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

771–780 of 1001 posts

Re: Moving Forward on Basic Income

#771

Post by Joof »

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…

'Tough Shit'. If food stamp recipients sell all their food stamps (this is common by the way), they don't get more.

Re: Moving Forward on Basic Income

#772

Post by cderwin »

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…

I think there ought to be two different classes of BI proposals. One would be a cash disbursement, like an actual paycheck. The other would be a single, orchestrated way to get food and housing -- basically a single, unifies program that provides what the first form of BI would buy. I think which one you should support largely depends on whether or not you can trust people. If you can, the first BI alone would be sufficient. If not, the second form of BI would be the only practical option, unless you consider a drastic enlargement of traditional welfare without any oversight BI, but to me that's absolutely ludicrous. Additionally, ignoring other, more complicated problems like mental health, I believe that the first form of BI is sufficient and that a very, very small portion of the population would actually blow the money and perhaps they could be absorbed by the prison system, where they would get a roof over their heads, daily meal, practical job training, and even real experience they can take with them (of course they would be free to leave at will).

Re: Moving Forward on Basic Income

#773

Post by AnthonyMouse »

MrMullen wrote: post #412
mikeash wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What do we do now when people blow their Social Security or welfare check and can't afford rent or food?

Social Security is not a give away. People have paid into SSI for years and they are getting their money out of it. No one is giving them free money and they free to blow it as they see fit.

Social Security started out paying benefits to people who never paid in. The money you pay to Social Security is for your parents and the money they paid was for their parents.

Re: Moving Forward on Basic Income

#774

Post by lr4444lr »

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…

> a financial emergency

1) That's a major benefit already of BI: people actually have more financial means to develop a safety cushion.

> just flat-out blows all their money

1) They'll do that anyway if they have an addiction or some sort of character flaw. There exist underground economies for the benefits (obviously at a lesser cash equivalent) to enable them to convert benefits to what they really want.

2) If it's endemic, the current high-danger interventions such as substance abuse homes, child protective services are usually invoked.

The basic response to the general question you're asking that is usually given is private charity. And it's not so much because of some conservative political agenda, but because you're talking about edge cases, and there is no feasible system anyone's suggested to get people "emergency cash" without bureaucratic delays. BI (or negative income tax, I prefer) is not a perfect system. You should be asking whether it would be superior for the people by in large who most need it than the current byzantine, perversely incentivized, and corruption-prone systems.

Re: Moving Forward on Basic Income

#775

Post by imjustsaying »

acgourley wrote: post #123
colinplamondon wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Personally, I'd hope the system would absolutely tell them "tough shit". There's got to be a line where the safety net gives out, because someone is too expensive to help. That's where family and charity hopefully take over. At the same time, I think your instinct is right, and it's something I've never heard mentioned before. It's almost inevitably that there'll then be the "food security" fund, and the "housing gua…

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…

Basic income as a taxpayer-funded program is wealth redistribution through state force. I have never heard of this described as libertarian.

Re: Moving Forward on Basic Income

#776

Post by shkkmo »

thedevil wrote: post #226
coldtea wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I am 100% for this experiment. But the assumption that technology will replace basic jobs seems naive. Throughout human history, we have seen rapid and accelerating technology improvements. Arguments from "but this is how it always have been" have a tendency to break down when significant societal/technological changes happen.

I use a different model than everyone else which I think gives insight on this. I split jobs into 3 categories (simplified here to make it easy to understand): 1) jobs that mostly create economic value (doctors, farmers, programmers): the percentage of these jobs is already small and keeps decreasing with technology. 2) jobs that mostly transfer economic value (marketers, lawyers): these jobs keep increasing. (Note:…

Well articulated. This is a very good way of describing the way I've been looking at things.

I might amend your description of 2) to be "Jobs that mostly transfer economic value and provide competitive advantage". The increase of these jobs is driven by arms race style competition among capital owners.

I'm curious if you have any ideas of ways to combat the constant increase of type 2) jobs as I see them as a drain on our economic output.

I my hope is that BI means that the low intrinsic value of type 2) and some type 3) jobs means that this shift will be slowed or possibly even reversed.

Re: Moving Forward on Basic Income

#777

Post by AnthonyMouse »

soared wrote: post #767
paul wrote: post #483

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That assumes a fixed supply of housing, which is only true in deeply dysfunctional places like SF. In most of the US, housing cost is close to replacement cost, so if landlords try to raise rents, people can just move someplace cheaper, especially since they are no longer dependent on a job to support themselves.

There are plenty of 'dysfunctional' places just like SF. Plenty of cities have limited area to expand into. For example, Boulder local gov owns a ring of land around the city, making it impossible to expand outwards (or upwards). Housing supply isn't fixed if you think people are willing to live in Wyoming - which they pretty much aren't.

"Horrible laws that cause everyone's disposable income to be swallowed by landlords" sounds like a problem worth solving, not an inevitable fact of life.

Re: Moving Forward on Basic Income

#778

Post by gpsx »

I think it is great to study basic income. While many people think it will work, many others are worried people will become unmotiviated and this will have bad consequences. An alternative thing to also study is a workfare program that gives jobs to everyone.

As mentioned in other comments, the HN readers are very motivated people. Most people in general are not. Many people may not work and either become lazy (such that they can no longer work) or worse occupy their time with something counterproductively, such as in gangs. Even without basic income I know people who didn't work for a while and eventually they became helpless with regard to work.

Using computers we can provide work for all people. This can be something like accounting, project management, or something as basic as rating movies and video games. There is always more work to be done, it just might not be economically viable. Where needed, these non-economically viable jobs can be subsidized as a form of welfare.

Re: Moving Forward on Basic Income

#779

Post by gpsx »

I think it is great to study basic income. While many people think it will work, many others are worried people will become unmotiviated and this will have bad consequences. An alternative thing to also study is a workfare program that gives jobs to everyone.

As mentioned in other comments, the HN readers are very motivated people. Most people in general are not. Many people may not work and either become lazy (such that they can no longer work) or worse occupy their time with something counterproductively, such as in gangs. Even without basic income I know people who didn't work for a while and eventually they became helpless with regard to work.

Using computers we can provide work for all people. This can be something like accounting, project management, or something as basic as rating movies and video games. There is always more work to be done, it just might not be economically viable. Where needed, these non-economically viable jobs can be subsidized as a form of welfare.

Re: Moving Forward on Basic Income

#780

Post by AnthonyMouse »

chimeracoder wrote: post #628
naasking wrote: post #516

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Good thing everyone will not have more money then. The total money supply remains constant under UBI.

> The total money supply remains constant under UBI. Well - it doesn't, actually. A self-sufficient program would have to be self-sustaining via tax revenue, and unless the goal is to defeat the whole purpose of the program, the tax revenue will disproportionately come from the wealthy. However, the wealthy are less likely to spend every extra dollar that they have, which means that they're more likely instead to sav…

What you're suggesting would be true of all redistributive programs. Replacing means-tested welfare with a UBI which is equally redistributive would have no inflationary effect.

It's also not clear that it's true in general. Invested money doesn't stand still. You invest it in a startup and the startup spends it. You deposit it in a bank that loans it out and the borrower spends it.

So it could be that taking from the rich and giving to the poor causes inflation or, if startups and mortgage borrowers spend money faster than checkout clerks and bartenders, the other way around.

Post reply on HN