Live data from Hacker News

Basic income would not reduce people’s willingness to work

universiteitleiden.nl

521–530 of 786 posts

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

#521

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is expected, just disappointing. "I got mine, fuck you" is not exactly the kind of thinking we wish our fellow citizens engaged in. And for the record, I would appear to be in the group bankrolling it rather than receiving from it, and I'm completely cool with it.

I don't think that's the mindset. The mindset is, "I worked for what I have, you can do the same"

People with that mindset usually greatly overestimate the influence their work has on what they have and underestimate external factors, so pushing them to reevaluate may be a good thing.

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

#522
post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wouldn't those prices spike with supply/demand though?

No, UBI does not spawn new people to life.

Oh, it very much can "spawn new people" - all those couples that always wanted a second/third child but couldn't financially afford it will now be able to :)

Not to mention all those illegal immigrants storming the borders.

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

#523
post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Speaking as someone who has worked in a factory, you couldn't pay me a six figure salary to go back. And most of the things were automated already, at least as much as reasonably could be.

I think that is more a testament to the lives we now live as Software Developers more than anything else. It's not uncommon to find anecdotes of others on HN talking about how they maybe work 2-3 hours a day and take home 150k+ a year. I started working my freshman year in high school in 2008 as a busboy at a local restaurant making $4.50/hr + tips from the servers working that night. I couldn't even drive yet so I p…

Oh, I definitely feel like I'm working in the top 1% of jobs now.

Full time WFH since significantly before covid, it's B2B so even though I'm nominally on call, that's just a nice chunk of extra pay for maybe 1-2 calls a year. I do work hard when required, but it's not as required any longer, so I end up with a lot of free time when there are no issues to solve and I use that to go the extra mile to keep my customers happy.

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

#524

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

…until ~40 years ago[0]

0: https://insight.kellogg.northwestern.edu/article/wage-stagna...

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

#525
post #468
post #347

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The industrial revolution replaced a smaller number of high (kind of) skilled jobs with a large number of low skilled jobs. No, it replaced large number of medium and low skilled jobs too. Before industrial revolution, more labor hours were spent on working distaff and spindle than probably any other single job. Industrial revolution reduced number of spinning jobs to roughly zero. The same happened to many other l…

Yes you're right, now that I read it doesn't make sense.. I guess what I wanted to say is that is that at least initially it replaced a huge number of medium paying jobs with a large number of low paying and a small number of extremely well paying jobs. Due to the massively the increased efficiency the industrial revolution created many many of them low skilled new jobs which couldn't have existed earlier. An average…

You are correct about the dynamics of wage labor during the industrial revolution. However, I can't say I agree with this:

> Modern automation on the other hand seems to mostly just replaced many low and medium paying jobs with a smaller number of high paying ones.

Modern automation created so much prosperity that we now have significant portions of the population doing things that 19th century people would scarcely call "jobs" -- Tyler Cowen, an economist, collects many of those on his blog, see https://marginalrevolution.com/?s=new+service+sector+jobs . Additionally, many jobs that would be recognizable to them are now done by greatly increased number of people. Consider, for example, a job of university administrator: as such, this job would make sense to 19th century people. However, the idea that university employs more administrative than research or teaching staff would seem rather ludicrous to them. The reason we can do it is that the productive sector of the economy creates so much surplus, that we can through regulation, taxation, and social custom funnel so much of it to people doing jobs that are not by any means crucial to the functioning or prosperity of the society.

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

#526
post #448

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't get it... why not raise minimum wages to reflect local cost of living? IE, why tax all of us instead of the businesses not paying enough for their employees?

In that scenario, you’d still need to work. Basic income increases workers’ bargaining power because they can quit without losing their entire income.

And their income will grow on trees.

It will fail unless the government gets easy money from eg producing oil like Emirates. Otherwise someone needs to produce stuff. We already have a big inflation problem that is directly related to policies that rain money on those not working. Let's not make things even worse, please.

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

#527
post #335

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most of the productivity gains go to the top percentage of people. Despite massive gdp increases in 20 years wages havent budged. If all the work was automated/outsourced those people would still make the same money. These are the people who ostensibly will pay for UBI and automation/outsources is one of the cases for UBI.

If we take out the period between around 2000 and 2010 they have been growing continuously since 1980 ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_income_in_the_United_... ) of course it's not at the same rate as GDP (5x vs 1.5x for personal income).

It's kept up with inflation. But that's about it. Which means real wage growth is minimal.

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

#528
post #526

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In that scenario, you’d still need to work. Basic income increases workers’ bargaining power because they can quit without losing their entire income.

And their income will grow on trees. It will fail unless the government gets easy money from eg producing oil like Emirates. Otherwise someone needs to produce stuff. We already have a big inflation problem that is directly related to policies that rain money on those not working. Let's not make things even worse, please.

> We already have a big inflation problem that is directly related to policies that rain money on those not working.

Do we have any sort of evidence for that claim?

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

#529
post #496

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

All of the ones providing single payer healthcare, if you need a more precise target.

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

#530

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>but with rents capped to a share of income. This way, the government would have an incentive to make the system more efficient and to make more and better public housing, as the money would go back to the government budget and they would be able to lower taxes as a result. Can you explain this a bit more? What would be their sources of income other than rents? I am not able to follow your efficiency argument.

The more efficient these rentals are run, the higher the profit the government makes. The more money the government makes, the less they need to tax and the more services they can provide, and the more votes you get. If they don't run these well, people will leave to the private sector, reducing government income, which would then have to cut services and raise taxes, losing them votes. So there is a strong incentive…

Hmm, it seems like you're suggesting setting up a system where the private and public sectors keep the other in-check, with incentives to make sure it happens. But I see some practical points of concern, e.g. in most rent-controlled housing, the rent (eventually) gets to be much lower than the private market - thus removing pressure that customers will leave. Also, historically most governments seem to have no trouble getting votes even as their services become more and more inefficient over time. I guess I just don't see it working as you described. But its quite possible that I'm just too cynical! :)
Post reply on HN