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

A Basic Income Should Be the Next Big Thing

bloombergview.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 840 posts

Re: A Basic Income Should Be the Next Big Thing

#161

Post by lostcolony »

yummyfajitas wrote: post #146
gjm11 wrote: post #99

This article says it's talking about a universal basic income, and makes the usual point that a completely universal, no-strings-attached income is simple to administer, doesn't have poverty traps, etc. And then, towards the end where it starts looking at numbers, it starts saying things like > But by excluding 45 million retirees who already receive a basic income through Social Security, the cost falls to $2.7 tril…

It's not just wealthier people who will be worse off - it's everyone. Basic income is known to create a large disincentive for work. In previous experiments (Mincome) labor supply dropped by about 10% - double what happened during the great recession. This means that fewer working mothers can find child care, fewer laborers to mow your lawn, fewer nurses, fewer teachers, etc. No matter how much money you give to peop…

Where are you finding a drop of 10%? All I can find is "On the whole, the research results were encouraging to those who favour a GAI. The reduction in work effort was modest: about one per cent for men, three per cent for wives, and five per cent for unmarried women. These are small effects in absolute terms and they are also smaller than the effects observed in the four US experiments, a result that once again confirms the importance of not simply importing US research results and applying them to the Canadian context, with its different labour market institutions, practices, attitudes and social support programs."

From http://archive.irpp.org/po/archive/jan01/hum.pdf

Meanwhile, other studies have shown productivity actually increased when basic income was instituted amongst extreme poverty - http://www.bignam.org/BIG_pilot.html

Re: A Basic Income Should Be the Next Big Thing

#162

Post by Spooky23 »

mcv wrote: post #130

Interesting how this article spins Basic Income as something of particular interest to conservatives while liberals would object to it. I suppose that can help sell the concept to highly partisan anti-liberals, but I know plenty of liberals and progressives who strongly support Basic Income. The idea that the people employed in the bureaucracy managing the current mess of programs losing their job is a silly concern.…

>Why should we keep paying people for unnecessary bullshit jobs?

Because human services jobs employ thousands of people (a state like New York has 40k+ people in public sector social services and at least that many private sector) and control thousands of votes.

Democrats will have a hard time supporting it, because those unionized workers will get them voted out.

It's also very telling about what "basic income" really is. Conservatives don't give a shit about social welfare, this is just another scheme to enrich their pals and undermine the social safety net.

Re: A Basic Income Should Be the Next Big Thing

#163

Post by kempe »

You could look at Sweden here for a reference. Everyone does not get a fixed sum of money but everyone can get social services to help out if you are unemployed thou the amount of money vary from situation to situation. This and other things like everyone has a right to schools, universities and health care does not come for free however. 25% tax on products, salary tax 30-55% on different salary ranges + ~15% on top for pension plan and state tax that the employee never sees that the company pays. So sure it can work but it's not cheap and it builds on that everyone should get a job. If people lost interest in that and unemployment would raise more, that would be bad...

Re: A Basic Income Should Be the Next Big Thing

#164

Post by rubyfan »

jessriedel wrote: post #41
rubyfan wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why does it follow that the answer to an inefficient government is to give that same government more power to redistribute wealth? Being a big inefficient government and redistributing wealth are not mutually exclusive.

It's important to distinguish between rights- and incentive-based objections to redistribution and efficiency-based objections to government spending. The government as an organization of humans is very inefficient and wasteful at accomplishing actual tasks (e.g., building bridges), but it's actually very efficient at redistributing wealth through pure transfers (e.g., the administrative overhead of social security i…

I interpreted the parent comment is implying ineptitude by the government in delivering positive outcomes and my comment is in reply to that. If the regime is inept at delivering solutions why would we entrust it to take more by way of taxation to support a basic income.

My comment is not about the efficiency or admin overhead of printing checks. It's about trust in government to deliver an outcome.

Re: A Basic Income Should Be the Next Big Thing

#165

Post by dsr_ »

Overtonwindow wrote: post #134

Negative. Those with money will fight like hell to keep from giving it up. However if by some chance/miracle a guaranteed income is ever instituted, it will become a political football, as politicians and advocacy groups seek to continuously push it higher and higher. Instead of a money handout, I would rather support money in exchange for public works and service. I don't believe handouts without some kind of exchan…

The primary problem with a guaranteed employment program is the proliferation of edge cases:

- I want a job, but I have no transportation

- I want a job, but I have no skills

- I want the money from a job, and I'm willing to show up to a job, but I never actually do the work. If you fire me, I will go get another guaranteed job.

