Live data from Hacker News

Why Should We Support the Idea of an Unconditional Basic Income?

medium.com

41–50 of 212 posts

Re: Why Should We Support the Idea of an Unconditional Basic Income?

#41
post #23
post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You couldn't actually not work in former socialist countries though. At least in the Soviet Union this was actively persecuted. ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parasitism_%28social_offense%2... ) But I do think think that countries which offer a great deal of socialized benefits (such as Finland, Sweden etc.) have a significant problem with a unemployment in the youngest generation of the labor force.

Call me old fashion but a system that relies on coercion to get people to work isn't viable in my mind.

That is not old fashioned at all. What systems to get people to work do not rely on coercion? Even nature, which got us to work on the first place, did so by coercion.

The only way we can make a society more accommodating is to change the type of coercion to a more gentle one. I.e., instead of working to avoid starvation and being eaten by wild animals people now work to avoid going into debt, losing their preferred place to live and having to rely on food stamps (at least in the US). In a society with basic income they would be coerced to work though social pressure and the desire to have nice things. (Edit: The latter may seem like an intrinsic motivation but in a society with advertising it is one that is actively generated. Advertising may actually gain a new, vital role in getting people to work if a basic income program is implemented.)

Re: Why Should We Support the Idea of an Unconditional Basic Income?

#42

One reason why I am currently not so much in favor of UBI is immigration. I have three uncommon beliefs about immigration: First, I don't believe the idea of human rights allows a state to tell people where they are allowed or forbidden to live. Secondly, I don't believe immigration controls are ultimately feasible. In the US this is obvious in the big population of illegal immigrants, other countries are also discov…

I agree on 1 and 2, but don't see how 3 follows. If you live as an "illegal immigrant" you are playing life on a higher difficulty level already. UBI wouldn't apply to non-citizens.

Of course you might argue that it very well should, but that to me is a different argument that comes at a way later stage.

EDIT: I believe this argument is confusing how the world should be with how the world can feasibly be at this point in time. Baby-steps :)

Re: Why Should We Support the Idea of an Unconditional Basic Income?

#44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

THe incentives work against crappy jobs and low paid work, otherwise working is extra money: that's a pretty big incentive. EVeryone that makes more than 1k dollars a month now would keep working to not see their income substantially diminish. Those that get abuse from work, and minimum wage might consider doing something else. Which is a step forward.

Who would do those jobs? And who would pay for the tax revenue lost when the production those jobs create disappears to fund the BI going forward? Also, because you'll say people will work on better jobs and make more production how do you know they'll do this: If they have the income they need why would someone work and say not save it and spend it in a 3rd world country where everything is cheaper? Its so likely it…

Likely the same people, but with a large salary bonus!

If you agree or find reasonable that the incentive to "not work" of BI affects the lowest paying jobs the most, lets go around a few cases.

1) Automatable-minimum wage jobs: today they are not replaced by machinery because its either expensive or through social concern (i.e. Walmart doesnt fire all the cashiers and replace them with automatic ones because of many political, social and some economic measures). In the world today such automation is not pursued because of its consequences and the marginal profit. If these people stop working, we would quikcly start finding automatic solutions. Bartending, cashiers, some construction, product assembly etc. I would expect these jobs to dissapear from human hands.

2) Non-automatable jobs: if the minimum wage people drop jobs that are too hard to automate or require a human touch (retail sales, nannies/child care, cleaning?, Garbage management, etc.) lots of people would drop out, which would reduce supply. So income would increase a lot for those that still do those jobs.

TLDR; decreased supply would increase wages and let this work still happen but it would be more expensive for businesses, and it would push automation.

Re: Why Should We Support the Idea of an Unconditional Basic Income?

#45
post #21
post #8

I always found the idea interesting, at the condition that we suppress all other forms of benefits. It is a simple and elegant way to solve the welfare trap and it also would be easier and cheaper to manage than the layers of benefits from various gvt agencies. To me there are only two real risks. First the idea that this will lead more people to stop working instead of less, which would be counterproductive. And I f…

You couldn't actually not work in former socialist countries though. At least in the Soviet Union this was actively persecuted. ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parasitism_%28social_offense%2... ) But I do think think that countries which offer a great deal of socialized benefits (such as Finland, Sweden etc.) have a significant problem with a unemployment in the youngest generation of the labor force.

> But I do think think that countries which offer a great deal of socialized benefits (such as Finland, Norway, Sweden etc.) have a significant problem with a unemployment in the youngest generation of the labor force.

Youth unemployment in Norway is significantly lower than in the US, using the data from ycharts which should be from here: http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/...

United states: 12.3%

Norway: 8.6%

https://ycharts.com/indicators/norway_youth_unemployment_rat...

https://ycharts.com/indicators/united_states_youth_unemploym...

Edit - I see someone else has already brought this up :)

Re: Why Should We Support the Idea of an Unconditional Basic Income?

#46
post #21
post #8

I always found the idea interesting, at the condition that we suppress all other forms of benefits. It is a simple and elegant way to solve the welfare trap and it also would be easier and cheaper to manage than the layers of benefits from various gvt agencies. To me there are only two real risks. First the idea that this will lead more people to stop working instead of less, which would be counterproductive. And I f…

You couldn't actually not work in former socialist countries though. At least in the Soviet Union this was actively persecuted. ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parasitism_%28social_offense%2... ) But I do think think that countries which offer a great deal of socialized benefits (such as Finland, Sweden etc.) have a significant problem with a unemployment in the youngest generation of the labor force.

