Live data from Hacker News

A Basic Income Should Be the Next Big Thing

bloombergview.com

321–330 of 840 posts

Re: A Basic Income Should Be the Next Big Thing

#321
post #92

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…

The benefit is not given to the banks - the money is added through asset purchases on open market sales. The Fed owns more assets (usually Treasuries) and the bank has cash. If you want to get in on it, buy Treasuries. Next, the Fed avoid targeting zero inflation, because it's currently impossible to hit that number so exactly, and they desire to avoid deflationary spirals. The past 150 years has shown across hundred…

Good point you raised about FOMC directly injecting money. That's another case how the Fed benefits the banks and the Have's directly. Fed buys and sells treasury to create and destroy money but with more money created over time to encourage inflation. The extra money created are given to the treasury sellers with better pricing over time. The people without treasury are left out of the new money created. Of course the banks benefited from the extra money; FOMC only deals with the 22 big banks and the primary bond traders.

Besides FOMC, loan is a bigger money creation mechanism. With 10% fractional reserve, the banks can lend out 10X of what they have. In that case interest rate dictates how much loan actually lent out and how much money actually created. By raising or lowering interest rate, the Fed increases or decreases the overall loan amount. Lowered interest rate encourages bigger loan amount, vastly increases the money supply for assets, leading to the current asset bubble.

Basic income can become another mechanism for the Fed to inject money. The Fed can buy less treasury, raise rate, and give out more in basic income.

People spending the extra money and companies earning them are good. Companies earning money via products and services are good. This encourages more products and services, and more employment. Instead the new money created now are given to the asset holders and locked up in assets.

Edit: QE was another money creation mechanism and it hugely benefited the banks. The Fed bought assets at inflated price from the banks with created money.

Re: A Basic Income Should Be the Next Big Thing

#322
post #251

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do you know the guy who mows my lawn isn't passionate about it? He helps beautify people's property and takes lots of satisfaction in that. Why are passion projects only ones that have no economic value?

I said that the guy mowing the lawn is either doing it out of "good will" or "fear". The way I read the post I was responding to was: if UBI existed, less people would be forced into doing stuff they didn't want to do, so there would be less people to mow my lawn because a lot of people wouldn't mow my lawn if they weren't coerced into it therefore we shouldn't stop coercing people into mowing my lawn cause that woul…

Except not if my lawn care cost goes up too much, I'll just fire my lawn guy and do it myself.

I'm not holding a gun to my lawn guy's head to coerce him in any way. This is what he chose to do to make money, in the face of all other money making opportunities.

If he took another job or income source tomorrow, and simply didn't show up again and didn't let me know, I have no power or authority to get him back behind a mower.

If he's doing it out of fear, it's not fear I'm placing into him. He has plenty of other ways to make money, so if fear of doing those jobs is what's driving him into the lawn care business, then nobody but him is responsible for cultivating that fear.

There's nothing wrong with mowing somebody's lawn, he beautifies my property, saves me from working in the heat, and in exchange I pay him slightly more than what he asked.

There's innumerable other things he could be doing for money, but he chose this one. Since he's good at his job, reliable and reasonably priced, I and my neighbors benefit from his choice and he benefits from having blocks of contiguous neighbors all hiring him.

Bonus, he even has two employees who he keeps in the labor market.

Re: A Basic Income Should Be the Next Big Thing

#323
post #277

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> fewer working mothers can find child care, fewer laborers to mow your lawn, fewer nurses, fewer teachers, etc. First of all, even if the people in positions like this were only working for sustenance and UBI provides it for them, it doesn't mean some wouldn't want to continue working to make even MORE money. UBI is a baseline, not welfare. If previously a lawn mowing job was only enough for rent and food, maybe now…

Your arguments are interesting, but they hold only in systems with artificial inflation controls. UBI increases the amount of money in the economy, which has the same effect as simply printing more, thus the value (scarcity) of the money decreases. A poor mother without UBI will be a poor mother with UBI because costs will simply go up, something you acknowledge. As costs for services go up, costs of products go up a…

Your entire theory is based on the idea that the labor market will decrease AND it will decrease so substantially that all markets will have to increase prices to a 1:1 ratio with the new UBI.

