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

UBI as a productivity dividend

scottsantens.substack.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 278 posts

Re: UBI as a productivity dividend

#61

Post by steve-atx-7600 »

wartywhoa23 wrote: post #13

Communists shared alright 110 years ago in Russia, tens of millions of people failed to cope with that much prosperity and wellbeing, and then even more with unbearable freedom and peace.

I think folks may not realize that communism was more popular in the early 20th century US just because of how desperate a lot of the population became without any safety nets at all provided by the government. Educated proponents genuinely wanted to improve the plight of other folks. But, where it was practiced it became just a worse kind of power and resource monopoly - concentrated in the government instead of among a minority of robber barren types. I think the learning is you have to never stop pushing for no entity to have too much power - not the government and not private sector monopolies.

Re: UBI as a productivity dividend

#62

Post by SequoiaHope »

The goal we all seek - liberation - is a distant one. That said I’m skeptical that UBI is the right way. UBI assumes and requires an elite ownership class and a powerful state to force them to share their profits. But as we’ve seen, such class members will organize to penetrate the state and contort it for their own ends. Thus any successful UBI will be a compromise or it will be dismantled by the powerful class that owns the economy.

In my mind, only community ownership of the means of production can truly achieve what we desire. Of course with all distant goals, it is hard to see how we get there. And to be clear I do not mean state ownership.

But I am curious, on my basic point of elite capture of the state, does that make sense?

I am struck that TFA’s title says UBI is “the only way to share”, amusing to me since literally directly sharing is another way. I understand we all have spooky ideas of what that means, but think for example of the concept of library economies. You borrow what you need, but you don’t own it nor have the right to destroy it. We share.

Re: UBI as a productivity dividend

#63

Post by PaulDavisThe1st »

SequoiaHope wrote: post #62

The goal we all seek - liberation - is a distant one. That said I’m skeptical that UBI is the right way. UBI assumes and requires an elite ownership class and a powerful state to force them to share their profits. But as we’ve seen, such class members will organize to penetrate the state and contort it for their own ends. Thus any successful UBI will be a compromise or it will be dismantled by the powerful class that…

> UBI assumes and requires an elite ownership class and a powerful state to force them to share their profits.

It makes no assumption about an elite ownership class at all. It merely assumes profits, and rearranges how those profits are distributed (away from shareholders, towards labor). There is no need for community ownership of the means of production (though that might have some different benefits, along with some different disadvantages).

You need high marginal (or maybe not even marginal) corporate taxes and a committment to the concept of UBI. Who owns the companies, from the perspective of UBI, is immaterial.

Community ownership does not share the productivity in sector A with workers in sector B. UBI does.

Re: UBI as a productivity dividend

#64

Post by PaulDavisThe1st »

estearum wrote: post #26
alpaca128 wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If UBI is so high that people can afford paying extra without working for it then maybe, but I don't think that is the idea behind UBI. There still needs to be an incentive for people to work, they should just be in a place where they actually have a choice instead of living in survival mode every day.

Doesn't matter at all how much it is. It'll be (almost entirely or entirely) eaten by landlords. I am a landlord. I am setting prices for renewal. I have come to learn that 100% of my possible customer base now has $200/mo more to spend. I raise prices $200/mo with absolute certainty that I will find a renter. Congrats, mission accomplished.

I am a progessive state government.

I am considering legislation for the next fiscal year.

I have come to learn that 100% of private landlords have increased their rents by the full amount of the UBI we introduced last year.

I ban private rentals and/or private ownership of homes and/or introduce strict rent control policies (depending on precisely how progressive we're feeling this year).

Congrats, mission accomplished.

Re: UBI as a productivity dividend

#65

Post by lenkite »

chr1 wrote: post #60
estearum wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Doesn't matter at all how much it is. It'll be (almost entirely or entirely) eaten by landlords. I am a landlord. I am setting prices for renewal. I have come to learn that 100% of my possible customer base now has $200/mo more to spend. I raise prices $200/mo with absolute certainty that I will find a renter. Congrats, mission accomplished.

That extra 200 will also allow some people to move to a rural area, decreasing demand, which means you won't find a renter.

