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

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

medium.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 212 posts

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

#171

Post by hwstar »

MCRed wrote: post #131
SwellJoe wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Ever heard of minimum wage? Yeah, that one did not work as expected either (and created massive unemployment when the threshold was set too high as well)." Citation needed. Your assertions do not match my understanding of the facts about the result of the minimum wage. (Though I would have agreed with you ten years ago, a better understanding of it has altered my opinion significantly.)

When you raise the minimum wage, you don't change any of the other aspects of the business affected by it. So, say you have 15 employees making $10 an hour to keep your company afloat. (Just to keep things simple ,this is about the logic of it.) Now the minimum wage goes up to $15. What are you going to do? You would be losing money with a %50 increase in your costs. Most likely what you will do is lay off 5 employee…

I hear this "What if the minimum wage was raised to some ridiculous amount" argument from conservative people all the time. (I think they parrot it from conservative AM radio talk show hosts)

That is a loaded question. The minimum wage does not have to be increased to some ridiculous amount, but it does have to be high enough to keep the people off of government benefits.

Additionally, if raising the minimum wage by a modest amount causes a business model to crash and burn, then that's a flaw which needs to be corrected. Maybe that business model wasn't so robust after all?

If a business depends on an exploitative minimum wage to be profitable, that business needs a new business model. If that means more automation and robotics, so be it. It is not good public policy to pay exploitative wages that force employees to go on government assistance at the expense of the taxpayers.

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

#172

Post by philwelch »

chrisbennet wrote: post #160
MCRed wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When you raise the minimum wage, you don't change any of the other aspects of the business affected by it. So, say you have 15 employees making $10 an hour to keep your company afloat. (Just to keep things simple ,this is about the logic of it.) Now the minimum wage goes up to $15. What are you going to do? You would be losing money with a %50 increase in your costs. Most likely what you will do is lay off 5 employee…

I don't disagree with your argument. On the other hand... Currently, employers that pay a less than living wage are subsidized in effect - the government (tax payers) makes up the difference in the form of food stamps, healthcare, etc. Is it right that businesses should get subsidized labor?

It's actually the other way around. These employers are basically subsidizing the social services. If the best job Jimmy can get pays minimum wage, then logically, if Jimmy couldn't even get that job, he wouldn't earn a living wage; he'd earn nothing. If Jimmy had the opportunity to earn a living wage, after all, he would go get the job that pays that living wage and quit Wal-Mart. But, since Wal-Mart is the best job Jimmy can get, the net effect of Jimmy earning minimum wage at Wal-Mart is that he costs the state less money in social services than he would with no job at all. Wal-Mart, therefore, is the one subsidizing the state and not the other way around.

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

#173

Post by selimthegrim »

SwellJoe wrote: post #62

If you'd told me ten years ago I would ever support a basic income, I would have laughed. My thought would have been, "People getting paid without doing anything? Absurd!" But, in the past few years I've thoroughly changed my mind on this, and a number of other fronts. I now fully support a basic income (though I think a debate needs to happen about how much that basic income ought to be and how it ought to be funded…

I live in New Orleans. Black male unemployment (excluding those jailed) is hovering around 50%.

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

#174

Post by kamaal »

true_religion wrote: post #170
kamaal wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some one needs to pay for it. Well this is where things like minimum wage and guaranteed income go wrong. Why would any one work more hard to make a extra money, only to be taxed and given to people who don't wish to even try working and want to have fun all the time. Guess what happens to such societies. People who want to make more money go elsewhere where they are valued better. Eventually back in their original c…

Truthfully, all first world countries are gradually applying more and more welfare laws so there's no where to really escape to unless you want to live in say the Saychelles or Cyphrus or another tax-haven. Now its certainly fine for your money to live in the Saychelles, but many people value their home country for its people and you don't get that value without actually living amongst them.

>>Truthfully, all first world countries are gradually applying more and more welfare laws so there's no where to really escape to unless you want to live in say the Saychelles or Cyphrus or another tax-haven.

