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

A Genealogy of the Idea of Universal Basic Income

lareviewofbooks.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 162 posts

Re: A Genealogy of the Idea of Universal Basic Income

#101

Post by laurencerowe »

zozbot234 wrote: post #83
mcv wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My impression is, if you compare health care costs across various wealthy countries, it's pretty clear that socialised health care is cheaper than privatised health care. Netherland has universal but privatised healthcare, and has one of the most expensive health care systems in Europe, costing more than half that of the American health care system. And it's not particularly better than the more socialised healthcare…

> it's pretty clear that socialised health care is cheaper than privatised health care Causation goes the other way. If your healthcare is cheap, you might as well socialize it, and it will mostly be OKish; if it's too expensive (as in the U.S.) you have no chance of running a satisfactory socialized system. Switzerland has largely private healthcare and mandatory ("universal") health insurance, but its costs are not…

Aneurin Bevan, The Minister of Health under which the NHS was created, said that to win support of the doctors, "I stuffed their mouths with gold".

Re: A Genealogy of the Idea of Universal Basic Income

#102

Post by dantheman »

chongli wrote: post #68
zozbot234 wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is no free market in education credentials or in healthcare. Both sectors are heavily regulated by the government.

Regulation isn’t the reason those sectors aren’t free markets. On the contrary, regulation exists because they can’t be free markets. Both lead to market failures due to information disparities, principal-agent problems, massive externalities, and a lack of free choice (in the case of health care).

Most health care is not emergency care so there is a lot of choice. Same with education.

They could easily be freed from massive amounts of regulation.

Re: A Genealogy of the Idea of Universal Basic Income

#103

Post by Jedd »

xsdklfsdfklj wrote: post #93
Jedd wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The problem with UBI is that we would turn it back into the welfare system we have now. That's not a problem with UBI. IMO that scenario is not likely, let alone guaranteed. I appreciate a pessimistic outlook as much as the next guy, but I don't think we should abandon UBI because you think it may change in the future.

the argument against it [1] is practically that if it is being pushed by the current system it is to benefit the current system. As in, "uber needs a safety net for their drivers" kinda of vision, which given the track record in the US is very likely. [1] https://jacobinmag.com/2017/12/universal-basic-income-inequa...

An interesting read, though it contains lots of generalisations and speculation presented as guaranteed outcomes.

USA suffers from exceptionalism on a number of fronts -- it's unsurprising that claims of UBI (in)applicability is also on that list.

Re: A Genealogy of the Idea of Universal Basic Income

#104

Post by CuriousSkeptic »

innocentoldguy wrote: post #31
danesparza wrote: post #19

I'm glad to see Thomas Paine referenced in this article. So many Americans don't realize that one of America's founding fathers championed the idea of universal basic income back when the USA was just being created. This was something that Andrew Yang pointed out, but was largely ignored.

I hear this a lot but in reading Paine’s writings, I can only find ideas somewhat similar to Social Security payments for elderly people. I have not been able to find anything in Paine’s writings that is synonymous with the concept of UBI. I’m not saying it isn’t in there somewhere, just that I haven’t found it. Would you mind citing specifically where you found this information?

In Agrarian Justice he proposes to “ create a national fund, out of which there shall be paid to every person, when arrived at the age of twenty-one years, the sum of fifteen pounds sterling, as a compensation in part, for the loss of his or her natural inheritance, by the introduction of the system of landed property”

He also makes it very clear that this isn’t some form of charity to help people. But rather about justice

Re: A Genealogy of the Idea of Universal Basic Income

#105

Post by marcusverus »

ineedasername wrote: post #53
mikedilger wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

UBI to people outside of the workforce is entirely different. My argument against UBI is that it erodes the desire to work, and we still need nearly everybody of working age to work... until the robots catch up (they still have a lot of catching up to do).

I'm not sure how much it erodes the desire to work: Having a minimum wage job that that keeps you at the the poverty level doesn't really dissuade people from wanting more and trying to get it. The entire culture of having a "career path" with an upward trajectory runs counter to the idea that people, given something like UBI, will suddenly stop wanting & being willing to work for more.

It is a monumental assumption that people are career driven enough to keep working once there is a UBI in effect. Especially considering that people are career driven to provide for their families, and the UBI essentially makes that a non-issue. But let's hang on to that general assumption, and think about some specific examples where UBI will undeniably have an impact.

Many people will work fewer hours or quit their second jobs. Currently 7 million workers have a second job.[1]

Young people graduating from high school and college would have a greatly diminished incentive to enter the workforce. Why get a job at all when you can shack up with your buds, pool your UBI, and have all the money you need for booze and video games? Many will fall into this trap temporarily, some permanently.

Millions of creatives who want to work on their music or write the next great american novel are out on day one.

How about the folks currently working to supplement Social Security? Currently, 10 million people over 65 are still working[0]. How many of them quit their jobs on day one of UBI?

Millions of working moms are out on day one.

