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

91–100 of 164 posts

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

#91

Post by matt_wulfeck »

oneplane wrote: post #74
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.

There are already quite some levels of welfare here in the US, including food stamps, government healthcare, housing allowance, and welfare money. You’re much better off being poor in he US than the countries in your acronym.

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

#92

Post by sdljfslkjfdsj »

garmaine wrote: post #21
sergiosgc wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We're already doing that[1]. It's just that Quantitative Easing is being injected in the economy via banks. [1] I'm actually European, but the ECB and the Federal Reserve are behaving in similar fashion, in this case.

Not on that scale. QE is more than an order of magnitude smaller, and already that is at the limit of what economists feel “safe” doing.

Economists perhaps but central bank governors don't feel they've hit any sort of limit. They all say over & over they remain "prepared" to "respond" & have an array of "tools" at their disposal. Not to mention some of the largest central banks are still actively engaged in aggressive QE & negative interest rate policies.

Don't confuse a slight ny-fed tighetning with central bank prudence. They have none. Aggressive interventionism is a policy that will never go away & will likely become even more aggressive in the future.

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

#93

Post by BatFastard »

Here is what I calculate 250m[1] * $1000 * 12 = $3,000,000,000,000 Now take away the people on social security - 56m Now take away the people currently employed - 145m Give us around 50 million people, at a cost of around 600 billion per year. Wow, thats a lot BUT if we now look at cost for existing social welfare programs - 927 billion.

Means we would save around 300 billion per year!

Of course families would require more, but this does not seem quite as crazy for a country that has a 18 trillion GDP.

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

#94

Post by blunte »

Whether this estimate is accurate or not is less relevant than the question: If the US economy were boosted by a basic income (or any change, in fact), what percentage of that economic gain would go into the pockets of the people who have been capturing 90% of all growth over the last 20 years?

If the answer to my question isn't a very high percentage, then such a program would never even be discussed in Congress.

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

#95

Post by Frondo »

abfan1127 wrote: post #11
bluetwo wrote: post #3

The only place I can think of that has done something similar is the oil and land rights of the native people of Alaska, who get checks somewhere in that range. How has this turned out for them?

the difference is the Alaska pulled natural resources out of the ground. Basic Income is just wealth transfer.

Good.

Does it make a better work for a lot of people? Does it give a lot of people freedom? Does it give a lot of people more access to their basic human rights?

Then bring on wealth transfer.

Watching out for the rich and their tax rates is possibly the very last item on my list of priorities for "how to structure the world".

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

#96

Post by psadri »

ChuckMcM wrote: post #86
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…

If you want to point to the single concept that has to be re-examined to understand basic income it is this one: "Paying people to do **nothing** when there is **so much** to be done seems crazy to me." It speaks to the foundation question of value for capital that is pounded into our heads (in the US at least) from birth that if you want to make it you need to get a job that pays well. And it forces us to ask the ve…

Money represents value created. If you simply hand out money, say in the form of BI, without it being in exchange for value created, you are simply deflating the value of money. This will cause inflation. And you'll end up back where yo started - the recipients of BI have more money but its buying power has been reduced, canceling each other out.

I'm with the parent comment. There is so much work to be done in this world - we should first try to tackle those before taking the BI shortcut.

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

#97

Post by Barreljack »

ChuckMcM wrote: post #86
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…

If you want to point to the single concept that has to be re-examined to understand basic income it is this one: "Paying people to do **nothing** when there is **so much** to be done seems crazy to me." It speaks to the foundation question of value for capital that is pounded into our heads (in the US at least) from birth that if you want to make it you need to get a job that pays well. And it forces us to ask the ve…

100%.

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

#98

Post by notthemessiah »

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…

I agree that we should stop paying people to do nothing: Right now that's the super-rich who might be getting another tax cut for Christmas.

We have so much idle capital that is currently only being used to take over the competition rather than for innovation and investment. Am I alone in seeing the general public and local communities have more of a stake in what infrastructure and things we need, and should be more economically involved?

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

#99

Post by chimeracoder »

sdljfslkjfdsj wrote: post #84
chimeracoder wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> In a sense basic income would be an improvement over this in that the money would be going to everyone instead of primarily to the rich. Quite the opposite. The people who benefit the most from quantitative easing and inflation are people who are in debt. The rich tend to be net debt holders , not net debtors, so they're the ones primarily harmed by quantitative easing and an increase in the money supply. EDIT : Fi…

It's stunning that anyone who has witnessed per asset class appreciation (consider wages an asset class as well) since the GFC could believe what you said. Inflation obviously helps those in debt but QE didn't inflate anything except risky asset classes objectively held by the wealthy. Even by the feds own studies & public communications by the chair woman inflation continues to remain "subdued" almost 10 years after…

> It's stunning that anyone who has witnessed per asset class appreciation (consider wages an asset class as well) since the GFC could believe what you said.

Between the two of us, one has a degree in economics from one of the top universities in the US and is posting under an established, identifiable handle. The other is posting from a brand-new throwaway account.

I'm willing to accept that I might be wrong about things sometimes, but when a random, anonymous person on the Internet says they're "stunned" by me paraphrasing an established economic principle, I'm going to be pretty unconvinced unless they present some compelling evidence and solid analysis.

As for the rest of your comment, even if one takes your statements about the current state of the world at face value, it doesn't leave you anywhere. You can't generalize entire economy of the last ten years and assume that it reflects the effects of quantitative easing (and no other confounding factors).

I don't really want to litigate the post-2008 economy here, because that's pretty off-topic. In the context of the orginal statement - the claim that "basic income would be better than EQ because QE primarily benefits the rich" - yes, it's pretty clear that that goes against a rather straightforward and established body of both economic theory and empirical research.

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

#100

Post by bunderbunder »

stretchwithme wrote: post #90
bunderbunder wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Following that maybe-pessimistic-maybe-realistic vein a bit further, that might not be such a bad thing. Crime is a huge problem in poor communities, dealing with it is hideously expensive to taxpayers, and one of the major motivators behind it is economic stress. Wouldn't it be sweet if people who are currently motivated to commit crimes were instead motivated to do nothing?

Crime is caused more by envy for what others have and a failure to understand the role of work in getting what you want. Basic income will only FEED these two problems.

You might be surprised to learn how many people get into jobs like drug dealing because it's the career option in their community that pays better than minimum wage.

Crime also tends to correlate negatively with wealth redistribution, not positively. Correlation != causation, natch, but it's also the case that if your causative claim were true, then one would expect the correlation to be positive rather than negative.

Post reply on HN