221–230 of 251 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Have you been to a Walmart recently? I don't think the Wall-E scenario is entirely off base.
Walmart represents many people too poor to shop elsewhere. Wall-E represents a utopia of plenty for everyone. Those are not comparable.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Have you been to a Walmart recently? I don't think the Wall-E scenario is entirely off base.
Lol Walmart people are fat! More accurately: there is a higher concentration of overweight people at a store that caters to lower income brackets. When machines do everything, people won't have to settle for cheap unhealthy foods.
I'm confused. Isn't this already being done various places around the world already? (e.g. Alaska, Puerto Rico) Why not study people in those places? Better yet, nearly everybody in those places is getting the benefit, so the experiment isn't poisoned by the culture (you're the only one in your neighborhood getting a benefit - others treat you differently)
They kind of dismiss "other places that do this" by saying they want to see how it'd work in the US https://blog.ycombinator.com/basic-income I had a similar initial question, since I heard once that Germans (?) already have a basic income system in place, though possibly only for the poor ($500/month plus housing or something like that). Though I suppose "that's Germans, not us" or what not.
I'm confused. Isn't this already being done various places around the world already? (e.g. Alaska, Puerto Rico) Why not study people in those places? Better yet, nearly everybody in those places is getting the benefit, so the experiment isn't poisoned by the culture (you're the only one in your neighborhood getting a benefit - others treat you differently)
I think they are interested in delivering a basic income such that it should be enough to live off of. Alaska [0] only offers ~$2,000 for the entire year in compensation. I am not sure what program you are referring to for Puerto Rico... [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alaska_Permanent_Fund#Annual_i...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If those people aren't employed by the bureaucracy aren't they themselves going to be on basic income?
Presumably yes (them or people they displace from the job market). But people are only a fraction of operating costs - you have databases, rents, material expenditures, etc. Also in case of top bureaucrats I'd expect their salaries to be higher than BI, so the delta is part of the money saved.
Nor should the income be withdrawn as a form of punishment. If we start picking and choosing then the incentive is always to cut away the least powerful, disenfranchised criminals being the least powerful of all.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I'm not saying the study is a bad thing, but if basic income were implemented in an entire community, it would have a different effect than just a small slice of a community. In particular, wouldn't it just raise the price of housing and rent? There's only so much land and housing to go around, and if you're competing with everyone else to buy a house or rent an apartment, if everyone else can afford to pay that mu…
You seem to be assuming an externally funded basic income. This may be true for the pilot, but once implemented "in production", a basic income would be funded through taxation, and so wouldn't increase the total amount of cash at all, just shift it about.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You seem to be assuming an externally funded basic income. This may be true for the pilot, but once implemented "in production", a basic income would be funded through taxation, and so wouldn't increase the total amount of cash at all, just shift it about.
This is the one thing I haven't seen anyone talk about yet. What would the additional tax burden be on the median household? Would their tax burden be lower because the BI is replacing all the other welfare programs they are currently subsidizing?
Somebody has to pay it.
Now, the question who pays it is a political one. One might also hike the taxes for the higher income brackets only.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is incorrect. The rent will precisely increase by 1000 Euro. Yes you can compare percentages all you want, but at the end of the day, 1000 Euro basic income is 1000 Euro more for everyone. That will be directly plowed into everyone's (for example) personal rent/housing budget or tolerance, which translates to inflated rental prices. If I make $15K/month and receive a $1K/month basic income, I'll gladly pay $1K/m…
If you make $160K a year, your tax increases to fund the basic income program will be a lot more than the $1K you'll receive, so there won't be extra for rent at all. And this is the way it's supposed to be: High earners will be net losers, people with low/sporadic/zero market income will be net gainers.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
well fwiw, I'm a staff member, wouldn't consider myself rich, and that culture is what keeps me wanting to work there--I'd be pretty bored if it was more like a traditional VC firm.
Fair enough. Apologies if that felt disrespectful. It just seemed silly language to me, especially in light of the program focusing on how money can alleviate the majority of poverty's struggles.