Live data from Hacker News

A Dutch city is giving money away to test the basic income theory

qz.com

221–230 of 552 posts

Re: A Dutch city is giving money away to test the basic income theory

#221
post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How? Competition would increase and prices would come down. We are currently fighting to avoid deflation anyways and all indicators point towards this continuing. If anything UBI will stop people hoarding cash as is happening now and re-introduce some cash-flow into the macro economy. A little inflation is healthy.

Why would competition increase?

For basic goods there would be more demand (people who can't afford even basics would enter the market making the total market larger) in turn making it more attractive to compete there. People always go where there is opportunity.

We are also on a long term trend of prices coming down in any case.

Re: A Dutch city is giving money away to test the basic income theory

#222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Norway is extremely different than for example US. With all due respect, I'm sorry, I can't see Norwegians happily supporting social programs if they are mostly designed to help immigrants. US is immigration based. What about Norway consisting in 15-20% of Blacks, than the other 80% coming from all over the world. I believe that about 75% of all Americans are immigrants, their children, or their grandchildren. Would…

...in which we learn the real reason you're against UBI—dirty immigrants. I really fail to see how this can be anything other than an argument for more fair/equal wealth distribution in the world. If most countries had similar schemes, then why would the "good for nothing immigrants" go to supposedly scrounge in the US?

If we redistributed wealth around the world, everyone would be poor, unable to start companies, etc etc. Does that really solve anything useful?

You do realise that if you redistributed wealth over the world, you would be drastically worse off don't you...

Re: A Dutch city is giving money away to test the basic income theory

#223
post #191

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 'problem' with most European benefit systems that I am aware of that as soon as you take the money, your time is no longer your own. Getting a job has similar disadvantages.

GP post was specifically about those lazy benefits claimants who don't study or do voluntary work to improve their chance of getting back to work. Parent post correctly points out that many of those claimants were prohibited - under threat of criminal prosecution - from doing those things while claiming some benefit.

Often benefits put you in a situation where it makes no economical sense to pursue a job. I have a friend who lost her mother and had a pension that would be taken away if she got employed, but the pension itself was much bigger than she could ever dream of earning at that time (hell, it was bigger than I was earning in my first two programming jobs). So there's your incentive to go and get employed.

Or another example; until not so long ago, my mother (single parent) got social benefits that would disappear if my own personal income would exceed a particular (not very big) amount, and this would turn into a problem with paying rent and feeding her and my siblings. She also spent some time unemployed after a company she worked in went bust (the original owner died, and his son mismanaged it into the ground), because all jobs available for her wouldn't even pay enough to cover the lost benefits.

Basically, living at the lower end of income spectrum is incredibly hard, and you end up doing a lot of weird calculations. When working hard for 8+ hours a day pays you less than not working at all (and caring about your kids instead), suddenly this "laziness" becomes a perfectly rational choice.

Re: A Dutch city is giving money away to test the basic income theory

#224

It looks like this is not a "saturation" site for testing the basic income theory. All participants appear to start with the same income, but the basic income group receives their income with no strings attached. This can create some unfortunate incentives that would not occur had everyone received a basic income. For example, if you have one group with a basic income and one group without a basic income in the same…

>the group without would be more likely to be hired for low wage jobs because that salary is much more important to them.

That's not necessarily how it would work. In the UK we've had a top up with tax credits for low paid jobs. What we've seen is an explosion of low paid part time jobs as businesses know people will take them as their income will be topped up by the govt.

Re: A Dutch city is giving money away to test the basic income theory

#225
post #70
post #33

One of the first pieces of advice I had when my company landed its investment was to pay ourselves a decent (not extravagant) wage so that my time went on worrying about the company rather than how I was going to afford to do things in my personal life. The same is true for employees - if they're paid a good living they will spend more time on thinking about problems in their job instead. If a government were to do t…

I would wager there will be people who will take advantage of the system and use it as a opportunity to not work and laze around all day however those people will be the one who are not particularly productive in their work anyway. They might find something else to do they might not but that's OK it is an acceptable loss. On the other end companies which used to take advantage of the job market and the fact that ever…

I imagine partitioning living NEEDS [housing, food, transportation] as an area of the economy with its own money/token/basic-income-credits system separate from the WANT economy of everything else.

Re: A Dutch city is giving money away to test the basic income theory

#226

Basic Income is sometimes dogmatically derided as 'socialist' thus evil. Proponents of Basic Income - or varieties thereof - can be found on the left and the right of the economic political compass. Even Milton Freedman was a proponent of some guise. Personally I think it is lazy to dismiss the thinking behind Basic Income as merely communism.

