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

Basic Income Research Proposal

basicincome.ycr.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

291–300 of 427 posts

Re: Basic Income Research Proposal

#291

Post by ctdonath »

billmalarky wrote: post #160
bduerst wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If people in every location have their income increased, then the housing prices inflate in every location. Saying, "People can just move" is missing the point. It isn't that they can't afford to live where they are now, it's that BI will be absorbed by price inflation everywhere .

This is a misunderstanding of how both macro inflation occurs (money supply growing faster than true value of wealth it abstracts), and how price is set (supply and demand). UBI does not "create" new money and just give it to everyone (which would cause inflation). It's a wealth redistribution. That is, many people will see their income go down under UBI (probably most HN readers for example). The money supply will r…

Sounds like yet another argument trying to deny the law of supply-and-demand, like those who quote the laws of thermodynamics and then claim they have a perpetual motion machine.

Instead of having to work for that first $1000/mo, it just...appears. Yes it was earned elsewhere, and whoever earned it won't miss it as much as the recipient will appreciate it, but since the recipient has done nothing for it, its local value plummets. Instead of some low-income people having $1000/mo for rent, now everyone has $1000/mo for rent - and basic prices will rise accordingly.

I won't notice much change for losing a sub-1% of my income, but those for whom UBI is really intended can go from really struggling to renting (even buying) housing. With limited housing supply, suddenly prices will rise.

While I'm a staunch advocate of "move already!" for solving economic problems, I don't see enough people moving - nor enough housing for them to move to - to cause "the price of housing on avg will plummet for UBIers".

Imagine the poor section of town. Many/most rent. Suddenly, with no additional productivity, everyone is getting checks for $1000/mo. You think rent etc prices aren't going to suddenly skyrocket? I grasp your theory that people can now move to more affordable locations, not needing to be near jobs - but will they really? before they can, rent prices just shot up, consuming their newfound income. Destination rental prices similarly increase - still relatively attractive, but higher than before since there is more demand and more money to pay for it.

Yes the supply of acceptable housing for UBIers increases, but those markets already existed and were already priced for a low-demand market; now you've "exploded" the demand - prices will rise, matching people who now have $1000/mo and few expenses.

Re: Basic Income Research Proposal

#292

Post by s73ver_ »

staunch wrote: post #176
laser wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the government guarantees a basic income, you're really only guaranteed (at best) until the next election cycle. Just recently, seven years after its passing, the ACA was nearly reverted, which would have kicked millions of people off government-subsidized health insurance plans.

Pensions are a great use-case for smart contracts. I would feel much safer having my retirement assured by a blockchain than a bureaucrat.

The "smart contract" is still reacting to things in the real world. It's not going to magically cause the stock market to not fail. And, as we've seen, they are vulnerable to hacking.

Re: Basic Income Research Proposal

#293

Post by s73ver_ »

mkempe wrote: post #214
staunch wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pensions are a great use-case for smart contracts. I would feel much safer having my retirement assured by a blockchain than a bureaucrat.

Better yet, one could have completely private pension plans, where everyone is safe from both bureaucrats and kleptocrats.

Congratulations, you've just invented the IRA.

Re: Basic Income Research Proposal

#294

Post by s73ver_ »

FreakyT wrote: post #79
LoSboccacc wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Would you not work? Basic income is nearly not enough to access luxuries. Sure you should be able to live off it, but I think most people would likely want more, the difference from forced equality being that you can still work and keep that as luxury money.

> I think most people would likely want more Would they, though? That's the key question that I believe this study (and others like it) fail to address. Depending on the basic income amount, I believe it would be possible to live a fulfilling (if somewhat minimalist) life without needing to supplement that income.

I think there are plenty of people who would be happy having a minimalist life, and there are those who would choose to see the world. And I believe that there are those who are drawn to doing things; working on stuff that they're interested in. And there are those who do want more stuff, and so will work.

All in all, I think there are enough people that things would be fine.

Re: Basic Income Research Proposal

#295

Post by ctdonath »

billmalarky wrote: post #246
greedo wrote: post #230

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The idea of UBI at $1K per month shows that UBI advocates don't know how to do math. The US tax revenues (combined Fed and State) are roughly $6 Trillion. Giving 150 million people $12K per year is $1.8 Trillion. Unless you raise taxes by 1/3, you're going to cause inflation.

