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

Re: A Basic Income Should Be the Next Big Thing

#231

Post by legutierr » Tue, May 03, 2016, 12:09 PM UTC

yummyfajitas wrote: post #146

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…

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…

> labor supply dropped by about 10%

Isn't this the exact effect you would want, if you are instituting basic income partly as a response to structural unemployment as a result of automation?

> fewer working mothers can find child care, fewer laborers to mow your lawn, fewer nurses, fewer teachers, etc.

Maybe these jobs start paying more. How is that bad? With basic income, more mothers would be able to stay home with their kids, more people would care for their own homes, and the nurses and teachers we need would see bigger paychecks.

Net, I don't see how society is worse off under that arrangement. It sounds a lot like how life was in this country before huge income disparities made hiring servants normal for people with means.

> It's not just wealthier people who will be worse off - it's everyone.

You assert this, but your comment doesn't successfully back up your assertion.

Re: A Basic Income Should Be the Next Big Thing

#232

Post by dalore » Tue, May 03, 2016, 12:10 PM UTC

creshal wrote: post #171

newjersey wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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).

Can see it now. Pop out more children, get more money. This incentives baby making. Which might actually be a good thing in countries with declining birth rates.

Re: A Basic Income Should Be the Next Big Thing

#233

Post by viraptor » Tue, May 03, 2016, 12:10 PM UTC

pessimizer wrote: post #186

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…

The price of servants will go up, yes. And the price of prostitutes, too - nobody's thinking about that!

There are many jobs that will need to considerably change - and I think that's a good thing in the end. For example no more restaurant staff working for tips, at crazy hours, without proper days off. That's one I'm familiar with (in the UK though) - these people work in absurd conditions and are so used to it they don't even realise because there's 10 other people lining up to take their position. Your restaurant steak will get more expensive, and it really should.

If someone's doing an effectively-below-minimum-pay job at 30, I hope they just quit if universal basic income is introduced.

Re: A Basic Income Should Be the Next Big Thing

#234

Post by adrianN » Tue, May 03, 2016, 12:10 PM UTC

xienze wrote: post #198

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.…

> I would like Basic Income to be a bit more than $10,000 per year, though. Well, that's one of the major problems with this scheme: a whole lotta people will as well. In much the same way that we currently hear "I can't raise my family on minimum wage!" we will hear "I can't raise my family on my UBI!" Anyone who can't see how UBI increases will become a promise of every presidential hopeful hasn't been paying atten…

UBI should increase periodically; tied to economic growth.

Re: A Basic Income Should Be the Next Big Thing

#235

Post by robk » Tue, May 03, 2016, 12:11 PM UTC

blfr wrote: post #213

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…

You have been arguing against basic income for years now, and with some really good points[1], but I think you consistently miss the main attraction of the idea to the HN crowd. Many here believe that if people weren't forced to work for income, they would be doing things that are more valuable but also more difficult to monetize (at least initially but perhaps generally), like open source development. There is an un…

Why would anyone clean toilets when they could write/paint/sleep all day?

Re: A Basic Income Should Be the Next Big Thing

#236

Post by brightball » Tue, May 03, 2016, 12:12 PM UTC

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…

To make it work you'd have to take whatever the amount is and extract it from all other government benefit programs.

You get $700 / month from the government for basic income. Your social security, welfare, unemployment, disability, etc is reduced by $700 / month. Reducing all of those programs by the first $700 would effectively gut each of them enough to finally make some reforms without inducing panic in everyone who uses them.

If you were to implement the Fair Tax, which includes a stipend for basic needs, you'd get bipartisan support as well. The only difference is that you increase the stipend to the level of the BI.

For kids, you give the parents their basic income until they hit school age and then the BI goes towards funding their school. This would also enable people who wanted to utilize private schools a much easier choice by essentially becoming a voucher.

No loan could utilize the BI as security...except for student loans. That would allow driving down of interest rates as well as default aversion too. Payments could be automatically extract from the BI since student loans would finally be secured against something other that expected future earnings.

Re: A Basic Income Should Be the Next Big Thing

#237

Post by astral303 » Tue, May 03, 2016, 12:12 PM UTC

jackreichert wrote: post #227

timlyo wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the article is talking more about the difference from the current system. > But by excluding 45 million retirees who already receive a basic income through Social Security, the cost falls to $2.7 trillion. These retirees can be excluded from the calculation because they are already being paid, they wouldn't add any additional cost to the system.

Is it fair to say they're being paid if they paid into the system paying them for their entire working lives? Can someone please explain why people call Social Security an entitlement? Am I missing something?

It's language war. Entitlement spending is a great way to negatively frame social security.

Re: A Basic Income Should Be the Next Big Thing

#238

Post by bane » Tue, May 03, 2016, 12:12 PM UTC

lsaferite wrote: post #219

yummyfajitas wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure it does. A highly skilled working mother produces $X value per hour, and she can afford to spend $Y In contrast, the unskilled woman who might otherwise work in day care only produces $X value/hour. By taking the unskilled woman out of the labor force, you've destroyed $Y - $X of value.

Aren't you missing a variable for the cost the unskilled woman pays to have someone watch her children while she's being paid to watch the skilled woman's children?

Why would she do that? She'd just watch her own children at the same time.

Re: A Basic Income Should Be the Next Big Thing

#239

Post by lsaferite » Tue, May 03, 2016, 12:13 PM UTC

xefer wrote: post #221

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.…

To paraphrase that XKCD comic, "14 benefit programs?! Ridiculous! We need to create one universal benefit program that covers everyone! Now you have 15 programs." I get the sense that liberals and conservatives have wildly different conceptions of what a Basic Income would mean in practice. Conservatives and libertarians may like the idea of giving a single no-strings-attached check every month to everyone and anyone…