- I show up to the job and do the work, but my manager hates me and fires me. I guess I will go get another guaranteed job.

- I show up to the job and do the work, but all the managers in this town have an unspoken agreement that they will report people of my (skin color, gender, orientation, whatever) as not doing the work, so I have been fired multiple times.

- Bureaucracy managing the guaranteed jobs program replaces the bureaucracy managing the programs eliminated by Basic Income.

I'm in favor of more spending on maintenance and public works, but I don't think a guaranteed jobs program will work as well as basic income.

Re: A Basic Income Should Be the Next Big Thing

#166

Post by pjc50 »

_Understated_ wrote: post #129
pjc50 wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not really for you - it is child benefit, after all. Think of it as basic income for kids, to keep them clothed and out of the factories. I'm in favour of bringing back the Education Maintenance Allowance, and making it very slightly performance-related.

Haha, of course :) However, I am not in favour of Government handouts. How much money did it cost to give me £80 back? £100? £150? Would it not be better to reduce my tax so I pay £80 less each month?

It might be cheaper to take the money and give it to everyone than build an elaborate means-testing system that requires taking far more information, a more complex computer system, more arguing over corner cases, and so on.

Straight handouts appear to be by far the most effective way of reducing poverty and its negative effects. It's rather like the War On Drugs; you can choose a system that moralises at people or one that improves their outcomes, but if you want to improve outcomes you have to give up moralising control.

Re: A Basic Income Should Be the Next Big Thing

#167

Post by akshatpradhan »

mcv wrote: post #130

Interesting how this article spins Basic Income as something of particular interest to conservatives while liberals would object to it. I suppose that can help sell the concept to highly partisan anti-liberals, but I know plenty of liberals and progressives who strongly support Basic Income. The idea that the people employed in the bureaucracy managing the current mess of programs losing their job is a silly concern.…

>I suppose that can help sell the concept to highly partisan anti-liberals, but I know plenty of liberals and progressives who strongly support Basic Income.

Anecdotal experience. My anecdotal experience is the opposite where the liberals I know believe increasing the minimum wage is that "next big step forward." They won't even give the idea of Basic Income a chance.

Re: A Basic Income Should Be the Next Big Thing

#168

Post by lr4444lr »

mcv wrote: post #130

Interesting how this article spins Basic Income as something of particular interest to conservatives while liberals would object to it. I suppose that can help sell the concept to highly partisan anti-liberals, but I know plenty of liberals and progressives who strongly support Basic Income. The idea that the people employed in the bureaucracy managing the current mess of programs losing their job is a silly concern.…

It always held broad appeal. Milton Friedman, MLK, and Frances Fox Piven all supported UBI.

Re: A Basic Income Should Be the Next Big Thing

#169

Post by humanrebar »

ChrisLomont wrote: post #131
ww520 wrote: post #92

The Fed engineers a slow inflation every year via interest rate control and gives the benefit of the newly created money to banks, the loan borrowers, and asset holders as rates lower than keeping inflation at zero. Since the money supply increases anyway, might as well give the new money as basic income to ALL people. At least the money will be spent directly by the people for economic activities, instead of indirec…

The benefit is not given to the banks - the money is added through asset purchases on open market sales. The Fed owns more assets (usually Treasuries) and the bank has cash. If you want to get in on it, buy Treasuries. Next, the Fed avoid targeting zero inflation, because it's currently impossible to hit that number so exactly, and they desire to avoid deflationary spirals. The past 150 years has shown across hundred…

> If you want to get in on it, buy Treasuries.

Let them eat cake?

> ...they desire to avoid deflationary spirals.

I've never really understood this. Dropping prices (see the recent changes in oil prices) are really good for the impoverished, at least in the short run. If we are really talking about a post-scarcity economy, wouldn't deflation indicate efficiency and be a good thing?

Re: A Basic Income Should Be the Next Big Thing

#170

Post by Spooky23 »

amelius wrote: post #5

I'm still wondering about one thing: if everybody has a basic income, then who will be doing the dirty jobs like collecting our waste? Will the price for waste collecting go up? And will there then be a kind of economic "inversion", where the intellectual people prefer to work on interesting stuff at the expense of money, while the "non-intellectual" (need a better word here) people will make all the money doing the…

That's already happening. I pay the guy mowing my lawn as much as the 40th percentile IT or programmer working at my company.
Post reply on HN