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

Why we should all have a basic income

weforum.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 492 posts

Re: Why we should all have a basic income

#51

Post by tomp »

Tepix wrote: post #5
omilu wrote: post #2

>>>Basic income guarantees you a monthly starting salary above the poverty line for the rest of your life If the poverty line stayed constant, basic income is a no-brainer. But basic income makes the cost of goods rise. Demand for goods increases, but supply diminishes. Nobody will do the crap jobs without higher pay, raising the price of everything. Basic income is impossible.

What about machines doing most of the jobs so there are only a few jobs left? The value the machines generate would be enough to generate the basic income. Why is it impossible?

When robots can produce most of the necessary life goods (food, energy, clothing and other manufacturing, medicine), one of the following will happen: (1) robots will be more expensive than humans, and nothing will change (unlikely), (2) there will be a monopoly on robot labour, resulting in an increase of inequality and eventually war (semi-likely), (3) there will be a competition on robot labour, resulting in a sharp fall of prices for basic goods (likely), (4) governments buying (some) robot labour and offering the goods to citizens for free (likely).

Re: Why we should all have a basic income

#52

Post by nickthemagicman »

cocoa19 wrote: post #16
Tepix wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What about machines doing most of the jobs so there are only a few jobs left? The value the machines generate would be enough to generate the basic income. Why is it impossible?

It's difficult with a free market. If income goes up for everyone, people can spend more on basic necessities. Robot owners will make prices higher to maximize profit. A few solutions: 1)Have the government set prices for basic necessities. 2)The government owns companies that produce basic necessities. 3)Replace capitalism. All the solutions above have its drawbacks.

Capitalism is going away, no matter what, once we have massive unemployment due to automation.

You think people are just going to accept starvation? Shit will get real, real fast.

And most people aren't as articulate or reasonable as the people on this site.

There will be massive violence.

A better way to look at UBI is that it's not about giving poor people money. Its about keeping the fabric of society together and preventing revolutions once automation hits fully.

Re: Why we should all have a basic income

#53

Post by Qantourisc »

omilu wrote: post #2

>>>Basic income guarantees you a monthly starting salary above the poverty line for the rest of your life If the poverty line stayed constant, basic income is a no-brainer. But basic income makes the cost of goods rise. Demand for goods increases, but supply diminishes. Nobody will do the crap jobs without higher pay, raising the price of everything. Basic income is impossible.

Many civilized countries have some form of basic income, but not directly. As soon as we are supporting people, rent, food, we are providing some sort of basic income. An income that is probably to low, which they can get away with because it's not expressed in €.

Re: Why we should all have a basic income

#54

Post by jarym »

Funny how all the proponents of a Universal 'Basic' Income aren't proposing instead to make every 'Basic' item 'Free'.

After all, if you believe their rhetoric, giving someone $500/mo should be the same as giving them free bread, eggs, milk, some clothes and some movie tickets.

I wonder why... Maybe, the reality is that over time our 'Basic' needs increase. In certain parts of the world shoes are still considered a luxury whereas in others, Nikes and Adidas are considered 'basic'. 50 years ago car ownership was a luxury even in most 'developed' nations, as were televisions. Now they're considered 'Basic'.

The reality is, the people touting UBI as a way forward suffer from having a thoroughly static and isolated view of the world. They fail to see that value creation is what's important, and drives society to further itself. As value creation goes up, the definition of 'basic' increases with it. I'm not for a minute advocating that the current system is anywhere near perfect - the wealthiest in our population are questionable value creators while at the same time there are value creators scraping by in the world so the way we reward people needs a rethink.

I don't profess to know how to solve the poverty crisis and I very much want it to be solved as a citizen of the world. What I do know is that the only way to do it will involve reforming education so that future generations are inspired to advance humankind and create value in the process.

