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

A Basic Income Should Be the Next Big Thing

bloombergview.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

241–250 of 840 posts

Re: A Basic Income Should Be the Next Big Thing

#241

Post by deanCommie »

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…

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

First of all, even if the people in positions like this were only working for sustenance and UBI provides it for them, it doesn't mean some wouldn't want to continue working to make even MORE money. UBI is a baseline, not welfare. If previously a lawn mowing job was only enough for rent and food, maybe now with UBI it'd be enough for rent, food, and the occasional dinner and a movie. Ain't nothing wrong with that.

But you're right, at least some people would definitely completely exit the work force. Well, that just means the salaries of the rest would go up. Simple economics. Does that mean that some working families can no longer afford to pay a new immigrant bottom dollar to mow their lawn and instead have to pitch in themselves? Maybe so. Is that so bad.

Okay, you say, but what about those working mothers that are barely making enough money to be able to afford the most basic child care while they make their income? Good news - UBI also helps THEM too so either they no longer need to work if all they're doing is getting by to keep a roof over the child's head, or they have enough extra to pay for the increase in child care.

I'm not saying "don't worry about, it'll all sort itself out". This is a very complex policy with millions of consequences to our societies - intended and unintended. A lot of research must be done, and also experimentation. But to say that with UBI everyone would be worse off is ridiculous bordering on propagandistic.

Re: A Basic Income Should Be the Next Big Thing

#242

Post by pbhjpbhj »

Chronic51 wrote: post #123
rmc wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Higher wages for dirty jobs would certainly spur innovation in labour saving devices to reduce the amount of manual labour. "Dirty" jobs being paid more certainly does sound a little more ethical than today, where those with little options have to work those dirty jobs to keep their house and to eat, and they are paid low.

Dirty jobs will pay more. But their rent will also increase. Net negative for them.

It may be possible to control the outcomes of property owner's greed with heavy taxation on non-owner occupied properties? Certainly it wouldn't work to leave rent increases uncontrolled as landlords would then just increase prices (in the UK at least).

Re: A Basic Income Should Be the Next Big Thing

#243

Post by yummyfajitas »

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…

Can you do a back of the envelope calculation to figure out how large those "more valuable but also more difficult to monetize" effects would be?

As I noted in the blog post you cited, most of this discussion is just meaningless verbiage. No one even attempts to quantify the the effects they claim are so important. (In the HN comments on that post, many people suggested such effects; the minute you crunch numbers they turn out to be tiny.)

It's the intellectual's dream lifestyle. One that used to be possible for writers and academics.

It still is possible - go live in a rural area, consume very little, and survive with bad internet (still vastly better than the no internet of previous eras). People just don't like to do it because of the low status it entails, and because they've grown used to modern consumption that they'd need to give up.

Re: A Basic Income Should Be the Next Big Thing

#244

Post by your_ai_manager »

MicroBerto wrote: post #202

In the early 1970s, animal behaviorist John Calhoun built a "mouse utopia" to see what would happen if he created the perfect world for mice, with unlimited food, starting with four males and four females, that could reach a population of 2500. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Z760XNy4VM What happened next is absolutely astonishing. When the mice had nothing to do and nothing to work for, their society collapsed upon…

Extrapolation works until it doesn’t.

Re: A Basic Income Should Be the Next Big Thing

#245

Post by xiphias »

The more free money printing is going on, the more I'm incentivized to buy/use Bitcoins from my hard work's money. UBI centralizes power to the money printers even more, gives a little to those who don't work (for their votes), and takes even more money away from those who work. Still, this can go on only with central banking.

Re: A Basic Income Should Be the Next Big Thing

#246

Post by legutierr »

yummyfajitas wrote: post #182
pjc50 wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except it's not simple arithmetic, because the normal economy doesn't count - cannot assign - a value to work done for yourself or your family. Someone going out to work and paying a large fraction of their income for child care is counted, whereas someone staying home and looking after their children is not. Only the first has value in an economic sense. Is it the only work that has value in a moral sense?

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.

Do you have children? By what stretch of the imagination is caring for children an activity best performed by unskilled individuals?

Re: A Basic Income Should Be the Next Big Thing

#247

Post by [deleted] »

dools wrote: post #240

A universal basic income is inferior to a job guarantee: http://www.economonitor.com/lrwray/2013/07/09/how-big-is-big... http://neweconomicperspectives.org/2014/01/16-reasons-matt-y... https://www.reddit.com/r/BasicIncome/comments/3ne2iu/randall... ? http://bilbo.economicoutlook.net/blog/?p=13025

[deleted]

Re: A Basic Income Should Be the Next Big Thing

#248

Post by pbhjpbhj »

notahacker wrote: post #180
pjc50 wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except it's not simple arithmetic, because the normal economy doesn't count - cannot assign - a value to work done for yourself or your family. Someone going out to work and paying a large fraction of their income for child care is counted, whereas someone staying home and looking after their children is not. Only the first has value in an economic sense. Is it the only work that has value in a moral sense?

It's not true to say a stay-at-home parent isn't rewarded in an economic sense. They're rewarded by not having to pay a large fraction of their household income for child care. It's a tenable line of argument to argue that the opportunity cost of child care - typically less than earnings foregone - isn't as high as the social benefit from taking care of one's own child, but I can't really think of a less efficient me…

Is reward the same as not being penalised? I don't feel that's true.

Re: A Basic Income Should Be the Next Big Thing

#249

Post by amai »

dools wrote: post #240

A universal basic income is inferior to a job guarantee: http://www.economonitor.com/lrwray/2013/07/09/how-big-is-big... http://neweconomicperspectives.org/2014/01/16-reasons-matt-y... https://www.reddit.com/r/BasicIncome/comments/3ne2iu/randall... ? http://bilbo.economicoutlook.net/blog/?p=13025

A job guarantee like they had it in the the former https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Bloc ?

Re: A Basic Income Should Be the Next Big Thing

#250

Post by yummyfajitas »

pbhjpbhj wrote: post #206
yummyfajitas wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How would it spur innovation? After enacting a BI, we've just reduced the labor supply and funneled resources toward consumption (since rich people invest, poor people consume, and we've shifted resources from rich to poor). Labor supply = Labor servicing consumption + labor servicing investment Rearranging this implies: Labor providing investment = labor supplied - labor providing consumption Simple arithmetic shows…

>funneled resources toward consumption (since rich people invest, poor people consume, and we've shifted resources from rich to poor) // That's a natty turn of phrase but I'm calling bullshit. Rich people invest with the excess financial wealth they have after they've consumed hugely more than a poor person. Give me more money and I can afford to eat better (reduced healthcare burden), can repair my house (reducing t…

If you believe that the rich consume and the poor invest, then the best stimulus during times of recession is tax cuts for the rich. I take it this is your preferred policy for the next recession?

There is no particular reason investment has to come from rich people. That's just how western economies seem to work. As I noted, in Namibia, poor people do seem to invest new wealth.

Post reply on HN