Ask HN: Would a universal basic income lead to inflation?

We don't need everybody working.

75% of jobs are bullshit jobs. Just 2% of people work in agriculture.

We slave 30-40 years for a priviledge to live in a house.

(Almost) all money in circulation is owned/issued by banks, and the inflation/interest is a way to keep us all in the rat race, all the time consuming, amassing things, never thinking.

Our civilization is a construct, a glass cage, and we're all afraid to break through.

We don't need (more) stuff. We need to become adults.

This answer seems to treat inflation as "the cost of everything". If, rather, we focus only on the items that are needed to survive (food, shelter, etc), I think the answer changes.

The taxes to pay for the UBI will generally come from the middle and higher income households; who are already spending the money they need to on those items. Losing some of their money to taxes won't do much to reduce the amount they spend on those.

However, the lower income segment, where UBI will have a much higher impact, will start spending a lot more on these items. Because, in theory, they were not spending as much as they would want to on them previously (bad housing, cheap food, etc.. could be improved).

As such, the demand for those "survival" items could increase a fair amount, causing the prices for them to increase. If you consider this inflation (which I would, since it's a rise in prices for things that matter), then there would likely be inflation.

The 'how' both can be true is by increasing the supply and fuzzing around with the economic 'utility' of goods.

Sure, today's goods and services are extremely mobile - economically viable cross country shipping is basically the norm. This enables your butcher, baker and brewer to be thousands of miles away. By increasing this supply radius, the total number of goods drastically increase, decreasing the price.

A question becomes when do we 'use up' the cost savings of technology and transportation efficiencies through inflationary practices. I'd argue we just ran the greatest real world experiment with Covid, but do not even begin to have a gauge on this metric -- which would allow one to thoughtfully apply 'fiat practices'

But lurking in the background is the 'utility' of the goods and services we use. Many times my well respected economist professor would say that Great Value Butter is as economically equal as any other in terms of sustenance -- which pains me. In a simple function, sautéing vegetables - there's a marked quality difference between GV and 'higher priced' brands, but I'm forced to reckon that, yes, there is buttery flavor in a dish with vegetables, so at base... they are equal.

This is just a long winded way to say that people who have a diverse set of preferences will find inflation to be very real - while those who can live starkly monotone in their utility will have their inflation padded by economically efficient institutions fuzzing and redefining 'unnoticed properties' of goods and services.

imo, yes - the easier you make it for people to live 'ok', without working, the more a certain percentage of people will simply choose not to work - like it or not, we need people making entry-level wages to work, to fill jobs that need to be filled.

If less people are willing to take those entry level jobs, the more those companies need to pay people to entice someone to do that job - so they inevitably need to raise prices to cover those higher costs.

>My assumption is that the wealthy do not consume in proportion to their income -- so someone who makes 10x as much money as a poorer person likely only consumes, say, twice as much.

The ratios of the fed at least some years ago was 2x the money you give end in the economy for poor people 1x media income and 0,5x this doesn't include tricycle ratio of the 100k car of Jeffrey (ratio car Cost over income)