Trends that will create demand for an Unconditional Basic Income • Hacker News Board

Re: Trends that will create demand for an Unconditional Basic Income

#341

Post by dragonwriter » Thu, Jul 11, 2013, 6:37 PM UTC

TheFuture wrote: post #314

mrgoldenbrown wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the number of nurses willing to work for current rates goes down, then the market rate for nurses will go up. Eventually it will be high enough that being a nurse is more attractive than being a programmer.

The market rate for investment bankers is more attractive than my job. Doesn't mean I can just be an investment banker tomorrow. Or a nurse. If I live comfortably on my basic income doing whatever, how do I become qualified to work? Remember we have college grads who aren't qualified to work, and they've spent their entire lives being educated.

> The market rate for investment bankers is more attractive than my job. Doesn't mean I can just be an investment banker tomorrow. Or a nurse.

If the supply-demand imbalance is sufficient and durable, people looking for nurses / investment bankers / etc. will pay currently-unqualified people with the relevant basic aptitudes to train for those jobs (with a post-training commitment to accept employment if offered, or in the form of loans with guaranteed forgiveness and job placement with satisfactory completion of training, or in some other form.)

> If I live comfortably on my basic income doing whatever, how do I become qualified to work?

Living comfortably on basic income isn't going to be possible as long as the economy has substantial labor needs. BI is essentially the public holding equal, dividend bearing shares in the commons, for which taxes are use rents. The limit on the value of BI is basically that of the existing capital (including land) contribution to productivity; the potential comfort and value from BI grows with capital (e.g., via automaticn) displacing labor in production.

What BI can be is a means of managing the transitions in the economy as automation progresses.

Re: Trends that will create demand for an Unconditional Basic Income

#342

Post by dragontamer » Thu, Jul 11, 2013, 6:38 PM UTC

oijaf888 wrote: post #282

throwit1979 wrote: post #233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No more than taxing labor income (which the US does disproportionately) If you have a point to make, please try doing it without blatantly lying. It's common knowledge that the US has substantially higher corporate tax rates than almost anywhere else: http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2011/feb/21/corporat...

Seriously? What tax rate do you pay on your regular 40h a weke job? What tax rate do you pay on investments? Most people are taxed roughly 36% (28% income tax, 2% medicare, 6% social security) on their labor, however investments are only taxed at a flat 15%. Hence, the US disproportionately taxes labor over investments. Do you have other evidence that shows that investment income is in-fact taxed higher than labor in…

Corporate profits are taxed, and then they are taxed again when they redistribute the dividends. Arguably, you get double-taxed if you own stocks.

Re: Trends that will create demand for an Unconditional Basic Income

#343

Post by tomjen3 » Thu, Jul 11, 2013, 6:38 PM UTC

zxcdw wrote: post #284

twoodfin wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What evidence is there of that? Because we've had a slow recovery from the last recession? That couldn't possibly be because of bad policy, no?

Automation. Can you imagine the consequences of a driverless car on transportation industry for example? Or automated cashing machines on cashiers? Or cleaner robots for cleaners? You see, simple jobs are going to be replaced in the future. These people will go unemployed, because there will be no simple jobs for them . This is a trend, yes, and it won't happen overnight. But there's one crucial fact -- it doesn't ju…

You point has been argued a lot recently, but if it were true then surely nearly everybody would be unemployed by now? After all how many of you are scribes, weavers, carpenters and farmers (or farmers helpers)? Less than 20%?

Then why don't we have 80% unemployment? Because we found other jobs for those people, the economy is much, much bigger, life is much, much better and everybody is better of.

And it isn't like that hasn't happened again and again and again through history.

So I ask you, what proof do you have that this time it is really different? As opposed to every other time we thought it was different through history?

Re: Trends that will create demand for an Unconditional Basic Income

#344

Post by licnep » Thu, Jul 11, 2013, 6:39 PM UTC

brador wrote: post #19

With basic income, wouldn't the economy adapt to the fresh money supply and rents and other costs raise to account for it? It would effectivly be additional currency inflation by a different name?

