6 ms·

A Universal Basic Income Is My Generation’s Moonshot

17 points by joeyespo 11y ago

rbcoffee 11y ago
I think a lot of innovation will spring from this too, and many others have said that once basic provisions like shelter, food, clean drinking water and telecoms are being met; all that's left to do is create art and innovate. Bigger budgets does not necessarily mean more innovation happens, it more often than not enfeebles somebody because they can't allocate the time to create anything. 9-5 culture is a bane for many artists who after work, have one solid hour of making art before they burn out and have to attend to other duties.
- dmfdmf 11y ago
  > I think a lot of innovation will spring from this too Me too. Like new ways to spy on, enslave and control those cursed with ability and forced to create the "shelter, food, clean drinking water and telecoms" that your utopia requires.
  - rbcoffee 11y ago
    I was thinking more along the lines of something scalable like the hexayurt project (hexayurt.com). Having five sheets of inexpensive plywood is "cursed with ability" is it? and having a FirefoxOS smartphone phone that cost $20.00 is spy apparatus? Hardly.
  - maerF0x0 11y ago
    The idea of basic income is to provide enough to not die or be a burden on society, but not enough to really enjoy life. As well we already are providing shelter, food, water, telecoms. The problem is that the bureaucracy eats up so much money in the process that it becomes even more expensive than just paying everyone in the US $720 a month and saying "youre on your own". Kinda Warren Buffetts's inheritance ideas: "a very rich person should leave his kids enough to do anything but not enough to do nothing." (quoting cnbc article here: http://www.cnbc.com/2015/03/09/boomers-mimic-warren-buffett-when-it-comes-to-inheritances.html http://www.cnbc.com/2015/03/09/boomers-mimic-warren-buffett-... )
- dudul 11y ago
  What happens if all the guys producing food and clean water decide that they've had enough and want to retire?
  - undersuit 11y ago
    They will be replaced by those that are bored and want to produce food, purify water, or clean streets for a better life. Oh, wait were you implying humans are inherently lazy and willing to live in their own filth until they starve to death? Maybe in a world with basic income, undesirable but essential jobs are compensated at a rate that begins to make them desirable?
    - dudul 11y ago
      Sure, I'm sure people are gonna line up to work in a coffee shop, be a cashier in a supermarket, work at a bank customer service, man the town dump teller, etc. Don't put words in my mouth. I didn't say that humans are lazy, far from it. I'm saying there are necessary and undesirable tasks - undesirable in essence - to be performed and I don't see people volunteering to accomplish them if there is no money incentive. Good luck finding people to work at the DMV in a world with basic income.
      - joeyespo 11y ago
        > I'm saying there are necessary and undesirable tasks This is a good point. It's also a reason why this idea is valuable. It enables people to turn away these undesirable tasks. Today, someone might take on a poor task with a poor working condition so their children can get the nutrition they need. A basic income provides the family with what they need without anyone becoming desperate enough to take a job for a lower pay than it's actually worth. These jobs can finally be part of the open market. If nobody will do it for $12/hr, you increase the pay. When you start to see people taking the job again, you know you've hit the right income point. (People aren't getting rich off of basic income alone. The incentive to work is to have a more expensive lifestyle.) This is the dual to pricing discussions here on HN. If the market won't buy at X, you don't withhold food from their tables to get them to buy. You either lower the price, or you make your product have more perceived valuable. With these undesirable jobs, you either raise the pay, or improve the working conditions.
- kuni-toko-tachi 11y ago
  This is beyond fantasy. Nearly everyone in America has a smart phone in their pocket more powerful than the most powerful computers of just a few years ago. On that device is all of worlds information, a Google search away. What do people mostly do with this access and power - nothing - Facebook, Reddit, and other distractions. Giving people handouts will not lead to an revolution of art, culture, and businesses... It will lead to sloth, resentment, and failure. Our society already produces enough abundance and opportunity such that any hardworking individual can EARN a life that most people in history could only dream about.
  - joeyespo 11y ago
    The data from past trials shows different results than your own knee-jerk conclusion. Here are some consistent findings across multiple studies[1]: - Fewer hospitalizations - Fewer school dropouts - Decrease in child labor - Dramatically lower food poverty - Dramatically lower crime rate - Dramatically lower child malnutrition rate - Increase in High School completion rates - Increase in self-employment and the number of income sources That last one is the most counter-intuitive. Until you think about it. People become more entrepreneurial when you remove the risk of them falling into poverty if they fail (especially because failure is the norm). Keep in mind that if you want to live a more luxurious lifestyle, you'll still need to work to get it. This isn't an "everybody is rich" utopia. This is more about eliminating poverty and creating opportunity for everyone. [1]: https://www.reddit.com/r/BasicIncome/wiki/studies https://www.reddit.com/r/BasicIncome/wiki/studies
