Live data from Hacker News

Why we should all have a basic income

weforum.org

321–330 of 492 posts

Re: Why we should all have a basic income

#321
When I was 3 years old, my dad bought a brand new house in a brand new suburb. It was 3 bedrooms, 1.5 baths, etc. For its era, it was a very solidly middle class or upper middle class house and he had 3/4 of the price of the house in the bank. The house cost $16k. He had $12k in the bank. It was a LOT of money when I was 3 years old. It is not a lot of money today.

A $1000/month sounds like a lot now. But the minute you issue UBI, it will spur inflation and the value of that $1000 will immediately be less than it is now. This is a problem faced by every single welfare or aid program the world over: It takes no time for whatever figures you came up with to be out of date and for your program to not be accomplishing its intended goals.

I have written about this before (for example: http://micheleincalifornia.blogspot.com/2015/09/it-was-obsol...) and I expect to write about this more. The UBI is a bad solution to the problem. We have faced this problem before in the form of the Industrial Revolution and we invented the 40 hour work week. It helped distribute work more fairly. We need similar solutions today. Turning most people into sheeple and charity cases merely because they are not rich is a terrible, terrible idea.

Re: Why we should all have a basic income

#322
post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"UBI is attempting to cloak itself in free market rhetoric, but it's bullshit." I'm not a fan of UBI - but it's not 'bullshit' in the manner it's presented. UBI is really a 'negative income tax' - and it was first proposed by 'Milton Freeman' - a super-duper free market capitalist. If you take progressive taxation, then make the lower ends negative - you have UBI. The concept came from economists - not socialists. Bu…

Milton *Friedman

Whoops. Yes. Of course.

'Milton Freeman' would be 'God's Voice of Economics' :) :)

Re: Why we should all have a basic income

#323
If I had basic income, I would go back to study, get a PhD in Computer Science Majoring in AI/Machine learning and then I would try to do something meaningful with it. I am tired of doing pseudo-intellectual software 'engineering' tasks - I would like to use my intellect to tackle difficult problems instead of trivial problems like building UI components and managing databases. Unfortunately, I can't afford to go to back to uni right now.

I think that there are a lot of people in my position who are desperate for basic income. From a societal point of view, innovation would move quicker if people had more time to invest in themselves.

Unfortunately for me, right now, I just have two options if I want to buy myself some time to study:

- Hope that one of the startups I work/worked for gets a big exit and that I can cash in and fund my studies.

- Wait for retirement age before going back to uni (and hope that my brain still works OK at that age).

Re: Why we should all have a basic income

#324

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Only if new money was introduced into the closed loop system instead of being redistributed within the system

New money would most definitely have to be introduced. In the US we introduce new money into the system every year by having a fed govt budget deficit.

Then don't do that. Take the money away from someone else, with taxes.

Re: Why we should all have a basic income

#325
post #205
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…

Creating jobs is one thing, but creating meaningful jobs is something completely different. In communistic days in eastern europe, everyone was employed, but most people had a lousy job, that involved very little effort. The first time i came to the US, i got the same feeling, lots of meaningless jobs (lift boy, parking lot attendant, grocery store bag filler) that i didn't see in the Netherlands. Are these meaningle…

>Creating jobs is one thing, but creating meaningful jobs is something completely different.

* Hoover Dam

* Lincoln Tunnel

* LAX

* LaGuardia Airport

Just a few examples of things created by jobs created primarily to give people work.

>Are these meaningless jobs really better than universal basic income?

Would you rather pay somebody to build the next Lincoln Tunnel or pay for them to write some poetry and start an emo band?

Re: Why we should all have a basic income

#326
post #231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> In communistic days in eastern europe, everyone was employed, but most people had a lousy job, that involved very little effort. I find this hard to believe. Why would a job "in communistic days" be different from, well, a job?

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."

>Wages,however, lagged far behind those in the Western democracies.

Eastern Communist states were essentially reduced to rubble after WW2. This did make building to the same economic level as an entirely untouched America, or even West Germany (which was deluged with aid and given preferential trading terms), something of a challenge.

Re: Why we should all have a basic income

#327

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Prove me wrong. Ok here we go. > 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. They don't get $1000/month for "basic needs", they get $1000/month for whatever they want . It's completely unconditional. Which means people wouldn't go out and buy twice…

> Suddenly a million sick people are making insurance claims who previously had no insurance, what did you think was going to happen to premiums? This is what I mean. From a business point of view, suddenly everyone has an extra $1000. They were buying stuff from you until now, there's no reason not to try to drive the price up to see how much more you can charge now. If enough businesses will do that, it will reach…

So I get where you're going with this, but the businesses are still competing with one another in a free market.

So yes, you're right that if all the avocado farmers in California decided to engage in price fixing because they know that more money exists and that they can get it, they probably can. But it presupposes highly monopolistic behavior that doesn't seem very likely to work for most markets. Especially if it's easy to become an entrepreneur.

