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

The indignity of no work

economist.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

211–220 of 268 posts

Re: The indignity of no work

#211

Post by harryh »

wutbrodo wrote: post #199
harryh wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He's not trolling. Really it doesn't work and the math is simple. There are ~310M Americans. To give them even 10k each per year that's 3.1 Trillion which is more that the US gov't collected in taxes last year.

Warning: back of the envelope calculations ahead You're forgetting the fact that a basic income would obviate all means-based welfare programs, unemployment insurance, social security, etc; this means 2.3 TRILLION dollars (1.03T from means-based welfare programs and 1.3T from SS) in savings. Also, it would be enormously strange if we gave a full basic income to every infant, toddler, child and teen in the United Stat…

Social Security pays the retired 10s of Ks per year so they can live comfortably after paying into the system for their entire career.

You think we should get rid of that in favor of a basic income of ~10k for everyone? That's going to suck pretty bad for the retired.

You're certainly entitled to your opinion if you do think that but the vast vast vast majority of Americans are going to disagree with you.

Re: The indignity of no work

#212

Post by lilsunnybee »

harryh wrote: post #187
jaydz wrote: post #184

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Requirements could help make the math work. For example, only adult citizens with no income may participate in the program.

Sure, but we already have that.

not really. i'm unemployed and don't qualify for any financial aid that i'm aware of. Thank goodness for my family taking me in, or i'd definitely be homeless.

Re: The indignity of no work

#213

Post by chongli »

erichocean wrote: post #192
aianus wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In this scenario, the government would need to use physical force to ensure transactions are conducted through the inflating currency rather than barter or gold or bitcoin or foreign currency, etc.

That's possible, sure, but I think it's very unlikely for purely structural reasons (the best kind IMO). Because everyone will have this currency by default, natural market forces will causes businesses to want to sell things in that currency (people have it, and want to spend it). The currency itself is stable (tied to GPD growth, not politician's whims). Once some businesses decide to take it (and they will, see ab…

But yes, you're right of course: like all fiat money schemes, it only works because people want it to work. IMO people will want this to work, and furthermore: it's in each individual person's self-interest that it works.

Without taxation, what leverage does the government have over demand for the currency? Fiat money works because it can be used to pay taxes at the very least. With taxes out of the way, the government-issued currency would be no better off than a so-called altcoin.

Re: The indignity of no work

#214

Post by lilsunnybee »

yetanotherphd wrote: post #202
erichocean wrote: post #179

Eliminating taxation and implementing a basic income payed for by new money created out of thin air, pegged to the GDP for the year, is how the world will deal with machines creating more wealth than we know what to do with, without people. It's a direct form of wealth transfer that requires zero force, no "putting people in cages because they can't/don't pay" nonsense. For social spending, you do the same: print new…

Since M0 is about 3.7 trillion, printing 7.5 trillion in cash would cause inflation of about 200% per year. This would have obviously bad effects, causing people to great lengths to avoid holding cash. I think income or sales tax is the only way to distribute large amounts of money from the rich to the poor.

It could still work possibly if there was a cap on basic food costs, rent controls in place. Also stockpiling or speculation on basic necessities might need to be very restricted. A lot more regulations would need to be in place alongside the basic income to keep the economy sane i imagine.

Re: The indignity of no work

#215

Post by chongli »

adrianbye wrote: post #193
erichocean wrote: post #179

Eliminating taxation and implementing a basic income payed for by new money created out of thin air, pegged to the GDP for the year, is how the world will deal with machines creating more wealth than we know what to do with, without people. It's a direct form of wealth transfer that requires zero force, no "putting people in cages because they can't/don't pay" nonsense. For social spending, you do the same: print new…

err.. your left wing viewpoints are showing.. have a look at what happens to indigenous groups that are given handouts.. massive alcoholism.. obesity.. huge problems. people will have to work and improve themselves. the struggle in life is important along with risk taking. but, the dynamics of pay may change to compensate for the amount of leverage we can get today in society

have a look at what happens to indigenous groups that are given handouts.. massive alcoholism.. obesity.. huge problems.

Those problems are far more complex than you're making them out to be. Besides that, your claim of handouts is simply false. The social assistance given to Status Indians comes with a great deal of stipulations, some of which are extremely harsh such as restrictions on who you can marry. Further complicating the issue are the problems of reservation living conditions, cultural alienation and simple boredom.

Universal Basic Income sidesteps these issues because it doesn't come with any crippling lifestyle restrictions. It's simply a form of income security that benefits all people by raising them out of poverty and reducing the fear and hopelessness associated with unemployment.

