Scrap the Welfare State and Give People Free Money • Hacker News Board

Re: Scrap the Welfare State and Give People Free Money

#241

Post by judk » Wed, Nov 27, 2013, 10:41 PM UTC

jasonlfunk wrote: post #115

carbocation wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From the optimist's view, think how many people whose lives are being spent working at Walmart or McDonald's who could instead be at home developing skills they are actually interested in (which school does a poor job of teaching), such as programming or sculpture, etc. Imagine the entrepreneurs who might feel freed to give business a chance, rather than feeling that they can't quit their day jobs? It would be a gran…

From the pessimistic point of view, why would anyone choose to work a crappy job at Walmart or McDonalds when the government would give them the same money without having to do anything. Walmart and McDonalds (and everyone else) would therefore either go out of business or raise their wages. Raising their wages would increase the price of their goods. Increasing prices of goods would increase the cost of living which…

You are oversimplifying. The people getting the wages aren't necessarily the same people buying the ageearners products. Minimum wage is not the entire labor force.

Re: Scrap the Welfare State and Give People Free Money

#242

Post by judk » Wed, Nov 27, 2013, 10:43 PM UTC

bubbleRefuge wrote: post #150

pinaceae wrote: post #60

As a European we are bit further down that path than the US. I assume most of the readers here are "wealthy", would not need basic guaranteed income. So let me explain why this is a good idea from a rich man's perspective. You give poor people a basic sum of money so they don't climb over the fence and kill you in your sleep. That's it. Behind all the nice language this is what it boils down to. It is paying off poor…

Also, the income boots aggregate demand in the economy by that much which benefits the wealthy as that income is used to pay rent and buy goods and services from entities that wealth people own; some folks may call this trickle up economics.

Aka Keynesianism, before Congress bastardized it to mean printing money and handing it to bank owners.

Re: Scrap the Welfare State and Give People Free Money

#243

Post by goggles99 » Wed, Nov 27, 2013, 10:47 PM UTC

From what I remember reading about the Swiss giveaway, some thought that it would actually save money overall because people would get this money, but the plan was to cut away welfare and other social services at the same time. The reduction of administrative costs and govt inefficiencies would be saved.

That is an interesting notion, but it seems that there is no plan for those who will inevitably blow all their free money on possessions, drugs, gambling ETC. and still need to eat, be clothed, housed, buy cable TV (like most welfare recipients do) ETC.

I hope that they actually pass this new law because it is very interesting. Assuming enough people don't just waste the money and still need the govt cheese this could actually transform a society.

Re: Scrap the Welfare State and Give People Free Money

#244

Post by judk » Wed, Nov 27, 2013, 10:47 PM UTC

mildtrepidation wrote: post #90

iSnow wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

With the aging population in Japan and Europe this sounds not so bad.

Which is great if you don't consider overpopulation a problem. It's good to try and ensure a high standard of living and economic comfort, but that doesn't happen in a vacuum: If your solution encourages procreation, it's important to review that not just in terms of problems it might solve but also those it might create or exacerbate (as well as results that may not be so clearly positive or negative but will introd…

Indeed. I haven't see mincome in (usually religious) cultures that promote massive reproduction (6+ children surviving to adulthood). In the long run, birh control must be a key component of mincome. This aspect makes people squeamish, sadly for the wrong reasons.

Re: Scrap the Welfare State and Give People Free Money

#245

Post by judk » Wed, Nov 27, 2013, 10:49 PM UTC

yummyfajitas wrote: post #130

adekok wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This seems to me a typical US response. Let me give you a perspective from the rest of the world. I've lived for years in multiple countries on multiple continents, so I'm not just talking out my backside. In the rest of the world, the poor people vote for health care, welfare, and unemployment insurance. This is because they want that safety for themselves if something goes wrong. They recognize that these programs…

These programs are not largely insurance. People don't pay into them proportionally to their actuarial costs. I.e., the guy who drifts between jobs, getting fired every few months doesn't pay more for unemployment insurance than the guy who has been stably employed for the past 10 years. The disparity between rich and poor in the US has grown enormously in the past 20 years. And it's all because the average joe has b…

Actuarial cost is a function of a population, not an individual. It isn't obvious that a finer-grained breakdown is superior to nationwide "open enrollment"

Re: Scrap the Welfare State and Give People Free Money

#246

Post by goggles99 » Wed, Nov 27, 2013, 10:51 PM UTC

pinaceae wrote: post #60

As a European we are bit further down that path than the US. I assume most of the readers here are "wealthy", would not need basic guaranteed income. So let me explain why this is a good idea from a rich man's perspective. You give poor people a basic sum of money so they don't climb over the fence and kill you in your sleep. That's it. Behind all the nice language this is what it boils down to. It is paying off poor…

Being poor is all relative, in many countries, poor means you will likely starve to death, in the wealthiest countries, the poor eat relatively well, are educated (if they choose to be), have housing, electricity, running water and Cable Television.

