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

Universal Basic Income Will Likely Increase Social Cohesion

huffingtonpost.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 178 posts

Re: Universal Basic Income Will Likely Increase Social Cohesion

#41

Post by um_ya »

chrispeel wrote: post #25
JackFr wrote: post #7

If I read it correctly, in all of the case studies referenced in the article, the basic income provided was exogenous. That is, the basic income going to the villagers, was not coming from the villagers. So it's not surprising that everyone got chummy when the money flowed in. However a complete picture would show how the people paying felt about it.

The 'unconditional' I take to mean that everyone, rich and poor, would get the same money. So even though the people with high income are paying more in taxes to cover this, they're also getting the same amount paid to them in a separate check. So yes, they're paying more in taxes, but they're also getting the same benefit as everyone else, and this will take some of the sting off. UBI is an excellent libertarian/sma…

You must not be a libertarian, so stop projecting it as a libertarian ideal, because it isn't.... If I'm rich, and I have to pay 20% more for UBI, but I get 1% back from UBI, essentially I'm paying 19% for other people. To paint this as "they're getting the benefit too", is completely ignorant.

Re: Universal Basic Income Will Likely Increase Social Cohesion

#42

Post by vlunkr »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #26
donatj wrote: post #4

If I could live and not have a job, I wouldn't have a job. I could do my art and enjoy my life and the economy would crumble while everyone else watches Netflix.

If I could live and not have a job, I wouldn't have a job either. I could grow as an engineer, finally pivot into biotech, finish the couple of open source projects I know would be useful to many as opposed to the bullshit job I have in webdev (had, actually, right now I'm finally working on something remotely useful - manufacturing management). The economy would be totally fucking fine, enjoyed by all people, many o…

You underestimate the laziness of countless spoiled children who have lived in their parents basements watching netflix and playing video games for years when they could be following their passions.

Re: Universal Basic Income Will Likely Increase Social Cohesion

#43

Post by um_ya »

paulsutter wrote: post #22
JackFr wrote: post #7

If I read it correctly, in all of the case studies referenced in the article, the basic income provided was exogenous. That is, the basic income going to the villagers, was not coming from the villagers. So it's not surprising that everyone got chummy when the money flowed in. However a complete picture would show how the people paying felt about it.

The money for basic income will come from automation driven productivity improvements. Many of the people who are "paying for it" (ie, putting in the thousands of man-years to create those technologies) have exactly that intent, to free people from drudgery. EDIT: pvnick, yes the consensus is measured in decades. Some think fewer, some think more, but yes and thanks.

You don't get "money" from technology, you get utility from technology. You don't give people money for the productivity of technology... That's like having your washing machine pay you for the money it's saving you on hiring somebody to wash it by hand. The value is in the cost saved from using a technology, not the money you receive from it.

Re: Universal Basic Income Will Likely Increase Social Cohesion

#44

Post by Turing_Machine »

pvnick wrote: post #38
paulsutter wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The money for basic income will come from automation driven productivity improvements. Many of the people who are "paying for it" (ie, putting in the thousands of man-years to create those technologies) have exactly that intent, to free people from drudgery. EDIT: pvnick, yes the consensus is measured in decades. Some think fewer, some think more, but yes and thanks.

A $10,000 basic income, perhaps the bare minimum to prevent starvation and homelessness in the most rural parts of the country, for everyone in the United States over the age of 18 involves roughly 2.5 trillion dollars in payouts per year, about 10% GDP for the country (about twice the GDP accounted for by social security). Increasing basic income to $20,000 per year doubles that to about 5 trillion, and that is stil…

"A $10,000 basic income, perhaps the bare minimum to prevent starvation and homelessness in the most rural parts of the country, for everyone in the United States over the age of 18"

You are assuming that every one of those people stops working and lives exclusively on the dole.

That's almost certainly not going to be the case.

Re: Universal Basic Income Will Likely Increase Social Cohesion

#45

Post by alextgordon »

jacquesm wrote: post #21
paulsutter wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My parents would be fine without my support, but I'm supporting them anyway. How does that signal anything negative at all? ps. gfsn54nsf never said they needed his help, nor did he say that he's somehow forced to support them.

It's not a bad thing if you can afford it. But if you can't then society should be right there and without such a catch-net people will have children to support them, not because they actually want children (they simply see them as an economic asset and a pension plan). I strongly suspect that UBI will result in a net decrease in the birth rate wherever it is implemented. For the record, I supported my mom for some y…

When you're old, too old to work, someone will need to work to support you.

I'm sceptical that the anglophone world has it so figured out.

In Britain we have the pension system. In America the mechanism is rising asset prices.

In Britain the pension system is falling apart under the weight of demographic change -- pensions are by far the largest public expense, and the age to qualify is rising. I doubt I will ever get a pension.

