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

81–90 of 181 posts

Re: The first results from the biggest basic income experiment

#81

Post by cbm-vic-20 »

beardyw wrote: post #19
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…

Well the U stands for universal. It is likely that taxes will fund it, so your taxes when working would probably offset it. That's my understanding.

That's where the Land Value Tax comes in... In my Georgist dreams, at least.

Re: The first results from the biggest basic income experiment

#82

Post by jnwatson »

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…

The central bank wouldn't just sit there and allow the money supply to increase unbounded. They'd turn their knobs so the money supply would remain more per less constant.

Re: The first results from the biggest basic income experiment

#83

Post by jnwatson »

ethanbond wrote: post #41
cnasc wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That would probably make a lot of new housing construction more economically viable. I’m not sure what the overall effects of UBI would be, but this seems like it would be a short term effect.

Economic viability isn’t what prevents new housing from being built.

Regulatory risk is the biggest component to economic viability.

Re: The first results from the biggest basic income experiment

#84

Post by MagicMoonlight »

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.

Because inflation doesn’t exist, it’s an invented idea.

If nobody told you that inflation was 8%, you’d only increase your prices if you had a reason to. That reason could be increased demand, increased costs. Those could come about from increased money supply but that would be slow and unlikely.

When the government announces inflation will be 8%, everyone puts their prices up by 8% + 3%. Inflation is therefore 11%. Even though none of them even had a reason to do it.

That 11% price increase then inflates their balance sheet. This surplus lets them give it to the wealthy or splurge on stupid things like buying twitter.

The wealthy then have an inflated bank balance. This surplus lets them buy investments or splurge on stupid things.

These purchases then cause prices to increase. Which signals the government to announce that prices should increase more…

Re: The first results from the biggest basic income experiment

#85

Post by charlie0 »

ethanbond wrote: post #48
konschubert wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you upzone and increase supply, it becomes a buyers market and landlords have to lower their prices.

That’s true totally separate from UBI. No matter what else you do, UBI’s effect will be increased rents. In absolute terms you could overcome this by increasing supply, but 1) nothing about UBI makes increasing supply easier, and 2) UBI would reduce the positive effects on rent achieved by increasing supply. If you want to reduce the cost of living you increase supply. UBI will not affect supply nor demand, it will j…

I've noticed in the poorest HCOL areas, you've got several low income workers all chipping in for the rent. There's nothing stopping them from trying to move out on their own using their UBI funds. For first movers, they'll increase their quality of life by living by themselvesor less people, but rent prices would quickly rise. You're right in the housing. The only thing that can drop prices is incresed supply and that's not going to happen.

Re: The first results from the biggest basic income experiment

#86

Post by danenania »

ethanbond wrote: post #72
danenania wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I'm talking about the effects of wealth redistribution vs. money supply expansion. Redistribution doesn't necessarily increase prices since the total amount of purchasing power in the market doesn't change. It's certainly not as simplistic as "rent gets increased in proportion to the amount of the UBI" as you're implying.

Re: The first results from the biggest basic income experiment

#87

Post by jnwatson »

Ajay-p wrote: post #20
X6S1x6Okd1st wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://www.vox.com/future-perfect/2020/2/19/21112570/univer... Exactly what qualifies for you may mean it does already exist on a large scale or doesn't. Alaska's UBI program gave 1.3k this year, which I'm guessing many commenters here would say is too small to be a real UBI, but it is universal and has been going for almost 50 years

I wouldn't call the permanent fund a UBI. It's proceeds from the sale of oil, whereas every other UBI requires some taxation, wealth transfer, or cuts in spending elsewhere.

The permanent fund is proceeds from taxes on the sales of oil and other minerals. There's no difference here.

Re: The first results from the biggest basic income experiment

#88

Post by MagicMoonlight »

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…

If it’s given to everyone then you’re going to be subsidising the wealthy while cutting support for the poor. Supporters want it because they dream of playing xbox all day.

If it’s given to everyone then taken away based on income, that’s just a stupider version of the current system. We already give people support based on need, so why would we get rid of that just to circle back? Just make the support better if the poor are struggling.

Re: The first results from the biggest basic income experiment

#90

Post by ethanbond »

AaronM wrote: post #66
ethanbond wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nope landlords will just raise rents back to approximately the same level of poverty.

Can you point to a single reputable study that shows this would likely happen?

You need a study to see that rents are highest where income is highest and that rents rise as incomes rise?
Post reply on HN