It's not the same, with inflation people still own the same percentage of wealth (people with 0 still have 0). With UBI the distribution of income changes, it's minimum is no longer 0 but some hardcoded amount. So even if prices would adapt, you'd end up not only with different prices, but with a different distribution of wealth. In the extreme case, if the basic income was huge, everyone would pretty much be able to buy the same things, with the basic income set to 0, the distribution of wealth would be more exponential as wealthy people naturally get more and more wealthy and people with 0 stay at 0. You probably want something in between, with good incentives to work hard, but also good conditions for poor people and a higher velocity of money (if you give money to people with no money they'll spend a higher percentage of it, fueling the economy in the right areas).

Re: Trends that will create demand for an Unconditional Basic Income

#345

Post by 127001brewer » Thu, Jul 11, 2013, 6:39 PM UTC

beachstartup wrote: post #215

btilly wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The other problem with "targeted social welfare programs" is that it is very easy to dislike programs that someone else (particularly someone that you don't like) benefits from. A program that you yourself benefit from tends to be less likely to get eroded by future politicians. Compare welfare and social security for a classic example of the difference.

see welfare vs. disability

As I have just posted elsewhere in this thread, disability seems to be a type of "basic income". [1]

[1] http://apps.npr.org/unfit-for-work/

Edited for clarity.

Re: Trends that will create demand for an Unconditional Basic Income

#346

Post by maxerickson » Thu, Jul 11, 2013, 6:44 PM UTC

Jd wrote: post #320

Futurebot wrote: post #278

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We should welcome this. For those left in the job market: - remuneration would likely improve - only motivated people would be left, so "pretending" to enjoy a job and all other kinds of fakery diminishes - artificial competition for jobs would decrease drastically - the ability to change jobs becomes extremely fluid on both sides of the table(with liberalized hire/fire policies [employer-side] plus a lack of worry a…

-"remuneration would likely improve" why? -"artificial competition for jobs would decrease drastically" why is artificial competition important? You are saying that it will be easier for qualified people to get jobs because unqualified people won't bother to apply any more?

Given a reasonable implementation, I would expect a rise in consumption. It would of course be one time (but sustained). So industries and jobs that serviced that consumption should be able to grow, which usually brings higher pay.

Also, if inflation stayed in hand, the basic income itself would look an awful lot like a raise.

Re: Trends that will create demand for an Unconditional Basic Income

#347

Post by lettergram » Thu, Jul 11, 2013, 6:44 PM UTC

SapphireSun wrote: post #291

lettergram wrote: post #249

I disagree with this article almost entirely. Yes, labor jobs are on the decline, but service jobs are staying steady if not increasing. The "demand for unconditional basic income" is a joke, yes it's possible to attempt to initiate something where every person receives $10,000 a year, but the money has to come from somewhere. If the money for this basic income comes from taxation, then both the government loses net…

300,000,000 people in the US. You give them each 10,000 dollars. That's 3T dollars, or roughly the size of the existing federal budget (~3.5T). US GDP is ~16T. It's a lot, but that's not beyond the pale of possibility, and the poorest people will spend that money nearly instantly, reving the economy and making the world a little bit better for everyone. "If corporations essentially pay their customers (via the govern…

"Money" (or any currency) is just a means of trading one good for another, if there are no goods being transferred via the currency it cannot be considered a currency. That being said, if you simply hand out 3 trillion a year then you would be effectively taxing everyone by (3T/total wealth) then redistributing it does nothing because you've also taxed EVERYONE by that same amount.

To follow up my argument:

3T/16T is 25% that would be the inflation rate per year, of course each year it would increase as follows:

(3 * 1.25)/(16 * 1.25) (3 * 1.25 * 1.25)/(16 * 1.25 * 1.25) etc.

