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

471–480 of 840 posts

Re: A Basic Income Should Be the Next Big Thing

#471

Post by Spooky23 »

TheCoelacanth wrote: post #438
Spooky23 wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's already happening. I pay the guy mowing my lawn as much as the 40th percentile IT or programmer working at my company.

Do you give him the salary and benefits of a 40th percentile programmer and pay all of his expenses in addition to that? Do you pay him as much as the billable rate of a 40th percentile programmer? I doubt either one. To compare a full-time employee's hourly wage to an hourly billable rate you will generally want to multiply the hourly wage by about 2.

His average is about $60/hr. Plenty of IT full time, W2 contractors are billed at $45/hr fully loaded.

Re: A Basic Income Should Be the Next Big Thing

#472

Post by skybrian »

clarkmoody wrote: post #456
criley2 wrote: post #444

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Poster is crazy to think liberals will EVER support a hugely regressive tax scheme. Consumption taxes destroy the middle class by acting as vehicle to transport wealth from the middle to the ultrawealthy, which makes it surprising that people continue to suggest it. Now perhaps a consumption tax combined with a large capital gains tax and inheritance tax -- to keep taxes going in the oligarchs economy AND the regular…

What about the consumption taxes we have on the books? Gas tax? Hugely regressive. Wouldn't liberals support additional carbon taxes? Value-added tax? Wouldn't those continue to "destroy the middle class"? What about the tax of inflation that serves to redistribute wealth from savers to debtors? (middle class -> government) Also interesting how you know better than others how they should arrange their financial lives…

It depends. If the proceeds from the carbon tax get paid out equally to all citizens (similar to basic income) then it's not regressive.

Re: A Basic Income Should Be the Next Big Thing

#473

Post by octobyte »

weddpros wrote: post #116
arximboldi wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know if that would actually be the case, but if it were, the question would be: is it actually a bad thing? I don't see any moral justification for a software engineer earning more than someone collecting waste [1]. In fact, it is normal that as our society gets more educated and the supply of unskilled workers goes down, a lot of hard manual labor will become expensive. This is already the case with mining,…

"I don't see any moral justification for a software engineer earning more than someone collecting waste" That's because moral justification isn't at the center of our society. The market is. Many attempts have been made to switch from the market to something else, not many were brilliant. The "lucky historical accident" you cite isn't one... It's just the way our society was built. Also you could argue on many differ…

> To me, long studies meant delayed enjoyment of life, less freedom until 23, etc... You get less immediately, more later.

What do you think life is like if you choose to skip postsecondary education? In most cases, it's straight into a factory/manual labor job that is much more physically (and in many cases mentally and emotionally) draining than your standard white-collar coding job.

To characterize those who choose education as having less in the near term seems to ignore what modern universities have become: in America at least, it's basically a secular rumspringa, wherein students dabble in drugs, sex, and other "counter culture" in addition to their studies. This may not be the experience of every CS student (perhaps due to the field's gender inequality and the number of introverted personalities), but it's just a gross misrepresentation to state that choosing further education means less freedom and enjoyment of your life and you should be rewarded thusly.

Re: A Basic Income Should Be the Next Big Thing

#474

Post by bernawil »

jhall1468 wrote: post #323
bane wrote: post #277

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Your entire theory is based on the idea that the labor market will decrease AND it will decrease so substantially that all markets will have to increase prices to a 1:1 ratio with the new UBI. Sounds more like fantasy than economics.

Yeah, same argument raises every time is time to discuss minimum wage.

Fact is, labor is not 100% of the cost.

If UBI makes HALF of the worforce quit -which is not very likely- salaries wouldn't go up 100%. So it's not a 1:1 ratio.

Re: A Basic Income Should Be the Next Big Thing

#475

Post by ThrustVectoring »

brightball wrote: post #236
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…

To make it work you'd have to take whatever the amount is and extract it from all other government benefit programs. You get $700 / month from the government for basic income. Your social security, welfare, unemployment, disability, etc is reduced by $700 / month. Reducing all of those programs by the first $700 would effectively gut each of them enough to finally make some reforms without inducing panic in everyone…

IMO social security is too much of a hot button issue to touch. I'd market UBI as "social security for everyone" - that sets both the level that people get, and neatly removes the issue of giving both UBI and social security to retirees.

