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

Moving Forward on Basic Income

blog.ycombinator.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

641–650 of 1001 posts

Re: Moving Forward on Basic Income

#641

Post by BraveNewCurency »

Jemaclus wrote: post #120

There's a lot of skepticism about basic income, especially when it comes to how does it save money? The top comment as of this writing is questioning it: > But riddle me this: what do you do when someone on BI has a financial emergency or, as will happen with some regularity, just flat-out blows all their money and now can't afford rent and/or food? Do you tell them "tough shit, you've exhausted all your social safet…

> I'm not an economist, and I don't know the ins and outs of basic income, but that one throwaway page in The Expanse made me think a lot about what I think basic income should look like... and I don't think it should look like a monthly check.

1) If Basic Income is doled out slowly (say every week or every day as a credit card), then it's nearly impossible for someone to die from starvation. Should we also take away their knives just in case they commit suicide some other way?

2) The idea you mention is not "Basic Income", it's something else. And the major problem with that "something else" is: Who gets to decide what level of shelter is "good enough for basic"? Who decides what quality of t-shirt is "good enough"? Who decides which level of Ramen is "good enough"?

Having the government (or even a company) decide what products millions of people should get is Communism. It's pretty obvious that everyone getting these products will be unhappy with them. (Some people will think they are too cheap, others will think they are too expensive. But few people will be "happy" about it.)

Basic Income is giving everyone some money and letting people spend their money as they wish, just like Capitalism. Companies are forced to read the market and adjust their products to answer new demands. If they don't, some other company gets the dollars. Heck, science tells us that even if people choose to buy the exact same products as in the above paragraph, the people who choose it will be happier because they got to choose.

Everyone will choose to make their own trade-offs. In fact, some people will choose "cheap everything" in order to save up money. With their saved money, they can purchase "Luxury" items. So all companies benefit, not just the low-end.

For example, someone can choose to eat cheaper ramen in order to afford an XBox (people already do it today!). If many people start making that same trade-off, the market can respond and start chasing these dollars. Maybe Microsoft decides to make a low-end XBox. Maybe some competitor does. Maybe some rich people buy the new low-end XBox because they like its attributes better. Everyone with money is free to choose. There is no walled garden between the haves and have-nots.

No offense, but the idea in your book sounds a lot closer to "prison" than Basic Income.

Re: Moving Forward on Basic Income

#642

Post by snowwrestler »

haaen wrote: post #247
Bjartr wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Serious question: why should everyone work? Followup: why is having some minimum amount of resources to live on immoral as opposed to merely unfair?

First of all, not everyone should work. Be it a child that lives off of his parents' money, a stay at home mom whose bills are paid by her husband, or a young, poor but promising artist who lives in an apperment from his mecenas. BI is immoral (imho of course) because people get paid for doing nothing. It sends a message to society: laziness pays.

If laziness and productivity pay the same BI (that's what a BI is), then it doesn't send a message to anyone in particular. A person with a BI can still gain more by working. The incentive is still there.

And that's what it is: an incentive, not a moral. It's not immoral to give people something that benefits them.

> BI is immoral (imho of course) because people get paid for doing nothing.

Consider that without enough money to live, people will not do nothing. They will steal and riot. Look at it this way: like other social programs, a BI can be thought of as a way for rich people to buy a more stable and peaceful society in which to live.

I think the concept of a BI is unnecessary and poorly thought-out, but it's not immoral.

Re: Moving Forward on Basic Income

#643

Post by paloaltokid »

fiatjaf wrote: post #188
simplify wrote: post #156

Has anyone considered "subsidizing jobs" as an alternative to BI? Would it work better if the government gives $X to a company when they hire someone?

The real idea behind basic income is not efficiency, it's marxism.

When viewed through Marx's lens of history, that it is Western countries proposing UBI this should not be surprising.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marx%27s_theory_of_history#The...

Re: Moving Forward on Basic Income

#644

Post by snowwrestler »

politician wrote: post #299

> Oakland is a city of great social and economic diversity... Ok, here's an honest question. These days we often are told that increasing diversity is the responsibility of all successful healthy organizations, end-of-discussion (see: GitHub). Under what conditions would increasing _economic_ diversity be seen as a good outcome?

Economically diverse areas have workers and capital living close together. It makes it easier to find employees, and easier to find customers. Poor and middle-class people don't have to commute as far to work, and middle class and rich people don't have to drive as far to access services--or pay for services to come out to them.

Cities are generally economically diverse areas. Suburbs, rural areas, and slums are not. Not coincidentally, economies tend to be most stable and dynamic in cities.

> These days we often are told that increasing diversity is the responsibility of all successful healthy organizations, end-of-discussion (see: GitHub).

The goal is not to increase diversity, but to better represent in a company's staff, the diversity of the society in which that company operates.