tired_man 11y ago
Guaranteed income? What happens as more and more people decide to live on the dole? Are you going to force them to work? What happens when the last wealthy people you could tax into paying for it flee your country with their money? Utopia fails because, "HUMAN."
- dragonwriter 11y ago
  > What happens as more and more people decide to live on the dole? Are you going to force them to work? Ceteris paribus, prices go up, and living exclusively on the unconditional basic income becomes less attractive. With a UBI, there's no reason not to work if you are unsatisfied with what you get from the UBI, since you don't lose subsidy for working. So, there's a natural negative feedback control system. > What happens when the last wealthy people you could tax into paying for it flee your country with their money? If people making profits in the country that could be taxed leave, then profit making opportunities open up that others could, and someone will, take advantage of.
  - tired_man 11y ago
    That's fine if you can stop them from tearing you apart for not increasing their basic stipend as the cost of living increased. You aren't going to defeat human nature. Those theories have been around for hundreds (thousands) of years, but oddly, it never happens. There's a reason for that. People are not automatons and they usually think for themselves (with varying degrees of success) and won't fall into line with the rules necessary to sustain a utopian society. You'll be left with nothing but a gun in your hand trying to force your well upon them. Forced utopia begs for revolution.
Mz 11y ago
I am homeless and I think basic income is nightmare fuel: http://micheleincalifornia.blogspot.com/2014/09/nightmare-fuel-world-of-nothing-but.html http://micheleincalifornia.blogspot.com/2014/09/nightmare-fu...
maerF0x0 11y ago
I've read all the comments and the main argument is that people will not want to work with Basic Income being provided. This comes from a basic lack of understanding how basic incomes work. They are intentionally very low. Imagine making in the bottom quartile. You have enough to eat something each day, you have something that shelters you from the environment, you can afford to shop a thrift stores and craigslist. However, you would want for more. New Apple stuff, disneyland tickets, a vacation. There are 2 main veins of basic income that I've heard: 1. Basic income that distributes goods from automation (ie, robot economy) . Not really what's being discussed here. 2. A basic income that is enough to not die and not enough such that most people would be satiated. Those that are not satiated would be encouraged to work on something, both that others want and that they want to do. Jobs that people would love to do would pay very little, jobs that suck (something to do with poop, surely) would pay more, the market forces are still at play. If #1 ever becomes real such that all human want is satiated (I do not believe in infinite demand for consumption) or #2 pays too much, then yes it sounds like a scene from that movie WALL-E
- joeyespo 11y ago
  I think your comment is pretty spot-on. One thought about the WALL-E scene though. While I'm not at all advocating the satiation of everyone, I do wonder about its perceived inevitability. If that was the only outcome, wouldn't we see evidence of this with the extremely rich today? (I'm talking about the case where wealth was strictly inherited here, not the self-made fortunes from hard work.) I don't have any examples in mind, but I do think it's worth asking the question. If we assume those who are satiated would not work on anything of value, that might very well contain a similar misunderstanding to what you've highlighted here. We just need more data to know what level "too much" really is, or if that's even a thing at all (I believe it is, but I certainly can't prove it).
  - maerF0x0 11y ago
    When I think about infinite consumption, it says to me "There is literally no limit to how many X a person would take". I really think there is a limit. I will never (consistently) eat more than 3000 calories a day. I couldnt imagine living >1000 sq ft per person. 3 cars per person ought to satisfy every occasion (Sports car, SUV, Comfort car), etc etc. There is some finite limit before the marginal object is worth less than the difficulty of obtaining/maintaining it. ex, adding a car means I, at the very least, need to buy it, drive it to my garage and walk around it to get to my other car each day. I think food is the ultimate example of a post scarcity good: if pizza was free (forever), how many would you take? 1, 1000, 1000000? I'd take 1 a day and maybe put a few in my freezer just in case. But I certainly wouldnt have 1000x or even 10x as much pizza. The extremely wealthy display wealth for differentiation, not because they actually enjoy all 100000 sq ft of living space they own. Its a status symbol to say " I have a house in every state" or whatever else they brag about. IMO part of the reason its so absurd to have those in want of health care, whilst others brag about horsepower, square feet, planes and yachts.

