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

UBI as a productivity dividend

scottsantens.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 278 posts

Re: UBI as a productivity dividend

#21

Post by lotyrin »

bryanlarsen wrote: post #7
shahmeern wrote: post #2

Does UBI really solve the problem, wouldn’t it just make everything more expensive?

Not necessarily. It's straightforward to make it revenue neutral. You make it revenue neutral for the average tacpayer. If you want UBI to be $1000/month, you increase the average tax by $1000. The average taxpayer still benefit because even though they don't get more money, they have a safety net. People making less than average get more UBI than the tax increase, and those making more pay more. Most people get more…

Right, but people with lower incomes spend, and mostly on necessities, I think the idea is that most of those necessities would become more expensive (naturally or artificially due to price-fixing) if the poorest suddenly had more financial power. In the system as it stands, it seems to me like it'd just result in a bunch of money going to grocery giants and their suppliers, landlords, medical, etc.

Re: UBI as a productivity dividend

#22

Post by xantronix »

Detrytus wrote: post #3
shahmeern wrote: post #2

Does UBI really solve the problem, wouldn’t it just make everything more expensive?

Yes, it does cause huge inflation, but that's not even the biggest problem with it. That would be: people do not really like to share fruits of their labor with strangers, so UBI would significantly undermine the motivation to do anything other than bare minimum. UBI is not possible until robots and AI take over most jobs (but then we risk that one day the AI decides to just get rid of "those useless humans")

I don't think we should worry about the advent of AGI deciding to get rid of us; I'm more worried about the people who own the AI current AI infrastructure, as well as the current US regime, who don't see the value in the pesky humans beyond revenue and votes, respectively.

Re: UBI as a productivity dividend

#23

Post by recursivecaveat »

shahmeern wrote: post #2

Does UBI really solve the problem, wouldn’t it just make everything more expensive?

If the only money is UBI money then things start to get weird. If UBI coexists with regular income in moderation then it doesn't change much. Consider that about 1/3 Americans receive some form of government assistance. There's already a kind of fallback UBI distributed across SNAP + Medicare + Medicaid + Unemployment + Social Security + etc, and no one on those programs is clamoring for them to be shut down so that lentils become cheaper. Giving money to everyone does increase inflation (though you can play with the tax rate to offset that), but the important effect is it transfers purchasing power to net recipients. Basically: the economy wide money supply would at worst go up by a modest factor, the income of the poorest goes up by an absolute amount (or a massive factor if you want to view it that way), which is a huge benefit to them.

Re: UBI as a productivity dividend

#24

Post by randerson »

SoftTalker wrote: post #15
randerson wrote: post #8

I'm UBI-curious, but surely inflation would be inevitable if everyone suddenly had $x more disposable income per year? Landlords and grocery stores and everyone else would raise prices because they know people can afford it. Obviously if you're living in poverty, anything is better than nothing, but would the average middle class person be better off? As far as I can tell no country has ever tested true UBI (uncondit…

It would not be inflationary if it's paid for with a tax on real value or income. Maybe somewhat inefficient, and prone to political meddling, but it's not introducing new money into the economy. If it's just printed money, it would be.

It would be in a sense, because that money is otherwise mostly hoarded by the wealthy, whose spending would look the same whether or not they are taxed. If money is saved and not spent, it is not really part of the economy in this sense.

But if the money is transferred to others and spent on additional goods & services that is when it increases demand and raises prices.

Re: UBI as a productivity dividend

#25

Post by alpaca128 »

randerson wrote: post #8

I'm UBI-curious, but surely inflation would be inevitable if everyone suddenly had $x more disposable income per year? Landlords and grocery stores and everyone else would raise prices because they know people can afford it. Obviously if you're living in poverty, anything is better than nothing, but would the average middle class person be better off? As far as I can tell no country has ever tested true UBI (uncondit…

If UBI is so high that people can afford paying extra without working for it then maybe, but I don't think that is the idea behind UBI. There still needs to be an incentive for people to work, they should just be in a place where they actually have a choice instead of living in survival mode every day.

