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

251–260 of 492 posts

Re: Why we should all have a basic income

#251

Post by nabla9 »

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…

Of course not.

For most people that $1000 is taken away by taxation and UBI is income neutral for them.

>Giving money/help selectively to those who need it right now (and can prove it, i.e. no job but looking for one) is still better than UBI.

No, it's not. If you don't believe me read what Milton Friedman wrote about subject. Friedman suggested UBI or negative income tax because they would not distort markets the way welfare programs do.

Social welfare programs create incentive traps where people have marginal effective tax rates as high as 80-90%. You work and your welfare drops accordingly. Here in Finland marginal effective tax rate in some cases is higher than 100%.

Re: Why we should all have a basic income

#252

Post by jganetsk »

sokoloff wrote: post #225
jganetsk wrote: post #224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes but that's irrelevant. What will really happen is, as I said earlier, a combination of saving/investing, spending, and paying off debt. (Obviously, what else can you do with money?) Spending on basic needs is not the only option. They are not forced to do so. And don't underestimate just how much debt the American poor have, and how much they can benefit from relieving their debt.

Sorry. I must have mis-understood your argument about why prices would change. I thought you were positing that the recipients might spend all the UBI on retiring credit card debt, causing prices to not change. I thought that to be exceptionally unlikely. Upon re-reading, I still read your words that way.

I was just giving one scenario, though unlikely, in which consumer spending does not increase whatsoever. It is likely that a large fraction, maybe even a majority, of basic income would go to paying off debt rather than consumer spending.

Given that there is such a huge amount of personal debt out there, the poor have the freedom to allocate their basic income between spending and paying off debt for many years. And when prices go up for certain things, they might reallocate their income to other things.

Re: Why we should all have a basic income

#253

Post by nkurz »

edblarney wrote: post #161
nickthemagicman wrote: post #66

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…

"Capitalism is going away, no matter what, once we have massive unemployment due to automation" No. 1) The Industrial Revolution saw a considerably greater degree of automation than we are seeing now. 'Single Engines' replaced dozens of workers, some cases 100's. Think 'weaving machine' vs. 'individual weavers'. The 'automation' we have today is mostly 'soft' - do you think MS Word actually replaced 'Secretaries'? Or…

I feel that with UBI - my neighbourhood would fall flat - because everyone would quit their service jobs (or work a lot less)

Could you explain why you mean by "fall flat"? Do you mean that the businesses that currently employ the service workers would close because they would be unable to find anyone to work for them? It seems likely that they'd need to increase the wages paid for unrewarding positions, but that this might be offset by the greater number of locals who can afford to patronize them.

I live in Montreal, many of the people in my neighbourhood are 'artists' - photographers, actors - but really they all work full time in services.

'1 day work weeks' - I think would be the preferred mode of existence for vast numbers of the young people around here.

Presumably when you say "1 day work week", you do not include the time spent working on the projects personally important to these people? I view it as a strong positive that more young people would have more time to pursue their artistic interests, and presume they would do so. There may be negatives that should be carefully considered, but don't you see this as something we should strive for?

They would live a 'very low materialism' style of living, and be happy with it.

So more art gets created, the lifestyle is less materialic, and people are overall happier? And you are arguing against this idea? Would I be right to guess that you are not currently working a poorly paid job you hate in the service industry while trying to find time to pursue the art you love? I don't mean that last question as an actual attack, but I do wonder if your self-interest might be different than that of the majority of your neighbors.

Re: Why we should all have a basic income

#254

Post by ako »

Koshkin wrote: post #250
ako wrote: post #231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because there was a job for everyone. Government had to create a job for everyone. See: http://www.crf-usa.org/bill-of-rights-in-action/bria-19-1-a-... "In the workplace, almost everyone had a job. Wages,however, lagged far behind those in the Western democracies. A common joke was, "They pretend to pay us, and we pretend to work." But rents, goods, and services were far cheaper than in the West."

> job for everyone You are implying that this was dictated by political rather than economical reasons, but that may be not entirely correct. > we pretend to work This is true - for some workers. Thing is, the Western society in not and has never been different in this regard. And, some of the "job creation" policies could exacerbate the problem even more.

Yes, some jobs are the same here.

The main question is: do you create a job because there's some work to be done, or do you create a job because somebody needs a job?

Re: Why we should all have a basic income

#255

Post by kakeadw5481 »

dzink wrote: post #192

During Brexit, people in job-starved areas of UK were reported as resentful for receiving handouts. They wanted gainful employment and their dignity back. You could have corporations foot the bill for basic income and people with certain values would still not want it. The image of being a breadwinner is so deeply instilled in some people that for them not being that, triggers mid-life-crisis: a depression, sense of…

I would agree with you if the perception that UBI is equivalent of handouts, which UBI specifically isnt.

