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

331–340 of 427 posts

Re: Basic Income Research Proposal

#331

Post by zanny »

overcyn wrote: post #323
zanny wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Certainly not. Any UBI policy has to be set for a universal basic standard of living in a contiguous zone of free movement. US citizens can live anywhere in the US - UBI reverses the current bubble of housing prices that is concentrating people in cities that then resist increasing density and thus just drives property values to infinity. It lets people who don't want to live there the option to move elsewhere that i…

So the homeless population in SF would mostly still be homeless? If UBI is unable to help those at the lowest rung of society, what's the point?

There would be an industry overnight that would pop up to help people migrate where cost of living is affordable on a UBI because that is an insane amount of dependable profit to be made. It would be as simple as "your first month pays the move, and every month after that is last months rent payment".

There already exist communities and retirement homes whose entire agreement with its residents is "give us your social security checks, we give you food shelter etc". If you know constant money is coming in, arranging your business around being super easy to use for that money is a very lucrative opportunity.

Re: Basic Income Research Proposal

#332

Post by exclusiv »

FreakyT wrote: post #79
LoSboccacc wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Would you not work? Basic income is nearly not enough to access luxuries. Sure you should be able to live off it, but I think most people would likely want more, the difference from forced equality being that you can still work and keep that as luxury money.

> I think most people would likely want more Would they, though? That's the key question that I believe this study (and others like it) fail to address. Depending on the basic income amount, I believe it would be possible to live a fulfilling (if somewhat minimalist) life without needing to supplement that income.

I agree. I think a lot would move to affordable places where that guaranteed income goes a lot further. If that's true then we aren't going to be as competitive on a global scale. Maybe that's not a big deal, maybe it's a huge deal; I don't know.

Anecdotally my friend is part Native-American and gets 4k/mo from the tribe's casino money and they're bumping it up more soon. She's chosen to be a stay at home mom.

Re: Basic Income Research Proposal

#333

Post by incompatible »

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…

Yeah, these "tests" of UBI always seem to be about the attractive side, people getting money for nothing, and never about the funding side.

With a large-scale UBI in practice, you'd also have the effect of higher taxes that would claw back the UBI from those who have jobs, as well as an additional amount to cover the UBI for those who don't work.

I still prefer a job guarantee scheme for dealing with under-employment. This gives anyone who is willing and capable of working the chance to earn the minimum wage, and hopefully gets some productive benefit in return.

Re: Basic Income Research Proposal

#334

Post by mbrameld »

ctdonath wrote: post #268
chillwaves wrote: post #263

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Overall basic income is theft from workers Disagree, basic income is equitable distribution of a collective legacy of increasingly advanced tools and a necessary recognition of limited natural resources and duty to share a small portion to every human being on the basis of birth into our society, aka social contract.

Your abstract 3rd-party justification from a distance fails to note the rest of that sentence: "Overall basic income is theft from workers and will be seen as such by those workers. " When enough of those producing wealth decide that UBI = theft, they aren't going to just continue producing without pushing back. Personally, if UBI is implemented, I will "go Galt" and move to a self-sufficient homesteading-style life,…

>because so many people find paid idleness a desirable lifestyle.

You're close, and it's an easy mistake to make since it seems intuitive. However, the reality is that people find THE IDEA of paid idleness desirable. Small N, but everyone I know who has found themselves in that position has only remained idle for a very short time. Productivity quickly returns, although not in the form of trading time for money.

Re: Basic Income Research Proposal

#335

Post by incompatible »

ctdonath wrote: post #310
billmalarky wrote: post #308

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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…

Fighting the minimum wage is a political dead end. People won't vote for that, since they believe people who work a full week should have a decent standard of living. That's the case in Australia, at least.