The biggest issue will be the fact that UBI will make retirement instantly possible for many, and much easier for many more. Currently, to retire with an income of 40K, you would need a nest-egg of $1.3M (assuming a conservative withdrawal rate of 3% annually and no social security). But if you're guaranteed a UBI of 12K per year, a married couple receiving 24K per year in guaranteed income is able to retire with a nest-egg of only 533K. Tens of millions of the most productive workers in the economy will be ready for retirement decades ahead of schedule.

None of these things are necessarily bad--I'd love to be able to retire a decade ahead of schedule! But when the workforce is significantly reduced in size while spending is dramatically increased, taxes will necessarily skyrocket, the incentive to work will plummet even further, and the resulting feedback loop will hollow-out the workforce and bring the economy to a screeching halt.

[0] https://unitedincome.capitalone.com/library/older-americans-... [1] https://www.wsj.com/articles/does-everyone-have-two-jobs-153...

Re: A Genealogy of the Idea of Universal Basic Income

#106

Post by CuriousSkeptic »

raincom wrote: post #37

UBI works well in developed countries, whose currency others desire. Developing countries who spend more on imports, can't afford that.

Given the results in developing countries I’m not sure you can say that. It could very well be that the increase in GDP more then makes up for any costs of such policies.

https://www.poverty-action.org/impact/cash-transfers-changin...

Re: A Genealogy of the Idea of Universal Basic Income

#107

Post by zanny »

mikedilger wrote: post #42
lostlogin wrote: post #15

Below is an article arguing that New Zealand has been testing a UBI for decades with its pension scheme which is available to everyone aged over 65. Be warned - Gareth Morgan has some interesting politics. http://morganfoundation.org.nz/already-ubi-nz-super/

UBI to people outside of the workforce is entirely different. My argument against UBI is that it erodes the desire to work, and we still need nearly everybody of working age to work... until the robots catch up (they still have a lot of catching up to do).

> still need nearly everybody of working age to work

Within my entire known family tree maybe 1 in 8 people work jobs essential to the creation of goods (including food, power, water), the construction or maintenance of shelter, or the providing of health or transportation.

A huge swath of society is employed in doing things often equating to simply moving numbers around in databases or inside heads. Or more generally, they serve economics by operating to move money from one pocketbook to another.

Its also worth mentioning that labor force participation rates trend downwards over the last 50 years in industrialized nations. Since the participation boom of womens emancipation there has been a general decline in participation not reflected in unemployment figures largely because the number of people required to produce the needs and wants of 99% of everyone else is so few, and because there are so few of means to create demand all on their own (ie, millionaire+ elites) for more extravagant goods markets that don't manifest in a widespread form.

Re: A Genealogy of the Idea of Universal Basic Income

#108

Post by CuriousSkeptic »

ralusek wrote: post #76

I am a free market advocate, libertarian-lite, that believes that UBI is the correct social safety net. I am clearly not unique in this regard, as this actually seems to be the most common type of UBI advocate I've encountered. That being said, the one lingering question I have comes down to a variant of inflation. I think most people think of inflation as something that only happens as a result of monetary policy, b…

Why would debt not cause inflation? “Money” today is almost entirely made up of credit, increase credit and you increase the money supply, which is more less the definition of inflation.

The thing about shifting demand causing inflation seems to me more like an adjustment. Not really the kind of inflation that cause trouble.

Also, since you mentioned landlords. Check out geo-libertarian take on this. Financing an UBI from a land value tax is in my opinion the most interesting approach. Since it would be based on a principle of justice, not just another welfare scheme.

Re: A Genealogy of the Idea of Universal Basic Income

#109

Post by zanny »

ralusek wrote: post #76

I am a free market advocate, libertarian-lite, that believes that UBI is the correct social safety net. I am clearly not unique in this regard, as this actually seems to be the most common type of UBI advocate I've encountered. That being said, the one lingering question I have comes down to a variant of inflation. I think most people think of inflation as something that only happens as a result of monetary policy, b…

In modern globalized economics the only things that really inflate uncontrollably are things those supply is constrained by forces beyond production scalability. IE patents, copyrights, or things of extremely finite supply like land.

TVs keep getting cheaper because economies of scale keep growing and the industrialization of billions of people in the last 40 years has produced enough supply to more than meet rising demand combined with technological innovation and automation efficiencies dropping the resource and labor requirements substantively. There are probably orders of magnitude more TVs made and sold today than in 2000, but the cost per unit has fallen in that time (or you get a radically more complex / better product for comparative prices).

Insulin, college, rent, etc prices rise uncontrollably because they are supply constrained by monopolists. But dealing with those anti-competitive markets and industries needs to happen for the health and wellbeing of society regardless of the institution of a UBI or not.

Re: A Genealogy of the Idea of Universal Basic Income

#110

Post by CuriousSkeptic »

rriepe wrote: post #21

Once we implement UBI, what's the argument against doubling it?

An UBI based on dividends such as from a land value tax, or a carbon trading, would follow GDP more or less. No reason not to double it if possible in a sustainable way.
Post reply on HN