Re: UBI as a productivity dividend

#26

Post by estearum »

alpaca128 wrote: post #25
randerson wrote: post #8

I'm UBI-curious, but surely inflation would be inevitable if everyone suddenly had $x more disposable income per year? Landlords and grocery stores and everyone else would raise prices because they know people can afford it. Obviously if you're living in poverty, anything is better than nothing, but would the average middle class person be better off? As far as I can tell no country has ever tested true UBI (uncondit…

If UBI is so high that people can afford paying extra without working for it then maybe, but I don't think that is the idea behind UBI. There still needs to be an incentive for people to work, they should just be in a place where they actually have a choice instead of living in survival mode every day.

Doesn't matter at all how much it is. It'll be (almost entirely or entirely) eaten by landlords.

I am a landlord.

I am setting prices for renewal.

I have come to learn that 100% of my possible customer base now has $200/mo more to spend.

I raise prices $200/mo with absolute certainty that I will find a renter.

Congrats, mission accomplished.

Re: UBI as a productivity dividend

#27

Post by estearum »

throwaway94275 wrote: post #14
randerson wrote: post #8

I'm UBI-curious, but surely inflation would be inevitable if everyone suddenly had $x more disposable income per year? Landlords and grocery stores and everyone else would raise prices because they know people can afford it. Obviously if you're living in poverty, anything is better than nothing, but would the average middle class person be better off? As far as I can tell no country has ever tested true UBI (uncondit…

In places that consist of many people with subsidized incomes, like elderly housing complexes, why aren't local grocery stores and gas stations higher than elsewhere? Also, aside from that question, prices will only rise if there's no competition. In a working market, if more people can afford a higher rent more apartments will be built.

Because the subsidies aren't on top of base income?

The subsidy isn't the problem per se, it's the net increase in income.

It is obviously self-evident everywhere that high incomes create high cost of living, which can be traced through higher costs all the way down to the land rents (the rent someone is willing to pay to have market access to the high local incomes).

Re: UBI as a productivity dividend

#28

Post by shahmeern »

lotyrin wrote: post #21
bryanlarsen wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not necessarily. It's straightforward to make it revenue neutral. You make it revenue neutral for the average tacpayer. If you want UBI to be $1000/month, you increase the average tax by $1000. The average taxpayer still benefit because even though they don't get more money, they have a safety net. People making less than average get more UBI than the tax increase, and those making more pay more. Most people get more…

Right, but people with lower incomes spend, and mostly on necessities, I think the idea is that most of those necessities would become more expensive (naturally or artificially due to price-fixing) if the poorest suddenly had more financial power. In the system as it stands, it seems to me like it'd just result in a bunch of money going to grocery giants and their suppliers, landlords, medical, etc.

Yeah this is the downstream effect I had in mind. You could say we'd increase supply to meet the demand but that hasn't really worked out with housing for example

Re: UBI as a productivity dividend

#29

Post by iso1631 »

estearum wrote: post #26
alpaca128 wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If UBI is so high that people can afford paying extra without working for it then maybe, but I don't think that is the idea behind UBI. There still needs to be an incentive for people to work, they should just be in a place where they actually have a choice instead of living in survival mode every day.

Doesn't matter at all how much it is. It'll be (almost entirely or entirely) eaten by landlords. I am a landlord. I am setting prices for renewal. I have come to learn that 100% of my possible customer base now has $200/mo more to spend. I raise prices $200/mo with absolute certainty that I will find a renter. Congrats, mission accomplished.

Unless of course that UBI is funded by a land value tax.

Re: UBI as a productivity dividend

#30

Post by lotsofpulp »

nostrebored wrote: post #17
lotsofpulp wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'm UBI-curious, but surely inflation would be inevitable if everyone suddenly had $x more disposable income per year? This does not have to be the case if higher taxes decrease purchasing power for some.

This does not address the relative purchasing power change on the left of the bell curve.

The whole purpose of UBI is to increase the relative purchasing power on the left of the bell curve.

But inflation (sum total) is a moot point if total supply of dollars for total demand stays the same. Prices might temporarily increase for staples, such as shelter and food, but that should incentivize sellers in the economy to supply more staples, and fewer luxury goods.

The additional supply will eventually bring prices down, but end result is more people have more of the basics.

Post reply on HN