Live data from Hacker News

A Basic Income Should Be the Next Big Thing

bloombergview.com

731–740 of 840 posts

Re: A Basic Income Should Be the Next Big Thing

#731

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, buts it's NOT free money. The money is coming from rich people and being given to poor people. The 'amount' of money in the system stays the same and therefore inflation stays the same. Also, at least recently everyone has been talking about how inflation is too LOW not too high.

Yes but rich people are not spending thier money on rent and food. I think that giving the poor this money will mean basic necessities will just get more expensive and the poor will have the same as they have now, and landlords and Wallmart will pocket the cash.

This is not how supply and demand should work in a functioning economy. Higher demand will up the price at first, but then some market player should be able to step in and make it work for less (thus upping the supply), until the market has found a new steady state (which, as long as supply isn't restricted, should be around the same price as before or lower because of a higher scale).

Now obviously, if what you have isn't actually a free market but an oligopoly with government protections, price fixings etc., this won't work. You'll have some of these problems in some markets, but that would just have to be next thing to concentrate on.

Re: A Basic Income Should Be the Next Big Thing

#732
post #99

This article says it's talking about a universal basic income, and makes the usual point that a completely universal, no-strings-attached income is simple to administer, doesn't have poverty traps, etc. And then, towards the end where it starts looking at numbers, it starts saying things like > But by excluding 45 million retirees who already receive a basic income through Social Security, the cost falls to $2.7 tril…

> Yes, you can reduce the amount paid out by making it not a universal basic income scheme any more. But that rather misses the point.

If you consider as a method to introduce an income floor it makes sense. At 100k+ I really don't need any sort of basic income. A senior citizen getting paid social security is already getting the money out of that bucket (arguably that bucket should be phased out and everyone should be entitled to their basic income instead, perhaps with extra breaks for seniors).

I really don't support just giving out 30k a year to everyone. I can see the logic in giving out money to get everyone to that level (or whatever sensible number). I also think it's sensible to say that the benfit doesn't just go away if you start a job making 35k a year, but it does start to reduce as your income goes up. This gives you an incentive to work, even if your job isn't that high paying, but makes the program cheaper by not giving out money to people who really don't need it.

Re: A Basic Income Should Be the Next Big Thing

#733
post #294

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or instead, give it universally to children, but require a certain percentage be saved in some sort of fund that they are given full control of when they turn 18. That way the parents don't have to shoulder all of the expense of a child, but the child isn't screwed over by irresponsible parents either.

Cool idea. I'd advocate for an age of 25 though. An 18 year old these days is still a child. Give them a couple years into the drinking age to get their bad decisions out of the way.

Okay, lets also ban anyone under 25 from joining the army.

Re: A Basic Income Should Be the Next Big Thing

#734
post #349

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why wouldn't labor markets decrease? Isn't that the principle idea floating by UBI advocates entirely throughout this thread? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11619803 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11619677 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11619716 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11619722 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11619700 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11619538 https://news.ycomb…

> Why wouldn't labor markets decrease? Isn't that the principle idea floating by UBI advocates entirely throughout this thread? They will, and I never said they wouldn't. The problem with your "theory" is that they are going to decrease at a 1:1 ratio with increase in labor costs from the UBI resulting in an overall "0 gain" from the UBI. > No, all money will devalue with the increase in supply and increase in labor…

I 100% agree with you, but unfortunately, you're talking to technology people. The amount of ignorance when it comes to economics on HN has led me to almost never even talk about it.

Re: A Basic Income Should Be the Next Big Thing

#735
Why not have repayable assistance? The government gives you money for up to 5 years until you get a job, and then you have to pay the government back. You pay the government back a small percentage of your monthly paycheck, say 0.05%, no interest. It's basically an interest free loan with a long repayment schedule. But at least the government gets something back.

Re: A Basic Income Should Be the Next Big Thing

#736

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Check out these pie charts to see what money get's spent for each different entitlement programs [1]. It seems like we currently have 2 buckets: - living money for people who, for whatever reason, have no source of income - publicly funded medical insurance It doesn't seem totally unreasonable to classify medical expenses separately from routine living expenses. The amount of spending in the routine-living-expenses b…

I think you're going to have a hard time eliminating Social Security; the voters won't stand for it. They paid into it, so it seems unfair for them to not get paid back out of it. What would work, I think, might be a phase-out: for anyone who's getting less in SS payments than the UBI, just replace their SS with UBI. For everyone making more, they don't get a UBI, they just keep drawing SS. (Or, you could say they ge…

I agree with you 100% about the lack of political viability.

But I also think a system that requires taxpayers to fund more than basic living expenses for non-taxpayers is unjust.

Everyone should be able to stay warm and dry, safe and clean, with a soft bed and a healthy diet. Anything beyond that is luxury.

In particular:

- Just because you don't have enough income to pay your big mortgage doesn't mean others should have to pay so you can live in a massive house. Regardless of your previous income, you should sell it or let it be repossessed (and continue to live safely and healthily elsewhere). Otherwise you're asking people who live less extravagantly to fund your own extravagance.

- Likewise, many hardworking people take a roommate to save money. Should they have to pay for other people to live more extravagantly? There is nothing unhealthy or unsafe (in general) about sleeping in the same room with another person, or turning a room that fits 2 people into two smaller rooms.

I think in an average cost-of-living town in the US, you need 300 to 350 to rent a room (all to yourself!), 250 for groceries, soap, razor blades, etc. That leaves 100 or 150 to get around. Certainly not enough for a car or taxi rides. But I think just about everyone should be able to find a place within walking/biking/city-bus distance from the grocery store, though in some sprawly towns it might take a couple of hours to get there.

