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

Re: A universal income is not such a silly idea

#211

Post by drivingmissm » Thu, Nov 28, 2013, 4:56 PM UTC

PaulJoslin wrote: post #112

Mikeb85 wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The system is broken, but the equality of pay and living standards is not to blame with the government, it's to blame with greedy corporations, share holders insisting they need to do anything for profit and wages being pinned down to the minimum they can be that the work force will stand for (to maximise profits). Let me ask you something... If you start a new business, and let's say you take out a huge loan to pa…

Capitalism is powered by money and greed. At it's heart, the point is to maximise profit and efficiency. This drives innovation and growth across the world... this is no bad thing. However, as a side of effect of this, it also means businesses want to become more efficient, reduce costs and maximise profitability - your share holders are expecting good returns and that's just the way the world works! However, accordi…

The growth in the divide is caused by changes in CEO compensation that reward CEOs of public companies with large stock option rewards. In theory this is a reform-- only CEOs with rising stocks should get paid. Also just looking at the top public companies isn't really representative of the economy as a whole. The median CEO really makes around $360,000, which is a respectable 9-1 ratio.

http://chiefexecutive.net/how-much-does-the-average-ceo-real...

Re: A universal income is not such a silly idea

#212

Post by lowmagnet » Thu, Nov 28, 2013, 5:00 PM UTC

Someone has to try it somewhere. I for one won't make predictions, and instead think I'll wait to see if a country adopts this and see what happens to its industry, quality of life, and so on before being on 'one side or the other'. Most of the predictions in this thread are based on basic assumptions of economics that come from political backgrounds/beliefs, and I don't think that's an appropriate way to argue something this complex.

A lot of you are programmers, at least some of you can run simulations. Stop arguing with words, and instead concentrate on developing models. In other words, start contributing to the science or stop arguing from ignorance.

Re: A universal income is not such a silly idea

#213

Post by gergles » Thu, Nov 28, 2013, 5:04 PM UTC

astrodust wrote: post #175

wavefunction wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The billionaire won't notice it because it won't exist; the billionaire will be taxed way above mincome, because otherwise how are you going to pay for it?

Re: A universal income is not such a silly idea

#214

Post by randomdata » Thu, Nov 28, 2013, 5:05 PM UTC

nawitus wrote: post #176

judk wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Supply and demand.

If we assume people prefer to live in a major city, and incomes are adjusted so that your income matches your cost of living, there is no downside to living there. That puts upward pressure on an area that is probably already maxed out for living space, which causes people to pay a little bit more in order to secure a place to live. Then, your income rises to offset your new costs of living there, providing the money necessary to allow someone to pay just a little bit more than you, thus beginning the cycle.

Outside of the city you would find a low demand and high supply of housing under such a scenario, and thus there would be no fuel to ignite a race to out-pay each other to find a place to rent. In fact, there you could probably convince the owner to accept a little bit less for rent as few people are interested in the place at all. If your offer is not accepted, it might sit vacant.

Re: A universal income is not such a silly idea

#215

Post by yummyfajitas » Thu, Nov 28, 2013, 5:07 PM UTC

btilly wrote: post #177

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…

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 th…

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.

This is silly. If that were the motivation, then minimum wage would be a few dollars/day.

Here is a list of countries by GDP per capita, after adjusting for purchasing power. Lots of countries (e.g. Venezuela, Georgia, India) have a GDP/capita below the US minimum wage. The world GDP/capita is below the US minimum wage. Yet somehow people in those countries still survive.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)_...

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.

Sure there is - you might value that nice thing less than you value watching tv instead of working.

Re: A universal income is not such a silly idea

#216

Post by FrankenPC » Thu, Nov 28, 2013, 5:08 PM UTC

One thing is for sure (IMO), this would never work in America. The not-obvious reason is the middleman problem. In America (again, IMO), the primary financial problems we have has to do with capitalist opportunists finding clever ways to become transition siphons for money flowing in any given direction. The: It's-only-2500$-a-month thing would rapidly become 10000$, 100000$, etc a month as politicians add pork fat, Local municipalities siphon from it, public welfare divisions sprout up to "support" the distribution, and finally the capitalist system itself engineers ways to absorb that new free money floating around the system.

No. This would never work. This kind of universal support system depends on a core of altruism. I don't think anyone will try to make the argument that America's core is altruistic.

Re: A universal income is not such a silly idea

#217

Post by drkevorkian » Thu, Nov 28, 2013, 5:10 PM UTC

lettergram wrote: post #191

I still cannot comprehend how anyone with a basic knowledge of economics can perceive this as a good idea. All universal income can achieve is increasing the cost of living to the point where it is as if there is no universal income. In other words, the universal income idea simply increases the cost of living by the same factor of the increased income. Perhaps it takes a year or two, so the poor benefit during that…

> Point being, there's always some trade off. All universal income does is push the cost of lunch onto the wealthy even more

Yes, that is the point of welfare. Universal income is a type of welfare. It is a form of welfare which is preferable to other forms because of its simplicity of implementation.

Re: A universal income is not such a silly idea

#218

Post by gergles » Thu, Nov 28, 2013, 5:11 PM UTC

ewzimm wrote: post #66

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…

Who cares? The government pays for WIC, so the only people being defrauded in this circumstance are the government. There's no "price gouging" involved here; WIC recipients get a voucher that pays full price for the items on the voucher, no matter what they are or how much that is.

Re: A universal income is not such a silly idea

#219

Post by lgieron » Thu, Nov 28, 2013, 5:13 PM UTC

agilebyte wrote: post #40

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 think it is not just about moving goalposts. What is different is that it frees you from the worry that you need to eat and have an abode. And the hope is that this comfort will make you engage in work you really want to do , rather then turn you into a couch potato.

In my region, there are a lot of able-bodied man in their forties and fifties who, thanks to the state policy, are already retired. The sad fact is that, due to a ton of free time that's suddenly appeared in their lives, a lot of them have become drunks.

I fear that for every person doing something meaningful with the freedom given to them via basic income, there'll be 10 or 20 who become couch poatoes or worse, self-destruct (booze, drugs, gambling) out of boredom.

Re: A universal income is not such a silly idea

#220

Post by mck- » Thu, Nov 28, 2013, 5:14 PM UTC

One side effect I can think of is that this might spur innovation and entrepreneurialism, because the consequrnces of risk-taking are softened.

It increases the opportunity cost of getting a job, vs being an entrepreneur. Perhaps we will see a generation of new entrepreneurs that otherwise would never have taken that leap; Which in turn might be great for the overall economy