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

351–360 of 840 posts

Re: A Basic Income Should Be the Next Big Thing

#351

Post by blfr »

yummyfajitas wrote: post #309
blfr wrote: post #275

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

No, that's not what people did back in the day. Those who managed lived off advances from their publishers, inheritance, sponsors, or Church sinecures. It's not possible nowadays. You need to promote your works and it became much less socially acceptable.

It's a weird observation that going off the grid would price you out of the dating market. Plenty of "starving artists" and outright bums have more success with women than salarymen.

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

That's the direct counterargument to most BI hopes. Of course, it's very difficult to verify empirically and mostly depends on what you already believe about human nature. We don't even know if Joey Hess is more or less productive than he would be otherwise.

Re: A Basic Income Should Be the Next Big Thing

#352

Post by fucking_tragedy »

bane wrote: post #277
deanCommie wrote: post #241

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…

How many bottlers are running on such razor thin margins?

Re: A Basic Income Should Be the Next Big Thing

#353

Post by PietdeVries »

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.

Ah - and that is where the problem starts...

What I've picked up from 'rule-making' so far is that rules in general are OK for 80% of the users. It's the 20% that is the exception (to the rule) and that requires additional rulings. And then the problem starts: of this 20% again only 80% is fixed by the extra rule, so more rules are needed. Then the third rule to fix things actually allows some to profit extra, so... well, you get the idea. Wherever there are rules, some people suffer, and fixing it breaks things...

Re: A Basic Income Should Be the Next Big Thing

#354

Post by ww520 »

humanrebar wrote: post #169
ChrisLomont wrote: post #131

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?

Deflation in the entire economy is bad. Deflation in asset is ok as long as there are more cash offsetting the asset deflation. Basic income is one way to get more cash into the economy.

Re: A Basic Income Should Be the Next Big Thing

#355

Post by blurbleblurble »

CompelTechnic wrote: post #264
blurbleblurble wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'll have you know that money itself tends to disincentivise work for a lot of people. In this economy, monied relationships are too often wage slavery. People think that they can pay me to work on something I don't love. You are sitting here talking about people mowing your effing lawn. Are you kidding me? If you aren't gonna do that yourself, why in the dear beloved earth should you expect some stranger to do it ex…

There's lots of work that needs to get done, whether anybody likes it or not. If the intrinsic motivation to do it is not there, people are willing to offer rewards to other people for it to be done. I feel like your ideals are very far away from a gritty reality of the working arrangement for most people.

Don't mistake my conviction for idealism. What I'm saying is that if "the intrinsic motivation to do it is not there", then we're on thin ice, because people are detached from a basic aspect of life, which is developing the relationships we form to, and through, work.

The foundation of society is people working for each other and for themselves, regardless of whatever so-called "economy" is imposed on top of that. Underneath the money (or in some societies the lack of money), what do you have? People doing work, getting in the flow of life, sharing and receiving with the people around them. That's the basis of living life.

Re: A Basic Income Should Be the Next Big Thing

#356

Post by blurbleblurble »

bane wrote: post #322
blurbleblurble wrote: post #281

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

You're might not be holding a gun to his head, but at the end of the debt collection chain there is more than enough coercion and disenfranchisement to keep people doing things they don't want to do.

Re: A Basic Income Should Be the Next Big Thing

#357

Post by PietdeVries »

goda90 wrote: post #310
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.

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.

Hmm... So with everyone getting free money, including the children, there is no need for a father to take care of the family when he decides to diforce, right? Afterall, the family gets a good deal of income even when daddy is gone. So marriage will no longer be a bond forever, it will be a bond until something nicer comes along since there is no financial penalty anymore: no pressure to stay together for the kids. Mom and Dad can simply split up and move elsewhere. Wonder how that incease in broken families works out for the future kids...

Edit: my mother had me checked - I am not insane. Anyway: while you are right that keeping two unhappy people together might be much worse than them splitting up, I can imagine that a big organisation like the church (any church) will be a force opposing this idea once they figure this one out.

Re: A Basic Income Should Be the Next Big Thing

#358

Post by legutierr »

yummyfajitas wrote: post #324
legutierr wrote: post #302

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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. A…

Yes, the middle class in India can afford help, but those servants live in conditions that in the US would be considered scandalous. India is not a good example at all to support your position, for this and a whole host of other reasons.

> We simply don't have the problem of not enough jobs.

I would argue that the proof of the emergence of structural unemployment is not in the current rate of unemployment, but in how long it took for us to return to this level after the housing crisis. Structural unemployment will manifest itself in longer and longer recovery times, always returning to near full-employment as the economy adjusts, until the point at which demand collapses and recovery becomes impossible.

Like the tipping point that climate scientists talk about with regards to climate change, we have to implement a solution before we get to that point, because it might not be possible after. Basic Income, above all, should be embraced as a mechanism to stabilize consumer demand during the periods of radical realignment in the labor markets that will be brought on by robotics and AI.

Re: A Basic Income Should Be the Next Big Thing

#359

Post by adwn »

Unklejoe wrote: post #307
pluma wrote: post #267

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> 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?

Because after WWII, there were no retirement accounts in Germany (simplified and not completely correct, but you get the point). Should they have let old people starve?

Re: A Basic Income Should Be the Next Big Thing

#360

Post by Unklejoe »

Lawtonfogle wrote: post #326
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…

>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?…

The only feasible approach in my opinion:

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

Yes, but the funds are stored in an account and are inaccessible to them until a certain age is met (or they qualify as an independent, similar to how the FAFSA (doesn't) work).

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

No.

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

No.

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

Yes.

Post reply on HN