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

361–370 of 492 posts

Re: Why we should all have a basic income

#361

Post by AnthonyMouse »

prostoalex wrote: post #353
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #154

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…

> is excellent because it allows you to increase the housing stock without reducing nominal housing prices and causing existing homeowners to go underwater on their mortgages So is inflation, and the real estate markets are usually the first to adjust. Your view of housing is this commodity that's in low supply only because we don't have enough manpower to build more. In reality anyone with a knack for cheap housing…

> People don't want just any cheap housing. They want proximity to their work, in a good school district for their kids, with quick access to transportation, cool restaurants and coffee shops within walking distance. The supply of those will still be constrained.

The supply of those is artificially constrained. There is no practical limit to housing density when you can build vertically.

The problem is you have people who just took out a $1,000,000 mortgage and would sooner murder you with an axe than see the value fall to $600,000 because the local housing supply increased. But if you have something to exert upward pressure on nominal housing prices then you can build new housing stock and have nominal prices stay the same. Inflation and inflation-like effects are great for this because it means nominal housing prices stay the same while real housing prices fall, which is the only real way for more people to own a home.

Re: Why we should all have a basic income

#362

Post by ElComradio »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #354
ElComradio wrote: post #339

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are basically saying that what happens in the short term is not relevant, but as taxpayers, a lot of people will be upset by profiteering in the manner I described, even if it is only for 1-3 years. Or from another angle- what will prevent an ever increasing amount of tuition such as happened with the higher education system? "We need to raise the voucher to $10,000 now…"

It's not really profiteering. Expanding capacity costs money. That's where the money is going. And what you're getting at is one of the reasons that a UBI is better than vouchers. Suppose you create a $5000 education voucher and there was previously a school with a tuition of $4000. That is now over; they might as well charge $5000. And if there is a higher quality school charging $10,000 and people whine that the vo…

UBI still will have some short term profiteering effects. A slum lord who knows his tenants are uniformly $1K/mo richer is going to raise the rent short term. You seem to be assuming everyone is automatically acting in their long term best interest. "Oh neat, I'm going to raise the rent $500 and plow it into new apartments and renovations so five years from now I'm still competitive!" Vs. "I'm going to raise it $500 and buy a BMW!" I just don't see it not happening. I agree that long term it will hash out.

Re: Why we should all have a basic income

#363

Post by nkurz »

edblarney wrote: post #330
nkurz wrote: post #253

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Coffee Shops etc. already run on pretty low margins -> they'd be out of business.

Possibly, assuming nothing else changes, and they can't raise their prices or automate so as to require less labor. But others are claiming that the problem with UBI is that all the prices would go up, presumably including those at the coffee shop. And if everyone in the neighborhood had another $1000 per month to spend, don't you think that at least some of the coffee shops would see increased business?

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.

Maybe, but this bothers me in two ways.

First, it assumes only those with the surplus money to buy art are allowed to determine the value of art to society, and that those will the inability to pay for art have no say. Isn't it fair to allow these non-rich art lovers to democratically vote for policies that result in more art?

Second, it implies that the value of art can be completely judged by its market value of at the time it was created. The more creative geniuses we have serving coffee to rich folk, the fewer works of art we'll have in the future. Obviously most artists aren't geniuses, but I think this tradeoff at least merits some consideration.

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.

There is lots of art I appreciate and would like to encourage, but I don't have money to support it. I've never felt comfortable paying someone to make me hot beverages --- I'd much prefer self-service and greater automation.

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

Perhaps that's the big difference in our views. I care tremendously about whether those sharing my society feel they are living fulfilling lives. UBI might not be the best way to accomplish this, but I guess I hadn't considered that you might not consider this to be a benefit.

Re: Why we should all have a basic income

#364

Post by prostoalex »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #361
prostoalex wrote: post #353

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> is excellent because it allows you to increase the housing stock without reducing nominal housing prices and causing existing homeowners to go underwater on their mortgages So is inflation, and the real estate markets are usually the first to adjust. Your view of housing is this commodity that's in low supply only because we don't have enough manpower to build more. In reality anyone with a knack for cheap housing…

> People don't want just any cheap housing. They want proximity to their work, in a good school district for their kids, with quick access to transportation, cool restaurants and coffee shops within walking distance. The supply of those will still be constrained. The supply of those is artificially constrained. There is no practical limit to housing density when you can build vertically. The problem is you have peopl…

> There is no practical limit to housing density when you can build vertically.

Why not? Higher structures require deeper and more complex foundations, more reinforced concrete and steel, extra precautions for strong winds and earthquakes. Setting up proper elevator systems, plumbing, air venting, noise isolation, electrical wiring and natural gas hookups is also subject to more restrictive building code (and for a good reason). This is before we get into the costs of underground/overground parking, which has additional weight and reinforcement requirements of its own.

And even when you follow everything to the book, you might still mess up, i.e. Millenium Tower in San Francisco.

You can buy a house on the prairie or a mobile home on the cheap, but except for major real estate downturns you rarely see a high-rise condo on the cheap. Even when it is (Miami circa 2008) the price often comes with exorbitant HOA fee to keep the amenities running.

