Earlier quoted context omitted.
People are paid for all sorts of things that are harmful to society.
Harmful according to whom?
By themselves for example. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/09500170231175...
Is giving people cash working? Six months of Denver's Basic Income Project
161–170 of 188 posts
Re: Is giving people cash working? Six months of Denver's Basic Income Project
#162Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I think someone, soon will try to use this project as an argument in favor of UBI, which is ridiculous. Why's that ridiculous? Testing a small scale trial on the people most likely to be effected by a larger scale program seems pretty reasonable to me.
But the UBI works completely different at small and large scales. When you test it at small scale it seems to be working exactly as expected. But when you try to introduce it globally (I mean, for the whole country), then it suddenly starts affecting economy as whole, and the only result you get is inflation, and no one is better of with UBI compared to their previous situation. When the news breaks that everyone wil…
That inflation is temporary. Most countries in Europe give money to parents and also have decent retirement payments. Inflation is not a problem, except for other external factors (Ukraine war, COVID measures).
Re: Is giving people cash working? Six months of Denver's Basic Income Project
#163Earlier quoted context omitted.
But the UBI works completely different at small and large scales. When you test it at small scale it seems to be working exactly as expected. But when you try to introduce it globally (I mean, for the whole country), then it suddenly starts affecting economy as whole, and the only result you get is inflation, and no one is better of with UBI compared to their previous situation. When the news breaks that everyone wil…
Inflation is not the only component of UBI, far from it, social effects are pretty important too. "Do humans still feel compelled to work when their income is guaranteed" is a critical question that does not require a nationwide test to investigate. I wouldn't be so quick to write off the results here.
> "Do humans still feel compelled to work when their income is guaranteed"
Yes! Exactly. They will not work shitty jobs. Isn't that a good thing?
Re: Is giving people cash working? Six months of Denver's Basic Income Project
#164Earlier quoted context omitted.
GP did not articulate their point well, but you've straw-manned them about groceries. GP specifically enumerated housing, healthcare, transport etc - not groceries. I assume HN users are American unless informed otherwise. I'm glad that your health insurance bureaucrats can make a salary, but it's nonsense to believe that's a good way to run a society, even if it is profitable for some or can be deemed to be "free-ma…
> GP specifically enumerated housing, healthcare, transport etc - not groceries. The post I responded to mentioned "food" as well as the other things you list. Last I checked, "groceries" is food. I focused on groceries because they are closer to being in a free market than any of the other things you mention, all of which are more heavily regulated by the government and therefore are more inefficiently and wastefull…
Ha, my reading comprehension fail - I missed that GP explicitly said food.
I apologise for saying you were straw-manning, your comment was apposite.
I think where you and I differ is that you define action by any organisation, be it pharma corp or city government, to be ipso facto collectivist, whereas I will characterise actions by organisations and individuals as individualistic or collectivist on a case-by-case basis.
I agree with the principle of individual agency in the default case, but town planning is a prime example where this doesn't work - absent a population with a strong collectivist culture. I've spent time in a rural part of Spain and, please know, the towns are a mess - traffic arteries go down to one lane and detour around houses that someone decided to build where they pleased. It only takes one individual to ruin a good thing.
In terms of healthcare, your thesis would stand a hundred years ago, when medical skill was the prime differentiator and drugs were simple and cheap. That is not the case today. For any given condition, the treatment is often a monopoly or has little competition. Abuse of monopoly - a fundamentally individualistic behaviour, as I see it - is one of the elements that makes American healthcare such an international joke. These companies have a captive market, and the cost of entry is enormous. Respectfully, the idea that what you need is _more_ individualism does not stand up to inspection.
You may have individualism as your highest value, in which case avoidable death in penury is a price you are willing to pay. Most of the world finds that incomprehensible. The common solution in other countries is single-payer. This has the disadvantage that it levies the healthy to pay for the sick, but the advantage that the levy is affordable. It's not as if there is no benefit to the healthy - it is valuable in itself to live free from medical worry.
Did you know that the public cost of the US healthcare system per capita vastly exceeds that of every other nation, despite Americans _also_ paying thousands every year in private insurance? Your principle is a very expensive one. And it's not as if pharma is struggling in Europe. Strange hill to literally die on.
Re: Is giving people cash working? Six months of Denver's Basic Income Project
#165Earlier quoted context omitted.
Realistically you may be correct - however, it is within the realms of possibility that enabling poor people to take part in the economy will drive value creation, and that this increase to the tax base could fund UBI. Stock buy-backs don't create any value, or, if they do, it is obscure to me. You may get a one-time bump in capital gains tax, but it's nothing to build an economy on. A million new dishwashers, though…
A very fair question, but the possibility of such happenings could probably not be used for the initial funding stream
Agreed; it's a ridiculously optimistic projection and should not be the basis for advocacy.
