A universal income is not such a silly idea • Hacker News Board

Re: A universal income is not such a silly idea

#161

Post by atmosx » Thu, Nov 28, 2013, 3:59 PM UTC

mistermann wrote: post #125

ewzimm wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> 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. This is a perfect example of how all people do not in fact act in a responsible manner as many people would have us believe when discussing topics such as this. Some people simply are unwilling or unable to even semi-wisely manage the life of a human…

Okay, but you're talking as if this is the default behavior while it may very well not be. I'd like to see some numbers to back-up these claims as general behavior rather than "a friend of mine, saw a guy who's uncle was once in a grocery where a guy..."

Re: A universal income is not such a silly idea

#162

Post by yetanotherphd » Thu, Nov 28, 2013, 3:59 PM UTC

gnaritas wrote: post #108

yetanotherphd wrote: post #85

An alternative that I prefer is a welfare system such as in Australia. Australian welfare is very similar to basic income, the main differences being that you have to look for work (but enforcement is not strict) and the way welfare decreases as your income increases, makes your effective marginal tax rate about 50%. I'm not sure what the optimal tax schedule (pre-tax vs post-tax and welfare) should look like, but my…

> the main differences being that you have to look for work This is a bad idea in the long term. The whole reason basic income is being seriously looked at is because we know automation is eliminating the need for labor and that trend will continue until work simply isn't available for a large percentage of the population. People need to get over the idea that work will be necessary to live or the idea that work is h…

We don't know what the full impact of technology would be, so a basic income is premature at best.

When you say "People need to get over the idea that work will be necessary to live" you are just insulting people's intelligence. Of course I am aware that if you got paid for doing nothing, then work would no longer be necessary for (an individual) to live.

Also, the theory of technological unemployment is that technology will render labor less productive. Basic income might be a kinder and more efficient way to deliver money to people without jobs, but it won't magically make them more productive.

Re: A universal income is not such a silly idea

#163

Post by agilebyte » Thu, Nov 28, 2013, 4:00 PM UTC

JonnieCache wrote: post #157

agilebyte wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hmm, London still needs the services of those poor that you speak of. If people are willing to pay the exorbitant prices for having a home there, I don't see why they can't be prepared to pay more to get the basic services running. The further London moves away from the UK, the more are cities like Brighton, Cambridge etc. looking more attractive. More attractive to people willing to live in a more mixed area too.

Come to brighton! We have a nice little tech hub style arrangement going on, it just lacks a fancy silicon-related name because it isn't built on billions in government funding. BTW, >You would end up with a 'walled garden' of elite living in London and the poor / unemployed living outside. The city would lose it's unique cultures, become even more gentrified / elite than it currently is and social unrest could start…

I used to live in Brighton, Hove actually. Lovely.

Re: A universal income is not such a silly idea

#164

Post by Flimm » Thu, Nov 28, 2013, 4:00 PM UTC

belorn wrote: post #102

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…

I understand the confusion, but its mostly there thanks to misconception about how things works now, > 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. Staying home and not working today is not actually an option in most places in the world. The reason is why this new model is called unconditional basic income. The current s…

It's "lose", not "loose". I'll delete this comment in a few hours.

Re: A universal income is not such a silly idea

#165

Post by downandout » Thu, Nov 28, 2013, 4:00 PM UTC

brazzy wrote: post #148

downandout wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They will have to print this money, because there is nowhere else to get it. What happens when you print money but there is no additional demand for it? You guessed it...the value drops. Markets are surprisingly efficient at pricing things like this in. Are you seriously trying to make the argument that their economy will absorb this with no effect on the value of their currency?

> because there is nowhere else to get it. Why that? Nobody's talking about abolishing taxes. Note also that the basic income would replace many other forms of social subsidies that already exist and have harmful side effects.

Why that? Because you can't tax enough to fund a basic income for every single person.