Re: Why we should all have a basic income

#365

Post by barnacs »

mixedCase wrote: post #346
barnacs wrote: post #319

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I believe basic human nature includes curiosity. Living in a society means one will naturally seek the appreciation, acceptance and respect of their peers. I think these alone will eventually lead most people to contribute something useful to our world one way or another. Mentally and/or physically exhausted after a long day of performing a meaningless job, or unable to get one and living off welfare, despised by the…

>I believe basic human nature includes curiosity. Living in a society means one will naturally seek the appreciation, acceptance and respect of their peers. I think these alone will eventually lead most people to contribute something useful to our world one way or another. As someone living in a small third world welfare state, I can't help but laugh at the naiveté that can lead someone to believe something like that…

Are you suggesting the majority of those people are completely, utterly useless?

Useful contributions don't necessarily have to be intellectual. They may be able and happy to provide art, joyful company, social skills, physical assistance (eg. getting groceries, moving equipment) or other support to those in need.

Re: Why we should all have a basic income

#366

Post by crdoconnor »

chriskanan wrote: post #207
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 think that's one of the biggest open questions with UBI. What percent of people would use UBI to do productive or self-improving works vs those that solely play video games, watch TV, and feel like life is meaningless? I think psychologically, people need something to do with themselves. However, a counter argument is that many of the people that UBI may benefit the most might have jobs that they loathe. I'd love t…

There was a job guarantee program instituted in Argentina (called plan jefes e jefas - meaning head of household). The jobs were typically care-style jobs (looking after elderly, etc.). The government then tried to shift the women into a sort of UBI (called Plan Familias) by offering more money than under Jefes

Unsurprisingly the majority of women took the money. Perhaps more surprisingly (to advocates of basic income, anyway), they took the money and continued to do the jobs "for free".

http://www.levyinstitute.org/pubs/wp_705.pdf

Re: Why we should all have a basic income

#367

Post by AnthonyMouse »

ElComradio wrote: post #362
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #354

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not really profiteering. Expanding capacity costs money. That's where the money is going. And what you're getting at is one of the reasons that a UBI is better than vouchers. Suppose you create a $5000 education voucher and there was previously a school with a tuition of $4000. That is now over; they might as well charge $5000. And if there is a higher quality school charging $10,000 and people whine that the vo…

UBI still will have some short term profiteering effects. A slum lord who knows his tenants are uniformly $1K/mo richer is going to raise the rent short term. You seem to be assuming everyone is automatically acting in their long term best interest. "Oh neat, I'm going to raise the rent $500 and plow it into new apartments and renovations so five years from now I'm still competitive!" Vs. "I'm going to raise it $500…

There is always going to be that one guy who responds to any change by going on a bender and smashing his own property. Tomorrow they won't be competitive. That sounds like self-correction.

Re: Why we should all have a basic income

#368

Post by wolfgke »

jondubois wrote: post #359
wolfgke wrote: post #328

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 pro…

If me and my colleagues were better educated and less stressed on average, we would introduce fewer bugs into the system and we would waste less time debugging issues that should never have existed in the first place. I guess I believe that education has a really good ROI.

> I guess I believe that education has a really good ROI.

Did you do a back of the napkin estimate for this? You also have to include the tuition fees and the opportunity cost of (probably) not working while you study on the debit side (thus no, i.e. lost, income). On the credit side the increased productivity/better job etc. Have you computed how many years it will take to reduce the computed debt (including opportunity cost)? I have not computed it, but I'd assume that it would take a hellish lot of time to even break even.

Re: Why we should all have a basic income

#369

Post by wolfgke »

prostoalex wrote: post #358
jimnotgym wrote: post #350

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or maybe more people would leave their jobs and go to teach? Maybe the local community college would have higher qualified ex industry teachers and it would spread the students around other towns?

That very well may happen, and many retirees on Social Security do return to teaching, many consider it a way to "give back". Considering the Social Security program has been around since 1935, it's probably safe to say that existence of such people for 80+ years did not lead to a decline in college costs.

> many retirees on Social Security do return to teaching, many consider it a way to "give back".

Just my five cents: If they recorded their lectures and put them on YouTube (or a similar site) much more people could profit from their teaching - thus they would give back to many more people.

Re: Why we should all have a basic income

#370

Post by smallnamespace »

wolfgke wrote: post #335
ycmbntrthrwaway wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> 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. If these people really have such a large earning potential if they were just learning something new, why not let coworkers get together and finance a fund: The worker (let's call him John Doe) will get his existing income for…

These contracts are really hard to enforce, and is essentially selling equity in yourself. If you sell 100% of your own equity, that'd be pretty much slavery right? Some people (maybe justifiably) feel very uncomfortable with the idea of selling their own future equity. For one thing, it reduces the incentives for someone to work hard.

Yale did something like this in the 70s and finally killed it because of issues with how it was structured. Also it felt really unfair to high wage earners that they were sometimes paying multiples of what their tuition originally was.

Oregon is trying this out now [2].

[1] http://yaledailynews.com/blog/2001/03/27/70s-debt-program-fi...

[2] http://www.salon.com/2015/03/26/two_years_after_signing_of_l...

Post reply on HN