There is no arguing that basic income, welfare, disability benefit etc. are socialist. That is not deriding them, it is an accurate description. It's strange that this is a bad term in the US, not so here in the EU.

It's not even slightly socialist. People talk as if all government action is socialist, but socialism includes controlling the means of production not just taxes. In the end the problems with socialism are organizational in nature, and large corporations face the same issues of misaligned incentives.

Edit: A minimum wage is socialist a minimum income is not.

PS: Now you could call it collectivist.

Re: A Dutch city is giving money away to test the basic income theory

#227

Basic Income is sometimes dogmatically derided as 'socialist' thus evil. Proponents of Basic Income - or varieties thereof - can be found on the left and the right of the economic political compass. Even Milton Freedman was a proponent of some guise. Personally I think it is lazy to dismiss the thinking behind Basic Income as merely communism.

The Friedman negative income tax would surely be better than the complicated patchwork of taxes and welfare programs modern countries have today, if only for its simplicity.

I would not mind seeing an experiment in putting everyone on a BI and then taxing at a flat rate like that. What makes the welfare we know so terrible is that for all its good intentions, it works out to a system that pays people to do those things that keep them poor in the first place.

Re: A Dutch city is giving money away to test the basic income theory

#228
post #52
post #33

One of the first pieces of advice I had when my company landed its investment was to pay ourselves a decent (not extravagant) wage so that my time went on worrying about the company rather than how I was going to afford to do things in my personal life. The same is true for employees - if they're paid a good living they will spend more time on thinking about problems in their job instead. If a government were to do t…

People starting companies are driven, determined people who want to create things. The vast majority of people are not. You're vastly over-estimating the general population. The majority are lazy, and if given money, will sit watching reality TV and stuffing their face with ice cream. (Step outside the startup bubble for a while). Most people are also selfish. The idea that they'll all start doing things to benefit o…

No one's arguing that only a small percentage of people are geared toward pursuing high risk/high cost opportunities. But it's not really relevant to the idea of basic income or an indictment of the majority.

The vast majority are happiest when they are doing meaningful work, not by sitting on the couch and eating ice cream while being void of engaging work. This is true for people of all walks of life, the super bright, the super disciplined, the super motivated as well as the other end and everything in between. The concept of basic income would free people to pursue engaging work. Meaningful work does not have to come in the form of trying to cure diseases or build sky scrapers, or start a tech company.

Meaningful work is abundant and not limited by the arbitrary limitations created by a material-consumption-based society what was ushered in by the industrial age, which for the the majority has dictated what is economically viable to make a living. Meaningful work can come in the form of volunteering, gardening, looking after elders, helping the environment, creating beautiful neighbourhoods, social support, skilled crafts, the list is endless and not limited to people with above average intelligence or motivation. Right now these types of endeavours are not economically sustaining for people to focus on.

Given that technology will drastically cut down the amount of jobs required it is beyond obvious that the current orthodoxy just isn't applicable in tomorrow's world. It is obvious today and it's only get worse tomorrow. Autonomous cars and trucks alone will kill millions of jobs, how do these people find economically viable jobs? Office jobs will decline at an exponential pace, because there will be no economically viable reason to employ people for work that is done more efficiently by software.

Given that we can actually sustain billions of people's material needs with most of the work being done by our tools, rather than people, it is complete lunacy to handicap the population by limiting it because the majority won't actually be able to find economically viable work according to yesterday's economy. It is also completely arbitrary. The conditions have changed dramatically and the sooner we adjust the system to fit the new conditions, the better.

Re: A Dutch city is giving money away to test the basic income theory

#229
post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would competition increase?

For basic goods there would be more demand (people who can't afford even basics would enter the market making the total market larger) in turn making it more attractive to compete there. People always go where there is opportunity. We are also on a long term trend of prices coming down in any case.

So you say demand will increase and production will have to catch up. I think prices will go up, not down in such case.

Re: A Dutch city is giving money away to test the basic income theory

#230

Basic Income is sometimes dogmatically derided as 'socialist' thus evil. Proponents of Basic Income - or varieties thereof - can be found on the left and the right of the economic political compass. Even Milton Freedman was a proponent of some guise. Personally I think it is lazy to dismiss the thinking behind Basic Income as merely communism.

just fyi, in "communism" E-Europe everybody was forced to have a job. Vocational or not, efficient for the system or not, was there, mandatory. Thus the "guaranteed" income.
Post reply on HN