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

131–140 of 238 posts

Re: What Is the Point of Universal Basic Income?

#131

Post by danaris »

akvadrako wrote: post #129

There are several points of UBI according to me: 1) It simplifies the social support system and makes it more market oriented. Maybe it doesn't eliminate needs-based support totally, but that's a good goal. Need-based support creates bad incentives because it encourages people to be needy. 2) It gives people freedom to take risks and pursue what they find important. Right now many people do pointless work; sometimes…

> Need-based support creates bad incentives because it encourages people to be needy.

This needs some unpacking, I think.

Though there is a way in which this is true, it's not the way that most right-wing pundits would have us all believe. The commonly-sold myth of welfare is that there are people for whom welfare (or whatever other "needs-based support") is something they desire, so they kick back and don't try to improve themselves, so that they stay needy—essentially, they deliberately become moochers leeching off the system.

The research I've seen indicates that if people like that exist, they are a rounding error on the books.

What's much, much more common is people who desperately need their support being forced to avoid bettering themselves, lest they fall into the hole between "the government admits that you need this" and "you can actually provide for yourself." (One particular example I've heard of is a disability system where owning more than $2000 in assets of any kind results in you getting kicked out of the system permanently.)

Now, what's also much more common is people who genuinely need the support being unable to get together the wherewithal to prove that they do need it. (For instance, a form must be submitted in person, or an in-person interview is required, but the person doesn't own a car, or the disability they're trying to prove made them unable to drive, or the office that they have to get to is only open during the hours they work and missing a shift will get them fired...)

Needs-based support is bad, and we need to move away from it as much as possible to universal support, but it's not really because of malicious people preying on the system.

Re: What Is the Point of Universal Basic Income?

#132

Post by adambyrtek »

peteradio wrote: post #54
adambyrtek wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, but it's a very different baseline when you can afford basic needs instead of being homeless and hungry. The fact that some other people might feel "less rich" as a result shouldn't really be considered an issue.

I think maybe OPs point is that current prices for basics are based on some sort baseline ability to pay. If you increase that baseline then whats to stop basic prices to rise leaving everyone at that same point or maybe worse since other social services would get turned off?

Competition is what should keep prices at bay, assuming no significant change in cost of production and market with no monopoly. Actually, more automation should in the long term reduce prices in real terms.

Re: What Is the Point of Universal Basic Income?

#133

Post by philipkglass »

Kaiyou wrote: post #6
foolzcrow wrote: post #2

Fact: The plan is about replacing you with robots at work so they can rake in more profits. In return you get to go on welfare rebranded as UBI. Look it up UBI is about automation AI replacing humans for profit. (see geordie rose) So your 40k job becomes 10k to 15k welfare. MegaCorps pocket the rest of your wage as reward for selling you out to UBI and AI.

That's very nice of them. If I had the means towards that end, I wouldn't hand out welfare like that. In fact, I would probably tend towards the future scenario that was painted in Terminator, only with me controlling the AI, while pretending towards humanity that the AI went out of control. More profits that way. Seriously, if you have that kind of power, what's the incentive to let everyone else live?

An army of Terminators can't keep you safe from retaliation. Anyone who tries to take over the world with killer robots will be fought by other people. You might be able to provoke World War III by unleashing killer robots against all the world's governments and their militaries, but you won't be able to prosper or even (probably) survive.

Re: What Is the Point of Universal Basic Income?

#134

Post by ac29 »

nightski wrote: post #126
sokoloff wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The fact that an investor can put up some capital and then gain "dividends" for as long as a company exists is ludicrous to me. This (and other forms of return) is the motivation for the investor to put up the initial capital. Do you have an alternative proposal to handle the common case where someone who wants to work hard and innovate needs capital to do so?

My proposal would simply be to make it a legal obligation for all companies to provide ownership in the company proportional to salary each year they are employed. Not only that, it's a special type of stock which is paid dividends on profits before external shareholders. This stock should have exclusive premium benefits over any other stock. A lot of thought would need to be put into how to structure this so it coul…

Employees are welcome to use a portion of their salary to purchase a stake in the companies they work for already. Mandating that their employer do that on their behalf (thus decreasing their cash salaries) probably wouldn't go over too well.

If fact, its generally considered a poor idea to own shares in the company you work for - if the company takes a downturn, not only do your shares lose value, you're probably also out of a job.

