Live data from Hacker News

Basic income would not reduce people’s willingness to work

universiteitleiden.nl

491–500 of 786 posts

Re: Basic income would not reduce people’s willingness to work

#491

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm opposed to paying people not to work. Humans and automation coexist. It's not as if all the engineers that used slide-rules and graphing paper went homeless when AutoCAD was invented. Same with farmers and the tractor. Society gets richer as automation makes our labor more efficient.

and why do you assume that somehow in this equation there will be enough jobs with a living wage to accomidate the entire population?

because across 250 years of extreme and rapid industrial progress, wages have gone nowhere but up, across all quintiles.

Re: Basic income would not reduce people’s willingness to work

#492
post #349

Earlier quoted context omitted.

~50 years ago Keynes predicted by now no-one would have to work menial jobs because everything would be automated, freeing up people to work a few days a week and pursue creative endeavors. While we have automated things, we are nowhere close to that today. A lot of current menial jobs CAN be automated today, but the cost of labor is cheaper than designing and deploying automated solutions. Having higher cost of labo…

Bertrand Russell predicted the same in the 1920s .

Good correction. The Keynes essay I am thinking of is from the 1930s, which is almost 100 years ago now! It was probably inspired from Russell's thoughts.

Re: Basic income would not reduce people’s willingness to work

#493
post #377

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>If UBI could be implemented in around the same cost as the welfare programs it replaces, it would have a net zero effect on inflation It cannot, unless you're ok with screwing those already on such programs. Do the math, and you'll find it is not even close. Welfare programs (unless you include SS) are given to a tiny amount of people - spreading that across a large group of people simply screws those who need it mo…

You make accepting UBI optional, so if the $1,000 per month or existing services is better for your situation then you get to decide - not the government; e.g. maybe you have 6 kids and food stamps etc you get is way better than the $1,000/month. This way there is also a statistics dashboard that we can see who's choosing what and optimize more precisely. You force corporations to pay, to not be able to avoid taxes -…

>You force corporations to pay, to not be able to avoid taxes

Economic maxim: "Corporations don't pay taxes, people pay taxes". This means when you think corporation tax is somehow free, you ignore that comes directly from stock prices and wages, i.e., direct income and pensions.

>you get to decide

Historical evidence shows that directed tax cuts and targets are much better multipliers of using tax revenues. Your method has been demonstrated to costing more for the same public outcomes, which is why there are so many directed tax cuts and directed tax spends. They are simply more efficient.

Simply put forth an estimate of what you think various groups need to pay to get what you think people will get with UBI. Once you try to put actual numbers to things, you soon realize it's simply not possible without damaging a lot of vulnerable people.

>We can supply everything 90%+ of what people need through automation

No, we cannot. Unless people take a drastic quality of life cut, and even then, we cannot.

Re: Basic income would not reduce people’s willingness to work

#494

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If UBI could be implemented in around the same cost as the welfare programs it replaces, it would have a net zero effect on inflation. UBI is, by definition, Universal (e.g. given to everyone). Welfare programs are highly selective and only apply to a small number of people. The only way to make them cost the same is to massively reduce the benefits given to the small number of welfare recipients, then give the bal…

UBI is taxable income. You just adjust tax rates slightly to claw it back from those with higher incomes. No extra bureaucracy required, no means testing needed.

> just adjust tax rates slightly

Show us some napkin math. Once you start doing estimates you will realize how untenable these proposals are.

Until you actually write down numbers, it's all pie-in-the sky unicorn dreams.

Re: Basic income would not reduce people’s willingness to work

#495
post #232

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If a job doesn't need doing, why waste a human's labor on it? Though that said, I remember not too long ago a lot of people saying "oh if minimum wage goes over $15 we'll just automate the jobs" and now the McDonalds by my house is offering $23/hr for entry level work and robots are nowhere to be seen.

They are rolling out computer tellers all around my area. If they haven't done it in your area it is coming. There are a few companies working on automated meal makers and they are slowly being rolled out. It is just going a bit slow right now.

The ones I've seen (yes, at McDonalds specifically) are terrible, take forever to use, are abusive in attempting to push crap on the user and make some (what I'm sure are higher-margin) items easier to buy than others, and are yet another case of pushing labor onto the "consumer" and calling it automation(?!), like "automated checkouts" at grocery stores—a fucking lie, the buyer is doing almost as much work as paid workers used to, "automated" would be if you could just let go of your cart and a machine took care of the rest while you waited.

