A Basic Income Should Be the Next Big Thing • Hacker News Board

Re: A Basic Income Should Be the Next Big Thing

#171

Post by creshal » Tue, May 03, 2016, 11:44 AM UTC

newjersey wrote: post #152

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…

I'm one of the people who supports excluding people under the age of eighteen from basic income.

Most countries have dozens to hundreds of government programs (a dozen federal, a dozen per state, another dozen per city, …) to support parents of underage children. You'd get rid of a lot of administrative overhead by outphasing all of them in favour of including children into basic income (maybe at a fixed reduced rate if expenses are a concern).

Re: A Basic Income Should Be the Next Big Thing

#172

Post by [deleted] » Tue, May 03, 2016, 11:44 AM UTC

newjersey wrote: post #152

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…

I'm one of the people who supports excluding people under the age of eighteen from basic income.

[deleted]

Re: A Basic Income Should Be the Next Big Thing

#173

Post by takno » Tue, May 03, 2016, 11:44 AM UTC

felipeerias wrote: post #76

cmdli wrote: post #43

From the $1 trillon stated in the article, spread across 300 million people, each person would get around $3000 a year. That honestly doesn't seem like it would help a lot, considering it would replace current welfare systems. The Swiss proposal of around $2600 a month, implemented in the US, would cost nearly $10 trillion a year which doesn't really seem feasible. I don't think the problem with basic income is an id…

The main problem with a general basic income is that it would be enormously wasteful, regressive and unfair. If you have a good economic situation, 250$/month is peanuts. If you are grasping for air, it won't be enough; even more so if it comes at the expense of getting rid of public programmes that can target concrete problems and leverage economies of scale. Other approaches (e.g. minimum guaranteed income for the…

If you're earning more you will effectively pay the money back in higher taxes, so the transfer will be much the same as for a minimum guaranteed income, but without the costly administration, confusing rules and moral judgement that come with minimum guaranteed incomes

Re: A Basic Income Should Be the Next Big Thing

#174

Post by lackingcaffeine » Tue, May 03, 2016, 11:44 AM UTC

mcv wrote: post #142

lackingcaffeine wrote: post #128

I think the idea of a basic income is really interesting though one aspect of it troubles me and I would be interested to hear HN's solutions to it. The trouble lies in the creative and economic relationship. If a substantial number of people reduce or stop their usual working hours and live off the income to pursue entirely creative activities, such as making a website or art, they are exempt from the usual capitali…

I think most people will continue to work, simply because people generally like having more money. What will stop is degrading bullshit jobs for little pay. Businesses that rely on those jobs will disappear, unless they manage to make their jobs more attractive. Businesses will have to work harder to attract employees, because employees are less desperate for work. More of the profit will go to employees, less to upp…

My concern is perhaps not with this generation but the next. I don't think anybody who is used to working and the lifestyle that it allows would seek a massive reduction in income to pursue something frivolous, but it is easy to imagine an entire group of people entering the job-market for the first time having no inclination to work for a job, when their own hobbies and interests can be sated without the need to be profitable. Which needless to say would be economically damaging in the long run

Re: A Basic Income Should Be the Next Big Thing

#175

Post by thenomad » Tue, May 03, 2016, 11:44 AM UTC

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.…

Agreed. I'm fairly seriously liberal and my filter bubble tends very liberal too. There's somewhere between significant and overwhelming support for Basic Income within that group from what I've seen.

Re: A Basic Income Should Be the Next Big Thing

#176

Post by nihonde » Tue, May 03, 2016, 11:45 AM UTC

adynatos wrote: post #95

TheOtherHobbes wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Low-skilled dirty jobs should either be automated, or they should be treated like taxation. Everyone, without exception, has to pitch in and do them - to a reasonable standard, with doubled time for slacking, and serious punishments for avoidance - for [very small number of days a year]. If that sounds authoritarian, consider that's how work already functions for most people - except they're compelled to do it all th…

are you insane? can you see any way a trained neurosurgeon will want to pitch in sweeping the streets instead of using that time to do his highly specialized job and make enough money for it to hire two people to do the sweeping for him? this is absurd! take your totalitarian socialist society and get off my lawn.

Actually, I see it every day in Japan. Elderly people, many of whom had distinguished careers, are up early in the morning to clean the streets——and believe me, this happens everywhere in Japan because there is no litter, no dead leaves, nothing. And you will see the same almost everywhere in Japan.

