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

341–350 of 1001 posts

Re: Universal Basic Income is Capitalism 2.0

#341

Post by baconandeggs »

zhoujianfu wrote: post #113
jay_kyburz wrote: post #79

I understand and agree with how a UBI will benefit those that are currently falling between the cracks and not receiving any assistance. I can also see the benefits of greatly simplifying the social security system. (If it was implemented in a way that was actually simple. i.e. no distinction between sick, unemployed, old, lazy) But I don't understand why people don't believe the UBI will just become the new definiti…

People will always compare themselves to their peers, it’s true. But there’s a pretty big objective difference between the poorest person having $0 and the poorest person having, say, $20,000 a year.

The difference is the same as having $0 and having $20,000 in monopoly dollars.

The number printed on the notes is irrelevant, the only thing that matters is what you can get with them, and if an apple costs 20,000 monetary units because there is so much money in the system (as it does in many countries) then everything else readjusts to match those levels.

Re: Universal Basic Income is Capitalism 2.0

#342

Post by chadlavi »

treyfitty wrote: post #272

There are a lot of people here dissenting on the idea of UBI on the premise that they find meaning in work, and to take the incentive to work away will lead others (themselves included) not to have meaning in life. I’ve taken a year off of work to start a business that failed and spent the past few months hanging out with my kids. At first, my stress levels were high because daycares were shut down and I was panickin…

A lot of the people objecting also think someday they're going to be a baron of industry who needs income incentives to keep workers toiling away for them.

Re: Universal Basic Income is Capitalism 2.0

#343

Post by [deleted] »

peacefulhat wrote: post #308
justinzollars wrote: post #242

This is going to explode in our faces. Why would the rest of the world finance us (the citizens of the United States) to sit around and watch Netflix all day? Put another way, someone has to buy the debt we are issuing. Today our debt is sold to savers in China, and to other hard working individuals across the world. We have no means of paying back the debt we are issuing, so we are monetizing the debt through a mech…

This is just ignorance. Almost all US treasury bonds are owned by hedge funds, and most of the rest are owned by governments. Retail investors are a tiny share. Whether the hedge funds and governments continue to buy them is not related to how many hours of Netflix Americans watch. US govt can honor its treasury bonds because we have a productive economy. Consider the total assets of the United States, valued at over…

[deleted]

Re: Universal Basic Income is Capitalism 2.0

#344

Post by prostoalex »

treyfitty wrote: post #272

There are a lot of people here dissenting on the idea of UBI on the premise that they find meaning in work, and to take the incentive to work away will lead others (themselves included) not to have meaning in life. I’ve taken a year off of work to start a business that failed and spent the past few months hanging out with my kids. At first, my stress levels were high because daycares were shut down and I was panickin…

> At first, my stress levels were high because daycares were shut down and I was panicking about my business. When I accepted the fate of my business, I chilled out and just hung out with my kids.

You might be in the minority of people with mature enough emotional response and ability to deal with stress.

What would happen if you had an existing alcohol/opiate/etc addiction? It seems that UBI provides few precautions from money flowing towards addictions and relies on everybody being at their best behavior and vice sector not expanding to capture that disposable income.

Re: Universal Basic Income is Capitalism 2.0

#345

Post by Shared404 »

treyfitty wrote: post #272

There are a lot of people here dissenting on the idea of UBI on the premise that they find meaning in work, and to take the incentive to work away will lead others (themselves included) not to have meaning in life. I’ve taken a year off of work to start a business that failed and spent the past few months hanging out with my kids. At first, my stress levels were high because daycares were shut down and I was panickin…

On the other hand, there's me. I hate not working. I would appreciate a UBI, as it would let me get out of a not so great place, and let me focus on working on what I like to do, but I would definitely still be doing useful work.

Re: Universal Basic Income is Capitalism 2.0

#346

Post by Semaphor »

john_moscow wrote: post #333
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…

You tax something you want to reduce. Since carbon emissions are associated with most travel and great-tasting food, it sounds like paying people to sit at home, watch TV and drink themselves into depression.

> Since carbon emissions are associated with […] great-tasting food

I feel like that requires some explanation. I’d say emissions are higher for cheap products, especially food.

Re: Universal Basic Income is Capitalism 2.0

#347

Post by ramshorns »

georgewsinger wrote: post #327

> To reverse this trend of stagnating growth, we must put more capital in the hands of lower income consumers, who will then spend it on things they desire and increase GDP. I have some better ideas to increase GDP, using the author's chain of reasoning. 1. Use the military to break every window in every major city. This will force consumers to pay money to window manufacturers, thus increasing GDP! 2. Rob every poor…

If wealth redistribution is wrong, why are you encouraging us to give our money to the richest person in the world?

Wealth is redistributed all the time, and because of an economic system that rewards already being wealthy, most of the redistribution is from the non-rich to the rich. UBI is an attempt to mitigate that imbalance by providing for people's basic needs when the market has failed to. It doesn't solve all problems but it's a start.

I agree with you that GDP isn't a good metric of success to optimize for, though.

Re: Universal Basic Income is Capitalism 2.0

#348

Post by lxm »

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? Clearly a rich person doesn’t need a monthly check from government...

Because then you need to test for means, and that means you have to hire new bureaucracy to conduct those tests, and then pay their benefits and pensions and travel expenses, and then you need to hire additional bureaucracy to address occasional loopholes in your checks, and then 10-20-50-100 years later you're back to square one with massively bloated self-serving bureaucracies conveniently appropriating dollars to save pennies.

That's what drives UBI advocates bonkers about the current benefit programs. For example, food stamps benefits. I say anyone with an SSN should be able to apply for one and get it electronically. It helps farmers, helps food availability, and is generally spent locally. Instead we have layers and layers of bureaucracy ensuring Jeff Bezos and Bill Gates are prevented from receiving SNAP benefits.

Re: Universal Basic Income is Capitalism 2.0

#349

Post by Gustomaximus »

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…

Theres 2 points here;

> I definitely would choose not to work or work less if that money came free from government.

Is that a bad thing? Say We went from participation rate from ~65% to 40%. That could be good, we stop trying to force people into jobs unnecessarily as we automate + it might encourage dirty jobs like cleaners to be better paid and balance the wage market as people have a way to walk away.

Point 2: Generally I agree that UBI is a bit of a pipe dream for now. I think we'd be better off doing some 'guaranteed job' system where we focus on societal roles that add value but dont compete with free market. Give people a guaranteed 3 day a week job for basic living wage type deal and earlier retirement ages. Use this as a transition point to hopefully automating much of the world and some system of UBI as we slim workforce needs.

Re: Universal Basic Income is Capitalism 2.0

#350

Post by TheSmiddy »

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…

When the carbon tax was introduced in Australia the tax free threshold was increased from $6000 to $18,000 and additional tax benefits were given to low income and welfare recipients. Anybody earning less than $80,000pa at the time were better off under the carbon tax, and anybody earning above that were in a position to make purchases to lower their impact.
Post reply on HN