291–300 of 840 posts
There isn't huge support. Step out of the bubble... It's just the new generation of kids flirting with communism.
I think you may not have it perfectly clear in your mind what "communism" means.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Basic income would not significantly increase the demand for food or accommodation. How does "simple supply and demand" work in this case?
If a baker can make the same amount of money not working thanks to basic income, it follows logically that you have to pay him/her more to stay and work, which increases the cost of bread for everyone. So now you have more money to spend but everything went up in price.
In the second scenario, he receives BI, but the same market forces would apply and he would only be able to charge more as long as there are no competitors. Additionally, since everyone will receive BI this will grant people more potential free time. Time they could use to make their own bread in case the baker raises prices. In this scenario the baker would have less incentive to work but would also have more potential competition in case he raises the prices.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?
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…
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.
Do you have children? By what stretch of the imagination is caring for children an activity best performed by unskilled individuals?
The Fed engineers a slow inflation every year via interest rate control and gives the benefit of the newly created money to banks, the loan borrowers, and asset holders as rates lower than keeping inflation at zero. Since the money supply increases anyway, might as well give the new money as basic income to ALL people. At least the money will be spent directly by the people for economic activities, instead of indirec…
Regarding inflation... if everyone instantly has $X now, doesn't $X become worthless? For instance, why would landlords not raise rents knowing that everyone now has this cash?
As for landlords specifically: the renters already have $x they are not using for rent, so why don't the landlords get that? If there is no good or service that absorbs all the money right now, there's no reason to think there would be one for the marginal money of a basic income scheme.
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…
I'm one of the people who supports excluding people under the age of eighteen from basic income.
Will universal basic income take into account relative cost of living per geographical area? If so, why isn't the same done with income tax. If no, why then is it really a universal basic income / all that useful?
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.
On the other hand, empowering an impoverished woman to provide higher quality care for her children will significantly increase their upward mobility.
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…
You are entirely correct.. but I think you're missing the point.
Think of that first description as the marketing pitch to the general public. By saying it is universal and "free" to administer, it gets people behind it who don't think through the consequences.. which is a large chunk of the target audience. They are also the people who could put amicable politicians in power and keep them there.
But a "no-strings-attached" basic income would force politicians to give up the one thing they desire more than anything: power. So the second description with the actual mechanics of it, is for those people who actually get to administer the "free" program and tie their strings to groups, situations, and behaviors they want to punish or promote.
I am as free market as they come and find myself intrigued by the UBI... but the thing that prevents me from supporting it is that politicians and political systems DO NOT give up power so the "we can get rid of everything else" line is obviously a lie.