Universal Basic Income is Capitalism 2.0 • Hacker News Board

Re: Universal Basic Income is Capitalism 2.0

#921

Post by berkeleyjunk » Thu, Jul 30, 2020, 5:28 PM UTC

doh wrote: post #920

I'm all for UBI. However the cash UBI suffers from significant flow, where the surplus is captured by landlords. That means if everyone gets $1,000/month, then the rents go up by the same amount, which pushes prices of real estate and thus the mortgages. So after some period of adjustment, the money would be lost again. I have not found an answer, but my gut says that it has something to do with the base of Maslow's…

I think Singapore is really ahead in the affordable housing front. They have nice places where people actually want to live. I am not sure if and how it is possible to replicate this on a larger scale.

Re: Universal Basic Income is Capitalism 2.0

#922

Post by t0astbread » Thu, Jul 30, 2020, 5:34 PM UTC

Whenever I read something about capitalism the piece always points out how capitalism increases humanity's overall wealth but fails to mention that it rips off some people so hard, their wealth benefit is negative. For example, workers in low-income countries might receive some technological advancements via capitalism but the exploitation they have to endure is not at all justified by the benefits.

Here's a "hot new idea that no capitalist has ever thought of" (it's phrased a bit provocative but I honestly think it's a good point): Wealth can be a bad thing if it's not shared. If I have a higher living standard in one country (or society, group, whatever) then my freedom to move to another country decreases because I wouldn't want my living standard to decrease. Differences in wealth make barriers which also disbenefit the wealth-bearer. In extreme cases, a difference in wealth can also lead to envy, hatred and, sometimes, escalation from the non-wealth-bearer side (as the article points out).

Re: Universal Basic Income is Capitalism 2.0

#923

Post by doh » Thu, Jul 30, 2020, 5:34 PM UTC

berkeleyjunk wrote: post #921

doh wrote: post #920

I'm all for UBI. However the cash UBI suffers from significant flow, where the surplus is captured by landlords. That means if everyone gets $1,000/month, then the rents go up by the same amount, which pushes prices of real estate and thus the mortgages. So after some period of adjustment, the money would be lost again. I have not found an answer, but my gut says that it has something to do with the base of Maslow's…

I think Singapore is really ahead in the affordable housing front. They have nice places where people actually want to live. I am not sure if and how it is possible to replicate this on a larger scale.

California has requirements that developers have to designate certain units for low income. However, for larger developments, they found a loophole, where multiple developers pool all of these units and put them in a separate building.

I think it completely beats the purpose. The whole point of this should be so people that hit the bottom don't feel like outcasts. We would be so much better off if we helped them to get on their feet so they can be productive again.

Re: Universal Basic Income is Capitalism 2.0

#924

Post by sdunwoody » Thu, Jul 30, 2020, 5:34 PM UTC

x87678r wrote: post #919

sdunwoody wrote: post #761

I really don't think enough thought goes into the affordability of a UBI when it comes up in discussions. Just a quick estimate, assuming that we're talking about the UK here The UBI pays out to 53,000,000 people (very roughly the number of people 18 and over). The amount the UBI pays out is £1,000 a month (whether you could really live on this is debateable, but it's certainly not possible in most of London for exam…

This is a huge point, people debating UBI are often talking about different numbers. 1000/mo is probably too high, 400/mo is probably a better level and you're right its hard to live on that in a big city, you'd have to move out.

I think you're right that most people are talking about different levels. What frustrates me often is that when a UBI is discussed, very rarely do amounts seem to be discussed; whether in terms of montly payments, or overall cost of implementing such a system.

In terms of £400 a month. I think that is feasible (although still a very large amount of money!).

Although £400 isn't enough to live on, at all (I'm not sure if that's what you mean in your reply, or whether you're talking about 1000/mo?). It could still have other benefits - reducing poverty, allowing for extra leisure time, more risk taking in terms of setting up businesses etc.

I'd be much more open to a lower level of UBI than something that is "enough to live on without working". I think any large UBI just becomes incredibly difficult to fund.

Re: Universal Basic Income is Capitalism 2.0

#925

Post by nbardy » Thu, Jul 30, 2020, 5:39 PM UTC

doh wrote: post #920

I'm all for UBI. However the cash UBI suffers from significant flow, where the surplus is captured by landlords. That means if everyone gets $1,000/month, then the rents go up by the same amount, which pushes prices of real estate and thus the mortgages. So after some period of adjustment, the money would be lost again. I have not found an answer, but my gut says that it has something to do with the base of Maslow's…

This is my biggest worry with UBI. Won't most of the extra wealth just be captured by rent-seeking?

