Live data from Hacker News

A Dutch city is giving money away to test the basic income theory

qz.com

441–450 of 552 posts

Re: A Dutch city is giving money away to test the basic income theory

#441

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"If a government were to do that for everyone it seems pretty obvious that society will be better off - people will spend their time working on things to improve everyone's life rather than worrying about how to afford their rent." Looking at populations of people who have gone from being very poor to being very rich overnight does not support that statement. Most of the time the money is more of a curse than anythin…

The most galling implicit premise of all is that every proposal for basic income I've ever seen accepts that BI isn't practically feasible with open borders, and therefore nothing changes at all for the class of people who work the longest hours in the worst conditions (indeed their wage slavery becomes even more essential to ensuring future riders of the purple wage can still buy consumer goods) An argument for impl…

Your countrymen don't have to think about doing anything for it because their forebears and ancestors already thought about it, and already took the necessary steps so that later generations wouldn't have to.

They may have done it mainly for the benefit of their own heirs and successors, but now that it's done, it's done. All those improvements multiply, and Brits get more because it takes less individual effort to produce the same amount in the heavily-improved UK than in a country where improvements are more easily destroyed or converted. So anyone willing to obey British law, participate in the British economy (accept and spend pounds), respect British infrastructure, and assimilate into British culture should get more than the rest of the world, because those are the practices that allow Britain to be more productive than the world median.

A hedgerow along a country lane does not grow that way naturally. It takes an effort to force it. But once established, it just needs a regular trim and an occasional re-laying to keep the livestock out of the road. You just don't need to pull a new barbed wire fence in front of a blackthorn hedge, so why would anyone complain that no one is doing it?

The resources of the country are preferentially distributed to its own citizens because one country lacks the sovereign authority to force any other country to change its culture and institutions to be more productive. If those other countries wanted to be as prosperous as Britain, they could fork the British system, or selectively merge changes from it into their own repositories. See also: USA, Canada, Australia, New Zealand.

So those people aren't exactly thoughtlessly doing nothing. They are being British, as hard as they possibly can. And that allows the UK to have nice things like the NHS. In contrast, Americans, in being as American as possible, can only manage a hybrid public-private healthcare monstrosity that no one can examine too closely or for too long, because most of our psychiatric hospitals are cleverly disguised as prisons.

In light of that, there's really only one essential element that needs to go along with open borders. Assimilate the immigrants.

Re: A Dutch city is giving money away to test the basic income theory

#442

The basic income concept is intriguing to me (because it simplifies things) but I do not think it will work for this reason: Who administers the basic income? The government and by extension politicians. Once they have every single person who breathes on the dole, this will give them unbelievable leverage against the people. If the government is giving everyone a check, how hard is it to argue that the check should b…

> Besides that, asking any government to take money from the people, run it through the giant bureaucracy machine, and magically produce a net benefit to the people is both logically impossible and naturally never going to happen. So apparently the federal highway system isn't a net benefit? How about the internet? Also in more direct terms, the government "magically" made profits by bailing out AIG, GM, and so on --…

I think you're right that a lot of things like roads are a huge net benefit to everyone. But those are things, not money.

I don't claim to know what basic income would do, but I worry for the supply side of the equation. I used to work in a factory making windows. It was a terrible, terrible job and nobody would do it given a choice. So if everyone has the choice not to do it, what happens to the supply of goods like that?

While I'd like to believe that the job could be made good enough to be attractive somehow, I can't think of an amount of money that would make me agree to go back. This, of course, makes me wish we could free the people stuck doing that, but I wonder just how many goods there are like that? We're suddenly playing with the 'free rider' problem for our entire society. Sure, we can print enough money for everyone, but what happens when it's nothing but worthless paper because there's nothing to buy?

Re: A Dutch city is giving money away to test the basic income theory

#443
post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I imagine partitioning living NEEDS [housing, food, transportation] as an area of the economy with its own money/token/basic-income-credits system separate from the WANT economy of everything else.

Maybe, but there's strong evidence (from the field of macroeconomics) that allowing people to just receive money (rather than payments in kind) makes them even better off. Although you may fret about people using the money for bad things, in reality mostly they don't, but they are better at allocating resources than a central planner. Think of it this way, to the citizen who actually wants to be better off, would you…

They can also better fit their own needs. Maybe a smaller worse shelter wouldn't be an issue for them, but they would much prefer to have warmer clothing (smaller and warmer in comparison to peers in the same location). Maybe they forgo milk to buy even more lentils.

Re: A Dutch city is giving money away to test the basic income theory

#444
post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I imagine partitioning living NEEDS [housing, food, transportation] as an area of the economy with its own money/token/basic-income-credits system separate from the WANT economy of everything else.

I've thought about this, too but I can't figure out how you'd prevent those tokens from being bartered for more traditional currency outside of the necessary conversion by landlords and grocers and other providers. With ubiquitous computing now available to everyone we might be able to fully track that sub set of transactions with 'currency with state and history' as opposed to traditional 'dumb dollars' but I think…

It won't. The more industrious will barter at a gain while others will barter at a loss. Consider food stamps. Some will trade them $2 of stamps for $1 of cash. But others will buy food, cook and then sell the food, bringing in $2 dollars of cash for $1 of stamps.