You can't increase total diversity, but you can change how it is distributed.

Re: Moving Forward on Basic Income

#645

Post by the_watcher »

ncallaway wrote: post #321
acgourley wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You'll find there are two voices for BI, the liberal and the liberatian. The liberal would prefer to keep universal healthcare and food programs and put cash on top, making the total distribution to the poor larger. The liberatian would prefer to simply move the complex paternalistic safety net into a simpler cash payment which doesn't disincentivize work while not increasing it's size. As an aside, if you pay attent…

The thing I'd like to see is government services that will optionally replace portions of your Basic Income. If you're having problems feeding yourself, I would like to see an opt-in program where you can receive food, in exchange for $X out of your BI. If you're having problems housing yourself, an opt-in program for housing in exchange for $Y out of your BI. The same options should be available for all the necessit…

> I would like to see an opt-in program where you can receive food, in exchange for $X out of your BI.

Doesn't this already exist? You can exchange $X for food at stores, restaurants, etc. Why make a program that just turns the government into a grocery store?

Re: Moving Forward on Basic Income

#646

Post by ryanmarsh »

st3v3r wrote: post #415
ryanmarsh wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or we could teach them financial literacy. Kind of like how countries with socialized healthcare spend more on health education.

But then you get a bunch of people who complain that high schools shouldn't be teaching that stuff. Of course, I feel that those who espouse that viewpoint are doing so because they benefit from having a large group of people lacking these skills.

My co-worker referred to financial literacy training as "basket weaving" and a "waste of public funds". So, yah.

Re: Moving Forward on Basic Income

#647

Post by wcummings »

onion2k wrote: post #610
wcummings wrote: post #517

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Given how bad Americans are at planning for retirement, I think you're right. BI is a terrible idea.

BI would be for everyone, so pensioners would get it too. They'd probably be better off. Plus, people wouldn't need to save for retirement if they didn't want to. They could spend more which would provide a stimulus to economic activity. That's another benefit of BI.

The people who need social services the most are not necessarily going to manage their money well.

Re: Moving Forward on Basic Income

#648

Post by _rpd »

some-guy wrote: post #443
_rpd wrote: post #261

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No. Communism requires abolition of private ownership. However, the hyperinflationary spiral resulting from BI could assist a transition to communism.

BI isn't printing money so how would hyperinflation ensue?

Supposing the BI funding proposal doesn't include printing money (which is not at all clear), the price of inelastic goods (in particular housing) will rise to absorb the universal increase in income. There will then be calls to index BI to inflation, which politicians won't be able to resist, and the spiral will begin.

Re: Moving Forward on Basic Income

#649

Post by carapace »

A lot of the discussion here seems to revolve around UBI as a solution for poverty and homelessness, but I would argue that that's missing the point. As I wrote this this morning in re: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11807201

""" Keep in mind when discussing UBI, especially in the context of poverty, that it is not a solution to poverty. It is a solution to automation crashing demand by throwing earners permanently out of the economy.

Robots take the jobs so people have no money to spend even as the robots make more stuff, cheaper.

What to do with the people? Throw them in a volcano? "Hunger Games"? Let's just give them money and see what happens, okay?

That's UBI.

UBI isn't for the bum. It's for you (okay, well, your cousin. You read HN, you're probably fine.)

"""

The thing that makes UBI make sense is that the economic order is being overturned by automation.

We simply no longer need to work to live. Bucky Fuller pointed this out decades ago. His estimate put the inflection point in the mid-seventies.

We are punishing ourselves.

---

I want to have UBI so I can devote myself to a program of research. It may not pay off, in fact, it almost certainly won't. But there is a small but non-zero chance that it will pay off handsomely in terms of benefit to society. It's also a very non-linear, meaning that there is absolutely no way I can predict when it might payoff, right up until the moment it does (or I die, whichever comes first.)

There is no one to whom I can honestly say, "Fund me, it's worth it." Maybe I could find an arch-angel investor, but it would be pure patronage (not to say charity.) But with a Universal Basic Income I can devote myself to gardening and research and be no trouble at all to anyone. And I'm not doing anything uniquely important at my job so no one would be harmed if I quit.

Re: Moving Forward on Basic Income

#650

Post by karmacondon »

xienze wrote: post #60

So, a question for the BI fans: I've seen it said repeatedly that BI will save us money (or at least, not be so outrageously expensive) in part because we can eliminate existing welfare programs. "Just cut a single check, no more overhead from several agencies", they say. But riddle me this: what do you do when someone on BI has a financial emergency or, as will happen with some regularity, just flat-out blows all th…

This happens now, all the time. There isn't a government office of "I need money because my car broke down". Soup kitchens will still give out food and the Salvation Army will still provide shelter. Perhaps even more so, because Basic Income will allow more people to donate time and money to charity in their communities.
Post reply on HN