Think of it like this, if every citizen is getting money regardless of their employment status and that this is essentially a perk of being a citizen and paying your taxes, the negative stigma would not be there per se.

Eventually , people will start seeing this as an additional benefits similar to healthcare being provided by state.

One of the crucial points while introducing UBI would be education both of the populace being helped and the populace at large since you may not be able to introduce it through out the country at one go.

Re: Why we should all have a basic income

#256

Post by tunesmith »

I have such trouble with basic income discussions because it is such an ill-defined term it is basically meaningless. Like here in the US, UBI with social-security/medicare is a massively different thing than UBI instead of social-security/medicare. So massively different that it's just two completely different subjects, arguments, things.

They should just be named differently so we know what we're talking about - otherwise you have people agreeing they love it when the actually massively disagree, or other people saying they hate it on grounds other than what was suggested.

Re: Why we should all have a basic income

#257

Post by brianwawok »

edblarney wrote: post #161
nickthemagicman wrote: post #66

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…

"Capitalism is going away, no matter what, once we have massive unemployment due to automation" No. 1) The Industrial Revolution saw a considerably greater degree of automation than we are seeing now. 'Single Engines' replaced dozens of workers, some cases 100's. Think 'weaving machine' vs. 'individual weavers'. The 'automation' we have today is mostly 'soft' - do you think MS Word actually replaced 'Secretaries'? Or…

So what would happen if all the artists quit their coffee shop jobs?

1) coffee shop pay would go up in the short term. Perhaps some artists would come back for $20 an hour. Perhaps some stay at home moms would start working as the pay could justify childcare.

2) some coffee shops would turn into robot booths. Put in money get out coffee. There is very little technical need for humans in a coffee shop. Maybe 1 person to keep people behaving well and prevent someone from pooping on the table. 0 reason a human needs to pour coffee in a cup or wash dishes or sweep the floor.

Seems not a bad outcome. I doubt that many people find meaning in pouring coffee. I think it would be a net gain to all.

Re: Why we should all have a basic income

#258

Post by jganetsk »

sokoloff wrote: post #200
jganetsk wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Claims are misleading, wrong, and unsupported. > Demand for goods increases. Citation needed. Demand for some goods will possibly decrease: like payday loans or bankruptcy law. Demand for luxury goods won't change at all: yachts, private jets. But even the demand for Big Macs probably won't change all that much. Apply the same exercise to a bunch of other sundry cases: buying a house, life-saving medication, buying a…

> Demand for luxury goods won't change at all: yachts, private jets. Are you sure about that? Who will be bearing the tax burden to pay for UBI? Are not those the people who are currently buying yachts and private jets? Business jet usage may decline as well as a substantial part of that usage is to generate income and growth for their businesses. With higher taxes, there is less incentive to risk money to grow your…

It is unlikely that the kind of income tax increase suggested in the article will have a material impact on the extremely wealthy.

But that's beside the point. I was trying to answer the claim that "demand for goods will only go up" with examples of goods where demand stays the same or goes down. So whether demand for luxury goods stays the same or goes down, you are only reinforcing my point.

Re: Why we should all have a basic income

#259

Post by jganetsk »

DougN7 wrote: post #244
jganetsk wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here's another simple example. Let's assume that basic income will cause net income to go up for the poor (otherwise, what's the point?) But let's also assume that prices on certain goods will go up (a totally reasonable assumption). Then let's measure wealth in terms of "Big Macs". As in, how many Big Macs can you buy in one year? If basic income causes this number to go up for you... then you've benefitted from bas…

With that thinking, the government should just turn on the printing presses and hand money out. People who had zero now have non-zero. Surely Big Macs can't go to $12,000, right?

You haven't read the article. Printing presses are not in consideration here. The whole point was that basic income is redistributive: basic income is financed by income tax.

Re: Why we should all have a basic income

#260

Post by vixen99 »

nickthemagicman wrote: post #49
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…

You're right about the wealth producers! We need a 100% inheritance tax! That way the wealth isn't going to people who didn't produce it! Then you redistribute that money to schools and training programs and small businesses to give opportunities to anyone to become a wealth producer! This improves the entire human race and not just the rich trust fund babies who haven't produced anything in their lives. I'm totally…

Presumably the 100% inheritance tax includes all assets including property. This is a recipe for violent revolution with a dystopian outcome as history tells us.
Post reply on HN