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

Re: A Basic Income Should Be the Next Big Thing

#311

Post by arethuza » Tue, May 03, 2016, 12:45 PM UTC

spacecowboy_lon wrote: post #252

thiagoperes wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I don't think there are any "pits" in the UK anymore - the last deep coal mine closed at the end of 2015:

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/dec/18/kellingle...

Re: A Basic Income Should Be the Next Big Thing

#312

Post by vixen99 » Tue, May 03, 2016, 12:45 PM UTC

panic wrote: post #148

weddpros wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"I don't see any moral justification for a software engineer earning more than someone collecting waste" That's because moral justification isn't at the center of our society. The market is. Many attempts have been made to switch from the market to something else, not many were brilliant. The "lucky historical accident" you cite isn't one... It's just the way our society was built. Also you could argue on many differ…

That's because moral justification isn't at the center of our society. The market is. So how much do you pay your friends to hang out with you? I've been going with $20 a visit, but I've heard that might be a little on the low side these days.

George Orwell in "Keep the Aspidistra Flying" suggested that friendly personal offline relationships are all but impossible between people with widely disparate incomes. Exceptions as always, prove the rule.

Re: A Basic Income Should Be the Next Big Thing

#313

Post by k-mcgrady » Tue, May 03, 2016, 12:45 PM UTC

crdoconnor wrote: post #62

k-mcgrady wrote: post #6

>> "But in the U.S., many liberals see it as naive and a distraction from more practical priorities, such as a $15 minimum wage and paid family leave." I can't see how they could believe this. First of all a minimum wage becomes unimportant as you should hypothetically have enough money to support the kind of lifestyle a minimum wage job would provide without working. Secondly, as it's no longer financially critical…

>I can't see how they could believe this. First of all a minimum wage becomes unimportant as you should hypothetically have enough money to support the kind of lifestyle a minimum wage job would provide without working. It's considered a distraction because it's a political pipe dream that has a very low chance of being implemented. The reason the left doesn't like it is fourfold: * The pretext for basic income presu…

Some good points, I'm curious about your final point though. Personal want just for more than just the income. IF the UBI worked, are you suggested people would want to, but couldn't work anymore? That jobs would be difficult to find?

Re: A Basic Income Should Be the Next Big Thing

#314

Post by lmm » Tue, May 03, 2016, 12:45 PM UTC

yummyfajitas wrote: post #146

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…

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…

Aren't you assuming that leisure time is worthless there?

Suppose country A consists of 99 peasants and 1 plutocrat. The peasants work full-time and the plutocrat consumes their entire economic output living a life of fabulous luxury. Country B consists of 100 people who work part-time and live simple lives that they can afford. Country A produces more goods and services and has a higher GDP than country B - let's say twice as high. Nevertheless it is reasonable to consider country B better-off.

Edit: The above is probably conflating some unrelated issues, so let's just simplify: country A works full-time (40hrs/week) and spends their leisure time expensively, country B works part-time (20hrs/week) and spends their leisure time cheaply. Country A's GDP is twice that of country B in the obvious way. Is country A really better off than country B? (If you're going to make a revealed preferences argument about working hours then bear in mind that there are very few less-than-full-time jobs on offer, partly an artifact of the way current regulations treat full- and part-time jobs)

Re: A Basic Income Should Be the Next Big Thing

#315

Post by Unklejoe » Tue, May 03, 2016, 12:46 PM UTC

goda90 wrote: post #294

brightball wrote: post #236

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Or instead, give it universally to children, but require a certain percentage be saved in some sort of fund that they are given full control of when they turn 18. That way the parents don't have to shoulder all of the expense of a child, but the child isn't screwed over by irresponsible parents either.

Cool idea. I'd advocate for an age of 25 though.

An 18 year old these days is still a child. Give them a couple years into the drinking age to get their bad decisions out of the way.

Re: A Basic Income Should Be the Next Big Thing

#316

Post by yummyfajitas » Tue, May 03, 2016, 12:47 PM UTC

pjc50 wrote: post #290

yummyfajitas wrote: post #255

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

If someone's that highly productive they'll still be able to earn enough that going out to work would make economic sense. Or they could have the fathers change the diapers.

If someone's that highly productive they'll still be able to earn enough that going out to work would make economic sense.

This is absolutely true in a free market with no labor distortions (BI, tax, etc). However, we already live in a world with distortions (taxes, welfare, regulations) that drive a wedge between economically optimal and actual choices. How would adding an even bigger wedge help?

Also, due to women's sexual choices, most likely the father is also highly productive. So your "fathers change the diapers" is not really a viable solution - it just means you lose his output rather than hers.

Re: A Basic Income Should Be the Next Big Thing

#317

Post by alexvoda » Tue, May 03, 2016, 12:47 PM UTC

I think the issue with BI is that no matter how many things are automated and how many items become abundent there are still things that will remain scarce: land, minerals. Land will remain a scarce resource and all things that depend primarily on land will remain scarce (housing, agriculture, etc.).

And in this situation there is nothing stopping land owners from absorbing the basic income. This means that revenue generated by land owning (not necessarily land owning itself) would have to be heavily taxed. Maybe even taxed progressively to avoid economies of scale in land owning and prevent a very few from owning all the land.

Or we could terraform celestial bodies in the Solar system.

It is important to note that land itself is limited, not housing. As long as we can continue building even higher and deeper housing is not actually limited.

Re: A Basic Income Should Be the Next Big Thing

#318

Post by mattgibson » Tue, May 03, 2016, 12:48 PM UTC

alexvoda wrote: post #317

I think the issue with BI is that no matter how many things are automated and how many items become abundent there are still things that will remain scarce: land, minerals. Land will remain a scarce resource and all things that depend primarily on land will remain scarce (housing, agriculture, etc.). And in this situation there is nothing stopping land owners from absorbing the basic income. This means that revenue g…

For this reason, I think Basic income really only makes sense when paired with land value tax (LVT) and rent caps, which would prevent that problem. Both already work well in other economies in Europe.

Re: A Basic Income Should Be the Next Big Thing

#319

Post by alehander42 » Tue, May 03, 2016, 12:50 PM UTC

Aoyagi wrote: post #210

mcv wrote: post #130

Interesting how this article spins Basic Income as something of particular interest to conservatives while liberals would object to it. I suppose that can help sell the concept to highly partisan anti-liberals, but I know plenty of liberals and progressives who strongly support Basic Income. The idea that the people employed in the bureaucracy managing the current mess of programs losing their job is a silly concern.…

10k? That's almost the average income (or more, depending on how you count taxes) of the Czech Republic. If I had to choose between living in a 2nd world country and working and living in a 1st world country and not working for the same money, guess which I'd choose?

I am just amused by the "2nd world country" thing. I really fail to see how life in Central Europe is somehow of "lower quality"(e.g. Czech, Poland, Germany) compared to USA. I'd actually prefer living in Central Europe or especially Southern Europe over USA any day.

Re: A Basic Income Should Be the Next Big Thing

#320

Post by newjersey » Tue, May 03, 2016, 12:51 PM UTC

theseatoms wrote: post #297

newjersey wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm one of the people who supports excluding people under the age of eighteen from basic income.

You can be more precise by only excluding actual dependents.

Ah, this is a great point. Yes, I agree. My point is nobody should collect basic income for anyone else. The prison system shall not collect it on behalf of prisoners. Creditors (even the IRS) shall not garnish it. No one collects it in behalf of detained/imprisoned/kidnapped people.

There shall be no back pay. If you could have gotten basic income but didn't accept it last year, you can't get that money this year. (You might still get this year's distribution.)