Trends that will create demand for an Unconditional Basic Income • Hacker News Board

Re: Trends that will create demand for an Unconditional Basic Income

#571

Post by TeMPOraL » Thu, Jul 11, 2013, 11:02 PM UTC

cheald wrote: post #557

TeMPOraL wrote: post #549

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Do you have any particular examples we could analyze? I'd look at every job that is being replaced by a robot or a computer system. I can't give you a particular example in form of "job A replaced by robots, workers can't move anywhere else", because so far we've been very efficient at reallocating labor. Throughout last 200 years, people out-automated in agriculture moved to manufacturing; optimized out from there…

> I can't give you a particular example in form of "job A replaced by robots, workers can't move anywhere else", because so far we've been very efficient at reallocating labor. Surely it makes sense to be able to cite examples of how we are failing to reallocate labor before complaining that we're not able to reallocate labor.

You're right. I can give you a fair share of personal anecdotes and general social lore related to rising unemployment for STEM-or-finance-educated people. I can point to first principles and proofs by enumeration. I can't provide examples of "elimination of an entire class of human skill and subsequent failure to move labour up the skill ladder" because this transformation is - I believe - underway, not yet finished.

Regarding the "skill class elimination", as far as I have read, basic manufacturing is already done; i.e. it's not completely automated only because robots are still a bit more expensive than low-wage workers. But even in China this seems to be changing (in favour of robots).

Re: Trends that will create demand for an Unconditional Basic Income

#572

Post by Tichy » Thu, Jul 11, 2013, 11:02 PM UTC

zxcdw wrote: post #434

Tichy wrote: post #402

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The statement "people need to work 40 hours" is already obviously false. There are lots of people who don't need to work, because they already have more money than they could ever spend.

On which fields is it obviously false that the status quo is to work 40'ish hours per week?

You are rephrasing what I said in the wrong way. I didn't make a comment on the status quo, just on the notion that everybody has to work 40 hours.

Re: Trends that will create demand for an Unconditional Basic Income

#573

Post by aneth4 » Thu, Jul 11, 2013, 11:09 PM UTC

dragonwriter wrote: post #563

aneth4 wrote: post #548

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, "liberalised" as a general term doesn't mean anything, so I wouldn't say I "don't understand" it. The language is ambiguous, but you may be correct on second thought.

> Well, "liberalised" as a general term doesn't mean anything With economic policy, it always means reduced regulation in favor of increased reliance on mutual consent of the parties.

Well I'm all for that outside of safety, transparency, and abuse regulations.

Re: Trends that will create demand for an Unconditional Basic Income

#574

Post by TeMPOraL » Thu, Jul 11, 2013, 11:16 PM UTC

COOLIO5676 wrote: post #254

My vote goes toward less hours, and higher wages. it's another way of solving the same issues. Everyone could work half as much, for twice as much, and you still double employment.

This doesn't compute.

1/2 work * 2x wages * 2x employment = 8 * cost per unit of work done.

Re: Trends that will create demand for an Unconditional Basic Income

#575

Post by Nursie » Thu, Jul 11, 2013, 11:23 PM UTC

talmand wrote: post #554

Nursie wrote: post #512

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Investment in staff, research, equipment etc. tends to come out before profit calculations. So no.

If they don't use profits as part of their expansion plans, then how do they expand year-over-year without spending more money than the year before? If they spend more money than the year before then where did the extra money come from if not from the previous year's profits?

Make money, spend on expansion, staff, research etc. before end of tax year, it's not taxable profit, unless I've seriously missed something.

--edit-- this is exactly how amazon operated for a long time. They paid next to no tax because they reinvested everything.

Tax on profit does not tax business expansion, it taxes retained profit at the end of the tax period.

Re: Trends that will create demand for an Unconditional Basic Income

#576

Post by cheald » Thu, Jul 11, 2013, 11:23 PM UTC

TeMPOraL wrote: post #571

cheald wrote: post #557

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I can't give you a particular example in form of "job A replaced by robots, workers can't move anywhere else", because so far we've been very efficient at reallocating labor. Surely it makes sense to be able to cite examples of how we are failing to reallocate labor before complaining that we're not able to reallocate labor.

You're right. I can give you a fair share of personal anecdotes and general social lore related to rising unemployment for STEM-or-finance-educated people. I can point to first principles and proofs by enumeration. I can't provide examples of "elimination of an entire class of human skill and subsequent failure to move labour up the skill ladder" because this transformation is - I believe - underway, not yet finished…

Personal anecdotes and social lore make for pretty crappy science. I would love you to point me at first principles and proofs by enumeration.

What I see, in looking at the numbers published by the government, is that the number of jobs has been consistently tracking with labor force since they started measuring it in 1925. If automation were wrecking jobs and making people unemployable, I'd expect that the 20th century - the century in which the human race made more significant technological advances than during the rest of human history combined - to have resulted in a consistent decrease in percentage of the employed workforce. Instead, we see that no such widening has occurred. There is certainly an argument to be made that people are being forced out of factory jobs and into foodservice jobs or whatnot, but I can't see any empirical evidence for the assertion that we're actually innovating ourselves out of the opportunity to work.

