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

The principled and pragmatic case for a Universal Basic Income (2015)

medium.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 106 posts

Re: The principled and pragmatic case for a Universal Basic Income (2015)

#11

Post by beat »

ThomPete wrote: post #8

What most of these cases get wrong is that they confuse UBI as yet another way to deal with unemployment as the market corrects itself and new jobs are created. I.e. it's seen as this temporary state that we might or might not be in for a limited amount of time. The truth is that UBI is meant to deal with the fact that we will more or less all be unemployed and have no jobs and thus no income. It's not meant to solve…

It's not so much that there won't be a labor market, but rather than radical changes to the labor market are accelerating.

Two centuries ago, well over 90% of income earners were farmers. Today, it's like 2% and dropping. But unemployment didn't become a more massive problem than it was then. Labor became available for other purposes, enabling the industrial revolution.

Re: The principled and pragmatic case for a Universal Basic Income (2015)

#12

Post by golemotron »

jupiterrising wrote: post #5

[deleted]

> The idea of basic income is commendable, but do we really want a system that incentivizes large families?

In Europe and Japan, yes. Birthrates are down and that leads to a number of bad social and economic consequences.

Re: The principled and pragmatic case for a Universal Basic Income (2015)

#13

Post by ThomPete »

jupiterrising wrote: post #5

[deleted]

There is absolutely nothing that indicates that people would want large families just because they have more money. Having a kid is expensive both money wise and timewise.

So I think it's kind of a pseudo problem.

You could solve most of that by making sure that people use condoms and that it isn't religiously wrong.

Re: The principled and pragmatic case for a Universal Basic Income (2015)

#14

Post by mjevans »

jupiterrising wrote: post #5

[deleted]

Addressing the implication of breeding for money, I actually prefer the solutions explored in Larry Nivin's main fictional universe.

Importantly, in that universe, different regions of human colonization had different limits for births; including un-affiliated areas (space between planets) having unregulated birthrates.

For the context of Earth/Terra:

I forget if it was one or two children, but for sure, for two parents 'the first child is free'. Let's simplify that and say that for each contributing parent (to society) the first child is free.

After that additional children slots can either be obtained through exponentially larger tax payments, performing a significant contribution to society (E.G. Nobel Prize winners might be granted unlimited reproduction rights), or winning a lottery.

Obviously in the case of massive global war, famine, or disease (age death waves included), additional children might be built in to the quota to keep the population at desired levels.

Re: The principled and pragmatic case for a Universal Basic Income (2015)

#15

Post by ThomPete »

beat wrote: post #11
ThomPete wrote: post #8

What most of these cases get wrong is that they confuse UBI as yet another way to deal with unemployment as the market corrects itself and new jobs are created. I.e. it's seen as this temporary state that we might or might not be in for a limited amount of time. The truth is that UBI is meant to deal with the fact that we will more or less all be unemployed and have no jobs and thus no income. It's not meant to solve…

It's not so much that there won't be a labor market, but rather than radical changes to the labor market are accelerating. Two centuries ago, well over 90% of income earners were farmers. Today, it's like 2% and dropping. But unemployment didn't become a more massive problem than it was then. Labor became available for other purposes, enabling the industrial revolution.

Yeah but it's accelerating at such a rate that it's important to look at the endgame which IMO is no labour market.

I agree that even before we reach that level the issue is thre and so it will serve as a help for those who are "left behind".

Re: The principled and pragmatic case for a Universal Basic Income (2015)

#16

Post by hermannj314 »

josscrowcroft wrote: post #6
hermannj314 wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm guessing criminals (current and former), drug addicts, and the willfully unemployed wouldn't be eligible. These are the vulnerable, marginalized and (sometimes) disenfranchised groups that America loves to shit on when it comes to social programs and basic rights.

> "I'm guessing criminals (current and former), drug addicts, and the willfully unemployed wouldn't be eligible." I believe "criminals (current and former), drug addicts, and the willfully unemployed" are all eligible under most proposed schemes, although the income level may differ for current prisoners. Edit: according to the RSA blog introducing their proposal: "Prisoners would not receive it." https://www.thersa.…

I know. I have no doubt the British have a sensible system that treats human beings with dignity. I was speaking about US hypothetically.

I would think when the state acts as ward to an individual, the agency would receive the BI on their behalf.

I've always felt basic income would greatly simplify many funding / administrative questions. Perhaps my view is too simplistic.

Re: The principled and pragmatic case for a Universal Basic Income (2015)

#17

Post by golemotron »

UBI seems like a good idea but it is important to recognize that the problem it seeks to solve has a cultural component too. Some people will use free money to build enriching lives. Others will fall into various addictions because they haven't found meaning. I'd like to see a UBI conversation that discusses is this point because it is significant and the history of welfare shows that it is real.

Re: The principled and pragmatic case for a Universal Basic Income (2015)

#18

Post by jupiterrising »

beat wrote: post #9
jupiterrising wrote: post #5

[deleted]

"Breeding for welfare" is a myth. Children are a major economic burden, even with welfare subsidies. That said, there's no reason offhand to provide basic income to minors. Parents can choose to have as many children as they want, at their own expense. One of the key advantages of basic income is getting rid of the complexities and irregularities of the current welfare model. Subsidies for children are one of those c…

[deleted]

Re: The principled and pragmatic case for a Universal Basic Income (2015)

#19

Post by drcube »

jsprogrammer wrote: post #2

The byline appears to have a redundancy, or a contradiction: >There is an increasing global conversation about the idea of a ‘Universal Basic Income’ – a universal weekly payment to all eligible citizens. Wouldn't everyone be eligible for a universal basic income? Are all persons eligible citizens? Is the article actually talking about an ‘Eligible Citizens' Basic Income’?

My guess is they're just hedging their bets with regard to wording. Presumably, there will be some crimes that entail losing your basic income, and it's probably up in the air whether the basic income will apply in whole or in part to children.

So "eligible citizens" in this case probably means "almost everybody, minus a few exceptions the legislature will certainly come up with".

Re: The principled and pragmatic case for a Universal Basic Income (2015)

#20

Post by beat »

jupiterrising wrote: post #18
beat wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Breeding for welfare" is a myth. Children are a major economic burden, even with welfare subsidies. That said, there's no reason offhand to provide basic income to minors. Parents can choose to have as many children as they want, at their own expense. One of the key advantages of basic income is getting rid of the complexities and irregularities of the current welfare model. Subsidies for children are one of those c…

[deleted]

"Simply stating something does not make it a fact."

Indeed.

Post reply on HN