Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Basic Income Research Proposal

basicincome.ycr.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

301–310 of 427 posts

Re: Basic Income Research Proposal

#301

Post by jpindar »

ja30278 wrote: post #58
kolbe wrote: post #47

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't UBI operate on the premise that it's replacing many of the existing social programs? For example, unconditional money rather than food/housing assistance. If the participants of the study also get access to these things, doesn't that severely limit the usefulness of this study? Also, $1k/mo is pretty small. Are you just hoping to observe some behavioral changes at the margin with…

There seems to be a common bait-and-switch tactic performed by proponents of UBI, in which they mention UBI as a replacement for social programs when talking about affordability, but back away from that assertion when questioned about how to handle (for example) recipients that spend all of their UBI on drugs instead of food.

We handle them exactly as we do now... by doing nothing. Today's social programs don't give people more money just because they spent all that they were given yesterday.

It's universal INCOME, not universal "take care of all your problems for you".

Re: Basic Income Research Proposal

#302

Post by taysic »

Mz wrote: post #89
ThomPete wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you are right but for the wrong reasons. The whole point about Basic Income (at least the unconditionally one) is that there are not going to be any jobs (or very few and only for highly talented people). And even if there are jobs it will always be worthwhile working (as long as it's unconditional) So if you, like me, believe that's the case, the whole discussion about whether people want to take a job or no…

The whole point about Basic Income (at least the unconditional ly one) is that there are not going to be any jobs (or very few and only for highly talented people). If there are no jobs, it will be because we designed it that way, not because it was inevitable. Tech giants proposing basic income as the solution to their lazy lack of desire to figure out how to better distribute work tell glowing stories of how lovely…

I agree with you that tech giants promoting basic income are probably only doing that as an easy and attractive answer to - what will happen to all the jobs?

However, I really don't think UBI is the answer. I don't understand where the money will come from/who will do the leftover work. I think we should continue to cultivate an innovative society and new types of jobs - more appealing I think - will be created.

Re: Basic Income Research Proposal

#303

Post by billmalarky »

ctdonath wrote: post #295
billmalarky wrote: post #246

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a strawman attack. Everyone knows UBI will require an increase in taxes that's fundamentally how the wealth redistribution will work.

My taxes are already pushing oppressive. Raise them further, and I'll seriously consider "going Galt" - cash in my investments, buy real estate & capital equipment outright, and live quite comfortably on $4000/mo ($UBI * family population). You're subsidizing the unproductive, and punishing the productive. I can be productive in untaxable ways.

>My taxes are already pushing oppressive. Raise them further, and I'll seriously consider "going Galt"

Under UBI that would be your prerogative. Most highly productive individuals and all corporations will carry on producing.

>You're subsidizing the unproductive, and punishing the productive.

You may have moral qualms with a UBI system. You will need to come to terms with these doubts in the midterm future, as UBI will be the only system (we currently know of) capable of sustaining a market economy in a world where automation has displaced the workforce.

Re: Basic Income Research Proposal

#304

Post by ctdonath »

billmalarky wrote: post #303
ctdonath wrote: post #295

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My taxes are already pushing oppressive. Raise them further, and I'll seriously consider "going Galt" - cash in my investments, buy real estate & capital equipment outright, and live quite comfortably on $4000/mo ($UBI * family population). You're subsidizing the unproductive, and punishing the productive. I can be productive in untaxable ways.

>My taxes are already pushing oppressive. Raise them further, and I'll seriously consider "going Galt" Under UBI that would be your prerogative. Most highly productive individuals and all corporations will carry on producing. >You're subsidizing the unproductive, and punishing the productive. You may have moral qualms with a UBI system. You will need to come to terms with these doubts in the midterm future, as UBI wi…

The same "displace the workforce" arguments abounded during the Industrial Revolution. Most everyone is still employed (biggest impediment isn't lack of jobs per se, it's oppressive regulation making employment of low-productivity people untenable).

Re: Basic Income Research Proposal

#305

Post by IncRnd »

vertex-four wrote: post #132
IncRnd wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The question really isn't whether someone person on Hacker News would want to work. A better question would be, "how many would report their work out of an entire country was offered a basic income?" There are already data points for comparison, when that question is asked.

Most people on Hacker News are really not any different from anyone else in their country - they're just in a different line of work. The idea that you're a better/more moral person if you get paid more is a fallacy. An interesting question is "can we reasonably automate things that people currently get paid less for than a basic income would be, or will we have to pay them more, and if we have to pay them more, what…

"The idea that you're a better/more moral person if you get paid more is a fallacy."

You are making arguments against things I never wrote, which is a strawman fallacy.