> But I do think think that countries which offer a great deal of socialized benefits (such as Finland, Norway, Sweden etc.) have a significant problem with a unemployment in the youngest generation of the labor force.

Youth unemployment in Norway is significantly lower than in the US, using the data from ycharts which should be from here: http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/...

United states: 12.3%

Norway: 8.6%

https://ycharts.com/indicators/norway_youth_unemployment_rat...

https://ycharts.com/indicators/united_states_youth_unemploym...

Re: Why Should We Support the Idea of an Unconditional Basic Income?

#48
post #34
post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The idea of Basic Income goes hand in hand with the process of automation. There are millions of jobs that will go away due to automation. The counter-argument to "will basic income lead more people to stop working" is not "people are working too hard anyway" but rather "most people won't have a job...coming soon". What are all those people going to do once this happens? Find another job? Yeah right. Here [1] is an a…

What's to stop a nation implementing BI from capping the number of immigrants it admits? Such an action is pretty difficult in say the EU on a country basis. European residents (currently) have a right to live and work where ever they want in the EU. Countries can't block that without major changes to Tue EU rules.

Rule changes are not even enough. European borders are impossible to secure against "illegal" or "unwanted" migration of individuals. They always have been. Even the GDR wasn't able to stop its people entirely from leaving for the west. And nobody wants to use their methods.

Of course, "illegal" immigrants can't apply for UBI. They would form a permanent underclass, who work for minimal wages, don't have any representation, no social security, and no social mobility.

Re: Why Should We Support the Idea of an Unconditional Basic Income?

#49
post #25
post #8

I always found the idea interesting, at the condition that we suppress all other forms of benefits. It is a simple and elegant way to solve the welfare trap and it also would be easier and cheaper to manage than the layers of benefits from various gvt agencies. To me there are only two real risks. First the idea that this will lead more people to stop working instead of less, which would be counterproductive. And I f…

The idea of Basic Income goes hand in hand with the process of automation. There are millions of jobs that will go away due to automation. The counter-argument to "will basic income lead more people to stop working" is not "people are working too hard anyway" but rather "most people won't have a job...coming soon". What are all those people going to do once this happens? Find another job? Yeah right. Here [1] is an a…

On your first point this is not a new problem. Machines replaced most humans in most factories decades ago. What is new is that the few humans left operating the machines or doing complex work too expensive to build a machine for, might get replaced by robots too. We absorbed the first wave of mechanisation. There is no reason we can't absorb a second wave. In fact the second wave already happened in western countries since these manufacturing jobs went to asia. It created mass unemployment for uneducated people that will remain a problem for a while (and which I believe is the primary reason for any rise in income inequality). And the only solution is more and better education. Not financial incentives.

On your second point, an open country only has limited control over its immigration. First illegal immigration is massive and difficult to control, and when people have lived in a country for many years it is hard to not give them documents. But the main reason is that the majority of immigration is an immigration countries have no control on. People marrying foreigners or legal immigrants bringing their family. These are rights that should certainly exist but are easy to abuse, particularly for originating countries where there is little vital records.

Re: Why Should We Support the Idea of an Unconditional Basic Income?

#50
"In Russia, they thought everyone should have bread. That was a decision made by those in power, and they then tried to make that happen, whether everyone wanted bread or not. This did not work so well, and there were shortages."

So they produced bread, but then there were shortages? This doesn't make sense.

There is something that we could call "The Central-Planner's Dilemma".

People need shoes. Hence, there are people who will be looking to get into the business of supplying shoes. If you find a way to get shoes, and then sell them for more than it cost you, you can buy nice things and that impresses the ladies. You get entire firms dedicated to small problems like shoes for kids, business shoes, variations that suit people with wide feet. Market economies are like the mold on your bathroom ceiling - they just happen.

In Russia, the government went to great lengths to stifle that dynamic. They said: all people will need shoes, so the government will supply shoes to meet their need. Everyone will work together to give the government all the resources to do this. If you try divert resources from our project by getting into the shoe business, we'll shoot you.

So it's a new game. Now if you want to get the ladies, you need to become the resource allocation guy.

But let's assume that you are the planner, and that your motives are pure. You're a really good guy, and you do this for the sheer love of people having shoes. Here's the Dilemma: how do you convert the need of the people to the reality of the goods you're getting to them. This is crazy difficult.

To start with, how do you get signal about what the people need? This is hard. You could have a shot at it, by judging birth rates in regions, and getting height variation. You could send out teams to measure foot dimensions and then run statistical variance on sizes.

Then you'd needs to communicate that intent to the factories. And then the factories need to execute at producing the things that they should be producing. And then you need to somehow get the goods from the different factories through to the correct regions.

You're doing all this through a fog of politics, because jobs in resource-allocation are the only game in town, and everyone wants a piece of it.

The Alan Greenspan biography includes a neat section where he got to meet /the/ Russian central planner after the thaw. As in - the guy who sits in the room and decides how many shoes to produce. He describes a complicated mechanisms he set up to plan things. It's a good read.

Post reply on HN