I come from a country(India) where generations of some very smart people have left to come and stay in the US. Guess Why? For a lot of time, it was pointless to even start a business in India(Given taxes and regulations). Add to this welfare laws like reservations, subsidies and freebies. You get at least 5 to 6 decades of very brilliant people leaving the country to never return again. The brain drain is still on, it hasn't stopped yet. All due to welfare policies.

Its taking decades more to fix that problem. I can assure you all those welfare laws ultimately led to far bigger problem they tried to solve.

US born citizens have no first hand experience of this. Nor do they have an idea of what it feels to live in such a country.

These words may look harsh. But the reality on the ground for such societies is very far from what you might have read in the books or articles online.

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

#175

Post by Thimothy »

clarry wrote: post #60
hurin wrote: 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.

> 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. Unemployment and youth unemployment are big problems in my area. I don't think the benefits are to blame though. It's just that ends don't meet and we don't have enough jobs. In fact, there's been a strong pus…

It's curious how the traditional protestant work ethics (laziness is sinful, salvation through hard work, etc.) that have been so useful in the past centuries (Finland being one of the best examples of where a impoverish country can get through hard work and stubbornness) are kicking you in the back now that simply there is no more work to be done.

I suppose that universal income would be much easier to accept, politically and socially, in southern Europe, where living from the state doing the less work possible is already applauded and something a lot of people strive for. Of course, in order to implement something like universal income we would need to get our shit together first, and that is just not going to happen.

Anyway, I wonder if there is a country in the EU with a chance of implementing it in a generation. It should be a country without a big immigration problem, not overly protestant, not too big, with a grip on themselves and their politics... Ireland, maybe?

Outside the EU, Switzerland is the obvious choice (I heard that they are already looking into it). I hope they finally decide to do it as, if it works, it would probably trigger a lot of discussion in all Europe.

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

#176

Post by hwstar »

philwelch wrote: post #172
chrisbennet wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't disagree with your argument. On the other hand... Currently, employers that pay a less than living wage are subsidized in effect - the government (tax payers) makes up the difference in the form of food stamps, healthcare, etc. Is it right that businesses should get subsidized labor?

It's actually the other way around. These employers are basically subsidizing the social services. If the best job Jimmy can get pays minimum wage, then logically, if Jimmy couldn't even get that job, he wouldn't earn a living wage; he'd earn nothing. If Jimmy had the opportunity to earn a living wage, after all, he would go get the job that pays that living wage and quit Wal-Mart. But, since Wal-Mart is the best job…

I respectfully disagree with this line of thinking. The goal of a society is to eliminate as many people from needing government benefits as possible, and to ensure that only those who are truly unemployable receive government benefits. Employers must pay a wage which ensures that basic needs are met.

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

#177

Post by JoeAltmaier »

hwstar wrote: post #176
philwelch wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's actually the other way around. These employers are basically subsidizing the social services. If the best job Jimmy can get pays minimum wage, then logically, if Jimmy couldn't even get that job, he wouldn't earn a living wage; he'd earn nothing. If Jimmy had the opportunity to earn a living wage, after all, he would go get the job that pays that living wage and quit Wal-Mart. But, since Wal-Mart is the best job…

I respectfully disagree with this line of thinking. The goal of a society is to eliminate as many people from needing government benefits as possible, and to ensure that only those who are truly unemployable receive government benefits. Employers must pay a wage which ensures that basic needs are met.

That's palpably not true. We all get roads, police, fire, regulated utilities. Absolutely nobody is trying to wean us from those.

It takes a change in thinking to accept the basic income. I'm afraid a generation will have to grow old and die before it gains traction, because of the ingrained thinking that 'full employment' is a good or useful societal goal.

