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

Universal Basic Income is Capitalism 2.0

timjrobinson.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

291–300 of 1001 posts

Re: Universal Basic Income is Capitalism 2.0

#291

Post by w0rdson »

danielheath wrote: post #243
w0rdson wrote: post #221

I definitely need to research this topic more, but after reading everyone's arguments for and against UBI, I think maybe the right solution is somewhere right in the middle. Instead of giving everyone $X,000 a month, what if there was some sort of secondary currency or credits that all Americans receive (call them Patriot bucks or whatever) that could be used for necessities like food, public transportation, etc. I d…

Why charge for public transport at all? Issuing everyone credits they can use to buy rides seems like a way to funnel money to big consultancies. Similarly for housing; offering very basic housing to anyone who wants to live in it solves 80% of homelessness (the last 20% is harder than you would think). Food is harder, but something akin to a soup kitchen can still help a lot.

Transportation I could see, but for other things like food I just like the idea of making people choose how they want to spend their credits, if for no other reason than to remind them that scarcity still exists.

Having a grocery store with a "take what you want" policy feels like it won't last long

Re: Universal Basic Income is Capitalism 2.0

#292

Post by dragonwriter »

alexmingoia wrote: post #156
thephyber wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The most likely implementation in the existing US federal government is a negative income tax. > I definitely would choose not to work or work less if that money came free from government. You aren't alone, so your $1200 would not go as far in that future as it does now. There would be some inflation (perhaps only localized increased costs to some industries), but I'd suspect that people working less would be a featu…

“There would be some inflation” Which serves as a reason to regularly increase the amount. “UBI doesn't make people not want to work at all“ Speak for yourself. Work is a means to an end. I have no desire to work if basic income takes care of my basic necessities. I have no intrinsic desire to get up every day at the same time and do what my employer tells me to do. And to be clear, when I say work I mean the necessi…

> I have no desire to work if basic income takes care of my basic necessities.

It is widely observed that many people work far more than is necessary to supply their basic necessities, because people's desires don't tend to end with those needs.

You may have quite limited desires, but there is no evidence that that is true of humans generally.

Re: Universal Basic Income is Capitalism 2.0

#293

Post by ChrisLomont »

phillpot wrote: post #20

GDP is a bad metric. The planet does not have unlimited resources to fuel unlimited growth.

You don’t need unlimited resources for unlimited growth. Inventing more valuable uses of existing resources is enough.

For example, in many countries, per capita energy usage is decreasing as GDP per capita increases, because of more energy efficient tech.

Re: Universal Basic Income is Capitalism 2.0

#294

Post by rmorey »

hexane360 wrote: post #9
agjm wrote: post #7

In the event we did go socialist, UBI would be a much more effective way to allocate goods and services than a centrally managed economy. Let people determine what they need most, and use 'credits' to get it -- save the paperwork for less ordinary needs / circumstances. That said, I prefer capitalism.

What tortured definition of 'socialist' includes a privately owned and operated market economy?

not exactly what you’re saying but:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Market_socialism

Re: Universal Basic Income is Capitalism 2.0

#295

Post by iciac »

Aerroon wrote: post #166
alex_young wrote: post #114

A UBI paid for with a carbon tax would both save us from the worst consequences of global warming and stimulate the economy. It's hard to find a rational excuse for not doing it. Planet Money did a great episode on this idea over 7 years ago: https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2013/07/12/201502003/epis... They did a followup 5 years later: https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2018/07/18/630267782/epis... It seems like…

I don't see how this would really work. A carbon tax in an ideal situation is just a consumption tax. This means that it's the consumer that pays it. Rich people don't eat more food nor do they drive dozens of cars at once. If we want this carbon tax to offset our greenhouse emissions then that means it will necessarily disproportionately impact poor people. And then you want to turn around and pay that money back to…

To correct this slightly, a carbon tax changes the relative price of goods (rather than a consumption tax, which is typically flat). The primary industries affected tend to be industrial, rather than than consumption based (e.g. energy, freight, mining, and smelting).

Re: Universal Basic Income is Capitalism 2.0

#296

Post by sreekotay »

jtlienwis wrote: post #258

I am opposed to UBI. I want smart people to have more money. I want less smart people to have less money, provided they have enough to live on. A smart person might invest in books, study and self improvement. Then those industries that create these will be stimulated. That is what you want. Less smart people might spend their money on lottery tickets, junk food, booze etc. Those industries would be stimulated by UBI…

UBI isn't (necessarily or even generally) isn't generally communist (in the strict sense). I'd argue it's a bit of practical captitaliasm, game theory style --- rising tides lift all boats?

You can keep your big boat - let's make sure everyone's got some way to stay afloat?

