4 ms·

> ... and is paid to people who have no other income So, are we talking about unemployment benefits? Because one of the things a guaranteed / universal basic

> ... and is paid to people who have no other income So, are we talking about unemployment benefits? Because one of the things a guaranteed / universal basic income aims to do is eliminate the so called "welfare cliffs". An example of a welfare cliff would be: let's say you can get 300 euro / month being unemployed, or 310 euro / month working 60 hours a week. Does it make sense to get the job? With a UBI scheme, you'd get the basic salary, and you'd go do the job as well, kind of a win-win. Of course the overall picture is much more complex than that, but that's the idea.

krzyk 11y ago
Wouldn't it just make the money worth less? Right now every one starts at $0, after the change everyone will start at e.g. $1000, so you just move the axis, at some point prices in stores will increase because people have more money and this will eventually lead to the point where $1000 is worth almost the same as $0 where we started.
- transfire 11y ago
  I realized this a long time ago about the problem with poverty: zero times anything is still zero. So no, $1000 will never be the same as $0. Yes, the system will adjust via inflation, but not to $0. In fact, a proper BI would act as a kind-of self-correcting cornerstone for the rest of the economy.
- danielbarla 11y ago
  To some degree, I'm sure - it may indeed have secondary effects like lowering of the average salary, or increasing of average prices, etc. But I don't think it can get to the point that you're specifying, simply because prices will always be determined in a way to maximise profits, as opposed to simple price fixing. But other, potentially larger secondary effects is that overall productivity and efficiency of the economy should increase, driving prices lower. Essentially, what we're talking about is that people below a certain threshold are not free enough to pursue paths which would give them the most benefit in the long run. E.g. they cannot enroll in a university, or whatever, because they are living day to day. By giving financial independence to everyone, you are giving them the freedom to achieve these long term goals. It'd also give more people the freedom to get into the startup scene, and I think HN agrees that innovation is an overall net win. Also, clearly the money has to come from somewhere in the short term, and this would likely be a form of taxation which would come from richer people and companies, and it'd redistribute this wealth to the poorer ones. It can be argued that the current (and seemingly near future) distribution of wealth is rather one sided, and things would be better if wealth was distributed more evenly. Of course, that wealth would be re-injected into the economy rather rapidly, so arguably little would be lost.

krzyk 11y ago

Wouldn't it just make the money worth less? Right now every one starts at $0, after the change everyone will start at e.g. $1000, so you just move the axis, at some point prices in stores will increase because people have more money and this will eventually lead to the point where $1000 is worth almost the same as $0 where we started.

transfire 11y ago
I realized this a long time ago about the problem with poverty: zero times anything is still zero. So no, $1000 will never be the same as $0. Yes, the system will adjust via inflation, but not to $0. In fact, a proper BI would act as a kind-of self-correcting cornerstone for the rest of the economy.
danielbarla 11y ago
To some degree, I'm sure - it may indeed have secondary effects like lowering of the average salary, or increasing of average prices, etc. But I don't think it can get to the point that you're specifying, simply because prices will always be determined in a way to maximise profits, as opposed to simple price fixing. But other, potentially larger secondary effects is that overall productivity and efficiency of the economy should increase, driving prices lower. Essentially, what we're talking about is that people below a certain threshold are not free enough to pursue paths which would give them the most benefit in the long run. E.g. they cannot enroll in a university, or whatever, because they are living day to day. By giving financial independence to everyone, you are giving them the freedom to achieve these long term goals. It'd also give more people the freedom to get into the startup scene, and I think HN agrees that innovation is an overall net win. Also, clearly the money has to come from somewhere in the short term, and this would likely be a form of taxation which would come from richer people and companies, and it'd redistribute this wealth to the poorer ones. It can be argued that the current (and seemingly near future) distribution of wealth is rather one sided, and things would be better if wealth was distributed more evenly. Of course, that wealth would be re-injected into the economy rather rapidly, so arguably little would be lost.