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

Germany begins 3-year universal-basic-income trial

businessinsider.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 348 posts

Re: Germany begins 3-year universal-basic-income trial

#111

Post by unfortun8 »

baconandeggs wrote: post #64
skybrian wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Any UBI could be entirely reversed by an equal and opposite tax. Of course this would be pointless, but it shows that there are many possibilities, depending on what sort of taxes you combine it with, and some of them are certainly feasible because the net effect is small. UBI is largely about symbolic equality, the kindergarten-level fairness of everyone getting the same amount. That’s important because symbols of e…

And that is why it will fail. Fairness is not about everyone getting the same amount just for existing, for that in itself is not fair. Real fairness is everyone playing against the same rules and being treated the same under the law. Sadly governments and politicians are too corrupt to implement real fairness and have decided instead for the populist way out while keeping their insane advantage intact.

What’s truly unfortunate is how the people who can create such a cogent argument about the problems continue to enable them by bloviating at their screens on forums that don’t carry political weight, and avoid activities in general that do carry political weight.

Understand the politicians that most contribute to creating the problems are happy to absorb impotent rhetoric all day long.

Exceptional and gritty Americans will Grubhub, and social media, and otherwise luxuriate the country off a cliff rather than collectively get behind fairness in a real way.

Re: Germany begins 3-year universal-basic-income trial

#112

Post by bilal4hmed »

joubert wrote: post #94
bilal4hmed wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

that is false, living in the Middle East and know whats up https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizen%27s_Account_Program_(S... https://basicincome.org/news/2011/05/kuwait-a-temporary-part...

Thanks for those links. It got me reading more to deepen my understanding. I should say that my intent is not to invalidate your living experience, but rather to learn more. Here’s what I’ve found so far: Saudi Arabia - dependence on foreign labor (since you claimed UBI is the cause): “ In answer to the question of why the Saudi economy is so dependent on foreign labor, the UN Arab Human Development Report blamed stu…

No worries, as you can imagine getting information about the programs in these countries at times can be tough :)

In general, being a citizen of a Gulf Cooperation Council gives you the following 1) Free healthcare 2) Free education including study abroad 3) Stipend monthly 4) Free electricity and water Other countries may have more or a little less. Like qataris get an allocation of land if they marry another citizen.

The general qatari population is 15% while immigrant population is 85%.

They might have different names for it or its obfuscated but a form of UBI has been going on for decades, since I have friends who are nationals and ive been here for 30+ years. The information might not be freely available.

Here is a page from the archive about Qatar https://web.archive.org/web/20150430001945/https://portal.ww... . It is no longer live, but they mention an adequate income

Re: Germany begins 3-year universal-basic-income trial

#113

Post by zhoujianfu »

w-m wrote: post #81
dageshi wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think there's any data to prove that they wouldn't? Honestly what's more likely to happen is, the people who have always been self motivated to drive themselves towards goals will still succeed, the ones who would be pretty happy just playing video games and getting stoned/drunk will have an easier way of doing just that.

And where exactly is the problem with that?

Exactly! Sounds pretty good if everybody gets to do what makes them personally happy..

Re: Germany begins 3-year universal-basic-income trial

#114

Post by MisterBastahrd »

scohesc wrote: post #28
MisterBastahrd wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The thing about government programs that hand out cash is that the money will be circulated back into the local economy most of the time, which is a net benefit (I think it would be a net positive if the money was required to be spent locally if the beneficiary makes above a certain income). It's not like it's getting thrown down a black hole. Even if a person is making great money, that additional money is more like…

I would like to see a source for that if you could provide one :) If I was working full-time and could live comfortably off that plus extra UBI, I think the majority of people would spend it on more luxurious goods (phones, laptops, drugs, etc.) which are mostly ran by/on outside/blackmarket economies... We're not sure of the magic number/ratio between "person will use UBI for basic, locally-sourced needs" vs. "perso…

Source? Reality. Look at the savings and investment rates for the poor. Where do you think the money is going? Most people still source their large purchases locally, even if it's at a store chain, which keeps the local economy going because there are plenty of services used at those stores that are local.

A guy who goes and buys a nice new luxury TV from a local Best Buy is still supporting local businesses indirectly because that Best Buy is going to have multiple contracts with local businesses for services.

Re: Germany begins 3-year universal-basic-income trial

#115

Post by vorpalhex »

gremlinsinc wrote: post #93
Fargren wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Real fairness under that definition can't exist as long as there are inheritances. People who are born in wealthier families are not playing under the same rules (just imagine if a person playing Monopoly started with ten times the initial amount of money). I prefer a definition of fairness that is actually achievable[1]: everyone has at least the bare minimum, regardless of fitness and deserving. You can quibble abo…

I can't see our modern society lasting without this. Not much longer. Not after covid, and whatever 2020's throw at us, and global warming. Food riots, and real civil discord are only months away, if not weeks.

That's alarmist and unfounded. The economy has recovered heartily, in general civil discord has gone away in most areas, and grocery stores aren't running out of food or going insane with prices - I'm still sipping fancy kombucha at the same rate I paid a year ago.

More people are concerned about whether their uber eats driver is going to show up on time than food riots at the moment. I don't see that changing in the immediate future.

