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

Re: A universal income is not such a silly idea

#171

Post by atticus010101 » Thu, Nov 28, 2013, 4:05 PM UTC

I think that eventually universal income will be a good idea. The question is not whether it's a good idea, but whether it's the right time for it.

This is a bit of a tangent, but since this is tech oriented community I think it's relevant. It's highly likely that one day strong AI will be able to run the entire world economy, and humans will not longer have to work, nor will they be needed. At that point humans will need basic income to survive. In this scenario, the whole concept of "the economy" will have been stretched and squeezed into something entirely unrecognizable, so the problem of basic income being a drag on the economy will be irrelevant.

We are getting closer and closer to this point every year. Just look at employment figures. Computers are replacing humans in the workforce, and they will continue to do so at a rapid pace.

Basic income will be useful and needed, it's just a matter of time.

Re: A universal income is not such a silly idea

#172

Post by tinco » Thu, Nov 28, 2013, 4:05 PM UTC

switch007 wrote: post #138

tinco wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He's talking about a proper country, not the U.S.

They mention income support, so I take that as the UK, where hundreds of thousands of people rely on foodbanks each year.

Ah, I just took the opportunity to naïvely hate on the U.S. a little. I think their lack of social security is appalling. How can such a well faring nation have such a low income tax, and so many poor people.

I guess I just don't understand their definition of liberty.

Re: A universal income is not such a silly idea

#173

Post by graeme » Thu, Nov 28, 2013, 4:06 PM UTC

ricardobeat wrote: post #77

graeme wrote: post #44

Does anyone know how the swiss proposal treats travel/residency? I've long thought that a guaranteed income is an idea worth trying. But it did occur to me recently that such an amount would let you live like a king in many developing countries. Is there anything in the proposal to stop people from simply moving abroad? More generally, how should a well designed universal income proposal treat travel/living abroad? I…

A rule setting a maximum of one or two months/year paid abroad would suffice.

Right. But then you've got a very large incentive against the kind of travel that young people routinely do.

Most of my family and friends have taken 3-4 month trips abroad, very formative. I expect many of them would have stayed home if they lost the income.

Re: A universal income is not such a silly idea

#174

Post by k__ » Thu, Nov 28, 2013, 4:06 PM UTC

JanezStupar wrote: post #113

weddpros wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I often hear this argument, but it sounds wrong to me. Benefits are cut when you start working, and resumed when you stop again. Did you consider the fact that salaries WILL be lowered to compensate for BI ? If BI is 1000, that 1200 paying job will become a 200 paying job... I just can't see where's the incentive to work. Who wants a 200 paying job when you get paid 1000 for just breathing ?

I think you have your own answer. Nobody will do jobs like that. Because why would they?

On the other hand, there are many jobs people are willing to do for free/minimum wage because they somehow like them. But they can't because without money they can't live or they have to maintain a very low living standard.

Re: A universal income is not such a silly idea

#175

Post by astrodust » Thu, Nov 28, 2013, 4:06 PM UTC

wavefunction wrote: post #67

salient wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

For some people this "mincome" would be theirs to spend, but for others it'd just be a minor reduction in income taxes.

What's somewhat clever about this is how it essentially balances out. The billionaire won't even notice the extra amount in their bank account, but there aren't many billionaires. Meanwhile the three jobs four kids single mom will be greatly impacted by this, which is the whole point.

Re: A universal income is not such a silly idea

#176

Post by nawitus » Thu, Nov 28, 2013, 4:09 PM UTC

judk wrote: post #168

nawitus wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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.

>All the basic income would be sucked up by rising rents, raising cost of living, go to step 1.

Why wouldn't that happen everywhere?

Re: A universal income is not such a silly idea

#177

Post by btilly » Thu, Nov 28, 2013, 4:10 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…

Your reasoning is severely flawed.

Nobody today wants to accept an income below what you need to survive because..you need to survive. Liberals don't want to see other people accepting an income below what is needed for them to survive in a way that we can accept, so pass rules about a minimum wage.

With this proposal, there is wage that it too low. As long as you make enough to afford something nice that you want that you couldn't otherwise afford, there is no reason not to take the job. Therefore at the low end, employers can pay LESS than they do now.

What it does instead is remove perverse incentives that make poor people receive less money for working than not working. The classic example being a single mom who, while working, and paying child care, makes less than on welfare. (Incentives that we've responded to by passing rules forcing poor people to take the otherwise irrational work option.)

Re: A universal income is not such a silly idea

#178

Post by unabridged » Thu, Nov 28, 2013, 4:10 PM UTC

LogicalBorg wrote: post #43

agilebyte wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But then the money has strings attached and you need to check whether people really comply (= cost). Basic income wants to avoid that by simplifying the welfare system assuming that most people do not want to simply be idle.

Simplifying the welfare system is a good idea, but my idea is more like gamifying the system and giving people rewards for doing good things. Simplicity is not the only virtue, what about tangible, measurable outcomes that have improved people's lives?

If you want to see this idea taken to an absurd level watch Black Mirror S01E02

Re: A universal income is not such a silly idea

#179

Post by krapp » Thu, Nov 28, 2013, 4:11 PM UTC

tinco wrote: post #172

switch007 wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They mention income support, so I take that as the UK, where hundreds of thousands of people rely on foodbanks each year.

Ah, I just took the opportunity to naïvely hate on the U.S. a little. I think their lack of social security is appalling. How can such a well faring nation have such a low income tax, and so many poor people. I guess I just don't understand their definition of liberty.

It's simple, you're as free as you can afford to be.

Re: A universal income is not such a silly idea

#180

Post by kristiandupont » Thu, Nov 28, 2013, 4:14 PM UTC

PaulJoslin wrote: post #75

ricardobeat wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So everyone that wants to live in London will need to have a job, just like they have today. It's a decent trade-off.

That is incorrect, London is not like that today. London is an extremely multi cultural city, with both rich and poor living side by side in the same boroughs. A lot of people argue that most of London's unique culture in places like Brixton came from the poor and that's what made London in a lot of ways great. If you say, everyone in London will need a job, then you are then moving the poor / unemployed on mass out…

London is turning into a ghetto for the rich just like most major cities as it is today. Which is really sad, I agree, but I don't see how this concept would change that in one way or another.