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

61–70 of 492 posts

Re: Why we should all have a basic income

#61

Post by bostonpete »

prodmerc wrote: post #34
bostonpete wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A UBI would end up selectively helping those who need it and not putting money in the pocket of those who don't (in general). The UBI would have to be paid by taxes -- more than $1000 per month would come from those who are well off and less than $1000 per month would come from those in need. Your theory that the cost of food would go up if people had more money is out of whack.

I mean Universal Basic Income , the system that people rave about where everyone gets this magical problem solving basic income.

Yes -- universal basic income would be paid by taxes.

Re: Why we should all have a basic income

#62

Post by nickthemagicman »

ragebol wrote: post #38
omilu wrote: post #30

Here is the same author in 2014 attempting to explain how basic income won't lead to massive inflation: https://medium.com/basic-income/wouldnt-unconditional-basic-... >>> It would not be new money, just money shifted from one location to another. This means that the value of each dollar has not changed. The dollar itself has only changed hands.* There is no sure fire way to reduce the value of a dollar then to redis…

But what happens when work it mostly worthless, because it's all automated?

Exactly this.

Re: Why we should all have a basic income

#63

Post by Deregibus »

jarym wrote: post #54

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 l…

>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.

It's not "funny", it's the core part of basic income that separates it from state-run socialism. Not making a determination about what is or isn't basic is one of the key points. You give a person their $500 each month and let them determine what it should be spent on. What is basic for one person may not be for another.

Re: Why we should all have a basic income

#64

Post by nickthemagicman »

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…

Why would the prices change? The demand hasn't changed? The supply hasn't changed?

People are still buying the same basic things they did before.

The money is simply shifted around from the rich to the poor?

Re: Why we should all have a basic income

#65

Post by ramshorns »

tomp wrote: post #51
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?

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 sha…

(3) and (4) would be nice, but (2) can happen with an oligopoly as well as with a monopoly. Working machines are already owned or controlled by a small number of companies.

Re: Why we should all have a basic income

#66

Post by nickthemagicman »

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.

Re: Why we should all have a basic income

#67

Post by boomboomsubban »

tomp wrote: post #50
jganetsk wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I'm not sure if you're purposefully ignoring the main issues with UBI, but in case you're not: the most important stuff (things like food, rent, clothing, energy, medicine, basic services) will have more demand (from all the people who can't afford these right now), and less supply (because a lot of these are done with low-paid labour - definitely clothing, food and basic services, along with things like garbage coll…

So if the supply of low paid labor drops, and the demand rises, the value of low paid labor increases. The reason those jobs have been filled with low paid labor is the workers had no other choice.

In this situation they'd end up well rewarded for their work, and those workers with more spending power has traditionally been great for the economy.

Lot's of things have completely changed how society works, why shouldn't society change?

Re: Why we should all have a basic income

#68

Post by jganetsk »

DougN7 wrote: post #58
jganetsk wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Very little of what you said is reality.

> They, and everyone else, receive $12k per year.

You didn't read the article. The only people who receive net $12k per year are those who have zero income. Everyone else receives net > The poor (and those just above them on the economic ladder) will spend all of that on basic needs: food, housing, clothing, transportation.

Incorrect. Who are you to dictate to people how to spend that money? "All" is not the amount they will spend, and "basic needs" is not the only thing they will spend it on. They will save some of it. And they will spend some (maybe close to all) of that money on paying off debt. There is $747 billion in credit card debt, $1.14 trillion in auto loans, and $1.28 trillion in student loads. And some of it will go to everything else: alcohol, video games, travel, etc.

And by the way, how many Big Macs do you think people want to buy? How many houses do you think they want to buy? How many trips do you think they want to take?

> That's $12 Billion more now competing for a fixed amount of goods.

Definitely not $12 Billion, as I have demonstrated above. And there is no such thing as a "fixed amount of goods" in economics.

Of course prices will change. But they will change in healthy ways. The idea that there's some sort of feedback loop present here that causes basic income to cancel out its own effects is completely unfounded.

Re: Why we should all have a basic income

#70

Post by jganetsk »

Qantourisc wrote: post #57
jganetsk wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

What's the difference, from an economic standpoint? The original poster is saying that some people want cheese and other people need cheese, therefore the people who need cheese will not get what they don't need?

There's something absurd in this argument. No one's going to double their cheese consumption, just because they got money "they don't need", and no one is going to starve because the price of cheese went up.

But also, whatever problem we think we are debating here, it exists with or without basic income.

Post reply on HN