A universal income is not such a silly idea • Hacker News Board

Re: A universal income is not such a silly idea

#41

Post by Mikeb85 » Thu, Nov 28, 2013, 2:26 PM UTC

pothibo wrote: post #7

I haven't studied economics long enough to be an expert in the field, but doesn't a universal income drive inflation up? It's basically the same as a minimum hourly wage that keeps going up to follow the inflation, it's always a catch up game and organization fighting for minimum hourly wage always say it's insufficient. Maybe an economic alumni could enlighten me?

Not necessarily. Inflation is caused by several things, but mostly an increase in the money supply.

If a universal income is paid for with tax money, then the money supply stays the same and it shouldn't have much effect on inflation. If it's paid for by printing money, then yes, it will contribute to high inflation.

(very basic explanation, there are other factors that may cause inflation, but money supply is the big one)

Re: A universal income is not such a silly idea

#42

Post by hershel » Thu, Nov 28, 2013, 2:26 PM UTC

graylights wrote: post #18

LogicalBorg wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I had a genuinely new idea this morning. Paying people for idleness increases idleness, which isn't necessarily good for the recipient. Why not pay them instead for doing things that make their life individually or collectively better? * Pay them for taking and passing college classes. * Pay them for losing weight and getting their BMI to an acceptable level that reduces collective health care costs. * Pay them for g…

But that's exactly the point of universal income. You don't pay them for idleness, you pay them regardless. You just don't pay them enough for their desires, just their needs. All those things you want cost money to verify and adds massive administration costs. Another point of universal income is it's cheap to administrate. If you want to "pay" people for taking college, just subsidize it.

isn't it possible at least in theory to decrease this administrative costs using technology, But maybe it costs said much because there's no real push to do so and large resistance from the public sector ?

Re: A universal income is not such a silly idea

#43

Post by LogicalBorg » Thu, Nov 28, 2013, 2:27 PM UTC

agilebyte wrote: post #15

LogicalBorg wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I had a genuinely new idea this morning. Paying people for idleness increases idleness, which isn't necessarily good for the recipient. Why not pay them instead for doing things that make their life individually or collectively better? * Pay them for taking and passing college classes. * Pay them for losing weight and getting their BMI to an acceptable level that reduces collective health care costs. * Pay them for g…

But then the money has strings attached and you need to check whether people really comply (= cost). Basic income wants to avoid that by simplifying the welfare system assuming that most people do not want to simply be idle.

Simplifying the welfare system is a good idea, but my idea is more like gamifying the system and giving people rewards for doing good things. Simplicity is not the only virtue, what about tangible, measurable outcomes that have improved people's lives?

Re: A universal income is not such a silly idea

#44

Post by graeme » Thu, Nov 28, 2013, 2:27 PM UTC

Does anyone know how the swiss proposal treats travel/residency?

I've long thought that a guaranteed income is an idea worth trying. But it did occur to me recently that such an amount would let you live like a king in many developing countries. Is there anything in the proposal to stop people from simply moving abroad?

More generally, how should a well designed universal income proposal treat travel/living abroad? If you cut off payments for those that are no longer residents, you suddenly provide a huge disincentive for travel. If you keep them, you encourage mass emigration.

Re: A universal income is not such a silly idea

#45

Post by PaulJoslin » Thu, Nov 28, 2013, 2:27 PM UTC

Mikeb85 wrote: post #33

PaulJoslin wrote: post #25

The thing I genuinely don't understand regarding the basic income for all argument is that surely it just moves the goal posts rather than solves the problem at hand? In the current system, you can go stay at home and get income support, which should provide you with the basics i.e. a home, food, electricity etc. If you would like more than this, you can go and get a job and hopefully earn more (have a better lifesty…

> If you would like more than this, you can go and get a job and hopefully earn more (have a better lifestyle) than staying at home not working. Except this isn't the case, since benefits are usually cut when you starting working. This means that you start work in an insecure job with no necessary increase in quality of life. With a guaranteed income, if you were to get a job, you'd have a guaranteed increase in your…

That's correct Mike, it's not always the case (benefits being cut and working a job can provide you with a worse quality of life) - but I think that is more of a problem regarding the wages people are being paid in jobs, rather than the benefits system.