Or like shifting from having workers fetch items for you to modern-style stores where you have to find everything yourself (that change was long enough ago that the idea that you should feel put-out at having to do this part of a store's job is lost to time). Or filling your own drinks, which is at least semi-compensated by being able to refill as much as you want or even "steal" an extra cup, but since a large soda costs the store pennies that's not much of a benefit.

I'm struggling to think of a consumer-facing "automation" that wasn't actually just making consumers do more work. It's bad enough that we have to do the work of regulating prices (think of the time and brain-space you devote to figuring out whether the sale price on, say, apples is actually a decent one, keeping that figure/heuristic up-to-date, et c., now multiply by your entire shopping list, now multiply by the entire population)

Re: Basic income would not reduce people’s willingness to work

#496

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Depends. If a minority of voters are dependent on the UBI and a majority decides that they do not like the system, or a politician persuades them so, they will vote against it. ("Working your ass off on lazy strangers" is a huge boon for populist politicians.) If a majority of voters depends on the UBI and a minority is compelled to provide it to them, they basically have no recourse but to emigrate. At which point y…

I don't see why they shouldn't be free to. Yet, weirdly, we don't see a lot of people renouncing their rich-socialist-nation citizenship to run off to some other libertarian paradise.

>> rich-socialist-nation

Which nation is that?

Re: Basic income would not reduce people’s willingness to work

#497

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The majority won't engage in productive tasks, but the output from the minority can be massive. Einstein wrote his papers as a side gig from his patent office job. It doesn't take many Einstein's to make up for a large number of slackers.

Why would we want to foster a society where the majority are slackers?

The majority of drop-outs can be slackers, not that the majority are drop-outs.

Re: Basic income would not reduce people’s willingness to work

#498

Owners of capital think people aren't happy unless they are working making money, because capital owners are made happy by having money. It's hard for them to understand that there are other, better sources of happiness. There are tons of examples of people forgoing money for something more satisfying.

What’s hard to understand is why I should work even harder making money so that you don’t have to.

No one says you have to work even harder. If you reduce your consumption and live according to your most basic needs, you can achieve a level of self-suffiency that allows you to actually support yourself with your hobbies. Live simply, plant a garden, buy your clothes at thrift stores and shop at discount grocery stores. What ever it takes to follow your passion. Live like a starving artist and make something great. But if you're just a worker drone with no inner life and need to be a corporate servant, I can understand your frustration.

Re: Basic income would not reduce people’s willingness to work

#499
post #371

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>How about this massive supply chain and manufacturing disruption, could that somehow be responsible? That is part of it. Fortunately there are plenty of other examples in US and other country history where money handouts are clearly a driver, so it's not a question of whether or not easy money adds to inflation. As mot economists put it, all long term inflation is ultimately the result of more money in the system. >…

UBI however would mostly transfer this cost to high-income earners (if financed through taxation) or capital owners (if financed by debt/printing money). Basically it's just a form of progressive taxation with a large safety need (without a means test) at the bottom, which would function as a mechanism to decrease inequality (which some economists believe negatively affects economic growth). Also another factor (and…

> UBI however would mostly transfer this cost to high-income earners

Show me your napkin math. I've been all through this so many times that hand-wavy claims are not enough - simple estimates will show you how these claims do not work.

And if it was a simple we getting some more taxes somewhere, do you not think we'd already gather that tax? It's not like there's money that is easily taxable either politically (or sometimes, even economicially).

Sure, if we could magically get more money, and get it from places that are not current places, and ignore all effects of giving such money yo people on inflation and the economy, and get it so that there are zero side effects, maybe you'd be on to something.

But even in that case, it's still wiser to spend this money on better targeted things than simply handing to everyone with no regard who needs it.

Re: Basic income would not reduce people’s willingness to work

#500
> We got people to do a task on a computer,’ says De Kwaadsteniet. ‘In multiple rounds, which represented the months they had to work, they did a boring task in which they had to put points on a bar. The more of these they did, the more money they earned.

That's not really for research. That's for something we can call data laundering. It's like money laundering but for data. Now politicians will use articles like this to sound scientific and data-driven when proposing their policies.

In reality they are quoting an article that quotes a paper that uses a horribly designed experiment with zero scientific rigor. But voters that don't pay attention will never get to know the flow of the data from the fake research to the politician taking their money away. Hence the data laundering.

Post reply on HN