Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The latest experiment in basic income will be coming to Stockton, California

theatlantic.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 120 posts

Re: The latest experiment in basic income will be coming to Stockton, California

#61

Post by erentz »

Tyrek wrote: post #58
ChuckMcM wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If I am understanding your argument, it is a sort of 'thermodynamics' argument against UBI. It argues that there exists a fixed supply of capital and that transfer payments funded by taxes are always counter balanced by an increases in prices to keep capital supplies in balance. If that isn't a correct interpretation of your argument, then the rest of this won't make a lot of sense. The reason this sort of thermodyna…

No, it's an inflation argument against UBI. If everyone has more money, everyone becomes less sensitive to increases in prices, and therefore prices rise into the new equilibrium. (Increase in demand without a corresponding increase in supply leads to an increase in the price level, in intro microeconomics-ese). Now, the price level may not rise to the exact level where it cancels out the entire UBI, but that's based…

But that suggest prices are set by the available cash flow. Which means without other factors if we just lower everyone’s wages to zero everything will be free. Obviously this isn’t the case. Also it completely ignores supply and demand. Under UBI someone will raise their price to take more profit... but then no one will step in and compete because they see an ability to offer the product/service more efficiently.

Seems this inflation argument against UBI has obvious limits. Maybe it could cause some but it can’t be a linear relationship as people like the parent argue.

Re: The latest experiment in basic income will be coming to Stockton, California

#62

Post by jaibot »

truxus wrote: post #45
jaibot wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nothing is free - someone is paying for it. When you give people specific things instead of money, you're taking choices away from them, insisting that you know what they need better than they do. If you give people money, they can decide what they need most and go do that. Maybe I don't need housing because I can live with relatives and use my money for education. If you insist on free housing instead, you take that…

What if you decide to fund a self-destructive addiction? Or send the money to a foreign country? Is that in the public interest?

Letting people make mistakes is important. Letting people be altruistic is important.

More specifically: I'm 0% worried about sending money overseas, since I expect that the few people who do so that will be making the world a better place on net.

Re: The latest experiment in basic income will be coming to Stockton, California

#63

Post by erentz »

stult wrote: post #28
rothbardrand wrote: post #3

One of the things about UBI is that these pilot programs aren't UBI, because they aren't universal. Giving a segment of the population free money is going to benefit that segment, no question. Welfare and Quantitative Easing are both examples of that. But when you make it universal, my economics intuition says that the effect will be washed out by a commensurate rise in prices. Or put another way, you can subsidize t…

Well, you're not giving UBI to everyone. Just the people who don't earn more than UBI level. For everyone else, UBI becomes like the standard deduction under the current US system.

No. You give UBI to everyone. And you also tax everyone’s income, usually with a flat tax.

Re: The latest experiment in basic income will be coming to Stockton, California

#64

Post by erentz »

navigator01 wrote: post #55
rothbardrand wrote: post #3

One of the things about UBI is that these pilot programs aren't UBI, because they aren't universal. Giving a segment of the population free money is going to benefit that segment, no question. Welfare and Quantitative Easing are both examples of that. But when you make it universal, my economics intuition says that the effect will be washed out by a commensurate rise in prices. Or put another way, you can subsidize t…

I'm glad this is the top comment, because I don't often see common sense critiques of UBI that acknowledge price adjustment. We can't just print money, that is obviously going to fail as it always does. So... Will we try to implement UBI with wealth transfers? Taxing the rich and giving to the poor? That seems to be the only alternative to printing money, meaning that UBI is not an innovative idea whatsoever. It's ju…

Of course you don’t print money. You tax everyone more. And you give everyone a share of that tax.

> UBI is not an innovative idea whatsoever.

It’s not claimed to be. The idea is literally hundreds of years old and is pretty well understood. There seem to be a lot who are just coming across it and applying lazy thinking and biases to it and mostly getting it wrong.