Re: A Dutch city is giving money away to test the basic income theory

#445

The basic income concept is intriguing to me (because it simplifies things) but I do not think it will work for this reason: Who administers the basic income? The government and by extension politicians. Once they have every single person who breathes on the dole, this will give them unbelievable leverage against the people. If the government is giving everyone a check, how hard is it to argue that the check should b…

> asking any government to take money from the people [...] and magically produce a net benefit to the people is [...] impossible

But that happens already in the country where I live. People pay taxes, and via taxes, we are able to provide health care and university education to everyone. I like this system, and I'm one of them who pay taxes. It's good for me if everyone is well educated, and healthy.

Whether or not a basic income would work, depends on the number of citizens. Fairly few, and many efficient machines and robots that can do most of the hard work, then it'll work okay. Too many people, then basic income won't work I think. In the future, thanks to contraceptives, I think there won't be too many people.

Re: A Dutch city is giving money away to test the basic income theory

#446

Who are the groups driving all of the mentions of basic income/mincome on social media? Or is it a coincidence that we're seeing more and more discussion of the topic on places like reddit and HN? I'm genuinely curious to know how organic this topic is, versus whether or not there is a concerted effort to "get the word out".

Well, the developed world is in a crisis, with unemployment levels not seen since the inter-wars period. At the same time, robots are happening, and visibly so.

It would be strange if people weren't think about it.

Re: A Dutch city is giving money away to test the basic income theory

#447
post #442

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Besides that, asking any government to take money from the people, run it through the giant bureaucracy machine, and magically produce a net benefit to the people is both logically impossible and naturally never going to happen. So apparently the federal highway system isn't a net benefit? How about the internet? Also in more direct terms, the government "magically" made profits by bailing out AIG, GM, and so on --…

I think you're right that a lot of things like roads are a huge net benefit to everyone. But those are things, not money. I don't claim to know what basic income would do, but I worry for the supply side of the equation. I used to work in a factory making windows. It was a terrible, terrible job and nobody would do it given a choice. So if everyone has the choice not to do it, what happens to the supply of goods like…

If a job is so unpleasant that people will only do it to avoid abject poverty and its miseries then something is wrong with that job. Probably that window manufacturing job could have been much more pleasant given the right process changes, but the factory owner was not incentivized to try because they could find someone willing / forced to accept that job as it was. In essence, basic income does away with wage slavery, but that is a good thing. Those goods will still get made, but they won't get made in the same way. Though to be honest, most places will probably not bother making the job nicer and will just move it to somewhere where wage slavery is still legal.

Re: A Dutch city is giving money away to test the basic income theory

#448
post #419

The basic income concept is intriguing to me (because it simplifies things) but I do not think it will work for this reason: Who administers the basic income? The government and by extension politicians. Once they have every single person who breathes on the dole, this will give them unbelievable leverage against the people. If the government is giving everyone a check, how hard is it to argue that the check should b…

America will be about the last place to attempt this, if the past (and our current welfare) are any guide. It's an interesting concept. My immediate reaction is that it creates disincentives to work. In theory it does, but the only data we have is those who are currently on welfare and do not work -- but maybe those people were basically not going to work anyway! We have no competing group of people who are on welfar…

[deleted]

Re: A Dutch city is giving money away to test the basic income theory

#449
post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I imagine partitioning living NEEDS [housing, food, transportation] as an area of the economy with its own money/token/basic-income-credits system separate from the WANT economy of everything else.

The problem is the intractable dispute about what things should go into which category. Empirically, there has been a strong historical tendency to move things into the "NEED" category that were traditionally in the "WANT" category. For example, indoor plumbing was considered a grossly extravagant luxury for almost all of human history. Within the last hundred years, the richer societies have made laws (building code…

Progress will always shift things from "WANT" to "NEED".

If you want to play that game living past your 30's is a "WANT" rather than a "NEED". You probably won't find many people who think this particular "WANT" isn't a "NEED".

Re: A Dutch city is giving money away to test the basic income theory

#450
post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If a government were to do that for everyone it seems pretty obvious that society will be better off - people will spend their time working on things to improve everyone's life rather than worrying about how to afford their rent The incredulity of this is plainly galling. How does one draw a broad conclusion like that? Plenty of European examples abound where despite generous - some would argue very generous - state…

Benefits incentivize you to not work, because if you do, you lose benefits.

Poorly applied benefits do. If at any point, you lose $2 of benefits by earning $1 more, you are encouraged to not work harder. Of course there is a cap, such as if you earn $5,000 more you'll only lose $4,000, but people don't have the option to increase by $5,000 at a time and are stuck where working harder only earns you enough to cost even more in benefits than you earn, thus discouraging working harder.
Post reply on HN