Re: Germany begins 3-year universal-basic-income trial

#116

Post by unfortun8 »

mrow84 wrote: post #96
baconandeggs wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And that is why it will fail. Fairness is not about everyone getting the same amount just for existing, for that in itself is not fair. Real fairness is everyone playing against the same rules and being treated the same under the law. Sadly governments and politicians are too corrupt to implement real fairness and have decided instead for the populist way out while keeping their insane advantage intact.

> Fairness is not about everyone getting the same amount just for existing, for that in itself is not fair. Can you explain why? And if your answer amounts to "because people provide different amounts of [effort|value] to society" how would you reply to "so what?".

“1 in 7 billion uses luxury of online anonymity to play at being a nihilist. Forgets real world self and political power is limited to whatever the masses enable. Would rather ostricize self politically than speak up.”

Re: Germany begins 3-year universal-basic-income trial

#117

Post by kube-system »

jpxw wrote: post #21
ghthor wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Test it in production.

... which is a terrible idea

Unfortunately, we don't have a test environment. And the last time we tried to make one, it became a case-study in an ethics textbook.

Re: Germany begins 3-year universal-basic-income trial

#118

Post by makomk »

MisterBastahrd wrote: post #11
jpxw wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They also only give the money to a small number of people Not to mention that the real question is whether UBI makes sense economically, not whether people like money, which is almost indisputable

The thing about government programs that hand out cash is that the money will be circulated back into the local economy most of the time, which is a net benefit (I think it would be a net positive if the money was required to be spent locally if the beneficiary makes above a certain income). It's not like it's getting thrown down a black hole. Even if a person is making great money, that additional money is more like…

In some real economic sense the money is gone, though. Think for a moment of money not as some abstract numbers, but a representation of a claim on actual, real resources and suppose for example you go for a haircut, stop at a cafe on the way back, have a coffee and a pastry, all in the local economy. The resources you've consumed - the coffee and food, the workers' time, the space in the cafe and barbers - all those are gone, they don't recirculate. When that money gets spent, the person spending it is claiming a whole new set of resources with (in a sense) new money created through the process of it circulating within the economy.

One interesting corollary of this is that speeding up the recirculation of money increases the money supply and slowing it down decreases it, just as though some central bank was actually printing or destroying money. This is particularly relevant right now, when a lot of countries seem to be running the metaphorical money printers flat out and the circulation of money has been temporarily impaired by extremely limited things to spend it on.

Re: Germany begins 3-year universal-basic-income trial

#119

Post by TheGrim-888 »

baconandeggs wrote: post #73
mmhsieh wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"What UBI skeptical people want to know is where is the proof that we can afford to tax ourselves to pay ourselves, where is the proof that it won't hurt long term productivity, and where is the proof that it doesn't cause inflation. A 120 person 36 month trial program cannot answer any of these questions." Yes, but some skeptics really do object to UBI on moral-based reasons - indolence, buying drugs, laziness, and…

Will it? People will just say we need better mental health treatments. I don't think there is a good argument against UBI that they'll accept. But of course, they don't answer the real question which is who's gonna do all the producing? The ones producing are clearly gonna be the ones being taken advantage of on UBI, even if it works 100% as expected .

If we were a space-faring people with automated robots doing space mining, collecting and processing materials, if there was no shortage of resources and nearly everything was automated - then sure, fine, people can have their utopian space-communism, culture-series, setup where everyone gets free money and can have whatever they want, and do whatever we want.

But we're so many lightyears away from that situation. Our resources are very much limited. If people don't keep producing, we just stagnate and decay. We're nowhere near the point we need to be.

Re: Germany begins 3-year universal-basic-income trial

#120

Post by vorpalhex »

Fargren wrote: post #79
baconandeggs wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And that is why it will fail. Fairness is not about everyone getting the same amount just for existing, for that in itself is not fair. Real fairness is everyone playing against the same rules and being treated the same under the law. Sadly governments and politicians are too corrupt to implement real fairness and have decided instead for the populist way out while keeping their insane advantage intact.

Real fairness under that definition can't exist as long as there are inheritances. People who are born in wealthier families are not playing under the same rules (just imagine if a person playing Monopoly started with ten times the initial amount of money). I prefer a definition of fairness that is actually achievable[1]: everyone has at least the bare minimum, regardless of fitness and deserving. You can quibble abo…

What's the difference between your local grocery store clerk, and a Hollywood actor?

They both likely have cars, homes and an iphone. Sure, your Hollywood actor is probably driving an exotic sports car and their iphone is diamond studded, but fundamentally, what does it matter?

> housing, food, education and health. Any society where anyone can't get those things by asking for them is not fair

I agree in the general but I suspect we disagree quite differently on the details. We do provide housing for the poor, and short term homelessness outcomes are actually generally positive - we tend to get people who lose their home back into another house. We provide free education through a high school diploma and community college in most areas is exceedingly affordable with massive scholarship opportunities available for ivy leagues. You can walk into any hospital and it's illegal for them to refuse you treatment.

Does this mean our society is without fault? Of course not - we've shown repeatedly that we're terrible at finding real solutions for the persistently homeless (and no, shoving them into homes doesn't actually fix their problems as much as it fixes the stats), and healthcare is at best described as "horrifically abberant".

And we should fix those things. But that some Hollywood starlett is flying around in a gulfstream has nothing to do with those fundamental problems - it is not a lack of resources but a lack of willingness and deep understanding of the problem space.

It's easy to blame the wealthy, it's much harder to solve the actual problem set.

Post reply on HN