17 points by joeyespo 11y ago

I think a lot of innovation will spring from this too, and many others have said that once basic provisions like shelter, food, clean drinking water and telecoms are being met; all that's left to do is create art and innovate. Bigger budgets does not necessarily mean more innovation happens, it more often than not enfeebles somebody because they can't allocate the time to create anything. 9-5 culture is a bane for many artists who after work, have one solid hour of making art before they burn out and have to attend to other duties.

dmfdmf 11y ago
> I think a lot of innovation will spring from this too Me too. Like new ways to spy on, enslave and control those cursed with ability and forced to create the "shelter, food, clean drinking water and telecoms" that your utopia requires.
- rbcoffee 11y ago
  I was thinking more along the lines of something scalable like the hexayurt project (hexayurt.com). Having five sheets of inexpensive plywood is "cursed with ability" is it? and having a FirefoxOS smartphone phone that cost $20.00 is spy apparatus? Hardly.
- maerF0x0 11y ago
  The idea of basic income is to provide enough to not die or be a burden on society, but not enough to really enjoy life. As well we already are providing shelter, food, water, telecoms. The problem is that the bureaucracy eats up so much money in the process that it becomes even more expensive than just paying everyone in the US $720 a month and saying "youre on your own". Kinda Warren Buffetts's inheritance ideas: "a very rich person should leave his kids enough to do anything but not enough to do nothing." (quoting cnbc article here: http://www.cnbc.com/2015/03/09/boomers-mimic-warren-buffett-when-it-comes-to-inheritances.html http://www.cnbc.com/2015/03/09/boomers-mimic-warren-buffett-... )
dudul 11y ago
What happens if all the guys producing food and clean water decide that they've had enough and want to retire?
- undersuit 11y ago
  They will be replaced by those that are bored and want to produce food, purify water, or clean streets for a better life. Oh, wait were you implying humans are inherently lazy and willing to live in their own filth until they starve to death? Maybe in a world with basic income, undesirable but essential jobs are compensated at a rate that begins to make them desirable?
  - dudul 11y ago
    Sure, I'm sure people are gonna line up to work in a coffee shop, be a cashier in a supermarket, work at a bank customer service, man the town dump teller, etc. Don't put words in my mouth. I didn't say that humans are lazy, far from it. I'm saying there are necessary and undesirable tasks - undesirable in essence - to be performed and I don't see people volunteering to accomplish them if there is no money incentive. Good luck finding people to work at the DMV in a world with basic income.
    - joeyespo 11y ago
      > I'm saying there are necessary and undesirable tasks This is a good point. It's also a reason why this idea is valuable. It enables people to turn away these undesirable tasks. Today, someone might take on a poor task with a poor working condition so their children can get the nutrition they need. A basic income provides the family with what they need without anyone becoming desperate enough to take a job for a lower pay than it's actually worth. These jobs can finally be part of the open market. If nobody will do it for $12/hr, you increase the pay. When you start to see people taking the job again, you know you've hit the right income point. (People aren't getting rich off of basic income alone. The incentive to work is to have a more expensive lifestyle.) This is the dual to pricing discussions here on HN. If the market won't buy at X, you don't withhold food from their tables to get them to buy. You either lower the price, or you make your product have more perceived valuable. With these undesirable jobs, you either raise the pay, or improve the working conditions.
kuni-toko-tachi 11y ago
This is beyond fantasy. Nearly everyone in America has a smart phone in their pocket more powerful than the most powerful computers of just a few years ago. On that device is all of worlds information, a Google search away. What do people mostly do with this access and power - nothing - Facebook, Reddit, and other distractions. Giving people handouts will not lead to an revolution of art, culture, and businesses... It will lead to sloth, resentment, and failure. Our society already produces enough abundance and opportunity such that any hardworking individual can EARN a life that most people in history could only dream about.
- joeyespo 11y ago
  The data from past trials shows different results than your own knee-jerk conclusion. Here are some consistent findings across multiple studies[1]: - Fewer hospitalizations - Fewer school dropouts - Decrease in child labor - Dramatically lower food poverty - Dramatically lower crime rate - Dramatically lower child malnutrition rate - Increase in High School completion rates - Increase in self-employment and the number of income sources That last one is the most counter-intuitive. Until you think about it. People become more entrepreneurial when you remove the risk of them falling into poverty if they fail (especially because failure is the norm). Keep in mind that if you want to live a more luxurious lifestyle, you'll still need to work to get it. This isn't an "everybody is rich" utopia. This is more about eliminating poverty and creating opportunity for everyone. [1]: https://www.reddit.com/r/BasicIncome/wiki/studies https://www.reddit.com/r/BasicIncome/wiki/studies

tired_man 11y ago

Guaranteed income? What happens as more and more people decide to live on the dole? Are you going to force them to work? What happens when the last wealthy people you could tax into paying for it flee your country with their money? Utopia fails because, "HUMAN."