Re: The indignity of no work

#216

Post by argonaut »

thelogos wrote: post #46
argonaut wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No. It does not mean no one will ever work as a dishwasher/etc. It just means that the market rate for dishwashers/etc. will be higher. This would be due to the supply curve for labor shifting. Certainly, some businesses will not be able to hire as many (or any) dishwashers/etc, but those that they do hire will have to be paid more. But that is a natural extension of decreasing the supply of labor. The higher price t…

But it's getting to the point where dishwashing might not even be available as a job. Right now, that's not the case yet. But it's not hard to imagine a future where it is. Many menial jobs are getting automated and it's just getting worse and worse. Soon, we will have to do something about it. These protests and revolutions are spreading like the plague. And social unrest is bad for everyone, including business. One…

Aren't you just backing up the claim (a claim I don't disagree with) that a UBI would work?

Re: The indignity of no work

#217

Post by argonaut »

Someone wrote: post #34
argonaut wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No. It does not mean no one will ever work as a dishwasher/etc. It just means that the market rate for dishwashers/etc. will be higher. This would be due to the supply curve for labor shifting. Certainly, some businesses will not be able to hire as many (or any) dishwashers/etc, but those that they do hire will have to be paid more. But that is a natural extension of decreasing the supply of labor. The higher price t…

You still have to find the money to pay that universal basic income. IIRC, the idea is to get that money by taxing capital and making it cheaper to hire people. As you indicate, getting it by taxing labor leads businesses to automate away labor, making it even harder to get that money from taxes on labor. Think of it: that $5 an hour job currently costs a company $10 an hour or so. Without taxes on labor, they could…

Have you considered taxing both capital AND labor?

Re: The indignity of no work

#218

Post by yetanotherphd »

lilsunnybee wrote: post #214
yetanotherphd wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Since M0 is about 3.7 trillion, printing 7.5 trillion in cash would cause inflation of about 200% per year. This would have obviously bad effects, causing people to great lengths to avoid holding cash. I think income or sales tax is the only way to distribute large amounts of money from the rich to the poor.

It could still work possibly if there was a cap on basic food costs, rent controls in place. Also stockpiling or speculation on basic necessities might need to be very restricted. A lot more regulations would need to be in place alongside the basic income to keep the economy sane i imagine.

that sounds terrible. Why not just use taxes?

Re: The indignity of no work

#219

Post by erichocean »

chongli wrote: post #213
erichocean wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's possible, sure, but I think it's very unlikely for purely structural reasons (the best kind IMO). Because everyone will have this currency by default, natural market forces will causes businesses to want to sell things in that currency (people have it, and want to spend it). The currency itself is stable (tied to GPD growth, not politician's whims). Once some businesses decide to take it (and they will, see ab…

But yes, you're right of course: like all fiat money schemes, it only works because people want it to work. IMO people will want this to work, and furthermore: it's in each individual person's self-interest that it works. Without taxation, what leverage does the government have over demand for the currency? Fiat money works because it can be used to pay taxes at the very least. With taxes out of the way, the governme…

There are other approaches. For example, the government could declare that certain commodities could only be purchased with the currency. Oil, for instance (and there's precedent there, too).

Personally, I think the government declaring that basic incomes will be paid in the currency is enough, but I see no reason to disallow other methods.

Another example is to do what the dollar says: this [currency] shall be legal tender for all debts, public and private.

Another one would be that banks could only accept that currency, and make loans in that currency.

There's a lot of options, but you're right: we'd need to get creative about it. As CS people, that's basically our job description and it's a good challenge, and I think, a solvable one.

Thanks for your comments, I do appreciate it. I certainly don't have all the answers.

Re: The indignity of no work

#220

Post by erichocean »

yetanotherphd wrote: post #202
erichocean wrote: post #179

Eliminating taxation and implementing a basic income payed for by new money created out of thin air, pegged to the GDP for the year, is how the world will deal with machines creating more wealth than we know what to do with, without people. It's a direct form of wealth transfer that requires zero force, no "putting people in cages because they can't/don't pay" nonsense. For social spending, you do the same: print new…

Since M0 is about 3.7 trillion, printing 7.5 trillion in cash would cause inflation of about 200% per year. This would have obviously bad effects, causing people to great lengths to avoid holding cash. I think income or sales tax is the only way to distribute large amounts of money from the rich to the poor.

Not all inflationary pressure is equal (i.e. it's not true that printing X dollars leads to Y% inflation—the kind of dollars X represents matters a great deal). In part, my scheme wouldn't cause hyperinflation for much the same reasons that fractional-reserve lending doesn't cause hyperinflation, even though it also increases the money supply (drastically, too).

It matters a great deal how the money is put to use, and why, and what limits are set on the increase in the money supply. For example, it's obvious that fractional-reserve lending would not work if the fraction was 0/100 (i.e. no reserve). Similarly, large-scale money printing doesn't work when it's arbitrary and up to political whim.

Also, a nitpick: M2, not M0, is traditionally what is used to forecast inflation.

Post reply on HN