Re: What Is the Point of Universal Basic Income?

#135

Post by naravara »

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…

> And what about robots? There is a danger that automation will further exacerbate income inequality, so redistribution is a natural response, because it would increase the effective wages of low income jobs

Why does it make more sense to redistribute the outputs of the robots rather than redistributing the ownership of the robots so that everyone gets and equal share of the output?

The latter approach addresses the root cause of inequality (unequal access to resources) rather than trying to put a bandaid over the wound by constantly having to siphon the money back.

Re: What Is the Point of Universal Basic Income?

#136

Post by brockmuellers »

lixtra wrote: post #86
pjc50 wrote: post #62

To me, it's the other way up: without UBI, there is a small number of people who die every year due to not having (sufficient) income. Usually not direct starvation, but exposure-related due to homelessness, or issues such as not being able to afford insulin. There are basically three kinds of response to this: a) they deserve it, all of them b) it's sad, but it's not our problem c) this is not acceptable and somethi…

> without UBI, there is a small number of people who die every year due to not having (sufficient) income If workers spend a few days per year to pay for your ubi that takes away that time of their life. If they spend 1% of their life working for ubi it’s 1% of workers life lost. That’s asking quite a lot.

One could instead think of social programs, such as UBI, as insurance. People gladly pay >1% of income for insurance. I believe that nearly everyone has the potential to end up in the financial dumps (no one is above drug addiction, serious health problems, mental disorders, lawsuits etc). If a worker ends up there, they'll be glad to have the "insurance coverage" of UBI.

Re: What Is the Point of Universal Basic Income?

#137

Post by DataWorker »

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…

But your rent will increase, probably a lot.

Re: What Is the Point of Universal Basic Income?

#138

Post by sonofhans »

ThrowawayR2 wrote: post #104
jakelazaroff wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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,…

> ... then why aren't people on public assistance already doing all these things you imagine?

Because public assistance in the US sucks. It's designed to. It is political tool more than social policy. There's a word of difference between these two things:

1. We as a society value families and children, so stay home and take care of yours, and we'll make sure you have enough resources to meet your needs. 2. Better get a job soon, parasite, your benefits expire next month.

In which of those situations do you feel safe, or free to create? Or to nurture, itself the greatest act of creativity? Is it not enough labor for society to raise a family? Must every mother also constantly be generating profits for someone else?

This is not my direct experience -- I consider myself fortunate -- but I've seen plenty of it. Getting public assistance is humiliating, time-consuming, and uncertain.

Humiliating - asking for public assistance immediately labels you as a problem and a failure, even for many of those tasked with providing assistance.

There are limited resources (artificially limited, because of course we can always afford weapons programs and tax breaks for owners of capital and real estate). The public assistance system is non-trivially optimized to weed out people who don't need it, in order to conserve these resources, and this process can be fraught and combative. "Prove to me that you're a failure" is the message and the context.

Time-consuming - it takes forever. People on public assistance are often assumed to have no jobs. They have to go (usually slowly, on mass transit if they're lucky) from one government office to another, making and keeping appointments weeks or months ahead. They have to do this often while they live in car that provides shelter, but not transportation, since they can't afford gas.

Uncertain - a large portion of the US political apparatus has for decades spent vast energy and resources in reducing public assistance, and in demonizing those who use it ("welfare mothers"). As we speak the US administration is pushing through further reductions, designed (they say) to "push people from welfare to work."

No surprise that people in that context don't feel free or safe enough to create.

Re: What Is the Point of Universal Basic Income?

#140

Post by dasil003 »

meddlepal wrote: post #55
DennisP wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On the one hand you're saying 15K/yr isn't enough to live on, and on the other you're worried it will prompt people to quit their jobs. Unemployment isn't our major problem right now. The problem is that the jobs available for many people pay very little. Back when I made $18K/year, that extra 10-15K/mo would have been enormously helpful. I certainly wouldn't have stopped working; I would have paid down my credit car…

I think you misunderstood... I don't think it will cause people to quit their jobs. I didn't say that in my post. I assume UBI goes hand in hand with automation straight up eliminating jobs. There are no jobs for people.

How does it go hand-in-hand? UBI comes from the government, automation comes from businesses. No business is holding back automation waiting for UBI to be implemented.
Post reply on HN