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

331–340 of 348 posts

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

#331

Post by thisisbrians »

michannne wrote: post #322
thisisbrians wrote: post #313

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"How did you make that connection? If you aren't hunting, you can do farm work. If you aren't doing that, you can produce tools. If you aren't doing that, you can go mine ores, make clothes, etc." This is exactly my point.

No, your point from what I understand is that even given a UBI, people will find new productive work to do. My point is 1) that with a UBI in place, there is no incentive for people to do any of these new productive jobs, and 2) a UBI by itself doesn't suddenly eliminate the need for the old productive jobs. If all of the old productive work is automated, then yes, I agree that people will find new productive work to…

I actually wasn't talking about UBI; I was talking more generally about automation eliminating jobs being a shaky premise.

However, I still disagree with you; UBI (as currently proposed) would provide so little income that most would still have to do at least some work to maintain their standards of living. Paying me $1,200 a month would not cause me to suddenly sit on my ass, for example. And, capitalism can still exist alongside UBI: if you want more money, compete in the market to get it.

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

#332

Post by garmaine »

throwaway_kufu wrote: post #330
garmaine wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because war didn’t exist before capitalism /s Per-capita violence has been in steady decline for this time period.

Because people weren’t born before capitalism? “Per captia” violence? That is a hell of a qualifier you need.

It’s not a qualifier, it’s the only way to measure which makes sense.

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

#333

Post by b112 »

RockIslandLine wrote: post #314
b112 wrote: post #275

Earlier quoted context omitted.

OK, read. I still don't see anything but, well, a lot of "this should" and "here's why". Maybe I'm missing something, but where is the for-profit motive for banks to lend, for absolutely no return? Further, where is the pressure to pay back debt, if there is no interest. When not just run up the debt forever? Just use the banks to create more and more cash, forever? And who cares about the effect on other parts of th…

"Maybe I'm missing something, but where is the for-profit motive for banks to lend, for absolutely no return?" You're definitely missing something, because private lenders are perfectly free to charge interest. ZIRP applies only to federal debt. "Yet, why would I, as a banker, lend to the government at all?" Currency issuers never need to borrow. That is an incorrect statement of why Federal debt exists. Federal debt…

"You're definitely missing something, because private lenders are perfectly free to charge interest. ZIRP applies only to federal debt."

As I understand it, the Canadian Federal debt is held through a variety of instruments, quite a lot of it domestically. EG, Royal Bank, TD Bank, etc.

Whether it is bonds, or some other instrument, they all pay interest. That debt exists, is owed, and yet you're saying "Just don't pay that interest"?

I don't think that's what you mean. I think you're being somewhat terse in your responses here.

For example, maybe you mean "As time passes, and new debt replaces the old". Or, "Stop issuing debit in way $x, and instead, do it in way $y".

Yet the GoC surely does not pay interest for zero reason, or cause. Clearly, there is some reason for using these instruments, such as, getting lenders to ... lend.

If you are advocating an entire policy shift, with massive ramifications to the overall method in which the GoC raises, and treats debt ; OK.. fine. Yet entire economic model shifts aren't easily conveyed by the terseness I'm seeing here.

And the articles you are pointing to, aren't really helpful, nor describe precisely what shift-in-thought you're referring to.

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

#334

Post by b112 »

srveale wrote: post #328
b112 wrote: post #274

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is what I often see from UBI supporters though. For example, why is my post too high. I state simply, "here are the number of people over 18" and "here is the amount to pay". You say "Oh, that's too high." What? . Why! Why is it too high. What part of it. It is very, very, very simple math. Instead, you quote an article from Macleans. Yet that article says Ontario's (not Canada's) UBI program suggested at the ti…

You're right - if you don't plan at all and just give everyone 2k per month, it's too expensive. In the strictest sense, UBI is impossible. In most versions of the plan I've seen, the cost is not as simple as (population over 18) * (monthly amount). If you're looking for a breakdown of the math, check this out: https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/bicn/pages/57/attachme...

srveale, the ENTIRE point of UBI, is:

- universal - basic

Basic costs met. Paid to EVERYONE.

Part of the "cost saving measures" are "not using complex schemes to determine eligibility to programs".

Further, if all you're wanting to do is guarantee a minimum income, that's not UBI! Not even remotely! It's simply a form of welfare, and shifting taxation under the guise of UBI.

Further, the whole concept of "I'm on EI, or I'm on welfare, but if I start working my income will drop, so what's the point" is another core concept of UBI.

When you start whittling away at these core concepts, when you bring back in the 'should this person get it' judgement and work to evaluate, prosecute if fraudulent, side of things? When you bring back in "Your income drops if you have other income" side of things?

You're just invaliding the entire point of it all.

It's not UBI.

So when people discuss UBI, please don't start talking about something entirely non-UBI.

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

#335

Post by manigandham »

balfirevic wrote: post #323
manigandham wrote: post #316

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perhaps that was the wrong wording, but giving everyone money would only inflate costs as they rise to meet the new income levels (whether that money is printed or redistributed). What else are you claiming is made up?