For a long time inflation, house prices and general costs have beat basic wage increases - leaving many working for less money relatively than they would've got years ago. Meanwhile, the big corporations report yet ever greater profits and the CEO's take ever higher multiples of basic salary in bonuses each year.

The system is broken, but the equality of pay and living standards is not to blame with the government, it's to blame with greedy corporations, share holders insisting they need to do anything for profit and wages being pinned down to the minimum they can be that the work force will stand for (to maximise profits).

If corporation pay was fairer (like it used to be) where perhaps a CEO only makes 10 times the basic workers salary, rather than 100 or 1000 times the basic workers salary, then the wealth from the corporation output would be shared more evenly and the problem would be solved (for people in work).

Not to mention corporations which don't pay tax causing governments to lose out on a lot of tax revenue which would in turn pay to support the poor!

Re: A universal income is not such a silly idea

#46

Post by LogicalBorg » Thu, Nov 28, 2013, 2:28 PM UTC

pgsandstrom wrote: post #10

LogicalBorg wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I had a genuinely new idea this morning. Paying people for idleness increases idleness, which isn't necessarily good for the recipient. Why not pay them instead for doing things that make their life individually or collectively better? * Pay them for taking and passing college classes. * Pay them for losing weight and getting their BMI to an acceptable level that reduces collective health care costs. * Pay them for g…

Interesting thought! But then we are back to the huge bureaucratic system that needs to reinforce all those rules. Also, several of those ideas sounds very exploitable.

They're just a brainstorm. The simplest and most effective would probably be measuring BMI for rewards. It could put some brakes on the obesity epidemic. Being paid to do nothing isn't exploitable, because there are no rules, but that doesn't necessary make it better, because there is no connection between effort and reward.

Re: A universal income is not such a silly idea

#47

Post by Fuxy » Thu, Nov 28, 2013, 2:28 PM UTC

"This sounds like some communist plot. How can anyone take seriously the idea of paying people to sit around on their backsides?"

That's something a person that didn't experience communism would say.

Communists would never allow a person to just stay idle doing nothing if you don't have a job you would be sent to forced labor camps where people are needed.

Ask any Romania born before 1989 if you don't believe me.

Re: A universal income is not such a silly idea

#48

Post by woofyman » Thu, Nov 28, 2013, 2:29 PM UTC

yummyfajitas wrote: post #38

ck2 wrote: post #12

It's not a silly idea at all but I like to think of myself as progressive and I think it is a very bad idea in reality vs on paper. Just look at how college costs magically rise to the availability of loans and grants. What do you think is going to happen to food and rent prices once those supply chains figure out there is much more profit to be made? The Walton family alone has more wealth then the lower 42% rest of…

The Walton family alone has more wealth then the lower 42% rest of the USA. So do I, and so does almost anyone with a positive net worth.

That's 42% combined. They have more wealth than 42% of the rest of the population combined.

Re: A universal income is not such a silly idea

#49

Post by agilebyte » Thu, Nov 28, 2013, 2:29 PM UTC

LogicalBorg wrote: post #43

agilebyte wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But then the money has strings attached and you need to check whether people really comply (= cost). Basic income wants to avoid that by simplifying the welfare system assuming that most people do not want to simply be idle.

Simplifying the welfare system is a good idea, but my idea is more like gamifying the system and giving people rewards for doing good things. Simplicity is not the only virtue, what about tangible, measurable outcomes that have improved people's lives?

Some things are not immediately measurable? Who is going to decide what is worthy? I may take care of my community by planting pretty flowers all day (like in Minecraft), would that fit your criteria?

You try to gamify and I think people would game it instead.

Instead, basic income makes you free to figure out what is a worthy endeavour.

Re: A universal income is not such a silly idea

#50

Post by AJ007 » Thu, Nov 28, 2013, 2:30 PM UTC

ck2 wrote: post #12

It's not a silly idea at all but I like to think of myself as progressive and I think it is a very bad idea in reality vs on paper. Just look at how college costs magically rise to the availability of loans and grants. What do you think is going to happen to food and rent prices once those supply chains figure out there is much more profit to be made? The Walton family alone has more wealth then the lower 42% rest of…

I look at what happens when a geographic area experiences a blanket jump in income. Generally housing prices go up across the board.

Why? Because its the one item the broad population bids against each other on.

The more pessimistic will say the money will be spent on gambling, drugs, and alcohol.