Sounds more like fantasy than economics.

Re: A Basic Income Should Be the Next Big Thing

#324

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 p…

Only a small percentage of the population can afford to hire maids, nannies and gardeners...

This is true because we live in a situation of scarcity. In other economies (e.g. India) where labor is not so scarce, far more people can afford help.

If people were actually willing to work, but simply couldn't find work, prices should drop so that a much larger percentage of the population could afford maids and nannies.

Also, the unemployment rate in the US is 5.5%, i.e. the natural rate of unemployment. We simply don't have the problem of not enough jobs.

Re: A Basic Income Should Be the Next Big Thing

#325
post #295

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you have children? By what stretch of the imagination is caring for children an activity best performed by unskilled individuals?

I think you overestimate the training and skill level of most childcare providers.

No, I'm fully aware of the fact that childcare today is often provided by people who are under-qualified for the task.

Which is one reason I think that basic income would broadly improve the level of care given to children. It would enable the people most qualified to give care--children's own parents--to provide that care instead of working excessive hours just to put food on the table.

Re: A Basic Income Should Be the Next Big Thing

#326
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…

>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.

Does anyone advocate giving it to everyone?

What about children? Does a child get the same as an adult?

What about non-citizens who are in the nation legally?

What about non-citizens who are in the nation illegally?

What about citizen children of non-citizens who are in the nation illegally?

There are consequences to saying yes to any of these we need to think through, but perhaps more importantly, is there even a chance of passing some of these (could you imagine the Republican attack on answering yes to either of the last two?).

Re: A Basic Income Should Be the Next Big Thing

#327

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The benefit is not given to the banks - the money is added through asset purchases on open market sales. The Fed owns more assets (usually Treasuries) and the bank has cash. If you want to get in on it, buy Treasuries. Next, the Fed avoid targeting zero inflation, because it's currently impossible to hit that number so exactly, and they desire to avoid deflationary spirals. The past 150 years has shown across hundred…

> If you want to get in on it, buy Treasuries. Let them eat cake? > ...they desire to avoid deflationary spirals. I've never really understood this. Dropping prices (see the recent changes in oil prices) are really good for the impoverished, at least in the short run. If we are really talking about a post-scarcity economy, wouldn't deflation indicate efficiency and be a good thing?

I'm the last person you would call an expert, but in a deflationary economy, people tend to hold money rather than spend it, which is bad news.

Re: A Basic Income Should Be the Next Big Thing

#328

In the early 1970s, animal behaviorist John Calhoun built a "mouse utopia" to see what would happen if he created the perfect world for mice, with unlimited food, starting with four males and four females, that could reach a population of 2500. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Z760XNy4VM What happened next is absolutely astonishing. When the mice had nothing to do and nothing to work for, their society collapsed upon…

Do mice have a concept of leisure? Exploration for its own sake? Cultural enrichment? Scientific endeavour? Also, in that experiment isn't there a complete excess of resources? We certainly don't have that, opulence would still be expensive and out of reach of a BI.

[deleted]

Re: A Basic Income Should Be the Next Big Thing

#329

In the early 1970s, animal behaviorist John Calhoun built a "mouse utopia" to see what would happen if he created the perfect world for mice, with unlimited food, starting with four males and four females, that could reach a population of 2500. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Z760XNy4VM What happened next is absolutely astonishing. When the mice had nothing to do and nothing to work for, their society collapsed upon…

Do mice have a concept of leisure? Exploration for its own sake? Cultural enrichment? Scientific endeavour? Also, in that experiment isn't there a complete excess of resources? We certainly don't have that, opulence would still be expensive and out of reach of a BI.

>Exploration for its own sake? Yes. Lack of ability to explore will stress mice out. Even with their needs taken care of, mice will still explore.

Perhaps a major part of the problem with the "utoptia" was that the mice weren't given sufficient ability to explore.

Re: A Basic Income Should Be the Next Big Thing

#330
post #148

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.

What are you even talking about?
Post reply on HN