India floats the idea of a universal basic income • Hacker News Board

Re: India floats the idea of a universal basic income

#211

Post by felipeccastro » Wed, Feb 08, 2017, 3:00 PM UTC

boardwaalk wrote: post #54

felipeccastro wrote: post #38

I used to think a universal basic income would make sense, especially in developed countries, only for the near future scenario of machines taking ever more jobs. We know that this has always happened in history, and new jobs were always created, but that doesn't mean that the rate of job creation vs destruction will remain the same, forever. What made me change my mind about UBI was to realize that a) human desires…

I'm not clear on how your realizations turned you against UBI. If (a) is true, people will still work (because they want money above their UBI), and will still create progress (i.e. little will change). I'm not sure how (b) connects. Perhaps it assumes people will do less work towards automation under UBI? I would like to think people will still work on UBI. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if the percentage that don…

I'm not fundamentally against UBI. It's a different form of social welfare, and it could be more or less efficient depending on how it's applied.

My point is, until recently, I believed it was absolutely the only way forward, we wouldn't be able to avoid it, because this time "robots will really steal our jobs". My realizations imply that this is not the only way forward, even if robots take 100% of the currently existing jobs.

Re: India floats the idea of a universal basic income

#212

Post by FullMtlAlcoholc » Wed, Feb 08, 2017, 3:10 PM UTC

aminok wrote: post #91

neffy wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That argument (Malthusian) goes back to the beginning of the industrial revolution. But since pretty much every technologist, scientist and engineer currently working can trace their lineage in less than 4 generations back to the working class, I think I'll go with greater and better distributed wealth and education solving more problems than it creates. The fundamental issue addressed by positive incomes is simply t…

The Malthusian argument has never been tested for an extended period in a situation where resource usage has been decoupled from resource generation. From the brief experiment we've had with massive forcible income redistribution (social democracy), we've seen the following: * slow down in wage growth and improvements in life expectancy * slow down in productivity growth * explosion in the rate of single parenthood (…

> * explosion in the rate of single parenthood (perfectly in line with economic theory on how availability of resources affects child rearing choices)

This has more to do with the evolution of freedom to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Any economic theory rooted in rational decision making is incomplete at best. We could lower this rate by going back in time when marriage was treated like a contract with the intent of producing viable offspring.

> * slow down in improvements in life expectancy

You mention that you're against any regulation. Cigarette smoking causes more than 480,000 deaths each year in the United States, making it by far the leading cause of death from cancer and on its own the second leading cause of death. This is nearly one in five deaths. I shouldn't have to bring up the behavior of the major tobacco companies in the past and how life expectancy would be now without government regulation.

Also, if you're going to blame this on social democracies and not that we may be reaching what the limits of human lifespan are in the anthropocene era, I don't know what to say.

What I can say is that we will likely see an uptick in human lifespan due to CRISPR related technologies (discovered at a public, government funded university with research grants provided by public and private sources).

Free market ideologues make the same fatal mistake that economists did when creating decision theory. They eschew psychology and replace it with the mythical rational, utility maximizing individual. Also, humans are horrible at pricing things and rarely take externalities into account. For example, is the cost of submerging pacific islands and displacing the inhabitants taken into account when doing things that release greenhouse gases? It's like a cult or religion that thinks they uniquely have the solution for all the world's ills.

> But hey since 40 years of social democracy has failed so utterly,

There is more to life than simply money. I'm not the biggest fan of social democracies, but I am thankful that I have things like the right to vote after Jim Crow was shut down. I am thankful my cousin was finally able to come out of the closet and marry the person he loves. But I guess since I can't put a value on that, social progress is irrelevant =P

Re: India floats the idea of a universal basic income

#213

Post by Eridrus » Wed, Feb 08, 2017, 3:16 PM UTC

gizmo wrote: post #191

ozy wrote: post #151

My vote goes to redistribution of wealth, by means of a progressive tax that starts negative. It is the human thing to do. But it also aligns with economics and politics. Redistribution: because more money at the bottom, means a larger overall market, and I think a more stable economy. Progressive tax: any paying work will always improve your situation. (So people stay motivated to work.) Taxing wealth creation (and…

