Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Trends that will create demand for an Unconditional Basic Income

simulacrum.cc

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

631–640 of 681 posts

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

#631

Post by [deleted] »

Zimahl wrote: post #390
adambard wrote: post #305

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> When I leave the office building I work at the end of my day, the janitors are just showing up. They probably already only get paid the basic livable wage (probably less), so why would they show up to work if they were getting the paycheck anyways? There's something that deeply bothers me about the notion that the above is a bad thing. Yes, you would no longer have access to low-wage janitorial services. But that's…

Do you think he wants to be scrubbing toilets for a subsistence wage? Thanks for proving my point. No, I highly doubt he wants to scrub a toilet for a subsistence wage. I think a janitorial job would go empty for a long, long time. So now, instead of me focusing on my job, I have to take time out of my day to do something I'd pay someone for. It would be better if you get your basic livable wage but still have to wor…

[deleted]

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

#632

Post by kaonashi »

dllthomas wrote: post #627
kaonashi wrote: post #274

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On a purely logical level, for sovereign nations issuing their own currency, taxation is completely decoupled from spending. You can increase taxes if there's an economic reason for doing so, but it is not a prior constraint on spending.

Not if you think runaway inflation is a problem. With fractional reserve banking, printing $1 adds well more than $1 to the economy (look at charts of M0 vs M1 vs M2). The government only gets to spend that $1. Meanwhile, threat of inflation makes it harder for the government to borrow money, meaning it needs to print more to cover the increased demands for interest. This is not to say that printing any money ever is…

This assumes an erroneous loadable funds model where loans are supply driven; loans have always been demand driven. It's the same reason why QE isn't inflationary, just because there's more reserves in the system doesn't magically make creditworthy borrowers show up.

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

#633

Post by gwright »

flyinRyan wrote: post #625
gwright wrote: post #622

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It isn't a fact. It is an unsubstantiated opinion. Your assertion that my comment was the political one is nonsensical. We've got serious long-term and structural problems in this country. We've got to find a way to discuss them that rises above trite generalizations.

We do have problems indeed. And as long as people continue to get bogged down with the silly "Democrat/Republican" song and dance, the issues can't be addressed. The parties are practically the same thing (see: Bush Jr. vs Obama) so seeing one side as a friend and the other as an enemy is just a straw man boxing match.

If you really believe this, why would would you agree with something like "Republicans just want to tax the poor"?

I didn't take potshots at Democrats, I just pointed out that taking potshots at Republicans wasn't furthering the discussion.

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

#634

Post by dllthomas »

kaonashi wrote: post #632
dllthomas wrote: post #627

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not if you think runaway inflation is a problem. With fractional reserve banking, printing $1 adds well more than $1 to the economy (look at charts of M0 vs M1 vs M2). The government only gets to spend that $1. Meanwhile, threat of inflation makes it harder for the government to borrow money, meaning it needs to print more to cover the increased demands for interest. This is not to say that printing any money ever is…

This assumes an erroneous loadable funds model where loans are supply driven; loans have always been demand driven. It's the same reason why QE isn't inflationary, just because there's more reserves in the system doesn't magically make creditworthy borrowers show up.

Doesn't adding dollars to the economy (through payment rather than loan) increase the ability to repay loans of those paid, those paid by those paid, etc, and thus their corresponding creditworthiness? Also, if people have money to spend, companies will borrow to service their needs. It's not about the ability of the banks to loan the money out (which is part of why QE isn't very meaningful).

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

#635

Post by dllthomas »

dllthomas wrote: post #480
antitrust wrote: post #473

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Why aren't people going to vote themselves larger basic incomes every year? Congress has that authority over their own salaries, and they haven't abused it.

My understanding sit hat Congress has the authority over the salaries of the congress following the next election. If they abuse it too horribly, that's not going to include them.

Yes. Sit hat, Congress. Sit hat.

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

#636

Post by pi18n »

sliverstorm wrote: post #352
pi18n wrote: post #240

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Obviously people would mow lawns but the price would be higher because they don't have to. If you wanted someone to mow your lawn, you would probably need extra income. Or, since you have more free time, you can now mow it yourself and enjoy it instead of feeling like it's cutting into your only spare 48 hours.

The point is that volunteer work is not going to grow dramatically and fill the void left by paid work.

Oh. I'm assuming the same thing, then.

The attractive part of basic income for me is that everyone has enough to buy food and housing, so suddenly menial laborers have an iota of bargaining power.