Re: Basic Income Research Proposal

#336

Post by mbrameld »

ctdonath wrote: post #291
billmalarky wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a misunderstanding of how both macro inflation occurs (money supply growing faster than true value of wealth it abstracts), and how price is set (supply and demand). UBI does not "create" new money and just give it to everyone (which would cause inflation). It's a wealth redistribution. That is, many people will see their income go down under UBI (probably most HN readers for example). The money supply will r…

Sounds like yet another argument trying to deny the law of supply-and-demand, like those who quote the laws of thermodynamics and then claim they have a perpetual motion machine. Instead of having to work for that first $1000/mo, it just...appears. Yes it was earned elsewhere, and whoever earned it won't miss it as much as the recipient will appreciate it, but since the recipient has done nothing for it, its local va…

Here you claim to earn more than $100k every MONTH, yet in another comment you claim the amount you are taxed is nearing oppression. It sounds like maybe you're just saying whatever helps your argument at the time.

Re: Basic Income Research Proposal

#337

Post by mkempe »

s73ver_ wrote: post #293
mkempe wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Better yet, one could have completely private pension plans, where everyone is safe from both bureaucrats and kleptocrats.

Congratulations, you've just invented the IRA.

It's not completely private if bureaucrats tell you what you can or cannot do with it, as well as when you may do it, stealing from you if you step outside of their rules.

Re: Basic Income Research Proposal

#338

Post by dragonwriter »

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…

> 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, basic rent rising to $1000/mo)

No, that's not what “supply and demand” says. With normally-shaped supply curves, you would expect priced to increase but not so much as to prevent a net increase in what people who are net beneficiaries can afford.

Re: Basic Income Research Proposal

#339

Post by zanny »

bduerst wrote: post #233
maxerickson wrote: post #231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The net increase in income won't be the same for everyone. If UBI is funded by printing money, people with assets will see them devalue through inflation (people with no assets won't have this loss). If UBI is funded by taxes, it's likely to be progressive. So sure, the high income people get the UBI check. And a bigger tax bill to go with it.

If you assume UBI is based on an income tax, then that's not universal basic income, that's negative income tax. Even so, if you hypothetically see a decrease in income for 3% of the population and an increase in income for 97%, you still have inflation. 100% of the population purchases housing, which is income-elastic, meaning housing prices will increase because 97% of the population's income will increase.

This assumes both A. everyone is suddenly just making more money and B. the supply of housing remains constant.

In terms of A, some people would drop out of their current employment. In all likelihood temporarily, but a lot of people are doing things they don't want to do because they don't want to be homeless. Likewise, it would almost certainly not be 97% of people making more money - that kind of progressive tax threshold would mean you don't even start taxing for UBI until 6 figure income.

In terms of B, a lot of areas of the country are currently unlivable for a huge percentage of people because there is no way to earn money to afford to live there. Living there in absolute monetary terms would be cheap, but absolute money is pointless if you have nothing coming in.

UBI reduces demand for housing in cities because anyone that doesn't want the added income from living there would now have the option to move away. City housing prices are extraordinarily beyond the flat costs of construction and maintenance - the scarcity of work means a scarcity of high demand housing in cities surrounded by deserts of unlivable land.

Finally, for all those dropping out of the workforce, the UBI is not an elastic income - it will be a simple binary can a UBI recipient afford to live in your apartments or not. For those who want an extremely reliable tenant who has a guaranteed ability to pay rent every month, meeting the UBI threshold becomes an extremely strong price ceiling on affordable housing.

Inflation isn't magic. Inflation happens insofar as someone is willing to pay the higher prices and nobody can produce supply to drive the price back down. Introducing UBI does neither to housing (especially when as a percentage of income UBI relative to the cost of home ownership would be a relatively small gain in income for most people, and almost all current homeowners / tenants).

Re: Basic Income Research Proposal

#340

Post by Retric »

greedo wrote: post #256
Retric wrote: post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People regularly vote to cut government entitlements. See healthcare funding in Canada which still does not cover prescription drugs or dental care. UBI is going to be treated just the same as a tax break for the poor and likely to stay at very minimal levels.

Look at social spending rates by government over time. It's typical that they rise, despite attempts to restrain them. Critics call attempts to slow the growth rate "cuts" and paint the reformers as heartless.

Richer society's can support higher standards of government spending. So IMO, the only metric that matters in Government spending is per person spending / per person GDP.

And in that context you see various growth and cuts over time.

However, even that is misleading as richer society's have a higher percentage of discretionary income and may be willing to pay higher tax rates.

Post reply on HN