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

161–170 of 181 posts

Re: The first results from the biggest basic income experiment

#161

Post by randomdata »

Buttons840 wrote: post #143
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 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 s…

> If landlords try to exploit this, make it illegal for them to ask about extra roommates (within reason).

What does that accomplish? The landlord will ultimately find out about the extra $1,000 available to spend even without knowing of a roommate through simple price discovery.

Re: The first results from the biggest basic income experiment

#162

Post by solardev »

mitthrowaway2 wrote: post #148
solardev wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

There were many different checks, from both the central (federal) government and several states handed out their own too. Some of them went to everyone, others had various requirements.

I was working full time but I still got thousands of dollars for no reason. It actually kinda bugged me how wasteful and thoughtless my government was being (no surprise there). I wish they they sent my share of it to people who really needed it then, the folks who couldn't just take their work remote.

Re: The first results from the biggest basic income experiment

#163

Post by ethanbond »

danenania wrote: post #142
ethanbond wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 wi…

I think any economist would be able to separate the policy in question (UBI, a stipend paid directly to people) from the funding of that policy (potentially a high marginal tax rate, potentially increase in money supply -- two options you yourself identified, but there are infinite more ways to do it).

All of the downward pressure on housing prices you have theorized are coming from (one of) the proposed funding methods, not UBI. UBI doesn't have to be funded in this way, so it should be self-evident that this pressure isn't coming from UBI itself. You would get the same (alleged) effect that you're mentioning if you don't do UBI at all and instead just more steeply increase marginal tax rates. You would not get that effect at all if you implement UBI but fund it by a method other than steep marginal tax rates. So the proposed effect is coming from the tax scheme, not from UBI.

I think you're clearly not willing to reconsider your views, which frankly I get since UBI should be a really great idea. And if it would work, I would fully support it (in fact I used to). But empirical evidence of similar policies getting baked into land rent is apparently outright dismissible, and there's apparently no need for evidence of your claim that higher marginal tax rates at the top end reduce rents at the low end?

What would convince you otherwise?

Re: The first results from the biggest basic income experiment

#164

Post by mbrumlow »

Buttons840 wrote: post #143
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 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 s…

It won’t matter. They don’t need to know about the room mates. They know everybody now has $1000 which means they simply raise the rent.

I would wager that minimum rent becomes close to if not $1000.

Re: The first results from the biggest basic income experiment

#165

Post by danenania »

ethanbond wrote: post #163
danenania wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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 wi…

I think any economist would be able to separate the policy in question (UBI, a stipend paid directly to people) from the funding of that policy (potentially a high marginal tax rate, potentially increase in money supply -- two options you yourself identified, but there are infinite more ways to do it). All of the downward pressure on housing prices you have theorized are coming from (one of) the proposed funding meth…

Honestly I think you're being very pedantic about this. How it's paid for is a crucial aspect of UBI. It would literally be the largest and most expensive government program ever enacted and you don't think it makes any difference how those trillions of dollars are raised? Come on. There's no such thing as UBI independent of the funding for UBI and there are not "infinite" ways for a government to raise trillions of dollars. In the real world, there are two: taxes or the central bank.

I'm not actually convinced that UBI is a great idea. I lean towards supporting it but I also have reservations. The numbers involved are staggering and there would clearly be some major negative consequences. I think the benefits of unlocking so much human potential and defending against social instability created by mass AI job displacement probably outweigh those, but I'm open to counterarguments.

That said, your arguments here are just way too simplistic imo. They only work if you ignore or dismiss half the equation. Instead of addressing the argument that taxation has a very different impact on prices (including rents) than money supply expansion, you are playing word games to say "oh but that's not part of UBI".

Re: The first results from the biggest basic income experiment

#166

Post by red-iron-pine »

mbrumlow wrote: post #164
Buttons840 wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 s…

It won’t matter. They don’t need to know about the room mates. They know everybody now has $1000 which means they simply raise the rent. I would wager that minimum rent becomes close to if not $1000.

and? minimum rent becomes the government stipend so you now live rent-free.

the cash you make at your otherwise crappy, barely-keep-the-lights-on minimum-wage job is now going to pay for other things.

Re: The first results from the biggest basic income experiment

#167

Post by SV_BubbleTime »

_a_a_a_ wrote: post #158
SV_BubbleTime wrote: post #140

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ultra progressive media outlet says UBI is great, comment posts progressive outlet sources, upvoted on a site with progressive users. No, I’m not interested in playing that game. I’m not trying to convince anyone of anything. Just pointing out to others that the fanatics seriously think this is a known-quantity / settled science.

> Ultra progressive ... progressive users ... fanatics You say more about yourself than anyone else. > ... think this is a known-quantity / settled science. I don't think anyone thinks it is settled. Personally I don't know and I very much want to, but comments like yours do not illuminate in the least . Actual facts would be welcome

> We've known for a while now that the best approach

> I don't think anyone thinks it is settled.

Heard.

Re: The first results from the biggest basic income experiment

#168

Post by _a_a_a_ »

SV_BubbleTime wrote: post #167
_a_a_a_ wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Ultra progressive ... progressive users ... fanatics You say more about yourself than anyone else. > ... think this is a known-quantity / settled science. I don't think anyone thinks it is settled. Personally I don't know and I very much want to, but comments like yours do not illuminate in the least . Actual facts would be welcome

> We've known for a while now that the best approach > I don't think anyone thinks it is settled. Heard.

OK, ISWYM. I wouldn't make the claim it's settled but someone did and you're right. Upvoted.

Re: The first results from the biggest basic income experiment

#169

Post by ethanbond »

danenania wrote: post #165
ethanbond wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think any economist would be able to separate the policy in question (UBI, a stipend paid directly to people) from the funding of that policy (potentially a high marginal tax rate, potentially increase in money supply -- two options you yourself identified, but there are infinite more ways to do it). All of the downward pressure on housing prices you have theorized are coming from (one of) the proposed funding meth…

Honestly I think you're being very pedantic about this. How it's paid for is a crucial aspect of UBI. It would literally be the largest and most expensive government program ever enacted and you don't think it makes any difference how those trillions of dollars are raised? Come on. There's no such thing as UBI independent of the funding for UBI and there are not "infinite" ways for a government to raise trillions of…

I can see how this is opaque and totally inscrutable if one is inclined to just mix all the terms of the equation together, dismiss empirical evidence of specific components, and reflexively dismiss arguments for being "too simplistic."

Once again, I'm not ignoring or dismissing half the equation. I'm asking you to explain how the "tax" half works to yield the effect you're describing.

Re: The first results from the biggest basic income experiment

#170

Post by hansvm »

sudosysgen wrote: post #151
geysersam wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Not all of it, but real estate does very strongly correlate with income, and for lower income quintiles it can eat the surplus.

Lower income quintiles have the surplus eaten because their consumption of raw materials and labor is break-even with their production of raw materials and labor. Even if by magic land were free and construction costs were negligible, a 1-bed 600 sq ft living space would still take a decade for the average bottom-quintile family to pay for the raw materials in the US, saving nearly everything other than rice and beans, healthcare, and other such niceties, and assuming no major calamities on the way. Landlords charging on par with that same rate in rent isn't evidence that were the bottom quintile of incomes to increase by $1k/mo their rents would as well.
Post reply on HN