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

141–150 of 181 posts

Re: The first results from the biggest basic income experiment

#141

Post by AaronM »

ethanbond wrote: post #116
AaronM wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, just because you say its so doesn't make it so. There should be studies that show when minimim wage or welfare/other forms of assistance increases that rent follows.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S00941... > Increases in state minimum wages significantly reduce the incidence of renters defaulting on their lease contracts by 1.7 percentage points over three months, relative to similar renters who did not experience an increase in the minimum wage. This represents 10.6% fewer monthly defaults. However, this effect slowly decreases over time as landlords reac…

Interesting, thanks!

Re: The first results from the biggest basic income experiment

#142

Post by danenania »

ethanbond wrote: post #134
danenania wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> is a consequence of taxes, not UBI itself A distinction without a difference imo. My point is that how you pay for it is what determines the impact on prices, but I think we’re basically rehashing demand-side vs. supply-side economics at this point. > I already know I’m able to You don’t decide the market rate by yourself. And I don’t think you’re properly accounting for how UBI impacts this in aggregate.

No, how you pay for it doesn't change UBI's effect on pricing. UBI has exactly the effect I'm describing. Separately , a tax scheme may have a different, countervailing effect, regardless of whether or not it's related to UBI. That countervailing effect could arguably overcome UBI's positive pressure on prices, but it's a totally separate effect from a separate policy and even still your explanation of the mechanism…

"No, how you pay for it doesn't change UBI's effect on pricing."

I'd disagree as I think it obviously does. I doubt any economist would agree with this statement.

You're saying I'm "incoherent", but from my perspective all you've done in this conversation is confidently assert your conclusions. You're clearly very certain of your beliefs, but that's not going to convince anyone (if you care about that at all). I'm willing to reconsider my views if someone makes a compelling argument, but I haven't found yours to be convincing fwiw.

Re: The first results from the biggest basic income experiment

#143

Post by Buttons840 »

MagicMoonlight wrote: post #78
geysersam wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> If you’re getting £1000 extra a month and I say your rent is now £1000 extra a month

Two people, each making an extra 1000 a month become roommates and collectively they have an extra 500 a month. If landlords try to exploit this, make it illegal for them to ask about extra roommates (within reason).

Another positive market wide force that isn't accounted for is the added safety net will enable more businesses to start and enter the market and ensure that companies are competing. When markets become small and filled with old companies, those companies can form a nefarious "trust" where they collude and stop competing. It's like the Christmas Truce of WW1; opposing forces gradually lessened hostilities for mutual benefit, trust was built, and eventually both sides went into no-mans-land, exchanged food and prisoners, and even played games. This doesn't happen if there's a fresh flow of new soldiers through the trenches, a trust can never form and actions for mutual benefit never happen. It's good when soldiers in WW1 achieve trust and use it for peace, it's bad when a few companies in a stagnant market achieve trust and use it to cease competition (aka, collusion).

Re: The first results from the biggest basic income experiment

#144

Post by justinclift »

geysersam wrote: post #136
MagicMoonlight wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

If that was really the case then all surplus would already be eaten by landlords and that clearly isn't the case. In some parts rents are absolutely very high but that's not everywhere. If rents increase more apartments will be built, reducing the ability of landlords to extract rent. But I agree that inflation is likely to increase if people get more money to spend. However, I think that would mainly be over a trans…

> If that was really the case then all surplus would already be eaten by landlords ...

That's what seems to be happening in at least Sydney, Australia. :(

Re: The first results from the biggest basic income experiment

#145

Post by prewett »

mantas wrote: post #126
cc101 wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Actually we don't know what would happen if a bunch of money were printed. I assume you expect inflation. What actually happens depends on who gets the money. If rich people get it, I would not expect much to happen. If middle income people get it, we could reasonably expect inflation. If low income people get it, that grows the economy even in a major economy. Let me explain. Yes, if you give middle income people mo…

We did that during pandemics. Mostly rich people got it. Low income people got some scraps too. Inflation happened.

It was capped at $100k of income (at least in the US) and the US median income is about $75k [1], so I'm not sure how "mostly rich people" got it when 75% of the people who received it were under the median income.

[1] https://www.census.gov/library/publications/2023/demo/p60-27...

Re: The first results from the biggest basic income experiment

#146

Post by mantas »

prewett wrote: post #145
mantas wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We did that during pandemics. Mostly rich people got it. Low income people got some scraps too. Inflation happened.

It was capped at $100k of income (at least in the US) and the US median income is about $75k [1], so I'm not sure how "mostly rich people" got it when 75% of the people who received it were under the median income. [1] https://www.census.gov/library/publications/2023/demo/p60-27...

Not sure about US. But here in europe a lot of money went into businesses.

Re: The first results from the biggest basic income experiment

#147

Post by mitthrowaway2 »

MagicMoonlight wrote: post #78
geysersam wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Unless they can find someone willing to rent for 900? That's how markets work. Suddenly it's more profitable than it used to be to house the homeless.

Re: The first results from the biggest basic income experiment

#148

Post by mitthrowaway2 »

solardev wrote: post #130
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…

Wasn't COVID in the US a large scale basic income experiment, with the stimulus checks?

(Not an American). Did those checks go to everyone? Or just people who were laid off?

Re: The first results from the biggest basic income experiment

#149

Post by marklubi »

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…

They just want to give free money to people, and expect that it will work our for all involved.

Re: The first results from the biggest basic income experiment

#150

Post by bsjaux628 »

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%.…

I see you went to the economics school of Venezuela and Zimbabwe
Post reply on HN