dragonwriter 11y ago
> What happens as more and more people decide to live on the dole? Are you going to force them to work? Ceteris paribus, prices go up, and living exclusively on the unconditional basic income becomes less attractive. With a UBI, there's no reason not to work if you are unsatisfied with what you get from the UBI, since you don't lose subsidy for working. So, there's a natural negative feedback control system. > What happens when the last wealthy people you could tax into paying for it flee your country with their money? If people making profits in the country that could be taxed leave, then profit making opportunities open up that others could, and someone will, take advantage of.
- tired_man 11y ago
  That's fine if you can stop them from tearing you apart for not increasing their basic stipend as the cost of living increased. You aren't going to defeat human nature. Those theories have been around for hundreds (thousands) of years, but oddly, it never happens. There's a reason for that. People are not automatons and they usually think for themselves (with varying degrees of success) and won't fall into line with the rules necessary to sustain a utopian society. You'll be left with nothing but a gun in your hand trying to force your well upon them. Forced utopia begs for revolution.

Mz 11y ago

I am homeless and I think basic income is nightmare fuel: http://micheleincalifornia.blogspot.com/2014/09/nightmare-fuel-world-of-nothing-but.html http://micheleincalifornia.blogspot.com/2014/09/nightmare-fu...

maerF0x0 11y ago

I've read all the comments and the main argument is that people will not want to work with Basic Income being provided. This comes from a basic lack of understanding how basic incomes work. They are intentionally very low. Imagine making in the bottom quartile. You have enough to eat something each day, you have something that shelters you from the environment, you can afford to shop a thrift stores and craigslist. However, you would want for more. New Apple stuff, disneyland tickets, a vacation. There are 2 main veins of basic income that I've heard: 1. Basic income that distributes goods from automation (ie, robot economy) . Not really what's being discussed here. 2. A basic income that is enough to not die and not enough such that most people would be satiated. Those that are not satiated would be encouraged to work on something, both that others want and that they want to do. Jobs that people would love to do would pay very little, jobs that suck (something to do with poop, surely) would pay more, the market forces are still at play. If #1 ever becomes real such that all human want is satiated (I do not believe in infinite demand for consumption) or #2 pays too much, then yes it sounds like a scene from that movie WALL-E

joeyespo 11y ago
I think your comment is pretty spot-on. One thought about the WALL-E scene though. While I'm not at all advocating the satiation of everyone, I do wonder about its perceived inevitability. If that was the only outcome, wouldn't we see evidence of this with the extremely rich today? (I'm talking about the case where wealth was strictly inherited here, not the self-made fortunes from hard work.) I don't have any examples in mind, but I do think it's worth asking the question. If we assume those who are satiated would not work on anything of value, that might very well contain a similar misunderstanding to what you've highlighted here. We just need more data to know what level "too much" really is, or if that's even a thing at all (I believe it is, but I certainly can't prove it).
- maerF0x0 11y ago
  When I think about infinite consumption, it says to me "There is literally no limit to how many X a person would take". I really think there is a limit. I will never (consistently) eat more than 3000 calories a day. I couldnt imagine living >1000 sq ft per person. 3 cars per person ought to satisfy every occasion (Sports car, SUV, Comfort car), etc etc. There is some finite limit before the marginal object is worth less than the difficulty of obtaining/maintaining it. ex, adding a car means I, at the very least, need to buy it, drive it to my garage and walk around it to get to my other car each day. I think food is the ultimate example of a post scarcity good: if pizza was free (forever), how many would you take? 1, 1000, 1000000? I'd take 1 a day and maybe put a few in my freezer just in case. But I certainly wouldnt have 1000x or even 10x as much pizza. The extremely wealthy display wealth for differentiation, not because they actually enjoy all 100000 sq ft of living space they own. Its a status symbol to say " I have a house in every state" or whatever else they brag about. IMO part of the reason its so absurd to have those in want of health care, whilst others brag about horsepower, square feet, planes and yachts.