My point? how long till those getting the stipend are whining again about how poor they are because they make the same amount as today relative to the general population. Now we are back to square one.

Re: Scrap the Welfare State and Give People Free Money

#247

Post by kelvin0 » Wed, Nov 27, 2013, 10:54 PM UTC

ctdonath wrote: post #99

pinaceae wrote: post #60

As a European we are bit further down that path than the US. I assume most of the readers here are "wealthy", would not need basic guaranteed income. So let me explain why this is a good idea from a rich man's perspective. You give poor people a basic sum of money so they don't climb over the fence and kill you in your sleep. That's it. Behind all the nice language this is what it boils down to. It is paying off poor…

You give poor people a basic sum of money so they don't climb over the fence and kill you in your sleep. Once you've established a "protection money" system, establishing their "right" to your money & property, they are now incentivized to demand - and take - more. Panem et circenses is the last stage of polite society; the cost eventually becomes unbearable as fewer work and more expect comfort & leisure for nothing…

Wow, America has solved all the social issues that plagues most other countries. No wonder they 'help' so many countries become like them and become 'democratic'.

Thanks for enlightening us with these gems.

Re: Scrap the Welfare State and Give People Free Money

#248

Post by dllthomas » Wed, Nov 27, 2013, 11:09 PM UTC

dragonwriter wrote: post #186

jasonlfunk wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From the pessimistic point of view, why would anyone choose to work a crappy job at Walmart or McDonalds when the government would give them the same money without having to do anything. Walmart and McDonalds (and everyone else) would therefore either go out of business or raise their wages. Raising their wages would increase the price of their goods. Increasing prices of goods would increase the cost of living which…

> From the pessimistic point of view, why would anyone choose to work a crappy job at Walmart or McDonalds when the government would give them the same money without having to do anything. Because, unlike current poverty support programs, where the having a benefit program that gives you $X and a job that gives you $X the most you can get is $X, with basic income, you can have the basic income of $X and the job of $X…

Yeah, I expect it to push toward more inflation (which should let the Fed go back to actually having an interest rate). I think the proper way to deal with that is have it grow at the inflation rate the Fed is targeting. If there's less inflation, it'll go up (in real terms) and drive a little more. If there's more, it'll go down (in real terms) and drive a little less.

Of course, I'd like to hear from someone with more serious models - this didn't even make it to a napkin...

Re: Scrap the Welfare State and Give People Free Money

#249

Post by yummyfajitas » Wed, Nov 27, 2013, 11:14 PM UTC

judk wrote: post #245

yummyfajitas wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

These programs are not largely insurance. People don't pay into them proportionally to their actuarial costs. I.e., the guy who drifts between jobs, getting fired every few months doesn't pay more for unemployment insurance than the guy who has been stably employed for the past 10 years. The disparity between rich and poor in the US has grown enormously in the past 20 years. And it's all because the average joe has b…

Actuarial cost is a function of a population, not an individual. It isn't obvious that a finer-grained breakdown is superior to nationwide "open enrollment"

The actuarial cost of any event is integral( cost x P(cost) dP ). There is no population involved.

Re: Scrap the Welfare State and Give People Free Money

#250

Post by consonants » Wed, Nov 27, 2013, 11:29 PM UTC

mcherm wrote: post #169

cobrausn wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Considering how cheap consumer electronics and entertainment are these days, I'm genuinely concerned that this 'minimum income' would be high enough to permit many to live in perpetual 'childhood' - cheap food, cheap entertainment.

Why does this concern you? To me, that sounds like hearing someone saying "I'm genuinely concerned that people will start giving their kids strange-sounding names." Sure, it's a bit odd, but so what... it's not affecting you. Maybe you are concerned that they will fail to contribute to the economy, thus dragging it down, but if so then I wonder what you think of our current economic system which leaves a noticeable p…

This is a salient manifestation of the patronizing view we hold when it is even suggested that we are in some way beholden to someone else.

"If they're getting MY pennies, well then they should be micromanaged to fit my stringent moral standards."

I think it's a kneejerk reaction in response to being unable to hold a certain population of society as full adults like themselves, and this time it really shined through.

If you blank out the subject involved in these posts and fill them with [social boogie man du jour] its horrifically on point with the argument Grandpa will be using to lambast them this Thanksgiving.