> What else are you claiming is made up "Motivates working, avoids a blanket handout which would just raise the prices of everything in response" "More fair, less cost, and better purchasing power" I mean that it's a made up difference between UBI and NIT, they are simply equal in this regard, for better or for worse. It makes no sense that they would be different, as the net money flow between individual (or househo…

UBI and NIT are two different systems that provide the same minimum income guarantee. Saying they both provide a min income is obvious. That's what they're designed to do.

However the way they do it is very different and that's what changes everything. NIT guarantees min. income without just paying everyone. This costs less than UBI. NIT pays a (negative tax) bonus on the first dollars instead of immediately taxing earnings. This provides more motivation. Not giving everyone the same helicopter money prevents cost of living inflation. This provides better purchasing power.

How you provide the income is more important the final amount because the economy is an interconnected system with secondary effects. This is why Friedman recommended NIT instead of UBI. The mechanics of the system matter.

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

#336

Post by w-m »

michannne wrote: post #324
w-m wrote: post #299

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wouldn't see that as rewarding someone, but rather meeting their basic needs. Like Germany already does with health care and unemployment benefits, but doing away with the bureaucratic hassles and penalties, and increasing the money to an actual liveable amount. For me it's a question about how we want to transform society in the long term, I don't think UBI for all will come next year. I'd give back the following…

That makes no sense. You can meet people's basic needs without giving them money. This how soup kitchens, orphanages, and other shelters function - your basic survival needs are met and you can focus on improving your comfort. Money just lets you do the latter much easier, it has no impact on the former. "I'd give back the following question: why are we rewarding people currently for doing mind-numbing bullshit jobs?…

I was referring to this argument: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bullshit_Jobs

Again, I don't think that UBI is feasible as something dropped in this year or the next. But a concept we have to think about for transforming society in the next decades.

Average productivity is going up constantly, and I think it will not be required for everyone to work 40h a week in 20-30 years. Whether that means some people won't work at all while others work fully, or whether everybody works 25h a week is one point that could be debated. But even if you're passionate about the topic, please stay civil!

One more point to consider: even if I'm being fed by a soup kitchen and have a shelter I can go to in winter (which I have to leave every morning), this may not be a decent life. So you are correct in that those people probably won't die, but this not what I meant. Obviously there are many layers to the thing (pyramid and all), let's say I'd see the basic needs as having a place to live for your own with a fridge in it, and enough money so that if the fridge breaks you can replace it without a problem. My (socialistic fantasy?) belief it, that everybody in society should be able to do so, and I still don't necessarily see that as rewarding people.

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

#337

Post by darekkay »

throwAwayGerman wrote: post #86
elchin wrote: post #61

https://www.spiegel.de/wirtschaft/service/gehaltsrechner-geh... An article in German, but 1943 Euros a month in Germany is the median income. And it takes only around 6100/month to be 1%.

Some context: In Germany one would need to earn around €135k (about $160k) annually for a monthly net income of €6.1k. You would have to pay around EUR 45k in income tax (incl. "soli"), 3.4k "church tax", 5.5k in health + care insurance, 7.7k pension insurance, and 1k in unemployment insurance.

> You would have to pay (...) 3.4k "church tax"

This is the only one from the list that you don't _have_ to pay, unless you're officially part of a church.

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

#338

Post by ace_of_spades »

missedthecue wrote: post #2

These studies don't really prove anything. Common arguments in favor of these studies - "They prove people don't quit work on UBI!" - No, they prove that people who are in a program that is very clearly temporary will not end their careers for a short pilot program. This means nothing. "They prove people won't spend it on drugs, booze, and lotto tickets!" - No. If you make $1k from a job and $1k from a pilot program…

Who said that any empirical study could prove anything? Except in mathematics you simply cannot prove anything. There is no way to guarantee that with UBI the things you mention won‘t happen. In the same vein, there is no way to guarantee that those things won‘t happen WITHOUT UBI.

The mindset of holding things constant is pretty short sighted in a world where things are radically changing. We have to reinvent and adjust our societies as we go along and learn from our collective experiences. Trials like this help us collect data about the consequences of complex interventions and seem to be a useful way to test the waters.

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

#339

Post by verdverm »

rorykoehler wrote: post #325
verdverm wrote: post #321

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is a difference between taking less in taxes and giving out cash payments. How that plays out is unknown, though the Covid relief programs are a likely better experiment than this German experiment.

The difference being only rich people benefit from tax cuts.

I'm middle class, I find benefit in lower taxes for my company and family. When the government takes 50% of the money we earn and then is irresponsible with it, that is a problem.

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

#340

Post by rorykoehler »

verdverm wrote: post #339
rorykoehler wrote: post #325

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The difference being only rich people benefit from tax cuts.

I'm middle class, I find benefit in lower taxes for my company and family. When the government takes 50% of the money we earn and then is irresponsible with it, that is a problem.

Yes it is a problem but the solution isn’t tax cuts it’s better governance.
Post reply on HN