The negative income tax is not a progressive idea. It was originally proposed by Milton Friedman as a way to dismantle the social safety net and get rid of the minimum wage, food stamps, social programs, pensions, and all those other programs previous generations have fought and died for. What do people get in exchange? Well, a bunch of money, but nowhere near enough to buy all the services they just lost from the fr…

I think this argument holds some water in developed countries, but India has a serious problem with graft and a Ubi would ensure that the money actually gets to people and doesn't get stolen by government officials.

The economics are also not always destined to fail, they depend a lot on local conditions, such as how much it costs to survive.

UBI may be a huge boon to India's largest rural population without significant cost.

Re: India floats the idea of a universal basic income

#214

Post by none_for_me_thx » Wed, Feb 08, 2017, 3:30 PM UTC

a_t48 wrote: post #160

aminok wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All regulations, except on natural resources like land, should be eliminated in my opinion, as they are forceful interventions against people exercising their legitimate right to freely contract and utilise their own private property. In industries where network effects emerge, the government should fund open-source protocols that can compete with privately owned options. For example, applications built on a distribu…

Should I have the right to force someone into slavery\indentured servitude if they inadvertently sign their rights away?

A valid contract requires consideration. It also requires an understanding, by both parties, of the terms of the contract so, no you couldn't _force_ someone into _slavery_ if they _inadvertently_ blah blah blah. I'd say none of those words make sense in context of a valid contract.

Re: India floats the idea of a universal basic income

#215

Post by felipeccastro » Wed, Feb 08, 2017, 3:34 PM UTC

jjoonathan wrote: post #56

felipeccastro wrote: post #38

I used to think a universal basic income would make sense, especially in developed countries, only for the near future scenario of machines taking ever more jobs. We know that this has always happened in history, and new jobs were always created, but that doesn't mean that the rate of job creation vs destruction will remain the same, forever. What made me change my mind about UBI was to realize that a) human desires…

Human desire may be infinite, but that doesn't mean there is an infinite source of jobs if we just try hard enough. Problem 1: the economic notion of value is weighted by wealth, but the notion of "human desire" you discuss is not. Entertaining a king is valuable, in the economic sense, but feeding and housing a poor is not. It doesn't matter if there are plenty of things that people want to be done, it matters if th…

About the capitalist dystopia, I really don't see it that way. What you described as its weakness is actually its strength.

It's the natural mechanism that balance demand and supply, and ensure we'll always have enough food for everyone. It's the natural incentive that draws more people to an area that is under-served (e.g. IT) and away from another that is over-served (e.g. farming). The examples may not be the best possible, but you get my point.

About deregulation: I agree it's not a single factor, but it's a pretty important one on the subject of "creating new jobs". I understand there are several other factors getting in the way of a competitive market, but monopolies aren't all created the same. The kind of monopoly that Facebook or Google have is not the same kind of a state-enforced monopoly which rules out competition by force of the law.

Re: India floats the idea of a universal basic income

#216

Post by felipeccastro » Wed, Feb 08, 2017, 3:52 PM UTC

devwastaken wrote: post #64

felipeccastro wrote: post #38

I used to think a universal basic income would make sense, especially in developed countries, only for the near future scenario of machines taking ever more jobs. We know that this has always happened in history, and new jobs were always created, but that doesn't mean that the rate of job creation vs destruction will remain the same, forever. What made me change my mind about UBI was to realize that a) human desires…

>the more work is done by machines, the richer the population as a whole will be, as products and services automated tend to be cheaper. There is no such thing as trickle down economics. Wealth does not get distributed in equal to its gain, it is distributed based upon many other markets. For example, if your company makes double this year, you're not going to get paid any more than you were, but if what you said was…

The products become cheaper because of competition with other products, automation is just part of what allows business to have a lower cost themselves.