In America, there is the opposite problem. People are supposed to put their money into the stock market (via a 401k). The idea is that equity prices go up over time at a rate exceeding inflation, so if you're old you can sell your assets to the people saving now -- for a profit.

The problem with this, is that it doesn't always work that way. The Nikkei hit its all-time high in 1989. The S&P sat in a two decade funk from 1970 to 1990.

So all we've done is add more layers of abstraction. Instead of your children supporting you, now everyone's children are supporting you, and instead of supporting you out of filial love, they hate your very existence.

Re: Universal Basic Income Will Likely Increase Social Cohesion

#46

Post by Turing_Machine »

um_ya wrote: post #41
chrispeel wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The 'unconditional' I take to mean that everyone, rich and poor, would get the same money. So even though the people with high income are paying more in taxes to cover this, they're also getting the same amount paid to them in a separate check. So yes, they're paying more in taxes, but they're also getting the same benefit as everyone else, and this will take some of the sting off. UBI is an excellent libertarian/sma…

You must not be a libertarian, so stop projecting it as a libertarian ideal, because it isn't.... If I'm rich, and I have to pay 20% more for UBI, but I get 1% back from UBI, essentially I'm paying 19% for other people. To paint this as "they're getting the benefit too", is completely ignorant.

You must not be a libertarian, so stop projecting it as a libertarian ideal, because it isn't.

One of the best-known advocates of UBI/negative income tax was Milton Friedman, and he most definitely was a libertarian.

There's a difference between idealistic versions of political philosophies that don't match human behavior, and practical versions of those philosophies that do.

Let's say we wind up with 50 million people who have no marketable skill. What's your solution? Let them starve? What are you going to do when they take exception to that?

If your answer is to simply kill them, good enough, but you need to face up to the fact that this is what you're advocating.

Jailing them is not an option -- that will likely cost more than the UBI scheme, and you can't even put them to work (it being a given that they can't perform any job that provides a net economic gain).

Re: Universal Basic Income Will Likely Increase Social Cohesion

#47

Post by afterburner »

msandford wrote: post #33
paulsutter wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The money for basic income will come from automation driven productivity improvements. Many of the people who are "paying for it" (ie, putting in the thousands of man-years to create those technologies) have exactly that intent, to free people from drudgery. EDIT: pvnick, yes the consensus is measured in decades. Some think fewer, some think more, but yes and thanks.

Right, but those don't exist in a vacuum. There are people who funded that research and think that they should own the fruits of the labor as per the contracts that they executed with the people they paid to perform the work. If you want to do away with various kinds of property rights that's a valid argument to make. But you don't get to pretend that it isn't a new, different way. Ultimately you're going to take som…

It's called taxes, and it doesn't "do away with various kinds of property rights"

Re: Universal Basic Income Will Likely Increase Social Cohesion

#48

Post by Turing_Machine »

Turing_Machine wrote: post #10
donatj wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I disagree. That's why you have children.

That philosophy is directly responsible for overpopulation. If you need to have children to keep from starving to death when you're old, you'll want to have a lot of them. Note that the areas where this is true are precisely the ones with catastrophically high birth rates, and the areas where there are pensions, social programs, etc. are precisely the ones where population is stable, or even falling.

Are any of the people who keep modding this down able to provide a counterexample (i.e., a country where the "social safety net" consists of having lots of children that doesn't have a big population problem)?

Facts are facts, whether you like them or not.

Re: Universal Basic Income Will Likely Increase Social Cohesion

#49

Post by skybrian »

pvnick wrote: post #38
paulsutter wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The money for basic income will come from automation driven productivity improvements. Many of the people who are "paying for it" (ie, putting in the thousands of man-years to create those technologies) have exactly that intent, to free people from drudgery. EDIT: pvnick, yes the consensus is measured in decades. Some think fewer, some think more, but yes and thanks.

A $10,000 basic income, perhaps the bare minimum to prevent starvation and homelessness in the most rural parts of the country, for everyone in the United States over the age of 18 involves roughly 2.5 trillion dollars in payouts per year, about 10% GDP for the country (about twice the GDP accounted for by social security). Increasing basic income to $20,000 per year doubles that to about 5 trillion, and that is stil…

There's no minimum needed to get started. $100 a month isn't going to pay the rent or even be noticed by a lot of people, but on the margin, it will make a difference to people living on the edge.

Also remember that the average person breaks even, so affordability isn't really an issue.

Re: Universal Basic Income Will Likely Increase Social Cohesion

#50

Post by jsprogrammer »

lambdapie wrote: post #34

Basic income is just classical economics rebranded, and basic income is not drastically different from welfare systems that are simple, rule based, and have minimal compliance monitoring, for example Australia's. Most of the arguments for basic income apply just as well to a welfare system like Australia's. The ones that to not are the worst ones. E.g. it's said that basic income avoids disincentivizing work. And yet…

Why would you need tax with a basic income? Flip it around and incorporate the tax into the income distribution.
Post reply on HN