And not because it's "good" - though maybe it is - but because the ecosystem is healthier/better for it...

Re: Universal Basic Income is Capitalism 2.0

#297

Post by babesh »

The hypothesis that we are in stagnation is flawed since it looks only at the lower socioeconomic levels in the developed countries. What happened with globalization is that the lowest socioeconomic levels in other parts of the world were lifted from poverty. So the world as a whole hasn’t stagnated.

Because of the transfer of labor to the developing world, you had stagnation for the lower and middle class in the developed world. You see the same pattern everywhere in the developed world: Japan, Europe, United States, etc... It is only the end of capitalism 1.0 if you look just there.

Automation may eventually destroy jobs but probably more will be in those developing countries. The developed countries have already partly transitioned into service economies (especially anything that is low skilled and can’t be done elsewhere).

Some developed countries seem to have de facto UBI to cope with this stagnation. However some countries have been in a malaise for decades with no real signs of uptick. This would also counter the hypothesis that plain UBI would lead to greater productivity.

I think that there needs to be much greater emphasis on supporting learning and doing (not necessarily in a university setting) to develop the greatest resource (human potential). We just need to keep leveling up.

Re: Universal Basic Income is Capitalism 2.0

#298

Post by _jal »

alexmingoia wrote: post #82

Why give free money to everyone? Clearly a rich person doesn’t need a monthly check from government... Milton Friedman long ago proposed a negative income tax to replace means-tested welfare programs. Essentially, people below a certain income threshold would receive money which scales to a maximum the closer their income approaches zero. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_income_tax I do think people radically…

> Why give free money to everyone?

Two major reasons.

The principled reason is that it is, well, universal. If you're a citizen, you get certain rights and responsibilities, end of story.

A more realist perspective notes that historically, if you make a program for the poor, it becomes a poor program (underfunded). A scheme it is more likely to succeed the more people who buy in to it. (Notice how the ACA is becoming more popular over time? Or look at Social Security vs. SNAP.)

> I definitely would choose not to work

I think people both pro- and con- are not really thinking through how this would play out in reality. Income, wealth, type of work and social status are intimately linked, especially so in the US.

There will immediately be some slur for people who choose not to work that will probably replace the "your momma's on welfare"-type crap. Lots of people's shallow, status driven dating rules will expand to exclude the voluntarily-unemployed. It will become obvious that there's a very low glass-ceiling over their heads that limits them in all sorts of ways. It will also become harder to crawl out of over time, both for individuals who don't maintain useful skills, and as a social class, because that's how humans act.

Some people will of course choose that life. But I think it will be a lot less appealing than you think.

Re: Universal Basic Income is Capitalism 2.0

#299

Post by vsgzusnex »

jtlienwis wrote: post #258

I am opposed to UBI. I want smart people to have more money. I want less smart people to have less money, provided they have enough to live on. A smart person might invest in books, study and self improvement. Then those industries that create these will be stimulated. That is what you want. Less smart people might spend their money on lottery tickets, junk food, booze etc. Those industries would be stimulated by UBI…

The point of UBI is not to reduce the economic output of smart people. In fact, in some sense it could improve since bright minds could reasonably deal with loss of income while pursuing entrepreneurial endeavors. Think of all the smart people wasting their life in a do-nothing job for security that we could liberate to follow through on their best ideas.

At the same time not smart people or disadvantaged won't be ignored or fall through the cracks. Over time as productivity rises through automation we can ramp up the UBI and make sure all human life is valued and give people real opportunity. Even with a UBI that doesn't require you to work to live doesn't preclude a capitalist persuit of resources to make your most grand ideas come true. Let's just make sure we tax externalized cost appropriately.

Will some smart people choose to not work eventually? Sure, but if our automation can support them, who cares?

I think Yang came up with an eloquent phrase for this - UBI is capitalism that doesn't start at 0.

Re: Universal Basic Income is Capitalism 2.0

#300

Post by taneq »

christiansakai wrote: post #207

I know these are anecdotes but I already heard several cases from my circle of friends and families where they just chose not to work because of unemployment checks. Instead of practicing music or learning programming or doing something productive during their period of unemployment, they decided to watch Netflix and play games all day. Creating is hard work, studying is hard work. Just like having information and on…

Were these cases people who would otherwise have engaged in some creative endeavour (music, programming, art, tinkering, whatever)? Or were they otherwise engaged in menial repetitive jobs that should probably be automated anyway?

If the latter, what's wrong with them watching Netflix? We don't need every human to work.

Also if I gained a perpetual stipend that covered my basic needs, you bet I'd take a couple of months off just to relax and recuperate. Inside three months I'd be going insane from boredom and start building things again for the fun of it. And I bet they'd be better things, too.

Post reply on HN