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

Powerful Political Forces Are Aligning Behind Minimum Income

nerdinvest.blogspot.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 158 posts

Re: Powerful Political Forces Are Aligning Behind Minimum Income

#111

Post by Kenji »

manyoso wrote: post #91
Kenji wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am not the state. And when I look around, a lot of states certainly aren't 'for' or 'by' the people. Maybe you have to start thinking independently, rather than smugly reciting one-liners from school. The state is a large entreprise that gives us some things and forces us to do things and pay money under the threat of violence and incarceration. I argue for voluntaryism, the notion that people enter into contracts…

What you argue has been tried in the early have of the 20th century in the United States where workplace safety laws and minimum wages were ruled unconstitutional based on the theory of free contracting parties. It failed MISERABLY and by miserably I mean it left working people in ... literally ... misery. BTW, my 'smug one liner' I learned in school was uttered by President Abraham Lincoln who is widely regarded as…

You misquoted me. I didn't say 'smug one liner'. I said you smugly recite it. Using an adverb, meaning that the manner in which is was recited was smug, rather than the quote itself, with which I actually am familiar, though I still think it's way too idealistic and plain wrong for most governments in the world.

Believe it or not - there are states with virtually no working poor and no minimum wage laws.

Re: Powerful Political Forces Are Aligning Behind Minimum Income

#112

Post by notahacker »

manyoso wrote: post #78
roymurdock wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1. UBI can be thought of as large-scale debt forgiveness. You are simply giving people the means to escape (often, but not always) self-imposed debts. 2. UBI would lead to a huge jump in inflation (as a %, nearly as much as the initial UBI stimulus % of total money in circulation) as the vast majority of UBI recipients would have a large propensity to immediately spend that money, thereby simply releasing it into cir…

This is simply wrong and has been shown to be wrong empirically. Details here: https://medium.com/basic-income/wouldnt-unconditional-basic-...

It's simply laughable to use a $900 Alaskan dividend or dollar a day stipends for the extreme poor in the developing world as "empirical evidence" of what would happen if a developed country offered >$10k per annum with the stated social purpose of discouraging people from taking jobs they don't want.

Sure, demand-pull inflation fears are slightly overblown since any remotely feasible plan relies on taxing the hell out of the middle classes responsible for much of the discretionary spending in the economy, and the poor generally get enough to eat through other subsidies anyway. But basic income will have a whole host of negative effects, many of them region or size specific, and those will undoubtedly include things like huge relative price rises in certain types of labour, sharp rises in property prices in working class districts of expensive cities and "baby farming" if the child grant is the same as or a sufficiently large portion of the adult grant. This is true of most welfare programmes, but BI happens to be the most expensive and least flexible of all possible options.

Re: Powerful Political Forces Are Aligning Behind Minimum Income

#113

Post by dllthomas »

Domenic_S wrote: post #31
hackuser wrote: post #5

A rarely discussed benefit to minimum income: The higher the social benefits, then I think the greater the labor market liquidity, for both employers and workers. Currently everything else depends on your job: Either you have one, and you have income, benefits, and all that goes with them in a society where everything costs money; or you don't and you have nothing (or very little). But if you don't lose you house, st…

This handwaviness is typical of pro-BI rhetoric. If there's a tech implosion and 500k workers lose their jobs, is $900/month in BI really going to offset their $3,000/month mortgages meaningfully?

> is $900/month in BI really going to offset their $3,000/month mortgages meaningfully?

... yes? They aren't breaking even, and they'll have to find something to do for more income (or move) pretty soon, but it certainly extends their runway.

Re: Powerful Political Forces Are Aligning Behind Minimum Income

#114

Post by CWuestefeld »

noonespecial wrote: post #83
jerelunruh wrote: post #36

Let's say that currently rent is $1,000 per month, food is $500, and Alice is earning $2,500. Now UBI is implemented and Alice and all fellow citizens receive $1,000 per month. What will keep the market from easing the entry level rent up to $1,500 and food to $1,000 since the money is available? At first glance it seems like we'd just be choosing a different number representing "broke".

Draw it out into the absurd to watch it work: Consider a society with 2 members, Mr Rich (net worth $10M) and Mr. Poor (net worth $100). Mr. Rich is 100,000 X richer than Mr. Poor right now. Institute a ridiculous UBI of $1M/year for everyone. At the end of the year, Mr. Poor has $1,000,100 and Mr Rich has $11M but Mr Rich is now only ~ 11 X richer than Mr Poor. Now sure cheeseburgers at Micky-D's are now $700 but th…

> unlike today where rich automatically makes richer

This aspect of Piketty has been pretty well refuted. To begin with, he failed to properly account for depreciation. That server software system that you built and is making you money today, isn't going to be worth squat in 10 years.