Re: The latest experiment in basic income will be coming to Stockton, California

#65

Post by FooHentai »

erentz wrote: post #61
Tyrek wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, it's an inflation argument against UBI. If everyone has more money, everyone becomes less sensitive to increases in prices, and therefore prices rise into the new equilibrium. (Increase in demand without a corresponding increase in supply leads to an increase in the price level, in intro microeconomics-ese). Now, the price level may not rise to the exact level where it cancels out the entire UBI, but that's based…

But that suggest prices are set by the available cash flow. Which means without other factors if we just lower everyone’s wages to zero everything will be free. Obviously this isn’t the case. Also it completely ignores supply and demand. Under UBI someone will raise their price to take more profit... but then no one will step in and compete because they see an ability to offer the product/service more efficiently. Se…

>But that suggest prices are set by the available cash flow. Which means without other factors if we just lower everyone’s wages to zero everything will be free. Obviously this isn’t the case.

Prices can rise above cost, as long as someone will keep paying for it, But prices can only drop until the seller loses their incentive to sell, at which point the product/service will be withdrawn from sale.

Re: The latest experiment in basic income will be coming to Stockton, California

#66

Post by rhizome »

aaron-lebo wrote: post #13
ThrustVectoring wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>you can't subsidize the many at their own expense and have it result in a positive effect. You can if it changes local incentives to cause a better overall outcome. For example, a tragedy-of-the-commons situation can be improved by having each over-user give up their share of use to a monopolist whose subsidies replace the lost income. This is explicitly one of the goals of replacing the current social safety nets w…

Sorry to be annoying on this topic, but: This is explicitly one of the goals of replacing the current social safety nets with UBI. UBI can't replace social safety nets. It's impossible. 12k for every adult is 3 trillion dollars, which almost always assumes cutting other programs. What about healthcare? I bet most would rather have comprehensive health coverage instead of 12k every year, but you can't have both. In th…

It's pretty simple the way I see it: the military and associated agencies are ripe for a budget cut.

Re: The latest experiment in basic income will be coming to Stockton, California

#67

Post by telchar »

truxus wrote: post #40

The problem with UBI is that it doesn't promote social behavior. In fact it promotes anti-social behavior, since a UBI recipient need not provide any value to his community as a condition of this benefit. Charity is not a legitimate role for government.

Making desperate people less desperate can be pro-social. UBI could drive down the crime rate.

Also you're assuming all paid jobs are pro-social. Is coal mining? Advertising? SEO for MLM firms? Lobbying for kleptocratic foreign governments? Some of these may have some positive effects but may be net negative in their effect on society.

Finally, I disagree that charity isn't a legitimate role for government. Since neither of us is the arbiter of government legitimacy I think we can agree to disagree here.

Re: The latest experiment in basic income will be coming to Stockton, California

#68

Post by krapp »

truxus wrote: post #40

The problem with UBI is that it doesn't promote social behavior. In fact it promotes anti-social behavior, since a UBI recipient need not provide any value to his community as a condition of this benefit. Charity is not a legitimate role for government.

> a UBI recipient need not provide any value to his community as a condition of this benefit

A person working for a paycheck doesn't provide value to a community, only to their employer. Chronic unemployment, however, does harm a community. The explicit physical need for food, shelter and access to medical care outweighs the implicit value in the dignity of labor.

> Charity is not a legitimate role for government.

Don't consider it charity, then, consider it insurance, or just another public service like the police or fire department.

Re: The latest experiment in basic income will be coming to Stockton, California

#70

Post by njarboe »

jonreem wrote: post #26
mechagodzilla wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I disagree with your premise that doubling the number of dollars everyone has would simply double prices. If you take someone that has $1 million in the bank, and magically make that $2 million, they almost certainly won't double all of their expenditures (they probably wouldn't change what they spend at all on a wide variety of categories - food or clothing, for instance). Rising inequality means that lack of demand…

While the now $2 millionaire would not be likely to spend that extra million on food and clothing they would be extremely likely to invest that money in a variety of financial instruments, making that capital available in the market so it can be put to good use. Investing does help inject value into the economy and drive growth - "sitting on it" would require literally keeping it in cash in a bank, which no sane pers…

"sitting on it" would require literally keeping it in cash in your safe. If put "in a bank", unless you mean a safety deposit box, is (to some approximation, in theory, in the not to distant past, maybe) reinvested by the bank. That is how the bank makes money.
Post reply on HN