Re: Trends that will create demand for an Unconditional Basic Income

#577

Post by dragonwriter » Thu, Jul 11, 2013, 11:45 PM UTC

bzbarsky wrote: post #452

oijaf888 wrote: post #282

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Seriously? What tax rate do you pay on your regular 40h a weke job? What tax rate do you pay on investments? Most people are taxed roughly 36% (28% income tax, 2% medicare, 6% social security) on their labor, however investments are only taxed at a flat 15%. Hence, the US disproportionately taxes labor over investments. Do you have other evidence that shows that investment income is in-fact taxed higher than labor in…

> (28% income tax, 2% medicare, 6% social security) This year, the 28% tax bracket for a single individual stars at $87,850 taxable income. The Social Security cap is $113,700, and the Social Security tax is levied on all income below this. The individual standard deduction is $6100 and the personal exemption is $3900. That means that for an individual, a 28% income tax rate means income is above $97,850 while paying…

> That means that for an individual, a 28% income tax rate means income is above $97,850

Actually, its a lot higher than that, because marginal rates aren't overall rates.

Re: Trends that will create demand for an Unconditional Basic Income

#578

Post by dragonwriter » Thu, Jul 11, 2013, 11:53 PM UTC

jerf wrote: post #482

dasil003 wrote: post #460

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think you're overweighting the relative influence BI can exert. Introducing BI as a tiny fraction of GDP does not make existing financial power structures disappear. Existing wealth will still wield the same influence it always has. There will be plenty of lobbyists to push back against corporate tax hikes, there will still be the usual capitalist incentives to start a business and increase production, the American…

"Introducing BI as a tiny fraction of GDP" OK, yes, but what's going to keep it a tiny fraction of the GDP? The BI's natural "lobbying organzation" is the entire public ... not even the entire voting public, but the entire public. No current structures have that characteristic. For almost the entire population, $10,000 is a lot of money . Even people making $150,000/year are going to still appreciate $10,000, and we'…

> OK, yes, but what's going to keep it a tiny fraction of the GDP? The BI's natural "lobbying organzation" is the entire public...

Er, no, its not. The natural lobbying organization is the people whose have an expected positive net utility from an increased BI. That's not the entire public, as both increased public debt and increased taxation have negative consequences for members of the public. (And as, empirically, its been shown that increased income has a declining, and beyond a certain point, immeasurably small contribution to experience utility.)

> You have to think about the 18th year, when people who have never lived in a regime other than having BI exist start voting themselves. Are they going to understand that it's a bad idea to listen to the politicians promising to make it larger?

Sure. They'll probably understand the effects of BI level changes a lot better than people in the first year do.

Re: Trends that will create demand for an Unconditional Basic Income

#579

Post by dllthomas » Thu, Jul 11, 2013, 11:58 PM UTC

ppereira wrote: post #536

dllthomas wrote: post #474

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Put it in a structure where it doesn't take a simple majority vote to raise (real) BI. Let's say the US did it with a constitutional amendment, for instance.

A basic income is much more like a change in tax rates. In fact, the existing Earned Income Tax Credit is already much like a basic income for a certain segment of the population. Requiring a constitutional amendment would create much too high a barrier. One often needs a revolution to make a constitutional amendment. I don't think we want to go there.

If by "go there" you mean revolution, I agree - we don't want to go there.

In terms of whether the US could legally establish a BI without constitutional amendment, I am inclined to agree that it's allowed.

I think there is some argument for avoiding a simple majoritarian decision for how the rate is determined; I am not certain whether it is a sufficient one, but I don't think there's reason it shouldn't be part of the discussion, and constitutional amendment is the most secure process to elevate something above majority rule in the US.

I disagree that it "often takes a revolution" to amend the US constitution - if there is enough popular support that amending by that means would be practical, amending without it should be - and indeed, only twice of the 17 times we've amended the constitution has it involved a revolution (once successful, once unsuccessful).

Re: Trends that will create demand for an Unconditional Basic Income

#580

Post by dllthomas » Fri, Jul 12, 2013, 12:37 AM UTC

dragonwriter wrote: post #560

jerf wrote: post #392

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is my biggest concern with the idea, which I don't see being addressed (checked the entire conversation on this post to date). I don't think having the vote and having the basic income is compatible with each other. Why aren't people going to vote themselves larger basic incomes every year? How can you both have the (modern conception of the) vote, and a basic income at the same time? Attempts to answer this que…

> I don't think having the vote and having the basic income is compatible with each other. Why aren't people going to vote themselves larger basic incomes every year? The same reasons that people vote themselves lower taxes every year, though they do vote themselves lower taxes sometimes: 1. We don't have a direct democracy, so people don't vote for policies directly; 2. Quite a lot of people, even if they can't anal…

"Mostly, this involves relying on an electorate that is largely composed of at least modestly responsible adults, rather than infants that gorge themselves on candy without limit given the opportunity without thought of the consequences."

Sometimes I'm not very confident we have that; but that's not really an argument against BI specifically as democracy in general...