Live data from Hacker News

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

qz.com

541–550 of 552 posts

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

#541
post #326

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is not how economics works. There are supply curves and there are demand curves, then there is the quantity supplied and quantity demanded. If the demand for a product shifts up (increases) due to basic income, then the quantity demanded increases. Then inventories of that product decrease, indicating that the firms could start producing more and still be able to sell it. They do this, but there costs go up, sin…

> assuming they are producing with increasing marginal costs, which is generally true The norm is marginal production costs decreasing with scale. The usual exception to it is when those costs stay constant. Unitary costs increasing with scale isn't unheard of, but it's also not common in any way.

Up to a certain point, yes. But, in the short term, firms must increase their production by, say, hiring more workers. They might now have a less optimal worker/capital ratio which would increase their per unit costs. In the long run, their costs are flatter but still could eventually increase with quantity, imagine they're using all the resources locally available and have to start importing from somewhere else, that's going to increase costs.

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

#542

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Very likely. Think of how uncommon household servants are today compared to before the industrial revolution. Now only the super-rich have them, as a rule. The rest of us get by with automation (washing machines, vacuum cleaners), with the occasional hiring of a temporary "servant" when neccessary (e.g., calling a cab compared to having a dedicated chauffeur, or having a landscaper or cleaning service come in once in…

I'm almost certain household servants have always been for the rich. I'm curious what makes you think otherwise?

No, middle-class people had servants back then. It wasn't just the rich.

The lower class, of course, largely were servants.

The industrial revolution opened up other avenues for employment.

Edit: see, for example, http://www.bl.uk/victorian-britain/articles/the-victorian-mi...

"A middle class woman was entirely dependent on a supply of domestic servants, ranging from the untrained ‘slavey’ to a staff of several highly trained specialists."

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

#543
post #282

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Good point! More stay at home parents is another benefit of BI that I haven't even thought of yet. I get more sold on this idea the more I read about it.

Who is going to pick up the trash, bake bread, repair your car, build your house, build streets, build cars on an assembly line? Less and less people. And less people producing, means less people consuming. Your BI won't be able to support you for very long because prices will increase (less supply). It won't take long before your economy is screwed.

I thought BI was mainly a response to the question "What will we do when most menial jobs are automated with better AI?". Tech that could pick up trash, bake bread, repair your car (If owning a car even makes since at that point in the future).. etc. Honestly its all speculation right now. I think its cool that they are doing this experiment right now, but they may be jumping the gun. However, I also think its jumping the gun to assume it will never work.

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

#544

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When technology automates the all the worthwhile jobs, should we be paid to dig holes and bury them back up?

What kind of fantasy world do you live in where you think technology will automate all jobs? If it happens I can assure you it won't be within your lifetime or your children's lifetime. Also why would I pay you to dig a hole and bury it? Are we really so dense that we have to give people free money and not find them anything to do? No. I believe humanity is greater than that. I have a dream about a world where we all…

Never said all jobs would be automated in my lifetime. I'm thinking long term (1000 years). And maybe we won't automate all the jobs, but the only jobs left are ones only a few people can do.

Though mowing the lawn... that could be automated today.

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

#545
post #533
post #391

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because right now, people are forced to work in order to survive. Meaning they have to take the shitty jobs for shitty pay because that's what they can get. If you remove the forced to work part, then they can be more selective.

Being force to work is not the same as the need to work to fulfill personal needs and goals. That is one key difference between slaves and early farmers.

Perhaps. However, currently, people are forced to work. You need a job in order to pay for a roof over your head and food in your stomach.

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

#546
post #372

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cutting all the programs needed to enable basic income would mean most public servants would lose their jobs.

I'm talking about elected officials.

The vast majority of bureaucrats are not elected officials

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

#547
post #545
post #533

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Being force to work is not the same as the need to work to fulfill personal needs and goals. That is one key difference between slaves and early farmers.

Perhaps. However, currently, people are forced to work. You need a job in order to pay for a roof over your head and food in your stomach.

This "force" to work is even stronger if you aim for a Helicopter. Helicopters are so expensive, they force you really hard.

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

#548
post #547
post #545

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perhaps. However, currently, people are forced to work. You need a job in order to pay for a roof over your head and food in your stomach.

This "force" to work is even stronger if you aim for a Helicopter. Helicopters are so expensive, they force you really hard.

I'm talking about the basic necessities of life. Whether you choose to admit it or not, one is forced to have a job in order to provide basic shelter, clothing, and food for ones self and family.

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

#549
post #548
post #547

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This "force" to work is even stronger if you aim for a Helicopter. Helicopters are so expensive, they force you really hard.

I'm talking about the basic necessities of life. Whether you choose to admit it or not, one is forced to have a job in order to provide basic shelter, clothing, and food for ones self and family.

I know what you are talking about, but: The term "force" is utterly missplaced in this scenario. ..also: Most in the civilized world have broad welfare benefits for those who decide not to work.

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

#550
post #543

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who is going to pick up the trash, bake bread, repair your car, build your house, build streets, build cars on an assembly line? Less and less people. And less people producing, means less people consuming. Your BI won't be able to support you for very long because prices will increase (less supply). It won't take long before your economy is screwed.

I thought BI was mainly a response to the question "What will we do when most menial jobs are automated with better AI?". Tech that could pick up trash, bake bread, repair your car (If owning a car even makes since at that point in the future).. etc. Honestly its all speculation right now. I think its cool that they are doing this experiment right now, but they may be jumping the gun. However, I also think its jumpin…

Yes indeed you are correct, I forgot about that. But in such a case I think it's still a good idea to own plenty of those robots or be able to do something that a robot can't :).
Post reply on HN