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

Re: A Basic Income Should Be the Next Big Thing

#251

Post by bane » Tue, May 03, 2016, 12:17 PM UTC

blurbleblurble wrote: post #194

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…

I'll have you know that money itself tends to disincentivise work for a lot of people. In this economy, monied relationships are too often wage slavery. People think that they can pay me to work on something I don't love. You are sitting here talking about people mowing your effing lawn. Are you kidding me? If you aren't gonna do that yourself, why in the dear beloved earth should you expect some stranger to do it ex…

How do you know the guy who mows my lawn isn't passionate about it? He helps beautify people's property and takes lots of satisfaction in that.

Why are passion projects only ones that have no economic value?

Re: A Basic Income Should Be the Next Big Thing

#252

Post by spacecowboy_lon » Tue, May 03, 2016, 12:18 PM UTC

thiagoperes wrote: post #85

amelius wrote: post #5

I'm still wondering about one thing: if everybody has a basic income, then who will be doing the dirty jobs like collecting our waste? Will the price for waste collecting go up? And will there then be a kind of economic "inversion", where the intellectual people prefer to work on interesting stuff at the expense of money, while the "non-intellectual" (need a better word here) people will make all the money doing the…

First of all, no job should be considered dirty. Second, if you go to places like Netherlands, Norway and Japan you'll see that it's not about money. Higher education prepares workers to do more complex, more efficient and more productive jobs. Also, the society is more conscious about not having someone to do stupid things for them like collecting their trays after they eat at the McDonadls, this is YOUR responsibil…

They meant in the industrial relations sense of being "dirty" Jobs which traditionally came with a premium - sewer workers dustmen steel workers both because its unplesant work and there s also a risk premium.

Its why a pit deputy (coal miner) in the UK can charge £2k for a single weekend shift.

Re: A Basic Income Should Be the Next Big Thing

#253

Post by jackreichert » Tue, May 03, 2016, 12:18 PM UTC

astral303 wrote: post #237

jackreichert wrote: post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Well, now I understand why all those pesky employees of mine feel so entitled to getting their paychecks. It must be because they're millennials or something...

Re: A Basic Income Should Be the Next Big Thing

#254

Post by MagnumOpus » Tue, May 03, 2016, 12:19 PM UTC

notahacker wrote: post #121

k-mcgrady wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I envision it as enough for someone to get by. So not enough for luxury expenditures. Basically food and shelter. I'm also looking at this from the perspective of someone in the UK who doesn't have to think of things like health care and education which changes things quite a bit. I'd say around $800 p/m per person would be plenty if you look at food and rent for a room in a shared apartment. Tax revenue should also…

The savings from laying off a few bureaucrats and jobcentre employees aren't going to change the fact that the £250bn needed just to give a $800/£550 per month BI to working age adults in the UK is a lot more than the £3bn spent on unemployment benefit. (eliminating tax credits, disability benefits and housing benefits will net another £110bn, but also render a lot of poor people poorer or even homeless, which is the…

Yes, obviously the program needs to be revenue neutral for middle incomes, otherwise it is unaffordable. So for the average bloke in the UK who earns £30k and receives a £6.6k UBI in addition, taxes would have to be increased by 22 percentage points to balance.

So rather than 0%-20%-40% income tax bands, we are talking about 20%-40%-60% tax - which looks ridiculously high on the face of it, but has no effect on after-tax income of the average earner after the UBI.

Because of the shocking sticker effect of the taxes, my view is that it is a lot better to position UBI as "negative income tax for low earners" if you want to get it adopted...

Re: A Basic Income Should Be the Next Big Thing

#255

Post by yummyfajitas » Tue, May 03, 2016, 12:20 PM UTC

deanCommie wrote: post #241

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…

> 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…

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.

Yes, it's bad because now we are all poorer. We have fewer goods and services to go around. The fact that salaries (paper) go up doesn't change this fact.

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...

I'm referring to highly productive women who should be designing self driving cars, automating business processes, and other such valuable things. Instead they are stuck at home changing diapers.

We, as a society, lose the value of their output.

Re: A Basic Income Should Be the Next Big Thing

#256

Post by timlyo » Tue, May 03, 2016, 12:20 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?

I'm thinking from the government's perspective. It's still money that is being removed from the treasury that they have to factor into the budgets.

Re: A Basic Income Should Be the Next Big Thing

#257

Post by varjag » Tue, May 03, 2016, 12:20 PM UTC

adrianN wrote: post #234

xienze wrote: post #198

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Does that imply it should be decreased with economic recessions too?

Myself I don't really see any long term social solution other than UBI as well. But there are plenty of rough corners like that..

Re: A Basic Income Should Be the Next Big Thing

#258

Post by tehrei » Tue, May 03, 2016, 12:21 PM UTC

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…

Basic Income is very, VERY far away from the Utopia in that experiment. It means enough money to cover rent, utilities and food. For anything more, you still have to study, work, etc.

Also, it's one experiment, that I haven't seen replicated, done in an age when you had to show up those darn commies, that Capitalism is the best.

Re: A Basic Income Should Be the Next Big Thing

#259

Post by lsaferite » Tue, May 03, 2016, 12:21 PM UTC

a_imho wrote: post #203

Why is that ubi is considered the next big thing, while people on welfare are usually looked down upon? In the current (optimistic) horizon it might seem like a good idea, but a recession could easily spin this the wrong way imho. If you don't contribute by working and paying taxes on your income, there can be a problem when a stressed actor comes asking to justify your ubi. OTOH, if you do need to work either way, w…

The reason many (not me) look down on things like welfare is they are not personally and directly benefitting while some other person is and they aren't perceived as working to deserve the benefit.

The idea with UBI is that you no longer make the government assistance a merit based assistance and instead everyone gets it equally. For those with large incomes the small amount of UBI will be a pittance. For those with little or no income it will be a lifeline. In both cases the amount would be exactly the same.

Re: A Basic Income Should Be the Next Big Thing

#260

Post by danharaj » Tue, May 03, 2016, 12:21 PM UTC

dalore wrote: post #232

creshal wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

If you think it's so rational to have children for cash, you can go do it. I've never met anyone who actually thinks it's a good idea. It's always a hypothetical to malign the poor. Because people who malign the poor know exactly how poor people think, or something.