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

The Mincome Experiment of 1974-79

motherboard.vice.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–99 of 99 posts

Re: The Mincome Experiment of 1974-79

#91

Post by jnbiche »

bradleyjg wrote: post #82
aninhumer wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Which able bodied person? That can be debated, but I'd argue for somewhere around the median. >Why is someone who was once well off but fell on hard times entitled to more help than someone who was born into hard times? I'm not sure what you mean? I'm just suggesting we might want a supplementary income for disabled people, since they don't have the option to supplement their basic income with a job.

The entire idea behind the basic income is to stop trying to make distinctions between the deserving poor and the undeserving poor and to get rid of the entire gate-keeping infrastructure. Keep the existing cobweb of special purpose programs and you've destroyed a major point of the exercise. If the BI is too low for disabled people, then it is too low.

> The entire idea behind the basic income is to stop trying to make distinctions between the deserving poor and the undeserving poor and to get rid of the entire gate-keeping infrastructure

Bingo. Well, it's not the entire idea, but it's definitely a very compelling idea.

Re: The Mincome Experiment of 1974-79

#92

Post by jnbiche »

aninhumer wrote: post #11
jnbiche wrote: post #3

Where true basic income differs from this experiment by Canada is that true basic income should be for every adult, regardless of income, race, marital status, sexuality, etc. Not just for poor people, as with Mincome in this Canadian town. A few arguments for: 1) It becomes a defacto emergency lifeline when a ostensibly middle class person loses their job or suffers an extremely expensive illness. In the US, it can…

>this means that disability should be eliminated if this passes That depends whether you think the point of disability benefit is to allow disabled people to survive, or to allow them have a comparable quality of life to an able bodied person.

A basic income would almost certainly improve the quality of life of many disabled persons.

Remember, disability is not a binary state, government mandate nothwithstanding. Many disabled persons could in fact do a limited amount of certain kinds work each week, say 10 hours. Also, many people get on disability at some time and find that over time, they get better, or adapt to their disability.

But under SSI regulations, all of these people would lose 100% of their disability if the government finds out they're working. What this does is condemn a lot of people to lives of poverty when they could be living a lifestyle closer to middle class with just 10-20 hours of employment each week.

Also, getting on disability is a long, drawn-out, humiliating process. Some people have philosophical objections to being on disability. And so many people who probably should be on at least partial disability forgo the whole process. A basic income would allow these people some relief.

Re: The Mincome Experiment of 1974-79

#93

Post by manicdee »

gnopgnip wrote: post #87
ergothus wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That was my initial response when I first heard this concept a few years ago, and the answer is somewhat surprising (Note: I'm not an economist, so please someone correct me if I get anything wrong here): 3 things can alter those prices: A change in supply, a change in demand, or general inflation/deflation. The supply doesn't inherently change in this plan, nor does demand (*assuming everyone is getting these goods…

A basic income would create a larger supply of labor by increasing mobility.

And increase demand for labour by increasing consumption.

People who were previously homeless and living on handouts could end up participating in the economy significantly more.

People who were extremely miserly might spend a little more on better quality food, different forms of entertainment, or taking holidays further from home than the local park.

Re: The Mincome Experiment of 1974-79

#94

Post by bduerst »

dragonwriter wrote: post #80
bduerst wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Predictably, it will raise less proportionately than the increase in income in that segment, How are you predicting this?

Its the consequence of assuming no change in supply and assuming that there are other competing goods (e.g., food) which will compete for the marginal dollars for the same population of buyers (and hence that demand is not perfectly inelastic.)

Engel's law (the food example) doesn't really impact it that much because the income elasticity of food is between 0 and 1. By your logic nothing has an income elasticity of demand greater than 1 because of competing with food.

Re: The Mincome Experiment of 1974-79

#95

Post by bduerst »

aetherson wrote: post #78
bduerst wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That was my point - Basic Income doesn't provide any additional benefits to targeted assistance, and would actually be a detriment in markets with income-elastic demand.

I know what your point is, but if you imagined that I repeated your point, you're wrong. What I said was that targeted assistance was MORE likely to cause price inflation in areas like, say, housing than guaranteed income was, precisely because it generates "income" that can only be spent in competition for this particular housing category. The benefit of basic income over targeted assistance is that basic income is…

Bureaucracy has overhead, I'll give you that, but I assume you're saying that UBI is a replacement for assistance programs, rather than being used alongside them?

