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

A universal income is not such a silly idea

timharford.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 337 posts

Re: A universal income is not such a silly idea

#61

Post by lumberjack »

yummyfajitas wrote: post #38
ck2 wrote: post #12

It's not a silly idea at all but I like to think of myself as progressive and I think it is a very bad idea in reality vs on paper. Just look at how college costs magically rise to the availability of loans and grants. What do you think is going to happen to food and rent prices once those supply chains figure out there is much more profit to be made? The Walton family alone has more wealth then the lower 42% rest of…

The Walton family alone has more wealth then the lower 42% rest of the USA. So do I, and so does almost anyone with a positive net worth.

>and so does almost anyone with a positive net worth.

A recently graduated MD with $120K in debt is still massively more wealthy than a hobo on the streets who is technically in the green. In this knowledge economy a well respected degree is a valuable asset to hold.

Re: A universal income is not such a silly idea

#62

Post by tokenizer »

downandout wrote: post #31

Progressives seem to have lost all understanding of the concept of money. It is a means of trade. The spending power of the basic income will ultimately reflect the value its recipients produced in order to obtain it - zero in this case.

> The spending power of the basic income will ultimately reflect the value its recipients produced in order to obtain it - zero in this case.

What do you think the purchasing power of welfare money is? Furthermore, can you really separate the purchasing power of the money utilized in the minimum income and the income from working?

Re: A universal income is not such a silly idea

#63

Post by coldtea »

PaulJoslin wrote: post #25

The thing I genuinely don't understand regarding the basic income for all argument is that surely it just moves the goal posts rather than solves the problem at hand? In the current system, you can go stay at home and get income support, which should provide you with the basics i.e. a home, food, electricity etc. If you would like more than this, you can go and get a job and hopefully earn more (have a better lifesty…

>In the current system, you can go stay at home and get income support, which should provide you with the basics i.e. a home, food, electricity etc.

Really? How that explains millions of homeless, poors eating in soul kitchens and/or with coupons, etc?

Re: A universal income is not such a silly idea

#64

Post by PaulJoslin »

lmm wrote: post #51
PaulJoslin wrote: post #25

The thing I genuinely don't understand regarding the basic income for all argument is that surely it just moves the goal posts rather than solves the problem at hand? In the current system, you can go stay at home and get income support, which should provide you with the basics i.e. a home, food, electricity etc. If you would like more than this, you can go and get a job and hopefully earn more (have a better lifesty…

> This therefore means there is an incentive to go work. Yes and no. It's not an incentive to get a 10hr/week part-time job, for example, because you'd lose your benefits and so get paid less overall. Even making the transition can be difficult - most jobs won't pay you until the end of the month, but your benefits will be cut off at the start. How long does it take to save up a month's expenditures while on benefits…

1. I address this somewhere else. I agree this is broken, but this is not a problem with the benefit system - it's something to do with wages not rising accordingly with everything else.

2. Perhaps, although if they do something stupid with that money, they still need supporting - so you either let people go homeless / starve or help them (which creates a new layer of welfare)

3. I'm not saying twice the food would be consumed, I'm saying prices would rise accordingly which would mean consuming the same amount of food costs more than it does now. The goal posts will just be moved and the poverty line will be above the basic minimum everyone gets paid.

Re: A universal income is not such a silly idea

#65

Post by d4nt »

downandout wrote: post #31

Progressives seem to have lost all understanding of the concept of money. It is a means of trade. The spending power of the basic income will ultimately reflect the value its recipients produced in order to obtain it - zero in this case.

We're already giving money to people with no job, this would effectively take money off people who administer welfare systems and give it to low paid workers who would then get benefits and wages.

Re: A universal income is not such a silly idea

#66

Post by ewzimm »

ck2 wrote: post #12

It's not a silly idea at all but I like to think of myself as progressive and I think it is a very bad idea in reality vs on paper. Just look at how college costs magically rise to the availability of loans and grants. What do you think is going to happen to food and rent prices once those supply chains figure out there is much more profit to be made? The Walton family alone has more wealth then the lower 42% rest of…

It's already worse than that. There are many products which have a smaller size of that's more expensive than the larger size because the smaller one is WIC-approved. There's targeted price-gouging for people who are forced by the government to buy specific products. There are also ridiculous loopholes. People buy soda and milk with returnable bottles, walk outside, pour it out, return the bottles for cash, and buy a beer. This happens consistently at grocery stores.

Re: A universal income is not such a silly idea

#67

Post by wavefunction »

salient wrote: post #56
Mikeb85 wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If you would like more than this, you can go and get a job and hopefully earn more (have a better lifestyle) than staying at home not working. Except this isn't the case, since benefits are usually cut when you starting working. This means that you start work in an insecure job with no necessary increase in quality of life. With a guaranteed income, if you were to get a job, you'd have a guaranteed increase in your…

I agree, for this to work, everyone would have to receive that amount of money. Or at least say, everyone receiving under $100,000 a year in salary. Otherwise, you might feel cheated if you replace your $12,000 free money for a $20,000 job . You'd still have to receive the free money, so you'd then earn $32,000 a year.

Every adult citizen receives basic income, no matter their "means."

That's what makes it equitable.

Re: A universal income is not such a silly idea

#68

Post by meerita »

PaulJoslin wrote: post #25

The thing I genuinely don't understand regarding the basic income for all argument is that surely it just moves the goal posts rather than solves the problem at hand? In the current system, you can go stay at home and get income support, which should provide you with the basics i.e. a home, food, electricity etc. If you would like more than this, you can go and get a job and hopefully earn more (have a better lifesty…

This sounds as the industrialist's problem. Maybe it's a good idea to give the wage and let small groups of people produce crafted beer. i'm sure the price will not be the problem.

Re: A universal income is not such a silly idea

#69

Post by pmr_ »

amerika_blog wrote: post #60
pmr_ wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But there is no overpopulation in Europe in terms of land availability or food supply (Europe's population density is 72 person/sqkm, the last famine was during WWII and not even then widespread). Sure, population density is very high in urban centers but there is still plenty of space in the country side. It just needs more incentives to be settled. So 'importing new people' really isn't a problem. I cannot find any…

http://www.overpopulation.org/immigration.html Your first sentence is a logical error, since overpopulation is measured worldwide.

You said that both things ('importing new people and replacement breeding') contribute to overpopulation. Importing new people can only contribute to overpopulation if you consider it locally. If you consider it globally moving X people from A to B cannot possibly directly affect the total amount of people in A and B. I considered overpopulation only in Europe and not globally because neither did you.

Re: A universal income is not such a silly idea

#70

Post by martin-adams »

Ntrails wrote: post #34
martin-adams wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I used to wonder what would happen if everyone in the UK got £1m given to them as a one off payment. We'd all be millionaires but poor as each other.

You are missing the point here, in your example when new money is created (to be able to hand it to everyone) you simply devalue currency and create inflation. Universal income is not being generated out of thin air by the government, it is being generated by tax. Therefore you will not find hyper inflation of the form you suggest.

Well, the point I was getting to is how to approach such an effect through a thought experiment. I agree that my scenario is very different, but it's about the short and long term effects. You're right, my example would probably devalue the currency and create inflation, but what would happen as a result. Would prices go up within days, weeks year. What about wages and tax. How long would the rate of increase last.
Post reply on HN