Re: Why we should all have a basic income

#56

Post by tomp »

bryanlarsen wrote: post #43
prodmerc wrote: post #15

If everyone gets $1000 every month guaranteed for "basic needs", the prices for those basic needs will increase accordingly. And independently. So you'll end up spending that $1k on either housing, bills or food. So you will still need a job if you want all three of those things, not sit around and contemplate what you should do with your life. It's sort of like how the ACA raised the overall price of insurance. Givi…

1) Americans currently consume (not necessarily eat) 3800 kcals/day of food without basic income. Are you saying that basic income will make that number go up? 2) The American housing market is very messed up and far from a free market, so any prediction up or down is very difficult. I predict that Basic Income will cause a bunch of people to move from high cost cities like NYC & SF into low cost areas so that they c…

> inflation is always a monetary phenomenon

I don't understand this reasoning. Look, only one of the following can be true: (1) everyone can buy basic necessities of life, in which case nobody is poor and we don't need UBI, or (2) not everyone can buy the basic necessities of life. If (2) is true and we introduce UBI, then there will be more demand for the basic necessities of life (coming from all the people who were unable to afford them before), which will in itself result in inflation (which, btw, doesn't measure the total supply of money, but overweights the basic necessities of life and underweights e.g. the stock market). If you combine that with the decreased motivation of people to work (resulting in lower supply), the resulting inflation will be massive.

Re: Why we should all have a basic income

#57

Post by Qantourisc »

jganetsk wrote: post #48
srssays wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Everybody understands that UBI is a solution to meeting "basic" needs, the contentious part is the "universal". I don't need basic income. If I received free money that I don't need, I might decide to double my cheese consumption. If many people like me do this, then the price of cheese will go up, hurting poor people.

What is the difference between money "you don't need" and money you do need? If, instead of receiving basic income, you received a pay raise, is that money you do or don't need? Money "you don't need" is an economic absurdity. The only people who double their cheese consumption are people who really like cheese. And if basic income helps you and others truly express their passion for cheese, more power to you. Poor p…

Simply put: I _want_ a new car but I _need_ to eat.

Re: Why we should all have a basic income

#58

Post by DougN7 »

jganetsk wrote: post #41
DougN7 wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

More people buying stuff increases demand - econ 101. If more people aren't buying stuff, why bother giving them the money? Of course prices will rise. The only way this isn't equivalent to the government printing money is the money comes out some rich people/company's savings accounts where it wasn't being spent anyway.

It seems like you read neither my post nor the article itself. The article was proposing redistribution of income, so it's definitely NOT equivalent to the government printing money. And in my post, I listed several cases of stuff people will buy less of and other stuff people will not buy more of in a basic income society.

Yes, the price of yachts won't increase, but who cares?

Do a simple thought experiment. Imagine there are 1 million poor. They, and everyone else, receive $12K per year. The poor (and those just above them on the economic ladder) will spend all of that on basic needs: food, housing, clothing, transportation. That's $12 Billion more now competing for a fixed amount of goods. What would any company/retailer/landlord do if they immediately sold out of everything they had? They'd raise prices until supply and demand were in equilibrium again. And thus the very things the poor need are the things the prices will increase the most, by virtue of them competing to purchase those items.

I'm not saying it's fair or right. But it is reality.

Re: Why we should all have a basic income

#59

Post by DougN7 »

jbmorgado wrote: post #31
DougN7 wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

More people buying stuff increases demand - econ 101. If more people aren't buying stuff, why bother giving them the money? Of course prices will rise. The only way this isn't equivalent to the government printing money is the money comes out some rich people/company's savings accounts where it wasn't being spent anyway.

We are taking about "basic" needs here. All your argument then must imply that UBI or NOT UBI, "basic needs" must be denied to part of the population or else they get too expensive. And as almost all will agree, that's not only logically wrong, it's also morally wrong.

If I had a magic wand and could give everyone everything, I'd do it.

But my wishes don't overcome basic supply and demand. Unless there's a lot more goods suddenly being produced, prices will rise if more people want them and can pay for them, which will tend to cancel the benefits of UBI.

Re: Why we should all have a basic income

#60

Post by ramshorns »

programmarchy wrote: post #23

UBI is attempting to cloak itself in free market rhetoric, but it's bullshit. Yes it may "incentivize" some individuals to work, but only by disincentivizing others. It takes money from top wealth producers, discouraging their labor, and gives it to people who aren't producing as much wealth, effectively subsidizing unproductive work. This will make everyone poorer in the long run. The struggling artist meme is an ap…

What are the better ways to address the perverse incentives that trap people in poverty?

Also, do you think the current distribution of incomes is proportional to how much wealth is produced? Does an executive who makes a hundred times as much as a skilled worker work a hundred times harder, or produce a hundred times as much value for people, in some measurable way?

Post reply on HN