Of course this doesn't take into consideration the approximate 1% growth or what ever it currently is. The point remains that the redistribution of wealth will decrease the amount the currency is worth. Currency that is handed out WITHOUT something being traded for it does not apply to "currency circulation." Instead what you have is a situation where every person is taxed at about 25% and receives slightly less than that tax in return (which was used to disburse the collected taxes).

This is why NO COUNTRY ON EARTH gives out tax money to all of its citizens. It may on the other hand provide welfare checks to its needy, which again deflates the wealth of others (by inflating the currency), but keeps those poor from starving.

Hopefully my explanation is somewhat sufficient...

Re: Trends that will create demand for an Unconditional Basic Income

#348

Post by mistermann » Thu, Jul 11, 2013, 6:45 PM UTC

DuskStar wrote: post #312

mistermann wrote: post #280

Earlier quoted context omitted.

re: It can use that money in three general ways: Lower prices, raise pay or return it to shareholders. Or, paid out to executives as bonus.

That would probably qualify as raising pay. And I'm honestly wondering - what percent of payroll is the typical CEO or CEO bonus?

It is somewhat the same as raising pay, except is it not true that the average worker's pay has been flat for many years now (even those employed by corporations" while executive pay has drastically increased?

And I personally don't think the harm is in what percentage of the profits is paid to them per se, I think the more harmful aspect is the perverse incentives that are created when executive compensation is tied to short term corporate performance.

Re: Trends that will create demand for an Unconditional Basic Income

#349

Post by joelmichael » Thu, Jul 11, 2013, 6:46 PM UTC

twoodfin wrote: post #213

steveplace wrote: post #21

Basic income on top of everything else doesn't make much sense (cost-wise). But if we could trade B.I. for Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, SNAP, and other social progams-- it would probably be more cost efficient as individuals look after their money better than other people do. Here's a video from Milton Friedman (not Tom Friedman!) who is advocating for a negative income tax-- a variation of basic income. http…

I agree, but unfortunately I don't think "basic income and no other welfare programs" is a politically stable policy. No sooner will it have been introduced than politicians will be tempted to screw with it to help a favored constituency. Go to work as an inner city teacher? Here's an extra 20% in your BI. Live in an area damaged by a hurricane? We'll bump your BI for a year or two. I don't think a "simpler" tax code…

It's true. While the basic income is a superior system to welfare in theory, political reality assures it wouldn't be handled in the way Friedman would prefer. It would just lay the foundation for all sorts of political redistribution, which would be very destabilizing.

Re: Trends that will create demand for an Unconditional Basic Income

#350

Post by tomjen3 » Thu, Jul 11, 2013, 6:48 PM UTC

spdy wrote: post #253

twoodfin wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What evidence is there of that? Because we've had a slow recovery from the last recession? That couldn't possibly be because of bad policy, no?

To give one example the Google Car. If this car works as advertised millions of jobs will get irreplaceable lost. Cab drivers / Car Manufactures / Truck driver etc.

Maybe. But others will be created (or made simpler), to wit: a teenager can now rent a google car (since he isn't driving it won't cost much more than an adult) which will enable him to do things like wash peoples windows (which is neither technically difficult nor especially dangerous) thus driving down the cost per window washing, enabling more people to enjoy this luxury.

Or, assuming you are right and delivery men are unemployed in great numbers which I agree is likely, then (as transportation prices plummet) there will be more jobs for packaging. Imagine that instead of having to collect your kids in day care, go shopping and the go home and cook you can instead preorder your groceries, have your Google Car pick up your kids, spend the time talking with them in the car, go to the shop and pick up your package (which will take 10 minutes at most, since you have likely already been charged when you made the order) and then home to cook, which kids you actually get to talk to and who are now a lot less stressed.

Even then self-driving cars will also create other oppertunities, because there is no reason the car has to stay in the lot until you get home. It might as well drive to the nearby car cleaner (which can be out-of the way since the time is essentially free, although the gas used is not) for a cleaning. That is more business (and it is low skilled) and better, nicer cars.