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

#637

Post by danbmil99 »

Nursie wrote: post #595
danbmil99 wrote: post #270

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Does there not ever come a point when we can say we're rich enough as a society to support those who can't meaningfully contribute? You are free to support those who can't meaningfully contribute, but where do you get the moral authority to demand that I do so as well, with my own money? Besides the moral argument, isn't there a good chance that a permanent underclass with a guaranteed welfare income will overpopul…

>> You are free to support those who can't meaningfully contribute, but where do you get the moral authority to demand that I do so as well, with my own money? We're not quite there yet but what happens when all the food and goods a society need can be made by automation, run by a skeleton crew of (say) 5% of the population in facilities owned by 1% of the population? Nobody else can compete on price or availability,…

> if you're asking where the moral authority to demand you help house feed and clothe people comes from... LOL. It's already here.

Rather than snarky comments, try to actually think about the question. There are good arguments against unbridled capitalism, but "Libertarians -- LOL!!" is not one of them.

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

#638

Post by Tichy »

comrade_ogilvy wrote: post #509
sliverstorm wrote: post #487

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's an incredibly cheap dismissal that's simply not true Examples, please, of books that investigate socioeconomic status & race that have not been called racist? Because I can't think of any. By the way, I'm not talking about literary explorations of race like "Huckleberry Finn". Although that was called racist too. There are orders of magnitude more genetic [...] diversity among each race than there are between…

Well, you could read Stephen Jay Gould's The Mis-measure of Man. Or you could read The Bell Curve. It is positing a small difference between "races", a difference so small that it is very minor compared to the expected range of deviation for a populace. The idea that there is a scientifically definable thing called "race" lacks data. That is your row to hoe if you believe other. Skeptics are not required to disprove…

Doesn't genetic testing allow you to determine where your ancestors came from to an astonishing degree? I'm pretty sure there are lots of valid ways to define a race. The question is how useful it is. Also in the past a lot of people have been lumped together inappropriately, for example apparently the genetic diversity in Africa is the biggest of all continents, yet all people from there were lumped together as "blacks".

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

#639

Post by Tichy »

rlanday wrote: post #588
makmanalp wrote: post #466

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think there could be a better explanation for this: There is an impression that your IQ score is a fixed thing that you're born with, but in reality you can "study" for the IQ test and get better scores at it. There is also the whole issue that IQ scores have been rapidly rising in the past few decades. This might just mean that IQ score merely acts as a proxy for socioeconomic status and education level and a bunc…

I think your explanations are largely incorrect. I’m currently partway through reading The Bell Curve; it investigates a number of things people often attribute to socioeconomic status and tries to compare the effects of socioeconomic status and intelligence. An IQ score is literally your score on an IQ test; I think it’s more correct to talk about g (“general factor”) which is the principal component of intelligence…

When I read it 16 years ago, I went to the length of actually looking up some of the twin studies. My impression is that they are not as compelling as it sounds. For example one study had 40 individuals, but they were not a homogenic group. It's not that you have 40 twins seperated at age 4 and then tested at age 40. It's actually very rare for twins to be separated and therefore the stories are usually complicated.

Some things in the papers made actually doubt them more. For example they mentioned one pair who they found wearing the same clothes and having given their kid the same name. I'm sorry, but there is no gene for tastes in clothes, at least not to that degree. Neither is there a gene for picking kids names. So those studies certainly overshot in some aspects.

In the actual IQ data there was also quite some variation.

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

#640

Post by inflagranti »

flyinRyan wrote: post #610
inflagranti wrote: post #592

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"This is my biggest concern with the idea, which I don't see being addressed (checked the entire conversation on this post to date). I don't think having the vote and having the basic income is compatible with each other." If you have well-enough educated, hopefully reasonable people I don't think this will become an issue. Swiss recently voted down to get more holidays ( http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/eur…

>we also voted to ban minarets for instance, which definitely wasn't very rationally based Of course it was. The law itself was stupid, but it highlighted a real issue. Notice that after that vote France, Sweden and a few others looked at the Muslim integration problem (i.e. a large portion of the Islamic community simply don't) as well. There is an issue here that needs to be addressed, it was just the way they chos…

The Muslim integration might be real issue, but it's also to a large part fear-based; that was definitely the impression I had back then from the advertisements and the media. In any case, I don't think laws should be enacted just to voice opinions and this one might at the end actually further hinder integration. This is all a bit OT now though :)
Post reply on HN