Apple and tech in general are actually a good example of my point. Why is it that in several third world countries, lacking basic sanitation for a large part of the population, it's so common to see people in slums with last generation smartphones and big flat screen TVs?

What I meant about everyone getting richer is not that the money flows equally, but that when you need less money to buy goods and services you are, in a way, richer. Another example is Uber: I don't get a single dollar of what they make, but I have access now to a service that it wasn't accessible before (taxi cabs).

Re: India floats the idea of a universal basic income

#217

Post by felipeccastro » Wed, Feb 08, 2017, 3:54 PM UTC

perfmode wrote: post #53

felipeccastro wrote: post #38

I used to think a universal basic income would make sense, especially in developed countries, only for the near future scenario of machines taking ever more jobs. We know that this has always happened in history, and new jobs were always created, but that doesn't mean that the rate of job creation vs destruction will remain the same, forever. What made me change my mind about UBI was to realize that a) human desires…

> b) the more work is done by machines, the richer the population as a whole will be, as products and services automated tend to be cheaper This assumes the existence of a "good" distribution of generated wealth. This tends to not be the case. How does that factor into your thoughts?

The less money you need to buy goods and services, the richer you are because your money is more valuable.

You don't need a direct money transfer from big companies to benefit from them.

Re: India floats the idea of a universal basic income

#218

Post by felipeccastro » Wed, Feb 08, 2017, 3:55 PM UTC

ouid wrote: post #68

felipeccastro wrote: post #38

I used to think a universal basic income would make sense, especially in developed countries, only for the near future scenario of machines taking ever more jobs. We know that this has always happened in history, and new jobs were always created, but that doesn't mean that the rate of job creation vs destruction will remain the same, forever. What made me change my mind about UBI was to realize that a) human desires…

I present the analogy of the obsolete computer for your consideration. Perhaps it is the case that what the market decides is best for people who cannot perform any task more efficiently than a computer is to simply stop being powered.

Unlike obsolete computers, humans have the capacity of adapt themselves and learn/do different jobs.

Re: India floats the idea of a universal basic income

#219

Post by marcosdumay » Wed, Feb 08, 2017, 4:43 PM UTC

knightofmars wrote: post #196

Chathamization wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Whereas NIT likely requires people to continually submit tax returns stating their lack of income (which is potentially more stigmatising). It also means a lot of people simply won't get the benefits. In the U.S., a lot of people who are eligible for welfare programs never take advantage of them because of the administrative hurtles (to take one example, "Only about 1 in 6 people who are eligible for child care sub…

I'd say it's more likely due to lack of design than thoughtful malicious design.

If a person make errors some times, and then never bothers to fix any error (because of incentives), but keeps making other actions, some of them being errors that will never be fixed...

Or if a person makes errors in two directions, but then only bothers fixing the ones in a single direction. I'd say that person is malicious.

Re: India floats the idea of a universal basic income

#220

Post by yummyfajitas » Wed, Feb 08, 2017, 4:51 PM UTC

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #99

yummyfajitas wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What does "work" mean to you? By "work", I mean that we solve poverty at a cost as low as possible. Having the BI consumed by non-poor people doesn't help that goal. Also, India is a low inequality country - Gini is comparable to France since everyone is equally poor. So preventing the middle class from consuming a BI would significantly reduce the cost.

By "work" I mean you take some money from upper income people, give it to lower income people and by and large leave the middle class alone. Having the middle class pay $100 in tax and then receive $100 in UBI works perfectly well for that. Changing that so the middle class pays $75 in tax but receives no UBI is exactly how you bring about the sort of hollowing out of the middle class we've seen recently in the US. I…

Ok, I guess I don't really care about redistribution for it's own sake - I only care about fixing poverty. I guess that's why we disagree.

Incidentally, your scheme wouldn't work so well in India. In India there are far fewer rich people (proportionately) than in the US. Europe needs to tax the middle class for much the same reason.

If you want to have massive wealth redistribution that skips the middle class, the only way to make that viable is to increase inequality.