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

A basic income could boost the US economy by $2.5 trillion

weforum.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 164 posts

Re: A basic income could boost the US economy by $2.5 trillion

#71

Post by badrequest »

brookside wrote: post #36

I'm currently on an Amtrak train between Philadelphia and NYC. Especially in leafless winter, the sheer uglyness of this swath of in-disrepair America is almost shocking. Abandoned factories and houses. Lifeless downtowns. Trash along the tracks. Non-sweet graffiti. Paying people to do nothing when there is so much to be done seems crazy to me. It's not like we have figured out how to solve these problems with AI or…

That assumes that a basic income would only motivate people to do nothing, which seems more pessimistic than realistic.

Re: A basic income could boost the US economy by $2.5 trillion

#72

Post by lucozade »

cmiles74 wrote: post #32
11thEarlOfMar wrote: post #20

It's more than the expense of paying the money and whether people will continue to work. What needs to also be closely studied is: - Effect on crime - Effect on drug addiction - Effect on family outcomes - Effect on education opportunities I'd gladly pay more taxes if I could draw a direct link between UBI and a safer, happier society.

There was recently an article about a study on the prevalence of hookworm in is US south[0]. It seems to me that basic income could go a long way towards resolving this issue. One of the examples cited in the article involved a trailer park where they pumped sewage into open pools. If every member of the park was getting some form of basic income, the state could require the trailer park to install a septic system an…

I just don't get the logic.

If, today, the trailer park owner is not required to provide adequate sanitation (which strikes me as heinous btw), why would UBI change that? Either the state couldn't care less or their are laws that are being flouted. Either way, it's not clear why a change in distribution methodology would change either.

The bit of your argument that I completely agree would occur is that the trailer park owner will charge the renters more. That's pretty much a given. Whether or not the renters will receive anything for that rent change is likely to be an orthogonal question.

My concern with UBI isn't that it won't work. It's that it's a right winger's wet dream.

I mean, imagine. With a great fanfare of fairness, we give everyone $x00/month. Dismantle all the means tested benefits for pensioners, disabled etc. Then watch as successive governments either ratchet it up or ratchet it down depending on their persuasion and the state of the economy. And as a target for when things get tight, it's a bloody big one.

The only really meaningful change from the status quo would be that the the truly disadvantaged would get royally stiffed.

Re: A basic income could boost the US economy by $2.5 trillion

#73

Post by oneplane »

bmcusick wrote: post #31

Ignoring whether the study's assumptions are accurate, one problem with this sort of rhetoric is that "the US economy" isn't a political constituency. There's just people, and their claims on the economy in terms of personal wealth and income. It's sort of like when you say "NAFTA grows the US economy but $1 trillion" and the guy who's job was outsourced to Mexico ask "Okay, but how does that help me make rent or buy…

Minimum wage isn't just "you have to pay workers enough to survive", it's also "you have to acknowledge that workers are worth amount X".

Re: A basic income could boost the US economy by $2.5 trillion

#74

Post by oneplane »

craftyguy wrote: post #4

At a cost of $24 trillion? Ha! 250m[1] * $1000 * 8 * 12 = $24,000,000,000,000 1. http://datacenter.kidscount.org/data/tables/99-total-populat...

Don't forget that that money will also be spent on things, it doesn't just disappear, probably at least half of it comes back right where it came from while in the meantime making sure that those people in the USA that are currently living by third world standards are maybe getting closer to BRIC level of life.

Re: A basic income could boost the US economy by $2.5 trillion

#75

Post by ncallaway »

draugadrotten wrote: post #42
llamataboot wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Absolutely not. There's no such thing as individually made profits that don't rely on a ton of collective factors. It s not stealing if it wasn't yours in the first place. It's ours.

> There's no such thing as individually made profits that don't rely on a ton of collective factors. You're confused. Depending on a factor does not mean that this factor owns what you produced. Example: To make ice-cream, you depend on cows. Cows do not own your profits.

It sort of does, though.

That's where the concept of taxes comes from. You use the services that the government provides in order to create value. As such, the government claims part of the value that you created.

Ideally, then, the government reinvests into other services that future generations will also be able to use to create value.

We can have a disagreement over how much the government should be able to claim from individuals, but I have seen very few people advocate for no taxation.

Re: A basic income could boost the US economy by $2.5 trillion

#76

Post by JonFish85 »

Outside of the "how to pay for it" question (which has never been addressed beyond vague "tax the rich" promises) there's another problem: how to save people from themselves. One could think of this as an annuity, and try to cash it in for total cash value today (e.g. lump sum payment): get $200k today, and sign over the rest of the checks you get for life. Then what do you do with bankrupt folks? Sorry, you had your chance, now you starve in the streets? Of course not -- so you still need another safety net for those people.

Re: A basic income could boost the US economy by $2.5 trillion

#77

Post by jkn »

joshuaheard wrote: post #37

"$1,000 paid monthly ... by increasing the federal debt would grow the economy." Borrowing money from my credit card does not increase my annual salary.

No but it does grow the economy. Things you buy with the borrowed money count towards the GDP.

If you have people buying and selling nothing that's going to be a small economy.

If you have the same people, with the same wealth, buying and selling stuff to each other, that grows the economy.

If you have the same people buying and selling stuff faster, they may still retain the same wealth but the economy will grow even further.

The size of the economy is about the number of transactions, and printing money or borrowing money can definitely grow the economy (IF that money gets used to accelerate economic transactions).

Re: A basic income could boost the US economy by $2.5 trillion

#78

Post by sigzero »

badrequest wrote: post #71
brookside wrote: post #36

I'm currently on an Amtrak train between Philadelphia and NYC. Especially in leafless winter, the sheer uglyness of this swath of in-disrepair America is almost shocking. Abandoned factories and houses. Lifeless downtowns. Trash along the tracks. Non-sweet graffiti. Paying people to do nothing when there is so much to be done seems crazy to me. It's not like we have figured out how to solve these problems with AI or…

That assumes that a basic income would only motivate people to do nothing, which seems more pessimistic than realistic.

I think it is more realistic.

Re: A basic income could boost the US economy by $2.5 trillion

#79

Post by ketsa »

>Other nations, such as India and Switzerland, have discussed experiments of their own in the coming years.

It may not be called basic income but it exists already in Switzerland. I know people that haven't worked since a decade and still receive their monthly payments.

Re: A basic income could boost the US economy by $2.5 trillion

#80

Post by cmiles74 »

lucozade wrote: post #72
cmiles74 wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There was recently an article about a study on the prevalence of hookworm in is US south[0]. It seems to me that basic income could go a long way towards resolving this issue. One of the examples cited in the article involved a trailer park where they pumped sewage into open pools. If every member of the park was getting some form of basic income, the state could require the trailer park to install a septic system an…

I just don't get the logic. If, today, the trailer park owner is not required to provide adequate sanitation (which strikes me as heinous btw), why would UBI change that? Either the state couldn't care less or their are laws that are being flouted. Either way, it's not clear why a change in distribution methodology would change either. The bit of your argument that I completely agree would occur is that the trailer p…

You make a good point that landlords will increase their rent to eat up the majority of the basic income increase and that's a real concern. I'm not sure what can be done about that.

What I think might be a positive aspect of basic income is that we can expect everyone to have more money, so we can expect them to spend some of that money to improve their situation. The sanitation issue in this trailer park is one example I thought of as the story was posted recently. In my opinion, when people are at a subsistence level they can't invest in improving their situation in a meaningful way. If employment isn't growing in their location there's no way to increase their income without basic income. Tax breaks will not help them as their income is already so minimal.

Post reply on HN