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

871–880 of 1001 posts

Re: Moving Forward on Basic Income

#871

Post by geon »

hellodevnull wrote: post #860
InclinedPlane wrote: post #807

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Basic income has a whole host of pretty interesting self-reinforcing feedback loops that seemingly would improve things overall. For example, people would be more likely to leave jobs that were unsafe, treated people poorly, etc. Including situations where employers weren't following labor laws and regulations (which is a huge problem today). Meaning that maybe it'd be more likely that the fire code, sanitary regulat…

Same logic is used in free market arguments: Workers leaving jobs to go to other companies creates an incentive for employers to improve work environments. In both scenarios the workplaces become better off, but what really happens in practice is less than ideal.

You can only leave a job for another if there actually is another one.

Re: Moving Forward on Basic Income

#872

Post by mgkimsal »

geon wrote: post #871
hellodevnull wrote: post #860

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Same logic is used in free market arguments: Workers leaving jobs to go to other companies creates an incentive for employers to improve work environments. In both scenarios the workplaces become better off, but what really happens in practice is less than ideal.

You can only leave a job for another if there actually is another one.

Or... if the other job is literally no better... there's no positive benefit to be had, and possibly negative backlash.

Re: Moving Forward on Basic Income

#873

Post by geon »

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 would argue, that if you can't handle your budget better than that, you are mentally ill, and need help.

For some, it could be enough to get the payment daily, instead of monthly/weekly.

For others, they should not have direct access to their account, but would need to ask for permission from a legal guardian.

Re: Moving Forward on Basic Income

#874

Post by MichaelMoser123 »

lewisl9029 wrote: post #804

The most compelling case I've seen made recently for basic income is from Yanis Varoufakis (the infamous Greek finance minister who resigned after refusing to agree to the terms of the bailout that the Greek people voted against in a referendum): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BvgdtF3y0Ss There were many gems in that talk, but this one stood out to me in particular: "The right to turn down a job is essential for a w…

>"The right to turn down a job is essential for a well functioning labor market, and for a civilized society. And to have that right, a genuine right, to turn down a job, you must have an alternative: An outside option. Because desperate people will accept to do desperate things..."

i think it will bring downs the salary for a number of professions - why bother to pay when you can get volunteers on basic income for free?

Re: Moving Forward on Basic Income

#875

Post by eru »

creadee wrote: post #857
eru wrote: post #837

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In Germany, I think, you can only get your state pension when you stop working? (Or at least, there are severe restrictions on working.) But given these caveats, that probably exist similarly in other countries, it's a good field to study. Of course, the social expectations on people on old-age pensions are quite different from the ones on the working-age population.

> In Germany, I think, you can only get your state pension when you stop working? I think that's the same in the UK, too. In other countries you can work and still receive the state pension, but most seem to be means-tested... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_pension Denmark apparently has the best pension scheme which includes a "public basic pension scheme"... http://www.thelocal.dk/20141013/denmark-has-worlds-…

Yes, but I think even `healthy' is not enough of a qualifier.

Ie healthy old people (who are well off enough) might be expected to go on cruises etc. I wouldn't count their voluntary unemployment for much, when I was trying to forecast what effects a universal basic income had on the general population.

(On the other hand, I would count their voluntary employment for a lot.)

Re: Moving Forward on Basic Income

#876

Post by adrianN »

MichaelMoser123 wrote: post #874
lewisl9029 wrote: post #804

The most compelling case I've seen made recently for basic income is from Yanis Varoufakis (the infamous Greek finance minister who resigned after refusing to agree to the terms of the bailout that the Greek people voted against in a referendum): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BvgdtF3y0Ss There were many gems in that talk, but this one stood out to me in particular: "The right to turn down a job is essential for a w…

>"The right to turn down a job is essential for a well functioning labor market, and for a civilized society. And to have that right, a genuine right, to turn down a job, you must have an alternative: An outside option. Because desperate people will accept to do desperate things..." i think it will bring downs the salary for a number of professions - why bother to pay when you can get volunteers on basic income for f…

It also increases the salary for other professions. Who wants to clean toilets for minimum wage if basic income is an alternative.

Re: Moving Forward on Basic Income

#878

Post by Drakim »

adrianN wrote: post #876
MichaelMoser123 wrote: post #874

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>"The right to turn down a job is essential for a well functioning labor market, and for a civilized society. And to have that right, a genuine right, to turn down a job, you must have an alternative: An outside option. Because desperate people will accept to do desperate things..." i think it will bring downs the salary for a number of professions - why bother to pay when you can get volunteers on basic income for f…

It also increases the salary for other professions. Who wants to clean toilets for minimum wage if basic income is an alternative.

Isn't it part of the point with basic income in that it doesn't disappear if you have a job?

The choices would be "basic income" vs "minimum wage + basic income".

There is also the fact that there is no inherent reason why toilet washers should have minimum wage. It's exactly because of economic uncertainty among the lower class that they can be coerced into accepting such sub-par situations such as doing an undesired job at low wage, when it's more logical that an undesired job should offer more pay than a desirable job.

Re: Moving Forward on Basic Income

#879

Post by senseless »

psc wrote: post #836
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.

I think the GP is referring more specifically to Henry George Theorem ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_George_theorem ). The theorem has pretty solid theoretical backing, so I don't see why it wouldn't apply to basic income. At the very least it's a good question to research. My understanding is that all owners of would increase the rents/prices of their unimproved land, not just housing landlords. Everywhere yo…

Exactly, Henry George is the most prominent theorist who pushed those ideas, and many more have used or expanded on them since.

Re: Moving Forward on Basic Income

#880

Post by senseless »

paul wrote: post #483
senseless wrote: post #253

Good to see steps like this being made! As a slight aside, there are strong proponents who argue, based on Ricardo's law of rent [0], that any excess income above the basic subsistence level will inevitably be swallowed up by landlords in the form of rents. I'd be very interested to hear from the folks involved in this study if they have an opinion on such an assertion, and if you have any ideas on addressing that ef…

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.

No, it does not assume a fixed supply of housing. The law of rent revolves around the margin of productivity and already takes into account what you're trying to say.

The wages extractable from the least valuable land would rise by the same amount as anywhere else since basic income would affect everyone's incomes equally. Thus, there would be an excess over the basic level of sustenance and according to this law that excess MUST be swallowed up by rent. The status quo would resume for normal wage-earners, while land-owners would benefit even more than they already do, raising rates of inequality further.

Post reply on HN