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

121–130 of 164 posts

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

#121

Post by sdljfslkjfdsj »

chimeracoder wrote: post #99
sdljfslkjfdsj wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 t…

More than $4.5T in bonds bought in multiple policy regimes over years and have been halted for sometime but we can't use that as a benchmark? I suspect it has something to do with not aligning with your narrative.

How about Japan pre GFC since they started QE in March 2001[1] meanwhile CPI in japan since 2001 has remained near 0[2]. Is 17 years enough data points? Which QE regime that resulted in any meaningful inflation or wage growth would you like to discuss? I'm afraid any I'd bring up from G7 sovereigns would be marginalized due to your credentials.

Buying bonds does not help out anyone other than the rich. Artificially reducing interest rates makes borrowing easier which companies take advantage of[3] to buy back stock[4] which adds buying pressure to risk assets. Fewer shares to buy[5] helps the "E" in the P/E through financial engineering.

Who buys those corporate bonds for the juicy yield (besides the ECB & BOE)? Hedge funds & those who have disposable income that can be allocated to risky assets via pensions & mutual funds. Not part-time workers or FTE's that live pay check to paycheck which most do[6].

QE doesn't primarily benefit the rich, it ONLY benefits the rich.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantitative_easing#Japan_befo... (see its citations) [2] http://www.inflation.eu/inflation-rates/japan/historic-infla... [3] https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/TDSAMRIAONCUS [4] https://www.yardeni.com/pub/buybackdiv.pdf [5] https://www.yardeni.com/pub/sharesos.pdf [6] https://www.cnbc.com/2017/08/24/most-americans-live-paycheck...

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

#122

Post by cmiles74 »

sjclemmy wrote: post #88
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…

Money is useless without power. I think all this talk of BI in isolation hides the socio-political dimensions. The problems you describe are a result of market forces. The ability to do something about it is vested in a political system. Throwing money around won’t solve that.

I would argue that people without money lack power and are pretty much excluded from the political system. They often live in areas where the state level policies are making it difficult to vote (shorter voting hours, fewer polling places, more documentation requirements). Giving them income provides them the ability to become more involved.

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

#123

Post by lucozade »

cmiles74 wrote: post #80
lucozade wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 exa…

> when people are at a subsistence level they can't invest in improving their situation in a meaningful way

You are, of course, correct. Why? Because the investment usually needs some form of capital outlay and folk don't have the capital nor have reasonable access to capital. And UBI, assuming it's at a non-trivial level, will not solve the former problem but most definitely will the latter.

Again, imagine what happens when you give a lot of poor folk access to a regular, guaranteed, future income stream. Overnight, you've pretty much taken all the default risk out of the payday loan business. Let's assume the first call is from a septic tank company. You can have that $15k tank installed next week! What's the monthly payment on that going to be? And what if it's not the sanitation company who calls. What if it's a white goods company or an AC company or an auto financer?

And note, I'm not arguing that poor people make poor financial decisions. Some do, some don't. Like rich folk. But these are all things that would genuinely make their lives better. And, they are very likely to get offered them. At a "reasonable" interest rate.

So there's no solution? I don't know. I do know that it can be substantially better than it is today without diving into the unknown. It's not as if no welfare state models have been attempted to varying degrees of success (for varying definitions of success).

But that's really the point. If you want to "fix" poverty, the problem isn't the distribution model, it's actually having people want to fix poverty.

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

#124

Post by stretchwithme »

bunderbunder wrote: post #100
stretchwithme wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I don't consider selling products to people to be a crime.

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

#125

Post by stretchwithme »

pavel_lishin wrote: post #112
stretchwithme wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Doesn't it depend on the crime? Someone breaking in and stealing my television to sell for drug money isn't envious of my TV; he just needs to get high. Someone engaged in a hit-and-run isn't envious of my car, they just can't afford car insurance and know that if they stick around they're very likely going to lose their license, car, and the ability to get to work. Sure, some crime is due to just people being too la…

Of course. But nobody is doing hit and runs so they can make a living.

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

#126

Post by undersuit »

matthewmarkus wrote: post #113
ChuckMcM wrote: post #86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Wouldn't the most logical thing be for people to reinvest their BI in the illegal drug trade? It's not like there isn't precedent for that kind of thing happening elsewhere: "And some projects aimed at reducing poaching by alleviating poverty have backfired, said Duffy. For example, one program in Ghana was intended to decrease poaching by paying a premium on crops, on the theory that hunter-poachers would focus inst…

Would that be bad? ChuckMcM was arguing that BI would allow someone to worry less about where they would sleep and when they would eat. That they use their money to get more money should be good. Your opposition seems to be based on implied immorality of drugs.

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

#127

Post by sova »

tomjen3 wrote: post #47
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 always though that as long as the US has a social program, it should be CC style (although there is also an argument for something like Teach for America, a 6'4 50 year old lumberjack might help prevent unruly classes), because (and here I cannot help but sound insanely old) making something gives you a certain amount of pride that helps you in many ways - you can be an ex drug addict who is trying to get permissio…

Could you elaborate on what you mean by "CC Style?" You make a lot of sense with this post. Even UBI will not replace the human drive or need to create or feel satisfaction, and people will pursue that in healthier ways in their Survival Mode is taken care of (imho).

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

#128

Post by e40 »

blunte wrote: post #103
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.

The governments routinely implement plans without reasonable research to back up their claims, so why not try this? There have been some studies, and from my recollection the takeaway is that most people, once their basic needs are met, strive to actually do something "useful". People on average do not become drug-addled sloths. For many reasons it is difficult to do a comprehensive, long term study on this idea. The…

The governments routinely implement plans without reasonable research to back up their claims, so why not try this?

Because it's a huge change to society and it might have unexpected consequences. I feel this way, even being on the pro BI side.

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

#129

Post by cestith »

adamnemecek wrote: post #43
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…

The thing is that this type of work will be gone in idk, 20-30 years?

So will most of the Baby Boomers. A 20 year economic plan that gets through a major demographic shift which then needs a new plan anyway sounds pretty good to me.

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

#130

Post by sdljfslkjfdsj »

chimeracoder wrote: post #99
sdljfslkjfdsj wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 t…

Forgot to cite my earlier comments.

> Wages have stagnated & only recently picked up[1]

> GDP has been the lowest post-recovery ever[2][6]

> Net household debt is again at new highs[3]

> Interest rates at forever in the history of human civilization lows.[4]

> Meanwhile every single risk seeking asset class primarily owned by the wealthy has appreciated to levels last seen at prior bubble peaks.[5]

[1] https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/wage-growth (can you even spot QE?)

[2] http://fortune.com/2015/07/30/us-gdp-economy/

[3] https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-fed-debt/americans-de...

[4] https://www.cnbc.com/2016/11/17/200-years-of-us-interest-rat...

[5] https://stansberrystreaming.com/presentations/grant-williams... (this years stansberry vegas conference)

[6] https://www.economist.com/blogs/dailychart/2011/07/american-...

Post reply on HN