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

What Is the Point of Universal Basic Income?

perell.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 238 posts

Re: What Is the Point of Universal Basic Income?

#101

Post by pinkfoot »

sokoloff wrote: post #95
pinkfoot wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the rich will pay more in new taxes than they'll get back from UBI. Except the fortunate rich who own the housing that the UBI beneficiaries will pay for. I can see UBI making a few people very, very, wealthy.

So what? If those few people provide services to a great number of people who freely choose to spend their (now increased) income on housing, those people have improved the lot of a large number of people and have earned that wealth (upon which they'll be taxed). Indeed, if UBI becomes a significant possibility (but before it's a certainty), I think that buying low-end rental properties would be a good idea as I'd ex…

So what?

My guess is the now-incredibly-rich rentiers (with guaranteed income) will start lobbying the government for concessions (e.g. restriction on new housing, tax-breaks) that further distort the very inequality UBI is trying to solve.

No one loves UBI and its noble objectives more than I: but I'm worried about this inherent failure mode.

Re: What Is the Point of Universal Basic Income?

#102

Post by falcolas »

ZhuanXia wrote: post #89
jrockway wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

An AI revolution is not required to eliminate jobs. Robots are already doing the work of millions. You can see it everywhere you look. Was your laptop hand milled out of aluminum? Nope, a CNC machine did it. Do you see 12 cashiers manning 12 checkout lanes at the grocery store? Nope, 1 cashier is manning 12 self-checkout lanes. Do you have a secretary that schedules your meetings? No, you just use Google Calendar. Th…

>An AI revolution is not required to eliminate jobs. Yes it is. If you have tasks that cannot be automated, people's labour will have value. It would require AI that is as good as any human, and that is cheaper of course, to eliminate all jobs. And even then rich people may prefer human labour for nostalgic or signalling reasons. Eliminating all jobs is a tall order.

You don’t need to eliminate all jobs to create a problem. By simply automating trucking, and you’ve put about 15% of our workforce out of work. What jobs could we easily retrain that 15% for, that are not already being filled?

Re: What Is the Point of Universal Basic Income?

#103

Post by AndrewKemendo »

RivieraKid wrote: post #12

The prevailing view seems to be: robots will take our jobs, therefore we will need UBI, which allows people to live without work. The way I see it, the main problem that UBI is solving is inequality, it's a rich to poor transfer. Excessive inequality is bad because the aggregate utility goes down (rich people don't gain much from an additional dollar, so it's more effectively used by a poor person). Transfering cash…

I'd make a slight nitpick that that the purpose of UBI is to decouple work from the ability to have enough money to live on.

The "robots will take our jobs" argument is just one of the arguments for why we should do this decoupling, among many good arguments, but is the easiest to swallow.

Re: What Is the Point of Universal Basic Income?

#104

Post by ThrowawayR2 »

jakelazaroff wrote: post #87
silvestrov wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Food is not enough. People also want a purpose with their life where they are important for other people. Denmark has kind of an UBI: a single mom + one kid, no work for past 20 years, gets more than $2300 per month. Such a person has enough money for food, good apartment, etc. All what UBI wants to provide. But many of these people end up depressed, inactive, feels like a failure, etc. Many just give completely up.…

I can’t read the article, so forgive me if that’s backed by research rather than just anecdata, but… is that really an issue people would have? I would love UBI, because it would transform what I could do with my time. Instead of working 9–5 on software for a company, I could build whatever I want. There are tons of app ideas floating around in my head that I just don’t have time to build. And I could release them fo…

> "...is that really an issue people would have?"

Hell, yes. There are a vast number of low-education people with what the HN crowd would call "old fashioned attitudes". From https://archive.is/CCTXs#selection-1205.100-1205.363:

"'Being a man means supporting your family,' says Mr Davis. 'You’ve got to do whatever it takes so they eat, [or] you’re no man at all.' Being a man, says Mr Redden, means you 'work hard, provide for your kids, have a car and [maybe] get your own house some day.'"

What would UBI do for them? It isn't going to fulfill their emotional or spiritual needs. (What they really need is a universal jobs program, IMO.)

> "With UBI, I would expect to see many more people building open–source software. I would expect many more going into the arts. I would expect many more doing volunteer work. There are so many fulfilling and valuable things to do that are not easily profitable!"

Funny, then why aren't people on public assistance already doing all these things you imagine? As others have noted, EU nations provide benefits better than any UBI proposal likely to succeed in the US. So where is this magical wave of creativity?

Could it be (shock, horror) that the vast majority of people don't have the creativity to build things or make art and don't feel they would be fulfilled by volunteer work?

Re: What Is the Point of Universal Basic Income?

#105

Post by iso947 »

paulgb wrote: post #70
iso947 wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So those in cheap areas with no jobs can never move to the areas with jobs?

I don't think it's a static system. Guaranteeing an income to everyone in those cheap areas could also have the effect of creating jobs in those areas because people would have money to spend.

They could. Or those areas could dissolve in a spiral of depression and alcoholism

Re: What Is the Point of Universal Basic Income?

