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

The first results from the biggest basic income experiment

vox.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 181 posts

Re: The first results from the biggest basic income experiment

#71

Post by bee_rider »

ethanbond wrote: post #56
bee_rider wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No it won’t, why would it?

Rents are set by only two things: 1) the tenant markets’ ability to pay and 2) competition with other landlords. If every single landlord knows with certainty (2) that every single tenant in their market has increased their ability to pay (1) by $1000/mo, then every landlord independently will come to the conclusion that they can raise rents by $1000/mo. They know the tenants are able to sustain it, and they know oth…

The landlords will still be in competition, anyone who breaks with the conventional wisdom will have an easier time getting tenants. It would probably raise prices, but the laws of supply and demand don’t just go away.

Re: The first results from the biggest basic income experiment

#72

Post by ethanbond »

danenania wrote: post #69
ethanbond wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In ways that… mitigate rent increases? Say more what specific effect is relevant to this.

Well, you have the UBI increasing incomes at the lower end of the economy, which does apply upward pressure on lower-cost rents. But on the other side, you'd be decreasing the income/wealth at the top, which applies downward pressure at the high end of the market. The ultimate effect is not a straightforward calculation. I think the total size of the money supply is probably the most significant factor, and that woul…

But then you’re talking about the effects of a high marginal tax rate, not UBI.

Re: The first results from the biggest basic income experiment

#73

Post by TrackerFF »

Doesn’t mater if it work flawlessly - right wing politicians pretty much refuse it on an ideological basis alone.

I’ve never seen a right-leaning politician, anywhere in the world, give even an ounce of support for UBI projects. It is always met with the knee jerk “people can’t just get money for doing nothing, that’s laziness!”

There is no sin worse than so-called laziness, to these people.

Re: The first results from the biggest basic income experiment

#74

Post by 13of40 »

mathattack wrote: post #8
MrBlueIncognito wrote: post #4

The idea of UBI, to me at least, is a mind-blowing one. It’s a shame something like this doesn’t exist on a large scale already. I know I’m probably missing something important here, but can someone outline any good reasons, if any, that it hasn’t been implemented yet?

It’s cost. Multiply population by the amount and you get a huge number. The math only works if you get rid of a lot of others social programs with vested interests.

There are about 250 million adults in the US. If we give each of them $1000 a month, that's 3 trillion dollars per year. For comparison, the US government collected 2.6 trillion dollars in federal income tax in 2022.

Re: The first results from the biggest basic income experiment

#75

Post by MagicMoonlight »

We had a basic income experiment. Entire countries were given thousands a month for not working.

The wealthy used it to buy a nicer car. The poor shopped around on jobs but ultimately ended up in the same place.

Inflation completely destroyed the global economy and people pumped the excess money into high risk investments like pyramid schemes.

Re: The first results from the biggest basic income experiment

#76

Post by charlie0 »

SV_BubbleTime wrote: post #59
legitster wrote: post #49

I think I'd still prefer a negative income tax over a UBI. Functionally they have the same result. But giving everyone money and clawing some of it back via taxes I think introduces unnecessary political liabilities and accounting headaches.

Negative tax, or not universal assistance seems quite reasonable. But like anything other tax system changes, it is basically impossible. No one is going to have the will or capitol to reform the tax system even to this degree. Too many vested interests. It’ll either have to be over a long enough timeline that technology or small movements eventually get there… or it’ll take war. I feel like the only reason solution…

Why would going to war solve anything? We'd have to print more money to support war, which would put us in greater debt.

Re: The first results from the biggest basic income experiment

#77

Post by jnwatson »

legitster wrote: post #49

I think I'd still prefer a negative income tax over a UBI. Functionally they have the same result. But giving everyone money and clawing some of it back via taxes I think introduces unnecessary political liabilities and accounting headaches.

The US already has a negative income tax in EITC. In fact, the implementation of the EITC is the biggest argument against it; it had so many conditions as to be less effective.

Re: The first results from the biggest basic income experiment

#78

Post by MagicMoonlight »

geysersam wrote: post #68
BuyMyBitcoins wrote: post #47

It seems to me that every basic income ‘experiment’ is flawed because they don’t account for the externalities of higher taxes and the fact that the pool of recipients is limited enough that the market is unaffected. Giving a few thousand people a few thousand a month isn’t going to cause much on an impact on inflation and it’s not going to make rents go up across the market. Additionally, others outside the experime…

I definitely agree the experiments are flawed. But I'd like to raise that there also are positive effects that are not accounted for. You mentioned the impact on market prices, I think the impact on prices would be net positive, because the market would become more inclined to provide products and services for people with lower incomes, where every marginal spent dollar has a much higher impact on overall well being…

If you’re getting £1000 extra a month and I say your rent is now £1000 extra a month, you can’t and won’t say no. If you say no, I’ll just get someone else in who will give me their free money.

As you’re competing with them for the same goods, you’ll have no choice but to pay the same. Meaning it’s made no difference for you as the primary costs in your life are limited by supply.

For someone who owns their own house and makes £10,000 a month, it’s meaningless. Their inflexible goods are already covered. So they’re free to spend it in holidays and working less.

Re: The first results from the biggest basic income experiment

#79

Post by klipt »

AaronM wrote: post #61
BuyMyBitcoins wrote: post #47

It seems to me that every basic income ‘experiment’ is flawed because they don’t account for the externalities of higher taxes and the fact that the pool of recipients is limited enough that the market is unaffected. Giving a few thousand people a few thousand a month isn’t going to cause much on an impact on inflation and it’s not going to make rents go up across the market. Additionally, others outside the experime…

Why would giving everyone basic income below a certain income level immediately cause inflation to match it? Inflation doesnt track directly to minimum wage, which seems to be a very similar principal.

Consider that some resources are naturally or artificially constrained (housing, medical care, good schools).

If everyone has more money, those things have almost limitless capacity to absorb the extra money in the form of higher rent, higher health costs, higher college fees.

UBI can help somewhat to decrease inequality (same as welfare targeted only at the poor) but if the government prints and gives everyone a million dollars, that would obviously cause inflation to the point that a million isn't that much money.

Reducing inequality will generally mean that well off people (which most software engineers are) will ultimately have less spending power.

On the other hand removing artificial constraints could make those resources cheaper for everyone. Relax zoning to build more housing. Increase residency spots to train more doctors and allow foreign licensed doctors to practice in the US more easily. Etc.

Re: The first results from the biggest basic income experiment

#80

Post by danbruc »

bee_rider wrote: post #44
SeanAnderson wrote: post #15

I don't know much about UBI. How do people generally see it being implemented? Does everyone get the exact same, flat amount? Do only people below a certain income get it? Does the amount gradually decline based on current income? Does the amount change based on cost of living? If someone remains destitute after being given UBI - is that now more clearly "on them," or do they now qualify for additional support? Genui…

UBI is universal, as others have said. There’s also the concept of “guaranteed minimum income,” which, I believe, just tops you up to the minimum income amount if you make less. In comparison, guaranteed minimum income seems much more difficult to administer (means testing and all that), and it seems like it would incentivize bad habits, in the sense that if you make less than the threshold, why not just quit your jo…

A minimum income should probably not be a fixed amount, there should be a true minimum at zero other income and the payment should decrease with increasing income but at a slower rate than the income increase. I guess that is essentially what a negative income tax is.
Post reply on HN