believe that the government should impose a safety floor on all workplaces, irrespective of the market.

Re: Enough with Basic Income

#197

Post by andrenth »

jpindar wrote: post #192
andrenth wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ignoring the magical thinking aspect of this (where will this money come from), this assumes that people will still want to work after receiving basic income. This also has the inflationary consequences that I mentioned in another comment: you're effectively increasing wages without increasing productivity. This will cause prices to rise because employers will face higher taxes so that the state can support basic inc…

Do you really think most people would prefer being poor to working and thus not being poor? Look at all the lengths people will go to to get money. Most people really, really, really like having money, and that doesn't stop just because they get a little bit of it. Sure, some people won't work. But most of those would be people who either would have a hard time finding work, or who have some specific other thing they…

Some people are not going to extra lengths to get more money now. Those people might be happy with their current income, however low it is. These people will prefer to stop working.

You are also confusing money with wealth. Basic income may give people more of the first, but its inflationary nature does nothing for the second.

Re: Enough with Basic Income

#198

Post by Double_Cast »

Nicolas_Colin wrote: post #191
Double_Cast wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 de…

Well, yes, that's my position: - there have been a lot of large-scale BI policy experiments in the past in many countries, and none turned out so well on the long term. Yes it's true that technology changes many things, but I think it should be exploited primarily to improve existing benefits (considering the criticality of healthcare and housing, two major factors of both economic insecurity and inequalities); - I t…

> Finish the job on healthcare, and you'll discover that it becomes easier to advance the cause of UBI.

This suggests you believe UHC is a useful stepping stone to UBI. Is this actually your opinion? Because it doesn't reflect the vibe I got in your article. If I understand your article correctly, you believe

A) UBI is inherently fragile.

B) Conservative lobbyists will cause UBI to decay into something ugly.

C) UHC is more resilient.

D) Therefore UHC is better.

E) And France proves it.

But your comments upthread suggest you believe UHC is superior because it's easier to implement given its comfortable position within the Overton-Window. The Overton-Window Argument says it may become feasible in the future, while the Fragility Argument says it will never become feasible.

Frankly, I suspect the article is a Motte & Bailey. Maybe your real issue with UBI is that it will take too long to campaign for. I.e. you want your marshmallow sooner rather than later. Which is reasonable. But understand that it's another discussion entirely and was not clear to me from the article.

The more charitable interpretation is that you believe UBI's fragility is due to its immaturity. And that UHC will grant us experience. Okay. But if so, this was not clear to me from your article. And it would contradict your position that UBI experiments are a waste.

Re: Enough with Basic Income

#199

Post by Nicolas_Colin »

Double_Cast wrote: post #198
Nicolas_Colin wrote: post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, yes, that's my position: - there have been a lot of large-scale BI policy experiments in the past in many countries, and none turned out so well on the long term. Yes it's true that technology changes many things, but I think it should be exploited primarily to improve existing benefits (considering the criticality of healthcare and housing, two major factors of both economic insecurity and inequalities); - I t…

> Finish the job on healthcare, and you'll discover that it becomes easier to advance the cause of UBI. This suggests you believe UHC is a useful stepping stone to UBI. Is this actually your opinion? Because it doesn't reflect the vibe I got in your article. If I understand your article correctly, you believe A) UBI is inherently fragile. B) Conservative lobbyists will cause UBI to decay into something ugly. C) UHC i…

I meant it as a conciliatory opening...

What I meant is that if you care for economic security and lesser inequalities, then you have to fight for the whole liberal agenda (improving the coverage of all risks), not just one issue, otherwise the bad guys win this time, and the next, and the next.

I you think UBI's worth fighting (I don't), your only chance to succeed is in the context of advancing that liberal agenda in its entirety over the long term.

And right now, with Obama's legacy and Trump on the verge of winning, the main social front is social health insurance. Sadly I don't hear many tech people on that issue (for hypothetical reasons laid out in the article) and I reckon the whole UBI discussion has a responsibility in that deafening silence.

Re: Enough with Basic Income

#200

Post by nicky0 »

andrenth wrote: post #141
kmkemp wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

UBI doesn't disincentivize work. If I told you that I would give you $10k/year unconditionally, would you quit your day job? What if you were currently unemployed, would you stop looking for a job? There is no reason to as my payment to you doesn't depend on if you get a job or not.

If you give everyone $1000 a month (to round the numbers) now the work of someone who makes $1200 a month is only worth $200 (as one can make $1000 just by idling). Would this person want to work for $200 a month? This is a major disincentive of work.

UBI should be paid irrespective of other income. So that person earns 1200 and finishes the month with 2200.
Post reply on HN