Re: Universal Basic Income is Capitalism 2.0

#926

Post by heavyset_go » Thu, Jul 30, 2020, 5:41 PM UTC

habosa wrote: post #526

I like the simple argument made here about UBI enabling efficient consumption. I worry about three things with UBI though and they're more social than economic. 1. Power Divide - society will be easily divided into two groups: those who depend on the UBI to live and those who don't. The former will be absolutely at the mercy of the latter. We can see this a little bit with the coronavirus relief packages. 2. Predator…

> Power Divide - society will be easily divided into two groups: those who depend on the UBI to live and those who don't

There's already a power divide between those who can live off of their assets and those who can't. Those who can't are at the mercy of those with significant assets when it comes to providing themselves with housing, healthcare, food, etc.

> Even with UBI they could still end up hungry or homeless. Will we help them? Or will we say "you had your UBI, the rest is on you". This changes the morals of how we treat people in the worst times.

Look at the standard UBI proposal of $12k a year. That is not even enough to cover health insurance premiums, deductibles and copays for a single person on the individual health insurance market, let alone a family.

If UBI were to replace social programs, people would necessarily have to choose between paying for healthcare, or going without it but being better able to feed and house themselves.

UBI must be a supplemental income on top of programs that address our societal and economic shortcomings.

Re: Universal Basic Income is Capitalism 2.0

#927

Post by chillacy » Thu, Jul 30, 2020, 5:41 PM UTC

doh wrote: post #920

I'm all for UBI. However the cash UBI suffers from significant flow, where the surplus is captured by landlords. That means if everyone gets $1,000/month, then the rents go up by the same amount, which pushes prices of real estate and thus the mortgages. So after some period of adjustment, the money would be lost again. I have not found an answer, but my gut says that it has something to do with the base of Maslow's…

You might find interesting experiments on housing in Asia. Specifically Singapore has a housing subsidy system such that basic housing is subsidized to be affordable for all. In China land is rented from the government on a lease. This does tend to have the weird side effect of encouraging massive build-outs as it's how cities raise money.

One of the more interesting ideas I heard is that zoning is a cause of developers only building luxury apartments in US cities. If there were no minimum apartment size, a building could be split into smaller spaces such that the profitability per sq ft remains the same.

> then the rents go up by the same amount

I can believe that rents go up. I am skeptical that specifically rents go up by _exactly the same amount_ and in every neighborhood when a portable income source is introduced, such that it perfectly cancels it and we're back to nothing. I don't hear this criticism brought out for a minimum wage hike or tax reductions.

Re: Universal Basic Income is Capitalism 2.0

#928

Post by chillacy » Thu, Jul 30, 2020, 5:45 PM UTC

sltkr wrote: post #739

apexalpha wrote: post #680

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In my country everyone who is older than 65 (or so) gets AOW, a state pension. Which is €1200 per month. There are no conditions except for having lived (not worked) in the country for at least 40 years of the 65. This is basically UBI for elderly and it has been in place since the 1960s. None of the (theoretical) issues you named have been a problem. Do some elderly spend all their AOW on a slot machine as soon as i…

The important difference is that society doesn't need pensioners to work (in fact, retiring to free up jobs for younger people is often considered desirable), so the main concern around UBI, which is that it discourages people from working, does not apply. In fact, the AOW age has been increased from the age of 65 (eventually it will be increased to 67) to ensure the ratio of working population to retired workers is…

> which is that it discourages people from working

The OP mentioned nothing about that, do you mean "my main concern around UBI"?

FWIW I've never seen a UBI study that has actually found a statistically significant decrease in working among anyone but mothers with young children and kids in school. Granted there's no increase either as some UBI proponents have suggested. It seems to be pretty neutral.

Re: Universal Basic Income is Capitalism 2.0

#929

Post by dragonwriter » Thu, Jul 30, 2020, 5:48 PM UTC

nbardy wrote: post #925

doh wrote: post #920

I'm all for UBI. However the cash UBI suffers from significant flow, where the surplus is captured by landlords. That means if everyone gets $1,000/month, then the rents go up by the same amount, which pushes prices of real estate and thus the mortgages. So after some period of adjustment, the money would be lost again. I have not found an answer, but my gut says that it has something to do with the base of Maslow's…

This is my biggest worry with UBI. Won't most of the extra wealth just be captured by rent-seeking?

> Won't most of the extra wealth just be captured by rent-seeking?

There is no (first order; reductions in bureaucratic inefficiencies and social ills probably provide some as second-order effects) extra wealth, just a compression of the income distribution compared to the status quo ante.

Re: Universal Basic Income is Capitalism 2.0

#930

Post by dragonwriter » Thu, Jul 30, 2020, 5:50 PM UTC

doh wrote: post #920

I'm all for UBI. However the cash UBI suffers from significant flow, where the surplus is captured by landlords. That means if everyone gets $1,000/month, then the rents go up by the same amount, which pushes prices of real estate and thus the mortgages. So after some period of adjustment, the money would be lost again. I have not found an answer, but my gut says that it has something to do with the base of Maslow's…

> That means if everyone gets $1,000/month

They don't, net, unless UBI is fully monetized rather than paid for through either current taxes or borrowing, either one of which takes money from some group of people to redistribute.