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

461–470 of 492 posts

Re: Why we should all have a basic income

#461

Post by crdoconnor »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #441
dsacco wrote: post #413

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's not really a fair response to the parent's comment, but I suppose the parent's comment was entirely charitable to the proposed hypothetical either. A more rigorous question with which to start (though maybe a bit leading...) would be: Would you rather pay qualified labor force participants to do labor/construction/civil engineering, or would you rather pay the same number of qualified participants to start hig…

> That's not really a fair response to the parent's comment, but I suppose the parent's comment was entirely charitable to the proposed hypothetical either. That was the point. > Would you rather pay qualified labor force participants to do labor/construction/civil engineering, or would you rather pay the same number of qualified participants to start high growth technology companies? To which the answer is almost ce…

>That was the point.

That was actually my point.

>But a UBI also lets you quit your terrible job

A guaranteed job that isn't horrible makes terrible jobs better since employers will have to compete to keep their employees.

Re: Why we should all have a basic income

#462

Post by atom-morgan »

marcinzm wrote: post #233
atom-morgan wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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? I think they were referring to the cost of food, not the calories.

Why would the cost go up if more food isn't eaten?

The good would now be subsidized.

Re: Why we should all have a basic income

#463

Post by 16bytes »

wolfgke wrote: post #328
jondubois wrote: post #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…

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…

I think the argument for UBI would say that OP is better served not working in that position, because it's not what he wants to do. The employer, would then hire somebody else who actually wanted to do that work (I actually don't mind designing UI sometimes).

Or failing that, would have to raise compensation until they got somebody who agreed to do the work.

It seems that under the UBI system, the labor pool is more efficient. By taking away the basic requirement of needing to work, you introduce a more fair supply-and-demand free-market labor force. Currently this is tipped far in the favor of employers because employees' livelihood is at stake, and this asymmetric power dynamic suppresses wages.

Re: Why we should all have a basic income

#464

Post by JohnLeTigre »

It's a cool idea but the problem is that people that sell goods will raise their prices knowing that everyone has more disposable income.

So the cost of life will raise and the people will have the same relative expenses (practically as poor) but without any fallback system this time around.

So unless UBI is coupled with strict pricing regulations, it's a scam.

Re: Why we should all have a basic income

#465

Post by frio »

jakeogh wrote: post #439
frio wrote: post #432

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right -- so those 7 states listed in the article have alternative forms of tax (corporate income tax, oil-production taxes, etc.). Are you opposed solely to personal income taxes (while still supporting alternative forms of tax), or are you opposed to all taxation?

Personal income tax only. In general, I believe individuals are the best deciders on how to spend their money, but I do not deny that gov has a responsibility to defend life, liberty and property. If it can't do that with the voluntary support of it's citizens (aka owners) then it deserves to be replaced. Fortunately we have a pretty awesome system to do exactly that. I was too glib (wrong) in my second response to t…

I see; fair enough :). I'm not personally opposed to personal income tax, but I'm from a country that leans a little more to the left overall and the benefits of my taxation are evident. It's also less vexing; the tax comes directly out of my paycheque -- I never see that money. My understanding is that in the USA, one has to annually perform a federal tax return?

I'm not exactly pro-income tax either, but (governed effectively!) personal income tax has always seemed to me like a least-worst solution to funding a government and a country's public infrastructure. It's not great, but it provides the least opportunity for mass rorting (although that no longer seems to be true, the more I think on it). I could be convinced that other solutions work :).

Re: Why we should all have a basic income

#466

Post by sctb »

sean_patel wrote: post #217
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 couldn't get past the 1st line > Consider for a moment that from this day forward, on the first day of every month, around $1,000 is deposited into your bank account – because you are a citizen. If implemented, it will surely be a disaster in America (DOA - Dead on Arrival), considering how well African Americans have worked and abused the Food Stamps system. Let me tell you a story. I was getting my beat up Honda…

We've banned this account for continuing to violate the guidelines after many requests from us to stop.

Re: Why we should all have a basic income

#467

Post by sctb »

prodmerc wrote: post #299
raintrees wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thank you. If my seizing my neighbor's extra car because I do not have one is theft, it is still theft if I convince a majority to pass a law take it for me. And it is enforced with the threat of (or actual) violence against my neighbor, if my neighbor refuses.

Well, you can always stop using roads, hospitals, sidewalks, subsidized foods and fuel. Then you can call the tax man a thief and shoot him. Unless you're rich, taxation benefits you, you brainwashed idiot.

Please no personal attacks like this on HN, no matter what you're replying to.

Re: Why we should all have a basic income

#468

Post by leepowers »

vectorpush wrote: post #108

Almost everyone here seems to be discussing the economic challenges of UBI, but so far I haven't seen much mention of the political challenges. UBI is a completely unworkable concept in the U.S.A and likely many European countries as well. American citizens will be literally shooting eachother in the streets before they accept such a massive wealth redistribution mechanism, and that resistance will be mostly made up…

UBI is talked about, but is probably a long way off. But it's important to get the conversation started. We already have massive wealth redistribution in the U.S., in the form of Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, etc., which make up 70% of the federal budget. UBI isn't about spending more but spending differently.

Re: Why we should all have a basic income

#469

Post by leepowers »

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…

UBI is not adding money to the system. No new dollars would be printed. So there would be little to no effect on inflation. It's moving around existing money via taxation and redistribution.

Under this scheme there wouldn't be any incentive for a business to raise their prices. Imagine that UBI is implemented and imagine it's effects on a business in a mid-sized city, say a restaurant. The business now has an additional 50,000 potential customers, people who can afford to eat out more often due to UBI.

How should the restaurant owner react? He can raise his prices. But that exposes him to competitors who keep their prices the same. He can lower his prices. In which case he will earn less money per plate, but he now has a pool of 50,000 new customers to draw on, so he can make more money on volume. A good restaurateur would lower his prices proactively and try capture a large chunk of this new, larger market of customers.

The point is it's easy to see how UBI could cause prices to go down, and not just up. It's simplistic and misleading to assert that all businesses will start price gouging in response to a UBI. Populations are more complicated that this, and markets are dynamic.

Re: Why we should all have a basic income

#470

Post by AnthonyMouse »

crdoconnor wrote: post #461
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #441

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That's not really a fair response to the parent's comment, but I suppose the parent's comment was entirely charitable to the proposed hypothetical either. That was the point. > Would you rather pay qualified labor force participants to do labor/construction/civil engineering, or would you rather pay the same number of qualified participants to start high growth technology companies? To which the answer is almost ce…

>That was the point. That was actually my point. >But a UBI also lets you quit your terrible job A guaranteed job that isn't horrible makes terrible jobs better since employers will have to compete to keep their employees.

How do you guarantee a non-terrible job to people with minimal skills?

And how do you finance it? With a UBI you don't have to pay as much because people can supplement it with an actual job even if pays less than current minimum wage, and everyone who works is offsetting part or all of their own cost by paying taxes. 100% of people can collect the UBI because most of them will still be working and paying taxes, and if they don't it's only because the amount is too high.

What if 85% of people choose the "basic job", and the only way to change that is to either make the "basic job" degrading or have it pay less than a living wage?

Post reply on HN