That's the only way for cost administrative cost savings. What about when UBI isn't enough for something as trivial as Medicaid?

Would UBI cover the cost of health insurance for everyone, since it's replacing the "expensively adminsitrative" medicaid? Even if you took away employer insurance today, many people with steady income can't even afford their own health insurance.

Re: The Mincome Experiment of 1974-79

#96

Post by bduerst »

gnopgnip wrote: post #86
bduerst wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That was my point - Basic Income doesn't provide any additional benefits to targeted assistance, and would actually be a detriment in markets with income-elastic demand.

Basic income reduces the administrative overhead of providing assistance. Also it could create increased mobility in the job market compared the current system. (You could leave your current job without waiting weeks or months for unemployment/disability/EBT) Basic income would create an elastic supply of labor potentially reducing the prices of many goods that is not considered in the above analysis. (When one has a…

>reduces the administrative overhead of providing assistance.

Only if UBI replaces all other programs, and i'm guessing it won't be enough for people to afford a Medicaid replacement.

Typically you only qualify for unemployement, disability, etc. when you're been let go, not when you're quiting voluntarily (and it usually only takes a week to get).

Even then, it's certain percentage of your current income, so as to not disrupt your lifestyle. I doubt many people will voluntarily quit to be on a much lower UBI just so they can look for a new job. But then again maybe there are studies on this...?

Re: The Mincome Experiment of 1974-79

#97

Post by bduerst »

dragonwriter wrote: post #73
bduerst wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nothing. Nothing is in place to stop basic income from causing housing prices to raise, and is one of the reasons we have food stamps and medicare instead of basic income. Housing is a good/service with a price that is set by income-elastic demand. If you push up the income across the entire market (as true basic income would), then the price of housing and cars and other goods with income-elastic demand will increas…

> Nothing is in place to stop basic income from causing housing prices to raise, and is one of the reasons we have food stamps and medicare instead of basic income. Aside from any concerns about your basic premise, I think you've confused Medicare (the old-age/disability medical insurance system funded by payroll taxes) with Medicaid (the medical insurance system for the poor funded by general funds).

Definitely. Thank you for pointing that out that difference.

Re: The Mincome Experiment of 1974-79

#98

Post by aetherson »

bduerst wrote: post #95
aetherson wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I know what your point is, but if you imagined that I repeated your point, you're wrong. What I said was that targeted assistance was MORE likely to cause price inflation in areas like, say, housing than guaranteed income was, precisely because it generates "income" that can only be spent in competition for this particular housing category. The benefit of basic income over targeted assistance is that basic income is…

Bureaucracy has overhead, I'll give you that, but I assume you're saying that UBI is a replacement for assistance programs, rather than being used alongside them? That's the only way for cost administrative cost savings. What about when UBI isn't enough for something as trivial as Medicaid? Would UBI cover the cost of health insurance for everyone, since it's replacing the "expensively adminsitrative" medicaid? Even…

I don't think that basic income could replace healthcare programs. It might replace section 8 housing and food stamps and at least some kinds of disability and unemployment insurance and some kinds of child credits and so forth.

I actually don't think it would successfully replace any of those things, which is one of the reasons I don't really support it. But it's an intriguing idea that should be debated on its merits.

Re: The Mincome Experiment of 1974-79

#99

Post by bduerst »

aetherson wrote: post #98
bduerst wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Bureaucracy has overhead, I'll give you that, but I assume you're saying that UBI is a replacement for assistance programs, rather than being used alongside them? That's the only way for cost administrative cost savings. What about when UBI isn't enough for something as trivial as Medicaid? Would UBI cover the cost of health insurance for everyone, since it's replacing the "expensively adminsitrative" medicaid? Even…

I don't think that basic income could replace healthcare programs. It might replace section 8 housing and food stamps and at least some kinds of disability and unemployment insurance and some kinds of child credits and so forth. I actually don't think it would successfully replace any of those things, which is one of the reasons I don't really support it. But it's an intriguing idea that should be debated on its meri…

For sure. I think that switching healthcare over to being a public utility would open the door to debating a lot of different programs, including basic income. Maybe then someone will figure out a way to handle the housing issue.
Post reply on HN