Re: Basic Income Research Proposal

#306

Post by trgn »

creaghpatr wrote: post #122
canjobear wrote: post #82

A huge part of what makes basic income appealing is that it is unconditional and guaranteed. Otherwise it seems like it would create unsafe levels of government control. For many people, BI would end up being a large portion of their income, such that losing it would be catastrophic. Now those people would become beholden to any government demand made on penalty of revoking BI. If a government enacts unconditional BI…

This is already an issue with Medicaid. 65 million people depend on the government for free healthcare and cannot afford to lose it.

Agree, but no need to only point down.

Social security income is indispensable for the majority of pensioners now. It used to be only for day laborers who it was understood never had an opportunity to save. Things have changed for sure.

Similarly, most old people wouldn't be able to afford their healthcare if it wasn't for Medicare, even it they never even filled out a Medicaid application.

Re: Basic Income Research Proposal

#307

Post by ctdonath »

billmalarky wrote: post #303
ctdonath wrote: post #295

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My taxes are already pushing oppressive. Raise them further, and I'll seriously consider "going Galt" - cash in my investments, buy real estate & capital equipment outright, and live quite comfortably on $4000/mo ($UBI * family population). You're subsidizing the unproductive, and punishing the productive. I can be productive in untaxable ways.

>My taxes are already pushing oppressive. Raise them further, and I'll seriously consider "going Galt" Under UBI that would be your prerogative. Most highly productive individuals and all corporations will carry on producing. >You're subsidizing the unproductive, and punishing the productive. You may have moral qualms with a UBI system. You will need to come to terms with these doubts in the midterm future, as UBI wi…

There does indeed come a point where taxation reaches high enough levels that people (and groups of them a la corporations) lose interest in exerting greater effort. The popular actor Ronald Regan famously noted that he would have produced far more movies, but it just wasn't worth it under the confiscatory tax rates. Most of the time, people will indeed continue producing without such drastic obviousness - but there WILL be a tapering off of productivity, and history makes that clear to those willing to see the objective facts.

Re: Basic Income Research Proposal

#308

Post by billmalarky »

ctdonath wrote: post #298
billmalarky wrote: post #279

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>When everyone gets their monthly $UBI check, supply-and-demand dictates that "free money" will be duly devalued, with prices of low-end essential goods/services rising to match (say, basic rent rising to $1000/mo). At first glance this seems intuitively correct, but I'd encourage anyone reading this to control+f my username in this thread for arguments showing otherwise.

I did, and found your arguments wanting. You're conflating local with national behaviors, and conflating high-value goods/services with low. Take a low-income area and give everyone $1000/mo for no reason (they're not trading any local productivity for it), and rent & other basic costs will immediately rise accordingly. "Move!" you (and I) say - and the limited supply of inexpensive rural housing (matching UBIers' la…

>you've just created communities of people absolutely dependent on UBI.

This will be the result of the steady march of automation displacing the human workforce regardless. Furthermore, the lack of a UBI system in a high unemployment due to automation scenario would lead to complete collapse of the market economy.

Re: Basic Income Research Proposal

#309

Post by [deleted] »

billmalarky wrote: post #279
ctdonath wrote: post #265

This is a test of charity, not UBI. 1. The money involved is voluntarily donated, not confiscated from taxpayers - an essential difference between tax-funded vs charity. 2. 3000 recipients is vanishingly small on a state or federal level. When everyone gets their monthly $UBI check, supply-and-demand dictates that "free money" will be duly devalued, with prices of low-end essential goods/services rising to match (say…

>When everyone gets their monthly $UBI check, supply-and-demand dictates that "free money" will be duly devalued, with prices of low-end essential goods/services rising to match (say, basic rent rising to $1000/mo). At first glance this seems intuitively correct, but I'd encourage anyone reading this to control+f my username in this thread for arguments showing otherwise.

[deleted]

Re: Basic Income Research Proposal

#310

Post by ctdonath »

billmalarky wrote: post #308
ctdonath wrote: post #298

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I did, and found your arguments wanting. You're conflating local with national behaviors, and conflating high-value goods/services with low. Take a low-income area and give everyone $1000/mo for no reason (they're not trading any local productivity for it), and rent & other basic costs will immediately rise accordingly. "Move!" you (and I) say - and the limited supply of inexpensive rural housing (matching UBIers' la…

>you've just created communities of people absolutely dependent on UBI. This will be the result of the steady march of automation displacing the human workforce regardless. Furthermore, the lack of a UBI system in a high unemployment due to automation scenario would lead to complete collapse of the market economy.

We went thru "displacing the human workforce" in the Industrial Revolution. Don't worry, we'll create more low-skill jobs - just like we did back then.

...unless legislators continue prohibiting people from working if they can't produce enough value per hour. Minimum wage is "debtor's prison" redux.

There's plenty of low-skill low-value jobs I could hire people to do, regardless of technological advancement, if only regulations weren't so oppressive.

Post reply on HN