Re: Powerful Political Forces Are Aligning Behind Minimum Income

#115

Post by AnimalMuppet »

jerelunruh wrote: post #36

Let's say that currently rent is $1,000 per month, food is $500, and Alice is earning $2,500. Now UBI is implemented and Alice and all fellow citizens receive $1,000 per month. What will keep the market from easing the entry level rent up to $1,500 and food to $1,000 since the money is available? At first glance it seems like we'd just be choosing a different number representing "broke".

Let's assume a free market, run by supply and demand. Will BI change the supply of food? No. Will it change the demand? Well, there are some people who can't get enough food, but they are the exception. Demand might rise, but it won't double.

What will change is an increasing demand for quality. If I've got more money, I might want healthier food, or tastier food, or food that I perceive as being more "upper class" than I have been eating so far. I might move to wine from beer, or to steak from hamburger, or to organic from factory food.

Re: Powerful Political Forces Are Aligning Behind Minimum Income

#116

Post by jpadkins »

manyoso wrote: post #11
hackuser wrote: post #5

A rarely discussed benefit to minimum income: The higher the social benefits, then I think the greater the labor market liquidity, for both employers and workers. Currently everything else depends on your job: Either you have one, and you have income, benefits, and all that goes with them in a society where everything costs money; or you don't and you have nothing (or very little). But if you don't lose you house, st…

Some other major reasons people support UBI are: * Eliminating poverty and reducing economic inequality * Simplifying the social safety net * Preparing for a future where jobs have been automated * Stimulating entrepreneurship * Giving people the freedom to pursue their passions * Paying caregivers for their economic contributions to society * Recognizing a livable income as a human right * Paving the way for a new A…

> Recognizing a livable income as a human right

I was with you until that one. The fundamental right to other people's wealth is a very slippery slope. I believe human rights should only be negative rights.

> Paving the way for a new American Dream in the 21st century

reads like political marketing fluff. dilutes the message.

Re: Powerful Political Forces Are Aligning Behind Minimum Income

#117

Post by debacle »

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #101
Domenic_S wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"and have universal healthcare" is the functional clause here, but it's thrown in as an afterthought. All the BI in the world isn't going to help you if you incur a $200k broken arm 'cause you didn't have health insurance.

$200K seems pretty extreme for a broken arm, even if it required surgery. I'd guess $1K max for non-surgical, $10/20K for surgery.

A compound fracture + ER visit could easily hit $30k. Not sure about $200k.

Re: Powerful Political Forces Are Aligning Behind Minimum Income

#118

Post by mikerichards »

jakeogh wrote: post #108

It is inevitable that the threat of withholding 'basic income' will be used to modify behavior. Didn't pay a fine? Didn't do your taxes? Post "radical" comments on the internet? On the no-fly list? On the no-drive list? Don't have a gov-issued InternetID™? No soup for you. How long until China couples it with it's human scoring system?

So are you saying that basic income requirements will be very different than welfare is today?

Re: Powerful Political Forces Are Aligning Behind Minimum Income

#119

Post by imgabe »

Domenic_S wrote: post #31
hackuser wrote: post #5

A rarely discussed benefit to minimum income: The higher the social benefits, then I think the greater the labor market liquidity, for both employers and workers. Currently everything else depends on your job: Either you have one, and you have income, benefits, and all that goes with them in a society where everything costs money; or you don't and you have nothing (or very little). But if you don't lose you house, st…

This handwaviness is typical of pro-BI rhetoric. If there's a tech implosion and 500k workers lose their jobs, is $900/month in BI really going to offset their $3,000/month mortgages meaningfully?

Is it better than the $0 a month that they would get if that happened now?

Re: Powerful Political Forces Are Aligning Behind Minimum Income

#120

Post by notahacker »

manyoso wrote: post #43
jerelunruh wrote: post #36

Let's say that currently rent is $1,000 per month, food is $500, and Alice is earning $2,500. Now UBI is implemented and Alice and all fellow citizens receive $1,000 per month. What will keep the market from easing the entry level rent up to $1,500 and food to $1,000 since the money is available? At first glance it seems like we'd just be choosing a different number representing "broke".

We tie the UBI to the cost of living index.

That makes any potential generalised inflation worse, not better...
Post reply on HN