Re: A Basic Income Should Be the Next Big Thing

#737
post #719

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>It has 1X but it's allowed to lend out upto 10X No, a bank cannot lend out 10X of it's deposits. That's simply wrong. Say a person deposits $1. The bank owes the person $1. If the bank thinks this $1 is unlikely to be withdrawn soon, it can lend out $0.90 (assuming a 10% reserve rate). End of story. This bank having received $1 cannot turn around and lend $10. Note that this point the bank has $0.10 of the original…

Ok, may be not quite 10X. It's 1+.9+.81+.72+... which ends up about 9.4X. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractional-reserve_banking#/me... Fractional reserve plus debt do create money. The accounting cancels out on the book but there are money circulating in the system. If accounting balanced to 0 means no money is created, then FOMC buying and selling treasury creates no money at all since it's net zero on the bo…

> If accounting balanced to 0 means no money is created

Accounting does balance to zero. Debt and money are added, and they sum to zero. Proof:

Let bank start at 0 (or pick any value).

Bank receives X dollars from entity A. Now bank has X dollars in reserves and owes entity A exactly X dollars, so net position of bank is zero (X dollars in reserves - X dollars owed = 0). A started with X, gave it to the bank, and the bank owes A X. So A has the same starting position.

Bank lends 0.9X = Y to B. Now B has Y, but owes Y, so B net position is 0. Bank lent Y, but is owed Y, so net change here is 0.

This happens every step. It's most certainly every single time a net 0 transaction.

If you care to continue to claim it's not net 0, please clearly demonstrate as I just did how it is not net 0.

>Ok, may be not quite 10X. It's 1+.9+.81+.72+... which ends up about 9.4X.

No, in the limit it is exactly 10X. Proof:

Let S = 1+0.9 + 0.9^2 + 0.9^3 + ....

Then 0.9S = 0.9 + 0.9^2 + 0.9^3 + ....,

Subtract (S-0.9S) and all terms cancel except the first 1, so (S-0.9S) = S/10 = 1, so S = 10.

>The debt among friends example doesn't create money because it's the same $10 passing from friend to friend while the IOU issued is not very liquid.

It's exactly the same thing. The bank lending is no different from any entity lending. The bank does not print up new money each time - it's the same money as you put it.

Bank IOUs are completely liquid either. All 10X money cannot be withdrawn at the same time - one is lent from someone else's assets, and this is only possible as long as everybody does not try to withdraw their assets at once. This is why there is a certain reserve needed - it allows normal withdrawals and deposits, which are around that fraction (10%) of needed assets.

If everybody in the 10X wanted to withdraw their money, there would not be enough money. All the banks would need to call in all loans, and that is chaos. It simply is money that sits in zero sum on balance sheets.

Ever wonder why there is a reserve? This is why. It's the expected amount of cash needed to let people with savings in the bank do day to day transactions. Bank runs used to happen (and still could) when reserves get too low, because all that 10X is not money that can be pulled out at once. The Fed provides a buffer against bank runs because it can provide liquidity as needed.

But the money multiplier is not some magic source of money any more than lending money from friend to friend is. It's exactly the same process.

Re: A Basic Income Should Be the Next Big Thing

#738
post #541

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Mice don't play soccer, compose symphonies, do crosswords, watch TV, etc. In other words, we're considerably better filling our leisure time than they are. Yup, all those bored teens and violent criminals are going to be playing crossword puzzles and composing symphonies all day now that their rent is paid and bellies are full. I gotta get out of this thread. I may be bitter and pessimistic about humans, but you pe…

And now we get the racism. I knew it was lurking in there somewhere.

I've said nothing about race. Nice try.

Re: A Basic Income Should Be the Next Big Thing

#739

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would you get bipartisan support for the FairTax? Redesigning the tax structure to favour millionaires ( massive net beneficiaries because their US consumption expenditure is usually a tiny fraction of their capital gains tax and/or income tax bills) over the middle classes (no matter how high the stipend is someone has to pay for the millionaires' tax cut) isn't exactly a popular proposal even on the right That…

Poster is crazy to think liberals will EVER support a hugely regressive tax scheme. Consumption taxes destroy the middle class by acting as vehicle to transport wealth from the middle to the ultrawealthy, which makes it surprising that people continue to suggest it. Now perhaps a consumption tax combined with a large capital gains tax and inheritance tax -- to keep taxes going in the oligarchs economy AND the regular…

I perceive the income tax as helping the rich roll rocks on the upper-middle labor class while getting the poor to cheer them on. Most rich don't want competition or independent power bases to develop from bourgeois power bases.

Also how is taxing labor in any way liberal?

Re: A Basic Income Should Be the Next Big Thing

#740

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Mice don't play soccer, compose symphonies, do crosswords, watch TV, etc. In other words, we're considerably better filling our leisure time than they are. Yup, all those bored teens and violent criminals are going to be playing crossword puzzles and composing symphonies all day now that their rent is paid and bellies are full. I gotta get out of this thread. I may be bitter and pessimistic about humans, but you pe…

If basic income only provides enough to just get by - living in a crappy apartment, barely being able to afford basic groceries, and living paycheck to paycheck, do you really think everyone is just going to stop working and do nothing all day? People are still going to want money for buying gadgets, going out, a better living space, cars, clothes, vacations, impressing girls, buying toys for their kids, etc. Also I'…

> do you really think everyone is just going to stop working and do nothing all day?

YES. That's exactly the point. Look at the welfare class currently collecting disability in American states like WV. They aren't doing anything productive!!! Maybe more drugs, though... sounds great for society. Let's expand that.

Will Everyone drop out of the workforce? Of course not. But a substantial portion that will become an ever-increasing, ever-breeding strain on society? I'm absolutely positive of it.

Post reply on HN