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

#178

Post by dragonwriter »

hwstar wrote: post #176
philwelch wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's actually the other way around. These employers are basically subsidizing the social services. If the best job Jimmy can get pays minimum wage, then logically, if Jimmy couldn't even get that job, he wouldn't earn a living wage; he'd earn nothing. If Jimmy had the opportunity to earn a living wage, after all, he would go get the job that pays that living wage and quit Wal-Mart. But, since Wal-Mart is the best job…

I respectfully disagree with this line of thinking. The goal of a society is to eliminate as many people from needing government benefits as possible, and to ensure that only those who are truly unemployable receive government benefits. Employers must pay a wage which ensures that basic needs are met.

> The goal of a society is to eliminate as many people from needing government benefits as possible, and to ensure that only those who are truly unemployable receive government benefits.

Not only do I disagree that this is the goal of society, I don't see any reason to think that this should be the goal of society.

> Employers must pay a wage which ensures that basic needs are met.

It seems to me that this is a paternalistic and feudalistic approach that presumes that every member of society must be dependent on a particular employer.

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

#179

Post by philwelch »

hwstar wrote: post #176
philwelch wrote: post #172

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's actually the other way around. These employers are basically subsidizing the social services. If the best job Jimmy can get pays minimum wage, then logically, if Jimmy couldn't even get that job, he wouldn't earn a living wage; he'd earn nothing. If Jimmy had the opportunity to earn a living wage, after all, he would go get the job that pays that living wage and quit Wal-Mart. But, since Wal-Mart is the best job…

I respectfully disagree with this line of thinking. The goal of a society is to eliminate as many people from needing government benefits as possible, and to ensure that only those who are truly unemployable receive government benefits. Employers must pay a wage which ensures that basic needs are met.

And if you require employers to pay a living wage, then more and more people become unemployable.

Actually, the thing I like about basic income is that it gives you the freedom to eliminate minimum wage laws. People wouldn't have to work degrading jobs for subsistence pay, because they would already get subsistence pay, but if they earned even $3 an hour, that would be on top of basic income rather than in place of it.

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

#180

Post by dragonwriter »

ekianjo wrote: post #78
SwellJoe wrote: post #62

If you'd told me ten years ago I would ever support a basic income, I would have laughed. My thought would have been, "People getting paid without doing anything? Absurd!" But, in the past few years I've thoroughly changed my mind on this, and a number of other fronts. I now fully support a basic income (though I think a debate needs to happen about how much that basic income ought to be and how it ought to be funded…

> The increased cost for extending that type of benefit to everyone, while removing the bureaucracy of maintaining the existing programs (eligibility compliance and case workers, etc.), is actually not as dramatic as it first seems. You are missing one part, though. If you start giving cash for everyone, it's very likely this will result in raising prices for all commodities. And there you go for a another downward s…

> You are missing one part, though. If you start giving cash for everyone, it's very likely this will result in raising prices for all commodities.

Only if you aren't taking cash from someone to pay for it; UBI doesn't conjure money from nowhere, it redistributes it. The things disproportionately demanded by those who are better off with UBI will have some rise in prices (but not enough that they fail to be more affordable to those purchasing them in normal cases) and the things disproportionately demanded by those who are worse off will have some decline in prices.

> And there you go for a another downward spiral, where you have to readjust the basic income every couple of years to make up for the inflated prices.

What you probably want to with BI isn't target a particular standard of living, but target just below the inflation tipping point set by production technology and market factors, where BI is just below the level where it would lead to runaway inflation because of people leaving the workforce reducing supply (the real inflation danger, rather than redistribution of income spiking demand). This is sort of a fiscal version of what central banks do for monetary policy in managing interest rates. (BI is essentially self-limiting to this point in the long-run, in that if you don't tail-chase by increasing nominal amount inflation will drive the value of BI down to the sustainable level. But there's lots of disruption in that adjustment, so if you are going to have BI, you want to actively manage it to avoid overshooting by too much and to correct more quickly than inflation would correct it.)

The resulting standard of living that is sustainable with BI probably won't be what most BI advocates would like to see anytime soon, because production won't support it; but it should rise with advances in technology.

Post reply on HN