Re: Is giving people cash working? Six months of Denver's Basic Income Project
#166Life improvements when humans have something to take care of their basic rights. Shocking. How many more projects and pilots to collectively keep scratching our heads as a species.
Re: Is giving people cash working? Six months of Denver's Basic Income Project
#167Earlier quoted context omitted.
Inflation is not the only component of UBI, far from it, social effects are pretty important too. "Do humans still feel compelled to work when their income is guaranteed" is a critical question that does not require a nationwide test to investigate. I wouldn't be so quick to write off the results here.
> "Do humans still feel compelled to work when their income is guaranteed" Yes! Exactly. They will not work shitty jobs. Isn't that a good thing?
The problem is: those humans still need to rent apartments, pay their bills, buy some clothes and food. A person who has UBI + salary will always be able to outbid a person who only has UBI when buying all those goods and services (which are limited in quantity, so you have to compete for them. That's how economy works, at its core: it is a way of managing scarcity).
Which means that after short adjustment period, the prices will rise and you will still need the salary from that shitty job to survive.
Re: Is giving people cash working? Six months of Denver's Basic Income Project
#168Earlier quoted context omitted.
No, what's ridiculous is claiming that conclusions from this study cannot apply to UBI. Nobody is claiming the study models inflation, it's about homelessness. Basic Income is part of Universal Basic Income, and I think it's pretty reasonable to expect some conclusions apply to each.
> Nobody is claiming the study models inflation, it's about homelessness. Since most people are not homeless, I have no idea why you think this makes it reasonable to extrapolate anything from this study to the case of actual UBI. > Basic Income is part of Universal Basic Income Not if it's only given to the homeless.
> Since most people are not homeless, I have no idea why you think this makes it reasonable to extrapolate anything from this study to the case of actual UBI.
Some people are. They were given a basic income. Under UBI they would also be given a basic income. It seems crazy to me to suggest these are entirely uncorrelated.
> Not if it's only given to the homeless.
So I'll ask again, how does Basic Income for the middle class invalidate Basic Income for the destitute?
Re: Is giving people cash working? Six months of Denver's Basic Income Project
#169Earlier quoted context omitted.
> "Do humans still feel compelled to work when their income is guaranteed" Yes! Exactly. They will not work shitty jobs. Isn't that a good thing?
The problem is: those humans still need to rent apartments, pay their bills, buy some clothes and food. A person who has UBI + salary will always be able to outbid a person who only has UBI when buying all those goods and services (which are limited in quantity, so you have to compete for them. That's how economy works, at its core: it is a way of managing scarcity). Which means that after short adjustment period, th…
It encourages work. The current system which can punish you for trying to improve your situation, with UBI it's always in your best interest to work.
Also, the average person will not have their income increase significantly with UBI. The money has to come from somewhere, and taxes will offset the gains for most. Wealthy folks may see their income reduced by a few percentage points. Poor people can easily see their income doubled.
Another factor to consider is that apartments, clothes, and food are not flatly limited, they're elastic. Currently people with no money cannot participate in the market, so UBI has the potential to drive prices down through demand as well. We're seeing a negative example of this with the current housing market; prices are rising quickly because only wealthy people can afford a house, and less and less affordable housing is created as it's not as profitable.
Re: Is giving people cash working? Six months of Denver's Basic Income Project
#170Earlier quoted context omitted.
But the UBI works completely different at small and large scales. When you test it at small scale it seems to be working exactly as expected. But when you try to introduce it globally (I mean, for the whole country), then it suddenly starts affecting economy as whole, and the only result you get is inflation, and no one is better of with UBI compared to their previous situation. When the news breaks that everyone wil…
That inflation is temporary. Most countries in Europe give money to parents and also have decent retirement payments. Inflation is not a problem, except for other external factors (Ukraine war, COVID measures).
That inflation is indeed temporary - it fulfills its role once the prices reach the level when UBI becomes irrelevant.
Imagine a country where average income is 2000 USD per month. Now, you give everyone UBI of 1000 USD per month, so the prices keep rising until cumulative inflation reaches 50% - now 3000 USD buys you exactly the same standard of living as 2000 USD used to do before.
So, inflation stops, but no one's life is better after UBI than it was before.
And of course if the government decides to raise UBI from 1000 USD to 2000 USD then the next wave of inflation follows, cancelling any gains once again.