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

91–100 of 181 posts

Re: The first results from the biggest basic income experiment

#91

Post by vosper »

MagicMoonlight wrote: post #84
AaronM wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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%.…

> When the government announces inflation will be 8%

This isn’t how it works. Inflation numbers are announced based on what has already happened, not what will/should happen.

I do think there’s something to the idea that it gives companies a license to raise prices, though.

Re: The first results from the biggest basic income experiment

#92

Post by jnwatson »

Ajay-p wrote: post #46
crooked-v wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It already does exist in some places in the form of sovereign wealth funds, such as the Alaska Permanent Fund [1]. [1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alaska_Permanent_Fund

But that is derived from profits from the sale of Alaskan oil. It is not a wealth redistribution program, increased taxes, or reductions in spending elsewhere. Alaska is also a very costly place to live. It's also the only state that actually sells something and makes a profit which it can redistribute to its citizens. Maybe if America as a whole profited from the sale of its natural resources then it could, in theor…

Huh? The Alaska permanent fund comes from mineral royalties, which is literally a type of tax.

Re: The first results from the biggest basic income experiment

#93

Post by charlie0 »

Arson9416 wrote: post #32
Ajay-p wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It would probably cause price inflation. I think if my landlord knew that I was receiving an extra amount of money each month, that everyone got this extra amount of money, they would naturally raise the price of my rent. Retailers would do this for certain. Otherwise it is leaving money on the table, and successful businesses tend to be very aware of this. A UBI would only work if there were massive cost controls, w…

[flagged]

Right. I like the idea of UBI, but from first priciples, a lot of value comes from arbitrage. UBI will benefit the fastest movers, prices will reach new equilibrium points, and then it will be like no one got UBI, people will be back where they started.

Re: The first results from the biggest basic income experiment

#94

Post by MagicMoonlight »

thanhhaimai wrote: post #25
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…

The U in UBI stands for Universal. Everyone gets the exact flat amount, unconditional. That means there is much less administrative cost (don't need to verify that people belong to certain income brackets for example). Overall, the theory is that it would reduce government wasteful administrative process, while being more effective at lifting people out of poverty. The experiments so far are positive.

It can’t cost more to administer something than it does to give it to everyone. That’s just inherently a ridiculous claim.

Should we give everyone hip replacements rather than bothering with appointments and need? Think of all the administration saved! Just book everyone in!

Except now you’ve spent a trillion on hip replacements, the people who actually needed them are getting less support and on a huge list, and you’re just pointlessly operating on random people.

Re: The first results from the biggest basic income experiment

#95

Post by mypastself »

> researchers found no evidence that any of the payments discouraged work or increased purchases of alcohol — two common criticisms of direct cash giving. In fact, so many people who used to work for wages instead started businesses that there was less competition for wage work, and overall wages in villages rose as a result.

The only part of the article that addresses pros of handouts in general.

Surely the outcome would be the same (less competition for wage work because of fewer workers, resulting in higher average wages) if all the recipients stopped working outright?

The article (or any of the linked ones) doesn’t seem to provide data on how many recipients started a business versus how many left the workforce. If the business founders were indeed very successful, that could instead be used as an argument for encouraging enterpreneurship. Perhaps through lower taxes?

Re: The first results from the biggest basic income experiment

#96

Post by MagicMoonlight »

13of40 wrote: post #74
mathattack wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

And then imagine that the 2.6 used to include things like hospitals.

Sorry buddy, you get the $1000 a month but you no longer get medical care or disability benefit or buses. It’s all gone. Don’t you feel better off now that everyone is equal? (The rich obviously still get to go to hospital)

Re: The first results from the biggest basic income experiment

#97

Post by mvdtnz »

jnwatson wrote: post #82
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.

And by "turn their knobs" you mean "pull the one and only lever they have and cripple the economy with high interest rates". Universal incomes would be disastrous for economies.

Re: The first results from the biggest basic income experiment

#98

Post by pixel8account »

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…

Can you link to some study that confirms it? This sounds far too simplistic to be true, especially for something as complex and unpredictable as the economy.

Re: The first results from the biggest basic income experiment

#99

Post by jnwatson »

ethanbond wrote: post #27
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?

A UBI of $x/month will just yield rent increases of $x/month.

We already had a natural experiment for it over COVID. Rent didn't immediately go up. The price of everything went up sure to inflation.

The Fed understands this. As soon as the checks start flowing, interest rates will rise to keep money supply flat.

Re: The first results from the biggest basic income experiment

#100

Post by SV_BubbleTime »

charlie0 wrote: post #76
SV_BubbleTime wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Check history my man. War is inevitable, and gives people a cause and a reason to reset things. Especially true for unsustainable, insurmountable things, like the US debt.
Post reply on HN