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

A Basic Income Should Be the Next Big Thing

bloombergview.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

301–310 of 840 posts

Re: A Basic Income Should Be the Next Big Thing

#301

Post by lmm »

yummyfajitas wrote: post #243
blfr wrote: post #213

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…

Can you do a back of the envelope calculation to figure out how large those "more valuable but also more difficult to monetize" effects would be? As I noted in the blog post you cited, most of this discussion is just meaningless verbiage. No one even attempts to quantify the the effects they claim are so important. (In the HN comments on that post, many people suggested such effects; the minute you crunch numbers the…

Non-empirically-validated numbers obscure a lot more than they clarify. The scarmig comment you link to shows that almost all of the effects you included were irrelevant and this whole exercise was worse than useless. Using this much precision at this level of accuracy can only ever mislead.

Re: A Basic Income Should Be the Next Big Thing

#302

Post by legutierr »

yummyfajitas wrote: post #261
legutierr wrote: post #231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> labor supply dropped by about 10% Isn't this the exact effect you would want, if you are instituting basic income partly as a response to structural unemployment as a result of automation? > fewer working mothers can find child care, fewer laborers to mow your lawn, fewer nurses, fewer teachers, etc. Maybe these jobs start paying more. How is that bad? With basic income, more mothers would be able to stay home with…

Isn't this the exact effect you would want, if you are instituting basic income partly as a response to structural unemployment as a result of automation? If we don't have robots providing child care, cleaning houses, and all these other services, then "structural unemployment as a result of automation" is not actually a problem we have.

Are you suggesting that workers who are laid off in other industries will all find work as servants working for the other people who haven't been laid off yet?

That's not how our economy works. Only a small percentage of the population can afford to hire maids, nannies and gardeners, and even the wealthiest people will only hire a certain number of them. Just using simple logic should show that if 1% of the working population were all able and willing to maintain a staff of 5 full-time servants, this would only be able to absorb 5% of the unemployed population.

Structural unemployment has nothing to do with these servant-type jobs, and there is no way that these kinds of jobs can absorb unemployed workers laid off in other industries.

Re: A Basic Income Should Be the Next Big Thing

#303

Post by danielvf »

uhtred wrote: post #274

Surely $833 a month ($10,000 a year) still wouldn't be even close to enough for someone who is unemployed to live? Wouldn't rent and bills use that up, without leaving anything for food, clothing etc? I love the idea of universal basic income, but I feel it would need to be double the amount proposed in this article to really change society for the better. Otherwise people will still need to resort to crime to extra…

I've volunteered at English as a second language classes. I've met plenty of people who live on less than that, while still having cars, smartphones, housing, and food.

America has about 11 million people who legally are forbidden from having a job. Many get black market jobs paying less than minimum wage, and still have money left over to send back home.

Re: A Basic Income Should Be the Next Big Thing

#304

Post by newjersey »

slowmotiony wrote: post #216
wiz21c wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You do realize that there are people less than eighteen years old who are parents ?

So? They will get the money when they are 18, the rules work the same way for everyone.

Sorry, I have to clarify myself a little here. Until single payer healthcare becomes a reality, I would like to see an expansion of WIC from at risk mothers and infants to all mothers and infants and children under five. I know it sounds a little sexist but I think the qualification and means testing brings a little stigma to WIC which shouldn't exist.

It is not just money for formula. WIC has a potential to be so much more to new families. I know I sound hypocritical now but I'd like to think of it as being practical. Sorry, I'm not very articulate.

Re: A Basic Income Should Be the Next Big Thing

#305

Post by cdash »

gambiting wrote: post #138
chongli wrote: post #108

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.

The baker CANT make the same amount of money not working though. The baker makes additional money on top of the basic income.

Re: A Basic Income Should Be the Next Big Thing

#306

Post by tome »

rbcgerard wrote: post #193

I see two basic issues: 1. How do you implement this whithout border control - if you create a basic income that is higher than ~1/2 the world's income the amount of illegal immigration will be huge 2. Will we really have the will to tell people who are starving because they lost their stipend to drugs or gambling "too bad"?

These seem like key issues. In particular I really can't understand how this can be compatible with any non-negligible amount of immigration.

Re: A Basic Income Should Be the Next Big Thing

#307

Post by Unklejoe »

pluma wrote: post #267
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?

In Germany at least, public retirement funds are "pay-as-you-go", i.e. you don't pay in to save up money for yourself, you pay in to finance the current payouts to other people who previously paid into the system (and so on). Of course nobody treats it that way -- you'll hear a lot of "my pension" talk especially from people close to retirement and those who are unaware of how low their pensions will be a the current…

Social security works basically the same way in the USA.

Once a system like that is in place, it's very hard to stop the pipeline.

I honestly don't see the purpose of that type of system either.

Why create this pipeline of money anyway? Why not just take the contributions that everyone makes and put them into individual retirement accounts?

Assuming the system is stable (which it's probably not), it seems there would be virtually no difference between me paying for the current retirees (and expecting my children to pay for my retirement) vs. me paying into my own retirement.

I'm not too familiar with these concepts, so maybe someone will school me.

Re: A Basic Income Should Be the Next Big Thing

#308

Post by k-mcgrady »

mseebach wrote: post #112
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…

$800/month comes out to just short of 50% of total tax revenue. You need a lot more than massive savings on welfare programs to pull off a 50% cut in all government spending, local, state and federal.

Ok. I'm just looking at a chart showing the US Federal Budget. 10% on welfare. 25% on pensions. That brings us to 35% so we're still short. Still about 15% off. I believe that the US has lower taxes than many other nations so for a UBI to work that would have to change and would bring us closer to the mark. Reducing some of the 21% spent on defence would also help and the health care sector would be interesting. I think for it to work you go to a completely public system. That would be important to make that $800 figure work and it might also reduce some of the inefficiencies in the current system (US is spending much higher % of GDP than other OECD countries despite having less coverage for citizens).

I think there are lots of ways to adjust current spending and make it work. My personal idea would not fly with the American public though (reduce defence spending by 80% and raise taxes - especially for higher earners).

Re: A Basic Income Should Be the Next Big Thing

#309

Post by yummyfajitas »

blfr wrote: post #275
yummyfajitas wrote: post #243

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you do a back of the envelope calculation to figure out how large those "more valuable but also more difficult to monetize" effects would be? As I noted in the blog post you cited, most of this discussion is just meaningless verbiage. No one even attempts to quantify the the effects they claim are so important. (In the HN comments on that post, many people suggested such effects; the minute you crunch numbers the…

No one even attempts to quantify the the effects they claim are so important. Perhaps I didn't phrase that strongly enough but growing the economy or making it more efficient is not the point. It's at most a rationalization. go live in a rural area, consume very little, and survive with bad internet That's not a realistic advice. It's extremely difficult, puts having a family largely out of reach, and places you away…

That's not "realistic advice", but that's what people did back in the day.

Also, the only reason it "puts having a family largely out of reach" is due to women's sexual choices - most women prefer a man who lives a higher status lifestyle. Sorry, but you aren't entitled to a wife; if women prefer a different lifestyle, that's their choice.

And again, what fraction of people who stop working in the for-profit economy will actually be as productive as Joey Hess?

Re: A Basic Income Should Be the Next Big Thing

#310

Post by goda90 »

newjersey wrote: post #152
gjm11 wrote: post #99

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.

How about children are included, then provide X% to parents for child care expenses, and X% to a fund that the child can't access until 18. That way we don't have to do free higher education. Public universities can expect each student to have close to XXXXX dollars saved away and set tuition accordingly.
Post reply on HN