Re: A Basic Income Should Be the Next Big Thing

#476

Post by skybrian »

throwanem wrote: post #391
brightball wrote: post #236

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To make it work you'd have to take whatever the amount is and extract it from all other government benefit programs. You get $700 / month from the government for basic income. Your social security, welfare, unemployment, disability, etc is reduced by $700 / month. Reducing all of those programs by the first $700 would effectively gut each of them enough to finally make some reforms without inducing panic in everyone…

> You get $700 / month from the government for basic income. I thought the idea was that it be enough to live on.

Doesn't have to be. You could start it out any level. That might be better, giving the system time to adjust.

Re: A Basic Income Should Be the Next Big Thing

#477

Post by vlunkr »

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…

Can someone explain to me how a true basic income would be expected to work? If you're not excluding anyone, where does this massive amount of money come from? I suppose it has to be taxed out of the wealthy? So they still receive the income but pay it back in taxes? This is an honest inquiry.

Yes you can save money by cutting these programs, but that argument doesn't add up for me yet because you still have to pay EVERY person in the country. (or is it every adult)

Re: A Basic Income Should Be the Next Big Thing

#478

Post by JonFish85 »

morgante wrote: post #428
notahacker wrote: post #272

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Designed to /= actually will There are plenty of campaigners on the left - the UK Green Party is an example - that openly campaign for a BI in addition to most of the state benefits that already exist. And when it comes to implementation details, it's quite hard to believe that many left wing proponents actually would take the "well if the BI isn't enough for you to afford your social housing once we sell it off, may…

Any bill to introduce UBI would almost certainly have to include the elimination of existing programs to get passed. I don't dispute that many liberals would like to have UBI and the existing benefits (despite that being economically crippling). They're just extremely unlikely to get their way.

There is absolutely no way you could get rid of all of the other programs. If someone is irresponsible with their money (and there will be at least some), I doubt anyone wants families starving in the streets, which is kind of the way a bunch of the current programs are set up (at least in the US).

Re: A Basic Income Should Be the Next Big Thing

#479

Post by SapphireSun »

varjag wrote: post #257
adrianN wrote: post #234

Earlier quoted context omitted.

UBI should increase periodically; tied to economic growth.

Does that imply it should be decreased with economic recessions too? Myself I don't really see any long term social solution other than UBI as well. But there are plenty of rough corners like that..

Generally no (because it's a stimulus that can get the economy back on track by creating demand), but maybe yes in some very rare cases of deflation. However, most of the time governments can prevent deflation by printing money. We try to hit an inflation target of about 2% so it's very very unlikely we'd ever decrease it.

Japan did (does?) have a problem they couldn't print themselves out of called a liquidity trap. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liquidity_trap It happened to us in 2008 and continues to be a problem.

Disclaimer: Not a real economist.

Re: A Basic Income Should Be the Next Big Thing

#480

Post by sosuke »

fucking_tragedy wrote: post #402
newjersey wrote: post #284

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, I'd rather we raise the basic income for every adult enough to the point where the adult can support themselves and ONE (1) child at least for bare necessities like food and shelter. For what it is worth, I don't think anyone sane would have kids to get money. In fact, you couldn't pay me to have children and raise them. I know what a shitty brat I've been and I'm sure if God or karma exists, I'll get an equally…

Unfortunately, the racist caricature of the 'welfare queen' who will go out of her way to work 24/7 for 18+ years for welfare benefits that equate to less than the pay of a part time job has been used to drive conservatives to the polls since the 1980's. It's well cemented in the public consciousness as a result, so you'll see it trotted out whenever monetary benefits are proposed to help children.

The key is to arguing that it is a minor drain on the proposed system and appeal to the moral high ground. Don't deny all the good people help because you want to deny a few bad people help. There will always be leeches on any system.

No idea at all how to do that though.

Post reply on HN