The business, after all, makes a profit as long as their price is above their cost. So unless their costs go up, competition keeps prices down.

Now, I think you're half right -- prices will go up, but it's not because of gouging by middlemen or traditional inflation. It will be because as people drop out of the labor market, the really undesirable jobs will become more costly to fill.

But that strikes me as a much more fair free market than what we have now. Yes, you will have to pay more to have your garbage picked up in front of your house. Why? Because as it turns out, you would much rather be doing whatever you do than deal with a thousand people's garbage. Maybe they should be getting paid more than you, in a voluntary free market.

So I imagine it will be sort-of inflation, but almost better described as a rebalancing of the economy. Jobs that humans can do much more easily than robots will get higher salaries. Jobs that are enjoyable get lower salaries. Overall, salary spread across jobs becomes much smaller.

But I don't think it's necessarily likely to be some kind of overall inflation, it's a redistribution of wealth accomplished by simultaneous direct transfer of wealth through the UBI, in addition to a redistribution of power accomplished by allowing "Nothing" to be an option that employers have to compete against.

Re: Why we should all have a basic income

#328

If I had basic income, I would go back to study, get a PhD in Computer Science Majoring in AI/Machine learning and then I would try to do something meaningful with it. I am tired of doing pseudo-intellectual software 'engineering' tasks - I would like to use my intellect to tackle difficult problems instead of trivial problems like building UI components and managing databases. Unfortunately, I can't afford to go to…

The fact that someone is paying you to do these jobs shows that the things you do do have a lot value to someone (your boss, the company's customers etc.). So your existing job is far from being meaningless.

Instead of crying for a UBI you should better cry for people not to buy software that does "trivial stuff". If people were willing to spend a lot of money on software that does highly not-trivial stuff, there probably were a large demand for people that are able and willing to work on such things.

Markets are a democracy - everybody votes with his wallet.

Re: Why we should all have a basic income

#329
post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Creating jobs is one thing, but creating meaningful jobs is something completely different. In communistic days in eastern europe, everyone was employed, but most people had a lousy job, that involved very little effort. The first time i came to the US, i got the same feeling, lots of meaningless jobs (lift boy, parking lot attendant, grocery store bag filler) that i didn't see in the Netherlands. Are these meaningle…

Street promoters make me sad. If they can find no job they better stay at home and learn something new, but they have no time for it, so they are stuck doing useless, maybe even harmful, work.

I've met someone who spun a sign for a living... he was a huge stoner... I love weed, but he clearly smoked too much of it while his brain was still developing and he could barely hold a conversation... Now... maybe he was self-medicating or whatever... but the point was he failed out of high school, failed out of a few jobs... and then ended up spinning a sign because he really had no meaningful skill to contribute to society. (And I think he failed at showing up to work so he lost that job eventually...)

I suspect most people who are in really shit jobs are there because they have issues... they can't show up on time, they don't follow employment rules, or they have something just wrong with them (they are sex-offenders, or have untreated behavioral issues or whatever)... not the sort of people who should be empowered to just sit around. I will go so far as to say nobody who really has potential ends up spinning a sign for very long... they use the job to cover their rent, and they find a way to get a better job.

Anyway I don't want to come off as against a UBI, I but I've never met someone who benefited by sitting around doing nothing. I think it's bad for people to be lazy -- like fundamentally brain-rotting to sit around being idle. I like the idea of a UBI that's tied to doing something... anything... getting outside and picking up trash in the road ditches even... or getting vocational training (which we should find a way to make free)... or getting mental health treatment... Prove you have a regular paycheck, or prove you are clocking in 30 hours at some "just move your body" type of approved activity every week to qualify.

Re: Why we should all have a basic income

#330
post #253

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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 thi…

"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,"

No.

Coffee Shops etc. already run on pretty low margins -> they'd be out of business. Any business wherein labour is a significant input cost and where wages are low enough that people would quite - would shut down - and that's a lot of businesses.

"So more art gets created, the lifestyle is less materialic "

That's a choice we can make today - we don't need massive government intervention to make that decision for us.

It also means a significantly reduced output:

The value of the 'art' getting created is significantly lower than the 'service' they provide making coffee - or else that art would be getting created.

It's easy to prove: if their are were 'worth something' to you and I, we'd be buying it. We're not. But we will however hire them to make coffee for us.

"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."

I don't care what my neighbours 'aspirations' are.

It is not their right to take my money to pursue their aspirations.

If they want to make art that nobody wants to buy, that's fine by me, but I should not have to pay for their rent so they can do that.

They can serve coffee, get a better job, make better art that people want to buy - it's entirely their choice, they are entirely capable.

They can have whatever lifestyle they want to build for themselves.

If they are handicapped, or ill, that's another story, but otherwise, their life is their job, not mine.

Post reply on HN