Re: A universal income is not such a silly idea

#166

Post by yetanotherphd » Thu, Nov 28, 2013, 4:01 PM UTC

brazzy wrote: post #153

muyuu wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem with making it unconditional is that it will completely break the ceteris paribus calculations as to what is good enough, making a lot of collateral damage on its way while being largely ineffective. Showering money to everybody is very likely to make more harm than good to real people's economies. A transition to Friedman's proposal on a "moderate" negative income tax (it's not what the name suggests) ma…

You're making a lot of completely unsupported predictions there...

so did the parent, and everyone else in this thread.

Re: A universal income is not such a silly idea

#167

Post by jgj » Thu, Nov 28, 2013, 4:03 PM UTC

turtle4 wrote: post #118

My question regarding this is how do you prevent gaming the system causing overpopulation? What will stop currently poor individuals from having 10 kids to collect their income? Is it just not awarded until you reach age of majority?

FTA:

> Payable to whom? > Everybody, or at least, every adult citizen.

Re: A universal income is not such a silly idea

#168

Post by judk » Thu, Nov 28, 2013, 4:04 PM UTC

nawitus wrote: post #134

PaulJoslin wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The idea is nice, but if it causes widespread increases in costs / consumer goods / rent due to the reasons I mentioned, then the only places you may be able to just stay at home and work may not be the place you want to be. For example, I live in London and enjoy this city. I would love to be able to stay at home and work on my side projects in hope of making extra money, but given the outcome I believe from this, e…

>For example, I live in London and enjoy this city. I would love to be able to stay at home and work on my side projects in hope of making extra money, but given the outcome I believe from this, everyone who was to only accept the basic income amount would no longer be able to afford to live in London and would have to relocate to less desirable places in the country. Some models call for a universal income which tak…

That's obviously nonsensical. All the basic income would be sucked up by rising rents, raising cost of living, go to step 1. Basic income should be set up to pressure people to live where it is cheaper.

In any monopoly/duoploy/oligopoly/cartel-ish environment in which prices are determined by limited supply and therefore buyers ability to pay (seller gets the economic profit) makes buyer side cash infusion useless.

Re: A universal income is not such a silly idea

#169

Post by phillmv » Thu, Nov 28, 2013, 4:04 PM UTC

muyuu wrote: post #120

belorn wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I understand the confusion, but its mostly there thanks to misconception about how things works now, > 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. Staying home and not working today is not actually an option in most places in the world. The reason is why this new model is called unconditional basic income. The current s…

The problem with making it unconditional is that it will completely break the ceteris paribus calculations as to what is good enough, making a lot of collateral damage on its way while being largely ineffective. Showering money to everybody is very likely to make more harm than good to real people's economies. A transition to Friedman's proposal on a "moderate" negative income tax (it's not what the name suggests) ma…

The Swiss suggestion aside, it's not really meant to be a free middle-class experience.

In the minds of most people it's more of a "you will not go hungry or get cold in the winter" level of support, and I would make the argument that the majority of folks would continue to work to supplement their income beyond the bare necessities.

It depends on your base axioms here. Most people don't like living with the bare minimum, and will try to work their way out of it. Most people aren't stuck at the bottom of the income range by choice.

Think of the entrepreneurial venues now open to people who no longer have to juggle two shitty jobs just to get by. I think we'd come along way towards reducing human misery without really harming the economy - with the exception of making jobs that are shitty for no good reason obsolete.

Re: A universal income is not such a silly idea

#170

Post by nano_o » Thu, Nov 28, 2013, 4:04 PM UTC

downandout wrote: post #87

nano_o wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But, to be pedantic, 1000 times zero is still zero, so you are saying that any income will be worth zero.

Yes, that is a pedantic statement :). The number will never actually hit zero, largely because the brief statement I wrote here is a drastic oversimplication of how currencies are valued. But it doesn't change the underlying statement - the basic income will be pretty useless after a relatively short amount of time.

Not really, if the total amount of money does not change, then the worth of the basic income would not converge to zero. Am I missing something obvious?