#106

Post by skybrian »

stouset wrote: post #39
meddlepal wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All the current proposals for UBI seem to be talking about relatively modest anounts of income... between 10-15K a year... that's not going to go very far unless the cost of rent, essentials, and services drops dramatically. The reality is if we end up with a large amount of people that are not working then our economy is going to be totally hosed because it runs on consumption. If people don't have the money to cons…

Are you kidding? Median household income in the US is ~$60,000/yr. $10,000/yr/household would be enormous to over half the population.

That depends on where the higher taxes kick in. For a lot of people it would be getting some of your own money back, like a tax refund. This makes UBI seem both much more expensive and a much higher benefit than it actually is.

For the combination of higher taxes and UBI you need to look at how the net effects vary across the population. This isn't easy to do without understanding the taxes, and those tend not to be emphasized. (Yang's proposal has a big hole in it; the taxes aren't enough and he relies on economic growth to make up for it, which is a common dodge many politicians use for big proposals. Not that economic growth can't happen but it's not that predictable for something that hasn't been tried. You don't know when the next recession will be.)

In a zero-sum redistribution scheme intended to reduce inequality, if you're of average or high income you might not directly benefit at all, but that's no reason not to support it. You buy fire insurance for the worst case, not because you plan to make money at it in the average case. You get security from it that's not shown in the estimated average payoff.

Re: What Is the Point of Universal Basic Income?

#107

Post by sokoloff »

pinkfoot wrote: post #101
sokoloff wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So what? If those few people provide services to a great number of people who freely choose to spend their (now increased) income on housing, those people have improved the lot of a large number of people and have earned that wealth (upon which they'll be taxed). Indeed, if UBI becomes a significant possibility (but before it's a certainty), I think that buying low-end rental properties would be a good idea as I'd ex…

So what? My guess is the now-incredibly-rich rentiers (with guaranteed income) will start lobbying the government for concessions (e.g. restriction on new housing, tax-breaks) that further distort the very inequality UBI is trying to solve. No one loves UBI and its noble objectives more than I: but I'm worried about this inherent failure mode.

What's the failure mode? That broad swaths of society get provided a fundamental service (shelter) in a way that is profitable to the people most efficiently and effectively providing that service?

I think when people approach this problem as "how do we best punish the rich?" rather than "how do we best help the poor?", it's very easy to get stuck spinning in circles.

(IMO) No one should care that there are very rich people. We should instead care that there are not very poor people.

Re: What Is the Point of Universal Basic Income?

#108

Post by Shivetya »

The point? Theoretically provided a floor upon which you cannot fall below but one from which you can grow up from.

However, there are so many caveats that it requires compromise both on part of those who wish to create such a system and those who wish to participate in such a system. It requires changing society in such that acceptance of a minimal life style is normal and not something to rebel against. It will require acknowledging that this minimal lifestyle may not be in a location you truly desire but it will never be in a location you cannot survive.

No UBI based society will survive long as purveyors of jealously and envy prey on it. This pretty much tanks the idea as long as current political methods are employed which extort both to gain power and authority over others. Look how much political effort is expended in making people dislike others simply for what they have. Worse is the idea insinuated that many did not get what they have by fair means. All this will doom any society trying to move to UBI because there cannot be any floor that would be acceptable.

The complex problem is that in such a large population base the numbers of people who will seek to take advantage of it can outstrip those who want to improve upon it. This is exaggerated as many succumb to this thinking because of the near constant bombardment of envy pushed by those with political aims.

Re: What Is the Point of Universal Basic Income?

#109

Post by paulgb »

falcolas wrote: post #96
paulgb wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> [...] increasing the supply of low cost housing dramatically? They are pretty much prerequisites for UBI. Yes, I'm sort of surprised that fixing housing costs is not the first priority of people who want UBI ASAP. As I see it, if you don't start adding supply to the housing market quickly, a UBI would actually become a regressive policy where a tax on consumption (VAT) is effectively transferred to land owners. On…

Supply exists. Surplus exists. It’s just reserved for the wealthy, since homebuilders can make more profit off one luxury home than a hundred affordable homes, even if they have to leave the luxury home vacant for years before finding a buyer.

Suddenly having an extra $1k/month isn't going to bump many people into the bracket where the can suddenly afford the luxury housing, though. It goes back to the housing supply needing to be fixed, UBI itself does not fix it.

Re: What Is the Point of Universal Basic Income?

#110

Post by pinkfoot »

sokoloff wrote: post #107
pinkfoot wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So what? My guess is the now-incredibly-rich rentiers (with guaranteed income) will start lobbying the government for concessions (e.g. restriction on new housing, tax-breaks) that further distort the very inequality UBI is trying to solve. No one loves UBI and its noble objectives more than I: but I'm worried about this inherent failure mode.

What's the failure mode? That broad swaths of society get provided a fundamental service (shelter) in a way that is profitable to the people most efficiently and effectively providing that service? I think when people approach this problem as "how do we best punish the rich ?" rather than "how do we best help the poor ?", it's very easy to get stuck spinning in circles. (IMO) No one should care that there are very ri…

> in a way that is profitable to the people most efficiently and effectively providing that service?

There is one of your assumptions.

It is more likey be captured by connected rentiers who exclude the more efficient.

IMO

Post reply on HN