This - since you can live in a rural area with UBI - and you get more time in the day to manage your accommodations, the move to urban housing is not so critical.

Re: UBI as a productivity dividend

#66

Post by PaulDavisThe1st »

estimator7292 wrote: post #52
SoftTalker wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do you control what other landlords do? Why won't any undercut you by $200 and get your tenants?

Because tenants are not scarce. If you cut your prices, you lose $200/mo forever. If you simply follow the maximum market price and wait, someone will fill your room eventually and you have them locked into a higher rate forever. Competition doesn't work for necessities. Someone will rent your room at any price because it's necessary for survival. One of the major crises of our time is the fact that there are more pe…

Everything you've written here presupposes a housing shortage.

Fixing the housing shortage is a central tenet of progressive policies (regardless of whether or not they may ever actually accomplish this).

Re: UBI as a productivity dividend

#67

Post by estearum »

PaulDavisThe1st wrote: post #64
estearum wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Doesn't matter at all how much it is. It'll be (almost entirely or entirely) eaten by landlords. I am a landlord. I am setting prices for renewal. I have come to learn that 100% of my possible customer base now has $200/mo more to spend. I raise prices $200/mo with absolute certainty that I will find a renter. Congrats, mission accomplished.

I am a progessive state government. I am considering legislation for the next fiscal year. I have come to learn that 100% of private landlords have increased their rents by the full amount of the UBI we introduced last year. I ban private rentals and/or private ownership of homes and/or introduce strict rent control policies (depending on precisely how progressive we're feeling this year). Congrats, mission accomplis…

Yes! Excellent work. Now there is no incentive for anyone to build housing for our growing population!

Re: UBI as a productivity dividend

#68

Post by PaulDavisThe1st »

randerson wrote: post #24
SoftTalker wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It would not be inflationary if it's paid for with a tax on real value or income. Maybe somewhat inefficient, and prone to political meddling, but it's not introducing new money into the economy. If it's just printed money, it would be.

It would be in a sense, because that money is otherwise mostly hoarded by the wealthy, whose spending would look the same whether or not they are taxed. If money is saved and not spent, it is not really part of the economy in this sense. But if the money is transferred to others and spent on additional goods & services that is when it increases demand and raises prices.

Ah yes, the old "we should actually be grateful to the ultra-rich, because by not spending all the financial resources they accumulate, they save us from inflation!"

Re: UBI as a productivity dividend

#69

Post by estearum »

chr1 wrote: post #60
estearum wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Doesn't matter at all how much it is. It'll be (almost entirely or entirely) eaten by landlords. I am a landlord. I am setting prices for renewal. I have come to learn that 100% of my possible customer base now has $200/mo more to spend. I raise prices $200/mo with absolute certainty that I will find a renter. Congrats, mission accomplished.

That extra 200 will also allow some people to move to a rural area, decreasing demand, which means you won't find a renter.

Yes if you simply assert an upside down reality, this is a good solution.

However, people actually move toward higher COL areas as their income permits them to.

If more income meant people moved away from high COL areas, cities wouldn't exist. We'd have a flat distribution of people across approximately all land with ultra-low COL and ultra-low productivity everywhere.

Re: UBI as a productivity dividend

#70

Post by Anon1096 »

estimator7292 wrote: post #52
SoftTalker wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do you control what other landlords do? Why won't any undercut you by $200 and get your tenants?

Because tenants are not scarce. If you cut your prices, you lose $200/mo forever. If you simply follow the maximum market price and wait, someone will fill your room eventually and you have them locked into a higher rate forever. Competition doesn't work for necessities. Someone will rent your room at any price because it's necessary for survival. One of the major crises of our time is the fact that there are more pe…

You're failing to explain what dictates the price the market will bear.

> Why don't landlords undercut one another? They literally don't have to. The only outcome is less profit. You'll find a tenant eventually, at any price.

is very obviously not true, otherwise prices right now would be effectively infinite. Why are prices for an apartment in SF only 3k/mo instead of 30k? Surely under your reasoning a landlord could just wait and get a tenant at any price they set?

The answer is always supply and demand. As long as the supply is constrained or demand goes up faster the price will rise. But UBI doesn't change that math at all. (I say this as someone not actually a fan of UBI)

Post reply on HN