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

UBI as a productivity dividend

scottsantens.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 278 posts

Re: UBI as a productivity dividend

#41

Post by shahmeern »

lotsofpulp wrote: post #30
nostrebored wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This does not address the relative purchasing power change on the left of the bell curve.

The whole purpose of UBI is to increase the relative purchasing power on the left of the bell curve. But inflation (sum total) is a moot point if total supply of dollars for total demand stays the same. Prices might temporarily increase for staples, such as shelter and food, but that should incentivize sellers in the economy to supply more staples, and fewer luxury goods. The additional supply will eventually bring p…

I don't think that line of reasoning has worked our particularly well for shelter.

Re: UBI as a productivity dividend

#43

Post by markus_zhang »

UBI is good on paper but far from enough. Without Universal Ownership of the State, UBI is easily removed by inflation.

A better yet more difficult model is universal basic resources (food stamp to exchange for packages, social housing, etc.). People can work X hours on these social projects after reviewing some training (e.g. training of plumbing to maintain the social housing apartments). This also gives them some meaning in life. Of course this will degrade in the future if there is no ownership of the state by the people, but I think it’s going to last longer.

Re: UBI as a productivity dividend

#44

Post by kbelder »

ambicapter wrote: post #5
shahmeern wrote: post #2

Does UBI really solve the problem, wouldn’t it just make everything more expensive?

"Solve the problem" probably not, but trigger inflation, probably not, since the amount is so low, it will have very little impact on the behavior of the richest, but it would have a massive impact on the behavior of the poorest, and their purchase habits generally don't impact inflation as much. UBI is just a band-aid on not taxing the rich, though.

The purchase habits of the poor impact the products purchased primarily by the poor quite a bit.

Cheap rental properties. Basic phone plans. Cheap food. The poor buy vastly more ramen noodles than the rich.

Re: UBI as a productivity dividend

#45

Post by dmitrygr »

K0balt wrote: post #37

UBI is the actual solution, and is well understood enough now to know that most of the arguments against it are moot points or simply falsehoods. Unfortunately, with regulatory capture at near 100 percent and electoral capture almost as bad, there is no incentive structure with sufficient influence to make it happen. Wealth will continue to be funneled to the top, and taxation schemes that act as a de-facto sales tax…

> most of the arguments against it are moot points or simply falsehoods.

Ah the “I am sure we can all agree … that I’m right” argument.

In actuality, there are plenty of very good arguments against unions. That you don’t like them changes nothing

Re: UBI as a productivity dividend

#46

Post by lotsofpulp »

shahmeern wrote: post #41
lotsofpulp wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The whole purpose of UBI is to increase the relative purchasing power on the left of the bell curve. But inflation (sum total) is a moot point if total supply of dollars for total demand stays the same. Prices might temporarily increase for staples, such as shelter and food, but that should incentivize sellers in the economy to supply more staples, and fewer luxury goods. The additional supply will eventually bring p…

I don't think that line of reasoning has worked our particularly well for shelter.

Just because supply of shelter in certain locales has not kept up with demand for that specific locale, and/or is affected by numerous legalities regarding things like eviction and zoning codes and fire codes and animals, does not mean invalid the theory of higher prices incentivizing sellers to increase supply.

Re: UBI as a productivity dividend

#47

Post by NicuCalcea »

estearum wrote: post #27
throwaway94275 wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In places that consist of many people with subsidized incomes, like elderly housing complexes, why aren't local grocery stores and gas stations higher than elsewhere? Also, aside from that question, prices will only rise if there's no competition. In a working market, if more people can afford a higher rent more apartments will be built.

Because the subsidies aren't on top of base income? The subsidy isn't the problem per se, it's the net increase in income. It is obviously self-evident everywhere that high incomes create high cost of living, which can be traced through higher costs all the way down to the land rents (the rent someone is willing to pay to have market access to the high local incomes).

I don't see why UBI would necessarily be an increase of income for everyone. It could be that, but it could also be a decrease in hours worked, or a more equal distribution of wealth, or any combination of these.

I don't want a higher income, I want to benefit from the productivity gains I and everyone else made happen by having more time to do things I like.

Re: UBI as a productivity dividend

#48

Post by jmyeet »

randerson wrote: post #8

I'm UBI-curious, but surely inflation would be inevitable if everyone suddenly had $x more disposable income per year? Landlords and grocery stores and everyone else would raise prices because they know people can afford it. Obviously if you're living in poverty, anything is better than nothing, but would the average middle class person be better off? As far as I can tell no country has ever tested true UBI (uncondit…

So there are two basic versions of UBI:

1. The right-wing UBI is a tool to dismantle the social safety net. The idea of the likes of Milton Friedman is to replace all social safety programs with UBI. This doesn't make sense because, for example, being disabled in today's society makes everything more expensive; and

2. Left-wing UBI would seek to have everyone share in the wealth they create by supplementing social safety programs with UBI. UBI becomes a form of super-progressive taxation because it can be viewed as negative taxation.

As for your inflation comment, you have a point, to which I'll say: UBI alone isn't sufficient. You need economic reform and planning on top of that.

A good example is the US military. If you live off-base you get a housing allowance (ie BAH). Now around military bases, in the US and overseas, all the landlords know this so you'll find that weirdly all the houses to rent cost pretty much what BAH is.

So a more equitable economic system, including UBI, needs social housing. That is, the government needs to be a significant supplier of quality, affordable housing so landlords (private and insitutional) can't artificially drive up prices, as is the case now. A prime example is Vienna [1]. Housing simply can't be a speculative asset in a healthy economy.

If you wnat to see what an equitable planned economy looks like, look at China.

[1]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=41VJudBdYXY

Re: UBI as a productivity dividend

#49

Post by JumpCrisscross »

K0balt wrote: post #37

UBI is the actual solution, and is well understood enough now to know that most of the arguments against it are moot points or simply falsehoods. Unfortunately, with regulatory capture at near 100 percent and electoral capture almost as bad, there is no incentive structure with sufficient influence to make it happen. Wealth will continue to be funneled to the top, and taxation schemes that act as a de-facto sales tax…

> most of the arguments against it are moot points or simply falsehoods

What are the falsehoods in complaints against police unions?

Re: UBI as a productivity dividend

#50

Post by larsiusprime »

SoftTalker wrote: post #39
iso1631 wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unless of course that UBI is funded by a land value tax.

How does land value tax help in particular here? Landlord pays land value tax, which is distributed via UBI, and then paid back to the landlord in higher rents (in the above scenaro).

This is a good resource on the question -- Land Value Tax is not passed on to tenants, the landlord eats it. This is pretty unique among taxes, which is why LVT is a particularly good way to fund UBI, otherwise you would expect the UBI to result in inflated rents.

https://progressandpovertyinstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/P...

Post reply on HN