This is a strawman attack. Everyone knows UBI will require an increase in taxes that's fundamentally how the wealth redistribution will work.

My taxes are already pushing oppressive. Raise them further, and I'll seriously consider "going Galt" - cash in my investments, buy real estate & capital equipment outright, and live quite comfortably on $4000/mo ($UBI * family population).

You're subsidizing the unproductive, and punishing the productive. I can be productive in untaxable ways.

Re: Basic Income Research Proposal

#297

Post by s73ver_ »

neilwilson wrote: post #74

The design is flawed from the start. If you have any sort of income guarantee in a system where (i) there are others in the same currency area who don't receive the income (ii) the amount is insufficient to live on (iii) there are insufficient jobs overall in the economy for all that want them (iv) it isn't permanent then all you actually have is a tax credit system with a different withdrawal mechanism. https://medi…

"People need something to do where they can be of service to others. Not paying off and left to rot."

No, they need fulfillment in their life. Do you think flipping burgers at McDonald's provides that?

UBI allows people to not have to work long hours at shitty jobs. That is something that should be praised, not derided as "theft".

Re: Basic Income Research Proposal

#298

Post by ctdonath »

billmalarky wrote: post #279
ctdonath wrote: post #265

This is a test of charity, not UBI. 1. The money involved is voluntarily donated, not confiscated from taxpayers - an essential difference between tax-funded vs charity. 2. 3000 recipients is vanishingly small on a state or federal level. When everyone gets their monthly $UBI check, supply-and-demand dictates that "free money" will be duly devalued, with prices of low-end essential goods/services rising to match (say…

>When everyone gets their monthly $UBI check, supply-and-demand dictates that "free money" will be duly devalued, with prices of low-end essential goods/services rising to match (say, basic rent rising to $1000/mo). At first glance this seems intuitively correct, but I'd encourage anyone reading this to control+f my username in this thread for arguments showing otherwise.

I did, and found your arguments wanting. You're conflating local with national behaviors, and conflating high-value goods/services with low.

Take a low-income area and give everyone $1000/mo for no reason (they're not trading any local productivity for it), and rent & other basic costs will immediately rise accordingly. "Move!" you (and I) say - and the limited supply of inexpensive rural housing (matching UBIers' lack of need for jobs) will likewise rise accordingly, as the market of renters just vastly increased. Over time, low-end housing supply may increase, but now you've a market of homes which rather pointedly do not have jobs nearby - you've just created communities of people absolutely dependent on UBI.

Re: Basic Income Research Proposal

#299

Post by [deleted] »

Karrot_Kream wrote: post #215
nnfy wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>A lot of the people who received welfare in the second or third generation often had no idea how a job works. They were late all the time or just didn't show up for a week. I dont understand. You have seen firsthand how entitlements ruin people, and you're arguing that UBI will be good for society? Edit: why the down votes? Are adults who do not understand the concept of a job not a problem? How else could so many o…

> You have seen firsthand how entitlements ruin people My grandfather received a very lucrative PhD offer at a very prestigious American university, but he didn't have the money to make the trip himself, and airplanes were much too expensive for him. So he found a ship in the harbor that was taking a passage to the US and volunteered to be a deck-hand. Now his grandkids, those in India and those abroad, drive cars, g…

[deleted]

Re: Basic Income Research Proposal

#300

Post by sintaxi »

billmalarky wrote: post #246
greedo wrote: post #230

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The idea of UBI at $1K per month shows that UBI advocates don't know how to do math. The US tax revenues (combined Fed and State) are roughly $6 Trillion. Giving 150 million people $12K per year is $1.8 Trillion. Unless you raise taxes by 1/3, you're going to cause inflation.

This is a strawman attack. Everyone knows UBI will require an increase in taxes that's fundamentally how the wealth redistribution will work.

It doesn't seem like a strawman to me. The money has to come from somewhere or else mass inflation will happen instantaneously. The number of goods and services that exists is finite. Giving people free money which removes their burden of supplying value to others will not only fatally harm the buying power of the dollar but it will actually reduce the number of goods and services available which will have the opposite affect than intended. UBI will fail spectacularly if implemented at any meaningful scale.
Post reply on HN