I met a retired Toyota engineer who was an expert in the hydrogen fuel-cell technology that is now in the Toyota Mirai. When I met him, he was volunteering his time to keep Atsuta shrine clean and feeding the local roosters, something he does whenever he feels like getting out of the house.

What I have learned in Japan is that if people feel like there is a chance of doing a good job together, it becomes a pleasure (not a chore or an imposition or an exploitation) to contribute. I believe this is universal, but Japan happens to have touched the magic ring (for the time being).

Re: A Basic Income Should Be the Next Big Thing

#177

Post by humanrebar » Tue, May 03, 2016, 11:45 AM UTC

weddpros wrote: post #116

arximboldi wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know if that would actually be the case, but if it were, the question would be: is it actually a bad thing? I don't see any moral justification for a software engineer earning more than someone collecting waste [1]. In fact, it is normal that as our society gets more educated and the supply of unskilled workers goes down, a lot of hard manual labor will become expensive. This is already the case with mining,…

"I don't see any moral justification for a software engineer earning more than someone collecting waste" That's because moral justification isn't at the center of our society. The market is. Many attempts have been made to switch from the market to something else, not many were brilliant. The "lucky historical accident" you cite isn't one... It's just the way our society was built. Also you could argue on many differ…

> That's because moral justification isn't at the center of our society. The market is.

The moral argument is that the market is more fair at setting prices because it is a more fundamentally democratic mechanism than price controls. That is, all of us together, compared to a handful of easily-lobbied people, are better at finding sensible prices.

Re: A Basic Income Should Be the Next Big Thing

#178

Post by humanrebar » Tue, May 03, 2016, 11:45 AM UTC

weddpros wrote: post #116

arximboldi wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know if that would actually be the case, but if it were, the question would be: is it actually a bad thing? I don't see any moral justification for a software engineer earning more than someone collecting waste [1]. In fact, it is normal that as our society gets more educated and the supply of unskilled workers goes down, a lot of hard manual labor will become expensive. This is already the case with mining,…

"I don't see any moral justification for a software engineer earning more than someone collecting waste" That's because moral justification isn't at the center of our society. The market is. Many attempts have been made to switch from the market to something else, not many were brilliant. The "lucky historical accident" you cite isn't one... It's just the way our society was built. Also you could argue on many differ…

> That's because moral justification isn't at the center of our society. The market is.

The moral argument is that the market is more fair at setting prices because it is a more fundamentally democratic mechanism than price controls. That is, all of us together, compared to a handful of easily-lobbied people, are better at finding sensible prices.

Re: A Basic Income Should Be the Next Big Thing

#179

Post by humanrebar » Tue, May 03, 2016, 11:45 AM UTC

weddpros wrote: post #116

arximboldi wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know if that would actually be the case, but if it were, the question would be: is it actually a bad thing? I don't see any moral justification for a software engineer earning more than someone collecting waste [1]. In fact, it is normal that as our society gets more educated and the supply of unskilled workers goes down, a lot of hard manual labor will become expensive. This is already the case with mining,…

"I don't see any moral justification for a software engineer earning more than someone collecting waste" That's because moral justification isn't at the center of our society. The market is. Many attempts have been made to switch from the market to something else, not many were brilliant. The "lucky historical accident" you cite isn't one... It's just the way our society was built. Also you could argue on many differ…

> That's because moral justification isn't at the center of our society. The market is.

The moral argument is that the market is more fair at setting prices because it is a more fundamentally democratic mechanism than price controls. That is, all of us together, compared to a handful of easily-lobbied people, are better at finding sensible prices.

Re: A Basic Income Should Be the Next Big Thing

#180

Post by notahacker » Tue, May 03, 2016, 11:45 AM UTC

pjc50 wrote: post #159

yummyfajitas wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Except it's not simple arithmetic, because the normal economy doesn't count - cannot assign - a value to work done for yourself or your family. Someone going out to work and paying a large fraction of their income for child care is counted, whereas someone staying home and looking after their children is not. Only the first has value in an economic sense. Is it the only work that has value in a moral sense?

It's not true to say a stay-at-home parent isn't rewarded in an economic sense. They're rewarded by not having to pay a large fraction of their household income for child care.

It's a tenable line of argument to argue that the opportunity cost of child care - typically less than earnings foregone - isn't as high as the social benefit from taking care of one's own child, but I can't really think of a less efficient means than BI to try to redress that imbalance.